Obama on Fox

[Hoosier]

Reagan's popularity varied widely during his presidency. In January 2003, he had an approval rating of 42% and a disapproval rating of 54%.At this time in his Presidency, Reagan's ratings were comparable to Obama's. [http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...ntVersion=true]

Reagan carried 49 states had 525 electoral votes and 59% of the popular vote. Mondale only carried his home state of Minnesota and DC 13 electoral votes and had 41% of the popular vote. I would call that a mandate.

[Clay Rogers]

Corn-hole-hunter,
Your argument is off point and totally unrelated to the topic of discussion, but what the heck? And you're grammatically correct, I did NOT compare Bush to Obama, I contrasted them. Comparing notes similarities, contrasting notes differences. Thank you for the correction, but I doubt that's what you meant!

Sorry for the name calling, we should try not to do that here.

Finished this regards,
dave

Hey, I told you I baited my hunting spots under the doctor-pt relationship. You're not suppose to divulge that information.

[Buzz]

I haven't read their analysis. I suspect that they are assuming the same patterns of usage for the newly covered individuals, not assuming that the newly covered consume nothing.

Ya think? What else could it mean but that newly covered would access healthcare at the same rate as others in their demographic? Of course, that won't stop Hugh Hewitt from twisting it into something else entirely, making out the CBO to be a bunch of totally incompetent idiots. It's the approach that opponents to HCR have taken throughout the entire debate, why would they change now?

[Gerry Clinchy]

Yardley wrote:

That becomes an interesting question. Under the approach being taken in the House, the Senate bill is adopted. The question is whether it needs to be signed by the President before the Senate can consider reconciliation changes. That is still being sorted out.

My understanding is that the Parliamentarian has ruled on it. The Senate bill must be signed by the Pres & become law before it can be reconciled.

The kinky part is that the "deemed passed" (being now referred to as "demon passed") ... the House doesn't actually vote on the Senate bill, but just on the reconciling changes & "deem the bill passed". This was dredged out from the House rules so that the fellows facing election could say that they did NOT vote for the Senate bill. You gotta admire their creativity

Yardley

That is still being sorted out.

Obama stated in the interview that [paraphrasing] "the process didn't matter." I'm afraid I can't agree with that. To pass a law that is, at best, split 50/50 & even the 50 in favor aren't really convinced does not seem the right way to approach legislation with the far-reaching magnitude of this legislation.

Yardley wrote:

I suspect that they are assuming the same patterns of usage for the newly covered individuals, not assuming that the newly covered consume nothing.

You may be correct in that interpretation. However, I do not believe that the pattern will remain the same. Remember, if you have people with pre-existing conditions now covered, who weren't covered before, they are very likely to use the health care system to a larger extent than they did before & more extensively than the person in "average" health.

I don't know what the deductibles will be. Does anyone? One of the details to be worked out later? My insurance till Medicare had a $1500 deductible. Medicare has a $135 deductible. Quite a difference!

Yardley wrote:

Bush was fond of pointing out that he was hired to make decisions, not to read polls.

If all on this forum were to agree that Bush was not a very good President. There are very few here, from what I can see, who agreed with everything that Bush did. Then, comparing O to Bush does not validate O's actions.

If all agreed that Bush was a good President (obviously not true), then one could use Bush's actions to validate O's actions.

We criticize Bush for Medicare Advantage, for Medicare prescription coverage, yet this health care legislation seems like it is way more expansive.

I wonder to what degree the CBO took into account the economic situation. If unemployment remains high for a while, more individuals will need subsidies or a longer period. There will be fewer left to pay for those subsidies ... until the economy recovers. That could be the source of a much larger deficit in the program than is anticipated.

Part of the "savings" in Medicare ($200 billion ... to justify the $500 billion taken away from Medicare to be put into the new program) are supposed to materialize by the 22% reduction in payments to drs. ... that has never been voted for before. Many believe that will not be voted for this time either.

The latest info is that cutbacks in Medicaid payments to drs. are causing more doctors to turn away Medicaid patients. This seems to be occurring most seriously in those specialties where Medicaid recipient participation is likely to be high, like obstetrics, which also has high malpractice premiums.

Nobody has ventured to say what will happen to health insurance premiums. It is very likely that everybody's premiums are going to go up. Premiums will also go up if this legislation is not passed (that is historically inevitable). Without real cost controls that is inevitable, with or without this legislation. The real question is whether this legislation will keep premium increases lower than without enacting the legislation. Depends on how much the govt will allow premiums to increase before shifting the burden of those costs to a more general taxation process.

I am still confused on this: If the Medicare fund is in deep trouble, how can one take $500 billion (about 1/2 the cost of the new legislation) from that fund, and not cause massive damage to Medicare fund ... causing Medicare to fail even sooner than otherwise? What do those Medicare recipients get from the new legislation to offset that $500 billion? By what authority does the govt take money from that fund, specifically for senior benefits & use it for some other purpose?

[Gerry Clinchy]

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/sns-...,5980339.story

It seems that some of the $ for drugs for seniors will come directly from the pharma companies. But that could also mean that drug prices will overall go up, so that everyone pays more for those drugs, so that discounts can be applied to some of the patients who use them.

But there have been a few more deals thrown in to squeeze out a few more votes.

And article seems to clarify that the house will NOT vote on the Senate bill ... but rather on the "modifications" that the Senate will later (immediately) add to the bill after it is signed by the President.

The article states that 1/6 of the whole economy is impacted with this legislation. That's a LOT.