December 18, 2009
Governors decry cost of ObamaCare. Gregoire?
Several governors who have studied the effects of Obama's takeover of health care found that it will hurt their states by forcing unfunded mandates on them. All of those we found statements from. Some of the them say "stop." Others say "fix it" and support this government takeover.
Nebraska's Governor Dave Heineman asks his Senator Ben Nelson to oppose it and join the filibuster.
"This bill increases taxes, cuts Medicare and is an unfunded expansion of Medicaid.
California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants it fixed, but the problems are large; California can't afford it.
"In reviewing the current Senate bill, it appears that while the increased state costs for the initial three years of the Medicaid expansion would be covered, the program quickly becomes a substantial unfunded Medicaid mandate."
"I will be clear on this particular proposal: if Congress thinks the Medicaid expansion is too expensive for the federal government, it is absolutely unaffordable for states. Proposals in the Senate envision passing on more than $8 billion in new costs to California annually - crowding out other priority or constitutionally required state spending and presenting a false choice for all of us. I cannot and will not support federal health care reform proposals that impose billions of dollars in new costs on California each year. "Arizona's Janice Brewer says that when Congress requires increasing Arizona's AHCCCS (Medicaid) to 150% will be an unsustainable burden even if Congress funds the first five years.
Christine Gregoire has some things going on in health care. But no one has found a statement from her on the current version of ObamaCare. But of course she has been busy going to Copenhagen. She has her priorities.
Posted by Ron Hebron at December 18, 2009
08:58 AM | Email This
The Medicare expansion is 93% paid for by the federal government after the first three years. In those first three years, 100% is from the government. The House bill expands Medicare to 150% of the FPL. The Senate bill expands it to 133% of the FPL. I'm guessing the Senate model will win out, because of state concerns.
No one's pretending we get universal coverage for free. But universal coverage is a good goal and will lead to a stronger country. States will have to pay a little more for Medicaid, and a little less in uninsured/unpaid hospital payments.
2. #1: I am curious how you came to know the details of the Senate bill since it is still secret pending CBO scoring. Your comments are speculation. I suspect that the complaining governors know more about the unfunded Medicaid liability than you do.
3. #1: "But universal coverage is a good goal and will lead to a stronger country." Says who? There are lots of people who may want to self insure, have high deductable policies, not cover birth control pills, mental health costs, chiropractors, etc. With universal coverage the government will make these decisions for you. I can't see where that is a good goal. I think most people want to make their own decisions about health care coverage.
And lead to a stronger country? Please tell me how? This is one of those apple pie and motherhood statements that means nothing but makes you feel good. What would make for a stronger country would be for the government to get out of the 3rd party payer position in health care and let individuals have direct control of the pricing of their health care. I now can go the doctor and pay a $15 deductable and not have to worry much about what the final cost comes to as someone else is picking up the tab. If I had to pay all or most of the bill, I would sure be asking about why tests and procedures are needed and the cost of them. That is how you control health costs leading to a stronger country not through the government just arbitrarily reducing reimbursement rates.
Paddy, I am curious how you came to know the details of the Senate bill since it is still secret pending CBO scoring.
I'm talking about the Senate bill on the floor that Reid revealed weeks ago. Things could change, of course, but the Senate seems very leery of expanding Medicaid. According to reporting in the media, Medicaid expansion. My analysis doesn't really have to wait until the very final vote, does it?
I suspect that the complaining governors know more about the unfunded Medicaid liability than you do.
They're lobbying to limit their cost exposure. It's in their interest, of course. The fix could be constructive, like changing the Medicaid funding rate. Or it could be unconstructive, like screaming "KILL THE BILL."
RJK, "But universal coverage is a good goal and will lead to a stronger country." Says who?
That was my personal opinion. Democrats have run on this principle for decades, and they just won an election in part because of their positions on health care. I understand you have a different opinion, sure.
And lead to a stronger country? Please tell me how? This is one of those apple pie and motherhood statements that means nothing but makes you feel good.
Mostly it's apple pie and motherhood, you're right. I like to see argue for keeping 30 million people uninsured.
I think it keeps people stronger because those who are insured with good coverage has less more stability. And, you know, 20-40,000 people die every year due to a lack of access to health insurance. (I linked to two studies in the previous health care thread by Mr. Hebron.)
I now can go the doctor and pay a $15 deductable and not have to worry much about what the final cost comes to as someone else is picking up the tab. If I had to pay all or most of the bill, I would sure be asking about why tests and procedures are needed and the cost of them.
The actuary rates in the Senate bill start at something like 60%, right? That's a high-deductible plan with a lot of cost-exposure that you're talking about.
Cost-exposure works good for folks like us who can afford it. On the other hand, we don't want those with less to choose between necessary medical treatments and a meal. Ironically, poor people are much better off with more expensive coverage and we can come up ahead with cheaper plans.
You bring up a good point, though. Near everyone agrees with the goal of universal insurance coverage, but the exact definition of what "insurance" means causes a lot of disagreement. I don't exactly disagree with you.
John Jensen, spouting his irrelevant crap about "93% costs covered" ignored this very quote from the article, from Governor Schwartzenegger:
Proposals in the Senate envision passing on more than $8 billion in new costs to California annually
Emphasis added. So John, I guess Congress thinks that - since they'll pick up 93% - it's OK to burden California with an additional $8 billion a year? Or are you volunteering to cover that cost, since it's so little?
And add that over 10 years - that's $80 billion of your outdated-and-oft-quoted $110 billion deficit reduction the CBO talked about. And that's just California. Add in the total taxes needed, and this bill is a net drain on the Government; it's only "OK" for the Feds because - like Ron's original post - the Fed pushes off a lot of the costs to the States.
So how about it, John? Where do the States come up with the tens of billions of dollars annually to cover this mandate?
I wouldn't be surprised if Schwartzenegger is exaggerating -- most likely ignoring the very 93% I'm talking about. The state is reimbursed money from the government, so technically California
is spending it even though it's federal dollars for a very specific purpose. He's lobbying Congress, not testifying under oath.
Are there other sources confirming his number?
This might be worth interesting if you're interested in the subject: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8029.pdf
7. Chrissy is his puppet of course that is why she is silent on this health care bill!Reminds me of Patty Murray and Maria Can't Do well.
John Jensen( Terrorist hassan's best tool)-
ANSWER THE QUESTION:
Did you ever serve in this nation's military?
Keep running away coward. I will keep asking till hell freezes over.
I'd trust Arnold before I trusted a shill like you...
And even if it was the full amount, you're saying it's OK to force CA to spend $210 million - which would be 7% of the $3 billion (if Arnold is wrong)? A State with serious budget troubles, let's pile on and force them to spend hundreds of millions - if not billions - more.
See, you damn liberals just love to spend other people's money...
John Jensen says "Or it could be unconstructive, like screaming "KILL THE BILL.""
I say ... Or it could be unconstitutional , Like federal Heathcare....
It IS uncontitutional !!!! "KILL THE BILL" !!!
John Jensen says "Or it could be unconstructive, like screaming "KILL THE BILL.""
I say ... Or it could be unconstitutional , Like federal Heathcare....
It IS uncontitutional !!!! "KILL THE BILL" !!!
Gregoire is Governor of one of the bluest States in the Union.
More than likely she is included in the unpublished backroom communications through the network of Obama's anointed.
And even if she weren't, there is now a public study which shows a not-surprising fact: the obscenely excessive funds of the 'Stimulus' package are being doled out to Congressional districts based on their votes. Blue Districts average double the manna from Obama that Red districts receive.
Governor Gregoire, if she hasn't already been reassured by the Chicago mob in control, may safely assume that the excessive state costs mandated by this hideous 'healthcare' bill will be covered in some way from Washington for blue states, like Washington, who vote 'right'. While those naive little Red states will not be reimbursed, and therefore will be forced to spend themselves more rapidly into bankruptcy by the unfunded Federal 'mandates'.
This Administration is definitely not governing on behalf of all of us. Tar and feathers.
The study in the above post is from the Washington Examiner. It begins:
A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.
"You would think that if the stimulus money was actually spent to create jobs, there would be more stimulus money spent in high unemployment states," said Veronique de Rugy, a scholar at the Mercatus Center who produced the analysis. "But we don't find any correlation."
Here's the link to the full article:
Dan, And even if it was the full amount, you're saying it's OK to force CA to spend $210 million - which would be 7% of the $3 billion (if Arnold is wrong)? A State with serious budget troubles, let's pile on and force them to spend hundreds of millions - if not billions - more.
Your entire premise is wrong. Medicaid is an optional program. States do not have to join in.
Trolls, the topic is Governor Christine Gregoire.
And when you talk about the details show us the bill under consideration. It's not the 2000-page Senate draft. I mean the one that added extending Medicare. Then removed it. Minority Leader McConnell says he hasn't seen it.
It's hidden, and must be voted on before anyone sees it. Desperation!
Stick to the governors here.
16. Considering the State has had significant "findings" on the way it dispenses Federal Medicare/Medicaid funding by our own State Auditors, it would be nice if Washington could prove it can handle the programing it has responsibility for now, before expanding it to everyone.
Sure, it's "optional", go ahead and pull out and see what kind of repercussions the State receives from the Feds! And I see you completely ignored the fact of the unfunded mandate; when you're wrong, you change the subject! Bottom line, this is a massive unfunded mandate shifted to the States.
Ron, of course Gregoire will stay quiet! She knows the Governor that swears fealty to Obama and Reid will get some nice hand-outs. I'm sure she's angling to get continued bail-out funds to cover our deficit, so she doesn't have to do anything difficult.
Gregoire avoids every tough decision so she never has to stand up for anything. The buck doesn't stop with her, although she'll be sure to spend it...
Hebron, Reid's amendment was released this morning (i.e., you can go read it now), and includes more Medicaid money.
The topic is not Gregoire, because we'd have to accept your premise for that to be the topic. Your premise deserves scrutiny. Rather than citing an unbiased source, you cited Republican governors who have an interest in lobbying for more dollars to their state. What you write isn't gospel, and thank goodness for that because you have repeatedly shown you have no clue what the hell you're talking about when it comes to health reform.
Dan, see what kind of repercussions the State receives from the Feds
None. Medicaid provides matching funds (and then some) for a state health care system.
And I see you completely ignored the fact of the unfunded mandate; when you're wrong, you change the subject! Bottom line, this is a massive unfunded mandate shifted to the States.
When you write "unfunded," you actually mean "93% funded." It's even higher in Reid's amendment, according to the reporting I've read.
Others claimed that states are forced to accept these rules, but they are not. Medicaid is a voluntary program.
You know that Federal speed limits are voluntary, too, right? Do you remember the pressure on Montana and other States to meet the speed requirements? You're being intentionally thick and deceitful in your position, but what's new there - you always lie.
And 93% coverage? Seems like there's still 7% unfunded. Which gets back to the point of other Governors - it's a massive expense increase on their States. In the case of CA, we're talking at least $210 million a year in extra costs. Again, you prove you have no problem spending other people's money.
Ron's post is 100% on target; Gregoire hasn't said anything because she will acquiesce to whatever the Obama Administration wants. But that's inconvenient for you, so you'll just brush it off with arrogance and march forth spouting the lies and lines of your political lords...
21. Wonderful interactive graphic from the Washington Post
. What do we see? The Senate bill actually adding to the deficit... And that's assuming that Congress actually goes through with the annual cuts in Medicare payments that they're promising (paying for health care on the backs of grandma and grandpa).
22. The Senate bill actually adding to the deficit...
Wrong -- the WP's graphics genius must have left early for the snowstorm. Here's what the WP story has to say:
All told, the package would reduce federal budget deficits by $132 billion by 2019, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
You can also check this out at the CBO blog.
The Post goes on to say:
Over the long term, the analysts predicted, the package could reduce budget deficits even more sharply, slicing as much as $1.3 trillion from projected deficits between 2019 and 2029. That would represent a significant improvement in long-run savings compared with the bill approved by the House and a measure previously crafted by Reid.
$1.3 trillion -- not bad. What have you got against deficit reductions, Dan?
$1.3 trillion -- not bad. What have you got against deficit reductions, Dan?
Nothing at all... Of course, the current Administration and Congressional leadership seem to love deficits. And I'd rather we not eliminate deficits while piling on trillions more in spending.
Now maybe you can answer me a question: why do you leftists hate grandma and grandpa, wanting to ration their healthcare, healthcare they've paid for over the last 40 years?
24. "I'm not saying God Bless Obama, No, No, I'm saying GOD DAMN OBAMA."
Rev. Jeremiah Wight
25. Now maybe you can answer me a question: why do you leftists hate grandma and grandpa, wanting to ration their healthcare, healthcare they've paid for over the last 40 years?
LOL! Not going to happen, Dan...
But I'm curious, are you saying we shouldn't be trying to reduce Medicare expenditure? Do you think what we're currently projecting (without HCR) is fine -- or maybe we should be spending even more? Dan, I didn't know you were such a strong supporter of the program!
PS: You weren't gracious enough to admit your earlier error in claiming the CBO projected a deficit increase with the current Senate proposal, but I know you meant to.
Never mind then, Scottd... As a typical marxist, questions are only good enough for others, not yourself.
Thanks for the deficits! And you can rest assured that grandma and grandpa will die faster with your rationing!
If you have no better argument, I guess you can always resort to name-calling and duck my questions if you have no answers.
I predict a tough week for you next week, maybe you should just mix yourself a stiff drink and stay away from the news and Internet.
Maybe governor fraudoire can arrange the same ethical deal Nebraska obtained for getting Washington a permanent exemption from paying into medicaid. Thats right up there with the second Louisiana purchase.
The seattle marxists are no doubt having a celebratory circle jerk at the statue of Lenin.
duck my questions
Ha, now that's funny! Posts 22, 23, 25 - who's ducking the question, Scottd? I answered you're question, do you have the integrity to answer one back? Or are you just a little coward?
Why do you leftists hate grandma and grandpa, wanting to ration their healthcare, healthcare they've paid for over the last 40 years?
Dan: You're deluded. I answered your question -- you just don't like the answer. Show me one provision that calls for denying care or otherwise rationing care. You can't, because that exists only in your imagination.
You're also confused. You don't seem to know whether you want to spend more on Medicare in the future or less. Since you imagine that spending less than we currently project automatically means denying care, I can only conclude that you think we should spend more -- or maybe you're just OK with spending the huge amounts that are already projected. Which is it? You're not making yourself very clear.
Speaking of cowardly, when are you going to admit you were wrong about the CBO estimate?
The government health care plan is nothing short of a massive power grab. The government has the will to control your health care, monitor your life and play god with just about everything you do. It is in short a stealth attack on our individual liberties. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Very clear intentions.
Let's face it - the federal government has grown too powerful. We're doomed.
You didn't answer, in fact you specifically stated that an answer wouldn't happen...
So Scottd, why do you leftists hate grandma and grandpa, wanting to ration their healthcare, healthcare they've paid for over the last 40 years?
Wrong again, Dan. When I said it wasn't going to happen, I was referring to your fantasy of health care rationing under Medicare. Try to pay attention.
Now, kindly explain how much more you think we should be spending on Medicare.
Sorry if I cannot follow your poor writing skills. Your answer was vague at best, in that it did not address my question but more about my insolence in even asking you a question. Clarity in writing is a virtue in these kinds of forums, you know...
Here's a great article about the health care bill. Especially this little gem:
Tucked in a clause of the Senate bill captioned "No lifetime or annual limits" is a provision that would in fact permit such caps. As now written, it would let insurance companies place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as the limits are not "unreasonable." The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable. Proponents said such limits were needed to prevent premiums from going up overall.
Hmmm... Capping annual and lifetime benefits? Sounds like rationing. So you deny the facts of what will happen - less money being spent on more people, it will result in less care per person.
How much should be spent? That should be up to each individual, their health insurance company, and their doctor. Not some disconnected panel in Washington DC that sets the levels arbitrarily.
You like central planning, don't you Scottd?
It feels to me it's nothing short of journalistic malpractice that no one has talked to Jim Webb. He hasn't said a word over the last two days, yet he wrote an op-ed earlier this week saying he was undecided and his spokeswoman told the Washington Post the same thing on Thursday. And no one has asked him anything.
That would be poetic justice if Webb votes against this putrid legislation. The lamestream media deserves to be wrong here for their negligence. Webb seems like he would want to have a deal that Landrieu and Nelson cut to ensure his vote, but if he votes "No", I'll commend him for his integrity and courage.
36. Clarity in writing is a virtue in these kinds of forums, you know...
And so is keeping up with the news before you make a fool of yourself by blathering falsehoods. You were wrong in claiming the CBO said the amended Senate bill would increase the deficit and now you're wrong in claiming that it allows insurers to place lifetime caps on benefits. Go check out the CBO link I gave you earlier.
So, that's at least twice you've been factually wrong on this thread -- and you still haven't explained how much more you think we should spend on Medicare. I don't see much point in arguing with such a fool...
Apparently when facts come out, or the media report in a way you don't like, you run away. That's OK, go ahead and leave...
Dan: You are a silly person.
Here's some of the buffoonery you've treated us with on this thread alone:
- You started by declaring that the CBO said the amended Senate HCR bill would add $132B to the federal deficit. In fact, CBO says the bill will reduce the deficit by that much, something you could have easily learned with some simple research. So far, you haven't been man enough to admit your error.
- Later you stated that the amended bill allows insurers to place lifetime caps on medical benefits. The amendment submitted yesterday actually prohibits this. Another fact you can't be bothered to research before spewing nonsense.
- In between, you ranted some delusion that Democrats would ration healthcare to one of their most important voting constituencies. You apparently think Medicare needs to spend more money in the future rather than working to reduce costs, which would surprise me if I thought you actually thought about the things you write.
It's not me who's running away from facts.
I guess you really are that slanted - I posted references for my claims, too. Something you have never done.
A liar like Jensen, what's to be expected...
Dan: Still wrong you are -- and still a buffoon. I posted references, too.
If you still think the CBO says the bill adds to the deficit, you are an idiot. I posted a link to the CBO that says you are lying and by now the Post has corrected the graphic you linked @21. Check it out. They've corrected their mistake -- when will you correct yours?
Here's another hint: If you want to spout off about the final version of the Senate bill, you shouldn't use news reports that are over a week old. The CBO link I gave you shows that the bill forbids insurers from placing lifetime caps on benefits -- and yet you persist in your lying.
Face it, Dan -- you were wrong as usual. You can man up and admit your errors now, or you can just continue with your clown show. I think we already know which one you'll choose.
Ben Nelson got our taxpayer money to pay for Nebraska's increased medicaid payments (millions upon millions) forever - how come Murray got nothing for Washington!?
Give Ben Nelson the boot (all of them need the boot actually - except for some Republicans)
So I'm responsible for the errors of the Post?
As far as caps - think for a second, rather than just spewing the talking points. Even you admit that there is an annual benefits cap. Now think about the implications for a lifetime benefits cap... Hey, you have unlimited lifetime benefits, but we'll cap them at $1,000 per year. Meaning - if you're 40 years old - we're capping you somewhere between $35,000 and $60,000 or so.
An unlimited lifetime benefit with an annual cap is meaningless; you're limited.
But then, to understand that point you need to have some critical thinking skills and an understanding of basic logic. No wonder it's a mystery to the left!
43. Looks like the going price for a Senate healthcare "Yes" vote is $100 million - unless you are a Democrat Senator from Washington State - then they get your vote for free.
I wonder how this will work out. Gregoire has just recently announced cuts (possible cuts) to our health system here in WA State. The US Govt. has just said they are going to force (yes force) states to pick up additional Medicaid costs in order to make their plan work. If WA State already can't afford their current commitment what makes any of you think they'll be able to just magically afford the commitment AND the new federal mandate, 7% or not?
And why didn't our Senators hold out like Nelson did. Sheesh he got ALL his state's Medicaid paid for. At least for the people who are the least likely to pay the bill.
Dan: Stop -- you're just embarrassing yourself.
So I'm responsible for the errors of the Post?
Not at all, you're just responsible for what you write. I was able to spot the Post's error in two minutes -- what's wrong with your research skills? I pointed it out to you. Hell, I even gave you two references, one from the Post and one directly from the CBO. And yet, for two days, you refused to acknowledge or correct your error.
You also lied @39 in claiming that I provided no references when I included two in my first post.
Even you admit that there is an annual benefits cap.
Another lie. I've admitted no such thing, because it's not true. The title from this section of the Manager's Amendment pretty much sums it up:
SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
So, what's that add up to? Four lies in a single thread -- probably not a record for you, but still noteworthy. Don't stop clowning...
46. Truly inspiring documentay about Obama http://bit.ly/4t7KJT
Dan, the Manager's Amendment bans lifetime and annual caps once the universal coverage portions of the bill take effect in 2014.
You say annual caps amount to rationing. Nearly every insurance plan right now has caps. This bill changes that. Yet somehow you manage to argue with a straight face that we should keep the status quo; we should keep rationing care based on wealth and arbitrary benefit caps. That's why we need stronger insurance regulations, so the caps that you call rationing will disappear once and for all.
Your distortions didn't work, Dan. Your anger didn't prevail. The Senate is going to pass health care reform and we're going to get 30 million more Americans covered with affordable, comprehensive health insurance. Your assault on the truth and on basic civility has lost.
48. I suspect messiahcare will reduce the deficit just like medicare and medicaid have reduced the deficit.
The trillions spent by the "messiah" will come home to haunt us in the coming months. Make sure the newport-sucking POS in the White House and all his marxist buddies in congress are tied to it.
You know, I'd have a little more confidence in this process if the House and the Senate hadn't exempted themselves from it's provisions.
Meanwhile, as soon as the GOP takes over Congress in Jan 2011, because these scum didn't listen; all this garbage will be undone, and genuine health care reform can commence.
And then it will be leftists kicked to the curb. You know, kinda like they were on the public option?
John and Scottd,
You are both liars of the highest order. You play semantic games saying "rationing is banned!" Of course, you ignore the FACT that monies are cut in absolute terms - not just reduced in increases - and there is an admission that services will be curtailed accordingly. Honest people would call that rationing, but no, you won't because you're liars.
The CBO also tells you that the numbers it came up with are bogus in that it can only evaluate what it's told to evaluate. It cannot look at the historical FACT that Congress does not act on the already ignored Medicare scale-backs. Nor was CBO allowed to consider the impact to the economy from the increased tax rates (which everyone acknowledges WILL slow the GDP).
Essentially, you leftist liars set up a series of out-and-out frauds and then used them to justify your actions. Never mind a STRONG majority of the US population would rather have ZERO changes than this abomination of a bill.
I want your pledges now - both of you - that if costs are higher than anticipated you will give every penny you make, every penny, to the Government to cover this beast you support. Put your money where your mouth is.
Willing to do that? My guess is not because you're cowards and thieves and will not take that promise because you KNOW it will be broken. But you get your little hooks into people...
Liars and thieves, like the Congressional leadership...
Exactly. It will add trillions to the deficit, and dolts like John Jensen will express shock! Of course, anyone with half a brain will look at what's happened in the past, and what this bill promises and realize it will create nothing but massive deficit growth.
The Obamassiah has already created a deficit greater than all 6 of the Bush/GOP deficits combined - and he did it in one year! Now it'll grow even more, but no, Jensen and his lying ilk will wave their gamed CBO papers around and tout otherwise.
Meanwhile grandma and grandpa will see their services cut - services they've paid for over the last 40+ years.
This is 100% the fault of the Slavery Party, and I hope they literally choke on it.
52. And Obama lies yet again
- taxes most certainly will increase for those who make under $250,000 per year.
And we're to trust these liars?
I just have to throw in my two cents here.
The Wall St. Journal said that there will be a tax increase for Medicare for those who make over $200K for individuals and $250K for couples.
There will be rationing of Medicare for the elderly but they will call it something else and try to hide it. But don't expect many more hip replacements, knee surgeries, pacemakers, and other procedures for the elderly. They will most likely have a nurse practioner who will give them aspirin and tell them their name will go on a waiting list to see a doctor sometime in the next year.
I would have more respect if the Republicans walked out en masse tomorrow and did not bother to show up on Christmas eve for the vote, This would show the Senate on CSPAN for the mockery that it is.
As a result of this new entitlement, the economy will stay in the tank for several more years - forget the recovery next year. We're SOL with the Obamunists in control.
55. You are both liars of the highest order.
LOL! That's especially rich coming from you, Dan.
So far, I've caught you in five blatant lies on this thread alone. Here's a quick summary in case you've lost track:
1. @21, you said the CBO reported the senate bill increased the deficit. In fact, the CBO reported a deficit reduction. I provided you with two links documenting this, including one from the CBO itself, but you refused to admit your error until I rubbed your nose in it repeatedly.
2. @39, you said I didn't provide references to back up my claim. Yet my first post @22 provided two links that you couldn't be bothered to check.
3. @34, you said the senate bill allowed caps on annual and lifetime benefits, demonstrating your mad research skillz by quoting a newspaper article written a week before the final Manager's Amendment. And, of course, you were wrong.
4. @42 you said I admitted that the bill allowed annual caps. Also not true -- that was your claim, not mine.
5. Finally, you admitted the bill didn't allow lifetime caps, but said it had annual caps that were effectively the same thing. Another lie -- the Manager's Amendment explicitly prohibits annual and lifetime caps on essential health benefits after the bill fully takes effect.
So you're 0 for 5 -- pathetic, even for you.
Of course, you ignore the FACT that monies are cut in absolute terms - not just reduced in increases
Oops -- make that 0 for 6. According to the CBO, Medicare spending under the senate bill will increase at an average rate of 6%/year for the next two decades -- so, wrong again! You just make crap up, don't you? Like I said earlier, you should quit before you embarrass yourself further.
PS: Make some time to watch the upcoming votes this week. I'll be thinking of you every step of the way :-)
Obama and the boys were saying that this whole deal had to get done quick to start saving people. Big rush. Reid said in his speech that as he was talking, two people had died from lack of health insurance. Wow. I had no idea. I mean, like this bill is now 2700 pages and nobody has read it because this deal has to get done. Quick. People need to be saved. 47 million are without health insurance and it's getting worse every day. I'm not kidding, it's bad.
So how come none of this bill goes into effect until 2014? Do you know how many people are going to die from lack of health insurance in 4 years? Just a cool 180,000 according Harvard Medical School.
So why is Congress allowing the murder of 180,000 American citizens?
One can always depend on the TARD
s to run with some factless drivel from the lame stream media
shows us with his sloppy comment: "@21, you said the CBO reported the senate bill increased the deficit. In fact, the CBO reported a deficit reduction. I provided you with two links documenting this, including one from the CBO itself, but you refused to admit your error until I rubbed your nose in it repeatedly
I guess you should've looked at the caveats the CBO director offered up regarding the alledged trimming of the deficit with this socialist grab of the private medical sector: Manager's Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 09/15/2009 07:09 PM ET
58. I think you are right. But you should cover more on this topic.
So are you going to pledge your income to cover any shortfall in this plan? Do you have the belief in this plan to do so?
Exactly. The CBO was prohibited from an honest scoring the bill. They had to assume GDP growth, cuts, and inflation rates that Congress said would happen, not what the CBO calculates would happen.
And from the payoff of Ben Nelson by Senator Reid, it's pretty obvious that Ron's original post about Governors worrying about the unfunded mandate is 100% correct. Nelson's holdout was to ensure that Nebraska got special attention and gets 100% of the increased Medicaid costs covered.
Apparently our own Senators - and our Governor - are willing to let that unfunded mandate slide down on our heads.
Oh, and it's an unfunded mandate that the Senate commanded CBO to count not as an expense but and income (in other words, shifting costs from the Feds to the States is an economic plus, rather than - at best - a wash).
Smoke and mirrors. I challenge the leftists here who support these abominations called health care reform bills to put up or shut up: pledge their salaries - 100% of it, if it needs be - to cover any overruns or cost increases or short revenues in these plans.
Do they really believe the numbers? If so, it should be a no-brainer of a pledge. But they won't because even they know the numbers are cooked.
Dan: Why would anyone enter into any kind of agreement with a serial liar and crap artist like you? You're 0 - 6 against me on this thread alone. Helluva job, Danny!
I challenge the leftists here who support these abominations called health care reform bills to put up or shut up
You're not in a position to challenge anyone. Look around you. Your arms and legs have been hacked off like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and yet, you're still ranting like a fool. 0-6!
Now stop bleeding on me and shut up...
62. Since Christine is angling for a Obama position (probably on her knees with her face in his lap) I don't see her saying anything.
Consider the end game, now that the Senate is about ready to pass this subjugation legislation;
From Mark Steyn:
"The Dems are thinking strategically; the Republicans are all tactics."
For my money, I think the theory is being borne out: Democrats have their eyes on a different end-game than our guys do: namely, the establishment of permanent, European-style socialism in the U.S. Our guys are focused on converting Obama radicalism into big-time electoral success in the next election cycle. The Dems have already factored in that likelihood and are betting -- over the long haul -- that even if the GOP cuts deeply into Dem majorities or takes over Congress (and even takes over the White House in 2012), Republicans will lack the commitment (and perhaps the numbers) to roll back what the Left is accomplishing now.
That is, our guys are focused myopically on a battle the Democrats have already figured they can afford to lose. The real battle is: What do you do when you get back in power? Do you have a plan for how to undo what is being done? Do you frame the coming elections in a way that converts victory into a mandate not only to stop what Obama is doing but to undo what he has done?"
Something to consider. Either the GOP gets a plan, or they will be relegated to minority status for a long time. The Tea Party (teabaggers) can probably come up with a plan - I hope someone has the right stuff. I have more confidence in them than the NRCC or Republican Party, but these two factions will have to come together for any plan to succeed. This will be the difference between this country regaining its greatness or becoming an equalitarian EU socialist nation.
When physicians are told they will have to suck up cuts in compensation (to the tune of 21%) many will leave the practice of medicine.
When the practice of medicine becomes a factory job (move the patients in and move them out) for low compensation and high personal risk exposure requiring very expensive malpractice insurance we will witness the supply of qualified (or barely qualified) foriegn doctors seeking emigration to the U.S. dry up.
Many facilities and locales rely on foriegn doctors to deliver healthcare that U.S. trained physicians are unwilling to perform. The carrot for those folks has been the promise of a green card and a good standard of living in the U.S.
I suspect that when the commie dirtbags are done, our high standard of living will be only a memory and we will no longer be a magnet for foriegn professionals.
What we will be left with is a healtcare system in tatters, lines of people waiting for procedures, an obnoxious SEIU staffed healthcare bureaucracy and a level of debt that threatens our solvency as a nation. Gregoire, Murray and Cantwell don't see anything wrong with Washington taxpayers picking up the tab for the pay offs to: (insert your favorite ethically challenged liberal here), Ben Nelson's Nebraska, Mary Landrieu's Lousiana or Chris Dodd's Connecticut but I suspect the voters will care.
An old refrain from commie demonstrations comes to mind. "The whole world is watching".
We are watching the corruption, back room deal-making, bribes, pay-offs and cooked books used by the libs to force messiahcare down America's throat.
65. Double accounting by the liars in Congress
- you cannot take one dollar, book it as future savings and then spend it for current expenses. That's called fraud and gets you thrown in jail. Unless you're a Democrat congressman pushing this abomination of a bill...
Far from reducing the deficit, this bill will ADD $300+ billion over the next 10 years.
Contrary to what JJ has falsely alleged, the GOP have tried on numerous locations to reform Health Insurance. The GOP has always pushed for incremental reform and would have spent far more time studying this issue than is being done now.
The Progressive left, which has co-opted the Democratic Party has always wanted sweeping reform, which dates back to when Truman was President. Passage of this subjugation legislation (ie piece of excrement) would not have been possible if there were 59 Democrats in the Senate.
John Jensen, in apite of his quasi-nuanced comments on Health Insurance reform is a pathological liar. He twists facts and omits relevant truths and is the poster child of the left wing blogosphere. He is almost as good as Barack Hussein Obama at being a skilled liar. However, a vast majority of readers never really bought his crap (which he thought did not stink), but it stank to others. John, you and the President need to grow up. I realize that this may not be possible in both cases.
If and when this bill gets signed, it will go to the SCOTUS and be constitutionally challenged on multiple grounds and would be delayed in its implementation.
68. A question for anyone how knows. What would happen if the states opted out of Medicaid? That is drop the program completely. Refuse to accept the federal support and just cancel the program. Provide some limited form of aid that does not have federal strings attached. It seems to me that a once benificial program has gotten out of hand. Medicaid was intended for people in abject poverty, not for folks that earn 150% or more of the poverty level. Is ther any reason that the states must participate in this program? Opting out might change some minds in the other washington.
69. I wonder how much backroom dealing the Senators of this state received for voting on this destructive healthcare bill.
70. I wonder how much backroom dealing the Senators of this state received for voting on this destructive healthcare bill.