Fearmongers' were right about Obamacare
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
I know everybody is probably sick of this but I Just thought I would share this article with people that think the new healthcare bill is so wonderful.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/heal ... rance.html
The ink was barely dry on President Barack Obama's signature before the RAND Corp. released a report concluding that, not only would the hard-won health care package fail to curb health insurance premium increases, but the bill itself would drive premiums for young people up as much as 17 percent.
This should not have been a surprise: the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the plan would do almost nothing to reduce premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same type of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to an increase of nearly $500 per year for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention.
And, of course, during the health care debate, no presidential speech was complete without a promise that "if you have health insurance today, and you like it, you can keep it." But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under Obamacare. Some of those workers will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid.
In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back onto traditional Medicare.
And how many times did President Obama criticize the United States for having the highest health care spending in the world? Well, late last month the government's chief actuary released his report on the bill, showing that the bill will actually increase health care spending by $311 billion over 10 years.
At the same time, the report warned that promised future spending cuts, particularly those for Medicare, are unlikely to occur. "The longer-term viability of the Medicare reductions is doubtful," wrote Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid systems. What cuts do occur could have a severe impact on the quality of health care. As many as 15 percent of hospitals and other institutions could be forced out of business, according to the report, "possibly jeopardizing access to care" for millions of Americans.
With spending going up, and future savings likely to fall short of promises, we can expect higher deficits and, of course, higher taxes. The most recent estimates suggest that the taxes already in the bill will likely end up costing middle-class workers and small businesses an extra $1,000 per year.
Now the most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office warns that nearly 4 million Americans, nearly three-quarters of them middle-class workers, will be hit with fines for failing to meet the government's mandateto buy insurance. Those penalties will average nearly $1,000 per person in 2016.
All this, and the health care "reform" law is merely a month old.
Perhaps this is why nearly 56 percent of American voters now favor repealing the bill.
This episode provides a lesson, not just for health care reform, but more generally for the Obama administration's policies. When critics of the health care bill raised these concerns during the debate, they were accused of "fear-mongering." It was said that they were "opposed to reform," or were in the pockets of the insurance industry.
Now, as the administration presses forward with its other initiatives, including financial regulation and, possibly, "cap-and-trade" energy taxes, the same modus operandi is in action. Those who raise questions are derided as opposing "reform" and siding with the banks, energy companies or whoever the enemy of the day is. The bills need to be rushed through. There is no time for real debate.
But maybe, just maybe, the first month of Obamacare should serve as a lesson: Legislate in haste; repent in leisure.
and then there's this clip. I would really like to get some feed back on this. http://www.breitbart.tv/obamas-budget-d ... re-levels/
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/heal ... rance.html
The ink was barely dry on President Barack Obama's signature before the RAND Corp. released a report concluding that, not only would the hard-won health care package fail to curb health insurance premium increases, but the bill itself would drive premiums for young people up as much as 17 percent.
This should not have been a surprise: the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the plan would do almost nothing to reduce premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same type of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to an increase of nearly $500 per year for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention.
And, of course, during the health care debate, no presidential speech was complete without a promise that "if you have health insurance today, and you like it, you can keep it." But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under Obamacare. Some of those workers will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid.
In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back onto traditional Medicare.
And how many times did President Obama criticize the United States for having the highest health care spending in the world? Well, late last month the government's chief actuary released his report on the bill, showing that the bill will actually increase health care spending by $311 billion over 10 years.
At the same time, the report warned that promised future spending cuts, particularly those for Medicare, are unlikely to occur. "The longer-term viability of the Medicare reductions is doubtful," wrote Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid systems. What cuts do occur could have a severe impact on the quality of health care. As many as 15 percent of hospitals and other institutions could be forced out of business, according to the report, "possibly jeopardizing access to care" for millions of Americans.
With spending going up, and future savings likely to fall short of promises, we can expect higher deficits and, of course, higher taxes. The most recent estimates suggest that the taxes already in the bill will likely end up costing middle-class workers and small businesses an extra $1,000 per year.
Now the most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office warns that nearly 4 million Americans, nearly three-quarters of them middle-class workers, will be hit with fines for failing to meet the government's mandateto buy insurance. Those penalties will average nearly $1,000 per person in 2016.
All this, and the health care "reform" law is merely a month old.
Perhaps this is why nearly 56 percent of American voters now favor repealing the bill.
This episode provides a lesson, not just for health care reform, but more generally for the Obama administration's policies. When critics of the health care bill raised these concerns during the debate, they were accused of "fear-mongering." It was said that they were "opposed to reform," or were in the pockets of the insurance industry.
Now, as the administration presses forward with its other initiatives, including financial regulation and, possibly, "cap-and-trade" energy taxes, the same modus operandi is in action. Those who raise questions are derided as opposing "reform" and siding with the banks, energy companies or whoever the enemy of the day is. The bills need to be rushed through. There is no time for real debate.
But maybe, just maybe, the first month of Obamacare should serve as a lesson: Legislate in haste; repent in leisure.
and then there's this clip. I would really like to get some feed back on this. http://www.breitbart.tv/obamas-budget-d ... re-levels/
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Seriously though, until you get real and implement a real socialized system to benefit all the people, you're not gonna make any real saving. "Obamacare" was the watered down shit that managed to sneak it's way past enough senators with enough back-scratchings along the way so that some of them could look good to rep voters.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Hail, Hail!!!
Whatever, its still true. Obama lied to us and a lot of people bought into it and still believe that the bill is going to bring down the cost of premiums when in fact it's not. People are going to be forced into medicaid and medicare and people are going to be forced to buy healthcare.
Also all of you thought there weren't going to be any boards set up that had to do with rationing healthcare to seniors. well guess what there it is.http://www.breitbart.tv/obamas-budget-d ... re-levels/
huh?? Cosmo, that was in the 80's...
But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under Obamacare. Some of those workers will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid
here's another link.. I know I know it's coming from the right so it must be a lie. :roll: Do your research folks. The only lies that i see are the ones this administration has been telling us and THe msm on the left hasn't been giving you the truth either.http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/po ... Y4ZjliNDc=
obama didn't write the bill, the legislative branch did, obama just signed it.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
i rather not jump into this debate, but I must ask are you satisfied with the current health care system? Do you believe it is the best system America can produce? If you are not happy with it, what would you do different?
Do you feel Obama has no clue as to what he is doing?
thanks,
No Im not happy with the current system. I just believe that this bill is not the way to go about doing it. No I don't believe that this is the best system america can produce. What I would like to see done different is give people more choices.ie let people buy across state lines like you can with auto ins.
here are some others that I agree with. and No I don't think Obama is doing a good job. I think he is way out of his league when it comes to running this country. I have never seen a president belittle and put down his own countries citizens like he does. But I guess that's what someone does that think's and acts a dictator.
I agree with this... from Edwin Feulner, Ph.D.
Specifically, a plan that would reform health care will need to:
Give families control of their health care: We need to let families—not the government—control decisions so they can choose the coverage they want. For this to happen private health insurance needs to be portable—that is, owned by Americans so they can take their package from job to job. The health care system we have today was conceived in the era of World War II, when many Americans worked for the same company all their lives. As we know, that is not the case today. The President has acknowledged this. But we do not need a public plan, or mandates on businesses, to have portability. We need changes in rules and the removal of tax penalties to allow families real choice and ownership.
Reform the tax system: For portability to become reality, we need to reform the tax system. Right now, families can get a tax break for their insurance only if they hand over control of their insurance to their boss, and leave their plan behind if they change jobs. That needs to change. We need to provide the same tax relief to families wherever they choose to get their plan. In that world of empowered families, plans would have to compete to satisfy them, not compete to cut costs for employers.
Bring on competition: Americans will get quality health care only with the mechanism that has given us quality in all other aspects of life: competition. The way to get quality care in America is to have insurers compete to satisfy families in an insurance market, one that provides transparent information, ease of delivery and quick results, and which is fair to families and their doctors. Members of Congress pick and choose plans in such a market. The rest of America should also have that right.
Recognize that states know better than Washington: The challenges of organizing and delivering health care vary greatly across the nation. Rural Mississippi is not the same as Midtown Manhattan. States have always been smarter than Washington at figuring out how to get the job done. To the extent that government must play a role, the states should take the lead in devising the best way to reach our national goals. The last thing we need is one-size-fits-all health care. Congress needs to let states find the best way to achieve value for money in widening coverage while bringing down costs.
A reckless, expensive and one-sided rush toward “reform” would not only be damaging to our public discourse, but it could fundamentally change our society in ways that have far-reaching consequences.
Rather than bringing in the failed central-planning approach to health care, with the government controlling who gets what, let’s ensure access to affordable health care for all Americans. Let’s use the tried and tested approach of the empowered consumer in a truly competitive market.
These are some of our remedies to our nation’s health care system. There are other free market ideas that also warrant consideration. We call on the President and Congress to widen the conversation. Let the debate truly begin.
Well, I work for a newspaper so maybe I'm more sensitive about this stuff
The President wanted a bi-partisan bill so badly that insisted on trying to work with Republicans on health care for a long time even though they kept raising the bar higher and higher on any compromise - and eventually refused to compromise at all because they arrogantly thought the Dems couldn't get the bill through.
The quote above about calling on the Pres and Congress to widen the conversation and "let the debate truly begin" is laughable considering how many opportunities they had.
It's interesting how we have completely different views. I wont get into it, but I do disagree with you on just about everything you have stated in your post.
I would love to get into it, but I don't think anything will change- so what's the point.
peace
You used the correct term in your title, 'Fearmongers'. Because that is what is being broadcast, Fear.
On this point: "But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under Obamacare. Some of those workers will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid."
How are these people going "lose" their current health care coverage? Companies stop offering coverage? Aren't they spending money to cover you right now?
And the thing about doctors quitting their practices... to do what? Work at the Home Depot? Do you really believe a doctor is willing to end his practice and the money he is making to lay asphalt or install water heaters?
...
Do yourself a favor, instead of reading a biased interpretation of a memo... read the memo itself.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_o ... acted.html
Now... where in the memo does it talk about the 10 million currently covered Americans losing their coverage?
Hail, Hail!!!
i know, it's not as if they didn't have any chance to say anything in the more than a year it took to get passed, hell, he even had that televised thing before it passed.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Eddie would hate to read this last response.
You mean like when he said:
"'See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.''
or...
''I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president.''
or...
''If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.''
or...
''You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.''
Oh no, wait, that was the guy he replaced.
Also, and this is totally my foreign-ness coming through, but what is the obsession with state's rights? Rural Mississippi is different from midtown Manhattan. Yes, but in both cases, when a person is sick they'll need to visit a doctor. It's not like someone from Starkville, Miss., needs a specialized insurance plan to let them visit a bovine specialist if they break a leg. There's no reason why insurance should be different from state to state. The same goes for education - a school in Oregon should be teaching the same things a school in Louisiana is teaching. It's not like 2+2 magically equals 5 when you cross the Rockies. It seems to me as if state's rights is often more trouble than it's worth. It's frustrating as hell to live in a state where the education system is horrible, and people object to raising the standards because "People don't understand what it's like in Louisiana," as if somehow the fact that you're in Louisiana makes it justifiable to have crappy schools.
Mississippi ranks dead last in health care; has the highest rate of obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes in the US; has the lowest per-capita income of any of the 50 states; and ranks dead last in academic achievement. Clearly, running the show themselves isn't working too well for Mississippi.
Perhaps it would help if every one of the 50 states had to meet the same standards. I know if I was from Manhattan and I fell ill in Mississippi and needed to use a hospital, I'd feel a lot better knowing my insurance would cover it and the hospital would be of a certain quality. At the same time if I was from Oregon I'd like to know that if I ever moved to Louisiana then my 8th grade-level kids wouldn't suddenly be learning things they were taught in the 6th grade.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
All the Statist, "Big Brother, Please Take Care of Me" types need to understand one thing, and understand it FAST:
Just because someone doesn't agree with the proposed or enacted "solution", DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE SIMPLY PHOBIC, BIGOTED, REGRESSIVE, BACKWARDS, OR STUPID.
MAYBE THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE, AND WELL REASONED CONTENTION WITH THE "SOLUTION"
Further, more broadly, and more importantly:
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT SITUATION
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT "SOLUTION" IS THE ANSWER!
When someone hands you something for "free", or gives you an "easy way" out of a tough situation, do you ever wonder if you are being played? When someone with SO MUCH CONTROL OVER THE CURRENT STATUS-QUO offers you a way to change it, DO YOU EVER THINK THEY MIGHT BE "IN ON IT"?
Why if these same people have been part of the problem for decades, do you now think they have had a change of heart and want to HELP you !??!
Why just because you know the current situation sucks,
do you think that having the government step in and muck it up some more is a good "solution"?
WHY CANT THERE BE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE COERCION !?!
If its so fucking great, WHY ARE WE BEING FORCED IN TO IT?
Sounds like Social "Security".
WHAT A FUCKING JOKE.
I would opt out of that horseshit scheme in a motherfucking New York heartbeat if i could.
BUT ITS A RIGGED GAME, A STACKED DECK, AND A HOLLOW SHAM.
& now all you blind statists want to throw this crock of shit on the pile?
Hmmpphh.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
well...if PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES did not ENGAGE in the practice of DENYING COVERAGE ONCE A PERSON GOT SICK we would not be discussing this...
if PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES did not raise rates simply to MAKE A PROFIT and did not DENY COVERAGE to MAKE A PROFIT we would not be discussing this...
maybe when the NEW WORLD ORDER is in place we can finally get a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM...
Oh happy day that it will be. :roll:
What a bitter trade it must have been for the private insurance corporate devils who had to sacrifice the payout on a score of little kid's cancer bills in order to gain an entire nation worth of forced customers. :roll:
Hmm.
Once again, your focus on the current distopic system has caused you to hurl headlong in to the much yearned for new national "socialist" global order that ensures that you will enjoy your new serfdom, because it provides you with enough health and entertainment to keep you mindlessly engaged in your worker-drone existence, and keeps you from protest in the streets.
Man, we really ... uh ... stuck it ... to the ... uh ... man?
Hmm.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I guess you're right...let's burn this shit down and take to "the man"...
I do find it interesting that you offer no alternative to anything...anyway, I've got to go listen to Illuminate Princes Lady Gaga...she is soooo hypnotic...I just want to dance like I've got ants in my pants....
Well, she definately has all the markings of a temple whore.
it does seem to fit, and god knows the symbolism is all over her videos.
The youtube freaks are right about most of those claims.
As for not offering alternatives,
man i've done this before, over and over.
Prfctlfts has a good one posted here too.
Open up the market to MORE CHOICE for the consumer,
NOT FORCED DICTATORIAL CONTROL OF THE "MARKET".
What a crock of shit.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
yeah, yeah..."buy across state lines, blah blah blah"...."the free market, blah blah blah"...I guess if the free market was the answer, we wouldn't be talking about this...everything would be lollipops and butterflies...
the More Choice argument is a crock of shit...there is lots of choice when it comes to buying health insurance, that is if I want to sell my left nut to pay for it...
You know, you can force corporations to change their business practice without outright subverting the constitution.
Did you know states have the RIGHT to revoke corporate charters?
Why don't (didn't) states threaten these insurance companies with the loss of their state charters for business if they didn't change their business practices?
WHY DOES YOUR SOLUTION TO ONE SIMPLE PROBLEM (ie. pre-existing conditions OR dropping coverage) NECESSARILY ENTAIL A GOVERNMENT MANDATE OF COVERAGE FOR ALL ???
What kind of sense does that make?
You say THIS is the problem but THAT is the solution?
The proposed solution has so much in it that has nothing to do with the problem,
and it is dictatorship by coercion\compulsion.
You are talking about systemic problems that really only have to do with corporate business practice.
If the masses were so concerned about BUSINESS PRACTICES there are PLENTY OF WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT WITHOUT FORCING COVERAGE or making comprehensive FEDERAL level changes that place Old Daddy Government in charge.
We could have had congressional hearings,
we could have had state investigation,
we could have had the state attorney generals bring charges (you do know they handle CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, right???),
we could had state legislatures deal with the issue by overturning charters if changes weren't induced,
blah blah blah.
BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT YOU ARE AFTER,
YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO CONSIDER ANY OF THAT AN OPTION,
NONE OF YOU GUYS EVEN BOTHER TO MENTION THEM,
ALL YOU DO IS
"OH YAY YAY YAY. OBAMA AND THE 'DEMOCRATS' HAVE SAVED THE DAY.
WE GOT 'REFORM' WE GOT HEALTHCARE. YAY YAY YAY."
They gave you one crock ass system before,
and they are about to hand you an even larger crock,
one that may address some of your concerns (to appease you),
but one that is full of sick hypocritical and insidious measures of control
that do little more than hand over a fork load of clients to the same corrupt corporations,
and funnel it first through the controlling hands of our pathetically corrupt and fraudulent government.
WAS ANY ALTERNATIVE EVER CONSIDERED OTHER THAN A FEDERAL REFORM BILL?
NO.
WHY?
DUH.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
um...you say:
We could have had congressional hearings,
we could have had state investigation,
we could have had the state attorney generals bring charges (you do know they handle CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, right???),
we could had state legislatures deal with the issue by overturning charters if changes weren't induced,
call me kooky, but isn't that gov't intervention...? I thought that was a bad thing...
and I love how you play the mindreader card and assume you know what I'm thinking...
I think you're one of those people who will complain simply to complain and look for little men dressed in black suits hiding in your bushes...