Fox misinforms on health care reform's immediate benefits and deficit reductions
On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson falsely suggested health care reform legislation contained no immediate benefits, and Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney claimed that "nobody believes" that health care reform will reduce the deficit. In fact, numerous benefits found in the Senate's bill and President Obama's proposal would begin immediately, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that both the Senate and the House's legislation will reduce deficits.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox & Friends advances falsehoods that health care reform has no immediate benefits and would not reduce the deficit
Varney: "Nobody believes" that health care reform will reduce the deficit. On the March 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Varney said that "even if ... you go to the right decade, and look at the correct numbers from the CBO, there is still a great deal of confusion as to whether or not you do actually save any money or whether it adds hugely to the deficit." Varney then claimed, "Look, nobody believes that you can cover 30 million extra people, maintain quality of care, and cut the deficit by a trillion dollars at the same time. Nobody believes that."
Carlson: "They're going to start taxing all the people" before the "so-called benefits kick in." After Varney cast doubt on the ability of health care reform to cut the deficit, Carlson said: "Here's how they're going to pay for it, here's how they're going to get all that: They're going to start taxing all the people first before any of the benefits -- so-called benefits -- kick in."
CBO: Health care reform will lower the deficit
CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:
CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
CBO: Over second 10 years, Senate bill would save "between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." In a December 20, 2009, letter amending the December 19 report, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:
All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.
CBO estimated the House bill will result in $138 billion in deficit reduction through 2019. On November 20, 2009, CBO reported of the House health care reform legislation, "CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period." CBO also stated in its November 6 estimate that "[i]n the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."
Numerous benefits from Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill
Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. Despite Carlson's suggestion, according to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, WashingtonPost.com blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":
1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.
2) No more rescissions.
3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.
4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.
5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.
6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.
7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.
8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.
9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.
10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.
11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.
12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.
Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:
Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
- The President's proposal will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.
Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations
- The President's proposal makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $11 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years.
No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children
- The President's proposal eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the plan prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.
Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans
- The President's proposal will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, effective 90 days after enactment. This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.
Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit
- The President's proposal begins to fill the "donut hole" by giving seniors a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010.
Small Business Tax Credits
- The President's proposal will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.
- Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage; later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit.
[...]
Patient Protections
- The President's proposal protects patients' choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before and woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.
Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults
- The President's proposal will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans for young adults who are not offered qualified coverage elsewhere.
Free Prevention Benefits
- The President's proposal will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans and all plans in 2018.
- Beginning on January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for prevention services.
No Lifetime Limits on Coverage
- The President's proposal will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.
Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage
- The President's proposal will tightly restrict insurance companies' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care, effective six months after enactment for all new health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the Exchanges are operational, the use of annual limits will be banned for all plans in 2014.
Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage
- The President's proposal will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.
Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary
- The President's proposal will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all group health plans in 2014.
misinform us?
In other words, if I am reading this right, I would not be planning on spending that surplus!
And this below from the same letter by Elmendorf;
"Therefore, enacting PPACA would increase debt held by government accounts more than it would decrease debt held by the public, and would thus increase gross federal debt. However, that measure of debt conveys little information about the federal government’s future financial burdens and has little economic meaning. In contrast, the effects of legislation on debt held by the public offer a more useful measure of that legislation’s impact on the government’s financial condition"
In other words, it's a crapshoot, they don't know because they have no idea what will happen or what "future financial burdens" there will be on the federal government. Even admit it has "little economic meaning".
As far as cost savings, Medicare is a program that could work much better if money wasted by our ridiculous delivery system were put into one pool of money.
I understand the idea of libertarian deregulation of the health care industry, but until greed is eliminated from the equation, the greedy will ALWAYS rig the system to form monopolies and screw people.
The libertarian ideal can only work with a level playing field, which imperfect humanity will never create.
You make a good point and a valid argument. My point was there is really no way this can be debated from a debt reduction standpoint as it is just not known how it will all play out. So for MMfA to keep pushing that is disingenuous, and those that question how this will effect our debt are not misinformers at all.
"Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that both the Senate and the House's legislation will reduce deficits"
No they don't. Heal thyself.
You're dead bang on the money. The argument is not that CBO numbers are inaccurate or that they are incompetent. The CBO itself maintains that they are not a predictor of future budget outcomes.
Why? Because they have taken one snapshot in time...right now. They cannot predict future actions by congress or economic situations that arise.
Here's proof positive that CBO projections can't be relied on...the July 2000 budget projection for 2001-2010:
-- The Congressional Budget Office today released new baseline budget projections that show non-Social Security surpluses of nearly $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years under current policies -- CBPP
After the CBO projected a rosy $2.2 trillion surplus in 2000...a scant 3 years later they projected a $900 billion surplus in years 2004-2013.
One is uninformed at best or silly at worst to think that the CBO report can be used to predict future outcomes...like the proposed health care reform.
That's the point of these threads. The right keeps IGNORING the fact or trying to distract us from the fact that the predictions by the CBO are similar to other predictions that EVERY business and EVERY municipality makes WRT expected costs of their various initiatives, projects and costs!
We have lots of rightwingers who keep saying that this bill is going to COST X number of dollars, without acknowledging that it will cost less than doing nothing - it will better for the deficit than doing nothing.
This is NOT rocket science. It's really not.
Seriously, they should just change their name to the Grand Hypocrite Party.
Looks to me like you just "set it in stone"...want to set this CBO number in stone?
-- If President Obama's 2011 budget were put into effect as proposed, the U.S. federal government would add an estimated $9.8 trillion to the country's accrued debt over the next decade, according to a preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. -- CNNMoney
Once you understand how to interpret conditional statements, we can maybe have a decent conversation.
Once you are done with that, you can go study the difference between a budget projection and a cost estimate from the CBO.
And then if you really want to broaden your mind, you can go read this.
Just letting you know....
The fact that the CBO doesn't claim that the exact results will match their predictions, and in fact says it's almost certain that the exact results will NOT match their predictions, means NOTHING.
We have to have predictions in order to budget. Local, state and federal gov'ts do this all the time.
And what we're comparing is NOT the CBO's predictions for this healthcare reform bill versus actual budget outcomes, but rather the CBO's predictions for doing nothing versus the predictions for this reform bill!
You don't have a leg to stand on here.
Predictions are all we have, and we HAVE to use them. Your arguments to the contrary are dishonest and deceptive, weasel, like virtually every other post you or your buddy RightON ever make here.
Use your projections then, but then you and MMfA can stop complaining when their validity is questioned. Because it is not misinformation or furthering of any agenda to do so. If you could wrap your tiny mind around that you wouldn't continue to "debunk".
When the same bogus arguments are made, the same facts can and SHOULD be used to refute those bogus arguments.
It's not my fault your side keeps trying to push the same discredited argument! It's not a flaw to repeat the same arguments if the same nonsense keeps getting pushed.
So keep debunking it, still means nothing.
your right wing cohorts bring up these same half truths to the same arguments. I'll have to say you three sure have a way with words, but then so did the last administration, you're also about as truthful as the last adm.
Very well put. I think I'll borrow it from time to time.
FoxNews misinformed on the immediate benefits of this bill. That's undeniable.
And FoxNews misinformed on the deficit-reduction predictions. That's undeniable.
And so, what does this discredited fool do? He pushes some false story about what the CBO letter says. You have no credibility, weasel.
What the CBO written letter crafted in response to a narrow request from Republican Senator Jeff Sessions says is quite different from your implication. In fact, in the very next paragraph, your assumption above is totally demolished!
Imagine that - you cropped a paragraph (without providing a link to the original) and then distorted the meaning of the paragraph, and guess who immediately stood up and supported that distortion?
Please don't feed these two trolls any more on this topic. They are dishonest brokers of falsehoods.
Nice try, but you are the biggest documented liar on this board. Stop cluttering up a discussion with your childish threats. If you can't refute or argue your point intelligently then step away and let the adults through.
Here's the link.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003080018#764818
I didn't LIE yesterday on that thread. I said that I debunked the point you made, and in reply, you made a personal attack. You lied, and said you hadn't, and I copied pasted your personal attack, and then you lied again and claimed that I had been referencing your first post as supposedly containing the personal attack. But I didn't.
The liar yesterday? You.
So yeah, I talk about you and Wesley/Bludog not being honest brokers of the truth, because you've proven time after time that neither one of you are honest.
And, above, do you debunk anything I said, or do you simply make yet another baseless personal attack?
Of course you didn't debunk anything I said, because you couldn't. Wesley/Bludog misleadingly cropped a paragraph and lied about what it was saying. He didn't provide a link to the original source and I called him on that failure too. But you couldn't refute any of that, and so you had to make it personal.
Keep digging, please.
Linking like this:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003080018#764818
is not better or worse than
linking like this
You do BOTH haul out ad hominem attacks, but rightON, yours are much more virulent than simply calling someone a troll.
Perhaps you didn't comprehend it the first time. See that word BOTH?
I'm really starting to wonder what goes on in our schools that so many people seem to have such reading comprehension problems.
A: "OK, I've been following this thread for a while, and I hate to say it, but you're being a jerk. You're really taking this whole thing too personally, and seriously misconstruing everyone else's arguments. Nobody here is arguing that copyright infringement is ethically, morally, legally, or otherwise justifiable. They're simply arguing that equating it with theft is simplistic and inaccurate."
B: "...calling me a jerk is called an ad hominem attack, which does not show me wrong."
No, A's argument is not ad hominem. A has carefully pointed out what he sees as the flaws in B's argument, and based on B's failure to acknowledge them and general behaviour, has concluded that B is a jerk. This conclusion is quite independent of A's treatment of B's arguments.
ad hominem - links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
By calling him a troll you are questioning his motives and his character not his arguments.
Here is what you do:
<insert smart-a$$-i'm-better-than-you-header>
<copy-and-paste-something-you-don't-understand>
<insert smart-a$$-i'm-better-than-you-conclusion>
As for Tommy and some others, they do enjoy pressing some narrow point they think triumphs over the topic. I don't think in the big wide world of the internets, that they'll ever just be ignored.
Whenever you have no intelligent response, you haul out paid troll. This is no different.
I will wait for someone who can back up their arguments to discuss this with. Because you can't.
And my reply was
What pattern that HAS been exposed countless times is YOU making a personal attack when YOU can't debate the facts. It's the typical behavior of those on the right, but also of anyone who has lost the battle using facts - to make a personal attack.
So, then you mistakenly (or dishonestly) said
"The unwarranted personal attack came from RightON, and then from you"
Where?
Liar.
I then copied and pasted the first personal attack - the same one I list ABOVE! Again, this isn't rocket science! I didn't MAKE an unwarranted personal attack on you first. I debunked your argument, then debunked the second attempt, and then exposed your dishonest behavior for all to see. You, on the other hand, did NOT debunk my argument, then point out my bad behavior. YOUR personal attack, the entirety of that post, is copied and pasted at the top of this post!
You don't have a leg to stand on. You got caught making a specious argument, and I called you on that after documenting your specious argument. That's not an unwarranted personal attack. As I explained yesterday, and am happy to do it again today, your allegation that I was unable to debunk your argument and therefore pulled out the paid troll allegation is refuted by the posts I made where I debunked your argument AND THEN called you a paid troll! This is not rocket science!
But please, keep digging your own grave. Please.
You are the accomplished liar, about me yesterday, about Magnolia last week, and about bintx a few weeks ago. You will never change.
And once again, since you CAN'T defend the indefensible, your bogus charge that I lied, you simply make another personal attack.
Thanks for the continued digging your own grave here. I understand it tees you off that you've lost so much (undeserved) credibility on this site. Too bad, so sad.
Here's the link about bintx with multiple links showing you LYING over and over again, despite me explaining countless times that you were wrong. And here's the link to the original thread.
Here's where she says the relevant thing.
The word "Negro" is used on the census forms. Many older black people still call themselves "Negro." In fact, there are three choices related to African Americans on the census form . . . "black," "African American," and "Negro." People of my generation most likely will select "black" which was the preferred designation at that time. The American Negro College Fund has retained the use of the word.
Reid was merely commenting on a cultural phenomenon and Mr. Obama's chances of winning. No racism involved. Mr. Lott was praising a known racist and bemoaning the fact that this self-same racist's agenda had not won out. No comparison whatsoever. This is not a story except on Fox.
Phony "conservs" like you are the losers. You are trying really hard to make a story where none exists.
Period.
And as I have explained to you about 7 times now, bintx didn't JUST say that "Reid was merely commenting on a cultural phenomenon and Mr. Obama's chances of winning." She said a lot MORE than JUST that.
You got confused about the use of "merely" and "just". I've explained to you about 7 times now how you made that error, and you're either STILL making it or just STILL trying to mislead others. Neither is a good thing for YOU, doofus.
And here's where bintx said "I was taking a break from an EXHAUSTING two days and didn't read completely."
She didn't read with very good comprehension. She has a pattern of going off half-cocked, and she gets things wrong sometimes, and this was one of those times!
I didn't "say" that the reason bintx got it wrong was because she was tired. SHE said she was tired. SHE got it wrong. I'm only using the argument that SHE made, that her 'error' was due to being overtired! It's not an "excuse".
However, you dishonestly trying to convince others that I DID behave that way, when the facts don't support your accusation at all? Now, that's a bogus argument. Again, I've exposed this dishonesty on your part about 7 times now.
Want to demand that I link to the other two bogus examples you list above? I'd be happy to make a fool of you with evidence twice more if you want me to do so!
Another baseless personal attack. Just one of many from you.
I don't care who is a paid troll and who is the queen of Sheba or the king of Siam or whatever. Just please take your flame war off line so the rest of us don't have to suffer because of it.
Please.
When you each make constructive comments, regardless whether they are fresh or stale, right or wrong, understood or misunderstood, you contribute in some way to the ongoing dialogue and discussion. When your comments degenerate into name calling and he-said/she-said battles, it becomes tiresome very quickly.
Please. Make your points, argue your positions, but stop the rhetoric that leads to your bash-fests.
He then makes a personal attack. I then refute it.
You need to figure out what's actually going on here. It's not a he said/shed said battle in any way. It's not a name-calling from both sides kind of thing either.
Get a clue.
1) I do not need your permission to post on this board or anywhere else. So, roll back the hysteria a notch or two.
2) I addressed the part of the OPMMfA research that I wanted to comment on, which seemed to miss the fact that CBO had commented on the subject of the out years more recently that 12/09.
3) As I read CBO's conclusion in that part of the letter that ... "Therefore, leaving aside the cash flows of the HI trust fund, CBO expects that PPACA would yield a net increase in budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019." .. Note the use of the plural in the word deficits.
4) Given the history in Congress and the Administration (any Administration) to project accurately, it is a safe bet the any projects made will: a) be wrong;and b) will result higher costs and therefore deficits than originally projected.
Your response is exactly to the point of this thread complaint by MMfA. They will haul out the CBO numbers as proof positive that anyone who questions the fiscal nature of health care reform are nothing but misinformers, which is absurd. Their track record speaks for itself, as do most 10 year out and beyond cost projections for anything, much less government expenditures.
DollySue tries to have MMfA's back, but she only makes their points weaker and more suspect with every post of hers.
That's all it was.
He bogusly called me a liar. I debunked that charge, and he makes a personal attack since he couldn't argue the facts.
If any of you think that we're equivalent, you need to get a clue.
No one, included me, said anything remotely related to you needing my permission to post. What I said was that you don't have any credibility here. Get a clue.
2) I addressed the part of the OPMMfA research that I wanted to comment on, which seemed to miss the fact that CBO had commented on the subject of the out years more recently that 12/09.
You DISTORTED what was said by the letter by cropping ONE misleading paragraph. You didn't have a good reason to do it. You were clearly trying to deceive. I caught you at it. Get over it. You got debunked, weasel.
3) As I read CBO's conclusion in that part of the letter that ... "Therefore, leaving aside the cash flows of the HI trust fund, CBO expects that PPACA would yield a net increase in budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019." .. Note the use of the plural in the word deficits.
Again, as I explained, it is a distortion of what they are saying in that letter if you ONLY quote that one paragraph. It's not my flaw that I uncovered your dishonesty.
4) Given the history in Congress and the Administration (any Administration) to project accurately, it is a safe bet the any projects made will: a) be wrong;and b) will result higher costs and therefore deficits than originally projected.
a) As you have told us countless times, the CBO's projections aren't going to be the actual costs. That doesn't stop them from being VERY VALUABLE and absolutely CRUCIAL. b) there's NO evidence that the projections for the bill, as configured, will cost more than what is projected. None. You're lying.
You phony. So for someone to question the accuracy of 10+ year cost projections means they are a liar? Do you ever vet the stupid assertions you post? You can't. And for you to accuse anyone of lying, not to mention a lack of credibility, is so damn hypocritical it reeks.
Bludog has more class in his posts than you could ever hope for. Wise up.
4) Given the history in Congress and the Administration (any Administration) to project accurately, it is a safe bet the any projects made will: a) be wrong;and b) will result higher costs and therefore deficits than originally projected.
a) As you have told us countless times, the CBO's projections aren't going to be the actual costs. That doesn't stop them from being VERY VALUABLE and absolutely CRUCIAL. b) there's NO evidence that the projections for the bill, as configured, will cost more than what is projected. None. You're lying.
There's no evidence of what he said. None. So he's lying, in other words being purposefully dishonest, when he says that it's a safe bet that we'll have higher costs that originally projected.
Bludog/Wesley doesn't have an ounce of class. Neither do you. He didn't "question" the 10 yr cost projection.
To that I added -- and stand by -- the observation that government has a record of having program costs that are much greater than envisioned when the program proposals were scored and the programs set.
Argue with yourself as long as you wish. I have better things to do with my time.
I've argued in the past that the nutjobs can't wrap their brains around the benefits of universal health care because it's just too darn complicated. For starters, how much are we going to save by eliminating tens of thousands of bankruptcies every year due to health care costs?
The only projections I would worry about if I were you are the unethical tactics you project on to me. Since they're your own.
Evading the point is not being intellectually dishonest.
You of all people should know that. But in this case you show your true colors again by being intellectually dishonest about what is intellectual dishonesty. Congratulations!!
Because if you are, I don't it says what you think it does.
Same thing - doesn't say what you seem to think it does.
Or is there some other one I haven't found yet? You really should link to things like that when you reference them so we can be sure we are all talking about the same thing.
And these support your position that HCR will be a budget buster how, exactlt?
Exactly correct...and here's another example:
The CBO projected deficit spending of $980 billion 1990-1995. The actual spending? $1.4 trillion...they only missed it by nearly half.
But on top of that, the paragraph you cropped out of that letter doesn't say what you've alleged it says! It just doesn't. Your stubborn refusal to accept that your distortion of that paragraph is just that, stubborn. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts! You're wrong!
For the decade beyond 2019, CBO expects that enacting PPACA would reduce federal budget deficits relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product.2 The legislation would have positive effects on the cash flows of the HI trust fund in that decade that would be larger than its effects on federal budget deficits as a whole. Therefore, leaving aside the cash flows of the HI trust fund, CBO expects that PPACA would yield a net increase in budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019.
However, the HI trust fund, like other federal trust funds, is essentially an accounting mechanism. In a given year, the sum of specified HI receipts and the interest that is credited on the previous trust fund balance, minus spending for Medicare Part A benefits, represents the surplus (or deficit, if the latter is greater) in the trust fund for that year. Any cash generated when there is an excess of receipts over spending is not retained by the trust fund; rather, it is turned over to the Treasury, which provides government bonds to the trust fund in exchange and uses the cash to finance the government’s ongoing activities.
The HI trust fund is part of the federal government, so transactions between the trust fund and the Treasury are intragovernmental and have no net impact on the unified budget or on federal borrowing from the public. From a unified budget perspective, any increase in revenues or decrease in outlays in the HI trust fund represents cash that can be used to finance other government activities without requiring new government borrowing from the public. Similarly, any increase in outlays or decrease in revenues in the HI trust fund in some future year represents
a draw on the government’s cash in that year. Thus, the resources to redeem government bonds in the HI trust fund and thereby pay for Medicare benefits in some future year will have to be generated from taxes, other government income, or government borrowing in that year. The HI trust fund and other trust funds have important legal meaning but little economic or budgetary meaning.
So, now, you are saying if we set aside the good aspects of the budget look how bad it is.
Yeah, right.
I'd bet most people would like most of these things if viewed individually and not told they were part of Obama's plan. I personally don't agree with having a mandate with no public option. People need a choice of the most basic coverage at a low price. People will keep their private insurance for the most part, and the people who don't currently have insurance will probably be the majority of those who do choose the public option.
It really sucks Obama is obsessed with pleasing the right-wing extremists. The senate bill seems so ridiculously corporate, it's obvious these Republican senators haven't even read this bill, because if they had, they'd be LEAPING for JOY for the mandate and no public option, the death of medicare advantage, and these ridiculous "pools" (which will never really lower premiums).
What does it take for these guys to start caring about our country? Credit card companies are already finding ways around the new regulations.
The fact that derivatives trading and hedging have the same regulations they had before the economy crashed scares me. And economic recession wasn't enough for them to illegalize this BS...these guys are literally waging on our NEXT economic crash...seriously...
The real issue, seems to me, ought to be framed "health care reform will benefit Americans, but at what cost?"
Maybe I'm thick, but it seems to me that government has eminent control over deficits, because they have ultimate control over their source of income: the taxpayer. Why are people arguing over budget deficits exclusively when the other half of the question is how much more will this program cost each and every one of us?
I am not current on the underpinnings of this issue, so help me understand. How can government implement a big program like this for zero dollars? They can't, and since the source of government's revenue is the tax base, doesn't it stand to reason that we will have to, by way of our taxes, pony up for this enhanced system?
I guess what I am trying to figure out is: taxes go up, deficit goes down. Taxes go down, deficit goes up. What point is there to debating the potential budget deficit when that figure is really dependent on how much comes out of our pocket? Can somebody explain how this all shakes out in the end?
1. restrict denying coverage because of preexisting conditions
2. prohibit rescinding coverage because someone got sick
3. require dependent coverage as an option through age 26
4. Establishes an annual review process for increases in health insurance premiums by the Secretary of HHS in conjunction with the States that requires insurers to submit a justification for any premium increases prior to implementation
5. prohibit treating domestic abuse as a preexisting condition
6. prohibit lifetime caps
7. prohibit post‐retirement reductions of retiree health benefits by group health plans
None of those things will cost the government anything.
Setting up the exchange will have administrative costs, but since all the insurance remains private insurance under this bill, there won't be much there either. The subsidies for people who can't afford insurance will be a cost, but as the economy improves and more people go back to work, fewer and fewer will qualify for subsidies.
Other provisions like Subtitle F—Waste, Fraud, and Abuse should save the government money.
Maybe I am way off the mark on this, since nobody seems to be discussing things from this perspective, but doesn't the government have the ability to the change (+ or -) the effect on the deficit based on how they decide to finance any new program? A net deficit reduction benefits the country as it necessarily improves the country's ability to pay down debt (or at least get a bit closer to balancing the books), but conversely a net increase in the deficit would mean that sooner or later all Americans, at some level, would have to pay for it. Those costs (higher taxes) or rewards (lowered taxes, debt reduction) seem more important to me than the abstract deficit projections that the media, the right, and the left all seem to be fixated on. Am I missing something?
Unfortunately there are many (usually conservative) people who have little or no knowledge of macroeconomics and for some reason focus almost exclusively on deficits. Former Australian Treasurer and Prime Minister Paul Keating referred to them as "Deficit Daleks" after the anti-social robots in the British sci-fi program "Dr Who".
These people have no idea of the mechanics and function of deficits despite the fact that they are invariably operating on deficit funding in their own personal finances (that's all of those monthly and quarterly bills). Instead, like the Daleks they point and bleat "Exterminate! Exterminate!"
To these sad individuals, the rest of the economy in all its glorious complexity might as well not exist.
We're already scheduled to spend a TON of money on healthcare. With the taxes, subsidies, expenses, savings and revenue, we'll be spending less than we would be with our current plans!
My search for facts and truths that transcend party lines has led me in many different directions, and to many different places. I try very hard to frame my questions and comments in such a way that I don't risk offending those people whose knowledge, expertise and opinions I value.
Apparently this doesn't matter to a dingbat like you. We are all stupider for having been forced to read your intolerant, cynical and frankly offensive comments day in and day out.
Don't bother responding to me if you have nothing substantive to contribute. I'll just ignore you and your baseless accusations.
You're just mad that I called you out for flaming people like Right On et al. Keep your vitriol to yourself.