| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Obama Health Care Costs up $3000********************************************************************** Obama drives Health care costs $3000 had promised a $2500 cut During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term. But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey. Premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3,065 — 24% — from 2008 to 2012, the Kaiser survey found. Even if you start counting in 2009, premiums have climbed $2,370. What's more, premiums climbed faster in Obama's four years than they did in the previous four under President Bush, the survey data show. There's no question about what Obama was promising the country, since he repeated it constantly during his 2008 campaign. In a debate with Sen. John McCain, for example, Obama said "the only thing we're going to try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed onto you. And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year." www.rogerhedgecock.com |
||||||
|
softy first off, the rise in premiums is the total cost for both employers and employees — not out of pocket for the average family. in fact, the kaiser family foundation report said that the increase in what workers contribute wasn’t “a statistically significant increase." second, correlation is not causation. you imply obama’s health care law is to blame for the rise in premiums, but '... when we looked into that issue last October, experts told us it was only responsible for a small portion of the increase. Specifically, they said, more generous coverage requirements in the law caused premiums to go up by 1 percent to 3 percent, while all told, premiums went up 9 percent. The bulk of the increase was tied to rising health care costs.' but hey, fact schmacks. who cares. obama is socialist. born in kenya. no birth certificate. la de dah! |
||||||
|
dmaestro 26-Sep-12, 18:49 |
Read above. For one thing, the basic Obama plan was not passed, and included a mandate Obama had resisted during the campaign. Nor was the impact of what became the great recession known at that time. The real promise was to bend the total growth of health care costs as a whole down from what failure to act would have been. |
||||||
|
softy “In the ten years before the health care law was passed, health care costs increased at 8.7 percent per year on average, according to the independent Kaiser Family Foundation. This study showed a rate of increase of 3.8 percent in 2010 and 4.6 percent in 2011, while in a separate study, the Kaiser Family Foundation recently estimated a rate of increase of 4.0 percent in 2012, illustrating that overall health-care cost growth has significantly slowed in recent years.” as i said, embarrassing. |
||||||
|
fact checking?? But he can afford good lawyers!! en.wikipedia.org |
||||||
|
oh that? i do not really care where softy got the info (although he should). the more important issue is that the numbers do not add up. the conclusion is wrong. and once again, not fact checking proves the undoing of another right wing myth. not that that truly makes a diff... remember, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," |
||||||
|
Historical analogies |
||||||
|
You can decide for yourself what the cause of not full filling that promise might be. The fact is that costs have gone UP, certainly not down by $2500. |
||||||
|
softy don't get me wrong, i want them to do what they said. but i am also not stupid enough to believe them all. i think the fact that he passed a helth care reform bill, which none of his predecessors could do, in spite of many of them promising to do so, speaks volumes. considering that he was forced, by stonewalling republicans, to make huge compromises to the plan, it seems as if a lot of the fault lies with the gop as well. but you only point it out when it is obama. why is that? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
chaz |
||||||
|
z So, it is not that BO has broken a promise or two... it is that he has broken an astounding number of them. Another reason I am on his case is that, besides the broken promises, I think his policies are extraordinarily harmful to the U.S. For example, I do not like the idea of dozens of Czars that are not appointed and confirmed by the Senate but have significant power and money. I do not like the frequent use of Executive Orders, nor do I like the blatant use of Executive Privilege to hide information from the Senate and House investigations. I don't believe that the Obamacare package was passed in any way legal as it was threatened to be passed by "deeming it passed". It took the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and several threats yo others to get enough votes to finally pass it. "... but you only point it out when it is obama. why is that?" That is because in comparison (imho) the others are all relatively minor infractions compared to BO. btw... I could have pulled a "Chaz" here and said that "we had already discussed this adinfinitum", but I chose to give you an honest answer. Thanks for the opportunity. |
||||||
|
softy here is a useful article on the breaking of campaign promises: www.washingtonpost.com if you read it, you will see that, 1) obama has kept a high % of his promises, and 2) that he is on par or better than almost all his recent predecessors. as for executive orders, obama has issues 139 as of today. g.w. bush issued 291 (in 8 years) and: Clinton 363, G. Bush 165, Reagan 380, Carter 319 Ford 168 Nixon 345 Johnson 323 Kennedy 213 Eisenhower 481 Truman 893 FD Roosevelt 3,466 the czar thing is the same - made up political bs designed by the right wing to make obama look bad. and you eat it up. i am posting below an article from fact check.org that shows why this is pure bs. in summary, what i see is that all three things you are railing against are non-issues (except in the sense that politicians/presidents all do these things. you can argue policy if you like. i have no issue with that. but when you say, " in comparison (imho) the others are all relatively minor infractions compared to BO," it is just not true. not even close. and you appear to be unwilling to do the simple research to determine whether the things you post are true or not - you seem far too willing to believe what the hate mongers spew out - and that makes you appear to agree with them. which is why i say you hate obama. regarding czars: Q: Does Obama have an unprecedented number of "czars"? A: "Czar" is media lingo, not an official title. But our research shows that George Bush’s administration had more "czars" than the Obama administration. FULL QUESTION A friend of mine sent me a link claiming that Obama has more czars than any other president ever and he is trying to turn the USA into a dictatorship. Please give me confirmation so I can give it to her that she has no reason to fear. Does hiring czars allow a president to bypass Congress for approval? And does President Obama have more than any other president? FULL ANSWER It’s meaningless to ask a question about what "hiring czars" allows a president to do, because presidents don’t hire czars. "Czar" is a label bestowed by the media – and sometimes the administration – as a shorthand for the often-cumbersome titles of various presidential advisers, assistants, office directors, special envoys and deputy secretaries. (After all, what makes for a better headline – "weapons czar" or "undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics"?) There’s been a certain fascination with calling Obama’s advisers and appointees "czars." Fox News host Glenn Beck has identified 32 Obama czars on his Web site, whom he has characterized as a collective "iceberg" threatening to capsize the Constitution. Beck and other television hosts aren’t the only ones crying czar, either. Six Republican senators recently sent a letter to the White House saying that the creation of czar posts "circumvents the constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’ " Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah issued a press release saying that czars "undermine the constitution." And Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post complaining about the czar menace, including the factually inaccurate claim that only "a few of them have formal titles." The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called "What’s With This Czar Talk?" and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are "really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems." Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of "czar" has changed from insult to praise: "It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.” Now it’s turned odious again, with Republican senators calling czars unconstitutional and cable hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity characterizing them as shadowy under-the-table appointees used by Obama to dodge the usual approval processes. In fact, of the 32 czars Beck lists: ■Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar"). ■Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security. ■Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.) ■In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars. These new "czars" include the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; the director of recovery for auto communities and workers; the senior advisor for the president’s Automotive Task Force; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the federal chief information officer; the chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board; the White House director of urban affairs; and the White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, security and arms control. Or, as Glenn Beck would have it, the Afghanistan czar, the auto recovery czar, the car czar, the embattled green jobs czar, the information czar, the stimulus accountability czar, the urban affairs czar and the WMD policy czar. Some of these new positions would have been meaningless in a previous administration. Previous presidents didn’t need an Automotive Task Force or a Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. These positions are similar to George W. Bush’s "World Trade Center health czar" and "Gulf Coast reconstruction czar" in that they are new advisory positions created to deal with temporary challenges facing the administration. Others do represent new long-term concerns (urban affairs, climate change), but the act of appointing advisers to manage new areas of interest is hardly unique to the Obama administration. The Bush administration, for instance, created the "faith-based czar" and the "cybersecurity czar." Another thing: Beck counts among his 32 "czars" three who have not been called "czars" by reporters at all, except in stories claiming that the Obama administration has lots of "czars." We’ve compiled a FactCheck.org list that discounts these positions, which seem to be "czars" only in the context of media czar-hysteria. (Our list also adds three czars Beck’s research didn’t find – a "diversity czar," a "manufacturing czar" and an "Iran czar.") As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress. |
||||||
|
oh yeah |
||||||
|
z ... I compliment Softy for at least responding to the previous post. I didn't think he would respond as he often ducks these kinds of things; but, he gave a reasonable response from his traditional viewpoint ... perhaps your response will be educational for him as well. |
||||||
|
chaz |
||||||
|
illegally?? Time is running short for this mockery of a party. History is about to teach these fools a very very big lesson. And i can't wait!!!!!! Here is the real face of the robot. I hope you can understand what harvesting means. We saw it with good profitable companies all across the Country.Trouble is real middle-class workers got Harvested!!;www.youtube.com |
||||||
|
Chaz |
||||||
|
zorroloco 27-Sep-12, 19:21 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 27-Sep-12, 19:21.
|
||||||
|
I disagree with the supreme court decision somewhat, though did appreciate the way they cinched up the commerce clause and said that congress could not make you buy a consumer good. We'll have to see if the law is again challenged when the tax is applied. If the mandate is a tax, then the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the issue until there is actually an aggrieved party, which there should be in 2013. Again, though . . . ACA was a boondoggle to the insurance companies who are more than happy to have the government penalize you for not buying their products, even if they cannot deny someone coverage. Things should be ok for me under ACA, as in I'll still get paid, and will be guaranteed pay because people will be forced to buy insurance, though there will be more red tape, and other hoops to jump through. However, like I said it really didn't solve the problem which to my mind are lack or trouble of access, preventive or otherwise, and the spiraling cost. I don't know how to control costs unless the government breaks down and simply operates it own health system - something like the VA system. Which isn't perfect, but it works reasonably well for most things. Pay docs a base salary to work, with bonuses for performance markers and you remove the pay for service issues - though this will mean that docs are punching a clock, so don't expect any after-hours heroics unless absolutely necessary. Docs will go to working regular business hours for most things non-emergent, don't expect anyone to work or stay late. This would be paid for with tax dollars, perhaps taken out with like FICA - it'd be the same as your insurance premium coming right now anyway. Then operating outside of this system should be a private system for people who would like to buy private insurance above and beyond their government coverage. These people cannot opt out of paying for the government insurance, and on top of that buy more insurance if they can afford it. I think that would plug most holes and keep most people happy, and do so in a way that pays for itself. Though, it is but a rough sketch. |
||||||
|
stinky ... |
||||||
|
Jdh << All it did was keep the same system we have now, but made everyone buy insurance as the deal with the devil to the insurance companies so that they couldn't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.>> All it's done is create a cartel, which is a shame. |
||||||
|
READ THE GODDAMN THING housedocs.house.gov |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
THE ' boondoggle' |
||||||
|
i was talking to someone else, not you |
||||||
|
i'll help you even more itchy!! |
||||||
|
The reason I asked you to point out the relevant section is more than simple laziness, I want to make sure we are reading and discussing the same part as well. So if you wouldn't mind showing me exactly why you think as you do I would be grateful. |
||||||
|
this is how foxnews spins it with disinformation now the the wonderful severely conservative candidate's view;www.youtube.com |
||||||
|
ITCHY |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
