We only thought health care costs were moving upward. According to this report, if the plan for Medicare, before the debt ceiling talks broke down, moves forward as both sides came closer to agreement, it could mean much higher out of pocket expenses. Instead of an improved Medicare for all, the politicians are standing on shore arguing about which anchor to throw to the people who are drowning.

Details of the plan were not yet finalized before the Obama-Boehner talks collapsed on Friday. But in general, the agreement called for very gradually increasing the eligibility age from 65 to 67 over about two decades, according to administration and Republican congressional sources.

One pathway would call for increasing the age by one month per year beginning in 2017 until it reached 66 in 2029. In 2030, it would increase two months per year until it hit 67.

The administration’s willingness to entertain the idea may have given “a controversial idea more legitimacy and high-profile support than it’s ever gotten before,” Haberkorn observes, and it is likely to rile progressives who question the wisdom of the compromise.

Jacob Hacker, political science professor at Yale University, has called the scheme “the single worst idea for Medicare reform” since it “saves Medicare money only by shifting the cost burden onto older Americans caught between the old eligibility age and the new, as well as onto the employers and states that help fund their benefits.” Worse still, some seniors between the ages of 65 and 67 could “end up uninsured,” the Center on Budget And Policy Priorities’ Edwin Park predicted. Individuals “with incomes too high for premium subsidies in the exchange and those who qualify for only modest subsidies” could be priced out of affordable coverage, he warned.

Entire opinion: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011...ks-broke-down/

Originally Posted by Deb C

We only thought health care costs were moving upward. According to this report, if the plan for Medicare, before the debt ceiling talks broke down, moves forward as both sides came closer to agreement, it could mean much higher out of pocket expenses. Instead of an improved Medicare for all, the politicians are standing on shore arguing about which anchor to throw to the people who are drowning.



Entire opinion: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011...ks-broke-down/

-Deb, has it ever occured to you that medical costs didn't rise so quickly before medicare was inflicted on the US?

I know you prefer feeling over cold logic, but...

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-2...ment-obamacare

...HHS began shutting down the waiver program... Companies now face a September deadline to apply for protection. After that, they’re out of luck. According to the administration, without the special treatment, health care premiums for 3 million workers would have gone up by 10 percent or more.
A note to social engineers of all parties: If you have to protect 3 million people from a brand-new law, it probably wasn’t very well written in the first place...

...the constant need for special waivers is symptomatic of poorly written public policy. It’s a signal that the cost of compliance is unreasonably high; the benefits are hard to measure; and either legislators or regulators have failed to do their homework.

The waiver process exposes another deeper danger as well: the arbitrary application of government power. The ability to absolve companies of regulatory obligations creates uncertainty, even fear, in the business community. Companies are left to hope, beg, and plead for special treatment, often because their competitors have already received a free pass...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...re_577232.html

The Obama administration’s Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that, since the official end of the recession over two years ago (in June 2009), the percentage of Americans who are employed has actually dropped, while most Americans who are employed are now making less money (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than they were during the recession. Why is our economy plainly failing to match the historical pattern of strong growth following a recession?

... “Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate... Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.”

...Obamacare discourages employers from hiring in several ways:

“Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty;

“Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise — they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and

“Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.”

An appeals court has struck down the mandate provision of the Health Care law. Since another appeals court has already reached the opposite conclusion, the Supreme Court has no option but to take the case, and I suspect it will be heard during the next term. I will go out on a limb. I do not believe Anthony Kennedy will strike down a major piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President, and thus the law will be upheld by at least 5-4.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

The Republican victory means that the Republicans get to redistrict all over the place and make new baby Republicans.

But they did just the same in 2000. So is there much more gerrymandering for them to do?

Originally Posted by JonLaw

The Republican victory means that the Republicans get to redistrict all over the place and make new baby Republicans.

In faster growing states where the demographics change faster redistricting is of only a limited value timewise. It will be of most value to the GOP in 2012 and less so in 2014 ect.

As for the healthcare law, there's just too many variables, especially the Supreme Court case to predict anything as of now. This whole issue (and thread : ) may have a long way to go.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

... As for the healthcare law, there's just too many variables, especially the Supreme Court case to predict anything as of now. This whole issue (and thread : ) may have a long way to go.

Is it just me, or are we tiring of a SCOTUS that consists of two opposing 4-vote blocks and Anthony Kennedy as the Decider(TM). I had enough of that scenario from GWB. The popcorn is decidedly stale.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Is it just me, or are we tiring of a SCOTUS that consists of two opposing 4-vote blocks and Anthony Kennedy as the Decider(TM). I had enough of that scenario from GWB. The popcorn is decidedly stale.

Bush v. Gore destroyed any respect I had for the SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

As a member of the "Hard Right"(as defined by this MB!), my respect for the SCOTUS was lost with
Kelo vs The City of New London(2005).

Prince

PS: Note the time-period of that decision.

And as a member of the Hard Left (actually, as defined by this MB, the Radical Looney Left) --- ME, TOO!!!!! SHAME ON THE SUPREMES! (Those who voted in favor of New London.)

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And as a member of the Hard Left (actually, as defined by this MB, the Radical Looney Left) --- ME, TOO!!!!! SHAME ON THE SUPREMES! (Those who voted in favor of New London.)

-Analysis, FWIW:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

...Those who voted in favor of government-sponsored theft:

"...Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer..."

Stevens (GI '20): Ford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
Kennedy (Silent '36): Reagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy
Souter (Silent '39): GHW Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter
Ginsburg (Silent '33): Clinton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Breyer (Silent '38): Clinton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer

...and those who voted against:

"O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas..."

O'Connor (Silent '30): Reagan (I couldn't get the wikipedia article)
Rhenquist (GI cusper '24): Nixon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist
Scalia (Silent '36): Reagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
Thomas (Boomer '48): GHW Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

As a member of the "Hard Right"(as defined by this MB!), my respect for the SCOTUS was lost with
Kelo vs The City of New London(2005).

Prince

PS: Note the time-period of that decision.

That one made me downright hate them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...re-or-america/

...the Obama administration now admits Obamacare will not reduce health care costs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a report last month indicating health care costs will rise faster under Obamacare than they would have in its absence. Ponder that for a moment. It turns out that Mr. Obama’s ability to “bend the cost curve downward” is as mythical as his “shovel-ready jobs” and “recovery summer.”

It seems to me the one of the problems with the health care law is the amount of waivers that have been issued. 1472 at last count.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...thcare-waivers

In order to have an effective law, there really shouldn't be any waivers.

Anyway, here's a ..less..biased report on the same topic that JDG issued:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...thcare-waivers

Basically due to the change, a number of businesses will in fact dump their own health plans and force their employees to go on the state health insurance. The growth itself is due to an aging population.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...re-or-america/

...the Obama administration now admits Obamacare will not reduce health care costs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a report last month indicating health care costs will rise faster under Obamacare than they would have in its absence. Ponder that for a moment. It turns out that Mr. Obama’s ability to “bend the cost curve downward” is as mythical as his “shovel-ready jobs” and “recovery summer.”

Originally Posted by Hutch74

It seems to me the one of the problems with the health care law is the amount of waivers that have been issued. 1472 at last count.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...thcare-waivers

In order to have an effective law, there really shouldn't be any waivers.

Anyway, here's a ..less..biased report on the same topic that JDG issued:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...thcare-waivers

...it all amounts to this, from your article:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...thcare-waivers

Republicans say the waivers are proof that the healthcare law is flawed.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Analysis, FWIW:

When I first learned about details of the Kelo case (and it's ramification) from one of my professors, it convinced me pretty thoroughly of the moral depravity of the statist left.

One of the reasons I refuse to vote for most Ds nowadays.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Amazing program, should be watched by anyone with cardiac risk factors!

The Last Heart Attack

About 41 minutes long, but I watched the whole thing. It is a Sanjay Gupta CNN report in which he has himself checked out for risk of heart disease (low as it turns out) and makes a case that a proper diet can eliminate most if not all heart attacks. The diet is pretty extreme - at least for me. No meat, fish, dairy products, or oil. Don't eat anything with a face or a mother. Bill Clinton was someone featured throughout as someone who has adopted this diet.

I doubt I could hold to such an extreme diet but consider my risk for a heart attack very low. I have already had a cardiac arrest, but that was a nerve system issue and not due to blockages.

I have obviously not read the book about this diet, but wonder how you maintain enough protein and calcium (particularly for post-menopausal women who are prone to osteoporosis).

I guess mostly I think health problems are caused more from what is within (your makeup, your internal stresses, your genes) that what is without although I do most of the commonly accepted things - exercise, diet, don't smoke, etc. If I was faced with an intractable cardiac situation, I might look into it more.

James50

GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Patient Die

Originally Posted by Aldaris

GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Patient Die

Which is why I will never vote for Ron Paul, or any other Republican for that matter. When so-called "freedom" begins to trump basic human decency, count me out.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Which is why I will never vote for Ron Paul, or any other Republican for that matter. When so-called "freedom" begins to trump basic human decency, count me out.

I can see how those who equate the government with society could think this. Ron Paul made it clear what he would do and has done with his own time and resources. What he will not do is hold a gun to someone's head and make them do what he would do. we all must ask and rarely do: Does the end justify the means? For Ron Paul the answer is clearly no. What are you willing to do or have done in your name to those who will not do as you wish? It seems to me that basic human decency does not involve theft. Somehow government is always exempt from the same rules and morality that us mundanes are supposed to comply with.

I think that some, very few, in the audience did that just to annoy the Wolf Blitzer given how the Tea Party feels the leftist bias they perceive from the media. The biggest cheers came when Ron Paul made it clear that no one was ever turned away in the hospital he worked in before the Great Society programs. The biggest cheers occurred during the parts where Ron Paul made it clear that he did not feel that the federal government was the solution to all problems. Perhaps they are just tired of the endless demands and incompetence that originate in DC.

Originally Posted by Galen

I can see how those who equate the government with society could think this. Ron Paul made it clear what he would do and has done with his own time and resources. What he will not do is hold a gun to someone's head and make them do what he would do. we all must ask and rarely do: Does the end justify the means?

Implement national health care, people live who otherwise would have needlessly and cruelly died. Yes, it does.

There is also the question of what people will put up with. The person whose child is dying slowly and painfully and knows the child can be cured but for lack of the money to pay for it, is not likely to accept any talk of how he shouldn't be because "paying for the child's cure would be theft" or because "people should be self-reliant."

I can think of several things someone in that position might do and very few of them are good. People will accept something if it seems to be "the will of God", but if it's the will of man, or of some men, especially those who seem to be much better off than they are, this person WILL ACT. And in the social climate shown by these cheers, those acts will be harshly met, and the situation will escalate.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

There is also the question of what people will put up with. The person whose child is dying slowly and painfully and knows the child can be cured but for lack of the money to pay for it, is not likely to accept any talk of how he shouldn't be because "paying for the child's cure would be theft" or because "people should be self-reliant."

I can think of several things someone in that position might do and very few of them are good. People will accept something if it seems to be "the will of God", but if it's the will of man, or of some men, especially those who seem to be much better off than they are, this person WILL ACT. And in the social climate shown by these cheers, those acts will be harshly met, and the situation will escalate.

Unless, of course, society accepts the solution Animal Humane of New Mexico provides. Either put the poor thing out of its misery, or sign it over to them to be put up for adoption. If unadoptable, revert to option #1.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I can think of several things someone in that position might do and very few of them are good. People will accept something if it seems to be "the will of God", but if it's the will of man, or of some men, especially those who seem to be much better off than they are, this person WILL ACT. And in the social climate shown by these cheers, those acts will be harshly met, and the situation will escalate.

Then there are those of us who believe in the Social Gospel of Christ, who believe that curing the sick, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and clothing the naked ARE a part of God's will, but one we are called to implement.

But whether or not these ideas are cloaked in religion or humanism is really irrelevant. Either way it's unacceptable to build a society where Social Darwinism is the order of the day. Both secular humanists and Christians who believe in the Social Gospel can probably agree there.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

There is also the question of what people will put up with. The person whose child is dying slowly and painfully and knows the child can be cured but for lack of the money to pay for it, is not likely to accept any talk of how he shouldn't be because "paying for the child's cure would be theft" or because "people should be self-reliant."

I can think of several things someone in that position might do and very few of them are good. People will accept something if it seems to be "the will of God", but if it's the will of man, or of some men, especially those who seem to be much better off than they are, this person WILL ACT. And in the social climate shown by these cheers, those acts will be harshly met, and the situation will escalate.

Bingo. There was a movie a while back about a father who takes a hospital hostage in order to force it to save his kid's life because his insurance company refuses treatment. When the survival of oneself or one's loved ones is threatened all ideological abstractions go out the window.

Originally Posted by Odin

Bingo. There was a movie a while back about a father who takes a hospital hostage in order to force it to save his kid's life because his insurance company refuses treatment. When the survival of oneself or one's loved ones is threatened all ideological abstractions go out the window.

Life and human dignity must trump custom, ideology, law, and theology lest the custom ideology, law, and theology prove vacuous and in need of violent or destructive overthrow. "Profits first" is appropriate only for trivialities, and not for extreme circumstances. "Profits first" was the motivation behind slave traffickers and is the motive behind drug traffickers.

Originally Posted by Galen

I can see how those who equate the government with society could think this. Ron Paul made it clear what he would do and has done with his own time and resources. What he will not do is hold a gun to someone's head and make them do what he would do. we all must ask and rarely do: Does the end justify the means? For Ron Paul the answer is clearly no. What are you willing to do or have done in your name to those who will not do as you wish? It seems to me that basic human decency does not involve theft. Somehow government is always exempt from the same rules and morality that us mundanes are supposed to comply with.

I get it. He reserves the "right," at any time he pleases, to be a self-centered, misanthropic jerk.