10 Top Reasons You Owe The Nation

[PoliticalChic]

Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
Here is the outline.

"These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.

1. Explodes the Budget Deficit

2. Kills Jobs

3. Lose Your Own Doctor and Health Plan

4. States’ Budget Deficits Grow to Possible Bankruptcy

5. Higher Insurance Premiums:

6. Crushes Businesses

7. Fewer Americans Have Access to Health Insurance

8. Senior Citizens Lose Medicare Coverage:

9. Overburdens Small Business

10. Tax Hikes
Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After One Year - HUMAN EVENTS

OK, one more opportunity to you Lefties to apologize...
...and genuflecting would be nice.


Waiting.

1. The deficit has already exploded, and unless you have investments, or planning to make a life purches i.e. home, it doesn't effect you as much as you would think. you adapt, like riding your bike when gas gets completely out of hand like it is now.

2. Kills jobs? every cut we make in the federal buget is adding to the unemployment numbers, does that make balancing our budget a job killer?

3. I couldn't afford a doctor or health plan before Obama care and I can't afford one now. no change.

4. This is the same as number one.

5. Higher insurance premiums Name one time in the history of man that premiums ever rolled back due to legislation? I couldn't afford the premiums before Obama care, and I can't now.

6. The company I worked for cancelled our insurance before Obama care passed because the cost was too high.

7. Again, No Ins before or after.

8. I have insufiecent info on the elderly

9. Small businesses quit providing ins. long before Obama care.

10. Taxes would go up. This I agree would happen, but I and my family would have health care.

For me this is a no brainer. If I get health care out of this legislation, it was a good thing, and the fact that my taxes would go up I would gladdly pay it, as this means that I'm participating in paying my part of the bill, making health care not a freebie. Helping business by removing the burden of cost of logistical personel i.e. lawyers, customer service. Businesses would save millions.

Specs, specs, specs....

1. "The deficit has already exploded,..." so, what?...keep on exploding?

"...it doesn't effect you as much as you would think..."
I can see you have a doctorate in economics, but could we consider the words of Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office:

"As background to its estimates, the CBO notes that spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise rapidly in the future, pushing up "primary" federal spending (excluding interest payments on the debt) from 18.2 percent of GDP today to 28.3 percent in 2050 and 35.3 percent in 2082. With interest payments included, spending will hit 41.8 percent of GDP in 2050 and 75.4 per¬cent by 2082…."[t]he tax rate for the lowest bracket would have to be increased from 10 per¬cent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent."
Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI), May 19, 2008, Taxes to Pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI | Medicare Insurance | eons.com

Now, I know your lots smarter than ol' Pete, and have far more experience.....but, couldn't he be a little bit right?

2. "Kills jobs? every cut we make in the federal buget is adding to the unemployment"
See, I'm going to disagree with this one, too.
Everybody knows that 72.6% of our GDP is the production of red tape....so I'm gonna guess that cutting the size of government will also cut regulation and red tape, and allow business to do what government can't do: create jobs.

3. "I couldn't afford a doctor or health plan before Obama care and I can't afford one now. no change."

Let's make this he last one, Specs.
I don't know you well enough to call you a liar, and, anyway, the term liar is trademarked by the Left, so let's just say you represent the average guy.

Based on that surmise, 'not affording' really means you choose to spend your money elsewhere, and would rather have your neighbors pick up the tab for your healthcare...as every single (and married) individual in the whole country has the emergency room option.

Here is the break-down:

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0908/moneygo900.jpg
US Dept of Labor, april 2009

Here’s an interesting graphic of the spending breakdown for the average U.S. consumer. It’s based a theoretical household “unit” consisting of 2.5 people, not individuals. Looks like such a household unit spends approximately $50,000 per year. Click on image for larger version.
Income before taxes $63,091
Average annual expenditures $49,638
2.5 in the family
1.3 earners, 67% are homeowners
Entertainment $2698 5.4%
Food 6133 12.4
Alcoholic Bev. 457 0.9
Healthcare 2853 5.7
Tobacco 323 0.7
Housing 16,920 34.1
Transportation 8758 17.6
(gas&oil) 2384` 4.8
Average food spending was $6133, of which $3465 was spent on meals at home. Based on this data, one can conclude that the average consumer unit spends roughly $300 per month on meals prepared at home and roughly $225 per month on meals away from home.
Each year, the average American spends $1881 on “apparel and services”, for example, but only $118 on books.
The chart doesn’t include taxes because the government survey doesn’t include taxes. If the average consumer unit earns $63,091 but spends $49,648, there are $13,443 unaccounted for. The personal saving rate in 2007 was less than 1%, so I’m guessing that most of the unspecified money goes to taxes.


So, entertainment and alcohol accounts for more of your spending than healthcare, huh?

Grow up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.

And please, expand on why you "like" those two statements.

See if you can look up 'double counting.'

 

[FuelRod]

What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.

And please, expand on why you "like" those two statements.

See if you can look up 'double counting.'

Or in Corporate America, known as "fraud"

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe it will cost us money as a nation. Less money than would be sucked out if we do not do this right. Economy of scale.

Just someday, someone (meaning most of us who have less than 10 million of liquid assests) will be unable to afford a 10k a dose pill that will extend our lives if taken three times daily. Worst part is we will know the pill exists and have to watch our mother, ourself, or our kid die a few years sooner because neither ourself or the nation can afford it.

Forcing everyone to pay into insurance puts off this day. It buys time for the medical research industry to quit focusing on wonder drugs and switch to finding ways to make existing treatments cheaper.

Immediately a properly implemented healthcare plan will cost little. In forty(???) years as costs rise premiums to fund it may be too much for the population as a whole to pay.

How about you work harder and make 10 million and stop asking for the nation to take care of you?

 

[Polk]

What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.

And please, expand on why you "like" those two statements.

See if you can look up 'double counting.'

The double counting comes in from the statements that the savings in the bill extend the amount of money in the trust fund, not from calculating the bill's impact on the deficit. The bill doesn't change the lifespan of the Medicare trust.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.

And please, expand on why you "like" those two statements.

See if you can look up 'double counting.'

The double counting comes in from the statements that the savings in the bill extend the amount of money in the trust fund, not from calculating the bill's impact on the deficit. The bill doesn't change the lifespan of the Medicare trust.

Absolutely not true.

I explain very clearly the several areas where moneys are counted more than once.

 

[Polk]

See if you can look up 'double counting.'

The double counting comes in from the statements that the savings in the bill extend the amount of money in the trust fund, not from calculating the bill's impact on the deficit. The bill doesn't change the lifespan of the Medicare trust.

Absolutely not true.

I explain very clearly the several areas where moneys are counted more than once.

No, you don't. You claim double counting occurred and expect people to take you at your word.

 

[The T]

Paul Ryan v. the President

The Republican dissects ObamaCare's real costs. Democrats stay mute. <March 2010

 

[Greenbeard]

Absolutely not true.

I explain very clearly the several areas where moneys are counted more than once.

The concept of "double counting" has always referred to rhetoric being used by the administration; it doesn't affect the outcome of the CBO score (i.e. the predicted financial impact of the law, as it differs from the baseline).

This is an issue of words, not numbers. Stop parroting Ryan and think a bit.

 

[boedicca]

What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.

And please, expand on why you "like" those two statements.

See if you can look up 'double counting.'

He'll find it in the "the ends justify the means" section of the Progressive Handbook.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Absolutely not true.

I explain very clearly the several areas where moneys are counted more than once.

The concept of "double counting" has always referred to rhetoric being used by the administration; it doesn't affect the outcome of the CBO score (i.e. the predicted financial impact of the law, as it differs from the baseline).

This is an issue of words, not numbers. Stop parroting Ryan and think a bit.

Stop being a stooge for the administration's attempts to grab 17% of the economy.

Of course it has meaning.

It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.

Bogus, as is your post.

And if a new program is far too expensive to reveal, use the ‘Healthcare’ gambit: get OMB to calculate the costs over 10 years, but don’t set the program to begin for two or three years, essentially costing for seven years. They did this Medicare Part D, 2003, which didn’t fully phase in until 2006. This gave it the expense of ‘only’ $395 for ten years…but it is now estimated to be $952 billion for the next ten years, or an unfunded $7.2 trillion over seventy-five years.

 

[boedicca]

Absolutely not true.

I explain very clearly the several areas where moneys are counted more than once.

The concept of "double counting" has always referred to rhetoric being used by the administration; it doesn't affect the outcome of the CBO score (i.e. the predicted financial impact of the law, as it differs from the baseline).

This is an issue of words, not numbers. Stop parroting Ryan and think a bit.

Stop being a stooge for the administration's attempts to grab 17% of the economy.

Of course it has meaning.

It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.

Bogus, as is your post.

And if a new program is far too expensive to reveal, use the ‘Healthcare’ gambit: get OMB to calculate the costs over 10 years, but don’t set the program to begin for two or three years, essentially costing for seven years. They did this Medicare Part D, 2003, which didn’t fully phase in until 2006. This gave it the expense of ‘only’ $395 for ten years…but it is now estimated to be $952 billion for the next ten years, or an unfunded $7.2 trillion over seventy-five years.

And let's not forget that the CBO claims that Obama's budget UNDERSTATES deficits by $2.3T


A new assessment of President Barack Obama's budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.

The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama's February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years — an average of almost $1 trillion a year.

Obama's budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.

The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections....

CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion - Politics - msnbc.com

The Obamanoids also cooked the ObamaCare score by assuming much higher rates of GDP growth than respectable economists project. And, as with all Obamanomics Projectsion, things are consistently UNEXPECTEDLY worse than they assumed.

 

[Greenbeard]

It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.

They're not being used elsewhere, that's the point. Show me in the score where the CBO has the slowed Medicare cost growth affecting the deficit impact prediction in multiple places. Don't link to me Ryan and don't link me to an administration quote, we're using only primary sources here (that means the actual CBO score).

 

[boedicca]

It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.

They're not being used elsewhere, that's the point. Show me in the score where the CBO has the slowed Medicare cost growth affecting the deficit impact prediction in multiple places. Don't link to me Ryan and don't link me to an administration quote, we're using only primary sources here (that means the actual CBO score).

It's why ObamaCare is a BIG LIE.

It does not reduce the deficit; it worsens it dramatically.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.

They're not being used elsewhere, that's the point. Show me in the score where the CBO has the slowed Medicare cost growth affecting the deficit impact prediction in multiple places. Don't link to me Ryan and don't link me to an administration quote, we're using only primary sources here (that means the actual CBO score).

You'll be disappointed to learn that I pay as much attention to your orders as every other female who has had the pleasure of making your acquaintance...

... and on that note:

In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online


So, among the various and sundry...let's call them 'tricks' is the wilfull disregard for experience.

I belive in the experience of the past....
...you should try that approach.

 

[NYcarbineer]

blow me.

Are you rich, white, and conservative?

No? Sorry, you didn't qualify for that perk.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.

They're not being used elsewhere, that's the point. Show me in the score where the CBO has the slowed Medicare cost growth affecting the deficit impact prediction in multiple places. Don't link to me Ryan and don't link me to an administration quote, we're using only primary sources here (that means the actual CBO score).

You'll be disappointed to learn that I pay as much attention to your orders as every other female who has had the pleasure of making your acquaintance...

... and on that note:

In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online


So, among the various and sundry...let's call them 'tricks' is the wilfull disregard for experience.

I belive in the experience of the past....
...you should try that approach.

So I guess the GOP will be pounding the table demanding massive Medicare cuts, and rationing??

...soon?? ...maybe??

lol

 

[Greenbeard]

You'll be disappointed to learn that I pay as much attention to your orders as every other female who has had the pleasure of making your acquaintance...

I suspected that level of critical thinking would be a bit beyond you. If you've reached the point where you're actually admitting you can't read a source document to evaluate claims you've heard about it, it might be time to wrap up this thread. Maybe next time you can share with us a chain email you've received or something.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My healthcare costs haven't gone up any more than usual. I haven't lost my choice of doctors, my taxes have gone down, not up, you know,

I think the OP's propaganda from the rightwing hack factory 'Human Events' is largely bullshit.

Having said that, the healthcare bill was seriously damaged by the lack of a public option,

but, whose fault was that?

Of course - Republicans, and Democrats acting like Republicans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You'll be disappointed to learn that I pay as much attention to your orders as every other female who has had the pleasure of making your acquaintance...

I suspected that level of critical thinking would be a bit beyond you. If you've reached the point where you're actually admitting you can't read a source document to evaluate claims you've heard about it, it might be time to wrap up this thread. Maybe next time you can share with us a chain email you've received or something.

She will shut up if you beat on her hard enough. Take my word for it.