PDA

View Full Version : Report: Health overhaul will increase nation's tab



BrianW
04-22-2010, 08:27 PM
Now they start talking. :)


WASHINGTON Government economic forecasters say President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down. The report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department, released late Thursday, says the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding coverage.

But the report says that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs. And it warns that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable.

The first comprehensive look at the health care law by neutral experts amounts to a mixed report card for Obama's top priority during his first year in office.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs)

James McMullen
04-22-2010, 08:29 PM
Well, it's a good thing that the economy is recovering nicely under Obama's leadership then.

Glen Longino
04-22-2010, 09:23 PM
Oh no, not that!
I am soooooo disappointed!
I had such great expectations for Obama, but it turns out he's just as dumb and harmful in one year as Bush and his band of marauders were in eight years.
Woe is me! Whiiiiiiiiine....sob......snifff......snort......s pew.....slobber!

Glen Longino
04-22-2010, 09:43 PM
Heheh!
I'm proud of you for voting for "this IDIOT", Brad, rather than voting for McSenile and Palin.
Tell me, did you expect Obama to fix all of Bush's damage in one year?
Of course you didn't!
Give it time, pard! Obama may make you proud one day, but
McCain and Palin never would have.
So, I think you did the right thing voting for Obama, although he's not perfect.
I'm curious, what caused you to vote for Obama rather than McCain?

downthecreek
04-23-2010, 02:43 AM
Our current carrier ... Anthem Blue Cross just raised my company's rates up to 63% last week ...


Wait until you get an expensive illness....

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63L2LS20100422

And devil take the hindmost.

BrianW
04-23-2010, 02:47 AM
The excuses that it would be worse under McCain, or that health care expenses are Bush's fault, are attempts to divert attention from the story.

There's no need to blindly support everything Obama has done. It leads to credibility issues.

I'd be more interested in hearing comments about the medicare funding.

LeeG
04-23-2010, 02:55 AM
How is it that other countries can provide healthcare for a lower cost than the US?
We must not be smart enough.

BrianW
04-23-2010, 03:02 AM
How is it that other countries can provide healthcare for a lower cost than the US?
We must not be smart enough.

That's a good question.

We've been shown numerous examples of countries which have better systems, yet Obama failed to put those systems to a vote here.

LeeG
04-23-2010, 03:18 AM
those systems are clearly socialistic, I don't think anyone wants that.

BrianW
04-23-2010, 03:21 AM
those systems are clearly socialistic, I don't think anyone wants that.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

In any case, this is yet another sidebar, but at least we're discussing the current administration.

I thought the GAO already went through this bill? Was this in their report?

LeeG
04-23-2010, 03:41 AM
seems like I'm making a reasonable statement, our political system tends to favor business interests, how can politicians advocate changes that cut into our sacred path of maximising profit for personal gain?

Captain Intrepid
04-23-2010, 03:42 AM
That's a good question.

We've been shown numerous examples of countries which have better systems, yet Obama failed to put those systems to a vote here.

He did try for a public option, but that was shouted down faster than you could yell McCarthyism.

BrianW
04-23-2010, 03:46 AM
The 'Public Option' was never put to a vote. Shouts don't count. Even 'ayes and nays' are almost always followed by an 'electronic count'.

LeeG
04-23-2010, 04:04 AM
wasn't the public option too socialistic and would compete with private insurance interests?

Paul Pless
04-23-2010, 08:11 AM
The excuses that it would be worse under McCain, or that health care expenses are Bush's fault, are attempts to divert attention from the story.

There's no need to blindly support everything Obama has done. It leads to credibility issues.

I'd be more interested in hearing comments about the medicare funding.You weren't really expecting informed, intelligent dialogue from this group were you?:rolleyes:

BA.Barcolounger
04-23-2010, 08:16 AM
Title:
Re: Report: Health overhaul will increase nation's tab

Article:
WASHINGTON Government economic forecasters say President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down. The report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department, released late Thursday, says the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding coverage.

But the report says that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs. And it warns that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable.

The first comprehensive look at the health care law by neutral experts amounts to a mixed report card for Obama's top priority during his first year in office.

Someone has a problem with verbs.

Ian McColgin
04-23-2010, 08:28 AM
It's all in the spin. If your a righty, "may" means "absolutely will and worse than you can even guess." If you're a doctrinaire obamista, this "may" means "won't unless the evil insurance companies make it happen."

If you're an actual liberal, this "may" means maybe an opportunity to push for real reform later.

It may mean so many things.

Paul Pless
04-23-2010, 08:34 AM
It's all in the spin. If your a righty, "may" means "absolutely will and worse than you can even guess." If you're a doctrinaire obamista, this "may" means "won't unless the evil insurance companies make it happen."

If you're an actual liberal, this "may" means maybe an opportunity to push for real reform later.

It may mean so many things.So what's the 'will' part mean?

Joe (SoCal)
04-23-2010, 08:39 AM
It's all in the spin. If your a righty, "may" means "absolutely will and worse than you can even guess." If you're a doctrinaire obamista, this "may" means "won't unless the evil insurance companies make it happen."

If you're an actual liberal, this "may" means maybe an opportunity to push for real reform later.

It may mean so many things.

Brilliant.

Uncle Duke
04-23-2010, 08:45 AM
BrianW, in a quote about the linked article, posted this:

But the report says that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs. And it warns that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable.
The article says this:

the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
Actually, it's about 0.9 percent over 10 years. Not exactly a crisis.

BA.Barcolounger
04-23-2010, 09:02 AM
So what's the 'will' part mean?

It means that someone was looking for a juicy headline.

Keith Wilson
04-23-2010, 09:19 AM
We've been shown numerous examples of countries which have better systems, yet Obama failed to put those systems to a vote here. Quite right. There are far more efficient heath care systems than the one in the US, either before or after reform. Incorporating more of the the best features of other countries' systems would, I think, be a good idea. So did you support that? Did you vote for people who would have supported that?

This is another case of those on the right opposing something, then criticizing Obama for not doing it anyway despite their opposition.

Paul Pless
04-23-2010, 09:39 AM
This is another case of those on the right opposing something, then criticizing Obama for not doing it anyway despite their opposition.whatever:rolleyes:

Paul Pless
04-23-2010, 09:47 AM
This thread was about about how we were sold by the democrats incuding Obama that health care reform was necessary to control costs and to get the deficit reduced and to promote growth in our economy. There may be and in my mind are good reasons for health care reform and for socialized medicine, the reasons I just mentioned hawever aren't realistic, never were and never will be. So now, after its passed we get a real non partisan report showing otherwise, and Keith Wilson comes out and spins this report in some way against Republicans - that's bull**** -Keith knows it, you know it, and I know it.:rolleyes:

Keith Wilson
04-23-2010, 09:48 AM
The major point of the bill that passed was to increase access to health insurance. I would have liked a more comprehensive overhaul that would have reduced costs more, but given the intensity of opposition to any reform this was the best we could get passed for now. "The art of the possible", right?

So how do you think we should reduce heath care costs, preferably to the levels of other wealthy countries? (Don't try the old tort reform thing again; while that might be a good idea, it's been throughly debunked as a significant cost savings)

Paul Pless
04-23-2010, 09:55 AM
Actually, no. It was about extending access to 32 million people with no health care coverage.That's not what this thread is about, this thread is about cost.

I see you've learned your ljb5 spin lessons well.

jack grebe
04-23-2010, 09:57 AM
I wanna know how much of this weeks bill
is gonna be paid by the reformed health care.:rolleyes:

BrianW
04-23-2010, 10:03 AM
Brilliant.

It was pretty good, as it cut both ways.

Not surprisingly, coming from Ian, only the liberals came out shining like a diamond in a black goats ass. :)

BrianW
04-23-2010, 10:10 AM
On another note...

When folks start splitting hairs over the meaning of "may" and "will", we know we're having a Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky moment. :)

Keith Wilson
04-23-2010, 10:11 AM
A heath care reform bill passed, but I think it didn't do enough to reduce costs. There's more work that needs to be done. So how do you all think we should reduce health care spending, preferably to the levels of other developed countries?

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo133/sfeboyd/HealthcareCostsPercentGDP.jpg

BA.Barcolounger
04-23-2010, 10:13 AM
On another note...

When folks start splitting hairs over the meaning of "may" and "will", we know we're having a Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky moment. :)

Splitting hairs over two completely different words with completely different definitions?

That's like saying "BrianW had sex with a goat last night." and "BrianW went to the library and checked out a good book" are interchangeable sentences.

Keith Wilson
04-23-2010, 10:14 AM
You may die tomorrow.
You will die tomorrow.
Splitting hairs?

BrianW
04-23-2010, 10:23 AM
The two verbs, were not used to describe the same subject matter.

The "will" was used in the subject of costs, to point out that costs are going to rise. The "may" was used in the subject of medicare, to suggest that medicare benefits might suffer.

There's no confusion. Except the confusion generated by some who have a problem with the report as issued by the economic experts at the Dept of HHS.

Paul Pless
04-23-2010, 10:27 AM
Brian, I don't know why so many people are confused by this article.:rolleyes:

jclays
04-23-2010, 10:31 AM
Obama doesnt even know what was in the bill he pushed.

Keith Wilson
04-23-2010, 10:49 AM
Ah, so the point of this is to criticize Obama rather than to discuss reducing health care costs. Well, that certainly is a lot easier. Carry on.

Kaa
04-23-2010, 11:08 AM
Who exactly is surprised?

(emphasis mine)



Senate Democrats released details Wednesday of a five-year budget plan that promises to narrow the deficit dramatically by 2015 but still accumulates almost $3.9 trillion more government debt over the same period.

Trying to survive the political storm around them, Democrats would postpone the toughest decisions until after Novembers elections, when a presidential fiscal commission is scheduled to make its report to Congress. But there is no escaping the political bind that grips the party, exhausted from the debate over health care reform and under political pressure to extend Bush-era tax cuts.

Health care ate up most of the available Medicare savings and popular tax offsets that might otherwise be tapped to narrow the deficit. And as a result, its harder to dig out of the deficit hole, and little progress will be made in the short term absent a further surge in the economy. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36182.html)


Kaa

BrianW
04-23-2010, 11:09 AM
Ah, so the point of this is to criticize Obama rather than to discuss reducing health care costs.

Not really, although Bush, McCain, and Palin have been mentioned, so why not the standing President who lobbied hard for this new reform.

I see nothing wrong with mentioning Obama's role in the process.

Keith Wilson
04-23-2010, 11:15 AM
I see nothing wrong with mentioning Obama's role in the process. Nor do I. IMHO, the bill is very much to his credit, although you may not agree. But again, the main point of the bill was to increase the number of people with health insurance. I wish it had done more to reduce costs.

Let me know when you'd like to seriously discuss reducing costs.

Kaa
04-23-2010, 11:20 AM
But again, the main point of the bill was to increase the number of people with health insurance.

Which it's going to do in the traditional way: by making the alternative illegal :D

Kaa

Keith Wilson
04-23-2010, 11:33 AM
. . . in the traditional way: by making the alternative illegal.That's very far from the only thing it does, as you know very well. Folks can complain about that all they like, but if you know a better way to ensure that prexisting conditions will be covered, I wish you had brough it up during the debate. There is a better way, single-payer, but I bet you wouldn't like that either.

jack grebe
04-23-2010, 11:37 AM
None of it, probably. How are you insured? Medicare? Or private insurance?
no, none, nadda..............:(

Rick-Mi
04-23-2010, 11:38 AM
I'm surprised so many people had the wool pulled over their eyes about what was going to happen when a corporatist scheme concocted by an unholy trinity of health insurance companies, Big Pharma and a liberal administration was rammed down the people's throats against their will.

BrianW
04-23-2010, 11:42 AM
Let me know when you'd like to seriously discuss reducing costs.

Oh I'm sure the topic will come up.

Until then, there's nothing wrong with 'cut & pasting' articles which point out the costs. It's a small percentage compared to the threads which lean the other way.

Consider it a bit of "fair and balanced." :D

Kaa
04-23-2010, 11:46 AM
That's very far from the only thing it does, as you know very well.

Of course, nobody said this is the only thing it does.

This bill attempts to fix a structurally broken system by shoving everyone into it by force.

I did not think and still do not think it's a good idea.


There is a better way, single-payer, but I bet you wouldn't like that either.

I'll take your bet :D

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showpost.php?p=2264839&postcount=30

or http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?t=101041

Kaa

Keith Wilson
04-23-2010, 11:50 AM
I'd support the idea in the first link with moderate enthusiasm. They called it the "the public option" during the debate, BTW. The right wing and the insurance companies did everything in their power to stop it, and unfortunately succeeded.