« Need A Laugh... (sigh) |
| Health Care Obama Style »
March 22, 2010 in Health and Science, Politics | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
yeah, it's going to be just like 1994, the last time the democrats passed heatlhcare... oh wait.
anyways, save your energy james. the big conservative freakout is going to occur over immigration reform.
March 22, 2010 at 06:38 PM
No doubt Derek. It's all hands on deck for the Dems. Everything from this day forward will be against the will of the people.
But that means nothing to a leftist like yourself right? 9 months to get r done Derek. Then the gig is up.
That is unless Obama suspends elections. I bet you'd have an excuse for that too, wouldn't ya.
Clocks ticking commie!
James T. |
March 22, 2010 at 06:49 PM
I'm normally pretty optimistic but have to disagree on this one. You see back in November of 2008 people, without understanding of the core fundamentals of the founding of this once great nation, voted for a president that promised them that he was going to run their lives. The reason for this is they have a skewed moral compass which doesn't allow for them to see the downside of this most insidious horror that has come to pass on all citizens of this country and the neighboring countries. Until they are victimized by the very plan they have rallied for they will not understand. For some it will be to late. I hope that November will prove me wrong but for now my gut says differently.
March 22, 2010 at 06:54 PM
"But that means nothing to leftist like yourself right?"
Not really. Short term loss (won't even be that much of a loss) for large long term gain. It's not like the GOP is actually going to repeal healthcare. For all the nonsense someone like Noel says, the actual impact of doing away with obamacare would mean getting rid of these things:
Within a year
-- Provides a $250 rebate to Medicare prescription drug plan beneficiaries whose initial benefits run out.
90 days after enactment
-- Provides immediate access to high-risk pools for people who have no insurance because of preexisting conditions.
Six months after enactment
-- Bars insurers from denying people coverage when they get sick.
-- Bars insurers from denying coverage to children who have preexisting conditions.
-- Bars insurers from imposing lifetime caps on coverage.
-- Requires insurers to allow young people to stay on their parents' policies until age 26.
that all happens this year. and you're insane if you think you're going to campaign on taking money from seniors and taking away healthcare coverage from kids.
heads i win, tails you lose
March 22, 2010 at 07:08 PM
Derek = Diversion
Stop with the dumb ass talking points. This bill provides nothing because we have no money and the Chinese are not going to fund it.
Get that Derek?
There is no heads or tails because we'll be printing the money. Can you say hyper-inflation Derek?
What does that do to your cost analysis?
Don't mention money again Derek. You can't count and anyone with half a brain in his head knows that the passing of this bill was about control and power.
Crow about that while you can.
James T. |
March 22, 2010 at 07:27 PM
"...$250 rebate to Medicare prescription drug plan beneficiaries whose initial benefits run out."
So derek... after the elderly person spends the $250... what the H#ll do they do... since as you say the benefits have run out.
Oh, wait perhaps you had the answer in a different posting comment: die.
Governor Richard D. Lamm, Democrat of Colorado who said back in 1984 that the old had “a duty to die.” The keep-em-poor-and-on-the-plantation Dems have been thinking about this for a long, long time!
March 22, 2010 at 07:34 PM
"So derek... after the elderly person spends the $250... what the H#ll do they do... since as you say the benefits have run out."
that's the "donut hole" fix, so it's 250 bucks more then they used to get. i mean, what's your grand solution? kill obamacare so the elderly are back to getting nothing when their medicare part d benefits run out?
March 22, 2010 at 07:42 PM
OK... so they get $250 in 2010... a 50% discount on drugs in 2011... and in 2020 the donut hole will supposedly be closed. At 50% discount the $900 for one month's drugs for an elderly person is still $450 ... out of their pocket? Where are they ahead?
BTW: The bill also includes Medicare cuts totaling $50 billion per year over the next decade... and so do boomers just magically disappear or what?
Short-term sugar, long-term trouble for Dems. Eventually the piper has to be paid.
March 22, 2010 at 08:23 PM
One more point to address the derek laundry list: the costs start right away on top of an economy that already STINKS.
Immediate benefits need to be funded, when? After 2012 election?
Upside down pyramids can fall over really fast.
We don't need to campaign on taking money away from seniors, poor... we just need to keep reminding people: TAXES. And if you live in TAXCONSIN as I do... you know how easily it will be to defeat the over-spending democrats and rinos.
March 22, 2010 at 09:00 PM
well, spending less money shrinks the economy, i think it's ass backwards to be concerned about the immediate deficit while in a recession. When those seniors get a 250 dollar check, they don't simply throw it in a furnace. but now that i think about it, i've never actually looked at a year by year budget outlook for this legislation.
2010: 6 billion
2011: 1 billion
2012: -10 billion
2013: -55 billion
2014: -51 billion
2015: -20 billion
2016: 3 billion
2017: 4 billion
2018: -5 billion
2019: -15 billion
somewhat upside down, but not by some huge amount. i mean seriously, assuming you voted for reagan and bush jr, you've definitly supported way more fiscally irresponsible things then that.
March 22, 2010 at 09:23 PM
Yada, yada, yada, yada.
James T. |
March 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Go back to arithmetic class man-child. Real figures cannot be foretold. CBO had fantasy figures.
Even the left-leaning NYT disputes the cost of this cr@p bill:
March 22, 2010 at 10:19 PM
One more point... if by some wild chance the dems hold on to control... what makes anyone think there will be a plug nickel to pay for this crap.
They cannot stop spending.
March 22, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Derek is funny, I'm quite sure that he opposed the Bush tax rebates, yet he supports the Obama ones. No double standard there. Yet the question remains...who pays, and who suffers? The CBO scores what's before them. Garbage in, garbage out. But Derek won't have to worry about his future if he gets his dream job, because he'll be comfortable sucking on the Government teat...and we'll be paying for it. I passed on the ideologue bit, as a fun treat to my Conservative friends. But the more that I think about it.......it's true. I think that Derek data mines for bits of information that support his own world view and ignores info, (ironically from the same websites that he links to to prove his points), that disagree with his opinion. (Yes Derek, I do read your links). And Derek, the reason that assumptions are made about your personal situation are because: A, you have said nothing to deny them or offer anything contrary, and B, no decent man could have a wife and children and be able to look them in the eye and give a compelling argument in support of your belief system. You're kind of like a seagull. You fly in, make a bunch of noise, crap all over everything, and fly away again. Probably retiring to your mother's basement or a flat with your roommates. Remember Grasshopper, your Kung Fu is weak here. Couching your views in a bit of civility from time to time does nothing to tear you away from the fact that you hate all things Conservative. So why then do you continue to participate in a forum where you have no influence and you are seen as a fool? Are you really a closet Conservative whose ashamed and is looking for a place to "Come Out"? It's OK...really
March 22, 2010 at 10:59 PM
it's an editorial page, you'll find all kinds of right wing nonsense on it, NYT or not. what you mean that even one of mccain's advisors disputes the cost. (i'm surprised they don't list that as one of his former occupations)
it's really a lot to respond to a mostly technical. Some of what he rights is true (the 114 billion in spending that isn't counted) some is false (there really is 70 billion in premiums to be raised) and some is just stupid (whether or not student loan reform has to deal with healthcare, it still saves 18 billion).
to me, the facts are pretty simple. All the budgetary gimmicks in the world can't hide the cost of the bill past 10 years. Yet the CBO shows 1.2 trillion in savins from 2020 to 2029. So yeah, you can whine about obama hiding the front end cost of his legislation, but you have no ground to stand on if you want to say costs eventually exceed revenue.
But to get back to the meat of the article, the author essentially gets the vast bulk of his number by pretty much saying that no medicare savings will happen. His argument is essentially that congress will overturn the spending cuts they just voted for. That's not an argument. If you can't expect them to keep promises on this legislation, then you can't expect them to keep promises on ANY legislation. You'd be essentially arguing that congress should never plan to do anything. If you truly believe that, then america has way bigger problems than having to pay for healthcare.
March 22, 2010 at 11:28 PM
"...you have no ground to stand on if you want to say costs eventually exceed revenue."
See derek... that's where you are wrong. It's the same simple reason SSI and medicare is belly up... the boomer population. Fewer people working paying the taxes... more people reaping the benefits. That huge population will bankrupt Obamacare.
You gonna tell me there are more kids out there to pay for this cr@p?
March 22, 2010 at 11:36 PM
@ bryce, i still come here because it's one of the few talk radio type conservative sites i can still stomach. plus, James isn't a nazi with his forum. So when i do feel the need to comment, which is a lot, i can do it.
James isn't that prolific a poster so he's usually late to the party on most things, but i'd rather read him than Malkin, which is the person he most reminds me of as far as style. But i need that window to the conservative echo chamber. You people practically have your own mythology. So I try to stay hip to it.
I consume all things political. this just happens to be my talk radio conservative way stop.
March 22, 2010 at 11:53 PM
"You gonna tell me there are more kids out there to pay for this cr@p?"
if we had a logical immigration policy...
March 22, 2010 at 11:59 PM
If we didn't have Democrats, immigration reform could be quite easy.
First, we could make it easy to gain U.S. citizenship so that more people can come here and start businesses and work as employees.
Second, we could become a huge tax haven so people want to come here and start those businesses.
Third, we could strip the government of its abilities to spy on us like in the Patriot Act
Fourth, we could leave most domestic policies to states so that immigrants would be free to pick and choose.
Of course, with Democrats, everything has to be federal. Federal health care. Federal education. Federal social security.
And, since amnesty would likely make it easier for Democrats to stay in office, trying to get more immigrants legalized actually leads to making this country a harder place to live.
Dan K. |
March 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM
Of course, being a tax haven wouldn't be a national mandate. The U.S. could eliminate (and then outlaw, so government doesn't grow) all federal taxes except something like a consumption tax. Then liberal states could tax more income if they wanted and create, yes, "welfare states." Poor people who wanted to use those states for the welfare could, and rich people who just need a place to plop a mansion could go to the tax haven states.
It'd be very interesting to see how states fared if they were given more freedom to govern themselves.
Dan K. |
March 23, 2010 at 12:45 AM
Dan K. that will never happen in obamaland... need to "spread the wealth".
Translation: Elites power/ money controllers. Commoners (workers) subservient peons.
Sounds like USSR, doesn't it?
March 23, 2010 at 08:11 AM
Thanks Derek for your honesty.
March 23, 2010 at 08:51 AM
I guess I use the same reasoning when I look at lefty sites. I don't post though. That would be like throwing chum into a school of sharks.
March 23, 2010 at 08:56 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.