ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

"Obama Can't Seem To Manage"

WilburWood

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21509

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 2:11 pm

Quote
WASHINGTON -- In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president's own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O'Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board -- and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

It turned out that the country's problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn't. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

It's 2010 and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health care reform -- lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: "America the Ungovernable." So declared Newsweek. "Is America Ungovernable?" coyly asked The New Republic. Guess the answer.

The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation. If only we could be more like China, pines Tom Friedman, waxing poetic about the efficiency of the Chinese authoritarian model, while America flails about under its "two parties ... with their duel-to-the-death paralysis." The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system.

Yet, what's new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

And then, of course, there's the filibuster, the newest liberal bete noire. "Don't blame Mr. Obama," writes Paul Krugman of the president's failures. "Blame our political culture instead. ... And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable."

Ungovernable, once again. Of course, just yesterday the same Paul Krugman was warning about "extremists" trying "to eliminate the filibuster" when Democrats used it systematically to block one Bush (43) judicial nomination after another. Back then, Democrats touted it as an indispensable check on overweening majority power. Well, it still is. Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: "Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama's (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. ... But in this case there's a simpler explanation: Barack Obama's job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed."

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections -- Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That's not a structural defect. That's a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself -- despite the special interests -- through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

TheFounder

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15676

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 6:09 pm

From Krugman's quote:

Quote
"Blame our political culture instead. ... And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable."


Oh, please. The Democrats could have simply united and passed some kind of health care reform when they had a filibuster-proof majority. The biggest obstacle to passing health care reform was and still is the Democratic party.

Ted Kennedy merely provided the killing blow.

TheFounder

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15676

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 6:57 pm

Well Hell's Bells, it looks like The Obama is going to try and ram it through...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100219/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare1

klaatuverratanictu

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 7:32 pm

"The Liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them." -Lenny Bruce (1925-1966)

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 7:36 pm

Liberal Socialist policies don't work in a Country founded on Capitalism. The Government needs to get out of the way and let Americans run business because they know better. If a buisness fails they can go into bankruptcy, reorganize and come back stronger. If they can't the fail. That is Capitalism.

Also why don't the Democrats pass health care when they have the votes in Congress? Republicans have health care ideas the Democrats call the Republicans the party of no when they really just wont listen to Republican ideas.

Mini_J

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2827

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:02 pm

Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Feb. 19 2010, 11:36 pm)
Republicans have health care ideas the Democrats call the Republicans the party of no when they really just wont listen to Republican ideas.

Republican ideas in the health care bill

Quote
Krugman calls Senate health care bill similar to law in Massachusetts

The recent Massachusetts Senate election captivated Americans far beyond the Bay State. In that contest, Republican Scott Brown picked up a seat formerly held by the late Democratic giant Edward Kennedy. Brown's upset victory was aided by a wave of frustration over how Congress and President Barack Obama have been handling health care reform legislation.

During the campaign, Brown said that if he was elected, he would become the 41st Republican senator, enabling the GOP to block the Democratic majority from reaching the 60-vote threshold required to pass key legislation, including a health care bill. The Senate has already passed a version of health care, but it needs to be reconciled with a different bill passed by the House and then signed by the president before it becomes law.

As it happened, Massachusetts passed its own health care reform plan in 2006, with the help of both Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and a heavily Democratic legislature. Brown, then serving in the state Senate, voted for the plan.

On the Jan. 31, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week, host Barbara Walters asked Brown about his vote on the Massachusetts plan. "Why isn't what's good for Massachusetts good for the whole country?" she asked.

Brown responded, "In Massachusetts, the free market, the free enterprise has taken control, and they're offering a wide range of plans. I've never ever said that people should not get health insurance. It's just a question of if we're going to take a one-size-fits-all government plan or we're going to do something where the individual states can tailor their plans as we've done."

When Walters asked him, "Do you think the whole plan should be scrapped?" Brown said, "Yes."

"The whole plan?" Walters continued.

"Yes," Brown said.

Later, during the show's round-table segment, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman expressed disbelief at Brown's response.

"That was the most evasive answer," Krugman said. "If you think this is a straightforward guy, that was an incredibly evasive answer on health care, because the Senate bill, which has now stalled, is identical to the Massachusetts health care plan -- the same thing. Only in the finest of fine print is there any difference. He voted for the Massachusetts plan. A majority of voters in Massachusetts who voted for him approve of the Massachusetts health care plan. Nonetheless, their plan is dead."

We wanted to see whether the Massachusetts plan was indeed "the same thing" as the bill passed by the U.S. Senate. So we looked at the details of both plans and consulted with an ideologically diverse group of health policy experts.

The consensus among our experts was that Krugman is basically right on the overall structure, although some of the details differ. As Elizabeth A. McGlynn, associate director of RAND Health, put it, "Same recipe, different amounts on the ingredients."

Here are elements of the two plans that are broadly the same, along with some of the differences in details:

? Individual mandate to buy health insurance. Everyone in Massachusetts must purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty; the same goes for the Senate plan, though the penalty structures vary between the two.

? Employer responsibilities for offering health insurance. Companies with more than 10 employees in Massachusetts need to offer health insurance or else pay a penalty. The Senate bill sets the bar for companies at 50 employees, though technically the bill falls short of a mandate.

? Health insurance exchanges. Both the Massachusetts and U.S. Senate plans involve the use of voluntary "exchanges" that individuals and small businesses can use to purchase private-sector health insurance. These exchanges are designed to offer a range of plans with different benefits and premium levels.

? Affordability subsidies. Under both plans, lower-income individuals and families can receive government subsidies to help them pay their health insurance premiums. In the Massachusetts plan, subsidies are allotted on a sliding scale up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Under the U.S. Senate plan, the sliding-scale subsidies go up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

? Expansion of Medicaid. The Massachusetts plan expands Medicaid to all children up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The U.S. Senate plan also expands Medicaid, but in a different fashion, offering it to all individuals (not just children) up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

? Insurance market regulation. Both plans restructure the insurance market, in similar but slightly different ways. In Massachusetts, the reform bill merged the individual and small-group markets (that is, it merged the market serving individuals not covered by their employer's plan with the market serving smaller employers). The U.S. Senate bill placed new regulations on those two markets but kept them separate. In Massachusetts, dependents up to age 25 can be covered on their parents' plan, while the U.S. Senate bill allows such dependent coverage up to age 26. And young adults in Massachusetts from age 19 to 26 can purchase a special lower-cost, lower-benefit plan through the exchange; the U.S. Senate bill creates a category of lower-cost, lower-benefit plan in the exchange for those up to age 30 who cannot find affordable coverage.

? Limits on the ratio between the highest and lowest premiums. In Massachusetts, the highest premiums can generally only be twice as high as the lowest premiums. The only factors that can be used to vary premiums are age, tobacco use, geographic area, the nature of the employee's industry, an unusually low participation rate (for group plans) and participation in a wellness plan. The U.S. Senate bill allows premiums in the individual and small-group market and on the exchange to vary based only on age (limited to a 3-to-1 ratio), geographic area, family composition and tobacco use (limited to 1.5 -to-1 ratio). Wellness programs do not factor into ratings variations under the Senate bill, but the bill does provide other incentives for such plans.

The bills differ more noticeably in several other areas.

? Cost containment. Critics of the Massachusetts plan have taken it to task for its lack of cost-containment provisions. The U.S. Senate bill makes changes to Medicare that are intended to lower program costs, such as restructuring how payments are made to Medicare Advantage plans -- the HMO option under Medicare. Since Medicare is a federal program, the Massachusetts plan does not address this issue. The U.S. Senate bill also authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of certain drugs. This, too, is a federal rather than a state responsibility.

? Financing. Both the Massachusetts plan and the Senate bill are financed in part by revenue generated from the individual and employer mandates. But the Massachusetts plan's financing is heavily dependent on leveraging federal matching funds, while the Senate bill, in addition to cost savings from Medicare, imposes taxes on drugmakers, device manufacturers, health insurers and indoor tanning services. It also taxes high-cost ("Cadillac") health care plans. The Massachusetts plan does not do any of these things.

"The Senate probably has more cost containment," said John Holahan, a health expert at the Urban Institute who has studied the Massachusetts plan extensively. "And the financing is different. But the structure is the same."

So it seems that there's broad agreement that, despite some operational differences, the broad structure of the Massachusetts health care plan is quite similar to that in the U.S. Senate bill -- certainly more similar than either one is to, say, a single-payer health care plan or even to the current system. Krugman's comparison of the two plans is Mostly True.

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:08 pm

Quote (Mini_J @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:02 pm)
Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Feb. 19 2010, 11:36 pm)
Republicans have health care ideas the Democrats call the Republicans the party of no when they really just wont listen to Republican ideas.

Republican ideas in the health care bill

Quote
Krugman calls Senate health care bill similar to law in Massachusetts

The recent Massachusetts Senate election captivated Americans far beyond the Bay State. In that contest, Republican Scott Brown picked up a seat formerly held by the late Democratic giant Edward Kennedy. Brown's upset victory was aided by a wave of frustration over how Congress and President Barack Obama have been handling health care reform legislation.

During the campaign, Brown said that if he was elected, he would become the 41st Republican senator, enabling the GOP to block the Democratic majority from reaching the 60-vote threshold required to pass key legislation, including a health care bill. The Senate has already passed a version of health care, but it needs to be reconciled with a different bill passed by the House and then signed by the president before it becomes law.

As it happened, Massachusetts passed its own health care reform plan in 2006, with the help of both Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and a heavily Democratic legislature. Brown, then serving in the state Senate, voted for the plan.

On the Jan. 31, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week, host Barbara Walters asked Brown about his vote on the Massachusetts plan. "Why isn't what's good for Massachusetts good for the whole country?" she asked.

Brown responded, "In Massachusetts, the free market, the free enterprise has taken control, and they're offering a wide range of plans. I've never ever said that people should not get health insurance. It's just a question of if we're going to take a one-size-fits-all government plan or we're going to do something where the individual states can tailor their plans as we've done."

When Walters asked him, "Do you think the whole plan should be scrapped?" Brown said, "Yes."

"The whole plan?" Walters continued.

"Yes," Brown said.

Later, during the show's round-table segment, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman expressed disbelief at Brown's response.

"That was the most evasive answer," Krugman said. "If you think this is a straightforward guy, that was an incredibly evasive answer on health care, because the Senate bill, which has now stalled, is identical to the Massachusetts health care plan -- the same thing. Only in the finest of fine print is there any difference. He voted for the Massachusetts plan. A majority of voters in Massachusetts who voted for him approve of the Massachusetts health care plan. Nonetheless, their plan is dead."

We wanted to see whether the Massachusetts plan was indeed "the same thing" as the bill passed by the U.S. Senate. So we looked at the details of both plans and consulted with an ideologically diverse group of health policy experts.

The consensus among our experts was that Krugman is basically right on the overall structure, although some of the details differ. As Elizabeth A. McGlynn, associate director of RAND Health, put it, "Same recipe, different amounts on the ingredients."

Here are elements of the two plans that are broadly the same, along with some of the differences in details:

? Individual mandate to buy health insurance. Everyone in Massachusetts must purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty; the same goes for the Senate plan, though the penalty structures vary between the two.

? Employer responsibilities for offering health insurance. Companies with more than 10 employees in Massachusetts need to offer health insurance or else pay a penalty. The Senate bill sets the bar for companies at 50 employees, though technically the bill falls short of a mandate.

? Health insurance exchanges. Both the Massachusetts and U.S. Senate plans involve the use of voluntary "exchanges" that individuals and small businesses can use to purchase private-sector health insurance. These exchanges are designed to offer a range of plans with different benefits and premium levels.

? Affordability subsidies. Under both plans, lower-income individuals and families can receive government subsidies to help them pay their health insurance premiums. In the Massachusetts plan, subsidies are allotted on a sliding scale up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Under the U.S. Senate plan, the sliding-scale subsidies go up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

? Expansion of Medicaid. The Massachusetts plan expands Medicaid to all children up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The U.S. Senate plan also expands Medicaid, but in a different fashion, offering it to all individuals (not just children) up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

? Insurance market regulation. Both plans restructure the insurance market, in similar but slightly different ways. In Massachusetts, the reform bill merged the individual and small-group markets (that is, it merged the market serving individuals not covered by their employer's plan with the market serving smaller employers). The U.S. Senate bill placed new regulations on those two markets but kept them separate. In Massachusetts, dependents up to age 25 can be covered on their parents' plan, while the U.S. Senate bill allows such dependent coverage up to age 26. And young adults in Massachusetts from age 19 to 26 can purchase a special lower-cost, lower-benefit plan through the exchange; the U.S. Senate bill creates a category of lower-cost, lower-benefit plan in the exchange for those up to age 30 who cannot find affordable coverage.

? Limits on the ratio between the highest and lowest premiums. In Massachusetts, the highest premiums can generally only be twice as high as the lowest premiums. The only factors that can be used to vary premiums are age, tobacco use, geographic area, the nature of the employee's industry, an unusually low participation rate (for group plans) and participation in a wellness plan. The U.S. Senate bill allows premiums in the individual and small-group market and on the exchange to vary based only on age (limited to a 3-to-1 ratio), geographic area, family composition and tobacco use (limited to 1.5 -to-1 ratio). Wellness programs do not factor into ratings variations under the Senate bill, but the bill does provide other incentives for such plans.

The bills differ more noticeably in several other areas.

? Cost containment. Critics of the Massachusetts plan have taken it to task for its lack of cost-containment provisions. The U.S. Senate bill makes changes to Medicare that are intended to lower program costs, such as restructuring how payments are made to Medicare Advantage plans -- the HMO option under Medicare. Since Medicare is a federal program, the Massachusetts plan does not address this issue. The U.S. Senate bill also authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of certain drugs. This, too, is a federal rather than a state responsibility.

? Financing. Both the Massachusetts plan and the Senate bill are financed in part by revenue generated from the individual and employer mandates. But the Massachusetts plan's financing is heavily dependent on leveraging federal matching funds, while the Senate bill, in addition to cost savings from Medicare, imposes taxes on drugmakers, device manufacturers, health insurers and indoor tanning services. It also taxes high-cost ("Cadillac") health care plans. The Massachusetts plan does not do any of these things.

"The Senate probably has more cost containment," said John Holahan, a health expert at the Urban Institute who has studied the Massachusetts plan extensively. "And the financing is different. But the structure is the same."

So it seems that there's broad agreement that, despite some operational differences, the broad structure of the Massachusetts health care plan is quite similar to that in the U.S. Senate bill -- certainly more similar than either one is to, say, a single-payer health care plan or even to the current system. Krugman's comparison of the two plans is Mostly True.

The Republicans want a Health Care bill that wont add a trillions of dollars to the deficit and a bill that is 2,000 pages long written by lobbyists. I think the Democrats just threw that in the bill to get them on board just like they did those back room deals to get the Democrats that were wavering on board.

CO_Fowler

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5508

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:14 pm

I'll only say this about the health care bit......if it's not good enough for the politicos at D.C. to use then why should I have to have it?  What's wrong with it that the politicos won't use it?  They want us regular public 'Joes' to use it then it should be good enough for them in D.C. to have/use.

'nuff said ;)

Mini_J

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2827

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:19 pm

Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Feb. 20 2010, 12:08 am)
The Republicans want a Health Care bill that wont add a trillions of dollars to the deficit and a bill that is 2,000 pages long written by lobbyists. I think the Democrats just threw that in the bill to get them on board just like they did those back room deals to get the Democrats that were wavering on board.

Health care will reduce defecit over 10 years

Quote
Obama said health care reform will reduce the cost of health care

After meeting with Senate Democrats on Dec. 15, President Barack Obama made a number of claims about what the health care bill would achieve if passed.

"We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care," Obama said. "Families will save on their premiums; businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future.  This plan will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of that program.  And because it gets rid of the waste and inefficiencies in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.

"Now, I just want to repeat this because there's so much misinformation about the cost issue here.  You talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that whatever ideas are -- whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill."

Obama's comments came on the heels of a report from Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) -- a nonpolitical civil service employee -- that concluded various provisions of the Senate bill "would have a significant downward impact on future health care cost growth rates." However, Foster continued, those effects would be outweighed by the increased cost associated with expanding health insurance coverage to another 33 million Americans. Specifically, the report estimates that the total national health expenditures under the Senate bill would increase by an total of $234 billion (0.7 percent) between 2010 and 2019.

Curiously, both Republicans and Democrats hailed the report as a victory for their side.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said the report "shows that health reform will ensure both the federal government and the American people spend less on health care than if this bill doesn't pass, helping get a hold of America's debt and keep more money in people's pockets. This report is yet another clear indicator that we have to act - and act now."

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley said the Foster report showed that the Senate bill "doesn't do anything to reduce the unsustainable growth in health care spending and in fact would make health care costs grow more rapidly."

Confused yet? We decided to wade in and sort some of this out.

First, we need to acknowledge that when it comes to characterizing the "costs of health care," there are several ways to look at it.

The first is how much people would pay in health insurance premiums. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the health care bill proposed by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and concluded that if passed, most people would see a very modest decrease in premiums by 2016 (compared to what they would pay under the current system). How modest? Best-case scenario - for those in group plans with large companies -  about 3 percent better. For a small percentage of people (less than 8 percent of the insured) who would buy insurance on the individual market, and who wouldn't be eligible for federal subsidies, they might actually pay 10 to 13 percent more, though with new federal minimum standards, they'd also be getting more insurance coverage as well.

The second way to look at cost is its effect on the national deficit. And here again, the CBO has weighed in on the Reid plan. The CBO concluded that while the plan would be very expensive, the bill is also more than paid for with new taxes and plans to reduce health care spending over time. The net effect, according to the CBO, is that over 10 years, the plan would end up reducing the national deficit by $130 billion.

Which brings us to a third way to look at cost, whether the plan would lower the rate of health care inflation over the long term. Republicans are correct when they say that based on the CMS report, health care spending would increase by $234 billion over the next 10 years.

But remember, that's with a plan that is estimated to cover an additional 33 million people. So spending would increase 0.7 percent while adding coverage to roughly 10 percent of the population. In his report, Foster said numerous studies have demonstrated that people with health insurance use more health services than people without insurance.

So we'll be spending more over the next 10 years, even more than if we didn't pass the bill, according to the CMS report. But let's talk a minute about the "rate of growth" of health care spending. That's what Obama is talking about when he says he wants to "bend the cost curve." According to the projections in the CMS report, the rate of growth in national health care expenditures will spike a bit in the middle years of the health reform plan. That's when the provisions that result in 33 million more people getting health insurance will kick in. But in the later years of the 10-year projections, the rate of growth rises slower than under current law (albeit only slightly: in 2019, for example, it's the difference between rising at a clip of 6.9 percent under the proposed plan as opposed to 7.2 percent under current law).

So when Obama says reforms will lower the cost of health care, what he means is that they will eventually slow the rate of growth of health care expenses.

This can be pretty confusing stuff. And we think both sides in the debate are guilty of oversimplifying to score political points.

It's also worth noting that while the CMS is a legitimate nonpartisan source, there's lots of difference of opinion among respected economists about how various cost-cutting proposals in the plan will shake out. In other words, these projections are all highly speculative.

"There's a tremendous amount of uncertainty about whether what's in the bill will be enough to lower health care inflation," said Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, a group that advocates fiscal responsibility. "No one knows for sure."

All of the cost estimates being proffered are "extraordinarily treacherous," because many of the changes being considered are unprecedented in history at this scale, said Henry Aaron, health policy scholar at the Brookings Institution.

Still, he said, the bill contains many of the devices that economists say could help to slow the growth of health care spending over time.

So when Obama says the plan would cut the cost of health care, it's not a simple answer. If he's talking about cutting people's premiums, the president is backed up by the CBO. According to the CBO, some people would pay more, but on average, most people -- people in employer plans -- would see very modest reductions in premiums compared to what they'd be expected to pay if nothing changes. If he's talking about the deficit, again, he's got support. The CBO estimates the plan would slightly reduce the deficit.

But when it comes to cutting health care expenditures, it's a little trickier. According to CMS, spending is expected to rise slightly (0.7 percent), due to adding some 33 million more people to the insured ranks. Obama can make a case that in the later years of the 10-year projection, the rate of growth for health care expenditures would be somewhat slowed. But in attempting to simpify the issue, saying that the plan would reduce the cost of health care,  we think Obama sacrifices some accuracy.


And so we rate his statement Half True.

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:20 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:16 pm)

Quote:


Quote

Also why don't the Democrats pass health care when they have the votes in Congress? Republicans have health care ideas the Democrats call the Republicans the party of no when they really just wont listen to Republican ideas.


Because the Democrats want whats best for America and that means working with the Republicans even though the Republicans have no desire to serve the people that elected them.

agreed  :cool:

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:34 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:16 pm)

Quote:


Quote

Also why don't the Democrats pass health care when they have the votes in Congress? Republicans have health care ideas the Democrats call the Republicans the party of no when they really just wont listen to Republican ideas.


Because the Democrats want whats best for America and that means working with the Republicans even though the Republicans have no desire to serve the people that elected them.

Socialists and Communists are two different things. You can be a Socialist without being a Communist.

Also with Americans running things in American without Government and Lobyist influence we would be drilling for our own oil and be able to get out of the Middle East saving alot of money and oil prices would fall. We would be able to drill for our natural resouces and sustain us for along time if it werent for environmentalists and their phoney global warming theorys which were proved in those hacked emails showing the global warming scientists wanting to fudge the numbers.

Democrats don't want whats best for America. They think they know whats best for American and the rest of us are just stupid. People like Bill Gates gives American jobs the same people Democrats calls evil coporate giants.

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:36 pm

Quote (Mini_J @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:19 pm)
Health care will reduce defecit over 10 years

If you believe that can I see you the Brooklyn Bridge? :laugh: How does raising the deficit $2 Trillion Dollars reduce it? The Democrats just raised the debt celing to $14 Trillon Dollars. We will never be able to pay that off. By the way Obama has spent more money then all the past Presidents combined in one year.

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:38 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:36 pm)
Quote (thereR4lights @ Feb. 19 2010, 5:20 pm)
Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:16 pm)
Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Feb. 19 2010, 4:36 pm)

Quote

Also why don't the Democrats pass health care when they have the votes in Congress? Republicans have health care ideas the Democrats call the Republicans the party of no when they really just wont listen to Republican ideas.


Because the Democrats want whats best for America and that means working with the Republicans even though the Republicans have no desire to serve the people that elected them.

agreed ?:cool:

Thanks, even I as a Democrat can see Obama is messing up.

I guess it's just hard for the hard working Republican citizens of this country to see and accept that their elected officials do not care about this great country since they the elected officials care more about being Republican than being American.

Smaller Government and stop spending money the Government doesn't have is the key to saving the economy. Not spending more and taxing big companies.

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:39 pm

Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:34 pm)
Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:16 pm)
Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Feb. 19 2010, 4:36 pm)

Quote

Also why don't the Democrats pass health care when they have the votes in Congress? Republicans have health care ideas the Democrats call the Republicans the party of no when they really just wont listen to Republican ideas.


Because the Democrats want whats best for America and that means working with the Republicans even though the Republicans have no desire to serve the people that elected them.

Socialists and Communists are two different things. You can be a Socialist without being a Communist.

Also with Americans running things in American without Government and Lobyist influence we would be drilling for our own oil and be able to get out of the Middle East saving alot of money and oil prices would fall. We would be able to drill for our natural resouces and sustain us for along time if it werent for environmentalists and their phoney global warming theorys which were proved in those hacked emails showing the global warming scientists wanting to fudge the numbers.

Democrats don't want whats best for America. They think they know whats best for American and the rest of us are just stupid. People like Bill Gates gives American jobs the same people Democrats calls evil coporate giants.

:eyesroll:
privatization leads to more poor people and a very few amount of rich. Why is this so hard for neo-cons to understand?

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 8:41 pm

Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:38 pm)
Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:36 pm)
Quote (thereR4lights @ Feb. 19 2010, 5:20 pm)
Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 19 2010, 8:16 pm)
Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Feb. 19 2010, 4:36 pm)

Quote

Also why don't the Democrats pass health care when they have the votes in Congress? Republicans have health care ideas the Democrats call the Republicans the party of no when they really just wont listen to Republican ideas.


Because the Democrats want whats best for America and that means working with the Republicans even though the Republicans have no desire to serve the people that elected them.

agreed ?:cool:

Thanks, even I as a Democrat can see Obama is messing up.

I guess it's just hard for the hard working Republican citizens of this country to see and accept that their elected officials do not care about this great country since they the elected officials care more about being Republican than being American.

Smaller Government and stop spending money the Government doesn't have is the key to saving the economy. Not spending more and taxing big companies.

wrong. big goverment that regulates the economy will work just fine. look at europe

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar, darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum