Time To Apologize

[PoliticalChic]

What happened to the dozen or so posters who firmly espoused the President's claim that Obamacare would be a deficit saving program?

Now that it is clear that it is a deficit-buster, and the CBO merely rubber stamped the bogus assumptions put forth by power-grabbing Democrats, the silence is deafening.

Read and weep:

"On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf spoke at a conference on health care reform hosted by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. “The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

As Keith Hennessey put it Friday (h/t Reihan Salam), “Never before have I seen a CBO Director so bluntly refute the policy claims of a President and his Budget Director.” Elmendorf’s presentation, which included slides, helps to visualize the problem.

As you can see from the chart above, the two biggest drivers of federal spending on health care entitlements are the effects of aging (i.e., the retirement of the Baby Boomers), and the effects of excess cost growth (i.e., the rising cost of health care). Dealing with the first problem is theoretically easy, but politically difficult: raising the retirement age and/or means-testing Medicare benefits.

Dealing with the second problem involves free-market healthcare reforms that neither Elmendorf nor Obama consider. “It is not clear what specific policies the federal government can adopt to generate fundamental changes in the health system,” writes Elmendorf; “that is, it is not clear what specific policies would translate the potential for significant cost savings into reality.”
The Apothecary: CBO's Elmendorf Bluntly Rebukes Obamacare


(emphasis mine)

 

[jillian]

that was over TEN years....

but keep whinging.

 

[PoliticalChic]

that was over TEN years....

but keep whinging.

So, does your response indicate that you won't be here in ten years???

C'mon... don't let your age become depressing: look at Helen Thomas.

 

[WillowTree]

that was over TEN years....

but keep whinging.

oh.. I love to whing.. absolutely love to..

 

[saveliberty]

that was over TEN years....

but keep whinging.

Excellent point. The whole mess would look epically bad if they didn't collect money for four years before starting the program and running it for six.

 

[Claudette]

The bill sucks and I sure hope they can repeal this clusterfuck. Jeeze.

 

[Care4all]

“The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

doesn't this statement MEAN, obamacare has REDUCED/DIMINISHED that pressure, but not substantially? in other words, health care costs would be slightly higher and cost the gvt slightly more, without obamacare?

how can this be interpreted any other way, than what i said? huh?

 

[Oddball]

Now that it is clear that it is a deficit-buster, and the CBO merely rubber stamped the bogus assumptions put forth by power-grabbing Democrats, the silence is deafening.

In defense of the CBO, they only work with the numbers they are given.

Obviously, they were given phony numbers and stats.

 

[fyrenza]

Only by negating his presidency would we be able to free ourselves from the oppression ~

and make no mistake, we ARE in the process of being oppressed ~

and truly rebuild ourselves into the "Great Nation" that we WERE supposed to be.

We've seen the mistakes, on BOTH sides of the coin,

and we've just got to GET A GRIP,

Intend on getting ourselves back on track,

and then follow the plan,

which would have MAJOR Emergency S(tandard)O(perating)P(rocedure)s.

If not? I'm scared shitless that we're headed for another American Revolution.

 

[xsited1]

“The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

doesn't this statement MEAN, obamacare has REDUCED/DIMINISHED that pressure, but not substantially? in other words, health care costs would be slightly higher and cost the gvt slightly more, without obamacare?

how can this be interpreted any other way, than what i said? huh?

It means Obamacare did nothing. There are plenty of free market solutions, but our current 1-party rule is not interested in them. They'd rather have a big government solution which will do nothing to reduce the rising costs of health care as advertised. Obama fails again.

 

[Care4all]

“The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

doesn't this statement MEAN, obamacare has REDUCED/DIMINISHED that pressure, but not substantially? in other words, health care costs would be slightly higher and cost the gvt slightly more, without obamacare?

how can this be interpreted any other way, than what i said? huh?

It means Obamacare did nothing. There are plenty of free market solutions, but our current 1-party rule is not interested in them. They'd rather have a big government solution which will do nothing to reduce the rising costs of health care as advertised. Obama fails again.

so if obamacare ''did nothing'' it did not ADD money to the projected deficit problem?

 

[fyrenza]

“The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

doesn't this statement MEAN, obamacare has REDUCED/DIMINISHED that pressure, but not substantially? in other words, health care costs would be slightly higher and cost the gvt slightly more, without obamacare?

how can this be interpreted any other way, than what i said? huh?

Do you honestly not understand that NOTHING "costs the gov" more?

WE"RE "the gov."

WhatEver the rise in costs is,

those monies will come From US!

And THIS way? WITH the bill in place?

Those rising costs will rise even more, because of the "extras" contained in it,

meaning that no matter which way you cut this?

WE PAY MORE With it, than we pay without it.

(Not meaning to butt heads with a Mod, but ... sheesh)

 

[del]

“The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

doesn't this statement MEAN, obamacare has REDUCED/DIMINISHED that pressure, but not substantially? in other words, health care costs would be slightly higher and cost the gvt slightly more, without obamacare?

how can this be interpreted any other way, than what i said? huh?

It means Obamacare did nothing. There are plenty of free market solutions, but our current 1-party rule is not interested in them. They'd rather have a big government solution which will do nothing to reduce the rising costs of health care as advertised. Obama fails again.

so if obamacare ''did nothing'' it did not ADD money to the projected deficit problem?

not yet, but it will. look at what happened here in mass

 

[xsited1]

“The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

doesn't this statement MEAN, obamacare has REDUCED/DIMINISHED that pressure, but not substantially? in other words, health care costs would be slightly higher and cost the gvt slightly more, without obamacare?

how can this be interpreted any other way, than what i said? huh?

It means Obamacare did nothing. There are plenty of free market solutions, but our current 1-party rule is not interested in them. They'd rather have a big government solution which will do nothing to reduce the rising costs of health care as advertised. Obama fails again.

so if obamacare ''did nothing'' it did not ADD money to the projected deficit problem?

It most certainly will: "The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond." Since the 1-party rulers of our nation have made health care part of the Federal Budget, you can bet the deficit will skyrocket as do most entitlement programs. Since the GDP cannot keep up with government spending, we are headed for bankruptcy.

 

[rikules]

What happened to the dozen or so posters who firmly espoused the President's claim that Obamacare would be a deficit saving program?

Now that it is clear that it is a deficit-buster, and the CBO merely rubber stamped the bogus assumptions put forth by power-grabbing Democrats, the silence is deafening.

Read and weep:

"On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf spoke at a conference on health care reform hosted by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. “The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

As Keith Hennessey put it Friday (h/t Reihan Salam), “Never before have I seen a CBO Director so bluntly refute the policy claims of a President and his Budget Director.” Elmendorf’s presentation, which included slides, helps to visualize the problem.

As you can see from the chart above, the two biggest drivers of federal spending on health care entitlements are the effects of aging (i.e., the retirement of the Baby Boomers), and the effects of excess cost growth (i.e., the rising cost of health care). Dealing with the first problem is theoretically easy, but politically difficult: raising the retirement age and/or means-testing Medicare benefits.

Dealing with the second problem involves free-market healthcare reforms that neither Elmendorf nor Obama consider. “It is not clear what specific policies the federal government can adopt to generate fundamental changes in the health system,” writes Elmendorf; “that is, it is not clear what specific policies would translate the potential for significant cost savings into reality.”
The Apothecary: CBO's Elmendorf Bluntly Rebukes Obamacare


(emphasis mine)

I have always been
and continue to remain so
OPPOSED to mandatory/government (taxfunded) paid for health care

 

[Oddball]

The closest thing you'll ever get to an apology for a demopublicratican nanny state program, that is long on promise and short on delivering the goods:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXtWxhlsUg&feature=related]YouTube - Animal House--"You F'ed up, you trusted us"[/ame]

 

[Meister]

“The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond,” said Elmendorf. “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

doesn't this statement MEAN, obamacare has REDUCED/DIMINISHED that pressure, but not substantially? in other words, health care costs would be slightly higher and cost the gvt slightly more, without obamacare?

how can this be interpreted any other way, than what i said? huh?

It means Obamacare did nothing. There are plenty of free market solutions, but our current 1-party rule is not interested in them. They'd rather have a big government solution which will do nothing to reduce the rising costs of health care as advertised. Obama fails again.

so if obamacare ''did nothing'' it did not ADD money to the projected deficit problem?

Please show me where anything the government has touched that hasn't ended up a deficit problem?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What happened to the dozen or so posters who firmly espoused the President's claim that Obamacare would be a deficit saving program?

Now that it is clear that it is a deficit-buster, and the CBO merely rubber stamped the bogus assumptions put forth by power-grabbing Democrats, the silence is deafening.

Read and weep:

"On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf spoke..."

As Keith Hennessey put it Friday (h/t Reihan Salam), “Never before have I seen a CBO Director so bluntly refute the policy claims of a President and his Budget Director.” Elmendorf’s presentation, which included slides, helps to visualize the problem.

...

The Apothecary: CBO's Elmendorf Bluntly Rebukes Obamacare


(emphasis mine)

The article was Posted by somebody named Avik Roy, onTuesday, June 1, 2010, on his blog -- quoting a GW Bush economic policy advisor Keith Hennessey, on his blog, saying..."Never before have I seen a CBO Director so bluntly refute the policy claims of a President and his Budget Director."?



















whooooooooooooooooooooooooiiiee!!!! O L

 

[boedicca]

Now that it is clear that it is a deficit-buster, and the CBO merely rubber stamped the bogus assumptions put forth by power-grabbing Democrats, the silence is deafening.

In defense of the CBO, they only work with the numbers they are given.

Obviously, they were given phony numbers and stats.

Pelosi and Reid are political manipulators who know how to game the CBO score. The timing of taxes, expenditures, and transfers of funding from other programs were all designed to rig the score for PR/political purposes. It's fraud - of the same kind they are accusing (rightly so) Wall Street of committing regarding investment grade ratings.

 

[jillian]

that was over TEN years....

but keep whinging.

So, does your response indicate that you won't be here in ten years???

C'mon... don't let your age become depressing: look at Helen Thomas.

actially, we're about the same age if i recall correctly, although i think this isn't the first time you've made a stupid comment like that. but that's to be expected from an ignorant woman like you.

my response is that i think you're an idiot.