111 Get Obamacare Waivers

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The process itself is politcal favoritism.

If it's available to everyone, how is it favoritism?

I explained that
sorry is it so complex

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So now blowing the budget all to hell for bankers and large corporations is better????

Hey.. I do believe they did quite well under the last guy and TARP was under the last guy too.... next phallacy please

The fallacy that comes to mind here is that TARP is an example of blowing the budget, given the most recent cost estimate of but $30B (and that was all money to something that didn't expect to be returned).

[billvon 3,111]

>Tell the FAA that you won't be doing ANY mantainence on your
>aircraft unless you are given a waiver.

They'll probably say "OK. Just don't try to fly it."

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Tell the FAA that you won't be doing ANY mantainence on your
>aircraft unless you are given a waiver.

They'll probably say "OK. Just don't try to fly it."

So you agree that the situations are no where similar . . . The admin caved to those same terms, insert "supply any health care" in lieu of "maintenance".

The point is that it is a political move - if the house and the senate were not going to be changing any then it would have been a different story. Since it is, and the democrats have gotten the message, they are backing down instaed of going with their beliefs.

Well, one democrat anyway . . . but he signs those waivers doesn't he.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So now blowing the budget all to hell for bankers and large corporations is better????

Hey.. I do believe they did quite well under the last guy and TARP was under the last guy too.... next phallacy please

The fallacy that comes to mind here is that TARP is an example of blowing the budget, given the most recent cost estimate of but $30B (and that was all money to something that didn't expect to be returned).

Hey its the Bankers who made out like bandits in the greatest swindle of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street. Shit was going down the tubes all around them.. and they still felt the need to give bonus's to each other... in the BILLLIONS of dollars.

And who gets all the money that is being paid in interest on the 11+ TRILLION deficit that the Party of VOO DOO DOO Economics ran up since 1981 when that deficit was 750 BILLION.


At some point... somebody is going to have to actually pay all that money back not to mention all the interest that is many times that amount of principal. But go ahead and keep livin large while taking the trickle down showers.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So now blowing the budget all to hell for bankers and large corporations is better????

Hey.. I do believe they did quite well under the last guy and TARP was under the last guy too.... next phallacy please

The fallacy that comes to mind here is that TARP is an example of blowing the budget, given the most recent cost estimate of but $30B (and that was all money to something that didn't expect to be returned).

Hey its the Bankers who made out like bandits in the greatest swindle of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street. Shit was going down the tubes all around them.. and they still felt the need to give bonus's to each other... in the BILLLIONS of dollars.

And who gets all the money that is being paid in interest on the 11+ TRILLION deficit that the Party of VOO DOO DOO Economics ran up since 1981 when that deficit was 750 BILLION.


At some point... somebody is going to have to actually pay all that money back not to mention all the interest that is many times that amount of principal. But go ahead and keep livin large while taking the trickle down showers.

uh, you're skipping past the fact that TARP is no longer a significant debt item. It certainly propped up the game, but the People are getting paid back these loans (some of which were forced on the corporations). The only legit complaint out there that comes to mind is from Nader who asserts that the government should hold onto the assets longer to gain a greater return (he mentions GM).

Now if Obama succeeds in spending this returned TARP money on new debt spending, one can use fraudulent accounting to say it did contribute 100s of Billions of debt. But then your credibility is compromised. Stick to the real causes - tax cuts, Iraq, etc. There's plenty out there without lying for populist motivations.

[billvon 3,111]

>So you agree that the situations are no where similar . . .

I didn't claim they were the same. I just pointed out that we get waivers to federal laws all the time for demos. Just getting a waiver is not unequal treatment - as long as everyone who meets the criteria can get one.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>So you agree that the situations are no where similar . . .

I didn't claim they were the same. I just pointed out that we get waivers to federal laws all the time for demos. Just getting a waiver is not unequal treatment - as long as everyone who meets the criteria can get one.

You mean like small buisness loans and the like?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mine is going up the same amount, with less coverage, more out of pocket, and tighter restrictions on how I can use my flex dollars.
Can someone remind me again how this plan is good???

In case you have not been noticing over the last 10 years.. they have ALL been going up. They are doing it because THEY CAN.

Without a viable public option it will only get worse. People will see that at some point when they go to use their medical benefits and they find out just what those REALLLLY are. The hospitals may provide the service.. but good luck on your insurance company paying for it.

If its a big bill and you can find a lawyer that will take the case... cool

BUT if its just going to cost you more in legal fees to try to get the insurance company to actually pay.. well cut your losses and just pay for it yourself.

Bull shit
Without removing the state mandates, doing tort reform and open up states boarders to encourage competition the price will going up. Gov caused this

And now it is going up faster because of more govenment control

More parts of the puzzle that were not even addressed; I suspect because the administration does not want to take on the docs or the lawyers.

But yes, they are going to run up a hell of a bill - I'm quite confident it will be considerably more than the trillion dollars in 10 years currently forecasted, since all of the jostling and positioning going on right now is going to make the tab even bigger.

But why do you think a public option will exert downward price pressure? I'm truly curious, because unless it is subsidized by taxes, no way will a public option be cheaper than a plan on the open market.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[turtlespeed 226]

My prediction is that the gov was wrong by 100% the ONE trillion dollar cost, will, in truth, be closer to TWO trillion in costs

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Quote

Mine is going up the same amount, with less coverage, more out of pocket, and tighter restrictions on how I can use my flex dollars.
Can someone remind me again how this plan is good???

Because its not about health care, its about redistribution of wealth.

[DanG 1]

Quote

My prediction is that the gov was wrong by 100% the ONE trillion dollar cost, will, in truth, be closer to TWO trillion in costs

What is this $1 trillion in cost you people are throwing around as a fact?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mine is going up the same amount, with less coverage, more out of pocket, and tighter restrictions on how I can use my flex dollars.
Can someone remind me again how this plan is good???

In case you have not been noticing over the last 10 years.. they have ALL been going up. They are doing it because THEY CAN.

Without a viable public option it will only get worse. People will see that at some point when they go to use their medical benefits and they find out just what those REALLLLY are. The hospitals may provide the service.. but good luck on your insurance company paying for it.

If its a big bill and you can find a lawyer that will take the case... cool

BUT if its just going to cost you more in legal fees to try to get the insurance company to actually pay.. well cut your losses and just pay for it yourself.

Bull shit
Without removing the state mandates, doing tort reform and open up states boarders to encourage competition the price will going up. Gov caused this

And now it is going up faster because of more govenment control

More parts of the puzzle that were not even addressed; I suspect because the administration does not want to take on the docs or the lawyers.

But yes, they are going to run up a hell of a bill - I'm quite confident it will be considerably more than the trillion dollars in 10 years currently forecasted, since all of the jostling and positioning going on right now is going to make the tab even bigger.

But why do you think a public option will exert downward price pressure? I'm truly curious, because unless it is subsidized by taxes, no way will a public option be cheaper than a plan on the open market.

I was responding to another post
I do not think anything public will cost less

I also do not think those who sold this bill of crap ever thought that either
this has never been about money or coverage

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

My prediction is that the gov was wrong by 100% the ONE trillion dollar cost, will, in truth, be closer to TWO trillion in costs

What is this $1 trillion in cost you people are throwing around as a fact?

CBO's estimate.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DanG 1]

Quote

CBO's estimate.

This one:

Quote

On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions. Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations (those are discussed on pages 10-11 of the cost estimate).

-143 != +1000

- Dan G

[pirana 0]

Thanks for the correction, an honest error in adding the 0. As posted, the estimate is a single trillion, and comes from CBO, which typically is pretty good at non-biased estimates. But that estimate was before exceptions started getting handed out.

The thing is that guarantee issue doesn't work unless it is coupled with mandated participation. Anti-selection will absolutely doom the program without both. Guarantee issue is a noble and worthy goal, but it comes with the price tag of a mandate to participate, which means the cost side needs to be addressed first.

IMO, it is extremely irresponsible for the administration to have bullied this incredibly expensive thing thru while we are still digging out from the last crisis. One piano on our back at a time please. Best scenario now is that it gets cut off in the funding process until after we get out from under the current mess.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

CBO's estimate.

This one:

Quote

On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions. Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations (those are discussed on pages 10-11 of the cost estimate).

-143 != +1000

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=25657,27102,27640&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=obamacare+%2Bcbo&cp=14&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&rlz=1R2ACGW_enUS362&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=obamacare+%2Bcbo&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=180c07a4ca199aa8

Try any of these

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DanG 1]

Quote

Try any of these

Okay, I looked at the first four links.

Weekly Standard: Blog post written before the final CBO estimate was released.

Heritage: "CBO: Obamacare Unlikely to Reduce Spending on Health Care" Headline based on alternative fiscal scenario, which assumes that the parts of the healthcare bill will be repealed or amended.

Hotair: Blog post where the first line is, "Of all the slime dripping from ObamaCare, from the de facto bribes to the procedural shenanigans to the Democrats’ insane demagoguery of townhall protesters, the gaming of the CBO numbers is what bothers me most." No link or reference to CBO report.

Pajamasmedia: Blog post all over the map, mostly about denying care to patients. No link to CBO numbers.

Here's the link to the actual CBO report: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

Care to try again?

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Care to try again?

Is ABC news good enough for you, or are you still trying to deny something?

Quote

. . . $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Quote

Is ABC news good enough for you, or are you still trying to deny something?

Not denying anything. I wanted people to understand the number they are throwing around.

ABC at least references the actual CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11490/LewisLtr_HR3590.pdf). The operative statement in the ABC report is, "CBO had originally estimated that the health care reform bill would result in a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion from 2010-2019; this revised number would eliminate most of that savings."

Now try to follow along, the original estimate was that the bill would save $143B. The new estimate is that is will only save $28B. Saying that the bill will cost $1trillion may be true, but I notice that no one quoting that figure makes the statement that the cost under the old system was also about $1trillion. People throwing around the $1trillion number are trying to plant the idea that the bill costs $1trillion more. That is nowhere near the truth.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Is ABC news good enough for you, or are you still trying to deny something?

Not denying anything. I wanted people to understand the number they are throwing around.

ABC at least references the actual CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11490/LewisLtr_HR3590.pdf). The operative statement in the ABC report is, "CBO had originally estimated that the health care reform bill would result in a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion from 2010-2019; this revised number would eliminate most of that savings."

Now try to follow along, the original estimate was that the bill would save $143B. The new estimate is that is will only save $28B. Saying that the bill will cost $1trillion may be true, but I notice that no one quoting that figure makes the statement that the cost under the old system was also about $1trillion. People throwing around the $1trillion number are trying to plant the idea that the bill costs $1trillion more. That is nowhere near the truth.

The people here replying DO understand the numbers we are throwing around.

So do Bill, and Quade, and Kallend, and Andy . . . that is why you see them conveniently absent in these discussions.
We are glad you finally cuaght up though - we've been waiting for a while now.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Quote

We are glad you finally cuaght up though - we've been waiting for a while now.

Gosh, you're waiting for little old me? I'm flattered.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

We are glad you finally cuaght up though - we've been waiting for a while now.

Gosh, you're waiting for little old me? I'm flattered.

Yep - we've been on the bus for quite a while -
Glad you could finally join us.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Yep - we've been on the bus for quite a while -

I hope you're sitting in the back like you were told to

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Yep - we've been on the bus for quite a while -

I hope you're sitting in the back like you were told to

Evidently I am - that is where the seating started -

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun