Discussion:
Repeal and replace?
(too old to reply)
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-07 16:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The scorecard:

1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.

2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).

3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).

4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.

5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).

6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.

7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).

In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
me
2017-03-07 17:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Reducing, repealing, deleting government legislated benefits is political suicide. Everybody wants more for less.



Frederic Bastiat, a 19th c. French classical liberal thinker also had some prescient advice.
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.” and a corollary.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

As the great philosopher Lord Woodhouselee once wrote,

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy. ...
mg
2017-03-07 17:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-07 17:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
What regressive taxes from Obamacare (other than penalty for not having
insurance)? The Obamacare taxes were aimed at the rich (and this bill
will repeal those taxes). I'm not sure what this bill does with the
Medicare Advantage cuts.
mg
2017-03-07 18:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:24:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
What regressive taxes from Obamacare (other than penalty for not having
insurance)? The Obamacare taxes were aimed at the rich (and this bill
will repeal those taxes). I'm not sure what this bill does with the
Medicare Advantage cuts.
Are you saying that the Medicare Advantage cuts were the only cuts
to Medicare? When doing a search on the internet, I get the
following information:

"A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that
the amount of money President Obama has taken from Medicare to fund
Obamacare totals $716 Billion:

Obama's Cuts to Medicare: Total Amount Cut by Service:
Hospital Services $260 Billion
Medicare Advantage (MA) $156 Billion
Home Health Services $66 Billion
Skilled Nursing Services $39 Billion
Hospice Services $17 Billion
Medicaid/CHIP $114 Billion
Other Services $33 Billion
DSH Payments $56 Billion"

If this list is correct, the Medicare Advantage cuts were a
relatively small part of the cuts to Medicare (and a very small part
of the total funding of Obamacare).
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-07 19:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:24:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
What regressive taxes from Obamacare (other than penalty for not having
insurance)? The Obamacare taxes were aimed at the rich (and this bill
will repeal those taxes). I'm not sure what this bill does with the
Medicare Advantage cuts.
Are you saying that the Medicare Advantage cuts were the only cuts
to Medicare?
No. I said "what regressive taxes". You are correct that the Medicare
cuts were 1/3 Hospital, 1/3 Advantage, and 1/3 Other - although no cuts
were made in Medicare benefits.
Post by mg
When doing a search on the internet, I get the
"A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that
the amount of money President Obama has taken from Medicare to fund
Hospital Services $260 Billion
Medicare Advantage (MA) $156 Billion
Home Health Services $66 Billion
Skilled Nursing Services $39 Billion
Hospice Services $17 Billion
Medicaid/CHIP $114 Billion
Other Services $33 Billion
DSH Payments $56 Billion"
If this list is correct, the Medicare Advantage cuts were a
relatively small part of the cuts to Medicare (and a very small part
of the total funding of Obamacare).
El Castor
2017-03-07 21:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:24:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
What regressive taxes from Obamacare (other than penalty for not having
insurance)? The Obamacare taxes were aimed at the rich (and this bill
will repeal those taxes). I'm not sure what this bill does with the
Medicare Advantage cuts.
Are you saying that the Medicare Advantage cuts were the only cuts
to Medicare?
No. I said "what regressive taxes". You are correct that the Medicare
cuts were 1/3 Hospital, 1/3 Advantage, and 1/3 Other - although no cuts
were made in Medicare benefits.
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits? Also, the medical device tax imposed by
Obamacare was not a tax on the "rich", and inevitably filtered it's
way down to all healthcare users.

In the end, let's face it, healthcare is hugely expensive. The days of
take an aspirin and call me in the morning, are over. Now it's PET
scans, CAT scans, robot surgery, 3D mammography, $270 million dollar
MRI machines, DNA analysis and manipulation, billion dollar drugs,
etc. Everyone wants it, but everyone also wants someone else to pay
for it. Democrats screwed up with Obamacare. It was circling the
drain. Obama had ample time to come up with a fix, and he did nothing.
He left it to Republicans, and this is the result. If it doesn't work,
come up with something better, but please be specific.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
When doing a search on the internet, I get the
"A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that
the amount of money President Obama has taken from Medicare to fund
Hospital Services $260 Billion
Medicare Advantage (MA) $156 Billion
Home Health Services $66 Billion
Skilled Nursing Services $39 Billion
Hospice Services $17 Billion
Medicaid/CHIP $114 Billion
Other Services $33 Billion
DSH Payments $56 Billion"
If this list is correct, the Medicare Advantage cuts were a
relatively small part of the cuts to Medicare (and a very small part
of the total funding of Obamacare).
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-08 05:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:24:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
What regressive taxes from Obamacare (other than penalty for not having
insurance)? The Obamacare taxes were aimed at the rich (and this bill
will repeal those taxes). I'm not sure what this bill does with the
Medicare Advantage cuts.
Are you saying that the Medicare Advantage cuts were the only cuts
to Medicare?
No. I said "what regressive taxes". You are correct that the Medicare
cuts were 1/3 Hospital, 1/3 Advantage, and 1/3 Other - although no cuts
were made in Medicare benefits.
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
Post by El Castor
Also, the medical device tax imposed by
Obamacare was not a tax on the "rich", and inevitably filtered it's
way down to all healthcare users.
In the end, let's face it, healthcare is hugely expensive. The days of
take an aspirin and call me in the morning, are over. Now it's PET
scans, CAT scans, robot surgery, 3D mammography, $270 million dollar
MRI machines, DNA analysis and manipulation, billion dollar drugs,
etc. Everyone wants it, but everyone also wants someone else to pay
for it. Democrats screwed up with Obamacare. It was circling the
drain. Obama had ample time to come up with a fix, and he did nothing.
How could Obama come up with a fix when the Republicans controlled
Congress and kept passing repeals?
Post by El Castor
He left it to Republicans, and this is the result. If it doesn't work,
come up with something better, but please be specific.
The Republicans left to themselves and now they own it.
El Castor
2017-03-08 08:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:24:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
What regressive taxes from Obamacare (other than penalty for not having
insurance)? The Obamacare taxes were aimed at the rich (and this bill
will repeal those taxes). I'm not sure what this bill does with the
Medicare Advantage cuts.
Are you saying that the Medicare Advantage cuts were the only cuts
to Medicare?
No. I said "what regressive taxes". You are correct that the Medicare
cuts were 1/3 Hospital, 1/3 Advantage, and 1/3 Other - although no cuts
were made in Medicare benefits.
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Also, the medical device tax imposed by
Obamacare was not a tax on the "rich", and inevitably filtered it's
way down to all healthcare users.
In the end, let's face it, healthcare is hugely expensive. The days of
take an aspirin and call me in the morning, are over. Now it's PET
scans, CAT scans, robot surgery, 3D mammography, $270 million dollar
MRI machines, DNA analysis and manipulation, billion dollar drugs,
etc. Everyone wants it, but everyone also wants someone else to pay
for it. Democrats screwed up with Obamacare. It was circling the
drain. Obama had ample time to come up with a fix, and he did nothing.
How could Obama come up with a fix when the Republicans controlled
Congress and kept passing repeals?
Obama and Pelosi never got as far as admitting there was a problem,
and certainly never described or proposed a fix. Don't blame the
Republicans for Obama's inability to admit error or accept
responsibility.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
He left it to Republicans, and this is the result. If it doesn't work,
come up with something better, but please be specific.
The Republicans left to themselves and now they own it.
Yes they do. Let the floundering and flopping begin. They have a plan,
but maybe not the final product. Will it work? I have no idea, but I
know the current fiasco is going down in flames.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-08 15:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Also, the medical device tax imposed by
Obamacare was not a tax on the "rich", and inevitably filtered it's
way down to all healthcare users.
In the end, let's face it, healthcare is hugely expensive. The days of
take an aspirin and call me in the morning, are over. Now it's PET
scans, CAT scans, robot surgery, 3D mammography, $270 million dollar
MRI machines, DNA analysis and manipulation, billion dollar drugs,
etc. Everyone wants it, but everyone also wants someone else to pay
for it. Democrats screwed up with Obamacare. It was circling the
drain. Obama had ample time to come up with a fix, and he did nothing.
How could Obama come up with a fix when the Republicans controlled
Congress and kept passing repeals?
Obama and Pelosi never got as far as admitting there was a problem,
and certainly never described or proposed a fix. Don't blame the
Republicans for Obama's inability to admit error or accept
responsibility.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
He left it to Republicans, and this is the result. If it doesn't work,
come up with something better, but please be specific.
The Republicans left to themselves and now they own it.
Yes they do. Let the floundering and flopping begin. They have a plan,
but maybe not the final product. Will it work? I have no idea, but I
know the current fiasco is going down in flames.
El Castor
2017-03-08 17:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Also, the medical device tax imposed by
Obamacare was not a tax on the "rich", and inevitably filtered it's
way down to all healthcare users.
In the end, let's face it, healthcare is hugely expensive. The days of
take an aspirin and call me in the morning, are over. Now it's PET
scans, CAT scans, robot surgery, 3D mammography, $270 million dollar
MRI machines, DNA analysis and manipulation, billion dollar drugs,
etc. Everyone wants it, but everyone also wants someone else to pay
for it. Democrats screwed up with Obamacare. It was circling the
drain. Obama had ample time to come up with a fix, and he did nothing.
How could Obama come up with a fix when the Republicans controlled
Congress and kept passing repeals?
Obama and Pelosi never got as far as admitting there was a problem,
and certainly never described or proposed a fix. Don't blame the
Republicans for Obama's inability to admit error or accept
responsibility.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
He left it to Republicans, and this is the result. If it doesn't work,
come up with something better, but please be specific.
The Republicans left to themselves and now they own it.
Yes they do. Let the floundering and flopping begin. They have a plan,
but maybe not the final product. Will it work? I have no idea, but I
know the current fiasco is going down in flames.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-08 18:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single payer,
Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling over how to ration
care.
El Castor
2017-03-09 01:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single payer,
Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling over how to ration
care.
80" TVs and the Tesla Model S are rationed by an ability to pay. I
think we can agree that owning a Model S is not a right. Is owning a
car a right -- a car that must be supplied by the government? Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-09 01:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single payer,
Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling over how to ration
care.
80" TVs and the Tesla Model S are rationed by an ability to pay. I
think we can agree that owning a Model S is not a right. Is owning a
car a right -- a car that must be supplied by the government?
No.
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
El Castor
2017-03-09 01:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single payer,
Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling over how to ration
care.
80" TVs and the Tesla Model S are rationed by an ability to pay. I
think we can agree that owning a Model S is not a right. Is owning a
car a right -- a car that must be supplied by the government?
No.
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
What legal or constitutional mechanism obliges the government to
supply a stitch or a heart transplant to anyone who needs one?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-09 02:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single payer,
Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling over how to ration
care.
80" TVs and the Tesla Model S are rationed by an ability to pay. I
think we can agree that owning a Model S is not a right. Is owning a
car a right -- a car that must be supplied by the government?
No.
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
What legal or constitutional mechanism obliges the government to
supply a stitch or a heart transplant to anyone who needs one?
It's not a legal or constitutional right. It's a moral right.
me
2017-03-09 03:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Government has no morals.


Frederic Bastiat, a 19th c. French classical liberal thinker also had some prescient advice.
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.” and a corollary.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
As the great philosopher Lord Woodhouselee once wrote,

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy. ...
El Castor
2017-03-09 08:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single payer,
Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling over how to ration
care.
80" TVs and the Tesla Model S are rationed by an ability to pay. I
think we can agree that owning a Model S is not a right. Is owning a
car a right -- a car that must be supplied by the government?
No.
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
What legal or constitutional mechanism obliges the government to
supply a stitch or a heart transplant to anyone who needs one?
It's not a legal or constitutional right. It's a moral right.
Oh, I see. A moral right. Gosh, that's an exciting concept. I'll bet
the 9th Circuit Court would buy into that one! Now about that spare
bedroom of yours that aunt Tilly uses for just one day out of the
year. There must be homeless people where you live. Don't those poor
wretches have a moral right to make use of that unused bedroom, and
how about that unused 4th shelf in your refrigerator?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-09 15:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single payer,
Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling over how to ration
care.
80" TVs and the Tesla Model S are rationed by an ability to pay. I
think we can agree that owning a Model S is not a right. Is owning a
car a right -- a car that must be supplied by the government?
No.
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
What legal or constitutional mechanism obliges the government to
supply a stitch or a heart transplant to anyone who needs one?
It's not a legal or constitutional right. It's a moral right.
Oh, I see. A moral right. Gosh, that's an exciting concept. I'll bet
the 9th Circuit Court would buy into that one!
Of course they wouldn't, and I didn't say otherwise. As for the moral
right, perhaps you are in the "let 'em die" group?
Post by El Castor
Now about that spare
bedroom of yours that aunt Tilly uses for just one day out of the
year. There must be homeless people where you live. Don't those poor
wretches have a moral right to make use of that unused bedroom, and
how about that unused 4th shelf in your refrigerator?
Housing and food are also a moral right, but like health care, not in an
unlimited fashion. The challenge that we should be facing together is
to figure out how we define and deliver adequate health care, housing,
and food to all. And if the consensus solution involves letting the
homeless use a spare room in some well-defined cases, I have no objection.
El Castor
2017-03-09 21:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not cuts, directly, or
indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not change. Hospitals
and Medicare Advantage Insurers who receive less from the government
will seek ways to make up the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer
Medicare patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter reins on the
MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students choosing a medical career as
wages fail to keep pace with inflation, etc. In other words, a
reduction in benefits. The same effects can be noted in single payer
when the money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single payer,
Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling over how to ration
care.
80" TVs and the Tesla Model S are rationed by an ability to pay. I
think we can agree that owning a Model S is not a right. Is owning a
car a right -- a car that must be supplied by the government?
No.
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
What legal or constitutional mechanism obliges the government to
supply a stitch or a heart transplant to anyone who needs one?
It's not a legal or constitutional right. It's a moral right.
Oh, I see. A moral right. Gosh, that's an exciting concept. I'll bet
the 9th Circuit Court would buy into that one!
Of course they wouldn't, and I didn't say otherwise. As for the moral
right, perhaps you are in the "let 'em die" group?
Post by El Castor
Now about that spare
bedroom of yours that aunt Tilly uses for just one day out of the
year. There must be homeless people where you live. Don't those poor
wretches have a moral right to make use of that unused bedroom, and
how about that unused 4th shelf in your refrigerator?
Housing and food are also a moral right, but like health care, not in an
unlimited fashion. The challenge that we should be facing together is
to figure out how we define and deliver adequate health care, housing,
and food to all. And if the consensus solution involves letting the
homeless use a spare room in some well-defined cases, I have no objection.
If you want to invite some vagrant to live in your spare bedroom, I'm
fine with that. As for you telling me that I must allow that same
vagrant to live in my spare bedroom, I am not so good with that. You
might expect me to go quietly into the night and accept a consensus
which led to a Marxist utopia, but would you have no objection to a
Trumpian consensus that violated your "moral values"? I think we both
know the answer to that one.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-10 04:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
What legal or constitutional mechanism obliges the government to
supply a stitch or a heart transplant to anyone who needs one?
It's not a legal or constitutional right. It's a moral right.
Oh, I see. A moral right. Gosh, that's an exciting concept. I'll bet
the 9th Circuit Court would buy into that one!
Of course they wouldn't, and I didn't say otherwise. As for the moral
right, perhaps you are in the "let 'em die" group?
Well?
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Now about that spare
bedroom of yours that aunt Tilly uses for just one day out of the
year. There must be homeless people where you live. Don't those poor
wretches have a moral right to make use of that unused bedroom, and
how about that unused 4th shelf in your refrigerator?
Housing and food are also a moral right, but like health care, not in an
unlimited fashion. The challenge that we should be facing together is
to figure out how we define and deliver adequate health care, housing,
and food to all. And if the consensus solution involves letting the
homeless use a spare room in some well-defined cases, I have no objection.
If you want to invite some vagrant to live in your spare bedroom, I'm
fine with that. As for you telling me that I must allow that same
vagrant to live in my spare bedroom, I am not so good with that. You
might expect me to go quietly into the night and accept a consensus
which led to a Marxist utopia, but would you have no objection to a
Trumpian consensus that violated your "moral values"? I think we both
know the answer to that one.
Of course, I would object; just as you say you would to my preferred
policy positions. What that means is we have very different ideas about
what is moral (hence my yet-to-be answered question above).
El Castor
2017-03-10 08:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
What legal or constitutional mechanism obliges the government to
supply a stitch or a heart transplant to anyone who needs one?
It's not a legal or constitutional right. It's a moral right.
Oh, I see. A moral right. Gosh, that's an exciting concept. I'll bet
the 9th Circuit Court would buy into that one!
Of course they wouldn't, and I didn't say otherwise. As for the moral
right, perhaps you are in the "let 'em die" group?
Well?
No I'm not in the let 'em die group ... but, I have a problem with
your concept of a "moral right". Your morality cannot convey a
"right", only a personal desire. I hope you can appreciate the
difference.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Now about that spare
bedroom of yours that aunt Tilly uses for just one day out of the
year. There must be homeless people where you live. Don't those poor
wretches have a moral right to make use of that unused bedroom, and
how about that unused 4th shelf in your refrigerator?
Housing and food are also a moral right, but like health care, not in an
unlimited fashion. The challenge that we should be facing together is
to figure out how we define and deliver adequate health care, housing,
and food to all. And if the consensus solution involves letting the
homeless use a spare room in some well-defined cases, I have no objection.
If you want to invite some vagrant to live in your spare bedroom, I'm
fine with that. As for you telling me that I must allow that same
vagrant to live in my spare bedroom, I am not so good with that. You
might expect me to go quietly into the night and accept a consensus
which led to a Marxist utopia, but would you have no objection to a
Trumpian consensus that violated your "moral values"? I think we both
know the answer to that one.
Of course, I would object; just as you say you would to my preferred
policy positions. What that means is we have very different ideas about
what is moral (hence my yet-to-be answered question above).
See above.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-10 15:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Is
healthcare a right? Million dollar heart transplant or a stitch for a
cut finger -- are both rights?
Not all healthcare is a right, but the above two examples are.
What legal or constitutional mechanism obliges the government to
supply a stitch or a heart transplant to anyone who needs one?
It's not a legal or constitutional right. It's a moral right.
Oh, I see. A moral right. Gosh, that's an exciting concept. I'll bet
the 9th Circuit Court would buy into that one!
Of course they wouldn't, and I didn't say otherwise. As for the moral
right, perhaps you are in the "let 'em die" group?
Well?
No I'm not in the let 'em die group ... but, I have a problem with
your concept of a "moral right". Your morality cannot convey a
"right", only a personal desire. I hope you can appreciate the
difference.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Now about that spare
bedroom of yours that aunt Tilly uses for just one day out of the
year. There must be homeless people where you live. Don't those poor
wretches have a moral right to make use of that unused bedroom, and
how about that unused 4th shelf in your refrigerator?
Housing and food are also a moral right, but like health care, not in an
unlimited fashion. The challenge that we should be facing together is
to figure out how we define and deliver adequate health care, housing,
and food to all. And if the consensus solution involves letting the
homeless use a spare room in some well-defined cases, I have no objection.
If you want to invite some vagrant to live in your spare bedroom, I'm
fine with that. As for you telling me that I must allow that same
vagrant to live in my spare bedroom, I am not so good with that. You
might expect me to go quietly into the night and accept a consensus
which led to a Marxist utopia, but would you have no objection to a
Trumpian consensus that violated your "moral values"? I think we both
know the answer to that one.
Of course, I would object; just as you say you would to my preferred
policy positions. What that means is we have very different ideas about
what is moral (hence my yet-to-be answered question above).
See above.
That answer confirms we have very different ideas about what is moral.
Nota
2017-03-09 05:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:39:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:35:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:06:00 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Uh, what were those Medicare cuts, if they were not
cuts, directly, or indirectly, in benefits?
They were cuts in payment rates to hospitals on private
insurers.
How could that not be construed to be a cut in benefits?
Because the premiums, deductibles and co-pays did not
change. Hospitals and Medicare Advantage Insurers who
receive less from the government will seek ways to make up
the shortfall, perhaps by accepting fewer Medicare
patients.
Or with longer waits, fewer specialist visits, tighter
reins on the MRI, X-Rays, surgery, and fewer students
choosing a medical career as wages fail to keep pace with
inflation, etc. In other words, a reduction in benefits.
The same effects can be noted in single payer when the
money gets shorter, as it always does.
Or on any system when the money gets shorter. Be it single
payer, Obamcare, Ryancare or something else, we are haggling
over how to ration care.
80" TVs and the Tesla Model S are rationed by an ability to
pay. I think we can agree that owning a Model S is not a
right. Is owning a car a right -- a car that must be supplied
by the government? Is healthcare a right? Million dollar
heart transplant or a stitch for a cut finger -- are both
rights?
All insurance is socialist. Anyone who doesn't support paying
cash for health care is a socialist. All insurance should be
outlawed. If people can't afford something, they don't deserve
it. That's how it's aways been done.
mg
2017-03-08 05:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:18:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:24:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
What regressive taxes from Obamacare (other than penalty for not having
insurance)? The Obamacare taxes were aimed at the rich (and this bill
will repeal those taxes). I'm not sure what this bill does with the
Medicare Advantage cuts.
Are you saying that the Medicare Advantage cuts were the only cuts
to Medicare?
No. I said "what regressive taxes". You are correct that the Medicare
cuts were 1/3 Hospital, 1/3 Advantage, and 1/3 Other - although no cuts
were made in Medicare benefits.
Actually, my calculations indicate that the proportions are as
follows:

Other: 44%
Hospital: 35%
Advantage: 21%
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
When doing a search on the internet, I get the
"A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that
the amount of money President Obama has taken from Medicare to fund
Hospital Services $260 Billion
Medicare Advantage (MA) $156 Billion
Home Health Services $66 Billion
Skilled Nursing Services $39 Billion
Hospice Services $17 Billion
Medicaid/CHIP $114 Billion
Other Services $33 Billion
DSH Payments $56 Billion"
If this list is correct, the Medicare Advantage cuts were a
relatively small part of the cuts to Medicare (and a very small part
of the total funding of Obamacare).
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-08 05:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:18:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:24:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
What regressive taxes from Obamacare (other than penalty for not having
insurance)? The Obamacare taxes were aimed at the rich (and this bill
will repeal those taxes). I'm not sure what this bill does with the
Medicare Advantage cuts.
Are you saying that the Medicare Advantage cuts were the only cuts
to Medicare?
No. I said "what regressive taxes". You are correct that the Medicare
cuts were 1/3 Hospital, 1/3 Advantage, and 1/3 Other - although no cuts
were made in Medicare benefits.
Actually, my calculations indicate that the proportions are as
Other: 44%
Hospital: 35%
Advantage: 21%
This article has closer to 33/33/33, but these differences aren't
important to the thrust of this discussion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/?utm_term=.e010deb2131b
rumpelstiltskin
2017-03-07 17:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
As I wrote here a couple of weeks ago, whatever the Republicans
come up with, it will be better for billionaires and worse for the
common man, because that's what the modern Republican party is
about. They believe in "trickle down" even if they don't call it
"trickle down" anymore.

The old saying about capitalism was, "A rising tide lifts all
boats." If you own a boat, that's an inspirational thought.
-- Scott Adams (of "Dilbert")
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/DCARead?standardNo=0887308953&standardNoType=1&excerpt=true
mg
2017-03-07 19:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
It would be interesting to know which taxes have been cut, if any,
in conjunction with the changes. My guess has always been that if
and when Obamacare is changed -- no matter how it is changed -- the
government will keep the regressive taxes (and the Medicare cuts).
As I wrote here a couple of weeks ago, whatever the Republicans
come up with, it will be better for billionaires and worse for the
common man, because that's what the modern Republican party is
about. They believe in "trickle down" even if they don't call it
"trickle down" anymore.
The old saying about capitalism was, "A rising tide lifts all
boats." If you own a boat, that's an inspirational thought.
-- Scott Adams (of "Dilbert")
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/DCARead?standardNo=0887308953&standardNoType=1&excerpt=true
Except for the elimination of the individual mandate, I don't think
there's much doubt that the Republicans will try to eliminate any
taxes that seriously effect the 1% and keep the taxes that effect
the working class and middle class.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-03-08 12:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 12:17:03 -0700, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
Except for the elimination of the individual mandate, I don't think
there's much doubt that the Republicans will try to eliminate any
taxes that seriously effect the 1% and keep the taxes that effect
the working class and middle class.
"Choice" is the buzzword of the day. Whoever
first came up with it deserves an Academy Award.
me
2017-03-08 14:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What can be more valuable than choice? What do you have when you have no choice?
http://www.endit.info
m***@my-deja.com
2017-03-08 23:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by me
What can be more valuable than choice? What do you have when you have no choice?
http://www.endit.info
True. No one should have any argument against a "public option".
me
2017-03-09 01:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lots of folks don't agree. Public school option tells them why they shouldn't. So does Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. Waste, fraud and abuse are three words describing 'government'.
m***@my-deja.com
2017-03-10 03:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by me
Lots of folks don't agree. Public school option tells them why they shouldn't. So does Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. Waste, fraud and abuse are three words describing 'government'.
Lots of people prefer choice. Take for example the debate on
school vouchers. Many people prefer them because it offers choice.
No one should be forced to buy private insurance if they would
prefer to pay for govt insurance and vice versa. Its about choice,
and some people don't want you to have it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-07 17:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
A few of other things about how this bill attempts to avoid adverse
selection:

1) It permits insurance companies to have higher deductibles and co-pays
for sick people, but not higher premiums or annual maximums (both
leftover from Obamacare - no repeal). The latter two are likely to
insure that adverse selection is not mitigated.

2) It permits insurance companies to have higher premiums for old people
not eligible for Medicare (50-mid 60's). This might mitigate adverse
selection by lowering premiums on young people. But, it might result in
some old people being forced into dropping insurance (when they don't
want to).

3) Similar to #2, subsidies (in the form of tax credits) will go up for
the young and down for the old. That may have the same impact as in #2.

4) Catastrophic plans with very high deductibles, lesser coverage and
lower premiums will be available to everyone, not just those under 30.
That's not likely to impact adverse selection because while some young
people without insurance today will choose this option, others will
downgrade from a Bronze plan.

5) Except for the catastrophic plans, the requirements for
Bronze/Silver/Gold plans do not change (no repeal).
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-03-07 19:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:o9mmdv$bvq$***@dont-email.me...

The scorecard:

1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.

2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).

3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).

4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.

5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).

6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines
(likely because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.

7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).

In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Allow me to say, Josh, that your problem is taking much too seriously the
words of the Republicans. After all, Josh, The Whining Donald himself said
that his very own Obamacare replacement will be so inexpensive and available
to one and all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

You, Josh, would do well to do that which all the supporters of The Whining
Donald - especially even the Village Idiot - do; namely, stop looking for
the steak and instead indulge in/enjoy yourself with the sizzle.

I ask you, Josh...do you know of any US president so entertaining and full
of fun and laughs in the first two months of his respective presidency as is
The Whining Donald? I for one am much enjoying The Whining Donald's current
sleight of hand game of having all the folks concentrate on his wiretapping
accusations against Obama while at the very same time his Whining Donald
minions almost unnoticed go about making rather significant changes in their
respective spheres of control.
billbowden
2017-03-07 22:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines (likely
because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
And it's only 70 pages long verses over a thousand pages for the ACA. So,
they won't have to pass it first to find out what's in it.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
islander
2017-03-08 14:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by billbowden
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines (likely
because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
And it's only 70 pages long verses over a thousand pages for the ACA. So,
they won't have to pass it first to find out what's in it.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
And they used up six of those pages to deal with the fear that lottery
winners might game the system. WTF?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-03-08 18:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by billbowden
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines (likely
because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
And it's only 70 pages long verses over a thousand pages for the ACA. So,
they won't have to pass it first to find out what's in it.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
And they used up six of those pages to deal with the fear that lottery
winners might game the system. WTF?
Lottery winners are the ones getting "gamed" by the system
IMV. Ticket buyers have already been taxed on the money
with which they buy the lottery tickets, so taxing a poor sap
again who wins the jackpot is double taxation IMV. Those
nasty little money-grubbing elves are everywhere.

If a Canadian wins the Canadian lottery, he's not taxed, but
if he wins the US lottery those nasty little US elves grab 30%
of the money right away, before it leaves the US.
billbowden
2017-03-09 04:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by billbowden
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines (likely
because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
And it's only 70 pages long verses over a thousand pages for the ACA.
So,
they won't have to pass it first to find out what's in it.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
And they used up six of those pages to deal with the fear that lottery
winners might game the system. WTF?
Lottery winners are the ones getting "gamed" by the system
IMV. Ticket buyers have already been taxed on the money
with which they buy the lottery tickets, so taxing a poor sap
again who wins the jackpot is double taxation IMV. Those
nasty little money-grubbing elves are everywhere.
If a Canadian wins the Canadian lottery, he's not taxed, but
if he wins the US lottery those nasty little US elves grab 30%
of the money right away, before it leaves the US.
I think he is talking about "green card" lottery winners, but I don't know
much about that. Something to do with illegals getting free health
insurance.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-03-09 05:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:30:21 -0800, "billbowden"
Post by billbowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by billbowden
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
1) It's more regressive than Obamacare.
2) The leadership wants it voted on without the time to read, understand
and score it (hypocrisy alert).
3) It is phased in over time as a way to make the budget numbers look
better (hypocrisy alert).
4) It's likely to cause millions, if not tens of millions, to lose their
health insurance.
5) It may make even worse the problem of adverse selection (the
consequence of not discriminating against those with pre-exisiting
conditions).
6) It doesn't include tort reform or insurance across state lines (likely
because both would require 60 votes in the Senate), or ay other
conservative ideas on cost control.
7) It keeps some aspects of Obamacare (it's not a repeal).
In summary, WTF is this bill? One thing fir sure, it is not Repeal and
Replace.
And it's only 70 pages long verses over a thousand pages for the ACA.
So,
they won't have to pass it first to find out what's in it.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement
And they used up six of those pages to deal with the fear that lottery
winners might game the system. WTF?
Lottery winners are the ones getting "gamed" by the system
IMV. Ticket buyers have already been taxed on the money
with which they buy the lottery tickets, so taxing a poor sap
again who wins the jackpot is double taxation IMV. Those
nasty little money-grubbing elves are everywhere.
If a Canadian wins the Canadian lottery, he's not taxed, but
if he wins the US lottery those nasty little US elves grab 30%
of the money right away, before it leaves the US.
I think he is talking about "green card" lottery winners, but I don't know
much about that. Something to do with illegals getting free health
insurance.
If I won the lottery, I'd be "green card" winner (though as
I've mentioned, the card is pink now). If a person has a
"green card", he's not an "illegal". I do pay American taxes,
and I don't pay any British taxes. I was sitting on the front
steps with my cat after coming home this afternoon, and a
lady came by with a thick manilla packet to stuff into my
downstairs neighbors', mail slot. I said something like
"Ah, tax season, eh?", and she agreed. One of my neighbors
is an accountant, who's been doing my taxes for the last
couple of years because American taxes are so convoluted
and confusing that it's just not worth the misery to do them
oneself anymore.
billbowden
2017-03-10 03:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:30:21 -0800, "billbowden"
Post by billbowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Lottery winners are the ones getting "gamed" by the system
IMV. Ticket buyers have already been taxed on the money
with which they buy the lottery tickets, so taxing a poor sap
again who wins the jackpot is double taxation IMV. Those
nasty little money-grubbing elves are everywhere.
If a Canadian wins the Canadian lottery, he's not taxed, but
if he wins the US lottery those nasty little US elves grab 30%
of the money right away, before it leaves the US.
I think he is talking about "green card" lottery winners, but I don't know
much about that. Something to do with illegals getting free health
insurance.
If I won the lottery, I'd be "green card" winner (though as
I've mentioned, the card is pink now). If a person has a
"green card", he's not an "illegal". I do pay American taxes,
and I don't pay any British taxes. I was sitting on the front
steps with my cat after coming home this afternoon, and a
lady came by with a thick manilla packet to stuff into my
downstairs neighbors', mail slot. I said something like
"Ah, tax season, eh?", and she agreed. One of my neighbors
is an accountant, who's been doing my taxes for the last
couple of years because American taxes are so convoluted
and confusing that it's just not worth the misery to do them
oneself anymore.
Well, I can't find much about it and I don't want to read 70 pages. But it's
probably something to do with say a Canadian who has some medical problem
where he has to wait 6 months and holds a green card for the US. So, he gets
on a plane and flies to the US and then buys insurance since he can't be
denied for some existing condition and gets his treatment for just the cost
of the insurance for a month, and then goes home to Canada. .All sorts of
scams like that have to be ruled out with the new system.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-03-10 05:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:27:48 -0800, "billbowden"
Post by billbowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:30:21 -0800, "billbowden"
Post by billbowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Lottery winners are the ones getting "gamed" by the system
IMV. Ticket buyers have already been taxed on the money
with which they buy the lottery tickets, so taxing a poor sap
again who wins the jackpot is double taxation IMV. Those
nasty little money-grubbing elves are everywhere.
If a Canadian wins the Canadian lottery, he's not taxed, but
if he wins the US lottery those nasty little US elves grab 30%
of the money right away, before it leaves the US.
I think he is talking about "green card" lottery winners, but I don't know
much about that. Something to do with illegals getting free health
insurance.
If I won the lottery, I'd be "green card" winner (though as
I've mentioned, the card is pink now). If a person has a
"green card", he's not an "illegal". I do pay American taxes,
and I don't pay any British taxes. I was sitting on the front
steps with my cat after coming home this afternoon, and a
lady came by with a thick manilla packet to stuff into my
downstairs neighbors', mail slot. I said something like
"Ah, tax season, eh?", and she agreed. One of my neighbors
is an accountant, who's been doing my taxes for the last
couple of years because American taxes are so convoluted
and confusing that it's just not worth the misery to do them
oneself anymore.
Well, I can't find much about it and I don't want to read 70 pages. But it's
probably something to do with say a Canadian who has some medical problem
where he has to wait 6 months and holds a green card for the US. So, he gets
on a plane and flies to the US and then buys insurance since he can't be
denied for some existing condition and gets his treatment for just the cost
of the insurance for a month, and then goes home to Canada. .All sorts of
scams like that have to be ruled out with the new system.
I seem to have lost track of, or never realized,
what this thread was about. Sorry.
Loading...