Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

redux · Feb 8, 2013

A tip of the hat to a Clinton accomplishment -- twenty years ago this week, the first bill he signed into law was the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Much like the opposition to the ACA, albeit on a smaller scale, Republicans and their business allies predicted a doomsday scenario for business and the economy.

Quite the opposite:

When Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act on February 5, 1993 almost exactly 20 years ago as the first legislative act of his presidency, its establishment as law marked a progressive victory after nearly a decade of ferocious opposition by corporate lobbyists, Republican legislators, conservative media, and right-wing pundits.

Leading the opposition was the US Chamber of Commerce, whose spokeswoman Virginia Lamp denounced the act as “a dangerous precedent.” (She would eventually marry Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and move on to employment with the Koch brothers.) With the honorable exception of the Catholic Church and a number of moderate Republicans in Congress, the self-proclaimed “pro-family” forces in American political life eagerly aided and abetted the Chamber’s attempt to kill the act. Mandating a federal right to unpaid leave, even if restricted to certain workers in larger businesses, would place the nation on a slippery path toward European socialism, or worse, according to the Chamber and its Republican allies, and impose untold damage on business.

But now we know, as with so many other warnings from the far right about the supposedly ruinous consequences of social progress, how the actual results have differed from those predictions. And with two decades of experience, it is clear that the difference has been dramatic.

Put simply, the act’s protections have proved vital for millions of families across the country, whether in times of joy or hardship. Debra Ness, the president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, which drafted the original bill and assembled the victorious coalition that supported it, estimates that the law has been used over 100 million times “by women who needed medical care during difficult pregnancies, fathers who took time to care for children fighting cancer, adult sons and daughters caring for frail parents, and workers taking time to recover from their own serious illnesses. The latest Department of Labor survey of employees and employers indicates that up to 14 million employees took leave in 2011.

Released this week to coincide with the act’s anniversary, that study not only demonstrates how vital it is to American families, but how beneficial it has been for the national workforce and economy. Indeed, rather than imposing an insufferable burden on business, the act has enhanced productivity and profit as well as protecting children, the ill, and the elderly.

According to the DOL study – which was subcontracted to Abt Associates, one of the country’s oldest and most respected private consulting firms – most employers have not found compliance particularly burdensome. Only one percent of the covered worksites told Abt that they had “great difficulty” in administering leave, and 14 percent reported “some difficulty.” Fewer than 10 percent of worksites reported any negative effects on productivity, morale, absenteeism, turnover, or “business profitability.” Some larger worksites had more problems, but overall the vast majority reported that the act had posed no serious issues.

Most impressively, for every worksite that reported a negative impact on productivity, there were nearly three that said the impact has been positive; and for every worksite that reported a negative impact on profitability, there were nearly five that said the impact has been positive.

Encouraging as those statistics may be, they highlight a less encouraging fact – namely, that America remains far behind other advanced industrial nations in the social benefits and protections provided to its working families. The United States is the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that lacks a national paid parental leave policy....

...

The national experience over the years since Clinton put down his signing pen offers two clear lessons for Americans. First, we still have far to go in providing real support for families and children, especially when compared with similar countries; and second, we need not believe the warnings of economic doom that emanate from the right over any attempt to improve those conditions, such as Obamacare. All the hot air emitted in opposition to the Family and Medical Leave Act has long since evaporated, and all the hotheads who opposed it have long since moved on to new obsessions. But nobody should forget how wrong they were — and who really stood up for family values.

The National Memo » After 20 Years, Success Of Family And Medical Leave Act Should Humble The Far Right
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Feb 9, 2013

Lot of Chicken Little play acting going on...

rogue49 · Feb 10, 2013

hmm...this is a sticky one.
While I agree with being aggressive & strong on one point....and I don't mind at all giving it to the bad guys.
There's some holes in our swiss cheese...and many of these principles become precedent.
The same policy that you utilize with restraint now...can be abused by those with less so later.

I think we need to take advantage of a time where the administration is somewhat reasonable and lock it down.
Set down some checks...have some ability of outside review.
Shooting from the hip gets the job done...but also leaves a lot of room for error and mistakes to occur.

We've got the terrorists on the run, we got the head snake...now's the time to get out of war-mode and put some civilization back in.
I'm not saying, stop. Or become isolationist. Or be overly restrained.
The bad guys are still out there...and unfortunately, most other nations are not as active. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Just close up the holes, put a few more constraints in, especially for citizens.

But it looks like we're finally headed that way...it's just slow and messy getting it together.
Nothing cleans up fast like in Hollywood, it's always a roller-coaster with lots of screaming and shouting.

Obama’s Turn in Bush’s Bind
By PETER BAKER - February 9, 2013

WASHINGTON — If President Obama tuned in to the past week’s bracing debate on Capitol Hill about terrorism, executive power, secrecy and due process, he might have recognized the arguments his critics were making: He once made some of them himself.

Four years into his tenure, the onetime critic of President George W. Bush finds himself cast as a present-day Mr. Bush, justifying the muscular application of force in the defense of the nation while detractors complain that he has sacrificed the country’s core values in the name of security.

The debate is not an exact parallel to those of the Bush era, and Mr. Obama can point to ways he has tried to exorcise what he sees as the excesses of the last administration. But in broad terms, the conversation generated by the confirmation hearing of John O. Brennan, his nominee for C.I.A. director, underscored the degree to which Mr. Obama has embraced some of Mr. Bush’s approach to counterterrorism, right down to a secret legal memo authorizing presidential action unfettered by outside forces.

At the same time, a separate hearing in Congress revealed how far Mr. Obama has gone to avoid what he sees as Mr. Bush’s central mistake. Testimony indicated that the president had overruled his secretaries of state and defense and his military commanders when they advised arming rebels in Syria.

With troops only recently home from Iraq, Mr. Obama made clear that he was so intent on staying out of another war against a Middle East tyrant that he did not want to be involved even by proxy, especially if the proxies might be questionable.

Critics on the left saw abuse of power, and critics on the right saw passivity.

The confluence of these debates suggests the ways Mr. Obama is willing to emulate Mr. Bush and the ways he is not. In effect, Mr. Obama relies on his predecessor’s aggressive approach in one area to avoid Mr. Bush’s even more aggressive approach in others. By emphasizing drone strikes, Mr. Obama need not bother with the tricky issues of detention and interrogation because terrorists tracked down on his watch are generally incinerated from the sky, not captured and questioned. By dispensing with concerns about due process, he avoids a more traditional war that he fears could lead to American boots on the ground.

“I’d argue the shift to more targeted action against A. Q. has been a hallmark of Obama’s approach against terrorism, whereas Iraq was Bush’s signature decision in his global war on terror,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to Mr. Obama, using the initials for Al Qaeda.

The Brennan hearing highlighted the convoluted politics of terrorism. Conservatives complained that if Mr. Bush had done what Mr. Obama has done, he would have been eviscerated by liberals and the news media. But perhaps more than ever before in Mr. Obama’s tenure, liberals voiced sustained grievance over the president’s choices.

“That memo coming out, I think, was a wake-up call,” said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union. “These last few days, it was like being back in the Bush days.”

“It’s causing a lot of cognitive dissonance for a lot of people,” he added. “It’s not the President Obama they thought they knew.”

The dissonance is due in part to the fact that Mr. Obama ran in 2008 against Mr. Bush’s first-term policies but, after winning, inherited Mr. Bush’s second-term policies.

By the time Mr. Bush left office, he had shaved off some of the more controversial edges of his counterterrorism program, both because of pressure from Congress and the courts and because he wanted to leave behind policies that would endure. He had closed the secret C.I.A. prisons, obtained Congressional approval for warrantless surveillance and military commissions, and worked to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

So while Mr. Obama banned harsh interrogation techniques, he preserved much of what he inherited, with some additional safeguards; expanded Mr. Bush’s drone campaign; and kept on veterans of the antiterrorism wars like Mr. Brennan. Some efforts at change were thwarted, like his vow to close the Guantánamo prison and to try Sept. 11 plotters in civilian court.

“These are the same issues we’ve been grappling with for years that are uncomfortable given our legal structures and the nature of the threat, but the Obama team is addressing these issues the same way we did,” said Juan Carlos Zarate, who was Mr. Bush’s deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism.

Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor and former Bush national security aide, said Mr. Obama “believed the cartoon version of the Bush critique so that Bush wasn’t just trying to make tough calls how to protect America in conditions of uncertainty, Bush actually was trying to grab power for nefarious purposes.”

“So even though what I, Obama, am doing resembles what Bush did, I’m doing it for other purposes,” Mr. Feaver added.

Others said that oversimplified the situation and ignored modifications that Mr. Obama had enacted. “It is a vast overstatement to suggest that President Obama is channeling President Bush,” said Geoffrey R. Stone, a University of Chicago law professor who hired a young Mr. Obama to lecture there. “On almost every measure, Obama has been more careful, more restrained and more respectful of individual liberties than President Bush was.”

“On the other hand,” Mr. Stone added, “at least in his use of drones, President Obama has legitimately opened himself up to criticism for striking the wrong balance” between civil liberties and national security.

Particularly stark has been the secret memo authorizing the targeted killing of American citizens deemed terrorists under certain circumstances without judicial review, a memo that brought back memories of those in which John Yoo, a Justice Department official under Mr. Bush, declared harsh interrogation legal.

That broad assertion of power, even with limits described by administration officials, combined with the initial White House refusal to release even a sanitized summary of the memo touched off protests from left and right. Some called Mr. Obama a hypocrite. But Mr. Yoo himself saw it differently, arguing in The Wall Street Journal that the memo, whatever the surface similarities to his own, betrayed a flawed vision because it presented the issue in law enforcement terms rather than as an exercise of war powers.

Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director under Mr. Bush, said that if Mr. Obama learned one thing from experience it should be that controversial programs require public support to be sustained. “Err on the side of being open, at least with Congress,” he said. “Otherwise you’re going to find yourself in a politically vulnerable position.”

For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.

“We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”

But some national security specialists said questions about the limits of executive power to conduct war should not depend on the person in the Oval Office.

“That’s not how we make policy,” said Douglas Ollivant, a former national security aide under Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama and now a fellow at the New America Foundation. “We make policy assuming that people in power might abuse it. To do otherwise is foolish.”
Click to expand...

Aceventura · Feb 11, 2013

rogue49 said: ↑

Lot of Chicken Little play acting going on...
Click to expand...

Right, real wages basically stagnant. The wage gap between men and women basically stagnant (women more frequently use FMLA). Small business impact is ignored...all is well?!? Must be nice to live in a world where you only see rainbows, flowers and unicorns - and no interest in seeing the world from the perspective of others.

redux · Feb 12, 2013

An important provision of the ACA is a greater focus on Medicare fraud and abuse and we're seeing results.

The latest annual report on Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control came out today....for every $1 spent on health care fraud and abuse in the last three years, the govt. recovered $7.9 from fines and lawsuits:

The government recovered $4.2 billion in health care fraud money in 2012, continuing the trend of large investigations that has been breaking records since 2010.
...
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said for every dollar spent on fraud and abuse in the past three years, the government brought $7.90 back in through lawsuits and fines.

The 2010 health care law created one agency and expanded another to fight health care fraud, resulting in nine Medicare Fraud Strike Force Teams that sprouted up in areas particularly prone to Medicare fraud -- such as Texas and Florida.

When the law passed, Medicare's actuary predicted a total of $4.9 billion in fraud and abuse savings in addition to programs they already had in place. The government has collected almost $15 billion over the past four years. That's up from $6.7 billion over the previous four years, including about $1 billion in 2007.
...
The government also identified 150,000 ineligible Medicare providers by screening the providers who participate in the program in 2012. They recovered $3 billion through settlements and judgments through whistle-blower claims that included illegal pricing by drug manufacturers, marketing medical devices and medications for uses that have not been approved, and fraud by hospitals and other health care providers. And they recovered $1.5 billion in fines and forfeitures.

Feds recovered $4.2 billion from anti-fraud efforts
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Feb 13, 2013

Well, this SOTU proved to me Obama is, if nothing else, very contemporary.
It had to be the most technically aware I've heard, being cognizant of many technologies.
Not waxing philosophic as much, but getting down to some detail. (at least as much as you can do in such a brief time & broad audience)

And he seemed to be positioning himself as the Adult in the Room.
Hitting buttons and loves of BOTH sides (Defense & Entitlements) ...and preaching that CONGRESS, all parties should get their act together.

I'm unsure some of the ideas would be do-able...especially since education is trending online. (maybe they can make the high-schools into pre-schools)
But I do like the thought of rebuilding our infrastructure by partnering up with the business community.

We'll see how it goes, but he's certainly not lacking in confidence...not the wishy washy guy we saw in the 1st term.

Obama’s Boldly Modest State of the Union
By the Editors - Feb 13, 2013

The most moving part of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address was also its least ambitious.

Gesturing to the girl’s parents in the first lady’s box, Obama recounted the story of Hadiya Pendleton, the high-school majorette who performed at his inauguration last month. She was shot and killed two weeks ago. He acknowledged former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, also in attendance, who was critically wounded by a gunman two years ago. He recognized the victims of the mass shooting of schoolchildren last December in Newtown, Connecticut, one of whose teachers also sat with Michelle Obama.

What all these people deserve, the president said, is not necessarily safer gun laws. What they deserve is -- a vote on safer gun laws. “If you want to vote no,” he told members of Congress, “that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote.”

It was an oddly modest request, made more so because Obama has been so bold in demanding common-sense gun laws, such as stricter background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines. Then again, the State of the Union is an odd event. It’s best not to try to make too much sense of it. Anyone care to explain to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Ted Nugent how they ended up on the same guest list?

With that caveat -- as well as the knowledge that State of the Union proposals generally, and Obama’s in particular, don’t always come to fruition -- this year’s version was notable for its seeming reasonableness. Emphasis on “seeming.”

By some measures, this was an ambitious speech, calling for an increase in the minimum wage; universal preschool; legislation to slow down climate change; immigration reform; voting reform; negotiations for a free-trade agreement with Europe; and winning seasons for all hometown teams. (OK, we made that last one up. But surely the president supports it.)

At the same time, however, Obama had a way of pulling back, of making his ambitions seem less grand. This is easy enough to do when citing bipartisan commissions (we counted at least three references) and offering minor proposals (redesigning high schools “to better equip graduates for the demands of a high- tech economy”). It’s harder to do when making the case for the big issues.

For example, the president made the standard call for “comprehensive immigration reform.” As necessary as that may be, it remains unlikely. So Obama was also careful to call for “fixing the legal immigration system.” Few Republicans would argue with that (though a few Democrats might). The danger is that in offering it, the president could cede too much in the fight for broader reform.

To deal with the budget deficit, Obama called for “tax reform and entitlement reform,” which sounds better than “tax increases and entitlement cuts,” and proposed eliminating some loopholes and making “modest reforms” to Medicare. But he didn’t offer many details, and the discussion was more about getting the government’s budget in order than its proper role in society. If you’re trying to be agreeable, then specifics can only cause trouble, as they tend to foster disagreement.

Or take increasing the minimum wage and making preschool available “to every child in America”: Both would unquestionably help in the fight against income and wealth inequality. But Obama didn’t articulate any such rationale. He just cited statistics and Republicans in support of his proposals.

Granted, these are tactical concerns, and the purpose of the State of the Union address -- isn’t it? -- is to make policy arguments. It’s not the ideal forum for declamations on the rights of citizens and the role of government. That’s what inaugural addresses are for, and Obama’s second was notable for its unapologetic defense of the classical liberal vision.

Obama seemed at pains in the State of the Union to be prosaic, sensible, unthreatening. Did it work? If Senator Marco Rubio’s rote response to the State of the Union is any indication, Obama’s tone last night didn’t win him much of a hearing with Republicans.

Which brings us back to our original point: Calling for a vote on new gun-safety laws is either politically astute (who could be against a simple vote?) or politically pointless (why ask for only a simple vote?). Maybe both. In making his request so modest, Obama risks making his opponents suspicious and his supporters nervous. Or maybe he’s just, you know, trying to be reasonable.

®2013 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Click to expand...

Aceventura · Feb 14, 2013

redux said: ↑

An important provision of the ACA is a greater focus on Medicare fraud and abuse and we're seeing results.
Click to expand...

Where can I get some of those "rainbow and unicorn" glasses?

Last week, the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform disclosed how state officials in New York scam federal taxpayers out of billions of dollar by exploiting the Medicaid system.
The federal government matches dollar for dollar what a state spends on Medicaid. New York politicians have turned Medicaid into a verb: it means to spend profligately, label it Medicaid, and bilk federal taxpayers for the match.
Amazingly, New York spends $5,118 per day per patient in state facilities for the mentally disabled, equivalent to $1.9 million a year per patient.
"Personal care" for the homebound is a New York Medicaid benefit that includes grocery shopping and housekeeping and costs as much as $150,000 a year per recipient.
Overall, New York spends more on Medicaid than the two most populous states in the U. S. — California and Texas — combined, and hauls in more matching federal funds.
The congressional committee is calling for a federal investigation of New York's Medicaid spending, citing Gov. Andrew Cuomo's unwillingness to answer the committee's inquiries, as well as the "politicized, dysfunctional and complacent" performance of state Medicaid Inspector Gen. James Cox, a Cuomo appointee.
An investigation might chase these foxes out of New York's henhouse. But this isn't just a New York problem.
The bigger culprit is the Medicaid matching rule, which invites abuse. It lays out a red carpet even for politicians who are otherwise inclined to be honest stewards of taxpayers' money.
And the problem is about to get much worse, because the Obama health law lures states to loosen their Medicaid eligibility rules and expand enrollment by promising the federal government will pay 100% of the cost of the expansion until 2018, and then 90% of the cost thereafter. That's a 9-to-1 match. .
The red-carpet invitation has enticed even conservative governors, John Kasich of Ohio and Jan Brewer of Arizona, an outspoken critic of President Obama and his health plan.
Last week, both governors stunned the nation by announcing that they will participate in ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion.
Brewer said it would "inject $2 billion" into the state's economy.
Click to expand...

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/021213-644193-medicaid-rules-fleece-federal-taxpayers.htm#ixzz2Kubh2vmY
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Note, this kind of fraud has the potential to skyrocket under Obamacare! What is the plan to control it?

Some states are trying to be responsible and not fall into this Medicaid trap, the problem is that doing the right think means your state gets the shaft because money from your state will feed the fraud in other states. This legislation is bad law!

redux · Feb 21, 2013

Lets recount, Ace.

$5 billion savings to-date for seniors in Medicare donut hole and consumer premiums in group plans and $4.2 billion savings in Medicare fraud.

You dont like savings?

ACA also has numerous provisions dealing with Medicaid fraud yet to be implemented.

You prefer no new regulations?
--- merged: Feb 14, 2013 at 5:23 PM ---
You dont want Medicaid Recovery Audit Contractors to "identify and recover overpayments..."

What is your solution to Medicaid waste/fraud?

Aceventura · Feb 15, 2013

redux said: ↑

You dont like savings?
Click to expand...

I like real savings.

ACA also has numerous provisions dealing with Medicaid fraud yet to be implemented.
Click to expand...

A dollar for dollar match for additional Medicaid recipients creates an incentive for waste even if it does not rise to the definition of fraud.

You prefer no new regulations?
Click to expand...

I prefer effective regulation.

What is your solution to Medicaid waste/fraud?
Click to expand...

Increased local control and local funding. I think local people can create systems that work most effectively to met local needs. I also believe in making systems as flat as possible. I think it inefficient for a North Carolina tax dollar to go to Washington to then be spent on a program to benefit North Carolina citizens. Nor do I support in general, North Carolina tax dollars going to Washington for the benefit of New Yorkers. New York has enough wealth to meet its needs, as is North Carolina. I do see some exceptions, i.e. national defense or social Security for the elderly or my thought of no questions asked medical care for all children.

redux · Feb 22, 2013

Nearly $10 billion in savings to-date is not REAL savings?

And another program (RAC) that was successfully piloted in 2005 as a Republican program to reduce Medicare fraud and simply expanded under ACA to cover Medicaid as well is suddenly not effective w/o even giving it a chance?
--- merged: Feb 15, 2013 at 1:12 PM ---

Aceventura said: ↑

... Nor do I support in general, North Carolina tax dollars going to Washington for the benefit of New Yorkers. New York has enough wealth to meet its needs, as is North Carolina. I do see some exceptions, i.e. national defense or social Security for the elderly or my thought of no questions asked medical care for all children.
Click to expand...

New York provides more in federal tax dollars than it takes back in revenue.

Where do those excess NY tax dollars go? To states like North Carolina that contribute less in federal taxes that it gets back in federal revenue.

Aceventura · Feb 15, 2013

redux said: ↑

Nearly $10 billion in savings to-date is not REAL savings?
Click to expand...

What is the net going to be? Dude, you are like talking to my wife when she wants to rationalize a shopping spree. She walks in the door and tells me how much she saved! With her I smile and check out statements later to find-out how much her "savings" actually cost, with you - I say stop trying to b.s. me, please! Take your talking points and share them with people who may buy into it - I am going to always ask the questions that beg to be asked.

New York provides more in federal tax dollars than it takes back in revenue.
Click to expand...

Then it is not fair to New Yorkers. I would be more than happy to pay my fair share. My point is that the system is broken - do you really not understand my point?

redux · Feb 22, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

What is the net going to be? Dude, you are like talking to my wife when she wants to rationalize a shopping spree. She walks in the door and tells me how much she saved! With her I smile and check out statements later to find-out how much her "savings" actually cost, with you - I say stop trying to b.s. me, please! Take your talking points and share them with people who may buy into it - I am going to always ask the questions that beg to be asked.
Click to expand...

Ace...I'm really not interested in your wife's shopping habits.

And you can keep posting your IBD columns that point to a $1 trillion dollar program, according to the CBO, which I dont dispute. But you and your "sources" conveniently ignore the fact that those same CBO reports find that the ACA will reduce the debt by $150-200 billion over the next 10 years.

Then it is not fair to New Yorkers. I would be more than happy to pay my fair share. My point is that the system is broken - do you really not understand my point?
Click to expand...

I understand that you will continue to point to your biased sources that share your ideology and intentionally never present the full set of facts.
--- merged: Feb 15, 2013 at 4:00 PM ---
I also understand that you believe that access to quality and affordable health care is not a national issue and that folks in states with a smaller revenue base will just have to do with less.

Aceventura · Feb 15, 2013

redux said: ↑

And you can keep posting your IBD columns that point to a $1 trillion dollar program, according to the CBO, which I dont dispute. But you and your "sources" conveniently ignore the fact that those same CBO reports find that the ACA will reduce the debt by $150-200 billion over the next 10 years.

I understand that you will continue to point to your biased sources that share your ideology and intentionally never present the full set of facts.
Click to expand...

"ignore" - is a word you use, do you want to be a bit more precise? We have far too many people around here taking liberty with words, using words out of context and in ambiguous ways. I responded to your post containing information you say I "ignore", I did not ignore the information, I read it and took the effort to find and present information to contradict the point you tried to make using the information.

I also understand that you believe that access to quality and affordable health care is not a national issue and that folks in states with a smaller revenue base will just have to do with less.
Click to expand...

What I believe is based on reality. We can establish minimum standards for all, but beyond that the quality and availability of health care is going to be based on individual ability and desire to pay. If I am able and motivated to pay X and you are not, that is your issue either based on your ability or willingness to pay X. My focus would be on those who have no control, i.e. - children, elderly, disabled. If you think we can equalize healthcare services, I think that is foolish. Nothing in any approach you have ever discussed leads to making health care more affordable.

redux · Feb 22, 2013

Ace...what you presented were right wing editorials and opinion pieces that cheery picked the CBO report and an example or two that you and they project onto the entire country with no supporting data.
--- merged: Feb 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM ---

Aceventura said: ↑

.....
CBO projects the 10 year cost at over $1 trillion.
....
Click to expand...

Why didnt you include the fact that the CBO, in each of its last three reports, also projected that the ACA would save the budget more than it costs?

And that those savings would continue to grow faster than the costs over time.

Aceventura · Feb 23, 2013

redux said: ↑

Ace...what you presented were right wing editorials and opinion pieces that cheery picked the CBO report and an example or two that you and they project onto the entire country with no supporting data.
--- merged: Feb 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM ---

Why didnt you include the fact that the CBO, in each of its last three reports, also projected that the ACA would save the budget more than it costs?

And that those savings would continue to grow faster than the costs over time.
Click to expand...

Here is a link to the CBO February 2013 report on the Affordable Healthcare Act.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900_ACAInsuranceCoverageEffects.pdf

See page 2 Effects on The Deficit Chart, and read the Net Cost Of Provisions - 11 year total from 2013-2023. I read $1.329 Trillion. How do you read it?

{added} I think I may understand your logic on this question - you think because the government is increasing taxes, increasing fees, transferring money, imposing penalties, and charging some people premiums for coverage that this adds up to more than the cost and that it will result in some kind of savings - is this how you see it. If you do and think "taxing" is in fact "savings" I see how we view this differently.

redux · Feb 16, 2013

Ace...see note (a) on the chart - Does not include effects on the deficit of other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are not related to coverage, which in the aggregate reduce deficits...

Those provisions include a new Medicare tax on those with income over $200k, drug companies paying higher fees to cover the donut hole, excise tax on the so called "Cadillac" plans, penalties for not opting-in, as well as savings from the RAC fraud recovery in both Medicare and Medicaid.

It is not what I say. It is what the CBO has said in every analysis.

Baraka_Guru · Feb 16, 2013

There are associated tax increases, but a chunk of the difference is in spending cuts to Medicare. [Edit: cross-posted with redux]

redux · Feb 16, 2013

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

There are associated tax increases, but a chunk of the difference is in spending cuts to Medicare. [Edit: cross-posted with redux]
Click to expand...

True.

Part of the Medicare savings is related to hospitals agreeing to give a percentage of Medicare payments because they expect to make more by having to treat fewer overall uninsured patients. And part is a result of reducing Medicare Advantage over-payments -- making MA more competitive and capping it at no more than 10% of traditional Medicare (MA providers are currently 13-15% higher)

Baraka_Guru · Feb 16, 2013

redux said: ↑

True.

Part of the Medicare savings is related to hospitals agreeing to give a percentage of Medicare payments because they expect to make more by having to treat fewer overall uninsured patients. And part is a result of reducing Medicare Advantage over-payments -- making MA more competitive and capping it at no more than 10% of traditional Medicare (MA providers are currently 13-15% higher)
Click to expand...

I think overall, there is a lot of room for improvement in the American health care system. There is a lot of opportunity to reduce costs, because in the past there were fewer reasons to do anything to keep costs in check. Now there are clearly more reasons. America has a great health care system, but its cost/benefit ratio is out of whack compared to other top-ranked systems.

redux · Feb 16, 2013

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

I think overall, there is a lot of room for improvement in the American health care system. There is a lot of opportunity to reduce costs, because in the past there were fewer reasons to do anything to keep costs in check. Now there are clearly more reasons. America has a great health care system, but its cost/benefit ratio is out of whack compared to other top-ranked systems.
Click to expand...

I cant argue with this either.

The ACA is far from perfect, but is certainly much better for consumers - both the insured and uninsured - than the existing system. It also includes numerous provisions and pilot program to re-engineer the health care delivery system that most experts believe will result in savings over the long term.

Eventually, we need to get away from the employer-based system.

And a CBO also reported last year that the Republican bill to repeal the law would result in increasing the federal debt by over $100 billion.

Assuming that H.R. 6079 (act to repeal ACA) is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Log in or Sign up

Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Useful Searches