Fuck this healthcare Reform...

[mook]

The CBS poll asked if people wanted the GOP to continue to fight for repeal, and 62% said they did.

If I were polled, I'd probably reply yes, I'd like the GOP to continue to fight for repeal. Because at this point it's a hopeless cause and I want it abundantly clear to everybody that the GOP hate this plan, and should never receive an iota of credit for it.

I suspect I can't be the only liberal out there who thinks that way.

 

[Minstrel]

If I were polled, I'd probably reply yes, I'd like the GOP to continue to fight for repeal. Because at this point it's a hopeless cause and I want it abundantly clear to everybody that the GOP hate this plan, and should never receive an iota of credit for it.

I suspect I can't be the only liberal out there who thinks that way.

You aren't. I'd love for the Republicans to make repealing health care their rallying cry. My own observation is that whether or not a bill/issue is unpopular, if the party who "loses" or is in opposition continues to agitate and complain about it, the American public gets sick of it and starts to turn on that party.

As an example, Clinton's behaviour in the Lewinsky matter was quite unpopular. But what turned the polls around for him? The GOP going on a crusade against him. The American public seems to have a low tolerance for a party going on and on about an issue.

Another example is Gore v. Bush. The public tolerated it until there was a resolution. After that, the Democrats trying to agitate that the Supreme Court ruling was unfair only cost them popularity. They realized that and dropped it and moved on.

This cuts both ways...the Democrats going on and on about how health care had to happen hurt them in the polls. But now their part in making it a central issue is over...the Republicans can either choose to hurt their own popularity by keeping it a central issue or not.

Personally, if I were a Republican strategist, I'd drop the health care debate for now. There's no upside for them on it at the moment. If, in fact, health care falls on its face as they believe it will, they can reap the benefits. Right now, I'd be hammering the unemployment rate. That's where the Democrats will be most vulnerable in November. As a liberal, it would be a bit of a gift if Republicans wasted their media cycles on trying to keep people angry about health care.

 

[mook]

You aren't. I'd love for the Republicans to make repealing health care their rallying cry. My own observation is that whether or not a bill/issue is unpopular, if the party who "loses" or is in opposition continues to agitate and complain about it, the American public gets sick of it and starts to turn on that party.

As an example, Clinton's behaviour in the Lewinsky matter was quite unpopular. But what turned the polls around for him? The GOP going on a crusade against him. The American public seems to have a low tolerance for a party going on and on about an issue.

Another example is Gore v. Bush. The public tolerated it until there was a resolution. After that, the Democrats trying to agitate that the Supreme Court ruling was unfair only cost them popularity. They realized that and dropped it and moved on.

This cuts both ways...the Democrats going on and on about how health care had to happen hurt them in the polls. But now their part in making it a central issue is over...the Republicans can either choose to hurt their own popularity by keeping it a central issue or not.

Personally, if I were a Republican strategist, I'd drop the health care debate for now. There's no upside for them on it at the moment. If, in fact, health care falls on its face as they believe it will, they can reap the benefits. Right now, I'd be hammering the unemployment rate. That's where the Democrats will be most vulnerable in November. As a liberal, it would be a bit of a gift if Republicans wasted their media cycles on trying to keep people angry about health care.

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of it in those terms.

It's really only human nature to agonize forever over big decisions, but once the decision is made you'd really rather not look back because you're so relieved to get it over with.

 

[maxiep]

Jesus H. Well, at least they're now telling the truth...

http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/0dd8afd2-a9b2-46bf-b67d-69a7a83d53a5

 

[barfo]

Jesus H. Well, at least they're now telling the truth...

http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/0dd8afd2-a9b2-46bf-b67d-69a7a83d53a5

Who ever thought insuring the poor was somehow not a redistribution of wealth? This isn't exactly a bombshell.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Who ever thought insuring the poor was somehow not a redistribution of wealth? This isn't exactly a bombshell.

barfo

Oh, but when the concept was brought up by Republicans during the health care debate, Democrats called it ridiculous. Howard Dean said the same thing this morning on CNBC, btw.

The mask has come off.

 

[maxiep]

It turns out rental income isn't the only thing taxed when it comes to real estate. All gains from selling a house that isn't rolled into a new property will now have the 3.9% medicare payroll tax added onto it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Damned taxbaggers.

 

[maxiep]

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation...te-stupak-11-request-34-billion-worth-earmar/

So much for "Hope" and "Change". It looks like it's business as usual.

After health care vote, Stupak 11 request billions in earmarks

By Anupama Narayanswamy and Bill Allison Mar 26 2010

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the "Stupak 11" released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion--an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money this week than they did a year ago: Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

In 2009, the first year that members disclosed earmark requests, most members requested far more earmarks than were funded by the Appropriations Committee, which approves or denies requests. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Stupak's funded earmarks--including those he requested jointly with other members--totaled $28.6 million.

Despite a newly enacted ban on earmarks to for-profit firms, Stupak requested a total of $52 million for companies in his district out of the $65.9 million he requested from the Defense Appropriations bill.

Requests from Costello increased the most, but that was due to a $1.35 billion request to fund federal program called Impact Aid, which assists local educational agencies. Costello, along with 44 other lawmakers, signed a letter sent to the Appropriations Committee requesting the funds. Earlier this month, House Republicans decided to forgo earmarks for the 2011 appropriations process. House Democrats barred earmarks to for-profit companies, which mostly impacts contractors seeking earmarks from the Defense Appropriations bill.

Universities and non-profit organizations may reap the benefits of the new policy, though for-profit companies won't be shut out. Stupak requested a $4 million earmark for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that researches and develops new strains of seeds--including through genetic engineering--to aid U.S. agriculture. The consortium's membership includes "39 agribusiness companies and trade associations," according to Stupak's request.

The Reporting Group will follow the appropriations process to try to determine whether political influence plays a role in which earmark requests are funded.

 

[maxiep]

Welcome to your future: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7529454/Hospital-wards-to-shut-in-secret-NHS-cuts.html

 

[maxiep]

A rather provocative comic, but one that makes the point quite well for those of us who fear our freedoms are being lost.

 

[maxiep]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Ten-inconvenient-questions-about-Obamacare-88853462.html

Ten inconvenient truths about Obamacare
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent

President Obama is promising a massive campaign to sell the health care plan just approved by Congress -- starting with his signature on the Senate version of the legislation on Tuesday. The sales pitch begins even as the Senate considers a raft of modifications to the plan already approved by the House. But as the president makes his pitch, critics will be looking to knock down many of the central claims he and other Democratic leaders have made. Here are 10 inconvenient truths that could dog the president:

1. The cost of coverage will rise for the middle class.

According to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a health care scholar at the free-market American Enterprise Institute, the new bill will actually make it more costly for middle class families to buy health insurance by forcing those who shop on the individual market to buy generous, but expensive plans mandated under the new law. Middle class families earning $88,000 or more a year won't qualify for health care subsidies. A family earning $100,000 would end up spending nearly a quarter of their net income on health care.

2. Health insurance premiums will go up for nearly half of Americans.

Health care premiums for those in the individual insurance market will rise 10 percent to 13 percent by 2016 under the plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While the cost of premiums will be subsidized with taxpayer dollars for 57 percent of those enrolled in the new government-run insurance exchanges, the 43 percent of enrollees who do not qualify for assistance will have to pay higher costs.

3. Health reform is unlikely to create new jobs.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says that the health care reform bill will create "between 2.5 million to 4 million additional jobs over the next 10 years." But the fiscally conservative Beacon Hill Institute, part of Boston's Suffolk University, conducted its own analysis and found that in response to higher taxes and mandates on companies to provide insurance, "firms would be induced to fire or lay off workers" to the tune of 120,000 to 700,000 employees by 2019. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, found that the new taxes would kill 690,000 jobs per year.

4. Federal funding may cover abortion.

Obama agreed on Sunday to sign an executive order to reaffirm the Senate bill's "consistency with long-standing restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion." But pro-life groups say the executive order does not carry the force of a law and will do nothing to curb the provision in the bill they believe will allow taxpayer dollars to cover the procedure. "The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says," the National Right to Life Committee said.

5. Four million people will lose their employer-based plans.

The new health care law will impose a list of benefits each health care plan will have to offer if they are to remain in business. The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that about 4 million people would lose their employer-based plan and be forced to buy plans on the new government exchanges.

6. Medicare will cut services along with costs.

The bill makes $528 billion in cuts to Medicare, including a $136 billion reduction for Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Advantage cuts will force 4.8 million seniors off the popular plan by 2019. An additional $23 billion in cuts to Medicare will come from a panel charged with slashing Medicare spending.

7. The bill will not pay for itself.

The CBO found that the bill would reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years, but the savings was achieved by leaving out a $208 billion provision lawmakers will have to enact later to ensure doctors are adequately paid for treating Medicare patients. When the "doc fix" is included in the bill, it runs $59 billion in the red over the next decade. And former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that "if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games" the 10-year deficit would exceed $560 billion.

8. Higher Medicaid costs will gradually shift to the states.

The health care reform bill expands Medicaid to all non-elderly individuals up to 133 percent of the poverty line. The federal government would foot the bill for this expansion, but only until 2016. Beginning in 2017, states would gradually begin paying a portion of it. By 2020, states would cover 10 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion.

9. Doctor shortages could lead to rationing.

A survey conducted by the Medicus Firm, a medical recruitment company, found that 46 percent of physicians said they would quit or retire if the Democratic health care reform bill becomes law. The survey noted that "even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system."

10. The bill raises taxes for many individuals and businesses.

The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on insurance plans costing $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It also raises revenue by increasing the Medicare payroll tax for those earning more than $200,000, plus a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned income for these earners. The bill also imposes new taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers and health insurers that are likely to be passed on to consumers.

 

[Denny Crane]

FYI

 

[MARIS61]

Polls say 50% of the public are happy the bill passed. Strange definition of "deeply unpopular".

barfo

"If you've got 50%, you've got about half".

Howard Roberts

 

[jlprk]

What's this? This little monster is still alive? I posted to this thread about 2 weeks ago.

Look, the reason polls show unpopularity is because the left is dissatisfied with it. Naturally, the right, the 25%, is always going to oppose anything liberal. But this time the left, another 25%, are complaining about it too, because it's all Republican stuff. So conservatives are staking out the whole 50% as if they own the entire territory. They endure by creating illusions like this. If a pollster phones me, I'll complain about the bill too, but I'll be voting for Democrats. So polls on this bill are no indicator of how Democrats will do this November.

 

[Denny Crane]

Pollster.com says 40% favor it.

So much for the 50% favor it idea.

 

[maxiep]

LOL @ Henry Waxman and the rest of the House Democrats. They're pissed that the legislation several helped helped craft and all voted for has consequences they didn't want made public.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575146002445136066.html

The idea that they're angry that public corporations have to publicly restate earnings due to the impact of their legislation that makes the legislation look worse cracks me up.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/267291

And another link

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/28/d...hallenging-ceos-who-talked-health-care-costs/

And another with the letter: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025940.php

 

[The_Lillard_King]

When can we expect to personally feel the effects of this legislation?

 

[maxiep]

When can we expect to personally feel the effects of this legislation?

When you get your next premium notice (if you have health insurance) and when the new taxes kick in.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you're 30 years old or less, you'll see 17% higher insurance rates.

 

[barfo]

If you're 30 years old or less, you'll see 17% higher insurance rates.

First of all, that's looking at one factor in isolation.

Secondly, in Oregon the increase due to that one factor will be 0%. Oregon already caps the price at 2:1, the new federal cap is only 3:1, so in fact it won't change anything for Oregonians.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../AR2010032802353.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

 

[jlprk]

When can we expect to personally feel the effects of this legislation?

The bulk in 2014, but co-pays on preventative care like prostate screening will disappear earlier.

 

[blazerboy30]

First of all, that's looking at one factor in isolation.

Secondly, in Oregon the increase due to that one factor will be 0%. Oregon already caps the price at 2:1, the new federal cap is only 3:1, so in fact it won't change anything for Oregonians.

barfo

oooh, the irony is thick. You mean, we shouldn't just look at things as if in a vacuum? Who woulda thunk?

 

[barfo]

oooh, the irony is thick. You mean, we shouldn't just look at things as if in a vacuum? Who woulda thunk?

You should look at all of reality. Including fantasies into your analysis isn't generally a good idea.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

You should look at all of reality. Including fantasies into your analysis isn't generally a good idea.

barfo

I'm glad I've been able to use these interwebz to get you to think more like me... the correct way.

 

[Denny Crane]

First of all, that's looking at one factor in isolation.

Secondly, in Oregon the increase due to that one factor will be 0%. Oregon already caps the price at 2:1, the new federal cap is only 3:1, so in fact it won't change anything for Oregonians.

barfo

2:1 meaning seniors can only be charged 2x as much as young people.

So what's 2x $100/month vs 2x $500/month?

Still 2:1.

In fact, they could jack up young people's rates by 100000000000% and not charge the elderly an extra nickel.

 

[barfo]

2:1 meaning seniors can only be charged 2x as much as young people.

So what's 2x $100/month vs 2x $500/month?

Still 2:1.

In fact, they could jack up young people's rates by 100000000000% and not charge the elderly an extra nickel.

Uh, yes, in theory they could. How is that different than the situation pre-healthcare reform? Answer: not at all.

The article you posted suggested that rates would go up for young people to pay for the 3:1 requirement. My point was they won't (in OR) because they are already at 2:1.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Uh, yes, in theory they could. How is that different than the situation pre-healthcare reform? Answer: not at all.

The article you posted suggested that rates would go up for young people to pay for the 3:1 requirement. My point was they won't (in OR) because they are already at 2:1.

barfo

If the insurance companies need $X to pay their bills and have a reasonable profit, they will raise rates according to the 2:1 or 3:1 formula. If you look at the algebra, it has to be the young people who end up paying more.

 

[barfo]

If the insurance companies need $X to pay their bills and have a reasonable profit, they will raise rates according to the 2:1 or 3:1 formula. If you look at the algebra, it has to be the young people who end up paying more.

No, actually it doesn't.

Let's suppose that right now, the ratio in Oregon is exactly 2:1. Let's assume that there are 10 old people paying $200, and 10 young people paying $100. So the insurance company is raking in $3000. Let's assume they need to raise an extra $1000 to feed their families, Sprewell-style. They could raise the old people by $66.66 each, and the young people by $33.33 each, and raise an extra $1000 that way. Old people pay $266.66; young people pay $133.33, 2:1 ratio is maintained.

The % increase is the same for young and old people (33%); the absolute dollar increase is greater for old people ($66.66 vs $33.33).

Of course, they could instead raise the young people by $100 each, and charge the old folks nothing extra. That would also raise $1000. But that solution is not required.

barfo