01 Nov 13
Originally posted by JS357Lets not forget this lie within the lie,
I think the debate here about whether Obama was wrong about the preservability of insurance and the debate here about the quality of the ACA website can be conceded in favor of the anti-ACA folks. What are the other specific ACA-related debating points?
OBAMA: (June 5, 2008) You're going to have a plan that lowers premiums by $2,500!
OBAMA: (January 31, 2008) I am actually not interested in just capping premiums. I want to lower premiums by $2,500 per family!
OBAMA: (October 4, 2008) We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.
OBAMA: (October 15, 2008) You can keep your choice of doctor; keep your plan. The only thing we're going to do is lower costs. Cut a average family's premium by about $2,500 per year.
OBAMA:[ (June 27, 2008) It's time to bring down the typical family premium by $2,500, and to bring down the costs.
OBAMA: (August 6, 2008) ...a system where we're gonna work with your employers to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.
OBAMA: (October 4, 2008) We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.
OBAMA: (February 23, 2008) ... and we will lower premiums for the typical family by $2,500 a year.
OBAMA: (August 17, 2008) And if you already have health care, then we're gonna work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family.
OBAMA: (April 20, 2008) We're gonna work with your employer to lower premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.
01 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonnever mind
[b]Lets not forget this lie within the lie,
OBAMA: (June 5, 2008) You're going to have a plan that lowers premiums by $2,500![/b]
OBAMA: (January 31, 2008) I am actually not interested in just capping premiums. I want to lower premiums by $2,500 per family!
OBAMA: (October 4, 2008) We will start by reducing pr ...[text shortened]... re gonna work with your employer to lower premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.
01 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Whether the exchanges will really offer competitive policies is still to be determined. Whether it will cause premiums to skyrocket for folks not on the dole is not settled, but seems likely. The proposition that it will not add to the deficit is extremely dubious.
I think the debate here about whether Obama was wrong about the preservability of insurance and the debate here about the quality of the ACA website can be conceded in favor of the anti-ACA folks. What are the other specific ACA-related debating points?
But... it will undoubtedly give lots of free stuff to people and so you can bet your bottom dollar that that those who receive free stuff will like it.
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by SleepyguyThe only chance for this actually lowering the deficit is if Mr. Subsidy pays for it. That way the actual cost will never be passed on to the American taxpayer. 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Does anyone really believe the ACA is going to end up lowering the deficit? That's a long shot.
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by SleepyguyNo, it is going to blow it out of the sky.
Does anyone really believe the ACA is going to end up lowering the deficit? That's a long shot.
17T in debt and now on the hook for 300M people's healthcare.
I think the reason they wanted to do ACA was to snatch more money out
of people, because normal taxes wasn't cutting it. They are getting more
in now than ever before, and it isn't enough. They will try to take over
something else before long, I bet.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by sh76"Whether the exchanges will really offer competitive policies is still to be determined. Whether it will cause premiums to skyrocket for folks not on the dole is not settled, but seems likely. The proposition that it will not add to the deficit is extremely dubious."
Whether the exchanges will really offer competitive policies is still to be determined. Whether it will cause premiums to skyrocket for folks not on the dole is not settled, but seems likely. The proposition that it will not add to the deficit is extremely dubious.
But... it will undoubtedly give lots of free stuff to people and so you can bet your bottom dollar that that those who receive free stuff will like it.
So, remaining issues are these and whether Obama purposely made material statements he knew to be untrue?
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by moon1969http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040212-606490-obamacare-adds-17-trillion-in-debt.htm
The ACA is by far the most significant piece of legislation to reduce the deficit/debt passed in a long time.
ObamaCare Is Bending The Cost Curve Upward
Posted 04/02/2012 07:01 PM ET
Rising Costs: The president insisted — repeatedly — that his party's health care overhaul would roll back spending. Skeptics, of course, knew better. But we wonder how many realized just how costly the reform would be.
President Obama promised the Democrats' health care legislation would both "bend" the health care cost curve downward and "cut the deficit by a trillion dollars."
Critics said hogwash and pointed out that government programs, particularly signature initiatives, always cost far more than the bureaucracy projects. Despite promises that ObamaCare would be different, it turns out that it won't.
Using the administration's own numbers as well as data provided by the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate Budget Committee minority staff announced last week that unfunded obligations that are part of ObamaCare will pad the federal debt by $17 trillion.
According to the analysis, the unfunded obligations of Social Security and all federal health care programs before the legislation was passed and signed was $65 trillion over the next 75 years. Figuring in the costs of ObamaCare boosts that figure to $82 trillion.
Of course the Democrats will try to poison the estimate, saying it's a gross exaggeration by the Budget Committee's minority — in this case Republican — staff.
But we see no attempt to cook the numbers. The model used by the committee staff to arrive at the estimate is based on the model the Office of the Actuary at the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Service uses for its own projections.
The short-term outlook of ObamaCare's financials was supposed to be far rosier than what we're seeing. It was projected to cost a mere $940 billion in its first 10 years and actually cut deficits rather than add to them.
Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
Yet less than two years after ObamaCare became law, the CBO revised its projection to $1.76 trillion in costs through fiscal 2022, almost a doubling.
Private costs have increased, too.
At a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing less than a month ago, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., recalled that Obama had "said that by enacting this health care law, every family would save $2,500 per year," then pointed out that "the Kaiser Family Foundation has already released a study saying that average costs of family health care plans are up $2,200."
"We're already different by $4,700," Johnson said. "It's going to be hard to get us down to $2,500 cost savings."
There is much more ailing ObamaCare than its invasive individual mandate. It is a financial wreck that will require more tax dollars and private spending than any program in history. It has the potential to inflict severe long-term damage to the U.S. economy.
And for what? Increased health insurance coverage is not the same as better health, nor does wider coverage guarantee lower medical costs.
More government intervention, however, ensures higher costs and declining outcomes. Just ask the British, who are learning this the hard way.
Based on you being proven a liar (by me), you should probably stay away from anything resembling a statement of fact.
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by JS357===So, remaining issues are these and whether Obama purposely made material statements he knew to be untrue?===
"Whether the exchanges will really offer competitive policies is still to be determined. Whether it will cause premiums to skyrocket for folks not on the dole is not settled, but seems likely. The proposition that it will not add to the deficit is extremely dubious."
So, remaining issues are these and whether Obama purposely made material statements he knew to be untrue?
No. I don't think the issue of whether "Obama purposely made material statements he knew to be untrue" is an open issue. I think it's settled that he did. The remaining issues are those that will determine whether the ACA has redeeming features or is a disaster.
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by sh76"No. I don't think the issue of whether "Obama purposely made material statements he knew to be untrue" is an open issue. I think it's settled that he did. The remaining issues are those that will determine whether the ACA has redeeming features or is a disaster."
===So, remaining issues are these and whether Obama purposely made material statements he knew to be untrue?===
No. I don't think the issue of whether "Obama purposely made material statements he knew to be untrue" is an open issue. I think it's settled that he did. The remaining issues are those that will determine whether the ACA has redeeming features or is a disaster.
Absolutely true. It is a disaster for most Americans, but a planned one for most Democrats, who didn't want it, but saw it as a stepping stone to single payer. Question is will they be able to blame the failure on Republicans, or the free market, and slip away unblamed.
The midterms may tell the story, and surely the 2016 Presidential will be critical. Another Democrat would mean ACA would be entrenched and probably never repealed except to replace it with single payer, even with majorities in both Houses of Congress.