So next elections when the Republicans again run on "lowering taxes"

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower per Forbes.

From the whitehouse website...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s/hist01z1.xls

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

It was hardly the priority issue of the time - unless you've been pining for payback since '94. You can spin it any way you want, but the fact remains that this policy - and just about every other policy from this administration - is more about political payback for 2000-2008 than anything else and forcing their will on their political opponents.

And I won't even wade into the morass that is Obamacare only to say that it will be a complete failure when all is said and done, that the "savings" they project will never materalize and that it will actually "cost" us more in the long run. Oh, and that the insurance companies have already figured out how to "game" it. This was never an attempt to solve the healthcare issue as much as it was a chance to gain victory over an opponent. It's motivation as shallow as your's and mine on the Saturday after Thanksgiving.

Lastly, let me ask you this. Why was no (R) healthcare idea even considered in this bill? I mean, how can you have comprehensive healthcare without some kind of tort reform? Why was selling across state lines never considered? Full tax decuctions for services performed on the needy? None of it was there. None was even considered. And you're telling me this wasn't about payback? Puhleeze.

That's okay though. Celebrate now. You and your side will be crying in 2016-24 as that administration spends 8 years trying to undo this administration's policies.

If it was "revenge" for '94, its pretty strange that they latched onto a plan drawn up by conservatives back then as an alternative to the Clinton proposals, and supported by many Republicans right up until it was proposed by a Democrat at a national level. Democrats begged and pleaded for votes, but Republicans made a calculated risk to deny the Democrats a legislative victory (fine, thats politics), followed by a sour grapes constitutional challenge that failed after a conservative justice became the key vote in upholding it. It was really nothing more than that, unless part of the FU was making them vote against something they once supported. The alternative things you mentioned would have negligible impact on healthcare costs.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower per Forbes.

Smallest increase in government spending, different from smallest spending.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Why was no (R) healthcare idea even considered in this bill? I mean, how can you have comprehensive healthcare without some kind of tort reform? Why was selling across state lines never considered? Full tax decuctions for services performed on the needy? None of it was there. None was even considered. And you're telling me this wasn't about payback? Puhleeze.

I don't know about full tax deductions, but the other two ideas have been tried at the state level and haven't made a difference.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If it was "revenge" for '94, its pretty strange that they latched onto a plan drawn up by conservatives back then as an alternative to the Clinton proposals, and supported by many Republicans right up until it was proposed by a Democrat at a national level. Democrats begged and pleaded for votes, but Republicans made a calculated risk to deny the Democrats a legislative victory (fine, thats politics), followed by a sour grapes constitutional challenge that failed after a conservative justice became the key vote in upholding it. It was really nothing more than that. The alternative things you mentioned would have negligible impact on healthcare costs.

Nevertheless, who exactly was clammoring for THIS in 2008-09? I think most were clammoring for jobs. Why couldn't this have waited? Oh yeah, because the (R) were going to get the house back in 2010. You still have not addressed why THIS was priority #1 for the administration when it was far down the list for most Americans?

That old "we know what better for you than you do" kind of thinking perhaps? Or, more likely (and especially in the final hours) it was about beating the other side.

At the very least, it was a totally ham-handed approach to the issue.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

I don't know about full tax deductions, but the other two ideas have been tried at the state level and haven't made a difference.

How can selling across state lines (on a nationwide basis) be tried at the state level?

Seriously. It's an honest question.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Nevertheless, who exactly was clammoring for THIS in 2008-09? I think most were clammoring for jobs. Why couldn't this have waited? Oh yeah, because the (R) were going to get the house back in 2010. You still have not addressed why THIS was priority #1 for the administration when it was far down the list for most Americans?

That old "we know what better for you than you do" kind of thinking perhaps? Or, more likely (and especially in the final hours) it was about beating the other side.

At the very least, it was a totally ham-handed approach to the issue.

Whatever you believe about the process, the point remains. Healthcare was a serious drain on spending, and part of "fixing" the economy. It was not just some pet project that had no relevance to the situation. Also, if you remember the stimulus was the first priority, not healthcare (that didnt pass until 2010 after months of debate).

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

How can selling across state lines (on a nationwide basis) be tried at the state level?

Seriously. It's an honest question.

Several states have allowed insurers from other states to sell in their state. Isn't that what it means to sell across state lines? Is "selling across state lines" code for something else?

How would selling across state lines be functionally different when every single state allows it as opposed to a handful of states? For the insurer, what difference does it make that Alabama does or does not allow them to sell insurance in that state if they are trying to sell insurance in Georgia?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

How can selling across state lines (on a nationwide basis) be tried at the state level?

Seriously. It's an honest question.

The state can allow people to purchase from foreign insurers (meaning HQd in another state, and not admitted to the domestic (state) market).

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Whatever you believe about the process, the point remains. Healthcare was a serious drain on spending, and part of "fixing" the economy. It was not just some pet project that had no relevance to the situation. Also, if you remember the stimulus was the first priority, not healthcare (that didnt pass until 2010 after months of debate).

I don't buy that rationale as I sincerely believe, without a recession, it is still priority #1 for this administration. And, ultimately, it's a convoluted mess of a bill that, in the end, was more about exacting a political pound of flesh than actually dealing with the issue in an honest and earnest way.

This is the kind of issue that requires more than a year or two of political name-calling to solve. Maybe it would have been smarter to start with baby steps or, (bleep)-it, just go with a single-payer system. IMO, that would have been preferable to this.

Which begs an honest question I've pondered for a while? Would single-payer be better, even for employers? I've always preferred fixed cost to variable cost. Would it not be more effecient and affordable - even for companies - if we all just paid an extra 5% in taxes and were all covered? Companies no longer have to worry about negotiating insurance deals every 2-3 years and folks who want a higher level of coverage than the base could buy supplimental plans like those offered for Medicare?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Several states have allowed insurers from other states to sell in their state. Isn't that what it means to sell across state lines? Is "selling across state lines" code for something else?

How would selling across state lines be functionally different when every single state allows it as opposed to a handful of states? For the insurer, what difference does it make that Alabama does or does not allow them to sell insurance in that state if they are trying to sell insurance in Georgia?

I'm not sure that's the same as creating a nationwide market. I claim little knowledge on this issue, but have heard a lot about it's supposed benefits. For instance, why is that currently not allowed?

[Gatoragman]

So what has Obamacare done to "fix" the economy so far?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

I don't buy that rationale as I sincerely believe, without a recession, it is still priority #1 for this administration. And, ultimately, it's a convoluted mess of a bill that, in the end, was more about exacting a political pound of flesh than actually dealing with the issue in an honest and earnest way.

This is the kind of issue that requires more than a year or two of political name-calling to solve. Maybe it would have been smarter to start with baby steps or, (bleep)-it, just go with a single-payer system. IMO, that would have been preferable to this.

Which begs an honest question I've pondered for a while? Would single-payer be better, even for employers? I've always preferred fixed cost to variable cost. Would it not be more effecient and affordable - even for companies - if we all just paid an extra 5% in taxes and were all covered? Companies no longer have to worry about negotiating insurance deals every 2-3 years and folks who want a higher level of coverage than the base could buy supplimental plans like those offered for Medicare?

Single payor would be better. Allowing hospitals to refuse treatment for the uninsured or letting private insurers more easily cancel people, limit who they cover or deny claims would probably help costs too. But politics are about what is possible, not about what is the "best" or "ideal" solution. Single payor and limiting access to insurance to only the healthy isnt politically possible, and may never be.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Single payor would be better. Allowing hospitals to refuse treatment for the uninsured or letting private insurers more easily cancel people, limit who they cover or deny claims would probably help costs too. But politics are about what is possible, not about what is the "best" or "ideal" solution. Single payor and limiting access to insurance to only the healthy isnt politically possible, and may never be.

Which is a shame, because it has been shown to provide better health care for less money. You would think that we could all agree that getting more for less is a good thing.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Single payor would be better. Allowing hospitals to refuse treatment for the uninsured or letting private insurers more easily cancel people, limit who they cover or deny claims would probably help costs too. But politics are about what is possible, not about what is the "best" or "ideal" solution. Single payor and limiting access to insurance to only the healthy isnt politically possible, and may never be.

I in no way support this. I was just suggesting that, perhaps, a flat and fixed cost for everyone (rich, poor, businesses, self-employed, etc.) would be more cost effective. For those who want more or better, then they can spend the additional needed to get that and do so the same way they negotiate insurance today. But the base would be covered for everyone.

My guess is the insurance companies are the biggest obstacle to this, as this would cut out a large portion of their client base and revenues. Personally, I could care less about them or the HMO's/Healthcare Corps and once they signed on to Obamacare, I knew it was worthless (and that their beancounters had already figured a way to "game" the new system).

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower per Forbes.

I'll pile on.

This wasn't Forbes but rather an Op-Ed piece by a liberal blogger:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...arack-obama/2/

And it was easily refuted in another Forbes Op-Ed piece:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...world-history/

As already mentioned, the increase in the rate of growth OVER AND BEYOND the previous spending levels does not equal "smallest govt spender".

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

I'll pile on.

This wasn't Forbes but rather an Op-Ed piece by a liberal blogger:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...arack-obama/2/

And it was easily refuted in another Forbes Op-Ed piece:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...world-history/

As already mentioned, the increase in the rate of growth OVER AND BEYOND the previous spending levels does not equal "smallest govt spender".

Facts can be so inconvenient...

[QGator2414]

Why do people want single payer for only healthcare?

What about the industry you work in?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Why do people want single payer for only healthcare?

What about the industry you work in?

Because it has been shown to provide better outcomes at a lower cost?

As a teacher, we already have single payer when it comes to schools.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

I'm not sure that's the same as creating a nationwide market. I claim little knowledge on this issue, but have heard a lot about it's supposed benefits. For instance, why is that currently not allowed?

I think what people mean by "purchasing across state lines" means dipping into other risk pools. But it's counterproductive. If rates are cheaper in a healthier state, and you let a bunch of actuarily less healthy outsiders in, then the rates won't stay the same. They will rise because the risk pool has become unhealthier in aggregate. Obamacare creates a national market, but it also has a funding mechanism (that the above approach doesnt have), by making sure free-riders or people who wouldnt purchase insurance are paying into the risk pool either by buying coverage or paying a tax, offsetting the costs of the expanded pool.