Obama Did Lie!

[Annie]

but about 'preventative care.' I found this at politifact, thanks, Jillian:

PolitiFact | Obama says preventive care saves money. It doesn't.

President Barack Obama defended his health care plan in a speech to a joint session of Congress, promoting the benefits of reform for those who already have coverage.

One of those benefits, he said, is that insurers will be required to cover checkups and other preventive care.

"Insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies — because there’s no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse," Obama said. "That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."

It may make sense and save lives, but does it save money? Experts say no.

The head of the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group that does all the number-crunching for Congress, has said this isn't the case, despite claims from many Democrats to the contrary.

"The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, the top Republican on a congressional subcommittee involved in the debate.

Elmendorf explained that, while the cost of a simple test might be cheap for each individual, the cumulative cost of many tests could be quite expensive:

"But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. . . Preventive care can have the largest benefits relative to costs when it is targeted at people who are most likely to suffer from a particular medical problem; however, such targeting can be difficult because preventive services are generally provided to patients who have the potential to contract a given disease but have not yet shown symptoms of having it."

In fact, a new government policy to encourage prevention could end up paying for services that people are already receiving, including breast and colon cancer screenings and vaccines, Elmendorf went on....

 

[KittenKoder]

One of many ... good find though Annie.

 

[Xenophon]

Of course he lied.

Was there any doubt?

 

[Annie]

One of many ... good find though Annie.

Indeed, but no sense in overload.

 

[Sinatra]

One of the amusing side notes is that so many who are angered at Joe Wilson declaring "You lie!" during Obama's speech, are not denying the high probability that Obama did in fact lie, but that Wilson stated it so openly.

As for the charges of racism being a motivator, that little disgusting campaign is only playing to the very far left crowd - it's backfiring big time for against this White House and making Joe Wilson something of a folk hero to the growing number of Americans tired of the Big Government death spiral we as a nation have been engaged in for far too long...

 

[Maple]

These folks just do not know what they are doing with this, one day you read one thing, the next day another. President Obama is clueless about what's in these bills.

Does it bother you guys that you see no physicians, no hospital administrators, no insurance people, no CPA's doing anything on health care reform. We have a bunch of morons who have never done anything but be a politician trying to revamp 6% of our economy.

Why don't they call in the experts, let them hash this out over a 6 month period and see what they come up with. I will tell you why, they aren't that damn smart.

 

[jillian]

but about 'preventative care.' I found this at politifact, thanks, Jillian:

hey, kath...where are all your threads calling the freaks talking about 2 million people at the 9.12 event liars?

thanks for proving that you've turned into a blowhard.

cheers!

as for politifact, if you can get your head out of your rear long enough to actually get your brain oxygenated again, you'd know I'm all for them calling everyone on their inaccuracies.

you?

only if it suits your political agenda.

now...if you didn't feel like doing the personal thing, kathianne, this might have made for an interesting discussion.

once again...seriously, go destress til you can act like a person again.

 

[Sinatra]

but about 'preventative care.' I found this at politifact, thanks, Jillian:

hey, kath...where are all your threads calling the freaks talking about 2 million people at the 9.12 event liars?

thanks for proving that you've turned into a blowhard.

cheers!

as for politifact, if you can get your head out of your rear long enough to actually get your brain oxygenated again, you'd know I'm all for them calling everyone on their inaccuracies.

you?

only if it suits your political agenda.

now...if you didn't feel like being a freak, this might have made for an interesting discussion.

Maybe they took their cue from Obama.

Obama lied...

 

[jillian]

thanks for your ever valuable input.

 

[Ringel05]

These folks just do not know what they are doing with this, one day you read one thing, the next day another. President Obama is clueless about what's in these bills.

Does it bother you guys that you see no physicians, no hospital administrators, no insurance people, no CPA's doing anything on health care reform. We have a bunch of morons who have never done anything but be a politician trying to revamp 6% of our economy.

Why don't they call in the experts, let them hash this out over a 6 month period and see what they come up with. I will tell you why, they aren't that damn smart.

But, but, but they are experts. They're all lawyers, who else would be able to insert the loop holes and fine print that excludes them from participation in any way shape or form from the final passed version.

 

[Polk]

This is a really retarded argument.
Is the upfront cost higher? Yes. Does preventive care reduce long-run cost? Yes.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This is a really retarded argument.
Is the upfront cost higher? Yes. Does preventive care reduce long-run cost? Yes.

But.... That's not what Obama said.

Move the goalposts much?

 

[Annie]

but about 'preventative care.' I found this at politifact, thanks, Jillian:

hey, kath...where are all your threads calling the freaks talking about 2 million people at the 9.12 event liars?

thanks for proving that you've turned into a blowhard.

cheers!

as for politifact, if you can get your head out of your rear long enough to actually get your brain oxygenated again, you'd know I'm all for them calling everyone on their inaccuracies.

you?

only if it suits your political agenda.

now...if you didn't feel like doing the personal thing, kathianne, this might have made for an interesting discussion.

once again...seriously, go destress til you can act like a person again.

I don't know where 'all those threads are', Jillian, why don't you search them out? Seriously, the numbers don't matter to me, there were lots. Enough to scare the politicos that aren't ideologues, which are most.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money."

Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."

Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.

Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

That's a hypothetical case. What's the real-life actuality in the United States today? A study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success," the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country's total medical bill by 162 percent. Elmendorf additionally cites a definitive assessment in the New England Journal of Medicine that reviewed hundreds of studies on preventive care and found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing illness. Of course we should. But in medicine, as in life, there is no free lunch. The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment -- that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them -- is simply nonsense.

RealClearPolitics - More Health Care Nonsense

 

[skookerasbil]

The best article Ive read to date >>>> Thomas Sowell : Listening to a Liar: Part II - Townhall.com.............called "Listening to a Liar", written of course, by the omnipotent Thomas Sowell, who sums up the shameless fraud that is Obama on healthcare. Sowell completely disarms the lefty pronunciations on health care in two short pages of text!!!


fcukking classic....................

 

[jillian]

This is a really retarded argument.
Is the upfront cost higher? Yes. Does preventive care reduce long-run cost? Yes.

But.... That's not what Obama said.

Move the goalposts much?

if it reduces long-term cost why would he have to specify? personally, i would think that's common sense anyway...larger initial investment with a pay-off later on.

 

[xotoxi]

...To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway...

But the purpose of preventive care is not to avert acute illnesses...

It is to prevent chronic diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, cancers, etc...all of which are very costly to treat.

 

[Annie]

This is a really retarded argument.
Is the upfront cost higher? Yes. Does preventive care reduce long-run cost? Yes.

Not so.

 

[Annie]

This is a really retarded argument.
Is the upfront cost higher? Yes. Does preventive care reduce long-run cost? Yes.

But.... That's not what Obama said.

Move the goalposts much?

if it reduces long-term cost why would he have to specify? personally, i would think that's common sense anyway...larger initial investment with a pay-off later on.

Where are the results of your search of my posts? No curiosity to your own questions?

 

[Meister]

This is a really retarded argument.
Is the upfront cost higher? Yes. Does preventive care reduce long-run cost? Yes.

It reduces the long run cost to the few that would have become afflicted with whatever the affliction would have been. But much more costly in the long run with the majority that would have never been afflicted with whatever the affliction would have been.
Bottom line it would be a very costly endeavor.