Deficit Commission report to be released

[mr_genius]

In reality...the real problem is that we established last year that no one will tolerate having the government make the decision about which doctors will be paid for, or which doctors will have to take a hair cut. We'd never have passed anything had that been proposed.

 

Well, they are going to have to tolerate it or learn to love the deficit and probably higher taxes.

 

Most countries that have big government paying for programs like medicare have caps. Obviously the US does not. Look at the cost per capita we spend. It's nearly twice as much as other countries which would be considered in the same economic class as the US.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-com...-oecd-countries

 

Some of the key points from this study comparing the U.S. health care system with other countries are listed below:

 

* In 2007, the total spending for health care accounted for 16% of the country’s GDP, the highest share among the OECD and almost double the OECD average

* On a per capita basis also the U.S. spent the highest with a total of $7,290 which is two-and-half times the OECD average

* The public share of health care expenditure in the USA (45%) is less than any other OECD country

* Despite spending the most, the U.S. provides health care coverage for only the elderly, disabled and some of the poor people

* In comparison, the same amount is enough to provide universal health care insurance by the government for all citizens in other OECD countries

* 35% of total health care expenditures is done by private health insurance which is the highest In OCED

* Despite the high medical expenditure,there are fewer doctors per capita in the U.S. than most other OECD countries

* Life expectancy in the U.S. is lower when compared with Japan,Switzerland, Canada and Australia

* Infant morality rates in the U.S. is higher than most OECD countries. In 2006, it was 6.7 per live births relative to OECD average of 4.7

* The proportion of daily smokers has fallen the most (> 50%) between 1980 and 2007 in the U.S. due to public awareness and high taxation

* Obesity rate among adults is the highest in the U.S. in the OECD countries at 34.3% in 2006. Higher obesity rates leads to higher health care spending in the future

Edited November 15, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Most countries that have big government programs paying for programs like medicare have caps. Obviously the US does not. Look at the cost per capita we spend. It's nearly twice as much as other countries which would be considered in the same economic class as the US.

You're kidding, after the last 1.5 years of political discussion, you're using the "the U.S. spends 2x as much per capita on health care as any other country" as an argument against me? As though I didn't know that? After the last year?

 

I have an urge to faint. Or like down a half liter of Whiskey and then challenge you to a fight. I'm not sure which. Probably both.

 

Anyway, yes, the U.S. pays 2x as much as everyone else for worse health care. We spent about a year and a half arguing about why. I certainly have seen zero evidence that the lack of a long term cap drives the cost higher. I can argue against it; in the private insurance market, most plans did have lifetime caps, and the private sector insurance continued to cost more per person than Medicare, and continued to grow at higher rates. If the key flaw in our system was the lack of a lifetime cap, then Medicare should be really and truly exploding compared to the private sector, to the point that nothing else can overwhelm it.

[mr_genius]

You're kidding, after the last 1.5 years of political discussion, you're using the "the U.S. spends 2x as much per capita on health care as any other country" as an argument against me? As though I didn't know that? After the last year?

 

I have an urge to faint. Or like down a half liter of Whiskey and then challenge you to a fight. I'm not sure which. Probably both.

 

Anyway, yes, the U.S. pays 2x as much as everyone else for worse health care. We spent about a year and a half arguing about why. I certainly have seen zero evidence that the lack of a long term cap drives the cost higher. I can argue against it; in the private insurance market, most plans did have lifetime caps, and the private sector insurance continued to cost more per person than Medicare, and continued to grow at higher rates. If the key flaw in our system was the lack of a lifetime cap, then Medicare should be really and truly exploding compared to the private sector, to the point that nothing else can overwhelm it.

 

From what I read, you usually dodged arguments about cost reduction. You were more concerned with the insurance companies 3% profit margin. As far as caps, I am talking about procedural caps (a procedure or visit type has a cost cap), not a cap as far as how much medicare cost a patient incurs over a lifetime. These types of procedure caps have been proven to be effective cost regulation measures in other countries. Of course, if a patient wants to go outside of medicare, they are free to spend as they please.

Edited November 15, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

From what I read, you usually dodged arguments about cost reduction. You were more concerned with the insurance companies 3% profit margin. As far as caps, I am talking about procedural caps (a procedure or visit type has a cost cap), not a cap as far as how much medicare cost a patient incurs over a lifetime. These types of procedure caps have been proven to be effective cost regulation measures in other countries. Of course, if a patient wants to go outside of medicare, they are free to spend as they please.

Ok, my answer is whiskey and challenging you to a fight. I dodged arguments about cost reduction? I'm offended by that.

 

The problem with insurance companies is not the profit margin...it's the overhead. They increase that profit margin slightly by spending enormous additional amounts on overhead.

 

Even more effective cost regulation in other countries has been found by having single-payer systems. They streamline everything, reduce paperwork, and massively reduce overhead at just about every level, and provide solid cost control by enabling effective preventative care. Yeah, they occasionally deny certain types of care, but you've just accepted that as necessary for our system anyway. Yeah, the U.S. is a different system, but you've just argued that there's something to learn from the way other countries do it. When developing countries are building systems from scratch, they keep going single-payer for good reason; it's cheaper per person and more effective for everyone except for the top of the top; which is where our system wins.

[mr_genius]

Ok, my answer is whiskey and challenging you to a fight. I dodged arguments about cost reduction? I'm offended by that.

 

The problem with insurance companies is not the profit margin...it's the overhead. They increase that profit margin slightly by spending enormous additional amounts on overhead.

 

Even more effective cost regulation in other countries has been found by having single-payer systems. They streamline everything, reduce paperwork, and massively reduce overhead at just about every level, and provide solid cost control by enabling effective preventative care. Yeah, they occasionally deny certain types of care, but you've just accepted that as necessary for our system anyway. Yeah, the U.S. is a different system, but you've just argued that there's something to learn from the way other countries do it. When developing countries are building systems from scratch, they keep going single-payer for good reason; it's cheaper per person and more effective for everyone except for the top of the top; which is where our system wins.

 

Well I certainly don't think the US government would lower overhead. If anything it could spiral hopelessly out of control.

 

And still, even if they could operate at an efficiency equal to an insurance company (which I don't think they could) you still haven't addressed the biggest issue with health care cost in the US. Now you just have medical provider charging the government outrageous prices instead of them sending outrageous bills to the insurance company. Not really an upgrade IMO. But no one has the cojones to take on the medical/drug lobby.

Edited November 15, 2010 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

I think the deficit commission leadership report is a complete joke.

 

Who do you think in Congress is going to want to be the person who "voted to cut benefits and pay for our troops" in the middle of a war?

 

I'd like to pretend that was Kaperbole, but it flat out isn't. I want to campaign against that Representative.

 

Well, your banter with genius says some things - the wars aren't popular anymore, and the deficits piss people off more then the wars, even. It's "popular" to cut defense right now... which is why we have the best odds in a century to chop away at defense. People think that modern wars don't need to be fought with people, so let's cut, baby.

[Balta1701]

the deficits piss people off more then the wars, even.

You're right. And for once, I'm going to cite polling data that agrees with you completely. Twice as many people care about the deficit in polling as do the wars.

 

What should Congress focus on in January

Economy/Jobs: 56%

Health Care: 14%

Deficit: 4%

Wars: 2%

Immigration: 2%

Taxes: 2%

Education: 2%

 

 

(Nobody ever actually cares about the deficit. Nobody. Even the people who insist they care will chuck it out the window if they have to have their own taxes go up or if it costs them their jobs. They care if their taxes are going up or if they have jobs or not. Right now, they have no jobs. Even the people who wrote this chairman's report don't care about the deficit. They care about the vision of America they put together, not the deficit.)

[NorthSideSox72]

The same people who think the deficit commission report is a wonderful idea think that the wars are a wonderful idea.

Incorrect.

 

[Balta1701]

Incorrect.

Basically, I'm referring to the tip of the media, who like both.

[caulfield12]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/...cut-the-deficit

 

16 different articles with suggestions for cutting the deficity and an interactive PDF that allows anyone to go through line by line with different projections out into the future with the consequences of your cuts, both short-term and long-term

 

felt like I was watching that movie "Dave" again with Kevin Kline, but its kinda cool

 

I swear to God, if Obama lets both tax cuts continue, I'll be the first to volunteer and help whoever will run against him...but not even he is that tone deaf I think. I like Senator Warner's proposal, extending the tax cuts for the middle class, cutting the "rich" income level down to $ 1 million or less (personally, I think it should be no more than $500,000) and letting those tax cuts expire in 2-3 years down the, but, most importantly, putting in at least $650 billion of pro-business oriented cuts/credits that would engage corporate American in developing a plan that's suitable and will actually create jobs and more certainty going forward.

 

I hate that stupid argument about how all the small business owners are going to be killed. Point of fact, only 2% of businesses/taxpayers would possibly be affected, and that's something like $700 per month at the most, we're not even talking about losing half an employee.

 

If he really had guts (Obama), he'd let both of them expire and fight the GOP tooth and nail about the upper income brackets, but he made such a big deal about the tax break for the bottom 98% that he couldn't conceivably do that. And I don't think he wants to be the president who "raised taxes" (letting the cuts expire and going to Clinton levels, when we were actually balancing the budget) because he won't get any credit for lowering the deficit or balancing the budget if the unemployment rate remains in the 8's or 9's.

 

It's possible to be pro-business without caving on the tax cuts for the rich, they're not mutually exclusive.

 

Millions of dollars from private hedge fund managers went to the GOP this last election cycle to protect their tax rates going forward...you have Erskine Bowles making $350K+ per year on the board of a Wall Street bank telling middle class Americans they can go screw themselves and by the way, work for an extra 4 years with less benefits. The fact of the matter is that while life expectancy has risen, it has certainly not risen for blue collar/labor/industrial workers during the last 20 years.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Oh, by the way, another thing I missed the first few times through. 2k5? I have to admit. I was wrong. Obama is coming for your retirement.

Deductions for contributions to IRAs, Keogh plans, and 401k plans would be ended ... [and] Social Security benefits would eventually be cut by 25 percent for people earning $43,000 today and by 40 percent for those earning $100,000. Note the double whammy -- less Social Security and no tax-sheltered savings plans.

[mr_genius]

Oh, by the way, another thing I missed the first few times through. 2k5? I have to admit. I was wrong. Obama is coming for your retirement.

 

well that part is bulls***

[Balta1701]

well that part is bulls***

Hey, if you want to cut taxes on the top bracket by 1/3, somebody's gotta pay for it, and it defeats the purpose if the top bracket has to pay for it.

[NorthSideSox72]

well that part is bulls***

Yeah that's a garbage idea. Any savings you get there would clearly be offset by other economic damage.

 

[Balta1701]

Yeah that's a garbage idea. Any savings you get there would clearly be offset by other economic damage.

And you don't think you can say the same thing about getting rid of the deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, health insurance, etc.?

[NorthSideSox72]

And you don't think you can say the same thing about getting rid of the deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, health insurance, etc.?

Sure I can, to varying extents. What's your point? Did I ever say otherwise?

 

[Balta1701]

Sure I can, to varying extents. What's your point? Did I ever say otherwise?

No, but none of the other ones raised a complaint.

[mr_genius]

Hey, if you want to cut taxes on the top bracket by 1/3, somebody's gotta pay for it, and it defeats the purpose if the top bracket has to pay for it.

 

now you're just making stuff up

[Balta1701]

now you're just making stuff up

The top tier tax rate drops from 35% to 23% under the plan that they wrote.

[kapkomet]

The top tier tax rate drops from 35% to 23% under the plan that they wrote.

 

 

Which isn't going to happen.

[Balta1701]

Which isn't going to happen.

Don't forget...the way this Deficit commission law is written...it's an up or down vote. If it gets 14 votes out of the 18 commissioners, it goes to Congress for an up or down vote and Congress cannot amend the package. If it can't get 14 votes, it goes the way of the Iraq Study Group and we never hear about it again.

[mr_genius]

The top tier tax rate drops from 35% to 23% under the plan that they wrote.

 

but where did i say i wanted that?

 

 

your logic is as follows:

 

Known variables:

Joe likes the White Sox

The Whites are a baseball team

 

Balta conclusion:

Joe likes baseball teams.

Joe must also be a Twins fan

Edited November 17, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

but where did i say i wanted that?

 

 

your logic is as follows:

 

Known variables:

Joe likes the White Sox

The Whites are a baseball team

 

Balta conclusion:

Joe likes baseball teams.

Joe must also be a Twins fan

Where did I assume you wanted it? The guys who wrote this plan want a 23% top tier tax rate. That's the kind of tax increase you need if you want to cut the top tier that much.

[kapkomet]

Don't forget...the way this Deficit commission law is written...it's an up or down vote. If it gets 14 votes out of the 18 commissioners, it goes to Congress for an up or down vote and Congress cannot amend the package. If it can't get 14 votes, it goes the way of the Iraq Study Group and we never hear about it again.

 

 

Really? Where'd you hear that? I didn't realize that. It's pretty much worthless then?

[mr_genius]

Where did I assume you wanted it?

 

Hey, if you want to cut taxes on the top bracket by 1/3, somebody's gotta pay for it, and it defeats the purpose if the top bracket has to pay for it.