RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


kalikshama -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 2:22:59 PM)

quote:

500 Billion Obama's stealing from Medicare


Tsk, tsk, repeating lies doesn't make them any more true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/michele-bachmann/did-president-obama-steal-500-billion-medicare/

We'll begin with a review of how the new health care law handles funding for Medicare and for the new parts of the law.

To begin with, the health care law leaves in place the major insurance systems: employer-provided insurance, Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor. It attempts to reduce the number of uninsured by expanding Medicaid for the very poor and by offering tax breaks to help people with modest incomes buy insurance. Individuals are required to have insurance or pay a penalty, a mechanism called the "individual mandate." And companies that don't offer insurance to employees have to pay fines, with exceptions for small business and a few other cases.

The national health care reform law also made several changes to Medicare, which makes up roughly 12 percent of the federal budget.

In a few cases, the law actually increased Medicare spending to provide more benefits and coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a trusted independent source that analyzes the health care system. For instance, the health care law added money to cover prevention services and to fill a gap for enrollees who purchase prescription drugs through the Medicare Part D program. (That coverage gap is often referred to as the doughnut hole.)

Other parts of the law are intended to reduce future growth in Medicare spending, to encourage more efficiency and to improve the delivery and quality of care. (An example is paying hospitals less when patients are quickly re-admitted to hospitals after being discharged, to prevent people from being discharged too soon.)

The bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009.

So while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare, the law doesn't cut current funding for Medicare.

Still, where does the $500 billion in future savings come from?

Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program, an alternative to traditional Medicare that has turned out to be much more costly than expected. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.

If you disregard the incendiary word "stole," it is true that savings from Medicare help pay for other parts of the health care law. That's because Democrats wanted to make sure they did not increase the federal deficit with the new health law. The savings from Medicare offset new spending resulting from the health care bill.

Mostly, the new spending in the health care law comes from tax credits to help people of modest incomes buy health insurance and from expanding Medicaid to offer coverage to the poor. The tax credits and other cost-sharing subsidies are estimated to cost $350 billion over 10 years, while the Medicaid expansion costs $434 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Those two initiatives add up to more than $500 billion. So in addition to reducing future Medicare spending, the law also increases Medicare taxes on the wealthy and creates new fees for the health care industry, as well as a few other things, to come up with the needed sums.

Now, to address the word "stole." The money was not stolen in any literal sense of the word. Congress passed the law through its normal process, and the cost reductions for Medicare were out in the open during the many weeks that the final law was being negotiated.

Bachmann said that, "We know that President Obama stole over $500 billion out of Medicare to switch it over to Obamacare." There is a small amount of truth in her statement in that future savings from Medicare are planned to offset new costs created by the law. But the law attempts to curtail the rapid growth of future Medicare spending, not cut current funding. Additionally, the money was not "stolen." Congress reduced spending on a program through its normal legislative process. That kind of rhetoric is deceptive, and it undermines Bachmann's basic point. We rate her statement Mostly False.




DomKen -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 2:48:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Actually, and this is the one major thing most people do not get, unless things have changed since I last read the bill, like with the SCOTUS ruling, there is no legal way for collecting the penalty (or tax).

In fact, the bill explicitly states that while a penalty will be charged to anybody who doesn't purchase health insurance, it also explicitly forbids the IRS or any other governmental agency from forcing you to pay it. The stories of pay the fine or go to jail just are not true.


The IRS can withhold the fine from a tax return but otherwise they cannot force anyone to pay it.




Sanity -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 2:55:26 PM)


Copied and pasted from your copy and paste -

quote:

Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program, an alternative to traditional Medicare that has turned out to be much more costly than expected. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.


In other words, cut out the "baffle 'em with bullshit" long windedness and one finds that what subrob1967 wrote was totally 100% accurate




subrob1967 -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 3:54:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Actually, and this is the one major thing most people do not get, unless things have changed since I last read the bill, like with the SCOTUS ruling, there is no legal way for collecting the penalty (or tax).

In fact, the bill explicitly states that while a penalty will be charged to anybody who doesn't purchase health insurance, it also explicitly forbids the IRS or any other governmental agency from forcing you to pay it. The stories of pay the fine or go to jail just are not true.



You're saying that everyone can ignore the mandate, and not buy insurance or pay the fine? Then what fucking good is a law that won't be enforced?

And now the government will pay for the poor out of the medicare theft, because nobody in their right mind would pay the fine if they don't have to.




Owner59 -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 4:04:29 PM)

It will collect some moneys....to offset the money`s tax payers spend to pay for the uninsured`s care.Which is better than us(the tax payer) taking on the whole bill.




Interesting that the validity of the law suffers cuz when you`re told no ones going to jail .[8|]






kalikshama -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 4:29:31 PM)

See what I bolded.

Now, why couldn't the so-called fiscal conservatives fund their endeavors during the Bush II era?




subrob1967 -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 4:49:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

See what I bolded.

Now, why couldn't the so-called fiscal conservatives fund their endeavors during the Bush II era?

Um because the Dems had control of Congress from 06 to 10... Duh.




DomKen -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 5:52:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

See what I bolded.

Now, why couldn't the so-called fiscal conservatives fund their endeavors during the Bush II era?

Um because the Dems had control of Congress from 06 to 10... Duh.

So from 01 to 06, the Democrats actually didn't take over till 2007, the GOP knew the Democrats would be in control again soon and therefore could not pay for Iraq, Afghanistan, Medicare D etc.?

Is that really the argument you want to make?




tazzygirl -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 6:07:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

See what I bolded.

Now, why couldn't the so-called fiscal conservatives fund their endeavors during the Bush II era?

Um because the Dems had control of Congress from 06 to 10... Duh.



Do you honestly believe a Democratic congress is run any different than a Republican one?

If so, I got ocean front property in Kansas to sell you.




Musicmystery -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 8:21:52 PM)

quote:

Is the fine accumulative and are you subject to a fine even if you only earned a dollar? I heard that the fine will go to 2.5% of your income. That is not a minor fine.


That would be a fine of $0.025.

That's bizarrely less than a minor fine.




Musicmystery -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 8:22:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

See what I bolded.

Now, why couldn't the so-called fiscal conservatives fund their endeavors during the Bush II era?

Um because the Dems had control of Congress from 06 to 10... Duh.

Um, duh, where the fuck were they 2001-2007?




subrob1967 -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 8:24:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

See what I bolded.

Now, why couldn't the so-called fiscal conservatives fund their endeavors during the Bush II era?

Um because the Dems had control of Congress from 06 to 10... Duh.



Do you honestly believe a Democratic congress is run any different than a Republican one?

If so, I got ocean front property in Kansas to sell you.


No, I'm saying that Bush gave the congressional Dems almost everything they wanted, as long as they agreed to let him continue his wars in the Middle East. They could have stopped funding the wars, but they didn't did they?




tazzygirl -> RE: OBAMAS FUCKED (6/30/2012 8:31:15 PM)

And yet the only fingers you can point are still at the Democratic party.. rob... take off the partisan blinders and actually join in the discussions.




ddstarr -> RE: OBAAMS FUCKED (6/30/2012 9:15:19 PM)

Used to be, the right had the reputation of wanting government to have more control over our lives. The left has now caught up and surpassed the right. Govt control of healthcare, more regulations controlling business, increased taxes taking our freedom to spend our own money, EPA destroying energy production, Dept of education siding with unions to ensure public education has no competition, NLRB telling companies where they can and cannot expand and the worst of it all: expanding the federal deficit to ensure that our kids and grandkids will be in debt up to their eyeballs.
You can argue all you want about specific policies but, the overall effect of the current radical left federal government is meant to ensure that more and more people are on the government dependent side of the ledger and that everyone has less and less individual freedom.
For a group of people on a website that would indicate you have a respect for individualism, I just don't get how so many are in agreement with all this.




Musicmystery -> RE: OBAAMS FUCKED (6/30/2012 9:21:00 PM)

quote:

For a group of people on a website that would indicate you have a respect for individualism, I just don't get how so many are in agreement with all this.


Well for starters, you're making up stuff that isn't true.
quote:

EPA destroying energy production, Dept of education siding with unions to ensure public education has no competition, NLRB telling companies where they can and cannot expand




Lucylastic -> RE: OBAAMS FUCKED (6/30/2012 9:21:59 PM)

you dont see the irony of that do you, LMFAO given your other posts....ima take that little misinformed rant with a pinch of salt




ddstarr -> RE: OBAAMS FUCKED (6/30/2012 9:45:12 PM)

Typical left counter arguments it "isn't true" or I am "misinformed". sigh.... I suppose if you are one of those getting benefits then I see where your self interest would be but, looking objectively, how can you support a system that steals money from one group to give it to another group? a system that perpetuates the corrupt circular flow of money between public unions and politicians who then support exorbitant pay and benefits for public workers?
Bottom line is I believe in individualism over collectivism and that my freedom to earn money, not have it confiscated by my government and live my life as I see fit is all important. Naturally I support the same for everyone else, just not at my expense.




Musicmystery -> RE: OBAAMS FUCKED (6/30/2012 9:50:31 PM)

quote:

Typical left counter arguments it "isn't true" or I am "misinformed". sigh....


Well dear, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim.

That's reality, not the left.




ddstarr -> RE: OBAAMS FUCKED (6/30/2012 9:55:11 PM)

Musicmystery I I do dig the screen name), for starters please read about what the NLRB did to Boeing when they tried to expand production in a right to work state instead of unionized WA.




Hillwilliam -> RE: OBAAMS FUCKED (6/30/2012 10:08:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ddstarr

Musicmystery I I do dig the screen name), for starters please read about what the NLRB did to Boeing when they tried to expand production in a right to work state instead of unionized WA.

I did. They didn't like it but were unable to stop as Beoing has already hired 1000+ workers in SC. The complaint is presently in front of an administrative law judge but it looks like the NLRB is going to suck eggs as they cant prove Boeing retaliated against the unions in WA because they've added 2000 jobs there.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110504/OPINION04/705049959




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875