Re: You (all) lie!
 

I thought it was frozen for three years.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I agree it could be better. But think about what you're saying here. The CBO, which has a reputation for being conservative about such things, estimates that HCR will save $1.3 trillion over the next twenty years. Not gross -- that's net of the costs you keep obsessing about. What would you want to see done for you to call it a "good" attempt?

The answer is, if Congress did exactly what it has just done to cut costs, but without extending coverage to anyone else, you'd be having a week-long orgasm. It's not that you don't like the cost-cutting, it's that you want to be above the political compromises necessary to make it happen, the deal that expands and regulates coverage. And this rejection of politics is so important to you that you've got to reject the cost-cutting, too.

Which is fine. If you want to strike a holier-than-thou pose, that right is guaranteed to you by the First Amendment.

As I've said before, health care costs are going to continue to rise. That's why it's so important to do something about costs.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Checked--frozen for '10 and '11. 2010 would have been 0, anyway, as CPI dipped 2.3%. 2011 was prospective.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

The relevant health statistics from 1906, or 1920, or 1930.

Pure historical facts.

S_A_M

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Didn't Congress vote out some SS "bonus" in light of the no-increase?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Oh, come ON. That's inseparable from changes in medical practice and available medication. And, remember, "infant mortality" is generally considered deaths under age 1, so prevalence of measles, polio, etc., would have had a HUGE impact on mortality rate.

We're the closest the world has ever had to a pure market medical system with broad availability of modern medicine and practice, and we have an embarrassingly high infant mortality rate. Would it be higher in a "pure market" system? Quite possibly, bc it would be extraordinarily expensive for a woman of child-bearing age to get non-group (and probably group, too, as it would be a "pure" market) maternity coverage, but that isn't really any different than it is now.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

$250. After a 5.8% increase in 09 that was generated largely b/c of housing and fuel prices, both of which are off rather dramatically from 07/08 that generated the big increase.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

So that's not a result of any medical advances, improvements in simple medical office and hospital hygiene, etc...?

But you're right. Those are facts. Another couple: Greg Luzinski once hit a home run next to the Liberty Bell sign near the top of the third deck in Veteran's Stadium. And Tony Ommi only had three and a half fingers on his left hand.

ETA: (Shaking fist) Damn you, Cletus!

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Noted, perhaps even duly.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I can handle a compromise. I think the thing was done in reverse. Had it started out as a cost saving issue and then the expansion was bartered for by the people who wanted it, the bill would have been more concise about and focused on the savings instrumentalities. Instead, it was "Expand to help people many of whom who don't produce much for society!" with "Let's also find a way to lower everyone's costs!" You and I might see the savings architecture, but the average American dolt will look at this and think, "Health care is a right. I get it no matter what." And the HC industry will be more than happy to build a model that finds a way to keep pumping out unit sales on their backs. That's not reform. Reform is across the board pain for everyone. This is bringing one group up at cost to another. I say cut everybody's benefits a little bit and leave the uninsured where they are. If the savings are significant enough to improve things for the uninsured, bring them into the system after the money to pay for them starts to accrue.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Many municipalities and states have balanced budget requirements, either codified or as a practical matter (i.e., they can't borrow more money). The federal government doesn't have any such limitations -- or haven't you noticed?

And no municipalities or states have national defense obligations.

Anyone who seriously thinks that the federal government has the ability to cut spending by anything close to enough to eliminate its deficits is dreaming. Even Ronald Reagan knew better, and after the initial tax-cutting orgy he recognized the need to make up revenue. Even Bush I realized that.

The current Republican party is so divorced from reality, and so devoid of any interest in making -- as opposed to obstructing -- policy, that they either fail to recognize this reality, or they pretend to so fail.

I think you recognize this reality, Sebby, but you seem to have a masturbatory fantasy about government breakdown and chaos that leads you to think reaching a true federal crisis would be a good thing. As before, I suggest that all government-is-bad types should move to Somalia.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Gosh, thanks. I hadn't figured that there were add-on costs. Really.

I apologize for making a one-sentence, off-hand comment that threw you into such a tizzy. I wasn't really intending to suggest that farm subsidies cause the average Snickers Bar to be cheaper than an apple, nor that I had conducted a study of same, and while I do appreciate the pontificating that this has triggered I will certainly try to be more meticulous about my comments or conclusions in the future.

I believe it makes little sense for us to subsidize (1) factory farms that (2) produce lots of food that has negative health impacts and (3) have serious negative envirnomental consequences. If farm policy were to subsidize anything, I would prefer that it subsidize food choices that are healthier, i.e. diversified crops, more fruits, etc.

You might find the NYTimes story interesting. It was front page of the magazine, about 3 years ago. But it's well past the time where'd they'd take a letter in response, so feel free to post all of your grousing about it here.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

And suddenly all the troops will come home, right?

Or we'll move into Road Warrior land?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

You're reacting to the way people (who? I have no idea) are talking about HCR, rather than what Congress actually did. There is a single deal that combines that cost savings and the expansion of coverage, because as hard as it was to get one such bill passed, now try to imagine a bill where only cut costs and everyone informally agrees that later there'll be some sort of second deal to expand coverage if there are savings. It's a fantasy. Instead, what they do in DC is hire a bunch of professionals to analyze legislation and decide how much it will cost and bring in, and they use these determinations for budgeting. Yes, it's the CBO! And here, the Obama Administration drove a deal where the projections are not only that the cost-cutting will be enough to cover the additional costs, but that there will be even more cost cutting still -- $1.3 trillion over twenty years in excess of what the bill spends!

It's disappointing that the average American dolt -- as you endearingly call him, the guy who needs to experience the across-the-board pain for you to get off -- doesn't understand that this bill is going to involve a bunch of savings to the federal government. I attribute this to the fact that the Republicans keep lying about it, in an effort to make the bill unpopular. I watched CSPAN last night and saw a parade of Republican congressmen get up and talk about how expensive this bill is, never mind that it will shrink the deficit more than their tiny little brains can imagine. And it worked! You've decided just to ignore the massive cost-cutting because they pushed your buttons!

Reform doesn't have to be across-the-board pain for everyone. You have a fetish for this, but reform could also be lots of cost cutting combined with expansion of coverage to make the whole thing politically palatable. Because -- I know this will sound strange to you, but then people are strange when you're a stranger -- Congress doesn't want to vote for across-the-board pain, especially in an election year, because then people don't vote for those congressmen. Which is why you only get this kind of huge cost-cutting as part of a deal where other people get stuff they want, like an expansion of coverage.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

OK, fine. I used those years because that was much closer to the "pure market" economy SD supports -- before that socialist FDR came in and sent the country on the path to wrack and ruin.

The fundamental premise behind SD's arguments is essentially identical to those mouthed a century and more ago by folks opposing basic health codes, occupational safety regulations, etc., etc. -- freedom of contract, minimalist government, let the market decide, live and let die.

Even if I could set aside my basic disagreement with those arguments and their gleeful amorality, they seem more than a bit unseemly coming from someone who has so benefited from the fruits of the government he longs to chop to bits.

I've heard it argued how SD is far more of a rugged, self-made individualist than most on these boards -- not nearly so beholding to Uncle Sucker -- but assuming that is true, that just makes him the skinniest kid at fat camp.


S_A_M