Obamacare to be MUCH MUCH More Expensive than promised!

[woolfe9999]

It's still the wrong solution for the wrong problem. Why didn't we have a comprehensive examination in advance of legislation? Because of political expediency? You bet it is. There is neither wit nor will to tackle health care and make it what it ought to be. You might as well say the solution to bad jurisprudence is to build more court houses.

We can debate that, but I have to say, you can't just use every opportunity to make these points about this law. This thread is about what certainly appears, once again, to be the GOP, and its propaganda arm (Foxnews), lying about the bill. Integrity is important whether you support a piece of legislation or not. The fact is, this is easily the most lied about piece of legislation in US history. And the lie quotient is much, much higher from its opponents than from its proponents. Would you agree that any sensible discussion about legislation has to start with an understanding about the facts, and that we must not only discard, but actively disapprove of any misinformation being given?

As someone who does not support the bill, you should consider that all this lying isn't helping the case against it on the merits. A sensible observer might ask the question, if this bill is really that bad on its own merit, why the need to lie about it so often? The facts about the bill ought to be sufficiently damning that no lies are needed.

I kind of feel that you tend to overlook the GOP's dishonesty about this bill because you don't support the bill. Not that you approve of their lying - I'm sure you don't- but that you'd rather not discuss it.

- wolf

 

[superccs]

What global super power doesn't have functioning socialized medicine, education, public high speed transport, universally available 50Mbit internet, and a space program thats still worth a shit?

You get one guess.

 

[Throckmorton]

Then give people a dollar for dollar tax credit towards premiums if they do.

Only the very poor...

 

[dank69]

Then give people a dollar for dollar tax credit towards premiums if they do.

You better edit that post quick before the other conservatives notice that you want poor people to have negative income tax burden.

 

[bfdd]

What global super power doesn't have functioning socialized medicine, education, public high speed transport, universally available 50Mbit internet, and a space program thats still worth a shit?

You get one guess.

China, because across all of China they do not have these things. Like the USA it is a very big country with people spread all across.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The main point of "Obamacare" isn't to cover people. It's to force them to buy insurance.

No. Wrong answer.

It is to make it so that the government does not have to pay emergency care for people who do NOT get insurance (because they believe they do not need it) and have no obtainable assets that can be claimed for payment.

Everybody is so scared that "Big gubbermint" is going to force them into some sort of communist death camp where they will be forced to buy insurance.

Look around. All you have to do is relabel the taxes you pay and Lo and Behold you are paying for the police you have never used, the schools you do not have kids for, roads you have never traveled on and other items.

Opponents just choose to single this out as if it were some mandatory expenditure (and forced legislation to be written as such instead of a tax item).

Wouldn't it be nice if they find that the net $$ spent on this by the average american is less than current health care premiums, provides a healthier work force, and frees up cash for spending on other items (improving the economy)?

For a "United" States, we are really very self-centered.

 

[senseamp]

Then give people a dollar for dollar tax credit towards premiums if they do.

How about a dollar for dollar tax credit for medical bills?

 

[Throckmorton]

No. Wrong answer.

It is to make it so that the government does not have to pay emergency care for people who do NOT get insurance (because they believe they do not need it) and have no obtainable assets that can be claimed for payment.

Everybody is so scared that "Big gubbermint" is going to force them into some sort of communist death camp where they will be forced to buy insurance.

Look around. All you have to do is relabel the taxes you pay and Lo and Behold you are paying for the police you have never used, the schools you do not have kids for, roads you have never traveled on and other items.

Opponents just choose to single this out as if it were some mandatory expenditure (and forced legislation to be written as such instead of a tax item).

Wouldn't it be nice if they find that the net $$ spent on this by the average american is less than current health care premiums, provides a healthier work force, and frees up cash for spending on other items (improving the economy)?

For a "United" States, we are really very self-centered.

I think you mistook me for a conservative. My issue is not with covering everybody, it's with the mandate being placed on people instead of employers and the government.

There are enough people who can't even get by, and now we're going to force them to buy insurance... How about forcing employers to provide insurance? I believe the healthcare bill only requires full time workers to be provided with insurance. You're out of luck if you work 3 PT jobs.

 

[Ausm]

What global super power doesn't have functioning socialized medicine, education, public high speed transport, universally available 50Mbit internet, and a space program thats still worth a shit?

You get one guess.

Japan....do I win?

 

[Ausm]

Then give people a dollar for dollar tax credit towards premiums if they do.

LOL only if you are dirt poor.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You better edit that post quick before the other conservatives notice that you want poor people to have negative income tax burden.

Simple, change it to a deduction.

Net Zero should always be in place, no one should be getting paid net positive dollars for just existing and filing each year with the IRS.

 

[cybrsage]

What global super power doesn't have functioning socialized medicine, education, public high speed transport, universally available 50Mbit internet, and a space program thats still worth a shit?

What global super power has functioning socialized medicine, education, public high speed transport, universally available 50Mbit internet, and a space program thats still worth a shit?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The main point of "Obamacare" isn't to cover people. It's to force them to buy insurance.

I disagree. the main "point" is for the gov't to gain more control. The forcing to buy XXX is just one step in the liberal quest for cradle to grave gov't tit sucking.

 

[senseamp]

Simple, change it to a deduction.

Net Zero should always be in place, no one should be getting paid net positive dollars for just existing and filing each year with the IRS.

So basically it wouldn't help most people who can't afford insurance. Figures.

 

[senseamp]

I disagree. the main "point" is for the gov't to gain more control. The forcing to buy XXX is just one step in the liberal quest for cradle to grave gov't tit sucking.

I am glad you think that forcing people to take responsibility for their own risks is a very liberal idea

 

[cybrsage]

I find it shocking that anyone thinks that DOUBLING the cost in only 3 years is to be expected.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I think you mistook me for a conservative. My issue is not with covering everybody, it's with the mandate being placed on people instead of employers and the government.

There are enough people who can't even get by, and now we're going to force them to buy insurance... How about forcing employers to provide insurance? I believe the healthcare bill only requires full time workers to be provided with insurance. You're out of luck if you work 3 PT jobs.

Unclear antecedent....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We can debate that, but I have to say, you can't just use every opportunity to make these points about this bill. This thread is about what certainly appears, once again, to be the GOP, and its propaganda arm (Foxnews), lying about the bill. Integrity is important whether you support a piece of legislation or not. The fact is, this is easily the most lied about piece of legislation in US history. And the lie quotient is much, much higher from its opponents than from its proponents. Would you agree that any sensible discussion about legislation has to start with an understanding about the facts, and that we must not only discard, but actively disapprove of any misinformation being given?

As someone who does not support the bill, you should consider that all this lying isn't helping the case against it on the merits. A sensible observer might ask the question, if this bill is really that bad on its own merit, why the need to lie about it so often? The facts about the bill ought to be sufficiently damning that no lies are needed.

I kind of feel that you tend to overlook the GOP's dishonesty about this bill because you don't support the bill. Not that you approve of their lying - I'm sure you don't- but that you'd rather not discuss it.

- wolf

I generally disregard the Republicans since they haven't any idea how to approach much needed improvement in health care. That's the problem with them.

Someone feels they have to do something, but we are chained to a system which does not allow for thoughtful consideration. We are a people who would rather act than think. If you want me to say that Republicans misrepresent the costs of Obamacare then I'll say it. Then again I'll protest how one of the main means it meets it's objectives is to punish those who do not buy health insurance outright by the justification of interstate commerce regulation. Have people lost their senses? That goes far beyond health care and gives a unheard of power to the government. Why should I and others be pleased to establish a means by which citizens can be forced by pain of punishment to do whatever the Federal government claims is beneficial? That this eludes people who claim to believe in liberty is astounding.

So we surrender the right of self determination or be effectively fined for what the government cannot directly order and does it fix or address the upcoming problems looming on the immediate horizon? If those aren't understood by those who put this plan forward then why are they doing so? They should not.

If the government had actually had a better system in mind then it would have done the substantial homework needed and we'd be debating the merits of one approach or another and instead we're stuck back at square one with something which is of dubious benefit at the sacrifice of traditional freedom of actions.

Both sides are so screwed up it's hard to know where to begin with this fiasco.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am glad you think that forcing people to take responsibility for their own risks is a very liberal idea

It's a very authoritarian one. The government was never intended to have such power, but that doesn't matter when the ends justifies the means. Perhaps you ought to be fined if you don't carry a gun. After all you could take responsibility for the enforcement of the laws you would burden people with.

 

[Attic]

So was is it a good solution for the country and was it ever intended to be a good solution for anyone other those who didn't need to live under it?

It's more expensive than it was said to be, that's a no brainer with goverment. The idea that this is a "so what" for a few on the left is a no brainer as well.

The opposition to the bill, as has been stated many times before, was that it was the wrong solution and that it would be more expensive than we were told.

We ought to consider effective steps towards lowering the overall cost of health care, something this bill does not do.

 

[monovillage]

I find it shocking that anyone thinks that DOUBLING the cost in only 3 years is to be expected.

They lied about it in the first place, everyone knew it, but the Democrats and liberals that supported it are fine with their government lying to it's citizens for a good cause. Hell, they're happy to sit in these forums and lie for what they think is a good cause. Why would anyone be surprised?

 

[shira]

You fail at reading and comprehension. The new estimate is not for 13 years. It is an estimate for 10 years, starting when the actual changes get implemented. The previous estimate was also for 10 years, but the first 3 of those years would not be much different than existing costs because the legislation wouldn't go fully into effect yet.

What this is saying is that it's going to cost a lot more than what the public was told. Shocking and surprising, I know.

You quoted me too fast, I'd updated my post a few minutes before your post. And the point still holds: The original estimate was for 3 years less than the new estimate.

It's absolutely shocking, SHOCKING that a 10-year estimate is more than a 7-year estimate.

 

[cybrsage]

You quoted me too fast, I'd updated my post a few minutes before your post. And the point still holds: The original estimate was for 3 years less than the new estimate.

It's absolutely shocking, SHOCKING that a 10-year estimate is more than a 7-year estimate.

Do you find it shocking that the additional 3 years is the same cost as the first 7 years? Meaning the additional 3 years cost more than double that of the first 3 years?

Do you support such a rapid increase in cost?

 

[dank69]

So was is it a good solution for the country and was it ever intended to be a good solution for anyone other those who didn't need to live under it?

It's more expensive than it was said to be, that's a no brainer with goverment. The idea that this is a "so what" for a few on the left is a no brainer as well.

The opposition to the bill, as has been stated many times before, was that it was the wrong solution and that it would be more expensive than we were told.

We ought to consider effective steps towards lowering the overall cost of health care, something this bill does not do.

I think if you read the whole thread and/or the actual document released by the CBO instead of relying on a post by a conservative who opposes the bill about an article by fox news you will see that in reality the bill is projected to be LESS expensive than it was aid to be.

 

[dank69]

They lied about it in the first place, everyone knew it, but the Democrats and liberals that supported it are fine with their government lying to it's citizens for a good cause. Hell, they're happy to sit in these forums and lie for what they think is a good cause. Why would anyone be surprised?

They didn't lie about it, everyone who reads the information for themselves knows it, but the Republicans and conservatives that oppose it will are fine perpetuating Fox news lying to it's audience for a 'good cause.' Hell, they're happy to sit in these forums and lie for what they think is a good cause. Why would anyone be surprised?