Page 114 of 239 FirstFirst ... 1464104110111112113114115116117118124164214 ... LastLast
Results 1,696 to 1,710 of 3578
  1. #1696
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,233

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    My premiums went up 5%, not that enters into whether the government should take over health care. My fuel costs went up about 50%, I guess they need to take that over also? What does the government run efficiently now? Government workers make more than private sector workers doing the same job. My point in bringing up that Medicare/Medicaid does not cover the true costs was to point out that if everyone had the equivalent of Medicare/Medicaid then the healthcare industry would have to cut care dramatically to keep the doors open.
    Yup.. let's have the gubberment run everything that costs money because it's agencies are such models of efficiency and have a stellar track record of running in the black. Oh, and don't worry about your taxes going up to pay for these subsidies... they will simply print more money.





    Even the AP won't swallow the messiah's rhetoric whole on this one...

    FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan

    WASHINGTON – Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

    Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people.

    Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.

    Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

    "You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."

    And that's not all.

    Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

    "Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

    A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

    It could be a long wait.

    "There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."

    The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.

    A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.

    Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.

    But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.

    An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

    It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

    The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

    The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.

    For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.

    The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

    Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

    The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.

    But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.

    "People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #1697
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,171

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    ^^^

    On Massachusetts...
    Wednesday, March 17, 2010

    Massachusetts mirrors our future under ObamaCare

    Despite Mitt Romney's claims that his plan was quite different from Obama's plan, they are quite similar, as Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute lays out,

    Both have an individual mandate requiring most residents to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Most businesses are required to participate or pay a fine. Both rely on government-designed purchasing exchanges that also provide a platform to control private health insurance. Many of the uninsured are covered through Medicaid expansion and others receive subsidies for highly-prescriptive policies. And the apparatus requires a plethora of new government boards and agencies.

    While we're debating over ObamaCare, let's take a look at a very similar plan that has been in place in Massachusetts. The problems with Massachusetts health care plan are so very apparent. Costs are increasing and they're breaking the state budget. Contrary to predictions about what would happen if people were given health insurance, emergency room use has increased since the introduction of the health care plan that Mitt Romney championed and signed.

    Mr. Romney's promise that getting everyone covered would force costs down also is far from being realized. One third of state residents polled by Harvard researchers in a study published in "Health Affairs" in 2008 said that their health costs had gone up as a result of the 2006 reforms. A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country. Per capita spending is 27% higher than the national average.

    The state's stubbornly high health costs are partly the result of intrusive government regulations that stifle competition in the insurance market and strict mandates on what services insurance must cover. A 2008 study by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy found that the state's most expensive insurance mandates cost patients more than $1 billion between July 2004 and July 2005. The Massachusetts health reform law left all of them in place.

    Further, insurance companies are required to sell "just-in-time" policies even if people wait until they are sick to buy coverage. That's just like the Obama plan. There is growing evidence that many people are gaming the system by purchasing health insurance when they need surgery or other expensive medical care, then dropping it a few months later.

    Some Massachusetts safety-net hospitals that treat a disproportionate number of lower-income and uninsured patients are threatening bankruptcy. They still are treating a large number of people without health insurance, but the payments they receive for uncompensated care have been cut under the reform deal.

    The Bay State is also suffering from what the Massachusetts Medical Society calls a "critical shortage" of primary-care physicians. As one would expect, expanded insurance has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. As a result, many patients are insured in name only: They have health coverage but can't find a doctor.

    Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients, according to a 2009 physician work-force study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society. For new patients who do get an appointment with a primary-care doctor, the average waiting time is 44 days, the Medical Society found.

    Meahwhile, the State Treasurer of Massachusetts, Timothy Cahill, called a press conference yesterday to explain to people that the Massachusetts health care plan is going broke and is only being propped up by federal grants. He accuses the Obama and Deval Patrick administrations of funneling money into Massachusetts to help the program stay afloat while ObamaCare is being debated.

    And this is what is in store for all of us if the Democrats push this through.
    I don't know much about Massachusetts, but am surprised that people unhappy with their healthcare there would like to spread the dung to 49 other states and put it under an even larger and more inept bureaucracy.

    Edit... that was for Frank for goin' to the meetin'. Not that your post isn't cool, Scooter.

    Those damn teleprompters... who can tell a $ from a %? Like a corpse...
    Last edited by Dutchcedar; 03-17-2010 at 11:57 AM.

  3. #1698
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank1946 View Post
    I sincerely hope everyone posting here has contacted their state's Senators and Representative for their Congressional district. My Representative is Ann Kirkpatrick (D) a first timer who was "swept" in with the Obama victory. She's vulnerable now because this seat was held by Republicans for years. She's been getting an earful from her constituents about health care, none of it supportive. I've attended a "town hall" and written to her office expressing my feelings about this 2000 page boondoggle and so have many others up here in Arizona's 1st congressional district. She's wavering. I guess she doesn't want to be a one term Representative. My Senators aren't a problem ... Kyl and McCain Both solid "NO" Votes.
    Yeah- mine is a conservative Republican who is a solid No as well and I've been in communication with him on more than the tele-townhalls. His downside is that he has been in office so long that he sounds more like a baby-kissing tele-evangelist than a concerned congressman- but I'm calling him on it.

    And the financials have so much input into this plan that they are loving it. The government gets to absorb all the "toxic assests" for them and the government gets to add a tax that trumps medicaid to help service the growing debt.

    If McCain changes his mind like he did on the TARP and winds up supporting this POS, I'm thinking of a recall.
    Last edited by AeroSim; 03-17-2010 at 12:28 PM.
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

  4. #1699
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NW OHIO
    Posts
    1,675

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    "A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000."

    Well at least some one answered my question, ty Scoot. Pardon me for being so cynical, but why does part of me question if this is BS and they just think we are that damn dumb?
    Derailing topics with varied sidetracks since 2003.

  5. #1700
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Location
    SC
    Age
    61
    Posts
    314

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Ah, president dip$hit can't answer the questions.
    Without blowing smoke up our butts, guess he thinks everyone is as ignorant and stupid as he is.

    Just answer the questions mr. dumba$$.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4113576/f...resident-obama
    Dr. Seuss for 2011:I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam. I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like ex-speaker Nan, I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'..I do not like this spending spree, I'm smart, I know that nothing's free. I do not like their smug replies, when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it. Nope, nope, nope!

  6. #1701
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    South Windsor, CT.
    Posts
    5,458

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by AAdjuster View Post
    Ah, president dip$hit can't answer the questions.
    Without blowing smoke up our butts, guess he thinks everyone is as ignorant and stupid as he is.

    Just answer the questions mr. dumba$$.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4113576/f...resident-obama
    He can't answer the question because he's a lying cheating POS and thinks we AMERICANS can't think for ourselves.

    This isn't a President I have any respect for whatsoever, zero respect or faith in this boy/man child..
    Gigabyte 890XA UD3, Phenom II X6 1090T,4Ghz 2600nb w/Corsair H50, 2x2GB and 2x4GB GSKILL FLARE 1800Mhz DDR3, PNY GTX570, OCZ Vertex Turbo 60GB SSD, Intel X25 80GB SSD, Klipsch ProMedia 4.1, ASUS DVDRW, Corsair Obsidian 800D, Corsair 650W Professional series, Hanspree 26" widescreen, Cyborg R.A.T 5/Cyborg Gaming keyboard, Win7 64 Ultimate



  7. #1702
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,171

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    More dirty dealin'...
    March 17, 2010
    DEAL WATCH: Code Red Moves Cardoza and Costa to “Yes” Votes on Gov’t Healthcare Takeover After Water Deal
    Is this Another Backroom Deal to Force Obama’s Bill Down the American People’s Throats?

    As a vote approaches on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare, Code Red is now considering two supposedly “undecided” California Democrats, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, to now be “yes” votes.



    The U.S. Department of Interior announced yesterday that it is increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations to support local agriculture and jobs. The region has recently been starved for water and as a result unemployment has soared. Not surprisingly, Cardoza and Costa had a hand in the announcement:


    “Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza.”(“Interior Announces Increased Water Supply Allocations in California,” U.S. Department of Interior news release, 3/16/10)
    Hey, we're all for getting water to the central valley, 'cause we like to eat and all that. Making the area's representatives pawns in the games of the likes of Boxer and Feinstein playing roller derby for votes for Obambi/Reid/Pelosi... pretty f***ing despicable.

    Let's see... lower the required number of votes, buy enough of the votes, arm twist a few more of the votes... yeah, that's "governing" all right.

  8. #1703
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,171

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    And Obambi... your once "home state" of Hawaii... not suffering from any recent earthquakes.

  9. #1704
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    That's what happens with no teleprompter.
    Brian

  10. #1705
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,233

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    And Obambi... your once "home state" of Hawaii... not suffering from any recent earthquakes.
    That's what happens when you separate the umbilical between The Won and his prompter. Bret probably gave the best interview of Bamma since his coronation. The stammering frustration and responding to nearly every question with well rehashed talking points even when not even remotely close to answering a direct question simply pushed the point home. I especially loved the studdering.. yammering.. rambling response to the double counting of $500 Billion dollars. Reduce Medicare spending by 500 billion dollars and also be spent to provide 500 billion dollars in new spending?



    Profit...

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #1706
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,233

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan





    &

    Cognative dissonance: If the private sector can’t afford it, how can the public sector?

    E21 points out the innate ignorance, or if you prefer, cognative dissonance, in the belief that government is the answer when private sector outlays get smaller in the areas of health care and pensions. Their example is a recent column by EJ Dionne:

    In a recent essay in the Washington Post, EJ Dionne argued that we had no choice but to accept that government would grow larger in the future “because the private economy will not offer the same security it once did through employer-provided health and pension plans.” It’s a viewpoint that is often repeated by others on the left of the political spectrum, who complain about corporations curtailing the benefits on which households had come to rely. Without businesses financing health care and retirement, Dionne believes the choice is between a larger government to fill that role or widespread illness and poverty.

    The interesting aspect of this theory – which is hardly unique to Dionne – is the view that the government is some entirely disconnected entity that is able to finance obligations too weighty for households. If one assumes that government’s budget capacity comes entirely from the taxes it imposes on households – Dionne’s framework is unintelligible. If outlays are too great for the household sector to bear, how could these outlays be any more affordable for an entity entirely financed by the same households? The cash flow out to support households’ pension and health care expenditures has to be matched with an equal and opposite cash flow in from household taxes (including corporate taxes, which reduce the cash flow of households that are shareholders, employees, and consumers).

    Where does this belief come from that government has the means to finance what the private sector can’t and that it must step up and do so when it comes to health and financial security?


    Government revenue, as I noted once before, is about 14% of the national income. Government spending is about 25% (and rising). How is government the answer then? And if it were to raise taxes the commensurate 11% to equal spending, wouldn’t it be impoverishing the very households it plans on helping? All the money we’re talking about government spending comes from the same place. The other alternative involving government is massive borrowing which, at some point, has to be repaid. By whom? Well the same entity borrowing the money. And from where does that entity’s money come? The same place it always does – from the taxes it collects from its citizens.

    Let’s get specific:

    The idea of government as an entity entirely separate from the households that fund it is not only silly, but also exceedingly harmful, because it distracts from the serious business of confronting trade-offs and establishing realistic expectations. President Obama’s health care reform initiative depends, in part, on this fallacy. It expects people to believe that the interposition of government will allow for the same quality of care to be provided to a much expanded universe of beneficiaries at lower average cost for households. The problem is that households will end up paying for health care irrespective of the intermediary; the only way the government could reduce costs is if it does a better job rationing households’ access to care than private insurers and their anemic profit margins (The Obama Administration actually takes this fallacy a step further by claiming that it would “shrink the deficit by providing the world’s most expensive health care to 31 million additional people”).
    What you’re seeing in the public opposition to this monstrosity of a health care bill is a realization and rejection of the counter-intuitive claims made by politicians (and not just the Obama administration) that there is such a thing as a free lunch. The public recognizes the fallacy being presented as fact and is rejecting it outright. That’s because unlike EJ Dionne and his ilk, they recognize a basic truth:

    If something is too expensive for American households, it is too expensive for the government whose budget is financed by those same households.
    It’s not rocket science. However it is “smoke and mirrors” the way the administration is presenting it, and the public recognizes it as such. The relatively simple concept above contained in that single sentence is reality. The public lives in that world. It’s time the politicians joined us.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #1707
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On, Can
    Age
    33
    Posts
    827

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Your insurance companies spend millions to make billions off of you, screwing you in the process instead of helping you if you're not healthy.
    All the information that is fed to all of you is by lobbying goups that pour millions into the propaganda band wagon.

    There is not sensible way to fix your health care system unless you destroy every health care bills and implementations from when privatization actually began when regan decided to build around Kaiser Permanente's platform.

    the highest ranked health care systems in the world are Socialist in nature and they're NOT socialist/communist nations.

    you'll never have good health care until you remove profit mongering [insurance]companies from the mix, instead of greedy doctors that pretend to care about you, they care more about their wallets than anything else.

    and you know how the government would be able to pay for all of this? The seisure of assets/profits that these us based insurance co's make from bleeding you, the people, dry and NOT bailing them out with multi billion dollar bailouts and minimal marginal corperate taxes, while they continue to give one another multi-million dollar bonusses.
    Last edited by JSLEnterprises; 03-18-2010 at 07:44 PM.
    ..::J.S.L::..


    Email: jsl@jslenterprises.net

  13. #1708
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,171

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    All the information that is fed to all of you is by lobbying goups that pour millions into the propaganda band wagon.
    Are you special? What goup do you get your info from?

  14. #1709
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Location
    SC
    Age
    61
    Posts
    314

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JSLEnterprises View Post
    Your insurance companies spend millions to make billions off of you, screwing you in the process instead of helping you if you're not healthy.
    All the information that is fed to all of you is by lobbying goups that pour millions into the propaganda band wagon.

    There is not sensible way to fix your health care system unless you destroy every health care bills and implementations from when privatization actually began when regan decided to build around Kaiser Permanente's platform.

    the highest ranked health care systems in the world are Socialist in nature and they're NOT socialist/communist nations.

    you'll never have good health care until you remove profit mongering [insurance]companies from the mix, instead of greedy doctors that pretend to care about you, they care more about their wallets than anything else.

    and you know how the government would be able to pay for all of this? The seisure of assets/profits that these us based insurance co's make from bleeding you, the people, dry and NOT bailing them out with multi billion dollar bailouts and minimal marginal corperate taxes, while they continue to give one another multi-million dollar bonusses.

    You have been reading to many commie comic books.
    Drop the commie ideas they don't work, neither does socialism.
    Dr. Seuss for 2011:I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam. I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like ex-speaker Nan, I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'..I do not like this spending spree, I'm smart, I know that nothing's free. I do not like their smug replies, when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it. Nope, nope, nope!

  15. #1710
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    66
    Posts
    9,728

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JSLEnterprises View Post
    the highest ranked health care systems in the world are Socialist in nature and they're NOT socialist/communist nations.
    If it’s so great how come so many Canadians cross the border to seek healthcare in the US?

    What kind of and how much healthcare rationing do you have in Canada?

    What percentage of your yearly wages go to taxes in Canada and how much of that is for healthcare?

    You do understand the method the WHO uses to rank healthcare is bogus don’t you?

    And lastly how many of your personal rights and freedoms have you sacrificed for your government cradle to grave entitlements?
    Last edited by tucker; 03-18-2010 at 09:57 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •