If this is about health care, I agree.

And I would disagree, but I would suggest this be removed to the quad.

(03-21-2010 10:01 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  If this is about health care, I agree.

it is,

I figured you nerds would be smart enough to figure that out.

(03-21-2010 10:01 PM)texd Wrote:  And I would disagree, but I would suggest this be removed to the quad.

allow it one day at least,only the uber nerds dare enter the QUAD

But that's what it's there for.

(03-21-2010 10:07 PM)texd Wrote:  But that's what it's there for.

+1

(03-21-2010 10:07 PM)texd Wrote:  But that's what it's there for.

I know, but there is precedent to leave it here for a spell.

Plus so few venture up there. I want to hear more opinions than the Quad typically offers

esp. from the Constitutional experts, I dont think this thing is gonna past the smell test IMHO FWIW.

Hope you are well.

(03-21-2010 10:11 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(03-21-2010 10:07 PM)texd Wrote:  But that's what it's there for.

+1

+2

The Quad does its job. The recent "Party of No" thread spawned robust discussion, as have other similar topics. Rice people are smart enough to know that, if they want political debate, there is a place for it. No need to bait them into it. But whatever, it's not that big a deal, I guess.

so moved - go to NCAA spin room too if you want to talk more about it.

http://ncaabbs.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=540

(03-21-2010 10:29 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  so moved - go to NCAA spin room too if you want to talk more about it.

http://ncaabbs.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=540

dammit

Quad is fine.
At least the discussion here is a bit more respectful than in places like the Spin Room.
I still want someone who thinks this is a good idea to explain why. Not the talking points, but a real explanation from someone who really understands the bill.
By the way, if you read the CBO study, it does NOT say that the bill will clearly reduce the deficit, or even that it is deficit-neutral. What it DOES say is that IF AND ONLY IF certain assumptions materialize, then it would be deficit neutral or better. But several of those assumptions are very unlikely to materialize, something that CBO itself notes in any of several versions of their report (for example, the December 2009 response to Harry Reid very clearly identifies two major unlikely assumptions, one with a likely impact of half a trillion, and the other likely to have an impact of several trillions).
And obviously, the CBO report does not consider the impact on the states (who will be on the hook for considerably more money that they don't have).

(03-21-2010 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Quad is fine.
At least the discussion here is a bit more respectful than in places like the Spin Room.
I still want someone who thinks this is a good idea to explain why. Not the talking points, but a real explanation from someone who really understands the bill.
By the way, if you read the CBO study, it does NOT say that the bill will clearly reduce the deficit, or even that it is deficit-neutral. What it DOES say is that IF AND ONLY IF certain assumptions materialize, then it would be deficit neutral or better. But several of those assumptions are very unlikely to materialize, something that CBO itself notes in any of several versions of their report (for example, the December 2009 response to Harry Reid very clearly identifies two major unlikely assumptions, one with a likely impact of half a trillion, and the other likely to have an impact of several trillions).
And obviously, the CBO report does not consider the impact on the states (who will be on the hook for considerably more money that they don't have).

Representative Paul Ryan seems to have a lot of knowledge and credibility on the real impact of this legislation. Here's the transcript of one inteview he had with Limbaugh which also discusses the recent CBO accounting or "double" accounting.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s...guest.html

Obviously, I am extremely concerned ("outraged" is a better word) about the federal government's "incremental" taking over of the healthcare industry, but it is just one facet of the continued centralization of power in the federal government that should concern everyone who worries about the erosion of individual freedoms.

(03-21-2010 10:12 PM)THRILL Wrote:  

(03-21-2010 10:07 PM)texd Wrote:  But that's what it's there for.

I know, but there is precedent to leave it here for a spell.

Plus so few venture up there. I want to hear more opinions than the Quad typically offers

esp. from the Constitutional experts, I dont think this thing is gonna past the smell test IMHO FWIW.

Hope you are well.

I feel like the first ring of defense has been breached. That's not good, but it's not final either.

After reconciliation, it will come back to the House, and by then Representatives will have heard from their constituents, something the leadership didn't want to happen before this vote. (Ask yourself, Why?) Will they have second thoughts? Will the Senate keep Obama's promises? Tune in later for the next episode of How the Sausage Burns.

I think by 2025 or so, a lot of people currently happy will be unhappy. Some will be Democratic supporters, and some will be people who thought they were going to get help. (Of course, a lot will be both).

The real shame here is that the Democrats wimped out on providing a public option. The only true winners in all of this are the Health Insurers.

(03-21-2010 11:51 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2010 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Quad is fine.
At least the discussion here is a bit more respectful than in places like the Spin Room.
I still want someone who thinks this is a good idea to explain why. Not the talking points, but a real explanation from someone who really understands the bill.
By the way, if you read the CBO study, it does NOT say that the bill will clearly reduce the deficit, or even that it is deficit-neutral. What it DOES say is that IF AND ONLY IF certain assumptions materialize, then it would be deficit neutral or better. But several of those assumptions are very unlikely to materialize, something that CBO itself notes in any of several versions of their report (for example, the December 2009 response to Harry Reid very clearly identifies two major unlikely assumptions, one with a likely impact of half a trillion, and the other likely to have an impact of several trillions).
And obviously, the CBO report does not consider the impact on the states (who will be on the hook for considerably more money that they don't have).

Representative Paul Ryan seems to have a lot of knowledge and credibility on the real impact of this legislation. Here's the transcript of one inteview he had with Limbaugh which also discusses the recent CBO accounting or "double" accounting.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s...guest.html
Obviously, I am extremely concerned ("outraged" is a better word) about the federal government's "incremental" taking over of the healthcare industry, but it is just one facet of the continued centralization of power in the federal government that should concern everyone who worries about the erosion of individual freedoms.

I can't stand Limbaugh, so I'll pass on the interview, but thanks.

This to me was the major mistake the republicans made. They let the democrats get away with the sound byte that "CBO says this will reduce the deficit" when in fact (1) it probably won't, and (2) CBO didn't really say it would.

Maybe I see the holes in the CBO report more easily than most because of my background. As a CPA and then as an attorney, working primarily in administrative and commercial transactions, where court cases are usually "my expert versus your expert" affairs, I learned very quickly that the important part of any financial projection is not the conclusions, but the methodology and assumptions. The CBO report is based upon flawed assumptions, and CBO itself freely admits those flaws in its own reports.

My understanding of how CBO operates is that any member can request them to do a study and they will do so. How hard would it have been for about 200 republicans (and maybe even a few blue dogs) to sign a letter something like the following (specific wording based on the letter to Harry Reid about the senate plan, but easily adaptable to any other CBO report):

"Your recent report on the fiscal impact of the health care reform is based upon certain assumptions which you have indicated are questionable. These include:
"1. The expectation of approximately half a trillion dollars in revenues from the tax on so-called cadillac health insurance plans during years 11-20, and
"2. The expectation that the rate of increase in health care spending will decrease for 4% to 2%, without serious declines in quality or availability of medical care.
"Your report also does not evaluate the impact on the states os ant costs which this bill would shift to them.
"Please provide an analysis of the impact of the bill to include the following:
"1. The assumption that substantially all cadillac plans will be revised to escape taxation,
"2. The assumption that the rate of growth in medical costs will continue at the historic 4% rate, and
"3. An quantification of the estimated fiscal impact on the states from the provisions of this bill, including if possible the estimated impact upon individual states."

It's difficult to gauge the impact of the above from the CBO report, since their numbers are netted and aggregated in ways that make the required calculations hard to replicate. My best guess is that the response to this request would show about a $2 trillion increase in the deficit and up to $1 trillion impact on the states, with those in worst fiscal shape being hardest hit.

Why did the republicans not request this?

A good defense from the libertarian Economist here.

To me, the most worrying aspect of the current (or I guess, "old" now that this bill has passed) system is that, should I come down with some disease or other lifelong condition, I would essentially be obligated to work for my current employer forever, as otherwise it would be a "pre-existing condition" that would result in my being denied coverage. I really like my job but that prospect still is quite scary--even if you don't want to leave it significantly reduces your ability to negotiate.

Otherwise, the bill expands access, which to me was a major distributive justice issue, without breaking the bank. We can quibble about the precise impact on the deficit, but at least the tax increases are there. (Compare: Medicare Part D.) Regardless, this is small potatoes in the scheme of Medicare's long-run fiscal cost; eventually, seniors are going to have to accept managed care of some sort...there's really no other way around it, but I doubt the political will materializes until things are in worse shape.

(03-22-2010 07:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I can't stand Limbaugh, so I'll pass on the interview, but thanks.

Regardless of your opinion of Limbaugh, Rep. Paul Ryan has a great view of this bill and his costs. He's a sharp guy whose politics you should check out.

(03-22-2010 01:37 AM)CanadianOwl Wrote:  The real shame here is that the Democrats wimped out on providing a public option. The only true winners in all of this are the Health Insurers.

Canadian - insurance companies are merely pass thru entities, from the provider to the employer sponsored group. They in fact are the one and only bastion of restraint on health care providers charging whatever in the hell they could get away with to us consumers. They negotiate reimbursement rates, on the consumers behalf. Have you ever looked at your e.o.b. whenever you've had treatment from a doctor or a hospital ? The difference between 'amount charged' and 'amount allowed' represents that negotiation.
Same for the individual health insurance marketplace. The big brou-ha-ha over preexisting condition clauses (which apply to this market ONLY)is unfounded, in the current system. These clauses are in effect because the majority of self employed or independent people do not attempt to buy insurance until they get sick. Well how's that going to work ? Someone facing a $25,000 - $50,000 - $100,000 treatment tries to then go out and get health insurance for a $ 300/mo premium ? Would you take on that kind of potential risk personally if you owned an insurance company ? Is that good business ?
The only way no pre-ex clause works is if EVERYONE (again, this just applies to the non-employer sponsored individual marketplace) has to buy into the health insurance system immediately and continually - i.e. when you are healthy, not just when you are sick. There is of course debate as to the public good regarding this requirement, but I personally support it.
What disappoints me is the supporters of Obamacare have attempted to paint the insurance companies as villains, to try and take the focus off his attempt to socialize the healthcare industry. I guess I should expect it from his corner. I'm not saying the bill doesn't have any good points, because it does have a few. But when they carp about the insurance industry profits rising 56% in 2009, they seem to have left out that profit margins only went from 2% to a little over 3%. Yes, that's a 56% rise, but it's also disingenuous as hell on their part. I'd like to see the profitability of Harry Reid's ambulance-chaser lawfirm, especially when they sue doctors and hospitals. Bet it's more than 3%. Also, what about those many years in the '90s when virtually every insurance company lost it's @ss because premiums lagged substantially behind provider reimbursements ? Might that be a reason why you only see 5 or 6 insurance companies in existence today, vs 25 or so back then ?
And no, I don't work for an insurance company. I am a consumer of healthcare, however.

delete - duplicate