According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, when Stephen Moore interviewed John Boehner about the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, Barack Obama told Boehner that, ″We don′t have a spending problem.″ Obama explained to the Speaker of the House that the cause of the National Debt and budget deficits stem from a ″health care problem″, which Obama claims to have solved with ObamaCare. When Boehner tried to convince Obama that Washington does indeed have a ″very serious spending problem″, Obama′s retort was, ″I′m getting tired of hearing you say that.″ So is it any wonder that Boehner gave up trying to talk any sense and negotiate a deal? And is it any wonder that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will attempt to act with Obama and continue to push for more tax increases?
I was tempted to entitle this ′Obama – A Legacy of Insanity′, because if Obama really does think that the federal government does not have a spending problem, or that health care costs are the sole reason for the National Debt being about $16.5 Trillion dollars, then Barack Hussein Obama is truly insane! No question about it! I mean, if he were to add paying for two unfunded wars, then at least Obama ′might′ have some shred of credibility. And that is a pretty small threshold for ′might.′
Naturally, the humorous irony is that Obama′s own ′fix′ for health care is actually raising the cost of health insurance, not lowering it as advertized. A new study shows that the young people, who must soon acquire health insurance by law or pay a fine, will see their rates increase by 40% for those between 21 through 29 and 35% for those between 30 and 39. This is due to a provision in ObamaCare that limits the cost to senior citizens to no more than triple the rates as those for young adults. The bottom line is that health insurance rates are going up for everybody and ObamaCare will further bankrupt America.
Obama and the Democrats are already gearing up for another round of tax increases since they have no intentions of offering any real spending cuts. The ′talking point′ that they already have put $1 Trillion in cuts on the table is false since that involves the dreaded sequestration, which, as you might recall during the presidential debates, Obama promised would never happen. So is it any wonder why trying to negotiate with Obama and the Democrats is impossible? Boehner became so frustrated by the lack of honesty that after Harry Reid called the Speaker a dictator, the Ohio Congressman told the Senate Majority Leader to go ′fxxk yourself!′
So if you think that things are going to be any easier as we shift gears and begin negotiations for raising the debt ceiling limit, then you are about as insane as Barack Hussein Obama! I believe John Boehner when he says that Obama does not think that the federal government has a spending problem. I can even believe that Obama thinks that health care costs are the main reason for the $16.5 Trillion dollar National Debt. And that Obama believes that he has already solved that problem with his ObamaCare law. I believe these because I also believe that Obama is truly insane and that America, as we know and love it, is in for a long a difficult ride as the Democrats, led by Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, launch a new attack to raise taxes on us all.
January 8th, 2013 at 8:06 am
Obama and the other Democrats know exactly what they are doing. No convincing is necessary. They are out to turn this country into a Marxist State. What gets me is how niave the Republicans and the other conservatives are. If I were the speaker I would not try to convince any of the Democrats anything. The house should not give up their constitutional power. Tell Obama the house was going to do all it can to stop him from transforming this country! These week Republicans need be men not boys. They are not in Washington to win a popularity contest. The Republicans should contantly set the record straight through Fox Cable by asking for press conferences and not allow the left media promote the Democrats propaganda. The Republicans should be offensive instead of deffensive. Start accusing the Democrats of crimes they commit and let the Democrats defend their policies to Americans.
January 8th, 2013 at 9:23 am
“no spending problem”
I get drunk, I fall down.
No problem
January 8th, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Andy, as always you present and argument that would have merit if it didn’t defy reality. Your entire post is built on a foundation that promotes austerity, which is arguable, and that “Obamacare will further bankrupt America” which is utterly false. Regardless of how you slice it or incurred cost here or there, The Affordable Health Care Act reduces the federal deficit.
This is true regardless of your rebuttals that Obama pals with GE, Exxon shouldn’t pay taxes on their astronomical profits because they have low profit margins (?), Micky says “shut up ass hole”, or whatever non sequiturs you and your kibitzing sock-puppets respond with. The Affordable Health Care Act reduces the federal deficit. That reality deflates your entire argument.
January 8th, 2013 at 3:07 pm
“The Affordable Health Care Act reduces the federal deficit. That reality deflates your entire argument.”
How the hell is an act not even fully applied yet able to be given credit for reducing the deficit ?
And then you call an era a realty when it hasnt even happened yet ?
Theres not one government service in history thats ever stayed within its projected budgets. As a matter of fact Medicaid, Medicare,CHIP are all astronomically over projected budget and costs originated decades ago,and you believe socialized healthcare will reduce a deficit ?
If you think The Affordable Healthcare Act will not become another bloated over fed federal parasite you’re sadly mistaken and borderline insane.
Or just a euphoric and delusional Marxist.
January 8th, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Just what we deserve for putting an idiot in charge of the economy. Say, where are those college transcripts for us to assess his competence in subjects that matter?
January 9th, 2013 at 5:22 am
Ronald, you are such a dolt! Once again you attempt to insinuate that Exxon pays no taxes when I have shown time and time again that they do pay taxes, plus lease fees and royalties. So please find another baby seal to club, okay?
As for the ‘Affordable Care Act’, there is already plenty of evidence that the ObamaCare law has led to increased health care costs even before it is fully implemented. Once it is, not only will costs continue to skyrocket, but access will decrease as treatment is rationed and the federal budget deficit will grow. Mainly from increases in Medicaid which will become the default health insurance for the nation.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:25 am
BTW, Ronald, I do think that GE should pay more taxes than they do now since they are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. But we won’t see Obama and his minions go after them since GE is part of the Obama regime.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:42 am
“access will decrease as treatment is rationed and the federal budget deficit will grow”
Why will access decrease and treatment rationed? Is this due to the increase volume of people with access? Please elaborate.
As mentioned in my first post, there will be incurred expenses but at the end of the day, The Affordable Health Care Act is a deficit reducing bill. That’s just a fact.
January 9th, 2013 at 6:30 am
You figure it out, Ronald. We’re adding some 30 million people to the health care system while we already have a huge shortage of nurses and about half the doctors currently practicing threatening to walk away. About 2/3rds of doctors say they will no longer take Medicare or Medicaid patients.
And yes, the law does include a bureaucratic panel to dispense treatment. It may not be a ‘death panel’, but it surely will lead to many people dying.
January 9th, 2013 at 7:23 am
“As mentioned in my first post, there will be incurred expenses but at the end of the day, The Affordable Health Care Act is a deficit reducing bill. That’s just a fact.”
Nothing is “fact” until it actually happens ass hole.
So far the act and its authors only claim it reduces deficit.
Good grief you’re stupid.
All you’ve got is speculation.
PLEASE ! Find me one government subsidized service thats ever reduced our deficit !
January 9th, 2013 at 8:19 am
So what you’re telling me Andy is that there’s just not enough room in our health care system to allow the have nots access as that would inconvenience the haves? Since we barely have the resources to accommodate the haves, allowing the have nots in would cause rationing.
Aside from your opinion being of the unhinged fringed talking points with little merit, it highlights a very ugly side of you. This brings us back to the Ron Paul theory that “they can just go home and die” (which by Arriba’s definition must have overwhelming Republican support based on the number that sat quite on the subject). At least his belief was that they should be responsible enough to afford insurance that’s 3 times their salary. You seem to be saying that they should just go home and die rather than to crowd out those of a higher financial status. The more influential might die waiting while someone of less wealth is being treated.
How can you be so hypocritical on abortion when you advocate such hideous beliefs?
Please point to the language of the bill that validates your updated version of death panels or where there are “bureaucratic panel to dispense treatment”. You are either being dishonest with me, dishonest with yourself, or blatantly ignorant on the subject.
And The Affordable Health Care Act, regardless of it’s flaws, is a federal deficit reduction legislation.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:33 am
Ronald, if you are going to argue, use the “fairness” argument or something along the lines, in order to keep it intellectually honest. It’s very difficult to take you seriously when you defend Obamacare as deficit-reducing. Medicare’s horrendous deficit numbers should slap you out of that self-induced ignorant stupor.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:38 am
Ronald,
In an ideal world where we actually have competition and success is seen as an aspiring goal, private health insurance would be much cheaper and there would be more incentive for people to excel in the health care industry.
The so-called ‘fact’ you claim on how ObamaCare will reduce federal budget deficits is based solely on projections made by the OMB. Even the CBO scoring is shaky at best given that in the entire history of government provided health care, only one single program actually cost less than it’s projected amount. That was the Medicare Part D ‘donut-hole’ fix, which Democrats scoff at because it was a GW Bush initiative.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:53 am
I am so sick and tired of the slippery slope rationed care BS. We have rationed care now. Been in an emergency room lately? I have, with a friend who was taken from our office in an ambulance. We were there for ten hours. He spent the entire time on a gurney in the hallway – never even made it into an exam room. Why so crowded? The place was full beyond capacity. A diabetic with her blood sugar off – no insurance so couldn’t just go to to a doctor, had to go to the ER. A parent with a child with a bad cold or flu – no insurance, so off to the ER. A woman with a heart condition. Not an emergency, but no insurance either so heads to the ER. My friend has excellent insurance, and his was an actual emergency, but his care was delayed because about 75% of the patients in the ER were there for routine medical issues. I call that rationing.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:05 am
Of course care is rationed.
Any insurance has its limits.
But, if you think government sponsored healthcare can ease rationing then you probably think you own a bridge as well.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:12 am
“And The Affordable Health Care Act, regardless of it’s flaws, is a federal deficit reduction legislation.”
Yeah, how’d all those other deficit reducing initiatives work so far ?
I see now you’re changing your tune a little.
In your earlier posts you said its “fact” that Obamacare would reduce the deficit.
Now you’re only claiming its intent as a legislation is to reduce deficit.
Surely you’re not wondering why everyone cant take you seriously.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:13 am
Andy, I can somewhat agree that in a world where it rained margaritas only in my empty glass, or as you put it “an ideal world”, things would be much better for all and people would excel and the health industry would thrive and there’d be no death as we’d all live happily ever after anyway. But that’s not the world we live in.
You seem to forget the cost to our deficit had we’d done nothing at all. You also forget that tax payer are picking up the tap for ER visits as they don’t turn folks away. Do I really need to research those numbers for you considering they’ve been hashed out so many times?
You completely avoided my post # 11 only to respond with, “uh, well, in an ideal world…..”.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:03 am
Yeah Ronald, you’re brilliant.
Any fool can point to the flaws in todays system.
But you still cant make the case that the Affordable Healthcare Act will make it better.
By the way, you’re a loser by default.
You can ignore me all you want.
My questions and statements to you are still relevant and factual.
You got nothin.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:05 am
” things would be much better for all and people would excel and the health industry would thrive and there’d be no death as we’d all live happily ever after anyway. But that’s not the world we live in.”
And thats not at all what Andy said.
You’re a sad sad man who can only function with false arguments you pull outcher rump
January 9th, 2013 at 2:20 pm
The major problem with the AHCA was including insurance companies. Unfortunately it was Obama’s own party that sold him out on that one as they didn’t want to alienate major insurance companies that are campaign contributors.
They get a slice for, in essence, creating obstacles to healthcare access while increasing paperwork.
Should have had a single payer system (like every other modern industrialized country). The government could have packaged up the 30 million or so people (especially as it includes a large number of low risk young people) and contracted directly with hospitals, medical equipment and pharmaceutical companies, much like the current Group Purchasing Organizations (GPO’s).
The buying power and leverage of that sizable patient population would have allowed for a much more streamlined and efficient model.
By the way, this nonsense of doctors doing something else is just that, nonsense. Their skills don’t transfer to other industries and even physicians will admit that as a group they are accurately labeled as “poor businessmen”.
In the future they will have to adapt; more volume at a smaller margin, while utilizing a greater number of Physician Assistants and RNP’s.
Additionally they need to hire consultants that have read the Affordable Health Care Act in detail to discern where the areas for profit potential exist.
For example a bone scan pays rather well, so a “smart” doctor should buy or lease the equipment, keep it in-house and realize the profit. The days of earning money simply by writing prescriptions is over.
Any industry that is gaining 30 million plus “new customers” should not be complaining; more demand and a somewhat static supply of providers simply results in more revenue potential. They will, however, have to learn to operate as businesses and many will be employees and not practice owners (a trend that is already becoming the norm).
I have mentioned this before, but does anyone wonder why there are now more auto factories in Ontario, Canada than Michigan? Let’s see, if am building a factory and the healthcare is covered by the government…..
Corporations shouldn’t have to pay for healthcare and the fact that they do is putting us at a competitive disadvantage.
As I stated the other day, how many people do you know that rail against the Affordable Health Care Act, but when you ask them if they have insurance the answer is no?
Mind-boggling!
January 9th, 2013 at 3:58 pm
“The buying power and leverage of that sizable patient population would have allowed for a much more streamlined and efficient model.”
Riiiiight.
Our government streamlines everything it touchs
January 10th, 2013 at 6:21 am
Ronald,
“You seem to forget the cost to our deficit had we’d done nothing at all.”
Oookay! So why then do we still have budget deficits of $1 Trillion dollars plus after the bill was passed? The truth is that it made zero dent in the budget deficits and as we move forward it will only increase them.
You also have to keep in mind that the projections on costs and revenues was based on CBO scoring that the economy would average a GDP growth rate of 4% or better starting in 2011 over the next 10 years. We are barely doing half of that. Plus, even the CBO found that beyond the first 10 years the ACA will add, not subtract, to the federal budget deficits.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/
January 10th, 2013 at 6:33 am
Here are just a few notable quotes from the Forbes article:
“In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s spending on new programs would amount to $929 billion from 2013-2019, and a ten-year cost of $944 billion. Those figures increased to $956 billion and $1,442 billion respectively in 2011, and $1,053 billion and $1,856 billion in 2012.”
Here is another, Ronald…
“In 2010, the CBO projected that Obamacare would reduce the deficit by $140 billion from 2013 to 2019. That has dropped to a measly $4 billion in its most recent report.”
I would also add another source, the Niall Ferguson article from Newsweek back on Aug. 19, 2012:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
“But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.”
So there you go. ObamaCare will not reduce the federal budget deficit at all but instead will dramatically increase it while being yet another drag on economic growth. Nice job, Obama!
January 10th, 2013 at 7:50 am
Andy, I try to give all links a fair shot regardless of how politically prejudice they are. That’s hard to do as I’m sure you’d roll your eyes if I linked to Thinkprogress, Daily Kos, Maddow, etc just as I would likely wince at Sean Hanity or Orly Taitz as a credible source. But I do try to focus on the argument or the point instead of immediately dismissing the source. Hell, maybe Mike Savage has a credible link that supports his spew. And I apologize if I’m attacking your heroes.
So aside from your Forbes article writer being Avik Roy, an admitted “outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues”, the very title of the post is “Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought”. There’s a keyword there that validates my argument; Reduce The Deficit LESS Than we previously thought. Roy even ends his article with an admission of not knowing what the CBO will decide in the years to come.
And good lord, the infamous Niall Ferguson Newsweek article that’s been picked apart and laugh at. It rates right up there with your refurbished Death Panels gibberish.
Brad DeLong, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley wrote;
“Fire his ass. Fire his ass from Newsweek, and the Daily Beast. Convene a committee at Harvard to examine whether he has the moral character to teach at a university. There is a limit, somewhere. And Ferguson has just gone beyond it”.
Dylan Byers, a media reporter at Politico wrote on Twitter that a Newsweek spokesman said the magazine does not have a fact-checking department, and that “we, like other news organizations today, rely on our writers to submit factually accurate material.”
Matt O’Brien, associate business editor at The Atlantic, wrote a post fact-checking Ferguson’s cover story, saying that “we got an exercise in Ferguson’s specialty — counterfactual history.”
The Atlantic has a full fact-check- http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-factcheck-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/
And to bring in someone you’ll surely love, Paul Krugman chewed him to bits with
The Affordable Health Care Act is a deficit reducing legislation.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:50 am
“The Affordable Health Care Act is a deficit reducing legislation.”
You and no one else knows this