Health Problem Quantified

We now know how many people have the problem most often cited as the reason for last years’ health overhaul legislation. Answer: 8,000

No, that’s not a misprint. Out of 310 million Americans, only 8,000 people have the problem given as the principal reason for spending almost $1 trillion, creating more than 150 regulatory agencies and causing perhaps 150 million or more people to change the coverage they now have.

Alert readers will remember the White House summer of 2009 invitation to all Americans to send in their horror stories describing health insurance industry abuses. Although the complaints were many, the vast majority were about pre-existing condition limitations. Then, on the eve of the ObamaCare vote, every member of Congress who appeared on television to defend the legislation was able to cite by name an individual or family in his or her state or Congressional district with a heart wrenching story.

Gone was any interest in “universal coverage” or “insuring the uninsured” or “helping poor people get health care.” The case for change was focused almost exclusively on protecting the middle class from miserly insurance companies.

Although the most important parts of ObamaCare (the individual mandate, subsidies, employer fines, etc.) do not kick in until 2014, the legislation made interim provision for those with pre-existing conditions problems. A new kind of risk pool is open to anyone who is denied insurance in the private sector and it’s available for the same premiums healthy people pay. Twenty-three states are operating their own risk pools and 27 are relying on a federal plan.

It’s been like giving a party to which no one comes. The Medicare program chief actuary predicted last spring that 375,000 would sign up for the new risk pool insurance in 2010. But by the end of November, only 8,000 had done so. As Amy Goldstein reports in The Washington Post, this includes 75 in Virginia, 80 in New Hampshire, 97 in Maryland and a whopping 700 in North Carolina.

While a lot of people are surprised by these numbers, I am not. Here is why. Don’t you think it is a bit odd for the White House to send out an appeal to victims so they can identify themselves? That’s not normally how the political system works.

The more usual scenario is: victims unite and form interest groups; they lobby Congress, write letters, testify, etc; and eventually the pressure become so great that Congress legislates.

When have you ever heard of that entire process in reverse? When has Congress ever before decided it wants to do something and then conducted a nationwide search to find people who will benefit?

The reasons for the reversal is that this whole problem has been completely hyped and exaggerated from the get go. In this country we have made it increasingly easy for people to get health insurance after they get sick. Going to work for an employer with generous health benefits, for example, is the most direct way.

Of course that system will miss people who are too sick to work. And that may explain why the few who are signing up appear to have very high medical expenses. Even though they have less than 1/40th of the expected enrollment, the plans are already running out of the money.

Meanwhile, as I’ve said before, the beneficiaries of reform are few, scattered and largely invisible. The cost of reform is falling on people who are numerous, somewhat organized and very vocal. That is why I think the prospects for reform of the reform are quite good.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/health-problem-quantified/

Hello again Shill.

1: The very slanted article fails to mention what "the problem" that 8,000 people had.

2: If only 8,000 needed help, then it will cost a lot less and you can rest easy.

3: I will not show up in the numbers, but my insurance changed from virtually useless to useful, and also now covers my 2 (non-student) children.

It would be a refreshing change if you actually posted something not misleading or false at least once.

---

Janice

Hello again Shill.

1: The very slanted article fails to mention what "the problem" that 8,000 people had.

2: If only 8,000 needed help, then it will cost a lot less and you can rest easy.

3: I will not show up in the numbers, but my insurance changed from virtually useless to useful, and also now covers my 2 (non-student) children.

It would be a refreshing change if you actually posted something not misleading or false at least once.

1. The article DOES mention it. People in the middle class being denied coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions. Only 8000 people, per the article, have signed up for special risk-pool coverage. Learn to read.

2. Pre-existing condition coverage reform was one of the main reasons we were sold this bill of goods. You are right about the cost being not very much... If this was the only thing being done by the health care reform legislation. It isn't.

3. I am glad you are having such a positive experience with it. Many won't.

You attack the article because it has a slant. Of course it does. All articles are slanted and biased. Some in favor of HCR, some against it.

You attack Keith, calling him a shill, because he posts stuff you personally disagree with. He has just as much of a right to express himself here as you do.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Hello again Shill.

1: The very slanted article fails to mention what "the problem" that 8,000 people had.

2: If only 8,000 needed help, then it will cost a lot less and you can rest easy.

3: I will not show up in the numbers, but my insurance changed from virtually useless to useful, and also now covers my 2 (non-student) children.

It would be a refreshing change if you actually posted something not misleading or false at least once.

1. The article DOES mention it. People in the middle class being denied coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions. Only 8000 people, per the article, have signed up for special risk-pool coverage. Learn to read.

2. Pre-existing condition coverage reform was one of the main reasons we were sold this bill of goods. You are right about the cost being not very much... If this was the only thing being done by the health care reform legislation. It isn't.

3. I am glad you are having such a positive experience with it. Many won't.

You attack the article because it has a slant. Of course it does. All articles are slanted and biased. Some in favor of HCR, some against it.

You attack Keith, calling him a shill, because he posts stuff you personally disagree with. He has just as much of a right to express himself here as you do.

1: There was a lot of changes to the Bill. Coverage can no longer be denied based on pre existing condition. It does not mention what this "special risk" pool is, but the bill has done a lot more than is indicated. I can read just fine Kong, and I expect better of you usually. I also expect links to lead towards Useful information, or at least attempts to be useful information.
This is honestly the first I have heard of the term "special risk pool". That
certainly was not the heart of the bill, although it may be a fantastic option
to those that sign up, and very probably more will come.

2:Pre existing, non-cancelable, non-limited insurance is actual useful insurance. This is not terribly much more (to the insurance companies) but it does cut into the profits. This is somewhat offset potentially by not having to effectively offset the hospital costs of uninsured.

3: I have not heard of any negatives other than those scrambling to get enough to get coverage. Of those, I am sympathetic. But I am also tired of subsidizing.

The article is yet another smear job website. It is beyond slanted, and only loosely qualifies as an article. Obviiously if I start a website, I too can write "articles".

I call keith a shill, because his hit and run tactics, doing enough seti work to post(and then completely stopping) and then running straight here to post, indicates he is on a mission, with an agenda to try and dominate the conversations here. He came here on a mission, obviously. I am unapologetic
for using what appears to be a very accurate term. Keith has no interest at all in SETI. So why else would he be here? And only here? My view is he is doing the same thing here and most likely hundreds of other political threads
in hit and run tactics. It is called "Trolling". It is disruptive, it is not useful. It is not desirable. It does not contribute to the forum.

---

Janice

1: There was a lot of changes to the Bill. Coverage can no longer be denied based on pre existing condition. It does not mention what this "special risk" pool is, but the bill has done a lot more than is indicated. I can read just fine Kong, and I expect better of you usually. I also expect links to lead towards Useful information, or at least attempts to be useful information.
This is honestly the first I have heard of the term "special risk pool". That
certainly was not the heart of the bill, although it may be a fantastic option
to those that sign up, and very probably more will come.

2:Pre existing, non-cancelable, non-limited insurance is actual useful insurance. This is not terribly much more (to the insurance companies) but it does cut into the profits. This is somewhat offset potentially by not having to effectively offset the hospital costs of uninsured.

3: I have not heard of any negatives other than those scrambling to get enough to get coverage. Of those, I am sympathetic. But I am also tired of subsidizing.

The article is yet another smear job website. It is beyond slanted, and only loosely qualifies as an article. Obviiously if I start a website, I too can write "articles".

I call keith a shill, because his hit and run tactics, doing enough seti work to post(and then completely stopping) and then running straight here to post, indicates he is on a mission, with an agenda to try and dominate the conversations here. He came here on a mission, obviously. I am unapologetic
for using what appears to be a very accurate term. Keith has no interest at all in SETI. So why else would he be here? And only here? My view is he is doing the same thing here and most likely hundreds of other political threads
in hit and run tactics. It is called "Trolling". It is disruptive, it is not useful. It is not desirable. It does not contribute to the forum.

1. Special risk pool is a device common in government mandated insurance. For instance, take the required automobile liability policy. Those drivers with 'pre-existing conditions' of too many tickets or too many accidents to qualify for normal coverage are assigned to a special risk pool at a higher premium.

The HCR bill applied the same construct to health insurance. Per the article, some states run their own pool, with the other states participating in the pool run by the federal government. If this was the only item in the HCR bill, it wouldn't be so bad. It isn't the only item.

Coverage for people with pre-existing conditions were one of the main selling points for the HCR bill. You might remember this if you paid more attention to legislation being proposed.

The article points out that on this one item, only a very small number of people have benefited.

2. Useful, sure, as long as you can pay the premiums. Don't expect premiums to stay where they are at. They will rise. Already, the fine in the HCR legislation for not having health insurance is lower than the cost of premiums of many plans. I don't think you will have as many people covered as you might think.

An example: The last time my wife and I priced health insurance for a family of four, the lowest premium plan we could find was around $500.00 a month. 'Cadillac' plans were over $1200.00 per month. The 'fine' for not having insurance in the HCR is $2000.00 per year. That cheap policy was $6000.00 per year. Think about it. If money is tight, what would you do? Pay the fine and remain in the uninsured status quo? Or pay 3x more for the insurance?

You are still going to have large numbers of uninsured, even with the HCR. Don't count on any cost savings from it. The HCR was designed to drive costs UP, not down.

3. As I said above in 2, the HCR is not going to make things better in most cases. It will only make things worse (as in much more expensive).

And you don't like that article on that website. That is obvious. However, your not liking it does not make its points any less valid. Why not just start up your own website and publish your own articles on it containing your own points and opinion?

As as for Keith. You attack him because you claim he isn't interested in S@H. So what if he came late to the game (Dec. 18, 2010)? His RAC is higher than mine, by a lot. Again, he has just as much of a right to post here as you or I do. Stop dissing other posters personally. I threw the 'learn to read' at you only because you claimed the linked article did not state what the problem was involving the 8000 people, and it obviously did.

I would agree with Keith on this one. The only problem is that none of what he's provided is remotely true. I am not even going to make an argument out of his post. Valid arguments are usually about difference in opinions not about posting outright lies and then debating their validity. Sorry keith this is less than anything worth talking about

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I did not attack keith. I did refer to him as a shill. It is honest, accurate, and to the point. It would only be an insult if it was incorrect.

I see no evidence of that. He is here on a mission.

---

Janice

Hello again Shill.

1: The very slanted article fails to mention what "the problem" that 8,000 people had.

2: If only 8,000 needed help, then it will cost a lot less and you can rest easy.

3: I will not show up in the numbers, but my insurance changed from virtually useless to useful, and also now covers my 2 (non-student) children.

It would be a refreshing change if you actually posted something not misleading or false at least once.

1. The article DOES mention it. People in the middle class being denied coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions. Only 8000 people, per the article, have signed up for special risk-pool coverage. Learn to read.

2. Pre-existing condition coverage reform was one of the main reasons we were sold this bill of goods. You are right about the cost being not very much... If this was the only thing being done by the health care reform legislation. It isn't.

3. I am glad you are having such a positive experience with it. Many won't.

You attack the article because it has a slant. Of course it does. All articles are slanted and biased. Some in favor of HCR, some against it.

You attack Keith, calling him a shill, because he posts stuff you personally disagree with. He has just as much of a right to express himself here as you do.

1: There was a lot of changes to the Bill. Coverage can no longer be denied based on pre existing condition. It does not mention what this "special risk" pool is, but the bill has done a lot more than is indicated. I can read just fine Kong, and I expect better of you usually. I also expect links to lead towards Useful information, or at least attempts to be useful information.
This is honestly the first I have heard of the term "special risk pool". That
certainly was not the heart of the bill, although it may be a fantastic option
to those that sign up, and very probably more will come.

2:Pre existing, non-cancelable, non-limited insurance is actual useful insurance. This is not terribly much more (to the insurance companies) but it does cut into the profits. This is somewhat offset potentially by not having to effectively offset the hospital costs of uninsured.

3: I have not heard of any negatives other than those scrambling to get enough to get coverage. Of those, I am sympathetic. But I am also tired of subsidizing.

The article is yet another smear job website. It is beyond slanted, and only loosely qualifies as an article. Obviiously if I start a website, I too can write "articles".

I call keith a shill, because his hit and run tactics, doing enough seti work to post(and then completely stopping) and then running straight here to post, indicates he is on a mission, with an agenda to try and dominate the conversations here. He came here on a mission, obviously. I am unapologetic
for using what appears to be a very accurate term. Keith has no interest at all in SETI. So why else would he be here? And only here? My view is he is doing the same thing here and most likely hundreds of other political threads
in hit and run tactics. It is called "Trolling". It is disruptive, it is not useful. It is not desirable. It does not contribute to the forum.

Thanks Majorkong, but attacks don't worry me. They actually speak volumes.

Soft^spirit, it's not a slanted article, misleading or a smear job. It takes the numbers directly from Department of Health and Human Services. From the Washington Post article that it links to:

"In the spring, the Medicare program's chief actuary predicted that 375,000 people would sign up for the pool plans by the end of the year. Early last month, the Health and Human Services Department reported that just 8,000 people had enrolled. HHS officials declined to provide an update, although they collect such figures monthly, because they have decided to report them on a quarterly basis. "

"If only 8,000 needed help, then it will cost a lot less and you can rest easy."
No, one trillion dollars was spent on this 2700 page bill, another entitlement when social security, medicare, medicaid, federal pensions, the post office, fannie, freddie and dozens of other government enterprises are falling on their sword financially. The left's utopia of a centrally controlled economy is failing. You are subsidizing medical care because of EMTALA, another government mandate which states emergent patients must be aided by hospitals, but at the same time doesn't give any provision for hospital reimbursement. It's such a failure that 84 hospitals in California alone have closed. Obamacare just adds to that by creating 150 bureaucracies to push it forward.


The welfare state is collapsing. The answer? More welfare!

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9572

I post articles here to evoke thought. I process in parallel back and forth between SETI and Rosetta, but you need not concern yourself. Just stick to politics (or don't).

"It is called "Trolling". It is disruptive, it is not useful. It is not desirable. It does not contribute to the forum."

Why? Because you don't agree with data posted? Tough. "Not desirable"? Oh yes, anything that exposes the status quo for the sham it is is not desirable? Just who do you think you are? What forum exacly do you think this? Gee, there's going to be policy disagreements. It's a political forum, for god sakes. Grow up.

cordially,
disruptive

Keith, you know as well as I do, you came straight here, crunched enough to be able to post for a bit, and stopped crunching. Your only posts were to the political forum, and it took you no time at all to head directly here. Therefore it is quite obvious you came TO seti to do just that.

You also came in with much verbosity from some terribly slanted sites. Note this does not apply to others here that share similar views that join in with you.

And 1 trillion allocated, does not mean 1 trillion spent. Your math is flawed.
Your premise is flawed, your sources flawed.

You have been measured and found lacking.

---

Janice

One "Cut and Paste" deserves another "Cut and Paste" !

"Gene says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm

My problem with the article is using the 8,000 figure to judge the whole bill. Do you even know what the changes are that have gone into effect already or is this the only information you are basing your entire argument on?

Here are some of the changes that have already gone into effect.
1. Coverage expansion for adult dependents until age 26.
2. Children no longer denied coverage for pre-existing conditions
3. Prohibit insurers from rescinding coverage
4. Free Preventive Care
5. No lifetime limits on coverage
6. Unrestricted doctor choice
7. Some seniors are now qualified for a 50% discount on prescriptions covered by Medicare Part D
8. requires insurance providers to spend 85% of premiums on health care.

So are any of the changes above evil? Terrible? Sinister? If this whole thing wasn’t so political, something really good could have come out of this. Instead we get something that no one is really happy with.

FYI – That Trillion dollars is over 10 years so it is 100 billion per year."

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/health-problem-quantified/


Maybe in a few years, with a few more changes,
your Health-Care System might actually get to the point where it's
" For the People "
instead of
" For Profit ".

If we, the USA taxpayers, are to fund something, we deserve to know how much 'bang for the buck' we are getting. That is to say that we deserve to know the extent of the benefits we receive for the money we are forced to spend on it.

The linked article shows this for one small aspect of the HCR legislation. Granted, it is only one small part of it, but still... this small part WAS used as a major selling point of the legislation. Yes, I would have liked to know how much of the $100 billion per year price tag goes to pay for the benefit in question, but without question, part of the $100 billion DOES go towards paying for it. If we have to spend tax dollars on improving health care in this nation, shouldn't we spend it on what would benefit the greatest number of people at the lowest cost? Not like this program that benefits only 0.00258% of the population (8,000 people out of 310,000,000) at some unknown cost.

You then go and list a number of items from the HCR that have already gone into effect. I will address them, then continue with some general remarks. You have called each change 'good'. On the surface, and at first glance, maybe so. But looking deeper...

1. Coverage expansion for adult children until age 26. At first glance, this looks ok, but on closer look... What premium level is charged for these adults? Adults and children are charged different levels. Are these adult children charged as adults or children?

2. Children no longer denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Why just the children? Yes, there are some children that will be covered due to this, but the number of adults denied due to pre-existing conditions is way higher. What about them?

3. Prohibit coverage being rescinded due to anything other than non-payment of premiums. Uhh... OK. It will raise premiums, though.

4. Free Preventative Care. Well, define 'preventative care'. I have a feeling that what is defined as 'preventative care' will shrink due to this. This may do more harm than good.

5. No lifetime limits on coverage. Many people without chronic health conditions were able to buy coverage at cheaper prices due to this. Agree to a limit on total coverage in exchange for lower premiums. Now, the consumers can no longer make this choice.

6. Unrestricted doctor choice. So now you are going to force all doctors to take all insurance plans? Different insurance companies have different bureaucracies. It costs money to deal with each one of them. Many doctors elected to participate in only one (or a few) different insurance company's plans. This was a cost saving measure. Now, they can't. The same argument applies to the insurance company side of things.

7. Some seniors get a 50% discount on drugs covered by medicare part-d. Again, why not all of them? Why discriminate?

8. Requires insurers to spend 85% of premiums on health care. By requiring them to spend 85%, you fix it at 85%. I presume that this was supposed to be 'at least 85%'... But, no matter if they at one time were spending more than 85%, now it is fixed at 85%.

Also, define 'health care'. Just what all is included in this? Does it include, for instance, admin costs?

These 8 provisions, in various people's opinions, either went too far or didn't go far enough. You are right, nobody is going to be 100% happy with 100% of it.

One must wonder why the HCR legislation was passed in it's current form. It seems obvious that the intent of the provisions of the HCR legislation was to drive prices up even faster than they were already rising. I do not see ANY provisions that will have the effect of lowering prices and improving care, anywhere in it.

My personal opinion was that the HCR legislation was designed to make things worse so that the people will demand that the government fix it again, and then those in Congress pushing this will have a better chance at what they want. They just did not have the votes to do so, this time. In the meantime, we all will suffer from ever higher costs and prices. The HCR is a very expensive program designed to fail.

CBO: GOP Health Care Repeal Adds $230 Billion to Deficit

Yeah now for convenience sake the Republicans are calling the non partisan CBO liars. I guess everyone that doesn't fall into their goose step is a liar

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

6. Unrestricted doctor choice

6. Unrestricted doctor choice. So now you are going to force all doctors to take all insurance plans? Different insurance companies have different bureaucracies. It costs money to deal with each one of them. Many doctors elected to participate in only one (or a few) different insurance company's plans. This was a cost saving measure. Now, they can't. The same argument applies to the insurance company side of things.

Does this mean that Kaiser doctors will be illegal? After all the way Kaiser Health works is it employs all the doctors itself in a building leased by Kaiser. Do the doctors have to rent another office across town and see patients there on their off day from Kaiser? Isn't that an unconstitutional taking?

---

6. Unrestricted doctor choice

6. Unrestricted doctor choice. So now you are going to force all doctors to take all insurance plans? Different insurance companies have different bureaucracies. It costs money to deal with each one of them. Many doctors elected to participate in only one (or a few) different insurance company's plans. This was a cost saving measure. Now, they can't. The same argument applies to the insurance company side of things.

Does this mean that Kaiser doctors will be illegal? After all the way Kaiser Health works is it employs all the doctors itself in a building leased by Kaiser. Do the doctors have to rent another office across town and see patients there on their off day from Kaiser? Isn't that an unconstitutional taking?

This didn't sound right to me either. So I did some research on the legislation.

Guido.man misspoke on this one. The PPACA does not grant unrestricted choice of doctor. In Section 2719A (a), it states:

CHOICE OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL.—If a group health
plan, or a health insurance issuer offering group or individual
health insurance coverage, requires or provides for designation by
a participant, beneficiary, or enrollee of a participating primary
care provider, then the plan or issuer shall permit each participant,
beneficiary, and enrollee to designate any participating primary
care provider who is available to accept such individual.

This means that, if one is required to select one primary care provider by one's health insurance plan, one can select any one on their list of participating primary care providers that will take one.

That is the way it was before the PPACA anyway. You were given a list of participating primary care providers, and you selected one, with some backup choices in case your choice didn't wish to accept you for whatever reason. In other words, nothing on this has changed. You do NOT have 'unrestricted doctor choice' as Guido.man stated. I wonder how much else he got wrong.

CBO: GOP Health Care Repeal Adds $230 Billion to Deficit

Yeah now for convenience sake the Republicans are calling the non partisan CBO liars. I guess everyone that doesn't fall into their goose step is a liar

From Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO from 2003 to 2005.



March 21, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor, The New York Times

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

6. Unrestricted doctor choice

6. Unrestricted doctor choice. So now you are going to force all doctors to take all insurance plans? Different insurance companies have different bureaucracies. It costs money to deal with each one of them. Many doctors elected to participate in only one (or a few) different insurance company's plans. This was a cost saving measure. Now, they can't. The same argument applies to the insurance company side of things.

Does this mean that Kaiser doctors will be illegal? After all the way Kaiser Health works is it employs all the doctors itself in a building leased by Kaiser. Do the doctors have to rent another office across town and see patients there on their off day from Kaiser? Isn't that an unconstitutional taking?

it's more of a matter of who the insurance companies will take. Insurance companies get fussy about doctors that are free wheels when the order labs, xrays, scans, and procedures. They tend to fall hard on doctors that seem to be ordering extreme amounts of testing. We currently have one here that is getting some looks now. this Dr. is the overkill of overkill doctor. To many patients(700) to many prescriptions to many labs/scans etc. she may get limited in the future because of over indulgence with ordering

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

CBO: GOP Health Care Repeal Adds $230 Billion to Deficit

Yeah now for convenience sake the Republicans are calling the non partisan CBO liars. I guess everyone that doesn't fall into their goose step is a liar

From Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO from 2003 to 2005.
It's not bad enough we get to deal with one case of ignorance we get an op/ed pages full of ignorance


March 21, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor, The New York Times

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Another Republican with an ax to grind big deal. nothing like getting yourself an op/ed page to make a point.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

you do realize that the gov't is the people and the will of the people. So if the power is leaning towards the people I am all for it

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

you do realize that the gov't is the people and the will of the people. So if the power is leaning towards the people I am all for it

Sometimes, the will of the people must be restrained. As a hypothetical example, but one with real-world precedent consider the following:

Suppose that the 'will of the people' after the 9/11 incidents was that all Arab Moslems in the USA were to be rounded up and detained in camps, regardless of their citizenship or (lack of) criminal records? I heard a LOT of calls for doing just this. Would that make it right, just because it was the 'will of the people'?

And before you poo-poo this example, remember... They did it to Japanese Americans back during WWII... It was the will of the people then... But that didn't make it right.

There have been many many other cases of 'the will of the people' being dead wrong down through our history. And no doubt there will be countless more in the future.

There MUST be restraints on the Mob Rule of Direct Democracy in place, else we are no better than savages.

Also, there must be restraints on the power of government as well. Things it isn't allowed to do.

Both sets of restraints are vital, for they help prevent Tyranny. Tyranny of the Majority, or Tyranny of the Minority. Both are detestable.