TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › And The Truth Comes Out
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

And The Truth Comes Out

post #1 of 44
4/25/10 at 8:57pm
Thread Starter 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0mAbgz9ep

Quote:

On Obamacare, the president and his appointees said repeatedly over the last year that it would reduce government health care spending. Yet now comes Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's Department of Health and Human Services secretary, confessing that "We don't know how much it's going to cost." Why is Sebelius only now saying this when her own department just made public a report obviously months in preparation that projected government health care costs overall will go up, not down? That same HHS report also said Obamacare's Medicare cuts could put 15 percent of all hospitals out of business, making treatment harder to get and more expensive, especially for seniors.
This will come as no surprise to many of us and it will be a crushing blow to some and there will still be some that will deny it is true.
How could it be anything other than what it is?
Reply
post #2 of 44
4/26/10 at 12:23am
Do you have any other source for this so called "truth" besides the highly biased ultra conservative Washington Examiner?? IMO that is merely an opinion, and nothing more until I see other sources. I mean, that site is so biased that by the first paragraph it loses the credibility as a serious News Source, and pretty much becomes a blog... Not professional...
Of course I should really be asking for a video, right, like you have done here many times? Do you have a video of her saying this? Can you prove it?
Reply
post #3 of 44
4/26/10 at 4:26am
Kinda funny actually..."we don't know" doesn't equate to higher, or lower. It pretty much means "we don't know".

As long as people that are without finally get health care coverage, it's no bigger either way.
Reply
post #4 of 44
4/26/10 at 5:03am
The report confirms it will be higher, but her answer wasn't complete backtracking, she went into some detail about scams already in place and a possible future bill in the works to legislate costs and without numbers for those she said she could not predict costs

I am sure the report is available but the overview with the covering memo is here
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/he...health.html?hp

It has a nice breakdown of costs by medicare / coverage
Reply
post #5 of 44
4/26/10 at 6:43am
It is important to consider the whole article rather than just bits and pieces which can be "spun" to mean whatever we want to read into them.
Reply
post #6 of 44
4/26/10 at 8:30am
In passt history (last 100 yrs) any of the "new" government programs have ALWAYS cost far more then orignially stated. What makes anyone think this is any different? Why do you need written facts.

Its obvious this Obamacare will cause more problems and more money - far more then what is stated or tried to fool the American people into thinking. So far Obama has lied about everything or at least didn't tell the entire story till after things were done.

Any one believing otherwise is living in a dream world that is controlled by Obama and company.
Reply
post #7 of 44
4/26/10 at 8:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
In passt history (last 100 yrs) any of the "new" government programs have ALWAYS cost far more then orignially stated. What makes anyone think this is any different? Why do you need written facts. Of course I want facts - a statement has been made calling them liars based on a supposed "fact". Naturally, I want a credible source. Furthermore, If any and all new government program in the last 100 years cost more than initially estimated.... What makes this such a huge and evil deal like it never happened before... Like only Obama could be such a disgrace?

Its obvious this Obamacare will cause more problems and more money - far more then what is stated or tried to fool the American people into thinking. So far Obama has lied about everything or at least didn't tell the entire story till after things were done.

Any one believing otherwise is living in a dream world that is controlled by Obama and company. This is a matter of opinion, Highly a matter of opinion... I guarantee you that we, Obama supporters, don't think this way at all, so it is not that obvious... and BTW, we live in the same World as yours, not a dream World - we are just a little happier, perhaps. And yeah, there are many many many of us around.
....................................
Reply
post #8 of 44
4/26/10 at 8:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
In passt history (last 100 yrs) any of the "new" government programs have ALWAYS cost far more then orignially stated. What makes anyone think this is any different? Why do you need written facts.
Exactly. Cost overruns are standard in government projects, from patching potholes to healthcare. So, there's no story here.
Reply
post #9 of 44
4/26/10 at 9:09am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Do you have any other source for this so called "truth" besides the highly biased ultra conservative Washington Examiner?? IMO that is merely an opinion, and nothing more until I see other sources. I mean, that site is so biased that by the first paragraph it loses the credibility as a serious News Source, and pretty much becomes a blog... Not professional...
Of course I should really be asking for a video, right, like you have done here many times? Do you have a video of her saying this? Can you prove it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36726295...h_care_reform/
Is this source left-wing enough to be credible?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr...evich-20100423
Really? Does the LA Times "lose credibility"? Is the LA Times, a well known liberal site, "biased" for reporting the news?

As far as Barack's vacated Senate seat, I think it is logical that Barack was interested in who would fill that seat, don't you? Be that as it may, I didn't mention that part of the article, you did. It is news, whether you agree with it or not and left leaning sites are reporting it also.


I ask for links, video, not so much.
Reply
post #10 of 44
4/26/10 at 9:18am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Of course I want facts - a statement has been made calling them liars based on a supposed "fact". Naturally, I want a credible source. Furthermore, If any and all new government program in the last 100 years cost more than initially estimated.... What makes this such a huge and evil deal like it never happened before... Like only Obama could be such a disgrace?
I just posted your "facts" and from a "credible source"

I don't believe that the government has ever taken over 17% of the GDP before, have they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Exactly. Cost overruns are standard in government projects, from patching potholes to healthcare. So, there's no story here.
Oh, there is a story all right, some may just refuse to listen.
Reply
post #11 of 44
4/26/10 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I just posted your "facts" and from a "credible source"

I don't believe that the government has ever taken over 17% of the GDP before, have they?
To spend here, at home, on US citizens, regardless of race, sex, social status, sexual orientation or conservative ideals of "worthiness". Right where it belongs!



Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Oh, there is a story all right, some may just refuse to listen.
Story, perhaps! Not the intentional evil disaster some are desperate for it to be, but a story none the less. But hardly anything new. Happens all the time. I'm sure medical providers at the corporate level are already working on how they can play it to make up for any profit they might miss out on.
Reply
post #12 of 44
4/26/10 at 9:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

Story, perhaps! Not the intentional evil disaster some are desperate for it to be, but a story none the less. But hardly anything new. Happens all the time. I'm sure medical providers at the corporate level are already working on how they can play it to make up for any profit they might miss out on.
Not more than six times or our claim to fame will be that we are just like Venezuela.


And where is that health care reform that was going to lower costs again?
30 some million more people will be covered but the health care costs skyrocket? Now that is what I really call reform.
Reply
post #13 of 44
4/26/10 at 10:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Not more than six times or our claim to fame will be that we are just like Venezuela.


And where is that health care reform that was going to lower costs again?
30 some million more people will be covered but the health care costs skyrocket? Now that is what I really call reform.
Oh, we've had government cost overruns far, far, FAR more than six times.

The reform was covering the 30 some million more people. As for additional costs, that is still absolutely nothing beyond mere speculation. The details will be smoothed out as things go along, just like in every other project.
Reply
post #14 of 44
4/26/10 at 10:22am
Its not mere spectulation - its given - how you can expect the cost to go down is beyond me - why do people believe what Obama says? When has he told the truth to date?
Reply
post #15 of 44
4/26/10 at 10:22am
The report was also several months in the making so who knows if it includes changes for amendments to the bill too
Reply
post #16 of 44
4/26/10 at 10:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
Its not mere spectulation - its given - how you can expect the cost to go down is beyond me - why do people believe what Obama says? When has he told the truth to date?
When you reduce cost per capita, but then add 30+ million heads, the total is going to go up. Basic mathematics.

Think of it like theater tickets. If you save $2 on a $10 ticket, it's $8...but then you have to buy tickets for 20 people, the total becomes $160, even though you cut costs on the tickets.

I think the whole problem boils down to, there are people that just don't want 3 of those people to see the movie.
Reply
post #17 of 44
4/26/10 at 10:52am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Oh, we've had government cost overruns far, far, FAR more than six times.

The reform was covering the 30 some million more people. As for additional costs, that is still absolutely nothing beyond mere speculation. The details will be smoothed out as things go along, just like in every other project.
You totally missed my point, that's not like you.

That wasn't the ONLY thing the Obama administration put out there as the "reform."
"Speculation" based on all past costs of all government programs.
Reply
post #18 of 44
4/26/10 at 12:58pm
Thread Starter 
It has been my observation here lately, that when posters are unable to debate an issue based on merit they feel the need to attack the source as if that, somehow, deflects the debate. IMO, all it does is show they have a problem debating their position.

And yes, I did slam a MSNBC poll for the simple fact that it will be slanted to the left as any Fox News poll is worthless because it will be slanted to the right, and I posted to that effect.

No big deal, I'm sure not the IMO police, just making an observation.
Reply
post #19 of 44
4/26/10 at 1:08pm
Well sometimes the source does need to be considered (not in every case, but in some you just have to)

But as skippy said, to me its just not news, the day a government does something the way it was planned and within budget - that will be news
Reply
post #20 of 44
4/26/10 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
But as skippy said, to me its just not news, the day a government does something the way it was planned and within budget - that will be news
The same phenomena happens to all big companies also. The game is that is played usually goes like this: The project will cost $X billion dollars over 10 years. In year 2, unexpected changes occur which make the original estimate completely wrong (usually under estimated). The cost is recalculated, and if the company can't afford it, they cut portions of the project out. If they feel it worthy, they cut other projects in order to afford it. This is repeated each year as the budget is reset for that year. This is business across the country.

I'd be curious if Bush's war was the most misrepresented expenditure in the history of our country. That one never even made it into the budget, so I guess there wouldn't be a good paper trail on how it kept ballooning.
Reply
post #21 of 44
4/26/10 at 3:27pm
Thread Starter 
When you have the government taking over 1/6, that is one-sixth, 17%, of the economy, I would say that is a HUGE deal. And that being a conservative estimate, will probably end up being, 25% to 30% of the economy.

Not to mention, taking over Car manufacturers, giving himself the authority to dissolve any companies HE feels are to big. This guy thinks he's freaking Caesar.
Reply
post #22 of 44
4/26/10 at 3:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
Well sometimes the source does need to be considered (not in every case, but in some you just have to)

But as skippy said, to me its just not news, the day a government does something the way it was planned and within budget - that will be news
The Washington Examiner may lean right but it surely would not quote bogus claims put out in a HHS report that is so easy to check even a cave man could do it.

IMO, the source was trashed so the subject did not have to be debated.

The same with the offensive, vile, anti-semitic pictures I posted three different links to because my first link was trashed so bad. The pictures were authentic but because someone didn't like the site they were dismissed.
If you aren't able to debate, don't debate (general you) but when you just trash the source it seems you have no come back.

Regarding your second paragraph, we aren't talking about any old spending bill here, we are talking about something unprecedented in the history of this country. People seem to forget how enormous this is.
Reply
post #23 of 44
4/26/10 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Not to mention, taking over Car manufacturers, giving himself the authority to dissolve any companies HE feels are to big. This guy thinks he's freaking Caesar.
hmmmmm........didn't the car companies already pay back the loans extended to them to save U.S. jobs?

I really don't understand the propaganda machine on the right.
Reply
post #24 of 44
4/26/10 at 4:33pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
hmmmmm........didn't the car companies already pay back the loans extended to them to save U.S. jobs?

I really don't understand the propaganda machine on the right.
Why don't you tell me? Did they really?
Or did they repay their "bail out" with their "bail out" money?

Is that all of them or just some of them?
Reply
post #25 of 44
4/26/10 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Why don't you tell me? Did they really?
Or did they repay their "bail out" with their "bail out" money?

Is that all of them or just some of them?
Chrysler and GM both paid back their loans. Chrysler was paid back a while ago and GM paid in full last week (5 years earlier than their plan).
Reply
post #26 of 44
4/26/10 at 9:25pm
[quote=ckblv;2865136]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36726295...h_care_reform/
Is this source left-wing enough to be credible?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr...evich-20100423
Really? Does the LA Times "lose credibility"? Is the LA Times, a well known liberal site, "biased" for reporting the news?

As far as Barack's vacated Senate seat, I think it is logical that Barack was interested in who would fill that seat, don't you? Be that as it may, I didn't mention that part of the article, you did. It is news, whether you agree with it or not and left leaning sites are reporting it also.
 [QUOTE


Good Post ckblv.
Reply
post #27 of 44
4/27/10 at 5:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
As long as people that are without finally get health care coverage, it's no bigger either way.
But they aren't, and most won't for another 3-4 years. However, insurance companies report they are already getting calls from people wondering when they are going to get their free health insurance cards.

I did hear there was a furor in Congress over insuring that they won't lose THEIR current coverage. A bill was at least discussed to insure that, but I haven't heard anything more about it. If they're worried, why shouldn't everyone else be worried?
Reply
post #28 of 44
4/27/10 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
hmmmmm........didn't the car companies already pay back the loans extended to them to save U.S. jobs?
Do a quick search. You'll find GM paid back their bailout loans...with bailout funds!
Reply
post #29 of 44
4/27/10 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
But they aren't, and most won't for another 3-4 years. However, insurance companies report they are already getting calls from people wondering when they are going to get their free health insurance cards.

I did hear there was a furor in Congress over insuring that they won't lose THEIR current coverage. A bill was at least discussed to insure that, but I haven't heard anything more about it. If they're worried, why shouldn't everyone else be worried?
But if not for this bill, they never would. Some things only happen so fast.

I have coverage now, that may not exist when this thing goes into full effect...and I'm not worried, FTR.

Edit: As an aside, I wonder how many of those in Congress creating a furor are merely those who opposed the bill, creating yet another furor for furor's sake.
Reply
post #30 of 44
4/27/10 at 5:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Do a quick search. You'll find GM paid back their bailout loans...with bailout funds!
I don't understand...is giving back money you don't spend now a bad thing?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › And The Truth Comes Out