-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/either_obama_is_a_liar_or_the_number_of_uninsured_americans_just_shrunk_by_ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
The cons are further marginalized.
Obama loves people like you Dino. Anytime he can get a sucker to spread his lies he feels he did his work for the day.
"Yes" (as in both) is the correct answer.
A. Obama is a liar
B. The Number Of Uninsured Americans Just Shrunk By 17 Million
C. There are 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance. Of these 47 million, 30 million "cannot get coverage*," with the remaining uninsured Americans [i]opting[/i] not to get coverage (eg, healthy young people).
* Direct quote from speech.
A. Obama is a liar
B. The Number Of Uninsured Americans Just Shrunk By 17 Million
C. There are 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance. Of these 47 million, 30 million "cannot get coverage*," with the remaining uninsured Americans opting not to get coverage (eg, healthy young people).
* Direct quote from speech.[/quote]
Wrong again Todd.
Since this number comes from 2003 (for 1998), we'll use the 2003 numbers:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4211&type=0
[quote]It is frequently stated that about 40 million Americans lack health insurance. That estimate overstates the number of people who are uninsured all year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that between 21 million and 31 million people were uninsured for all of 1998, the most recent year for which reliable comparative data are available. Since then, the number who are uninsured all year probably has not changed substantially, given historical trends. Furthermore, the uninsured population is fluid, with many people gaining and losing coverage. Between half and two-thirds of the people who experienced a period of time without insurance in 1998, for example, had coverage for other portions of the year. [/quote]
So immediately, the 41 million number is bunk. 11-21 million of that number HAD insurance at some point during the year. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the uninsured are insured at some point during the year.
As the CBO notes, the studies which ask people every few months, yield an average of 21 million who were uninsured for a whole year. Of these, 14% were young, 16% were part timers, 23% were hispanic, and 13% were unimployed. So 3 million of the uninsured are people my age who don't want to spend the money. Another 3 million are working their way up the ladder and don't qualify yet. Over 5 million are most likely illegals. And almost 3 million don't work. So the unemployed "crisis" is 7 million people. 2% of the public. And all of those 2 million qualify for government aid.
Everyone who claims there is a health care crisis is a fool, a liar, or both.
An overwhelming percentage of Americans are intelligent enough to purchase health insurance, fire insurance or car insurance. I, personally do not need an advertisement before I purchase insurance. It is a calculated risk that I am still free to exercise.
I fought for that freedom, so did my ancestors.
hahaha
17M divided by 300+ million Americans = approximately 5% of the US population??
It is nothing to do with health care, or health Ins......it is everything to do with circumventing the Bill of Rights by day to day control of Indiv's
Where do I send for the prize money? Large bills please, deposited in my Cayman Islands account.
Its high time Republicans started calling Osama Obama on all his lies. Its time to document every single one of them on the House and Senate floor.
Also, what about the non-citizens who have legal documents and are contributing to society and paying taxes legally? They also suffer from the health care problem.
If ponies could fly we would all be better off! Chris, they can't cover more people for less money. You are engaging in magical thinking. I'll tell you what. You let them try it out with Medicaid and Medicare right now. The only thing is, they have to pay the actual costs of treatment. Not the underpayments they are doing right now. If they can truly cut costs and cover more people then those plans will show us how to do it. I will then believe that its possible. Until then, no.
lower costs for the individual = more coverage. Don't they go hand-in-hand?? The idea is that people will choose the public option when they cannot afford private insurance, because it'll be cheeper. The real question is how the government is going to pay for it. I'd like to see more detail also.
Let's put this in some perspective: the Iraq war and the last few tax cuts were all more expensive than what's estimated for the health care proposal. You didn't think twice about those actions, but you get a real stomach ache about health care reform. WHY?
Yes, lower costs could mean more coverage. How are they going to get the "lower costs" part? You guy's always parrot this line but never provide the "how" part. Let's say my company sells aircraft. I could come to our next sales meeting and say, "If we lower costs we can sell more airplanes!" Everyone isn't going to jump up and say, "That Greg is a genius! Why didn't we thing of that!" They are going to look at me and say, "Where are we going to cut costs?" My company has a whole department dedicated to cutting costs. Turns out "cutting costs" is easy if you want to do without things like "quality". Tell me, how are the costs going to be cut? Medicare and Medicaid currently do not even pay the operating costs to the hospital. (I've wrote about this several times so either google it or look in the archives). Private insurance makes up the difference. How are you going to do with out that subsidy and save money? If you can answer that question I'll be happy to vote for reform.
That's not "perspective", chris, it's lying distraction. National Defense is a Constitutional function of our central govt; forcing people to buy govt healthcare insurance is not.
Furthermore, the tax rate cuts [i]increased[/i] revenues to the Treasury, so they didn't "cost" us anything; they paid for themselves and more.
If you want to defend Obma's lies, you will have to stay on topic and try to find some facts to back you up.
Govt spends our money; it never "saves" anything.
Not even valid math. Increased coverage=increased overall cost, unless the cost per individual is significantly lowered, and neither you nor Obama has done anything more than simply claim that, with no evidence to back it up.
The real question is: Where are the doctors going to come from to treat all the new "free" patients? Lowering the price increases the demand.
I don't claim to have all the answers for your question, but here are a few things:
-Being a government program, it'll be non-profit, which is naturally cheeper.
-Some if not a large portion of the program will be payed for by cutting wasteful spending of existing programs.
Again, I'm waiting for more details. and I don't have time to do extensive research right now.
-Some if not a large portion of the program will be payed for by cutting wasteful spending of existing programs. [b]This is pure nonsense. Here's what that actually means: we are going to cut the cost of govt to pay for more govt. Again, that's just nonsense.[/b][/quote]
You seem to have no knowledge of economics, chris.
OK, so tell me, what's more expensive, UPS or the US postal service? Can you think of an example where a government program is more expensive to the buyer than a private company?
[quote]This is pure nonsense. Here's what that actually means: we are going to cut the cost of govt to pay for more govt. Again, that's just nonsense.[/quote]
Does that mean it's not legitimate to say I'll buy less beer in order to have more gas money?? Spending less in one area to have more money to spend in another area is lession 101 in finance.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a non profit and we were treated to Obama telling us that it has a 90% share in Alabama and is presumably a problem. Non-profit isn't some magic phrase that waves cost away. Right now Medicare and Medicaid do not pay at a level that will pay of the cost of treatment. Medicaid pay's at a level that is 69% of cost. That difference is made up by the private insurance. You still not told me how we are going to soak up that subsidy and still lower costs.
[quote] -Some if not a large portion of the program will be payed for by cutting wasteful spending of existing programs.[/quote]
If they is wasteful spending, cut them right now. Let us see the benefits and we will talk. Hell if really is wasteful we should cut it. Why aren't we doing that right now? Mostly because its a talking point to get rubes to vote for "reform". Guess what you don't need special reform to cut wasteful spending, just cut it! What are you waiting for?
[quote]
Again, I'm waiting for more details. and I don't have time to do extensive research right now[/quote]
So you are advocating for something that you don't know the details of and can't be bothered to research? And we are supposed to follow you like some Pied Piper? Right!
Which is light years more effective UPS or the Postal Service? UPS will guarantee your package will be delivered by 8:00AM the next morning. The Express service by the Post office will get it there in 1 to 2 days. I can tell you from personnel experience my company only ships by the postal service when there is no hurry for something to get there. If we need it there, we us UPS or FedEx, ever time.
\\
[quote]
Can you think of an example where a government program is more expensive to the buyer than a private company[/quote]
The military. A VA home loan. Bailing out GM. Social Security. Where else could you give the government 15% of your earnings for life and get a 1% return on investment. Shall I go on?
Lets see those numbers. I would love to see your "costs" on the tax cuts.
Medicare and Medicaid doesn't pay for everyting, but would you argue that they are not cheeper than the alternative?
[quote]If they is wasteful spending, cut them right now.[/quote]
Bush had 8 years to do that and he didn't. Obama is the one proposing to cut waste.
[quote]So you are advocating for something that you don't know the details of and can't be bothered to research? And we are supposed to follow you like some Pied Piper? Right![/quote]
Excuse me! I'm not the one throwing out disinformation about death pannels and such. You should tell your people to do some research before opening their mouths. I don't expect anybody to follow me. I'm not the president and it's not my proposal, and I never told anybody to follow me. But from what I've gathered so far it makes more sense than not having a public option.
If we include taxpayer subsidy of the USPS, then the Postal Service is absolutely more expensive.
Really, the Post Office of your example is non profit, has highly paid execs and gives out bonuses too. Why should we believe that the "government option" wouldn't do those things either?
[quote]Bush had 8 years to do that and he didn't. Obama is the one proposing to cut waste.[/quote]
Bush is out of power. I can see that you are slow but the offer still stands, OBAMA can cut waste. He's the one! He has a Super majority. Leave Bush out of this. If Obama wants me to believe that "waste" can be cut, let him cut it! Its real simple, if I tell you we can save money by doing a thing, then I tell you to go ahead, cut the program so we can save money. If you then look at me and say, "You had 8 years to save money" then I am going to think you are what you are, a partisan hack. Guess what! Obama was the one that said he could cut the waste. Put up or shut up! The tried and true, Bush, Bush, Bush, doesn't cut it. Bush didn't state he could cut waste. You and Zero did. My God, its like arguing with a child.
[quote]Excuse me! I'm not the one throwing out disinformation about death pannels and such. You should tell your people to do some research before opening their mouths. I don't expect anybody to follow me. I'm not the president and it's not my proposal, and I never told anybody to follow me. But from what I've gathered so far it makes more sense than not having a public option.[/quote]
Yes you are. You are the one that said this...
[quote]Again, I'm waiting for more details. and I don't have time to do extensive research right now[/quote]
You are arguing in favor of something YOU admit that you don't know the details of and can't be bothered to research! Then you have the gall to say we are spreading disinformation. Unbelievable. I've read HR3200, have you? Or do you often go around talking about something where you are "waiting for more details. and I don't have time to do extensive research right now".
Its easy to be cheaper if you don't pay what the cost of a service is. Guess what, without private insurance to pick up the slack, WE WILL PAY for it! Jesus, can you think? Can hospitals take in less than they cost to operate? Can doctors take in less than it costs to operate? What will happen when that subsidy goes away? We will pay more or doctors and hospitals will go away. Its basic economics. Wishing it away won't make it go away. What's your brilliant plan?
Also, what about the non-citizens who have legal documents and are contributing to society and paying taxes legally? They also suffer from the health care problem.[/quote]
Three problems with this:
1. If you cannot afford health care yourself, you ALREADY qualify for government insurance.
2. Legal aliens usually have coverage as they came to the country with high paying jobs, or, in the case of student visas, are often covered by their embassy.
3. People don't get dropped for a "pre-existing condition", because if they are covered, they already passed the screening for the pre-existing condition status.
Another lemming spouting talking points.
[quote]Let's put this in some perspective: the Iraq war and the last few tax cuts were all more expensive than what's estimated for the health care proposal. You didn't think twice about those actions, but you get a real stomach ache about health care reform. WHY?[/quote]
The last tax cuts generated more revenue, so they made money. There was no cost. Ignoring that however...
The Iraq war was a legitimate function of government, whereas ObamaCare is not.
As for costs, it is costing me endlessly more money to get my car registered than it would to just buy some beer and enjoy myself throughout the week. Which is a better use of my money?
[quote]OK, so tell me, what's more expensive, UPS or the US postal service? Can you think of an example where a government program is more expensive to the buyer than a private company? [/quote]
I can think of tons of examples:
Public Schools
USPS
The Senate restaurant
Medicare/Medicaid
In fact, there's not a single example of a government service that DOESN'T cost more.
But you're an economic illiterate. And a partisan hack to boot.
so exxaggerated? YOu minimize a huge heartbreaking problem you nincompoop