Say it ain't so.

Obama doesn't have a plan. You give him too much credit.

For most Americans, he has no credibility anyhow. And if he did, there wouldn't be a problem rounding up 216 votes.

FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan

Reality Check: Premiums would rise without the Obama plan as well, and by a lot more.

Reality Check: Premiums would rise without the Obama plan as well, and by a lot more.

2 of the biggest cost-constraining measures in regards to insurance premiums are:

1. The ability to deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions.

2. The ability to cap maximum pay-outs.

Stip these away and premiums MUST rise as a result.

Now, these may very well be laudable regulations; but don't sit there and pretend that their inactment will do anything but RAISE premiums.

But Jeff, Obama and the Democratic leadership have told us countless times, sometimes even using big words, that cutting costs is one of the most important reasons we should get this passed as quickly as possible. You aren't trying to hint that they have been (wait for it) ....

LYING???

2 of the biggest cost-constraining measures in regards to insurance premiums are:

1. The ability to deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions.

2. The ability to cap maximum pay-outs.

Stip these away and premiums MUST rise as a result.

So what you are saying, JEFF, is that when premiums rise now it won't be to give health insurance company stockholders larger returns and their executives bigger bonuses? There will be a health care relevant reason for the increase?

"but don't sit there and pretend that their inactment will do anything but RAISE premiums."

Don't you sit there and pretend that without reform premiums would rise less. As more people give up insurance because of cost or unemployment the premiums are rising for the remaining people at a very fast pace. This insurance reform bill will at least stop that from happening and keep the risk pools full of younger, healthier people which will help hold premiums lower than they would be otherwise for all.

but as you can see..libs just dont give a fuck about that

and also as we have said..
its not about health care
NEVER BEEN ABOUT HEALTH care..if they were so worried they would have come out with immidiate plans to lower cost but remember..bulk of benefits wont happen UNTIL JUST BEFORE ELECTION TIME

*IF THEN

and I ASK AGAIN,...all this tax money collected for 4 years..how long will it be before the govt has TO TAKE That money for something else as they do SS?

Bullshit, the messiah said they would go down, and I have faith they will......

thats right andrea but as I asked on the other thread

does this 3000 include ALL FIFTY SEVEN states...lol

How does it feel to be a whore for the worst "industry" in the USA, MistyEyedFool?

Premiums have been rising by double digits fer years now.

The HC reform bill will, according to numbers Spud has seen, raise the cost of health care to the nation by 1% while tens of millions of currently uninsured gain insurance.

That's a decent deal.

Be Well.

Even if your Premiums go up 600%, they're really going down compared to where they would have gone. -Corky Gibbs

3,000 percent

He meant 3,000 dollars, obviously.

Be Well.

And if it were true that businesses would be saving $3,000 per employee per policy, the business community would be lining up behind him.

But they're not, because they know he's lying about that too. Liberals know he's lying. The Congress knows he's lying. And Americans generally know he's lying, thus his collapsing opinion polls.

If the Democrats in Congress really want to lose their seats over this turd, it's simply justice that they will.

I don't think the CBO buys that $3000 per person horseshit.

-He meant 3,000 dollars, obviously.

SSShhhh, Tater!

It's more fun this way, watching them bitch and moan.

Nobody does. I remember when libbies used to rush over to Factcheck.org every time Bush opened his piehole, and the major media would go line-by-line through his speeches.

Since January, their affection for the truth has diminished considerably.

Everybody knows he's lying. And the liberals don't even care. Which is why they're being annihilated in opinion polls. They're detestable people.

" The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Senate bill and found that in the large group market (those working for large firms) the average premium cost per person would see no change at all or be up to 3 percent lower, compared with where premiums would be under current law. For the small group market, the change in cost for the average premium would range from a 1 percent increase to a 2 percent decrease."

So . . . where did he get a $3,000 decline from?

Does it bother you that your president is a liar, Corky?

Does it bother you that your president is a liar

I know I am not Corky.

The Presidents in my lifetime have been:

Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Obama.

I kind of expect them to lie by this point.

Does it bother you that your president is a liar, Corky?

#20 | Posted by rightisright

He doesn't care after Hillary jilted him.

And who is your President, RisWhacked?

I'm not sure what source he was quoting, but it sure wasn't GW or teh insurance industry.

btw, you never got back to me on how you felt about the children of poorer Americans than you paying for the tax cuts GW gave you?

Pretty good, right?

Poor people never gave me anything. Only a collectivist would think otherwise.

You took GW's tax cuts which are off-budget, to be paid for by other, poorer Americans and their children than yourself.

But you are OK with that, right?

Transfer of wealth upwards, I mean.

But you are OK with that, right?

and you are feeling shame and embarrasment obviously.

Not me, I donate that amount.

But if I didn't them yeah I'd be embarrassed to have my tax cuts go to the deficit and be paid for by other, mostly poorer people.

btw, did you have a point for once? No? OK.

then, yeah

Bwahaha. Saint Corky. I spent mine on booze and women.

"But if I didn't them yeah I'd be embarrassed to have my tax cuts go to the deficit and be paid for by other, mostly poorer people."

Your throwing of shame is disgusting.

Last time I checked the poorer people aren't paying federal taxes? At least by any signifigant measure. In fact its thier acceptance of my tax dollars that is causing the deficit.

I never knew Mickey D's workers qualified fro GW's cuts.

But hey, actually I'm very impressed.....

-poorer people aren't paying federal taxes?

Really?

People poorer than the majority of those who received significant cuts from GW don't pay taxes?

Imagine that.

btw, did you have a point for once? No? OK.

stop crying like a bitch, cork.

you got the same tax cuts. and you are fucking crazier than I thought if you think anybody here believes you donated it just because you say so on a blog. weak deflection and attack on me.

you damn well know I have made valid points all day corky.

it just doesn't match up with your love of this POS bill.

-your love of this POS bill

Writes, but doesn't read.

Odd, little doggy.

Corky,

you champion this bill as a "first step" that insures 30 million and other things also.

you love it.

you own this bill.

As reading isn't your forte, I can see where me calling the Bill half-assed and half a loaf would fly right over your head.

But it's the CBO that says how many people it will cover and how much money it will save over time.... perhaps they have it in Braille on their site, eh?

Bush's trillion + tax cuts for the rich were put directly into the deficit.

Who pays for that, Tritey?

I understand what the CBO says.

I think it's bullshit. the only way to get that many people more insured is to force them to buy or to force the insurance companies to take them. (or both in many cases)

I don't see either of it happening to the tune of 30 million people.

Aw gee golly whiz, Gomer.

The non-partisan CBO that all Congress depends on and top industry economic forecasters.... OR eberley.... such a tough decision!

the CBO tells you what you want to hear, Barney.

I like that number too and i hope it is true.

If I believed the CBO then I wouldn't call this bill a POS.

Bush's trillion + tax cuts for the rich were put directly into the deficit.
Who pays for that, Tritey?
#38 | Posted by Corky at 2010-03-17 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

A simple google search will show you that the top 50% of earners have always and will always pay the vast majority of Federal Taxes (96.7% in 2006):

The CBO is nonpartisan. The CBO does not tell congressman what they want to hear. They call it impartially and based on an objective analysis. To quote the Republicans at the healthcare summit, the CBO is the "gold standard".

It's "poorER" as in poorer than those who got the cuts, not poverty level.

A little reading might help you.

The massive redistribution of wealth upwards

The CBO is nonpartisan.

I'm not accusing the CBO of being partisan.

just wrong.

The massive redistribution of wealth upwards

"In 2006, the most recent year with IRS figures available, 90 percent of American families took home less than $104,000. Families in this bottom 90 percent made, on average, $30,659. That's 2 percent less than the bottom 90 percent of American families averaged, after adjusting for inflation, back in 1973.

Meanwhile, since 1973, the wallets of Americans at the top of the income ladder have been swelling monumentally. The top 1 percent in our country, analyses of IRS data by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez indicate, have seen their incomes more than triple. The incomes of the top tenth of 1 percent -- taxpayers who averaged $6.3 million in income in 2006 -- have more than quintupled."

The CBO is nonpartisan. The CBO does not tell congressman what they want to hear. They call it impartially and based on an objective analysis. To quote the Republicans at the healthcare summit, the CBO is the "gold standard".

#43 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-03-17 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Still believes in the Tooth Fairy

#47 | Posted by Ray at 2010-03-17 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Believes tooth fairy under his bed trying to steal his gold!

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2010-03-17 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag

Still a fallacy. Unless RiR is uber wealthy (maybe he is, I don't know), it's still the children of the rich that will be paying down the deficit.

On topic, unfortunately for Obama, he stuck his foot in his mouth with the $3,000 reduction in premiums. There were so many caveats attached to the original statement that he should have just steered clear of it all together. While he's trying to put the best spin on the HC bills (lipstick on a pig?) sometimes it's better to say nothing than to say foolish "facts" that are easily disprovable. All this does is make it look lik Obama is willing to distort the truth to get his bill through. Didn't he learn ANYTHING from Bush?

Just remember they said the same thing about SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Budget neutrual, won't need to raise taxes, your benefits will never change, doctors will get paid in full, and won't affect the debt.

How accurate was that?

Also after Medicaid, and Medicare was put into affect most health care premiums have out paced inflation.

I don't agree with "we know this bill has problems, but let's get it passed anyway and then fix the problems" because we all know that NEVER happens. Once law, a bad law remains a bad law and doesn't alter for years and years.

And my chief complaint about it is the "medical viability" powers given to the Surgeon General. It is far too vague and open to too much abuse.

Believes tooth fairy under his bed trying to steal his gold!

is that an implication that the only gold ray owns is represented by the fillings in his mouth?

LOL

-it's still the children of the rich that will be paying down the deficit.

It is everyone who pays federal taxes that will be paying for the tax cuts that GW gave the rich, everyone.

And considering the marked redistribution of wealth upwards, it will more and more be the poor who pay.

LOL

Hadn't thought of it that way, but you may be correct.

Perhaps there is hope for you after all.

And considering the marked redistribution of wealth upwards, it will more and more be the poor who pay.

so you have no hope that the dems will start making the wealthy pay more.

#47 | Posted by Ray at 2010-03-17 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Believes tooth fairy under his bed trying to steal his gold!

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2010-03-17 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag: FULL OF SHIT!

I sleep well at night, knowing Corky his socialist friends are screwing themselves.

We never knew you dreamt about sex with us, Ray..... that's really disturbing, ya know.

Or just disturbed.

"The CBO does not tell congressman what they want to hear. They call it impartially and based on an objective analysis."

Ever hear of GIGO?

They can only make predictions based upon the data given, they don't make a value judgment, on that data.

Who cares what the republicans call it.

Reality Check: Premiums would rise without the Obama plan as well, and by a lot more.

#3 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

Yep. I hope some form of a public option will surface. Grayson (FL) will offer a bill to open up Medicare for all.

As someone who has to buy their insurance on the open market, my wife and I welcome the opportunity to buy from the same pool of plans Congress can.

"An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest."
================

The bill has not even been scored yet old data.

So what you are saying, JEFF, is that when premiums rise now it won't be to give health insurance company stockholders larger returns and their executives bigger bonuses? There will be a health care relevant reason for the increase?

#6 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2010-03-17 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why don't you start buying health insurance company stocks? If they're as profitaable as you claim they are why aren't you investing in them?

And don't take the easy way out saying you can't afford it.

Your money will earn the same percentages as any other stock holder.

What's your excuse?

Take your time now, reason some kind of excuse for not having a reason. If you can't come up with something on your own ask one of your buddies here, they can help you come up with something. They're very good at excuses. Not reasons, but excuses, they have many.

The CBO scores exactly what congress sends them. They have to assume everything that congerss says comes true.

Does anyone remember Medicare part D. The CBO said it would cost X and as soon as it was past we found out it would be twice as expensive. Everyone knew that it would cost way more than the CBO said, but the CBO had to take in to account exactly what Congress told them.

The CBO score to me is a joke.

#63 | Posted by RussellO

The CBO scores exactly what congress sends them. They have to assume everything that congerss says comes true.

Does anyone remember Medicare part D. The CBO said it would cost X and as soon as it was past we found out it would be twice as expensive. Everyone knew that it would cost way more than the CBO said, but the CBO had to take in to account exactly what Congress told them.

The CBO score to me is a joke.
---------------
You wise beyond your years, now if only the public new the same thing.

The CBO is nonpartisan. The CBO does not tell congressman what they want to hear.

but the numbers they crunch are the ones the white house summits,like taking i billion out of medicare,saving billions from fraud and waste and everyone knows medicare has never been cut a dime and fraud and waste has been their for decades and will be their for decades more.

Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.

In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a "continued reduction in reimbursement" under the state's Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.

Walgreens follows Bartell Drugs, which stopped taking new Medicaid patients last month at all 57 of its stores in Washington, though it still fills Medicaid prescriptions for existing customers at all but 15 of those stores

Fred Meyer and Safeway said their pharmacies would continue to serve existing Medicaid patients and to take new ones, though both expressed concern that the reimbursement rate is too low for pharmacies to make a profit

what you run a business to make a profit, geez why do you need to make a profit to stay in business?

The massive redistribution of wealth upwards....

Looks like Idaho is the first of 50 states to sue the Federal Government, if this stupid idea forcing people to buy insurance they don't want passes.

Your money will earn the same percentages as any other stock holder.

Porkchop

I would if I could shake free even the 35 bucks needed for one share of Cigna. Since it was trading at 16.70 at the 52 week low and is now over 35 I think I really wished I had money to invest. However I don't.

The CBO is nonpartisan. The CBO does not tell congressman what they want to hear. They call it impartially and based on an objective analysis. To quote the Republicans at the healthcare summit, the CBO is the "gold standard".

#43 | Posted by moder8 at

they call it with date GIVEN to them by the goddamn dems
thus the reason why the dr fix ISNT In that data...
and you cant see that as bullshit?
thats okay because the pres told fox yesterday that the little ole 250 BILLION really doesnt matter and isnt a part of his bill...
THEN The liar told bret that he really didnt know whats in it until its on the floor
oh REALLY?????

and cbo said today that its cost is 940 billion
and anyone who says that they cant support it at a trillion but can at 940 billion is an idiot who listens to his party rather than the people who he really works for.

and here is a question for you

hasnt it been impossible to get FLOOD insurance ever since the GOVT got its hands in it?

One of you morons has th helpme understand this "pre-existing condition" thingie.

If I have a car wreck and I have to go to the hospital for a head transplant, can I buy health insurance while I am on the stretcher for that?

Damn, they just told me I have cancer, can I buy health insurance to get that fixed now?

Why should I buy insurance before I need medical care?

all good questions sir and there has been NO dem refute any of this when brought up that I have seen..

but of course IF this bill were about health care, this might be different but since its mainly about doing away with the medical insurance industry and putting the govt in charge..then OF Course anything like this that will bankrupt those companies is EXACTLY what obama and danni want

Why should I buy insurance before I need medical care?

The proposed new legislation is not set up that way. You need to start paying attention and actually do the math, but oh, I forgot you are a republican.

Let's see now, if this plan added 33,000,000 new subscribers by force of law and each paid just half of what the average person pays now for equivalent coverage (let's say $2000 per year for the sake of argument, that's $66,000,000,000 per year coming in to the system. Times ten that's $660,000,000,000. Now, assuming we already pay emergency room rates for most of those 33 million uninsured anyway, and every penny of that is passed off to the actual payers, would the increased income raise or lower each paying person's premiums? This is grammar school math folks. What do you want to bet the republicans here still can't do the math?

AFK,

What about someone like me, I had the first issue with MS I was sent to a Neurophamologist who said yes then sent me to a MS specialist neuro who said no. 3 years went by for 9 months of those years I did not have insurance. Could they have denied me based on the neuropth even though the specialist said no? From what your say it seems like I should not be allowed to have insurance now.

BTW because of a clinical trial the insurance company still takes in more than I cost them.

This is such a cluster fuck. The CBO scores bills according to the assumptions they are instructed to build into their analysis. The entire issue of this reform package reducing the deficit and amounting to a net savings is predicated on the assumption that future congresses will cut $500 billion from Medicare.

IF THAT WAS FEASIBLE, THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT NOW AS PART OF THIS LEGISLATION.

Ain't gonna happen folks.

And then there's the $300 billion separate bill to compensate doctors which was stripped out and passed separately. Oh yeah. Forgot about that huh?

Did anyone here actually read the article? It says that almost everyone will pay lower premiums. Some will pay more but only because they will opt for better coverage, and most of them will get a tax break that more than compensates.
So here is an article that sticks mostly to facts but is obviously trying to paint Obama-care in the worst possible light, yet the bottom line is that it is a net plus all around. This is the most persuasive article I have seen so far promoting Obama-care.

who cares about all those "facts". obama is our god and we shan't question him.

-the flock

only a tool (da prez) and a fool (his koolaid drinkers) believe this crap.

What about someone like me, I had the first issue with MS I was sent to a Neurophamologist who said yes then sent me to a MS specialist neuro who said no. 3 years went by for 9 months of those years I did not have insurance.

#76 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Tao, early MS is often a very difficult diagnosis to make--- I'll bet you saw the ophthalmologist because of some visual issues (blurring)--?optic neuritis---?coordination issues---physicians (responsible ones) hate to label people with a disease that doesn't exist---MS is one of those you have to be careful with.