DAR
Sure does. Reduces the ten year cost within the ten years in question. It doesn’t matter when you pay for it. Doesn’t matter at all. Sooner is actually better. Fiscally responsible people know it is better to pay for things in advance. This goes double for government endeavors don’t ya think?

Bigd: “The minor things that take effect sooner are minor…”>>

DAR
Only a wealthy republican sitting fat and happy with coverage would consider the following provisions, which take effect year one, “minor.”

***
* Tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage

* Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans

* Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool

* Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans

* End lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans

* Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26

* Relief on the Donut Hole

Link.

And I heard it just passed the House.

D.

DAR
No, I said, your “arbitrary assertion.”

There is no reason the Doc-fix has to be addressed in this bill. You made that up.

It would be nice. But if it makes the bill unpassable, or not deficit neutral (and thus not passable), then out it goes.

Bigd: “The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill.”>>

DAR
That’s nice. And now it’s not. You’re bothered that it’s not because you would like to crow that this particular bill costs money. They needed to craft a bill that doesn’t cost money. And they have. Doc-fix will have to be kicked down the road when we have recovered further from the past excesses.

Bigd: “perhaps they removed it because it did not give the numbers they wanted”>>

DAR
Close enough. They don’t want numbers that make the bill unpassable. This is because their goal is to make a bill that is passable. Your goal is to construct a bill that is not passable, so Obama can fail. Different goals.

D.

Q: Madam Speaker, on the Medicare question, the so-called doctor fix, can you speak to why that was not included in this legislation?

Speaker Pelosi. Well, we have been including it in legislation for a long time, because it’s not about a doctor fix, it’s about our seniors or anyone who relies upon Medicare to have access to physicians, that they be in their region and in their program.
So this is again, you call it the doctor fix, but it is really about access to health care for Americans. It’s not in this bill, but we will have it soon. And we have made a commitment to do this. This is very important. Link[emphasis mine]

So it seems to me that they thought it should be there because it was about seniors’ access to health care. It is really about health care access for Americans. It must have been their arbitrary assessment.

Or perhaps they removed it because it did not give the numbers they wanted so they have to hide the cost somewhere else…

From the article:
The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill.

Which part of was part of the original House bill is my arbitrary assessment??

They do the doc fix each year because they do not have the courage to put it in the medical bills and make that part of the medical cost.

The doc fix is a cost associated with health care and was to be included until it made the numbers bad. They are playing the game and you cannot see that because you are either foolish or blinded. It is a health care cost and should be included in health care, not the defense budget which is one of the places they put it.

Is there any reason for student loans to be addressed in this bill? The doc-fix is part of health care and student loans are not so you tell me, is there any reason for them to be in the bill?

And it is not my arbitrary assertion. This is something they were going to do so they would not have to address it each year. They decided not to do it because of the cost and the reality that they are wrong. Not my arbitrary, their original plan.

And we need to tax for ten years to pay for six so there is no way the next ten will reduce the cost. The minor things that take effect sooner are minor and the major provisions will not happen for 4 years. All the sob stories told would have ended exactly the same way even if this passed because it does not happen right away.

And the subjects of the sob stories actually received care or refused it so the bill would make no difference.

DAR
You’re the one doing the game. There’s no reason the “doc-fix” problem has to be addressed in this bill. None at all.

[Yahoo quote] “Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.”>>

DAR
Right, and your arbitrary assertion that this particular problem needs to be fixed in this bill, is a game. Remove your game, and there’s a reduction. (actually, there’s still a reduction, over 20 years, even with your game).

D.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.

Yahoo News

DAR
That’s the undesirable future this bill is going to address.

I think they should change the name of the bill. It should now be called:

“The deficit reduction act which also happens to extend health insurance coverage to 32 million people.”

A little long, but kinda catchy in it’s own way.

D.
—————-
“CBO estimates that Medicare spending will drop by 1.4% per year, an estimated 32 million people will be covered, and would extend Medicare’s solvency by an additional 10 years.

Republicans are in a bit of a bind now. Democrats can rightly characterize this legislation as a landmark “deficit reduction act” which also happens to extend health insurance coverage to 32 million people. That leaves Republicans having to argue against extending coverage to 32 million uninsured while strongly regulating private insurers, and saving money at the same time.”

Link.

And check out this guy who just won a $10 million ruling for being on the receiving end of a “reccision.”

Another policy that will end with the health care reform bill.

You coming to my lecture Monday Bigd? I’ll buy you lunch. If this thing passes Sunday, talk about perfect timing eh?

DAR
Science based polling consistently showed Scott Brown leading before the election:

“Brown has continued to build on the momentum that we saw last week in the SuffolkUniversity statewide poll,… the latest bellwether polls suggest a solid lead for Brown.”

SuffolkUniversity released a statewide poll Thursday, Jan. 14, that showed Brown (50 percent) leading Coakley (46 percent) by 4 points. The results showed a race within a margin of error of 4.38.”

Link.