The GOP's Waterloo get worse

[Dan T 8]

What logical argument have you made in regards to the content of my original post? None as far as I can see. Your argument was that a majority of people approve the passage of the bill because they don't know what this bill is about. Of course, that doesn't explain away the increasing support of the bill post passage vs. pre passage. Or are you saying that a majority of people opposed passage of the bill just a couple of weeks ago based on the content of it and now that it passed Congress and has been signed into law they somehow forgot about what the bill contains? Your argument to the substance of the original post is anything but logic. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If anything, people learned more about the content of the bill and as they do, support for it seems to be building up.

my question is whether the people being polled know the difference between the senate bill that passed in december vs the reconciliation bill that still needs to go back to the senate. as liberal leaning as gallup is Id be surpried if they worked this into their poll because the 2 bills would generate drastically different results.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

my question is whether the people being polled know the difference between the senate bill that passed in december vs the reconciliation bill that still needs to go back to the senate. as liberal leaning as gallup is Id be surpried if they worked this into their poll because the 2 bills would generate drastically different results.

Whether Gallup is liberal leaning or not matters little. They took both the pre and post passage poll and the numbers speak for themselves. Go over to Rasmussen (hardly a liberal source)and see how their Presidential Approval Index went from -18 to -10 just over the weekend. Anywhere you look and anyway you slice it, the public support of this bill is growing post passage - the fact that the angry crowd is getting angrier notwithstanding. It's also getting smaller.

What makes you say that the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill would generate drastically different results? For that to be the case, those would have to be drastically different measures. They're not. The reconciliation bill doesn't change the substance of the health care reform bill the President signed into law yesterday. It eliminates some unpopular items and makes it more fiscally sound. If anything, the reconciliation bill improves the original Senate version and will add to the measure's popularity. We'll find out soon enough.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Dan T 8]

Whether Gallup is liberal leaning or not matters little. They took both the pre and post passage poll and the numbers speak for themselves. Go over to Rasmussen (hardly a liberal source)and see how their Presidential Approval Index went from -18 to -10 just over the weekend. Anywhere you look and anyway you slice it, the public support of this bill is growing post passage - the fact that the angry crowd is getting angrier notwithstanding. It's also getting smaller.

What makes you say that the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill would generate drastically different results? For that to be the case, those would have to be drastically different measures. They're not. The reconciliation bill doesn't change the substance of the health care reform bill the President signed into law yesterday. It eliminates some unpopular items and makes it more fiscally sound. If anything, the reconciliation bill improves the original Senate version and will add to the measure's popularity. We'll find out soon enough.

my point is that the reconciliation bill is the better one and people think it is already law. i would argue that the modestly positive poll numbers you are citing are in response to the reconcilliation bill that has not yet passed. once people figure out that the bill that is law sucks in comparison i predict that the polling data will swing negative.

just so i am clear I think the whole package stinks to high holy hell and it would not have even been conceived of if our country had any will to limit medical lawsuits and keep illegals out. we do need reform to be sure but it starts with medical malpractice insurance, and immigration, not end-user health insurence.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

my point is that the reconciliation bill is the better one and people think it is already law. i would argue that the modestly positive poll numbers you are citing are in response to the reconcilliation bill that has not yet passed. once people figure out that the bill that is law sucks in comparison i predict that the polling data will swing negative.

just so i am clear I think the whole package stinks to high holy hell and it would not have even been conceived of if our country had any will to limit medical lawsuits and keep illegals out. we do need reform to be sure but it starts with medical malpractice insurance, and immigration, not end-user health insurence.

The main provisions of the Senate bill remain intact - the reconciliation bill improves the legislation but it doesn't change the essence of it.

Of course, you need to rid yourself of the fantasy that medical malpractice litigation causes all the ills of our health care system - it simply doesn't. CBO estimates that medical malpractice liability accounts for a fraction of a percent of health care cost. That is taking the excessive utilization of health care services due to liability concerns into account.

Today CBO released a letter updating its analysis of the effects of proposals to limit costs related to medical malpractice (“tort reform”). Typical legislative proposals for tort reform have included caps on awards for noneconomic and punitive damages, rules allowing the introduction at trials of evidence about insurance payments and related sources of income, statutes of limitations on suits, and replacement of joint-and-several liability with a fair-share rule.

Tort reform could affect costs for health care both directly and indirectly: directly, by lowering premiums for medical liability insurance; and indirectly, by reducing the use of diagnostic tests and other health care services when providers recommend those services principally to reduce their potential exposure to lawsuits. Because of mixed evidence about whether tort reform affects the utilization of health care services, past analyses by CBO have focused on the impact of tort reform on premiums for malpractice insurance. However, more recent research has provided additional evidence to suggest that lowering the cost of medical malpractice tends to reduce the use of health care services.

CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (Those estimates take into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Popular or not still doesn't change the constitutionality of the whole thing.

If the courts uphold it, there will be hell to pay.

Most legal scholars who have considered the question of a requirement for individuals to purchase health coverage argue forcefully that the requirement is within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Take Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a renowned constitutional law scholar, author of four popular treatises and casebooks on constitutional law, and Dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law. Professor Chemerinsky has gone so far to say that those arguing on the other side of the issue do not have “the slightest merit from a constitutional perspective.”

In arguing that a requirement to have health coverage falls within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, Professor Chemerinsky compares health care reform to the case of Gonzales v. Raich — often cited by the other side.

In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Government’s Commerce Clause powers extend to the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Professor Chemerinsky notes that the relationship between health care coverage and the national economy is even clearer than the cultivation and possession involved in Gonzales v. Raich.

[Dan T 8]

Of course, you need to rid yourself of the fantasy that medical malpractice litigation causes all the ills of our health care system - it simply doesn't. CBO estimates that medical malpractice liability accounts for a fraction of a percent of health care cost. That is taking the excessive utilization of health care services due to liability concerns into account.

this report is not only out of date it only covers 1 year worth of implementation, it does not extend itself out for the time line being laid out for all of the provisions in this bill. In order to have an apples-to-apples comparison you need to use a similar time frame for both solutions. How much cost savings are projected for year 1 after the implementation of this bill? Id also like to point out that of my 2 assertions you picked the one that I suspect to be the lesser of the 2 cost savers.

[Dan T 8]

this report is not only out of date it only covers 1 year worth of implementation, it does not extend itself out for the time line being laid out for all of the provisions in this bill. In order to have an apples-to-apples comparison you need to use a similar time frame for both solutions. How much cost savings are projected for year 1 after the implementation of this bill? Id also like to point out that of my 2 assertions you picked the one that I suspect to be the lesser of the 2 cost savers.

in addition it only responds directly to legislation that has been proposed already. I would submit that this legislation has not been fully fleshed out, and if it was the savings realized in actual cost of services provided would drop

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hey Bigdog. Hows it make you feel that your beautiful little daughter is already 40k in debt? Just show her your poll here Im sure she will feel better.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

this report is not only out of date it only covers 1 year worth of implementation, it does not extend itself out for the time line being laid out for all of the provisions in this bill. In order to have an apples-to-apples comparison you need to use a similar time frame for both solutions. How much cost savings are projected for year 1 after the implementation of this bill? Id also like to point out that of my 2 assertions you picked the one that I suspect to be the lesser of the 2 cost savers.

Actually, no. The CBO estimate is dated October 2009 and summarizes the 10-year budget effect as well. 54 billion dollars of savings over 10 years to the federal budget. It's a fraction of a percent and not the silver bullet you'd like to make it out to be any way you slice it.

[Ban Hammer 13,655]

• Health care overhaul is going to lower your health insurance premiums.

Obama says that once new competitive insurance markets open for business, in 2014, individuals buying coverage comparable to what they have today will pay 14-20 percent less. Family coverage costs about $13,400 a year, so that could be real money.

But the president's assurance is based on a selective reading of a Congressional Budget Office report that found most individuals would probably buy better, more expensive coverage than what's available today.

And Obama skips over an important caveat: The budget office didn't say premiums would be lower than currently. It said premiums for some people would be lower than they would have been without the bill. Premiums for others would be higher.

With the U.S. population getting older, and medical science pushing the technological envelope, there's very little reason to think premiums will go down. The best Obama can hope for is to slow the pace of increases.

• The legislation will save Medicare from bankruptcy.

Democrats say the bill — even as it cuts Medicare to pay for expanded coverage for working families — will add at least nine years of solvency to the program's giant hospital insurance trust fund, now projected to be exhausted in 2017.

Technically that's true — but only on paper.

Savings from the Medicare cuts will be invested in government IOUs, like any other trust fund surplus. The special Treasury securities count as an asset on Medicare's books — making the program's precarious financial situation seem more reassuring. But the government will spend the actual money. And when time comes for Medicare to redeem the IOUs, lawmakers will have to scramble to come up with the cash.

The key point is that the Medicare savings will be received by the government only once, the Congressional Budget Office said, "so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending ... on other programs."

link

it's yahoo news, so feel free to attack that source.

[Dan T 8]

Actually, no. The CBO estimate is dated October 2009 and summarizes the 10-year budget effect as well. 54 billion dollars of savings over 10 years to the federal budget. It's a fraction of a percent and not the silver bullet you'd like to make it out to be any way you slice it.

the 54bln is a reduction in federal deficit, not a reduction in what people would be paying out of pocket. And even still it only accounts for a typical set of legislation that is currently proposed. Details on specific proposed legislation and legislation yet to be proposed are purposely excluded from this report. No one has done any analysis of the best of these legislations. I concede that by itself tort reform would not be the silver bullet to all of our health care cost problems but it would be a significant silver bullet for this bill, however, you have not addressed the additional impact that purging illegals from the over burdened system would have. Id also be in favor of medical savings accounts and moving to a system where people primarily buy any package they want on the open market, or not buy one if they choose not to, and take this package from job to job. I am not a full-blown supporter of the meassure allowing portability across state lines because I think the argument surrounding insurence companies moving to the state with the least regulations does hold some water. I do however think that this problem could be addressed with a much smaller piece of legislation that does not aim to eliminate the private insurance industry. Im amazed that people say we're safe because of the limitations in this bill. It is merely a stepping stone to controlling more of our lives. VAT, Public option, death panels, single payor and amnesty for illegals were always a part of this radical left agenda and you apparently prey for these things.

This bill is the begining, not the end. If this bill stands, more will surely follow.

i reaffirm that you obama/pelosi/reid are socialist nuts who seek to punish people who work and reward those that refuse to, and no i dont mean the old or disabled. You and the michael moore types are the bain of freedom in this country.

[Dan T 8]

• Health care overhaul is going to lower your health insurance premiums.

Obama says that once new competitive insurance markets open for business, in 2014, individuals buying coverage comparable to what they have today will pay 14-20 percent less. Family coverage costs about $13,400 a year, so that could be real money.

But the president's assurance is based on a selective reading of a Congressional Budget Office report that found most individuals would probably buy better, more expensive coverage than what's available today.

And Obama skips over an important caveat: The budget office didn't say premiums would be lower than currently. It said premiums for some people would be lower than they would have been without the bill. Premiums for others would be higher.

With the U.S. population getting older, and medical science pushing the technological envelope, there's very little reason to think premiums will go down. The best Obama can hope for is to slow the pace of increases.

• The legislation will save Medicare from bankruptcy.

Democrats say the bill — even as it cuts Medicare to pay for expanded coverage for working families — will add at least nine years of solvency to the program's giant hospital insurance trust fund, now projected to be exhausted in 2017.

Technically that's true — but only on paper.

Savings from the Medicare cuts will be invested in government IOUs, like any other trust fund surplus. The special Treasury securities count as an asset on Medicare's books — making the program's precarious financial situation seem more reassuring. But the government will spend the actual money. And when time comes for Medicare to redeem the IOUs, lawmakers will have to scramble to come up with the cash.

The key point is that the Medicare savings will be received by the government only once, the Congressional Budget Office said, "so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending ... on other programs."

link

it's yahoo news, so feel free to attack that source.

sounds like a page straight out of the enron accounting playbook, thanks for providing that.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

LOL...ok, so you were too young to remember, however, what stopped you from learning your U.S. History?

OMG! Ronnie was a commie!

Well, that makes sense, since he was president of the Socialist Actors Guild before he was POTUS.

How does Ireland keep illegals from flooding the ER's? Or any country for that matter? You weren't born yesterday...I know that much about you.

They still haven't figured out how to keep the British out.

Edited March 24, 2010 by ##########

[The_Dude 1,142]

When Ronnie signed that piece of legislation, was it zombie ronnie, or did he have all his faculties? That could have been the work of one of Nancy's séance induced delusions.

[Dan T 8]

They still haven't figured out how to keep the British out.

true dat but thats another discussion for another board. the brits have nothing to do with hospitals closing in the republic however.