In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect

[boedicca]

Yes, corralling the insurance industry will drive costs down. The data above, Mr. F, does not apply.

You are a loon.

Adding 30M and expanding the amount of conditions to be covered without life time caps will not lower costs. The only way to "lower costs" in that scenario is to deny treatment.

And that is exactly what the dozens and dozens of regulatory and bureaucratic review boards will do. Such denial of coverage is not corralling the insurance industry - it's corralling the great "unwashed" population (which was the objective all along for Big Government).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, corralling the insurance industry will drive costs down. The data above, Mr. F, does not apply.

You are a loon.

Adding 30M and expanding the amount of conditions to be covered without life time caps will not lower costs. The only way to "lower costs" in that scenario is to deny treatment.

And that is exactly what the dozens and dozens of regulatory and bureaucratic review boards will do. Such denial of coverage is not corralling the insurance industry - it's corralling the great "unwashed" population (which was the objective all along for Big Government).

Your defending F does not make either of you correct. His numbers don't apply, and your "unwashed" argument is not only wrong but also smells.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yes, corralling the insurance industry will drive costs down. The data above, Mr. F, does not apply.

You are a loon.

Adding 30M and expanding the amount of conditions to be covered without life time caps will not lower costs. The only way to "lower costs" in that scenario is to deny treatment.

And that is exactly what the dozens and dozens of regulatory and bureaucratic review boards will do. Such denial of coverage is not corralling the insurance industry - it's corralling the great "unwashed" population (which was the objective all along for Big Government).

Your defending F does not make either of you correct. His numbers don't apply, and your "unwashed" argument is not only wrong but also smells.

I dont need anyone defending against your straw-man tactics.
There is no reason to expect anything different form history when it comes to government cost projections.

With this kind of track record?

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

They are straw arguments, F, and you know it. But, the thing is, the bill will remain in force, there will be no repeal and replace, there will be expansion of it, and you will get to participate. Good for you!

And, oh? Quit whining to me privately, son. Do it here like a man.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, corralling the insurance industry will drive costs down. The data above, Mr. F, does not apply.

You are a loon.

Adding 30M and expanding the amount of conditions to be covered without life time caps will not lower costs. The only way to "lower costs" in that scenario is to deny treatment.

And that is exactly what the dozens and dozens of regulatory and bureaucratic review boards will do. Such denial of coverage is not corralling the insurance industry - it's corralling the great "unwashed" population (which was the objective all along for Big Government).

Your defending F does not make either of you correct. His numbers don't apply, and your "unwashed" argument is not only wrong but also smells.

The only thing that smells around here is your incoherent world view.

Just sayin'.

 

[boedicca]

They are straw arguments, F, and you know it. But, the thing is, the bill will remain in force, there will be no repeal and replace, there will be expansion of it, and you will get to participate. Good for you!

And, oh? Quit whining to me privately, son. Do it here like a man.

I call shenanigans.

There is no way on earth that you know what it is like to be a real man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says an unreal woman.

 

[daveman]

These are (1) not the largest tax hikes in American history - go to the FDR years, please; (2) these are the tax rates that the GOP Congress from 1994 to 2000 instituted.

HyenaKiller is either ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignant. Nuff said. HK, slink off.

well- your dipshit speaking to us from his oval orifice can't blame these tax hikes on BUSH.

Obamacare and Taxes: The Final Tab

these are the tax increases from his healthcare bill which makes him the lying sack of shit everyone knows him to be.

Thank you for changing the premise, which kills the OP (good, it was a loser from go).

We have no idea really what the costs of the HC reform will be. It has to be lower than what has happened since we let the health insurance industry come between us and our doctors.

You mean more people will be covered for less money?

Nonsense.

 

[daveman]

We have no idea really what the costs of the HC reform will be. It has to be lower than what has happened since we let the health insurance industry come between us and our doctors.

Why does it have to be lower?

Because he's been told to believe it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Forcing the industry players to compete against each other will lower prices. daveman, that is good market forces, right?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

They are straw arguments, F, and you know it. But, the thing is, the bill will remain in force, there will be no repeal and replace, there will be expansion of it, and you will get to participate. Good for you!

And, oh? Quit whining to me privately, son. Do it here like a man.

The only private correspondence I have had with you was a perfunctory FU.

Your "John Bircher" character assassination are straw men arguments.
That has been the extent of your hysterical display.

If you have a reason to believe the government will be any more "right" about its estimates on the cost of the new health care bill then they were on their previous attempts at prognostication present that rational.
If you have any rational argument to over look history present it .
Put away the juvenile asbo bluster and bring the reason.

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf

 

[daveman]

They are straw arguments, F, and you know it. But, the thing is, the bill will remain in force, there will be no repeal and replace, there will be expansion of it, and you will get to participate. Good for you!

"Obama's the bestest President ever!"

 

[daveman]

Forcing the industry players to compete against each other will lower prices. daveman, that is good market forces, right?

Sure, if you like centrally managed economies. Oh, wait, you know they never work, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

These tax cuts were in place in 2007 when the recession hit. How come that happened?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every time in recent memory that there has been a major tax cut, or set of tax cuts, the deficit has increased.

That might lead some people to believe there's a connection between the 2.

 

[Annie]

...

We have no idea really what the costs of the HC reform will be. It has to be lower than what has happened since we let the health insurance industry come between us and our doctors.

Incredibly we agree, first time for everything. We haven't a clue to the costs, but know they will be unsustainable.

Cause being Health Insurance? Yes, I do agree. A much better approach would have been to eliminate health care for normal procedures and doctor visits, encourage catastrophic insurance and have some safety net for those truly uninsurable-not those that choose not to insure against overwhelming costs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They are straw arguments, F, and you know it. But, the thing is, the bill will remain in force, there will be no repeal and replace, there will be expansion of it, and you will get to participate. Good for you!

And, oh? Quit whining to me privately, son. Do it here like a man.

<snip> because it does not count here /QUOTE]

"FU" doesn't count, sonny. Whenever you post here about things you do not understand you look like a fool. Then you whine instead of stand up. Here is some free advice.

Step off, you JBS clone.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"FU" doesn't count, sonny. Whenever you post here about things you do not understand you look like a fool. Then you whine instead of stand up. Here is some free advice.

Step off, you JBS clone.

The only private correspondence I have had with you was a perfunctory FU.
If you have a reason to believe the government will be any more "right" about its estimates on the cost of the new health care bill then they were on their previous attempts at prognostication present that rational.
If you have any rational argument to over look history present it .
Put away the juvenile asbo bluster and bring the reason.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2469828-post51.html

 

[Cuyo]

2. Taxes are currently as low as they've been in 80 years or so.

Under Reagan we only had two tax brackets, 15% and 28%.

Turns out that's true, for the last 2 years of the administration, although it was 50% or more for the first 6.

Thanks for pointing that out. '88-92 are the exception; Those years aside, the top bracket is at its lowest since 1931.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"FU" doesn't count, sonny. Whenever you post here about things you do not understand you look like a fool. Then you whine instead of stand up. Here is some free advice.

Step off, you JBS clone.

The only private correspondence I have had with you was a perfunctory FU.
If you have a reason to believe the government will be any more "right" about its estimates on the cost of the new health care bill then they were on their previous attempts at prognostication present that rational.
If you have any rational argument to over look history present it .
Put away the juvenile asbo bluster and bring the reason.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2469828-post51.html

You are the blusterer, I have corrected you before, I will do it again, and you will still look stupid. Quit whining, wipe.