PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Cost of Baucus Plan jumps $100 bil in 24 hours


petegz28
09-22-2009, 03:16 PM
As being reported on Fox and other channels. The proposed Amendments have already raised the cost of the plan by $100 bil, thoush still $7 bil shy of the arbitrary $900 bil mark.


Even Bhye was on Fox with Cavuto and said he will vote against any bill that raises the deficit.

FTR, Mr. Bhye is a Democrat.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 04:05 PM
FTR, it's Evan Bayh, he's a Blue Dog and has reiterated the point about deficit-friendly plans as long as healthcare reform's been an initiative.

I personally am happy to hear the Baucus bill is going over a major overhaul, I can only assume this is pushing the legislation to the left.

Donger
09-22-2009, 04:08 PM
The Fight Is Over.

petegz28
09-22-2009, 04:16 PM
FTR, it's Evan Bayh, he's a Blue Dog and has reiterated the point about deficit-friendly plans as long as healthcare reform's been an initiative.

I personally am happy to hear the Baucus bill is going over a major overhaul, I can only assume this is pushing the legislation to the left.

So you do indeed want increased deficits and worthless policies?


You're a real winner of a partisan.

dirk digler
09-22-2009, 04:19 PM
I heard there was like 500+ amendments proposed to this bill by both parties.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 04:20 PM
I heard there was like 500+ amendments proposed to this bill by both parties.

My thread on them. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=214681)

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 04:22 PM
So you do indeed want increased deficits and worthless policies?

That's pretty much the system we have now.

dirk digler
09-22-2009, 04:22 PM
My thread on them. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=214681)

Thanks and that is crazy.

petegz28
09-22-2009, 04:30 PM
That's pretty much the system we have now.

Agreed. Glad to see you admit the Dems have been on a wild spending spree for the last 2 1/2 years.

wild1
09-22-2009, 04:35 PM
The Fight Is Over.

sort of like THE DEAL IS DONE!

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 04:36 PM
Agreed.

Good. Glad to see you admit that our current healthcare system is an unsustainable quagmire that warrants reform.

Taco John
09-22-2009, 04:38 PM
Good. Glad to see you admit that our current healthcare system is an unsustainable quagmire that warrants reform.

Even I would admit that.

I have a hunch you and I have different thoughts on what that reform should be.


Gotcha FAIL.

Donger
09-22-2009, 04:39 PM
Good. Glad to see you admit that our current healthcare system is an unsustainable quagmire that warrants reform.

Our national debt is unsustainable.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 04:40 PM
Even I would admit that.

I have a hunch you and I have different thoughts on what that reform should be.

Most likely.

But I couldn't resist copying pete's little misconstrual method there. It's grade school stuff.

Taco John
09-22-2009, 04:44 PM
Yeah, he should have just asked you a tough question if he wanted you to pipe down.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 04:47 PM
Yeah, he should have just asked you a tough question if he wanted you to pipe down.

Death, taxes, and TJ.

Taco John
09-22-2009, 04:48 PM
:D

petegz28
09-22-2009, 05:00 PM
Most likely.

But I couldn't resist copying pete's little misconstrual method there. It's grade school stuff.

I will take your silence in regards to my accusation that you favor increased deficits as an affirmation of your support for such.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 05:02 PM
I will take your silence in regards to my accusation that you favor increased deficits as an affirmation of your support for such.

I will take your silence on the current healthcare system being unsustainable as an affirmation that you support the public option.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-22-2009, 05:48 PM
I will take your silence on the current healthcare system being unsustainable as an affirmation that you support the public option.

Medicare for all now go tell your boss to get it done.

petegz28
09-22-2009, 07:54 PM
I will take your silence on the current healthcare system being unsustainable as an affirmation that you support the public option.

That would be idiotic on your part. You are making an assumption that I think the public option is the only way to reform health care. Whereas I made a direct accusation of your favoring increased deficits.


In other words, you're reaching and don't even have the sack to admit you favor increased deficits.


And WTF is with you and the Iranian flag? If you want, go there, get lost, leave America.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 09:57 PM
That would be idiotic on your part. You are making an assumption that I think the public option is the only way to reform health care. Whereas I made a direct accusation of your favoring increased deficits.

I'm pretty much just mocking you, more than anything.

petegz28
09-22-2009, 10:05 PM
I'm pretty much just mocking you, more than anything.

As opposed to correcting me in my accusation. Yes, we get it, you are for an increased deficit. You and your ilk would sell this country out to whomever for whatever price if it means you get a face saving win on health care.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 10:11 PM
As opposed to correcting me in my accusation. Yes, we get it, you are for an increased deficit. You and your ilk would sell this country out to whomever for whatever price if it means you get a face saving win on health care.

Well it sounds like you hardly need me for this conversation.

petegz28
09-22-2009, 10:18 PM
Well it sounds like you hardly need me for this conversation.

Apparently not since you have yet to correct me on anything I have said.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 10:24 PM
Apparently not since you have yet to correct me on anything I have said.

Well there we go. Have at it. What else do I believe in.

Nightfyre
09-22-2009, 11:56 PM
Good. Glad to see you admit that our current healthcare system is an unsustainable quagmire that warrants reform.

Please demonstrate one example of government making a private good more affordable.
Posted via Mobile Device

Direckshun
09-23-2009, 01:16 AM
Please demonstrate one example of government making a private good more affordable.

Affordable for the nation, or affordable for the average citizen?

RINGLEADER
09-23-2009, 02:10 AM
I heard there was like 500+ amendments proposed to this bill by both parties.

Who cares about amendments...check out Dirk's avatar...

RINGLEADER
09-23-2009, 02:11 AM
Read earlier that the CBO came out and said the Baucus plan with cut Medicare service.

Man, this just isn't going well for Obamacare...

patteeu
09-23-2009, 06:38 AM
As opposed to correcting me in my accusation. Yes, we get it, you are for an increased deficit. You and your ilk would sell this country out to whomever for whatever price if it means you get a face saving win on health care.

He's already sold it out to the Barack Obama crowd for the price of a little false hope.

Nightfyre
09-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Affordable for the nation, or affordable for the average citizen?

On a per capita basis.
Posted via Mobile Device

Nightfyre
09-24-2009, 01:38 PM
Bump for direckshun.
Posted via Mobile Device

Direckshun
09-24-2009, 08:14 PM
Bump for direckshun.

Medicare.

Velvet_Jones
09-24-2009, 08:44 PM
Good. Glad to see you admit that our current healthcare system is an unsustainable quagmire that warrants reform.

Taking over an entire industry and fucking up 2 others.

The unintended consequences of this will be felt worldwide.

That is the unsustainable quagmire.

And all of this based on a bunch of disinformation, manipulation of numbers and straight ass lies.

You are a moron.

***SPRAYER
09-25-2009, 11:56 AM
Taking over an entire industry and ****ing up 2 others.

The unintended consequences of this will be felt worldwide.

That is the unsustainable quagmire.

And all of this based on a bunch of disinformation, manipulation of numbers and straight ass lies.

You are a moron.

Pretty much, yeah.

Nightfyre
09-25-2009, 01:12 PM
Medicare.

Medicare has only made healthcare more affordable to its participants. Not on a per capita basis. Please try again.
Posted via Mobile Device

Hydrae
09-25-2009, 01:19 PM
This is from last fall and is a very long read but it has a lot of information about how well the mandated insurance is working for Mass. (hint, costs multiple times more than expected and services are going down the tubes). I will not post the article here, it is just too long.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp

Donger
09-25-2009, 01:27 PM
This is from last fall and is a very long read but it has a lot of information about how well the mandated insurance is working for Mass. (hint, costs multiple times more than expected and services are going down the tubes). I will not post the article here, it is just too long.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp

Wow:

Costs have risen for individuals because, under this plan, as under any mandatory insurance scheme, the government must define what constitutes an acceptable insurance policy. As a result, special interest groups have been given both the incentive and the means to lobby politicians to include their pet benefits as part of the government-approved plan. Consequently, the state government requires all patients to purchase “benefits” that are useless to many of them—benefits they would never voluntarily choose to purchase in a free market. For example, Massachusetts currently requires insurance plans to include forty-three mandatory benefits, including in vitro fertilization, blood lead poisoning treatment, and chiropractor services—whether or not customers want them. Residents must purchase alcoholism therapy benefits, even if they are teetotalers. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent.15

Costs to the state government have skyrocketed and are projected to run hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.16 Because the mandated insurance is so expensive, the government has had to subsidize the costs of the premiums not only for lower-income residents, but also for residents with incomes as high as $60,000 for a family of four—which is three times the Federal Poverty Level.17 The state had expected a “significant drop in spending . . . for the uninsured” but has since acknowledged that this “is not going to happen to any large extent in 2009.”18 Instead, overall costs to the state have risen by more than $400 million, 85 percent more than originally projected.19

Donger
09-25-2009, 01:28 PM
Advocates of the plan often claim that the program has succeeded because it has decreased the number of uninsured patients.25 In so doing, however, they commit the common error of conflating insurance “coverage” with medical care. The government can make endless promises of theoretical “coverage,” but this is not the same thing as guaranteeing actual health care. As Dr. H. Carroll Eastman, medical director of the Joseph M. Smith Community Health Center, confirms: “[W]e don’t have more doctors, but we have lots more patients”—and the new patients have to wait two to three months for an appointment.26 These patients know the difference between “coverage” and care.

Hydrae
09-25-2009, 01:30 PM
Told you it was a good article. I don't see how anyone can read that and come away thinking this nonsense is a good idea. This is a current, regional example of the problems many of us have been expressing.

patteeu
09-25-2009, 10:00 PM
Wow:

Costs have risen for individuals because, under this plan, as under any mandatory insurance scheme, the government must define what constitutes an acceptable insurance policy. As a result, special interest groups have been given both the incentive and the means to lobby politicians to include their pet benefits as part of the government-approved plan. Consequently, the state government requires all patients to purchase “benefits” that are useless to many of them—benefits they would never voluntarily choose to purchase in a free market. For example, Massachusetts currently requires insurance plans to include forty-three mandatory benefits, including in vitro fertilization, blood lead poisoning treatment, and chiropractor services—whether or not customers want them. Residents must purchase alcoholism therapy benefits, even if they are teetotalers. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent.15

Costs to the state government have skyrocketed and are projected to run hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.16 Because the mandated insurance is so expensive, the government has had to subsidize the costs of the premiums not only for lower-income residents, but also for residents with incomes as high as $60,000 for a family of four—which is three times the Federal Poverty Level.17 The state had expected a “significant drop in spending . . . for the uninsured” but has since acknowledged that this “is not going to happen to any large extent in 2009.”18 Instead, overall costs to the state have risen by more than $400 million, 85 percent more than originally projected.19

This is definitely a problem. I have to say that I'm not opposed to mandatory insurance in theory since we are already paying for catastrophic care for the uninsured and mandatory insurance would just make the process more transparent, but this is a good reason to remain skeptical about the implementation we'd be likely to see.