E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that due to the Supreme Court’s June 28 decision on the 2010 health care overhaul, the law will cost $84 billion less over 10 years than CBO had previously estimated.
But CBO said 3 million more people will be left uninsured compared to its previous estimate of the number of uninsured in 2022 – that’s because at least some states are expected to forgo the Medicaid expansion that had been mandated by Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Amid the fallout from the theater shooting in Colorado, Melissa Harris-Perry and her guests talk about what went right in the emergency response, and how it ties in with the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.
“Fewer people will be covered by the Medicaid program, more people will obtain health insurance through the newly established exchanges, and more people will be uninsured,” the CBO said in its report Tuesday.
The law – as upheld and limited by the Supreme Court – will leave 30 million nonelderly U.S. residents uninsured by 2022, the end of the budget forecasting window.
Before the Supreme Court’s decision, the CBO had estimated the number of uninsured in 2022 would be 27 million.
The CBO issued its new estimate based on its assessment of the effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which upheld much of the ACA but also said the federal government couldn’t coerce states into acceding to the law’s expansion in the number of people eligible for Medicaid coverage.
The court ruled that the federal government couldn’t penalize states by withholding all their federal Medicaid funds if they chose to not participate in the expansion, which is set to take place in 2014.
If some governors and legislatures opt out of the expansion, about 3 million people who would’ve been covered by the expansion will be eligible for more expensive taxpayer subsidies in the new health insurance exchanges set up by the law.
Some governors – such as Govs. Rick Scott of Florida and Rick Perry of Texas – have said their states would not participate in the Medicaid expansion, but it’s still too soon to know which states will adopt the program and which ones won’t.
The CBO said Tuesday “the reductions in spending from lower Medicaid enrollment are expected to more than offset the increase in costs from greater participation in the exchanges.”
That will be true, it said, “despite the fact that the government’s average additional costs per person in the exchanges will be greater than its average savings per person for those who, as a result of the Court’s ruling, will not enroll in Medicaid.”
It explained that the number of additional people entering the exchanges as a result of the Supreme Court ruling will be “only about half the number who will not be obtaining Medicaid coverage, many of whom will be ineligible to participate in the exchanges.”
The CBO emphasized the uncertainty in its projections. It said, “How flexible executive branch agencies will be regarding the choices that states will have — particularly states’ options for pursuing partial (Medicaid) expansions — is unclear. Hence, what states will be able to do and what they will decide to do are both highly uncertain.”
Two weeks ago in previewing the CBO’s new estimate, former CBO chief Doug Holtz-Eakin, now president of a conservative advocacy group American Action Forum, pointed out that since expansion does not take place until 2014 governors and state legislatures have time to weigh the costs and benefits of the Medicaid expansion. “It’s a far from obvious decision. They should take their time and do the calculus carefully,” he said.
Under the ACA, the federal taxpayers will pay 100 percent of the cost of covering the people made eligible for Medicaid for the first two years and then will pay 90 percent of the costs for the newly eligible until 2020, at which point the normal federal matching formula would apply. That matching formula varies depending on per capita incomes of people in each state -- so poorer states such as Arkansas have more of their Medicaid costs paid for by the federal taxpayers than richer states such as Connecticut do. The minimum federal match is 50 percent.
Early in 2010, the CBO had estimated that the entire ACA would cause a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. It estimated that the additional cost of providing insurance to 32 million more Americans would be more than offset by cost savings imposed on Medicare and the tax increases in the law.
That CBO estimate was crucial since it gave some congressional Democrats in competitive districts and states the political cover they needed to vote for final passage of the bill.
Leave a Comment:
My health care costs have increased 51% over the last 28 months. When the CBO says they will go down 84B, compared to what they were projected to skyrocket, that doesn't help me a damn bit. Just more BS to throw in the Obama stew pot. Affordable Health Care, my as.......
If the amount of premiums your insurance company collected is more than 80-85% of what they spent out in direct health care costs for their customers, you should be getting a refund.
Obamacare will add something like 159 new federal agencies, bureaus, boards and commissions .... just to administer this darn law ! Have those costs been factored in as well ?
Nothing in this law truly does anything to LOWER the cost of delivering health care here in the U.S., quite the contrary ..... with more covered, pre-existing conditions, elimination of maximum payouts and government "SUBSIDIES" (hello, welfare) for those who cannot "afford" health insurance, paying for condoms, etc, etc .... this is just another government ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM designed by Obama to "redistribute the wealth".
It is interesting to note that the CBO estimate went down after a major Obama donor joined the CBO. I did not see that mentioned in this article.
"a major Obama donor"
She donated $2300 in 2008. Hardly a major donor.
"Obamacare will add something like 159 new federal agencies, bureaus, boards and commissions ...."
No. More like 45. See here: https://www.aamc.org/download/133856/data/crsentities.pdf.pdf Remember that this is a complex issue with multiple areas that must be addressed. It can't all be solved by assuming things will just fix themselves and don't need to be administered or paid for. I think we tried that last part before. It's called Medicare Part D.
"Have those costs been factored in as well ?"
In a word, yes. Look at the first scoring of the law.
"Nothing in this law truly does anything to LOWER the cost of delivering health care here in the U.S."
Lowering your cost was not the primary reason for PPACA. Providing access to as many US citizens as possible to healthcare, and addressing the abuses promoted by insurance companies: recission, lifetime and yearly caps, denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions, etc., was the reason. And btw, the state insurance exchanges will most likely lower the premiums for those who participate in the same way that large companies, and state and federal employees have lower premiums, by spreading the risk among a large group.
P.S. There is not mandate to cover condoms in PPACA.
You are truly not paying attention.
Health care costs and insurance rates have been rising at 300% the rate of inflation for a lot longer than since the ACA.
And there is no evidence that they wouldn't have gone up even more without the passage of the ACA.
But you can always move to gov rick's or gov scott's state, where all those not willing to participate are lined up and just waiting for a handout.
Your health care premiums went up because your insurance company raised the premiums, not because of Obamacare act which has not kicked in yet. Please review your premium history and let me know the last time premiums did not increase aprox 10% per year. If you are like most of us you will find it was twenty years ago + ! Whatever your premiums went up may have been painful, but did not have anything to do with the new Health Care Act.
My goodness, Dave, and you blame Obama? LOL, LOL, LOL. You don't get it; do you? Our country is being held hostage by a bunch of people who have no plan and who are a bunch of SORE LOSERS. That's right, and they just CAN'T STAND IT. So, instead of doing what most politicians have done for years, they dug their two year old feet into the sand and now they're known for their favorite word...NO. No nothing. Which is what people should vote when they run again. Any "representative" who thinks that just say no is okay needs to...wait for it...it's also a two letter word...G O!
Note to GOP: You repeal it, you pay for it.
Pay as you go, right?
The CBO hasn't gotten ANY cost estimate correct....EVER!!! The head up their asses libs might want to believe these lies but you will excuse us if we fall down laughing at the gullibility of the libs and this latest bullsh*t coming from that POS accounting group. ROTFLMAO!!!
Bottom line, doing nothing to address the healthcare crisis in which people were using emergency rooms for their general healthcare, is not an option.
Stop whining. If your insurance goes up, shop for another plan. They can no longer deny you because of a pre-existing condition.
I'll bet you $10,000 that a Romney in the White House will cause you to lose your insurance all together if you get ill - so in a way insurance will be cheaper for you because you won't have any.
Where are the tax returns Romney? What are you hiding?
ZATHROSE: Yea, especially when they provide statistics that you don't want to hear. If their report had stated the opposite of this cost savings, you'd be all over this newsvine, spewing your "I told you so" vitriol.
Obama Care is now the settled law of the land. It's a done deal. You'll just have to accept it, you lost. It must be breaking your heart at the thought of millions of your less fortunate, fellow Americans, being able to receive decent health care for the first time. What wicked socialism.
Wow, what a misleading title for this article. The title strongly implies that the health care reform law increases the number of uninsured -- when the reality is exactly the opposite. The estimate for the number of uninsured is higher because of the number of republican controlled states that are going to refuse to implement it.
Is it asking too much for the title of an article to accurately reflect the story?
antgne and the rest of the Obama devotees are really spinning reality today. The cost of medications went shy high and many were no longer covered after Obamacare passed. When the doctors say screw it, I can make a better living elsewhere without putting up with government crap then what ya gonna do? No doctors, no health care, really does not matter what insurance you got.
Dave D-1046643
The increases had started way before the ACA was a twinkle in anyone's eye. The CBO is talking about the total cost to the government/taxpayer... not your premium. Your anger, although understandable, is misdirected. The ACA is attempting to get control of this mess... there is nothing in it that raises your premiums.
"The cost of medications went shy high and many were no longer covered after Obamacare passed. "
BS. You have no credible source for this claim because it isn't true. Medications go up and down regularly, and PPACA has NOTHING to do with whether private insurance companies cover medications or not.
"When the doctors say screw it, I can make a better living elsewhere without putting up with government crap then what ya gonna do? "
Let me tell you that many physicians will be delighted when all the provisions of PPACA go online. Do you have any idea how many personnel hours you can use up on the phone with insurance companies who make up all their own rules as they go along? You wouldn't believe it. And PPACA contains provisions for training new physicians, nurse practitioners and other health professionals as well as community health centers for areas that are underserved.
I hope all 50 states opt out of the Medicaid expansion and that all Americans choose to buy health insurance rather than pay the "tax" or "penalty" or whatever you prefer to call it.
And if Republicans decide to repeal the ACA, then they need to pass a law prohibiting public hospitals from treating ER patients who have neither health insurance nor cash to pay for services when rendered. Republican death panels, that's right -- you don't have money or insurance, then you don't get medical care. If you die in the ER waiting room, it's nobody's fault but yours.
Wow. Look at all of the lies spewing from the rightwing nutjobs regarding...quote Obamacare unquote.
Hey, where's the one about the death panels?
Please stop. You are embarrassing yourselves. Your conservative Supreme Court let you down and your heads exploded.
By the way, tell me again the republicon plan for healthcare reform? Or reform wasn't necessary?
But after 1993, you know, when the republicons mocked Hillarycare? They held house majority until...2006. Any mention of reform during that time??? Didn't think so.
Hey Puh, the truth of the matter is ,there was a death panel in Obamacare ,it was abruptly removed when Sarah Palin brought it up . All it stated was, that the Government Insurance company,( Obamacare), has the right to deny treatment if the patient was deemed incurable. Canada's health law has the same thing in it, that is why the Parents of Baby Joseph left Canada and came to the USA to get their baby treated. Canada's health care said he could not be cured and their was no need to put him on life support, just let him die. That my friend is what you call a death panel. Yes the baby was gonna die anyway but that was a decision for the parents to make not the government health care.Thank God ,the good ole US of A was near and the parents got to spend another six months with their child.
My question is this ,do the Democrats really ,truly, even know what is in there? To quote Nancy Polosie, "lets just pass it and we can read it later", un quote.
IMO ultimately it would be better to have it cost a bit more and cover more people, but it's still a step in the right direction. Like all things it can be improved with time and effort, and I think it will be.
Sorry, I already pay 100% of the cost of my own insurance and cant afford to cover someone who is too lazy to work and buy their own!
I left my job due to the crappy insurance getting worse and worse with less coverage and more costs, TA DA! My sister still works for the company, her cost went up another 70/mo, deductible went from 2500 to 5000, copays went up 15 for PCP, 25 for specialist and now, only generic drugs are covered so if your medicine is not available in generic, you are on your own! Thanks a lot Barry!
Didn't he say NO TAX INCREASES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS??????????? LIAR!!!!!
WRONG!!! 3 companies turned me down for pre-existing! Now I have a "discount insurance card"
Mitt will turn in his tax returns....RIGHT AFTER BARRY TURNS IN HIS COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS!
What did Barry spend MILLIONS to hide???? Hmmmmm
Some good comments on here and some crazy talk as well. Whether you support Obama or hate him, here are the very simple facts that we should all be able to agree on: Our health care system was broken and had to be changed. Although it didn't include everything everyone wanted, it is better than it was. The Health Insurance companies have been raising rates faster than inflation for years. My rates increased the month the affordable health care act passed even though nothing from the act was implemented. The CBO is a non partisan organization. They will never be perfect, just like the weather report but it is better than running in the dark. Medicare will bankrupt our country and an $82 billion savings is a better than nothing.
This article is a sham.
First off, the CBO can only predict the cost based on current information. It has no way to determine what the REAL cost will be. Mathematics is a marvelous science but it can't predict the future. Let's not forget that this program will be run by the federal government, who has yet to create a program that they haven't totally screwed up.
The Obama administration claimed this was necessary to fix the health care system in this country. That was a lie. This Act does nothing to address the true causes of the high cost of health care. All it does is put millions more people on the government hand out list, create additional government jobs, which creates even more burdens on the taxpayers...and does NOTHING to fix the root problems with our health care system.
I do know one thing though. I will not abide by this idiocy. I will not pay the penalty and I will not purchase some bs insurance because the GOVERNMENT says I have to. Let them try and force me. They will fail. They will fail for the simplest reason on earth.
They have no way to coerce me into following their mindless idiocy unless I allow it. That's not going to happen.
Right. A law that mandates citizens MUST purchase health insurance through mega corps won't raise rates at all. HA HA HA. Silly people, don't you see that Obama just paid off all the insurance companies? And I'll wager a bet that many of us who are currently covered by an employer-based plan will be dropped in the next few years. Why? Because it is cheaper to pay the fine than to provide insurance for employees.
This article leaves out some important updates. The cost of Obamacare as scored by the CBO has doubled - they knew it would, as the original scoring was done for 2010 - 2019, 4 years before the cost / benefits took effect. See the Washington Examiner March 21 article entitled "Why the Doubling of Obamacare's cost matters"
The gross costs of Obamacare’s insurance coverage in the CBO’s 2010–2019 estimate were indeed $940 billion. The updated estimate covers the years 2012–2022, in which the gross costs will be $1.76 trillion, which is, yes, almost double the other number. But these numbers aren’t remotely comparable.
Now let's take a closer look at the numbers and how Obamacare became law before we decide who is being dishonest here.
First, lets get rid of the 11-year window the CBO uses in their most recent report, and make a new ten-year window so we can have a apples-to-apples ten-year comparison. Full Obamacare implementation doesn't start until 2014, so the CBO still hasn't procured an estimate of what a full 10-years of Obamacare spending looks like. But let's be generous to Obamacare's defenders and assume that the spending in 2023 is the same as 2022. That would make the true, 2014-2023, 10-year cost of full Obamacare implementation around $2.02 trillion.
Add to this reality the fact that the CBO scored the original Medicaid at just under $1 billion, and the actual first year cost was $17 billion, and you begin to understand how impossible it is guess what will happen with a government program that opens the floodgates. CBO estimates, if anyone bothers to look back, is nearly always wrong, many times in a multiple (2x, 3x, 5x higher actual cost), and is never over in their estimates.
Also consider this for all you bleeding hearts - the #1 problem with emergency room overcrowding is Medicaid patients, as these folks have zero access to decent doctors, as most decent doctors are no longer accepting these patients. Obamacare adds millions of new patients to Medicaid.
Can anyone explain how this will make access to care better, when these millions will overflow the existing and dwindling hospital resources?
Smaller community hospitals will be closing, and once closed, will be very difficult to re-open. This is the beginning of a healthcare disaster, and exactly what the long-game is - blow up the system in order to force single payer. Just listen to Obama's speeches from the early 2000's - he states plainly that the long game is single payer, government healthcare.
Speaking of "mindless...."
And in another month and a half, there'll be another set of figures.
@rashinal
ROTFLMAO!! And here we have the new defense of Obamacare- "costs probably would have gone up anyway", OMG, that's too funny.
And what of the mention in the article that “Fewer people will be covered by the Medicaid program, more people will obtain health insurance through the newly established exchanges, and more people will be uninsured,” the CBO said in its report Tuesday."
"More people will be uninsured"...but wait...I thought the purpose of Obamacare was to guarantee that FEWER people were uninsured but instead MORE people will be...and we get to pay more to boot...and we're considering giving this guy another 4 years??? Really???
jim-1455434
"this is just another government ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM designed by Obama to "redistribute the wealth"."
And unfortunately most of that wealth will be redistributed from the middle class since they will be taxed the most by this.
jim-1455434
and your solution to resolve the higher costs of healthcare? Amazing how people tear apart the health care law but cannot offer up ANY kind of a solution either.
If we changed the name to RomneyCare would that make it all better?
Yet another ACA Real Bad Idea ™. This makes insurance a cost plus proposition with a disincentive to work to keep the costs from the health care providers as low as possible. Think about it…
The truth is that ACA is a flawed piece of legislation. It does not even pretend to address the fundamental forces that have been driving rising costs from the health care providers.
ACA did not begin with an honest objective analysis of the problem. If they did not identify the root cause of the problem then any attempt to actually fix the problem will fail and, most likely, just make the problem of rising health care costs from the providers worse.
"there was a death panel in Obamacare ,it was abruptly removed when Sarah Palin brought it up . All it stated was, that the Government Insurance company,( Obamacare), has the right to deny treatment if the patient was deemed incurable."
There are NO death panels. There have NEVER been any death panels. See here: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/
Actually it's Wall Street that made health care a "cost plus" proposition by insisting that profit margins be in a state of eternal increase. That's why it became necessary to LIMIT gross profit margins to "only" 20%!
ItsAboutTime-3704531
Amazing how some people refuse to accept that tearing apart the health care law IS the solution. After we get rid of that cluster@!$%# we can start to unwrap some of the bureaucratic red tape that was already in place.
That's the Conservative answer at this pont..."trust us, we'll come up with a solution after we reinstate the Medicare donut hole, preexisting conditions clauses, lifetime limits on coverage, do away with the ability to get coverage for your kids up to age 26..."
Clearly you do not understand the situation. Health care costs are driven by the health care providers, not the “evil” insurance companies. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the insurance industry has been a factor is limiting the rise of costs from the provider by negotiating lower costs.
For example, my wife had a health emergency several years ago. The raw bill from the hospital was $6000. Due to their contract with the health insurance company the hospital could only charge $2400. So that contract, negotiated by the insurance company, reduced the actual cost by over 50%. Prior to ACA the insurance company had an incentive to push back on the costs from heath care providers as it would mean better profits as well as lower costs to the insured. With the ACA 20% cap, the insurance company could retain only $480 of the $2400 but could keep $1200 if they had paid the full $6000. So, ACA provides a negative incentive to keep the actual costs from the provider as low as possible.
How do I do the math on this one?
The article says the law will cost $84 billion less over 10 years than CBO had previously estimated (when and how much?). I cannot find anywhere in the article what the CBO believes it will cost after factoring in the $84 billion. It would seem that good reporting might want to include that figure. If there is an $84 billion savings while the projected cost exceed $1 trillion, how newsworthy is that. The article does say that these numbers are fluid. So, why report that there may be $84 billion in less than the anticipated increase without also sharing what the newly estimated increase will be. Might I suggest, its only purpose is political. It allows someone to write a headline that suggests the costs are less than expected. However, the costs are greater than the CBO first expected and greater than the anticipated costs when the bill was passed by the (I need to pass it before I can know what is in it!) Congress.
This is pure political nonesense.
Here's a link to the CBO's new estimates. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472
Thanks, DrDrGimmetheNews-
So the revised cost over the next 10 years is 1,168 Billion (1.17 Trillion) dollars. Apparently, the CBO is afraid to use the term "Trillion" and opts to speak in terms of thousands of billions. I suspect that is an optimistic number! However, perhaps that was the number that should have been highlighted in the article. What do you think?
"Apparently, the CBO is afraid to use the term "Trillion" and opts to speak in terms of thousands of billions."
No, they were showing enough numeric places so you could see the math. I always read the original source so I can see what is being skewed, selectively quoted/edited, and misinterpreted.
Tom, dont worry about the cost, it will be paid by the good ole, hard working, middle class,you know, the one Obama and the Demos say they are looking out for.
If you want to see the real costs you'll have somewhere that is not NBC:
U.S. will pay for half of all health care costs by 2020 - July 28, 2011
"Total health care spending is expected to nearly double to $4.6 trillion in 2020, from $2.6 trillion in 2010.
Health care spending per capita is forecast to increase to $13,708 in 2020 from $8,327 in 2010, the report said.
By 2020, nearly 30 million additional people are expected to have health insurance because of reform.
Over the 10-year period, the report showed that the biggest annual jump in health care spending will happen in 2014 when health reform is fully implemented.
CMS estimates that in 2014 about 23 million uninsured consumers will gain access to health insurance, mainly through government programs such as Medicaid and through the creation of federal and state-funded health insurance exchanges.
As a result, the government expects Medicaid spending to surge 20% in 2014 and private health insurance spending to increase 9.4%.
Norwalk said the estimated sharp surge in Medicaid spending just in one year, is very concerning given that states are already struggling with their budgets.
As millions more gain access to health insurance, the government expects spending on prescription drugs, physician and hospital services to increase as well.
CMS expects prescription drug spending to jump by 10.7% in 2014 and to account for 11% of national health spending by 2020. Spending on physician and clinical services is forecast to rise by 8.9% by 2014, representing 19% of overall health care spending."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/28/news/economy/healthcare_spending_forecast/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=hp_bn3
P.S. Keep in mind these are even the government released numbers, the reality will be much worse.
pjam09, you need to be careful about numbers from a year ago. We're looking at the new CBO projections.
If government spending is the main issue (and not helping Americans get access to doctors), the new CBO report projects the ACA will reduce the deficit. If Republicans were successful in a full repeal, it would increase the deficit. From July 24, 2012:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/07/24/us/politics/ap-us-health-care-overhaul-costs.html?hp
"Republicans have insisted that "Obamacare" will actually raise deficits — by "trillions," according to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But that's not so, the budget office said.
The office gave no updated estimate for total deficit reductions from the law, approved by Congress and signed by Obama in 2010. But it did estimate that Republican legislation to repeal the overhaul — passed recently by the House — would itself boost the deficit by $109 billion from 2013 to 2022."
What happened to the original ten year CBO score.....you know, the one where they used 10 years of revenue to pay for only 6 years of costs? The ACA will end up being a bottomless money pit, just like medicare, that will but this country over the edge.
$84 billion less over 10 years? That is so far in the noise you might as well call it zero! That's just a few weeks worth of federal spending at today's spending rate. We are supposed to believe that the CBO can predict future spending for the next 10 years with an accuracy of plus or minus a few weeks? Those guys must be geniuses!
And your estimate is?
What is known is republican states that get the most help from government will be obstructing healthcare plan by keeping 3 million people off the plan. The lost reduction is due to the repubs obstruction. 3 million people with out care.
azdad........84 billion almost zero? Wishful thing to try and crash that program by repubs. Just like the 14 repubs who pledged to crash the economy to make Obama a one term president. Why do repubs hate america so much? Why do they vote to obstuct anything good for the country? Why do they cheer at any bad news whether they caused it or not?
The Romney plan is...........let them die!
Vote Obama/Biden 2012
The key word in the actual CBO report is "uncertain". It is used throughout the report. The $84 billion net reduction in deficit spending over 10 years is based on an increase in the estimate of the actual cost. Originally, the cost was suppose to be about $800 billion over 10 years. That was increased and then decreased to the current projection of $1.17 trillion...nearly 50% more than the orginial cost. Also, what I can't seem to understand is how the government is projecting a lower cost for medicare because of the law when the country's population is getting older. Does that mean we are going to compensate the physicians even less than they are currently being paid? Let's face it, once you hit 59, preventive healthcare is only going to get you so far. Something is going to come along and you are going to require extensive healthcare or die suddenly. We have gotten so good at sustaining life (by medical standards), but at what cost?
For all those who say that premiums are not going up because of the PPACA are not looking at the new mandated coverages for contraception and adding dependent children on family coverage until they are 26. Insurance companies are not adding that coverage for free.
"Uncertain" and "unclear" are the words used in the actual CBO report. It will become clearer after the election. But, I know that if my healthcare was not provided, I would have no problem paying the fine if and until I needed to purchase healthcare.
GOP Tea Partiers, you are warned: 3 million uninsured makes for a lot of voters in these States that deny these people the help they know they could have gotten from the Federal expansion of Medicaid.
DNC idiots you are warned. Obama stole $500,000,000,000 from us seniors to fund his monstrosity and we are pissed and vote in huge numbers. Medicare was OUR money, taken from our wallets, earmarked for our health care, not his personal slush fund.
Starsailing:
No... The Romney plan is to help those that are capable learn to accept personal responsiblity for themselves and make them learn take care of themselves...
Get a job!
Romney 2012
Hey just wanted to let you know we're screwed used to do budget for an ER(was active duty back then) and I always had to project 7% budget increase. I have no idea what the government has in plan, perhaps we need to vote on it to find out what's in the plan. However I think the states and the feds will not be able to deal with this. The cost will easily be between double to triple my budget increase back then. Course I don't know what I'm talking about, but like I tell my friends, invest in lead now and if we survive then invest in gold, however some one should be thinking how maybe buy canned beans.
"Obama stole $500,000,000,000 from us seniors to fund his monstrosity and we are pissed and vote in huge numbers. Medicare was OUR money, taken from our wallets, earmarked for our health care, not his personal slush fund."
Still as false as it's always been. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/10/whoppers-of-campaign-2010/
Valhalla,
You sound like your entitled to Medicare. Does that mean you have an entitlement mentality. I'm shocked, coming from you.
The $500mm you talk about was for an aspect of Medicare called Part C, a program which was considered to be less effective and more costly to the government than traditional Medicare. Sounds to me that they were eliminate waste and efficiency--conservative financial principles.
Also, one could argue that the $500mm was move from this program to fill the "donut hole" in the Part D prescription drug benefit for seniors. Anyway, I am no expert on these things, yet. I pay for all my own medical care, deductibles and insurance.
In your particular case, what Medicare benefits have already been take away from you or are expected to be taken from you in the next 2 years. I would like to know how you personally have been damaged by this bill? Also, are you or will you benefit from the "donut hole" provision.
If you don't like the latest number the CBO came up with today on the cost of ObamaCare, just wait a minute.
HELLO
Nothing has kicked in yet but pre-existing conditions, keeping kids on till 26, and not being denied coverage..stay tuned for the rates..
Well, if they're anything like the rates the rest of the industrialized world pays, we can expect a reduction of around 50%.
If we've got the guts to go single-payer.
They're not anything like the rates of rest of the industrialized world.
The rest of the world doesn't have insurance companies as the payers of health care. The state covers that and insurance companies exist as additional coverage. The major flaw in the 'affordable healthcare law' was that it essentially gave the insurance companies the business rather than going for a public option.
That is because we didn't want "socialized medicine." Remember, most of these ideas originated with the Repubs, especially the mandate. An example of "personal responsibility." Why, the whole thing was modeled on Governor Romney's Massachusets' plan.
No, we don't want socialized medicine.
Sorry, but your health is your responsibility, not mine. Since I have nothing to do with the choices you make in this life, why am I expected to have to help pay your health care? Not my problem and nothing you say can logically change that.
This idiotic idea does NOTHING to address the root causes of high health care costs. What it does do it place millions more people on the federal dole, create more government and cost the taxpayers more money. The CBO projections are meaningless since they are nothing but a prediction and cannot be proven.
The Idiot-in-Chief is attempting to apply a bandaid to a trauma victim. Get real.
Anyone with any real intelligence knows this is doomed to failure for the simple fact that it doesn't address the real problems facing our health care system. It doesn't address costs, insurance premiums, malpractice insurance costs, fraud/waste/abuse in Medicare/Medicaid, etc. There are multiple contributing factors to the high cost of health care in the US and this Act doesn't address ANY of them.
But keep playin that fiddle while Rome burns.
Wizard
You are wrong the AFC addresses ALL the issues you said it didn't.....except malpractice insurance...which contributes less than 1 tenth of 1 percent to the cost of healthcare..
Wizard... Everythinbg you ranted about, the reubs were blocking due to the 14 repubs who pledged to obstruct every bill that would be a positive point for president Obama. They pledged to do just the opposite of what you asked for. Don't blame dems for any shortcomings you may have imagined, blame yourself.!!! Record republican obstruction. You can't have it both ways, if you want something better jump ship.
What is repub plan?....Let them die.
What is your plan?..........ooops time for you to run away...trizzle trazzle trizzle trome, time for this one to come home!
the working man is already paying for all the health care for the welfare people , why cant he get free health care also ?
The Repubs are as dumb and non-philosophical as the Dems...and that isn't personal responsibility. Personal respinsibility doesn't include subsidizing fat people's bad behaviors, or smoker's bad behaviors, etc, by pooling all the costs and placing those costs on the backs of those not engaged in bad behavior. Personal responsibility isn't forcing doctors to see patients who COULD pay, but chose stupidly not to be insured (not the poor). That stupid collectivist system of "we can't refuse service to you" is what needs abolished, not expansion of the subsidization of bad behaviors like not getting insurance you could afford, smoking, drinking, or being fat.
Personal responsibility means you personally take responsibility when you screw up...not the state forcing you to never screw up, and if you do someone else will help you pay for it. You think letting the state handle it would be any better? All that would mean is gearing care toward stats...letting some die, because they're too old, too sick, etc, because the resources are finite and the goal is raise life expectancy for the whole...not the individual. Health care is a service not a right. If there was one doctor in this country, could you hold a gun to his head and make him spend time with every patient evenly? No. Because it's not your right...it's his talent to be paid for, and his service based on expertise to provide to the demands of the market. If he refused to help anyone, he wouldn't go to jail, and shouldn't, although he'd lose his ability to practice medicine obviously.
Personal responsibility ended as a possible solution when doctors were told "help them or you broke a law", and when taxes got so high that charity hospitals all but disappeared comparatively. It ended when people asked for things for free they didn't earn, and had no intention to pay for. It ended when we all argued about how to reduce spending and the deficits, and thereby the debt, but spent more on a law like this to make insurance company lobbyists more rich, while the so-called left called it a God-send. It ended when nearly 50% of evry health dollar was spent by the state, not by individuals.
Insurance isn't the problem. Personal responsibility isn't the problem. The state's involvement in healthcare is the problem...and it's involvement in anything always is the problem. It creates "diseases" (like provoking enemies overseas), and then sets itself up like a hero when it hands us the "cure" (more wars after we're attacked). It causes the disease, and gives us the cure....hence no cure would be necessary if IT didn't make us sick. Get it the hell out of healthcare, or continue to have a non-free market in healthcare, and continue to see costs rise while to folls say "well we need more socialized medicine", that will invariably make us like Europe...letting old people and cancer patients die on waiting lists in order to save the working age productive people, so they can pad their state life expectancy stats and keep costs low (as saving old people and cancer patients is expensive).
Please note that the reason so many states are considering opting OUT of this plan is because part of the plan is for there to be more people on Medicare/medicaid.
The FEDS do not PAY all the costs of those programs, the states are obligated to provide a percentage of it.
And guess what? MY state does NOT have the money to cover more people on medicare/medicaid. We already are having trouble covering our part of unemployment.
Does ANY ONE remember "no child left behind"? The federal government MANDATED all the testing and paperwork, and then did NOT fund any of that. The net result was that most districts had to CUT funds for other things (a school nurse, extracurricular activities, etc. to PAY for the program.
Does ANYONE think the increase the Feds are looking for from the states covering more and more people on medicaid/medicare will come from the FEDERAL treasury?
And have we learned NOTHING from European countries who kept legislating more and more expenditures with NO WAY to pay for them?
The Wizard of Wisdom #3.5
The year to year of health insurance "profits" will also be a huge factor in the rising cost of this plan.
A Single payer plan, ditched by the GOP, would have significantly helped to keep costs down. Hey, if Romney is elected he will kill Romney Plan II and life will be beautiful again.
ObamaCare is supposedly funded by the most convoluted tax scheme ever conjured up by Congress to pay for an entitlement. I just can't wait until those investments start getting hit with a tax as high as 40%.
@Holiday Cheer: The democrats couldn't get their own party members to support a single payer healthcare plan. The PPACA is not healthcare reform. It is health insurance reform...a poor one at that.
@starsailing
Just out of curiosity, have you made post in the last 6 months that didn't include this line? Do you mention it in every conversation that you have? When you order food at a restaurant do you find some way to insert into your order?
Oh and btw, if those republicans had succeeded we wouldn't have been stuck with the epically failed and ludicrously named "stimulus". Funny how you libs fail to recognize that these few republicans couldn't block Obama's two main objectives yet you still blame them for our current situation. Probably because 12 people out of 535 in congress can't really do jack @!$%#. Yes 12; 2 of the 14 aren't members of congress which I'm sure wasn't mentioned in the list of talking points you quote from. You clearly suffer from selective memory and selective reasoning.
"the epically failed and ludicrously named "stimulus""
You're aware that the majority of the empirical studies done on the effects of the stimulus say it worked, right? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html
Shhh, Conservatives don't need facts...they have TRUTH(!)
@DrDrGimmetheNews
You're aware that this has been the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression right? You're aware that we are now in the third, so-called "summer of recovery" right?
If I've got a flat tire the spare donut tire will "work" but would you call that a successful replacement for the normal sized tire? When "worked" is the best defense you can come up with you're fighting a losing battle. And of course the cost isn't even taken into consideration. I can take my flat tire to the shop to get a plug and patch but if they charged me 2 grand wouldn't you say I was an idiot? But it "works" now. LOL!
@John B, Des Moines, IA
You realize not everyone in this country is either a conservative or a liberal right? Just because someone doesn't agree with idiotic liberal BS doesn't mean they subscribe to idiotic conservative BS.
He's trying to be clever. Not succeeding very well, but must give some credit for the attempt.
MOmaid: You make a very good point, sadly it will fall on deaf ears. Mandating something, forcing compliance and then not providing the funding and punishing the states for not funding is something that no one really understands. All the 'feel-good' legislation has to be paid for excpet in Liberal land, they think that OTHER people pay for things, not them.
Notice how everyone runs away from the fact that DRDR was right without even challenging the statement?
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
@John B, Des Moines, IA
WOW! You really only do see exactly what you want to see don't you? What a sad way to live.
What I want to see is facts, wherever those facts lead. Here's what actual economists as opposed to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck think;
Yeah, it worked. With that much money spent how could it not? The problem is what it cost and the impact that will have on future generations.
Using a sledge hammer to drive a nail will work, that doesn't mean it was the best option or even a good idea.
And btw, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are all morons along the same lines as Kieth Olbmerman, Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz. Are you really so dense as to assume everyone who doesn't agree with your puppet-masters must be having their strings pulled by the idiots on the other side?
So what would have worked better?...do tell.
@John B, Des Moines, IA
Well how about undoing some of Bush's mistakes instead of just following suit?
If the stimulus was such a success why do you suppose the President never mentions it during his campaign speeches? Why do you suppose every Democrat up for re-election avoids the subject as if it were the plague?...do tell
So you have no suggestions for a better plan.
Thanks for playing.
@John B, Des Moines, IA
LOL! Of course because every schmo on the net is an economic guru. I couldn't tell you how to rebuild an airplane engine either but that doesn't stop me from understanding when it isn't running properly and we're about to crash and burn. duh!
So you won't even pretend to come up with an excuse...er, I mean answer, to my question
Thanks for acknowledging that you can't play.
Sooooo, you don't even KNOW if the stimulus worked, in spite of having the study materials placed right in front of you. Pragmatism and solutions that work aren't of interest to you, only political posturing. You've admitted you don't know, yet you continue to pass judgement.
32 million uninsured, yea right. Wait till the mandate kicks in and companies employing 50 to 100 people drop coverage and just opt for the penalty. Then your talking about 80 million with no insurance.
Insurance companies will jack rates because they know that you have to buy it, and then who makes up the difference with subsidizes, You got it, the good old American Taxpayer.
Way to redistrubute the wealth and get the middle class to pay for Jose and Leroys health care.
"Then your talking about 80 million with no insurance."
No. Then those people are eligible for the exchanges that spread the risk between large groups of people state-wide, reducing the risk and therefore, the cost. That's why big corporations or state governments have lower rates, the size of the pool. Those people whose employers drop insurance as an employee benefit can CHOOSE to gamble and remain uninsured, paying the fine, or participate in the exchanges and not pay the fine.
"Insurance companies will jack rates because they know that you have to buy it,"
They can't. They have to demonstrate every year that 80-85% of what they collect in premiums goes out to direct healthcare expenses for policyholders or refund the overage. Many people have already gotten checks this year. The per-employee penalty that employers will face for dropping employee insurance will go toward the subsidies.
Please read and understand the law before you criticize.
DrDr,
We pay out more than $19,000 a year, in premiums, for just my wife and I, with a $4500 deductibe, each. We received your so called rebate check, two weeks ago, of $11.46. Please look at the facts before you defend it.
Let's be honest, Obama care is a first step nightmare towards Single Pay, which is Obama's intention. The results would be horrific.
"We pay out more than $19,000 a year, in premiums, for just my wife and I, with a $4500 deductibe, each."
Then you either have individual insurance with some existing health issues or are part of a small pool of folks in a smaller company that includes some folks with serious health issues that are driving up your premiums based on your risk. Or you have a terrible insurance company and need to shop somewhere else. Perhaps the insurance exchanges that come online in 2014 would help you.
"We received your so called rebate check, two weeks ago, of $11.46. Please look at the facts before you defend it."
Uh, not MY rebate check. And other people I know have received several hundred and one over a thousand dollars. Since it affects my livelihood, I'm pretty well informed about PPACA.
Dave, I'll take some of those "horrific" results like Germany's healthcare system.
Which, by the way, is single payer.
Seriously people need to stop listen to Rush and Fox news
The ACA will help all Americans,
If you can afford insurance you have to purchase it or you pay a penalty tax.
If you can't they have plans government sponsored plans to help you if you still can't afford it medicaid is still there for you.
If you have a medical condition or a disease you can't be dropped from your current carrier.
If you have a medical condition now and don't have coverage you can join one of the government ran insurance pool to obtain coverage and a lower cost
Insurance plans must offer certain coverages to make sure a person is not buying a policy that doesn't cover anything
Businesses with 50 employees and up must offer insurance to there employees (doesn't mean they have to pay for there employees insurance)
Companies also can join the government exchanges to lower there cost.
Also Companies receives a big tax break for offering the coverage
If a company chooses not to offer insurance the will pay a penalty on there taxes
Insurance companies can not raise rates whenever they want, also caps what they can raise there rates
With more people purchasing insurance the hospitals will lower cost because they will not be stuck with the bill for patients that skip out on the bill but still get treatment
With less people being on medicaid the cost to the tax payer will go down.
There are more benefits but these are the ones i can think of off the top of my head
Dr. your right the insurance companies will have to demonstrate the 80% goes toward patient care. But if they have to take on all patients even one with expensive preexisting conditions, the cost for all of those who are enrolled will skyrocket to cover the cost. The money will still be spent on patient care just the healthy will end up paying more for the sick to be covered.
This is a bad plan all around and will end up costing more for less.
I can't wait until Romey repeals the whole thing.
You mean repeal a plan that was modeled after his plan in Massachusetts which covers 95% of there citizens and lowered cost.
Doubt it
" the cost for all of those who are enrolled will skyrocket to cover the cost."
No, the risk will be spread. And with 30M new customers, I think the insurance companies will be just fine.
"Political Correctness", Socialism, and a smooth "Snake Oil Salesman routine" will win over even the dumbest of Democrats and a lot of Republicans as well. Good job Mr Obama-bin-Laden, you're well on your way to making all of us the next "Greece."
So perhaps you can explain to me why individuals buying health insurance from private companies is socialistic? Anyone, Bueller, Bueller, anyone?????
Here's a clue doc....when payment of the premiums (costs) is partly or fully subsidized by the government...then government is in control. Government control of an industry = socialism. Will that work for you?
Let me explain, it the usual step transaction, they take it from me and give it to the parasite he "buys" it with the money the government confiscates from me or borrows so the children can pay it back later with interest. Here are the facts:
http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx
Kaiser foundation calculator , plug in 45 year old family of four making 35,000 a year and tell us what you get as a subsidy answer
How can the government provide over $10,000 a year in welfare, I'm sorry supplements, to each family of four making $35,000 a year under OBAMACARE and it not increase the deficit. Are people really stupid enough to believe this crap. I guess so, most have not read the legislation, I have. They fail to account for employers with more than 50 employee leaving for China because they cannot compete with the mandate that they offer employees health insurance. Score another one for sweat shops in China. I didn't see a tariff imposed to protect US business and workers from imports that do not include compliance with health insurance and all the other socialist taxes. So much for the "free trade myth" . No businesses = no jobs=no payroll taxes for social security and medicare=more deficit=national defeat
First comes socialism then comes Hitler and Stalin
Nazi German SOCIALISTS Workers Party
USSR Union of Soviet SOCIALISTS Republic
You once had a wonderful natiion paid for by the blood of patriots, but you are too stupid to realise you are throwing it all away.
How does anyone still not understand that Obamacare is an economy killer?
U.S. will pay for half of all health care costs by 2020 - July 28, 2011
"Total health care spending is expected to nearly double to $4.6 trillion in 2020, from $2.6 trillion in 2010.
Health care spending per capita is forecast to increase to $13,708 in 2020 from $8,327 in 2010, the report said.
By 2020, nearly 30 million additional people are expected to have health insurance because of reform.
Over the 10-year period, the report showed that the biggest annual jump in health care spending will happen in 2014 when health reform is fully implemented.
CMS estimates that in 2014 about 23 million uninsured consumers will gain access to health insurance, mainly through government programs such as Medicaid and through the creation of federal and state-funded health insurance exchanges.
As a result, the government expects Medicaid spending to surge 20% in 2014 and private health insurance spending to increase 9.4%.
Norwalk said the estimated sharp surge in Medicaid spending just in one year, is very concerning given that states are already struggling with their budgets.
As millions more gain access to health insurance, the government expects spending on prescription drugs, physician and hospital services to increase as well.
CMS expects prescription drug spending to jump by 10.7% in 2014 and to account for 11% of national health spending by 2020. Spending on physician and clinical services is forecast to rise by 8.9% by 2014, representing 19% of overall health care spending."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/28/news/economy/healthcare_spending_forecast/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=hp_bn3
MSNBC was too embarrassed/ashamed to cover the report after all of their brainless propagandizing for Obamacare.
P.S. Keep in mind these are even the government released numbers, the reality will be much worse.
ceo,
What about police, fire department, education, and the biggest of all, the Military. Does that make us all socialists? Learn to feel something besides fear and hate!
From the article... The law – as upheld and limited by the Supreme Court – will leave 30 million nonelderly U.S. residents uninsured by 2022, the end of the budget forecasting window.
All Americans except those 30 million, which is roughly 10% of the population. So all of this crap for a program that doesn't help 1/10th of the people and screws the rest, good 'ol politicin there.
Learn to think outside of democrat talking points. Money comes from where? You want the government to print more fiat money to cover all the expenses? Those cops and firemen and teachers are paid from local and state taxes, BTW. Cities and states are going bankrupt and the economies cannot be taxed enough to cover the costs of the 'services' coupled with the pensions. Look at Europe. Now, in France, the taxes on the 'wealthy' are such that businesses are shutting down, including Peugeot, eight thousand people soon out of work and the french government is going to 'punish' those businesses that shut down? WTF? So, you're punished because you can't afford to stay in business because of the increased taxes?
The military budget is the same amount of money as social security and medicare. The amount of people drawing from the programs is greater than the people paying into the system. Do you not understand what is happening here?
Taishmoser
What an idiotic statement....perhaps you better learn the difference between what constitutes as the basic, everyday services that Federal, State and local governments have an obligation to provide....what our tax dollars should be paying for...as opposed to a service that on the average, is not that often used... What I feel..and hate...is your greedy little hand in my pocket reaching for my money.
Health care "...is not that often used....?" Did I read that correctly?
get real facts from www.healthcare.org and not from these rt wing whiners who speaky the foxy newsy language.
Geez give these children some crayons and they scribble all over the walls!
healthcare.org is created by whom? Why, the insurance companies. Now, what color is your crayon?
The OP has point...look at car insuarance rates since we've been mandated to buy those.
The OP has point...look at car insuarance rates since we've been mandated to buy it.
Nice try Starsailing, but you're talking to people who can't figure out that fascism and communism are different things. Using that rhetorical argument the GOPTP must be a communist organization because it shares common language with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Fascism and communism have the end result, totalitarian control. You fond of either system? You also don't have a clue about what you're comparing vis a vis the GOP. They want less government, not more. You want the nanny state to take care of you, that's rather obvious.
@dlopez-3173765
LOL! All Americans EXCEPT the ones you mention in the very next sentence. People who choose not to be covered now are being forced to subsidize all of the goodies you mention. Goodies that they won't take advantage of themselves for years when they get to the point that they need to be covered.
"They want less government, not more. "
Except of course, when it comes to laws about who gets to marry whom, whether gay people can serve their country openly, and whether women can control their own reproductive health. THEN they like MORE government. Makes perfect sense. Or not.
Here 'ya go mygirl, let me see if I can help you understand what I said. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm
Doubt that a definition would help clear up your post. Sarcasm? If you say so. Ideological pandering to an agenda? More likely.
Since I have to explain it you wouldn't understand.
Eric Cantor is still da Biggest “Weasel in Politics”. You BetCha….Fer Sure.
John Boehner is One Real Big “Puzzy”.
Wouldn’t Mitch McConnell make da Perfect “Turtle Head”?
By da Way…….Did any of these Republican TeaBilly Conservative Politicians Vote to Repeal their Own Socialist Healthcare that they Receive.? You know…………da one that that Covers them and their Families (Including Birth Control) all paid for by Our Tax $$$$$$$$.
I hear Crickets Chirping……
Lets break this down in simple terms. Republican TeaBilly Conservative = Self Righteous Hypocrite.
Mitt is about as Real as a Plastic Bananna!
Is it Mitt ____________Romney?
“Political Puppet”
“I’m Not a Crook”
“Country Club”
“Middle Class Warfare”
“Not To Much..Out of Touch”
“Cheap Labor is Our Future”
“Outsourcing is Awesome”
“Profits Over People”
“Corporations are People Too”
“F da Poor”
“No Substance”
“Let Detroit go Bankrupt”
“National Right to Work”
“Swiss Accounts”
“Flip Flop”
“Pray da Gay Away”
Mitt Romney’s Solution to all Problems…….Prayer and a Moment of Silence.
Da Biggest Threat to Mitt Romney’s Campaign……..da Truth!
Dougy...every second rt wingers and romney flip flop and lie, I am sure he has more to blog about.
It's pathetic weasel democrats who lie. That's all they have left. They dare not run on their record.
Time to file a lawsuit on BC/BS of FL for price gouging - premiums up 22% in past year!
Write to your state insurance commissioner; that's what they are there for.
Medicare blew through it's initial 10-year budget projections in about 6 years and then doubled about every 4 years for the next 12 years. I am willing to bet that Obamacare makes those Medicare projections look rather accurate!
Can anyone name a single existing government program that hasn't cost us more than we were originally told it would cost us?
I wonder how much the unfunded Part D contributed to that?
Um, Dr., the Part D didn't happen until much, much later. It had no part whatsoever in Medicare blowing through its projected budgets back in the 60's and 70's.
But why didn't the Dems stop the Part D if they were so opposed to it, or why didn't they repeal it when they had the votes to do so? Or maybe they DIDN'T actually have the votes?
You can add--Why didn't they use the Filibuster if the Part D was so bad?
Part D was debated for six months, votes went back and forth, and it was a huge ordeal. Republicans had both the House and Senate. And it was finally passed in the wee hours of the morning after debate and votes had raged all night.
"why didn't they repeal it when they had the votes to do so?"
Maybe they had other business, like a war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina fallout to deal with? Both parties don't necessarily want to waste all their time attempting to repeal the previous party's legislation....
"Why didn't they use the Filibuster if the Part D was so bad?"
I wasn't there so I can't say, but I believe that the indiscriminate use of the filibuster is not the first tool the Democrats usually pull out of their toolbox.
The democrats STARTED the indiscriminate use of the filibuster. Now they whinge and whine when their own actions are used against them, poor things...
"The democrats STARTED the indiscriminate use of the filibuster. Now they whinge and whine when their own actions are used against them, poor things..."
mygirl,
Please show us fact-checked, complete and historical validation for your claim.
Whereas any one of us can show proof of how the GOP abused the filibuster in Congress after President Obama won the popular vote.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/
Look at how the use has picked up here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/breaking_the_filibuster_in_one.html
rradiko: Lazy little souls who don't want to acknowledge facts or truth are the one's clamouring for 'proof.' I can type in 'democrats filibuster during Bush administration' and get reams of examples of proof of my statement. Now, if you want to cherry pick your facts, have at it but the filibuster goes back to the early 1900's and beyond.
It is a tool used by the minority in the senate to prevent the majority from running roughshod and passing legislation that only satisfies the majority rule. Not one republican signed off on Obamacare, not one and yet it was passed. Whine away about the 'poor democrats' who had the majority in congress and the oval office. Interesting how they didn't pass a budget, didn't even bring one to the floor but it was the republicans who are the authors of evil. The only thing the democrats have going for them is a really good propaganda machine and an electorate ignorant enough to believe the propaganda.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/18/filibuster-democrats
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/12/31/democrats-have-only-themselves-to-blame-for-filibuster-problem
DrDrGimmetheNews
OMG! Clearly you "believe" whatever you want to "believe". The Democrats invented the modern filibuster back in the 70's so they could block nominations and treaties without causing the Senate to come to a grinding halt. Now they bitch and whine when their own tool is used against them.
Did I say Republicans INVENTED it? No. Who has used it the most? Especially in the last 10 years or so?
@DrDrGimmetheNews
Right, who cares who opened the can of worms especially when you happen to be on the side of those who did.
Reductio ad Absurdum, a faulty argument.
The filibuster has legitimate uses, and worked well for that purpose for a long time. Using filibuster to paralyze the government is a Republican invention.
@John B, Des Moines, IA
Again, WOW! Talk about clueless. The filibuster was originally SUPPOSED to paralyze government providing an incredible incentive to NOT use it. When it was used the issue would have to be resolved before anything else could get done. In the 70's, led by Senator Byrd, the Democrats changed the rules allowing business to continue even as a filibuster was in progress. Now, years later, you libs bitch about the can of worms you opened because at that time it benefited you. It was Democrats who began filibustering things like Presidential appointments and treaties and they rigged the game so they'd be able to. Now it works against them and they cry and whine while their clueless puppets sop up the BS. Take a history lesson and accept the fact that "your side" IS EVERY BIT AS BAD AS THE OTHER!!!
Perhaps you ought to take a history lesson. The filibuster is not a Democratic invention; it's been there since the beginning of our system, albeit unintentionally. It began to be used more frequently following the Civil War. See here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder
And again, the use of the filibuster or threat of the filibuster has grown exponentially since Democrats became the majority party in either House or Senate. Draw your own conclusions. See here: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
@DrDrGimmetheNews
I'm very familiar with the history of our country, no lesson needed. As I said, the Democrats changed the rules so they could use it in ways it never had been.
Also your data reflects cloture motions NOT filibusters so it is an imprecise measurement of the filibuster. And I'll point out, using your own link, that prior to the Democrats messing with the rules the filibusters used in a year were measured in the single digits. Whether you want to accept it or not, it is the Democrats who are ultimately responsible for the cluster @!$%# we have today. I'm certainly not defending its use by the Republicans now but all of you yahoos on both sides need to stop pointing your fingers at the other guys while at the same time pretending your guys are not equally culpable.
Democrats changed the rules, therefore Republicans aren't to blame for misusing the filibuster...
...There's your "Party of personal responsibility."
I suppose Leopold Ruzicka is responsible for Roger Clemens' use of steroids to improve his baseball, too. He was, after all, the first to synthesize andostrenone.
@John B, Des Moines, IA
Ummm, actually what I said was -
"...all of you yahoos on both sides need to stop pointing your fingers at the other guys while at the same time pretending your guys are not equally culpable."
But, as seems to typically be the case with you, you only manage to see what it was you wanted to see. No wonder you actually think the stimulus was a good thing.
I think the stimulus works because economists far and wide have quantified that the stimulus worked.
Abusing the rules isn't excused just because someone else participated in setting the rules. Republicans have abused the filibuster and seek to blame their own bad behavior on Democrats.
Oh, and when Conservatives play the "they do it too" card you can tell they're backed into a corner.
I see what I see because I'm looking at the facts. You don't like the facts, therefore you seek some rationalization of why they're "untrue."
So, the deficit goes down even more than the original estimate? We need more programs that help more people while reducing our deficit. I'm glad the Republicans who are deficit hawks are all over his.
That's a pathetic liberal lie. The whole CBO is a sham, the calculations can only be based on the numbers congress gives them. Medicare ended up being over 10x more expensive than advertised, this will be even worse.
@voting independent: The initial cost was more than $800 billion. The CBO increased the cost estimate to just under 1.3 trillion. Now, it has been revised down to $1.17 trillion. Let me know if you need help with the math.
Also, as Valhalla has pointed out, the cost projection for 30 years of medicare as announced by Congress in 1965 was exceeded before 1971. Our country is only getting older. There simply aren't enough young people or jobs to support the cost of funding medicare and social security for the baby boomers while providing for their own families.
There simply aren't enough young people and jobs to support the costs of medicare and social security for the baby boomers while trying to provide for the needs of their own families.
@Voting independent
Ummmmm, NO! The deficit doesn't go down at all. The deficit INCREASES less than they expected it would which in politician speak equates to it "going down" much in the same way that increasing spending a little less than was originally planned is called a "cut".
"Ummmmm, NO! The deficit doesn't go down at all."
Sorry, but if you take in more in more in penalties and taxes (CBO estimate of 800B+) than you pay out in costs (CBO estimate of 600B+), it reduces the deficits produced BY OTHER SPENDING. See here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43104
@DrDrGimmetheNews
Is this supposed to be a joke? Why don't you give me one example of a CBO estimate coming close to accurately predicting the cost of a program or the revenue generated by a new tax. JUST ONE!
You see the problem is that Congress sets the rules used by the CBO to make estimations which is why the cost of new laws is grossly under estimated (remember that original claim of 900 billion for the ACA?) and the revenue estimates for new taxes is grossly over estimated (tanning tax estimate of 50 million every 3 months, actual revenue barley over 1/3 of that)
So if you actually believe there is going to be a deficit reduction because of estimates put out by the CBO I've got this awesome bridge for sale cheap! Let me know if you're interested.
I think I have provided this for you once already, but here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21520
No, actually, the problem is that the CBO creates estimates given the conditions at the time with the most likely changes. Unfortunately, Congress may pass laws and the SCOTUS may make rulings that change the conditions. Hence the estimate would change. See how that works?
@DrDrGimmetheNews
Oh really? So what exactly was it that changed with Obamacare that caused the original CBO estimate of 900 billion to jump to 1.4 trillion dollars before the SCOTUS decision?
I'll ask again, find me one example of a CBO estimate that even comes close to accurately predicting the cost of a new law or the revenue from a new tax. Pretty please.
Of course you won't because you can't. So why should we believe these estimates when time has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they will be wrong and most likely grossly so?
So about that bridge...
Dave, if you're going to comment, please try to speak the truth. The ACA is in the shape it's in because the Republicans REFUSED, that's right, REFUSED to negotiate in good faith for the American people. The law that was passed was essentially the Republican response to Hillarycare in the 90's. Do some research. Once the Democrats took to the idea, the Rethugs were no longer interested. Bad idea, they said. Really, it was THEIR idea(s). The Rethugs don't negotiate in good faith, and you don't comment with good faith. Disappointing!
Susan
It is hard to negotiate when you are LOCKED out of the room. Remember the video of the CLOSED DOORS in the House? How about "you can come along for the ride but you have to get in the back"? How about "I won you lost"?? Don't you remember those things?? How about the ACA being passed at night on Christmas Eve? How about the ACA being passed using Reconciliation??? Which was AGAINST SENATE RULES according to Sen. Robert Byrd. HE WROTE that Rule so I would assume he knows how it is supposed to be applied. DO YOU MEAN THE NEGOTIATIONS???
SLODON: I watched the negotiations. Your boys were stalling and obstructing at ever turn. All they were interested in doing was killing the bill in it's crib.
"It is hard to negotiate when you are LOCKED out of the room. Remember the video of the CLOSED DOORS in the House?"
If I recall correctly, this was related to the Countrywide financial issues with the purpose of ensuring that Republicans didn't meet secretly without Democrats, not the healthcare reform issue. The rest of the rhetoric of "they locked us out of the discussions" is just that, rhetoric, not literal.
"How about "you can come along for the ride but you have to get in the back"?"
When we're talking about the people who drove us into the ditch wanting to drive, damn straight, they're sitting in the back this time!
"How about the ACA being passed at night on Christmas Eve?"
It would have passed days earlier without the threat of a Republican filibuster. You can't complain about what YOU cause.
"How about the ACA being passed using Reconciliation??? Which was AGAINST SENATE RULES according to Sen. Robert Byrd. HE WROTE that Rule so I would assume he knows how it is supposed to be applied."
And yet, Byrd voted "Aye, for my friend Ted Kennedy." http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html
Just more pathetic liberal lies. Republicans were locked out on Obamacare, period. It's democrats that drove us into the ditch, they inherited 4.6% unemployment and a booming economy and managed to destroy it all in less than two years. Six years later and unemployment is still double what they inherited.
The obstructionist lie was exposed the moment they passed Obamacare, if they could pass that they could pass anything. How much is Soros paying you anyway? :<)
Intrepid & DrDr, explain this to me. If the ACA is such a good deal then why were the unions exempted for four years beyond the 2014 implementation dates? Why did 5 states, including Harry Reid's state of Nevada, need to be exempted, I known why Nebraska was exempted but not the others? And DrDr mentioned a Repub filibuster, there was no threat of a repub filibuster because the dems had a supermajority in both the house and senate and according to the rules, the repubs couldn't have a filibuster. Too many questions with out any good answers and certainly a selling point of "we'll find out what's in it when it passes" doesn't give me any warm fuzzies, not to mention the 21 new taxes, and those are the ones we know about. ACA needs to go.
"why were the unions exempted for four years beyond the 2014 implementation dates?"
They aren't. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/23/crossroads-gps/unions-dont-have-comply-obamacare-says-crossroads-/
"Why did 5 states, including Harry Reid's state of Nevada, need to be exempted,"
They are not exempted. They got a 1-year waiver of one or more provisions of the law. See here for an example: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/16/nevada-secures-partial-waiver-federal-health-care-/
"And DrDr mentioned a Repub filibuster, there was no threat of a repub filibuster because the dems had a supermajority in both the house and senate and according to the rules, the repubs couldn't have a filibuster."
No, there was only a supermajority for about 5 non-consecutive months due to recounts and deaths.
"not to mention the 21 new taxes,"
The vast majority of which will never apply to you.
@DrDr: There are over 1,800 exemptions for companies, including McDonalds. These exemptions are from 1 to 3 years.
The one tax that will impact a large number of people who make under $250,000 will be on the "cadillac" health plans.
Another thing that impacts families making less than $250,000 is for all military retirees who will see their premiums for tri care coverage triple in costs directly related to the PPACA legislation.
"There are over 1,800 exemptions for companies, including McDonalds. These exemptions are from 1 to 3 years."
And the vast majority are for a single stipulation in the law (like the mini-meds and yearly caps that low-income part-time workers are offered at McDonalds). They all expire in 2014 when the exchanges come on line. The Obama administration granted waivers (not exemptions) to companies because they realized it would be a) an economic hardship on companies to make a huge change without some lead time, and b) that it could result in folks losing access to insurance before the exchanges were set up, so therefore, if companies could demonstrate the harm in complying with the specific regulation they were requesting a waiver for, they could get a waiver for 1 year only. They could then reapply for the next year. Again, ALL the waivers expire in 2014.
"The one tax that will impact a large number of people who make under $250,000 will be on the "cadillac" health plans."
Not so much. See here: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/cadillac-plans-and-the-middle-class/
"Another thing that impacts families making less than $250,000 is for all military retirees who will see their premiums for tri care coverage triple in costs directly related to the PPACA legislation."
I'm sorry, but that's not true as noted here: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/TRICARE&VA_PPACA.pdf and here: http://www.tricare.mil/ppaca/
@DrDrGimmetheNews
Unless of course you take into consideration the fact that we will pay those taxes ourselves through increased fees and costs. But other than paying for them indirectly, you're right they will never apply to us.
@DrDr: Your links do not support you. The cadillac plans are taxed and will impact people making less than $250,000. An indisputable fact. It will impact more people than the 1% who opt to not purchase healthcare. Your own link states this.
The links you provided regarding tri care address the benefits not the premium. It's simple to google "tri care premiums and the PPACA". There are almost 31 million people eligible for tri care. Many of us have insurance through our new employers after retiring. However, you cannot refute the fact that tricare premiums will triple after 5 years (2018). It is the goal of the HHS to force retired military families on to the state exchanges by "pricing" them out of tri care. Most military families on fixed incomes will live closer to military medical facilities where they can continue to receive their healthcare for free. But, the fact remains that tri care premiums will triple.
Explain to me why McDonalds should have a waiver when they just reported a nice profit?
The average family health care plan now costs about $13,000/year. The "cadillac plan" provision kicks in at over $27,000/year. Not a lot of people making less than $250,000/year have cadillac plans.
But since it's your argument that taxes on these plans are a major tax increase on the middle class why don't you tell us HOW MANY?
Actually, the link states that PPACA taxes the INSURORS for Cadillac plans, not the insured. I'm sure you just missed that part. Or the part that says, "Most workers wouldn’t be affected at all, for starters."
I know all about tricare. But premium increases (as one of the links stated) are rising because of cuts to the defense budget, NOT due to PPACA. PPACA has had almost no effects on tricare. As the links stated.
I've already addressed the McDonald's waiver. Again, it will expire in 2014 or sooner.
The tax for cadillac plans is paid by the employee not the insurors. On W2s for 2012, employers are required to enter the cost of the health plan provided to each employee. The numbers as established in the PPACA go into effect in 2018. At the accepted increase of premiums at the 9% rate annually, between 40-60% of health plans will be effected. That's a tax increase on those making less than $250,000.
Another lie is that tricare premiums are not increasing due to defense budget cuts. Your link stated that there is no change in "benefits" it does not specify premiums.
In your attempt to paint the PPACA as great legislation with no flaws lowers your credibility. Especially when the very links you provide, do not support your position.
The McDonalds waiver creates an unfairness to other restaurants who have to abide by the PPACA. I thought the president was for a "level" playing field. I guess, not so much.
"The tax for cadillac plans is paid by the employee not the insurors."
You are wrong here. It's in the law. Found on p. 795.
"'‘(c) LIABILITY TO PAY TAX.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each coverage provider shall pay the tax imposed by subsection (a) on its applicable share of the excess benefit with respect to an employee for any taxable period."
Found here: http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
"At the accepted increase of premiums at the 9% rate annually"
It is not the 'accepted increase' anywhere but in your argument. It is one of the reasons for the requirement that insurance companies spend 80-85% minimum of what they collect on direct healthcare costs or refund the difference. And you realize that it would take at least 9 years of 9% increases yearly for the mean family rate of 13K to reach the 'cadillac' level of 27K?
The second sentence of my first source: "In general, PPACA did not make any significant changes to the Department of Defense (DOD) TRICARE program or to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system." So you don't think they would have considered "tripling the premiums" significant had it had anything to do with PPACA? Really?
In addition:
"As reported by Military.com, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey gave reporters a “preview” of the fiscal 2013 defense budget that will be sent to Congress next month, the first to reflect the bite of $487 billion in reduced budget growth over the next 10 years."
Found here: http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2012/01/dod-budget-pay-safe-tricare-fees-to-increase/#ixzz21kYWS9oL
MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com
Again, NOTHING to do with PPACA.
And other restaurant chains had the same ability to apply for a one-year waiver that McDonald's did. If they didn't want to, why is it a problem for you?
DrDr: You failed to continue reading sec 9002 of the PPACA. In sec 9001, it states that it is the employer (provider) who is responsible for paying the tax. The same as it is the employer's responsibility for paying the income tax as determined under the IRS tax code. However, in sec 9002, it outlines the responsibility as it applies to the employee. Also, in sec 4980I of the IRS tax code, it codifies the responsibility as it applies under the PPACA.
I was right.
In spite of what you say, if you google "tricare premiums and the PPACA, you will see that premiums are set to increase by more than 300%. An administration official testified to Congress that raising tricare premiums on military retirees will encourage them to purchase a plan through the exchanges, thus allowing the government to show savings from the program.
"However, in sec 9002, it outlines the responsibility as it applies to the employee. "
Uh, no. Here's what it says, and it's a clarification of language for the requirement that the amount APPEAR on the W-2 (as it has for the last couple of years).
"SEC. 9002. INCLUSION OF COST OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE ON W–2. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6051(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to receipts for employees) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (13) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding after paragraph (13) the following new paragraph:‘‘(14) the aggregate cost (determined under rules similar to the rules of section 4980B(f)(4)) of applicable employer-sponsored coverage (as defined in section 4980I(d)(1)), except that this paragraph shall not apply to—‘‘(A) coverage to which paragraphs (11) and (12) apply, or ‘‘(B) the amount of any salary reduction contributions to a flexible spending arrangement (within the meaning of section 125).’’. (b)EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. "
Perhaps you could show me what part of that says you as the employee will owe the tax on your cadillac plan.
And here's the part from Sec. 49801 of the IRS tax code which says EXACTLY what PPACA says.
"Each coverage provider shall pay the tax imposed by subsection (a) on its applicable share of the excess benefit with respect to an employee for any taxable period."
From your OWN source. Again show me anything that states the employee must pay.
"In spite of what you say, if you google "tricare premiums and the PPACA, you will see that premiums are set to increase by more than 300%."
It's being discussed as one way to cope with the budget cuts. STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PPACA.
If it is the way you believe it to be, why was it put off until 2018? If the objective was to use this as a source of income to reduce the overall cost of the PPACA and that the majority of the impacted plans would be government plans, isn't that contradictory? The government pays for the insurance for its employees and then pays the tax on top of it? Doesn't make sense.
If this was a state, municipal or private employer, and they had to pay the tax for a cadillac plan, why offer a cadillac plan?
"If it is the way you believe it to be"
You mean, if it is the way all the evidence demonstrates? Why is WHAT "put off until 2018"? You've introduced so many unrelated topics, it's hard to keep track of what you are referencing.
"the majority of the impacted plans would be government plans,"
Who said the majority were government plans?
"why offer a cadillac plan?"
Cadillac plans are one way for some folks to have an actual increase in income without having to pay taxes on it.
I"ve referenced two topics. Certainly you can ascertain which one. The cadillac plan tax goes into effect in 2018.
When you look at government healthcare plans, it is easy to see that it will make up a large percentage of the plans affected.
If the plans require the employer to pay the tax, I assure you that all private sector businesses, state and municpal governments will ensure that those cadillac plans are below the threshold by 2018 which will result in zero generated revenue and more responsibility for the employees to bear.
Yup. Particularly we're talking about people in the executive class. I worked for a while in a group underwriting department at a large insurance company. Most of us don't realize but it's very common for upper management to get better coverage at little or no cost as compared to those lower on the food chain.
He's not currently in politics but considering the state of our electorate: Maury Povitch
What am I missing?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-to-employers-obamacare-has-4b-more-in-taxes-than-expected/article/2503013
Maybe a non-biased source? Go to the CBO website and look at the actual report.
DrDr...
Your very good at pulling up facts , could you please pull up data on when the CBO was last correct in their estimates ? if ever !
Obamacare includes 21 new taxes, over 75% of it will be paid for by those making less than $120K. You didn't really think Obama would stick his buddies Soros, Gates, Inmelt, or Buffet with the bill did you?
How about here: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11553/forecastingaccuracy.pdf
You'll note the CBO is at least as good at predicting outcomes as the other sources.....
Oh, and this part: "Obamacare includes 21 new taxes, over 75% of it will be paid for by those making less than $120K" ? PANTS ON FIRE! http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/11/american-commitment/health-care-law-largest-tax-increase-history-middl/
we have the wrong guy working on health care reform the obama administration does not have the know how to put together a bill that will work. the economic condition right now is a clear indication obama does not have the know how to be transparent and work across the table and put together a bill that people would like
the doctors & nurses don't like it if they don't like it must not be good
his four year results is a true indication he wants to grow government beyond what any other president he knows no other way he has never had a private sector job that would allow him to understand that business needs less government not more, His health care bill is a true example of how he feels the people, the country needs the strong hold of the government to succeed
i was listening to a radio talk show they where interviewing a old papa democrat guy he said he thought
$10,000,000 should be the limit anyone should make
is that the thread of government you want ? a government that will limit your income and success none of us may never make 10 million but I certainly want the opportunity
OK pal, then please explain why during the 8 years of the Bush administration, 6 of those years when they controlled everything in Washington, they did nothing???
Presidents have been trying to pass health care reform since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon (believe it or not, far more "liberal" than Obama's plan) and Bill Clinton. Every time it was attempted, the Right shut it down. Not this time. It's a done deal and it's the law of the land.
So you met some "Old Democrat guy" and you now apply his thoughts to all Democrats??? I know some incredibly facist & racist Republicans. Should I therefore assume that all Republicans are racist facists???
Oh but Paul Ryan is an expert on health care which would eliminate Medicare for seniors and give them vouchers but if the vouchers aren't enough then they are screwed..
Look Obama supports a bill in the Senate that will cut loop holes for companies who out source jobs and raise taxes on those same companies.
He also has a jobs bill that will lower taxes on companies who hire in the US, lowers taxes on companies who open factories in the US
Gives incentives for companies and loans to update facilities or build new ones in the US
Sounds like a plan
Whats the GOP plan cut taxes on rich and hope they will create jobs lol Sounds like a loser plan from the right to me
"the doctors & nurses don't like it if they don't like it must not be good"
False.
The Republicans and their rich owners should send you a fruitcake for being a dedicated example of success of their premise that human stupidity knows no bounds..... if you spend enough money repeating the same embarrassingly stupid catch phrases like "trickle down" and "they create more jobs the more millions they amass" or "taxing the rich is socialism"
... and get a clue dude...you aren't going to make 10 million unless you were born rich or you're a one in a million entertainer who is the offspring of a one in a million entertainer.
And the liberal liars are out in force today. Republicans did nothing because polls show 85% were satisfied with their current insurance. Democrats sure destroyed that in a hurry.
It's another lie Ryan would eliminate Medicare for seniors. It is democrats that will do that by stalling any reforms until it goes bankrupt in less that a decade.
Most doctors and nurses do not like it one bit. A poll showed 93% have at least considered leaving the field because of it. 30 million new patients, no new doctors or nurses, yea that should work.
And another pathetic lie republicans represent the 1%. It is democrats. Soros, Boxer, Gates, Buffet, Inmelt, Reid, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, etc. I'm so sure republicans support them to the hilt. Get real.
"Most doctors and nurses do not like it one bit. A poll showed 93% have at least considered leaving the field because of it. 30 million new patients, no new doctors or nurses, yea that should work."
I'll address this one. That's flat false. The poll you are citing was put out by a TP- affiliated group, had a response rate of 4% (!), and NEVER asked about healthcare reform. And PPACA has provisions for training new physicians, nurse practitioners, evening up the disparity in reimbursement between specialists and PCPs, and creating community health centers for underserved areas.
For somebody who is always accusing other people of being a paid shill, you sure do have those Republican talking points down and are persistent in repeating them no matter how many times you are corrected.
Least we not forget the health care law was invented by a Republican and no matter how many people it helps,no matter how much it saves the Medicaid program the Obstructionist will fight it to appease their big lobbist.To say that all Americans shouldnt have health insurance is foolish and has hurt the GOP.
In the 1990s, the conservative Heritage Foundation proposed an individual mandate as an alternative to President Clinton's option, which included a generic government option to compete with the for-profit insurance companies. Republicans embraced the idea.
More liberal lies. Republicans floated it but it got so much blow back they dropped it. Democrats picked it up and forced it down our throats. The difference, republicans listened to we the people, democrats thumbed their noses at us. 2010 was payback time.
They ACA was designed to put private insurance out of business by demanding coverage of expensive to care for patients. Those that choose to pay for insurance will have to cover the cost of those that will receive government subsidized insurance at cut rate government fixed prices. This will eventually drive the insurance companies out of business and the government will step in with the one payer system.
Once this is complete they will collect the 600 billion a year in premiums and only pay out 400 billion in care cost the remainder will be spent on other stupid projects.
CANON: Please remember, this form of insurance was created by CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, including Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation. It is virtually identical to that of Romney Care and a guy who just happens to be your party's nominee for the Presidency. It is also a fact that up until a couple of years ago, Willard was touting his health care plan to be implemented NATIONWIDE. He will of course deny this now but we have this modern marvel call video, which clearly shows him making the case for nation wide implementation.
And as for Single Payer, I only wish it was. But then, we'd be like almost every other advanced nation in the world, and that would never do. Being Americans, we're always right and invariably smarter than anyone else. Our health care if far and way the worlds most costly and yet we rank a poor 30th in terms of quality of care.
"They ACA was designed to put private insurance out of business by demanding coverage of expensive to care for patients."
Tell you what, let's just let the insurance companies only insure the healthy people. Then we can call it "insurance company insurance." SERIOUSLY?????
And you know what, insurance companies are mostly thrilled about the legislation. They just gained 30M new customers!
Yup, the insurance companies are indeed thrilled and you are probably 100% behind Obama's giving them all those new customers? Now, since Roberts rewrote the law to make a mandate a tax, what you have is the government forcing you to buy a product. Oh, wait, it's not a tax, its a penalty...it is total Horsesh!t disguised as healthcare. It would be a joke except the end results are going to be far from funny.
It's the largest tax hike on the middle class disguised as health care reform.
" Now, since Roberts rewrote the law to make a mandate a tax"
Uh, no. He didn't rewrite the law. The language is EXACTLY the same. He interpreted it differently.
"It's the largest tax hike on the middle class disguised as health care reform."
BS. Again. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/11/american-commitment/health-care-law-largest-tax-increase-history-middl/
The only thing that changed with the US Supreme Court ruling that stated the PPACA law was "constitutional" under the taxing powers of Congress is that the law can be defunded through reconciliation with a simple majority and not a filibuster proof senate.
There are more US Supreme Court challenges regarding the PPACA in the next term that will rule against the mandate of contraception for religious affiliated organizations.
mygirl1
"Now, since Roberts rewrote the law to make a mandate a tax,"
It was always a tax, Obama was just delusional.
Since when has the IRS collected penalties?
When small businesses evaluate the cost of insurance vs. the cost of the fines (bearing in mind) the first 50 employees are exempt, they are going to give serious consideration to discontinuing offering the insurance. Even more so when they delve into the rules regarding the limits on what an employee can pay towards this insurance. So, those that currently have rather decent plans, that often pay 100% in network once deductibles and copays are met will be faced with purchasing from exchanges. When these employees see what the exchanges look like, there will be an uproar like one we've yet to experience. Current proposed exchange for the base plan is $4,000 deductible with a 60/40 co-insurance. The top plan being discussed would be $4000 deductible with a 90/10 co-insurance. No rates out yet. They don't come out until after the election. (Sigh)
Everyone keeps blaming the insurance carriers. What about the ENT that just issued a bill for a tonsillectomy and ear tubes (out-patient) to the insurance company for $33,000.00. Will he write off the difference between the $33,000 and the $1800 allowed as a loss, thereby reducing his taxable income.
I blame Obama for all of the problems in our country because his mother was white and his father was black. Also, all he has done is play golf with terrorists and apologize to them for not getting enough stimulus money. Did I get this RIGHTY?
More fascist disinformation from the loony left.
huh?
Exactly!
You forgot to blame Bush. Oh, wait, that is the liberal excuse, as to the color of his skin? Well, seems the liberals are good at claiming that anyone who doesn't like his agenda is a racist. As to the golf, would that he spent ALL his time on the golf course, he would be less damaging.
Hammer60 and DrDr ...Let's all lie about how good this law is, so the truth gets flushed again....22,800,000 illegals will still be getting basic healthcare at the Emergency Room and it will be charged to your taxes. "it is not a tax"
"....22,800,000 illegals will still be getting basic healthcare at the Emergency Room and it will be charged to your taxes"
Pretty hard to do considering that there are only about 11M illegal immigrants in the US currently, and the numbers continue to decline. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1876/unauthorized-immigrant-population-united-states-national-state-trends-2010
Why didn't the CBO address the end of freedom in the US. Or the Apocalypse?
Where are the death panels?
All that fear mongering was meaningless. Kudos to the Democrats for doing something unpopular but best in the long run- we need more of that.
There is a death panel, Obama has already said he would use it to control costs, i.e. rationing. Of course it has a pretty name but it is what it is.
Sarah Palin, is that you?
BS on the death panels. If Obama said any such thing, provide a credible source. You can't.
Obama administration denied that the law will leave the lowest income people without insurance. But now that the cat is out of the bag the truth is revealed. Neither the cost of premium nor the cost of delivering healthcare will be lowered. The law will add a few more departments - and a huge cost - to the federal government.
"Obama administration denied that the law will leave the lowest income people without insurance."
It won't unless the states will it so. The state legislatures who decide not to expand Medicaid will be the ones who cause this problem. Take it up with them.
Well, are you going to pay for the states? Mandating that states pay should also require that they be given the money to pay for it and not just for a year or two. Not that it really matters. With the crappy economy and Obama's push to get more people on welfare, soon the system will be so overloaded that it will collapse, which seems to be the plan.
"Mandating that states pay should also require that they be given the money to pay for it and not just for a year or two."
The federal goverment would end up paying about 93% of it. http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/medicaid-coverage-and-spending-in-health-reform-national-and-state-by-state-results-for-adults-at-or-below-133-fpl.pdf
"Obama's push to get more people on welfare,"
BS.
When the administration runs ads on Spanish tv, telling people to go get the SNAP, even if they don't NEED it, you have a problem. When a president uses executive privilege to overturn the regulations on welfare, regulations that once required that a person should at least pretend to be looking for a job to get the welfare, offering these 'waivers,' which the legislation avoided on purpose, you have a man pushing welfare.
Sorry, I know you have a hard time accepting facts, especially when those facts are placing Obama in an unfavorable light. This is not fiction, Obama and his administration have done the aforementioned things and if you're not too lazy, you can look them up.
For profit health care does not work. plain and simple. The quiet CA-MRSA epidemic that is in my state currently is relying on new anti bacterial medications that have very little profit margin vs. statins. Until enough people die from the illness and create a demand for the product that meet profit margins many folks are going to have a rough go. I can tell you from experience that insurance either private or public, like medicare or medicaid is like gathering water from a river. Companies will figure out how to collect more and more water until the river runs dry.
Cadmus
Please don't confuse health care with health insurance. The costs of Romneycare have crept into the Mass state budget even after federal subsidies. People mock Mr. Romney for saying that MA's plan is not good for the nation. There was an article of the state trying to patient dump onto the federally subsidized portion. Blame the insurance companies all you like, but for the most part they are administrators and simply pass through the cost of care.
Problem - people can't afford insurance
Solution - make them buy it or penalize them
yeah, great plan there.
You think more people would be alarmed when the "solution" contains "buy it or else".
I have read some of the ACA. I had to stop when I got to a clause that prevents the sale of company for the sake of a grandfathered health plan; in anticipation of an "illegal market".
Not only was that a red flag, but I swear I may have seen a sickle...
Romney supported the individual mandate, saying:
"No more free riders. Everybody is part of the plan. And that way, we get the costs down. We let people know that they never have to worry about losing their coverage,"
If the 30 million uninsured by 2022 pay the tax mandated by the Supreme Court, wouldn't that generate $21 billion at a minimum if each individual was taxed the $700 minimum for being uninsured (and taken from their tax rebate)? Or is the CBO projecting that the majority of the uninsured either do not pay their taxes or will not pay the mandated tax while remaining uninsured. Thus creating the same burden on Emergency rooms and driving up the cost of healthcare. The same as it ever was.
brian, I don't think that you have to pay the penalty if you have low enough income.
I would truly and dearly like to know what health cost have gone down. My wife and mine's health care has increased almost 40% since 2009. They must be talking about the sorry no good for nothing Senators that passed this Obamacare crap. My wife is a teacher and we have already been notified they get no raise this year but healthcare insurance is going up 10% starting in the 2012-2013 school year. I am on Social Security and as far as i know now we will not get an increase this year either. since Union contracts control whether or not the school system provides healthcare in 2014 the contracts are up for renewing. I would be willing to bet that they will discontinue offering healthcare. They wil just tell the teachers to buy their own and the School system will pay the penalty of $2000 per year per teacher. That is much cheaper than pay8ing the $1500 per month for my wife's insurance now. big companies will do the same. maybe it will be cheaper for us to not buy insurance and just pay the penalty.
Most of the ACA has not gone into effect yet. Insurance premiums doubled between 2000 and 2008, so your increased costs are not the result of the new health care laws. The new laws requires insurance companies to spend at least 85% of premiums on health care (they used to spend about 50%, the rest on lobbying, administrative costs and advertising). You may get a refund.
What state do you live in? I'm a state worker in Florida. Even though we have not gotten raises in 7-8 years, Republican governor Rick Scott is now making us all pay for our retirement, so we've actually taken a pay cut. Your wife is dealing with state and local government. The President has little or nothing to do with it.
Clotho, you're an idiot still defending Obamacare. So were're supposed to hang on due to these "unintended consequences"? This is what always happens when you do-gooders think you have the answer to everything.
Fail again !
The Feds intend on lowering Medicare payments to doctors by 30%.That menas my doctor for the last 30+nyears will either retire or won't accept the big $50 he going to get paid to see me! Where do I go then.Know any doctors who will be willing to accept an older,more time consuming patient!? I think i'm about to see my lasr doctor in a yerar or two!
You may be interested in knowing that health secretaries in rural parts of Canada are currently holding lotteries to decide who gets to see the doctor.
It seems that doctors are not interested in working for the government.
"You may be interested in knowing that health secretaries in rural parts of Canada are currently holding lotteries to decide who gets to see the doctor."
Credible source please.