Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Steve Benen quoting Ezra Klein: "If this piece of the bill was passed on its own, it would be the most important cost control bill ever considered by the United States Congress. But you could never have passed it on its own. You needed the coverage to make the grand bargain work. Republicans like to call this bill a trillion-dollar experiment to expand the health-care system, and in some ways, it is. But it's also a multitrillion-dollar experiment to cut costs in the health care system, and it deserves credit for that, and support from fiscal conservatives. It's easy to talk about cutting costs, but this is the chance for people to actually do it."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

The idea is to put the best ideas in the legislation, make a genuine effort to get costs under control, and see what's effective.

The funny part of this, in a way, is that Republicans should be applauding these efforts. This is their signature concern, right? Cutting costs? Saving money? Fiscally responsible policymaking? It's likely one of the reasons so many Republicans who aren't in office have already expressed support for the effort.

Unfortunately, the ones who are, continue to denigrate the considerable effort put forth in good faith to scale back healthcare spending which this nation cannot afford. The worst of it is the loudest critics have proposed ZERO which will alleviate the crisis American citizens currently face with rising healthcare costs and crushing debt due to catastrophic illnesses.

This type of legislation cannot be perfect, but the demonstrable, indentifiable strengths shouldn't be ignored for political posturing.

If the public understood this, and there was a broader recognition that Republicans were needlessly attacking the most ambitious cost-savings package in American history, perhaps the debate would be less ridiculous.

Indeed.

Hello Tony!

Long-time no-blog!


Here is my biggest problem with Republican opposition to the health-care bills - their universal derision toward its overall cost. Fact is, both bills call for substantial cuts (necessary IMO) in the funding of Medicare. The GOP actually derides this!!! Look, the Dems are being ridiculously disingenuous when they propose massive cuts to Medicare, and in the same breath act as if not only will the quality and availability of care not change as a result, but will actually improve. If the GOP limited their criticisms to that BS, I'd applaud. But, when the GOP pretends to defend Medicare spending AND, at the same time rip this bill for its spending largesse...something ain't right.

Going further, I will be REAL interested to see how the GOP derides the talked-about sur-taxes to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should make for great SNL fodder.


Having said all of that, much of what the DNC doing is beyond repugnant. As it stands now, Rasmussen has support for Obamacare at 38% and opposition to it at 56%. That is a whopping 18-point differential! A concerned political class would take that as a strong signal to start over, yet the Dems are desperately trying to push this shit through.

It's utter crap!

If the public understood this, and there was a broader recognition that Republicans were needlessly attacking the most ambitious cost-savings package in American history, perhaps the debate would be less ridiculous.

No shit!

While the DNC is so full-of-crap on this on so many levels, the RNC is playing partisan politics to the nth degree as well.

Tony,


I will say this unequivicably:

Reconciling over 4,000 pages of legaleze into 1 bill is an abject insult to our entire population.

The degree of power that such legislation bestows upon our federal government is downright frightening.

This is an attrocity to our Republic.

"The bottom line," Nichols says, "is the legislation is sending a signal that business as usual [in the medical system] is going to end."

Agreed.... it will end...

The article contains nothing of substance, so here is a little on the "cost" control.... Please explain the 2014-2023 cost curve "bending"? don't forget to add the DocFix to it....

The worst of it is the loudest critics have proposed ZERO which will alleviate the crisis American citizens currently face with rising healthcare costs and crushing debt due to catastrophic illnesses.

Really, you flat out lie....
republicans.waysandmeans.house
.gov

Tony is still drinking that Obama Kool Aid.

This type of legislation cannot be perfect, but the demonstrable, indentifiable strengths shouldn't be ignored for political posturing.

If only good intentions could be translated into reality. While Medicare is about $70 Trillion in a hole, Tony hallucinates they'll get it right this time.

It would be relatively straight-forward to get some Repubs to vote for the bill. Put in some of the things they have suggested. Most do not cost money.

For instance, Tort Reform, allow insurance companies to cross state lines, take away the monopoly protection the insurance companies now enjoy, allow pools to be created where people can buy insurance, etc. It makes sense that these would not cost much, but would also reduce costs.

I am not sure why the Dems would not entertain these ideas.

My suspicion is that they want control and these things do not help them gain control.

Fraud and mismanagement are the areas from which the Medicare budget cuts will come from. There was a major story within the last weeks about billions in Medicare fraud perpetrated by companies. It is not disengenuous to claim no drop in the quality of care while cutting costs at the same time.

I am not sure why the Dems would not entertain these ideas.

Well, lets see how many Republicans vote to remove antitrust exemptions which limit insurance company competition along the same lines you mention.

And lastly, anyone notice the spiking of drug prices prior to the enactment of any reform legislation? My mother's non-generic medication has risen every month for the last quarter. Quite timely, isn't it?

Fraud and mismanagement are the areas from which the Medicare budget cuts will come from.

You're living in a fantasy world. The Medicare unfunded deficit is beyond all means of containing.

Fraud and mismanagement is what government does best. Why not? They can always get more money by raising taxes or creating money. They have NO fiscal discipline.

And lastly, anyone notice the spiking of drug prices prior to the enactment of any reform legislation? My mother's non-generic medication has risen every month for the last quarter. Quite timely, isn't it?

In truth, Obamacare is a big pharma bailout. It's a Pyramid Scheme that needs an expanding revenue base to keep it going. If you pay attention, big pharma is heavily involved in writing the new legislation.

a lot of 'cost cutting' is dependent on the HALF TRILLION cuts in medicare.
when did medicare EVER get cut? and it wont here either.

SHAM

dems tell us that medicaid money will be saved when IN FACT that will only be moved to a states requirement

thus in the grand tradition of a huge federal govt.
they will mandate the cost UNFUNDED BY Them but come from somewhere else and then brag about how they didnt spend that money.

what fuckin liars they are

YES I KNOW its a state deal now.
should have said the FEDS will require states to pay even more...

california said to owe 6 BIllion more....

No one has addressed the ever-increasing costs that our current system is breaking under.

As has been said infinitum, doing nothing just isn't an option. If overall healthcare costs are reduced, Medicare and Medicaid costs will be reduced.

If you believe that I have some 'truth' for Dr Jones to share with you regarding 9/11.

WAIT you already believe the 'scholars'. So much for your high degree of intellect!

...I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing."

well i can. UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER! d'uh. anyway, it will come eventually, if the Talibaptist don't blow us all up first... because they don't like universal single-payer healthcare.

Public option is not cost control. Single Payer is cost control. Imagine merging medicare, medicaid, the VA, TRICARE, government workers (including Congressmen's coverage) and then everyone else under the same plan the redundancy would be gone, and also it would be the biggest pool possible of people.

But they would rather just start a new plan on top of the previously mentioned plans and continue wasting money because they fear actual reform.

Didn't you say you were leaving the site for good?

Hmmm. I'd like to know 1 example of something that became more efficient - in dollars spent - when the government took it over. I'd also like to know how there isn't tort reform as part of a cost control measure within the field of healthcare.

Health Care Reform Bill is the largest attempt to control and cut costs EVAR?

Tru dat.

America gets so ripped off by the way the system is set up now it's farking scary.

And the rethugs biggest objection is cos trhey think this Bill will raise costs and not lower them?

*facepalm*

The system at present has so much unwarranted, unsustainable costs/excess profits built into it that it would be practically impossible to make this bad situation any worse but this is their ostensible objection to the thing.

Their given reason.

In reality they are mostly just knee jerk anti-Obamites who would be against a cure for cancer if Obama proposed it.

Be Well.

Didn't you say you were leaving the site for good?

#17 | Posted by JOE the Dumber

No, Joe.

If you left the site it would be "for good".

Tony taking a sabbatical while it may been good fer Tony was definitely not good fer the site.

Now why don't you go out and practise yer ambulance chasing skills.

Go play in traffic. K?

Wot's that?

All the local paramedics have filed restraining orders against you?

Dang. Tuff luck.

^_^

Welcome Back, Tony.

Be Well.

I'd like to know 1 example of something that became more efficient

Well would you at least agree that combining Medicare, Medicaid, VA, TRICARE, and any other government insurance into one bureaucracy instead of fractured bureaucracies would have significant savings?

Tony taking a sabbatical while it may been good fer Tony was definitely not good fer the site.

I didn't say it was "good for the site." I said "for good" as in "forever." Perhaps that phrase isn't commonplace in Canada.

Posted by JOE the Dumber

You must be extremely intelligent.

Also, the post office does offer delivery to rural residences that would only receive service at premium rates if it was run by a private company. As someone that grew up in a rural residence, the post office is appreciated. Although it may cost more than a private company, there is a place and need for it.

You do realize that Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare are not even administered in large part by the Fed right?

I didn't say it was "good for the site." I said "for good" as in "forever." Perhaps that phrase isn't commonplace in Canada.

*facepalm*

Got that, moron. Was a joke. Perhaps a sense of humour isn't commonplace in the States?

You must be extremely intelligent.

Only compared to you, Joe.

Be Well.

Now why don't you go out and practise yer ambulance chasing skills.

Go play in traffic. K?

Wot's that?

All the local paramedics have filed restraining orders against you?

Ah, the self proclaimed righteous deth showering the DR with his benevolence again. Tell us again how you teach righteousness, deth? That's always a good one, especially hearing it after your usual hate filled posts.

Sheeple - they are funded primarily at the Federal level, HHS for medicare - medicaid, department of the VA for VA healthcare, DOD military health system for Tricare, these all seem to be administered at the federal level. Why not wrap them all up in with HHS?

"Why not wrap them all up in with HHS?"

Ideological opposition to all things "federal", good or bad?

Also, the post office does offer delivery to rural residences that would only receive service at premium rates if it was run by a private company. As someone that grew up in a rural residence, the post office is appreciated. Although it may cost more than a private company, there is a place and need for it.

#23 | POSTED BY ANDYUHENET AT 2009-11-25 05:23 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Agreed that post office is necessary, but it ain't horribly efficient or cost effective. but, i also don't really see the parallel to healthcare.

Also wouldn't mind seeing existing services wrapped as you suggest. But that really ain't the only thing going on here.

Was a joke

Was extremely unfunny.

Perhaps a sense of humour isn't commonplace in the States?

Says the guy who just called me "Joe the Dumber." LOL.

Thanks Tony, I didn't know the DR had a "comedy hour"

Price controls? Bending the cost curve? HA NONE of that is in the bills. NOTHING. Want proof, the GAO says it's ten years of taxes for 6 yrs of benefits. just another unpayable, unfunded long term liability that the ostridge refuses to see. Besides with no tort reform, who do they think they are fooling?

Wanna know why the pharma companies are rallying to year highs? Because they will live on and prosper. Won't go bankrupt......

It's the US taxpayer that's going to go broke!

There is no parallel, the gov't is obligated by the Constitution specifically to provide post service. It is not obligated to provide "health insurance products".

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Raising the U.S. government's $12.2 trillion borrowing limit tops an agenda of must-pass legislation that imperils Senate Democrats' ability to pass a health-care bill this year.

As the senators struggle to meet President Barack Obama's year-end deadline to overhaul the health system, they must also act to keep the government running and prevent a 21 percent drop in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients......

Sure sounds like fiscal conservatism to you, heh? Brought to you by the people who shelved Labor Statistics in favor or "Jobs saved or created"

Somoco - post office isn't like healthcare at all, I just brought it up because the purpose is to deliver mail to everyone, not to deliver mail for profit, which would be the same as single option being enacted to cover everyone (politicians would get the same coverage as the plebes also) without a profit motive. When it is 17% of our economy when other countries do it at 10%, there is a problem.

This single payer would also topple unions, free businesses from legacy costs and actually be a shot in the arm, IMO.

Your name is Benen, is it?

As in been-in-dc-too-long?

Even Democrats in congress gave figured out this will cost more, not less.

But it's also a multitrillion-dollar experiment to cut costs in the health care system,

That would be a first for the government. They have never cut costs in the past 40+ years.

But it's also a multitrillion-dollar experiment to cut costs in the health care system,

That would be a first for the government. They have never cut costs in the past 40+ years.

#38 | Posted by Sniper

Sounds self-defeating to me...

...hmmmm...

...we spend trillions to save trillions...

I think I believe the spend part, not so confident on the saving thing though.

It would be nice if we all had some examples we could point to, rely on, or otherwise give us faith...

...that the Government will end up saving money on health care.

I wish they would simply be honest and say...

...we know this is going to cost of all even more, but the benefits of global coverage for all far outweighs those costs.

That position would regain a measure of respectful dialog.

The whole saving money thing is laughable.

Wait let's use TARP money to reduce the deficit!!!

Can I take Joe Biden's place now?

online.wsj.com

"While we are not happy to have to contemplate this measure, the deficit is such that all options must be considered," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at today's daily press briefing. "Programs like TARP have put us so deeply in debt that we may have no choice but to resort to TARP funds."

Sure is comforting knowing those rocket scientists are in charge heh??????

Dave, nice link.

The White House is in the early stages of considering what bigger moves it might make for next year's budget. The Office of Management and Budget has asked all cabinet agencies, except defense and veterans affairs, to prepare two budget proposals for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct 1, 2010. One would freeze spending at current levels. The other would cut spending by 5%.

Change. Hope.

The healthcare plan is not about healthcare, it's about taxes and costs--- when will people figure out our government ALWAYS manipulates by attaching nice sounding labels to legislation and decision-making in order to get the buy-in of the impressionable---that's one thing that will never change.

Cost Control?

Medicare Part A
Politicians said : $9 billion a year by 1990
Reality says : $67 billion a year

Entire Medicare Program
Politicians said : $12 billion a year by 1990
Reality says : $110 billion a year

Medicare relief to states for hospitals :
Politicians said : $1 billion a year in 1992
Reality says : $17 billion a year

No one knows for sure how Senator Reid's health care bill (HR 3590) will impact any particular person or group, but this much is fairly certain: it will cause health insurance premiums to increase fasternot slowerthan they would have otherwise. Even the Congressional Budget Office, Congress's non-partisan accountants, says that premiums in the "public option" of Sen. Reid's bill would turn out to be higher than premiums in typical private plans today. Thus, there are ways to "bend the health care cost curve" downward, but this bill does exactly the opposite.

No one has addressed the ever-increasing costs that our current system is breaking under.

As has been said infinitum, doing nothing just isn't an option. If overall healthcare costs are reduced, Medicare and Medicaid costs will be reduced.
#13 | Posted by tonyroma

I've addressed it repeatedly. Corporate tax breaks and government welfare (Medicaid) eliminated doctor and patient from responsibility to control contain costs. Excessive regulations and outrageous lawsuits drove up costs.

The worst thing government could do is more. They've made enough mess of things. Tony doesn't want to hear stuff like this.

I think it's pretty unanimous that the Public Option is not the best solution. It might not even prove to be politically viable.

For political science buffs: Has the strategy ever been used where the majority attempts to vote through something rather far to the left or right (single payer in this case) under the plan of knowing that it would fail for being too far to the left/right, then voting on a "moderate" bill (public option)?

If it wouldn't waste too much political capital why not through single payer out there and see how much support you can get instead of initially coming out in full force "THIS IS NOT SINGLE PAYER!".

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable