Obamacare just got $111 BILLION more expensive..WTF???

[Syphon]

Tell it to SOROS as he fronts a tax-Exmpt group called Media Matters, jackass.

what does that have to do with Fox News admitting that it can legally lie?

The Liar is you.

prove i lied about this.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

whos the liar now douchebag....

 

[Neotrotsky]

snip

Really, re-posting the whole story, to tell us what

One would only hope that you know posting the whole thing
does not make you any more "true"
.... just annoying

What did you tell us new
nothing
More leftist dribble to hide from their collectivist past...
and failures

We will get it right, this time
because why?
we are not conservative- yeah that was the problem with communism
What colour is the sky in your world?

The issue is one of statism and collectivism
It may make you feel better to believe that Stalin was a "conservative"
and create the illusion in your mind, that socialism "will work" - this time

Did Stalin call for more gov't or less?
Did Stalin believe in centralization of gov't power?
Did Stalin try to control every element of a person's life?
Did Stalin believe gov't should be the dominant factor in all things?

Sure, conservative
Just like our Founding Fathers


Oh wait, this will be the next big lie of the Left
The Founding Fathers equate to the liberals of today

I wait for your next long post

 

[Full-Auto]

what does that have to do with Fox News admitting that it can legally lie?

The Liar is you.

prove i lied about this.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

whos the liar now douchebag....

Youve got to be fucking kidding me you douche bag...


Where the story originated you fucking douche.


Sierra Times

Check your source douche.

 

[Syphon]

The Liar is you.

prove i lied about this.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

whos the liar now douchebag....

Youve got to be fucking kidding me you douche bag...


Where the story originated you fucking douche.


Sierra Times

Check your source douche.

my sources? you havent provided a single source that proves the court case never happened or has been debunked.

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

Fox News Has a First Amendment Right to Lie - Updated | Library Grape
Fl Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
Florida Appeals Court to FOX News: It is OK to lie! | The Gippy Pages

thats about 10 links all showing the same thing. now provide one link that disproves this. douchebag
so apparently in your wing nut mind this never happened..

 

[Syphon]

The Liar is you.

prove i lied about this.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

whos the liar now douchebag....

Youve got to be fucking kidding me you douche bag...


Where the story originated you fucking douche.


Sierra Times

Check your source douche.

my sources? you havent provided a single source that proves the court case never happened or has been debunked.

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

Fox News Has a First Amendment Right to Lie - Updated | Library Grape
Fl Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
Florida Appeals Court to FOX News: It is OK to lie! | The Gippy Pages

thats about 10 links all showing the same thing. now provide one link that disproves this. douchebag
so apparently in your wing nut mind this never happened..

 

[Bfgrn]

snip

Really, re-posting the whole story, to tell us what

One would only hope that you know posting the whole thing
does not make you any more "true"
.... just annoying

What did you tell us new
nothing
More leftist dribble to hide from their collectivist past...
and failures

We will get it right, this time
because why?
we are not conservative- yeah that was the problem with communism
What colour is the sky in your world?

The issue is one of statism and collectivism
It may make you feel better to believe that Stalin was a "conservative"
and create the illusion in your mind, that socialism "will work" - this time

Did Stalin call for more gov't or less?
Did Stalin believe in centralization of gov't power?
Did Stalin try to control every element of a person's life?
Did Stalin believe gov't should be the dominant factor in all things?

Sure, conservative
Just like our Founding Fathers


Oh wait, this will be the next big lie of the Left
The Founding Fathers equate to the liberals of today

I wait for your next long post

Keep on chanting in short choppy phrases, it seems to be a way of not forgetting where you are at and convincing yourself you have a brain. But parrots chant too, so the size of your brain will never be larger than a pea.

Please give me ONE example of WHEN conservatives have EVER given us less government? Just ONE. Nixon? Reagan?? Bush???

Maybe state govt? Walker? Christie?? Scott???

Hey you; piss in this cup so government can test your bodily fluids. And BTW, your wife's uterus is property of the state.

OMFG...You have a plant growing in your back yard and you smoke it?...

HERE is your conservative Nanny State @ $30,000 - $40,000 per inmate per year...

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

Conservatives are not for less government, they are merely for less liberals running it.

 

[Listening]

what does that have to do with Fox News admitting that it can legally lie?

They all can legally lie.

It is a question of who does it and what consitutes a lie.

In your case...it is whenever you post or your lips are moving.

 

[Listening]

Wasn't this thread about how the government somehow underestimated something for 111 Billion ?

What happened to that.

 

[Syphon]

what does that have to do with Fox News admitting that it can legally lie?

They all can legally lie.

It is a question of who does it and what consitutes a lie.

In your case...it is whenever you post or your lips are moving.

whos the only news agency who went to court to argue for the right to lie? has ABC, NBC, CNN? Nope, Fox News is the only one who argued in front of the courts for the right to lie.

 

[Claudette]

ObamaCare is "good, cost effective health care coverage"? Sorry, Deanie...but ObamaCare is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written and passed by our great country. It doesn't address the costs of healthcare which was what the American people WANTED and it does add another massive unfunded entitlement program at a time when we're struggling to come up with ways to pay for the ones we already have on the books.

Another opportunity to point out the uncomfortable truth:

The ACA's got some of the right's favorite cost control ideas in it, including encouraging more use of higher-deductible plans and HSAs to give consumers more "skin in the game," as well as greater competition and consumer choice through allowing insurers to sell out-of-state or in multiple states. It even lifted the tort reform language from a Republican reform bill, Mike Enzi's 2008 "Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act."

Of course, it has cost control strategies liberals wanted to see like payment reform (rewarding performance, not volume) to move away from inflationary fee-for-service models, greater care coordination and attention to the costs of chronic illness, and more highly integrated care with shared savings for providers who cut costs.

It even has things both sides enjoy, like prevention and wellness incentives, movement toward using health information technology, and the creation of marketplaces where insurers will compete on price and quality. There's also the big drag on health spending, the coming end of the limitless tax subsidy that employer-sponsored insurance plans currently enjoy.



I'm not trying to dispel your obviously deep-seated suspicion that the world is out to fool you. I'm simply pointing out that the premise (and title) of this thread is incorrect.

And people like you are willing to turn a blind eye.

I'm watching very closely, believe me. I'm no more fond of stupid flubs than you.

So are you telling me that ObamaCare was a carefully crafted piece of legislation that addresses the cost of health care like the American people asked? Or would you admit that it was an incredibly badly written piece of legislation that doesn't solve what's wrong with our health care system?

Sorry, Greenbeard...but ObamaCare didn't address tort reform...it didn't address the spiraling costs of health care...all it did was shift who was going to pay the out of control costs.

Since anyone with eyes (and since you're watching very closely...I'm sure you know this!) is very aware...Government involvement in practically ANYTHING means that the costs go up, not down...then the long range costs of this program are going to be staggering. This first "bump" in the estimated cost is just a taste of what's in store for us down the road.

Yup. Anything the govt touches turns to shit in nothing flat.

It always ends up costing more than the projections. Although in this case they dicked with the numbers to get CBO approval.

The real cost will be coming out over time. Hope everyone has their Bayer aspirin handy to handle the heart attack they are gonna have when the final cost of this clusterfuck is finally know.

After all didn't we have to pass it before we found out what was in it?? Pelosi, Reid, Barry and the Dems, What a great bunch of fuck ups.

 

[Syphon]

Another opportunity to point out the uncomfortable truth:

The ACA's got some of the right's favorite cost control ideas in it, including encouraging more use of higher-deductible plans and HSAs to give consumers more "skin in the game," as well as greater competition and consumer choice through allowing insurers to sell out-of-state or in multiple states. It even lifted the tort reform language from a Republican reform bill, Mike Enzi's 2008 "Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act."

Of course, it has cost control strategies liberals wanted to see like payment reform (rewarding performance, not volume) to move away from inflationary fee-for-service models, greater care coordination and attention to the costs of chronic illness, and more highly integrated care with shared savings for providers who cut costs.

It even has things both sides enjoy, like prevention and wellness incentives, movement toward using health information technology, and the creation of marketplaces where insurers will compete on price and quality. There's also the big drag on health spending, the coming end of the limitless tax subsidy that employer-sponsored insurance plans currently enjoy.



I'm not trying to dispel your obviously deep-seated suspicion that the world is out to fool you. I'm simply pointing out that the premise (and title) of this thread is incorrect.



I'm watching very closely, believe me. I'm no more fond of stupid flubs than you.

So are you telling me that ObamaCare was a carefully crafted piece of legislation that addresses the cost of health care like the American people asked? Or would you admit that it was an incredibly badly written piece of legislation that doesn't solve what's wrong with our health care system?

Sorry, Greenbeard...but ObamaCare didn't address tort reform...it didn't address the spiraling costs of health care...all it did was shift who was going to pay the out of control costs.

Since anyone with eyes (and since you're watching very closely...I'm sure you know this!) is very aware...Government involvement in practically ANYTHING means that the costs go up, not down...then the long range costs of this program are going to be staggering. This first "bump" in the estimated cost is just a taste of what's in store for us down the road.

Yup. Anything the govt touches turns to shit in nothing flat.

It always ends up costing more than the projections. Although in this case they dicked with the numbers to get CBO approval.

The real cost will be coming out over time. Hope everyone has their Bayer aspirin handy to handle the heart attack they are gonna have when the final cost of this clusterfuck is finally know.

After all didn't we have to pass it before we found out what was in it?? Pelosi, Reid, Barry and the Dems, What a great bunch of fuck ups.

have you read what the GOP wants have in the replacement law for the ACA? its basically a rehash of the same law, minus the mandate and added in tort reform. so whats the real difference between the GOP solution and Dems?

i do think tort reform needed to be in the ACA and should be added subsequently by the way. but what is the GOP doing to contain costs in health care if their replacement legislation is basically the same of the dems? GOP.gov - The Website of the Republican Majority in Congress

 

[Greenbeard]

Wasn't this thread about how the government somehow underestimated something for 111 Billion ?

They didn't. White House FY13 budget numbers = 2010/2011 CBO projections.

 

[Trajan]

snip

Really, re-posting the whole story, to tell us what

One would only hope that you know posting the whole thing
does not make you any more "true"
.... just annoying

What did you tell us new
nothing
More leftist dribble to hide from their collectivist past...
and failures

We will get it right, this time
because why?
we are not conservative- yeah that was the problem with communism
What colour is the sky in your world?

The issue is one of statism and collectivism
It may make you feel better to believe that Stalin was a "conservative"
and create the illusion in your mind, that socialism "will work" - this time

Did Stalin call for more gov't or less?
Did Stalin believe in centralization of gov't power?
Did Stalin try to control every element of a person's life?
Did Stalin believe gov't should be the dominant factor in all things?

Sure, conservative
Just like our Founding Fathers


Oh wait, this will be the next big lie of the Left
The Founding Fathers equate to the liberals of today

I wait for your next long post

Keep on chanting in short choppy phrases, it seems to be a way of not forgetting where you are at and convincing yourself you have a brain. But parrots chant too, so the size of your brain will never be larger than a pea.

Please give me ONE example of WHEN conservatives have EVER given us less government? Just ONE. Nixon? Reagan?? Bush???

Maybe state govt? Walker? Christie?? Scott???

Hey you; piss in this cup so government can test your bodily fluids. And BTW, your wife's uterus is property of the state.

OMFG...You have a plant growing in your back yard and you smoke it?...

HERE is your conservative Nanny State @ $30,000 - $40,000 per inmate per year...

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

Conservatives are not for less government, they are merely for less liberals running it.

 

[Trajan]

....you just don't like being called on your BS. OC has gotten more expensive and keeps requiring tweaks here there everywhere and the rcie will rise incrementally under the radar or with huge swings like this one buried item, and like the good little boiler room drone you are, you'll squirm with endless palaver, bury yourself is barely comprehensible detail, till you are once again, boxed in.

Cue the incoherent sputtering. I assumed that was where you'd end up after running out of bullshit.

The CMS Actuaries' estimates for national health spending in the year 2020 are now $275 billion below their pre-reform estimates. Put on your thinking hat, I know how those kinds of "barely comprehensible details" confuse you.

I also question the costs part. Competition lowers the cost of products unless there is collusion in the pricing which may be the case here, as also may be government regulations among other things.

If it is simply competition the prices are lower than they would be if we only had one insurer for us all: a lot lower.

Prices of the services insurers are reimbursing for or the premiums insurers charge their enrollees?

sputtering? if I recall you played the wingnut and youtube card.......

I like the way you hacked the quote to pull out the inconvenient facts that don't fit in with your muzak, and hey I am not the one caught double clutching again, ala the CLASS Ac, as its always BS when faced with what you are in simple language....you don't know what to do with it.


for instance, you did it again, why use 2020? what happened to 2021?

and-

the difference between the two budgets is almost $20 billion, implying that exchange spending will be up by over $200 billion in the decade following 2021.


you couldn't tell it straight if your life depended on it, making you a hack, pure and simple. thats twice in this thread I have seen, where you have jigged a number or purposely changed data to suit your answer ignoring what was posted as a parameter.

 

[Listening]

You really need to educate yourself. Listening is right. Conservatives never had any intent on passing healthcare that would benefit the middle class and the poor.

Maybe you can explain that to dumbass Syphon.

again explain why someone would advocate for something just to vote against it? you keep avoiding the questions over and over again. sack up this time.

Already been explained braindead.

What part of that didn't you get ?

And I noticed you decided not to take on Madison after all.

How's that 5th grade history book working out for you.

Moron.

 

[Greenbeard]

for instance, you did it again, why use 2020? what happened to 2021?

The CMS actuaries' January 2012 update to their summer 2011 forecast only goes through 2020, genius.

the difference between the two budgets is almost $20 billion, implying that exchange spending will be up by over $200 billion in the decade following 2021.

...up to the original CBO predictions. Congratulations, we're back to exactly where we were in 2010 when the law passed. Cost projections remain unchanged.

 

[kiwiman127]

Another opportunity to point out the uncomfortable truth:

The ACA's got some of the right's favorite cost control ideas in it, including encouraging more use of higher-deductible plans and HSAs to give consumers more "skin in the game," as well as greater competition and consumer choice through allowing insurers to sell out-of-state or in multiple states. It even lifted the tort reform language from a Republican reform bill, Mike Enzi's 2008 "Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act."

Of course, it has cost control strategies liberals wanted to see like payment reform (rewarding performance, not volume) to move away from inflationary fee-for-service models, greater care coordination and attention to the costs of chronic illness, and more highly integrated care with shared savings for providers who cut costs.

It even has things both sides enjoy, like prevention and wellness incentives, movement toward using health information technology, and the creation of marketplaces where insurers will compete on price and quality. There's also the big drag on health spending, the coming end of the limitless tax subsidy that employer-sponsored insurance plans currently enjoy.



I'm not trying to dispel your obviously deep-seated suspicion that the world is out to fool you. I'm simply pointing out that the premise (and title) of this thread is incorrect.



I'm watching very closely, believe me. I'm no more fond of stupid flubs than you.

So are you telling me that ObamaCare was a carefully crafted piece of legislation that addresses the cost of health care like the American people asked? Or would you admit that it was an incredibly badly written piece of legislation that doesn't solve what's wrong with our health care system?

Sorry, Greenbeard...but ObamaCare didn't address tort reform...it didn't address the spiraling costs of health care...all it did was shift who was going to pay the out of control costs.

Since anyone with eyes (and since you're watching very closely...I'm sure you know this!) is very aware...Government involvement in practically ANYTHING means that the costs go up, not down...then the long range costs of this program are going to be staggering. This first "bump" in the estimated cost is just a taste of what's in store for us down the road.

Yup. Anything the govt touches turns to shit in nothing flat.

It always ends up costing more than the projections. Although in this case they dicked with the numbers to get CBO approval.

The real cost will be coming out over time. Hope everyone has their Bayer aspirin handy to handle the heart attack they are gonna have when the final cost of this clusterfuck is finally know.

After all didn't we have to pass it before we found out what was in it?? Pelosi, Reid, Barry and the Dems, What a great bunch of fuck ups.

Medicare Part D went from $400 billion costestimate at the time it was passed to an actual cost of $900 billion. In other words, this isn't anything new, both sides have done this and still there's no excuse for the jump for Obamacare. But on the upside, I think the Supremes will kill the mandated portion of Obamacare.

 

[Listening]

Yup. Anything the govt touches turns to shit in nothing flat.

It always ends up costing more than the projections. Although in this case they dicked with the numbers to get CBO approval.

The real cost will be coming out over time. Hope everyone has their Bayer aspirin handy to handle the heart attack they are gonna have when the final cost of this clusterfuck is finally know.

After all didn't we have to pass it before we found out what was in it?? Pelosi, Reid, Barry and the Dems, What a great bunch of fuck ups.

And they touch a great deal.

This whole thing is just a means-justify-the-ends effort.

They lie at will.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Troll thread

 

[Listening]

for instance, you did it again, why use 2020? what happened to 2021?

The CMS actuaries' January 2012 update to their summer 2011 forecast only goes through 2020, genius.

the difference between the two budgets is almost $20 billion, implying that exchange spending will be up by over $200 billion in the decade following 2021.

...up to the original CBO predictions. Congratulations, we're back to exactly where we were in 2010 when the law passed. Cost projections remain unchanged.

Keep spinning.

The fact remains their recent numbers were adjusted 111 Billion.

I realize that does not help your case.

Sorry.