• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Interesting Insight on the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

WakeandBake said:
What entitlement savings do you guys want, specifically?
Click to expand...

Means testing as well as letting those over the medicare age opt out if they still have insurance. I'm not saying they should not continue to pay the medicare tax,but if they want to decline coverage because they have private insurance, that should be their option.
 
WakeandBake said:
So that doesn't sound like anything significant, what else? What are these cuts?
Click to expand...

It isn't worth discussing with you if you ELC "meh" everything. Even if bcobb's thoughts are right and it is 5-10% (which I personally think is far too low from what I see), how on earth is that not significant?
 
It just seems that there is all this talk about "cuts" but when it comes down to it the cuts you and the GOP support seem to have a value that is fairly nebulous. There is no number associated with them - they rely on speculation and assumption.

The tax increases are quantifiable, and compared to historical data they are too low as a percentage of GDP. We can see that and add it up and get some numbers.

That's why I asked, I wanted to see what solid numbers came out. Interesting that you nor anyone else posted defense cuts first. I would think it would be easy to name a weapons program or a base to close with a price tag associated with it.
 
Did not say that is not significant, just way below your stated 50% of claims, the sad problem is that the same providers that are gaming the Medicaid system are gaming the private insurance carriers in the same way, thereby helping to drive up the cost of your insurance premiums, personally, I think it relates as much to each person's moral foundation as much as anything. I have been urging my Professional School to include more ethical training but I don't know if it would make anything any better. You have to start somewhere though.
 
WakeandBake said:
It just seems that there is all this talk about "cuts" but when it comes down to it the cuts you and the GOP support seem to have a value that is fairly nebulous. There is no number associated with them - they rely on speculation and assumption.

The tax increases are quantifiable, and compared to historical data they are too low as a percentage of GDP. We can see that and add it up and get some numbers.

That's why I asked, I wanted to see what solid numbers came out. Interesting that you nor anyone else posted defense cuts first. I would think it would be easy to name a weapons program or a base to close with a price tag associated with it.
Click to expand...

I am personnally in favor of massive defense cuts (I would go as high as 40 or 50% of the total budget). I brought up Medicaid in specific response to your question: "What entitlement savings do you guys want, specifically?" Despite wanting it cut, I don't view the military as an entitlement, so I didn't mention it.

For dollars, total Medicaid spending is over $400 billion annually. Getting rid of 10% fraud would save $40 billion per year.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I am personnally in favor of massive defense cuts (I would go as high as 40 or 50% of the total budget). I brought up Medicaid in specific response to your question: "What entitlement savings do you guys want, specifically?" Despite wanting it cut, I don't view the military as an entitlement, so I didn't mention it.

For dollars, total Medicaid spending is over $400 billion annually. Getting rid of 10% fraud would save $40 billion per year.
Click to expand...

:tard:
 
WakeandBake said:
It just seems that there is all this talk about "cuts" but when it comes down to it the cuts you and the GOP support seem to have a value that is fairly nebulous. There is no number associated with them - they rely on speculation and assumption.

The tax increases are quantifiable, and compared to historical data they are too low as a percentage of GDP. We can see that and add it up and get some numbers.

That's why I asked, I wanted to see what solid numbers came out. Interesting that you nor anyone else posted defense cuts first. I would think it would be easy to name a weapons program or a base to close with a price tag associated with it.
Click to expand...

Less than $80B next year. Bloomberg has already asked for that for NY/NJ Sandy relief without offsets, so raising rates alone is just playing to emotions. I do support raising rates on those with incomes over $500K if it will get us some compromise.
 
2x2- You realize that under Obamacare that there will be 11000000 more people covered under the Medicaid program nationally, mostly children currently without healthcare coverage.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
2x2- You realize that under Obamacare that there will be 11000000 more people covered under the Medicaid program nationally, mostly children currently without healthcare coverage.
Click to expand...

Except in states that have rejected Medicare expansion per the SCOTUS decision.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
2x2- You realize that under Obamacare that there will be 11000000 more people covered under the Medicaid program nationally, mostly children currently without healthcare coverage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know why we would want to dump that many more people into an already severely overwhelmed and broken system without trying to fix it first. I guess the same reason our fearless leader rammed the law through without trying to read it first.
 
2x2- the truth is that the Medicaid program's scope of coverage is quite good basic care, the reimbursements are poor but with the fiscal problems that our country faces there is no way to increase reimbursement at this time unless you know more than I, further the program is pretty efficient for numbers covered relative to cost to administer as compared to private insurances cost. Thsat is reason the uncovered have been placed in this area.

Marietta-I am not sure that the states that say thjey are not going to participate are doing much more than posturing as they still have a year to come up with an alternative or opt in, we will see.
 
2 &2 - many doctors already do not accept walk-in Medicaid patients. The increase in the number of people covered by Medicaid will just cause more people to go to emergency rooms.

bcobb - I'll admit I didn't read the SCOTUS decision but I'm not sure they are required. If they agree to Medicaid expansion, they have to cover some of the costs which is why many "red" states will opt out.
 
Marietta- I think much of thjat cost is covered by the increase in taxes that go into effect Jan 1 and that the posturing will end when those states either come up with a better alternative or realize there is not one. Perhaps Georgia will find something that works that others can copy.
 
Marietta Deac said:
2 &2 - many doctors already do not accept walk-in Medicaid patients. The increase in the number of people covered by Medicaid will just cause more people to go to emergency rooms.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's not like there are doctors scrambling to take Medicaid. Unless we find a way to get the reimbursement rates up (as I mentioned, eliminating the fraud would be one way to try), Obamacare is about to make the problem much, much worse, and the costs go much higher (not even including the medical equipment tax set to go into effect in January, which is a direct increase in the cost of medical care). As bcobb says, the cost is "covered" by the taxes, which just means that those who pay for healthcare pay more to cover those who don't.
 
The President calls it like it is.



P.S. Great question, by the way. One we're not likely to hear in 2012.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top