View Full Version : Whew! That settles that! CBO report
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/07/24/us/politics/ap-us-health-care-overhaul-costs.html?_r=1&hp
Although we have been saying it all along, here it is official, again. Actually the CBO has said before that Obamacare will reduce the deficit, but here it is again, even after the Supreme Court ruling. Unfortunately the ruling will mean about 3 million fewer will be covered than projected before, but it still will reduce the deficit. If the republicans repeal this law, that will ADD 109 billion to the deficit.
So I guess Romney is going to have to change his stump speech, where he charges that Obamacare will add 'trillions' to the deficit.
You know, this means Obama is actually looking out for the small business person, as well as ALL Americans, not just the wealthy, although he is looking out for them too.
This is really good news, again, so all the folks who were worried about Obamacare adding to the deficit can relax.:) I know some here were worried about that as they referred to it so often.
*CBO Congressional Budget Office, totally non-partisan reporting office referred to as often by republicans as well as democrats. Recognized across the board as non-partisan, straight up number crunchers.
I wonder if the people trying to repeal the law will also designate the spending cuts needed to cover the cost of repealing it.
Congratulations peggy.
Well thank you Gregg, although I don't work for the CBO and they aren't my numbers.;) I am relieved that what we knew has now been verified. I knew this was a concern of yours that Obamacare would increase the deficit. It won't, and will decrease it while adding 30 million more insured. You know who I am really happy for? I'm happy for those who have preexisting conditions, and also all those who WON'T go bankrupt because of medical bills.
As I've stated before I don't have a dog in this fight as I am covered, either way, but I am very proud of my nation taking this step forward. We like to make a lot of noise about what a generous and compassionate nation we are. This actually gives a little weight to that meme.
So I guess Romney is going to have to change his stump speech, where he charges that Obamacare will add 'trillions' to the deficit.
It won't change a thing for Romney and the GOP. They've never let facts and impartial educated guesses change their minds before; why start now? :doh:
I'm guessing Romney will keep telling the same untruth and people too lazy to check (which, unfortunately, will include most of the mainstream media) will keep believing it.
I'm guessing Romney will keep telling the same untruth and people too lazy to check (which, unfortunately, will include most of the mainstream media) will keep believing it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this projection depend upon tax increases that haven't been approved and spending cuts that may not happen?
And if they do, isn't this still re-allocating one to two trillion away from other areas of the economy?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this projection depend upon tax increases that haven't been approved and spending cuts that may not happen?
And if they do, isn't this still re-allocating one to two trillion away from other areas of the economy?
Every projection depends on that and a whole host of things! Everyone! These cuts and revenue gains are in the affordable care act, and unless the republicans gut the act, which I'm sure they are trying to do even as we speak, we can do it. Even Romney's glorious future he keeps promising stands on a whole truckload of 'when we do this' and 'if we do that'. There is no free lunch Alan. I think everybody pretty much understands that.
Seems kind of petty, really, when argument after argument is shown to be false, or a dead end, yet some keep at it till all we are left with is, "I simply don't want them to have affordable basic health care. They are lazy, and poor and don't deserve it. And more for them is less for me"
OK I hope this isn't your ultimate reason, I don't want to think so, but really you are running out of real concerns (deficit) and moving to another grayer area. I'm just saying...
Every projection depends on that and a whole host of things! Everyone! These cuts and revenue gains are in the affordable care act, and unless the republicans gut the act, which I'm sure they are trying to do even as we speak, we can do it. Even Romney's glorious future he keeps promising stands on a whole truckload of 'when we do this' and 'if we do that'. There is no free lunch Alan. I think everybody pretty much understands that.
Seems kind of petty, really, when argument after argument is shown to be false, or a dead end, yet some keep at it till all we are left with is, "I simply don't want them to have affordable basic health care. They are lazy, and poor and don't deserve it. And more for them is less for me"
OK I hope this isn't your ultimate reason, I don't want to think so, but really you are running out of real concerns (deficit) and moving to another grayer area. I'm just saying...
I was actually trying to flesh out the nuance that goes unexplained in the article. I wouldn't want anyone following your posts to fall into that 'low information voter' trap you're always talking about. ;)
Ok Alan, let's talk about it. I think the CBO has said in the past that reducing the deficit depends on both spending cuts and revenue gain. i think that's fair. And I think the American public thinks that's fair, a combination of both. I also think the American public knows nothing will happen unless we do a combination of both and I think they are willing as long as the cuts and revenue are fair. I didn't think there was any misleading nuance in the article, but if you do, then have at it.
I believe in the goodness of people, and i know the American people, when asked specifics of the health care plan, are for the various provisions. They aren't stupid, really, and they know we built this country by working together and will only move forward if we do it together. Poll after poll shows that the American public is willing to accept this challenge, as long as it is a fair effort, across the board.
As i said, everyone knows there isn't a free lunch. That's pretty much accepted. The only ones I have a problem with are the ones who sit there with a full belly and declare, 'now that my belly is full, this is where the lunches stop!'
But, I am interested in your opinion. I really am. If you have more to say than , There is no free lunch, then say it. I'm listening.cow-hi
The CBO issues projections based upon information provided regarding the future. These projections are based upon the promise of increased revenue and decreased spending. I doubt our elected officials have the political will to actually do either of those things to the extent necessary, therefore I think the assertion that the massive expense of the Affordable Care Act resulting in deficit reduction is suspect.
iris lily
7-26-12, 10:43pm
peggy, I really wish you were right. I'd like the CBO to be right on this since the $$$ of ObamaCare is the most worrisome point for me. Well, it's the most worrisome point NOW, after Justice Roberts has pointed out the error of my thinking that it was a mandatory product the Feds were making me buy. So glad he did that. But anyways--OBamaCare is affordable and fiscally prudent. What a relief.
peggy, I really wish you were right. I'd like the CBO to be right on this since the $$$ of ObamaCare is the most worrisome point for me. Well, it's the most worrisome point NOW, after Justice Roberts has pointed out the error of my thinking that it was a mandatory product the Feds were making me buy. So glad he did that. But anyways--OBamaCare is affordable and fiscally prudent. What a relief.
Iris, you don't have to buy anything unless you aren't insured, which I believe you said you are. Nothing for you to buy, no tax for you to pay. It isn't really a tax that we are all going to have to pay. The ones who will have to pay are those who don't have coverage, but still insists on breathing and living and getting their broken arm/heart attack/appendix fixed.;)
Do you agree it will have to be a fair combination of tax cuts and revenue gains in order to cover those who can't afford it? Unless you simply don't want everyone covered, it has to be paid somehow, and President Obama has identified a combination of efforts to do this, while reducing the deficit. The CBO has simply said, if we do this, this is what will happen. The democrats are on board. Let's see if the republicans are.
The CBO issues projections based upon information provided regarding the future. These projections are based upon the promise of increased revenue and decreased spending. I doubt our elected officials have the political will to actually do either of those things to the extent necessary, therefore I think the assertion that the massive expense of the Affordable Care Act resulting in deficit reduction is suspect.
Really Alan? If you're sitting around waiting for absolutes about the future, no wonder nothing gets done! There is no crystal ball, no absolute peek into the future, and the republicans don't own one either. If you want to toss out this 'best guess' by the CBO, a very well respected group, then toss out everything Romney and the republicans say as well. Everything, and we can all be like baby ducks waking up to a new world every day. How do you manage to run a business? You must live paralyzed by the uncertainty of not knowing exactly what is going to happen tomorrow, or next month or next year! And business plans, well, we might as well toss them all out the window cause apparently we have no control at all!;)
Obama and the democrats have identified this combination of efforts. They are on board. Now it's up to the republicans. But we both know how that's going to turn out. They don't want this plan to work, even if it does reduce the deficit, even if it does cover everyone. They don't care. They just want it to fail, period. How come people don't keep asking why. Why don't they want it to succeed? They are always pretending to be concerned about the deficit. And they are always pretending to care about you and I...well, you, cause they really don't care about me. So what is it? All we are left with is whatever mean, self serving reasons they may have.
Iris, you don't have to buy anything unless you aren't insured, which I believe you said you are.
sigh. yes, I know that *I* won't have to buy insurance, today anyway.
Do you agree it will have to be a fair combination of tax cuts and revenue gains in order to cover those who can't afford it?
I don't know what this means exactly, but in theory an am not opposed to more taxes to get to a balanced budget. The Feds must stop spending money though in a major way and I'd like that to happen first, please. A new health care program doesn't fit that criteria. And yes, I don't think that everyone gets everything in treatment, we can't afford it.
I don't think that everyone gets everything in treatment, we can't afford it.
If one looks at the civiized countries already providing universal care -- or even Medicare -- one will see that no one gets everything in treatment. There are protocols and standards, just as there are with private health providers and medical-insurance companies. Part of providing universal care is providing the treatment that is necessary. The other stuff (nose jobs, "Octomoms", etc.) will have to be approved and may just come on one's own dime (partially or in full). You won't get it just because you want it.
iris lily
7-27-12, 11:08am
If one looks at the civiized countries already providing universal care -- or even Medicare -- one will see that no one gets everything in treatment. There are protocols and standards, just as there are with private health providers and medical-insurance companies. Part of providing universal care is providing the treatment that is necessary. The other stuff (nose jobs, "Octomoms", etc.) will have to be approved and may just come on one's own dime (partially or in full). You won't get it just because you want it.
Ok, here's one: Zoebird says that in New Zealand fertility treatments, the expensive kind, are covered up to 3 tries.
I don't want to pay for that. It's ridiculous. No, it's INSANE.
When you (the generic you) trot out the "In civilized countries they do x y z" meme, I am telling you that is NOT WHAT I WANT.
So fine. I don't want to be "civilized." I am ok with that.
Ok, here's one: Zoebird says that in New Zealand fertility treatments, the expensive kind, are covered up to 3 tries.
I don't want to pay for that. It's ridiculous. No, it's INSANE.
So is NZ the rule or the exception in universal health care paying for fertility treatments? And where is it written that the U.S. will do the same?
I personally happen to agree with you on this. There is no inalienable right to reproduce. Personally, I think covering three tries is more than fair. (Generic) you want more than that? Pay for your own treatments. That likely will be the case for a lot of other procedures, too. Enlarging or reshaping certain body parts -- is it a medical issue? Or a cosmetic one? Or a psychological one (that will be the battleground)? The same for erectile-dysfunction drugs, as available as the "little blue pills" are.
No one is going to get everything they want.
When you (the generic you) trot out the "In civilized countries they do x y z" meme, I am telling you that is NOT WHAT I WANT.
So fine. I don't want to be "civilized." I am ok with that.
I'm very sorry to hear that. Genuinely.
I may have "mine" but there are a hell of a lot of people who didn't get the same breaks i got, just by dint of chance. I can't lord it over anyone because I got the lucky breaks of being born in America, middle-class, white, and male.
I can't lord it over anyone because I got the lucky breaks of being born in America, middle-class, white, and male.
Middle class white guilt, whether exercised socially or politically, is the most efficient agent of inequality this country has seen in 150 years.
I just read that people are getting unexpected refunds from their health insurance companies, because part of Obamacare says that no more than 20% of the insurance company revenues can go for "administration" So they have to give any overage back to the customers.
I'm not complaining about that. Too bad it takes the government to rein in excessive profits. Maybe if they had structured their costs fairly, insurance would be more affordable to begin with.
I just read that people are getting unexpected refunds from their health insurance companies, because part of Obamacare says that no more than 20% of the insurance company revenues can go for "administration" So they have to give any overage back to the customers.
I'm not complaining about that. Too bad it takes the government to rein in excessive profits. Maybe if they had structured their costs fairly, insurance would be more affordable to begin with.
Tell me you idea of how much of a profit is fair.
Yep I got my letter today from my health insurer and they were 1% above the allowed percentage, so pay out they will.
Tell me you idea of how much of a profit is fair.
Off the top of my head I'd say that for a product that every single american is now required to buy a reasonable profit would probably be about the same as a 10 year US Treasury Bond. Health insurers are being allowed much more than that if they can get their administrative costs down. The question is whether they will be able to do so. I have my doubts. Recently I had to have a biopsy. The subsequent lab test to determine that it was not malignant got billed and has twice now rejected by my insurer because some paper pusher didn't input it correctly so the system kicked it out because they weren't certain that the work was for a covered person (me). So now this $200 claim is being processed a third time.
I read an opinion article a few weeks ago http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/2/ where the author posits that whether insurers can make an adequate profit (for whatever one defines as adequate profit) will depend on the details. A MAJOR one is that HHS determined that sales commissions are not a provision of healthcare, and therefore have to come out of admin and profit. Although I work in insurance I don't work in health insurance, so maybe health insurance commissions are a lot lower then general P&C commissions. P&C brokers get between 10-15% in most cases. If health insurance brokers are paid this much then insurance companies will either have to reduce commissions a lot, or they're not going to be able to make the math work and turn a profit.
SteveinMN
7-27-12, 10:08pm
Middle class white guilt, whether exercised socially or politically, is the most efficient agent of inequality this country has seen in 150 years.
Not sure I follow.
From my standpoint, even though most people would not think of me as a Bible-quoting Christian, I do believe that, "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40). If that's "guilt" ... *shrug*. I'm pretty sure it's called something else in the Bible.
Not sure I follow.
From my standpoint, even though most people would not think of me as a Bible-quoting Christian, I do believe that, "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40). If that's "guilt" ... *shrug*. I'm pretty sure it's called something else in the Bible.
+1
iris lily
7-27-12, 11:03pm
I just read that people are getting unexpected refunds from their health insurance companies, because part of Obamacare says that no more than 20% of the insurance company revenues can go for "administration" So they have to give any overage back to the customers.
I'm not complaining about that. Too bad it takes the government to rein in excessive profits. Maybe if they had structured their costs fairly, insurance would be more affordable to begin with.
You work on the fringe of health care, right? What if you were doing your work for Health insurance companies rather then pharmaceuticals? Wouldn't your work be charged off to administrative overhead? Would that be ok with you? And if it is, what if it was just YOUR contract that threw the health insurance company over their allowed administrative amount. Is your work good and necessary? Aren't you just a leeeetle concerned about Nanny G determining what administrative work is good and necessary for the company?
Yes, I do work in the healthcare industry, and my job is to help them maximize profits, that's for sure, under the guise of "educating" doctors and patients. (And it has me questioning whether or not I am spending my time in Right Livelihood, to be honest.)
But, that aside, if I were working for an insurance company and they had to figure out how to pay for my services and keep all their administrative overhead within the 20%, that's their problem. If it meant less work for me, or me having to charge less, well, I truly would rather earn less, or figure out how to diversify my clientele, than to "get mine" at the expense of people simply trying to be healthy.
Obviously I don't feel the government has the right to dictate how much profit Ralph Lauren makes selling designer clothes. But there's something wrong about gouging a huge pool of people who don't have that much recourse, and whose lives are at stake. It's a lot worse than gouging people buying cable services because there's only one cable company in an area, and that's bad enough.
I'm not concerned HOW the companies allocate their 20%, I'm just glad that there's some kind of balance that's expected when providing this specific type of service.
Not sure I follow.
From my standpoint, even though most people would not think of me as a Bible-quoting Christian, I do believe that, "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40). If that's "guilt" ... *shrug*. I'm pretty sure it's called something else in the Bible.
It's the belief that there are people not equal to you. Once they've been identified, efforts can be directed towards making things better for them, still not enough to make them equal to you, but enough to justify thoughts of superiority while making their lower lot in life more comfortable, hopefully comfortable enough to be content in their dependence.
Wow. Cynical. Who thinks of someone who's sick or struggling as "unequal?"
iris lily
7-28-12, 11:52am
Yes, I do work in the healthcare industry, and my job is to help them maximize profits, that's for sure, under the guise of "educating" doctors and patients. (And it has me questioning whether or not I am spending my time in Right Livelihood, to be honest.)
But, that aside, if I were working for an insurance company and they had to figure out how to pay for my services and keep all their administrative overhead within the 20%, that's their problem. If it meant less work for me, or me having to charge less, well, I truly would rather earn less, or figure out how to diversify my clientele, than to "get mine" at the expense of people simply trying to be healthy.
Obviously I don't feel the government has the right to dictate how much profit Ralph Lauren makes selling designer clothes. But there's something wrong about gouging a huge pool of people who don't have that much recourse, and whose lives are at stake. It's a lot worse than gouging people buying cable services because there's only one cable company in an area, and that's bad enough.
I'm not concerned HOW the companies allocate their 20%, I'm just glad that there's some kind of balance that's expected when providing this specific type of service.
Ok, I see that. You draw a distinction between Ralph Lauren's products and services and the products and services of health insurance companies. Is that because it isn't an essential service? That must be the difference. Or Ralph Lauren isn't a "right" as I keep hearing about health care. But I suspect that you all (the generic you) see a Ralph Lauren standard of health care as a right, the standard that we've got in this country.
Anyway, thanks for your answer, I did have some interest in how your viewed it given your profession.
SteveinMN
7-28-12, 12:16pm
Wow. Cynical. Who thinks of someone who's sick or struggling as "unequal?"
Yeah.
I agree that people are not equal to me. To be entirely philosophical about it, like snowflakes, none of us are exactly "equal". But I see that inequality as a matter of luck. By sheer chance, I've been offered opportunities that others never will, because of their nationality, their social class, their religion, the ability of their parents, their physical or mental challenges, ... I could have been born an "untouchable" in India. I could have been born poor in Sudan. I could have been born to royalty or Brad & Angelina (American royalty). I could have been born A-Rod. It's all chance to start with.
I am no better than the migrant worker toiling in fields for pennies. Neither Mitt nor Obama are better than me. But because this instance of a soul was born white, middle-class, American, healthy, and male, I get to win the jackpot? Something doesn't seem right there. Attending to all of us is part of life. Some may call it "guilt". I call it "evolution".
Wow. Cynical. Who thinks of someone who's sick or struggling as "unequal?"
Apparently someone who doesn't have the 'guilt' (we always called it a conscience) to even care if those who are sick and destitute get to even a minimally comfortable existence. Someone who has convinced himself, or been convinced, that to help the more unfortunate among us is really 'enslaving' them, so to do nothing to help is really to empower them!
...go us....:(
Apparently someone who doesn't have the 'guilt' (we always called it a conscience) to even care if those who are sick and destitute get to even a minimally comfortable existence. Someone who has convinced himself, or been convinced, that to help the more unfortunate among us is really 'enslaving' them, so to do nothing to help is really to empower them!
...go us....:(
Ayn Randian twaddle, I presume. Even she got old and sick and needy, proving we're all equal in the end.
ApatheticNoMore
7-28-12, 10:35pm
American middle class life doesn't have very much to recommend it either. It's stressful (see the busyness thread - that is what it requires), it's competitive, it's often isolating, it's alienating, it's out of touch with nature. Better than starving to death somewhere? Well of course, as if that wasn't self-evident, and what kind of choice is that anyway? :~) I dont' believe in guilt almost categorically anyway (I don't believe guilt does any good, I do believe in trying to act morally). And guilt for being lucky to have a lifestyle it seems I have to FORCE myself through nearly everyday is just too silly to contemplate. I tell you, what a world! To the extent I have reconsidered the possible merits of the guilt thing it's on one issue: yea the livabiliy of the planet (when the whole lifestyle is causitive in it's destruction) :( Because that issue is just so hard and so immense that ... Then I feel guilty for whatever energy using luxeries I have (running the dryer over hand drying say), when I see how easy they are to give up in a global context.
As for whether people are equal to me, I don't know, I have a high opinion of myself on some things, but meh that's just the ego you know (and oh my how this society relies on it, you can't even go to a job interview without puffing up your ego first - it's as important as putting on your makeup and suit and having an extra resume on hand :~) - add puff up ego to the todo list). I think human relationships of all sorts (really *any* way people relate) should strive toward less hierarchy, more egalitarianism and seeing the value that *everyone* contributes. Is that the answer you were looking for?
iris lily
7-28-12, 10:50pm
Earlier in the week my local newspaper, the once great St. Louis Post Dispatch, ran an editorial about the CBO's financial analysis of Obamacare that ended with this bit of pious histrionics and I thought immediately of this thread:
"...When politicians come before you this fall denouncing "Obamacare," when Republican-dominated state legislatures — including Missouri's — begin opting out of expanding Medicaid, this is what to ask:
So you're OK with people suffering needlessly? And you're OK with killing 17,000 people a year? Because if you are, admit it. Don't hide behind "we can't afford it."
Sure, that's a viable position. Darwinian, but viable. "Decrease the surplus population" is Scrooge-like, but viable. If you'd rather not raise taxes on the fortunate and on health care freeloaders, that's a viable position. If you want to continue to allow people to be sick and to die needlessly, that's a viable position.
But tell us face-to-face. Tell us they have to die because you just flat don't care."
I'm sure that many here are at this very moment nodding in agreement.
The Post is running scared because because Missouri is polling red right now, pretty significantly red for the Presidential and Senate. This newspaper is becoming less relevant to my life every day, and the fact that they laid off another 20 staffers this week tell me others here are dropping subscriptions. Probably it's time for me to become a former subscriber, I don't need to be lectured by lefty rags. Why not just shout "Baby Killers!!!!" at me? Oh wait, that's the other side. I get so confused. :laff:
Ayn Randian twaddle, I presume..
Nope, not Ayn Rand, and not twaddle, but rather the collective opinions of many survivors of middle-class white guilt. See the writings of Shelby Steele, Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell for detailed discussions of the subject.
"Ayn Randian twaddle", lol, what a hilarious attempt to discredit or perhaps marginalize.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.