[Snow-i]

During his press conference with Jake Tapper

Originally Posted by Obama

But if you — if what — the reports are true, what they’re saying is, is that as a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that’s going to increase our costs, we knew that. We didn’t think that we were going to cover 30 million people for free, but that the long-term trend in terms of how much the average family is going to be paying for health insurance is going to be improved as a consequence of health care.

And so our goal on health care is, if we can get, instead of health care costs going up 6 percent a year, it’s going up at the level of inflation, maybe just slightly above inflation, we’ve made huge progress.

So its not even a year into it and already Obama is back tracking yet again on his promises for healthcare and its effects on the deficit? Are the proponents of this thing still convinced? It came straight from Obama's mouth that this thing isn't going to save us - it'll actually cost us quite a bit. Elections are around the corner - lets get this thing repealed!!

[OAW]

Allow me to help you out a little .....

1. There is this thing we call health care costs.

2. There is this thing we call the federal deficit.

Still with me? Good. Now here's the crusher ....

3. #1 and #2 are not the same thing!

Cogitate on that for a bit and you just might realize your error.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Allow me to help you out a little .....

1. There is this thing we call health care costs.

2. There is this thing we call the federal deficit.

Still with me? Good. Now here's the crusher ....

3. #1 and #2 are not the same thing!

Cogitate on that for a bit and you just might realize your error.

OAW

No shit sherlock but when you're using tax money to pay those costs, where do you think those funds come from? This thing was supposed to save us money according to the headlines. Now its just supposed to cost us a little more instead of the sky falling. How long you wanna bet it is before they just come out and admit its an economic disaster? "Well we covered 30 million people!@@!!!"

I've had enough Cogitation from you. Its time we repeal this mess and start the recovery.

Excuse my politically inflammatory rhetoric, but I just can't believe how stupid you think we are. (not you personally, OAW, though there is a thread for that)

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No shit sherlock but when you're using tax money to pay those costs, where do you think those funds come from? This thing was supposed to save us money according to the headlines. Now its just supposed to cost us a little more instead of the sky falling. How long you wanna bet it is before they just come out and admit its an economic disaster? "Well we covered 30 million people!@@!!!"

I've had enough Cogitation from you. Its time we repeal this mess and start the recovery.

Excuse my politically inflammatory rhetoric, but I just can't believe how stupid you think we are. (not you personally, OAW, though there is a thread for that)

I'm only taking issue with your thread title and your OP. The title says that Obama admitted that the healthcare reform was never supposed to decrease the deficit. That simply is not true. And according to the CBO it is projected to decrease the deficit over a 10 year period. What the President said was that healthcare costs would continue to rise ... and that is true. Moreover, he has always said that. At no point did the President ever say that healthcare reform would lower healthcare costs. He said, quite specifically, that the legislation would "bend the cost curve" downward. In other words, goal of the healthcare reform was to A) achieve near universal coverage, and B) lower the rate at which healthcare costs increase over time.

Simply put ... there is no "gotcha" in what he said during the press conference. It is entirely consistent with what he has previously said. And like it or not ... it's factual. And as for "No shit sherlock but when you're using tax money to pay those costs, where do you think those funds come from?" ... I can only point out that the vast majority of the healthcare legislation's additional costs are still funded by the private sector. Companies and individuals still pay premiums. The public sector's portion of those are essentially limited to the subsidies for those who can't afford private health insurance.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Yeah, remember...we get to PAY FOR IT FOR FOUR YEARS before we get any benefits. That's a liberals version of 'fair'.

You get fined for not having insurance, and if you don't pay the fine you can be sent to jail. That's a liberals version of 'fair'.

[Lint Police]

so, how long until Christie is president?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Yeah, remember...we get to PAY FOR IT FOR FOUR YEARS before we get any benefits. That's a liberals version of 'fair'.

You get fined for not having insurance, and if you don't pay the fine you can be sent to jail. That's a liberals version of 'fair'.

you think investing in to something for a few years before seeing any return on your investment is "liberal"?

[BadKosh]

No, just lame and thoughtless, and unfair. Oh, wait they are traits of the left!

The Health care fix was supposed to make sure everybody gets health insurance, not rewriting the system and STILL NOT HAVING EVERYONE INSURED. They Still haven't insured about 25 million people. Everyone's costs are going up, as the conservatives said would happen, but the lefty's knew better.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No, just lame and thoughtless, and unfair. Oh, wait they are traits of the left!

The Health care fix was supposed to make sure everybody gets health insurance, not rewriting the system and STILL NOT HAVING EVERYONE INSURED. They Still haven't insured about 25 million people. Everyone's costs are going up, as the conservatives said would happen, but the lefty's knew better.

But, you just said you'd see benefits after 4 years?

[BadKosh]

"BEFORE WE GET ANY BENEFITS" is different than what you think you read...


"But, you just said you'd see benefits after 4 years?"

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

you think investing in to something for a few years before seeing any return on your investment is "liberal"?

Do you think it was 'fair' ?????

[olePigeon]

BadKosh blames the financial melt down on liberals, which was the result of wanting immediate, tangible returns on risky investments. Now he blames it on the liberals who want a longterm growth investment.

So which one is it? Or does it matter? I'm guessing it doesn't matter, you just know that whatever the left's decision is, it's wrong; if the result is ever bad, it's only their fault; if the result is ever good, the right was secretly behind it somehow.

Edit: Forgot my 5 exclamation marks!!!!!
Edit 2: I was against the health care bill, just FYI.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Red herring alert.

The ruinous healthcare scheme set up by this current admin isn't an 'investment', and certainly not a sound one.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

BadKosh blames the financial melt down on liberals, which was the result of wanting immediate, tangible returns on risky investments. Now he blames it on the liberals who want a longterm growth investment.

So which one is it? Or does it matter? I'm guessing it doesn't matter, you just know that whatever the left's decision is, it's wrong; if the result is ever bad, it's only their fault; if the result is ever good, the right was secretly behind it somehow.

Edit: Forgot my 5 exclamation marks!!!!!
Edit 2: I was against the health care bill, just FYI.

You SURE ARE a pigeon. Just because the Obama admin decided you need to pay for nothing for a few years so you will have less spending (recovery help) money doesn't show as an investment. This is typical stupid plans from a stupid group of liberal hacks. Congress didn't even read it. You are not too swift when understanding the left vs right way of fixing health care. Why re-invent the wheel, making it cost more and do less as the Dems have done, when just making it impossible for anyone to be refused a policy and assisting those with special needs would be the least expensive method. The big re-do of health care is what got people pissed at the Dems in the first place.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The ruinous healthcare scheme set up by this current admin isn't an 'investment', and certainly not a sound one.

In principal it made sense. Ensuring everyone has health insurance would eventually reduce the cost of insurance, reduce the cost of liability, and reduce the cost of health care in general. However, I knew that something was horribly wrong when the insurance companies came out in support for it. Generally speaking, when insurance companies support a bill, it's bad for the consumer.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You SURE ARE a pigeon.

OK.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Just because the Obama admin decided you need to pay for nothing for a few years...

They offered a government option for you to buy, but Republicans said no.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You are not too swift when understanding the left vs right way of fixing health care.

The left vs right way of fixing health care is opposing anything from the opposing side and supporting only items proposed from your side.

However, I expect this to change in a limited fashion because of the cap on lobbying was removed, essentially legalizing bribing to any degree.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Why re-invent the wheel, making it cost more and do less as the Dems have done, when just making it impossible for anyone to be refused a policy and assisting those with special needs would be the least expensive method.

Like I said, I was against the health care bill. Without a low cost option (government or otherwise) forcing people to purchase health insurance is a silly idea. My mom, uncle, grandmother, and grandfather all had cancer. My dad was adopted, so his health history is in question. Because of those factors, I can not afford insurance unless I'm apart of a group plan through an employer. I went without insurance when I was in college because the school wouldn't insure me (for reasons above), and insurance through Kaiser or BlueCross was nearly $1500 a month for a most basic plan with a huge deductible.

I can only imagine the number of people being forced to purchased ungodly expensive health insurance, not being able to make the payments, then being fined by the government.

[BadKosh]

I question those who crafted the legislation as to their morality. It's just a crappy way to treat people, by forcing them to buy insurance, which isn't constitutional BTW, to fining those who haven't entered into a contract for such insurance. Those who put the Obamacare plan together are jerks at best. Even after gutting the system and grasping for control of the insurance industry as part of what the Dems think is acceptable, 25 million are still not going to be insured. Why so much 'change' for such a half-assed result? Lies seem to be the standard from the Obama admin on health care as well as pretty much everything else. Congress didn't even read the bill before passage, which is yet another example of how big a jerks the Dems running things are.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Congress didn't even read the bill before passage, which is yet another example of how big a jerks the Dems running things are.

Your blinders are amazing.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Your blinders are amazing.

When you take yours off then get back to us OK? That you approve of this type of governance says a lot.

[Big Mac]

Due to my substandard connection my post got eaten, but I was going to post a short response on the impending end of the American empire and Obama being the natural consequence and outcome of the last 100 years of American policy (instituted by the Progressives). Of course, a number of you would just accuse me of parroting Beck, but I don't care about that.

The point I wanted to make is that those of us who see this coming need to prepare for what will be a very harrowing time. I see a bright future afterward, but it's not going to be pretty in most any industrialized country when Uncle Sam self-destructs.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The point I wanted to make is that those of us who see this coming need to prepare for what will be a very harrowing time.

Wel, I hope a thread gets started with instructions on how to prepare, for those of us who want to hedge our bets.

[besson3c]

Poll: 1 In 5 Americans Believe Obama Is A Cactus | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


I can't believe we elected a cactus...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Due to my substandard connection my post got eaten, but I was going to post a short response on the impending end of the American empire and Obama being the natural consequence and outcome of the last 100 years of American policy (instituted by the Progressives).

Be honest, was it really going to be short?

[Big Mac]

It was only going to be a few sentences longer than what I ended up posting, actually.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wel, I hope a thread gets started with instructions on how to prepare, for those of us who want to hedge our bets.

I'm sure there is plenty of preparation information scattered around from the last ten billion times someone predicted our way of life was ending.

Democrat: "The Republicans are in power, we're dooooooomed!"
Republican: "The Democrats are in power, we're dooooooomed!"

Me: "You guys are a bunch of C-3POs"

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

When you take yours off then get back to us OK? That you approve of this type of governance says a lot.

At what point in my three separate times when I said I didn't support the Obama health care plan did you get the idea that I approved of it?

You remind me of the King of Atlantis in Eric the Viking. I can't help to read everything you type in Terry Jones' voice.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wel, I hope a thread gets started with instructions on how to prepare, for those of us who want to hedge our bets.

That's easy.

Step 1: Vote Republican

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

However, I knew that something was horribly wrong when the insurance companies came out in support for it. Generally speaking, when insurance companies support a bill, it's bad for the consumer.

Eventually, it'll likewise dawn on you that generally speaking, when tax and spenders in government support a bill, it's bad for the consumer, the taxpayers, the nation, etc. etc.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by OAW 

At no point did the President ever say that healthcare reform would lower healthcare costs.

BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS

Reading that document, "healthcare costs" is equated to personal health care premiums, not federal healthcare costs.

[chabig]

So if the government pays instead of us, it's cheaper?

[Wiskedjak]

well, that of course depends on where the money comes from. but, as was pointed out earlier, it was said that personal health care costs would go down but the deficit wouldn't. All you've done here is prove that it was stated that *personal* health care costs (health premiums) would go down.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Like I said, I was against the health care bill. Without a low cost option (government or otherwise) forcing people to purchase health insurance is a silly idea. My mom, uncle, grandmother, and grandfather all had cancer. My dad was adopted, so his health history is in question. Because of those factors, I can not afford insurance unless I'm apart of a group plan through an employer. I went without insurance when I was in college because the school wouldn't insure me (for reasons above), and insurance through Kaiser or BlueCross was nearly $1500 a month for a most basic plan with a huge deductible.

I can only imagine the number of people being forced to purchased ungodly expensive health insurance, not being able to make the payments, then being fined by the government.

What if healthcare were decoupled from employment altogether? Knowing that you have a family history of cancer and that you're likely saving money for potential health problems down the road, wouldn't it be nice to have a sheltered HSA? What if you could get an HSA and compatible plan? What if you had the option to attain group rates say... nationally? What if instead of choosing between the Federal government option (after all, this is just one more insurer) or the 6-9 healthcare insurers in your state, you had over 1500 to choose from across the country?

Of course, none of these provisions (and there are various iterations of the above in over 130 bills) were included in the healthcare reform package. Not only was this healthcare reform package not designed to decrease the deficit or healthcare costs, it wasn't even designed to address healthcare problems.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Knowing that you have a family history of cancer and that you're likely saving money for potential health problems down the road, wouldn't it be nice to have a sheltered HSA?

Do you know how expensive cancer treatment is? We lost our home and nearly everything when my mom got cancer. It's not so much the price of the insurance or having an HSA available, it's all about the coverage I can get. Through an employer I get in on a group plan that is comprehensive and does not discriminate.

If insurance were decoupled from the employer, I'd be out of luck. I could not get any coverage that would include cancer treatment. As far as insurance companies are concerned, I'm a potential money pit. They will not cover me without some outrageous price, and I can tell you that whatever the coverage plan is, it'll have a ridiculously low ceiling of probably only $15,000 (which will cover maybe 1/10th the cost, depending on the type of cancer and how aggressive it is) if I end up in a hospital, or no coverage at all past a few days.

It's also a reason why I'm in a union job. If I were to get cancer and be out of work for a few months, I couldn't be fired for being on medical leave. Ironically, California is one of the few states where an employer can fire you for no reason. If I were working in a non-union job, the moment I got cancer and was out of work for a few days, you bet your ass I'd be fired (that's what happened to my mom.) I'd be without work, without insurance, and nothing to my name to save my own damn life.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course, none of these provisions (and there are various iterations of the above in over 130 bills) were included in the healthcare reform package. Not only was this healthcare reform package not designed to decrease the deficit or healthcare costs, it wasn't even designed to address healthcare problems.

It does address one problem, and that is come January they can't deny me coverage based on my family's past. So hopefully that provision will remain even if Republicans take control of the House and Senate and attempt to repeal the health care bill.

If I could only change one thing in health care, it would be that.

[The Final Dakar]

Don't forget covering kids. I went 8 years without medical insurance because the insurance carrier where my mother worked wouldn't cover me because i had a pre-existing condition.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't forget covering kids. I went 8 years without medical insurance because the insurance carrier where my mother worked wouldn't cover me because i had a pre-existing condition.

Inverted penis?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Inverted penis?

Considering acne and pregnancy are preexisting conditions, wouldn't surprise me.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Inverted penis?

Little Donny - Upright Citizens Brigade - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Edit: Two UCB references in a few days. Weird.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if healthcare were decoupled from employment altogether? Knowing that you have a family history of cancer and that you're likely saving money for potential health problems down the road, wouldn't it be nice to have a sheltered HSA? What if you could get an HSA and compatible plan? What if you had the option to attain group rates say... nationally? What if instead of choosing between the Federal government option (after all, this is just one more insurer) or the 6-9 healthcare insurers in your state, you had over 1500 to choose from across the country?

Of course, none of these provisions (and there are various iterations of the above in over 130 bills) were included in the healthcare reform package. Not only was this healthcare reform package not designed to decrease the deficit or healthcare costs, it wasn't even designed to address healthcare problems.

The banks have been permitted to run nationally for a while now and so few have succeeded at the national level. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what you are saying, nor am I asserting anything in counter to what you have written here, but it will be a *very* long time before we have 1500 health care insurers to choose from, and this is leaving aside the whole possibility of only having a handful of very large corporate monoliths to choose from.

[screener]

Sure, a bewildering choice, glad I live in Canada.

[olePigeon]

Insurance companies are allowed to offer insurance in any state they choose. What they don't want to do is have to abide by State regulations when it comes to insurance. What insurance companies want to do is set up base in whatever State will pander to them, then offer insurance out of that state with no strings attached, ensuring sh*tty insurance for everyone.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Insurance companies are allowed to offer insurance in any state they choose. What they don't want to do is have to abide by State regulations when it comes to insurance. What insurance companies want to do is set up base in whatever State will pander to them, then offer insurance out of that state with no strings attached, ensuring sh*tty insurance for everyone.

And on this I can see where the insurance companies are coming from. I can't see how it adds any value to the process for an insurance company to have to deal with 50 different sets of regulations. This is why the insurance market should be regulated at the federal level with one consistent set of standards nationwide.

OAW

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

well, that of course depends on where the money comes from. but, as was pointed out earlier, it was said that personal health care costs would go down but the deficit wouldn't. All you've done here is prove that it was stated that *personal* health care costs (health premiums) would go down.

So if the government pays for all of our normal living expenses we can live for free? I get it now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Do you know how expensive cancer treatment is?

First of all, I'm sorry for your experience olePigeon. The unfortunate reality is that catastrophe does occur. I'm sure you can imagine the aggregate cost of all those facing this reality. To believe this type of coverage could be unlimited in any system is optimistic IMO. Do you know how much you'd have today if you had saved a modest amount each year to an investment vehicle created from the first year you worked? Wouldn't it be great if your employers down the line occasionally contributed to that investment and it were sheltered not unlike certain IRAs?

We lost our home and nearly everything when my mom got cancer. It's not so much the price of the insurance or having an HSA available, it's all about the coverage I can get. Through an employer I get in on a group plan that is comprehensive and does not discriminate.

I'm saying this doesn't have to be the only means of participating in a group plan.

If insurance were decoupled from the employer, I'd be out of luck. I could not get any coverage that would include cancer treatment. As far as insurance companies are concerned, I'm a potential money pit. They will not cover me without some outrageous price, and I can tell you that whatever the coverage plan is, it'll have a ridiculously low ceiling of probably only $15,000 (which will cover maybe 1/10th the cost, depending on the type of cancer and how aggressive it is) if I end up in a hospital, or no coverage at all past a few days.

You couldn't simply decouple health insurance from employers over night, rather it would be phased out. There's no reason healthcare should be tied to the labor market serving only to burden employers with bureaucracy while incentivizing them to invest in gold plans for their employees over paying higher wages. Not to mention how it distorts the labor market for those interested in seeking greater opportunity. If you want people to quit burdening the system with fibro-myalgia and restless leg syndrome, decouple healthcare from employment. To be clear, any plan like this would have to function in concert with (likely after a) robust nationwide pool of insurers and a wide-variety of creative plans were already made available.

Ultimately, I'd rather cancer not become another political football and the minute coverages are adjusted by Federal oversight/regulation you can bet your ass it'll be thrown onto the field with social security and global warming.

It's also a reason why I'm in a union job. If I were to get cancer and be out of work for a few months, I couldn't be fired for being on medical leave. Ironically, California is one of the few states where an employer can fire you for no reason. If I were working in a non-union job, the moment I got cancer and was out of work for a few days, you bet your ass I'd be fired (that's what happened to my mom.) I'd be without work, without insurance, and nothing to my name to save my own damn life.

I really don't see how unions have anything to do with it. There's a balance between profitability, growth, and compensation that unions too often overlook while rewarding mediocrity, feeding on their host, and bankrupting their cities. I am happily non-union and have a compensation/benefits package every bit as humane as my union counterpart. I'm not sure what company your mother was working for, but I've not heard of a real pervasive problem of termination for disease. I'd be surprised if you hadn't worked with at least a couple of inspirational figures. I certainly do. Most communities have a funny way of frowning on employers that are cruel to people. Yours doesn't?

It does address one problem, and that is come January they can't deny me coverage based on my family's past. So hopefully that provision will remain even if Republicans take control of the House and Senate and attempt to repeal the health care bill.

If I could only change one thing in health care, it would be that.

There are alternative means of addressing these problems and I'd like the next Congress to consider them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

So if the government pays for all of our normal living expenses we can live for free? I get it now.

Conservatives have no problems running up deficits for military expenses ... why should this be any different?

[chabig]

Defense is a legitimate function of the federal government, spelled out by the constitution. Healthcare isn't.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Defense is a legitimate function of the federal government, spelled out by the constitution. Healthcare isn't.

Why is defending the health and well being of American citizens with guns and bombs any different from doing so with medicine? why does the value of an American's life suddenly drop when it can no longer be defended with a gun?

I always find it funny that socialized military is ok but socialized medicine is not.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I always find it funny when liberals twist the meanings of everything in order to shore up inane 'arguments'.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*snip*

I don't necessarily disagree with any of the points you're making about health care, but if any changes are made, I need two assurances:

1. Coverage can not be denied because of preexisting conditions (either past or potential)
2. Coverage can not be denied to children, period (Forgot about that one, thanks Dakar.)

On a side note, the Union is important for me here in California specifically because our state allows employers to fire people for no reason. Unions set up rules that employers must agree to regarding hiring and firing. Medical leave is universally supported in most unions, which means an employer in California can not fire someone without review from a Union board.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I always find it funny when liberals twist the meanings of everything in order to shore up inane 'arguments'.

just callin' 'em as I see 'em. I'm sorry if it makes you feel awkward to read that tax-payer funded military is socialist.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

just callin' 'em as I see 'em. I'm sorry if it makes you feel awkward to read that tax-payer funded military is socialist.

We've been over this before, and you doing the equivalent of holding your breath and stomping your feet and insisting on things being the way you want to paint them for the sake of a non-argument, doesn't change anything.

Nations have always had militaries - most nations on earth, reguardless of political system- have miltaries, the US military in particular FAR predates US income taxes, having a military isn't socialist, and has nothing to do with socialism.

You simply don't know the definitions of basic terms and concepts, and therefore try to warp these things to suit your 'arguments'.