Senate approves health care reform bill

[Hubbs]

No, that's called accounting. Not a trick.

Look, the CBO is good enough for everyone on every other bill, but this one? That's ridiculous.

You can't complain that it raises taxes too much, and then complain that it doesn't pay for itself.

It does pay for itself and then some.

That's just not true. The "first ten years" line is a joke.

The CBO said that this bill reduces the deficit between now and 2019. But most of the spending won't start for a few years. The first ten years of full annual spending from this bill are dripping with deficit. If you complained that Bush hid his spending on Iraq, you should complain about this. (Not that I expect most people to do both, but, hell, it's worth a shot.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Really admiring the absolutely stunning level of spin being generated, here. (Although not surprised, since I've been seeing it in action for almost a year.)

Yeah, me either. It's unbelieveable what the supporters of this rediculous bill that does nothing to actually reform the system will say to spin their side in an effort to get something (anything) passed just so they can pretend they "did something"

As you said, the "spin" is really stunning.

[Kilmer17]

Kilmer, I hate this bill and am on record of that, but you are oversimplifying it way too much.

First of all though, the bill was not written for people like you, apparently. That, in and of itself, does not make it bad, wrong, or unconstitutional (which apparently is being thrown around a lot).

It does actually do some things for you: 1) you can't be denied coverage in the future based on pre-existing conditions; and 2) you can't be dropped by your insurance company for becoming "too sick." These are two direct benefits you will receive from this bill.

It does two things indirectly for you also: 1) it reduces the federal deficit, despite assertions to the contrary, according to the CBO; and 2) with more people covered, you will not be paying for people paying nothing. And by 2) I'm mostly referring to the uninsured who go to hospitals and ER's to get care. Whether you know it, or accept it or not, the insurance companies pass that cost to you. Now, those people are paying something, and so that cost to you is actually reduced.

The bill sucks for other reasons.... and I agree its because it doesn't do enough for Americans, not that it does too much.

On the first. I WANT ins companies to act in the interest in their stockholders. It's the crazy loony capitalist in me I guess. So the WORST part of this bill is making an insurance company accept high risk clients. Furthermore, this bill doesnt address the rates that they will need to charge for those people to remain solvent, which will lead to them going out of business (which is what Obama and the left really wants to see happen), or make it even more expensive for those people to get coverage.

Second, the CBO and dozens and DOZENS of more studies show that it is not defefict nuetral, that in fact it increases our debt by large margins.

The other assertions like it wont cost me more etc are lies. Can you or anyone on the left 100 percent guarentee that this bill wont cost me more than I am paying now for my own coverage and taxes?

Of course you cant.

It's going to be law. And it's going to destroy our country. But it will destroy the Dems power first. So I guess THAT"S the one thing I should be smiling about.

[JMS]

That's just not true. The "first ten years" line is a joke.

The CBO said that this bill reduces the deficit between now and 2019. But most of the spending won't start for a few years. The first ten years of full annual spending from this bill are dripping with deficit. If you complained that Bush hid his spending on Iraq, you should complain about this. (Not that I expect most people to do both, but, hell, it's worth a shot.)

It really is called accounting.

Also the complaint on Bush is his healthcare bill of 2006 cost more than this one, and he didn't even attempt to pay for it. 100% of it was left off budget, and was borrowed. Worse it took the form of subsidies to large corporations and didn't ask for any meaningful concessions for those subsidies on the governments part.

In the next ten years as a nation we will spend 35 trillion dollars on healthcare. This bill in it's entireaty accounts for less than 3% of that sum over that period.

You are complaining that with a jury riged litmas test you can see 4-7% of that going to the deficit? Makes no sense....

Fact is Obama said deficite neutral over ten years, and he found a way to get the ultra conservative non partisan CBO to agree he accomplished that.

[Larry]

Yeah, me either. It's unbelieveable what the supporters of this rediculous bill that does nothing to actually reform the system will say to spin their side in an effort to get something (anything) passed just so they can pretend they "did something"

As you said, the "spin" is really stunning.

Says one of the people who've been leading the charge since Day 1 to make certain that this ridiculous bill does nothing to actually reform the system in any way.

Every single reform that was proposed was opposed by 40 Republicans, and 3 Democrats. And after stripping the bill of every one of those reforms, the people who removed them then announce that they have no responsibility whatsoever, and that the bill stinks because of all the changes they made to it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

On the first. I WANT ins companies to act in the interest in their stockholders. It's the crazy loony capitalist in me I guess. So the WORST part of this bill is making an insurance company accept high risk clients. Furthermore, this bill doesnt address the rates that they will need to charge for those people to remain solvent, which will lead to them going out of business (which is what Obama and the left really wants to see happen), or make it even more expensive for those people to get coverage.

Second, the CBO and dozens and DOZENS of more studies show that it is not defefict nuetral, that in fact it increases our debt by large margins.

The other assertions like it wont cost me more etc are lies. Can you or anyone on the left 100 percent guarentee that this bill wont cost me more than I am paying now for my own coverage and taxes?

Of course you cant.

It's going to be law. And it's going to destroy our country. But it will destroy the Dems power first. So I guess THAT"S the one thing I should be smiling about.

So, the capitalist in you wants what's best for someone else. Ironic.

Also, its certainly complicated, but a lot of the complaints are unfounded:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...duce-cost-hea/

So when Obama says the plan would cut the cost of health care, it's not a simple answer. If he's talking about cutting people's premiums, the president is backed up by the CBO. According to the CBO, some people would pay more, but on average, most people -- people in employer plans -- would see very modest reductions in premiums compared to what they'd be expected to pay if nothing changes. If he's talking about the deficit, again, he's got support. The CBO estimates the plan would slightly reduce the deficit.

But when it comes to cutting health care expenditures, it's a little trickier. According to CMS, spending is expected to rise slightly (0.7 percent), due to adding some 33 million more people to the insured ranks. Obama can make a case that in the later years of the 10-year projection, the rate of growth for health care expenditures would be somewhat slowed. But in attempting to simpify the issue, saying that the plan would reduce the cost of health care, we think Obama sacrifices some accuracy.

And so we rate his statement Half True.

[twa]

Kilmer, I hate this bill and am on record of that, but you are oversimplifying it way too much.

First of all though, the bill was not written for people like you, apparently. That, in and of itself, does not make it bad, wrong, or unconstitutional (which apparently is being thrown around a lot).

It does actually do some things for you: 1) you can't be denied coverage in the future based on pre-existing conditions; and 2) you can't be dropped by your insurance company for becoming "too sick." These are two direct benefits you will receive from this bill.

It does two things indirectly for you also: 1) it reduces the federal deficit, despite assertions to the contrary, according to the CBO; and 2) with more people covered, you will not be paying for people paying nothing. And by 2) I'm mostly referring to the uninsured who go to hospitals and ER's to get care. Whether you know it, or accept it or not, the insurance companies pass that cost to you. Now, those people are paying something, and so that cost to you is actually reduced.

The bill sucks for other reasons.... and I agree its because it doesn't do enough for Americans, not that it does too much.

I'll leave the unconstitutional part for the lawsuits to come to settle,but just say there are well respected legal minds that claim it is unconstitutional
I'd be happy to link some if you wish.

As to the deficit
It only reduces it IF cuts in payments and reduced expenditures hoped for come to pass (which they already are attempting to postpone)
The CBO has ALREADY adjusted that projection lower and the bribery ain't done yet.
It also creates more state level debt(for those states foolish enough not to hold out for bribes)

Since the costs for the uninsured are already passed to me WHY will rates increase?
Are we not simply paying for better coverage for those that pay nothing or next to it?


I do agree covering preexisting conditions and making it more portable are benefits from this plan.

Are they worth the higher premiums and increased govt control?
Only you can answer that.

[Larry]

If you complained that Bush hid his spending on Iraq, you should complain about this. (Not that I expect most people to do both, but, hell, it's worth a shot.)

Valid point, but I think you picked a poor example.

Bush hid the costs of the war by claiming that they were zero.

He (and the Republicans) hid the costs of his tax cuts by pretending that they would only last for a year or two (and then averaging those few years over 10 years). (And then claiming that anybody who didn't vote to make them permanent, later, was "raising taxes".)

Just like the Republicans have done with every tax cut for the last 30 years.

Edit: Although, let's face it. We all know that, once passed, people will then begin talking about this probram as "entitlement" spending, which somehow means that it really isn't a part of the budget, because that really only refers to "discretionary" spending.

[JMS]

Yeah, me either. It's unbelieveable what the supporters of this rediculous bill that does nothing to actually reform the system will say to spin their side in an effort to get something (anything) passed just so they can pretend they "did something"

• 30 million Americans will get healthcare coverage...
• No more pre-existing conditions
• No more yearly caps on covered medical expenses
• No more lifetime caps on covered medical expenses
• No more getting dropped or priced out of coverage because you had to use your healthcare

I think those are all knoble and worth while reforms, which will benifit all Americans... Even Kilmer17.

[Kilmer17]

Since the GOVT is now allowed to force people to buy insurance. Can it also force people to be healthy? Can the Govt make itillegal to be fat? Or smoke? Or buy twinkies?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'll leave the unconstitutional part for the lawsuits to come to settle,but just say there are well respected legal minds that claim it is unconstitutional
I'd be happy to link some if you wish.

As to the deficit
It only reduces it IF cuts in payments and reduced expenditures hoped for come to pass (which they already are attempting to postpone)
The CBO has ALREADY adjusted that projection lower and the bribery ain't done yet.
It also creates more state level debt(for those states foolish enough not to hold out for bribes)

Since the costs for the uninsured are already passed to me WHY will rates increase?
Are we not simply paying for better coverage for those that pay nothing or next to it?


I do agree covering preexisting conditions and making it more portable are benefits from this plan.

Are they worth the higher premiums and increased govt control?
Only you can answer that.

Only all of us can, individually. Its certainly a judgment call.

The point I'm trying to make is that the bill was not written by "evil" people trying to take over your freedom. The bill did get ****ed in the process of trying to help people though.

Also, it does seem like premiums will fall, not rise, for most people. Maybe not everyone, but most. See politifact.com link above.

I admit that I've only heard the word "unconstitutional" thrown around and have no idea what the basis is (which means I'm not able to make any comment about whether it is constitutional or not). I would be surprised if I was convinced it was unconstitutional, but if you provide links, I'd be interested in seeing what the hullabaloo is about.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Since the GOVT is now allowed to force people to buy insurance. Can it also force people to be healthy? Can the Govt make itillegal to be fat? Or smoke? Or buy twinkies?

No. And your post is neither inciteful nor helpful to the discussion. This is the kind of "loony tunes" stuff that distracts.

One more thing, I'm pretty sure the government could make smoking illegal.

[Larry]

Since the GOVT is now allowed to force people to buy insurance. Can it also force people to be healthy? Can the Govt make itillegal to be fat? Or smoke? Or buy twinkies?

Remember reading long ago, a sci fi story about a future in which the government had declared that, since the taxpayers were paying for your health care, therefore the government had the authority to mandate that you live a healthy lifestyle.

The title character in Lipidlegger was a guy who illegally sold butter, eggs, bacon, and other foods which the government had banned. He gets busted by a Fed, but bribes the Fed with an english muffin with real butter on it.

[Kilmer17]

Only all of us can, individually. Its certainly a judgment call.

The point I'm trying to make is that the bill was not written by "evil" people trying to take over your freedom. The bill did get ****ed in the process of trying to help people though.

Also, it does seem like premiums will fall, not rise, for most people. Maybe not everyone, but most. See politifact.com link above.

I admit that I've only heard the word "unconstitutional" thrown around and have no idea what the basis is (which means I'm not able to make any comment about whether it is constitutional or not). I would be surprised if I was convinced it was unconstitutional, but if you provide links, I'd be interested in seeing what the hullabaloo is about.

For the first time ever, our Fed Govt is forcing everyone to buy something. The argument is that the Constitution does not allow the Fed Govt to do this. Ergo, it is unconstitutional.

[SnyderShrugged]

Says one of the people who've been leading the charge since Day 1 to make certain that this ridiculous bill does nothing to actually reform the system in any way.

Every single reform that was proposed was opposed by 40 Republicans, and 3 Democrats. And after stripping the bill of every one of those reforms, the people who removed them then announce that they have no responsibility whatsoever, and that the bill stinks because of all the changes they made to it.

LOL! and here I thought you were complaining about the spin! You weave quite a yarn!!

The only people who "stripped" the bill were the same ones who approved the bill. Yes, I told you from day one that the so-called "reforms" were nothing but garbage, yet you debated me everytime. Look closely at who was correct throughout this debate.

Own it libs! It's 100% your mess!!