Why Obamacare Is Sinking

[cobra de capell]

Why Obamacare Is Sinking
You can’t fake health-care nirvana in legislation.
By Charles Krauthammer

What happened to Obamacare? Rhetoric met reality. As both candidate and president, the master rhetorician could conjure a world in which he bestows upon you health-care nirvana: more coverage, less cost.

But you can’t fake it in legislation. Once you commit your fantasies to words and numbers, the Congressional Budget Office comes along and declares that the emperor has no clothes.

President Obama premised the need for reform on the claim that medical costs are destroying the economy. True. But now we learn — surprise! — that universal coverage increases costs. The congressional Democrats’ health-care plans, says the CBO, increase costs in the range of $1 trillion plus.

In response, the president retreated to a demand that any bill he sign be revenue-neutral. But that’s classic misdirection: If the fierce urgency of health-care reform is to radically reduce costs that are producing budget-destroying deficits, revenue neutrality (by definition) leaves us on precisely the same path to insolvency that Obama himself declares unsustainable.

Snip......

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...YzZWJhZmZjOWU=
______

Under ObamaCare (HR3200)http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.03200: one of the health care options that must be discussed with seniors during the mandated "counselling" sessions is "palliative care" (read the definition yourself - it's scaryhttp://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/palliative.html) This option also applies to patiesnt suffering from ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease) aka kidney failure, which affects many patients with diabetics in it's later stages.

It hasn't gone away yet, so if you have a few years on an old body, think about kissing your ass goodbye......

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

Why Obamacare Is Sinking
You can’t fake health-care nirvana in legislation.
By Charles Krauthammer

What happened to Obamacare? Rhetoric met reality. As both candidate and president, the master rhetorician could conjure a world in which he bestows upon you health-care nirvana: more coverage, less cost.

But you can’t fake it in legislation. Once you commit your fantasies to words and numbers, the Congressional Budget Office comes along and declares that the emperor has no clothes.

President Obama premised the need for reform on the claim that medical costs are destroying the economy. True. But now we learn — surprise! — that universal coverage increases costs. The congressional Democrats’ health-care plans, says the CBO, increase costs in the range of $1 trillion plus.

In response, the president retreated to a demand that any bill he sign be revenue-neutral. But that’s classic misdirection: If the fierce urgency of health-care reform is to radically reduce costs that are producing budget-destroying deficits, revenue neutrality (by definition) leaves us on precisely the same path to insolvency that Obama himself declares unsustainable.

Snip......

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...YzZWJhZmZjOWU=
______

Under ObamaCare (HR3200)http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.03200: one of the health care options that must be discussed with seniors during the mandated "counselling" sessions is "palliative care" (read the definition yourself - it's scaryhttp://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/palliative.html) This option also applies to patiesnt suffering from ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease) aka kidney failure, which affects many patients with diabetics in it's later stages.

It hasn't gone away yet, so if you have a few years on an old body, think about kissing your ass goodbye......

If you read all that the CBO and JCT have to say, the REASON the "AFFORDABLE" [Ho, Ho comedy name] health care bill will only ADD nearly 1.1 TRILLION to the deficit is that there "could: be $239 billion in savings and WILL be a $700 billion INCREASE in taxes. Of course, if that is pointed out, the obamaidiots will say that will be paid by the rich. But the rich ALWAYS manage to do 2 things, Find loopholes [which ARE legal] and they run the taxes through a business. And the business passes the increased costs on to---------------wait for it-----------------I bet you already KNOW!!

So we can choose between not being able to afford health insurance [NOT health care] and not being able to afford anything.

[cobra de capell]

Here's the deal, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are going BK in a few years. Now, Obama wants to take over health care for all Americans. What are the chances that anyone, including the CBO knows what's going to happen down the road once the government gets directly involved? Any costs estimates that you see, triple them and even that will not cover it. Nothing produced and managed by the government comes in on budget - nothing.

At the end of the day, here's the deal......

[Ron61]

But with her usual stupidity Pelosi can't face the fact she doesn't run everything.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/...NhbG9uZWNhbg--

Ron

[cobra de capell]

GO, Blue Dogs, GO!

[Wes Tausend]

...

We need a third party.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats will ever achieve anything of substance to save the working class (who actually produce 100% of the nations wealth) any money at all ...and our middleclass taxes will apparentally just keep going up no matter which is in office. Why? Well, I theorize neither can take the political hit. If either would ever achieve anything meaningful on their respective platform, they would then lose that significant part of the platform that is the vital rhetoric to incite voters. Curse them all.

The other reason socialized Obama-care is sinking ...follow the money.

In reference to CDC's Charles Krauthammer link ...Tort reform. On a different note, socializing public well-being seems to automatically install immunity to frivilous lawsuits.

Imagine that all our police protection was not a government run entity. Imagine that we all hired police protection, or "police insurance", from private enterprise instead. This is possible because both private security and private investigators are part of current availiable private enterprise competing with government. Now imagine it cost $1000/month per family for this private police protection. First of all, it would be a ripoff because somebody would be making beaucoup coin off of us. But also, since the police protection was private, we could sue for non-performance, whereas one cannot sue government police. So the private "health" enterprise might find it necessary to carry pricey liability insurance, a real cost born by ...you guessed it ...the working class, of course. Now imagine somebody trying to reform police protection by making it a socialized enterprise again. Same story as the above link on lobbying. Follow the money.

I currently pay about $240 a month (city taxes) for all local service including police. That is cheap compared to $1000/mo, plus whatever co-pay, for local medical health insurance costs.

I only pay about $1000/mo, partly for current "national health" coverage in the form of military protection, safe roads etc. Of course, I'm "not paying my bill". Not paying isn't called default, it's called budget deficit.

Conclusion: Government run stuff is comparatively cheap as long as we don't actually pay the bill.

Food for thought.

Wes

...

[cobra bill]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

GO, Blue Dogs, GO!

Oh they will be going, 2010

[cobra de capell]

It would be best for you to not attempt humorous posts - they just turn out silly and more than passingly strange.

[cobra bill]

For such a little man you sure like to act big, is it small dog syndrome?

[Wes Tausend]

...

Traditionally when one party makes a sweep in elections, they crumple up like a wet newspaper next election.

Just thought I'd try to get one of the last posts as the CDC/c_b teams kicks in.

Wes

...

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

For such a little man you sure like to act big, is it small dog syndrome?

No, I'm standing next to you.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

...

Traditionally when one party makes a sweep in elections, they crumple up like a wet newspaper next election.

Just thought I'd try to get one of the last posts as the CDC/c_b teams kicks in.

Wes

...

We can only pray that that will happen in 2010....


Anyway.....

10 Questions for Supporters of 'ObamaCare'

1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?

Snip......http://townhall.com/columnists/Denni...s_of_obamacare

[cobra de capell]

"I'm from Obama-Care and I'm here to help"

[cobra de capell]

From the web......well stated......

It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska.

All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary

(Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change.

Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life.

In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing.

What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises.

Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression].

Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think.

How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex.

He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media–did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.

When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years–a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency–it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course.

The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe–and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

[Dan40]

I agree with CdC above.
Back to health care.
CBO says health care plan would increase the deficit by 1 Trillion +, over 10 years.
obamites say revenue neutral. [thought the idea was to save, no savings why do it]
We do have a single payer Government run health care plan now! It is named MEDICARE! [medicaid is a completely different program, there is no connection between the 2]
Medicare is not a bad program, I am on it and have no problems with it in re: treatment, Doctors, or choices.

HOWEVER, There ARE lessons here!!

Medicare will be bankrupt in 2017. [that is the day after tomorrow]
Medicare started in 1965. Then and now, you must be 65 to be on Medicare [or disabled] But then 1965, the life expectancy in the US was BELOW 65. So only a small percentage of Americans were covered and mortality rates "would" keep that number 'small!'
So small numbers for only a short time. THAT worked well!
In its 44 years history it has cost just below $5,000,000,000,000. [$5 TRILLION, and started with small numbers and 1965 prices]
So each decade has cost on average, a Trillion dollars. And it is going broke. Medicare may not have covered a total of 300,000,000 people in its entire history. Now a new program will cover over 300 million A YEAR, for a similar amount of money. IMPOSSIBLE!! Not difficult, not unlikely, not 'challenging,' IMPOSSIBLE!
And Medicare is a long established Gov. program with few troubles and has undergone numerous adjustments over the years. Its ONLY problems are that it is going broke and it is unsustainable.

Isn't that a lesson?

[cobra bill]

And a good lesson at that, so what went wrong, 2 things Reagan allowed the healthcare system to go from a none profit system to a for profit system, and Medicare part B written into law by the drug companies, fix those two and problem solved.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

And a good lesson at that, so what went wrong, 2 things Reagan allowed the healthcare system to go from a none profit system to a for profit system, and Medicare part B written into law by the drug companies, fix those two and problem solved.

"none" profit, don't you mean "non-profit", space? What's with all the street slang?

Plus, I doubt that your view that it’s all Reagan's fault and how to fix anything will be implemented any time soon, thank God. We have sufficient liberal ideas to deal with, get back to work.

[cobra bill]

OK ya got me, I don't always have time to proof read, if you look it up though you will discover that it was Ragan that did it.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

OK ya got me, I don't always have time to proof read, if you look it up though you will discover that it was Ragan that did it.

Ragan?

That was clearly on purpose - I'll ask you one more time - please stay off my threads. You are sloppy with words and so dull that you bring out the dullness in others.

[Stentor]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

And a good lesson at that, so what went wrong, 2 things Reagan allowed the healthcare system to go from a none profit system to a for profit system, and Medicare part B written into law by the drug companies, fix those two and problem solved.

cobra bill (a.k.a., healthcare maven), please educate me on how the drug companies wrote the law for Medicare Part B.

Medicare Part B covers physician outpatient services and and a subset of physician-administered (e.g., injected) drugs.

Incidentally, there was major reform under the Bush administration in 2004 to how drugs are reimbursed under Medicare Part B. The issue was that some physicians (e.g., oncologists) were making a lot of money on the drugs they administered to patients (profiting on the spread--or difference in price--between what they could buy a drug for and what they were reimbursed by Medicare). This had nothing to do with the drug companies. This reform implemented under the Bush administration has helped decrease waste and excess spending in Medicare.