Public Option dead!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The fact that you can't even agree that health care costs currently comprise too high a percentage of GDP means we aren't going to get anywhere. You want to call THAT a value judgment (while ironically claiming that reform will "cost too much?")? Then you aren't interested in actually discussing the topic.

Well how does one establish a non-value judgment what is too high or what is not too high?

What are we computing to come up with the data? I think numbers are cooked to prove a point.

If and only if, we spend more, it's more likely due to our sickness approach to life.

WE eat horrifically. Only a small percentage of our citizens exercise properly.

We do not engage in health planning.

So when we eat ourselves into obesity, refuse to exercise, smoke and drink like morons, drive crazily on the roads, have one of the higher murder rates in the industrialized, modern world, our health care costs will necessarily be extraordinarily high.

If we had healthy lifestyles, I doubt we'd be any different than those cultures engaging in less dangerous lifestyles. Of course, politicians do not wish to castigate the voters.

Great one, Cali, blame the sickness and costs of sickness on the caretakers, not on the ones in control of their own health.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, Texie. A public option doesn't mean "government run health insurance." It means an option to participate in government run health insurance. It isn't a takeover of all health insurance, which you imply.

And the facts that are out there are that people don't understand the health insurance reforms being considered. That's fine. The reforms are complex. But why you think people necessarily would oppose health insurance reforms which have a much higher chance of sucess than the current regime (which is the alternative on the table right now) if they learned more about the reforms is what is puzzling.

Because a growing number of people don't believe that. From my link to the Fox News opinion poll:

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the reforms will cost them money, up from 58 percent who thought so previously (July 2009). Fewer than one in four people -- 23 percent -- currently think the plan will save them money."

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The reforms being considered are estimated by independent non-partisan groups to lower health care costs (bend the cost curve), lower deficits, insure 97% or more of the general public (with better plans than they have available now), and make it illegal for an insurance company to deny people on the basis of preexisting conditions.

Amusing, especially given the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' report that the Senate bill would increase total spending by $234B.

And then Dick Durbin admits this weekend that even he doesn't know the details of what's in the bill. The #2 guy in the Democrat leadership says he's "in the dark," and yet we're trying to ram this through the Senate in record time? What a joke.

It's truly curious why Obama has made this his Gettysburg. That same Fox poll (cited above) asked Americans what issue ranked highest on their national to-do list, and "Health Care" came in 3rd place with 10%. I can only see lose-lose for Obama in this in the short term: either it doesn't pass, which will be a devastating commentary on his political power; or it passes, with high levels of disapproval in the country and becomes a thorn for 2010.

It's possible this pays off in the long term by paving the way to socialized medicine. Presumably Obama and Co think that's worth the short-term hit.

[MikeWaters]

There is no GOP David Cameron however.

NASCAR Bible-thumpers have taken over the GOP. So there isn't anyone to counter the Obama crowd.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Because a growing number of people don't believe that. From my link to the Fox News opinion poll:

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the reforms will cost them money, up from 58 percent who thought so previously (July 2009). Fewer than one in four people -- 23 percent -- currently think the plan will save them money."



Amusing, especially given the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' report that the Senate bill would increase total spending by $234B.

And then Dick Durbin admits this weekend that even he doesn't know the details of what's in the bill. The #2 guy in the Democrat leadership says he's "in the dark," and yet we're trying to ram this through the Senate in record time? What a joke.

It's truly curious why Obama has made this his Gettysburg. That same Fox poll (cited above) asked Americans what issue ranked highest on their national to-do list, and "Health Care" came in 3rd place with 10%. I can only see lose-lose for Obama in this in the short term: either it doesn't pass, which will be a devastating commentary on his political power; or it passes, with high levels of disapproval in the country and becomes a thorn for 2010.

It's possible this pays off in the long term by paving the way to socialized medicine. Presumably Obama and Co think that's worth the short-term hit.

First, again- why is your poll relevant here? The question you asked (and then highlighted in bold, I guess to help you remember the question), is whether people are more opposed to health care the more they learn about it. To support your contention that they are more opposed as they become more knowledgeable, you give us a poll that says that most people are opposed to the bill. You do realize, don't you, that such information doesn't actually say anything about your argument?

You then get really excited about the CMS report on the Senate bill. Yes, CMS does project that the bill will perform worse than the CBO projects, and certainly they should be heard out. That said, even under the CMS report, the bill performs very well. A total projected increase of $234 billion through 2019 (which represents an increase from 20.8% GDP to 20.9% GDP) isn't fantastic, but you neglect to mention the proposed bill also covers more than 33 million people who are currently uninsured (according to CMS). Not to mention cost controls are proposed to be changed even more (in the language Reid sent to the CBO for scoring).

Durbin didn't say he "doesn't know what is in the bill." The language he was discussing isn't in the bill. It is in a proposal that Reid sent to CBO for scoring. It won't be part of the bill until everyone sees it. Reid doesn't want people to jump all over a proposal (or wed themselves to it) if it won't actually reduce costs (a responsible position). Durbin doesn't know the language now, but to say people won't know it well before they vote on it, or that people don't know it now because Dems are "ramming the legislation through too fast" is a total fabrication (unsurprisingly).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You then get really excited about the CMS report on the Senate bill. Yes, CMS does project that the bill will perform worse than the CBO projects, and certainly they should be heard out. That said, even under the CMS report, the bill performs very well. A total projected increase of $234 billion through 2019 (which represents an increase from 20.8% GDP to 20.9% GDP) isn't fantastic, but you neglect to mention the proposed bill also covers more than 33 million people who are currently uninsured (according to CMS). Not to mention cost controls are proposed to be changed even more (in the language Reid sent to the CBO for scoring).

So what you're saying is, it's not cost neutral, as was claimed. Gotcha.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Durbin didn't say he "doesn't know what is in the bill." The language he was discussing isn't in the bill. It is in a proposal that Reid sent to CBO for scoring. It won't be part of the bill until everyone sees it. Reid doesn't want people to jump all over a proposal (or wed themselves to it) if it won't actually reduce costs (a responsible position). Durbin doesn't know the language now, but to say people won't know it well before they vote on it, or that people don't know it now because Dems are "ramming the legislation through too fast" is a total fabrication (unsurprisingly).

You're just splitting hairs. It was merely an illustration of why many Americans might be confused about the details.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

So what you're saying is, it's not cost neutral, as was claimed. Gotcha.



You're just splitting hairs. It was merely an illustration of why many Americans might be confused about the details.

I think Cali believes in tooth fairies and magic potions too.

My prediction of any bill that actually passes.

It will cost more than predicted, much more. I wager it costs 500 to 750 billion more than originally predicted. It will cover fewer persons.

And Cali will blame the Republicans or return to the refrain, "at least we tried."

What's missing, Cali refused to address the point that our health care costs might be high because we're a sick, slovenly and lazy population which ignores its health.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

So what you're saying is, it's not cost neutral, as was claimed. Gotcha.

I am beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with the bill. No, that isn't what it means. CMS estimates that we will spend more on health care costs (by 0.1% higher GDP than currently planned by 2019), but that doesn't mean the bill will increase the deficit. The tax provisions of the bill more than offset even CMS estimates. Not to mention that CMS estimates are much higher than those of the CBO. Do you try and read anything substantive on the legislation, or do you just settle for catch phrases and GOP one-liners? Nevermind. We all know the answer to that one.

You're just splitting hairs. It was merely an illustration of why many Americans might be confused about the details.

No, it isn't splitting hairs. It is destroying your point.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I think Cali believes in tooth fairies and magic potions too.

My prediction of any bill that actually passes.

It will cost more than predicted, much more. I wager it costs 500 to 750 billion more than originally predicted. It will cover fewer persons.

And Cali will blame the Republicans or return to the refrain, "at least we tried."

What's missing, Cali refused to address the point that our health care costs might be high because we're a sick, slovenly and lazy population which ignores its health.

So now costs are "high?" And I thought that was a value judgment. Who knew.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So now costs are "high?" And I thought that was a value judgment. Who knew.

Did I say costs were high?

We don't know enough about the numbers. Perhaps we spend more than is optimal because we are lazy, fat-ass slobs and we're looking for somebody else to pay for our lousy lifestyles.

There is plenty of data to suggest we eat poorly, we exercise inadequately and are ill-informed in health care decisions. Is that a fault of our health care delivery system?

You're advocate, a Democratic pundit and shill. I get that. However, I wish one could actually discuss something with you. Nobody's going to question your Democratic credentials or your belief in Obama if you take the time actually examine the numbers.

I will grant you this, we spend a lot of money on a lot of items, including health care. Is it excessive? I dunno, because people make quick conclusions when they see a big number.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with the bill. No, that isn't what it means. CMS estimates that we will spend more on health care costs (by 0.1% higher GDP than currently planned by 2019), but that doesn't mean the bill will increase the deficit. The tax provisions of the bill more than offset even CMS estimates. Not to mention that CMS estimates are much higher than those of the CBO.

It's remarkable how quickly liberals turn to citing GDP percentages as soon as it's their guy increasing debt by billions of dollars. You can set your clock by it.

The CMS report says the bill is going to cost more money, contrary to what we've been told. That's the bottom line. $234B may be chump change to you when Obama is forking out trillions of dollars to anybody who asks, but it still matters to the remaining handful of fiscally sane Americans. And that's not to mention the prediction of insolvent hospitals and nursing care facilities.

Bill Nelson, for example, isn't so flippant: the report is giving him and a few others pause. Maybe you should shoot him an email with some of your brilliant commentary about why it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, it isn't splitting hairs. It is destroying your point.

Aside from addressing a few of your tangents, my only point in this thread has been how unbelievably unpopular this bill is, which is the point you haven't dealt with (to say nothing of "destroying"... heh).

For some reason you seem to think that confusion about the bill's details somehow mitigates the public's intense distaste for it.