Health overhaul to increase costs

[1bad65]

"A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the new health care law will expand insurance but won't reduce runaway costs

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance -- adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging the cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency."

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/health-care-law-increase-costs-experts-conclude-new-report/

So now an independant source has said it will indeed end up costing more money than the regime said it would. Gee, who called that one? ;)

And it sure sounds like seniors are gonna face rationed care and/or reduced services. Again, who called that one?

Parts of his plan face a "very serious risk of insolvency"? Like Social Security, right? ;)

[solo1]

who is shocked by this? Obama care is going to be a nightmare, starting with Medicare cuts. Hope your parents enjoy a substantial chop in the benefits. But thats the goal get rid of these older Americans, they remember, they know what the country is supposed to be if we get rid of them we open up the floodgates. Welcome to European style socialism, its worked so well over there.

[mawali]

So now an independant source has said it will indeed end up costing more money than the regime said it would. Gee, who called that one?

And it sure sounds like seniors are gonna face rationed care and/or reduced services. Again, who called that one?

Parts of his plan face a "very serious risk of insolvency"? Like Social Security, right?

At least 10 years ago, there were a group of legislators who foresaw this event i.e. Social Security problems, insufficient pension funding, etc but these same legislators were accused of being un American and that their assessments were false. I am sure you can find this out yourself. Additionally, many elected representatives (congressmen/women and Senators) echoed this same sentiment. All of the above were solvent according to many of the talking heads. Al this you can find yourself!

Now we are seeing all these problems and you think they started on January 15, 2010!
Did you examine why McCain was compassionate a few years ago and now he is struggling to retain his seat, so he is resorting to party strategy !

Do you see a pattern here?

[1bad65]

who is shocked by this? Obama care is going to be a nightmare, starting with Medicare cuts. Hope your parents enjoy a substantial chop in the benefits. But thats the goal get rid of these older Americans, they remember, they know what the country is supposed to be if we get rid of them we open up the floodgates. Welcome to European style socialism, its worked so well over there.

Sadly, this is true.

And now you know why the Democrats would not wait for an independant cost analysis and had to resort to bribery and back-room deals to pass this bill.

[Reality_Check]

Maybe one of the reasons they wanted to pass the bill was because of practices like this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36711197/ns/health-health_care//


The women all paid their premiums on time. Before they fell ill, none had any problems with their insurance. Initially, they believed their policies had been canceled by mistake.

They had no idea that WellPoint was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted them and every other policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators.

Once the women were singled out, they say, the insurer then canceled their policies based on either erroneous or flimsy information. WellPoint declined to comment on the women's specific cases without a signed waiver from them, citing privacy laws.

...

But WellPoint also has specifically targeted women with breast cancer for aggressive investigation with the intent to cancel their policies, federal investigators told Reuters. The revelation is especially striking for a company whose CEO and president, Angela Braly, has earned plaudits for how her company improved the medical care and treatment of other policyholders with breast cancer.

The disclosures come to light after a recent investigation by Reuters showed that another health insurance company, Assurant Health, similarly targeted HIV-positive policyholders for rescission. That company was ordered by courts to pay millions of dollars in settlements.

[Reality_Check]

But thats the goal get rid of these older Americans, they remember, they know what the country is supposed to be if we get rid of them we open up the floodgates.

Get rid of them how?

[1bad65]

Get rid of them how?

By denying them care. When healthcare is rationed, the Government gets to choose who gets care and who does not.

[1bad65]

Maybe one of the reasons they wanted to pass the bill was because of practices like this?

So we can have practices like this?

"In July, Christina Gundlach was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. The doctor told her she had 6 months to 2 years to live.

There is no cure for MS but with medication that costs several thousand dollars a year the disease can be slowed down.

"A lot of people that get on the medication extend their life by years in addition it also provides a good quality of life," Connie Woods
Gundlach's mother said.

"If I could just get this medication," Gundlach said.

Gundlach is one of the 46 million uninsured americans we all keep hearing about. So she turned to the government for help. In turn she and her mother say they've been treated like criminals trying to scam the system.

"Yes all the time and that hurts too because I'm being honest and it hurts," Gundlach said.

After initially being denied, Gundlach got social security disability. That pays her 866 dollars a month and the family thought she would start receiving medicaid.

"We were really excited oh we can get an appointment, we can get her in to see an MS specialist, get her some medication, start physical therapy," Gundlach's mother said.

But none of that can happen now. Gundlach's medicaid was denied. Why? Now that she receives about $10,000 a year from social security she makes too much money.

While social security considers Gundlach disabled, that federal agency says the 866 dollars it pays her every month disqualifies her for medicaid.

Gundlach said social security told her she might be eligible for medicare in about 24 months. An impossible time to wait for a woman whose been given only two years to live. "

Source:
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/investigates/090921_dying_woman_denied_medicaid

See RC, no system is perfect. But when an insurance company denies you, you have options. You can sue them, or go to another company. When the gov't denies you, what options do you have?

[Reality_Check]

By denying them care. When healthcare is rationed, the Government gets to choose who gets care and who does not.

So, you're claiming the the Government will intentionally let older Americans die, right? You're saying the the Government is actively conspiring to, in effect, murder older Americans by denying them care, correct? All this so that President Obama can turn the United States into a socialist hellscape. Because older Americans know "what the country is supposed to be" and they need to be silenced so that his evil plan can go forward. Is that a reasonable inference from the assertion by solo1 (supported, and expounded on, by you), that the Obama Administration wants to "get rid of these older Americans"?

[1bad65]

So, you're claiming the the Government will intentionally let older Americans die, right? You're saying the the Government is actively conspiring to, in effect, murder older Americans by denying them care, correct?

Nowhere did I say that. I said that certain people could be denied care, and this is 100% true.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Obama regime has pure motives, and means no ill will at all to anyone. Let's say their hearts are in the right place. But that's alot of power to give a Government. Who is to say a future Administration will not abuse this power?

[SanHeChuan]

See RC, no system is perfect. But when an insurance company denies you, you have options. You can sue them, or go to another company. When the gov't denies you, what options do you have?

So the insurance company is going to be magnanimous and give her health care she can't afford, now?

And you can’t just change insurance companies; there is no free market competition when they ALL deny you coverage with pre-existing conditions. Oh, wait problem solved, point Obama. :p

You could sue the insurance company but, how long do you think that’s really going to take, less than 24 months?

[Reality_Check]

Nowhere did I say that. I said that certain people could be denied care, and this is 100% true.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Obama regime has pure motives, and means no ill will at all to anyone. Let's say their hearts are in the right place. But that's alot of power to give a Government. Who is to say a future Administration will not abuse this power?

Interesting. You find that this is too much power for the Government to have because "Who is to say a future Administration will not abuse this power?" Yet, you seem to be okay with torture, indefinite detention and Presidential hit lists containing the names of US citizens.

Oh, I was also referring to solo1's contention that "get rid of these older Americans" which you supported.



who is shocked by this? Obama care is going to be a nightmare, starting with Medicare cuts. Hope your parents enjoy a substantial chop in the benefits. But thats the goal get rid of these older Americans, they remember, they know what the country is supposed to be if we get rid of them we open up the floodgates. Welcome to European style socialism, its worked so well over there.

Sadly, this is true.

Getting rid of someone implies an active effort. So my questions stand:


So, you're claiming the the Government will intentionally let older Americans die, right? You're saying the the Government is actively conspiring to, in effect, murder older Americans by denying them care, correct? All this so that President Obama can turn the United States into a socialist hellscape. Because older Americans know "what the country is supposed to be" and they need to be silenced so that his evil plan can go forward. Is that a reasonable inference from the assertion by solo1 (supported, and expounded on, by you), that the Obama Administration wants to "get rid of these older Americans"?

[1bad65]

So the insurance company is going to be magnanimous and give her health care she can't afford, now?

And you can’t just change insurance companies; there is no free market competition when they ALL deny you coverage with pre-existing conditions. Oh, wait problem solved, point Obama. :p

You could sue the insurance company but, how long do you think that’s really going to take, less than 24 months?

No matter what I say, you will defend socialized medicine.

But I'll stick by my guns on this point; I'd rather fight ANY private company than the Federal Government. If you disagree, you're either naive or ignorant of history's long lists of Government abusing its power..

[1bad65]

Interesting. You find that this is too much power for the Government to have because "Who is to say a future Administration will not abuse this power?" Yet, you seem to be okay with torture, indefinite detention and Presidential hit lists containing the names of US citizens.

It is not torture just because liberals say it is. Sorry bud.

And obviously Obama's regime is ok with it, because they kept Gitmo open despite his promises to close it, and he signed the 'hit lists'!


Oh, I was also referring to solo1's contention that "get rid of these older Americans" which you supported.

I said that the Government gets to choose who does and who does not get care when care is rationed. I stand by that statement.


So my questions stand:

And I've answered them. Just because you don't like my answer does not mean I ducked the question.

Do you need me to explain it differently perhaps? Or maybe you could rephrase your question? Again, I'm not ducking anything. Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted does not mean I didn't answer it.

[SanHeChuan]

No matter what I say, you will defend socialized medicine.

But I'll stick by my guns on this point; I'd rather fight ANY private company than the Federal Government. If you disagree, you're either naive or ignorant of history's long lists of Government abusing its power.

I will defend socialized medicine because you criticize out of the specter of GOP fear. When there are actual problems with health care you point them out and try to fix them. When there is unsubstantiated fear over possible futures you just :rolleyes:. Your fears have about as much merit as Steven Hawking's predictions of alien invasions. If there is a problem with a government program you legislate to try and fix it, if there is a problem with a private buisness you sue, fine, and then finally legislate. Same solution, fewer steps.

You want to talk about real health care in the United States, what about Hawaii or Massachusetts. Those states are regular death camps, where is the rationing of care there? :rolleyes: The Fedgov isn't even going to be covering the cost of most of it, it’s still insurance provided by private companies paid for by private citizens, mostly. ;)

I'd rather deal with a well intentioned government than a mal intentioned corporation.

[MightyB]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/opinion/main6223147.shtml

"About 6 months later I was on a business trip in Marseille, when I slipped on wet marble and - you guessed it - shattered the same collarbone.

I went to my room as the hotel called the hospital. Ten minutes later two doctors (not EMTs) were in my room with a portable x-ray, pain relief and a ride to the hospital (when they pronounced it re-broken). On the ride, they took my name and address. At the hospital I was trussed up, given another shot and then taken back to the hotel. I needed no insurance, no long forms to fill out - they treated me because that’s what you do when a person is hurt or sick."

[MightyB]

for those of you who care... the US ranks as the 37th best health care system in the world according to the WHO.

[MightyB]

The top ten are France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, SIngapore, Spain, Oman, Austria, and Japan.

11-20 are Norway, Portugal, Monaco, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Ireland, and Switzerland.

21-30 are Belgium, Columbia, Sweden, Cyprus, Germany, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Morocco, and Canada.

31-40 are Finland, Australia, Chile, Denmark, Dominica, Costa Rica, United States of America, Slovenia, Cuba and Brunei.

41-50 are New Zealand, Bahrain, Croatia, Qatar, Kuwait, Barbados, Thailand, Czech Repubic, Malaysia, and Poland

[MightyB]

"What nation offers the best health care on the globe? Answer: Not the United States.

The U.S. health care delivery system is by far the costliest on the planet, but comparison studies consistently show Americans get second-rate results by nearly every benchmark.

"We're twice as expensive as most other industrialized countries," said Gerard Anderson, professor of health policy and management at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

"But we have outcomes that are typically about average, and we're not improving as quickly as other countries are improving," he said.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_top_price_secondrate.html#ixzz0mEdtW8ZP"

[1bad65]

for those of you who care... the US ranks as the 37th best health care system in the world according to the WHO.

As I said last time this was mentioned, do any of those 36 countries with 'better' healthcare systems have an obesity rate higher than we have here in the US?

I'll bet not...

[1bad65]

The U.S. health care delivery system is by far the costliest on the planet, but comparison studies consistently show Americans get second-rate results by nearly every benchmark.

Then why do Canadian citizens who have been denied care up there come here? Why did a Canadian Premier come here just this year for heart surgery? Why do people with unusual/rare conditions come here; like the Elephant Man of China and those Siamese twins a few years ago who had to be separated?

You don't see them going to places like Cuba or Portugal who have 'better' systems do you?

[1bad65]

I will defend socialized medicine because you criticize out of the specter of GOP fear.

Dude, just pipe down if this is gonna be your standard reply. You're not really adding anything to the debate, just rephrasing the same playbook arguments over and over.

I've repeatedly posted links and examples of the shortcomings of socialized medicine. Yet you keep saying I'm just fear mongering.

[MightyB]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-francis/republican-lies-about-can_b_201521.html

"1. Canadian and European systems are on average 10% of GDP while in 2007 the U.S. cost was 16.2% even though tens of millions were not covered. These escalating costs represent America's biggest competitive disadvantage going forward.

2. Canada's health care system which fully looks after 32 million people costs roughly what the private-sector health insurance companies make in profits in the United States looking after less than half the population for excessive premiums.

3. America's health care system is even more uncompetitive if litigation costs and awards for medical bills are added. One estimate is that this adds another 3% to the 16.2% GDP costs of the American-style health care. In Canada and Europe, medical costs are borne by taxpayers as a whole so there are no court costs and awards necessary.

4. Canada's and Europe's health care systems enhances economic productivity. Workers diagnosed with illnesses can still change employers and be employable because they are not rejected by employers with health benefits due to pre-conditions.

5. Infant mortality is much lower in Canada and Europe than in the U.S.

6. Outcomes with major illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, are better than in the United States.

7. Longevity is better in Canada and Europe than in the U.S.

8. No emergency is neglected in Canada.

9. Some elective procedures may take longer if compared to blue-ribbon U.S. health care but that's no comparing apples with apples. More appropriately, the overall population's care should be compared and there are tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured or uninsurable.

10. No one in Canada goes broke because of medical bills whereas ARP estimates half of personal bankruptcies are due to unpaid, high medical bills. More Americans go bust or lose their homes due to medical costs than the sub-prime problem.

11. Canadians are able to choose their own physicians and to seek multiple opinions.

12. Canadian doctors and nurses are better trained than American counterparts and U.S. physicians must study for at least a year in order to qualify to practice in Canada.

13. Drugs made and invented in the United States are cheaper in Canada, Europe and Japan because our communal health care means volume discounts and savings passed along to society. Americans are overpaying.

14. Americans are being cheated by a patchwork quilt system where the highest risk people -- veterans, the indigent and elderly -- are insured by governments but the "gravy" or young, healthy people are handed over to private insurance companies."

[MightyB]

Sanjuro Ronin and SimonM what they think about the Canadian health care model since they both live there. We also got a couple of posters from France and the UK. I can tell you that as a gainfully employed and college educated citizen who also happens to be an uninsured father and family man that the current US system is a flat out failure to people like me. I earn too much for assistance but I don't make enough to afford anything. Great thing we have going here. If I need heart surgery... guess what? I don't get it. F@ck you if you think it's my fault. I play by the so called rules. They don't work. The reform bill didn't go far enough. We should have totally socialized medicine.

[MightyB]

Nixon... Yes the Richard Nixon, wanted universal healthcare reform. His plan was a good one. IMO he was a great leader who got the shaft in history.

Google Nixon and Healthcare.

[Pork Chop]

my experiences in japan have been in line with what you've been saying mightyb.
dude fell face first down a flight of stairs, broke a bunch of teeth, foreign exchange student from the States, no insurance, walked right in and got fixed up - no "monumental wait times" or someone deciding he didn't need to have the treatment.
similar experience when people have gotten sick - no waiting like we do in the emergency room in the states, walked in and saw someone in minutes.

i think i'm just done debating with people who think that the world is going to end if we raise taxes a few percentage points (still lower than they've been at other times in history).

if any government agency tried making death camps for old people, do you know how fast the AARP would be up their azz?

anyway, i'm with sanhechuan; I'd rather have a government that was proactive and tried different things, making changes as the realized what was or wasn't working - instead of a government paralyzed by fear of what might happen (but hasn't happened elsewhere).

[David Jamieson]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/opinion/main6223147.shtml

"About 6 months later I was on a business trip in Marseille, when I slipped on wet marble and - you guessed it - shattered the same collarbone.

I went to my room as the hotel called the hospital. Ten minutes later two doctors (not EMTs) were in my room with a portable x-ray, pain relief and a ride to the hospital (when they pronounced it re-broken). On the ride, they took my name and address. At the hospital I was trussed up, given another shot and then taken back to the hotel. I needed no insurance, no long forms to fill out - they treated me because that’s what you do when a person is hurt or sick."

Yes, for acute problems, the european, uk, canadian and a few other systems are unmatched. But for chronic issues? Well, I'd say that although it's expensive, American healthcare is more suitable.

By the time you get treated for a chronic issue you could be dead in Canada as you sit on a waiting list for surgery that will have significant impact on yoru returning health, or waiting for months for an mri that could pinpoint your problem and start a course of action to remedy.

So, if I broke a bone, definitely the care in Canada would be superior.
But if I have an undetermined issue with my bowels, forget it, I could die before anyone does a thing or gets any understanding of what's wrong.

It's not a black and white issue and it's good that it is getting torn to shreds, looked at and so on. There will need to be alterations to the plan I have no doubt.

[mawali]

In USA, anything that someone can make money from is a commodity and that means it goes to the highest bidder. In the rest of the world, at best, it is a combination of profit and social responsibility while saying that in the US, 'social responsibility expoused by a government entity is called fascism or socialism.

All things equal, any country that takes cares of its citizens is one that will make that country strong!

[SnowDog]

Yes, for acute problems, the european, uk, canadian and a few other systems are unmatched. But for chronic issues? Well, I'd say that although it's expensive, American healthcare is more suitable.

By the time you get treated for a chronic issue you could be dead in Canada as you sit on a waiting list for surgery that will have significant impact on yoru returning health, or waiting for months for an mri that could pinpoint your problem and start a course of action to remedy.

So, if I broke a bone, definitely the care in Canada would be superior.
But if I have an undetermined issue with my bowels, forget it, I could die before anyone does a thing or gets any understanding of what's wrong.

It's not a black and white issue and it's good that it is getting torn to shreds, looked at and so on. There will need to be alterations to the plan I have no doubt.

David,

The Reason the U.S. is better about getting people diagnosed with chronic issues really has nothing to do with our health care SYSTEM, but the fact that the U.S. has more specialists and high end equipment (MRI, CAT, PET, etc...) per person than any other country on the planet except Japan. The only difference is in the US we may go into bankrupcy trying to pay for these procedures because of our SYSTEM.

That's why even though Japan has Socialized medicine they actually have shorter wait times than the U.S. and do not have the shortfalls in chronic diagnosis that many other countries with socialized medicine have. It is based on the #s of machines and specialists available to each person rather than the system itself. in the U.S. and Japan roughly 40% of Med school graduates go on to become specialists of some kind, where in most other countries it is only about 10%.

With this in mind if the U.S. went to a socialized system, we would actually be more in line with the Japanese system than we would be with places like Canada or the UK. In Japan the medicine is socialized, but still controlled by Ins companies and private industry that is heavily regulated by the government in regards to both care and cost.

The citizens pay taxes to the government, who inturn pays the private industries to cover and care for the citizens. But, because the govn't puts a leash on these private industries they have much lower costs as not to break the taxpayers who are paying for it.

[1bad65]

All things equal, any country that takes cares of its citizens is one that will make that country strong!

So that means the 36 other countries with 'better' healthcare than we have are all stronger than us, right?

[David Jamieson]

Well, I think it needs to be recognized that:

1) It's not a black and white issue

2) a country is not an individual

3) everyone is a unique instance

[Reality_Check]

And obviously Obama's regime is ok with it, because they kept Gitmo open despite his promises to close it, and he signed the 'hit lists'!

And, golly gee, I started an entire thread attacking the concept of those hit lists, and you defended President Obama. So, I guess he's okay when he targeting those Muslim people for assassination, just not trying to give health care to Christians.


I said that the Government gets to choose who does and who does not get care when care is rationed. I stand by that statement.

From the bill that passed (‘Sec. 1899A. (a) Establishment- There is established an independent board to be known as the ‘Independent Medicare Advisory Board’.):


The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

So, please explain to me again how the Government is going to ration healthcare to older Americans (bearing in mind that they are already covered by Government run healthcare) so that it can "get rid of them".

[1bad65]

And, golly gee, I started an entire thread attacking the concept of those hit lists, and you defended President Obama. So, I guess he's okay when he targeting those Muslim people for assassination, just not trying to give health care to Christians.

Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence I cannot make heards nor tails of.


From the bill that passed (‘Sec. 1899A. (a) Establishment- There is established an independent board to be known as the ‘Independent Medicare Advisory Board’.):

The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

So, please explain to me again how the Government is going to ration healthcare to older Americans (bearing in mind that they are already covered by Government run healthcare) so that it can "get rid of them".

So how are the members of this Independent Medicare Advisory Board established? Elections? Appointments? If they are appointments, who makes the appointments?

If they run out of money (and remember, EVERY Gov't program runs over budget), they will either ration care or have to raise taxes. If they cannot get tax cuts passed through Congress, guess what option is left...

Also, the regime admitted there were Medicare cuts ($500 billion) made to make this bill "budget neutral".

[Reality_Check]

Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence I cannot make heards nor tails of.

So, I guess he's (President Obama is) okay when he targeting those Muslim people for assassination (e.g. US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki), just not trying to give health care to Christians. In other words, providing healthcare to American citizens is too much of a power grab, but deciding to assassinate US citizens (without due process) is okay, provided they are Muslims.



So how are the members of this Independent Medicare Advisory Board established? Elections? Appointments? If they are appointments, who makes the appointments?


(A) IN GENERAL- The Board shall be composed of

‘(i) 15 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and


‘(ii) the Secretary, the Administrator of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, all of whom shall serve ex officio as nonvoting members of the Board.


‘(A) IN GENERAL-


‘(i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in clause (ii) and subsection (f)(3)(B), the Board shall transmit a proposal under this section to the President on January 15 of each year (beginning with 2014).

...

(4) PRESIDENTIAL SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS- Upon receiving a proposal from the Board under paragraph (3)(A)(i) or the Secretary under paragraph (5), the President shall immediately submit such proposal to Congress.


If they run out of money (and remember, EVERY Gov't program runs over budget), they will either ration care or have to raise taxes. If they cannot get tax cuts passed through Congress, guess what option is left...

Also, the regime admitted there were Medicare cuts ($500 billion) made to make this bill "budget neutral".

Perhaps if you stopped calling President Obama's Administration a "regime" (implying illegitimacy) it would be easier to take you seriously. As such...

Your statement is nonsensical. You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. In addition, for someone who is so opposed to Government run health care, why would you care if there are cuts to Medicare?

[YouKnowWho]

By denying them care. When healthcare is rationed, the Government gets to choose who gets care and who does not.

That's sound like an excellent idea. For those who are tea party members, their healthcare will be denied (since they are against it anyway). This way we can cut down the healthcare cost.

[MightyB]

Nixon... Yes the Richard Nixon, wanted universal healthcare reform. His plan was a good one. IMO he was a great leader who got the shaft in history.

Google Nixon and Healthcare.

http://www.whitehousetapes.net/clip/richard-nixon-john-ehrlichman-all-incentives-are-toward-less-medical-care

[1bad65]

So, I guess he's (President Obama is) okay when he targeting those Muslim people for assassination (e.g. US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki), just not trying to give health care to Christians. In other words, providing healthcare to American citizens is too much of a power grab, but deciding to assassinate US citizens (without due process) is okay, provided they are Muslims.

There is due process. This has been through the courts, and it is perfectly legal.

The Constitutionality of Obamacare is being decided now as we speak.

And though you keep bringing it up, religion is a moot point here.

[1bad65]

That's sound like an excellent idea. For those who are tea party members, the healthcare will be denied (since they are against it anyway). This way we can cut down the healthcare cost.

Sadly, this is entirely possible. I sure hope you are joking.

[1bad65]

Perhaps if you stopped calling President Obama's Administration a "regime" (implying illegitimacy) it would be easier to take you seriously. As such...

I'm just following the esteemed journalist Chris Matthews on this one. Since he called the Bush Administration a "regime" repeatedly, I guess that's the word that is supposed to be used now. ;)


Your statement is nonsensical. You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. In addition, for someone who is so opposed to Government run health care, why would you care if there are cuts to Medicare?

Where did I contradict myself? We were discussing rationing, and I used the FACT that the regime cut Medicare by $500 billion to back up my assertion that there may indeed be rationing and that the seniors could well be the ones facing denials of care.

[SnowDog]

You do realize the Medicare/ Medicaid cuts were mostly administrative cuts and getting rid of the substaties that were paid out to the private insurance companies and Pharma companies.

[1bad65]

You do realize the Medicare/ Medicaid cuts were mostly administrative cuts and getting rid of the substaties that were paid out to the private insurance companies and Pharma companies.

I just know when the Republicans in the 90s mentioned cutting Medicare's beaurocracy, Democrats said Republicans wanted old people to be forced to eat dog food and die. So, now that they cut Medicare....

[MasterKiller]

http://www.whitehousetapes.net/clip/richard-nixon-john-ehrlichman-all-incentives-are-toward-less-medical-care

Yeah, Nixon pretty much created the state of the current U.S. health insurance industry.

[Reality_Check]

There is due process. This has been through the courts, and it is perfectly legal.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!! Did you even read the thread of which we are speaking (notwithstanding your posts)? There is clearly no due process, nor has it been adjudicated in the courts. It is patently illegal, as I demonstrated time and again (e.g. violations of the 5th and 6th Amendments). Please stop making stuff up.

[Reality_Check]

I'm just following the esteemed journalist Chris Matthews on this one. Since he called the Bush Administration a "regime" repeatedly, I guess that's the word that is supposed to be used now. ;)

Nice to see that you subscribe to the immature "well he did it too!" mentality. It doesn't change the fact that you are using it to imply that the lawfully elected President of the United States is illegitimate.



Where did I contradict myself? We were discussing rationing, and I used the FACT that the regime cut Medicare by $500 billion to back up my assertion that there may indeed be rationing and that the seniors could well be the ones facing denials of care.


If they run out of money (and remember, EVERY Gov't program runs over budget), they will either ration care or have to raise taxes. If they cannot get tax cuts passed through Congress, guess what option is left...

[1bad65]

BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!! Did you even read the thread of which we are speaking (notwithstanding your posts)? There is clearly no due process, nor has it been adjudicated in the courts. It is patently illegal, as I demonstrated time and again (e.g. violations of the 5th and 6th Amendments). Please stop making stuff up.

So if it is illegal, when can we expect Obama to be arrested and/or impeached for breaking the law?

[1bad65]

Nice to see that you subscribe to the immature "well he did it too!" mentality.

That's your entire argument on the Golman Sachs campaign money thread!!!

[1bad65]

Earlier I posted this:

"If they run out of money (and remember, EVERY Gov't program runs over budget), they will either ration care or have to raise taxes. If they cannot get tax cuts passed through Congress, guess what option is left... "

RC said I was a hypocrite because of this. I had no idea why he would say that. Honestly, I still don't see the hypocracy, but there is a problem that is my fault.

I misstyped. It should say: "If they cannot get tax increases passed through Congress, ..."

So, my post did not make sense as typed. I made an error. And I'm remedying that now. I still don't see my hypocracy though... (but yes, I do see my foolishness :))

[Reality_Check]

Earlier I posted this:

"If they run out of money (and remember, EVERY Gov't program runs over budget), they will either ration care or have to raise taxes. If they cannot get tax cuts passed through Congress, guess what option is left... "

RC said I was a hypocrite because of this. I had no idea why he would say that. Honestly, I still don't see the hypocracy, but there is a problem that is my fault.

I misstyped. It should say: "If they cannot get tax increases passed through Congress, ..."

So, my post did not make sense as typed. I made an error. And I'm remedying that now. I still don't see my hypocracy though... (but yes, I do see my foolishness :))

I did not call you a hypocrite about that. I said that you would be a hypocrite if you insisted that President Obama return the money contributed by Goldman Sachs while not having done the same for the money contributed to President Bush's campaigns by Enron. That was also on a different thread.

In this instance I was busting your chops regarding your typo (and yes, I did realize it was a typo but couldn't resist pointing it out).

[1bad65]

I did not call you a hypocrite about that. I said that you would be a hypocrite if you insisted that President Obama return the money contributed by Goldman Sachs while not having done the same for the money contributed to President Bush's campaigns by Enron. That was also on a different thread.

1) Bush didn't run on 'Change'.

2) Bush didn't run on demonizing Wall Street while taking money from Wall Street.

[1bad65]

In this instance I was busting your chops regarding your typo (and yes, I did realize it was a typo but couldn't resist pointing it out).

You obviously realized it was a typo well before I did. Doh! ;)

[Reality_Check]

So if it is illegal, when can we expect Obama to be arrested and/or impeached for breaking the law?

If one of his death squads actually succeeds in assassinating Anwal al-Awlaki, I would hope that his Administration would have to face the consequences. You see, unlike you apparently, I believe the rule of law applies no matter which party controls the White House.

[1bad65]

If one of his death squads actually succeeds in assassinating Anwal al-Awlaki, I would hope that his Administration would have to face the consequences. You see, unlike you apparently, I believe the rule of law applies no matter which party controls the White House.

According to you, he is breaking the law merely by ordering the 'hit'. If the 'hit' is illegal, he has already broken the law. Why wait to arrest/impeach him until someone is, by your logic, assassinated?

[Reality_Check]

According to you, he is breaking the law merely by ordering the 'hit'. If the 'hit' is illegal, he has already broken the law. Why wait to arrest/impeach him until someone is, by your logic, assassinated?

My mistake. My earlier post on page 3 of this thread was unclear. If the Obama Administration were to kill an American citizen (such as Anwar al-Awlaki) without the due process afforded to him by the Constitution, that would be illegal. As such, if that were to occur, they should suffer the consequences. I hope that clarifies my position.

[1bad65]

My mistake. My earlier post on page 3 of this thread was unclear. If the Obama Administration were to kill an American citizen (such as Anwar al-Awlaki) without the due process afforded to him by the Constitution, that would be illegal. As such, if that were to occur, they should suffer the consequences. I hope that clarifies my position.

I understand your position, but legally you are way off. It's a crime to order, plan, etc a 'hit'. The legal system does not have to wait for the target to actually die before charges can be brought.