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

'Fearmongers' were right about Obamacare

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this May. 04 2010, 1:05 pm

Quote
The ink was barely dry on President Barack Obama's signature before the RAND Corp. released a report concluding that, not only would the hard-won health care package fail to curb health insurance premium increases, but the bill itself would drive premiums for young people up as much as 17 percent.

This should not have been a surprise: the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the plan would do almost nothing to reduce premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same type of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to an increase of nearly $500 per year for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention.
ore from National Columnists
 
And, of course, during the health care debate, no presidential speech was complete without a promise that "if you have health insurance today, and you like it, you can keep it." But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under Obamacare. Some of those workers will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid.

In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back onto traditional Medicare.

And how many times did President Obama criticize the United States for having the highest health care spending in the world? Well, late last month the government's chief actuary released his report on the bill, showing that the bill will actually increase health care spending by $311 billion over 10 years.

At the same time, the report warned that promised future spending cuts, particularly those for Medicare, are unlikely to occur. "The longer-term viability of the Medicare reductions is doubtful," wrote Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid systems. What cuts do occur could have a severe impact on the quality of health care. As many as 15 percent of hospitals and other institutions could be forced out of business, according to the report, "possibly jeopardizing access to care" for millions of Americans.

With spending going up, and future savings likely to fall short of promises, we can expect higher deficits and, of course, higher taxes. The most recent estimates suggest that the taxes already in the bill will likely end up costing middle-class workers and small businesses an extra $1,000 per year.

Now the most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office warns that nearly 4 million Americans, nearly three-quarters of them middle-class workers, will be hit with fines for failing to meet the government's mandateto buy insurance. Those penalties will average nearly $1,000 per person in 2016.

All this, and the health care "reform" law is merely a month old.

Perhaps this is why nearly 56 percent of American voters now favor repealing the bill.

This episode provides a lesson, not just for health care reform, but more generally for the Obama administration's policies. When critics of the health care bill raised these concerns during the debate, they were accused of "fear-mongering." It was said that they were "opposed to reform," or were in the pockets of the insurance industry.

Now, as the administration presses forward with its other initiatives, including financial regulation and, possibly, "cap-and-trade" energy taxes, the same modus operandi is in action. Those who raise questions are derided as opposing "reform" and siding with the banks, energy companies or whoever the enemy of the day is. The bills need to be rushed through. There is no time for real debate.

But maybe, just maybe, the first month of Obamacare should serve as a lesson: Legislate in haste; repent in leisure.

My Webpage

God_in_an_Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4538

Report this May. 04 2010, 1:51 pm

Fearmongering proves fearmongerers right?

:question:

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this May. 04 2010, 1:52 pm

Based on studies of the obamacare bill released after it passed shows they really were not fear mongering after all

KlingonGeneral

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 328

Report this May. 04 2010, 1:53 pm

Stupid hU'mans doing stupid things...

God_in_an_Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4538

Report this May. 04 2010, 1:55 pm

According to that article the "ink was barely dry." That's not enough time to do a study.

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this May. 04 2010, 1:57 pm

Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 2:55 pm)
According to that article the "ink was barely dry." That's not enough time to do a study.

You obviously are not familiar with poetic license :D

God_in_an_Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4538

Report this May. 04 2010, 2:05 pm

Poetic license is irrelevant. The fact remains that not enough time has passed to make any such report viable as anything other than fearmongering. Which leads me back to my original question... fearmongering makes fearmongerers rights?

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this May. 04 2010, 2:35 pm

Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 3:05 pm)
Poetic license is irrelevant. The fact remains that not enough time has passed to make any such report viable as anything other than fearmongering. Which leads me back to my original question... fearmongering makes fearmongerers rights?

Did you read the article would you call the congressional budget office a fear mongering group, or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies?  Instead of addressing the points brought up in the article you try to paint the article as "fear mongering".  These two offices were part of the group that made the bill so yes they can do studies on a recently finished bill.  If you have some counter points to the issues in the article post them if not stop trying to act like a peon in denial.

God_in_an_Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4538

Report this May. 04 2010, 3:06 pm

Quote (chr3335 @ May 04 2010, 11:35 am)
Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 3:05 pm)
Poetic license is irrelevant. The fact remains that not enough time has passed to make any such report viable as anything other than fearmongering. Which leads me back to my original question... fearmongering makes fearmongerers rights?

Did you read the article would you call the congressional budget office a fear mongering group, or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies?

No, but then again no one's linked to anything they said. Just to an opinion article.

Quote
These two offices were part of the group that made the bill so yes they can do studies on a recently finished bill.


Except that they haven't. They've made projections. And congressional projections are rarely accurate. Remember when congressional projections said it would take the bailed-out banks a couple years per $10 billion to pay off the loans, and then it turned out that "a couple years" turned out to be "less than a year?"

Quote
If you have some counter points to the issues in the article post them if not stop trying to act like a peon in denial.


For me to have counter points, there'd have to be original points. There aren't any.

God_in_an_Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4538

Report this May. 04 2010, 3:08 pm

Quote (Yanks @ May 04 2010, 11:19 am)
Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 04 2010, 1:55 pm)
According to that article the "ink was barely dry." That's not enough time to do a study.

What that means is the information was supressed.

Look, Dale Gribble is in the house!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this May. 04 2010, 8:51 pm

What do you expect from these circle jerkers? One cant process information and the other is a clueless jackass.

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this May. 04 2010, 10:12 pm

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (chr3335 @ May 04 2010, 11:35 am)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 3:05 pm)> id="QUOTE">Poetic license is irrelevant. The fact remains that not enough time has passed to make any such report viable as anything other than fearmongering. Which leads me back to my original question... fearmongering makes fearmongerers rights?
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 4:06 pm)

Did you read the article would you call the congressional budget office a fear mongering group, or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies?

No, but then again no one's linked to anything they said. Just to an opinion article.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">These two offices were part of the group that made the bill so yes they can do studies on a recently finished bill.

Except that they haven't. They've made projections. And congressional projections are rarely accurate. Remember when congressional projections said it would take the bailed-out banks a couple years per $10 billion to pay off the loans, and then it turned out that "a couple years" turned out to be "less than a year?"

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the plan would do almost nothing to reduce premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same type of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to an increase of nearly $500 per year for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention.  one point you ignored

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back onto traditional Medicare.  point three you missed.

Continue to pretend it is only fear mongering the truth is right in front of you.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this May. 04 2010, 10:35 pm

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 4:06 pm)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (chr3335 @ May 04 2010, 11:35 am)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 3:05 pm)> id="QUOTE">Poetic license is irrelevant. The fact remains that not enough time has passed to make any such report viable as anything other than fearmongering. Which leads me back to my original question... fearmongering makes fearmongerers rights?
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (chr3335 @ May 04 2010, 7:12 am)

Did you read the article would you call the congressional budget office a fear mongering group, or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies?
No, but then again no one's linked to anything they said. Just to an opinion article.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">These two offices were part of the group that made the bill so yes they can do studies on a recently finished bill.

Except that they haven't. They've made projections. And congressional projections are rarely accurate. Remember when congressional projections said it would take the bailed-out banks a couple years per $10 billion to pay off the loans, and then it turned out that "a couple years" turned out to be "less than a year?"

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the plan would do almost nothing to reduce premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same type of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to an increase of nearly $500 per year for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention. ¿one point you ignored

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back onto traditional Medicare. ¿point three you missed.

Continue to pretend it is only fear mongering the truth is right in front of you.
I love how after all that, he's still going on about what they said.

Just like they said it would take banks 10 years to pay off the bailout and it actually took less than a year...

But keep on the good fight chr. Someday you'll understand.

Rajiin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 22787

Report this May. 04 2010, 10:42 pm

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (chr3335 @ May 04 2010, 7:12 am)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 4:06 pm)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (chr3335 @ May 04 2010, 11:35 am)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 3:05 pm)> id="QUOTE">Poetic license is irrelevant. The fact remains that not enough time has passed to make any such report viable as anything other than fearmongering. Which leads me back to my original question... fearmongering makes fearmongerers rights?
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ May 04 2010, 7:35 pm)

Did you read the article would you call the congressional budget office a fear mongering group, or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies?
No, but then again no one's linked to anything they said. Just to an opinion article.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">These two offices were part of the group that made the bill so yes they can do studies on a recently finished bill.

Except that they haven't. They've made projections. And congressional projections are rarely accurate. Remember when congressional projections said it would take the bailed-out banks a couple years per $10 billion to pay off the loans, and then it turned out that "a couple years" turned out to be "less than a year?"

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the plan would do almost nothing to reduce premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same type of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to an increase of nearly $500 per year for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention. ?one point you ignored

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back onto traditional Medicare. ?point three you missed.

Continue to pretend it is only fear mongering the truth is right in front of you.
I love how after all that, he's still going on about what they said.

Just like they said it would take banks 10 years to pay off the bailout and it actually took less than a year...

But keep on the good fight chr. Someday you'll understand.
You know why it only took them a year? They didn't want the gubmint telling them how to loan their money and they didn't want to have to streamline their proceedures with other banks. They aren't stupid ..........

God_in_an_Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4538

Report this May. 04 2010, 10:42 pm

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 4:06 pm)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (chr3335 @ May 04 2010, 11:35 am)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ May 03 2010, 3:05 pm)> id="QUOTE">Poetic license is irrelevant. The fact remains that not enough time has passed to make any such report viable as anything other than fearmongering. Which leads me back to my original question... fearmongering makes fearmongerers rights?
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (chr3335 @ May 04 2010, 7:12 pm)

Did you read the article would you call the congressional budget office a fear mongering group, or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies?
No, but then again no one's linked to anything they said. Just to an opinion article.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">These two offices were part of the group that made the bill so yes they can do studies on a recently finished bill.

Except that they haven't. They've made projections. And congressional projections are rarely accurate. Remember when congressional projections said it would take the bailed-out banks a couple years per $10 billion to pay off the loans, and then it turned out that "a couple years" turned out to be "less than a year?"

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the plan would do almost nothing to reduce premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same type of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to an increase of nearly $500 per year for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention. ¿one point you ignored

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back onto traditional Medicare. ¿point three you missed.

Continue to pretend it is only fear mongering the truth is right in front of you.
Claims that are written in an opinion piece that aren't linked to any sources that substantiate said claims aren't points. As a result, I haven't ignored any points.

Oh, by the way... I love how, in order to try to validate a "point" in an opinion piece, you link to yet another opinion piece.

:laugh: :laugh:

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

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