Senate health bill gets a boost; Measure wouldn't increase insurance costs for most

[Crabtownboy]

I find it interesting that many of the arguments used by opponents of the currently debated health care bill are the same line of reasoning that opponents used in their opposition of the national parks used. If you have watched the Ken Burns series on our national parks it is striking how familiar these argument sound. It is also similar how opponents rejected facts, even after various parks were brought into existence, just as will happen here.

As the Senate opened debate Monday on a landmark plan to overhaul the nation's health-care system, congressional budget analysts said the measure would leave premiums unchanged or slightly lower for the vast majority of Americans, contradicting assertions by the insurance industry that the average family's coverage would rise by thousands of dollars if the proposal became law.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was released hours before the Senate began debate on the package, which would spend $848 billion over the next decade to extend coverage to more than 30 million additional people. The CBO said the legislation would lead to higher average premiums in the relatively small and troubled individual market, where the self-employed and others buy coverage directly from insurers. But that extra cost would buy better coverage, the CBO said, and hefty federal subsidies would drive down payments by nearly 60 percent on average for low- and middle-income families.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391.html?hpid=topnews

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Keep in mind that this will cause a net gain for the government in that this bill will reduce the budget deficit by about $130 billion in the House bill. I'm not sure of the numbers in the Senate bill off the top of my head. Hopefully we can get a bill with a public option to provide the health care reform we need.

 

[rbell]

to compare the takeover of 1/6 of our economy to national parks is laughable. It shows just how little you understand the argument.

Of course, since CTB thinks that government is the answer to all of society's woes, this is not surprising.

The difficult thing is having a rational discussion with someone who has literally the whole thing wrong. Where do you start? When he thinks a government-run health plan will be better, cheaper, and more available than private industry...what's left to say? How do you aruge with complete and total ignorance?

 

[Revmitchell]

How do you aruge with complete and total ignorance?

You can't it is like arguing with a parrot. All they know is what they have been told.

 

[windcatcher]

Since when did government get involved in delivering a service to some that it did put an additional burden on others?

The more government gets into regulating free enterprise, the tighter economics become for those who are focused upon for regulation (the smaller more competitive competitions which are also easier to force and enforce and costly to compete with arguments and defend) while the big guns in the market can afford to break rules and pay a legal defense or plan loopholes around the regulations...... like the banks which offer no fee checking and overdraft protection 'as a courtesy' without discloseing upfrom and in equal weight of print that its with a fee per item..... doing so they skirt 'truth in lending laws' which would have sufficed to customers who heretofore understood a policy of extending overdraft protection to 'x' amount over balance, on which an interest fee of 'y'% is charged accruing daily with a one time service fee of $'z' until the balanced overdraft is covered.

Every time the goverment screws with the economic market.... there are strategist who anticipate the cost and returns and figure out ahead what they can do to reap an advantage and displace their competitore, who were working on closer margins, and before they get caught and regulated, which by that time.... they've planned new strategies, either to defeat the new regulations or anticipate and work around them. This all works so well because the very experts in marketing, law, and regulations are the lobbyist who specialize in specific areas of the economy or policies and are the strong arm of business......working on their behalf while advising committees and congressmen who understand little of the legislation they're asked to pass.

Health care vs national parks? Give me a break. Apples and oranges.... not related by time, conditions in economy, or intensity of impact upon the public or the future. The government can change its policies and protections on the parks.... they have done so and can do so.... even start returning them to the private sector or a foreign entitiy should it desire.... with not nearly the impact on the people. But health care reform, once implimented, is a big ship to turn in a stormy sea should they get the direction wrong.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

to compare the takeover of 1/6 of our economy to national parks is laughable. It shows just how little you understand the argument.
When he thinks a government-run health plan will be better, cheaper, and more available than private industry...what's left to say?

The government isn't "tak[ing] over" anything. If the public option is not as good for you as private insurance, then stick with private insurance. It's that simple.

 

[targus]

Why only talk about the cost of insurance premiums?

The real cost would include the higher taxes on just about everybody and the cost of premiums or penalties paid by people who don't want the insurance.

The OP is a red herring.

 

[targus]

I find it interesting that many of the arguments used by opponents of the currently debated health care bill are the same line of reasoning that opponents used in their opposition of the national parks used. If you have watched the Ken Burns series on our national parks it is striking how familiar these argument sound. It is also similar how opponents rejected facts, even after various parks were brought into existence, just as will happen here.

Of course once the accounting gimmicks are taken into consideration the 1 trillion becomes more like 6 trillion in costs.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/obamacares-cost-could-top-6-trillion/

 

[Revmitchell]

The government isn't "tak[ing] over" anything. If the public option is not as good for you as private insurance, then stick with private insurance. It's that simple.

An example of post #4

 

[windcatcher]

CTB is encouraged that those who need and struggle to get or keep health insurance.... the self employed, the small businesses, the individual not covered by a work provided/ or assisted plan.... will have their premiums increased....... the ones least likely to afford the higher premiums.

I believe we have a socialist on this board who advocates taking from the 'have nots' what little they do have.

Oh well, CTB, once I'm done, I'm done!
Perhaps it is my good fortune in this particular instance that I don't have children to assist your children in hard work to bail out this economy or the debt of this plan.... or to suffer the rationing of budget dependant dollars in health care as the country tumbles for broke!

 

[FR7 Baptist]

CTB is encouraged that those who need and struggle to get or keep health insurance.... the self employed, the small businesses, the individual not covered by a work provided/ or assisted plan.... will have their premiums increased....... the ones least likely to afford the higher premiums.

I believe we have a socialist on this board who advocates taking from the 'have nots' what little they do have.

I'm sure more competition and sliding subsidies will really raise insurance costs for the "have nots." Also, you've probably not met a real socialist. In my time on this board, I don't think I've seen a real liberal, much less a socialist.

 

[targus]

I'm sure more competition and sliding subsidies will really raise insurance costs for the "have nots." Also, you've probably not met a real socialist. In my time on this board, I don't think I've seen a real liberal, much less a socialist.

Did you read the OP?

"The CBO said the legislation would lead to higher average premiums in the relatively small and troubled individual market, where the self-employed and others buy coverage directly from insurers."

 

[just-want-peace]

Boy!! just when I'm beginning to think that most of the folk are finally wising up to the machinations of the liberalizing/socializing/selling-out of our nation, a thread like this comes along and just blows my hope out of the water!!

Post # 4 again!!!!!!!!!

I have come to the conclusion that if this nation is salvaged, it will be strictly by God's ordained will, and certainly not His permissive will. Seems to me that virtually every politician is, with the cheering of a vast # of citizens, doing his/her darndest to usher us into 3rd world status.

 

[rbell]

The government isn't "tak[ing] over" anything. If the public option is not as good for you as private insurance, then stick with private insurance. It's that simple.

The government can (and usually does) operate at a loss. Private industry can't. Thus, private industry loses.

My private insurance plan won't last six months. And likely, the law will try and force me into the government plan...which includes crap like abortion surcharges.

Of course, the government is "taking over" the system. When an entity forces its competitors out of the market, that qualifies as "taking over."

It's that simple.

 

[rbell]

I'm sure more competition and sliding subsidies will really raise insurance costs for the "have nots." Also, you've probably not met a real socialist. In my time on this board, I don't think I've seen a real liberal, much less a socialist.

Look at the OP. CTB believes government is the answer to all problems. That's pretty close to liberal.

Real socialists? We elected a slew of them. If Pelosi, Reid, and Obama aren't liberal, perhaps your definition is faulty.

 

[Revmitchell]

Real socialists? We elected a slew of them. If Pelosi, Reid, and Obama aren't liberal, perhaps your definition is faulty.

Which is a sure sign of a liberal. Liberalism doesn't sell so they have to redefine it to seem credible.

 

[carpro]

Keep in mind that this will cause a net gain for the government in that this bill will reduce the budget deficit by about $130 billion in the House bill. I'm not sure of the numbers in the Senate bill off the top of my head. Hopefully we can get a bill with a public option to provide the health care reform we need.

Baloney.

The Senate bill and the House bill will both add to the deficit.

They are lying through their teeth.

 

[windcatcher]

Baloney.

The Senate bill and the House bill will both add to the deficit.

They are lying through their teeth.

You're right.

This bill is the government's way of legitimizing fraud and extortion.

 

[windcatcher]

I'm sure more competition and sliding subsidies will really raise insurance costs for the "have nots." Also, you've probably not met a real socialist. In my time on this board, I don't think I've seen a real liberal, much less a socialist.

Sometimes the last person to know is the one doing the talking.


:tongue3:

guess this could mean me.... lol... one finger points and 3 point back......... but not true in this case. My hand is a 4 barrel. lol

 

[Aaron]

I find it interesting that many of the arguments used by opponents of the currently debated health care bill are the same line of reasoning that opponents used in their opposition of the national parks used. If you have watched the Ken Burns series on our national parks it is striking how familiar these argument sound. It is also similar how opponents rejected facts, even after various parks were brought into existence, just as will happen here.

I find it incredible that you believe the Washington Post.