Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

So now a libertarian magazine is not partisan because it says its non-partisan?

No. It is not partisan because it supports neither the Demoncrats or the Republickins. That would be like saying the Green Party is partisan.

What facts? I see partisan opinions that you support. So whats new.

Dispute them.

Or just get over it....the law is now the law of the land.

Yea, see you in Nov. The "law of the land" will bankrupt us. Reid is screwed in the next election and hopefully that bitch Pelosi will get some too.

[TheMercenary]

Five myths about the politics of health-care reform
March 21, 2010

1. This could have been a bipartisan bill.


Very unlikely. Bipartisanship in politics is built on two pillars: trust and mutual benefit. And from the start it was apparent that both were in short supply in the 111th Congress.

While Obama's election -- and Democratic gains in the House and the Senate -- in 2008 were heralded as a new beginning in politics, the distrust and partisanship that had typified Congress in the recent past left a bitterness that no election could heal. Obama's efforts to bridge those gaps (often more personality-driven than policy-focused) came up short, with Republicans wary of being made into political pawns.


Nowhere was that wariness on better display than during last month's televised health-care summit at Blair House. Republicans came armed for rhetorical battle -- complete with copies of the massive bill as props -- rather than bipartisan compromise. That meeting also made plain the wide policy gap between the two parties; Democrats were focused primarily on expanding coverage, while Republicans were fixated on controlling costs.

Congressional Republicans also made an early strategic calculation that unified opposition to the president's overall agenda was their best course of action. The fact that just three Senate Republicans -- including one, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, who later become a Democrat -- backed Obama's economic stimulus package was an omen that bipartisanship on health care was a pipe dream.

2. Democrats gave up on the public option too soon.


To this day, the left insists that if the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stood strongly behind the creation of a public option -- a government-run health-care plan -- it could muster the necessary votes in the Senate. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is even sponsoring an ad that plucks public statements from a handful of Senate Democrats -- Mark Warner (Va.), Jim Webb (Va.) and Kay Hagan (N.C.) among them -- to prove that a majority could be built around the measure.

But the fact is that expressing support for the public option is a consequence-free win-win situation for Senate Democrats. Politicians know that a vote on the controversial measure simply won't happen because neither the White House nor the congressional leadership has any desire to bring it back up. As a result, these lawmakers are free to voice their strong support for the public option while never having to worry about the political consequences of casting a vote in favor of it.

3. Scott Brown changed everything.


Yes and no. From a procedural standpoint, the stunning upset by Brown, a Republican, in the Jan. 19 Massachusetts special election forced Democrats to reassess their plan for passing the health-care overhaul; they drew a road map heavy on parliamentary procedures that led us down the current path. Without 60 seats, Democrats are unable to break Republican filibusters and therefore have been forced to slow-walk legislation that they had been on the precipice of passing before Brown's win.

But the meat of the bill -- an attempt at broad reform -- never really changed. From the start, the president made clear that nibbling around the edges of health care didn't interest him. Brown's victory did little to change Obama's "go big or go home" approach, even if it did raise the electoral stakes heading into the midterm elections this fall.

The psychological effect on Democrats of Brown winning the late Ted Kennedy's seat is harder to gauge. Democratic strategists fretted that the loss of the seat would lead to a rush of retirements on their side, a fear that hasn't been entirely borne out as the retirements have come more in dribs and drabs.

4. The public is undecided about health-care reform.


Divided? Yes. Undecided? No. Poll after poll shows that people, by and large, have made up their minds about where they come down on this bill. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released last week, 36 percent said they believed Obama's health-care plan was a good idea while 48 percent called it a bad one, leaving just 15 percent without an opinion.

A broad look at the survey data on the support and opposition for overhauling health care -- helpfully compiled by the good folks at Pollster.com -- shows a similar, steady trend line. Opposition runs in the upper 40s, support in the low to mid-40s and undecided respondents in the low single digits. Those numbers haven't moved much since August 2009, when the raucous receptions that members of Congress received at town hall meetings across the country signaled growing leeriness toward the legislation.

The American public is deeply divided over this bill -- what's in it, what it will do, whether it's the right thing -- but not at all unclear on how they feel about it.

5. How lawmakers vote on health-care reform will be the top issue in the 2010 midterm elections.


Health care will indeed be an important issue in November, but it will be secondary to Americans' concerns about jobs and the economy. In a Gallup poll conducted this month, 31 percent of people identified unemployment as the most pressing issue facing the country, while 24 percent named the "economy in general." Twenty percent chose health care.

In the immediate aftermath of passage (or failure) of a reform bill, health care is likely to experience a bit of a bump in terms of voter priorities in polls, but it will probably recede as anxiety about the economy and the job market reasserts itself. Historically, when the economy is struggling (or is perceived to be struggling), all other issues take a back seat -- hence the successful "it's the economy, stupid" slogan of Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992.

Democrats will try to sell the health-care legislation as a jobs bill by emphasizing the benefits it offers for small businesses. Republicans will cast health-care reform as the biggest piece of evidence that the Obama administration took its eye off the economy at a critical time. Either way, they'll be talking economy first and second (and probably third) on the campaign trail this fall.

Chris Cillizza is a national politics reporter for The Washington Post and the author of The Fix, a politics blog at http://www.washingtonpost.com/thefix.

[TheMercenary]

The Take: Historic win or not, Democrats could pay a price

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032003349.html

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Dispute them.

I will ask again.

What facts?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I will ask again.

What facts?

Dispute the points in the article. Pretty much everything I have been talking about for the last year is now coming to the top of the discussions.

So you have no way to support the assessments of the experts on the issue and the potential fallout of the bills passage. Bottom line, this bill is not going to do what they say it will and it will cost us a hell of a lot more than the fantasy reports of the OMB.

Here is a great report about those lobbyists who feed on the whores of Congress.

{warning, from that partisan site NPR}

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=125170643

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Dispute the points in the article. Pretty much everything I have been talking about for the last year is now coming to the top of the discussions....

The points in the article are not facts, they are undocumented opinions and I disagree with them..and you. Doesnt make either one of us right...only time will tell.

I do agree that the CBO budget estimate of deficit reductions are optimistic...but nearly half of the cost is offset with hard money....$150 billion in cuts in overpayments to MA providers and a 0.9% increase in medicare payroll tax for top wage earners (over $200K) for another $250 bill.

The significant investment in medical/health care technology (in both the stimulus bill and the health reform bill) will save $$$ billions over time...just difficult to determine with certainty exactly how much.

[TheMercenary]

Here is a good one totally wrapped in lies and fallacy.

Build more clinics.

Who is going to staff them?

Where are you going to get the doctors to see all these new patients? How about nurses? How about medical support staff? Who is going to find money to help the states pay for these unfunded mandates?
There are still millions of un-insured people at the end of the day and not a damm thing has been done to control the costs of the insurance company controlling the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles of those who already have insurance. The whole system is flawed and it was sold to the American public with lies. Fact.
Here is another fact. If the Republickins take control of the House, Senate, or White House in the next 10 years all bets are off.
Here is a good one too. Fact: the majority of the American public think this is a bad idea and the Demoncrats ignored the electorate.

The points in the article are not facts, they are undocumented opinions

I will take an expert opinion over those of an unknown unnamed poster who is a self proclaimed Demoncratic shill on a public forum anyday, you lose on that account hands down.

I do agree that the CBO budget estimate of deficit reductions are optimistic.

One of the few admissions that I have seen you make since you started to post here, and that is an understatement. You don't mean those estimates from that Deciever in Chief, Peter Orsag?

The significant investment in medical/health care technology (in both the stimulus bill and the health reform bill) will save $$$ billions over time.

Total bullshit. There are no facts that support this, only opinion.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Here is a good one totally wrapped in lies and fallacy.

Build more clinics.

Who is going to staff them?

Where are you going to get the doctors to see all these new patients?

The bill significantly increases funding (more than double) for the National Health Service Corps to provide scholarships and loan repayments in exchange for a commitment to work in under-served areas.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Total bullshit. There are no facts that support this, only opinion.

Between $400 - $500 billion in revenue and cost reductions is hard money...as I pointed out.

If you dont think the significant investment in technology will also result in savings, then we disagree. Look at any industry that has invested in technology and you will find savings over time.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Fact: the majority of the American public think this is a bad idea and the Demoncrats ignored the electorate.

cite?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The bill significantly increases funding (more than double) for the National Health Service Corps to provide scholarships and loan repayments in exchange for a commitment to work in under-served areas.

Great. Who can make the grade? Who qualifies to make it in the profession? You think anyone can just walk up and be a healthcare provider, a nurse, a doctor? How long does it take from beginning to end to make one? How competitive is it to get into school? Ask around and you will see that plan is a complete failure. The one thing that will happen is that you will see a huge influx of FMG's come to the US from other nations to perform the work. Job creation my ass.

Between $400 - $500 billion in revenue and cost reductions is hard money...as I pointed out.

It is funny money created by moving the numbers around. All bets are off if they don't cut the Medicare by 21%, which will sink any Dem who votes for it in the next election, which they have not been able to pull off for years. And when a new administration takes office all bets are off again, they just vote in overrides and change the law, again.

If you dont think the significant investment in technology will also result in savings, then we disagree. Look at any industry that has invested in technology and you will find savings.

As a healthcare worker myself I know it is bullshit. No, what we find in government investments is the funneling of money for political gain to projects that have no proven track record of success and most of the money being sent to states and projects within the districts of the Congressional Whores who happen to have power at the time of the Bill. Different side of the same coin.

Take electronic medical records, which we have talked about numerous times on here, savings? Some. But it will never do what the Obama Admin and his Handlers said it would do and it never will.

Those "technology" estimates of savings are a guess, opinion.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

cite?

Man, you must really have your head in the sand if you need help with that one. No wonder you are going lose Reid in Nov.

So you dont have a cite. If it is a fact as you stated, prove it.

Because the tea baggers are screaming the loudest, you think it represents the majority of Americans?

I know you dont like polls, but the polls dispute your assertion.

The Nevada Senate election should be interesting....particularly if the Nevada Tea Party runs a candidate and splits the vote on the right.

Unfortunately, one of the Tea Party candidates is facing felony charges.

The other issue in Nevada is the possible resignation of the other senator, John Ensign, who is facing a federal grand jury investigation as a result of a payoff to the husband of a staff worker with whom Ensign had an affair.

So there might be two senate races in Nevada in Nov.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

So you dont have a cite.

I know you dont like polls, but the polls dispute your assertion.

For every poll you put up there is an equal and opposit poll that disputes your assertions.

The total topic of discussions on all news sites are about the subjects I am bringing up now, and have been bringing up for the last year.

You will just have to take your medicine now and your party will have to take responsibility for shoving an unpopular bill down the throats of the electorate through non-bipartisan means with little debate and input from anyone who is not party to the propaganda.

So it is not a fact that the majority of Americans think it is a bad idea as you stated.

Its just your opinion.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

So it is not a fact that the majority of Americans think it is a bad idea as you stated.

Its just your opinion.

Nope it is a fact. But of course you can't prove me wrong now can you? Or maybe you can post a poll to prove me wrong.

Now go back to my other assertions. Can you dispute the facts in the articles I have posted by subject matter experts or not?

So we'e back to your opinions and the opinions of libertarian columnists with an agenda and whom you agree are facts and my opinions are not?

Its been fun.