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 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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:
    1,138
    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 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    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 Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,179
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    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 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

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

    Kulafu Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    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 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    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 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  19. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    44
    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 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  21. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no natural supply and demand in health care since that would require a competitive market where price information is freely available.

    The fact is, the middle class is already paying for everyone else's health care. Health care providers bear the cost of providing for the uninsured and they do it by raising their prices on everyone else. The health care act makes sure that everyone who can will pay at least something.
     
  22. big daryle

    big daryle New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Romney will thump oboobma in November, so by February, oboobma care will be gone anyway. If anything, it will help Romney in the election.
     
  23. Union Thug

    Union Thug New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey, righties. There really is objective information out there that doesn't come from Fox News or the latest spew from a rightist "Think Tank." What we have with RobertsCare was YOUR idea in the first place. It's only a bandaid on a long-term pricing problem. The real problem is not the apocalyptic ravings of Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity, but advanced technology, the "entrepeneurial spirit" of the industry, pressure from Wall Street to enhance stock prices, and excessive lobbying ($450 million spent by the health care lobby in 2011).

    Read: Private Care and Public Pain. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics December 1, 2008.

    "Free market" solutions were the cause of the problem, not the solution.

    But not to worry. The way Congress works these days, the staffers who wrote the bill will now resign, become lobbyists for the health care industry, and work through their "connections" to subvert the very legislation they worked so hard to pass.

    And don't give me that states rights crap! I didn't hear you whine when SCOTUS told Montana that they had to accept Citizens United whether they liked it or not.

    Union Thug
     
  24. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your a lib. You didn't read the bill. What's your expertise?
     
  25. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    "Free market" solutions were the cause of the problem, not the solution." Disagree, prior to Medicare, increased Federal intervention in the form of rules, regulations, taxes and finally the onset of PPO's, HMO's, Managed Care(all which literally forced participation by Providers if they wanted to continue to treat current and new patients).And then manipulation and control by the Federal Government through Medicare and Medicaid of what Physicians could legally charge patients in these programs for their services, which had an extremely adverse effect on health care costs in the private sector and ultimately cost of coverage. The current health care delivery system is not a free market and it has not been a free mark in my opinion since the establishment of Medicare and the intrusion by the Federal Government in the form of laws, rules, regulations and their long-term mismanagement of the Medicare Programs including misuse of Medicare taxes/revenue; and failure of the program to keep current in terms of projected revenue and expenses, cost of new developments in treatment, equipment and other forms of health care diagnostic procedures, treatment procedures and costs; not changing policy or procedure or taxation to pay for these new developments and future ones.

    And, by the way, Physicians are barred by Federal Law from even discussing what they feel is a fair charge for the services they provide and therefore, you will not find many if any publishing their fees publicly; however, they do have individual fee schedules and should provide you with their fees if you ask. Most will even check with your insurance prior to your visit to find out if the service you seek or treatment that may be necessary is covered. It is the insurance companies(inckluding Medicare) that often will not tell an insured how much they will approve and pay for a given provider visit, treatment, surgery or prescription.

    Who wins financially from the Indvidual Mandate being upheld? The Private Insurance Companies who are basically being paid by the massive increase in insureds, hence premiums from a large percentage of young health Americans who currently elect to not purchase extensive or any health insurance. Thier premiums and government premium assistance will offset the cost of Insurance Companies covering individuals with costy illnesses, congenital conditions and the like.

    Plus we will all still be seeing our premiums increase as Medicare pays providers less and they begin opting-0ut of the medicare program. Not to mention that those on visas, illegals and those at a certain percent of the Poverty Level are not required to purchase a policy and are exempt from the so-called "tax"(imo penalty) for not doing so.

    P.s. Health Care providers do not recoop their losses by raising fees because regardless of what they charge, if they accept insurance, participate in local health insurance plans; their fee is set by the insurers or Federal Government in the case of Medicare and can only charge the patient their deductible and allowed copayment. they have to write off the remainder of their fee and since it is a fee for a service and not a good, they can't deduct the difference as a loss

    Now Lawyers, plumbers, accountants and other skilled professionals can charge what they want by the minute, hour, day, and so on; withoiut any Government intervention, seems wrong to me that what a Physician/Surgeon can charge when they are in private pratice is regulated, arbitrary and not based on their cost to provide the service.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page