Health-care law will add $340 billion to deficit

[starcraftzzz]

Speaking of two year olds, kind of like you calling me a dumb ass because I put up articles that discredited Mr. Klein's claims?

ROTFL only a dumbass thinks being a liberal is discrediting someone.

I didn't say that. I said the articles I posted discredited his claims.

And the articles you posted consisted of calling him a lbieral. Jesus why can no conservative read?

I am awaiting for your stupid response that will be something like "Obamacare increases the deficit because we shouldn't count all the measure it takes to decrease the deficit" Which was what your original post was

I never said that either. I also didn't write the Washington Post article. If you have issues with what was presented in it then perhaps you should take that up with the author.

Your first post. I realize that you attention span is similar to a Goldfishes but come on.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

ROTFL only a dumbass thinks being a liberal is discrediting someone.

I didn't say that. I said the articles I posted discredited his claims.

And the articles you posted consisted of calling him a liberal.

Ah. I was referring to the LA Times and NY Times articles. I would have clarified, but I thought that was understood.

Jesus why can no conservative read?

I've never known one who couldn't, as far I know.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I didn't say that. I said the articles I posted discredited his claims.

And the articles you posted consisted of calling him a liberal.

Ah. I was referring to the LA Times and NY Times articles. I would have clarified, but I thought that was understood.

Ah so basically you think he is wrong on health care because of some random irrelevant article talking about health care. Perhaps the problem here is that your logical skills are non existent

Jesus why can no conservative read?

I've never known one who couldn't, as far I know.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess you've never knew yourself then

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ah. I was referring to the LA Times and NY Times articles. I would have clarified, but I thought that was understood.

Ah so basically you think he is wrong on health care because of some random irrelevant article talking about health care. Perhaps the problem here is that your logical skills are non existent

What makes the LA and NY Times articles any less credible than Ezra Klein's?

Jesus why can no conservative read?

I've never known one who couldn't, as far I know.

Well I guess you've never knew yourself then

That comment doesn't make any sense. Are you feeling ok?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Ah. I was referring to the LA Times and NY Times articles. I would have clarified, but I thought that was understood.

Ah so basically you think he is wrong on health care because of some random irrelevant article talking about health care. Perhaps the problem here is that your logical skills are non existent

What makes the LA and NY Times articles any less credible than Ezra Klein's?

Basically because I proved that your articles were bogus. While all you've done is proved that Ezra Klein is a liberal and therefor you think he is discredited because he doesn't share your ignorant world views

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ah so basically you think he is wrong on health care because of some random irrelevant article talking about health care. Perhaps the problem here is that your logical skills are non existent

What makes the LA and NY Times articles any less credible than Ezra Klein's?

Basically because I proved that your articles were bogus.

You did? When did that happen?

While all you've done is proved that Ezra Klein is a liberal and therefor you think he is discredited because he doesn't share your ignorant world views

I never said that at all. You did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Has Shakles ever gotten back to us with a link for Massachusetts health care program being the highest in America?

 

[starcraftzzz]

What makes the LA and NY Times articles any less credible than Ezra Klein's?

You did? When did that happen?

1) Calling some a Liberal as reason that they are not credible isn't credible, it is called being a dumbass

While all you've done is proved that Ezra Klein is a liberal and therefor you think he is discredited because he doesn't share your ignorant world views

I never said that at all. You did.

You didn't say it put you copied and pasted someone else saying it called them saying as discrediting Klein. So basically you are just being obtuse and dense mostly because you've been shown to be clueless in all regards.

 

[Greenbeard]

Ah. I was referring to the LA Times and NY Times articles. I would have clarified, but I thought that was understood.

Ah so basically you think he is wrong on health care because of some random irrelevant article talking about health care. Perhaps the problem here is that your logical skills are non existent

What makes the LA and NY Times articles any less credible than Ezra Klein's?

Dueling articles only work if they're talking about the same thing. Comparing a statement about the health care cost curve (i.e. talking about changes in the growth rate of national health expenditures) with one about health insurance premium growth doesn't work since the two aren't always directly related. For instance, despite KFF's finding on premium growth in 2011, as a data point on the cost curve last year looked very good because health spending grew relatively slowly and health care price inflation is very low:

February 9, 2012

2011 Health Spending Growth Remains Near Historic Lows

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — New analysis shows that health care spending in the U.S. in 2011 grew at one of the slowest rates in 50 years according to the February Health Sector Economic Indicators briefs released today by Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

Altarum’s reports provide the first look at full-year 2011, showing health spending at $2.71 trillion. Spending was up 4.4 percent from 2010—the third slowest rate of growth since national health expenditures have been tracked. The health spending share of gross domestic product was 18.1 percent in December 2011, up from 16.4 percent at the start of the recession (December 2007), but down slightly from the all-time high of 18.2 percent in June 2011.

“With historically low health price inflation, low utilization growth and some signs of lower health employment growth, we could be entering an era of extended health care cost control,” said center director Dr. Charles Roehrig.

Altarum’s data indicate that health care price inflation was only 2.1 percent for all of 2011, the lowest annual figure since 1998, when it stood at 2.0 percent. Health employment in January 2012 rose by 31,000, well above the 2-year average of 22,000 jobs and contrasting with weak employment growth seen in the last quarter of 2011. At 10.73 percent of all jobs in January 2012, the health employment share is fractionally lower than the all-time high of 10.74 percent in October 2011.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah so basically you think he is wrong on health care because of some random irrelevant article talking about health care. Perhaps the problem here is that your logical skills are non existent

What makes the LA and NY Times articles any less credible than Ezra Klein's?

Dueling articles only work if they're talking about the same thing. Comparing a statement about the health care cost curve (i.e. talking about changes in the growth rate of national health expenditures) with one about health insurance premium growth doesn't work since the two aren't always directly related. For instance, despite KFF's finding on premium growth in 2011, as a data point on the cost curve last year looked very good because health spending grew relatively slowly and health care price inflation is very low:

February 9, 2012

2011 Health Spending Growth Remains Near Historic Lows

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — New analysis shows that health care spending in the U.S. in 2011 grew at one of the slowest rates in 50 years according to the February Health Sector Economic Indicators briefs released today by Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

Altarum’s reports provide the first look at full-year 2011, showing health spending at $2.71 trillion. Spending was up 4.4 percent from 2010—the third slowest rate of growth since national health expenditures have been tracked. The health spending share of gross domestic product was 18.1 percent in December 2011, up from 16.4 percent at the start of the recession (December 2007), but down slightly from the all-time high of 18.2 percent in June 2011.

“With historically low health price inflation, low utilization growth and some signs of lower health employment growth, we could be entering an era of extended health care cost control,” said center director Dr. Charles Roehrig.

Altarum’s data indicate that health care price inflation was only 2.1 percent for all of 2011, the lowest annual figure since 1998, when it stood at 2.0 percent. Health employment in January 2012 rose by 31,000, well above the 2-year average of 22,000 jobs and contrasting with weak employment growth seen in the last quarter of 2011. At 10.73 percent of all jobs in January 2012, the health employment share is fractionally lower than the all-time high of 10.74 percent in October 2011.

Time for a trip down memory lane, Red?


1. Shortly after Obamacare was signed into law, AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon, and several other big companies reported to investors- as required, that the law would take quite a bite out of future earnings. They were considering dropping employee health insurance. “…dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.” AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010

a. Makes sense, as the law would penalize the companies $2,000 per employee if they didn’t offer the insurance, as opposed to over $7,000 per worker for a comprehensive package. Former CBO director Holtz-Eakins this may be the start of a 35 million worker avalanche that will move into subsidized coverage, at a cost of over $1 trillion more to the total cost of Obamacare over the next ten years. Opinion: Resetting the 'Obamacare' baseline - Douglas Holtz-Eakin and James C. Capretta - POLITICO.com

b. Despite all the talk of avoiding any disruption of the current system of employer-sponsored insurance, the legislation actually seems destined to accelerate the steady decline of that form of coverage….the statute creates several new incentives for employers to move away from providing coverage. Why the Health Reform Wars Have Only Just Begun

2. “A Virginia-based insurance company says “considerable uncertainties” created by the Democrats’ health care overhaul will force it to close its doors by the end of the year. The firm, nHealth, appears to be the first to claim that the new law has driven it out of business.” First victim of health care overhaul? - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

a. What would be better, more hospitals, or fewer hospitals? “"Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide…"Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding." Obamacare Ends Construction of Doctor-Owned Hospitals | The Weekly Standard

3. The thugs in this administration won’t permit companies to tell customers how new Obamacare regulations and mandates will increase costs and premiums: “…there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” Sebelius calls on health insurers to stop misinformation and unjustified rate increases

a. "How do you sell a product that can only hurt most of its buyers? That was the task of President Obama and his team. The only way is to lie, and that's what they did."
David Freddoso, "Gangster Government," p. 56.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does all that mean that health care would go up? All we have are far right shills saying so.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You did? When did that happen?

1) Calling some a Liberal as reason that they are not credible isn't credible, it is called being a dumbass

While all you've done is proved that Ezra Klein is a liberal and therefor you think he is discredited because he doesn't share your ignorant world views

I never said that at all. You did.

You didn't say it put you copied and pasted someone else saying it called them saying as discrediting Klein. So basically you are just being obtuse and dense mostly because you've been shown to be clueless in all regards.

No, I put up two articles that contradicted what he said. His political affiliation is irrelevant.

 

[starcraftzzz]

1) Calling some a Liberal as reason that they are not credible isn't credible, it is called being a dumbass

I never said that at all. You did.

You didn't say it put you copied and pasted someone else saying it called them saying as discrediting Klein. So basically you are just being obtuse and dense mostly because you've been shown to be clueless in all regards.

No, I put up two articles that contradicted what he said. His political affiliation is irrelevant.

How stupid are you? You articles went like this, "ezra klein is incorrect because he is a liberal" How you think calling someone a liberal is contradicting what they say is beyond reality

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is a commonality of liberals and conservatives qualitatively compared to nutters of the right like crusaderfrank or TM to the left. Calling one a "conservative" or "liberal" and actually disqualifying the point because of that is silliness.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You didn't say it put you copied and pasted someone else saying it called them saying as discrediting Klein. So basically you are just being obtuse and dense mostly because you've been shown to be clueless in all regards.

No, I put up two articles that contradicted what he said. His political affiliation is irrelevant.

How stupid are you? You articles went like this, "ezra klein is incorrect because he is a liberal" How you think calling someone a liberal is contradicting what they say is beyond reality

They say absolutely no such thing. Clearly you didn't read either one of them.

 

[starcraftzzz]

No, I put up two articles that contradicted what he said. His political affiliation is irrelevant.

How stupid are you? You articles went like this, "ezra klein is incorrect because he is a liberal" How you think calling someone a liberal is contradicting what they say is beyond reality

They say absolutely no such thing. Clearly you didn't read either one of them.

Post it then. Oh wait then you;d prove you're wrong..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How stupid are you? You articles went like this, "ezra klein is incorrect because he is a liberal" How you think calling someone a liberal is contradicting what they say is beyond reality

They say absolutely no such thing. Clearly you didn't read either one of them.

Post it then. Oh wait then you;d prove you're wrong..

I posted them in this very thread two days ago. If I hadn't posted them then why did you claim that they contradicted Klein by calling him a liberal? How could you know what they allegedly said if they were never posted? That doesn't make sense at all.

You seem like a very confused individual. Are you feeling ok? Maybe you have a fever and should lay down.

 

[Trajan]

So much for ObamaCare lowering the deficit. Of course, it still amazes me anyone was stupid enough to believe that in the first place.

President Obama’s landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation’s budget woes over the next decade, according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.

The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers.

The 2010 law does generate both savings and revenue. But much of that money will flow into the Medicare hospitalization trust fund — and, under law, the money must be used to pay years of additional benefits to those who are already insured. That means those savings would not be available to pay for expanding coverage for the uninsured.

“Does the health-care act worsen the deficit? The answer, I think, is clearly that it does,” Blahous, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said in an interview. “If one asserts that this law extends the solvency of Medicare, then one is affirming that this law adds to the deficit. Because the expansion of the Medicare trust fund and the creation of the new subsidies together create more spending than existed under prior law.”

Health-care law will add $340 billion to deficit, new study finds - The Washington Post

the wapos ombudsman (Patrick Pexton ) was trying to back peddle and generate some serious smoke when he was asked why the article ran on page 3 when everyone even some lib outlets agreed if even to get ahead of it and file a rebuttal ( good luck on that) this was a page 1,( at the very least below the fold) story....