Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Shawnee123]

Tax guns and pick up trucks, 50%.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Tax guns and pick up trucks, 50%.

Try it.

Tax Birth control Pills.

[Shawnee123]

Tax viagra.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Tax viagra.

I'd be cool with that.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I'd be cool with that.

Are you still using Cialis?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Are you still using Cialis?

Never tried it, how do you like it? Still drawing stick figures of your fantasies and posting them on safe for work threads on The Cellar?

[TheMercenary]

This is the CBO's analysis of how the Reid bill will cut Medicare.

November 20, 2009
Have Democratic Leaders Gone Mad?
With the introduction of Harry Reid's health care bill - talk will inevitably focus on whether the public option or the Stupak amendment will undermine the legislation. Yet, if the bill dies, I do not think either of these will be the primary cause of death.

I think this will be the culprit:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...rs_gone_m.html

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

This is the CBO's analysis of how the Reid bill will cut Medicare.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...rs_gone_m.html

Of the $491 billion in projected cuts:

* $118 billions results from setting payment rates to MA providers on the basis of the average of the bids submitted by those providers in each market...these are the guys who have been overcharging by an estimated 15%. Will it impact services? Probably not. The contracts just wont go the guys who have been overcharging the most..and others will step up.

* Another $192 billion are not really cuts...but reductions in the annual rate of increase for most services in the basic fee-for service program....starting in the out years and based on assumptions of savings through greater efficiencies and fraud detection. A realistic number...probably not. But in any case, the legislation stipulates that any efficiency improvements can not be based on modifying (reducing) eligibility or benefit levels.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Of the $491 billion in projected cuts:

* $118 billions results from setting payment rates to MA providers on the basis of the average of the bids submitted by those providers in each market...these are the guys who have been overcharging by an estimated 15%. Will it impact services? Probably not. The contracts just wont go the guys who have been overcharging the most..and others will step up.

* Another $192 billion are not really cuts...but reduction in the annual rate of increase....starting in the out years and based on assumptions of savings through greater efficiencies and fraud detection. A realistic number...probably not. But in any case, the legislation stipulates that any efficiency improvements can not be based on modifying (reducing) eligibility or benefit levels.

Smoke and mirrors. Right out of the Demoncratic talking points, "Not really a cut but a reduction..."

A realistic number...probably not.

Bingo!

I think we agree that the projected savings are questionable. The savings from cuts to MA providers is real, with no likely impact on patients.

But it still means no cuts in eligibility or benefit levels.....at least in these bills.

Which we also agree is unsustainable in the long-term.

Which is why there needs to be a hard look at entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid -- but, IMO, in a separate discussion.

[TheMercenary]

If you take ONLY the part that the savings are questionable then it throws off the whole idea that the plan is "Deficit Neutral". Hence, services will be reduced. That mean cuts. If you have a program at level X and you reduce services, regardless of what value you placed on a service like MA, then that means the program is being cut. You and your guys sure like to use smoke and mirrors to pretend that what is really happening is not really happening.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

If you take ONLY the part that the savings are questionable then it throws off the whole idea that the plan is "Deficit Neutral". Hence, services will be reduced. That mean cuts. If you have a program at level X and you reduce services, regardless of what value you placed on a service like MA, then that means the program is being cut. You and your guys sure like to use smoke and mirrors to pretend that what is really happening is not really happening.

Merc....we simply disagree.

You call it smoke and mirrors by Democrats and I call it fear-mongering by Republicans and the impacted industries (insurance companies, small businesses - investing $tens of millions in lobbying and media buys to protect their own interests).

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Merc....we simply disagree.

I agree.

You call it smoke and mirrors by Democrats and I call it fear-mongering by Republicans and the impacted industries (insurance companies, small businesses - investing $tens of millions in lobbying and media buys to protect their own interests).

I agree to some degree. But why would you attack small business? They are not the evil entity here.

I wouldnt penalize the small businesses if I had my way.

The best way to fund any revenue shortfalls, IMO, would be to extend the surcharge on the top taxpayers....from the top 1/2 of one percent to the top 2%....leaving 98% of taxpayers not impacted by the costs.

But then you and UG would call me a socialist....

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I wouldnt penalize the small businesses if I had my way.

The best way to fund any revenue shortfalls, IMO, would be to extend the surcharge on the top taxpayers....from the top 1/2 of one percent to the top 2%....leaving 98% of taxpayers not impacted by the costs.

But then you and UG would call me a socialist....

If you want to redistribute wealth from those who worked hard to make money and give it to those who haven't been so fortunate, you are promoting a socialist ideal. Wealth Redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics