ObamaCare: $2 trillion, or 2.5 ’stimulus’ bills
To show you how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone, Democrats were pleased yesterday when the Congressional Budget Office gave the two ObamaCare bills — the Senate bill plus the “reconciliation” bill the House would use to “fix” it — a combined cost of “only” $940,000,000,000 over 10 years (see page 8). But as you already know if you’ve been paying attention to this blog, there’s more here than the headline number suggests.
First, as the Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson points out, CBO begins the 10-year clock in 2010. What year is it right now? Oh yes, 2010. When did the 2010 budget year begin? Oh yes, Oct. 1, 2009 — more than five months ago.
Granted, this is not an unusual CBO convention. But it is a special case because the vast majority of the new ObamaCare expenditures don’t kick in for four more years — which is unusual for a piece of legislation. So, the inclusion of a cheap year rather than a full-price year makes a huge difference in the cost estimate.
For the record, this four-year delay is shown quite clearly in two places:
- the estimate that the number of uninsured persons (not uninsured “Americans,” for reasons I’ll explain in a post later today) would not begin falling until 2014: see page 7; and
- the estimate that the gross costs of the bill are only $17 billion in the years 2010-2013, compared to $923 billion from 2014 to 2019; see page 8.
If we begin the 10-year clock for this bill in 2014, and assume the 7.5 percent growth in annual gross costs which the CBO applies in 2018 and 2019 would continue in later years, the cost from 2014-2023 would be $2 trillion. That’s equivalent to 2.5 “stimulus” bills. Anderson writes that ObamaCare includes more than $1 trillion in new taxes to help pay for itself.
Even if we are more charitable, and begin counting next year rather than this year with the same assumptions as above, the 10-year cost from 2011-2020 would be $1.2 trillion.
Ah, but what about net costs — that is, the effect on the budget deficit? Didn’t the CBO say the deficit would fall by a combined $138 billion from 2010 to 2019?
Yes, it did. But where does that $138 billion come from? Well, the majority of it comes from new taxes, which are a legitimate debate policy debate, even if I come down strongly against the new levies.
But $493 billion of the bill’s budget offsets come from reductions in federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. The bulk of this half-trillion comes from two places. The first is gutting Medicare Advantage ($132 billion). The second is an assumption that Congress will reduce payments to doctors who see Medicare patients ($157 billion) — something that no Congress has ever actually done.
And here again, in all cases of spending reductions, the vast majority of the changes come from 2014 on. That means the net reduction in the deficit is contingent on future Congresses following through on what this Congress promises to do — and what no past Congress has ever done.
In reality, as opposed to paper, ObamaCare is highly likely to increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars rather than cut it. Reps. John Lewis, Hank Johnson, David Scott, John Barrow and Sanford Bishop — Georgia’s Democrats in Congress who either plan to vote for ObamaCare or are on the fence about it — may not care about this. But the rest of us should.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
114 comments Add your comment
First
March 19th, 2010
11:44 am
First! Oh wait, this isn’t the sports section.
Jefferson
March 19th, 2010
11:46 am
It’s a start, eh ?
Whacks Eloquent
March 19th, 2010
12:01 pm
Too many real numbers for the liberals, Kyle. Remember, we won’t know what this plan does till we pass it?
Hope ya don’t mind, but I want to plug this priceless column – stirrin’ the hornets’ nest! Hey it starts out “Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years…” Good eh? Read on:
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20100228/ASPENWEEKLY/100229854/0/FRONTPAGE
Dave
March 19th, 2010
12:09 pm
It’s disingenuous to compare the cost of the stimulus which is spent over 3 years to Health Care spending over 10 year periods.
Here’s a better suggestion: compare it to the War in Iraq. That’s cost $700 Billion since 2001. Hmmm… War with country that had no WMDs…. or insure 30 million people. That’s a tough choice.
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
12:13 pm
Fine, Dave. Using your number of $700 billion over 10 years for the Iraq war, we’re talking about three Iraq wars. Feel better now?
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
12:15 pm
Btw: LA, dewstar and Horace can resume posting today. But if y’all resume your name-calling, you’ll be off for two weeks.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 19th, 2010
12:23 pm
I suppose the good news is that these massive expenditure increases, accompanied (as the tooth fairy promises) by reductions in the deficit, ensures a significant contraction in the private capital in the economy. Such a capital contraction should ensure the depression will deepen, and will extend its length. Oh, I guess that is not necessarily good news.
Horrible Horrace
March 19th, 2010
12:33 pm
HIIIIIIDIE HOOO KYLE!!
retiredds
March 19th, 2010
1:01 pm
the wars go on. wars good. health care bad.
Newt Rock-knee
March 19th, 2010
1:04 pm
It will be 100% wasted money. Nothing needs to be fixed in the healthcare market (not “system”) anyway. Last polls I saw showed seventy-something percent of Americans are happy with their insurance. And the opinions of non-Americans (illegals) don’t matter — if they don’t like it, they should leave. The Bush administration was right to do nothing on health care for the past 8 years. And Republicans should stop saying that they agree that “the system is broken” and “of course something needs to be done”. Costs are not too high, except for people who are unwilling to work for a living. Access is just fine. What’s the problem?
JF McNamara
March 19th, 2010
1:07 pm
The estimate for the Iraqi war was $0. It was going to pay for itself with oil profits from the newly freed country. Remember that?
We don’t know what is going to happen, and any budget is just a guess based on a bunch of “what if” parameters. The inital estimate will be long forgotten after a year and we will be making decisions based on the reality.
If they pass this, you can always change it for the better later or scrap it. In any event, its unlikely that any of our lives will be worse than they already are.
Republicans are just politicing with this bluster. If it works, no one will call them out for being against it. If it doesn’t work, they can say I told you so.
Duane McDonald
March 19th, 2010
1:09 pm
Like most of the things our House and Senate do currently this “health Insurance” deal is crooked. Most people who seem to trust these crooks would NEVER buy a used car from them.
That probably sums up the character of our elected representatives.
Get Real
March 19th, 2010
1:20 pm
I love it when Obozo lies to his fellow Dimocrats and tells them voting No won’t help them at the polls! They should realize every time Obozo has stumped for a fellow Dimocrat, they have lost the election. That should tell them something but they just keep on drinking the Kool Aid he serves them. Kinda like leading Lemmings off the cliff into the sea of no return!
At least under Bush’s watch, he actually did something about terrorism. Obozo has America as a sitting duck just waiting the impending attack!
Trying terrorists on US Soil with the same rights as American Citizens!
Spending like there’s no tomorrow and taking vacations all on our tax dollars! IF his Obamacare passes the good doctors will start new careers, the economy will tank even further, unemployment will go higher and he will be one step further turning America into his Hugo Chevez Socialist Government!
The Anti-Wooten
March 19th, 2010
1:20 pm
Nice sentiment there Joan1, I’m certain that the victims of 9/11 and most other New Yorkers might disagree with you.
Kinda Cheating
March 19th, 2010
1:27 pm
I guess it’s a sore spot with me that our Presidentand his so called party would promise the following, as written in the morning edition’ just to get a “Yes” vote: “Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, a moderate Democrat who is retiring at the end of the year, announced he would vote in favor of the bill after opposing an earlier version. He did so as Democratic leaders included in their revisions a provision worth an estimated $99 million over two years in higher Medicaid payments to Tennessee hospitals that treat large numbers of uninsured.
neo-Carlinist
March 19th, 2010
1:29 pm
KW, I have to agree with Dave (he beat me to the punch, as I was on Barr’s blog this AM). when you elevate this discussion above the he said/she said (political tripe), it is very simple; politicians serve their masters and push legislation regardless of whether or not said bill is good or bad for the country, economy, children, etc. as a previous poster has put it, it’s the welfare state vs. the warfare state and it really doesn’t matter to the citizens (taxpayers), beyind the fact that we pick up the tab. so, pick your poison; $1 trillion+ in a futile “war on terrorism – including Iraq” and/or healthcare for everyone (even those who don’t want it).
The Anti-Wooten
March 19th, 2010
1:33 pm
Get Real,
A couple of points about your statements:
*Bush DID in fact do something about terrorism, he increased the number and locations of terrorists around the world. There were no “Al Queada in Iraq” prior to his bumbling War to Avenge My Daddy.
*You Randian suggestion that doctors will leave the profession is fairly preposterous and based on some flimsy poll that the NEJM has disavowed. What are they going to do? Become truck drivers.
Linda
March 19th, 2010
1:35 pm
We have several choices to read the bill (2300 pages) + the reconciliation bill (170 pages) (2470 pages) within these 72 hours which started yesterday:
* read straight thru until Sunday–34.3 pages per hour
* read straight thru until Sunday except sleeping–51.46 pages per hour
* read straight thru until Sunday during what’s considered normal business hours–114 pages per hour
* be politically correct & not read it at all, like Congress does
* have the alphabet acolyte media read it for you & believe in their interpretation
* hope that it passes so “we can find out what’s in it,” as suggested by Pelosi
* hope that it doesn’t pass so we can keep our country intact.
Churchill's MOM
March 19th, 2010
1:37 pm
Personally I’ll be happy when this food fight is over. As I have said before, the RINO party is owned by the Insurance Companies and the Democratic party is owned by the Lawyers & Doctors. Since my husband is a doctor I should be for the bill but I see many things wrong with it as it stands today, too bad neither of these parties work for the taxpayer and US Citizen.
By the way there is an amnesty bill working its way through the agriculture committee, obviously Saxby has a very short memory.
The Udder side!!
March 19th, 2010
1:47 pm
Kyle,
If you are going to quote CBO numbers, why not tell us that they said this bill will cut the deficit by 138 Billion over the first ten years and by 1 trillion in the second decade??? I guess those figure don’t fit so well with your set, Huh???
Reality
March 19th, 2010
1:47 pm
Yeah, Kyle…. you know better than everyone else. While the accountants and everyone else that worked on this in Washington that crunches the numbers says that this healthcare reform bill will decrease the deficit over the next 10 years – they are wrong and you are right.
LOL! Conservatives are so egotistical and WRONG.
We all need to simply accept that this will pass one way or the other. Then we all can focus on the jobs and other issues. And, we all will see that the Earth won’t explode once this passes.
NowReally
March 19th, 2010
1:50 pm
Oh Please!!! The GOP wouldn’t pass a healthcare bill even if it were paid for in full.
They lie about being in favor of expanding Medicare to the working poor. They have a huge problem with social security and wanted to privatize it.
Boy, I can only imagine what the old folks would think about that NOW, if it had been successful.
ArtVandelay
March 19th, 2010
1:51 pm
Kyle,
Did you take a minute to crunch any numbers around if we DON’T do this…didn’t think so. Healthcare costs are 17% of GDP, if we do nothing in 30 years it will be 30% of GDP! All I hear from opponents of this bill is, it costs too much, it won’t help, they’re ramming it through yet you offer NO alternatives.
Being in healthcare finance I can tell you without something being done in 5-10 years healthcare will be where the banks are now. 1 Trillion will seem like a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost to bailout the healthcare system
Get Real
March 19th, 2010
1:57 pm
A couple of points about your statements:
*Bush DID in fact do something about terrorism, he increased the number and locations of terrorists around the world. There were no “Al Queada in Iraq” prior to his bumbling War to Avenge My Daddy.
Well, seems to me that he flushed the terrorists out and brought them within shooting range instead of them hiding in the hills! At least they came to us!
*You Randian suggestion that doctors will leave the profession is fairly preposterous and based on some flimsy poll that the NEJM has disavowed. What are they going to do? Become truck drivers.
I don’t know what professions they will take on but I doubt it will be a truck driver. I’m sure they will displace a lot of people in their current profession because most of them are fairly intellegent. I don’t see them paying the tuition and spending the hours in residency to become doctors to be paid by Obamacare under his Socialist Policies though! If Obamacare was so damn good for the American Public over 70% wouldn’t be against it and Obozo, Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t have to be using strong arm tactics, making back room deals and flying someone on Air Force One to convince them to vote Yes!
DEWSTARPATH
March 19th, 2010
1:59 pm
Thank you, Kyle.
Fix-It
March 19th, 2010
2:00 pm
Hello Dave, is there anybody in there? 700 billion in 10 years… How about 2 TRILLION in less than a year, boy I tell you liberals really need to take a math class…
joan1
March 19th, 2010
2:00 pm
All of you talk about healthcare costs. What on earth does this bill do to cut healthcare costs? All it does is make healthcare more accessible (meaning now immigrants and others won’t have to go to the emergency rooms, but can now book appointments). You will still have to pay for it, if you are paying now, you will just pay more. Of course, if you aren’t paying now, you have nothing to worry about. Big brother is all over it.
STEINER
March 19th, 2010
2:01 pm
Just make sure that we give these people who want to kill us and blow us up all their rights and plenty of lawyers so they can get the terrorists off the hook so they can go and try to blow us up again….Let an American get caught in Iran trying to blow up an Iranian airline and see what rights the Iranians would give him….WE GOTTA BE THE STUPIDEST NATION ON EARTH!!!!
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
2:03 pm
Udder Side: I *did* mention the $138 billion…and then explained why the assumptions required to arrive at that number are false ones. But I guess reading the post “don’t fit so well” with what you’d like to believe, huh???
Reality: If you take everything at face value, then feel free to take this CBO score at face value too, and pay no attention to how the number-crunchers arrived at that figure.
And since someone will blast me for this: I’m not saying the CBO lied, or that the CBO is being devious here. The CBO has certain rules that it follows in scoring a bill, and Democrats have written this bill with those rules in mind to get as favorable a score as possible, regardless of what will happen in the real world. I’ve written about this in past posts.
Yes, both parties do it. No, that doesn’t make it right to do it in this case. And no, you shouldn’t expect a response if you make that argument. That should about cover it…
Fix-It
March 19th, 2010
2:04 pm
The Udder side!, man you guys are sitting ducks…. Hey Utter can you name me one government project that was EVER on budget? How about Fanny and Freddy, no, the Post Office, no, Social Security, no, Medicaid, no……these are all programs that don’t work because of government, so you are really illiterate enough to think Obozocare would be any different?
John
March 19th, 2010
2:05 pm
So when the right does not like what the CBO says is happening, they spin it into what could, might, or we wish would happen. It is disengenuous to pretend to be ignorant as to why everything does not start next week. These delayed programs will take that long ( in not longer) to set up and put into place.
Lets also compair this to the plan the GOP put in place when they where in control. The lets do nothing plan is more than twice as expensive as this bill.
dewstarpath
March 19th, 2010
2:07 pm
Joan1 – I agree with Anti-Wooten regarding your post. But as far
as the state of the government is concerned – at least it’s not the 1960s.
There’s something to be said for the process of voting without having to
deal with assasinations. A lot was sacrificed for that right.
Mike
March 19th, 2010
2:13 pm
I had heard that Obamacare was going to damage Medicare Advantage plans, but I haven’t heard how. can you explain?
STEINER
March 19th, 2010
2:13 pm
Can I now pick up my Obama Health Care Check on the same day I pick up my check for Welfare and Food Stamps….I will be ticked off if I have to make 2 trips, just give it all to me on the same day….
CJ
March 19th, 2010
2:17 pm
“ ObamaCare is highly likely to increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars rather than cut it.”
Please indulge me while I explain why I believe that Kyle is being dishonest.
First, he leaves readers with the impression that their taxes will go up under the proposed legislation. Because of articles like this one, many Americans continue operating under the false impression that they received tax increases under Obama when, in fact, they received significant tax cuts (one-third of last years’ stimulus consisted of tax cuts). Kyle continues such folly by referencing generic “new taxes” above. Specifics would interfere with his intent to mislead.
Second, Kyle was proudly flying CBO scores on early drafts of the legislation like a Confederate flag last year when Congress was scoring various proposals under consideration in the various committees. He loved the CBO when they told him what he wanted to hear. Now the CBO score can’t be trusted for any number of reasons dreamed up by the right-wing noisemakers, while Kyle simultaneously ignores economists who say that the deficit reductions predicted by the CBO are likely to be understated.
Third, Kyle manipulates the numbers to recalculate costs under various ten-year time lines, but again, simultaneously ignores offsetting savings and revenues over those same ten-year timelines. Hackery at its worst.
Pay-as-you-go rules have been reinstated by the Democratic Congress after having been abandoned during the years of Republican rule and recently voted against by most, if not all, Republicans. If changes are made to the legislation in the future, then unless Republicans take control again, there’s every reason to believe that those changes will be paid for.
HCR is the largest deficit reduction legislation in history. It will eliminate the practice of denying or rescinding coverage because of pre-existing conditions, eliminate limits on coverage causing people to run out of insurance when they need it most, reduce the astronomical growth rates of our insurance premiums, and start to reign in the growth of health care costs across the board. It’s far from perfect. But it’s a great start.
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
2:19 pm
John, I understand that it will take awhile to set up the programs. But what’s really disingenuous here is acting as if those four years should be counted in the 10-year cost of those programs.
Mike: I’m not sure how exactly Medicare Advantage would be cut, only that the CBO said there would be $132 billion in cuts over 10 years (see page 13 of the document linked in my post).
The Udder side!!
March 19th, 2010
2:23 pm
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
2:03 pm
So Kyle, please tell us what YOU propose we do???? You seems to do a really good job a parroting the company line, why not try pulling the RNC hand from under your skirt and suggest something….. it kills me that Your folks bark so loud about being all about america, but have no problem standing on the sideline and cheerleading as these companies P—s all over the American people!!
Glenn
March 19th, 2010
2:33 pm
I want healthcare reform as much as anyone with sense but this really isn’t a good bill from what I now can see . I think it maybe better than doing nothing but it isn’t going to bring down costs. I don’t see how anybody could view this bill as socialist . A public option really is needed or something drastic . Maybe getting rid of insurance all together & letting the market place decide costs would be better . I don’t know . It seems like this bill gives the 800 pound gorilla a pillow .
HDB
March 19th, 2010
2:37 pm
Welcome back, dewstar….
Look…I’ve always said that the first iterationof ANY process has its flaws….look at all of revisions that’s happened to Windows…..and it’s still the operating system most used on computers. HCR will be likewise; the initial iternation will have the most flaws….but as we progress as a nation, changes will be made to the plan making it better for all!!
We had to start SOMEWHERE!! Republicans wanted to maintain the status quo….when 1/6th of the nation’s economy is growing faster than the rate of inflation and COLAs combined….and is a factor as to why Corporate American isn’t hiring!!!
Cross-border sales won’t work; tort reform still increases rates…..laissez-faire economics doesn’t work with health care issues for every American!!!
HDB
March 19th, 2010
2:40 pm
Welcome back, Horace and LA!!
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
2:41 pm
Udder, I have written several columns about alternative health-care fixes. They’re very easy to find on this blog. But somehow I think you’ll dismiss them as some kind of company line.
HDB: We’ve been through this before. Being against this bill is not the same as wanting to maintain the status quo.
HDB
March 19th, 2010
2:43 pm
Kyle: Question – In your opinion, would Republicans had considered creating a baseline HMO funded by the government…and major/medical and catastrophic coverage sold by insurance companies?? In this aspect, the cost curve would shift, insurance companies would still be profitable (look at AFLAC!)…health care access would improve…
Opinion???
HDB
March 19th, 2010
2:45 pm
Kyle…in many circles, many people ARE just for maintaining the status quo!! Those who have had government health care do like it….some consistently rail against it…except when it suits their needs!!
Churchill's MOM
March 19th, 2010
2:51 pm
Mike 2:13 pm
Medicare advantage was set up as a demonstration program to show that insurance companies could do a better job (lower cost) than medicare but has ended up with the taxpayer paying the insurance companies 15% more than regular medicare when both programs statistically have the same outcomes. Insurance agents get a higher commission for selling advantage programs than medigap insurance so you can be sure that the insurance companies are making big bucks off the advantage plans.
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
2:52 pm
HDB: If you mean a baseline HMO funded by the government *for everyone* then no, I don’t.
Churchill's MOM
March 19th, 2010
2:54 pm
Mike 2:13 pm
advantage programs are basically the medicare program that are managed by private insurance. The Insurer pays nothing for this service and gets some minor freebies from the insurance companies. Hope I have answered your question.
Churchill's MOM
March 19th, 2010
3:00 pm
Insurer should be insuree.. ie the covered person doesn’t pay an extra premium to the insurance company, the taxpayer writes the check. Like all insurance this is complicated & most of it makes no sense.
Linda
March 19th, 2010
3:01 pm
According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, there are only 100,000 family physicians in the US today & there will be a shortage of 40,000 by ‘20. The number of students from US medical schools going into family practice has dropped 51.8% since ‘97.
According to the US Dept. of Health & Human Services, there will be a shortage of 44,000 by ‘25.
According to a survey of physicians by Medicus published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, if the health care bill passes, 46.3% of primary care doctors may leave the medical profession. They cite their freedom to make decisions regarding their patients’ care as well as their payments being cut. With the increasing cost of expenses, especially malpractice insurance, they not feel it will no longer be worth it.
We are being told the goal of the hc bill is to insure another 30 million Americans. We also know the immigration reform legislation is next. To insure another 46 million people, each family physician will add an average of another 460 patients. If 46% indeed leave, it’s 857 patients.
Family practice will become the family watching Grey’s Anatomy.
P.S. Family practitioners are already underpaid. You may determine this from the out-of-date magazines in their waiting rooms.
HDB
March 19th, 2010
3:02 pm
Kyle…if the government-funded baseline HMO eliminated undocumenteds, kept the abortion restriction (Hyde Amendment), and was paid for solely as a non-profit with 3% of taxes…..would that be a possible starting point with you??
CJ
March 19th, 2010
3:07 pm
Ezra Klein wrote, “…some conservatives are arguing that Democrats ‘gamed’ the CBO in order to get the score they wanted…Both parties go back-and-forth with CBO to try and get their legislation down to a price tag they’re comfortable with. But it’s not some sort of trick. In this case, Democrats changed their legislation so the subsidies grew more slowly over time and the excise tax would grow faster. In other words, CBO said that they’d need to do hard things their constituents wouldn’t like if they wanted to cut the deficit more, and they did them. That’s not gaming, it’s governing.”
Glenn
March 19th, 2010
3:13 pm
@ HDB
I am a fan of the hybrid systems as well . World wide they seem to be the best .
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
3:17 pm
CJ, CJ, CJ…
1. It’s true that the new/higher taxes are targeted at certain groups — chiefly “the rich.” You’re free to believe that taking $1 trillion out of other Americans’ hands will have no negative effect on the rest of us. I don’t believe that.
2. The chief “stimulus” tax cuts were payroll tax reductions that amounted to $8/worker/week. You’re free to believe that was a “significant” tax cut. I don’t believe that.
3. Your link didn’t come through, so I’m not sure which earlier CBO scores you’re referring to. But if you’re referring to the ones that said bills would cost more than $1 trillion, you’re right — I didn’t examine them very closely, because a $1 trillion price tag on its own was a nonstarter, period. Which is why the Democrats have labored so hard, and rigged so many assumptions, to get the final bill to land under $1 trillion — in turn prompting me and others to look into those assumptions to point out that the price tag really hasn’t changed since the first Senate Finance Committee bill got a preliminary estimate of $1.6 trillion over 10 years.
(There is a very candid NYT news analysis about this process here: http://tr.im/SypN)
4. Your link to the other economists didn’t come through, either. But perhaps they are the kind of economists whom the Washington Post quoted — economists who say some of the savings may be greater than projected, but who also warn that there’s at least as much upside risk: http://tr.im/Syq9
5. You’re right, I did only project out the cost of the programs from 2014-2023, and not the alleged deficit reduction. But that’s because I then explained why the deficit reduction will never happen. I suppose I could project the effect on the deficit further out, with the gap growing wider the longer the savings didn’t materialize, but somehow I don’t think that would make the point you’re hoping for.
6. PAYGO rules are exactly what the Senate was violating when Sen. Bunning held up the bill to extend unemployment benefits, demanding an explanation for how Democrats were paying as they were going. PAYGO doesn’t affect entitlement spending, the largest source of increased deficits. It is a fig leaf for real fiscal responsibility. You’re free to believe that Republicans are more hypocritical for forgoing PAYGO rules than Democrats are for enacting them and then ignoring them. I don’t believe either action is particularly responsible.
Have I missed anything?
CJ
March 19th, 2010
3:18 pm
“According to a survey of physicians by Medicus published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, if the health care bill passes, 46.3% of primary care doctors may leave the medical profession.”
Despite Fox News’ false reporting to the contrary, this survey wasn’t published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and it wasn’t a scientifically conducted survey.
dewstarpath
March 19th, 2010
3:19 pm
Thanks, HDB!
Linda
March 19th, 2010
3:22 pm
Some Dem members of the House are receiving free fish neatly wrapped in paper from a specialty seafood market in DC with no return address. What a thoughtful gesture from an anonymous admirer.
HDB
March 19th, 2010
3:29 pm
Glenn: When looking at my BCBS HMO, I thought that the mechanism BCBS uses to contain costs with their HMO should be applied to isnurance nationwide!! It’s portable, usable in every state…and in certain countries overseas; can see the SAME Doctor every time; low cost referrals to specialists when needed….
It should be the standard for what health care SHOULD be!!
Glenn
March 19th, 2010
3:29 pm
It is Lent Linda . Probably from the Pope .
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
3:39 pm
Afraid not, HDB, because even if the program started at 3 percent of taxes, I seriously doubt that it would remain there. And I don’t believe we are well-served with a health system that relies even more on the government than our present one does.
I’ve said these things many times, but I’ll repeat them: I am for changing the laws that have led us to this point — the tax credits applied only to employer-sponsored plans, and the differing rules for large employers versus others, to name two. I am in favor of expanding tax-exempt health savings accounts so that people can use the money to pay for routine health care and then purchase higher-deductible catastrophic coverage for truly large expenses.
I would favor a law saying that proof of immediate prior coverage would bar an insurer from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. I’m also in favor of making plans more portable so that fewer people have to change plans involuntarily, although I think the best way to do that is by severing (or at least weakening) the link between insurance and employers.
Glenn
March 19th, 2010
3:40 pm
@ HDB
Wasn’t BSBC just called out in California for raising its rates 40 percent ? Didn’t they just get in major trouble for having a dept that gets bonuses based on denying claims ? I have BCBS & they have been fine by me . That being said our group policy has been going up drastically . If the company I work for didn’t have a policy that we have been allowed to be grandfathered into we would be paying much more for much less coverage .
Fix-It
March 19th, 2010
3:40 pm
CJ, you must have a great connection for the chronic because you are in an alternate reality. First of all pay go was ignored on the very first bill after it passed, the extended unemployment bill, they still have no way to pay for it. And they demonized a GOP’er because he stated just that. What an honest bunch the dimacrats are. As far as the HRC can you tell me what insurance company denies more claims that any other, as a matter of fact combine all the insurance companies denials and they will not match the amount that Medicaid turns down. Our government already is rationing care for the elderly. So please tell me again how spending over 1 trillion dollars will save money? You must be the person that “saved” money by buying a reduced price commodity. You never “save” money when you spend money, duh. Since you like the CBO score please tell me one thing that they have predicted properly? Their average estimate is 1/6 the total cast turns out to be. So if you go by the track record of the CBO this bill will cost over 5 trillion.
Whacks Eloquent
March 19th, 2010
3:44 pm
HDB @ 3:29,
Along your lines…why not just a government-employed set of doctors? No insurance go-between, they would be direct. It would not be as good as private, you would not have the choices, but there would be no costs. There would have to be some funding in place for referral situations, but many situations could be handled at the clinic. Once doctors got enough experience, they’d want to move on to the private sector (much like public defenders in our court system). Just thought of the idea, would need more investigation…
CJ
March 19th, 2010
3:48 pm
Kyle,
I’m not sure what the problems with my links are, but the main link was to Harvard economist David Cutler’s recent editorial in the WSJ explaining why the CBO is technically not supposed to score certain provisions of HCR that is likely to reduce the deficit by approximately $600 billion more than projected.
Still no specifics on the taxes? With regard to the taxes included in the HCR bill, there are always costs and benefits associated with all legislation. When the benefits exceed the costs, as they do in the HCR bill, then we should act. Politicians and media enablers who pretend that there is such a thing as a free lunch do more harm than good.
The $8 per week tax cut that you discount was an $800 tax cut for every two-earner household last year. Maybe this amount isn’t very significant for your blue blood, but with the median family income hovering around $50,000, most families were glad to have it. I don’t have specific figures, but my recollection is that these worker tax cuts have been estimated to grow the economy by over $1.20 for every dollar cut (not to be confused with the wasted effects of the corporate, capital gains and dividend tax cuts, which grew the economy by about 35 cents for every dollar cut.)
With regard to unemployment benefits, as you know, that legislation and more legislation coming out this year is specifically designed to be short-term jobs legislation to make up for the lack of spending in the private sector. PAYGO rules are waived for stimulus legislation since stimulus is, by definition, deficit spending. If we’re smart, we’ll continue to support such legislation until the private sector recovers, begins to create jobs, and no longer needs Uncle Sam to fill the gaping hole in its portion of our gross domestic product.
Glenn
March 19th, 2010
3:51 pm
I agree with that point big time Kyle . I think our economy as a whole would be healthier especially on the small & start up business side if insurance was not expected to be provided atleast partially by employers . Just to much strain on small companies & I would have to believe that it would bring down the policy costs as well .
Glenn
March 19th, 2010
3:57 pm
@whacks eloquent
That sounds like what my doctors idea was . Her point was that due to the high costs of medical school why not have the government cover them for providing services for a couple of years . I thought that was pretty interesting . It would also aid in a future doctor shortage .
The Udder side!!
March 19th, 2010
3:59 pm
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
3:17 pm
Keep on dancing Kyle, at some point you will find something that yourside can jump on and twist to fit your ideal….
BTW, when GWB was in office, did you raise this kind of stink when the CBO said that his tax cuts would have a negative effect on the deficit of upwards of 2 and 1/2 Trillion dollars?
BW
March 19th, 2010
4:00 pm
Kyle…the real funny part is that this bill will pass and even if Republicans take both Houses they won’t be able to repeal it…I simply can’t wait until we get to financial reform. One once said it’s never as good as it seems and it’s never as bad as it seems in politics….which I interpret to mean, that since most congressional districts are gerrymandered anyway…all the tea party hyperventilation will result in net gains from swing districts (read truly representative ones) but not majority control. If the takeover doesn’t happen, you simply cannot root for the President to fail for four years and honestly believe that the people will just reward you with control without any ideas. Wait…Ryan of Wisconsin does have an idea about the fiscal future of the nation but will never get the cowards that call themselves Republicans to vote for it because it’s too radical…but at least he’s actually willing to put his ideas on paper with numbers attached to them. The public has a fresh memory on the last time that Republicans held control…methinks they are going to have to do more than they are now to repeat 1994. Outside of all of that…this electoral strategy will work for 20 more years tops…the demographics are rapidly changing….evolve or go the way of the dodo bird.
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
4:02 pm
I’m glad you brought up a dollar-figure picture for the payroll cuts, CJ. $800 for a household earning $50,000 a year amounts to 1.6 percent. Decisions are made at the margins, so an extra 1.6 percent of income for a two-earner household may well change the spending and investing decisions that household makes.
My question for you is this: Why do you think a 3.8 percent tax on interest and investments for “the rich” won’t also have marginal effects on their decisions, and thus on the broader economy?
neo-Carlinist
March 19th, 2010
4:07 pm
Glenn, you should run for a seat in Congress. the line about the pillow for the 800lbs. gorilla is both amusing and disturbing, because we know what gorillas do when they get agitated. and not only are we giving the gorilla a pillow, we’re buying the bananas as well (and it’s OUR room, not his). I’ve said this before; health insurance is just a “short sell”. it is betting that at some point in the future you will get sick or injured and require medical care. since these clowns like to “gamble” why don’t we have legislation that stipulates a premium refund (or discount the following year) if you do not make a claim? I haven’t seen a doctor in almost 4 years. I am not a “healthcare” consumer, I am a health insurance consumer.
The Udder side!!
March 19th, 2010
4:14 pm
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
4:02 pm
Lets see if we can you to understand this…. If a person makes 50k a year, that $800 represents a months mortgage payment. For a rich person that makes say 500K, that 1500 will not have the same effect on how their day to day life! Stop trying to soft sell this by danceing with the percentages.. The real numbers paint a much more realistic picture and you know it…
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
4:16 pm
Let’s see if we can get you to understand this, Udder: The tax is on investment income. If you really think this tax won’t have an effect on investment decisions — and that those investment decisions won’t have an effect on the broader economy — you’re kidding yourself.
Clinton understood this and cut capital gains taxes. This is not an R or D thing. It is a reality thing.
songbird
March 19th, 2010
4:40 pm
I have insurance thru my employer. I went to get a prescription refill on something I need to use which doesn’t have a generic version available. Last year my co-pay was $50/month. Yesterday $83.
Everyone, regardless of where they get their insurance from is going to keep seeing their costs rise unless we do something.
I think we should have one insurance pool that everyone pays into. You get to choose your plan, HMO, PPO, catastrophic with health savings account, etc. The poor and the elderly could still be covered by Medicare/Medicaid, although I think they could be moved into the same pool over time. All existing insurance companies could offer plans in this exchange and let people vote with their money.
The larger the pool the more the risk is spread and costs should come down. Insurance is risk management.
Why wouldn’t this work?
the bottom line
March 19th, 2010
4:41 pm
Why do we not need the Federal Government in our Health Care System? 1. each state already has an insurance department and commissioner to protect each resident of that state. 2. an insurance company can not charge a premium for coverage unless the insurance commissioner approves the rate: 3. the state can revoke the license to do business for any insurance company that consistently abuses it’s insured’s. 4. insurance demand and needs can be different for each state 5. who is going to pay for the federal government employees to oversee each state commissioner? 6. what does the federal government make or do, are they doctors, or just another layer of government for tax payers to pay for?
How can any one justify this? Does anyone really believe the federal goverment can do health care better than the private sector? what have they done that is not in financial trouble already?
These are just facts and things to think about before we give the federal government more power over the state who already has the power necessary to protect their residents.
You can decide for yourself.
CJ
March 19th, 2010
4:47 pm
Yes Kyle, the stimulus tax cut was 1.6 percent of total household income ($800/$50,000).
On the other hand, sticking with two-earner households, the 3.8 percent tax applies only to incomes above $250,000. So, for an apples to apples comparison, you’d have to calculate the additional taxes owed as a result of this increase and divide it by the total household income—not just divide it by the income amount above $250,000. When calculating the effective rate, as you did to arrive at the 1.6 percent figure, the increase in taxes on unearned income is way lower than 3.8 percent marginal figure and probably lower than 1.6 percent for most households subject to this tax.
Also, since most households, including high income households, don’t even know what their marginal tax rates are (or that Obama gave them an $800 tax cut last year), in practice, household spending/investing decisions are rarely made on the margins.
On the other hand, the marginal propensity to consume is true in both theory and practice—that is that the higher the household income, the lower the percentage of household income that goes back into the economy. As a result, a 3.8 percent tax increase on unearned income in excess of $250,000 is less likely to have a negative effect on the broader economy, because it’s discretionary income that is less likely to get spent by such households.
For me, there’s also the issue of fairness. Some of us believe that unearned income (income from investments and inheritances) should be taxed at the same rates as earned income (income from work). With that said, I’m praying that folks don’t throw the double-taxation falsehood at me again.
Sorry. I’m incapable of being brief. It’s a problem.
songbird
March 19th, 2010
4:49 pm
I’m all for cutting the capital gains taxes for some people, e.g., the ones that don’t earn all of their income from capital gains. If not, then they pay a lower percentage on their income than people who pay income taxes.
I pay income taxes and capital gains every year. Why should I pay a higher percentage on taxes than a rich person who earns all their income from capital gains.
SPC
March 19th, 2010
4:53 pm
The bill is fiscally irresponsible. For that matter, so is Congress, many states, and most large cities. Those of us who pay taxes are in trouble. Those that don’t are in worse shape, they just don’t realize it yet.
songbird
March 19th, 2010
4:57 pm
CJ – I agree.
Linda
March 19th, 2010
5:00 pm
CJ@3:18,
I said it was a survey, which it was.
I said it was of physicians, which it was.
I said it was conducted by Medicus, which it was.
I said it was published in the NEJM, which it was. It appeared on the NEJM’s CareerCenter website, which is a physician employment service of the NEJM. It also appeared in Recruiting Physicians Today which is a free newlletter published by the NEJM & whose phone # is 1-800-NEJM-991. If you Google Recruiting Physicians Today, you will reach a website:
http://www.nejcjobs.org/rpt/rpt_index.aspx & while you’re there, read the article
published in Jan/Feb/09 entitled “Survey of 12,000 Physicians Show Doctors at the Breaking Point,” conducted by the Physicians Foundation, which shows:
78% were @ full capacity or “overwhelmed,”
11% plan to retire in 1-3 yrs, even many of the younger ones,
13% plan to seek non-clinical jobs,
20% plan to reduce their # of patients,
10% plan to work part-time,
7% plan to open concierge practices ( a limited # of patients pay expensive upfront retainer fees).
I did not say that the Medicus survey was conducted or commissioned by the NEJM or try to mislead anyone in any way. One must assume that a survey that appeared in a NEJM publication surely must have been vetted by the NEJM editors or unallowed if they thought it false.
P.S. I’m glad you also watch Fox, fair & balanced.
CJ
March 19th, 2010
5:01 pm
There’s no such thing as a liberal media. Here’s more evidence from the Kaiser Family Foundation:
“Only 15 percent of Americans, for instance, know that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the legislation will decrease the federal budget deficit over the next 10 years. And 55 percent believe the CBO has said the legislation will increase the deficit over that period.”
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8058.cfm
songbird
March 19th, 2010
5:05 pm
Americans are an uninformed lot. It’s sad but true. Makes them easily missled which both political parties have figured out and use to their advantage.
songbird
March 19th, 2010
5:05 pm
Fox – fair and balanced – seriously. lmao!
CJ
March 19th, 2010
5:18 pm
“I said it was published in the NEJM, which it was. It appeared on the NEJM’s CareerCenter website,…”
Of course, publishing a study in the NEJM is not the same linking to a non-scientific survey from their website’s jobs page (the NEJM didn’t publish the survey on their site either).
You’re fooling yourself if you choose to believe that the standards are the same (or even remotely equivalent), but that doesn’t excuse you for telling the falsehood that this non-scientific survey was published in the NEJM, when it wasn’t.
dewstarpath
March 19th, 2010
5:22 pm
- That $700 billion dollar estimate for Op. Iraqi Freedom
could climb, considering healthcare costs for the returning
veterans. Remember, there were TENS of thousands who
were wounded, aside from the casualties in Afghanistan.
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
5:35 pm
CJ, I don’t know how you can talk about “apples to apples” and then mix wages and investment/interest income. We are talking about an additional 3.8 percent marginal tax on investment/interest income.
Certainly people may have more income available to invest if they make more money, but they still make decisions based on the return they expect. And when people carefully consider, say, management fees for a mutual fund or the trading fees charged by one online brokerage versus another, I think it’s safe to say that an additional 3.8 percent off the top — and remember, Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax rate itself; this 3.8 percent is a surtax beyond that — will affect investment decisions. And investment decisions affect the economy.
I don’t know why you keep arguing that the rich don’t care about tax rates, when they clearly do, rather than the usual line about they deserve to be taxed simply for being successful, er, rich.
Michael H. Smith
March 19th, 2010
5:36 pm
songbird, you might want to ask those in the Senate especially among the the Democrats why they voted against the Dorgan amendment, which would have allowed re-importation of prescription drugs? That would make a big difference in the cost of non-generic drugs. Don’t buy that line of imported drugs just aren’t safe, because 40% of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. are now imported from China according to CNN. Drug companies have a higher profit rate rate the either THE INSURANCE companies or medical device makers. Both political parties are lying through their teeth about prescription drugs and re-importation drug safety, they are protecting drug company profits!
Your idea of pooling is great and it will work, as long as we citizens own, control and administer our own non-profit mutual healthcare insurance co-ops with government having only two roles: One oversight, because public money is involved and two, all gub-ment subsides must be made to the individual, not the co-ops or the insurance companies. The insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical device makers etc. can bid for our business, where we will negotiate the best deals. The co-ops should be incorporated within the State where they are established. Federal guidelines should require two levels or policies for heath care: Basic and Catastrophic. Optional policies can be purchased by the individual for non-required coverage under Basic and Catastrophic from the private sector for profit insurance companies for coverage of the things we mostly disagree on and are often too contention among we taxpayers to find acceptable solutions: Like abortion, sex change operations and what end of life services “we shall” choose.
I don’t want the private sector medical and business establishment in control or the government in control of our healthcare. It’s our healthcare, it’s our money and we, “we the citizens”, should have absolute control over every aspect of our own healthcare. We all look after our own best interest far better than anyone or any other entity does or ever shall.
Th
March 19th, 2010
5:41 pm
Obviously it is important whether the additional spending is paid for or not, but the size of the bill is close to irrelevant. The important numbers are total spending on health care ten or twenty years from now if this bill is passed versus spending if it is not passed. Total spending has to slow or the whole country goes bankrupt, not just the government. The mix of public and private spending doesn’t matter to me as long as we get the most for the least.
As to whether the federal government can outperform the private sector, results are mixed. Private companies process regular Medicare on a fee basis at a very low rate but are not very good at fraud detection. Private companies do poorly as compared to regular Medicare in the Medicare Advantage program. Why taxpayers should pay higher taxes so that a private insurance company gets paid more to cover a patient than it costs for the federal government to cover that person directly is a mystery to me. Same goes for the student loan program. Even after the cuts in the bill, Medicare Advantage will still be paid more to cover people than it would cost to cover them directly.
People who want to go to vouchers for government health care should applaud this bill and hope it works. The exchanges are the biggest change to how insurance is bought and sold and their success could lead to moving Medicare or Medicaid to a similar system as proposed by Congressman Ryan. The exchanges seem to be pretty popular for the Medicare Drug Coverage. Also, the Medicare Drug Bill is costing less than anticipated by the CBO.
Michael H. Smith
March 19th, 2010
5:57 pm
CJ, where do you get this idea that money from investments is not earned?
neo-Carlinist
March 19th, 2010
6:01 pm
M.H.S., just kidding, but the money earned by the hedge funds and investment bankers via derivatives a credit default swaps wasn’t exactly earned.
Michael H. Smith
March 19th, 2010
6:06 pm
O’ Pretty please, I would still like to see a blog on the progressive tax system from its’ origins/beginning to the present, Blog Master Kyle?
Michael H. Smith
March 19th, 2010
6:10 pm
neo-Carlinist, “theft” has never been considered an “investment”, most call it criminal if anything, as memory serves correctly?
Marine
March 19th, 2010
6:14 pm
What are you guys going to be against next? Puppies & kittens? How anyone can want to deny fellow Americans health care is truly beyond me.
CJ
March 19th, 2010
6:16 pm
“I don’t know why you keep arguing that the rich don’t care about tax rates, when they clearly do, rather than the usual line about they deserve to be taxed simply for being successful, er, rich.”
Kyle,
Recall that you compared the effective tax rate cut on wages with the marginal tax rate increase on investment income (1.6% vs. 3.8%). You. I replied to your comparison. In your defense, however, why can’t we compare tax rates on earned income with tax rates on unearned income? We should.
For the record, I didn’t write that “the rich” deserved to be taxed for being successful. I didn’t imply it. And I don’t believe it. That’s the political right’s mischaracterization of those who don’t agree with eliminating taxes on investment and inheritance income.
The fairest way to raise government revenue is to tax unearned income at the same rates as earned income. The most practical and effective approach to raising government revenues is to avoid taxing non-discretionary income and limit taxes to discretionary income—hence, the need for progressive tax rates. End of story.
Michael H. Smith
March 19th, 2010
6:19 pm
Marine, where do you get this incredible idea that the majority of the people in this country or for that matter, on this blog want to deny fellow Americans health care?
Now that statement is truly beyond me and probably most everyone else on this blog.
Kyle Wingfield
March 19th, 2010
6:19 pm
Sorry for any confusion, CJ. I was trying to highlight the concept of marginal tax rates generally. I thought your subsequent post conflated the sources of income which are to be taxed.
Michael H. Smith
March 19th, 2010
6:30 pm
For the record, I didn’t write that “the rich” deserved to be taxed for being successful. I didn’t imply it. And I don’t believe it. That’s the political right’s mischaracterization of those who don’t agree with eliminating taxes on investment and inheritance income.
The fairest way to raise government revenue is to tax unearned income at the same rates as earned income. The most practical and effective approach to raising government revenues is to avoid taxing non-discretionary income and limit taxes to discretionary income—hence, the need for progressive tax rates. End of story.
Now that is truly a mischaracterization.
Despite your beliefs CJ, money received from investments is earned, it is the only honest means whereby most people can gain wealth or ever have it and the progressive tax system is nothing close to anything fair, as well it is counter productive. The real story.
CJ
March 19th, 2010
6:48 pm
“money received from investments is earned”
Michael H. Smith,
We’re discussing taxes, right?
Climb off your high horse for a sec, and check out the IRS definition of “Earned Income” here: http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=176508,00.html.
CJ
March 19th, 2010
6:50 pm
Oops. You’re going to have to remove the period at the end of the URL to get that link to work.
Linda
March 19th, 2010
6:54 pm
The Dem/liberal/progressive agenda always include the strategy of creating a crisis, an emergency, victims & bad guys.
With global warming, the ice caps were melting, the seas were rising, the science was settled, the debate was over, the polar bears were dying & humans were “polluting” by breathing.
With health care, costs were unsustainable, we had to act last summer, people were dying in the streets (not in hospitals), more people were dying without hc insurance than those with insurance & the insurance companies were bad guys.
We WERE a free country & believed in the American Dream.
The health care insurance companies have the same right to make a profit as does the other 67 types of insurance providers in the US, such as auto, hazard & life insurance companies.
The hc ins. cos., who are ranked 86th in profits, have the same right to make a profit as:
#3 healthcare facilities 24.6%
#7 major drug manufacturers 16.5%
#14 drug deliverers 13.5%
#24 health care information services 9.2%
#30 home health care 8.4%
#32 medical laboratories & research 8.2%
#41 medical instruments & supplies 6.8%
#44 biotechnology 6.7%
#45 generic drugs 6.6%
#77 hospitals 3.6%, & to reiterate,
#86 health care insurance companies 3.3%.
The health care insurance industry has the same right to make a profit as:
#1 beverages/brewers 25.9%
#6 cigarettes 17.4%
#17 personal products 12.3%
#34 restaurants 7.5%
#55 waste management 5.6%
#71 specialty eateries 4.1% & to reiterate
#86 health care insurance companies 3.3%.
Of the $2.5 to 2.7 T spent on hc annually, 31% goes to hospitals, 21% go to doctors, 10% to medicines & less than 5% go to hc insurance companies.
Four of the largest health insurance companies (Wellpoint, Humana, Aetna & United Health Group), had average profits of 5.1% in ‘06, 5.4% in ‘07, 3.6% in ‘08, with a 3-yr average of 4.7%. During the same 3 yrs., Coca Cola’s profits were 20%, Apple’s 13.3% & General Mills 9.3%. Why would we demonize our health insurance companies for making half the profits of the company that makes Cheerios?
Linda
March 19th, 2010
7:02 pm
The cost of the ‘01 Afghanistan War plus the cost of the ‘02 Iraq War as of 2/09–15 total yrs. of war– cost less than the Economic Stimulus Bill.
Seems like Congress could have least read it.
Linda
March 19th, 2010
7:19 pm
Not to out-done by the Dems, the GOP has come up with their own incentive regarding the hc bill. Any Dem in the House who changes his or her vote from yea to nay will offered the assistance to pose in Cosmopolitan by Scott Brown. Unfortunately, the first inquiry was from Brown’s state mate, Barney.
TRUTH
March 19th, 2010
7:33 pm
E-NUFF!! This bill will pass. Get used to it. It will pass and serve as a blow to the GOP. Next the D’s, who have control of the congress will move for the public option, much to your dismay. As the bill takes effect and the bull that has come out of the GOP camp about grandma, death panels, and 3rd world care (oh my), is debunked in front of the American public, then what? We all admit that healthcare needs a workover. We cannot continue to let the insurance companies kill us, financially, physically, and mentally. Its crazy. This has been on the table my entire 50 years on the planet. I work in insurance and see first hand how they deny coverage. They have denied my coverage when I was diagnosed a diabetic. Its crazy. I pay for insurance and lucky I get physicals and regular check ups. All with co pays. When I had an emergency it was $50 and nonpayment for the emergency vehicle. When my son got a concussion playing football, because he went to an out of network hospital (he was in California because the Georgia school system sucks, another blog), we were hit with exorbitant fees and charges. HE’S ON MY POLICY!! It is crazy. And we need to have healthcare for all Americans (yes, even for you real ones)
I am certain that the intellect in the White House now, trumps any bunch that the GOP can offer up. If it were so, you would not have lost and look so “bought” right now. The only agenda that they have is too hope and pray for the failure of this President. Which equates to the entire failure of this country which is wrapped up in this too.
Kyle, although you argue the fine points better than most GOP members and consituents, I must agree that there will be some pain that the country will feel. I agree. Now. In the immediate. But the pain will morph into a more stronger and financially secure America going forward. So stop with the fearmongering already. You are a vehicle of the GOP I undersatnd. But your viewpoints will not alter the pending outcome.
Healthcare will pass. I hope. I pray. I hope that it passes and all the Americans that suffer and worry don’t have too anymore and they can get care. And those of us with insurance will get the care THAT WE PAY FOR WITHOUT TRICKS!!
I’m done.
Michael H. Smith
March 19th, 2010
7:39 pm
Oh, I’m on a high horse because I disagree with you and the progressive tax? At the moment your altitude or attitude, seems a bit loftier than mine for some reason. Wasn’t that nice of the IRS to define earned and unearned income in support of the progressive tax code?
The argument is very simple and straightforward without all the song and dance of playing games with rates and definitions, which is just that, a game of labels used like the razzle-dazzle of a shell game.
Even at a flat 10% tax rate for example, if a person who earns or receives $10,000 in year is compared to another person who earns or receives $100,000 in a year which person will pay the most money in taxes CJ?
If the person who earns or receives $100,000 in a year is not being punished for their success then what exactly is being done to them, CJ?
Under the progressive tax rates the example only gets worse doesn’t, CJ?
And, you are very wrong to think everyone on the right would simply eliminate taxes on the rich, on businesses and on corporations. I’m a firm believer in the tenet that “idle money deserves no more reward than idle hands”. Money that doesn’t work or is not put to work, shouldn’t earn a dime or receive a penny of a yield. In fact, idle money should be penalized! The government could easily apply the carrot or the stick approach under this tenet and see more jobs created without borrowing money from China than anyone would probably be willing to admit, which actually would distribute more wealth than all the socialist re-distributive plans Obama could dream and scheme up under the now counter productive progressive taxation system we are under.
Linda
March 19th, 2010
7:55 pm
The delegates at the Constitutional Convention wanted to divide power within the federal govt. They didn’t want these powers to be controlled by just one man or one group. They wanted a check & balance system. Each branch is restrained by the other two in several ways.
We, as individuals, are taught not to put all our eggs in one basket.
Why would we want to turn over to the entity that controls our taxes & that same entity that regulates the economy the ability to operate the business of our entire health care system?
CJ
March 19th, 2010
7:59 pm
“Wasn’t that nice of the IRS to define earned and unearned income in support of the progressive tax code?”
Thanks for the laughs MHS.
Michael H. Smith
March 19th, 2010
8:13 pm
You’re most welcome. Notice you didn’t have much else to offer in defense of that fairness you said the progressive tax provides? I guess laughing when all else fails eases the pain.
old guy
March 19th, 2010
10:51 pm
want to see the future of OBoma health care???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html#ixzz0gW0vXvwf
irishmafia
March 19th, 2010
11:11 pm
All smoke and mirrors by the Dems anything to get the bill passes no matter how much the citizens don’t want it. Voters be damned , we have our own health insurance an we the Congress will do whatever the hell we want , what are you going to do about it?
irishmafia
March 19th, 2010
11:15 pm
Just wondering? If I’m a small businessman and this horrible bill passes. There supposedly a mandate to cover employees if you x number of employees correct? What’s to stop me from making all of them independent contractors and give them no benefits at all, not even taking their taxes out of their paychecks? Sounds like it would save me all kinds of money and headaches? What no one would work for me? Apparently you haven’t looked at the jobless numbers that will continue for all the foreseeable future.
irishmafia
March 19th, 2010
11:29 pm
Let me paraphrase”Physicians won’t quit what will they do become truck drivers”? Well let’s see my B-in-law is an ER doctor whose income is drastically reduced treating illegals and medicaid patients (yes ER physician groups contract out to hospitals and have to make a profit to stay in business) and my cousin is an orthopedic doctor, both firmly against this bill, though they would be for insurance across state lines, tort reform and wellness incentives. No they won’t become truck drivers, my b -in -law has a very lucrative offer to practice in Saudi Arabia for 5 years and can then retire, my cousin is close enough to a nice retirement that he will retire -early -though he loves his job- and work with church missions in poor countries. But neither will be practicing here with potentially 30 million or 40 million or 50 million depending on which liberal is drooling, new patients needing a doctor. But I’m sure they are the only 2 doctors thinking like this
Algonquin J. Calhoun
March 20th, 2010
8:34 pm
The true nature of the Tea Party has been revealed. They are, like the whole of the Republican Party, racist to the bone! They hate Obama, Lewis and others for having the audacity to be black. They don’t mind spending billions for a bogus was but they don’t want to spend ten cents on health care. They are concerned about the right to life but not if it involves spending any money. They want to outlaw abortion but don’t want to pay for education or even food for poor children. The mask is coming off Bitches and you won’t be able to put it back on!
Farsider
March 20th, 2010
10:05 pm
Conservatives tend to ignore or criticize CBO scores no matter what. They’re doing it now to “inform” the public. Right. But when this same CBO said that George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut would add 1.2 TRILLION to the deficit, the GOP went and passed it anyway. Conservative response to this CBO analysis was completely predictable. Your numbers are irrelevant. Political pablum.
Yanamom
March 21st, 2010
2:04 am
I just want to know, if this obamacare is so great and wonderful, like all you idiots who support this atrocity think it is, then why isn’t even one congressman or senator giving up their current medical plan for this one? An amendment to force them into the same health plan as the rest of us was “overwhelmingly” voted down. So if they don’t want it, why are they forcing it on the rest of us? If it is such good a deal and such a good thing, why aren’t they the first one’s to sign up for it? The only thing this plan will do is kill babies, kill old people and kill anyone who is “sick too often”.
57Tbird
March 21st, 2010
11:42 am
CJ can you help me understand exactly how covering pre-exisiting conditions and eliminating any limits on the maximum payout will reduce health care costs? Currently many of these situations must be paid for by Medicaid or other assistance programs which means that these costs will be added to the private health insurance industry as a covered cost. Premiums would have to increase to pay for the higher payout of benefits. Right? I confess I have not read the legislation, so maybe I am missing something here. I would appreciate you insight on this issue to help me better understand the plan. Does this have something to do with requiring the younger population who has elected not to purchase health care and using that new premium to pay for the added cost of covering pre-existing conditions and providing unlimited benefits?
ohmy
March 21st, 2010
3:36 pm
so…let me get this straight…”expert analysts” that predict disaster should reform pass are credible and those that say it will ultimately be beneficial are not…is this correct?
Democrats to accounting rules: Drop dead | Kyle Wingfield
March 31st, 2010
1:47 pm
[...] didn’t accept fiscal reality or health-care reality, so why would anyone expect ObamaCare to accept accounting [...]