Jump to content


City Source
Photo

AP IMPACT: A stream of WH health care visits


14 replies to this topic

#1 Desperado

Desperado

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 23787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 25 November 2009 - 04:05 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's top aides met frequently with lobbyists and health care industry heavyweights as his administration pieced together a national health care overhaul, according to White House visitor records obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press....View the full article


#2 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 25 November 2009 - 07:10 PM

And if he doesn't INSIST on repealing their exemption from anti-trust status, AND give us a public option, I'll be sending him a flood of my vitriolic letters. If we wanted someone to cater to the corporatocracy, we'd have elected Hillary...
  • 0

#3 Guest_Lobbyist_*

Guest_Lobbyist_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:31 AM

And if he doesn't INSIST on repealing their exemption from anti-trust status, AND give us a public option, I'll be sending him a flood of my vitriolic letters. If we wanted someone to cater to the corporatocracy, we'd have elected Hillary...


Gotta love a wolf in sheep's clothing.

#4 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 27 November 2009 - 04:37 PM

Gotta love a wolf in sheep's clothing.

considering the choice was a very old man who had compromised his all principles to kiss Dubya, and a raving lunatic fringe hillbilly white-trash, complete with meth-selling relatives, dumb-as-a-brick opportunist arrivista diva,
I'll try to work with what we've got
It's the better alternative ;)
  • 0

#5 TenFree

TenFree

    Trusted Member

  • Hostess
  • 4271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2009 - 10:03 AM

Another set of cooked books

By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Last Updated: 2:45 AM, November 20, 2009
Posted: 1:19 AM, November 20, 2009

SENATE Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate's latest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don't kick in until the fifth year of that "10-year" period. The true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 trillion.

The Democrats cite the bills' projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 -- versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill's "first 10 years," only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.

As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill's real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), the CBO projects the bill's costs to be $1.8 trillion -- double the price Reid is advertising.

And that's even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run "public option" wouldn't cost a cent.

Over this same 10-year span, the bill would hike taxes and fines by $892 billion -- more than the alleged price of the bill.

Just as problematic are the bill's effects on entitlement spending and deficits. Medicare is already teetering on the edge of insolvency. This year's Medicare Trustees Report (signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius) warns that the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund -- the main funding channel for the largest part of Medicare -- will become insolvent in 2017.

Worse, nearly four people are now paying into Medicare for every beneficiary. But with the baby boomers' retirement fast approaching, that number will drop over the next 20 years to about 2½. Fewer and fewer people will be paying higher and higher costs.

Yet, as the CBO notes, in its real first decade, the bill would siphon $802 billion from Medicare to spend elsewhere. With its financial outlook already beyond bleak, Medicare is the last place to look to for "free" money.

Among the $802 billion that Reid would divert from Medicare is $431 billion in cuts in doctors' pay (far more than the misleading figure for 2010-19). The bill says it would cut payments to doctors for services to Medicare patients by 23 percent in 2011 -- and never raise them back up, ever.

No one who's been in Washington for more than five minutes actually expects this reduction to occur -- and if it doesn't, then the Senate health bill would increase our deficits by $286 billion in its true first decade, according to CBO projections.

In his historic speech to Congress on Sept. 9, President Obama pledged not to support any health bill "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period." This bill would raise the deficit by 2.86 trillion dimes -- and yet the president is its most visible and audible supporter.

The Washington Post reports that Obama has also stated "flatly that he won't accept a bill that doesn't 'bend the curve' on rising health-care costs." Yet nothing in the CBO analysis suggests that the Senate bill would bend the cost-curve downward.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has just concluded that the House health bill -- which the president also champions -- would bend the curve upward, raising nationwide health-care costs by over half a trillion dollars by 2020 (and by $289 billion even in the unlikely event that doctors' pay is actually slashed).

If Congress is to consider legislation to remake a sixth of the US economy and insert the government into the health-care decisions of every American, it should at least be honest about the costs. In its first 10 years of actually being in effect in any meaningful way, Reid's bill would cost $1.8 trillion, says the CBO. And it's a simple fact that every penny of that would have to be paid by the American people through some combination of three things: cuts to existing programs, higher deficits and higher taxes.

Jeffrey H. Anderson, director of the Benjamin Rush Society, was the senior speechwriter for Secretary Mike Leavitt at the Department of Health and Human Services.


  • 0

#6 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:34 PM

Gee - I guess Obama should act just like Bush, and keep the whole thing off the books and act as if there's no money being spent on the US credit card...what am I talking about (as I'm sure all righties have the rose-colored-glasses block of this fact)? The Iraq War. All off the official budget. What a crock that your grandkids will be paying for. And no one even gets as much as an aspirin for their pain from the money.
  • 0

#7 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 November 2009 - 09:45 AM

Gee - I guess Obama should act just like Bush, and keep the whole thing off the books and act as if there's no money being spent on the US credit card...what am I talking about (as I'm sure all righties have the rose-colored-glasses block of this fact)? The Iraq War. All off the official budget. What a crock that your grandkids will be paying for. And no one even gets as much as an aspirin for their pain from the money.

Rather than address the facts of TF's post you switch to a criticism of Bush?

Talk about the the pot calling the kettle a crock... :rolleyes:

#8 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 01 December 2009 - 06:54 PM

Rather than address the facts of TF's post you switch to a criticism of Bush?

Talk about the the pot calling the kettle a crock... :rolleyes:


Where was the outrage about the budget from your neo-con con machine then? Why are you whining now? I'm FINE with spending money on health care, and education and jobs in THIS country. If we have some debt, let it be for our infrastructure and our future.
You are the non-patriotic traitors who support sending our money overseas.
As usual, you miss the point
  • 0

#9 TenFree

TenFree

    Trusted Member

  • Hostess
  • 4271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 December 2009 - 09:34 AM

No, you miss the point. These health bills are a sham. Even Howard Dean says so.

http://www.yaledaily...ll-worthless-d/

They will not reduce the deficit.

http://www.washingto...9112902952.html

http://www.house.gov...119cboscore.pdf

The Budgetary Impact of Enacting Both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962

Under current law, including the new rule, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in January 2010, and CBO estimates those payment rates will be reduced by about 2 percent annually for several subsequent years. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and restructure the SGR beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost $210 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance, set up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals could receive federal subsidies toward the purchase of such insurance, and make numerous other changes in the health insurance system, in federal health care programs, and in the federal tax code. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting H.R. 3962, by itself, would reduce federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period through its effects on direct spending and revenues.

CBO estimates that enacting both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 would add $89 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $12 billion less than the sum of the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $12 billion difference results from two types of interactions. The higher payment rates for physicians’ services under H.R. 3961 would increase the net cost of provisions in H.R. 3962 by about $3 billion. However, that difference would be more than offset by the effect of a change under H.R. 3962 in how payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans are set. That change would reduce the effect of the changes made by H.R. 3961 to Medicare’s payments for physicians’ services in the fee-for-service sector on payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans. As a result, the estimated increase in payments to Medicare Advantage plans would be $15 billion smaller if both bills were enacted than under H.R. 3961 alone...................

..........The agency estimates that the two bills together would cost about $32 billion more in 2019 than H.R. 3962 alone and that the combination of the two bills would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law. Those increments would grow during the following decade. As stated in its October 29, 2009, letter to Congressman Charles B. Rangel, “CBO expects that [H.R. 3962] would slightly reduce federal budget deficits in that decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP [gross domestic product].” If both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 were enacted, CBO expects that federal budget deficits during the decade following the 10-year budget window would increase relative to those projected under current law— with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP.


Per Max Baucus, they will cost "either $1 trillion or it’s $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start…” :rolleyes:



Obamacare: Buy now, pay later

They will drive insurance premiums higher.

http://thehill.com/h...urance-premiums

Edited by TenFree, 05 December 2009 - 09:44 AM.

  • 0

#10 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2009 - 04:12 PM

Where was the outrage about the budget from your neo-con con machine then? Why are you whining now? I'm FINE with spending money on health care, and education and jobs in THIS country. If we have some debt, let it be for our infrastructure and our future.
You are the non-patriotic traitors who support sending our money overseas.
As usual, you miss the point

Again you dodge the issue and resort to childish namecalling.

#11 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 05 December 2009 - 04:28 PM

No, you miss the point. These health bills are a sham. Even Howard Dean says so.

http://www.yaledaily...ll-worthless-d/

They will not reduce the deficit.

http://www.washingto...9112902952.html

http://www.house.gov...119cboscore.pdf
Per Max Baucus, they will cost "either $1 trillion or it’s $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start…” :rolleyes:



Obamacare: Buy now, pay later

They will drive insurance premiums higher.

http://thehill.com/h...urance-premiums




And, again, I tell you - it is better to have debt over things that in the long run, will HELP the economy, like health care and education, versus making bombs and killing brown people in countries that did not attack us.

  • 0

#12 TenFree

TenFree

    Trusted Member

  • Hostess
  • 4271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2009 - 08:18 AM


And, again, I tell you - it is better to have debt over things that in the long run, will HELP the economy, like health care and education, versus making bombs and killing brown people in countries that did not attack us.


It's not an either/or, as evidenced by the fact that the administration is trying to do both. But even without the latest escalation, the CBO concluded that Obama's budget would only take a bad situation and make it worse. How the hell is that going to help the economy?

http://www.washingto...9032100104.html

Projected Deficit
In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.

Posted Image


Edited by TenFree, 06 December 2009 - 08:41 AM.

  • 0

#13 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 06 December 2009 - 11:19 PM

It's not an either/or, as evidenced by the fact that the administration is trying to do both. But even without the latest escalation, the CBO concluded that Obama's budget would only take a bad situation and make it worse. How the hell is that going to help the economy?

http://www.washingto...9032100104.html


You actually will not admit that Dubya spent us into a HUGE deficit with an unnecessary war, yet you want to whine about getting this greatest nation on Earth a reasonable health care plan that does not cause thousands of families EVERY YEAR to go bankrupt. How does bankruptcy, because of illness, help the deficit? Huh?

  • 0

#14 Guest_guest*_*

Guest_guest*_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2009 - 10:13 PM


You actually will not admit that Dubya spent us into a HUGE deficit with an unnecessary war, yet you want to whine about getting this greatest nation on Earth a reasonable health care plan that does not cause thousands of families EVERY YEAR to go bankrupt. How does bankruptcy, because of illness, help the deficit? Huh?


Posted Image

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

#15 Guest_Cheney_*

Guest_Cheney_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2009 - 12:11 PM

Hey, give me some credit too!



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

City Source