GOP2020: What Becomes Of The Collaborators Post-Trump?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html?pagewanted=all

You start here! :-D

None of that remotely rises to the level of unilaterally repealing legislation passed by Congress.

drummerboy said:

How does a President single-handedly eliminate legislation? Does he erase Obama's signature?

My favorite throw-away line: "On the first day I'll ..."

rastro said:

None of that remotely rises to the level of unilaterally repealing legislation passed by Congress.

Wait! Does this mean he's not emperor? Does he still have to wait for legislation? Love those "first day" jokes.

Zoinks said:

Tom_Reingold said:

"the private sector is doing fine" was a stupid slip of the tongue. I won't defend it, but he doesn't believe the entire private sector is doing fine, and neither does anyone else. The whole country is in agreement about that, so there's nothing to argue about.

Ah the left. Obama's stupid comments are a "slip of the tongue". Romney's, even when the "stupid comment" is only part of sentence plucked completely out of context, is somehow an indication of a major character flaw.

Calling my argument "the left" mischaracterizes me and my argument. You haven't addressed it on its merit. I'm not impugning Romney. I'm saying what Obama said was inconsequential. And that is true whether I ridicule Romney or not.

If increasing the number of public sector jobs doesn't help the economy then how did WWII end the Depression?

LOST said:

If increasing the number of public sector jobs doesn't help the economy then how did WWII end the Depression?

That doesn't count.

Tom_Reingold said:

LOST said:

If increasing the number of public sector jobs doesn't help the economy then how did WWII end the Depression?

That doesn't count.

OK, we should go back to Iraq and step up Afghanistan?

johnlockedema said:

Well, maybe people would like Obamacare (in case you don't know, they don't) if it contained costs. But it doesn't.

Please show (or link to) some reliable statistics supporting a claim that costs under Obamacare would be greater than with the status quo ... most of what I've read says the opposite.

Tom_Reingold said:

Zoinks said:

Tom_Reingold said:

"the private sector is doing fine" was a stupid slip of the tongue. I won't defend it, but he doesn't believe the entire private sector is doing fine, and neither does anyone else. The whole country is in agreement about that, so there's nothing to argue about.

Ah the left. Obama's stupid comments are a "slip of the tongue". Romney's, even when the "stupid comment" is only part of sentence plucked completely out of context, is somehow an indication of a major character flaw.

Calling my argument "the left" mischaracterizes me and my argument. You haven't addressed it on its merit. I'm not impugning Romney. I'm saying what Obama said was inconsequential. And that is true whether I ridicule Romney or not.

It might have been inconsequential at first, but when you fall in a hole you should not dig further. Rather then letting it drop he as of yesterday was still actively defending and expounding upon the comment. So it is clear now that he actually thinks it is so.

Zoinks, what did he say which makes him show that he thinks the private sector is doing fine? Do you believe he thinks unemployment is at a good level?

Zoinks said:

It might have been inconsequential at first, but when you fall in a hole you should not dig further. Rather then letting it drop he as of yesterday was still actively defending and expounding upon the comment. So it is clear now that he actually thinks it is so.

What did Obama say yesterday? I can't find anything.

When you look at the cash reserves that private corporations have, the stock prices of said corporations, and the number of private sector jobs created over the last 30 months or so, it's not that hard to conclude that the private sector is doing, relatively, pretty well. That certainly doesn't cover every company or every industry, but it's public sector austerity, retrenchment, and the associated loss of a million or more jobs in teaching, law enforcement, and fire protection that has kept the unemployment rate as high as it is. I'm unhappy with Obama for not making a better case for more government stimulus, but the main "blame" for this lays squarely in the laps of the Republicans, led by the delusional yet influential Paul "I Love Ayn Rand" Ryan.

sac said:

johnlockedema said:

Well, maybe people would like Obamacare (in case you don't know, they don't) if it contained costs. But it doesn't.

Please show (or link to) some reliable statistics supporting a claim that costs under Obamacare would be greater than with the status quo ... most of what I've read says the opposite.

From the US Govt-whose taxes will have to pay for this??

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

johnlockedema said:

sac said:

johnlockedema said:

Well, maybe people would like Obamacare (in case you don't know, they don't) if it contained costs. But it doesn't.

Please show (or link to) some reliable statistics supporting a claim that costs under Obamacare would be greater than with the status quo ... most of what I've read says the opposite.

From the US Govt-whose taxes will have to pay for this??

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

That talks about the price of Obamacare. I couldn't find anything about what the costs were projected to be WITHOUT Obamacare and I've seen a number of projections that indicate that those costs would be higher. I'm asking you to refute that, but you haven't done so. (Unless I missed something in the linked article - if so please point it out to me more specifically and I will eat humble pie.)

A non-partisan "Office of the Actuary" report, published by the journal Health Affairs, reports that the Affordable Care Act will increase national spending on health care by one-tenth of one percent over 10 years while providing health insurance to almost 30 million people who would otherwise not be covered.

Health care reform will add to the nation's health care tab from 2011 to 2021 some $478 billion, which amounts to 0.1 percent more annually on average than if Congress never passed the law.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/06/11/hlthaff.2012.0404

mjh said:

A non-partisan "Office of the Actuary" report, published by the journal Health Affairs, reports that the Affordable Care Act will increase national spending on health care by one-tenth of one percent over 10 years while providing health insurance to almost 30 million people who would otherwise not be covered.

Health care reform will add to the nation's health care tab from 2011 to 2021 some $478 billion, which amounts to 0.1 percent more annually on average than if Congress never passed the law.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/06/11/hlthaff.2012.0404

'For 2011–13, US health spending is projected to grow at 4.0 percent, on average—slightly above the historically low growth rate of 3.8 percent in 2009. Preliminary data suggest that growth in consumers’ use of health services remained slow in 2011, and this pattern is expected to continue this year and next. In 2014, health spending growth is expected to accelerate to 7.4 percent as the major coverage expansions from the Affordable Care Act begin. For 2011 through 2021, national health spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.7 percent annually, which would be 0.9 percentage point faster than the expected annual increase in the gross domestic product during this period. By 2021, federal, state, and local government health care spending is projected to be nearly 50 percent of national health expenditures, up from 46 percent in 2011, with federal spending accounting for about two-thirds of the total government share. Rising government spending on health care is expected to be driven by faster growth in Medicare enrollment, expanded Medicaid coverage, and the introduction of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for health insurance exchange plans.'


So from your link, when Obamacare kicks in in 2014, costs will rise from under 4% to 7.4%. Growth will rise an average of 5.7% for the decade 2011-2021 (and we already know that percentage is phony, since Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014!) so the percentage will be higher averaged over say, 2014-2024 for the ten year average.

What a deal, we had fudged numbers sold to us.

johnlockedema said:

mjh said:

A non-partisan "Office of the Actuary" report, published by the journal Health Affairs, reports that the Affordable Care Act will increase national spending on health care by one-tenth of one percent over 10 years while providing health insurance to almost 30 million people who would otherwise not be covered.

Health care reform will add to the nation's health care tab from 2011 to 2021 some $478 billion, which amounts to 0.1 percent more annually on average than if Congress never passed the law.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/06/11/hlthaff.2012.0404

'For 2011–13, US health spending is projected to grow at 4.0 percent, on average—slightly above the historically low growth rate of 3.8 percent in 2009. Preliminary data suggest that growth in consumers’ use of health services remained slow in 2011, and this pattern is expected to continue this year and next. In 2014, health spending growth is expected to accelerate to 7.4 percent as the major coverage expansions from the Affordable Care Act begin. For 2011 through 2021, national health spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.7 percent annually, which would be 0.9 percentage point faster than the expected annual increase in the gross domestic product during this period. By 2021, federal, state, and local government health care spending is projected to be nearly 50 percent of national health expenditures, up from 46 percent in 2011, with federal spending accounting for about two-thirds of the total government share. Rising government spending on health care is expected to be driven by faster growth in Medicare enrollment, expanded Medicaid coverage, and the introduction of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for health insurance exchange plans.'


So from your link, when Obamacare kicks in in 2014, costs will rise from under 4% to 7.4%. Growth will rise an average of 5.7% for the decade 2011-2021 (and we already know that percentage is phony, since Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014!) so the percentage will be higher averaged over say, 2014-2024 for the ten year average.

What a deal, we had fudged numbers sold to us.

You don't seem to understand the point under discussion. There is a difference between the overall rise in health care costs without Obamacare vs. the rise in health care costs with Obamacare. No one is disputing that health care costs are rising. The point is that the rise in costs are not related to Obamacare (except for the one-tenth of one percent).

There is a huge problem with health care costs, but it's not a result of Obamacare. It was there before Obamacare and it will be there after full implementation of Obamacare (if that is allowed to happen).

1.76 TRILLION DOLLARS DIRECTLY COSTED TO OBAMACARE on top of the usual rise in health care. 1.76 TRILLION DOLLARS costing the US taxpayers that will be added to the regular cost of health care.

Repeat as necessary.

mjh: And that is a huge part of the problem. The ACA unfortunately does little to nothing to address the real underlying problem of health care costs. Yes, it extends coverage to a lot more people and allows folks up to age 26 to remain on their parents' plans. But many of the cost reduction parts were either gutted before passage or will be/are being reduced with end-runs and compromises. And when the SC gets rid of the mandate, the whole thing will deflate like a punctured zeppelin. With all this going against it, it is hard for anyone to really get behind it politically. That is not Obama's fault, but it is the reality. The GOP has managed to wound ACA to the point where it is a lot less effective than what we need.

Obama clearly thought that the only way he could proceed was to lash himself to the current health care insurance model. But the problem is the health care insurance model. Until that changes, real cost reform will not be feasible. Or, put another way, until that changes, health care rationing will be done based on if you work, where you work, and the whims/rules of insurance companies.

mfpark said:

mjh: And that is a huge part of the problem. The ACA unfortunately does little to nothing to address the real underlying problem of health care costs. Yes, it extends coverage to a lot more people and allows folks up to age 26 to remain on their parents' plans. But many of the cost reduction parts were either gutted before passage or will be/are being reduced with end-runs and compromises. And when the SC gets rid of the mandate, the whole thing will deflate like a punctured zeppelin. With all this going against it, it is hard for anyone to really get behind it politically. That is not Obama's fault, but it is the reality. The GOP has managed to wound ACA to the point where it is a lot less effective than what we need.

Obama clearly thought that the only way he could proceed was to lash himself to the current health care insurance model. But the problem is the health care insurance model. Until that changes, real cost reform will not be feasible. Or, put another way, until that changes, health care rationing will be done based on if you work, where you work, and the whims/rules of insurance companies.

mfpark said:

mjh: And that is a huge part of the problem. The ACA unfortunately does little to nothing to address the real underlying problem of health care costs. Yes, it extends coverage to a lot more people and allows folks up to age 26 to remain on their parents' plans. But many of the cost reduction parts were either gutted before passage or will be/are being reduced with end-runs and compromises. And when the SC gets rid of the mandate, the whole thing will deflate like a punctured zeppelin. With all this going against it, it is hard for anyone to really get behind it politically. That is not Obama's fault, but it is the reality. The GOP has managed to wound ACA to the point where it is a lot less effective than what we need.

Obama clearly thought that the only way he could proceed was to lash himself to the current health care insurance model. But the problem is the health care insurance model. Until that changes, real cost reform will not be feasible. Or, put another way, until that changes, health care rationing will be done based on if you work, where you work, and the whims/rules of insurance companies.

I agree. Obamacare does not solve the problem of the rising cost of health care. Neither is it the cause of the rising cost of healthcare, but that doesn't mean that cost is not a huge, huge problem.

As usual, we are unwilling to tackle the big issues and instead continue to work around the margins. Obamacare is an improvement in terms of coverage and is therefore important (IMHO).. It does not bend the cost curve, so we are in a very difficult spot given the unwillingness of Congress to address cost + coverage. (congress is no doubt willing to address cost, but only at the expense of coverage for those who can't afford it).

mjh said:

It does not bend the cost curve, so we are in a very difficult spot given the unwillingness of Congress to address cost + coverage. (congress is no doubt willing to address cost, but only at the expense of coverage for those who can't afford it).

What makes you think Congress is willing to address cost, in any way? I don't see any way of addressing cost other than going to single-payer, and no one is gonna talk about that anytime soon, that's for sure.

^^ +1, unfortunately.

The clear and crass way that have been shown in recent days with released e-mails that the Obama administration bought out the drug industry to keep them sweet shows once again that cost control was the forgotten step child in the health care reform legislation.

drummerboy said:

mjh said:

It does not bend the cost curve, so we are in a very difficult spot given the unwillingness of Congress to address cost + coverage. (congress is no doubt willing to address cost, but only at the expense of coverage for those who can't afford it).

What makes you think Congress is willing to address cost, in any way? I don't see any way of addressing cost other than going to single-payer, and no one is gonna talk about that anytime soon, that's for sure.

Well, I think the House is very willing to address cost by eliminating Medicare and Medicaid (essentially) and passing the costs on to consumers. Isn't that the Ryan plan? (This addresses the cost to the government, not the cost of health care, so I guess I understand where you are coming from).

Zoinks said:

The clear and crass way that have been shown in recent days with released e-mails that the Obama administration bought out the drug industry to keep them sweet shows once again that cost control was the forgotten step child in the health care reform legislation.

It really wasn't, because the whole premise of the HCA was universal coverage, not cost containment. The mild attempts at cost containment, like the public option, didn't even get past the trial balloon stage.

Any system based on private insurance, will, by definition, fail to deal with costs. To put it another way, any system based on health care as some form of "free market" will fail to deal with costs.

Yup, mjh. Basically the GOP plan is more of the same for those who have a job that provides access to insurance at whatever cost and terms the employer offers, and much less for those who rely on the government when they cannot get access to health care (CHIP will be slashed as well). I would love to hear how the GOP and Romney defend this, only they will sidestep and shuffle and bluster about the free market and death panels and completely obfuscate the discussion.

And, by the way, Ryan HAS to slash Medicare and Medicaid because since the GOP has no way to contain health care costs, these programs will grow at untenable rates in the near future. Since the GOP and Ryan do not deal with health care costs, and refuse to deal with revenues other than to slash them as well, he has to do something to offload these programs. And even with that, the Ryan plan will balloon the deficit to unacceptable proportions.

drummerboy said:

Zoinks said:

The clear and crass way that have been shown in recent days with released e-mails that the Obama administration bought out the drug industry to keep them sweet shows once again that cost control was the forgotten step child in the health care reform legislation.

It really wasn't, because the whole premise of the HCA was universal coverage, not cost containment. The mild attempts at cost containment, like the public option, didn't even get past the trial balloon stage.

Any system based on private insurance, will, by definition, fail to deal with costs. To put it another way, any system based on health care as some form of "free market" will fail to deal with costs.

You can not have universal coverage without cost control. There is no way to make the economics of that work. Absolutely impossible.

Zoinks said:

drummerboy said:

Zoinks said:

The clear and crass way that have been shown in recent days with released e-mails that the Obama administration bought out the drug industry to keep them sweet shows once again that cost control was the forgotten step child in the health care reform legislation.

It really wasn't, because the whole premise of the HCA was universal coverage, not cost containment. The mild attempts at cost containment, like the public option, didn't even get past the trial balloon stage.

Any system based on private insurance, will, by definition, fail to deal with costs. To put it another way, any system based on health care as some form of "free market" will fail to deal with costs.

You can not have universal coverage without cost control. There is no way to make the economics of that work. Absolutely impossible.

Sure you can-tax the rich more, and print more money!