Fox skews health care reform discussion away from deficit reduction
Fox News immediately responded to cost estimates of health care reform legislation by devoting far more attention to the estimate that the legislation would increase spending by $940 billion over 10 years than it did to the estimate that, including cost savings and revenue increases, the bill would actually reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the same period. On-screen graphics throughout Fox News' initial coverage referred to the cost estimate, while no graphics mentioned deficit reduction.
Fox focuses on cost estimate
Fox shows nearly 10 minutes of on-screen graphic spelling out $940 billion cost estimate, none on deficit reduction. During the 9 a.m. ET hour -- when reports of the Congressional Budget Office's preliminary cost analysis of health care reform legislation first leaked -- Fox News repeatedly aired an on-screen graphic stating, "CBO: Health Care Will Cost $940 Billion Over 10 Yrs," showing the graphic for a total of 9 minutes, 44 seconds. At no time during the 9 a.m. hour did Fox News show a graphic referring to the $130 billion deficit-reduction estimate.
Cost estimate mentioned three times as often as deficit-reduction estimate. During the 9 a.m. hour, the $940 billion cost estimate was mentioned 12 times -- by co-hosts Bill Hemmer (three times) and Martha MacCallum (twice), Fox News contributors Karl Rove (twice) and Juan Williams, guests Joe Trippi and Kevin Madden, and by Rep. John Boehner (twice) during Fox coverage of the GOP press conference in response to the CBO estimate. By contrast, CBO's estimate that the bill would reduce the deficit was mentioned only four times -- by Hemmer, Williams, and Rove, and by Rep. James Clyburn during Fox coverage of the Democratic press conference in response to the CBO estimate.
It's something no honest and legitimate news organization would do - that's why FoxNews does it, because they aren't legit and honest.
One reason to emphasize the spending side of this legislation is that we know for certain that the govt. will spend $940 billion...and probably more as history tells us.
What we don't know is whether they will deliver on the $1 trillion in increased revenues and cost cutting measures...that history tells us probably won't happen.
Huge federally run programs...medicare, medicaid, and social security...are all facing bankruptcy. There is no historical fact to suggest health care will fare any better.
Gambling nearly $1 trillion to save $13 billion a year is a bet that most savvy gamblers wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
Bullseye! I would say for good measure, and to account for waste, fraud, abuse, inevitable cost increases and red tape government bureaucracy, double that 940B to nearly 2 trillion. And while you're at it, cut the deficit savings down to practically nothing.
So forgive those of us who don't eat these CBO numbers like a juicy steak.
Fox does this with every poll, survey, study, etc...
---------------------
The Midnight Review
First of all you are not emphasizing one side of an account if you simply refuse to acknowledge the other.Secondly it is my contention that you most certainly would be eating the CBO numbers like a juicy steak if it propped up your argument,which clearly it does not.
This bill though not a good one,is a start.It's time America made a start,and joined every other Industrialized country on the planet in pursuing some form of public health care.
Be honest, say they are only projections and promise nothing but honesty and full and complete accountability for the whole damn ball of wax. For liberals and proponents to sit there and laud this bill as a deficit reducer is disingenuous, and ridiculous.
Nobody knows, not even a little.
Yes we do know. That is what the CBO is for. As I pointed above, you seem certain of the cost, but uncertain of the savings, which doesn't make logical sense.
Costs always go up, unless we have a deflationary trend, so your statement means nothing.
Tommy knows that's not the case, but he is intellectually dishonest on purpose in order to start arguments. That's why I don't respond to him anymore. But I agree, he is a worthless shill.
When wingnuts run out of bullets on anything tax / spending related, they always seem to retreat to that ridiculous Limbaugh fantasy world where half the country is hard-working productive Republicans, and the other half is free-loading libruls.
Whenever their childish "mine,mine,mine!!" attitude is laughed at, they go to the "quit picking my pocket" act. As if anybody who gives a feck about other people, or the country as a whole, must be as self-centered as the average far-right zombie.
Harry Truman
Like there was no underhanded intent behind the mentioning of the 10 year cost (huge number) and the 1 year savings (much smaller number) in the same sentence.
In fact, there's NO good reason to have done it that way, and when I pointed that out, all I got was personal attacks! I pointed out that they weren't being honest, and they got teed off.
It is disingenuous to fail to cite ALL the relevant numbers if you're going to cite one of them. But it's even worse than that - citing JUST the cost number is very deceptive - people don't understand how much we're already paying as a nation for healthcare.
Bingo...a trillion here, a trillion there...and we're bankrupt.
I'm looking at both sides of estimate. We know for darn sure that if the bill passes...congress will spend all of the $940 billon and more.
What they have never been able to deliver on is the projected revenue and cost saving measures...which will blow the CBO projections to kingdom come.
And your reason and source for this wild claim?
1) Name one insurance company that offers this in the US of A.
2) Explain why they pay half of what we pay.
The "doc fix" alone is going to cost around $371B, that's Billion with a b, and Barry isn't counting that number in the bill. How did the CBO lose 60billion in two weeks? Well by DOUBLE COUNTING long term care insurance premiums for one and Medicare cuts second.
Of course Barry pushed the tax back to 2018 for high cost insurance plans but the data it's based on is determined by the CPI which doesn't kick in until 2020! Guess who gets to eat the tax hikes? You guessed it...the Middle Class, and whoever his successors are. Barry's banking you'll forget it was him that hung the albatross around the country's neck and gave our children a nice head start with $35k debt right out of the womb.
Way to go dims.
by the way where do you get your information from?
You are being as dishonest as Fox News.
You could have said $1 trillion to save $130 B or $100 B to save $13 B year.
Then why is the 1 trillion over 10 years, but the 13 billion per year? That is what is dishonest.
You dishonest hack.
I love it when you dig your own grave.
Like I said, there's no reason to describe the cost over 10 years versus the savings over 1 year is to be dishonest and misleading. There's NO other good reason.
It doesn't matter if one can come to the full cost savings by multiplying the 1 year by 10, or can come to the 1 year cost by dividing the 10 year cost by 10.
That doesn't change my point - that there's no good reason to have done it, and there are only disingenuous arguments to HAVE done it.
And since you couldn't refute THAT, you made a personal attack.
Why you DON'T know that everyone here is on to you, and KNOWS that when you make a personal attack, it's because you can't debate the facts is beyond me. You don't help your purported case, which is to provide a counter-example to all the liberals here, when you behave that way.
Please, keep behaving dishonestly. Please do. I love it when your side continues to diminish your power and strength!
An insult is not an argument. My point still stands, that one the one hand Wesley used the costs over a decade, but then the benefits over a year.
However, it has the same effect as the media saying "Democrats' bill will reduce deficit by $130 billion" as the headline / chyron and then somewhere in the article mentioning that it will cost $94 billion per year.
Misleading representations of facts is what it amounts to.
We don't know that at all. If you are saying that future predictions are uncertain, then why are you certain of this?
None of the programs are facing bankruptcy. That is just a right wing talking point. For instance, social security is solvent for 50 years.
link
You can't argue that the projected numbers are likely to be way off therefore we should turn those projections into big fat zero's.
There is the mark-up of the Reconciliation package that was posted on March 12. (The actual Senate Bill has been posted since before Christmas.) This was posted previous to the CBO grading. The bill will be posted with any changes right after the CBO report is released. It will be available for at least 72 hours before a vote is taken.
(Oh, and one no vote has resigned and one no vote - Kucinich - has changed to yes. This bill will pass, and that will be a great day for America and Americans.)
The original Senate bill has been online and is STILL online.
Once the CBO releases its figures (if they haven't already), the revisions in the amendment (to the bill that's already posted online) will ALSO be posted.
Then, they'll wait 72 hours after the revisions are posted before voting on it.
You lie!
Big surprise.
Does anyone here really believe that the politicians in 2018 are going to implement this tax?
I love the double standard here. The right wingers assert that we can't know with any certainty that the bill will save us money--but then they can now with certainty that a tax won't be implemented.
Second, given the answer to the first, how will we make it so that it does not negatively affect our budget?
The burden of proof is on you. I'm not going to start fishing around on the internet looking for programs that came under cost. Simply saying "my experience" does not constitute an argument.
Your second point makes no sense. With the best knowledge we have, we believe health care will have a positive affect on the budget. We can only act on the best knowledge, the way you do with any investment. Or are you suggesting we no longer invest, but bury our money in a hole in the ground?
Their answer is to do nothing. And people continue to die.
Expanding coverage will not lower costs.
Expanding coverage will lower costs. It's the very definition of an insurance pool.
And eliminating as much as possible the 25-30% overhead that the insurance companies take for profits and CEO salaries will lower costs, won't they?
Reducing their profits WILL save us all money. Additionally, if they have to cut into CEO salaries to retain the same profit margin, then the CEO's won't be making as much.
It won't be a ton of money - it won't be a large percentage of the savings we find, but it's ridiculous to assert that making them tighten their belts and survive on less profit won't save us money.
You're still, and always, a dishonest hack.
Government has demonstrated repeatedly that it can't run programs as efficiently as private business can, and with good reason. The drive for profitability and survival is not as urgent for the government. They just don't need to be lean and efficient in the same way businesses do.
Sorry, a bit off the thread topic, but I strongly agree with Jeffro that it needs to stop.
I think the folks in Atlanta could tell you a story about their water systems...
From the article...
One thing's for sure about Atlanta's experiment with water privatization, City Councillors Howard Shook and Claire Muller say they've learned a tough lesson.
Fling your insults as you please. You just come across as a bitter old harpy. All show, and no substance.
Since you want to belabor the issue. Prove yourself. You can't, so you'll just hurl some more clever epithets. No wonder everyone thinks you're an idiot. You never disappoint.
You'll always be Dull, Dolly.
The facts are that the overhead (costs) for Medicaid and Medicare are a lot lower than that of private insurance, and THAT is the thing we should be looking at, NOT the 'profits' that these healthcare companies have. Profits are not the ONLY expense that can be contained. Overhead is profit PLUS lots of other stuff.
And yeah, this has been documented MANY times.
Here's one source.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/03/05/seizing_the_moment_with_univer/
and another
http://www.voicefortheuninsured.org/pdf/admincosts.pdf
and another
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/health_plan.html#ixzz0iO90Khxd
and another
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/
which includes THIS nugget
"Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population."
Looks like the "sour" person would be YOU.
Salaries of everyone plays a role in costs, and while I agree that many CEO's get paid outrageous amounts of money, that is an easy target and is an argument that is not true across the board.
And I like that idea, to be fair-- tightening belts and trying to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. Sounds like a grand idea.
Yes, if some professor has a blog, then it absolutely refutes the CBO! In other words, why do you doubt the CBO but trust some professor on a blog who is not accountable for his figures (which I have heard disputed, by the way)?
I know liberals are used to posting whatever stats or "facts" they feel like around here because they never get asked to back it up, so I understand why you can't do it, or get all huffy when challenged.
You aren't used to it. Ouch.
Looking at Aetna's financials for 2009, their EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) looks like about 2.1 billion dollars, out of which operating overhead took about 6%. That 6% includes all salaries.
Importantly here, however, is that the company's 3.7% profit margin isn't really as significant as their return on equity, a metric that speaks to the profitability of the business, which appears to be about 13% of EBIT.
That is a pile of money.
If you don't understand what I said, then ask. Don't just insult people in ignorance, especially if they are supporting your position.
You typify all that the right sees wrong with democrats. You make us all look bad.
I get a bit sensitive because there is a fair bit of unproductive mudslinging that goes on here, and I try to post as objectively as possible, in order to promote "valid" or quality discussion. I guess not appearing passionate about my opinions sometimes makes my intent a bit ambiguous.
No hard feelings.
I get a bit sensitive because there is a fair bit of unproductive mudslinging that goes on here, and I try to post as objectively as possible, in order to promote "valid" or quality discussion. I guess not appearing passionate about my opinions sometimes makes my intent a bit ambiguous.
No hard feelings.
As a working stiff, I can't really even comprehend numbers that big. How can any one person be justified in this kind of compensation? Obscene.
And you know this how? You criticize the CBO because it supposedly is inaccurate, but in its place you simply have assertions without any analysis.
And that then takes me to the second point I made, which is that if we expect costs to go up, we expect measures to be made in the future to account for this increase. And that will likely include as an option (and if Dems are in charge, will almost certainly be implemented) is a tax increase.
Screwed.
It's good for the economy. Why? People won't be afraid to change jobs or start their own business due to health care expenses. Bankruptcies will be decreased. Deaths will be decreased.
The benefits will outweigh the possible increased costs/taxes.
Oh, of course, the rich with their bottomless endless supply of money. From the trees on their estates.
See, I care that costs go up and that taxes are increased. I care quite a bit.
Elminating bankrupcties due to health care costs will drive down premiums. A fluid work force is good for the economy and will decrease the need for any future tax increases.
I don't care if the wealthy have their taxes increased. They've had an 8-year tax vacation that should end.
Newsflash - You are not entitled to the money they earn. So keep punishing the evil wealthy in your class envy warfare, if you keep doing that see how much money you have to fund your liberal programs and redistribute income. Make them poorer, make them pay!
If you had said (and the facts backed you) that for instance, the CBO's estimation (here's where you link it) is a range from 1 billion to 1.5 billion in government spending, then it would be up to someone else to prove it wrong or find cracks in that research. As it stands now, all you've got is a "well I said this, you have to prove it wrong."
Please do.
Otherwise, STFU.
But the costs are relevant, as are the savings. But I'd like to see a government program that actually came in at budget or under, without making drastic sacrifices in other areas.
In other words, like you, I am skeptical of this information.
Where is the comparison to what happens if we do not pass this legislation. Have the cost comparisons been compared to the 39% increases by Blue Cross and others starting THIS year?? Or just to the static costs today?
Given some cost controls and insurance for 30 plus million people that will not have to go to the emergency room but will go to the doctor's office, will generate a great deal of savings. IN REAL MONEY.
Yep...because the CBO is limited to taking a snapshot of the proposal...assuming that nothing will change over the next 10 years.
And as we all know...it will change. Congress is famous for passing legislation on lowball estimates and then they can't leave it alone.
End result? One only has to look at medicare, medicaid, and social security.
Yes we do! We have the CBO estimate. When you invest in the stock market, in your children's education, or in a house, you also don't know the outcome. What do you do, say "It's all a big fat guess," and bury your money in a hole in the ground?
Oh, and as for your analogy about personal investments, I certainly wouldn't put my disposable income in a stock that has historically and notoriously underperformed, or in a company whose financial projections were never even close to accurate.
That would be asinine.
That is not an argument. Do you have proof that shows that the CBO is consistently wrong? Because I can remember Krugman (this is off the top of my head) showing just the opposite.
As to your analogy, I don't see where it fits at all. Underperformed--exactly how?
That doesn't make the projection WRONG, you doofus.
A projection says, "given A, B, and C as reasonable assumptions, I estimate that the end result will be X".
If you don't change A, B, and C, and don't add anything else, and the estimate turns out to be wrong, then the projection failed.
If you GREATLY change A, B, and/or C, or you add other things, and the overall program ends up with a significantly different cost, then it does NOT mean that the projection was wrong at all!
This is not rocket science, yet you make this same logical error all the time when discussing projections.
How many times do you need to have this explained to you before it'll get through your thick skull?
Or, do you already understand this fairly simple concept, and are you solely making a bogus argument since you're a dishonest paid troll?
It's either one or the other.
No. I do expect you to question anything, but in a logical way. Simply spouting a bunch of assertions, for example about medicare, is not logical and can be easily dismissed. Can yo show how the CBO is as wrong as you say it is?
We can talk about the merits of Iraq all day and night and it will not affect health care for a second.
Do you wish to discuss the HC projections on its merits rather than seeking to deflect to another issue?
I also disagree that a single payer system would work better. I think that would be disastrous for our budget and for our health care system.
The people in charge are not all white men (an absurd assumption) and they are not simply out to take away people's enjoyment and health. That is a sadistic assumption and far from the truth.
Again we have a case of special pleading. If you are so sure that the CBO is wrong because their predictions lie in the future, how can you be so sure the bill will cost as much as it does?
According to multiple reports, the US pays on average twice what other industrial countries pay, and yet we receive inferior health care. These other countries by and large have single payer systems.
As to the projections, please see my comments on experience.
See the UN health care report. Or
"A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries."
There was also a peer reviewed study comparing Canada to the US, and showing that Canadians got better health care.
You claim to be logical, but then you draw a conclusion from your own experience. That is no better than using anecdotal evidence.
A peer review by whom?
And it is not my experience, but the government's experience, and yes that is solid and reliable evidence. Though, again, to be fair, past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is often indicative.
I betcha 99.9% would say they're happy with their government-run health care.
I betcha 99.9% would say they're happy with their government-run health care."
OK. Sounds like fun. Get out the phone book.
OK. Your head remains firmly planted in the proverbial sand. How about using the google? It's really quite simple.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-rate-us-health-care-system-lowest-among-10-nations
Generic fallacy. (Hint: My response can simply be "Well, oh conservatives. They may be correct, but they are anti Obama, and therefore I take everything they say with a grain of salt.")
It is not even true that the UN is anti US.
Nor did you even comment on the Commonwealth report.
>>And it is not my experience, but the government's experience, and yes that is solid and reliable evidence.
Oh really? I have no idea what you are talking about. You keep throwing out "experience" as if you are making an argument.
Do you really want to dispute that the government has a history of expanding programs rather than making them smaller? Especially in the way of entitlements?
There is no reason to think that bill would ever grow any smaller, and yes, it will cost more. I am confident of that precisely because I fully expect it to expand.
This is not rocket science.
There is no reason to believe that this program, AS CONFIGURED, will cost more than what the CBO says it will cost.
If your argument is that this program is going to expand, then make THAT argument, and STOP attacking the CBO's projection about what the cost and deficit reduction of THIS bill, as CONFIGURED, might be.
Again, not rocket science. Fairness, yes, but not anything anyone with half a brain couldn't understand.
By Open Medicine.
"Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that 'health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.'"
"May be superior..."
"...Differences not consistent"
But I do appreciate the post.
"The people in charge are not all white men (an absurd assumption) and they are not simply out to take away people's enjoyment and health. That is a sadistic assumption and far from the truth."
WTF? Was this relating to something I said?!
I'll back off even from the comment that yours is a sadistic assumption, but won't completely abandon it. Here's why-- there are actually two reasons-- the first is that these people are not there to make life miserable for those with health care problems. And they are there to provide a living for themselves and their families. Telling them that they should not be given a salary or wage because they are doing their job (which also includes giving out benefits) is off the mark. The second reason is that you assume that if there is a single payer system the giving and denyong of benefits will go away. It won't, but the group doing it has shifted to the government.
And why do you believe this? People in other countries are not denied benefits like they are in the US. That is one reason that the US is ranked 17th in the world in health care.
I'd still like to see the reports quoted.
But the point is that yes, people are denied benefits in other systems.
Even if that is true (which I doubt), the level of denial is probably 1% of what's denied in the US.
Here you go: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30106986/
Here's a secong: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/thousands-denied-cancer-drugs-in-britain-s-health-care-system
And a third:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html
Your guess on a percentage is telling, btw.
Your second link? EVERY rational and reasonable drug certification program in every developed nation has these kinds of issues to determine if the drugs are actually effective and save. That link proved NOTHING WRT denial of benefits. You're a tool.
And your first link? Again, it doesn't prove what you claim it does.
So, you are 0 for 3. That's a 0% percentage. THAT, now, is telling.
And yes every provider/insurer must determine what is a good and viable form of treatment and must decide whether to grant it.
And this is precisely the issue-- people will get denied treatments that are not said to be worth it.
The government won't have a profit motive, so denials will decrease. And people will be treated and not die, like that 5-year old who was denied a doctor-recommended treatment.
Good grief! So you think *one* example proves a point? My original statement was "People in other countries are not denied benefits like they are in the US." In other words, people are not dropped from their health insurance because they lose their job.
You cite one example where patients, who have health insurance, did not get a drug because of its cost, something that happens in the US all the time. But what you failed not note is that after an outcry, the drug is given to patients. So it hardly stands up as an example where the government overruled the will of the people.
How about a company-wide policy targeting the policies of HIV-positive people?
That's what Assurant did, and they were sued and forced to pay $10 million.
The private insurers had their chance. Their model is a failure. Time for a change.
I have already cited the UN report and the Commonwealth report. Unlike you, who has never cited anything but keeps bringing up "experience" as if that constitutes an argument.
Otherwise, you're blowing smoke when you bogusly attack the projections and say that the actual costs will likely go up.
Is it "Rush" "Sean" or "Glenn"?
If we want real reform, lets slow down and consider what we can do to actually achieve that. What is happening now is that Dem leadership is rushing through a bill that has as its primary purpose is an increase in coverage, and does less to lower costs.
And 123 people continue to die every single day due to a lack of available/affordable health care.
The only poll that matters was taken in November, 2008. Obama ran on health care reform. He was elected.
I had to deal with wars and death under Bush, so you'll just have to deal with greater health care availablility/affordability.
When poll after poll shows concern over the bill, that says something. I'd agree an isolated poll is troubling, but when they all point to the same conclusion, you have to pay attention. You blame it on the Tea Party, which has played a role, but it is not all the Tea Party. I'd love it if Dems would stop blaming the likes of Rush, Beck, and the Tea Party and look in their own eyes. People do not like this plan, or how it is being addressed.
And going back to Bush's wars is a bit off the mark, because these wars will end. Health Care will not.
And the polls don't all come to the same conclusion.
The only reason Fox and Hate Radio are blamed is because they spread lies. You know, about death panels, abortion, increase to the national debt, government takeovers, etc. etc.
And you know this how? Do you even think it is important to cite a poll here, or does your whole debating technique consist of unfounded assertions?
"Get the government out of my health care!!"
That's a baseless lie spread by worthless trolls who can't actually attack the HCR bill using facts!
The main reason that HCR is being passed right now is because of cost containment goals. It's hard to do, but the Obama administration included all kinds of things to do what can be done to get that done.
You're lying. How unusual that you would LIE - NOT!
The reason they public is unsure is because of Rhetoric that you and other right wingers keep repeating. You are just throwing out a bunch of nonsense and pretending you have a point.
The public is unsure precisely because of that mindset that you project. They see something they don't like and are free to express discontent.
Isn't the mantra "question everything" something liberals like to throw about? Why, then, can't people question them?
You might have a point about the back room deals, but did you miss the rest of the rhetoric? 1/6th of the economy and slippery rules for ayes and nays? And let's not forget all the propaganda coming from places like Fox, such as death panels when we talk about why the public is uncertain.
You assume, I think, that I am only informed through Fox news. Actually, my info comes from a variety of places, including here.
I am not the only one in this position, either.
Blaming it on Fox is an easy answer.
What a rational argument! "It stinks!" Well, you have convinced me.
>>You assume, I think, that I am only informed through Fox news. Actually, my info comes from a variety of places, including here.
And how did you come to that conclusion?
I think we've discussed this up and down, and you have an idea as to where I come down on this issue and why.
But here's a quick outline:
1) Costs not likely to stay where projected.
2) I think the quality of care will drop.
3) It is a myth that people cannot get basic coverage now.
4) Reform is perhaps needed and may indeed be wise to consider, and we should seriously work to figure out the best way to reform.
5) Pushing through an unpopular bill that even the President does not know what's in it is extremely unwise.
6) I certainly fall on the side of conservative media in this debate, but I do not fall on the side of conservative media because of that media. I fall on it because it makes more sense.
7) It makes sense because when I look at what the government has done when it has taken over something I do not like the results.
8) I think government has a role in acting as a referee but should not take over, or be involved to this extent in, an industry.
This thread is about how the CBO says HC bill will decrease the deficit. That, I think, is very much in dispute. You disagree, and that is fine.
2) You think wrong.
3) It's not a myth to the 40+ million uninsured, millions more who are underinsured, and the thousands who are dropped by their insurance company every single day.
4) We have been considering reform for 5 decades.
5) The bill is not unpopular.
6) Conservative media? Death panels, federal funding for abortion do not make sense because they're not true.
7) This is not a government takeover.
8) This is not a government takeover.
By the way, the CBO scored Bush's first round of tax cuts adding $1.3 trillion to the debt and Medicare Part D $350 billion to the debt. They were basically correct on those estimates. Why can't the CBO be correct now?
This is a bogus argument, and has been EVERY time one of your fools has raised it.
You got nothin', as Foghorn refuted EVERYTHING you said.
You said "it stinks", and you were asked HOW it stinks, and you weren't able to raise ONE legit objection!
That's telling.
Easy answer - you're a troll.
What?
Easy answer - you're a troll.
Easy answer? Well, for a lying, disingenuous and obnoxious paid troll, SURE, it's an easy answer.
We think everyone SHOULD question things. In an honest way though. And with an intention to change one's mind if new info becomes known. And then one should NOT repeat the same debunked talking points over and over again AFTER those questions have been answered.
You can't find ANY evidence that any of the regular posters here or MMFA leadership has ANY problem with agreeing that questions should be asked. But once they are answered, unless new info becomes available, that answer should be sufficient. And the questions need to be reasonable, honest, and not disingenuous!
Your side doesn't do that, not hardly at all!
Do you question, then, what is at Townhall.com?
To be honest, I have a hard time seeing that you give an equal amount of scrutiny to them both.
I question EVERYTHING I read on ANY topic from ANY source.
Like I already said.
Until you have PROOF that I don't (which you'll never find, since that proof doesn't exist), you have no reason to believe that I behave otherwise, since my behavior belies that theory.
The ONLY reason you believe that baseless theory is because you're a typical rightwinger who follows the typical pattern and believes in theories for which there's no evidence!
The text of the Reconciliation bill
1. Amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance
2. The exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. This makes the insurance companies look for the states with the fewest and most cost effective regulations.
3. Prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies. This makes companies offer coverage packages that can be tailored to suit the insuree.
2. Race to the bottom.
3. Race to the bottom.
Your proposals will only benefit the insurance companies and the states of Nebraska and Connecticut.
And without them, the deficit might be higher ....??? (I like nice simple smug answers!)
People who choose to go to the doctor for routine things will pay out of pocket for those things, and the overall COST of healthcare will NOT decrease - the way it's paid for will just change - it'll come out of different pocketbooks in slightly different ways.
This is NOT a solution, never has been one, and has been debunked countless times.
So, as I explained to RightON and Irrational Conservative, MANY questions are legit, but not all are.
Spending $940 Billion to save $130Billion?
How much brainstorming went into thinking that plan up?
Without reform we'll be spending well over a trillion shortly, given the proposed rate increases by those wonderful insurance companies.
A bipartisan brainstorm it twere.
Then again, what do you mean by "we'll be spending well over a trillion shortly??"
Then again, what do you mean by "we'll be spending well over a trillion shortly??"
We are the government, and they are fixing their mistakes by passing health care.
Even tort reform has failed to even slow this.
And that if we do nothing, we'll spend more than we are going to spend with the HCR bill being passed now?
So, no, it's not spending $940 Billion to save $130 Billion.
It's spending $940 Billion to AVOID spending $1070 Billion.
This is not rocket science.
The government is going to spend more on people it doesn't currently insure if the bill DOESN'T pass??
Did you really suggest that?
Listen to yourself.
The CBO remains independent, and the CBO understands that inflation exists, you doofus.
They didn't forget any important variables - they've done this a few (million?) times before, for both sides.
BTW, MMFA takes the weekends off...how do you expect to combat 'misinformation' when sites like HotAir are busy 24/7. You seem a little lazy.