Friday, January 7, 2011
Miscellaneous 51
1) I gotta admit. There aren't a lot of things that Sarah Palin and I agree on lately. There is, however, one humongous thing. We both, folks, agree that Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, has some major league cajones. Now, granted, we're basing this mutual assessment upon some starkly differing criteria; Mrs. Palin - on the fact that Governor Brewer is turning it up a notch on illegal immigration, me - more so on the fact that she's letting people die (yes, a clear reference to her cutting of Medicaid for life-saving transplant surgery) . But, still, me-buckos, at least it's frigging something.............2) Just for the record here, if I were a member of Congress, I, too, would have voted against the Republican repeal of Obamacare (and, no, I'm not using the term pejoratively here). Not that I think that Obamacare is great, mind you, but I DO think that it would be a far better strategy to keep it, amend it, and, yes, eventually replace it with something better (Ezekial Emanuel's Guaranteed Health-Care Plan - that, specifically, would have been my preference). But, while, yes, I would have in fact voted with the Dems on this, so, too, do I have a major issue with them. The Dems, folks, simply have to knock it off with this 230 billion dollar figure/nonsense (the number that the Dems say a repeal of Obamacare would add to the deficit). Yes, that IS the figure that the CBO has provided. But it's also a number that is totally based upon the information that was provided to them, you guessed it, BY THE DEMOCRATS!!!! It does NOT, folks, include the Doctor-fix (which was sleazily omitted by the Dems and passed separately) OR the fact that the bill is based upon 10 years of taxes and only 6 years of benefits (yes, a few things begin immediately but the vast, VAST, amount of spending doesn't take place until 2014). Not good, people, not good.............3) Here, folks, is the thingy. We most assuredly CAN fix this health-care predicament. But it isn't even remotely a possibility until both sides, BOTH SIDES, knock it off with this food-fight/misinformation campaign. Until frigging-then....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Wow, I didn't know it was so easy to game the CBO! To get the result you want all you have to do is feed them phony numbers. I guess the CBO is actually totally worthless. Either that, or your post is largely BS.
For the record, "until frigging then" is never going to come about... The Republicans will never "knock off" the misinformation campaign, and the Democrats never began one.
Governor Brewer is NOT "turning it up a notch" on illegal immigration. As I pointed out in my post "Racist Arizona Law Passed For Political Reasons", Jan Brewer's actions were all about getting Jan Brewer re-elected, and actually not at all serious about doing a damn thing regarding illegal immigration.
(And you should know this, since you read my post... or at least you responded to it.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "it's frigging something" in regards to Brewer's death pannel. You're in favor of letting people die?
NO, the CBO isn't "totally worthless". Nor is it biased. But the information that it provides us is totally contingent upon the data given it. The Democrats (and, yes, I would definitely call this dishonest) purposefully omitted the Doc-fix from the bill and passed it separately. They did this BECAUSE, if they had included it in the bill, the bill would have quickly gone into the red. A very sleazy move by the Democrats, in my opinion. Very, very, sleazy.......And NO, I am NOT in favor of letting people die. THAT WAS MY POINT. Governor Brewer has a lot of cajones, specifically, for letting these people die. And the only reason that I brought up the immigration thing was to highlight the fact that that was what Palin was referring to when she brought up the whole cajones thing initially.......Brewer's motivation? I could give a rat's ass about Brewer's motivation.
I guess they should have sabotaged their own bill then? Frankly I don't give a damn if the Democrats weren't completely honest with the facts regarding this bill.
The Repubicans have been playing dirty to accomplish their agenda for quite some time.
I don't know why you wouldn't care about Brewer's motivation. She used people's fears about illegal immigrants to get elected (not re-elected, since she wasn't elected to the position in the first place). She isn't serious about doing anything about illegal immigration.
Everything she's done is for show only. In my blog post I pointed out what actually could be done that would have a REAL impact. I guess it's more important to you to point out when Democrats do things which are (arguably) sleazy and less so when it's the Republicans.
Which explains your seven part series (wrongly) blaming Barney Frank and Fannie and Freddie for the housing bubble and subsequent recession.
No, they shouldn't have "sabotaged" their own bill. I'm just asking that they be honest with the American people.......I criticize Republicans all the time. That first comment in fact was a simultaneous slap at Brewer (for her cutting of transplant funds) AND Palin (for her overall stupidity)......And, finally, Governor Brewer and I DON'T agree on immigration (a topic that this post wasn't even about). My proposal has always been a) national I.D. cards, b) stiffer penalties to businesses that hire illegals, c) a path to citizenship for those that have been in the country a long time, and d) a sensible guest worker program (something similar, in other words, to the Kennedy-McCain approach of 2-3 years ago).
The 230 billion dollar figure isn't nonsense. The doc-fix has been put off for several years, so why should the cost of passing it now be included as a cost of the Democrat's health care legislation?
Also, to say that "we're basically paying 10 years worth of taxes for 6 years worth of benefits", isn't true. According to Paul Krugman, the "CBO projects bigger deficit-reduction in the second decade of the reform than in the first decade".
How could we save more money in the second decade if in the first we need to tax 10 years for 6 years of benefits?
It should be included BECAUSE the cost of the health-care bill is figured over time. The doctor fix is clearly part of the overall strategy.......Paul Krugman? Really?
Paul Krugman?
Internationally recognized Nobel Prize winning economist,
Really?
Who knows more about economics them you ever will. And he has been right about the down turn INCLUDING his forecast the stimulus wouldn't work very well because they spent too much on tax cuts which are NOT stimulative in a downturn where companies are already seeing less in taxes because of falling profits.
Nice to see how you seem to attack those who do not promote your PARTISAN view point as well as those you accuse of doing.
Yes really will.
You are the pot to those you accuse of being kettles.
I think that not only was it not "sleazy" of the Democrats to not include the doc-fix in their legislation, it was smart. I fail to see why they should have deliberately sabotaged their legislation by addressing the doc-fix issue -- a problem that should have have been dealt with years ago!
That being the case, I strongly disagree with your claim that "the doctor fix is clearly part of the overall strategy". It is not. It's something that would have had to have been addressed legislatively sooner or later (whether or not the Democrats passed a Health Care bill).
Forget Paul Krugman. He was only highlighting what the CBO said. Earlier you said the CBO wasn't biased. Have you changed your mind? Why? Because Paul Krugman agreed with something they said?
I'll repeat what I said earlier and give you a second chance to respond to what the CBO said (this time forget that Paul Krugman agrees with it).
You said that ten years of taxes are paying for 6 years of benefits. The CBO says that the savings will be greater in the second decade (this despite the fact that in the second decade ten years of taxes will pay for ten years of benefits). How can your claim be true if what the CBO says is accurate??
Paul Krugman knows more about economics than me. Milton Friedman knew more about economics than you. What's your frigging point here, anonymous/Clif/1138/whoever?......And I object vociferously to being called a partisan (especially by a person who actually IS a partisan LOL). I harshly criticized the Republicans for the way that they referred to this Democratic plan as a "government takeover of health-care". I pointed out that the 1993 Republican plan (that party's alternative to Hillarycare) was essentially the same as this plan, that the bipartisan Bennet-Wyden plan was essentially the same as this plan, and that the Romney MA plan was exceedingly similar to it. I sided with the Democrats on the START treaty, DADT, and letting the Bush-era tax-cuts for the wealthy sunset. What in the frigging hell do you want from me, dude? To agree with the "professional left" on everything? MY GOD!!!!!
Here's what the Dems did, wd. They constructed a bill in which they tried to bend the cost-curve. One of the ways in which they did this was to cut Medicare. When, however, this blew up in their faces (anger from the AMA, perhaps), they had to "fix" the problem by buying off the doctors. To say that the doctor fix doesn't belong in the overall calculus is an extremely high level of dishonesty. I'm sorry.............As for this whole 20 year thing, I have to see what it was that the Democrats provided to CBO; the assumptions (which, in Washington, OBVIOUSLY/NEVER seem to be accurate), the validity of the numbers provided, etc.. I will say, however, that this hypothesis that the plan will end up saving the government substantial money doesn't sound plausible. I mean, think about it, dude. Has the MA plan saved the MA government any money? It doesn't sound to me like it has.
You say not including the doc-fix in the original legislation equates to "an extremely high level of dishonesty", but I disagree.
Congress has been passing temporary fixes since 2003, and now the fix is being made permanent (as everyone expected it would). I don't see how maintaining the status quo is buying anybody off.
Also, the Medicare "cuts" (as you call them) are achieved by running things more efficently and cutting waste.
A 10/15/2010 article from the St. Petersburgh Times says "The $500 billion in [so-called] cuts is really the reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, and it's intended to make the program more efficient. The law also includes new benefits for Medicare that would improve quality".
Doctors aren't being "bought off". Medicare isn't being cut. Republicans are trying to scare old people with these talking points (i.e. lies and distortions).
Mitt Romney has said MA health care is the "ultimate conservative plan"... that's probably what the problem with it is.
If you cut something.....and then put it back in later, IT'S NOT A FRIGGING CUT!!
I remember back in the '90s, Newt Gingrich (yeah, I know, I don't like him much, either) tried to "reduce the growth" of Medicare. He was excoriated by the left as wanting to CUT Medicare. And, really, the government trying to make a program more efficient? Do you really think that that sounds plausible?
That sounds logical, but I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, or what your point (whatever it may be) has to do with this discussion.
And I object vociferously to being called a partisan (especially by a person who actually IS a partisan LOL).
The truth sucks eh will?
You are using GOPer talking points here like you usually try to subtlety do.
You just resent getting called on it.
You are a "non-partisan" IF and only if your view point is seen as non-partisan, and using the GOPer talking points in your arguements is partisan.
However those who do not see eye to eye with you, might just see you as quite partisan ..... which you are BTW.
And trying to make both sides equal is as dishonest as the games Fox News and the whole high paid right wing talk-radio machine play with the truth.
Any sane person with even a hint of a brain who's actually read my blog for the past year and a half knows that this is NOT a partisan site. And, yeah, maybe that's the frigging problem here. You've gotten so ensconced, Mike (yeah, I finally figured it out - all pissed off because your little man crush, Paul Krugman, get's slighted), in this little left-wing (the left is always right, the right is always wrong) fantasy that you just haven't realized that the vast majority of the American public has both liberal AND conservative views. Only hard-core lunatics like you, Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. consistently order this abominable and mindless blue-plate special. Look, boy, I'm probably wrong about a lot of things (most bloggers ARE) that I opine about, but to say that I accomplish this via a partisan perspective is paranoiac AND idiotic.
What I said in this post is NOT a talking point. It is a fact. The Democrats, in attempt to bend the cost curve, cut Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. They then did a doctor fix to ameliorate the fact that physicians would be hurt by these cuts - A MOVE THAT THEY DID NOT INCORPORATE INTO THE FINAL TABULATIONS!!!!!!!!! That, in my opinion, is sleazy. Just like it was sleazy for the Republicans to NOT pay for their prescription drug benefit. You see, Mike, I am fair and consistent here. YOU, boy, are not.......And P.S., you also neglected to point out how I said that I would have voted AGAINST the repeal. As bad as the bill is, it's better than nothing and I would have worked very hard to improve upon it.
The Dems "cut" Medicare and then, to get them to go along with the cuts, they "bought off" the doctors... Those sound like the Republican talking points to me. Like I said earlier, they're lies designed to scare old people.
The problem with doctors who accept Medicare being underpaid existed since BEFORE the Dems passed their bill. Legislation dealing with that problem would have had to be passed even if the health care bill had gone down. I don't know why you insist on linking the two.
In a prior post you asked if the government trying to make a program more efficient sounds plausible. My answer to the question is yes. That is exactly what is going on here. You seem to think the Democrats played a dirty trick by cutting and then putting the money right back. That isn't what happened.
The problem with doctors who accept Medicare being underpaid existed BEFORE the Dems passed their bill. The problem started in 1997 when the Republicans passed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate.
Not Mikey, willy.
I agree, wd, Medicare has consistently been undercutting doctors for years. And maybe there would have been an adjustment anyway (though, no, clearly NOT one the size of which the Demmys had to institute this time). And I'm not even saying that I necessarily oppose the fix. I just don't like it when politicians of either party don't play it straight up with the American people.......Oh, and, just for the record, gentleman, I personally support Ezekial Emanuel's Guaranteed Health-Care Plan. It's the only proposal that I've seen which effectively a) bends (fairly and efficiently) the cost-curve and b) provides universal coverage. I highly recommend his book.
Post a Comment