Obama: Keep your hands off my healthcare!!

I'll agree, what you posted is mere speculation. What I posted was FACT. If you weren't aware of the provision I referred to then you are exactly what the BO administration is hoping for....a rabid supporter of the bill with ZERO knowledge of what it contains.

 

Study claims Obama's health care law would raise deficit


April 9, 2012
WASHINGTON – A former Bush administration official and leading conservative economist says President Obama's health care law will add at least $340 billion to the national deficit, a claim the White House denies.

In a study to be released Tuesday, Charles Blahous, who serves as public trustee overseeing Medicare and Social Security finances, says federal accounting practices have obscured the true fiscal impact of ObamaCare.

Officially, the health care law is still projected to help reduce government red ink. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's non-partisan fiscal umpire, said in an estimate last year that repealing the law actually would increase deficits by $210 billion from 2012-2021.


The CBO, however, has not updated that projection. If $210 billion sounds like a big cushion, it's not. The government has recently been running annual deficits in the $1 trillion range.

"Taken as a whole, the enactment of the (health care law) has substantially worsened a dire federal fiscal outlook," Blahous wrote in his 52-page analysis, released by George Mason University's Mercatus Center. "The (law) both increases a federal commitment to health care spending that was already unsustainable under prior law and would exacerbate projected federal deficits relative to prior law."

Blahous cited a number of factors for his conclusion:

-- The health care's law deficit cushion has been reduced by more than $80 billion because of the administration's decision not to move forward with a new long-term care insurance program that was part of the legislation. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program raised money in the short turn, but would have turned into a fiscal drain over the years.

-- The cost of health insurance subsidies for millions of low-income and middle-class uninsured people could turn out to be higher than forecast, particularly if employers scale back their own coverage.

-- Various cost control measures, including a tax on high-end insurance plans that doesn't kick in until 2018, could deliver less than expected.

The decision to use Medicare cuts to finance the expansion of coverage for the uninsured will only make matters worse, Blahous said. The money from the Medicare savings will have been spent, and lawmakers will have to find additional cuts or revenues to forestall that program's insolvency.

Under federal accounting rules, the Medicare cuts are also credited as savings to that program's trust fund. But the CBO and Medicare's own economic estimators already said the government can't spend the same money twice. However, the White House said Monday that Blahous' "new math" calculations are false, and that the health care law will reduce the deficit by billions.

"Claims that the Medicare savings in the ACA have somehow been “double counted” are without merit," Jeanne Lambrew, the Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy said in a release, citing the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Deficit-reduction legislation that includes Medicare provisions has been accounted for in exactly the same way in previous Congresses under both political parties."

Lambrew said Blahous' findings fit a "pattern of mischaracterization" about the law, while the facts show the law would reduce the deficit.

Blahous served in the George W. Bush White House from 2001-2009, rising to deputy director of the National Economic Council. He currently is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center.
His study was originally cited in The Washington Post Monday.

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/09/study-claims-obamas-health-care-law-would-raise-deficit/#ixzz1re3zX8bB​

 

And this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...-diverted-500m-to-irs-to-implement-health-law

 

But, the LWers here don't know about this because it's not broadcast on MSNBC, Current TV or Sesame Street.

 

...and I guess they've forgotten BO's lie about being able to keep your family doctor (remember BO's response when quizzed? "They musta slid that one in") or that costs wouldn't skyrocket (kinda hard to forecast the costs when you use false data, huh?). Or what about even economist-to-the-left Paul Kruggman admitting Obamacare wasn't sustainable without massive tax increases?

 

Is that your new coping method? Your new denial to yourself? To say "You are what they are hoping for"? If that's what gets yourself through the day, then good for you. But, I have read the bill, and I've stated that before, and I know you've read that comment of mine, so to say I have "zero" knowledge means to me that you still use that particular denial on occasion too. I must say though, to use both in one comment is rare... but then again, you are special that way.

In one way, I'm actually hoping the supreme court votes against the provision that people can be required to purchase insurance. I'd like to see that happen in my state with vehicles.

Too many poor people can't afford car insurance here. They may own a car, but are unable to drive it legally. I'd very much like to see the insurance industry take a hit here, they've been stealing from the poor for far too long.

 

Well, if you really read the whole bill & you still aren't familiar with these couple of major points, you've simply wasted a lot of time.

Please tell us how the POTUS forcing every single breathing citizens to buy into his insurance program has anything to do with your state requring liability insurance if you make the choice of owning a motor vehicle.

 

One: The POTUS endorses the law yes, but he didn't create the law, and isn't going to be the one enforcing it either.

Two: You mean adults, who have an income above a certain threshhold... and not "every single breathing citizen".

Three: It has to do with the requirement to buy insurance. In PPACA, it is health insurance... in my state, my complaint is about vehicle insurance. You may consider the idea of owning and operating a vehicle in my area as an unnecessary choice, but you have failed to understand that, for most people in my area, a vehicle isn't a luxury... it's a necessity. You choose to ignore that point every time I state it though, so I don't expect any different response this time either.

My turn. I have a couple questions you can easily answer:

1: Do you believe states have the right to force people to buy car insurance?

2: Do you believe the feds have the right to force people to buy car insurance?

3: Which of the two (States or Feds) have a greater right to make law governing citizens?

 

One; Wrong! The POTUS is the enforcer - either by the IRS or DOJ both of which answer to the POTUS.
Two; Wrong! He means and the bill means EVERYONE probably including illegal aliens.
Three; Wrong! If nothing else, you do not want my senile mother-in-law driving . PERIOD.
You questions:
1. They can't and they don't. (i.e. My mother-in-law)
2. They can't and they don't. (i.e. My mother-in-law)
3. That is apples and oranges. Murder is a state crime not federal, but treason is federal crime, not state.

 

Hows that pink elephant for you? Is it dancing to the beat of your own fantasies to your expectations? Get better soon. Or don't lol

I have to say though, it must be hard to read while slanted at a 45 degree angle to the obtuse all the time, so I'll take your odd answers to easy questions with that in mind.

 

If more people without insurance would just quietly die we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

 

ROFL

 

I'm just saying that, if it's ruled unconstitutional (or whatever) to make people buy health insurance, then I'd like to also see that happen with car insurance here. I should be allowed to drive a vehicle without being forced to buy car insurance.

 

Just saying, it already is illegal to make every living person get auto insurance - really! Besides, those are state laws and have noting to do with federal law.

 

I clearly stated that here (in Michigan) I should be allowed to drive a vehicle without insurance. Currently though (in Michigan), insurance is a requirement. You twist that into it me suggesting that I am unaware that it is already illegal to make every living person buy car insurance. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME POINTS.

As for State law having nothing to do with Federal law? I disagree. Why? Precedent. Both laws deal with large group insurance, therefore it's not inconceivable that Michigan's car insurance law will come under question by it's citizens if a similar Federal law is ruled unconstitutional or illegal or whatever.

 

Driving is a right, not a privilege. And the privilege is regulated and controlled by the states. That is why auto insurance is the apple and federal heath insurance is the orange. They are not related.

As for requiring auto insurance to drive, in most states I have heard of, you actually can drive without insurance. All you have to do is demonstrate that you have the financial where-withal to pay for the damages and injury you cause so you do not ruin someone else's life. I will bet that there is not a person here who has not in some manner damaged someone's property or worse. Without requiring insurance, that someone may well be severely damaged, and, particularly in your case since you are so broke, not be able to recover from people the uninsured driver. The only fix I know beside requiring insurance would be to put them in jail. That would lead to some many jail terms, the public could not afford it.

 

First off, driving is a privilege, not a right. Now to the second part of your comment:

Exactly! The rich want ME to pay for the problems THEY have after their property is damaged! Glad you agree! I say **** the rich, let them pay for their mistakes!!! WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S MISTAKES, and moreover: THAT'S SOCIALIST!!!

But that's fine right? As long as rich people benefit from it, a little bit of socialism is a good thing.

But, watch this, all this talk about rights and privileges has made me want to explain a few things... and it's gonna blow your freakin' mind...

GOING TO THE DOCTOR OR THE HOSPITAL IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.

That's right, I'm saying that you can choose whether or not you want hospital care. I have. I do it all the time. Hell, I went without my medicines for a year for lack of sufficient funds to pay for them. Have a heart attack and get brought to the hospital? Too bad for them, you don't have to stay there if you don't want to. As soon as you wake up, if you wake up, cart your ass out of there, they can't stop you. If they do, tell them you'll sue.

Want more?

CLOTHING IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.

Considering that clothing is, by far, the most easy necessity to obtain, it really isn't an issue, except that a lot of those republican/religious types don't like seeing naked people running around, what with all their naked parts flailing this way and that... and then there's this:

SHELTER IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.

That's right, no one is entitled to have shelter. A lot of generous people do what they can to help, to keep people from dying of exposure, but people are not required to provide shelter to those who don't have it, and those who don't have are not required to have it.

Neat huh? Isn't this fun?!!! Let's move on:

EATING IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.

Don't agree? Most wouldn't, but yeah, eaiting isn't a right. You are damn lucky to find enough food, and yes, there are government services that provide food to the needy, but technically food is a privilege.

My point? While I can choose to NOT operate a car, and therefore not have to pay for insurance, I shouldn't have to make that decision.... I should be allowed to operate a vehicle, AND have affordable insurance.

Insurance rates are ridiculous! If I have a $300 car, and $1,500 insurance on it, I'm paying for other people's, other richer people's, more expensive cars. Where the hell is the justice in that? I haven't had any accident in 25 years of driving. Why the hell am I required to pay so much?

$50 a month, or $600 a year, tops. That's what insurance should be for someone like me with a $15,000 to $30,000 (lol, right!) car. $50 a year for my $300 junk heap.

Oh, and you completely ignored precedent in your comment.

 

Well, now that IS a good question. I'll have to check into that. I have a friend from Michigan who is currently in Oklahoma for work. He drives a newer car than mine which is comparable in make and model, has full coverage on his car, has insurance through an agency in Michigan (I'll have to find out which agency) and his rates are lower than mine. I know of two accidents that he's been in within the last 5 years - one was his fault, the other was not (I've been in no accidents) and he has 1 speeding ticket that I know of (I have none). He has only an automobile policy whereas I have auto/home. I checked with around five insurance agencies (maybe 1 or 2 more) before going with my current provider who offered the lowest rates/best advantages.

Oh.. and you certainly do have the privilege to drive. You also have the privilege of being a fisherman, rancher and aircraft pilot. But, if you're going to engage in the one of those dangerous occupations, please pay the appropriate insurance first.

 

A whole bunch of those rates are due to the car and model you have. Obviously a Corvette's rates are higher than a prius, but there are a whole bunch of others also not so cheap. On the other hand, qless's $300 car may be more capable of killing/injuring others than a smartcar.

 

I hadn't taken that into account. What if it's one of those old land yachts from the '70's (Olds 98, Buick Electra, Cadillac Sedan deVille, etc.) that probably should have been taken off the road under the Cash for Clunkers program? The damage those things can cause (as opposed to the aforementioned Smart Car) is horrendous and probably should have exorbitant insurance rates. What kind of car is it, IQ<1?

View attachment 407