Disaster was looming, a small but important detail. And just who said, "just do exactly what I say"? No one but the Republicans.
“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. “ The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” - President Obama
Now I know you're immediate objection will be “but it's true” but that is beside the point which is that what he is doing is using this threat to generate fear, to generate action, to push a specific piece of legislation.
But there isn't just one answer and everything does not have to be completed in one single bill. There are plenty of issues that both Reps and Dems agree upon that could begin the reform process while we work out further solutions. For example, both parties (in various proposed bills) have proposed the following:
Insurance reform preventing insurance companies from dropping people unjustly.
Insurance reform preventing insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of health.
Exchanges where people can competitively shop for insurance.
Malpractice reforms.
Subsidize insurance for individuals with incomes less than 200% of the poverty level.
Now the last one is a bit contentious because the debate there is more about how to finance the increase rather than if we should provide assistance. But both sides seem to agree that people at 200% or less do need help. But certainly the other 4 options are readily passable and would significantly improve the concerns for many people.
The problem is that it doesn't benefit either side to compromise and agree. Without a political victory there is no advantage to it. There is also the problem in that if they resolve part of the problem by enacting solutions where there is agreement they lose much of the political momentum to push through the more controversial legislation.
It's also important to note the discrepancy between the rhetorical appeal to morality and the political reality. The single payer option was supposedly sacrosanct until the conservative backlash caused many democrats to withdraw from it. And at the present moment they may not have enough votes to pass the bill, not because there is anything in it they disagree with but, because the administration responded to public upset about single state deals and demanded their removal. In other words, no vote unless there is a little something extra in it for them. Again, this is business as usual for both sides.
I do, I see a lack of honest thinking.
Don't misunderstand, there's no lack of honest thinking. Both sides know exactly what they're up to. It's a lack of honest speaking. I see it too. I just see it on all sides.
A couple of things, again small details, but who said healthcare reform equals free heatlhcare?
Subsidies and tax breaks = free health care. This and how it gets paid for are the more controversial aspects of the legislation.
Two, the Congressional Budget Office using very conservative estimates, shows that the Democrat healthcare plan will save a trillion dollars for the next twenty years.
No, you're not reading it correctly. But don't worry, you have company. Neither did President Obama. The estimate stated that it will save $132 billion over the next 10 years (2010-2019). There was the claim that it might possibly save $1T over the following 10 years (2020-2029) but I haven't been able to verify that. Projections beyond 2019, by the CBO's own admission, are imprecise and “represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in
that decade under current policies”.
CBO Estimate from the source:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf
Of course, even if we took the $132 billion (though the most recent projection is $118) plus the $1 trillion, that averages out to shy of $66 billion a year. Compare that with this years budget which does not include the increased spending due to the bill, inflation, etc. and the reduction is 1.5%. This is not going to save us. Especially when the analysis over the next 10 years comes to a savings of 0.33%.
It may not be an blatent lie but show me how these claims of savings are not manipulative BS. Now contrast this with the administrations assertion that we must pass this specific legislation right now.
A lot of unsubstanciated claims and a solid backing of the Republican agenda.
Please show me the unsubstantiated claims and where I'm backing the Republican agenda. I'd really like to know where I'm so off base. So far, all anyone has done is tell me I'm wrong. I'm quite willing to change my opinion but I'm going to need more than your say so.
~Raithere
