Topic: new health care bill

[Govtcheez]

That's a smart thing to post on the internet.

And on the not secret service tagged part of your post, didn't the CBO say that the senate bill was actually going to reduce the deficit?

[micah]

seriously, can someone edit/delete RoD's post before we get patriot-acted.

..didn't the CBO say that the senate bill was actually going to reduce the deficit?

I saw a poll yesterday or the day before that said something like 70% of American's don't believe that it could possibly reduce the deficit.  I'm not arguing against the budget office or saying that just because a majority of people believe something that its true -- but seriously... it doesn't seem to make sense that you could DECREASE the deficit while enacting massive government spending.

The only way you can decrease a deficit while increasing spending, is by taking more money from your citizens. 

[Govtcheez]

Or reallocating money already existing in the system

[micah]

Or reallocating money already existing in the system

if there were surplus money in the system we wouldn't have a deficit, so you're talking about cutting funding to existing programs.  That makes some sense.

Here's an idea though.

Lets cut that money from existing programs which may or may not need it. But instead of putting it straight into healthcare, first give it back to the tax payers.  Say "Here's your portion of all the money we could cut from the budget."  Let people see it, put it in their bank accounts and wallets.  Then turn around and say, "OK, now give it back to us, we want to reform healthcare with it." -- I bet 90% of American's would instantly become conservatives.

[Govtcheez]

And I bet if you did that with the military budget 90% would become liberals.  That's a stupid hypothetical.

[micah]

And I bet if you did that with the military budget 90% would become liberals.  That's a stupid hypothetical.

They wouldn't become liberals, they would become pacifists.  That is, until the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11. 

[Govtcheez]

thank god we had the military on 9/11 or else some terrorists would have blown up some buildings and we would have gotten into two retarded wars

man, think what would have happened if we hadn't spent so much on the military then!

[micah]

 

[JaWiB]

I thought one of the ideas behind health care reform was to get more preventive care, saving money in the long term.

[Govtcheez]

No, it's just a ploy to raise taxes and fuck the middle class while providing nothing of benefit.  Unless you hate grandma.

[charlie]

it doesn't seem to make sense that you could DECREASE the deficit while enacting massive government spending.

The only way you can decrease a deficit while increasing spending, is by taking more money from your citizens. 

Of course it makes sense. It's actually pretty simple. If you cut costs in spending elsewhere and raise revenue through taxes and fees, and those revenues and savings are greater than the cost of the programs you enact, then you save money against the deficit. In this case, about half of the cost is paid for through savings in Medicare and Medicaid and such and half is paid for through taxes. The house version uses a tax on the super rich and the senate version uses a tax on high cost insurance plans (which is also supposed to bring down health care costs). As with everything else, the Senate version is more likely to win out when they merge the bills.

I thought one of the ideas behind health care reform was to get more preventive care, saving money in the long term.

That's one of the ideas, but I'm not sure it's been shown to really save a lot of money in the long term. I think the money savers are more along the lines of reducing unnecessary procedures and getting more cooperation between doctors and specialists and stuff like that.

[micah]

Charlie, I'm not sure if your correcting me or agreeing with me 

I said, you can't lower the deficit without raising taxes.  Then Cheez pointed out that you could also cut spending elsewhere, to which I had replied that if it was so easy to cut spending elsewhere, why haven't we done that all along? (and if we showed people how much money could go back in their pockets by cutting that spending, perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to re-spend that money on healthcare reform)

Then cheeze made fun of my argument and I rolled my eyes at which point you entered and said, "its simple to cut the deficit, just raise taxes and shift spending"

[webwhy]

the senate version uses a tax on high cost insurance plans (which is also supposed to bring down health care costs)

which is like saying the luxury tax will bring down the price of a mercedes benz.  raising taxes does not control prices.  it raises them

[charlie]

Charlie, I'm not sure if your correcting me or agreeing with me 

I said, you can't lower the deficit without raising taxes.  Then Cheez pointed out that you could also cut spending elsewhere, to which I had replied that if it was so easy to cut spending elsewhere, why haven't we done that all along? (and if we showed people how much money could go back in their pockets by cutting that spending, perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to re-spend that money on healthcare reform)

Then cheeze made fun of my argument and I rolled my eyes at which point you entered and said, "its simple to cut the deficit, just raise taxes and shift spending"

It was a combination of responding to your first sentence, "it doesn't seem to make sense...", and kind of glossing over the rest of your conversation. Basically I'm saying it makes perfect sense and you and cheez hit on the reasons.

And while I agree that the question should be asked, why can't we do the "savings elsewhere" part without the rest, I think it's safe to assume that a lot of these savings are tied into the things that also will cost money. I haven't read the CBO's report closely, but it's not like the pieces of the reform are all separate components. That part is not that easy.

the senate version uses a tax on high cost insurance plans (which is also supposed to bring down health care costs)

which is like saying the luxury tax will bring down the price of a mercedes benz.  raising taxes does not control prices.  it raises them

Perhaps, but in this case I don't think it's the taxed insurance plans that are supposed to see the lowered costs, it's health care in general. I don't know the details but I presume it is something like trying to slow the number of people who have those plans and use unnecessary services too much because they are "free" to them.

[Govtcheez]

> That's one of the ideas, but I'm not sure it's been shown to really save a lot of money in the long term.

How wouldn't it?  Instead of taking ambulance rides to the emergency room because they have chronic problems, they can have the problems addressed beforehand.  Obviously the preventative cure part of it costs money, but I'm sure it's a lot cheaper than repeated ambulance visits, not to mention not tying up ambulances and emergency room doctors for people who shouldn't need emergency care.