PDA

View Full Version : Kennedy Replacement



Gerry Clinchy
11-27-2009, 09:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/us/politics/27kennedy.html?th&emc=th


“That doesn’t mean someone who’s always raising their hand and saying, ‘I’m just like Ted,’ ” Ms. Marsh said, “but someone who will be fighting to get people back to work, first and foremost, and to get them health care.”

I don't quite understand this. MA is a state that has a state-mandated health care program that ostensibly has been successful in covering 97% of their population. Indeed, not long ago, the problem was not getting everyone covered, it was making it financially capable of doing so.

So, why should a Federal program be of such critical importance to MA voters? Might guess that they are not in favor of the taxes that would be needed to keep their state program running?

Like others, they are assuming that a Federal program will be cheaper. Fat chance.

Terry Britton
11-28-2009, 12:37 AM
Something very funny about the Federal program is that the taxes will start in 2010, but benefits won't kick in until 2013 or 14. 10 years worth of taxes to pay for 6 years of program. :)

JDogger
11-28-2009, 12:55 AM
Something very funny about the Federal program is that the taxes will start in 2010, but benefits won't kick in until 2013 or 14. 10 years worth of taxes to pay for 6 years of program. :)

Before I buy a car or truck, I usually save for a couple years before, and make more than the minimal down payment. It makes the couple of years of payments more tolerable. What's funny about that?

JD

K G
11-28-2009, 09:01 AM
Because YOU are buying it for YOURSELF. It is YOUR choice to save and buy the price down or pay cash...YOURS and YOURS alone. You have the FREE WILL to determine if it is best for YOU.

Hurry up 2010/2012 regards, ;-)

kg

road kill
11-28-2009, 09:04 AM
Before I buy a car or truck, I usually save for a couple years before, and make more than the minimal down payment. It makes the couple of years of payments more tolerable. What's funny about that?

JD


WHAT??:shock:

Rationalization, the 2nd strongest human drive!!;-)

subroc
11-28-2009, 09:08 AM
JD

Well, if the feds need 10 years to pay for 6, what happens in the next 6? are we already underfunded by 4 years?

Also, in what situation has our federal governmet ever saved money? would they actually save those first 4 years? Since we are running defecits already, how could they? Now I remeber, left wingers have something they call the lock box. That is the theoretical place where they put theoretical money.

BTW JD, Did you find yourself chuckling when you typed that knowing how preposterous a scenario it actually is?

YardleyLabs
11-28-2009, 09:46 AM
Actually, the CBO estimates were that the program reduced the deficit during the first ten years and that the annual savings increased over time. The early increases are needed to pay the costs of NOT cutting reimbursement rates under Medicare by 20% as required this January under current law (a cut that would make many physicians drop Medicare patients), and to provide a margin of error during the start up period to ensure that the program would not create new deficits.

Bob Gutermuth
11-28-2009, 09:47 AM
Osamacare is going to cost the country a fortune, so is cap and trade, if congress is foolish enough to enact either. This administration needs to spend within its means, not drive us more into debt, and not put any more burdensom taxes on the American taxpayer

subroc
11-28-2009, 10:05 AM
I would much rather see our govt. concentrate on cutting programs that have outlived their usefulness, consolidation programs that work and are the same or similar and starting to live within our means (a budget). All that, as an effort, needs to be done and is far more critical than healthcare reform.

K G
11-28-2009, 10:10 AM
I would much rather see our govt. concentrate on cutting programs that have outlived their usefulness, consolidation programs that work and are the same or similar and starting to live within our means (a budget). All that, as an effort, needs to be done and is far more critical than healthcare reform.

That would mean actually working for the AMERICAN PEOPLE rather than furthering the campaign promises of the sitting President....:rolleyes:

Priorities regards,

kg

Gerry Clinchy
11-28-2009, 11:10 AM
Actually, the CBO estimates were that the program reduced the deficit during the first ten years and that the annual savings increased over time. The early increases are needed to pay the costs of NOT cutting reimbursement rates under Medicare by 20% as required this January under current law (a cut that would make many physicians drop Medicare patients), and to provide a margin of error during the start up period to ensure that the program would not create new deficits.

I believe the more recent assessments indicate that it will NOT reduce the deficit. As Johnson said about Medicare, "If they knew what this would cost, it would never pass."

The Federal government has been known to use funky accounting scenarios before.

As we have discussed before, the net result turns out to be essentially a 20% TAX on income ... for those who actually have earned income.

My biggest issue may actually be that the proponents of this plan are not being truthful about this being a new form of taxation. In this particular situation those who pay the tax are the ones who will likely receive the least "return" from the tax (i.e. in most cases, those with more income already have health insurance).

And I think I figured out why MA voters want health care reform. It's already been announced that the MA state program is in trouble financially, so a Fed program would help bail that out.