Carlson, Fox & Friends complain that Senate health care bill is "only going to cover" 94% of population
November 19, 2009 7:15 am ET
From the November 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
(here)
And, it's not trillions of dollars, but that was a nice try.
Rrrreally....so the million or so examples of governments failure of fiscal policy isn't enough for you to realize that every budget projection isn't exceeded by 3x 5x 7x or even 10x?? What, you need a million and one??
Let me guess....you think they will get it right this time??
"those who ignore history..."
Sorry. The CBO has given out the estimates of the money required to pay for health reform, and the public option will lower the costs of private insurance plans. Everybody wins except insurance company executives. If I had to pick between health coverage spending, and defense spending, I'd pick health coverage. 45,000 Americans die from lack of coverage each year. 3,000 died on 9-11. So, the first priority seems self-evident to me.
Sorry. The CBO has given out the estimates of the money required to pay for health reform....
Which leads us back to....so the million or so examples of governments failure of fiscal policy isn't enough for you to realize that every budget projection isn't exceeded by 3x 5x 7x or even 10x?? What, you need a million and one??
Let me guess....you think they will get it right this time??
"those who ignore history..."
Because, in 1980, $.95 out of every premium dollar was paid back out in claims. Now it's down to $.80 and falling. The annual cost of premiums have been doubling every five years or so. Nothing else is getting that expensive that fast.
It's kind of like insisting on fueling our cars with petroleum, even after the gas crisis of 1973 showed that it was a diminishing resource. Do you want to wait until the last barrel is pumped out of the ground before looking for alternatives? How many Americans have to die annually from lack of coverage before it becomes a problem you feel it is necessary to solve?
About premiums, from a former insurance exec:
Here
And, are you really going to argue that someone, somewhere, is making more crude oil?
I am not desperate. I do know how to put together a rational argument, however. Something that seems to be beyond your mental grasp.
gs-425 supports the corporate preadators. He deserves no response.
Prove it.
Will you admit you were wrong about this? I doubt it.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin08/p60no236_table7.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance#United_States
Please provide a credible, official source that says 95%.
But there's more. In the same document, the Census also plainly states that "health-insurance coverage is under-reported" in its survey. When it cross-checked its survey results with the official Medicaid rolls, it found that 16.9 percent of those on Medicaid had claimed on their Census forms that they were uninsured. That 16.9 percent amounts to 9 million people.
So the actual tally, according to the most authoritative source we have, is just 28 million uninsured citizens (46 million minus 9 million non-citizens, minus 9 million on Medicaid who were falsely recorded as uninsured). To be more exact, it leaves 28,157,000 uninsured out of a total of 280,209,000. That leaves us with 90 percent of American citizens covered by insurance, according to the Census.
Couple that with that there are said to be between 10-15mm, but lets meet in the middle at 12.5mm who would rather drive a cool car instead or buy health insurance (I used to be one of those) or have been counted as "uninsured" if they went as little as a month without coverage while between jobs or for any other reason.
That 12.5mm puts the figure at just over 5% and using the high estimate, its under 5%.
Sorry. The CBO has given out the estimates of the money required to pay for health reform, and the public option will lower the costs of private insurance plans. Everybody wins except insurance company executives. If I had to pick between health coverage spending, and defense spending, I'd pick health coverage. 45,000 Americans die from lack of coverage each year. 3,000 died on 9-11. So, the first priority seems self-evident to me.
Because, in 1980, $.95 out of every premium dollar was paid back out in claims. Now it's down to $.80 and falling. The annual cost of premiums have been doubling every five years or so. Nothing else is getting that expensive that fast.
It's kind of like insisting on fueling our cars with petroleum, even after the gas crisis of 1973 showed that it was a diminishing resource. Do you want to wait until the last barrel is pumped out of the ground before looking for alternatives? How many Americans have to die annually from lack of coverage before it becomes a problem you feel it is necessary to solve?
Help me but how did these three get work like this ..other than being stooges for the bosses.(Didn't want to use Three Stooges because they were brighter.)
Back to the drawing boards, Fox demands 100% coverage.
Oh, okay, I saw this after I posted another comment. You're right the "Three Stooges" are definately brighter than these dim bulbs.
HOW can they be realistically opposed to this? I mean I know they're all in the pockets of their bosses who are in the pockets of the health care lobbies, but COME ON.
Ahh... you must be using that Fox & Friends math. Last time I checked, it was more like 84-85% covered and dropping. And that's 15% of 304 million - a big number.
But there's more. In the same document, the Census also plainly states that "health-insurance coverage is under-reported" in its survey. When it cross-checked its survey results with the official Medicaid rolls, it found that 16.9 percent of those on Medicaid had claimed on their Census forms that they were uninsured. That 16.9 percent amounts to 9 million people.
So the actual tally, according to the most authoritative source we have, is just 28 million uninsured citizens (46 million minus 9 million non-citizens, minus 9 million on Medicaid who were falsely recorded as uninsured). To be more exact, it leaves 28,157,000 uninsured out of a total of 280,209,000. That leaves us with 90 percent of American citizens covered by insurance, according to the Census.
Couple that with that there are said to be between 10-15mm, but lets meet in the middle at 12.5mm who would rather drive a cool car instead or buy health insurance (I used to be one of those) or have been counted as "uninsured" if they went as little as a month without coverage while between jobs or for any other reason.
That 12.5mm puts the figure at just over 5% and using the high estimate, its under 5%.
Left out of your torturous mathematics are those who have been diligently paying for insurance for years, whose claim is canceled the minute they are diagnosed with something expensive to treat. Left out of your math are those who used to have insurance, then changed jobs, then discovered that acne was a pre-existing condition and are no longer eligible for coverage. Left out is the fact that a non-profit run public option will force private insurance to be more cost competitive, resulting in lower premiums for a vast majority of Americans. You've tried to cut down one tree and claim victory. In reality, the tree, and the forest that has escaped your attention, is still standing.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin08/p60no236_table7.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance#United_States
Please provide a credible, official source that says 5%.
Sorry. The CBO has given out the estimates of the money required to pay for health reform, and the public option will lower the costs of private insurance plans. Everybody wins except insurance company executives. If I had to pick between health coverage spending, and defense spending, I'd pick health coverage. 45,000 Americans die from lack of coverage each year. 3,000 died on 9-11. So, the first priority seems self-evident to me.
Sorry. The CBO has given out the estimates of the money required to pay for health reform....
Which leads us back to....so the million or so examples of governments failure of fiscal policy isn't enough for you to realize that every budget projection isn't exceeded by 3x 5x 7x or even 10x?? What, you need a million and one??
Let me guess....you think they will get it right this time??
"those who ignore history..."
Because, in 1980, $.95 out of every premium dollar was paid back out in claims. Now it's down to $.80 and falling. The annual cost of premiums have been doubling every five years or so. Nothing else is getting that expensive that fast.
It's kind of like insisting on fueling our cars with petroleum, even after the gas crisis of 1973 showed that it was a diminishing resource. Do you want to wait until the last barrel is pumped out of the ground before looking for alternatives? How many Americans have to die annually from lack of coverage before it becomes a problem you feel it is necessary to solve?
I cannot help you.
Because, it's the private sector that got us in this mess. It's the fault of the private sector that we pay twice per person what other first world countries do, and we ended up 37th on the list. For the money, we should be first by a wide margin. All that extra money? Where does it go? Why do we need to pay that much more, and get worse care for it?
You can find the numbers here, gs-425.
Sorry. The CBO has given out the estimates of the money required to pay for health reform, and the public option will lower the costs of private insurance plans. Everybody wins except insurance company executives. If I had to pick between health coverage spending, and defense spending, I'd pick health coverage. 45,000 Americans die from lack of coverage each year. 3,000 died on 9-11. So, the first priority seems self-evident to me.
Sorry. The CBO has given out the estimates of the money required to pay for health reform....
Which leads us back to....so the million or so examples of governments failure of fiscal policy isn't enough for you to realize that every budget projection isn't exceeded by 3x 5x 7x or even 10x?? What, you need a million and one??
Let me guess....you think they will get it right this time??
"those who ignore history..."
Because, in 1980, $.95 out of every premium dollar was paid back out in claims. Now it's down to $.80 and falling. The annual cost of premiums have been doubling every five years or so. Nothing else is getting that expensive that fast.
It's kind of like insisting on fueling our cars with petroleum, even after the gas crisis of 1973 showed that it was a diminishing resource. Do you want to wait until the last barrel is pumped out of the ground before looking for alternatives? How many Americans have to die annually from lack of coverage before it becomes a problem you feel it is necessary to solve?
Sorry. The CBO has given out the estimates of the money required to pay for health reform, and the public option will lower the costs of private insurance plans. Everybody wins except insurance company executives. If I had to pick between health coverage spending, and defense spending, I'd pick health coverage. 45,000 Americans die from lack of coverage each year. 3,000 died on 9-11. So, the first priority seems self-evident to me.
You're not the only one who can cut-copy-paste, gs-425.
Because, in 1980, $.95 out of every premium dollar was paid back out in claims. Now it's down to $.80 and falling. The annual cost of premiums have been doubling every five years or so. Nothing else is getting that expensive that fast.
It's kind of like insisting on fueling our cars with petroleum, even after the gas crisis of 1973 showed that it was a diminishing resource. Do you want to wait until the last barrel is pumped out of the ground before looking for alternatives? How many Americans have to die annually from lack of coverage before it becomes a problem you feel it is necessary to solve?
What did your claim have to do with the topic?
OMG! That is not enough! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Carlson is a pure retard. The 6% might include the ultra rich and illegal immigrants. Did she ever speculate that? Nope!
/snark
But NO...they aren't biased...NOOOOOOOOO.
Yuck.