Woo! Hoo! Love that Medicaid!
Woo! Hoo! Love that Medicaid!

by James A. Bacon

When legislators debate expansion of Virginia’s Medicaid program in the 2014 session, they would do well to consider the long-term outlook for Medicaid spending. The program already consumes 17% of the state’s general fund budget, and that percentage will grow relentlessly as the population ages.

“Virginia faces an onslaught of frail and infirm elders as the demographic wave of aging baby boomers advances,” warns a new study, “The Index of Long-Term Care Vulnerability: A Case Study in Virginia,” written by the Center for Long-Term Care Reform and presented by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. “Virginia’s risk is greater than most. The commonwealth’s 142,000 citizens over age 85 will more than quadruple by 2050 at a rate (307%), seventh highest in the nation.”

One in five seniors will require long-term care of five years or more. The cost is phenomenally expensive, ranging from $41,000 yearly to live in an assisted living facility to $83,000 a year for a semi-private room in a nursing home (and even more for a private room).

Making the problem worse, Medicaid is evolving from a safety net for the destitute into a middle-class entitlement, as lawyers counsel seniors on how to avoid paying down their estates in order to qualify for Medicaid-funded long-term care. While Virginia eligibility rules are relatively strict, it has loopholes big enough to push a gurney through.  States the report:

Virginia Medicaid has to cope with sophisticated legal techniques used by elder laws specialists to artificially impoverish their relatively prosperous clients in order to qualify for Medicaid. These include the use of promissory notes, Medicaid-compliant annuities, life estates and savings bonds used to shelter or divest often hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The authors quote a Fairfax County Medicaid worker: “Medicaid is a program that pays for pretty much anyone who needs care and knows how to get it, not just for the poor.” Virginia is already a leader in shifting long-term care from institutions to home and community-based services and in using managed care to control costs — two reasons why, in addition to relatively strict eligibility standards, the Commonwealth has one of the most frugal Medicaid programs in the country.

Nevertheless, Virginia still faces horrendous budget increases. The report suggests that legislators reverse the trend of relying ever more heavily upon Medicaid to fund the population’s long-term care needs. The state should restrict Medicaid assistance to the truly indigent by tightening eligibility standards and requiring middle-class and affluent Virginians to fund their own care.

  • Asset spend down. Medicaid requirements should make Virginians spend down their assets before going on public assistance. The state could look at Virginia’s home equity exemption of $536,000, which is higher than most other states.
  • Home equity conversion. More than two-thirds of Virginians own their own homes, which have a median value of $254,600. Reverse mortgages allow people to extract equity from their homes while continuing to live in them. That money could be used to fund home- and community-based services privately.
  • Estate recovery. Where Medicaid does allow people to retain substantial wealth, at the very least their estates should reimburse the program for the cost of their care upon death. The feds haven’t published recovery data since 2005 (based on 2004 data) but Virginia recovered only $777,000 that year, or about 0.1% of expenditures. If it boosted recovery to the 5.8% benchmark in Oregon, it could collect more than $50 million a year.
  • Long-term care insurance. The state does offer a 15% state income tax credit for the purchase of long-term care insurance but it discourages the purchase of insurance by making Medicaid so easy to obtain. Tighter eligibility standards would encourage more people to take out insurance.

While the federal government will pay 90% of the cost of expanding Virginia’s Medicaid program to provide health care to the w0rking-age near-poor, the Commonwealth is in no position to accommodate an expansion of the program without reining in future long-term care liabilities. Taxpayers cannot afford to allow the program to morph into an entitlement for the middle class.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

38 responses to “No More Medicaid as Middle-Class Entitlement”

  1. Haven’t heard a single critical of ObamaCare subsidizing the poor and uninsured complain about MedicAid preserving the assets of people who want Uncle Sam and Virginia to pay for their health care costs so they can keep their homes and give it to their kids.

    nor have I heard a single critic of ObamaCare complain about the $5000 a year subsidies given to seniors who then are able to buy RVs and vacation homes to enjoy and then pass on to their kids.

    Hypocrisy is thick in the air on those who complain about Obama’s “subsidies” while ignoring these others that Obama had nothing to do with.

  2. Les Schreiber Avatar
    Les Schreiber

    As a retiree I do have an interest in the type of thing. It just seems that the law needs to change. It appears that the loop holes are there to be exploited .The home equity exemption of over $1/2 million seems to be a good place to start.Home equity conversion sounds a bit too much like a “taking”. If the rules were changed, concerning the exemption by lowering it, individuals might do this on their own. In effect,seniors would basically have to rely on equity in their home that they had built up over many years.Long term care insurance is not really an answer. Having looked at these plans ,they are expensive.Unlike say life insurance ,rates rise as you age and companies discriminate on the basis of pre existing conditions.A pool could be developed to buy insurance at a young age with stable rates,but this would require participation of the young and healthy,as is the case with the ACA.

  3. re: ” .The home equity exemption of over $1/2 million seems to be a good place to start.Home equity conversion sounds a bit too much like a “taking”.

    this points out/reveals several things:

    1. – that the Fed govt lets the state configure MedicAid to their standards rather than Federal “mandates”.

    2. that all this talk about the cost of expanding MedicAid for the poor , the cost of it and the “subsidy” for the poor idea – …

    3. – and our General Assembly knows full well about the loopholes in Medicare that are being exploited by people who are not poor and paid for by taxpayers while arguing that we “cannot afford” expanding Medicare.

    I’m not advocating a particular course of action here – yet – but I am saying the hypocrisy of the “expanding Medicare for health care is too expensive” is thick… when our legislators know full well that people with half a million in assets are sucking at the govt/taxpayer teat which is part of what makes MedicAid so expensive.

    this is how (in my view) the health care kerfuffle has gotten to a partisan divide because we ignore the subsidies in MedicAid for the non-poor and we ignore the subsidies in Medicare that provide full coverage insurance to seniors with 85K in retirement income and a million in assets – for 100.00 a month …

    but we can’t provide subsidies to cover others… nope…

    AND we can’t downsize the existing subsidies in MedicAid and Medicare to share them with others who have much less in assets and income.

    nope.

    it’s wrong that Obama wants to provide some level of fair treatment to those of more modest means.. that’s a “lie”.

  4. I like the idea of a reverse mortgage, as suggested by Les. By and large, a person needing long-term care should not use Medicaid and leave an estate to his/her heirs. I agree with Larry on this one. I do think the state needs to figure out how to handle situations where the husband goes to the nursing home and dies, leaving his widow who may well live for a number of years. I don’t know what the answer is.

    I sort off agree with Les that long-term care could be financed by creating a state pool with voluntary contributions, but absent participation by young people, it won’t work. I think it would be politically impossible to force participation unless it was done through Social Security.

    We need to be very careful with any expansion of Medicaid, as North Carolina was twice forced to cut state aid to education to fund Medicaid shortfalls. Once under the Ds and a second time under the Rs.

  5. I said Medicare several times but it’s MedicAid.

    but I react strongly to the idea that the “state” should do something to “help” people with long-term-care while at the same time, we are having this other conversation that we cannot help folks with health care. It’s grossly hypocritical. What in the world justifies the “state” (taxpayers) … “helping” people with half a million dollars in assets , but we cannot afford to help those who have no heath insurance?

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    To quote your hero, Ronald Reagan: “There you go again.” You are, with the grandly titled Thomas Jefferson Institute of Whatever (third string, right wing think tank) , pushing a red herring about older people their families and entitlement rip offs.
    It is quite like the GOP wanting photo IDs for voting when there is no widespread fraud, only the possibility of fraud.
    One thing The TJ Institute doesn’t tell you is how many families actually strip their elders’ assets to qualify them for MediCaid. To be sure, getting power of attorney and stealing mommy’s or daddy’s assets to stick them in the county poor home ain’t exactly hot news. Been going on for decades, but at limited levels. What we really need to know, and an answer neither you neither TJIPP provide, is how big a problem is this, really?
    Unless the TJ Institute can demonstrate widespread fraud, all this does is draw concern away from people who really need government help — just another reactionary diversion from our real problems.
    I have never trusted the source here — furniture salesmen and the like.Gee if someone gave me a lot of 501 financing I could sit around all, whank off and come up with a lot of possible problems.

    1. The practices described by the paper do not constitute “fraud” because it’s not illegal. But that doesn’t make it right.

      As far as the magnitude of the problem, these figures provide a starting point: “The feds haven’t published recovery data since 2005 (based on 2004 data) but Virginia recovered only $777,000 that year, or about 0.1% of expenditures. If it boosted recovery to the 5.8% benchmark in Oregon, it could collect more than $50 million a year.”

      The figure today could well be double that, and by 2050, it could be four times higher (not taking into account inflation).

      As for your trope that it’s “old news,” ergo, it’s no big deal, I don’t think that would have flied in 1964 during the freedom marches. Following your logic, the proper response should have been, “Segregation? Lynchings? That’s an old story. Tell me something new.”

      Finally, it’s your right to regard the Thomas Jefferson Institute with contempt, but you cannot dismiss everything it says on the grounds that it’s a right-wing think tank. That’s a reverse appeal to authority. Basically, what you’re saying is, “I don’t agree with them, therefore they are wrong.”

      1. re: ” … to regard the Thomas Jefferson Institute with contempt, but you cannot dismiss everything it says on the grounds that it’s a right-wing think tank. ”

        some think tanks have their principles but do not engage in propaganda or worse misinformation or disinformation but any think tank worth it’s salt will provide references to support it’s argument and any person who really is interested in the issue – will try to independently verify the data.

        I did verify the MedicAid nursing home data but I already had looked into it before and the TJ institute has it right and I actually congratulate them for being one of the few think tanks – left or right – that has told a truth that many folks either don’t know or prefer to not know ….

        and for me – the hypocrisy of characterizing MedicAid as an entitlement for “the poor” when, in fact, it’s ALSO an entitlement for people of substantial wealth.

        we cannot begin to fix our system, in my view, as long as we prefer to live in a pretend world about what the fact are and are not.

  7. The problem remains Obama lied to get his bill passed. I might not like ACA anyway, but elections matter. Lying to the nation that people who like what they have can keep what they have when the president knew they could not is simply unacceptable. Obama should have either said it’s my way or the highway or vetoed the bills because it was inconsistent with his promise.
    If Obama had told the truth and the ACA passed as is, I guess in practicality the debate would likely be over. If Obama would have told the truth and the ACA either failed or did not make people give up what they had, the debate would likely continue.
    If Obama wanted to disabuse people of the fear they could not chose their doctor or retain their doctor, he could have said that. Indeed, he did say that. But he went beyond that; he told people if they liked their policy, they could keep it. But that was absolute fraud. He knew the ACA needed everyone in a pool that covered all of the risks of the expanded coverage. To offer maternity care, everyone needed to be in a pool that included maternity care. To cover those who are older and sicker, the pool needed a minimum of 38% young and healthy people to pay more than their actuarial risks.

    For many reasons, many people didn’t have this coverage. Few single men would freely purchase maternity care. Neither would post-menopausal women. Many young people might use a medical savings account and buy a catastrophic policy to cover expenses say over $5000. The ACA does not permit this. These policies cannot continue even though Obama promised they could. If this isn’t fraud, what is?

    Obama could have said, I’m sorry but to extend coverage to those who don’t have it and those with preexisting conditions, we need everyone to pay premiums that cover the costs of extending coverage to all and to cover preexisting conditions. If your policy doesn’t do that, it will be illegal and must be canceled. Your premiums might go down, but they probably will go up. Your deductibles might change. You might need the added coverage. You could have a stroke or be hit by a car. You might develop a disease that would be a preexisting condition and this law would help you. Or you might just wind up subsidizing others. Consider yourself lucky that nothing bad has happened to you.

    Based on my observations of how this country works, I’m not sure the Democratic Congress would have passed the ACA. A lot of people would have been angry and opposed the bill because it would hurt them, at least as they perceive. Or the turnover in Congress might have been even greater in 2010. Maybe the ACA would have been defunded and the citizenry supported the shutdown. Obama’s lie to the public was pure fraud.

    1. “The problem remains Obama lied to get his bill passed.”

      that’s simply not true. It presumes that lawmakers don’t have staffs and are truly ignorant of the contents of the law and that only the POTUS knows the truth …

      that’s pure right wing BS. Tell me how many GOP did not know anything about Medicare Part D and only Bush knew the truth.

      ” I might not like ACA anyway, but elections matter. Lying to the nation that people who like what they have can keep what they have when the president knew they could not is simply unacceptable. Obama should have either said it’s my way or the highway or vetoed the bills because it was inconsistent with his promise.”

      People basically supported his promise to do something about health care without really knowing all the potential outcomes (like they did with Medicare PartD) OR they were predisposed to vote against him to start with regardless of his position on health care. There would be no version of health care reform that the opponents who voted against him would have changed their votes to support him. None.. These are the same people that lined up with the birthers and racists and others who opposed because in their minds the POTUS was not a “real” American.

      “If Obama had told the truth and the ACA passed as is, I guess in practicality the debate would likely be over.”

      Most of this “promise” stuff happened AFTER the election but he was responding to the lies from the right about people being forced to see govt doctors and death panels and the like. How come they are allowed to tell outright lies ?

      ” If Obama would have told the truth and the ACA either failed or did not make people give up what they had, the debate would likely continue.”

      Nope. The opponents would never vote for him no matter what. They just got additional ammunition to hurt him from his “lie”. there was never any intention what-so-ever to actually work to find a compromise approach to reforming health care.
      that’s the truth.

      “If Obama wanted to disabuse people of the fear they could not chose their doctor or retain their doctor, he could have said that. Indeed, he did say that. But he went beyond that; he told people if they liked their policy, they could keep it. But that was absolute fraud.”

      it was not fraud. it was dumb for sure but he was trying to disabuse people of the lies and fraud coming from the other side … and went too far.

      why is the other side allowed to commit lies and fraud without called to account?

      ” He knew the ACA needed everyone in a pool that covered all of the risks of the expanded coverage. To offer maternity care, everyone needed to be in a pool that included maternity care. To cover those who are older and sicker, the pool needed a minimum of 38% young and healthy people to pay more than their actuarial risks.”

      this is the way almost ALL private insurance works. It’s the way the FEHB works and most all employer-provided… works. It’s the way any new insurance plan would have to work. There is nothing unique about this aspect.

      “For many reasons, many people didn’t have this coverage. Few single men would freely purchase maternity care. Neither would post-menopausal women. Many young people might use a medical savings account and buy a catastrophic policy to cover expenses say over $5000. The ACA does not permit this. These policies cannot continue even though Obama promised they could. If this isn’t fraud, what is?”

      no it’s not. If you have employer-provided health care or the FEHB – you have this same exact thing right now. It’s dishonest and disingenuous to act like this is not how it is right now for most employer-provided policies. Employers offer one or a couple of policies that apply to both men and women and include both men’s and women’s specific services. It ALREADY works this way in many existing policies.

      why would people NOT KNOWN this right now and then believe the propaganda without checking the facts?

      “Obama could have said, I’m sorry but to extend coverage to those who don’t have it and those with preexisting conditions, we need everyone to pay premiums that cover the costs of extending coverage to all and to cover preexisting conditions. If your policy doesn’t do that, it will be illegal and must be canceled.”

      you are conflating pre-existing conditions with specific plan services and again this a a disservice to the facts.

      ” Your premiums might go down, but they probably will go up. Your deductibles might change. You might need the added coverage. You could have a stroke or be hit by a car. You might develop a disease that would be a preexisting condition and this law would help you. Or you might just wind up subsidizing others. Consider yourself lucky that nothing bad has happened to you.”

      this is how all universal care works in 50 other countries and it’s how FEHB and many if not most employer-provided already work. you have BIG POOLS that take everyone and those big pools spread risk and reduce costs …. Look at Medicare. We can provide full coverage health insurance to 50 million Medicare subscribers for about 500 a month each.

      Based on my observations of how this country works, I’m not sure the Democratic Congress would have passed the ACA. A lot of people would have been angry and opposed the bill because it would hurt them, at least as they perceive. Or the turnover in Congress might have been even greater in 2010. Maybe the ACA would have been defunded and the citizenry supported the shutdown. Obama’s lie to the public was pure fraud.

      separate out the fact from the propaganda… here.. please.

  8. ” Elderly and Disabled People

    The elderly and disabled account for the majority of Medicaid spending. In 2007, 10 percent, or 5.8 million enrollees, were elderly, accounting for 25 percent of annual Medicaid spending, or $75 billion. Since Medicare does not cover institutional care, Medicaid is the largest source of public assistance for nursing homes. In 2009, Medicaid paid for 40 percent of all nursing home spending in the US.”

    and this is AFTER the elderly have received subsidies of $5000 a year for all the years they received Medicare.

    May seniors preserve their assets because they get Medicare for 100.00 a month … they have half million dollar homes, RVs, and vacation homes because their medical care is taken care of for about 100.00 a month.

    Think about how many people younger than 65 get health care for 100.00 a month and then keep their half million dollar homes when they need long term care.

    What I’m advocating is that we recognize this reality when we are talking about health care for those under 65 and MedicAid for those that cannot insurance at all.

    we have an unfair, unjust system, made unfair by our tax codes that give some tax-free health insurance and others – outright subsidies for their health care and long term care – all the while we are saying it’s wrong to give a similar subsidy to those who currently do not get them for their health insurance..

    if folks do not like the ideas of subsidies and health care entitlements – then we should at least be honest enough to admit that we already give subsidies and entitlements to a great many middle-income – and higher income people. You can make 85K in retirement income and still pay only 100.00 a month for Medicare.

    1. The deal for Medicare is that every worker pays the tax and every retiree gets Medicare. And which political party has consistently opposed any changes to Medicare eligibility or premiums? Who has beat up on the Rs and took over the US Senate in 1986 because of proposals to tighten up SS and Medicare? Which candidate for governor of Virginia wants to expand Medicaid without any changes to eligibility, etc.? The Ds like things as they are. I think you need to talk to Terry McAuliffe. It took Nixon to go to China. McAuliffe won’t take Medicaid away from the middle class. He doesn’t want that fight. He just wants to expand it ala Obama.

      The tax-free status of health insurance took effect during WWII when FDR was in the White House and the Ds controlled Congress. McCain called for taxing expensive health care plans and was hammered by Obama. The unions are fighting the ACA’s taxes on Cadillac plans. Labor doesn’t want to help pay for those who don’t have insurance. None of this is the fault of the GOP.

      Obama’s problem remains that he is good at giving away things, but is having a hard time finding people to pay for the giveaways. Ask people whether health insurance should be extended to all, and you’ll get an strong majority of “sure.” But ask people what they are willing to pay or give up to accomplish that and the answer is “damn little.” Don’t tax thee; don’t tax me; tax the feller behind the tree.

      Obama got some new taxes and tax increases, but they were not enough as we’ve all learned. He needs a whole bunch of people to pay for a lot more health care than they want or can afford. But he was not honest enough to say this. To get his bill passed in form that forces all these people who would not otherwise buy the expensive coverage to be forced to buy it, Obama lied over and over and over again. He told people they did not need to buy his expensive insurance and pay big subsidies unless they wanted to do so. But this is the fault of the GOP. Obama will be best remembered for his ACA lie.

      1. “The deal for Medicare is that every worker pays the tax and every retiree gets Medicare.”

        not true. Workers pay FICA for Medicare Part A which is hospitalization but they prepay NOTHING for Medicare Part B which pays for doctors and medical providers.

        they get Medicare Part B for 100.00 a month and they’ve paid NOTHING into it.

        “And which political party has consistently opposed any changes to Medicare eligibility or premiums? Who has beat up on the Rs and took over the US Senate in 1986 because of proposals to tighten up SS and Medicare? ”

        this is nothing wrong with SS…

        again – the GOP has no actual proposal for Medicare. Paul Ryan wanted vouchers but 7 GOP voted for it and the rest ran away and hid.

        You have to make a principled legislative proposal. You cannot have “ideas” that the GOP will not support as a party. The GOP wants to KILL Medicare -[ not reform it. and the Dems, at that point will not discuss it.

        Obama has indicated that Medicare needs changes and he is open to compromises but not demands to kill it.

        “Which candidate for governor of Virginia wants to expand Medicaid without any changes to eligibility, etc.? The Ds like things as they are. I think you need to talk to Terry McAuliffe. It took Nixon to go to China. McAuliffe won’t take Medicaid away from the middle class. He doesn’t want that fight. He just wants to expand it ala Obama.”

        which GOP governor of Virginia refused to expand MedicAid and refused to stop giving subsidies to people who own half million dollar homes?
        It’s interesting that McAuliffe has not even assumed the office and you are accusing him of bad motives.. that’s not objective.. it’s pure partisan.
        how do you know right now what he is going to do ? why would you presume it?

        “The tax-free status of health insurance took effect during WWII when FDR was in the White House and the Ds controlled Congress. McCain called for taxing expensive health care plans and was hammered by Obama. The unions are fighting the ACA’s taxes on Cadillac plans. Labor doesn’t want to help pay for those who don’t have insurance. None of this is the fault of the GOP.”

        it’s the fault of the GOP for doing nothing – for not addressing the issue LONG BEFORE Obama came on the scene and even after he is here – they have NOTHING to offer. They are a party of obstructionists hoping for failure and those that associate with them should be ashamed for not having a principled stand on what needs to be done. This is how the GOP does nothing. No one in their party really wants to do anything. They are perfectly happy watching the system fester and fail… too cowardly to put forth their own plan.

        “Obama’s problem remains that he is good at giving away things, but is having a hard time finding people to pay for the giveaways. Ask people whether health insurance should be extended to all, and you’ll get an strong majority of “sure.” But ask people what they are willing to pay or give up to accomplish that and the answer is “damn little.” Don’t tax thee; don’t tax me; tax the feller behind the tree.”

        that’s just plain partisan blather. Is it Obama’s fault that people are so selfish that they’ll take tax free health care and subsidies and watch others die because they can’t get a similar benefit? where is the leadership on this?
        You have a good portion of MedicAid that goes to pay for long-term care for people who own half-million dollar homes and not a peep from the folks who say that parasites should not get subsidies.

        “Obama got some new taxes and tax increases, but they were not enough as we’ve all learned. He needs a whole bunch of people to pay for a lot more health care than they want or can afford.”

        as opposed to people who have insurance paying for it by paying the bills of the uninsured who go to ERs?

        ” But he was not honest enough to say this. To get his bill passed in form that forces all these people who would not otherwise buy the expensive coverage to be forced to buy it, Obama lied over and over and over again. He told people they did not need to buy his expensive insurance and pay big subsidies unless they wanted to do so. But this is the fault of the GOP. Obama will be best remembered for his ACA lie.”

        How honest has the GOP been on the issue? Why can they say that health care will be rationed, death panels and govt doctors and not a peep from those criticising Obama?

        It’s OKAY for the GOP to lie but not Obama?

        People who were predisposed against Obama from the beginning are not honest brokers of this issue. They have been looking for any/all things they can accuse him of but the man did not send 5000 young people to their deaths and commit taxpayers to entitlements and health care for 50,000 more than came home maimed.

        where was the criticism of Bush lying?

        this is pure grade A Partisan blather TMT – admit it. You were opposed from the get go. right?

  9. The same tactics were used by the GOP against Medicare.

    Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’

    At the time, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:

    Ronald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]

    George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]

    Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964]

    Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1965]

    my question is how come the GOP can lie and no one calls them to account?

    1. I would agree that the predictions of Medicare problems did not come true as predicted. On the other hand, neither did the Democrats’ cost projections. Medicare is much more expensive than predicted and the program is in serious financial trouble. I don’t see those statements as lies. A lie would have been “if you don’t want to participate in Medicare, you can avoid paying the tax.” Or, a governor can opt out from the program. Or you cannot chose your doctor period. Those are lies and lies that go to the essence of the bill.

      Even Bill Clinton has taken Obama to task for his lie. Clinton has said people should be permitted to keep their existing policies. And Old Clinton and truth were often strangers. He recognizes the Obama lie goes to the very essence of the public acceptance of the ACA.

      How about 18 USC sec. 1001(a)?
      “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
      (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years.”

      1. I would agree that the predictions of Medicare problems did not come true as predicted.”On the other hand, neither did the Democrats’ cost projections. Medicare is much more expensive than predicted and the program is in serious financial trouble.

        It was not predictions. It was out and out propaganda and lies.

        How many govt programs supported by Dems or GOp including military programs end up costing as predicted? why would you use that as an argument against one political party?

        Medicare costs about 250 billion a year out of a 2.4 trillion budget.

        The problem with Medicare is the problem with our entire health care system – as we are paying twice what other countries pay – AND we have more people retiring. That’s a demographic and cost issue as much as it is a Medicare issue because it affects employer-provided, TRICARE (the military health care), MedicAid and the Federal FEHB.

        I don’t see those statements as lies. A lie would have been “if you don’t want to participate in Medicare, you can avoid paying the tax.”

        Medicare Part A is prepaid via FICA. Medicare Part B is NOT prepaid and it is TOTALLY VOLUNTARY but if you want it – it’s 100.00 a month – a bargain rate compared to everyone else.

        the fact that most people do not know the difference between Part A and Part B is an example of the ignorance of people on the issues.

        “Or, a governor can opt out from the program. Or you cannot chose your doctor period. Those are lies and lies that go to the essence of the bill.”

        if you have PRIVATE insurance including employer-provided and the FEHB – you are NOT guaranteed your choice of doctor.. why is that unique to ObamaCare? Isn’t the truth that this has always been the case before ObamaCare?

        “Even Bill Clinton has taken Obama to task for his lie. Clinton has said people should be permitted to keep their existing policies. And Old Clinton and truth were often strangers. He recognizes the Obama lie goes to the very essence of the public acceptance of the ACA.”

        Clinton identified the problem and I agree with it and it’s not that Obama “lied” any more than each year – your insurance policy already “expires” and you are offered the “new’ one – with changes in it – higher premiums, more co-pays, less coverage, etc.

        but what the ACA did that was a bridge too far was they put forth a standard for all policies for minimum coverage and that was definitely not made clear to people and made worse by Obama “lying”. I do not dispute that.. he owns the problem – he did create it.

        “How about 18 USC sec. 1001(a)?
        “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
        (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years.”

        did you bring this up when Bush lied? why not? why now?

  10. Just one more reason to get the heck out of America when you retire. It’s bad enough that the feds want to gouge your fixed income, but pretty soon the state and locals will be at it as well. You ain’t seen nothin. You will find in the future that you can’t keep your insurance, can’t keep your money, and you certainly won’t be able to keep your house. All of America is Rust Belt city and you may as well get used to it. So this garbage about retiring in America is just so much more BS. Find yourself a third world place near an international airport and enjoy peace of mind instead of this endless political stress that will kill you from worry about things you can’t control.

    1. right – where are you going to go? let me guess – to one of those other OECD countries with universal health care or to a 3rd world country? which one?

      the American health care system is a disaster where more and more people lose their insurance and the ones that are left pay increased premiums to pay for the increased uninsured going to ERs for their care.

      what kind of sense does this make and why in the world would anyone defend it to remain the status quo?

      50 other countries cover ALL of their people for 1/2 of what we pay – and they all live longer… despite all those “horror” stories of endless wait times and “rationing”….

      we have a system that unfairly provides health care to some of us while it arbitrarily denies it to others – through no fault of their own and the people lucky enough to get it – really don’t seem to care that next year they could be without it… and we’ve turned this into a horrendous partisan divide while our whole system slides to disaster.

      1. Larry, last spring Senator Janet Howell was making a pitch to expand Medicaid. She made the argument we’d save money by insurance companies not being forced to pay for the costs of non-compensated care. Your argument exactly. I asked her if that were the case, shouldn’t the state mandate health insurance premium cuts to reflect the savings. Tax expenditures go up, but insurance premiums go down. The good senator did not support my proposal and danced around it. I inferred from this that it was not likely the savings would offset the increased expenditures. If I am right, isn’t Howell’s and your argument likely bogus? If she was truly correct, why wouldn’t she support legislation that mandates the result she predicts?

        Second, I am not willing to accept less health care coverage to expand coverage for others. I accept the idea that some countries have single payer systems that their citizens find acceptable. I do not trust the US government to achieve the same result. FEHB is excellent insurance – not cheap, but excellent. I do not believe a single payer system would be as good. I don’t believe any ACA insurance would be as good either. I especially don’t trust the federal government on health care issues in light of the President’s lie.

        Obama should give in and adopt Clinton’s proposal. Grandfather every existing health care plan. He should establish pools for everyone else. The free ER care law should be phased out. Costs should be driven out of the system, such as requiring drugs & medical devices to be sold in the US at the same price they are sold overseas. The FTC should bring antitrust actions against health care holding companies with high HHIs. Over time, premiums should fall at least in real terms. More people will likely move to ACA qualified plans. But people must still have the right to purchase non-ACA qualified plans.

        1. “Larry, last spring Senator Janet Howell was making a pitch to expand Medicaid. She made the argument we’d save money by insurance companies not being forced to pay for the costs of non-compensated care. Your argument exactly. I asked her if that were the case, shouldn’t the state mandate health insurance premium cuts to reflect the savings. Tax expenditures go up, but insurance premiums go down. The good senator did not support my proposal and danced around it. I inferred from this that it was not likely the savings would offset the increased expenditures. If I am right, isn’t Howell’s and your argument likely bogus? If she was truly correct, why wouldn’t she support legislation that mandates the result she predicts?”

          because she does not control it at the State level and no to your question of a mandate or else it’s proof it won’t work. the current health care system is so complex and has so many moving parts – that there are no precise guarantees.
          more than that – this system cannot be changed without impacts.. it’s unrealistic to think that to start with since from the get go, some are arbitrarily advantaged and other arbitrarily disadvantaged. It’s a bad system..

          “Second, I am not willing to accept less health care coverage to expand coverage for others.”

          you still believe that those without insurance do not get medical care.. but they do -and you pay for it…. you just do not understand HOW you are paying for it but you are.

          “I accept the idea that some countries have single payer systems that their citizens find acceptable. ”

          not “some” countries – EVERY SINGLE ADVANCED nation – on the planet except us….

          “I do not trust the US government to achieve the same result. FEHB is excellent insurance – not cheap, but excellent.”

          we take care of our soldiers with the VA. We provide health insurance to soldiers and their families with TRICARE. We provide care to the indigent with MedicAid and we provide health care for the seniors with Medicare and govt employees with FEHB and you do not _trust_ the govt?

          Do you “trust” the govt to put GPS satellites or operate 13 billion dollar carriers, or for the NTSB to investigate accidents or seal team 6 to get Bin Laden?

          how do you SELECTIVELY “distrust” the govt ?

          ” I do not believe a single payer system would be as good. I don’t believe any ACA insurance would be as good either. I especially don’t trust the federal government on health care issues in light of the President’s lie.”

          tell me how many POTUS have NOT lied… of the last 6… tell me… I’m not justifying it. I’m saying that your standard for “lying” is selective for one POTUS.

          “Obama should give in and adopt Clinton’s proposal. Grandfather every existing health care plan. He should establish pools for everyone else. The free ER care law should be phased out. Costs should be driven out of the system, such as requiring drugs & medical devices to be sold in the US at the same price they are sold overseas. The FTC should bring antitrust actions against health care holding companies with high HHIs. Over time, premiums should fall at least in real terms. More people will likely move to ACA qualified plans. But people must still have the right to purchase non-ACA qualified plans.”

          Obama WOULD compromise TMT – but the GOP has made it clear they’re not going to. The GOP has no intention to do anything.

          You’re repeating the GOP talking points in opposition but you’re acting like Obama has a compromise option…

          won’t you admit that the GOP has no intention to do any of it?

          1. Larry, Janet Howell did not agree with my plan because she knows that the costs for expanding Medicaid will likely outweigh the savings at some reasonable point in time. Senator Howell is extremely knowledgeable on budget matters and tells the truth. If there were savings, they should be passed along to the people of Virginia in the form of lower premiums. If the GA will not so guarantee, we should deep-six the argument that Medicaid expansion will save people money. The sun either rises in the east or the west, but not both. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

            Terry McAuliffe ran on a promise to expand Medicaid and veto any budget that did not include an expansion. I think it is a very reasonable step on my part to assume that means he will not propose any contraction or imposition of new limits on Medicaid. My comments were not a partisan shot.

            Why is Obama’s lie so bad? I submit that the vast majority of Americans are not willing to pay much to expand health care coverage. Specifically, they aren’t going to pay higher premiums or deductibles or restrict their choices in health care so others can get covered. A sizable number would support imposing taxes or fees on others to do this, but few are willing to fall on the grenade themselves. I’m not. I know and respect your view that is wrong and unfair. But irrespective of the morality, few Americans are willing to pay for expansion. You may hate the fact, but it’s true. Therefore, but for Obama’s lie, the ACA may well have not passed.

            If all the uninsured simply joined an insurance pool, the premiums would be so high many could not afford them. And absent many young and healthy people in the pool, the insurers could not afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Democratic health care experts testified that, without community rating and an individual mandate, the program would go into a death spiral.

            In recognition of the fact people don’t want to pay more or give up benefits (or just felt comfortable with the status quo), Obama did not elect to affirmatively tell people that they either needed existing coverage that included all the services, diseases, etc., that would be extended to the uninsured under the ACA. He said over and over again, if you like what you have you can keep it unconditionally. You did not have to participate in a pool that helped cover the uninsured. He said this, knowing it was false to prevent likely opposition to the ACA. Had Obama not said this, such that people knew they would be forced by the federal government to subsidize others, I submit the ACA probably would not have passed. This is plain and simple fraud. I cannot recall when another president engaged in such fraud that has harmed so many people.

            The GOP certainly did not attempt to compromise to any great extent. But also keep in mind that the bill passed by the Senate did not go to a conference committee where some compromise might have occurred. The election of Scott Brown had eliminated the Ds’ ability to break a filibuster. The Senate D leadership and the President feared for the life of the ACA if changes were made in conference. Because of this, the House passed the ACA without change. The Senate ACA passed 219 – 217 in the House with all Rs and 34 Ds voting no.

            Did the GOP attack Obama for partisan purposes? Yes. But so too has the Democratic Party attacked the GOP on health care reform. We regularly receive mailings at home from AARP that blast the GOP for wanting to take away our earned Medicare rights (by increasing the $100 fee). I’m not Medicare eligible for Medicare by the way. Both Parties are wedded to partisan attacks.

            As Bill Clinton has suggested, the ACA should be amended to allow people to keep their insurance. Then, if the President wants to change this, he should get on his bully pulpit and tell Americans why they need to pay more and accept less to expand insurance coverage. He should say that the individual mandate must be expanded to require people to buy policies with ACA minimums, even if it raise premiums, out of pocket expenses, deductibles, etc. He can also explain the value of being covered for preexisting conditions and not being dropped. Should we expect less from a Nobel Prize winner?

          2. Trust in government. Or distrust. I’m not alone. http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/Trust-Government.aspx

            Trust in each other — not so much. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/god-trust-21056734

  11. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    The Thomas Jefferson Institute is a third tier advocacy chamber. I am always suspicious of what they come up with. In this case, the “Virginia” report was prepared by a Seattle non-profit dedicated to pushing the view that private insurance funding is the option for long term health care. Look at their Website:

    “The Center for Long-Term Care Reform is a private institute dedicated to ensuring quality long-term care for all Americans. Contributions from supporters like you enable the Center to provide
    · Original research frequently referenced by public policy experts, insurance professionals, academics
 and media
    · Advocacy for a public policy solution to our LTC financing crisis
    · Thoughtful analysis of LTC financing through:
    · LTC Bullets to nearly 5,000 subscribers in all spheres of influence who themselves forward Bullets to thousands more
    · Media interviews with respected publications like Kiplinger’s, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times
    · Bylined articles presenting the Center’s analysis and public policy recommendations
    · Speeches at key professional conferences
    · Presentations at insurance agent trainings and forums across the country
    · Rebuttal of inaccuracies in the media about private financing of long-term care
    · Hard truths Americans need to know about the deficiencies of publicly financing long-term care”

    So they are going to “rebut” media inaccuracies and tell Americans “the hard truths” about the deficiencies of the public system?

    So what can happen then? Insurance companies allied to this lobbying group then can sweep in with policies to cover long-term care?

    Reminds me of Professor Harry Hill int he Music Man.

    First you create a crisis. a pool hall. “Trouble ! Trouble! Trouble! Right here in River City!”

    Then you propose a self-serving, money-making solution, either a boy’s band or a bunch of for profit insurance policies.

    ,

  12. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    In 50 BC the Roman Sullust stepped back from Roman politics to consider its unscrupulous conduct that was leading the Roman Republic to its own destruction, its inevitable slide into tyranny. But Cicero stepped forward, trying to reverse the slide into corrupt usurpation. The Roman Constitution – its senate, its consuls, its plebeians working in counterpoised checks and balances of power – was at risk. Cicero knew this. And he believed that the grand task of its restoration required the restoration of the civic virtue, most particularly by the restoration of the integrity of government officials.

    Here Cicero elaborated. A government’s legitimacy rested on its respect for the personal sphere of the individual Roman citizen. This private sphere of each Roman citizen encompassed the responsibilities of each citizen to this kith and kin, his home, his family, his friends and his private property.

    This respect by the government of the citizen was sacred. The Roman’s called it Libertas, the liberty reserved to each individual Roman citizen. The demanded respect and restraint here by Government was the “seedbed of the state,” the base on its legitimacy rested. All obligation of the citizen to this government rested on his governments respect of his Libertas. Without it, the government’s right to govern him floundered and collapsed.

    Cicero’s central insight was so admired by our founders that they laid it down into a central cornerstone of our Federal Constitution. And they never tired of reminding themselves that what they’d built required the steadfast virtue of its citizens and their eternal vigilance. “Yes, Madam,” Benjamin Franklin explained, “you have a Republic if you can keep it.”

    And again, Cicero was the founders guide as to the essential virtue of government officials and those exercising high political power by rhetoric. Central to those obligations was the demand that the politician confront and deal truthfully with the particular facts of the issue at hand, instead of mouthing universal propositions. And these politicians in their Rhetoric had to deal with future probabilities of a proposed act or law rather than abstract numbers and certainties as if politics were science, which it is not.

    Thus the honest politician had to explain by logic organized on facts, while excluding altogether false reasoning, tawdry emotion, sentimentality, scare tactics, falsehoods, and other cheap psychological and emotional tricks that diverted his audience from the truth that grounded the matter at issue. To do otherwise was to undermine the very foundation of government itself.

    Why? Because only the well organized presentation of facts allows the citizen the means to reach his own informed judgement. Only then can he rightfully participate in and reap the fruits of his own aspirations in government. Only then can he cast his vote or give informed consent to a law or act that achieves the good as he envisions it. Only then can he avoid evil as he envisions it being foisted on him by the deceit of another.

    So this truth telling by politicians in government is absolutely critical. A politician’s lies steal government from it rightful owners, the citizens. A politician’s lies erode and destroy the bedrock of representative government, namely its laws, and the irrefutable legitimacy of those laws.

    I believe along with many others, indeed with a growing majority, that the Affordable Care Act was built on a long series of lies intentionally delivered by own president. That he delivered those lies over a long period of time to mislead all citizens as to how the Affordable Care Act would directly and adversely impact the health and wealth of those citizens, along with the health and wealth of their wives, husbands, children, parents, grandparents, and all their progeny for untold generations. And that by so doing the lies of our president became a fraud of monstrous proportions on all the citizens of this nation.

  13. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Reed:
    Are you talking aboutbob mcdonnell or obama. Am confused.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      Peter –

      Please be mindful of the Pope’s recent caution against what he called “‘adolescent progressivism” and “dictatorial utopianism.”

      For details see November 29, 2013 at 11:56 am comment found at: https://www.baconsrebellion.com/2013/11/pope-francis-slams-trickle-down.html#comments

  14. re: parables from the past and countries today.

    We have about 200 countries on the planet. Many of them have been around for hundreds of years, some a thousand or more.

    about 50 of them are the most advanced and prosperous economies on the planet and all of them do have some level of true freedom and liberty to elect leaders and representatives and engage in the pursuit of individual opportunities (as opposed to countries with “rulers”).

    Do politicians lie ? yes. Do bears crap?

    are some politicians corrupt? yes do bears crap?

    in those 50 countries do people have more freedom and liberty than the other 150 countries and governments from most all countries from the time of Cicero?

    yes. More than a billion people today freely elected their government – and every single one of those governments is flawed with “lying” politicians and corrupt and incompetent policies – no question about it but everyone of those countries has high literacy rates as a result of public school and high life expectancies as a result of public health care. They are well fed and live in shelters that are warm and protected from weather.

    But I continue to stand in amazement as some these days basically condemn elected governance , ..it’s not even a half empty/half-full glass perspective.. it’s a “time to burn it all down” , get the torches and pitchforks perspective.

    I just don’t see how laying out endless laundry lists of everything govt does wrong (of which I do AGREE is a LONG LIST) – BUT – it’s a narrative as if govt as a CONCEPT, is an inherent evil that must be done away with – how does that make any sense?

    Over and over today, we do not hear what we should do to move forward – we hear why we instead hold virtual burn-them-at-the-stake witch trials.

    where does that leave us?

    it’s like .. it’s just totally unacceptable that bears crap in the woods..or heckfire that bears even crap to start with , and as a result we are all doomed…

    I give Jim Bacon credit for TRYING to set a good example with his Bacon’s Bottom Lines which often (not always) do try to say ” we should be doing……”

    This aspect is more and more a rare quality in many blogs these days which cannot seem to find a way forward and instead want to self-flagellate any/all things associated with government.

    I see not a single country on our planet, that has no or limited govt that is successful. Most places in the world with minimal government are hell holes infested with criminality, poverty and the daily threat of violence and death and yet that seems to be what some folks are advocating as a “solution” to corrupt and incompetent government.

  15. mbaldwin Avatar

    Thanks to Jim for beginning this interesting dialogue. A few thoughts.

    It’s fun to see Cicero’s appeal for virtue resurrected, and we have much to learn from that classical period. But sadly his vision contained as much delusion about the economic and demographic realities of Rome’s domain at his time as do our Constitutional “orginalists” and Tea Party romanticists about America’s world today.

    In fact, the much-misunderstood Machiavelli had a better understanding of governance than did poor Cicero, however much we may regret it. So enough of this preoccupation with what politician or President “lied.” It’s a concern bespeaking romantic cant.

    Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall…” began with the empire of Augustus, when Cicero’s Republic had died, as it probably had to. Yes, Gibbon regretted it, but in fact we consider this period Rome’s Golden Age, as celebrated by Virgil and many others. And our literate Founders understood the limitations of Cicero’s Republic as well as Athens’ “democracy.” It gave our President more authority than any Roman Consul enjoyed.

    So let’s look at some reality today. It’s been a disgrace that America, alone among OECD countries (and many “undeveloped” countries in which I’ve lived), has lacked a decent, universal health care system. Republicans, apparently, could care less. But what we have now established with regrettable contention remains, obviously, imperfect. A few thoughts:

    Preventative care for the elderly remains critical. It’s critical well before old age so folks can remain healthy after retirement. As a farmer in the mid-70s, who “retired” a decade ago, I’m thankful to be active and healthy, but thankful as well for Medicare (and Kaiser) that probably saved my life.

    Yet up until now, despite modest income, we’ve had, until Obamacare, to help our grown children pay for medical insurance, because America had neglected their needs.

    We need to maintain concern for the elderly, but as a nation our priorities must be to create opportunity – employment, education and affordable health care– for our young people. They face a far more insecure, risky future – financially, socially, environmentally – than we old folks did. And too few look toward a better future, as we did (and largely experienced).

    The elderly need understanding that “growing old is not for sissies.” Speaking as one who disdains the AARP, we need to shift our government priorities a bit. A modest start might be a reasonably generous means testing for social security. Why give it to the top 5%? But modest savings should be expected (and others here can figure that).

    How many of you live cheek by jowl with the poor who require Medicaid, or an expanded Medicaid — the folks who go to the Emergency Room for help and don’t seek, or get, regular preventative care? Here in rural America (which lies remarkably close to eastern cities) we find those needy in spades.

    In short, I think we need to focus more on finding practical and just solutions than on finger-pointing or political romanticism and ideology. But it’s not simple.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      You speak in platitudes, stereotypes, and easy insults. Anyone can do this sort of thing endlessly, without result, solution, or benefit. The subject is gross fraud inflicted on US citizens by a US president. If you like your doctor you can keep him, period. If you like your healthcare, you can keep it, period.

    2. re: ” In short, I think we need to focus more on finding practical and just solutions than on finger-pointing or political romanticism and ideology. But it’s not simple.:

      yes.

      Let’s stipulate that ObamaCare is not the answer. What’s a reasonable Plan B?

      You get nothing from the ideologues… zip.

      we have Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde personality of health care.

      Almost no one, not even the wackiest of the wacky birds will come right out and advocate repeal of EMTALA much less run a filibuster until EMTALA is repealed.

      The nation cannot abide the hospital turning a pregnant woman away but as Mbaldwin posited – we can ignore her health needs until the day the shows up at the ER in labor.

      There are a world of practical solutions if ObamaCare is wrong.

      I support Community Health centers for the poor/uninsured and you staff them with newly graduated doctors whose education was paid for in exchange for several years of charity service.

      Virginia, by the way, has great latitude on how it configures MedicAid and it could well include Community Health Centers – as logical extensions of Virginia Health Departments.

      surely there is no one among us who would watch a child die for lack of medicare care – but we would his mom?

      It’s so easy to talk about the POTUS “lie” and then say nothing about what should be done.

      we apparently have a bunch of folks in the latter group.

  16. re: ” Larry, Janet Howell did not agree with my plan because she knows that the costs for expanding Medicaid will likely outweigh the savings at some reasonable point in time. ”

    how would she or you or I really know ? there seems to be a belief that right now people without insurance do not get medical care and when we expand it – they will and then we’ll pay more to give them more.
    Do you really think they don’t get the medical care now and if you do think that don’t you think it’s morally wrong to support such a position?

    “Senator Howell is extremely knowledgeable on budget matters and tells the truth. If there were savings, they should be passed along to the people of Virginia in the form of lower premiums. If the GA will not so guarantee, we should deep-six the argument that Medicaid expansion will save people money. The sun either rises in the east or the west, but not both. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.”

    TMT – how many poor/uninsured could be covered by MedicAid if we did away with the half-million dollar subsidies that are in it now?

    are you not essentially arguing that the current status quo is all we can afford and since that includes taxpayer funding of nursing homes for people with half million dollar houses – that’s preferred to using those subsidies for the legitimately poor and uninsured?

    “Terry McAuliffe ran on a promise to expand Medicaid and veto any budget that did not include an expansion. I think it is a very reasonable step on my part to assume that means he will not propose any contraction or imposition of new limits on Medicaid. My comments were not a partisan shot.”

    yes it was because supporting MedicAid expansion is something being done by both Dem and GOP governors… not just Dem governors. You are with the partisan GOP that opposes it. No Dems or even some GOP that I know oppose it like the hard core GOP right does.

    “Why is Obama’s lie so bad? I submit that the vast majority of Americans are not willing to pay much to expand health care coverage.”

    and I think you are wrong when people know that winners and losers have been created by existing inequitable tax law and subsidies that are unfair and wrong since they arbitrarily harm people who did nothing to cause it.

    but I’ve asked you several times to tell me where the funding comes from and you have yet to tell me ….

    “Specifically, they aren’t going to pay higher premiums or deductibles or restrict their choices in health care so others can get covered.”

    they’re already doing that. Did you see this chart:

    http://b-i.forbesimg.com/danmunro/files/2013/05/MMI20132.png

    people are paying twice as much as they did a decade ago…

    “A sizable number would support imposing taxes or fees on others to do this, but few are willing to fall on the grenade themselves.”

    when we use Medicare to pay for the nursing homes of people who have half a million dollars in assets – and don’t want to “fall on that grenade” – how do you defend providing them with that subsidy and denying it to others?

    ” I’m not. I know and respect your view that is wrong and unfair. But irrespective of the morality, few Americans are willing to pay for expansion. You may hate the fact, but it’s true. Therefore, but for Obama’s lie, the ACA may well have not passed.”

    I’m not going to strongly disagree with you on that but it says really bad things about us as a society who receive subsidies and tax breaks while our fellow citizens do not – and get sick and die and we fold our arms.

    how can you deny a subsidy for an uninsured while at the same time providing $5000 a year in subsidies to seniors and then when they need nursing home – exempt half a million dollars in assets?

    “If all the uninsured simply joined an insurance pool, the premiums would be so high many could not afford them. And absent many young and healthy people in the pool, the insurers could not afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Democratic health care experts testified that, without community rating and an individual mandate, the program would go into a death spiral.”

    that’s simply not true. We cover 50 million people over 65 for $500 a month each. If we can insure seniors for that why not younger?

    “In recognition of the fact people don’t want to pay more or give up benefits (or just felt comfortable with the status quo), Obama did not elect to affirmatively tell people that they either needed existing coverage that included all the services, diseases, etc., that would be extended to the uninsured under the ACA. He said over and over again, if you like what you have you can keep it unconditionally. You did not have to participate in a pool that helped cover the uninsured. He said this, knowing it was false to prevent likely opposition to the ACA. Had Obama not said this, such that people knew they would be forced by the federal government to subsidize others, I submit the ACA probably would not have passed. This is plain and simple fraud. I cannot recall when another president engaged in such fraud that has harmed so many people.”

    trying to force higher standards for everyone’s policies was a monumental mistake… ObamaCare should have been basic and incremental.. not something that poked those with existing insurance in the eye, I agree.

    “The GOP certainly did not attempt to compromise to any great extent. But also keep in mind that the bill passed by the Senate did not go to a conference committee where some compromise might have occurred.”

    no matter which house – you have to START IN THAT HOUSE with a bi-partisan compromise BEFORE it goes to the other house. If something passes in one house and it’s not bi-partisan – it’s not intended to actually be a compromise – by design.

    “The election of Scott Brown had eliminated the Ds’ ability to break a filibuster. The Senate D leadership and the President feared for the life of the ACA if changes were made in conference. Because of this, the House passed the ACA without change. The Senate ACA passed 219 – 217 in the House with all Rs and 34 Ds voting no.”

    true but what happened on the next 40 repeal votes that were NOT bi-partisan compromises ?

    you cannot win like that TMT. you have to offer an alternative. The GOP has opposed health care reform – from the beginning – starting with Medicare and each time they demonize the issue and call it a government takeover of healthcare, government doctors, death panels and all manner of lies to scare people.

    they have never offered anything as a competitive alternative and that makes them part and parcel of how this is working now.

    Obama would likely compromise on many aspects of the ACA but the GOP wants delay – not to work out compromise but to continue to devise repeal strategies.

    “Did the GOP attack Obama for partisan purposes? Yes. But so too has the Democratic Party attacked the GOP on health care reform.”

    No the GOP attacked Obama as a black muslim from Kenya and a socialist BEFORE ObamaCare… Remember “YOU LIE”? Remember McConnell saying his number one priority was to keep Obama from a second term?

    Would you like to see some of the signs the tea party has been carrying showing Obama as a jungle bunny and worse?

    “We regularly receive mailings at home from AARP that blast the GOP for wanting to take away our earned Medicare rights (by increasing the $100 fee). I’m not Medicare eligible for Medicare by the way. Both Parties are wedded to partisan attacks.”

    The AARP are potent defenders of Medicare and are opposed to ONLY Medicare being cut and not other things. You cannot claim you want to balance the budget by voucherize Medicare, and using supply-side cuts for Defense and claim the budget will balance in 30 years under that proposal – and expect folks like the AARP to smile.

    You have to want to reach a compromise – both sides but when the GOP has but one proposal – destroy Medicare along with the rest of their “no compromise” agenda.. the other side does not see any use to TRYING to compromise because the GOP will merely consider that a weakness to further exploit.

    are you not eligible at all for Medicare – ever – or are you not the age yet?

    do you expect to get Medicare ?

    “As Bill Clinton has suggested, the ACA should be amended to allow people to keep their insurance. Then, if the President wants to change this, he should get on his bully pulpit and tell Americans why they need to pay more and accept less to expand insurance coverage. He should say that the individual mandate must be expanded to require people to buy policies with ACA minimums, even if it raise premiums, out of pocket expenses, deductibles, etc. He can also explain the value of being covered for preexisting conditions and not being dropped. Should we expect less from a Nobel Prize winner?”

    Even Bill Clinton would not be able to deal with the current wacko birds in the GOP.

    you have to admit it guy – the GOP is so screwed up internally that there is no way they are going to compromise on health care or immigration because the party is infested with wacko birds.

    Have you heard – one time – from Cantor and Boehmer – that compromise should be sought?

    nope. it’s an all or nothing – kill it if we can… and nothing else… approach.

    The Dems would gladly compromise .. but as I said the GOP sees this as opportunity to kill – not compromise.

  17. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Cheers, mbaldwin

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      Peter –

      Regarding platitudes: “Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall…” began with the empire of Augustus, when Cicero’s Republic had died, as it probably had to. Yes, Gibbon regretted it, but in fact we consider this period Rome’s Golden Age, as celebrated by Virgil and many others.”

      Here are some of the inconvenient details.

      The Consul Antony ordered that Cicero’s hands and head be chopped off and that his head and hands be nailed to the walls of the Roman Forum.

      This order was obeyed. This act of centralized government power announced the irrevocable birth of the Roman Expire ruled by Iron Fist of a single Emperor. Thereafter, any hope for the restoration of the Roman Republic or its Republican spirit was forever extinguished.

      In this new “Golden Age of the Roman Empire” the Iron Fist ruled with brutality. It brought in its train the grossly incompetent and murderous monsters rulers – Tiberius, Nero, Caligula, Domitian, and Caracalla instead. Christians fed to Lions was the least of its unspeakable horrors.

      Rome was doomed, it was only a matter of time, and everyone knew it. The people were helpless to change it, or resist it. They sank into debauchery, and depravity, overlain with vast alienation. “You Roman’s bring us desolation and call it peace,” Tacitus reported. Mindless force ruled.

      The suggestion that America’s founders rejected Cicero’s grand vision of governance, public virtue, and service, and modeled America after Imperial Rome is absurd. Nor that does it mean that they accepted anyone vision lock, stock and barrel. But Cicero informed Locke and both, among others, informed the US Constitution and American government in ways beyond measure.

      Should you be interested in something on this subject beyond snide platitudes, see The Cave and the Light, by Arthur Herman, a fine book.

  18. mbaldwin Avatar

    Nothing’s more pleasurable than debating the merits of Roman history as a useful model for us today. But of course there’s no such model, nor did our Founders believe it. No adoption of Imperial Rome for them — or Cicero’s Rome. But just to set the record straight, Gibbon begins his history with this observation:
    “In the second century of the Christian era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind…. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence: the Roman senate appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the emperors all the executive powers of government. During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines.” There’s more!

    But it’s no model for us today, other than to lament that our politics have neglected problem solving. Would that we had the alternative of Cicerian “virtue” from Republican and Tea Party leadership. Or that at least that leadership would recognize and seek to correct any administration problems of negligence and sometime incompetence without assuming perfidity. But of course that’s a fantasy since blame and a bit of hatred and anger get in the way.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      I’ve read Gibbon’s Rise and Fall several times. His six volumes hold a special place in my library. You don’t need you to educate me on Gibbon’s. Nor will you catch me by surprise insofar as he is concerned. And, however great is Gibbon’s much has been learned since the times he wrote his history of Rome down more than 200 years ago.

      The trigger for me with regard to your opinions start with stuff like “Would that we had the alternative of Cicerian “virtue” from Republican and Tea Party leadership.” This sort off hand flippant remark speaks volumes to me. And so your flippant dismissal of Cicero, what he means now, and what he meant in his time and since then, comes as no surprise to me nor does it hold any value to me.

      How can it when to you all he’s all about: “But sadly his vision contained as much delusion about the economic and demographic realities of Rome’s domain at his time as do our Constitutional “orginalists” and Tea Party romanticists about America’s world today.” This, sir, is total rubbish.

  19. mbaldwin Avatar

    I rest my case, but I enjoyed the diversion.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      That is quite typical. You smear whole groups of people in single sentences, then rest your case. A smear merchant. That speaks volumes too.

  20. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Let’s do Shakespeare next:

    “The SMEAR Merchant of Venice!”

    (Just kidding, Reed, don’t take us seriously)

Leave a Reply