wrote in message
news
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk
wrote:

...health care insurance reform, from David Frum:

My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance
premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the
2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have
insurance.
That will be what drives the election.


There are several parts that need to be fixed. That's how things are done in
Congress.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:53:18 -0400, hk
wrote:

My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance
premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the
2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have
insurance.
That will be what drives the election.

Premium controls will be added. In fact, I suspect a number of items
will individually be added. It'll be interesting to see the Republicans
vote down all the individual measures to help Americans obtain and
retain insurance at good prices.

I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things
they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion
dollar lobbyists.
That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They
are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like
cutting a half trillion out of Medicare.
Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the
original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government
programs always get bigger, not smaller.


Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the
system as they want.

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:53:18 -0400, hk
wrote:

My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance
premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the
2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have
insurance.
That will be what drives the election.

Premium controls will be added. In fact, I suspect a number of items
will individually be added. It'll be interesting to see the Republicans
vote down all the individual measures to help Americans obtain and
retain insurance at good prices.

I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things
they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion
dollar lobbyists.
That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They
are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like
cutting a half trillion out of Medicare.
Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the
original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government
programs always get bigger, not smaller.


Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the
system as they want.

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

I love the teabagger poster that read:

"Don't steal money from Medicare to fund Health Care Socialism"

Average IQ of a Teabagger? I'm betting they're on the lower end of
the bell curve. Maybe the way lower end.

jps wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:53:18 -0400, hk
wrote:

My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance
premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the
2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have
insurance.
That will be what drives the election.
Premium controls will be added. In fact, I suspect a number of items
will individually be added. It'll be interesting to see the Republicans
vote down all the individual measures to help Americans obtain and
retain insurance at good prices.
I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things
they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion
dollar lobbyists.
That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They
are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like
cutting a half trillion out of Medicare.
Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the
original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government
programs always get bigger, not smaller.

Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the
system as they want.

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

I love the teabagger poster that read:

"Don't steal money from Medicare to fund Health Care Socialism"

Average IQ of a Teabagger? I'm betting they're on the lower end of
the bell curve. Maybe the way lower end.


10 sigma?

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things
they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion
dollar lobbyists.
That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They
are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like
cutting a half trillion out of Medicare.
Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the
original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government
programs always get bigger, not smaller.

Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the
system as they want.

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

--
The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on
the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they
will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by
eliminating the cuts.

Give it up. We tried to convince them of their folly, and they went
ahead and passed the damned bill.
Now it's time to repeal it on the basis of our better ideas, before the
sky falls.
Could you run those better ideas past me again?
I want to get to work with my local Tea Party.

Jim - I'm not taking this anymore. Time for action.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things
they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion
dollar lobbyists.
That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They
are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like
cutting a half trillion out of Medicare.
Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the
original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government
programs always get bigger, not smaller.


Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the
system as they want.

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans
called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

--
The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on
the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they
will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by
eliminating the cuts.


Umm... I don't think Congress sends them numbers. They send them policy/law
statements. The CBO interprets the statements and makes a judgement about
numbers.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 3/22/10 9:36 PM, wrote:


Let's see how this actually works out. To start with there are already
at least 6 states suing over constitutional issues so this bill as
passed.


Well, I wonder if the states even have standing to pursue their
suits...what will they sue over, the requirement that citizens of their
states obtain health insurance? What are they going to try to seek, an
injunction? And look at the party affiliations of the state AGs
pursuing this...what a surprise, eh?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans
called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

--
The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on
the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they
will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by
eliminating the cuts.


Umm... I don't think Congress sends them numbers. They send them
policy/law
statements. The CBO interprets the statements and makes a judgement about
numbers.

True but Congress knows what number will come out of CBO when they
frame the question and CBO is not allowed to question the scenario
congress sends them.

?? They "frame" the question by using the language of the law. The CBO can't
question the scenario because it's not within their purview to do so.

As I said earlier, based on what congress said about the cost of
Medicare and what actually happened.

In 1964 the estimate was Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990. It
was really $107 billion. When you are off by almost an order of
magnitude that is not really an estimate, it is a fantasy or being
less generous a lie.

Yet, times change. No entity could possibly know the future in that much
detail. It's been nearly 50 years since 1964.

Let's see how this actually works out. To start with there are already
at least 6 states suing over constitutional issues so this bill as
passed. Then you still have the reconciliation vote coming. Who knows
what deals have to be made to pass that.
I am as much worried about the back room deals and the pork that will
show up on other bills to get these votes as I am the bill itself.
Those are the ones you really have to be a "thomas junkie" to even
find.

This is true for just about any contentious legislation. Nothing new. That
requires a different effort to clean up.

There will be a bill to rename a post office in Fumbuck Mississippi
with a $300,000,000 bridge to nowhere in it so that congressman would
vote for this. Multiply that by the three dozen votes they had to
wring out and you are talking about some money. That is just how the
process works.

I agree. Better still, it looks like some in the press are actually looking.
It'll get easier as time passes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mar 22, 12:08*pm, jps wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk
wrote:



...health care insurance reform, from David Frum:

* *Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing
legislative defeat since the 1960s.

* * It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster.
Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s
expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

* * (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about
November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate
goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

* * (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare
bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this
debacle now.

* * So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now
comes the hard lesson:

* * A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to
conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

* * I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our
overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by
mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information,
overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent
and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and
they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk
radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh
said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently
explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is
equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans
succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive
compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they
are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for
Sleepnumber beds.

* * No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if
Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes
could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more
for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind
policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to
banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if
the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

* * We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement,
and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
...

And the frosting on the cake? The incredibly horrid behavior of the
teabagging Republicans the last couple of weeks.

Welcome to the modern Republian Party. *It's a big, stupid tent.

You know, the more I read of your BS liberal posts, the more I get a
mental image of a Keith Olbermann wannabe. Makes me want to puke.

You're a blowhard, yuppie, liberal snob, idiot. Plain and simple. Do
us all a favor and try to be a real, down-to-earth person for a
change. Believe it or not, you'll actually feel better about
yourself.

The majority of Americans *did or do not* support the recent health
care reform legislation. They passed it anyway through back-room
deals. Are you so "enlightened" that you know better than than the
majority of Americans?

Mike

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Mike
wrote:

On Mar 22, 12:08*pm, jps wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk
wrote:



...health care insurance reform, from David Frum:

* *Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing
legislative defeat since the 1960s.

* * It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster.
Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s
expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

* * (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about
November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate
goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

* * (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare
bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this
debacle now.

* * So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now
comes the hard lesson:

* * A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to
conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

* * I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our
overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by
mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information,
overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent
and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and
they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk
radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh
said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently
explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is
equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans
succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive
compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they
are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for
Sleepnumber beds.

* * No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if
Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes
could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more
for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind
policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to
banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if
the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

* * We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement,
and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
...

And the frosting on the cake? The incredibly horrid behavior of the
teabagging Republicans the last couple of weeks.

Welcome to the modern Republian Party. *It's a big, stupid tent.

You know, the more I read of your BS liberal posts, the more I get a
mental image of a Keith Olbermann wannabe. Makes me want to puke.

You're a blowhard, yuppie, liberal snob, idiot. Plain and simple. Do
us all a favor and try to be a real, down-to-earth person for a
change. Believe it or not, you'll actually feel better about
yourself.

The majority of Americans *did or do not* support the recent health
care reform legislation. They passed it anyway through back-room
deals. Are you so "enlightened" that you know better than than the
majority of Americans?

Mike

You listen to and take in too much ****, ****-for-brains.

Most Americans favor health care reform, always did and will.

Read whatever drivel you want, don't bother reading mine.

Silly ass.