The Bet (for Dd and Lurker)

[Lurker]

First of all, not everything you posted is correct. Some of it was exactly opposite of correct. And as I've said in the past, I always try to engage you in an adult conversation at first, but after you prove yourself to be either willfully stupid or an actual moron I have no choice but to mock you.

Here's how dumb you are...

The "doc fix" on it's own, whether Congress continues temporary patches or does a permanent fix, will result in 250 billion in deficit spending over ten years. We're already spending that money and would have been with or without health reform.

Combine it with the Affordable Care Act and the result is 100 billion in deficit spending over ten years - an improvement of 150 billion over the status quo - and we actually run a large surplus in the second decade. According to the CBO, to pay for both the ACA and a reworked SGR Obama would need to come up with only an extra 10 billion a year in the first decade and not a single dime extra after that.

And yet here you are jumping up and down ranting about "Obamacare" even though it has greatly improved our situation.

You are an absurd joke. It's impossible to take you seriously.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The "doc fix" on it's own, whether Congress continues temporary patches or does a permanent fix, will result in 250 billion in deficit spending over ten years. We're already spending that money and would have been with or without health reform.

.

Here's where you're you're wrong. Congress could let it expire, and we wouldn't need to have more deficit spending. Doctors would get a 21% haircut on Medicare patients. That IS an option. And since its due to expire, GBO didn't include the future costs of it in the analysis of long-term healthcare calculations.

So I think you're missing my point. Obama was going to find the bulk of the money needed to pay for the reform in Medicare adjustments. Yet, Congress will most likely add another 250 billion to the tab. You can't continue to add healthcosts to the deficit and ignore them for reform purposes. Look at it this way. If Obama shaved 500 billion in Medicare costs to help pay for Obamacare, but added 750 billion in new Medicare deficit spending, would call that real cost savings? Of course not. So adding 250 billion to Medicare deficit spending shouldnt be ignored with "we're already spending it anyway". Because we don't have to spend it. But if we do, you must add it to the price of reform. Which now, will jump by 250 billion.

[Lurker]

Congress could let it expire, and we wouldn't need to have more deficit spending. Doctors would get a 21% haircut on Medicare patients. That IS an option.

You know that isn't going to happen. Congress will continue to prevent the drastic cut in doctors pay caused by the flawed SGR. Whether they offset that with additional revenue or other cuts remains to be seen.

Repeating since I can't phrase it any better or more simply...

Combine the "doc fix" with the Affordable Care Act and the result is 100 billion in deficit spending over ten years - an improvement of 150 billion over the status quo - and we actually run a large surplus in the second decade. According to the CBO, to pay for both the ACA and a reworked SGR Obama would need to come up with only an extra 10 billion a year in the first decade and not a single dime extra after that.

And yet here you are jumping up and down ranting about "Obamacare" even though it has greatly improved our situation.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Regardless of whether or not ACA + SGR is better than the status quo, my point is, and hasn't yet been refuted, reform now costs 250 billion more than what was previously estimated.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

But Embar, look at the futures! It will (f)actually result in a surplus (even though its entirely speculation)!

[Lurker]

Hey, the wingnut's back!

Embar just relied on a CBO estimate two days ago. Are CBO reports unreliable crap again?

And not that the CBO engages in it, but aren't you a huge fan of baseless speculation?

[Harlowe]

Hey, the hemorrhoid is back!

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41777.html

Dems start to attack healthcare reform...

Its starting to get interesting, and while none of the candidates have called for outright repeal of the law or for major sections of the law, a Republican candidate can corner tham by asking if tehy would repeal it in part or in whole. The next 60 days should see if any Dem is going to take a nuanced position of repeal.

Wyden (Demorcrat from Oregon) is angling for exemption of Oregon citizens from the federal mandate to buy health insurance. Supposedly, if a state can meet the federal requirements for coverage, then the citizens of that state can be exempted from the mandate. But one wonders how Wyden would propose to finance that exemption....if at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/0 ... 01785.html

[Lurker]

Yep. Should know soon whether you win or lose the bet.

Wyden isn't it though. He's not attacking health reform, he's simply acting on a provision he himself put in the ACA.

States can bypass the federal mandate as long as they implement a coverage plan that "meets criteria consistent with that of the America’s Healthy Future Act, including that it shall lower health care spending growth, improve the delivery system performance, provide affordable choices for all its citizens, expand protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending, provides coverage to the same number of uninsured and not increase the Federal deficit."

It's a great provision in the law. While the ACA helps our situation tremendously, some states might want to implement a public option or single payer, things that would provide even more positive results. Hopefully some states will take advantage of it

[Embar Angylwrath]

Mmmmm... I think he's distancing himself from PPACT for political reasons, not because he has an innovative solution. Especially when he uses statemetns like "Because you and I believe that the heart of real health reform is affordability and not mandates, I wanted to bring this feature of Section 1332 to the attention of you and the legislature.” That's a clear swipe at the forced purchase of insurance coverage.

I say this is a political move, and not a genuine attempt at some innovative Oregon solution, because when he submitted the Healthy Americans Act in 2008 with Bennet it required a mandate to purchase insurance. Now he seems to have flipped positions on one of the most hotly contested, and according to you, necessary provisions in PPACT.

As a side note, the Wyden-Bennet bill enjoyed bipartisan support. CBO scored it as budget neutral. But the unions helped Obama quash it.

[Lurker]

According to Senator Wyden, everything you just said is wrong. This is about allowing states room to innovate, and both an individual mandate and a waiver were included in the legislation he proposed in 2006. But what does Wyden know, right?

Another provision that I got included in the final law came directly from my original legislative proposal. "Empowering States to be Innovative" (Section 632 in the Healthy Americans Act and Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) reflects my long held view that when it comes to health policy what works best for people in Tampa Bay, Florida doesn't always work as well for the residents of Coos Bay, Oregon. My state of Oregon has, in fact, long led the country in innovating approaches that have played a major factor in Oregon having some of the highest quality and lowest cost health care in the country. So both in writing my legislation and working to improve what is now law, I wanted to make it possible for states to keep innovating new approaches. However, for states to really be empowered to be innovative the federal government has to be willing to give states a little leeway to implement their own approaches. A state, for example, will struggle to offer a public option on its exchange if it has to follow the exact standards of the federal law that doesn't provide for one. And, of course, no state-based approach -- no matter how innovative -- can work if everyone who participates in the state program gets fined by the federal government for failing to comply with the federal mandate.

So, in both the Healthy Americans Act and in the current health reform law, I included a provision that would allow states to gain an exemption from certain federal requirements -- such as the individual mandate, the employer penalty and the exact standards for designing the exchanges, subsidies and basic health insurance policies -- if they could find a way to do a better job of covering their state's citizens. And I have been working to help states, like my home state of Oregon, take advantage of this option and hopefully move-up the date when states can start applying for waivers. The reason for this -- as the legislators in my state will attest -- is that it's a lot less cost effective for states to implement their own approaches in 2017 if they also have to pay to implement the federally mandated approach in 2014. For those who claim this position represents a retreat from the health reform law, they are mistaken. I have been advocating virtually non-stop for states to have the right to go their own way, including during the Senate Finance Committee's mark-up up last fall when I got the provision included in the Senate bill. My letter to the state of Oregon last week was a continuation of my effort to promote state innovation in health care.

Of course, the temptation in today's gotcha political culture is to take any senator's comments on health care as being about scoring political points and either helping or hurting the White House. The truth here is that I have supported both an individual mandate and a state waiver for more than five years.

Again, both the individual mandate and the state waiver were a part of legislation that I introduced in 2006. And while this provision would allow states to opt-out of the federal health insurance mandate -- which is what some politically motivated people are calling for right now -- under my approach states will only be granted a waiver if they demonstrate they can do a better job of providing health care in their state than under the new federal law. To date, I haven't seen a single one of those states currently filing lawsuits against the individual mandate propose better ways of covering their citizens. In fact, one of the reasons I have been drawing attention to the state waiver is to highlight the insincerity of those filing lawsuits. If states aren't happy with the federal law they should be spending their energy innovating ways to do better rather than wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits that -- if successful -- would leave their state's citizens with nothing.

I continue to support the individual mandate unless a state can demonstrate that it will provide equal or better health care without one. I continue to prefer the individual mandate from the Wyden-Bennett bill to the one contained in the bill that passed, because it was accompanied by greater consumer choice and a rock-solid guarantee that all Americans would receive the same level of health coverage as their Member of Congress.

I voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, not because I thought it was the best we could do, but because I thought it was a whole lot better than the current system. I still know that to be true. But in my mind, passing that law is far from "mission accomplished" and my constituents can count on me to keep working to improve that law and our nation's health care system, regardless of which way the political winds may be blowing.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/

This is from Wyden's own website. Note the requirement for mandates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02523.html

Bi-partisan support for Wyden-Bennet (HAA)

http://m.factcheck.org/2009/05/half-the ... alth-care/

From Factcheck.... union opposition to Wyden-Bennet.

So where am I wrong again?

[Lurker]

I think he's distancing himself from PPACT for political reasons, not because he has an innovative solution. Especially when he uses statemetns like "Because you and I believe that the heart of real health reform is affordability and not mandates, I wanted to bring this feature of Section 1332 to the attention of you and the legislature.” That's a clear swipe at the forced purchase of insurance coverage.

I say this is a political move, and not a genuine attempt at some innovative Oregon solution, because when he submitted the Healthy Americans Act in 2008 with Bennet it required a mandate to purchase insurance. Now he seems to have flipped positions on one of the most hotly contested, and according to you, necessary provisions in PPACT.

All of the above was wrong.

You claimed he was distancing himself from the ACA. Wrong.

You claimed Wyden wasn't doing this to promote innovation. Wrong.

You claimed he was taking a swipe at "forced purchase of insurance". Wrong.

You claimed he flipped positions on mandates. Wrong.

Just man up, Embar. Wyden released a statement on Sept 3rd, which I linked, that specifically refutes what you are trying to claim his motivations are. Give me a break.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think he's distancing himself from PPACT for political reasons, not because he has an innovative solution. Especially when he uses statemetns like "Because you and I believe that the heart of real health reform is affordability and not mandates, I wanted to bring this feature of Section 1332 to the attention of you and the legislature.” That's a clear swipe at the forced purchase of insurance coverage.

I say this is a political move, and not a genuine attempt at some innovative Oregon solution, because when he submitted the Healthy Americans Act in 2008 with Bennet it required a mandate to purchase insurance. Now he seems to have flipped positions on one of the most hotly contested, and according to you, necessary provisions in PPACT.

All of the above was wrong.

You claimed he was distancing himself from the ACA. Wrong.

You claimed Wyden wasn't doing this to promote innovation. Wrong.

You claimed he was taking a swipe at "forced purchase of insurance". Wrong.

You claimed he flipped positions on mandates. Wrong.

Just man up, Embar. Wyden released a statement on Sept 3rd, which I linked, that specifically refutes what you are trying to claim his motivations are. Give me a break.

He released one statement close to election time... after holding opposite positions (especially the mandate) since 2008. I find his past positions and current trend to be at odds with one another. You may disagree.

[Lurker]

You clearly don't understand what you are talking about... again.

Wyden didn't hold the opposite position on mandates. The statement I linked speaks to that directly and clearly.

The truth here is that I have supported both an individual mandate and a state waiver for more than five years.

Again, both the individual mandate and the state waiver were a part of legislation that I introduced in 2006. And while this provision would allow states to opt-out of the federal health insurance mandate -- which is what some politically motivated people are calling for right now -- under my approach states will only be granted a waiver if they demonstrate they can do a better job of providing health care in their state than under the new federal law. To date, I haven't seen a single one of those states currently filing lawsuits against the individual mandate propose better ways of covering their citizens. In fact, one of the reasons I have been drawing attention to the state waiver is to highlight the insincerity of those filing lawsuits. If states aren't happy with the federal law they should be spending their energy innovating ways to do better rather than wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits that -- if successful -- would leave their state's citizens with nothing.

I continue to support the individual mandate unless a state can demonstrate that it will provide equal or better health care without one.

Nothing that you said was correct. This is a Marshall McLuhan moment and you're going to stand there arguing with the man.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The last sentence in your quote is the telling one. Its his out. Its his way of positioning politically while lending the veneer of legitmacy to past statements. Again, I point you to his statement that healthcare reform is about affordability and not mandates.

SO tell me this Lurker.. what's the guys plan for Oregon? Does he have a financially working plan without a mandate? If not, why make noise about eliminating the federal mandate option if Oregon has no other real alternative? That's cart before the horse. Actually.. thats election before the cart before the horse.

[Lurker]

You made an assertion based on your incorrect belief that he had changed position on the mandate. Just admit you were wrong.

If you can't admit that Wyden has always supported a mandate with a waiver in the name of innovation, and that that isn't contradictory, this conversation is going nowhere.

If you are unable to admit that then you clearly don't understand the issue at all.

[Lurker]

In response to your question about whether Oregon has a "working plan", Wyden speaks to that in the letter he sent pushing for an early waiver.

I understand the Oregon Health Policy Board may soon complete the job of transmitting to the legislature a proposed health care benefit package that secures the flexibility, affordability, and quality that is consistent with Section 1332. I would be glad to work with you and the bipartisanship leadership to secure a positive review for Oregon's benefit package from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, that works in conjunction with the Department of Treasury. An early positive review strikes me as beneficial for two reasons:

1. It would allow Oregon to jump-start the development of the insurance exchange, the key to creating more affordability for consumers and taxpayers.

2. It would be beneficial to the Federal agencies and other states that might wish to use Oregon's benefit package as a model for their own work

This has always been about allowing states to innovate. Wyden supports the individual mandate and a waiver for states if they can do a better job without one.

This isn't a case of a difference my interpretation. You incorrectly claimed that Wyden wanted mandates in 2008 and now he wants waivers when the fact is he supported both. His position is unchanged.

As I said, the conversation goes nowhere if you can't admit you were wrong when you so clearly were.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Did you even read the stuff on Wydens page? He clearly said he a mandate was required.

[Lurker]

Is it possible you are that dumb?

YES. Wyden had a mandate in his legislation in 2006 and 2008. He also had a state waiver. Just like the ACA. His position has not changed... at all.