How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 More on Health Care Costs
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

More on Health Care Costs

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 04-22-2010 09:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Report: Health overhaul will increase nation's tab
AP


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. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

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

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

A separate Congressional Budget Office analysis, also released Thursday, estimated that 4 million households would be hit with tax penalties under the law for failing to get insurance.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


1 posted 04-25-2010 01:09 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The Republicans were right. That's why this mess has to be completely repealed and replaced with something that actually addresses costs.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


2 posted 04-25-2010 01:22 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Hahahaha... here's a great video, See you in November:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJRIdeoceh4&feature=player_embedded
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


3 posted 04-26-2010 02:54 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Many people might consider that a good possible solution for such problems would be a discussion, a debate, and a bipartisan fix that would more or less make both parties mildly unhappy yet still solve most of the problems.  This is often done in situations where one or another party is unhappy in a Democracy.  Perhaps you had another solution in mind that would be moreacceptable to both parties.  What might that be?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


4 posted 05-12-2010 02:05 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Surprise, surprise, surprise....NOT!

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/11/cbo-doubles-some-health-care-spending-estimates/
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 05-12-2010 02:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Shocking news, Denise! Who could have seen that coming????
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


6 posted 05-12-2010 04:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

I dont understand the article Denise, it sounds like the estimated increases are in discretionary spending. Doesnt that mean that the increases would need to be voted on and that even if they passed then the pay go rule would mean the costs would have to be offset from elsewhere in the budget? Wouldnt that mean that the net deficit reductions predicted would still be made?

Am I missing something or are they simply saying that if they decide to spend more its going to cost more?

Is that what it means Denise?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


7 posted 05-12-2010 04:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

even if they passed then the pay go rule would mean the costs would have to be offset from elsewhere in the budget?

I didn't see that anywhere in the article. Besides, that scenario ranks right up there with the Tooth Fairy and Santa. That's what Obama promised on all governmental spending while he was campaigning and yet here we are, mired in debt that will last for generations, thanks to his inability to stop spending.

There was a bill a short time ago (can't readily remember which one) where Republicans voted against it because it didn't specify how the costs could be offset and they were blasted for it. There is little offsetting...there is just unstoppable spending.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


8 posted 05-12-2010 05:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Perhaps pay go wont be applied Mike but the increases will still have to voted on. Are you suggesting that the Dems are going to have the votes to push the spending through or are you suggesting that the Republicans are going to vote for it, given the gains youre predicting in November

Itll cost more if they spend more.

Sounds like stating the bleeding obvious and the bleeding unlikely all at once.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


9 posted 05-13-2010 06:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I believe that would be the bill to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits, Mike.  The Republicans simply couldn't understand why voting to keep people from starving would be a useful thing.  They could understand why it wouldn't be useful to hold up regulating the banks from doing the same sort of things with derivatives again, though, and have long conferences with the banks about that sort of thing in the process.  Don't want to keep those banks from doing the same thing all over again, now, do we?  And while we're at it, why not pass some more tax cuts we can't pay for, too.  Too bad they weren't thinking with that kind of fiscal responsibility back then, isn't it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 05-13-2010 08:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, would you reread the article I began with and point out where the additional costs go to extending unemployment benefits?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


11 posted 05-14-2010 02:25 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
There was a bill a short time ago (can't readily remember which one)

quote:
I believe that would be the bill to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits, Mike.


I think Bob was trying to help identify the bill you couldnt remember Mike. You opened the gate and Bob, as hes apt to do, simply wandered down the sidetrack that lay beyond.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


12 posted 05-14-2010 06:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Indeed.

     If you don't want us farm animals wandering all over the landscape, you shouldn't leave those gates open.

     Alternatively, if we're actually people, don't bring it up if you don't want it followed up, please.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


13 posted 05-14-2010 06:06 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Indeed.

     If you don't want us farm animals wandering all over the landscape, you shouldn't leave those gates open.

     Alternatively, if we're actually people, don't bring it up if you don't want it followed up, please.

     Your implication was that Republicans were ever careful fiscal stewards, and your feathers got very ruffled when I pointed out otherwise.  The case is otherwise.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 05-14-2010 07:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm glad you followed it up, Bob, because I couldn't remember the bill...unemployment it was, thank you. As far as the drivel that followed it, I made the simple statement that republicans wanted to know where the money would come from and the democrats screamed that they even asked. So much for the cost offsetting Obama assured us would happen.

Sure, everyone would like to see unemployment benefits increase. Maybe everyone would like to see the unemployed live in nice houses and drive new cars, too. The thing is..which Obama hasn't grasped yet..is that the money has to come from somewhere. When that question was asked, all that was returned were comments similar to yours...The Republicans simply couldn't understand why voting to keep people from starving would be a useful thing. Darn those Republicans for wanting to know where the money was coming from! People are starving! Just give them money! That's a small microcosm of why we are so far in debt generations will suffer for it.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


15 posted 05-15-2010 03:05 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     No, Mike.  You certainly do make an interesting case, and it would have been a believable one had the economics been right, but they weren't.

     Some kinds of aid actually pay you back under certain circumstances, some kinds do not.

     This kind of money grant to people who are starving actrually pays the treasury back at a rate of about $1.25 for evey $1.00 paid out because the money goes right into circulation again and it's used to buy goods and services several times over upon which taxes must be paid, a net gain for the economy and for the U.S. Treasury.  A good investment for Congress.

     When tax rates were much much higher, back when JFK was President, tax cuts for the wealthy made that kind of sense as well, because most of that money then also went back into the economy.  The tax rates now are so much lower, however, that this is no longer the case.  For the tax cuts during the Bush years, the government and the economy lost money on the tax cuts,  We lost about $.25 for each dollar we gave as a tx cut, which means that the Bush Cuts cost this country Hundreds and Hundreds of Billions of dollars, much of which migrated overseas.  Not only, then, did it not help our own economy, it helped other economies get a competitive edge over our own.

     I've given you the references on this before, Mike, and you should have them.

     It is actually the reverse of the way you say it is.  Don't take my word for it.  Check with grinch or any of the more aware economic folks around here.  The Republican Party folks count on you accepting that it's all "common sense," when you actually can't accept common sense as the answer because it's obvious, you have to depend on what the actual research tells you.  Not the was it should be, but the actual way things work.

     Sorry.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 05-15-2010 07:03 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The condensed version of that tale, as told by democrats, is that Bush offered tax rebates which hurt the economy, and Obama offered tax rebates that helped the economy. Grinch had stated that people would have saved the Bush money and spent the Obama money to justify that point. I'm not buying it..
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


17 posted 05-15-2010 08:08 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Grinch also said that the tax revenues are asymmetrically greater the higher up the earnings ladder you go. What that means is the percentage cost implications of reducing higher end tax rates is astronomically more damaging to the economy than tax cuts applied to the lower end earners.

You dont need to be an economist to work that one out Mike. 96% of the US tax revenue is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers. If the total tax revenue was $100 the top 50% are paying $96, the bottom 50% are paying $4. If you reduce the tax rate of the top 50% by 10% you add $9.60 to the deficit, if you do the same to the bottom 50% you add 40 cents.

Then you have to factor in my earlier suggestion - the one you didnt buy   that poor people are poor because they spend all their money, rich people are rich because they dont.

Id like another go at convincing you Mike because I think my reasoning on this one is pretty sound.

Lets ignore tax for a moment and concentrate on the money. Take a family thats living just above the poverty line, they can make ends meet if theyre careful, they manage month on month to live within their means but have no disposable income. If I gave that family 40 cents Mike do you think they spend it or put it into a high interest account?

Now lets look at the other end of the spectrum, rich people can easily buy everything they need and still have a heap left over at the end of the month to stash in a high interest account. If I gave them $9.60 on top of what they have Mike what are they likely to do with it? Are they going to spend it? If so what are they going to by with it that they havent already bought? Isnt it more likely that they just add it to the pot in the high interest account? I think so.

Im willing to change that opinion but itll take something a little more substantial than you not buying it Mike.

.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> More on Health Care Costs Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors