Obama promises PUBLIC OPTION

44 replies [Last post]
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008

In yesterdays meeting with the Progressive wing of the Democrats Obama promised the Public Option.. Obama "The Public Option - a well know and PROGRESSIVE priority lacks enough Senate support to be included in the final package". However he personally committed to pursue the Public Option after the passage of the current bill.

France, Germany, Canada and the UK all have the Public Option.. What is the one thing in common..THEY ARE GOING BROKE and are scaling back on the system. While we rush headlong into it...
He says he is for it.. Then he says he is against it and now behind closed doors he commits to it again..

We are already almost broke so how is it that the Government now wants to provide 100% Universal coverage to EVERYONE and pay for it..?

What happens once the Progressives gets us to UHC.. and we run out of Money? Have any of you pro Public Option people thought of that? Private Companies will be gone out of business... there can be no competition with the Government..

What happens? Rationing... It is already occurring in the Government run Healthcare system known as the VA so do you think it will not occur in UHC for the rest of us...??? What happens when Grandma needs an expensive life saving procedure and the Government doesn't have the money alloted to End of Life treatments?

This whole thing is about process.. Not about Healthcare. Getting the structure in place so these Progressives can setup their Socialist Utopia.. Total Government.. Big Government.. Government control of EVERYTHING.. Ask yourself.. Are we sliding towards that end of the scale.. Of course we are.

What is the definition of Communism/Socialism/Fascism if not BIG GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Insurance Company profits vs. US Healthcare costs.

2007 - US Healthcare
$2,200,000,000,000
.....................................
2007 Insurance Companies' profits
$12,000,000,000
.....................................
Comparison:

The profits that the insurance companies made in 2007 amount to only 48 hours of coverage given that every hour the US spends just about $251 Million on healthcare.
.....................................
Liberal's Solution - The government is going set profits and BTW, insurance companies will have to insure everyone from illegals to those with pre-existing conditions.

After insurance companies exit this market for greener pasture the liberal's will force us to subscribe to the "Guv" plan and then will focus their attention on the medical field itself and force everyone to accept wage and price controls. Once that happens, any and all incentives to provide improvements such as new technologies and drugs will likely not occur.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
Hey Cy, There was a BUF

from Barksdale that overflew Hampton today, you see it?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey Gym

I missed it. They do have a unique sound with all eight of those TF33 engines spooled up.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
TF33 is a health issue?

NASCAR and Jet engines and beer.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
Bonkie, TF33s and Health Issue

Well Bonkie, if you happen to be on the receiving end of what the TF33s assist in delivering, I guarantee you it will be a health issue---but rest easy, the only specialist you will most likely need will be a mortician!

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
to Cy: Health

I don't get your "comparison" sentence.

The problem is the cost of the health care--not how much profit the companies make!

Any amount occurring is the amount pretty much charged and allowed. It rises 20% per year compounded.

The Health Insurance companies do pay hospitals (in the charges) to buy some new equipment, but most of it is bought with private donations and the federal government grants. Some hospitals have huge income from investments, just as do colleges.

The latter part of your comments are speculation.

Just how much does Georgia, for instance, contribute to such things? Nothing, people here won't pay taxes for such things.

An empire has been built in the health industry and it is out of hand. Companies are dropping coverage for their employees rapidly---too costly. 40 million have NO insurance.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
I don't get your "comparison" sentence.

I'll try to type slower next time. ☺

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Bonkers--Yep 2% is robbery

Those greedy Insurance Companies.. I mean taking all the risk.. Complying with all those Regulations the State and Federal places on them.. and still they want to make Money.. I mean HOW DARE THEY???

They should just GIVE it away.. 2% margin is just too much.

"Obama, July 22: Now, you know, there had been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits. Right now, at the time when everybody’s getting hammered, they’re making record profits and premiums are going up."
"In general, the health insurance industry did poorly toward the end of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009, so record profits weren’t likely in the second quarter." Factcheck.org

Seems just like your 65% favor this Healthcare takeover comment this doesn't jibe with the facts either..

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
Insurance Companies & Profit

Check out the "Fortune 500" and see how many Insurance Companies you see there. Not one Insurance Company is anywhere close to Walmart in profit. It's more distraction and creation of discontent--the standard tactics of a community organizer.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
France, Germany, Canada and the UK DO NOT have "Public Option"

S. Lindsey, your claim that France, Germany, Canada and the U.K. have "Public Option" insurance is FALSE.
.
The countries you listed are examples of SINGLE PAYER insurance systems, in which governments pay medical providers directly.
.
Click here to see a chart distinguishing the difference between "public option" and "single payer"
.
American health care reform does NOT include a SINGLE PAYER system.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
what isn't on the chart for public option

is that the available pool of healthcare professionals dwindle. Payments to providers are curtailed and this forces many "money motivated" doctors to do something else. Services dry up a bit and doctors are procured from other countries such as India, Pakistan, and the Middle East.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I'm glad you brought that up Wedge

The Carter Center has health programs in 28 African countries and people in Europe and America have no idea how devastating the doctor "brain drain" is for those countries. Here's a quick chart about trained doctors leaving their countries:

NUMBER OF DOCTORS ABROAD
Mozambique – 75%
Angola – 70%
Ghana – 56%
Kenya – 51%
Rwanda – 43%
Sudan – 13%
Niger – 9%

In Botswana now, there is doctor for every 3200 people. In 1990 there was a doctor for every 2300 people.

Unintentional side effects have far reaching consequences.

Here are a couple of ideas that I haven't heard being considered: 1) If everybody is going to be subsidized in a trillion dollar money pool, how about subsidizing more doctors education so they don't start out with multi-hundred thousand dollar debts while at the same time turning out more doctors to meet the increased demand of universal coverage. 2) Make it legal for me and my doctor to contract for his services at a reduced rate, agreed upon by the two of us, if I agree not to sue him for more than, say $50K, or some reasonable amount, if he really messes up. Right now, we can't agree to that, so his bill includes insurance for the potential of a law suit of untold millions. Pretty soon, You'd have doctors who only took those patients and their fees would probably be 25% less at least. Back door tort reform. Why can't I enter into a contract like that if I want to? What is the basis for that being illegal? Because somebody thinks I'm too stupid to decide what's in my own best interest? Have you ever seen Al Pachino's remark to the three vandals in his speech to the school assembly at the end of Scent of a Woman? My favorite movie. My sentiments exactly.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Your solutions make sense

and represent a middle road that would satisfy the majority of the people. Of course that means that it will be rejected completely out of hand. And the vandal speech is awesome. Thanks for your information and thoughts

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Jeff: Sell anybody out to buy his future?

Helping only doctors thru school isn't right. We need other things also.
Trying to contract with individual doctors for variable rates depending upon unnamed reasons is akin to an Israeli or North African market where haggling is done. The poor, ugly, get screwed again!

Doctors now don't all charge alike for the service----it is done by a list of things they did or could do!

I have already said here what we are going to have soon. Triage centers on every block nearly, free, where you are treated or sent elsewhere by ambulance, helicopter, etc., for special; attention. Much of this work will be done by paramedicals and such titles as Nurse practitioners and Physicians assistants.
If we can keep these jobs in a salary range at half a doctor's wages, it will be tolerable.
We must also be careful that doctors then do not become supervisors instead of regulators!
The wealthy will always have better opportunities to see whom they want when.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey Bonker$,

It's 9:02P. Time for you to go to bed .

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
To Cyclist: sleep

I rarely sleep, especially at night.
Such a great waste of time!
Why does that bother you anyway?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I like haggling Bonkers

I've haggled in so many African markets I couldn't count them. I enjoy it. The prices are variable for sure but if a sale is made, it's because the seller agreed to sell the product for a price the buyer was willing to pay. I bought a rug in Palestine once where the dealer served me a cup of tea before he rejected my first offer saying he wanted to sell it, not rent it. I once paid more than I normally would have for a carved giraffe because it was 3/4 inch taller than the one my brother has. Perceived value varies for unnamed reasons. Why shouldn't the price? A lot of high price things are haggled over here, like cars and jewelry. What's so special about medical care that haggling is illegal? It's the norm in most of the world.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
To Jeff: haggling

Yes, my wife bought some small prayer rugs in Istanbul once by accident. He asked $25 dollars for three, she offered $6 in the hopes of getting rid of him---he accepted and she was stuck. We use them for pads to sit stuff on.

But asking your doctor or any doctor or paramedic for a discount gall bladder removal I'm afraid would have him sending you to the Voodoo doctor down the street who has a chicken claw that he uses.

I sure would hate to deal with a hospital for a room rate! Sleeping on the roof, alone, wouldn't help the situation.

Yes, Jeff I do know you pretty well and I would suspect that you would ask the Kroger guy for a cheaper grade or price on hamburger. Just kidding, you would want green stamps.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff Common Sense Solutions

It's a shame there isn't any left in DC...

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"Dwindling"?

I'm not sure where you got the notion that the pool of healthcare professionals is "dwindling".
.
Payments to providers are provided largely by insurance companies and/or negotiated through HMOs. Don't forget, the vast majority of Americans will NOT be covered under the "public option", but will retain their existing insurance.
.
As I understand it, medical professionals will have the option to accept or not accept public option patients, just as they do now with medicare patients, meaning if doctors were solely driven by financial considerations they could choose not to see patients with public option coverage.
.
With that in mind,your comment about "payments to providers are curtailed" is a bit over-broad and needlessly sensationalist.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Just look at Great Britain

Chrispy take a look at where single payer has been implemented. Look at the long term trend of doctor availability. Look at the amount of foreign doctors who now staff the hospitals of Great Britain. And how do we save money in any plan where you add many more covered people. The costs of the enterprise and the single nature of the payer (Federal government) means that the Feds will dictate pricing. As the costs escalate from volume, the government will be under increasing pressure to cut payments to providers. There is nothing new under the sun. There are tradeoffs in any venture. The baseline care will improve, specialized care will stagnate and be rationed. It is being done elsewhere, open your eyes and look for yourself

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
I should have said single payer

it is what is being done elsewhere and had results.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Thank you for clarifying, The Wedge

I thank you for clarifying your remarks as pertaining to "single payer". When I first read your comments above, I had thought that you were mistakenly attempting to ascribe the shortcomings of single-payer to that of the public option, much like S. Lindsey's rather silly attempt to conflate the two distinct systems.

Re-reading your commentary in the new light of single-payer, I would tend to agree with you now...single-payer can and will regulate payments made to health-care professionals, and there is a very real risk of "medical flight". Thankfully, public option will have very little impact on this aspect, as the vast majority of Americans will keep the existing insurance they have provided to them through their employment.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Hey Fatback

Public Option is Single payer.. only smaller.. It's steps..

"The difference between these choices could not be more stark: single-payer has at its core the elimination of U.S.-style private insurance, using huge administrative savings and inherent cost control mechanisms to provide comprehensive, sustainable universal coverage.

The “public option” preserves all of the systemic defects inherent in reliance on a patchwork of private insurance companies to finance health care, a system which has been a miserable failure both in providing health coverage and controlling costs.

Elimination of U.S.-style private insurance has been a prerequisite to the achievement of universal health care in every other industrialized country in the world. In contrast, public program expansions coupled with mandates have failed everywhere they’ve been tried, both domestically and internationally.

Many progressives accept that the “public option” is inferior to a single-payer system, yet support it because of its perceived political expedience"

"Obama's plan, like the House and Senate bills, would expand coverage to some 30 million, require most Americans to carry insurance or face financial penalties, and block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, the Times reported."

A Key component of Single Payer..

"Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) wants to put private health care out of business. And she admits that Obama’s health care plan will do exactly that.

and she goes further linking the two..

“And next to me was a guy from an insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete; that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business. (cheers) My single payer friends, he was right. The man was right. Here’s what I told him. I said excuse me sir the goal of health care reform is not to protect the private health insurance industry. And, I am so confident in the superiority of a public health care option that I think he has every reason to be frightened.

Any more questions/comments??

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"Public Option is Single payer.. only smaller..."

Your silly statement "Public Option is Single payer.. only smaller.. It's steps.." demonstrates a clear lack of understanding regarding the differences between the two systems.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well Crispy

I think I linked the two very well.. Sorry you could not understand the linkage.. The two are the same just smaller steps towards the common goal.

Total control of us by the Government.. I think it was pretty simple..

In fact they have said so over and over...

"Maxine Waters: And, guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be about socializing... uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Snif/Crispy Obama agrees with me

"August 4, 2007

OBAMA: This is a two trillion part of our economy. And it is my belief that, not just politically but also economically, it's better for us to start getting a system in place, a universal health care system signed into law by the end of my first term as president, and build off that system to further, to make it more rational.

...By the way, Canada did not start off immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step."

"April 3, 2007

OBAMA: Let's say that I proposed a plan that moved to a single payer system. Let's say Medicare Plus. It'd be essentially everybody can buy into Medicare for example.

...Transitioning a system is a very difficult and costly and lengthy enterprise. It's not like you can turn on a switch and you go from one system to another. So it's possible that upfront you would need not just, I mean, you might need an additional $90 or $100 billion a year."

"March 24, 2007

OBAMA: But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out."

Obama and Single Payer System..LINK

Isn't OBAMA saying exactly what I SAID..

Like I said it's not the perception on those that promote this system that you use.. It is the STATEMENTS of those like OBAMA using their OWN WORDS that count..

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Oh and Chris P...

BTW.. Your League of Woman Voters.. from which your source is from..

Here is a little taste of just where they are at..

"The League of Women Voters Welcome to the website for The League ... Our mission is to establish democratic socialism as a political force in the United States"

Their mission statement.. buried in their website.. They are also linked to the DSA.. DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST OF AMERICA..

League of Woman Voters and the DSA..

So well DUH they are for Obamacare...

As long as Congress links the two I feel pretty safe doing so as well..

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
How silly, S. Lindsey

Such silliness, S. Lindsey.

You took one line from the League of Women Voters website "The League of Women Voters Welcome to the website for The League", added an ellipse, then copied a line from someplace called "Democrat socialist of America" (Our mission is to establish democratic socialism as a political force in the United States) in a misguided attempt to conflate the two sites and discredit my source.
.
For the record, here is the mission statement of the League of Women Voters in its entirety:
.
The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.
.
You will note that, I provided a link to the national website of the League of Women Voters, showing exactly where my quote originated.
.
I challenge you to do the same for your "quote".

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Further clarification on the League of Women Voters

Thanks Chris. . .and shame on you Lindsey.

League of Women Voters, voluntary public service organization of U.S. citizens. Organized in 1920 in Chicago as an outgrowth of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, it had as its original nucleus the leaders of the latter organization. The league was organized to educate American women in the intelligent use of their newly won suffrage. At its founding the league was primarily concerned with the status and rights of women, but it later broadened its interests to encompass the improvement of the entire political, economic, and social structure of the nation. It has directed its educational and research campaigns to those ends on local, state, and national levels. Formerly limited to female membership, the league voted in 1974 to accept men as full members. With headquarters in Washington, D.C., the organization has some 110,000 members.

Definition of League of Women Voters

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well here ya go..

One correction the quote is from Democratic Socialist of America.. Linked from the LWV Site.. My Mea Culpa..

However my assertion stands they have an awful tendency to support the Socialist agenda.....

League of Woman Voters endorse Socialist Candidate

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ELECTION GUIDE – 2009 Note the Socialist Endorsement

Outside of DSA, Young Democratic Socialists and Socialist International links... Note Link to the League of Woman Voters

Another Socialist Connection...

My POINT Crispy is simple.. One source a definitely left leaning group whose sole source of info in their 56 page report was the Government ITSELF or from Former Democrat operatives.. DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO CREDIBILITY.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
More S. Lindsey conjecture unsupported by facts

S. Lindsey, your statement that the League of Women Voters "have an awful tendency to support the Socialist agenda" is not supported by facts.
.
You seem to be unable or unwilling to understand the concept of the voter guides distributed to voters. The League lists all candidates for a given office, gives their party affiliation, their biography and their priorities.
.
Contrary to your baseless opinion, the League does not, and has not, ever endorsed candidates for public office.
.

  • Please note the disclaimer at top of the page of your first link which you claim was an "endorsement": The League of Women Voters does not support or oppose any candidate or political party.
  • Your second link, which you once again erroneously call an "endorsement", is a League profile of a Green Party candidate for public office. The guide notes that this candidate was also endorsed by the Socialist party. Only a fool would believe that the sentence "Additional Party Endorsements: Socialist" constitutes a League of Women Voters endorsement
  • Your third link is a page on a Socialist website that links to a myriad of other political organizations, including the Korean Cultural Center, the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, the Senior Citizens Action Center, and the League of Women Voters. You somehow overlooked the large disclaimer in the middle of the first page that read "Outside of DSA, Young Democratic Socialists and Socialist International links, a link on this page does not necessarily imply an organizational affiliation or even any particular approval by Chicago DSA. This will come as a great disappointment to those Freepers who firmly believe that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is run by DSA, but, hey, why let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory?"
  • Your fourth link was a news account of 14 people offering their comments regarding something called a "Living Wage" initiative at a city council meeting in Illinois. One member of the League of Women Voters opined that all sides should be heard before a decision was made. Period. Appearing at a city commission meeting where a socialist also spoke does not constitute a "socialist connection", despite your claims

.
You've wasted my time looking at four irrelevant links that do not your position one iota.
.
You have failed to back up your specious conjecture with facts.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Crispy

I linked the two issues which we were discussing.. Public Option is a precursor to Single payer.. Obama and the other Progressives have said it time and time again.. Now we can debate YOUR source of info all day..

Google LWV and Socialist and almost EVERY chapter has a link to the DSA.. Why?

Is being supposedly non-partisan and linking to and have your linked info in admitted Socialist websites really non-partisan. Using admittedly bias sources for a report supporting UHC and then saying it's a non-partisan look at UHC really non-partisan? Well maybe for you it is.. That's like have a website for The Boy Scouts of America and then allowing a link to MAMBLA.. Sort of cross purposes don't cha think...

“We will take your insurance companies, we will take the farms in this country, and we will shut down the military apparatus in this country,and I am tired of being told to stuff my anger back in my pants.”" We have to destroy America" Jed Brandt Brecht Forum.

Also a supporter..

SO just saying.. a little fishy for me.

But go ahead and divert the debate.. Try going back and justifying Government control of Healthcare and stop getting your panties in a wad because I challenged your source.. It's what I do.

You seem a little touchy on that source so it seems like I hit a nerve.. Interesting..

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Voter guides?

What exactly is a voter guide? Who needs a guide someone else has prepared in order to vote? Did the founders envision the need for voter guides? Does anyone honestly believe someone would spend time to prepare a voter guide with no intended bias or influence?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

The League has ALWAYS provided the public with the information of all candidates. Your attempt to paint the League as 'socialist' is sophomoric. You have a tendency to paint anything that does not agree with YOUR AGENDA as anti- USA. Keep posting - your attempt at slanting the facts are becoming more transparent with each post. I congratulate those who are not afraid to research for themselves the FACTS. . .and not be intimidated by those who want to slant any dissenting idea as 'socialist'. By the way, going back to a statement of a 2003 candidate from California is really a stretch .

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM

I am not saying the LWV is a socialist forum...

Just saying a lot of non-endorsed Socialist Candidates wind up in their forum and at least tacitly endorsed by them.

But that's ok it's America and you can vote for the Socialist, Communist or Progressive.. It's all the same to me..

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
No "tacit endorsement" either
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Now since that's out of the way

Care to elaborate on your position on the Public Option?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Socialized medicine/health care
Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Take a look at the facts/Be informed
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Thanks.. DM

Another fine link that supports my position that this massive take over is wrong..

Keep it up your doing a fine job proving my points..

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

My post supports sharing the TRUTH/FACTS - not slanting the facts to support your position. I think most who take the time to read the facts realize this.
Nice try to salve your 'ego'. The facts help us to see through the rhetoric that both sides use in the health care discussion.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM Show me where I have SLANTED anything..

It's easy to lay out charges.. Proving them is a little more difficult.

Well let’s look at your sources “facts” point by point..

In a remark reminiscent of last week’s spat with Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander over premiums, Obama said most people would save money under his plan:
Obama: Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums.
Well, it could reduce most people’s premiums. Or those premiums could just stay the same. 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.
Those are averages, so some premiums would go down by more — others would increase by more. The president would be on much firmer ground to say most people’s premiums wouldn’t change significantly.
Not really telling the truth is he?

Obama also claimed that those who buy insurance on their own will get a better deal. But that’s subjective.
Obama: And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it’s going to provide better deals for people than they can get right now in the individual marketplace, then we’ll offer you tax credits to do so.
The individual marketplace could well offer "better deals" for many people. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions, and the mandate to have coverage will bring more healthy people into this insurance pool. That would bring down costs. But, average premium costs per person actually go up in this market, by 10 percent to 13 percent, according to the CBO.
More coverage for more money may well represent a better deal for some — others, not so much. It’s safe to assume at least a few of the healthy folks out there who are buying bare-bones, cheap policies won’t agree that more coverage for more money is a "better deal" for them.

Again the facts don’t really coincide with the Statements do they?

He also repeated a promise he can’t make to everyone.
Obama: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Sure, that’s true for the most part. The bill doesn’t aim to change employer-sponsored insurance, and those who buy their own insurance can keep those plans through a grandfather clause. But there’s going to be some movement that’s out of the hands of some individual Americans.
The CBO estimated that 8 million to 9 million people who would normally be expected to have insurance through their jobs wouldn’t be offered coverage from their employers. CBO added that firms that dropped coverage would likely be smaller employers that mainly hire low-income workers, who would be eligible to receive subsidies to purchase their own coverage. Other individuals would gain employer-sponsored coverage under the bill. The net change for employer-offered insurance would be a decrease of 4 million people by 2019.

So if you like your program and your employer can not afford those Cadillac taxes then do you really get to keep it?

Another claim might have perked the ears of our readers. Obama was correct when he said:
Obama: [M]y proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves — because if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries.
The insurance exchanges are designed to mirror the type of choices that members of Congress (and other federal employees) have. And, in fact, the Senate bill stipulates that members and their staffs would be required to buy insurance through those exchanges. The president’s plan also says members would face this requirement.
In these exchanges, insurance companies would compete for the business of millions of new customers, and their plans would have to meet minimum standards, just like the plans offered to federal workers. But, if some Americans thought this meant they would be treated just like federal employees, that’s not the case. The government isn’t going to pay 72 percent of the premium costs for everyone, the way it does for its own workers. About 57 percent of those buying their own plans in the exchanges would get subsidies that reduce their average premium costs substantially, by about 60 percent, according to the CBO. Employees of small businesses could also have some of their premium costs paid by their employer. But, depending on their income, others would simply be required to buy coverage without any help, or pay a tax if they don’t.

Again where have I been wrong on this?

Finally, the president said those tax credits given to individuals to help with the purchase of insurance would "add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history." We would alert readers to listen closely to the grandiose claim. Obama says it’s the largest "middle-class tax cut for health care" (emphasis added). And besides, since there is no agreed upon definition of who’s "middle class" and who’s not, we couldn’t say which cut should be considered the largest. Total tax credit and subsidy money in the Senate bill: $329 billion over 10 years. The president’s plan would increase that total.

So DM show me where your source differs from anything I have presented.. If anything YOUR source again proves my point.. Obama would not know the TRUTH if it walked up and kicked him face..

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Nancy Pelosi : Re: Health Care Bill

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy,"

And this ladies and gentleman is why there is a problem in Washington.

Recent Comments