They better be in a hurry now. They have to pass this thing before we learn any more.
Congressional Budget Office projections — from 2014 to 2025 Obamacare would provide an average of $83 billion per year in new taxpayer-funded health-care subsidies that would ultimately be paid to health insurers. That's ten times the $8.3 billion in combined annual profits made by America's ten largest health insurers. And, of course, Obamacare would also require that every American buy the health insurers' product under penalty of law.
Buh...buh...buh....but wait! I thought Obamacare was really going to stick it to those evil insurance companies. You know those companies who contributed to President Obama and just about every Dem and Rep in Congress who are going to be totally objective on this but try to make voters think this is really about helping them. Ugh!
So it takes billions from the people and increases insurance company profits by ten-fold. I didn't see that coming? Seriously, I thought the plan would hurt the insurance companies by forcing them to cover more liability.
I suppose you really can't figure in the liability at this point, but at least I now understand why the insurance industry is pushing for this to happen.
Do you have a link to this excerpt?
The bill is available for review. They are not making this public, but one of the house members mentioned the location of the file. Here it is for all it's worth. When the CBO gets done with it, it goes to the Rules committee where it's expected to grow significantly. Because of the procedure they are now using, "Deem & Pass," it will not be reviewed, and agreement on the amendments will be considered "a vote pass" on the bill. Pelosi has agreed to allow members of the house 1 hour to read the final bill before it's passed.
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF
This is amazing.
. . .and rwarn, it was a National Review article. http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjZhYmEzODZmZWViMDAyZWUwMjlkMzJiN2YyYTZmMWU=
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2010, 08:20:55 AM
They better be in a hurry now. They have to pass this thing before we learn any more.
Congressional Budget Office projections — from 2014 to 2025 Obamacare would provide an average of $83 billion per year in new taxpayer-funded health-care subsidies that would ultimately be paid to health insurers. That's ten times the $8.3 billion in combined annual profits made by America's ten largest health insurers. And, of course, Obamacare would also require that every American buy the health insurers' product under penalty of law.
I love articles that throw around numbers that have no logical connection.
That said, expect to see much profit taking in the next few years. Everybody in the health care system has got to be aware at this point that their continued price increases can not be long for this world. If it keeps up, there will be legislation that controls pricing somehow, whether by fiat, importing doctors, or whatever. Until that day, expect them to be more like the credit card companies.
After all, if the insurance companies have the stones to raise premiums an average of almost 20% in a year where they were making record profits, what can we expect from them when their profit numbers are looking weaker?
No, Conan, not buh, buh, buh...
it's;
Bo. As in BOHICA. Remember the mantra. BOHICA.
(Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.)
I heard a partial segment on the TV (forget which channel/etc) that some of the health insurance companies are only claiming 3% to 5% profit despite record number of $ profit. Anyone else catch that?
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 16, 2010, 09:17:31 PM
I heard a partial segment on the TV (forget which channel/etc) that some of the health insurance companies are only claiming 3% to 5% profit despite record number of $ profit. Anyone else catch that?
I've heard similar numbers, industry average of about 2.5%. I have absolutely no idea how accurate that is nor who compiled the stats. Those are narrow margins when compared to other industries, razor thin. Here's the double jeopardy if Nathan's premise of freezing or capping premium increases holds true: Lets say the gov't arbitrarily says they will only pay X amount for premiums and premium subsidies but costs of drugs, procedures, and preventative care keeps going up. What happens when health insurers start to fail by paying out astronomical claims because now they are required now to take all pre-existing conditions and paying out claims for idiots who use the emergency room for physician visits?
Somehow people are under the mistaken impression that they are owed coverage for pre-existing conditions without paying a higher premium for it. How is that a scurrilous practice? People with shitty driving records are routinely required to pay a higher premium than lower risk drivers because the insurance company is accepting a higher risk. You pay higher interest rates or are denied credit entirely if you are a deadbeat. There are so many other areas there are higher prices which accompany a corporation taking on greater risk customers. Health insurance is not a God-given nor even a constitutional right.
If the government mandates coverage for everyone I can see a day when either insurance companies collapse under the weight of claims and the government goes into more deficit spending to rescue them or finally health insurance becomes "nationalized". I'm not so certain that's not the intention behind this.
I do realize I'm letting my mind run wild playing connect-the-dots and I probably stepped on some tender toes regarding pre-existing conditions and whether or not health insurance is a right. Just putting it all in perspective.
/edit: correcting and clarifying my iPhone short-hand
Someone will clobber me for being picky about words but to me:
Health Insurance takes care of unexpected events like car insurance takes care of an accident you haven't had yet.
Health Care takes care of existing conditions.
Both are too expensive for the average and even somewhat richer than average American to pay for.
I don't have the perfect answer but don't think the present bill (or whatever it is) in Congress is the right answer, especially considering all the deals that had to be made.
Not sure why you think an industry like healthcare is so brittle as to fail completely if costs are capped. A more likely scenario is the the sector ceases to expand and might contract a bit as it gets more efficient to deal with smaller amounts of capital. That's the point, right? Not to kill it but to moderate an out-of-control sector of the economy.
One person's/organization's costs are another's prices or income. Cap prices to a point of being unprofitable and the goods or service will be withdrawn. There's been a lot of finger pointing but no definitive answer as to why the cost of health care is outpacing inflation so much. There probably isn't just one cause.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 16, 2010, 11:14:45 PM
One person's/organization's costs are another's prices or income. Cap prices to a point of being unprofitable and the goods or service will be withdrawn. There's been a lot of finger pointing but no definitive answer as to why the cost of health care is outpacing inflation so much. There probably isn't just one cause.
There's definitely a theoretical point where you can tax an industry too much and it dies away completely but that's no one's intention, and I think you can call the Dems extra cautious when it comes to that . . . they've taken many of the most robust ideas about cost control (hello public option!) and dumped those pretty quickly.
In general, though, is there an example in American history of a sector being taxed into oblivion? That's one of the major prevailing fears in this whole debate, but I can't think of one instance where that's actually happened in the real world. Prohibition might come close, but we all know how that turned out.
Also, since we're talking about CBO scoring, (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=488) the senate bill (the bill currently in contention) will reduce the federal deficit by $118 billion between 2010 and 2019.
"CBO and JCT now estimate that, on balance, the direct (mandatory) spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (Direct spending—as distinguished from discretionary spending—is spending that stems from legislation other than appropriation acts.) In our earlier estimate, the budgetary impact was a net reduction in deficits of $132 billion.
The gross cost of the proposed expansions in insurance coverage over those 10 years is now projected to be $875 billion, reflecting subsidies provided through insurance exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers. Those costs are partly offset by revenues from an excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and net savings from other coverage-related sources, leaving a net cost of $624 billion for the coverage provisions. Other provisions affecting direct spending save $478 billion, on net—mostly in Medicare—and other provisions affecting revenues reduce the deficit by $264 billion, on net. Thus, the net effect on deficits of the bill as a whole equals $624 billion less $478 billion less $264 billion, or a reduction of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that the legislation would increase outlays by $355 billion and increase revenues by $473 billion between 2010 and 2019."
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 06:27:59 AM
There's definitely a theoretical point where you can tax an industry too much and it dies away completely but that's no one's intention, and I think you can call the Dems extra cautious when it comes to that . . . they've taken many of the most robust ideas about cost control (hello public option!) and dumped those pretty quickly.
In general, though, is there an example in American history of a sector being taxed into oblivion? That's one of the major prevailing fears in this whole debate, but I can't think of one instance where that's actually happened in the real world. Prohibition might come close, but we all know how that turned out.
I wasn't thinking so much of oblivion as decreased supply as in the gasoline "shortage" of the early 70s.
That was also some form of price control rather than taxes.
Quote from: we vs us on March 16, 2010, 10:58:12 PM
Not sure why you think an industry like healthcare is so brittle as to fail completely if costs are capped. A more likely scenario is the the sector ceases to expand and might contract a bit as it gets more efficient to deal with smaller amounts of capital. That's the point, right? Not to kill it but to moderate an out-of-control sector of the economy.
Who ever thought there would be another Wall St. melt-down and the entire lending system would collapse? Who ever thought the U.S. government would have to bail out GM and Chrysler? Don't think that gov't safety and environmental regulations and mandates didn't have anything to do with both companies becoming uncompetitive in global markets. I'm not saying safety and environmental concerns are not important, I'm simply illustrating how government mandate can have unintended economic consequences.
If the health insurance industry is, in fact, operating on a 2.5 to 5% profit margin and they suddenly are faced with more claim pay-outs than they can keep up with on premium growth, guess what could happen?
It's kind of like telling a widget maker that he can only sell his widgets for $1000 when they actually cost $1100 to make, or having an arbitrary cap on final price when raw material prices suddenly rise.
Of course govt mandates can change the cost of an item, or market conditions over all. But that's only one pressure among a bunch of different pressures in any market. And in general it's not a static system. It's not a straight line from govt regs to FAIL. In your widget example, the company would work with the market environment -- which includes but is not limited to those govt regs -- and reduce overhead to find its profit margin again. Fire people? Maybe. Negotiate better raw material prices? More likely. Look for inefficiencies in delivery or production? Another good one. There're all kinds of places to reduce your costs without folding up the shop and going home.
In GM's case, it's solidly management's fault it didn't deal successfully with the regulatory environment. Plenty of other car companies have flourished under the same regime. And Wall Street's collapse is directly related to lack of regulation. Everything from AIG's swaps, to Lehman Bros' derivative markets, to the whole subprime mortgage-as-security scheme which consumed all the major banks. No one was watching and it got waaaaay out of hand. But that's another thread altogether ;)
it's not that no one was watching We vs Us. Bush, McCain, and many others made over 20 pleas to congress. Barney Frank refused to listen. Congress refused to act. Bush made his first plea for reform in 2001. He made 17 more after that, and congress refused to act. The bubble was very visible.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
Ignored!
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
Ignored!
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
Ignored!
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
Ignored!
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
Ignored!
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
Ignored!
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
Ignored!
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
Ignored!
"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
[Congressional Black Caucus member] Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore...should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
Ignored!
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
Ignored!Ignored!Ignored!
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
Ignored!
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
Ignored!
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
Ignored!
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
Ignored!
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
Ignored! Ignored!
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
Ignored!
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by ... helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
Ignored! Ignored!Ignored!Ignored!Ignored!
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
Ignored!
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
Ignored!
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
Ignored!
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
Ignored!
Letter to congress. . .
We are concerned that if effective regulatory reform legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to.be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. Therefore, we offer you our support in bringing the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) to the floor and allowing the Senate to debate the merits of this bill, which was passed by the Senate Banking Committee.
Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?
Substantial testimony calling for improved regulation of the GSEs has been provided to the Senate by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, HUD, GAO, CBO, and others. Congress has the opportunity to recommit itself to the housing mission of the GSEs while at the same time making sure the GSEs operate in a manner that does not expose our financial system, or taxpayers, to unnecessary risk. It is vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that these institutions benefit from strong and independent regulatory supervision, operate in a safe and sound manner, and are primarily focused on their statutory mission. More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event either GSE should fail. We strongly support an effort to schedule floor time this year to debate GSE regulatory reform.
Sincerely,
(signed)
John McCain
REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.
Ignored!
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
Not Ignored. Bush blamed! People to stupid to know any different!
[img]http://johnbatchelorshow.com/images/2008_11_10t173919_398x450_us_usa_gambling_internet.jpg[/img
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 09:50:37 AM
Of course govt mandates can change the cost of an item, or market conditions over all. But that's only one pressure among a bunch of different pressures in any market. And in general it's not a static system. It's not a straight line from govt regs to FAIL. In your widget example, the company would work with the market environment -- which includes but is not limited to those govt regs -- and reduce overhead to find its profit margin again. Fire people? Maybe. Negotiate better raw material prices? More likely. Look for inefficiencies in delivery or production? Another good one. There're all kinds of places to reduce your costs without folding up the shop and going home.
In GM's case, it's solidly management's fault it didn't deal successfully with the regulatory environment. Plenty of other car companies have flourished under the same regime. And Wall Street's collapse is directly related to lack of regulation. Everything from AIG's swaps, to Lehman Bros' derivative markets, to the whole subprime mortgage-as-security scheme which consumed all the major banks. No one was watching and it got waaaaay out of hand. But that's another thread altogether ;)
Negotiating raw material costs isn't as simple as it sounds.
What's the cost of running a tighter ship? Limiting or not providing employee benefits like health insurance or retirement/pension/401K, or cutting workforce. Again the worst of unintended consequences. Limiting spending on new captial projects or capital equipment which helps keep other parts of the economy moving. All things no one wants to see.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 17, 2010, 11:16:32 AM
Negotiating raw material costs isn't as simple as it sounds.
What's the cost of running a tighter ship? Limiting or not providing employee benefits like health insurance or retirement/pension/401K, or cutting workforce. Again the worst of unintended consequences. Limiting spending on new captial projects or capital equipment which helps keep other parts of the economy moving. All things no one wants to see.
We've been having a running discussion in our sales office about what our changed economic circumstances have forced us to do. While all the basic awful things you'd expect have happened -- less money for sales trips and client entertainment, fewer staff, pressure from above to perform etc -- it's also forced us to be creative and to expand our idea of what good business is. In fact, I owe my job in part to that question . . . my position as written didn't exist until they decided that we had to branch out into new markets. And these new markets are ultimately going to make us healthier as things rebound. We'll have a much more broad base of clients to count on, and more varied revenue.
Point being is that while changes in the overall market are challenging, there are all sorts of ways to counter them, not all of them destructive.
By all accounts healthcare sector specifically is so swollen that actually shrinking it is in the interest of all the other economic sectors. Payments to the healthcare industry amount to a tax on everything already, and a tax that is 1) outpacing inflation by double digits and 2) resulting in fewer and fewer people getting their money's worth from the tax (taking into consideration those who are dropped by insurance, those whose companies chose to cover them at reduced rates or not at all, or those who never were covered but still need care).
And Gassy, focusing only on Fannie and Freddie gives an incomplete picture of how everything almost collapsed. AIG alone had unregulated credit default swaps on its books in 2007 amounting to $440 billion. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSMAR85972720080918) That had nothing to do with the housing crash, but could have easily destroyed the global economy. Other problems related to regulation were: ratings companies (Moody's, Standard and Poor's, etc) who were essentially being paid by the clients they had to rate; a mortgage industry that discarded all of its best-practice standards in order to lend to subprime borrowers; and a series of investment houses who, because they were securitizing these loans, fed the need for them. Fannie and Freddie were in there, too, backing bad loans, but they are by no means the entire problem.
And seriously, don't get me started on derivatives.
EDIT: Oh, and while I'm at it: the entirely unregulated and unsupervised Fed held interest rates so low for so long they encouraged the financial industry to chuck risk out the window so as to find a decent return on their holdings.
Really, everybody's implicated in this.
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 12:14:40 PM
And Gassy, focusing only on Fannie and Freddie gives an incomplete picture of how everything almost collapsed. AIG alone had unregulated credit default swaps on its books in 2007 amounting to $440 billion. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSMAR85972720080918) That had nothing to do with the housing crash, but could have easily destroyed the global economy. Other problems related to regulation were: ratings companies (Moody's, Standard and Poor's, etc) who were essentially being paid by the clients they had to rate; a mortgage industry that discarded all of its best-practice standards in order to lend to subprime borrowers; and a series of investment houses who, because they were securitizing these loans, fed the need for them. Fannie and Freddie were in there, too, backing bad loans, but they are by no means the entire problem.
And seriously, don't get me started on derivatives.
EDIT: Oh, and while I'm at it: the entirely unregulated and unsupervised Fed held interest rates so low for so long they encouraged the financial industry to chuck risk out the window so as to find a decent return on their holdings.
Really, everybody's implicated in this.
I do believe the point he was trying to make was quite simply that while lawmakers who could have done something and sounded an alarm played the fiddle (or with themselves) as Rome burned. Democratic law makers, including Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (nice preferred rate from Countrywide) tried to blame all this on Republicans and President Bush when they were just as culpable. Unfortuntely the dumb masses bought into this and essentially re-elected a lot of the people responsible for this lack of oversight on all levels in 2008.
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 12:14:40 PM
Really, everybody's implicated in this.
Agreed! Chuck em all!
Quote from: Conan71 on March 17, 2010, 12:22:16 PM
Unfortuntely the dumb masses bought into this and essentially re-elected a lot of the people responsible for this lack of oversight on all levels in 2008.
Isn't that because no one knew exactly who the responsible parties until well after Election Day? The credit collapse happened in September 2008, and it took months to sort everything out after the dust cleared.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 17, 2010, 12:22:16 PM
I do believe the point he was trying to make was quite simply that while lawmakers who could have done something and sounded an alarm played the fiddle (or with themselves) as Rome burned. Democratic law makers, including Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (nice preferred rate from Countrywide) tried to blame all this on Republicans and President Bush when they were just as culpable. Unfortuntely the dumb masses bought into this and essentially re-elected a lot of the people responsible for this lack of oversight on all levels in 2008.
Hence the "everybody's implicated" part. I'll concede the point that Dems were as asleep at the switch as everybody else. But that concession doesn't mean that Dems are somehow solely to blame, or that orgs that have been traditionally championed by libs (Fannie and Freddie) were the depth charges that set this all off. It was pretty much a systemic failure and the bipartisan causes had been building for years.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 17, 2010, 01:03:29 PM
Isn't that because no one knew exactly who the responsible parties until well after Election Day? The credit collapse happened in September 2008, and it took months to sort everything out after the dust cleared.
I think, even today, they would get re-elected. They were re-elected by people who get their political insight from MTV and E! and Comedy Central.
If Snookie likes Obama, they are going to vote for Obama again. I promise.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 17, 2010, 01:42:00 PM
I think, even today, they would get re-elected. They were re-elected by people who get their political insight from MTV and E! and Comedy Central.
If Snookie likes Obama, they are going to vote for Obama again. I promise.
Oh please. Don't act as if only people who voted for Obama are poorly informed. Your disdain for anybody who doesn't agree with you has really come out in your recent posts.
For every Snookie, there is a Bubba on the other side.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 17, 2010, 01:03:29 PM
Isn't that because no one knew exactly who the responsible parties until well after Election Day? The credit collapse happened in September 2008, and it took months to sort everything out after the dust cleared.
Not true. Do some Googling, search the archives on here for that matter. I'm pretty certain we were discussing these people and their incestuous relationships in between Aug. '08 and Nov. '08
There were plenty of stories coming out about the cozy relationships certain Senators and Reps had with lenders and Wall St. at that time.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2010, 02:16:20 PM
poorly informed.
Poorly informed?
I find myself guilty.
Anything I think is just regurging from some talking head I saw on the news this morning.
I don't know anyone who's particularly informed.
Every time I see someone "on the street" they are just retelling the talking points we've been hammered with.
When I ask someone's opinion, they tell me what I've heard on the news already.
When I ask them why, they can't explain themselves without using someone from either side of the argument.
In the word of a skinny lawyer I've met, "Bah".
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 01:33:35 PM
Hence the "everybody's implicated" part. I'll concede the point that Dems were as asleep at the switch as everybody else. But that concession doesn't mean that Dems are somehow solely to blame, or that orgs that have been traditionally championed by libs (Fannie and Freddie) were the depth charges that set this all off. It was pretty much a systemic failure and the bipartisan causes had been building for years.
No, but it was certainly typical of Democrats to try and deflect all blame to those wealthy, poor-hating, anti-regulation Republicans. They flat-donkey lied through their teeth. It's truly amazing to see how many Wall St., insurance, finance, and banking executives are heavy donors to the DNC, and Democrat candidates. Yet the implication is that they are all in bed with the Repblicans and the GOP is in bed with them.
Quote from: Townsend on March 17, 2010, 02:27:46 PM
Poorly informed?
I find myself guilty.
Anything I think is just regurging from some talking head I saw on the news this morning.
I don't know anyone who's particularly informed.
Every time I see someone "on the street" they are just retelling the talking points we've been hammered with.
When I ask someone's opinion, they tell me what I've heard on the news already.
When I ask them why, they can't explain themselves without using someone from either side of the argument.
In the word of a skinny lawyer I've met, "Bah".
I wish said skinny lawyer still had time to post here. Went off and got himself a respectible job >:(
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2010, 02:16:20 PM
Oh please. Don't act as if only people who voted for Obama are poorly informed. Your disdain for anybody who doesn't agree with you has really come out in your recent posts.
For every Snookie, there is a Bubba on the other side.
That was a bit harsh wasn't it?
It's not disdain, it's challenge. I want to understand why some people have the opinions that they do. I used the Snookie/Obama connection as an example only. Frank and Dodd were the subject of the discussion. Rwarn mentioned that before the election, no one knew who was responsible, and I disagree, we know exactly who was responsible, it's just that a majority of the country is more interested with the trivial.
I know a lot of very intelligent people who voted for President Obama. Most admit that they voted for him as an alternative to Bush rather than an improvement. There was no metric available to demonstrate that he could be an improvement, and now he is demonstrating exactly that.
Fiddling as Rome burns.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 17, 2010, 02:44:12 PM
I know a lot of very intelligent people who voted for President Obama. Most admit that they voted for him as an alternative to Bush rather than an improvement. There was no metric available to demonstrate that he could be an improvement, and now he is demonstrating exactly that.
Fiddling as Rome burns.
That would be that disdain he's talking about ^^^^^^
I apologize for the harshness.
I just read post after post by you and they all seem to me to be overly partisan these days. What ever happened the funny gaspar?
Those who know me from this forum know I didn't support Obama until the general election. But now I just get overwhelmed by the number of people on this forum, on my facebook page and in the TulsaWorld who attack his every move (or bow).
I just think that it gets old.
On a side note, the deficit stuff you and others have written about Obama was correct. He has led us down a terrible path of deficit. Reagan did the same and his numbers were terrible at this same time of his presidency. Luckily for him and the country, his efforts did work and by the end of his eight years, the economy had rebounded enough to make the debt issue palatable.
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 02:53:40 PM
That would be that disdain he's talking about ^^^^^^
Ohhhh, that. Yeah. ::)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2010, 02:56:56 PM
I apologize for the harshness.
On a side note, the deficit stuff you and others have written about Obama was correct. He has led us down a terrible path of deficit. Reagan did the same and his numbers were terrible at this same time of his presidency. Luckily for him and the country, his efforts did work and by the end of his eight years, the economy had rebounded enough to make the debt issue palatable.
That's a good point. This may serve to be a great example of which political philosophy is more effective in producing positive economic "change." President Regan's efforts were diabolically different than President Obama's approach.
Regan's path was conservative and Obama's liberal. The inherited problems they were faced with were quite similar. It will be very interesting to see how things turn out. Perhaps President Obama's direction will prove to be more effective.
I'll be very interested to see what he decides to do about the economy.
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 02:53:40 PM
That would be that disdain he's talking about ^^^^^^
I see Gas has become FOTD's conservative replacement.
. . . and more to think about from the CBO.
Congressional Budget Office has reported that the president's 2011 budget proposal would nearly triple the publicly held portion of the federal debt over the next ten years.
"Under the President's budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020," says the CBO report on Obama's fiscal 2011 budget. "As a result, net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would expand from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020."
The President should just dissolve the CBO, because they don't help him any.
According to CNN, $940B healthcare bill will cut deficit by $130B
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 18, 2010, 08:33:55 AM
According to CNN, $940B healthcare bill will cut deficit by $130B
According to my credit card company, every time I use my card it saves me money!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 18, 2010, 08:18:30 AM
. . . and more to think about from the CBO.
Congressional Budget Office has reported that the president's 2011 budget proposal would nearly triple the publicly held portion of the federal debt over the next ten years.
"Under the President's budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020," says the CBO report on Obama's fiscal 2011 budget. "As a result, net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would expand from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020."
The President should just dissolve the CBO, because they don't help him any.
I never thought I'd say this, but I sure do miss Bill Clinton...
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 18, 2010, 08:33:55 AM
According to CNN, $940B healthcare bill will cut deficit by $130B
That, and all of the comments from the GOP in recent days that reek of desperation, tell me the bill's gonna pass.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 18, 2010, 08:33:55 AM
According to CNN, $940B healthcare bill will cut deficit by $130B
Another report also says the bill, according to CBO, will cut the deficit by $1.2
trillion the second 10 years.
Also:
"CBO finds that the bill reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year, extending Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years."
So Rwarn, are you saying that this bill will reduce the deficit a little in the next ten years and a lot in the next twenty?
Is that what you're saying?
That it will reduce, not increase, the deficit?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 18, 2010, 09:33:54 AM
"CBO finds that the bill reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year, extending Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years."
And I could cut my commuting costs by not going to work on Friday. Unfortunately my
Medicare Benefits pay check would suffer.
Quote from: we vs us on March 18, 2010, 09:40:44 AM
So Rwarn, are you saying that this bill will reduce the deficit a little in the next ten years and a lot in the next twenty?
Is that what you're saying?
That it will reduce, not increase, the deficit?
And will using my credit card more, really save me money?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 18, 2010, 08:50:04 AM
According to my credit card company, every time I use my card it saves me money!
Which card? I want to save enough to retire in a few years.
Quote from: we vs us on March 18, 2010, 09:40:44 AM
So Rwarn, are you saying that this bill will reduce the deficit a little in the next ten years and a lot in the next twenty?
Is that what you're saying?
That it will reduce, not increase, the deficit?
That's not what I'm saying. It's what the CBO is saying, which is nonpartisan, and therefore has a helluva lot of credibility.
Senator Coburn was on KRMG this morning. He claims that the current HCR bill does nothing to cut medical costs which HAS to be a key component of of reform. Can any of you specifically state the mechanism of how the current bill reduces health care costs? Other than resorting to snippets from the CBO on how it will reduce the deficit?
Coburn sent a letter after the SOTU address to President Obama, which appears to have been ignored even though the President requested alternate solutions to health care. His proposal makes perfect sense to me. Of course if you can't take off your "Coburn is an embarrasment" filter to read it, it will have no meaning to you in the first place.
"Dear President Obama,
We share your belief that health reform is not only needed, but is long overdue. During Wednesday’s State of the Union address you told the nation, “If anyone from either party has a better approach [than the current proposals] that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”
We are hopeful that we can begin anew in the spirit of true bipartisanship and again submit our reform proposal to you. On May 20, 2009, we introduced comprehensive health reform legislation, The Patients’ Choice Act. We believe this legislation would put patients and physicians back in control of health care decisions. We hope you will seriously consider this legislation, because it accomplishes each of the goals you have outlined, but does so without dramatically expanding the size and scope of the federal government or raising taxes. These legitimate concerns are a primary reason reform efforts have stalled, and we would appreciate consideration of a different approach to our shared goals."
This appears to have been ignored.
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b96eb964-9511-4f0c-b6b4-379717346ac1
Quote from: Conan71 on March 18, 2010, 09:45:03 AM
Senator Coburn was on KRMG this morning. He claims that the current HCR bill does nothing to cut medical costs which HAS to be a key component of of reform. Can any of you specifically state the mechanism of how the current bill reduces health care costs? Other than resorting to snippets from the CBO on how it will reduce the deficit?
Coburn was yapping before the CBO report came out. I'd say the report renders his comments irrelevant.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 18, 2010, 09:46:36 AM
Coburn was yapping before the CBO report came out. I'd say the report renders his comments irrelevant.
So just summarily dismiss his plan and comments because you don't like him. Check.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 18, 2010, 09:52:17 AM
So just summarily dismiss his plan and comments because you don't like him. Check.
If you have a partisan vs. a nonpartisan report, which is more credible?
CBO has analyzed the other GOP health plans, and their scores were terrible.
If Coburn's deal is so great, have it dissected by the CBO and see what it says.
Coburn says his legislation is, at best, revenue-neutral. The current health-care plan, according to the CBO, does better than that and cuts the deficit.
Coburn is supposedly a deficit hawk. If the current plan, according a nonpartisan analyst, cuts the deficit, then what's his problem with it?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 18, 2010, 09:52:17 AM
So just summarily dismiss his plan and comments because you don't like him. Check.
Of course. He's a stupid Republican and a greedy doctor. His plan does not do what the president's plan promises to do. Which we don't know.
. . .and the CBO just received the revised bill this morning. They will score the new bill this afternoon, and it will be posted for 72hour review on Friday. Apparently now it's a completely different bill. The President said in his interview yesterday that we will have a plenty of time to review all 2,000 pages on the website before it's voted on.
The Patient's Choice Act has been available for review since May 2009. It exposes the insurance companies to MASSIVE competition by forcing them to compete. The big insurance companies would never support this bill because it would drastically lower premiums and expand coverage. The bill was also doomed because it was only 80 pages long. Not long enough to conceal enough pork.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 18, 2010, 09:59:47 AM
If you have a partisan vs. a nonpartisan report, which is more credible?
CBO has analyzed the other GOP health plans, and their scores were terrible.
If Coburn's deal is so great, have it dissected by the CBO and see what it says.
Coburn says his legislation is, at best, revenue-neutral. The current health-care plan, according to the CBO, does better than that and cuts the deficit.
Coburn is supposedly a deficit hawk. If the current plan, according a nonpartisan analyst, cuts the deficit, then what's his problem with it?
According to Coburn, it does nothing to address the overall costs of health care which was supposed to be a cornerstone of any reform.
Again, can anyone explain a mechanism to how the current bill under consideration will cut HEALTH CARE costs, not cited CBO numbers on what it does to deficit spending? Does anyone even care, or do you just want to be able to say "health care reform"?
And on another front:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100318/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
"It would restructure one-sixth of the U.S. economy in the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare was created in 1965. It would also impose new obligations on individuals and businesses, requiring for the first time that most Americans carry health insurance and penalizing medium-sized and large companies that don't provide coverage for their workers.
Hospitals and doctors, drug companies and insurers would gain millions of new paying customers, but they would also have to adjust to major changes.
Medicare cuts would force hospitals to operate more efficiently or risk going out of business. Insurance companies would face unprecendented federal regulation.
Health care industries would be hit with new federal taxes, as would upper-income households."How, exactly, do you lower costs when health care industries must pay more in taxes?
How will hospitals streamline costs? By cutting staff, curtailing reinvestment in facilities and equipment, and providing less service.
Not good.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 18, 2010, 09:59:47 AM
If you have a partisan vs. a nonpartisan report, which is more credible?
CBO has analyzed the other GOP health plans, and their scores were terrible.
If Coburn's deal is so great, have it dissected by the CBO and see what it says.
Coburn says his legislation is, at best, revenue-neutral. The current health-care plan, according to the CBO, does better than that and cuts the deficit.
Coburn is supposedly a deficit hawk. If the current plan, according a nonpartisan analyst, cuts the deficit, then what's his problem with it?
No that is incorrect. The preliminary response from the CBO was that the plan was considered as "Budget Neutral"
"reduce spending on mandatory programs by about $41 billion and would increase revenues by $13 billion as an indirect effect of reducing the costs of private health insurance plans (which would result in a shift of some workers' compensation from nontaxable health insurance benefits to taxable wages)."
But who cares. It's dead. We've got a new bill. Can't wait to see what's in it.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 18, 2010, 10:16:20 AM
No that is incorrect. The preliminary response from the CBO was that the plan was considered as "Budget Neutral"
The bill summary itself also uses the "revenue-neutral" description.
But, again, this CBO report really puts Republicans in a box. Are they against a bill that would
reduce the deficit and
expand health coverage to more Americans?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 18, 2010, 10:20:59 AM
The bill summary itself also uses the "revenue-neutral" description.
But, again, this CBO report really puts Republicans in a box. Are they against a bill that would reduce the deficit and expand health coverage to more Americans?
You are correct about that. It's all marketing.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 18, 2010, 10:07:33 AM
Of course. He's a stupid Republican and a greedy doctor. His plan does not do what the president's plan promises to do. Which we don't know.
. . .and the CBO just received the revised bill this morning. They will score the new bill this afternoon, and it will be posted for 72hour review on Friday. Apparently now it's a completely different bill. The President said in his interview yesterday that we will have a plenty of time to review all 2,000 pages on the website before it's voted on.
The Patient's Choice Act has been available for review since May 2009. It exposes the insurance companies to MASSIVE competition by forcing them to compete. The big insurance companies would never support this bill because it would drastically lower premiums and expand coverage. The bill was also doomed because it was only 80 pages long. Not long enough to conceal enough pork.
Really? Posted Friday for 72 hour review? The story I just posted says The House will vote on Sunday. Now why would they do that? Best day to slip in a pile?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 18, 2010, 10:24:53 AM
Really? Posted Friday for 72 hour review? The story I just posted says The House will vote on Sunday. Now why would they do that? Best day to slip in a pile?
Well. . . The LAW states that they have to offer members of congress 72 hours after CBO scoring. I may be very wrong, but I think they still have to obey the law.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 18, 2010, 10:59:59 AM
Freudian slip?
I think they have to attach some sort of mother rider bill for that