The path of President Obama's health care reform thus far has been very bumpy and full of sharp, unexpected turns. But this week, the path may have gotten a bit smoother and a bit clearer.
First, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office yesterday ruled that the Senate health care plan--commonly referred to as the Baucus plan, named for Montana Sen. Max Baucus--with its 10-year estimated price tag of $829 billion does, in fact, meet Obama's "budget-neutral" promise. Here's the CBO report's language and specific figures in terms of costs and revenue offsets:
[E]nacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1). The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period.Then, earlier today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the Senate Finance Committee will vote Tuesday on the Baucus Bill. On the other side of the aisle, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sent three House bill versions to the CBO seeking similar budgeting assessments.
The CBO scoring is important rhetorically. It provides political cover for those who want to support the bill but do not want to expand deficits or explain to voters why they are voting for "bigger government." Carrie Budoff Brown of the Politico writes today:
[T]he analysis was as good as the White House or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could have wanted. The Baucus bill came in under budget, covers 94 percent of American citizens, reduces the deficit by $81 billion after 10 years and continues to rack up savings in the second 10 years.Meanwhile, two more good pieces of news for Obama. First, a new Quinnipiac poll shows voters moving toward him and away from congressional Republicans on the health care issue. Second, and perhaps relatedly, the latest AP-GfK poll shows Obama jumping from +1 net approval a month ago (50 percent approving, 49 percent disapproving) to +17 (56 percent approving, 39 percent disapproving) now. As for his specific ratings on health care, he's net-plus again (but narrowly, 48 percent to 47 percent), after being down 10 points a month ago.
The estimate removes a major hurdle toward a vote in the committee, because senators — in particular, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who could be the only Republican senator to support the legislation — said they needed to see the cost breakdown before taking up the bill.
The Administration is not home yet. But to continue an already bad metaphor, this may be remembered as the week Obama turned the corner.

117 comments
Sweet!
From the Quinnipiac poll:
"The poll found voters support a government-run plan to compete with private insurers 61 percent to 34 percent."
Another good showing for the PO.
Yet Boehner has yet to meet a single person for it. Odd that.
Depends on how CBO assessment is presented. I am sure Fox will focus on the $829B and ignore the net savings, the fact that costs would rise either way, etc. So the tea bag crowd will be screaming about $829B since they do not have (demonstrated) intelligence to understand this concept.
This along with the opt-out compromise that already has the OK from Nelson of NE and Baucus of MT.
I think it's going to happen.
Imagine, this has been a debate in the halls of Congress for 100 years and it's gonna happen.
This will be one for the history books.
Of course you forget to mention that the revenues raised (as in taxes on Med devices, ect)would take hold as soon as the bill(this isn't even a bill yet)is passed, but the added coverage wouldn't take hold until 2012-2013.
Does this version include a Public Option? If not will adding one alter it's budget neutrality?
The CBO also estimates that the federal budget deficit was about $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, $950 billion greater than the shortfall recorded in 2008. The 2009 deficit was equal to 9.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), up from 3.2 percent in 2008, and was the highest shortfall—relative to the size of the economy—since 1945. But lets just keep adding to the deficit and create a public option. Lets also create a Govt run public option to buy everything in our lives.
Fivethirtyeight in the last 9 months have turned into a place for utopian socialist rants.
@ Huh and Contender
No the Baucus bill does not yet include a public option, but adding one, opt out or otherwise, should not dramatically increase the deficit.
The major spending elements of the bill are the subsidies (which are included in all bills with an individual mandate--including this one), and Medicaid expansion (which is also included).
Aside from some very small early administrative and initial setup costs, the public option (if it passes) will be funded by premiums when people and businesses start buying public plans in 2013.
Thanks for the jinx, Tom...
The Baucus plan has two major issues, and it deal with how it's achieving its cost savings.
The first is the planned cuts (Also known as "Adjustments to the reimbursement rate) to Medicare/Medicaid, accounting for over $400 Billion. Medicare already has the lowest reimbursement rates of any major health care insurance... This would exacerbate the problem, and likely lead to some sort of "revision" in the future.
The other big problem is the $200 Billion+ in savings from taxing "Gold Plated Health Care Plans". The vast majority of these are Union health care plans...something which the Democratic Unions won't let get taxed.
From your mouth into God's ears!
Rick:"Yet Boehner has yet to meet a single person for it. Odd that."
Once you understand that he spends 23 hours a day in a tanning bed, it becomes less odd.
Huh: "Does this version include a Public Option? If not will adding one alter it's budget neutrality?"
Any PO is expected to be self-sufficient. That is, they won't be allowed to run at a loss on taxpayer money. On the other hand there are start-up costs and such to consider. In the long term, any PO should be budget neutral.
shma said...
>>
>> In the long term, any PO should be budget neutral.
Budget neutral within itself, yes, but if the public option reduces the premiums for insurance (and a good one will), this will result in significant decreases to the cost of the subsidies to the poor, resulting in a decrease in costs for the entire program.
Lon: Yes, budget neutrality is the bare minimum.
I wonder if the CBO is described as the "non-partisan" CBO by people who like their findings and just as the CBO by people who don't.
Not saying Tom is stacking the deck; I'm more curious as to how this has been covered on Faux News.
Contender said...
Fivethirtyeight in the last 9 months have turned into a place for Utopian socialist rants.
~~~~~~~~~~
One sounds upset, as you were on Nov. 4 when your vote for ms. mooseburger went for naught ...
The 538 has turned into a socialist coven meme got old some time ago, eh.
take care, blessings
p.s. redstate, freepertopia, etc. are always lookin' for more winger sheep!
What about the Kennedy bill?
Pat said...
"The Baucus plan has two major issues, and it deal with how it's achieving its cost savings... ...The other big problem is the $200 Billion+ in savings from taxing "Gold Plated Health Care Plans". The vast majority of these are Union health care plans...something which the Democratic Unions won't let get taxed."
Pat, you raise a serious problem with the Baucus plan that hasn't been discussed much yet. Yes, most of the plans that would be taxed are not going to the wealthy but to middle-income workers who are only financially secure because they have good health care packages and other benefits of being in a union.
This will be a bitter pill for union workers to swallow, but I would imagine most labor leaders will grudgingly back the final package with a strong public option that could reduce the tax liability of having good benefits.
Progressives have compromised far too much on this bill, maybe it's time we get something in return. And the union members who got Obama and many congressional Dems elected could use a big carrot right about now. I wonder if it's possible to get some moderate Senate Dems to vote for cloture on EFCA if we acquiesce to an opt out on the public option.
The following pdf is an alternative plan for health care reform. What is wrong with it and why would a public option be any better?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Small-bill%20proposal%20TWS(3).pdf
@Pat
The first is the planned cuts (Also known as "Adjustments to the reimbursement rate) to Medicare/Medicaid, accounting for over $400 Billion. Medicare already has the lowest reimbursement rates of any major health care insurance...
What's being cut here are profits of the medigap insurance companies, not medical reimbursement rates. The medical providers themselves would get the same amount of reimbursement.
Jon,
Happy to oblige.
Plank 1 of the Weekly Standard plan is fine, but doesn't really solve the problem. First, many people who don't have insurance don't have a $5000 tax liability. Others have insurance, but lack coverage for basic preventative care--they don't need more money, they need a better plan. Second, costs are increasing exponentially. Even if this plank addressed the problem, you would see the $34.5B price tag spike rapidly, or a reversion to the same cost eligibility issues.
Plank 2 only works if we enact a national minimum coverage standard, which is the whole idea of the HC bill's insurance exchange. Let me explain. NJ wants to reduce the cost to the state of medical care that insurers refuse to fund, so they create a standard so that people get basic coverage. AZ does not have such restrictions. So if a New Jerseyan buys a stripped-down plan in AZ that doesn't cover the care he or she needs, then NJ is in the hole once again.
Plank 3 is fine, but COBRA is not a real solution (I'm on it and greatful for it), but people without steady employment are generally not able to afford it.
Plank 4 is fine but does not help people who are seriously ill, and in fact de-funds their provider, causing further rate increases.
Plank 5 is a strawman. Medical malpractice contributes only a tiny fraction of HC costs, and "runaway" awards are exceptionally rare. It would also be a policy disaster, restricting people with legitimate grievances from being adequately compensated. A medical mistake can produce damages in excess of their arbitrary cap.
Plank 6 is fine, but the elimination of "pre-existing conditions" does much more.
And in all, this bill would create no pressure to reduce costs, nor help people who can't get access to insurance find or keep quality, affordable coverage.
@ Jacob,
I think you underestimate the self-interest that the major unions have in protecting benefits for their members. Some of these Union health care plans have equivilent values in excess of $25,000. Since the Baucus plan cuts off at $21,000 for a family of 4, and the excise tax is 40%...you're looking at THOUSANDS in new taxes for union members.
@Shrinkers
Unfortunatly, you're only partially correct.
True, some will be cut from Medicare Advantage (AKA "Medigap", but more will also be cut from payments to doctors.
"CBO estimates that Medicare Advantage plans, popular bundled health maintenance organizations serving 20% of Medicare patients, would be cut by $117 billion.
Under "Ensuring Medicare Sustainability," more than $200 billion would be cut from payments to hospitals, elder care, doctors, and hospices. Payments to Medicare doctors would be cut by 25% in 2011."
Jon:
To expand on Jacob's objections to Point 2, this is exactly the kind of action which destroyed consumer protections in the credit card industry. As soon as credit cards were allowed to sell to people out of state, they all moved together to the state with the most lax regulation and least amount of consumer protection. When they did this, they were only subject to the laws in their state, not the laws of the states where their customers lived. As a result, we now see people routinely charged 30% interest on credit card bills, plus fees, plus rules which let them rewrite you contract whenever they want without them telling you. The insurance industry has already proven themselves to be devoted to profit over service. Imagine what they will do when they are allowed to run wild without any consumer protection whatsoever.
Without the cuts and the taxes on the gold-plated benefit plans, this bill will be an unmitigated disaster for the country. The lack of tort reform is a huge negative as well.
If this passes, our party will be lucky to have 40 Senators by 2015 as we can kiss the elderly vote goodbye.
Ah, we have a "Faux News" sighting! Also popular: Fox "News."
How terribly clever! You don't think it's a legitimate news organization, so you replace one of the words with a similar-sounding word that means "fake." What a brilliant way to make a salient point about modern journalism. Not at all juvenile!
Seriously: give it a rest. Bad, kneejerk puns are about the lowest form of political commentary there is. Nobody finds them clever, nobody finds them charming, nobody finds them insightful or helpful. It contributes nothing of value to anyone reading. Okay? Okay.
@ Pat
You may be right. This bill (with the extra tax on benefits included) is a mixed bag at best for many union members. That's why I think it would help to give them a big carrot.
@ NJ_Moderate
Obama has signaled a willingness to throw in some tort reform if it pushes the thing through. It's bad policy to be sure, but it seems to be a reasonable carrot for Republicans (other than the fact that they wouldn't be able to use it as a talking point anymore). If Repubs want it, they will have to be open to voting for something the Democrats want it. Why should Dems burden the bill with bad policy if it won't attract new votes anyway?
As to your second point, it's true that elderly people won't vote Republican once they realize that they are not losing Medicare coverage, but that would be true if the bill failed also (I assume by "our party" you meant the GOP, otherwise the point would make no sense).
@Pat
Interesting quotes, Pat. Do you have a source for them?
@NJ_Moderate
Without the cuts and the taxes on the gold-plated benefit plans, this bill will be an unmitigated disaster for the country.
There are lots of suggested funding mechanisms. The public option portion, of course, is self-sustaining.
The lack of tort reform is a huge negative as well.
"Tort reform" is a meaningless red herring, which contributes nothing substantial to health care reform.
If this passes, our party will be lucky to have 40 Senators by 2015 as we can kiss the elderly vote goodbye.
Which party is that? I thought the Republican Party already had only 40 senators?
@Warning track "Ah, we have a "Faux News" sighting! Also popular: Fox "News."
How terribly clever! You don't think it's a legitimate news organization, so you replace one of the words with a similar-sounding word that means 'fake.' "
Actually, warning track, you are entirely wrong: "faux" and "fox" are not similar-sounding words, but rather similar-looking words. The pun is primarily visual.
In any case, if making juvenile fun of Fox News gets someone who likes Fox as angry as you appear to be, it can't be said that it "...contributes nothing of value...."
I think you've mistaken a fox paw for a faux pas.
@Erik Nilsson
My own favorite version is Fixed Noise. Although "The Republican Propaganda Channel" also works.
@shma
I'm all for the consumer protection bills that have gone through this year to restrict the credit card companies. Why not just do similar protection laws for insurance rates? It should be within reason to foster the competition between companies without allowing for abuses.
I am concerned about the emphasis being placed on CBO scores, as if this is the most important criteria a plan can be judged by. I'm worried about the idea of the horribly flawed Finance bill getting precedence over superior bills from HELP or the House because the Senators providing the swing votes consider "the Finance bill saves an extra $85 billion" to be more important as a goal than, say, "the HELP bill insures a whole three percent of the population that the Finance bill doesn't".
Obama did make for whatever reason a promise that the bill would be deficit-neutral. I guess that's good politics but I don't see why we can't be making a case that health care is an important enough thing it's worth spending some reasonable amount of money on getting it right. "Is it deficit-neutral?" is a question no one has ever, ever asked about a war.
Erik, shrinkers: Warning sounds like a Rethuglican to me. Or maybe a Repugnican. Or maybe a CONservative.
Actually, I agree with his argument, if not his tone. These are really lame puns.
But I do like "The Republican Propaganda Channel".
@ shirkers.
Rather than link you to any report, I would rather link you here.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10642/10-7-Baucus_letter.pdf
The Actual report. Page 6
WarningTrack said...
Ah, we have a "Faux News" sighting! Also popular: Fox "News."
How terribly clever! You don't think it's a legitimate news organization, so you replace one of the words with a similar-sounding word that means "fake." What a brilliant way to make a salient point about modern journalism. Not at all juvenile!
Seriously: give it a rest. Bad, kneejerk puns are about the lowest form of political commentary there is. Nobody finds them clever, nobody finds them charming, nobody finds them insightful or helpful. It contributes nothing of value to anyone reading. Okay? Okay.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prefer fixednoise as they are obviously a 100% conservative misinformation echo chamber, totally in the tank w/the party of No!
Bottom line, it obviously caught your attention as one made a post re: the minutia ... so it was of some value, eh
btw, here's a few party of No! catch phrases of the past 40/50 years ... America, love it or leave it, you're either w/us or against us, freedom fries, San Francisco liberals, Pelosi should be put in her place, there are (2) Virginia's Nancy Pfotenhauer, Macaca Allen, Lynn Jenkins of KS searches for a great white hope! and the ever popular joint congressional hearing favorite, You lie!
p.s. maybe part of the reason the party of No! lost last year was because they called Obama: a Communist, Marxist, Islamo-Fascist, Socialist, Fascist, wealth distributor, Satan, The Devil Incarnate, The Anti-Christ, who palls around w/terrorists, an Arab, a Muslim born in Kenya, etc. etc. ... 'ya think!
Nothing much of value there, eh.
As the teabaggers, deathers, birthers, 10thers, I want my country back yahoos continue to this day the ad nauseam name calling nonsense.
hmm, nothing of value there also ...
Not so much clever as the truth!
Pot/Kettle comes to mind but progressives will need a late inning rally to catch up to the party of No! name calling ie kneejerk puns and LCD commentary.
take care
@Jon
Similar consumer protection concepts are part of the bills moving through Congress - things like, you can't be denied coverage because of a "pre-existing condition", and they can't drop you when you get sick, and they can't put caps on the amount they'll pay for a given year or for lifetime.
But all this still allows other abuses, like price-fixing. Did you know there are just two (2) industries that are exempt from the anti-trust laws? Major league sports, and insurance. Insurance companies are allowed to collude with each other to do things like fix prices.
There are also considerations involving copays and deductibles and other fees - even with reasonable premiums, a patient could be hit hard with these charges.
All this also won't help people who are uninsured. We need ways to provide for their medical care - and not just for emergency care, but to encourage them to get preventive care as well. If you require insurance coverage, a lot of people still won't be able to afford it - so then you need subsidies.
This provides tens of millions of new customers for insurance companies. If we're giving them that gift, we have to provide a way to demand reasonable behavior out of them. That is the idea behind the "public option".
This would create a not-for-profit insurance provider. Removing the profit motives gets rid of the whole incentive for abusive practices and excessive pricing. Plus, it's more efficient, because you don't have millions (billions, actually) being wasted on executive compensation and shareholder dividends.
The problem with insurance companies is that they are not set up to provide for the medical needs of their customers. No. They exist to create profits for their shareholders and corporate executives. A public option would create the only available entity that actually exists to provide payment for medical care.
That's why simply having consumer protection laws would be insufficient. It may help - some - but it would address only a small portion of the problem.
@mcc
Your right, that is an issue of concern, but the greater issue of concern is yet again, its not going to be enough. The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party will not vote for this at all, plain and simple. The hurdle from the Party just keeps changing.
They won't vote for anything that cuts medicare for seniors, so the bill wont cut medicare benefits, but now thats not good enough, now it needs to be budget neutral. So the CBO reports that it will be budget neutral, but thats not going to be good enough, so the hurdle will yet again be moved to try to attract some members from the other side of the aisle.
The Democratic Party just needs to roll it out themselves, and if the Republicans filibuster it, let them. If I were Harry Reid, the best thing the Democrats can do is to let Republicans stand up there in front of the cameras, reading the rules of Pinochle (West Wing reference) and have them explain to their constituents and the rest of the country why they are trying to keep Americans from obtaining reasonably priced healthcare.
"I'm all for the consumer protection bills that have gone through this year to restrict the credit card companies. Why not just do similar protection laws for insurance rates? It should be within reason to foster the competition between companies without allowing for abuses."
I'm not against setting a minimum national standard of service, as well as some consumer protections. That's actually a pretty good idea. I think, though, that it might be hard to get a package like that through the senate, where it can be opposed as "more government regulation".
But I still don't believe letting Americans buy across state lines will be as much of a boon to competition as you may initially think. And there's still the anti-trust exemption laws that need to be gotten rid of before we can guarantee competition (and you can bet your ass that will be fought tooth and nail by the entire industry).
There's a way to do this without the public option or single payer, but it requires serious legislating and aggressively taking on the insurance companies. To be completely honest, I don't trust congress to get it right.
@mcc said...
I am concerned about the emphasis being placed on CBO scores, as if this is the most important criteria a plan can be judged by. I'm worried about the idea of the horribly flawed Finance bill getting precedence over superior bills from HELP or the House because the Senators providing the swing votes consider "the Finance bill saves an extra $85 billion" to be more important as a goal than, say, "the HELP bill insures a whole three percent of the population that the Finance bill doesn't".
Excellent points, also your point about never having asked the CBO to score a war.
Nancy Pelosi has asked the CBO to score the three existing House bills. That should remove any advantage the Finance bill has.
Also, the Finance bill won't be the final version that the Senate votes on. It's going to be combined with the bill from the HELP committee, and provisions from both will be in the final Senate bill (just as the three House bills will be combined and presented to the full House as a single bill). Senator Reid is in charge of getting that done. So it won't be a Finance bill vs. HELP bill kind of contest - it'll be which particular provisions from which bill will be included.
Hope this helps.
@shrinkers
Ignoring the pre-existing issue because I don't know of any way to really solve that one...
Insurer's can't drop you if you get sick, unless they find out it's a pre-existing condition.
Have you seen those caps on a year or a lifetime? If you cost that much, then you should seriously think about going quietly into the night anyway.
Yes, price fixing and monopolies through insurance should be ended.
Preventive care is really, really cheap. Give everyone that doesn't have insurance a coupon to see the doctor once a year. Catastrophic care and end of life care is the killer.
The public option sounds like it will essentially set the policy, rules, and costs for what private industry has to follow. If that is the case, and it is a not for profit entity, then it will end the private insurance as an industry. If there are no profits, then there will be no businesses willing to provide it.
Then we're back to a monopoly running the whole industry. As difficult as it has been to craft any legislation to get this bill passed, it would be even more difficult to regulate a government entity because it doesn't have any competition and because congress doesn't exactly listen to it's constituents.
@Pat
Pat said...
Rather than link you to any report, I would rather link you here.
...
The Actual report. Page 6
Ah yes, thanks for the link, Pat.
The reductions that are discussed there are expected decreases in costs due to improved efficiencies, and services that will be covered in other parts of the program. These are not reductions in services. The CBO numbers reflect expected reductions in costs because of a better health care delivery system.
The point is, Medicare services for the elderly are not expected to be reduced at all.
But thanks for bringing up this point - it provides an opportunity to dispel one of the false rumors that has been circulating about health care reform, i.e., that it will adversely impact Medicare. It won't.
@Jon said...
Thanks for the interesting discussion....
Insurer's can't drop you if you get sick, unless they find out it's a pre-existing condition.
Actually, they can. There are lots of loopholes they use, and they currently provide bonuses to their own employees who find ways to do it. For example, if you forget something on your original application form, they can drop you for "fraud", even if it wasn't a pre-existing condition, or even a fact relevant to your insurance claim. They can decide that the procedure you're requesting isn't necessary. There are dozens of ways they can either drop you, or refuse the claim.
Stiff regulatory laws might fix that, but such laws would be fought tooth and nail - by the same politicians, and the same special interest groups that are fighting reform now.
Have you seen those caps on a year or a lifetime? If you cost that much, then you should seriously think about going quietly into the night anyway.
This is exactly the "death panel" idea that has so enraged the wacky right. You may be correct in this - but you can't write it into law. The choice of when to end medical care needs to be up to the patient, not the government nor an insurance company (this last is how it's done today).
Yes, price fixing and monopolies through insurance should be ended.
I agree, but again, the insurance lobby and their paid agents on Capitol Hill would prevent this.
Preventive care is really, really cheap. Give everyone that doesn't have insurance a coupon to see the doctor once a year.
Not a bad suggestion. Who pays for it, though? If its the government, then you need a funding mechanism, however much or little it costs. Under the current plans, all insurance plans would be required to cover preventive care as part of the services you get for your normal premium.
The public option sounds like it will essentially set the policy, rules, and costs for what private industry has to follow.
No, it will set rules only for itself. It will, however, introduce honest competition. And the Free Market right wingers are all about competition - which is the one thing we have never had in this industry (not for the last 60 years or so anyway).
If that is the case, and it is a not for profit entity, then it will end the private insurance as an industry.
I have nothing against that. If the dishonest companies that have been ripping us off and killing us can't compete without ripping us off and killing us, then let them die.
Then we're back to a monopoly running the whole industry.
We have public monopolies in other industries that work well - the police department, the fire department, national defense, public education, public libraries, public parks, to name just a few. There are some services that government can provide for the good of the nation, and can do it better and more efficiently than for-profit corporations can.
As difficult as it has been to craft any legislation to get this bill passed, it would be even more difficult to regulate a government entity because it doesn't have any competition and because congress doesn't exactly listen to it's constituents.
Medicare works well, so does Medicaid, and the other services I described above. And government listens to the people far better than the soulless insurance companies do - which are answerable only to their boards of directors, whose only motive is to increase their profits (which necessarily means paying out as little as possible in medical claims).
In a democracy, the government listens (in theory) because representatives get voted out of office if they don't. Of course, to make this really work, we need meaningful campaign finance reform also - but that's a topic for another day.
Anyway, we'll see how well the concept of "government answering to the people" works. Overwhelming majorities of the American public want meaningful health care reform. Lets see if we get it, or if our government fails us.
I know, I nitpick - but doesn't "on the other side of the aisle" usually refer to the other party, not the other House of Congress?
The following pdf is an alternative plan for health care reform. What is wrong with it and why would a public option be any better?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Small-bill%20proposal%20TWS(3).pdf
I'll just address #1. As the calculations stand, the bill is about the same as the Baucus bill in terms of cost. But then you look at the fine print...
*28 million Americans are uninsured (46 million minus 9 mil-lion non-citizens minus 9 million on Medicaid who said they were uninsured (Census)). An estimated 7 million have only self-purchased insurance and aren’t eligible for the self-employed tax-exemption, making 35 (28 + 7) million eligible. With an average tax-credit of $1,600/person, if initially 1/3 and eventually 3/5 of those eligible either already have insurance or buy it, the total tax-reduction would be $19-50 billion/year, and 95 percent of Americans would be insured by year-10. (If that percentage lowers, fewer tax-credits would be given.)
Wait. 50 billion? They said 34.5, right? But 35 million people are uninsured or self-insured. At an average of $1,600 a person, that's 50 billion dollars per year, not 34.5 billion.
It further points out that 5% of Americans will still be uninsured 10 years from now - the current projections suggest that that will mean we'll be paying $1,600 a year to 17 million people, or $27 billion dollars. And we're not even counting the people who choose to self-insure and take the free federal tax money!
Even worse, they assume that the number of self-insured people will go down! But WHY? The self-funded plan from Aetna I had before I got my current job was $100 a month - if they're going to give me $2,000 a year, it's a clear financial benefit for me to cancel my employer-based health insurance and take the free money. Right now we DON'T give money to self-insured people - you cannot expect that the number is going to go DOWN if you start giving money to them! It makes ZERO sense.
Notice anything else? $2K per person, up to $5K a family. Well that's awesome for a young DINK couple, that's $4,000 for two people who probably don't have very high health expenses. But a family with five kids gets $5,000 for seven people.
It doesn't even increase payments for inflation!
This plan is literally a recipe for disaster. If we assume that 5% of people are uninsured and 10% of people are self-insured in 2020, you're now talking about an 80 billion dollar a year plan, more than twice as much as their "projection".
But wait. That's assuming the plan remains as is and all the projections work out (not counting the "projection" where the American population does not increase). What if we decide that $5,000 for the seven-member family isn't enough? What if we decide to index the payments to inflation? What if a large portion of the population, say, 25%, decides to self-insure on this free cash? This plan could easily balloon to 100-200 billion a year.
And one more PS. The only "spending increase" they mention is the spending on the state-run high-risk pools. But they claim it goes to zero by the end, so it's OK, right? Wait - it turns out they're planning on funding it using money currently set aside to pay for uninsured people using emergency room care. But there's only 11 billion of DSH funds now, and they think that the percentage of uninsured will go from 10% to 5%, so presumably the funding will only halve. So they've only got $5 billion of that $15 billion covered.
Hey Shiloh:
How long are you going to cry, whine, moan, sniffle, and snot like a 3 year old about Fox News and Republicans? Get over it. Move on. Get on with your life. Bush and Cheney are gone. Obama won. Fox News is irrevelant. Rush is a drug addict. Palin is a dumb bimbo. Republicans have no power.
Pull yourself up by the bootstraps man. You can do it.
@ shirkers
Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? It's not "Expected decrease in costs". It's "We're gonna pay doctors less for the same exact service they provide now"
Allow me to cite directly from the report.
Perminanent Reductions in the annual updates to Medicare's payement rates for most services in the fee for service sector, yielding budgetary savings of $162 Billion over 10 years.
Page 12:
These Projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next 2 decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate mechanism governing Medicare's payment to physicians has frequently been modified either through legislation or administrative action to avoid reductions in those payments. The projected savings for the proposal reflect the cumulative impact of a number of specificiations that would constrain payment rates for providers of Medicare services. In Particular, the proposal would increase payment rates for physicians' services in 2010, but those rates would be reduced by about 25% for 2011, then remain at current law levels for subsequent years. Under the proposal, increase in payment rates for many other providers would be held below the rate of inflation.
GROG said...
Hey Shiloh:
Obama won. Fox News is irrevelant. Rush is a drug addict. Palin is a dumb bimbo. Republicans have no power.
~~~~~~~~~~
... and the truth shall set you free!
btw GROG, is one stalking me. ;)
thanx for caring
ciao
p.s. cry, whine, moan, sniffle Yes Virginia, the party of No! is still projecting 24/7 at 538 ~ which can't help but make a liberal smile 24/7 :)))
GROG, say something intelligent, you can do it. OK, that's a lie ...
also your point about never having asked the CBO to score a war.
Huh? Sure we have.
Very cool. Thanks Persuter.
Boy, somebody missed a boat there, huh?
@Pat
Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? It's not "Expected decrease in costs". It's "We're gonna pay doctors less for the same exact service they provide now"
Yes, because the costs of providing those services will go down.
As you say, "the same exact service they provide now".
There is no reduction of services, which is the whole point as far as those enrolled in Medicare are concerned.
Tom:
1) The Baucus bill avoids aggravating the fiscally sane and instead goes after the elderly by slashing Medicare benefits, after unions by taxing high benefit health insurance, and after everyone else who pays for their own health insurance by taxing health care providers. Any fiscally sane Senators know the so called Medicare cuts will end up being a lie as Congress returns the benefits under AARP lobbying. Thus, does this bill actually aggravate fewer voters?
2) The spin that the new Quinnipiac poll shows voters moving toward him and away from congressional Republicans on the health care issue is priceless. The money quote from your link is:
At the same time, voters disapproved of the way Obama was handling health care, 51 percent to 41 percent. His health-care plan was opposed by 47 percent, supported by 40 percent.
The new Pew Poll is even worse:
Regarding health care reform, many of the key provisions remain popular though support for the overall package has slipped. More people now generally oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress (47%) than favor them (34%). This represents a decline in support for health care reform since mid-September, shortly after President Obama’s nationally televised address to Congress on the issue.
Both polls of adults over count Dems.
Is this turning the corner or whistling past the graveyard?
It's turning a corner, Bart. The reason support for "the way Obama is handling the issue" is declining is that people are afraid they're not going to get a reform bill. They're afraid he was moving to the right on this issue. When it becomes apparent we will actually have a robust pubic option in the final bill, those numbers will turn around.
As for Medicare - yes, the right wing talking points are trying to scare seniors into thinking Medicare services will be cut. They won't be, and when those rightwing talking points are shown for the falsehoods they are, that'll turn around too.
Oh, and do notice, BDP, those polls also show that people trust the Republicants on this even less. That's because the Republicants don't want reform, and supporting their view means we get nothing at all, as opposed to the change that America wants.
You're right that the Baucus bill hs serious problems. I expect them to get partially fixed when it is combined with the HELP bill, and fixed further in conference with the House bill. The problems with the Baucus bill are nearly irrelevant to me.
Man you gotta love the spin going on here. First, I love how it is mentioned that the president's approval rating is 56 in the AP poll, yet no mention is made of what his approval is in the Quinnipiac poll. Could it be because it is 50%. The oversight is made even more pathetic by the fact you actually mention the Quinnipiac Poll but nowhere is the approval rating mentioned. And no mention is made of the Pew Poll either. You know the one that shows his approval rating declining to 52% from the 55% it was in September.
Furthermore, every single blog on the left has the same lame spin on the Quinnipiac Poll. Nation favors Obama to GOP. But they don't mention the fact that people are opposed to the Dem plan by a sizable margin 40/47. But hey, let's not mention that. Let's not mention every other poll coming out that shows his rating much lower than 56%, such as the Rasmussen, Pew, Quinnipiac, Fox News etc. His aggregate at pollster.com is 51.4% and at Real Clear Politics it is 51.5%. Christ, even Daily Kos only has him at 53% Yeah, he's really turned the corner all right. When unemployment hits 10%, will he be thrown out?
Face it, whether the people here want to admit it or not, the President's approval rating is lower than any president's at this point but Bill Clinton.
As for the AP poll, it is obvious it is an outlier. And for the heck of it, let's analyze the methodology used. In the September Poll, the samples were 39% Dem and 32% Republican. In the October Poll it was 43% Dem and 32% Republican. Wow fuc%ing whee. They went from a 6% edge to an 11% edge. I am totally shocked that a poll that increases the amount of Dems they sample is showing an increase in support for the President. Those polls that even this site has talked about indicating the Generic Ballot and Party Identification edges for the Democrats being very narrow or nonexistent now? Yeah, let's ignore those and instead increase the amount of Dems we sample. Then we can have people hilariously claim the president is turning the corner right after the unemployment rate goes up again.
Spinmeister er BDP, Bush's job approval was 90% Oct. 2001, 75% after he invaded Iraq unprovoked and bringing it full circle, 25% Oct. 2008. Fame is fleeting as Bush turned out to be a disaster
"We" can both watch the next official poll, Nov. 2010, eh.
Politicians should not run the govt. based on polls, hmm, who said that. Oh yea you did BDP.
Bottom line Obama is still president another 3+ er 7+ years!
take care
p.s. ... as BDP feverishly looks for the next negative Obama poll lol
Keep hope alive!
@ shirkers,
The Cost of providing the services doesn't go down. The Amount Medicare reimburses goes down.
Let me give an example. Currently in California, for every dollar of service a hospital provides, Medicare reimburses 78 cents. If the Hospital were to get paid entirely at Medicare rates...it would go out of buisiness.
The Baucus bill advocates lowering the RATE of rembusement further. And what's currently happening is that some doctors are refusing to see more medicare patients...and soon hospitals may not accept Medicare either.
masanf said...
yada, yada, yada
~~~~~~~~~~
One seems obsessed by polls. Don't let the minutia consume you, eh. ;)
take care
There is some serious poll cherry picking going on here. Hey, I have an idea. Let's ignore all the polls showing that Obama's approval rating is barely above 50%, let's ignore the polls showing that Congressional approval is the lowest its been since the Dems got crushed in 1994, let's ignore the polls showing the Dems advantage on the congressional ballot being only +2 (Gallup) or -4 (Rasmussen)and let's also ignore the Gallup and Rasmussen polls showing a party identification number the narrowest it has been in years. And also those multiple polls showing that independents now favor Republicans over Dems? Yeah, let's ignore that too. And while were also at it, let's ignore the polling data showing Creigh Deeds getting killed in Virginia. Let's forget about all of that. Ok, boy the president sure has turned a corner, hasn't he. Oh, I forget another thing we need to ignore: the predictions by pretty much every political analyst, including the one who runs this site, that the Dems are going to suffer serious losses in the midterms. And let's also ignore the fact that unemployment will be at 10% during the midterms next year.
Man, that president sure is turning the corner.
"One seems obsessed by polls. Don't let the minutia consume you, eh. ;)
take care"
This from the very same idiot in the very same topic who said the polls are looking up for Obama. Seriously, you are so stupid, you can't parody yourself any better.
masanf said...
This from the very same idiot in the very same topic who said the polls are looking up for Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~
hmm, where did I say this ?!? coming from someone who made a fool of himself a couple mos. ago at 538 and has now returned to do the same, eh.
One's ad nauseam ;) minutia talking points hasn't changed a bit as you're still a very, very angry winger!
get some rest and watch that blood pressure ...
parody, indeed!
take care
Yeah, masanf, what people are not liking is the possibility that a watered-down bill without a public option. Duh. When the final bill is formulated and it has a strong public option, we'll see what the polls say then, hm?
Pat?
Are you uninformed?
Anti-union?
Can't comprehend what you read?
Or maybe it's just that you are interested in spreading nothing but disinformation?
Pat said...
The other big problem is the $200 Billion+ in savings from taxing "Gold Plated Health Care Plans". The vast majority of these are Union health care plans...something which the Democratic Unions won't let get taxed.
Got anything to back up your claim that the "Gold Plated Health Care Plans" are the plans that union members are on? Do you know what is meant by the term "Gold Plated Health Care Plans"?
Here's an example of a Gold Plated Health Care Plan"
"the top few Goldman Sachs executives receive policies worth $40,000 each. . . ."
(Politico, 7/26/09, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25421.html)
Not sure if many people, especially union members, who can afford a plan that costs $40K per year. Can you?
And since the insurance for union workers is almost entirely paid for by the companies for which those union members work, do you REALLY think they would be bullied into providing insurance that costly PER WORKER?
Or maybe you think it is the plan that union members buy because one of the companies selling it is called 'Union' something or other?
Jacob?
Still want to wholeheartedly agree with 'Pat' before she explains her source(s) or lack thereof?
Or are you just "Pat's" sockpuppet?
Mike in Maryland
liberal_defender_of_freedom…
Is this true? “This along with the opt-out compromise that already has the OK from Nelson of NE and Baucus of MT.”
If so then that should be checkmate. As I understand it Baucus has been the drag preventing the public option from being even considered.
Jeez, imagine real health insurance reform. What a boost to the president!
@Pat,
Yeah, I've heard those talking points too, about doctors and hospitals abandoning Medicare. Name ten.
What was the figure, 75% or so of doctors support the health reform bills moving through Congress, including the public option. I'm not impressed with the Fixed Noise talking points.
Asa Zernik said...
I know, I nitpick - but doesn't "on the other side of the aisle" usually refer to the other party, not the other House of Congress?
Asa,
It is not nitpicking - the term 'other side of the aisle' means 'the other party'.
When speaking of the other chamber, one of the terms most often used is 'the other side of the Hill'.
The Capital building was built on the crown of (then named) Jenkins Hill (now called Capital Hill), with the Senate chamber and Senate Office Buildings (where the Senate committee rooms are actually located) on the North side, and the House chamber and House Office Buildings (where the House committee rooms are actually located) on the South side. The office buildings for both chambers are actually slightly downslope of the crest of the summit of Capital Hill, thus the 'other side of the Hill' is a quite apt term.
Mike in Maryland
NJ_Moderate…
You’re too optimistic.
Your party (the GOP) will have fewer than 30 Senate seats if health insurance reform with a public option passes.
My choice of doctors under Medicare is 100 times (yes, easily 10,000%) what it was under Medicare Advantage. Pat, I don’t know if you’re deliberately trying to mislead, but cuts in Medicare proposed are aimed squarely at the overpayments the GOP Congress built into the Medicare Advantage system. MA is Medicare that is run by private insurers, and it has been an expensive, useless, wasteful mess. Obama is merely proposing pinching off the teat.
On another note…
Sorry, but I have to jump to the defense of anyone who ridicules Fox. My favorite epithet for them is Fox Noise Nutwork.
Can’t help it, makes me laugh…
@shrinkers
...There are dozens of ways they can either drop you, or refuse the claim.
Sure, there are ways to get out of everything, but I have to believe that this is a very small occurrence.
...The choice of when to end medical care needs to be up to the patient, not the government nor an insurance company (this last is how it's done today).
I think it already is up to the patient. If you go over these incredibly large caps then you can choose to pay out of pocket or not. The insurance company isn’t doing anything other than saying it can only pay so much and then you are on your own. The government panels that decide the level of care in a public option could and probably will decide to cover things and a much lower level of tolerance than the current caps. This isn’t a problem as long as there is another option available that if you want to shell out the money for it you can get platinum coverage with very high caps.
Not a bad suggestion. Who pays for it, though?
Make the doctors pay for it. Every uninsured person in the country can get one preventative care visit a year. Allow the doctors to get a tax benefit for the number of patients they see for free a year. They can write off $100 towards every visit.
No, it will set rules only for itself. It will, however, introduce honest competition.
Having a non-profit company dictating the terms of the game isn’t real competition. It’s just a way to wedge a foot in the door to kill off the private insurers and get to a single payer. If that is the end goal anyway, then state it from the beginning. The co-ops would be closer to real competition. The government as one of the players is never honest competition.
If the dishonest companies that have been ripping us off and killing us can't compete without ripping us off and killing us, then let them die.
I agree that they make a lot of profit, but I’m not convinced they are ripping us off any more than any other industry and that includes the federal government itself. They’re definitely not killing us. We’re killing ourselves more than anything. It starts with some personal responsibility for your own health. As a country we are lacking in that area.
We have public monopolies in other industries that work well - the police department, the fire department, national defense, public education, public libraries, public parks, to name just a few.
Public education? Tongue in cheek I hope. All of the others are essentially locally run institutions and not run on a federal level except our military.
...And government listens to the people far better than the soulless insurance companies do - which are answerable only to their boards of directors, whose only motive is to increase their profits (which necessarily means paying out as little as possible in medical claims).
I don’t have any experience with Medicare or Medicaid, so I don’t know how well it works for individuals who are on it. I do know that it is incredibly expensive. I also know that the government will pay out as little as possible as well. It doesn’t have an endless supply of money. The majority of the country may keep voting in the people who keep paying out all the money, but eventually it has to collapse under its own weight.
Did the government work for you while Bush was in office? Is it really working for you in the past year? Even when Clinton was in office it was the same old crap. The government is slow, painful, and full of talking heads. I just don’t think I can trust them to run something as enormous as our health care.
>Face it, whether the people here want to admit it or not, the President's approval rating is lower than any president's at this point but Bill Clinton.
Who was reelected, would probably have been elected to a 3rd term if he'd been eligible to run, and balanced the budget. Great comparison!
"Mike in Maryland said...
Still want to wholeheartedly agree with 'Pat' before she explains her source(s) or lack thereof?
Or are you just "Pat's" sockpuppet?"
Jesus Christ! My whole point was to DEFEND the benefits of union workers. No they don't get $40,000 plans but they generally get benefits much better than most. That's a good thing; that's why we have unions. The employer picks up the tab for a good plan BECAUSE the unions successfully bargained for it.
Unionized workers tend to be middle class and economically stable because they have good health and pension packages. That's why labor so vociferously opposes a new tax on benefits. It won't hurt people with $500K incomes but it will hurt those who rely on good benefits to keep their financial house afloat.
That's why I oppose this tax. That's why I knocked on doors with labor groups in three states to prevent this tax from being implemented and to support a public option.
If such an unfair levy has to pass to pass a good bill, so be it. But that's why I have said (twice now) that union members should get something they need (like EFCA) in return for their sacrifice.
I don't know whether Pat supports this tax on union members or not. From her comments at first it sounded like she did. I gave her the benefit of the doubt. You didn't. Only Pat knows if she is pro or anti labor.
But MY comments clearly reflected support for union members and the hope to make up for any sacrifice they have to make in this effort. Don't spin it as anything else.
Mike in MD…
I think you pegged Jacob incorrectly. Just MHO…
@Jon
Sure, there are ways to get out of everything, but I have to believe that this is a very small occurrence.
Not too often, no. Roughly 30,000 Americans each year die from being uninsured or underinsured or because their insurance gets cancelled. Yeah 10X what happened on 9/11.
I think it already is up to the patient. If you go over these incredibly large caps then you can choose to pay out of pocket or not.
They are often not "incredibly large". I can name three people I know personally who hit the caps for cancer treatment. It's a very common occurrence.
The government panels that decide the level of care in a public option could and probably will decide to cover things and a much lower level of tolerance than the current caps.
No, actually, that's one of the things that gets fixed in the health care reform bills. No maximums. Period.
Make the doctors pay for it.
On this very thread, Pat is complaining that Medicare is going to lower the amount it pays doctors (it won't, but the point is he's complaining about it). You want to force doctors to give out services for free. I can already hear the right wing going nuts about that.
Having a non-profit company dictating the terms of the game isn’t real competition.
Again, they won't be dictating anything. They'll simply be running efficiently.
The government as one of the players is never honest competition.
Wait, you say below that the government can't do things right. Here you say they have an unfair advantage. Doesn't sound consistent. If they can deliver a better product more efficiently than the insurance companies can, that's clearly the way to go then, isn't it?
I agree that they make a lot of profit, but I’m not convinced they are ripping us off any more than any other industry and that includes the federal government itself.
That's cool. Then when a public option is offered, don't choose that one. Choose a for-profit corporation. That's the point of the public option. It's optional. You can chose a traditional for-profit insurer if you want. And I recommend, for you, that you do so.
They’re definitely not killing us.
Yes, they definitely are.
Public education? Tongue in cheek I hope.
Nope, entirely serious. It's got its flaws, granted - mostly because it is chronically underfunded. But it's a topic perhaps for a different thread.
Actually, warning track, you are entirely wrong: "faux" and "fox" are not similar-sounding words, but rather similar-looking words. The pun is primarily visual.
True...but not even remotely germane to my point.
In any case, if making juvenile fun of Fox News gets someone who likes Fox as angry as you appear to be, it can't be said that it "...contributes nothing of value...."
Except that I'm not angry; just mildly annoyed with how silly and juvenile this type of thing is. Though, I find it awfully disturbing that you find making people you disagree with angry to be "something of value." That's part of the problem, buddy.
Re: the other commenter who said it "got my attention." Yes, you're right: if the point of such childish jabs is to elicit a response, or push someone's buttons, then congratulations, it's worth doing. But that only confirms what I was saying about it being among the lowest levels of political discourse.
I notice no one's even attempting to defend it as genuinely useful, insightful, interesting, clever, or anything else. These are kneejerk defenses based on the fact that, well, you don't like Fox News.
The fact that you can point to examples of conservatives doing the same thing is irrelevant, because I'm not defending those, either. And since you probably don't much care for those, they're not much of a defense.
Face it: it's childish, has no significant redeeming value, and it lowers the level of discourse. You can try to obfuscate this however you please, but it's not really arguable.
All of the others are essentially locally run institutions and not run on a federal level except our military.
Yes, I know the talking point that local government is always better than national government. I don't buy it. We'll agree to disagree on that one.
I don’t have any experience with Medicare or Medicaid, so I don’t know how well it works for individuals who are on it.
Then trust me, I do know people who are on both, and they love it.
I do know that it is incredibly expensive.
"Expensive" in so far as those programs cover a great many people - and do it efficiently and with really good results. Far less waste than any insurance company. The average insurance company has about a 30% overhead - that money goes to bonus for execs, wasted paperwork, etc. Medicare has about a 3% overhead.
I also know that the government will pay out as little as possible as well. It doesn’t have an endless supply of money.
True. The public option will be paid for through premiums which, by law, will be set high enough to cover costs.
The majority of the country may keep voting in the people who keep paying out all the money, but eventually it has to collapse under its own weight.
Maybe. Competition does that. If that is the inevitable result of a public option, then the insurance companies have nothing to fear.
Did the government work for you while Bush was in office?
No. We were subject to a temporary coup run by people who wanted the government to fail, and did everything in their power to enrich themselves while they did it. That's why I seldom vote for Republicans.
Is it really working for you in the past year?
Yes, rather well, actually. Obama is proving pretty good at cleaning up Bush's messes.
And as I said, we'll see if the current Congress is responsive enough to the people to give them the health care reform they're asking for.
Even when Clinton was in office it was the same old crap.
We had the greatest sustained economic growth in the history of our country under Clinton. He took the 400 billion dollar / year deficits he inherited from Reagan / Bush I and turned them into 200 billion per year surpluses. (Bush II turned them into 500 billion per year deficits and triggered a world financial collapse.) We were at peace for 8 years. Investment was up. Real wages were up. Things went very well under Clinton.
The government is slow, painful, and full of talking heads. I just don’t think I can trust them to run something as enormous as our health care.
Then don't choose the public plan when the choice is presented to you. No problem.
Re: the "party of No" stuff. The Democrats were the "party of No" when they were in the minority, as you might recall. That's how it works when you're in the minority. To repeat this again and again as if it's some kind of actual point, rather than a glorified slogan, is tremendously silly. This is a behavioral trait that knows no party.
And, you might notice, it's not actually an argument, either.
@WarningTrack
Sure, making fun of Fixed Noise is juvenile. But it's fun, and they deserve it. As the unabashed and unapologetic propaganda arm of the Republicant Party, they should be given all the juvenile derision that can be mustered. They're not good for anything else.
@WarningTrack
Re: the "party of No" stuff.
I'll stop calling them that when they start negotiating in good faith. Just sayin'.
And no, the Dems did not engage in the sort of scorched earth madness the Republicants do today. Not even close. Don't excuse their insane behavior by saying "But, but, but, Jimmy does it too!!!" - at least, then don't pretend you're complaining about someone else being "silly".
Defend the Party of No! on its own programs and recommendations and proposals if you want to be taken seriously. Wait, you can't. They don't have any.
Gentlemen, I believe we may have a winner.
@Prag (in case you missed it from the previous article)
I think you may be confusing Chris Mathews (MSNBC) with Chris Wallace the zombie douchebag at Fox.
wv: woomps. as in WOOMPS! Der it iz
Throw you hands in de air, and wave 'em 'round like you don't have health care!
@shrinkers
I think the difference is that you trust the government and want it to take care of you. I don't trust the government at all and I don't see it as an efficient body.
All the examples you cite as efficient and well run government bodies, I don't see that way. The biggest ones, like the IRS, post office, social security, etc are pretty poor.
When you talk about the government doing things you like or don't like under a specific president I don't see the actual president having much to do about any of it. Bush 43 may be the exception because of the war, but the rest of them just happened to be the chief at a good or bad period of time.
Electing or not electing certain bureaucrats doesn't change the federal government too much. They all just spin in their chairs. Getting them to cover a certain procedure I might need will be as successful as getting an insurance company to do it now. It won't be.
You say I can just choose to not have the public option, but I can't really do that because the private industry will eventually be put out of business if it is created.
It's been an interesting discussion. Thanks.
And no, the Dems did not engage in the sort of scorched earth madness the Republicants do today. Not even close. Don't excuse their insane behavior by saying "But, but, but, Jimmy does it too!!!" - at least, then don't pretend you're complaining about someone else being "silly".
Democrats shot down private Social Security accounts without offering any alternative plan. That's perfectly analogous to the kind of thing you're accusing Republicans of...except, of course, for the all-important caveat that, this time, you disagree with the obstruction.
I notice, however, that you've broadened the point of contention to "scorched earth madness." Nice and vague. Unfortunately, I'm merely talking about the "party of No" contention, so you don't get to use broader terms to smuggle in some other complaint. The fact is, when a party's in the minority, they say "no" a hell of a lot, and we don't need to go more than a few years back to see this. That you're even attempting to take issue with this idea is stunning.
Defend the Party of No! on its own programs and recommendations and proposals if you want to be taken seriously. Wait, you can't. They don't have any.
Er, this isn't even close to being true. There are several alternative health care plans, which you can find with, I dunno, five minutes of Googling. Like DeMint's, which has been around for years.
But this is beside the point, because the idea that anyone opposing an idea must have a superior solution in mind is a completely non-sequitur. An argument about whether or not a given policy is a good idea is not valid or invalid based on the alternative ideas the person opposing it may or may not have. There's literally no connection between the two.
See, that's how I know this is nakedly political. It sounds good to say "oh yeah? Where's your plan?" But it's a blatant form of misdirection. Even if Republicans were completely devoid of worthwhile ideas, that wouldn't in any way, shape, or form, serve as some kind of counterpoint to whatever issues they have with what's being proposed.
WarningTrack said...
Face it: it's childish, has no significant redeeming value, and it lowers the level of discourse. You can try to obfuscate this however you please, but it's not really arguable.
~~~~~~~~~~
Which brings us back full circle to Fox News ie Beck, Billo, Hannity w/their childish name calling and Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, Crowley, Larson, Preger, Malkin, Liddy, Dobbs, etc. w/their childish name calling and the Rep party ie Blackburn, Bachmann, Sessions, Perry, Vitter, Roberts, Ensign, Sanford, Craig, Boehner, Cantor, palin, Huckabee, Joe "you lie" Wilson, etc. just plain acting like children ie sore losers ...
like many of the wingers/Rep trolls at 538 just taking a cue from their leaders w/the name calling and sarcasm, etc.
This is what political discussion has come to in America. More gamesmanship and winning points than actual intelligent discussion ie the teabaggers, birthers, deathers, 10thers, secessionists, etc.
This is your current Rep party from top to bottom!
know it, live it, learn it, believe it ...
take care
p.s. some of the Reps ie Bachmann, palin, Sanford, Ensign, Perry are just plain bat shit crazy ie cartoon figures. Not serious in any way, shape or form.
WarningTrack said...
yada, yada, yada
~~~~~~~~~~
Now you're just sounding upset the Dems have finally caught up to Reps re: scorched earth tactics, but I will freely admit after (8) years of cheney/bush Obama doesn't really need scorched earth tactics as the Rep party regularly shoots itself in the foot ie implodes. When the other party is self-destructing, get the hell out of the way.
I'm hearing a lot of rationalizations er deflection. Yea, a lot of blaming the other side and no taking responsibility for your party's political meltdown.
cheney/bush is the reason the Rep party lost in 2006/2008. This is the Rep's political reality as they still currently can't catch a clue.
Having voted for McGovern in '72 and being more used to being in the minority over the years I truly can't remember this much whining/rationalizations coming from a political party as I have since Obama won last year.
The I want my country back ad nauseam sore loser crying of Reps is highly amusing. My how the mighty have fallen ...
take care
None of that is any excuse. When people say these juvenile things, and then defend them by saying that others do it, too (which they do), they are knowingly and deliberately becoming part of the problem. That's my point: you can't engage in the same mudslinging (or defend it), and claim any kind of political high ground.
The problems with this go beyond the obvious, too. When you decide you're willing to match the shrillest, most childish things that the worst elements of the opposition do, you're literally letting them control your behavior. That's a damn shame.
I suppose I have only myself to blame for trying to engage people like shrinkers, who treat every discussion like a televised debate, and are more concerned with what sounds good than with which is intellectually coherent. Shame one me for expecting anything different.
Thanks, but count me out.
@masanf
Face it, whether the people here want to admit it or not, the President's approval rating is lower than any president's at this point but Bill Clinton.
According to Gallup, he's surpassed Ford, Clinton, and Reagan... and he'll beat Truman if he makes it through November without going below 50%.
let's ignore the polls showing that Congressional approval is the lowest its been since the Dems got crushed in 1994
Which polls are these? Gallup has the low point being in 2008. Maybe you're reading the headlines at RedState and not reading the accompanying articles?
btw, Democrats shot down private Social Security accounts because it was a bat shit crazy idea ...
Jacob said...
Jesus Christ! My whole point was to DEFEND the benefits of union workers.
And you call the following 'defending the benefits of union workers?
Pat, you raise a serious problem with the Baucus plan that hasn't been discussed much yet. Yes, most of the plans that would be taxed are not going to the wealthy but to middle-income workers who are only financially secure because they have good health care packages and other benefits of being in a union.
You may be right. This bill (with the extra tax on benefits included) is a mixed bag at best for many union members.
For your information, the Baucus bill would assess the tax on those plans that cost $7000 or more per year (any plan that costs $583.34 or more per month). Most Democrats who have commented on that provision have stated that it needs to be (and will be) raised, at least doubled, if not tripled. I agree with that.
But for you to say to Pat what I've quoted above, and then for you to say that you've been defending union members is nothing but pure horse hockey. Or it might be a bit more clear if I say it is male bovine droppings.
And Pragmatus? Now maybe you see why I made those comments to Jacob? Was he defending union workers, or giving out (even if half-hearted) support to someone who most clearly is anti-health care reform and anti-union? To me, it definitely was the latter.
Mike in Maryland
Did Nate leave town and put the children in charge again? Certainly he wouldn't endorse this effort to prop up the bogus CBO report. Obviously a manipulation to generate a good score with components they have no intention of actually legislating. Why bother?
In other news, Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Oooh, that's gonna make the US right completely bonkers.
A Smith, this might be the first time the Nobel Committee has given as 'Anti-Nobel Prize'. I think this is as much of a slap in the face for the Bush administration as it is a pat on the back for Obama.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/09/nobel-peace-prize-citation-obama
Go read the citation.
Quote 'Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.'
"let's ignore the polls showing that Congressional approval"
Yeah, except that Tom did an entire post about that two days ago. And the Presidential approval "fact" you cited is just nonsense. See Rahmsputin's post above.
Mike,
Yes I call that defending union workers, many of whom have health plans valued above $7000/ year. I hope they do triple the floor for that tax on benefits, but until they do, I'm saying that the bill is not purely a good thing for union members.
I support the PO. I also support union members. But the Baucus bill as currently formulated has a provision that is bad for union members. I think that needs to be rectified, or if it can't be rectified, addressed in some other way. This is my clearly-articulated position regardless of what Pat believes.
Try to wrap your mind around this: Pointing out that this bill is not a slam-dunk for union members does not make me anti-union.
A robust public option is still the best way to save money - I hear that it would ave another 10%. So if money is the issue, then pass a robust public option!
Davy…
That’s it—I had my Chrises conflated. I was thinking about Chris Wallace, of whom there is a little picture in the dictionary next to the term “douche bag”.
(By the way, my dictionary [Webster’s Collegiate 11th Edition] does in fact define “douche bag” and said it came into currency around 1963.)
I agree with shiloh on shooting down Social Security “reform”, which was nothing more than a Grover Norquist stealth operation to gut it until it was so useless it would die of its own accord. Social Security is one of the best things that was ever enacted.
And how ’bout that Nobel Prize! This might be just the thing to energize the push of healthcare reform through Congress.
Too bad for the GOP that they don’t give Nobels for screaming.
Mike in MD and Jacob…
You guys are both on the same side, so stop sniping you two.
Don’t make me get up out of this chair…
:o) :o) :o)
@shiloh
btw, Democrats shot down private Social Security accounts because it was a bat shit crazy idea ...
Yeah, comparing the privatization of Social Security to health care reform - wow. That's exactly the sort of intellectual emptiness that is marginalizing the far right.
I don't recall any huge swell of support of the dismantling of Social Security. Polls consistently show huge majorities of Americans want HCR, especially a public option or single-payer.
We didn't have thousands of people dying each year because Social Security wasn't privatized.
Just, wow.
And what does the GOP say about Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?
“ ‘His winning the Nobel Peace Prize is very bad for Obama politically,’ said Republican consultant Curt Anderson. ‘It will completely reinforce the notion that he is all flash and no substance, all style, and more popular in Europe than in America.’ ”
So the Party of No has become the Party of No Brains Whatsoever.
The above courtesy of Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post.
Pragmatus said...
Mike in MD and Jacob…
You guys are both on the same side, so stop sniping you two.
Very true, Pragmatus. Mike, I apologize for my inflammatory tone. As a man who has spent a few years working for the Labor movement, I don't take kindly to the notion of being labeled anti-union for pointing out a political problem for union workers. I'm happy to take your comments as a vigorous defense of labor if you will take mine at face value as well.
Also, what's really ferkakdeh about Warning Track's SS/HC comparison is that Bush's plan was never a solution to Soc Sec insolvency (for which it would do nothing), but a solution to the existence of Soc Sec as a real program. which Democrats and other thinking people support.
Of course Democrats didn't have alternative strategies to weaken a good program and fought tooth and nail against it!
We do have many solutions to Soc Sec insolvency, however, such as raising the retirement age, increasing/eliminating the cap on the regressive payroll tax, indexing benefits inversely to wealth/income, etc.
If Republicans think the HC status quo is perfect, then shouting No! to reform is perfectly rational. But for those who admit that the system needs some changes, it's time to propose a plan that actually addresses the problems.
Yeah, comparing the privatization of Social Security to health care reform - wow. That's exactly the sort of intellectual emptiness that is marginalizing the far right.
...
We didn't have thousands of people dying each year because Social Security wasn't privatized.
Please try to pay attention: the "comparison" was for the purposes of explaining why the "party of No" label is so absurd, and fluctuates with power. The fact that SS and health care are (obviously) different doesn't change this one whit. Nobody said they were the same. This isn't complicated. Either you're confused about the point of contention, or else deliberately avoiding it.
@Jacob:
Also, what's really ferkakdeh about Warning Track's SS/HC comparison is that Bush's plan was never a solution to Soc Sec insolvency (for which it would do nothing), but a solution to the existence of Soc Sec as a real program. which Democrats and other thinking people support.
Of course Democrats didn't have alternative strategies to weaken a good program and fought tooth and nail against it!
We do have many solutions to Soc Sec insolvency, however, such as raising the retirement age, increasing/eliminating the cap on the regressive payroll tax, indexing benefits inversely to wealth/income, etc.
Actually, at the time many Democrats insisted there was no funding crisis to begin with. Remember ThereIsNoCrisis.com (might've been .org; I forget)? They said no to the proposal, had no alternative, and some even went as far as to deny there was a problem to begin with. It was exactly the sort of stonewalling and "party of No" stuff that people on this site are babbling about now. That, like the "Faux News" silliness, is bumper-sticker politics. It's not accurate, not thoughtful, and it sure as hell doesn't add anything of substance to the discussion.
And, again, the merits of Bush's SS proposal have no bearing on the point being made. I know it's inconvenient, people, but you have to argue with what's actually said, and not what you think some generic stereotypical Republican in your head would say. Nor is everything that disagrees with your worldview an open invitation to steer the discussion to some entirely different point.
@Warning Track
Crisis is a very fluid idea. There was no immediate crisis, and many many ways to solve the future problem of insolvency. If some Democrats implied that Soc Sec solvency had no problems, that's too bad, but it's perfectly legitimate to say that social security was not in crisis, indeed we have accounted for future insolvency by raising the cap on the payroll tax (and by just raising the rate) many times. While there was no single Democratic platform on how best to address future Social Security shortfalls, you'll recall that many ideas were floated.
But Bush positioned his plan to turn Social Security into an IRA as a solution to insolvency, which it plainly was not. To do this, he trumpeted the idea of an impending crisis that had to be confronted immediately with a plan that had nothing to do with the alleged crisis.
Democrats took a hard line against the plan, as it was bad policy that didn't solve the problem that Bush claimed was imminent. Of course Dems didn't come up with an alternative plan to privatize the system. The issue was not how best to do it, but whether or not we do it at all. We said no, as did most Americans, and I will stand by that position.
And Faux News, MSDNC, etc are cute phrases but I'm not here to repeat bumper sticker slogans either.
And if Republicans who admit that HC needs fixing don't want to be labeled as the Party of No!, then they should propose some ideas that actually solve the problems.
Here ya' go Jacob
HC bill introduced on 5/20/09 by Rep. Paul Ryan (R) WI
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2520
5/20/2009--Introduced.
Patients' Choice Act - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to convene an interagency coordinating committee to develop a national strategic plan for prevention. Provides for health promotion and disease prevention activities consistent with such plan. Sets forth provisions governing the establishment and operation of state-based health care exchanges to facilitate the individual purchase of private health insurance and the creation of a market where private health plans compete for enrolles based on price and quality. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a refundable tax credit for qualified health care insurance coverage. Replaces title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act with a program to provide grants to states for: (1) acute medical care assistance to otherwise qualified blind or disabled individuals, foster care children, low-income women with breast or cervical cancer, certain tuberculosis-infected individuals, and certain individuals currently covered; and (2) long-term care services and supports for qualified disabled and elderly populations. Repeals title XXI (State Children's Health Insurance Program) (CHIP, formerly known as SCHIP) of the Social Security Act. Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary to supplement the costs of private health insurance for eligible low-income families through the distribution of supplemental debit cards, which may be used for costs associated with health care and provide direct support in accessing health care. Requires the Secretary to establish and implement a competitive bidding mechanism to promote competition among Medicare Advantage plans and to increase the quality of care furnished under the plans. Requires benchmarks for such plans to be established solely through competitive bids. Sets forth programs to prevent Medicare fraud and abuse, including ending the use of social security numbers to identify Medicare beneficiaries. Allows the Secretary to award grants for the development, implementation, and evaluation of alternatives to current tort litigation for the resolution of disputes concerning injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations. Requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations to provide for the certification and auditing of the banking of electronic medical records. Establishes: (1) a Health Care Services Commission to enhance the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services and access to such services; and (2) the Office of the Forum for Quality and Effectiveness in Health Care. Terminates the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Independent Health Record Trust Act of 2009 - Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prescribe standards for the establishment, certification, operation, and interoperability of independent health record trusts. Requires the Secretary to: (1) permit Indians to receive health care through providers outside of the Indian Health Service; and (2) make payments for such care. Terminates the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Republicans and Democrats alike. Please watch this and let's all remember what we are first and foremost... Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETrr-XHBjE
Gatordad said...
Republicans and Democrats alike. Please watch this and let's all remember what we are first and foremost... Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETrr-XHBjE
~~~~~~~~~~
In my best Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright's voice, No, no, no
as nixon supporters said to me in the late '60s, America, love it or leave it!
and as bush said to me re: the bogus Iraq war, You're either w/us or against us!
OK, I'll set aside the party of No's divisive hate speak of the past 40/50 years and say kumbaya :) to Gatorade in this thread.
And as a veteran, wishing you fair winds and following seas ...
Anchors Aweigh!
p.s. Hey, I'm in a good mood today as a Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Islamo-Fascist, Satan, The Anti-Christ, The Devil Incarnate, wealth distributor, community organizer, an Arab, a Muslim born in Kenya, yada, yada, yada won the Nobel Peace Prize, hence, ergo, therefore driving the winger trolls bat shit crazy! :)
It's all good ...
Gatordad,
Within the next few years, I will need an operation on each of my eyes to fix a genetic problem. Currently there is no way to fix the problem except by corneal transplant.
The problem is caused by genetics.
Each of the operations will cost in the $15,000 to $20,000 (but if costs cannot be contained, it might be $40,000 per eye within five years).
So tell me how Ryan's bill will help me?
Know anyone who has or had cataracts? More than 50% of people over the age of 60 have cataracts.
Do you know what causes cataracts?
How will Ryan's bill help those who need cataract surgery.
Ever hear of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)? You should have. It's also called Lou Gehrig's disease.
How will Ryan's bill help those who have ALS?
Know anyone who has Parkinson's disease?
How will Ryan's bill help those who have Parkinson's?
Anyone who has any of the above is a prime candidate for NOT being able to get health insurance, because they have a pre-existing condition.
How will Ryan's bill help any of the above?
Have the Republicans introduced a bill that is COMPREHENSIVE, that takes care of those who have pre-existing conditions, that is affordable for those who are out of work or working minimum wage jobs, etc?
Ryan's bill is NOT a COMPREHENSIVE plan, but merely a palliative, a FAKE, to say the Republicans have introduced a bill that can, to some, be considered a health care bill. And as such, it deserves absolutely NO consideration.
Mike in Maryland
I didn't say it was the answer. It was stated that there are no Republican ideas. They aren't the same ideas as the Democratic proposals.But it's disingenous to say there are none. I quess an idea or proposal counts only if you agree with it, otherwise it doesn't exist. And I would ask you- how does the Democratic proposal help you. Have you read both fully?
Or either?
Hey shiloh, Just thought it might do for everybody to take a breath. We are all Americans 1st and foremost and the personal attacks accomplish nothing. So I hoped maybe if everybody watched it they might get a tingle up their leg (LOL) and remember, we're not the enemy. Disagreeing with me doesn't make someone evil, just wrong! LMAO
and Shiloh, thanks for your service. You military folk have some serious pipes! It was a really beautiful rendition of the Anthem.
Hey Mike. Sorry about your health issues. Yes my Dad had cataract surgery last year. And I know or have known people with ALS, MS, and Parkinsons. And BTW I'm uninsured and diabetic. Completely controlled, but a pre-existing condition nonetheless. We definitely need to fix health care. but when you or anyone dismisses something out of hand with no consideration for what might be of value, then you are no better than the folks yelling death panel. Good luck with the surgery. Hope you will be well.
The Washington Post reports:
The industry heavyweights President Obama neutralized through the summer are agitating that the health-care bills in Congress violate agreements they made with the White House, leave 25 million Americans uninsured and have the potential to increase medical costs.
One day after Democrats celebrated the news that a bill drafted in the Senate Finance Committee would not increase the deficit, the prospects for speedy enactment of landmark reform grew murkier. Industry leaders, who have held their tongues for months, spoke in increasingly dire tones Thursday about the impact of the Democratic proposals, raising the specter of an eleventh-hour lobbying campaign to defeat Obama’s centerpiece domestic policy goal.
Many lobbyists and independent analysts underlined what they called major flaws in the Finance Committee’s bill, saying it probably would draw the sickest, most expensive patients into the health coverage system without balancing the insurance risk with more young, healthy people. The result, they predicted, would be ever-rising premiums for the people, businesses and governments that pay for medical care. …
The American Medical Association is concerned because the 10-year $829 billion cost of the Senate bill does not include $200 billion in promised higher Medicare payments.
Hospital executives, meanwhile, complained that the legislation would leave 25 million people without coverage in 2019. The uninsured place a high burden on hospitals, which are required by law to treat everyone who arrives at an emergency department, regardless of citizenship or ability to pay. Those costs result in debt for hospitals and higher fees for people with insurance.
The most interesting results from exit polls in my opinion, 2008 vs. 2004. Self-described ideology:
Total Obama McCain Other/No Liberal (22%) 89% 10% 1%
Moderate (44%) 60% 39% 1%
Conservative (34%) 20% 78%
Winner - Obama (D) :
Total = 52.8%
22%*89% = 19.6% from Liberals
44%*60% = 26.4% from Moderates
34%*20% = 6.8% from Conservatives
Total Bush Kerry Other/No
Liberal (21%) 13% 85% 1%
Moderate (45%) 45% 54% 0%
Conservative (34%) 84% 15% 0%
Winner Bush (R) -
Total - 51.1 %
21%*13% = 2.7% from Liberals
44%*45% = 19.8% from Moderates
34%*84% = 28.6% from Conservatives
Obama won over more self-described Conservatives (20% and 6.8%) than Bush did Liberals (13% and 2.7%), and Moderates (60% and 26.4%) were the largest group in 2008 vs Conservatives (84% and 28.6%)in 2004. Neither Obama nor Bush could have been elected without significant support from a small minority on the "other side" (20% of conservatives for Obama, 13% of liberals for Bush). Being his largest consituency, moderates are more imported for Obama than liberals. Conservatives are also more significant to him than liberals were to Bush. I think this explains a lot of the "moderation" we see from Obama on many issues, in spite of virtually no Republican support. Politicians will always cater to their strongest constituency first. For Obama, this is moderates - not liberals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-baumann/voters-tiring-of-republic_b_315563.html
"Voters Tiring of Republican Partisanship on Healthcare"
Momentum is growing for passage of health care reform, and, because of their continued obstructionism, so is the threat to Republicans. In the past week, both the AP and Gallup have released surveys showing a significant decline in opposition to President Obama's health care plan, with Gallup showing the plan favored by a 51 to 41 percent majority.
@Warning Track--
There is no valid comparison between the amount of Republican obstructionism now and Democratic obstructionism from 1994-2006 (one year of which, 2002, Democrats had control of the Senate). The Senate averaged about 53 filibusters during these 6 Congresses. The Republicans in 2006-08 filibustered 112 times, and all indications point to them re-shattering this record from 2008-2010. More of Obama's nominations for appointments have been stalled in these 9 months than were stalled under 8 years of Bush. This health care debate as well as many others are attempting to be quashed (and as a result are seeing the policies affected) by the threat of future filibusters. 30 Republican Senators voted ths week against Franken's bill which would de-fund military contractors who don't allow victims of workplace rape to seek trials. There is _no_ comparable legacy on the Left of voting so staunchly in such numbers against _that_ level of no-brainer sanity. I know that a useful technique in politics is to draw equivalnce between your own shameful actions and those of your opponent, thereby defusing criticism. But anyone who is not an absolute shill for the Right would see that the typical, mainstream Rightwing rhetoric and political strategy is _MUCH_ more extreme and seditious than that of even the most Liberal outliers in the Senate in the last 20 years.
Thanks for the help
http://www.rickarvielo.com/post/New-American-Funding-New-American-Direct.aspx
http://www.rickarvielo.com/post/Struggling-Homeownere28099s-Across-the-United-States.aspx
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment