Health Care bill saves ONLY $2 Billion!!!!!!! (WTF!)

[LiberalMuslim]

Are these people stupid?!! Or are they doing this on purpose??

NOW, they're complaining that It only saves 2Billion OVER TEN YEARS!!!!!

What the fuck does DEFICIT NEUTRAL mean?! Even if it saved NOTHING - NADA, It would still be a GOOD thing! A whole Health Care bill that neither adds nor takes away from the deficit, is like not having done any. Isn't that a good thing, or I'm I crazy!?!!

It's the stimulus argument all over. Calling it spending! Well as Obama said, WHAT DO YOU THING A STIMULUS IS?! Or in this case, What do you think deficit neutral means? YOU FUCKING HYPOCRITES!!!

[cleveramerican]

1. The public is running away

both sides have so blackened the water.
The voters are repelled.
right or wrong.

[MoJoWorkin]

2. Sorry, but it is the media that is "blackening the water"

I don't believe the public is running away so much as being dragged by media distortion.

[cleveramerican]

12. "Blame the media"

good strategy
let me know how that works out for us.
oh yeah I already know, it makes us look foolish.

[Enthusiast]

31. Much of the blame belongs

on the shoulders of the media. It does not make us look foolish. We should be challenging the biased media more than we are. The media won't even allow a serious discussion of European style healthcare. To suggest they are unbiased is ridiculous.

Are you a fucking GOP plant? You sure as hell sound like one.

[cleveramerican]

37. I didn't suggest they were unbiased

I do think they are not going anywhere,
so we better get a better strategy than blaming the media
no matter how you do it sounds like a cheap excuse

tell me one example where blaming the media didn't make the blamer look foolish?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleveramerican]

40. the truth hurts

thats why you don't see anybody from the administration out there blaming the media.
It a bad strategy, no matter what you say.

[Cha]

45. So now you're sticking up for

the corporateWhoremedia which makes you look foolish again.

[Enthusiast]

30. Exactly, MoJoWorkin. nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleveramerican]

7. says you

you have no idea who I am

[babylonsister]

9. +10. nt

[cleveramerican]

17. I admit I have a more detached view than average here.

nothing I have said is incendiary or insulting.
brutally honest critique, I'd admit to
the kind of critique I'd offer a brother or a friend.
but I am a party guy
I know how to count
I've been handicapping these things for a long time.

I am not what you think I am

[Enthusiast]

32. Really?

:rofl:

[cleveramerican]

36. yes really

[Jennicut]

22. That is for sure. Also, two recent Gallups polls suggest that people do

want health care reform and think it will pass this year or within the next year.

"The good news for the Obama administration: 7 in 10 Americans would advise their representative in Congress to pass a new healthcare reform law -- one of President Obama's major domestic priorities. The not-so-good news for Obama is that less than half (41%) favor passing such a law this year, with 30% favoring a new law but saying it is not necessary to move that quickly. About a quarter of Americans, the majority of whom are Republicans, would advise their representative in Congress not to pass a new healthcare reform law at all."http://www.gallup.com/poll/121883/Most-U.S.-Want-Healthcare-Reform-Vary-Urgency.aspx

7 in 10 is a huge #. The only ones against this are mostly Rethugs. People vary on the intensity of when this should pass, thus not being worried about delaying the vote over August.

[cleveramerican]

24. within the next year

much more realistic.

[Jennicut]

25. Yes, but you seem to think people do not want this at all

And its split between wanting it now and wanting it within the next year.

[cleveramerican]

26. the longer range goal is possible

the now people are going to be disappointed.

[Mojorabbit]

43. Other people who seem to be against it are

our blue dog Dems

[Dawgs]

13. "The voters are repelled"...based on what, something up your ass?

Speak yourself...most people don't agree with you.

[cleveramerican]

18. Based on the fact its not going to pass

unless lightning strikes

[Teaser]

29. 50 bucks we pass a healthcare bill this year.

you in?

[cleveramerican]

38. this year I agree

this week, not a chance in hell

[Teaser]

41. oh , then we're totally on the same page.

no bet.

[Ikonoklast]

15. Wrong.

Notsocleveramerican thinks that if he catapults the right-wing talking points here, people will believe it.


The voters are for insurance reform.

[cleveramerican]

19. in the broadest terms you are right

they want something.
It doesn't look like they want this, before the recess anyway.

[Enthusiast]

33. Hey! That's why he is here. nt

[Aramchek]

44. so you speak for the public? sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

[Ikonoklast]

46. Durrr. Ah kin read poles, however.

Allowing Consumers to Choose between Public and Private Health Insurance Plans is Good Politics.

Not only does the poll by Lake Research show that 73% of voters want everyone to have a choice of private health insurance or a public health insurance plan -- the preference for a choice of public and private health insurance plans extends across all demographic and partisan groups, including Democrats (77%), Independents (79%) and Republicans (63%).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/poll-73-of-voters-think-h_b_173398.html

[babylonsister]

3. "The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade"

Do you have a link to your rantings, or did you read politico? Here's Orzag's response...and you might want to lighten up on the coffee or question your news sources first.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/07/25/CBOandIMAC/

CBO and IMAC

Peter R. Orszag, Director

This morning, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed proposals to shift more decision-making out of politics and toward a body like the Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) put forward by the Administration. CBO noted that this type of approach could lead to significant long-term savings in federal spending on health care and that the available evidence implies that a substantial share of spending on health care contributes little, if anything, to the overall health of the nation. This supports what President Obama has said all along: we can reduce waste and unnecessary spending without reducing quality of care and benefits.

In part because legislation under consideration already includes substantial savings in Medicare over the next decade, CBO found modest additional medium-term savings from this proposal -- $2 billion over 10 years. The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. (Indeed, under the Administration’s approach, the IMAC system would not even begin to make recommendations until 2015.) Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term. In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset.

With regard to the long-term impact, CBO suggested that the proposal, with several specific tweaks that would strengthen its operations, could generate significant savings. (The potential modifications included items such as providing mandatory funding for the council, rather than having the council rely on the annual appropriations cycle, and requiring independent verification of the expected reductions in program spending rather than relying only on the Medicare actuaries for such verification, along with other suggestions, such as including an across-the-board reduction in payments as a fallback mechanism if the council did not produce proposals that generated adequate savings.) And if you look back at recent history, one can see why an empowered advisory council would be useful. For example, for the better part of this decade, MedPAC has recommended reducing overpayments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans – to equate those payments with the cost of covering the same beneficiary under traditional Medicare. Yet, nothing happened, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. We can’t afford that type of inertia.

The bottom line is that it is very rare for CBO to conclude that a specific legislative proposal would generate significant long-term savings so it is noteworthy that, with some modifications, CBO reached such a conclusion with regard to the IMAC concept.

A final note is worth underscoring. As a former CBO director, I can attest that CBO is sometimes accused of a bias toward exaggerating costs and underestimating savings. Unfortunately, parts of today’s analysis from CBO could feed that perception. For example, and without specifying precisely how the various modifications would work, CBO somehow concluded that the council could "eventually achieve annual savings equal to several percent of Medicare spending... would amount to tens of billions of dollars per year after 2019." Such savings are welcome (and rare!), but it is also the case that (for good reason) CBO has restricted itself to qualitative, not quantitative, analyses of long-term effects from legislative proposals. In providing a quantitative estimate of long-term effects without any analytical basis for doing so, CBO seems to have overstepped.

[LiberalMuslim]

6. It's midday where I am! Having a cold drink...

And I heard it on MSNBC about an hour ago. She had a guest and all, saying that it's troublesome that it would ONLY SAVE 2 BILLION over TEN FUCKING YEARS!. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Why is that supposed to be bad?! I'll never know. And for the Peter Ortzag post on the WH website, What matters is what those bastards broadcast not what the he says!

[babylonsister]

8. Oh, please. Then question your news source-the cable channels

are lazy and use sources like politico who ever so slightly tweak the truth, and they do it often. Sometimes it's not even slight. So do yourself a favor and take certain people with a grain of salt.

Also keep in mind the guest might very well have an agenda, too.

[LiberalMuslim]

10. Why are you fighting me?!

I don't want to fight with you! Please consider my point of view, and ignore it of you don't agree. My point is the media is going to run with this, and I'm confused and appalled at their hypocrisy. That is all!

[babylonsister]

11. I'm not fighting you, but your OP was so over the top, I figured

you'd want to know why.

That is all!

[Enthusiast]

34. And I agree with you.

The media has been lying about public opinion on healthcare reform all along. And the media has allowed the insurance industry to frame the discussion. I think they are speaking on behalf of the pharmaceutical, health care and insurance industries all along.

[geckosfeet]

4. And we lose sight of the real issue - providing health care for every American.

It's funny how extracting ever increasing amounts of money and providing less health care is the goal of the insurance companies, and people, employers and medical professionals just kind of go along and pay and pay and pay and give up more and more and more.

Medical Loss Ratio
Medical loss ratio by state
Metric - Medical Loss ratio

But as soon as we talk about the government spending money to insure every American it becomes a big issue with the insurance companies and they want us to make it an issue on their behalf as well.

[NYC_SKP]

14. I KNOW! Because the Defense Budget saves, wait a sec, let me check this to be sure...

Oh.

Never Mind.

:donut:

[Ikonoklast]

16. I bet they spend that much on toilet paper

...in a year.

[berniebern]

20. Obama didn't promise a deficit-cutting bill. He promised a deficit neutral bill

I share the OP's feeling that the media is setting a high bar for the bill and the President.

Obama simply said he wouldn't sign a bill that isn't deficit-neutral.

[BklnDem75]

21. Deleted

My mistake. I admit to only glancing through your post the first time. Having read it more thoroughly, I agree with you. Unfortunately, it's always gonna be a double standard with this president.

[berniebern]

23. I have a link

Here's politico whining about the $2 billion savings:

The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html#ixzz0MN7eHRVQ

[LiberalMuslim]

27. Thanks man!

[BklnDem75]

28. My mistake...

Having read the OP again, I actually agree with the sentiment. With posts about Health Care, I notice so many threads flying off the handle only to be corrected later in the day. I mistook this as one of those threads. The ones that annoy me the most are the rants with no links to back em up. Just more proof I need my first cup of coffee.

[foginthemorn]

35. 2016 does seem like a LONG way down the road. And in addition,

there are other issues with President Obama's proposal---that being the Congress does not want to give the power to the Executive branch.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/us/26radio.html?th&emc=th

Obama Defends Proposed Health Office


By ROBERT PEAR and JEFF ZELENY
Published: July 25, 2009


WASHINGTON — The Congressional Budget Office said Saturday that a new agency proposed by President Obama as a way to cut health costs might save only $2 billion in its first four years, and that there was a high probability that “no savings would be realized.”

The report came as Mr. Obama tried to build support for his health care plan, arguing that small-business owners would benefit because they could buy coverage through an insurance exchange and receive tax credits to help pay for employee health benefits.

....................... In draft legislation sent to Congress on July 17, the president proposed creation of an “independent Medicare advisory council,” which could set payment policies for Medicare, subject to approval by the president. The administration could put the policies into effect unless they were blocked within 30 days by Congress.


.............................

Under the president’s proposal, the five council members would be doctors or experts in medicine or health policy. As a result, Mr. Elmendorf said, “the council could be weighted toward medical providers who might not be inclined to recommend cuts in payments to providers or significant changes to the delivery system.”


...................

Under the president’s bill, Mr. Elmendorf said, the first potential savings would occur in 2016, and savings could total $2 billion from 2016 to 2019. That is a relatively small share of Medicare spending in those years, which the budget office says will total at least $2.8 trillion.

Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, insisted that the president’s proposal, with some minor changes, could save money in the long run. “The point of the proposal was never to generate savings over the next decade,” Mr. Orszag said. “Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term.”

Influential House Democrats oppose Mr. Obama’s call for a Medicare council. Representatives Charles B. Rangel of New York, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Pete Stark of California, chairman of the panel’s health subcommittee, say Congress has a duty to set Medicare payment policy. And they worry that a future Republican president could use the council as a tool to make deep, damaging cuts in Medicare. .......

[rucky]

42. LOL

I saw that on the nooz last night and shouted nearly the same thing at the TV.

[MarjorieG]

47. How immediate are insurance reforms, like no pre-existing, deny when sick, etc.