1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

Obamacare A Big Lie From The Start...

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by onalandline, Apr 10, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. onalandline

    onalandline New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny how Obama claimed that this bill would not add to our deficit. He never read any of it.

    Obamacare: Obama Lied, Our Budget Died:

    Back on September 9, 2009, President Obama called together a joint session of Congress to listen to him talk about his Obamacare plan. This large-scale PR effort was based on the notion that Obamacare wouldn’t just keep deficits neutral, it would actually cut them. Here’s what Obama said:

    And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize …. This plan will not add to our deficit.

    Why take on health care in the middle of an economic crisis? Obama answered:

    Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else.

    This was nonsense when he spoke it. What private citizens spend on health care does not contribute to the national deficit; what the government does contributes to our national deficit. Reform of Medicare and Medicaid was and is necessary, of course, but Obamacare was never designed to cut deficits – it was designed to grow them.

    The Washington Post reports today that Obamacare will add over $340 billion to our deficit over the next decade. The report on which the Post article is based is written by Charles Blahous, a “conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security.”

    Blahous’ study shows that the savings supposedly generated by Obamacare flow into the Medicare hospitalization trust fund – which means that the money isn’t saved, it’s just used to pay more benefits to those who already have insurance. Opponents of the study say that Blahous’ standards are different from “bipartisan budget rules” used to measure deficit-reduction issues. But so what? He’s either correct in his analysis or he’s not. And in this case, he’s obviously correct – typical budget rules allow for “double counting” of Medicare savings. The Congressional Budget Office admits as much.

    Jonathan Chait, among others, has argued that the study itself is flawed. What’s his evidence? He pulls the Koch card, stating that Blahous works for the Mercatus Center, and the Kochs give money to Mercatus, and therefore Blahous must be their sock puppet … or something.

    His substantive argument is a bit better – he says that Blahous’ study is bogus because it assumes that Medicare will automatically reduce payments if its trust fund isn’t funded, and that it won’t if the funding is available. Therefore, says the Blahous study, if the trust fund is funded via Obamacare, new deficits will be created, because cuts won’t take place; the money that would be headed to the trust fund can’t be used to fund other stuff. Chait calls this assumption “completely bizarre.”

    But why is that assumption bizarre? It’s how the law currently operates, as the CBO recognizes. Paul Krugman, who agrees with Chait, contends that’s not good enough – we should figure that Medicare will be funded from somewhere else. But where is that money supposed to come from? Wait, wouldn’t that raise the deficit, too?

    Chait’s argument – and Krugman’s by extension – is empty. It says we routinely double count cash, so let’s continue double-counting cash. As Blahous explains:

    Here’s a simple way to think of it: under law Medicare is permitted to spend any proceeds of savings in the Medicare HI program. If we cut $1 from Medicare HI spending in the near term, then an additional $1 is credited to the HI Trust Fund as a result. The Trust Fund thus lasts longer and its spending authority is expanded, permitting it to spend another $1 in a later year …. A core fiscal problem with the ACA is that the same $1 in Medicare savings that expands Medicare’s future spending authority by $1 is also assumed to finance the creation of a large new federal health program. Taken together, these two expansions of spending authorities — the new health program and Medicare’s solvency extension — far exceed the cost-savings in the legislation.

    Obama promised not to raise deficits. Anybody with a modicum of common sense could see that he was clearly going to raise deficits by somehow creating a new right for which Obama had no ability to pay under current law.

    Source
     
  2. Trinnity

    Trinnity Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just one more lie - of so many lies.

    [video=youtube;UErR7i2onW0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0[/video]

    And he's gonna keep on lying til we get him out and even beyond that.
     
  3. Chad

    Chad New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that the problem was that the democrats were less concerned with finances and more concerned with extending coverage. The biggest problem is healthcare inflation though, Obama was right to try healthcare. It is not nonsense to say that our healthcare problem is our deficit problem, it most certainly is. Unless you tackle healthcare inflation any reform of medicare and medicaid is meaningless.
     
    Woolley and (deleted member) like this.
  4. onalandline

    onalandline New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, healthcare costs are expensive. However, implementing a 2700 page monstrosity that affects 1/8 of our economy, and has not been read by our elected officials, is not the answer.
     
  5. drj90210

    drj90210 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And you base your figures on what exactly?
     
  6. constructionguy

    constructionguy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Oh, I'm sure it's based on a political agenda, nothing more. Yes, mean old republicans are killing you, but abortions now thats just population control.
    Just once I would like a liberal to offer up a logical train of thought.
     
  7. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,046
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just want to make something clear to Americans: You are being taxed out of your paycheck to pay for Medicare. If you ever want to get your money back, and have Medicare pay for your medical treatment when you get old you have to play by their rules. Medicare imposes a limit on how much you can pay your doctor, in addition to the fixed sum they pay the doctor. If the doctor accepts more money from you than is allowed, the doctor could lose his ability to ever recieve reimbursement from Medicare.

    Obama and the Democratic Party have reduced ammount that Medicare will pay for treatments, even as the cost of medical care has been increasing. So many doctors have stopped accepting Medicare, and it can be impossible to find some types of doctors who will accept Medicare in a growing number of regions. Medicare only allows the doctor to bill the patient 15% more than the fixed ammount that Medicare will reimburse.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/18/time-to-clean-up-the-medicare-doctor-payment-mess/

    A doctor does not absolutely have to accept Medicare, but then the patient is not getting back any of all that tax he was forced to pay into Medicare. In other words, Medicare is more and more turning into a tax on those that can afford to get medical treatment outside the government system. Does it make sense that you should be taxing the sick to pay for your sick poor?

    As the Medicare reimbursements get lower, it will become more difficult to obtain medical treatment, and the quality will suffer. This will drive a growing number of people to pay out-of-pocket, reducing the burden on Medicare.
     
  8. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    52,982
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    83
    we never got ObamaCare or we would have a public option, we got what congress could get us, no more... still much work to be done

    maybe Romeny can run on health care ;)
     
  9. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,046
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Americans become required by law to buy health insurance, I hope all those undocumented immigrants will also be required to. Perhaps this would help ease the burden on the country's emergency rooms. But really, I do not see how all those immigrants that come to the United States to work for low wages are going to be able to afford to buy health insurance. I have a feeling the progressives are just want to use the new laws as a facade to tax the middle class to give to the poor.
     
  10. onalandline

    onalandline New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's what Obama wants to do. Shrink the middle class, and create more dependent people, thereby giving more control to the federal government. Obama couldn't care less about how the so-called millionaires and billionaires are supposedly not paying their fair share - he is one of them.
     
  11. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,887
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male

    Se my previous posts on this subject for your answer.
     
  12. Kulafu

    Kulafu New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are a few of things I don't understand about Obamacare. You are "forced" to buy health insurance? What is the penalty if you don't? If you could not afford it then, you will get fined?
     
  13. onalandline

    onalandline New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that there are exceptions for low-income people, which kind of defeats the purpose of Obamacare. It needs to go.
     
  14. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,046
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This reveals the whole facade right there. Most of the people not currently covered by medical insurance, who would be most vulnerable, are the same ones that would be excused from having to buy medical insurance under Obama care because of their low incomes. Obamacare is really about forcing the middle class to pay for the sick and poor. The insurance companies will be forced to lose money on the very sick, and the middle class will be forced to buy the insurance. The government is trying to tell people what they have to buy, and telling insurance companies what they have to cover, and how much they can charge.
     
  15. hudson1955

    hudson1955 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The following is the Minimum Essential Coverage mandated by HHS. Regardless if the individual or family needs "maternity and newborn" care, you will have to pay for it and this increases premiums dramatically. So if you are beyond child bearing age and in memopause; you will still pay the higher premium for this coverage. Or, if you are a single male, you are required to carry this coverage. Why?
    And, if your children are grown, why should you have to pay for costly Pediatric Coverage? And, if you can afford to pay for your prescriptions and would rather not pay a higher premium that covers Prescriptions, why shouldn't you be allowed to exclude that coverage from your policy inorder to lower your premium?
    A) Ambulatory patient services.
    (B) Emergency services.
    (C) Hospitalization.
    (D) Maternity and newborn care.
    (E) Mental health and substance use disorder services,
    including behavioral health treatment.
    (F) Prescription drugs.
    (G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
    (H) Laboratory services.
    (I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease
    management.
    (J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

    A large percentage of the uninsured that will not qualify fA) Ambulatory patient services.
    (B) Emergency services.
    (C) Hospitalization.
    (D) Maternity and newborn care.
    (E) Mental health and substance use disorder services,
    including behavioral health treatment.
    (F) Prescription drugs.
    (G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
    (H) Laboratory services.
    (I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease
    management.
    (J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

    A laA) Ambulatory patient services.
    (B) Emergency services.
    (C) Hospitalization.
    (D) Maternity and newborn care.
    (E) Mental health and substance use disorder services,
    including behavioral health treatment.
    (F) Prescription drugs.
    (G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
    (H) Laboratory services.
    (I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease
    management.
    (J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
     
  16. onalandline

    onalandline New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once again...redistribution of wealth.
     
  17. nysegop

    nysegop Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  18. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,887
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
  19. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obamacare = racist tax. Tax white people to pay for blacks and illegal hispanics. You work for 40 hours a week so that others can drink beer and get fat. That is Obama's definition of "fair". Say no to the taxation by voting for Romney.
     
  20. Kulafu

    Kulafu New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It definitely redirects the natural economics of supply and demand of health care. However, we cannot break this down by race.

    President Obama's pursuit of what is fair is an illusion, for always, one will have more or less than another. If we divided all the wealth in the world wealth today, tomorrow many will have less than others, and we will again argue about what is fair.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page