• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Healthcare Reform? They lie so much, they're unable to recognize TRUTH!

XJEEPER

XJEEPER

NAXJA Member # 13
NAXJA Member
Location
Wasatch Range
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

In 2006, Pelosi committed to "The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history."

Really Nancy? This is what you and Obama call honesty and transparency???

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...span-there-has-never-been-a-more-open-process

  • The House passed its version of the bill on a Saturday night.
  • The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 in the morning, and then provided a lump of coal in our stockings by forcing full passage of its bill on Christmas Eve.
  • The House leadership banned consideration of all but one amendment not offered by leadership itself - forbidding debate on more than 150 of them - then provided just 24 hours for members to study the bill's final text.
  • The Senate leadership inserted so many tawdry last-minute items that analysts are still finding jokers in the deck 11 days later.
Which States get what and which States don't?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2744.cfm


What's in the Bill that Harry won't debate on the floor of the Senate.......
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2353.cfm

Cause many Americans to lose their current health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that up to 10 million Americans would no longer be covered by their employers.[6] Given the bill's incentives for employers to discontinue job-based coverage, independent analysts expect the loss of employer-based coverage to be much higher.
Bend the cost curve up. According to independent analysts and government actuaries, the bill would substantially increase total health care spending instead of reducing it as promised. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), recently judged the projected savings from the Medicare updates as "doubtful" and estimated that the total national spending on health care would increase.[7]
Impose many new taxes on middle-class Americans. The Senate bill contains over a dozen new taxes, including a 40 percent excise tax on high-priced health plans and special fees and taxes on insurance, drugs, medical devices, and anyone who violates the new mandates.[8]
Reduce many seniors' access to Medicare benefits and services. The bill would reduce Medicare payments by an estimated $493 billion over 10 years,[9] including payment reductions for Medicare Advantage, hospital care, home health care, and nursing homes.
Provide federal funding for abortion. Contrary to the President's clear statement to Congress and the nation on health care reform,[10] the Senate bill would provide funding for abortion. The House would prohibit using taxpayers' dollars to finance abortion, but a similar amendment to the Senate bill was tabled without even a floor vote.[11]

Surveys consistently show that the American people clearly want health care reform but do not support the bills sponsored by the House and Senate leadership. While they want Congress to enact policies that would increase choice and competition, and thereby help to control costs and rectify inequities in the health insurance markets, they do not favor a federal takeover of the health care system. Nor do they want the power to make key health care decisions transferred from individuals, families, and medical professionals to government agencies, departments, commissions, and advisory boards.


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/19/a-first-look-at-the-managers-amendment/
 
Last edited:
Holy smokes.....the press is actually showing a glimmer of hope that they still know how to do thier job!


http://www.breitbart.tv/how-dare-they-cnns-cafferty-rips-obama-for-failed-openness-pledge/

Press Secretary Gibbs refuse to answer the question that we all know the answer to........LIAR comes to mind.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/...t-obama-totally-shamelessly-lie-about-c-span/

We have transparency alright, the American people's Bullcrap meter is pegged at 10!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...arlie-crist-says-obama-breaks-transparency-p/
 
The Real Budgetary Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills

President Barack Obama pledged in an address to a joint session of Congress in September 2009 that any health care bill he signed would cost no more than $900 billion over 10 years and would not worsen the federal budget deficit in the short or long term.[1]

The bills that have been passed in the House and Senate violate both of those tests. Supporters of these bills point to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates to support their contention that the health care plans are fiscally responsible. But a closer look at the bills--and what CBO actually said about them--indicates that both spending and the federal debt will go up much more than advertised by the bills' supporters.

Conveniently Ignoring a $200 Billion-Plus "Doc Fix"
Both the President and congressional leaders have signaled that they will not allow a scheduled 21 percent reduction in Medicare physician fees to go into effect in 2010 or later years. Initially, the House bill included a permanent repeal of the planned fee cuts in their version of health reform legislation, released in July 2009, at a cost of $229 billion over 10 years.[2]
However, after the President announced the $900 billion limit in September, House leaders decided to drop this provision from the legislation and pass it in a separate bill. Senate leaders followed a similar course.
But passing a permanent "doc fix" separately does not change the fact that it increases federal spending. When these costs are properly included, neither the House nor the Senate version reduces the federal budget deficit between 2010 and 2019. Assuming about $210 billion for a "doc fix," both bills would actually increase the deficit by $80 billion over a decade.[3]

Non-Coverage Spending in the Bills
In the House bill, the gross cost of the Medicaid expansions and the entitlement to new premium subsidies in the exchange is $1.055 trillion over 10 years. In addition, the House legislation includes scores of other spending provisions costing $230 billion over a decade. With a $210 billion physician fee bill, the total cost of the House's health care effort reaches $1.5 trillion between 2010 and 2019.
In the Senate legislation, the cost of the coverage expansion is $871 billion between 2010 and 2019. Other spending in the bill totals about $90 billion over 10 years. With about $200 billion more for a permanent repeal of the Medicare physician fee cut, the Senate plan's total cost approaches $1.2 trillion.
​
The Medicare Double-Count

The House and Senate bills rely heavily on Medicare spending reductions to offset the costs of the entitlement expansions. The Senate bill's Medicare cuts total $467 billion.[4] At the same time, the Administration and the congressional sponsors of these bills are also touting the claim that reduced spending from the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund and increased revenues flowing into it would boost the trust fund's reserves and therefore keep the program solvent for several more years.[5] Others have said that this would double-count the same savings twice: once to pay for a new entitlement and again to keep Medicare going.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf issued a clarification on December 23 and agreed that the Medicare HI savings cannot be counted twice.[6] Either it is used to offset a new entitlement or it is used to improve the government's capacity to pay future Medicare benefits.
CBO estimates that provisions in the Senate bill would increase Medicare HI revenues by $113 billion between 2010 and 2019 and decrease HI spending by $240 billion over that same period. If these tax increases and spending reduction provisions were set aside entirely to improve the capacity to finance Medicare benefits, the Senate bill would lose more than $350 billion in current offsets, which would mean that the bill increased the federal budget deficit by well over $400 billion in the first decade alone. Removing the HI savings from the House-passed legislation would have a similar impact on the bill's bottom line.

The CLASS Act Gimmick
Both the House- and the Senate-passed bills would stand up an entirely new entitlement program for long-term care services. Under the Community Living Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) Act, eligible participants would be required to pay premiums well in advance of receiving any benefit payments. Consequently, starting this new program from scratch would produce one-time "savings" from premium collections before any beneficiaries start drawing benefits. These premium collections, however, would be needed later to meet entitlement obligations.
This is again a case of double-counting. The premiums are set aside in a fund to pay future claims, but they are also counted by the bills' sponsors as an offset for expanding health coverage. The CLASS Act premiums total $72 billion over 10 years in the Senate bill and $102 billion over the same period in the House bill.

The True 10-Year Window
None of the key provisions to expand coverage would go into effect until 2013 in the House bill and 2014 in the Senate bill. Meanwhile, many of the spending reductions, such as the cut in Medicare Advantage payment rates, would kick in much earlier, as would the tax increases. Consequently, both bills have 10 years worth of spending and revenue "offsets" paying for only six or seven years worth of spending.
Looking at these bills over a true 10-year window of full implementation reveals much higher costs. The Senate bill's provisions, even excluding the "doc fix," would total $2.3 trillion over the period 2014 to 2023, with the coverage provisions fully in place.[7] The House bill's true 10-year cost would be comparably high, even excluding the large costs of the physician fee fix.

The Certainty of Future Entitlement Expansions
Both the House and Senate bills assume that the new entitlement spending for coverage expansion can be held down with so-called firewall provisions, which essentially preclude many tens of millions of individuals from gaining access to premium subsidies. These firewall rules would create large disparities in the federal subsidies made available to workers inside and outside the exchanges. And there would be tens of millions more families outside the exchange than in it, according to CBO.
If enacted as currently written, pressure would build to treat all Americans fairly, regardless of where they get their insurance. One way or another, the subsidies provided to those in the exchanges would be made more widely available, driving the costs of reform much higher than CBO's estimates currently indicate.

An Honest Accounting
The President has said that he wants a health reform bill in large part because it is necessary to get better control of the federal budget. But the bills that have been developed in the House and Senate fall far short of his stated objectives. The spending would far exceed $900 billion through 2019, and the federal budget deficit would increase dramatically, not decrease, when all of the numbers are honestly accounted for.
James C. Capretta served in the Office of Management and Budget during the Bush Administration and is a Fellow in the Economics and Ethics Program of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

[1]Press release, "Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care," The White House, September 9, 2009, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president
-to-a-joint-session-of-congress-on-health-care/ (January 13, 2010).

[2]Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Estimate of the Effects on the Deficit of H.R. 3200, the America's Health Choices Act of 2009," July 17, 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf (January 13, 2010).

[3]Congressional Budget Office, "H.R. 3961: Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009," November 4, 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs
/107xx/doc10704/hr3961.pdf (January 13, 2010).

[4]Senate Budget Committee Republican Staff, "Budget Perspective: The Real Deficit Effect of the Health Bill," December 19, 2009, at http://budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/2009-12-22
BudgetPerspective.pdf (January 13, 2010).

[5]The White House, "Medicare Fact Sheet Final," at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/MedicareFactSheetFinal/ (January 13, 2010).

[6]"Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the Federal Budget and the Balance in the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund," CBO Director's Blog, December 23, 2009, at http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=448 (January 13, 2010).

[7]Senate Budget Committee Republican Staff, "Budget Perspective."
 
I'm with you. Im on tricare right now, and Im not paying a dime for it. I was awarded (just like many other vets) 5 years of free tricare for my service overseas and in the military as a whole. Patriots tell me that I deserve it, and its about time. Others tell me that Im a baby killer for going over. Anyway, back on course, this heathcare refom, literally, takes my heathcare away from me. Tricare insurance costs for mebers currently serving goes up (esspecially if your spouse and kids are on it) Some members will loose it all together. Retirees will mostly loose it, and disabled vets (such as myself) will no longer be coverd on sevice conntected injuries. This thing is starting to go down just like the stimulus thing "hurry up and vote....no you cant read it before you decide!!!"
 
Starting to? Do you recall the promise to make the text of the final bill available for review for 72 hrs before they voted? Do you also remember how it was rushed through at 1am on a Friday or Saturday with less than 24 hrs for review?
 
Darky said:
Starting to? Do you recall the promise to make the text of the final bill available for review for 72 hrs before they voted? Do you also remember how it was rushed through at 1am on a Friday or Saturday with less than 24 hrs for review?
Click to expand...

Well, that was an important historical date for the Liberal Socialists Democrats--they delayed the vote so it would commemorate both Jane Fonda and Joseph Stalin--both born on the 21st of December--I kid you NOT!

God bless the Liberal Socialist Democrats and their spot-on grasp of historic moments, just like when Obama stabbed the people of Poland in the back, to appease the Russians, by pulling the missile defense system from Poland on the anniversary of Stalin's invasion of Poland, September 17, 1939.

Liberal Socialist Democrats--a real class act that will be hard to beat!
 
Last edited:
Interesting developments here locally. Utah legislature wants to send a message to Washington about global warming and how it affects the economy, particularly cap and trade.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9575598

Discuss...

Edit: Ah crap, I pulled up the wrong thread. Mods, please feel free to move this.
 
Last edited:
Brad M. said:
Interesting developments here locally. Utah legislature wants to send a message to Washington about global warming and how it affects the economy, particularly cap and trade.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9575598

Discuss...

Edit: Ah crap, I pulled up the wrong thread. Mods, please feel free to move this.
Click to expand...

Ever notice how the feds get things done? They want everybody in seat belts, but they don't pass a law requiring people to wear seat belts--they pass a law withholding highway funds from states that don't require everybody to wear seat belts.

There are limitations to federal power, but our beloved and cowardly state politicians want on the federal "t**t" (rhymes with wheat) so they pass laws to implement what the impotent federal government can't.

Unfortunately for the feds, it seems that the cowardly lions in the state houses of government are getting some backbone.
 
They do the same thing with speed limits. It's because the federal government is not constitutionally allowed to do things like set speed limits and make laws about seat belts AFAIK (such powers are left to the states or people) but they CAN control where federal tax money goes.

IIRC, Nevada and/or Montana told them to go screw a long time ago, and built their own highways with 75mph limits. I may be wrong on this...
 
kastein said:
They do the same thing with speed limits. It's because the federal government is not constitutionally allowed to do things like set speed limits and make laws about seat belts AFAIK (such powers are left to the states or people) but they CAN control where federal tax money goes.

IIRC, Nevada and/or Montana told them to go screw a long time ago, and built their own highways with 75mph limits. I may be wrong on this...
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. State government with balls, that is all it takes.

How about the Made in Montana no FFL required firearms for Montana residents!
 
Healthcare Debate 2-25-2010

Obama has once again proven that his Progressive Socialist agenda is the only thing that matters. He cares little about the Will of the People. He did listen to those in Congress who oppose his plan, then told them they were wrong and vowed to press forward without them..........he might as well have taken a leak on the US Constitution on national TV, because the message is the same.

All Hail, Obama!

:twak:
 
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to triangulate facts regarding the below in bold from President Obama - Tom



FACT CHECK: Dueling polls and dubious stats

By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM DRINKARD
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Beware of politicians quoting poll numbers.

That was one lesson from the White House health policy conference Thursday as lawmakers in both parties cherry-picked survey results, ignored contrary findings and presented public opinion, which is highly nuanced on these questions, as a slam dunk.

Claims, counterclaims and statistics flew through the room in the daylong talkfest by President Barack Obama and lawmakers from both parties. Some didn't hold up to the facts. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada suggested his party hasn't been preparing to do an end-run around the normal legislative process to pass a health care bill, when in reality this option is very much in play. Obama squabbled with a Republican senator over what his initiative might do to health premiums, and had a superior command of the facts.

A look at some statements in the meeting and how they compare with reality:

THE CLAIMS:

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "I think it is not irrelevant that the American people, if you average out of all of the polls, are opposed to this bill by 55-37. And we know from a USA Today-Gallup poll out this morning they're opposed to using the reconciliation device, the short-circuit approach that Lamar referred to that would end up with only bipartisan opposition, by 52-39."

Reid: "Last Monday, a week ago Monday, all over America, the results were run from a poll done by the Kaiser Foundation. It was interesting what that poll said. Fifty-eight percent of Americans would be disappointed or angry if we did not do health care reform this year - 58 percent. Across America, more than 60 percent of Republicans, Democrats and independents want us to reform the way health care works. Is it any wonder?"

Obama: "When you poll people about the individual elements in these bills, they're all for them."
THE FACTS:

McConnell's device of averaging polls to come up with a precise result is dubious. Because polls are often taken at different times, with different sample sizes, margins of error and ways of wording their questions, combining them may not yield a valid result. McConnell aides cited CNN, NPR and Quinnipiac polls taken at various times in January.

The Republican leader and others on his side ignored a variety of findings in recent surveys, such as the one suggesting most people want Washington to act on rising medical costs and shrinking coverage - and trust Obama and the Democrats more than Republicans to do it.

Even so, the Kaiser survey cited by Reid was hardly a cheer for what Democrats have come up with so far, although there was no telling that from his remarks. Less than one-third wanted Congress to send Obama a final version of the legislation approved by the House and Senate.

More than 40 percent wanted Washington to put health care on hold or pull the plug. Overall, people were split 43-43 for or against health care legislation. That's in keeping with other surveys that have found Americans evenly divided or leaning against Obama's effort, even while wanting something done about the system. Specific parts of the plan tend to be more popular than the package, as the president said, even if they're not "all for them."
---

THE CLAIMS:

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: "The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill."

Obama: "No, no, no, no. Let me - and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight."

Alexander: "That's my point."

Obama: "Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says: The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent. What the Congressional Budget Office says is that because now they've got a better deal, because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they have right now, and that might be 10 percent to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance that they had previously."

THE FACTS:

Both are right, but Obama offered important context that Alexander left out.

The nonpartisan analysis estimated that average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, supporting Alexander's point. But the policies would cover more, and about half the people would be getting substantial government subsidies to defray the extra costs.

As the president said, if the policies offered today were offered in 2016, they would be considerably cheaper under the plan, even without subsidies. One big reason: Many more healthy young people would be signing up for the coverage because insurance would become mandatory. They are cheap to insure and would moderate costs for others.

Moreover, the analysis estimated that the people getting subsidies would see their costs cut by more than half from what they pay now.

---

THE CLAIM:

Obama: "We've tried to take every cost-containment idea that's out there and adopt it in this bill."

THE FACTS: A number of moneysaving ideas have been watered down or excluded entirely.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the government could save $41 billion over 10 years by capping jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits - an idea promoted by Republicans but opposed by trial lawyers, who have traditionally been heavy contributors to Democratic politicians. The forecast savings are far higher than were anticipated when the nonpartisan budget office studied the issue in the past. But Obama and congressional Democrats have not gone along with caps.

Also, the budget estimated the government could save nearly $19 billion over 10 years by "bundling" Medicare payments to hospitals. Under this proposal, the government would make a single reimbursement covering a patient's hospital stay and post-surgical care instead of paying separately for each procedure or visit.

Obama initially embraced the measure but Congress and the White House ended up settling for weaker steps like demonstration projects that won't yield savings anytime soon.

---

THE CLAIMS:

Alexander called on Obama to "renounce this idea of going back to the Congress and jamming through" the bill with only Democratic votes. He was talking about a parliamentary process Congress can use called "budget reconciliation," which would prevent Senate Republicans from blocking health care legislation. In response, Reid denied that was his intent, saying, "No one has talked about reconciliation."

THE FACTS:

Talk about the use of the reconciliation process, which Republicans view as an assault on their rights as the Senate minority, has been in the air for months, and Reid himself has been part of that conversation. In a Nevada political talk show, "Face to Face with Jon Ralston," Reid said on Feb. 19 that he planned to use the reconciliation process to pass a pared-down health care bill. And answering reporters' questions about the process this week, Reid said Republicans "should stop crying about reconciliation. It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else." On the latter point, Reid was right.

---

THE CLAIM: Obama's opponent in the 2008 presidential election, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sharply criticized the president for his failure to hold public health care negotiations earlier. He noted that "eight times you said that negotiations on health care reform would be conducted with the C-SPAN cameras. I'm glad more than a year later that they are here. Unfortunately, this product was not produced in that fashion. It was produced behind closed doors."

THE FACTS: McCain is right. Thursday's session fulfilled a promise Obama broke before he kept it. Several times in the 2008 campaign Obama vowed to hold open negotiations in reworking health care. But once in office, Democrats in the White House and Congress conducted negotiations as usual, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, other special interests - and each other - in private. And beyond Thursday's televised session, there is no indication Obama or the congressional Democrats plan further open talks.

---

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS spelling of the first name of Jon Ralston.)

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
 
Boatwrench said:
I'm trying to triangulate facts regarding the below in bold from President Obama - Tom



FACT CHECK: Dueling polls and dubious stats

By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM DRINKARD
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Beware of politicians quoting poll numbers.

That was one lesson from the White House health policy conference Thursday as lawmakers in both parties cherry-picked survey results, ignored contrary findings and presented public opinion, which is highly nuanced on these questions, as a slam dunk.

Claims, counterclaims and statistics flew through the room in the daylong talkfest by President Barack Obama and lawmakers from both parties. Some didn't hold up to the facts. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada suggested his party hasn't been preparing to do an end-run around the normal legislative process to pass a health care bill, when in reality this option is very much in play. Obama squabbled with a Republican senator over what his initiative might do to health premiums, and had a superior command of the facts.

A look at some statements in the meeting and how they compare with reality:

THE CLAIMS:

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "I think it is not irrelevant that the American people, if you average out of all of the polls, are opposed to this bill by 55-37. And we know from a USA Today-Gallup poll out this morning they're opposed to using the reconciliation device, the short-circuit approach that Lamar referred to that would end up with only bipartisan opposition, by 52-39."

Reid: "Last Monday, a week ago Monday, all over America, the results were run from a poll done by the Kaiser Foundation. It was interesting what that poll said. Fifty-eight percent of Americans would be disappointed or angry if we did not do health care reform this year - 58 percent. Across America, more than 60 percent of Republicans, Democrats and independents want us to reform the way health care works. Is it any wonder?"

Obama: "When you poll people about the individual elements in these bills, they're all for them."
THE FACTS:

McConnell's device of averaging polls to come up with a precise result is dubious. Because polls are often taken at different times, with different sample sizes, margins of error and ways of wording their questions, combining them may not yield a valid result. McConnell aides cited CNN, NPR and Quinnipiac polls taken at various times in January.

The Republican leader and others on his side ignored a variety of findings in recent surveys, such as the one suggesting most people want Washington to act on rising medical costs and shrinking coverage - and trust Obama and the Democrats more than Republicans to do it.

Even so, the Kaiser survey cited by Reid was hardly a cheer for what Democrats have come up with so far, although there was no telling that from his remarks. Less than one-third wanted Congress to send Obama a final version of the legislation approved by the House and Senate.

More than 40 percent wanted Washington to put health care on hold or pull the plug. Overall, people were split 43-43 for or against health care legislation. That's in keeping with other surveys that have found Americans evenly divided or leaning against Obama's effort, even while wanting something done about the system. Specific parts of the plan tend to be more popular than the package, as the president said, even if they're not "all for them."
---

THE CLAIMS:

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: "The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill."

Obama: "No, no, no, no. Let me - and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight."

Alexander: "That's my point."

Obama: "Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says: The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent. What the Congressional Budget Office says is that because now they've got a better deal, because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they have right now, and that might be 10 percent to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance that they had previously."

"May" and "might" are not words I would use when "getting our facts straight." Facts either are, or they aren't.

THE FACTS:

Both are right, but Obama offered important context that Alexander left out.

The nonpartisan analysis estimated that average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, supporting Alexander's point. But the policies would cover more, and about half the people would be getting substantial government subsidies (requires manditory tax increase) to defray the extra costs.

As the president said, if the policies offered today were offered in 2016, they would be considerably cheaper under the plan, even without subsidies. One big reason: Many more healthy young people would be signing up for the coverage because insurance would become mandatory. They are cheap to insure and would moderate costs for others.

Moreover, the analysis estimated that the people getting subsidies (requires manditory tax increase) would see their costs cut by more than half from what they pay now.

---

THE CLAIM:

Obama: "We've tried to take every cost-containment idea that's out there and adopt it in this bill."

THE FACTS: A number of moneysaving ideas have been watered down or excluded entirely.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the government could save $41 billion over 10 years by capping jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits - an idea promoted by Republicans but opposed by trial lawyers, who have traditionally been heavy contributors to Democratic politicians. The forecast savings are far higher than were anticipated when the nonpartisan budget office studied the issue in the past. But Obama and congressional Democrats have not gone along with caps.

Also, the budget estimated the government could save nearly $19 billion over 10 years by "bundling" Medicare payments to hospitals. Under this proposal, the government would make a single reimbursement covering a patient's hospital stay and post-surgical care instead of paying separately for each procedure or visit.

Obama initially embraced the measure but Congress and the White House ended up settling for weaker steps like demonstration projects that won't yield savings anytime soon.

---

THE CLAIMS:

Alexander called on Obama to "renounce this idea of going back to the Congress and jamming through" the bill with only Democratic votes. He was talking about a parliamentary process Congress can use called "budget reconciliation," which would prevent Senate Republicans from blocking health care legislation. In response, Reid denied that was his intent, saying, "No one has talked about reconciliation."

THE FACTS:

Talk about the use of the reconciliation process, which Republicans view as an assault on their rights as the Senate minority, has been in the air for months, and Reid himself has been part of that conversation. In a Nevada political talk show, "Face to Face with Jon Ralston," Reid said on Feb. 19 that he planned to use the reconciliation process to pass a pared-down health care bill. And answering reporters' questions about the process this week, Reid said Republicans "should stop crying about reconciliation. It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else." On the latter point, Reid was right.

---

THE CLAIM: Obama's opponent in the 2008 presidential election, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sharply criticized the president for his failure to hold public health care negotiations earlier. He noted that "eight times you said that negotiations on health care reform would be conducted with the C-SPAN cameras. I'm glad more than a year later that they are here. Unfortunately, this product was not produced in that fashion. It was produced behind closed doors."

THE FACTS: McCain is right. Thursday's session fulfilled a promise Obama broke before he kept it. Several times in the 2008 campaign Obama vowed to hold open negotiations in reworking health care. But once in office, Democrats in the White House and Congress conducted negotiations as usual, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, other special interests - and each other - in private. And beyond Thursday's televised session, there is no indication Obama or the congressional Democrats plan further open talks.

---

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS spelling of the first name of Jon Ralston.)

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Click to expand...
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html

"They know that this will take courage," Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she'll try to strong-arm. "It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare," the Speaker continued. "But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."

President Clinton preferred to use reconciliation to pass HillaryCare in the 1990s, but he was dissuaded by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that it would be an abuse of the process. Mr. Byrd, author of a four-volume history of Senate rules and procedures, told the Washington Post last March that "The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation—a process intended for deficit reduction—to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role," specifically citing health reform and cap and trade.

As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don't like it, "then that's what elections are for."

In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal.

This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.

This bill in not about health-care, it never has been.
It's about social justice and redistribution of wealth-the Progressive Movement is alive and well in Washington.

Progressive= Socialist Party

Obama is a calculated liar and a traitor to the US Constitution. He has surrounded himself with like-minded individuals that hate capitalism and are systematically forcing their will on the American people and taking away our God-given rights.
 
She's confusing courage and stupidity. It took stupidity to pass social security and medicare... and now we don't seem to be able to find politicians with the guts to fix them.

The fact that Robert Byrd is saying they shouldn't use the process of reconciliation to pass this healthcare boondoggle his party is pulling for says more to me than anything else about how sleazy this whole thing is.

Since when did The Great Society do anything except screw up and add more welfare BS to the budget? Maybe I'm remembering it for something it is not, I'll need to research further, but hardly a legacy I would want.
 
kastein said:
Since when did The Great Society do anything except screw up and add more welfare BS to the budget? Maybe I'm remembering it for something it is not, I'll need to research further, but hardly a legacy I would want.
Click to expand...

One would need to experince the conduitions of the working poor prior to the enactment of he bills termed The Great Society. The Great Society allowed this country to become the super power of the world. Prior to WWII we were just another country on the globe. Big Stick diplomacy was where we started emerging on the world stage as a contender, but the post WWII economic boom of the Greatest Generation who were the 1st beneficiaries of The Great Society is what propel this nation into the powerhouse it is.
 
Boatwrench said:
One would need to experince the conduitions of the working poor prior to the enactment of he bills termed The Great Society. The Great Society allowed this country to become the super power of the world. Prior to WWII we were just another country on the globe. Big Stick diplomacy was where we started emerging on the world stage as a contender, but the post WWII economic boom of the Greatest Generation who were the 1st beneficiaries of The Great Society is what propel this nation into the powerhouse it is.
Click to expand...

"The Great Society allowed this country to become the super power of the world"?!?!?!

Wow, you really do have a warped version of history! The USA became a super power in spite of The Great Society bills. Talk about some people watching in your words the Al Jazeera of the US, fox news, where was your history learned? I guess revisionist history is alive and well.
 
Here I was thinking the Great Society was a set of bills enacted by LBJ, like you said, in the 60s and 70s, and that we emerged from world war II as a superpower in the 40s, then continued for 20-30 years...

Say, wasn't there a big economic meltdown/stagnation in the 70s after/during the Great Society and gas crisis? That the government did a terrible job of trying to fix?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lobsterdmb
Utah roads dispute emerges in defense authorization bill
Replies
0
Views
295
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Democratic senators vow to fight selling federal tracts to pay deficit
Replies
1
Views
292
XJ_ranger
XJ_ranger
lobsterdmb
Dems propose protection of 9.2M acres in Utah
Replies
0
Views
114
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Murkowski aims to strip roadless protection on 17M acres
Replies
0
Views
336
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Will budget blueprints seek to dispose of federal estate?
Replies
0
Views
234
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Back
Top