Alright Republicans, We Give Up

The Republicans have now misused the word "socialism" so much that it has lost all of its once negative force.... this is why they are now using the word "fascism" so much.

But these are just attack words with little real meaning in debate.

I have to hand it to the Democrats though. Rather than attempt to pass a health care proposal that would have been considered benign by Republicans, they put in inflammatory things like end-of-life counseling, etc. In my opinion, poor salesmanship if there ever was. No wonder it is not considered the party of business.

On Monday, Republican Leader Boehner published an Op-Ed on Yahoo! on America’s Affordable Health Choices Act " the House health insurance reform bill. This Op-Ed contained many myths about the bill:

BOEHNER’S MYTH: More than 100 million Americans would be forced onto a government-run health plan under the House bill.

First of all, under our bill, no one can ever be “forced onto a government-run health plan.” Under our bill, the public health insurance plan is available to all those using the Exchange. All those using the Exchange will have a choice of options " various private plans, as well as the public plan. If an employer is providing their employees health insurance through the Exchange, it is the employee " not the employer " choosing the plan. (Under the bill, in the first two years of the Exchange, small employers may participate; in later years, the Administration has the discretion to permit larger employers to participate but there is no timeline for this participation.)

Second, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the number of Americans in private insurance plans will actually increase under the bill (rather than millions being forced out of private plans and into a public plan).

Thirdly, the nonpartisan CBO has estimated that, by 2019, about 9 or 10 million Americans " or 90 million fewer Americans than claimed by Republican Leader Boehner " will be enrolled in the public plan. CBO projects that two-thirds using the Exchange will choose a private plan " not the public plan. Even if more Americans end up choosing the public plan, it will be their choice " no one can force them into the plan.

BOEHNER’S MYTH: Millions of Americans would lose the employer-provided health care they have now, under the House bill.

The nonpartisan CBO has found that, under the bill, not only would millions of Americans not lose their employer-provided coverage, employer-provided coverage would actually increase. Specifically, the CBO projects that under the House bill, by 2019, 164 million people would be covered by employer-provided insurance, compared to 162 million under current law. The House bill builds on the current employer-provided health care system, rather than eroding it.

BOEHNER’S MYTH: The House bill makes cuts in Medicare that are damaging to seniors and takes away choices for millions of seniors.

The bill requires hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies to achieve key efficiencies and eliminate waste in Medicare (including eliminating overpayments that are driving up profits for Medicare Advantage plans) and toughens our ability to root out fraud and abuse " but does not make cuts that hurt seniors. It also does nothing to take away choices for seniors.

On the contrary, the bill includes several key provisions that improve Medicare benefits for seniors, including the following:

Phases in completely filling in the “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug benefit (where drug costs are not reimbursed at certain levels), potentially savings seniors thousands of dollars a year.

Eliminates co-payments and deductibles for preventive services under Medicare.

Limits cost-sharing requirements in Medicare Advantage plans to the amount charged for the same services in traditional Medicare coverage.

Improves the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, such as by increasing asset limits for programs that help Medicare beneficiaries pay premiums and cost-sharing.

BOEHNER’S MYTH: The House bill does nothing to control health care costs.

To the contrary, the House bill includes numerous provisions to both achieve cost savings over the next 10 years, as well as to “bend the cost curve” over the long-term. First of all, according to the nonpartisan CBO, our bill achieves net savings in Medicare and Medicaid of $465 billion over the next 10 years. For example, these savings include:

$156 billion in savings by eliminating overpayments to private Medicare Advantage plans over 10 years;

$102 billion in savings by incorporating productivity adjustments into Medicare payment updates to hospitals; and

About $110 billion in savings by codifying the White House-PhRMA agreement and also requiring that drug companies provide rebates for individuals enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid that are at least as large as the Medicaid rebates that were provided prior to the enactment of Medicare Part D.

The bill includes numerous provisions to “bend the cost curve” over the long-term. These provisions are particularly aimed at changing the incentive structure so that instead of rewarding the quantity of care, we are rewarding the quality of care. These reforms " which will also improve care " include:

Promotes Accountable Care Organizations that provide for hospitals and doctors working together to manage and coordinate care;

Creates incentives to reduce preventable hospital readmissions that reward transition planning and coordination for patients.

Establishes pilot projects to test “bundling” payment methodology under which one payment would be made " rather than separate payments " to any combination of a physician, acute and post-acute providers.

Promotes “medical homes” where physicians and nurse practitioners focus on ensuring patient care is coordinated and comprehensive.

Promotes “shared decisionmaking” with physicians and patients, which has been shown to keep health care costs down and patients fully involved in their care.

The bill also includes numerous other provisions to control costs, such as provisions for improving payment accuracy in Medicare and Medicaid; significantly expanding investments in prevention and wellness programs; strengthening primary care; and investing in the health care workforce.

BOEHNER’S MYTH: The House bill pays for health care reform with a “small business tax” that will kill 1.6 million jobs.

Roughly half of the cost of the bill is paid for by achieving significant efficiencies and savings in Medicare and Medicaid; roughly the other half is paid for through a graduated surcharge on a portion of the income of the top 1%.

This graduated surcharge is not a “small business tax.” Only the wealthiest 1.2% of American households will pay the surcharge, on just a portion of their income.

This surcharge will have only a modest impact on America’s small business community. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, only 4.1 percent of all small business owners would pay the surcharge, using the broadest definition of a small business owner (i.e., any individual with as little as $1 in small business income).

Of the 4.1 percent paying the surcharge, half earn less than one-third of their income from small businesses " not what we think of as truly “small business owners.”

Only 1.1 percent would pay the top rate " among them, hedge fund managers, private equity fund managers, lawyers and lobbyists making millions of dollars a year.

Finally, recent history contradicts the claim that a surtax on the wealthiest Americans kills jobs. Critics of President Clinton’s economic plan made this argument in the early 1990s. Subsequent history, however, contradicted this claim: average annual small business job growth was 2.3% in the Clinton years, when taxes on the wealthiest households were increased, and was 1.0% in the Bush years, when they were cut.

BOEHNER’S MYTH: The health care reforms in the House bill will add to the deficit.

On July 17, the CBO released estimates confirming that the health insurance reform policies in the bill are deficit-neutral over the 10-year budget window " even producing a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated that the cost of the bill’s insurance reforms was $1.042 trillion, while the bill’s cost savings and revenues totaled $1.048 trillion. CBO estimated that these reforms will provide affordable coverage for 97 percent of Americans two years after the program starts.

As was reported in the press, CBO also estimated that the overall bill had a net cost of $239 billion over 10 years " but this is entirely due to additional provisions in the bill to maintain current Medicare physician payment rates, costing $245 billion over 10 years (by preventing scheduled draconian cuts.) The House agreed earlier this year that this $245 billion cost should be exempt from PAYGO. Indeed, maintaining current Medicare physician payment rates has bipartisan support. If Congress fails to act, physician payments under Medicare will be slashed by 21 percent on January 1st " which would likely result in millions of seniors losing access to their doctor.

Your wager is not unexpected because it casts such a rosy glow on Obama & Co, however even if it were true, it would not be acceptable. No matter how earnest Obama's intentions, and no matter how ultimately benign his proposals may be, he doesn't get to shut off debate on the issue because for one reason or another he might lose.

This is what drives so many of us crazy about progressives: They think they know better than the rest of us what is good for the rest of us and so any ploy to provide us with what they think is good for us is A-OK.

You wouldn't tolerate the same behavior by the Right and yet you come so very close to forgiving it when it flows from the Left.

Quote:

"DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM!" ---
Absolutely. However, wallowing in misinformation and fear mongering hardly qualifies as dissent. It's like I'm offering you an apple and you scream back at me, "I don't want any god damned strawberries you sick ****!".

So when the dissent bumps up against what you believe, it is misinformation and fear-mongering?

Whether or not they do is immaterial to this issue. Just because we all may agree that some form of healthcare reform is necessary, doesn't mean we have to accept the Democrats' version.

You would have us believe that the current system is so horrendous that any change at all will be a good thing, and that the change must be immediate.

Who is fear-mongering now?

The fact of the matter is that a huge majority of people in this country have health insurance, and that a sizeable majority of that group is satisfied with the coverage they have.

Of course this doesn't mean that the system can't be improved or that we should do something about the folks who are uninsured (notice I didn't write "our fellow citizens"), but it is an enormous, and ideologically driven, leap to socialized medicine as the answer.

Now will come your protestations that the Democrats don't want socialized medicine to which I will reply: They don't?

Just because people misuse them doesn't mean they have no real meaning and I think you might be a bit optimistic if you think it has lost it's negative connotation. It was used repeatedly this last election as an attack word.

DINGELL: Well, the last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble.

I see your hyperbole and raise you a KKK reference.

On the focus of the health-care debate shifting to town hall protesters:

The Democrats are pulling a rabbit out of a hat, and the Republicans (or conservatives) are handing the Democrats the rabbit. The Democrats have no argument. They have no facts. They don't even really have a bill.

And if people were just to stand up and quietly and civilly raise questions " "the money doesn't add up," "the CBO has said that you say it is going to control costs, but it increases it by $1 trillion," all of this stuff, it's really out there " they would be winning this debate as they were before the town halls.

What's happening is this is causing a backlash. It's completely unnecessary. It is shooting yourself in the foot. If you want to demonstrate, you want to shout, you do it outside carrying signs. When you walk inside [the town hall meeting], you ask questions.

This is going to have two effects. Public opinion will make people, if anything, rather unsympathetic to those who oppose the bills.

And secondly, it's going to give a great excuse for the Democrats, when Congress returns, to push a partisan bill with no Republican support and say it's because the opposition is not " is simply oppositionist without any arguments and is acting in an irresponsible way.

I agree with Krauthammer. But notice the difference between saying "you have no argument" and drawing parallels with the Civil Rights Act.

What! Michael Jackson was a socialist???

Supporters cheered. Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance.

If you want a real debate then you can't meet hyperbole with hyperbole. If your opponent is holding up signs of Obama with a Hitlerstache, bringing up the KKK won't do much to raise the level of discourse. Far better to start picking people out of these crowds and asking them about their health care experiences. I imagine you could expose quite a few contradictions.