OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Y2HH]

No one wants to. That would break the game.

 

Balta gets it.

[kapkomet]

No one wants to. That would break the game.

 

 

I get that. But, there's a way it can be done and maintain the same profit levels. Then everyone gets what they want. Except the government. And there's why it will really never change.

[Balta1701]

I get that. But, there's a way it can be done and maintain the same profit levels. Then everyone gets what they want. Except the government. And there's why it will really never change.

My issue is...the thing the government should want is "the best possible health care outcome for the country", which also includes the subsection "Not having people who can't access the system". Any system which leaves people out to dry is a failure from the start.

 

What it winds up being of course is that the government just protects the entrenched interests who own themselves the best lobbyists.

[Jenksismyhero]

f***ing Bush, ruining the deficit 3 years removed.

 

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com...r-10-yrs/425831

 

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

[Balta1701]

1. Make projections from 2011-2020.

2. Pass law based on those projections.

3. 2 years pass

4. Make projections from 2013-2022.

5. Discover shockingly that the total cost has changed when the years included change.

6. Ignore whether or not the bill is actually paying for itself.

7. Angry!

[Jenksismyhero]

1. Make projections from 2011-2020.

2. Pass law based on those projections.

3. 2 years pass

4. Make projections from 2013-2022.

5. Discover shockingly that the total cost has changed when the years included change.

6. Ignore whether or not the bill is actually paying for itself.

7. Angry!

 

Lol, more like

 

1. Sell people on an "absolute necessity"

2. Promise the moon

3. 2 years pass

4. moon no longer available, but go ahead with mission anyway

5. watch as minions brush it off like it's no big deal

 

 

Edit: and I'd agree with you if it was a minor cost adjustment. This is damn near doubled. In 2 years. What happens 2 years from now? And 2 years after that. And 2 years after that. etc etc.

 

You can talk all you want about the supposed savings, but the fact is we didn't need to push this particular plan through, it didn't address any of the REAL issues, and it just put another 20 million Americans on the government teat. And guess who those 20 million vote for?

Edited March 14, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Edit: and I'd agree with you if it were was a minor cost adjustment. This is damn near doubled. In 2 years. What happens 2 years from now? And 2 years after that. And 2 years after that. etc etc.

 

You can talk all you want about the supposed savings, but the fact is we didn't need to push this particular plan through, it didn't address any of the REAL issues, and it just put another 20 million Americans on the government teat. And guess who those 20 million vote for?

No one, most of them don't have ID's and the poor have very low turnout rates even before that.

 

And no, the cost didn't damn near double, you're comparing 2 different lines. The $1.7 line has gone up by $50 billion...that line is "Gross spending" while the number being reported as the cost to the Treasury relative to the baseline of not establishing this program has actually gone down by $50 billion because of slowing health care cost increases.

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period (see Table 1, following the text).3

[Jenksismyhero]

No one, most of them don't have ID's and the poor have very low turnout rates even before that.

 

And no, the cost didn't damn near double, you're comparing 2 different lines. The $1.7 line has gone up by $50 billion...that line is "Gross spending" while the number being reported as the cost to the Treasury relative to the baseline of not establishing this program has actually gone down by $50 billion because of slowing health care cost increases.

 

You're looking at the change from 2011 estimates to 2012 estimates. I'm talking about the 2009 estimate spouted by the administration to pass the bill (900 billion) compared to what it is now (1.7 trillion). I also like the footnote, to the initial number from March 2011 to March 2012, wherein it repeatedly states something like "subject to further change." Yeah, i'm sure that change is going to go down.

 

[Balta1701]

You're looking at the change from 2011 estimates to 2012 estimates. I'm talking about the 2009 estimate spouted by the administration to pass the bill (900 billion) compared to what it is now (1.7 trillion). I also like the footnote, to the initial number from March 2011 to March 2012, wherein it repeatedly states something like "subject to further change." Yeah, i'm sure that change is going to go down.

Again, still not the same line.

[Balta1701]

The $900 billion price tag, according to repeated CBO numbers is the cost of the "Provisions related to insurance coverage" in previous CBO estimates. That line is comparable to this line in the updated version:

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period (see Table 1, following the text).3 The net costs reflect:

It went up last year because it was including future years, but went down this year because Medicare and Medicaid costs have grown slower than previous projections.

 

The larger number is including substantial portions of Medicaid and CHIP, which already existed but which were grouped into the PPACA because they were partially reformed by it.

[Jenksismyhero]

It says the net provision costs are now 1.24 trillion. That's still up from the 900 billion initially. They say the gross will be 1.7 but will be lessened by various premiums, tax revenues and fees. I won't hold my breath on the government collecting all that.

 

 

Edit: and it also doesn't account for "federal administrative costs" which is another X tens of billions.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

It says the net provision costs are now 1.24 trillion. That's still up from the 900 billion initially.

This report also presents estimates through fiscal year 2022, because the baseline projection period now extends through that additional year.

You went through in enough detail to find that specific line item but ignored the text around it which indicated that it wasn't comparable to what you're trying to compare it to.

[StrangeSox]

The cost of PPACA has gone down, not up.

 

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/...s-gone-down-not

 

From the CBO:

The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions ($1,496 billion through 2021) is about $50 billion higher than last year’s projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO and JCT’s estimates (to $413 billion), leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.

 

I'm sure the Washington Examiner will be publishing a follow-up piece to keep with their high journalistic standards.

[Y2HH]

The cost of PPACA has gone down, not up.

 

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/...s-gone-down-not

 

From the CBO:

 

 

I'm sure the Washington Examiner will be publishing a follow-up piece to keep with their high journalistic standards.

 

As compared to motherjones.com? Not that I'm defending the Washington Examiner...having never bothered to read it.

 

But I'm sure if you take all of this this into account while subtracting the initial projections, and assuming so-and-so happens when you add this-and-that, and then divide the multiplier of Pi by the negative coefficient of the positive prime integer while subtracting the sum, the CBO will show that we actually saved money, and somehow wiped 14 trillion of debt off the books, too.

 

Oh, and nearly every one of these articles, and the links to other articles that back their interpretation of the fuzzy math within, calls it Obamacare...which immediately invalidates them.

 

It's not f***ing Obamacare. People that call it that, regardless of which of the two "team fails" they play for, are simply idiots. Oh, and by team fails, I mean Republicans or Democrats.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

It's not f***ing Obamacare. People that call it that, regardless of which of the two "team fails" they play for, are simply idiots. Oh, and by team fails, I mean Republicans or Democrats.

Wait, you're the one complaining about us adopting the derisive shorthand?

[Y2HH]

Wait, you're the one complaining about us adopting the derisive shorthand?

 

Yes.

 

The "Obamacare" thing just a pet peeve of mine, feel free ignore me like you usually do. I just hate when people call it that...I know it makes no sense that it should annoy me as much as it does, but it does.

 

I try to be fair, whether talking about GW, Obama, or whomever...and I think blaming or crediting Obama for anything in the ACA is ridiculous. The bill he asked for is nothing remotely close to what he got. It wasn't written by him, or for him. What he saw in it were some really good points that could fix some GLARING holes in the system, so he signed it. The rest of the crap that's still to come...who knows what it means, or even says...I tried reading it...it's all typical lawyer double talk. I'm sure we will start seeing an onslaught of crazy provider/patient/hospital lawsuits in the future, considering it's near impossible to write a bill/law that's 2000+ pages that isn't full of contradictions...and I'm sure some slimy lawyers will try to profit off of it.

[StrangeSox]

As compared to motherjones.com? Not that I'm defending the Washington Examiner...having never bothered to read it.

 

 

Yeah, since they're relying on the actual wording from the CBO instead of the dumb misrepresentations.

[StrangeSox]

Employer-based health insurance has been on the decline for a while:

 

 

This is good because our current model of employment-dependent coverage is incredibly stupid, but it's also bad because there's not really much else to replace it, especially if PPACA is severely amended or repealed.

[Balta1701]

Yes.

 

The "Obamacare" thing just a pet peeve of mine, feel free ignore me like you usually do. I just hate when people call it that...I know it makes no sense that it should annoy me as much as it does, but it does.

 

I try to be fair, whether talking about GW, Obama, or whomever...and I think blaming or crediting Obama for anything in the ACA is ridiculous. The bill he asked for is nothing remotely close to what he got. It wasn't written by him, or for him. What he saw in it were some really good points that could fix some GLARING holes in the system, so he signed it. The rest of the crap that's still to come...who knows what it means, or even says...I tried reading it...it's all typical lawyer double talk. I'm sure we will start seeing an onslaught of crazy provider/patient/hospital lawsuits in the future, considering it's near impossible to write a bill/law that's 2000+ pages that isn't full of contradictions...and I'm sure some slimy lawyers will try to profit off of it.

Obama campaign officially embraces "Obamacare" moniker for the law.

[Y2HH]

Obama campaign officially embraces "Obamacare" moniker for the law.

 

For political reasons, not reality reasons. Obamacare, in it's original intent, looked nothing like what was eventually passed. So sure, they can own the name, which is just more political games for the cameras, but it means nothing.

[Balta1701]

For political reasons, not reality reasons. Obamacare, in it's original intent, looked nothing like what was eventually passed. So sure, they can own the name, which is just more political games for the cameras, but it means nothing.

Calling it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" didn't show up until right around the time the final bill was passed either.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama campaign officially embraces "Obamacare" moniker for the law.

I can see a whole ad campaign around: ObamaCares

[Y2HH]

Calling it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" didn't show up until right around the time the final bill was passed either.

 

The bill wasn't written by Obama, so calling it Obamacare, IMO, is baseless, whether they decided to own the name or not. And the patient protection/ACA showed up after it was passed because at the time they knew it was nothing like "Obamacare", so they tried to get people to stop calling it that...now, since people didn't stop, they're deciding to own it.

 

It just shows you that the circus that is our congress/senate/presidency is a bunch of f***ing school children yelling 'you suck' at each other, all while solving nothing.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Y2HH

[HuskyCaucasian]

Observers say Court looks likely to strike down Health Care Reform after today's hearing

CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, following Supreme Court arguments on President Obama's health care law, said on CNN that based on what he heard inside the Court, things didn't look good for proponents of the law.

 

"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," he said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... if I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate."

 

Toobin added that he felt that U.S. Solicitor General David Verrilli simply wasn't prepared for the conservative justices.

 

"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."

 

Toobin also said he thought Justice Kennedy, the perennial swing vote, was a "lost cause" for supporters of the health care reform law.

[Y2HH]

Observers say Court looks likely to strike down Health Care Reform after today's hearing

 

That's not good, because the whole law won't work without the mandate.