Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

If Barry wins a 2nd term ...

bigpokey said:
*Barry wins a 2nd term...

fixed ur thread title, carry on fagfuktardngrshts
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention I've been schooled
from multiple sources (i.e. I don't learn from Huffington whatever site)
and fuck you
 
you bodybuilding peeps have never asked that?
what's that stringbean dweeb looking guy to that angry looking athletic chunky black gal
that she hangs with him?
 
I told you 13-14 months ago
Romney-Cain
and mr Db labeled me as insane/crazy/nuts etc
 
I forgot about the movie "Goodwill Hunting" mentioning Zinn as the end all be all historical treatise of the United States... I was dating Shelagh, my ex-wife, at the time and she pulled the "it's my Saturday night movie choice" card with me.

At the time I whispered to her.."Zinn is a communist"; If you want a Marxist view of American history it's probably a good read...

 
mrplunkey said:
Oh, so the CBO is the absolute standard for assessing the cost of Barrycare?

Then you need to turn-off MSNBC and watch the real world for a bit. Here's the LATEST CBO estimate.

CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion - Yahoo! News

The program hasn't even kicked-in and it's off the original estimate by $820 Billion. It isn't saving a damn dime. It's COSTING $820 billion. And that's with $500B in fake Medicare cuts and another $500B in fake "doc fix" assumptions that will never, ever, never, never, never, ever be implemented. So in reality, the 10-year cost is at least $820B + $500B + $500B = $1.82 Trillion dollars. Good luck paying that with Barry running-off every high-end taxpayer in the country. This should work out just peachy.

Or is the CBO suddenly wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you looked up some "facts" Plunkey, but now I'll help you understand them.

First, your link is not a news story, its a propaganda piece by right wing hack Brian Koenig. If you don't believe he's a hack, check out his website today. He is reporting breaking news that Malia Obama went to a concert and the mainstream media is covering it up!

Next you have to understand the difference between gross and net. The cost of healthcare is one number, and the total effect on the deficit is the other. 1.7 T cost over ten years sounds like a lot, and it is,if you assume current costs are zero. But they aren't, so the net effect over 10 years is still to reduce the deficit compared to not having Obamacare..

The CBO clearly stated that in that March 2012 update, but the right wing liars didn't mention it. They cherry picked where the costs were higher, and reported that, without mentioning where costs were lower, or where revenue was higher, or what the bottom line was at, which is still a net overall savings for the country.

It's important to note that when the CBO revision came out in March, they were looking at costs from 2012-2022, instead of 2011-2021. 2011 drops off (where Obamacare was not in place) and 2012 is added, where Obamacare will have a cost. So, a big chunk of the increased cost estimate is just from adding an additional year.

The most important lesson about your article is the lesson that the right wing lies. You are like most Fox news watchers, in that you believe the basic jist of the Koenig piece and the outrageous costs of Obamacare. But the truth is that the right wing plan is to eliminate Obamacare which makes the 2022 budget deficit estimate rise. So, in essence, the right wing plan is to spend more, and have less people covered.

Here is the information direct from the CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf

It's not that long of a report, but you probably don't want to read it. ;)
But scroll down to the third from he last page, which shows the bottom line on the deficit 10 years out. It shows a 48 billion deficit reduction. That's in the same report that Koenig and Fox refer to when they talk about the costs. It's the same report, but they never mention the bottom line. Right wing lies.

As Paul Harvey would say, now you know the rest of the story.
 
Headholio said:
I'm glad you looked up some "facts" Plunkey, but now I'll help you understand them.

First, your link is not a news story, its a propaganda piece by right wing hack Brian Koenig. If you don't believe he's a hack, check out his website today. He is reporting breaking news that Malia Obama went to a concert and the mainstream media is covering it up!

Next you have to understand the difference between gross and net. The cost of healthcare is one number, and the total effect on the deficit is the other. 1.7 T cost over ten years sounds like a lot, and it is,if you assume current costs are zero. But they aren't, so the net effect over 10 years is still to reduce the deficit compared to not having Obamacare..

The CBO clearly stated that in that March 2012 update, but the right wing liars didn't mention it. They cherry picked where the costs were higher, and reported that, without mentioning where costs were lower, or where revenue was higher, or what the bottom line was at, which is still a net overall savings for the country.

It's important to note that when the CBO revision came out in March, they were looking at costs from 2012-2022, instead of 2011-2021. 2011 drops off (where Obamacare was not in place) and 2012 is added, where Obamacare will have a cost. So, a big chunk of the increased cost estimate is just from adding an additional year.

The most important lesson about your article is the lesson that the right wing lies. You are like most Fox news watchers, in that you believe the basic jist of the Koenig piece and the outrageous costs of Obamacare. But the truth is that the right wing plan is to eliminate Obamacare which makes the 2022 budget deficit estimate rise. So, in essence, the right wing plan is to spend more, and have less people covered.

Here is the information direct from the CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf

It's not that long of a report, but you probably don't want to read it. ;)
But scroll down to the third from he last page, which shows the bottom line on the deficit 10 years out. It shows a 48 billion deficit reduction. That's in the same report that Koenig and Fox refer to when they talk about the costs. It's the same report, but they never mention the bottom line. Right wing lies.

As Paul Harvey would say, now you know the rest of the story.
Click to expand...

LOLOL! GorillaHung, you always see the world through libtard-colored glasses.

What a deceptive way of acknowledging their original estimate added-in years where taxes were/are collected but before the gubment cheese tap is turned-on all the way. So as they lose the ability over time to rely on the cost-revenue mismatch period they intentionally built into the scam, you try to spin it as the simple passage of time.

Put this in your liberal pipe and smoke it: If a CFO or CEO of a public company intentionally mismatched revenues and expenses so as to create a false impression of a company's finances just like Barry did with BarryCare, they'd go to jail -- as they should.
 
mrplunkey said:
LOLOL! GorillaHung, you always see the world through libtard-colored glasses.

What a deceptive way of acknowledging their original estimate added-in years where taxes were/are collected but before the gubment cheese tap is turned-on all the way. So as they lose the ability over time to rely on the cost-revenue mismatch period they intentionally built into the scam, you try to spin it as the simple passage of time.

Put this in your liberal pipe and smoke it: If a CFO or CEO of a public company intentionally mismatched revenues and expenses so as to create a false impression of a company's finances just like Barry did with BarryCare, they'd go to jail -- as they should.
Click to expand...

No no no Plunkster you are wrong. Look at the second to last page of the CBO report I linked.

It shows cost and revenue projections year by year. For the next two years, there are no revenues credited as you claim. There is no mismatch of credits and revenues. That's another Fox news lie you swallowed. You should be kind of pissed at Fox by now, shouldn't you, for lying to you so much?

And I'd appreciate it if you knocked off the name calling. I'm just trying to help you, and I'm not talking out my ass or off of lefty talking points. I provided the CBO report and the actual facts that go with it. You shouldn't use a term like libtard, just because it is difficult for you to accept that your preconceived notions were wrong. You should open your mind to the truth, instead of lashing out at me.

Frankly Plunkey, I'm not a big fan of the affordable care act. It could have been much better and saved us much more money if we went all out for a universal public system that EVERY SINGLE industrialized nation uses, except us.
So, I get no thrills in defending Obamacare, but as much as I dislike it, I dislike lies even more.
 
Headholio said:
No no no Plunkster you are wrong. Look at the second to last page of the CBO report I linked.

It shows cost and revenue projections year by year. For the next two years, there are no revenues credited as you claim. There is no mismatch of credits and revenues. That's another Fox news lie you swallowed. You should be kind of pissed at Fox by now, shouldn't you, for lying to you so much?

And I'd appreciate it if you knocked off the name calling. I'm just trying to help you, and I'm not talking out my ass or off of lefty talking points. I provided the CBO report and the actual facts that go with it. You shouldn't use a term like libtard, just because it is difficult for you to accept that your preconceived notions were wrong. You should open your mind to the truth, instead of lashing out at me.

Frankly Plunkey, I'm not a big fan of the affordable care act. It could have been much better and saved us much more money if we went all out for a universal public system that EVERY SINGLE industrialized nation uses, except us.
So, I get no thrills in defending Obamacare, but as much as I dislike it, I dislike lies even more.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're intentionally pretending to not understand the concept of mismatched revenues and expenses along with unrecognized liabilities because it fits your world view, or if you really don't know how that works.

Here's a quick test. If the US had to recognize all of its liabilities to FASB standards like a publicly traded company, what would you guess those liabilities to be?
 
mrplunkey said:
I can't tell if you're intentionally pretending to not understand the concept of mismatched revenues and expenses along with unrecognized liabilities because it fits your world view, or if you really don't know how that works.

Here's a quick test. If the US had to recognize all of its liabilities to FASB standards like a publicly traded company, what would you guess those liabilities to be?
Click to expand...

You are all over the place Plunkey. I think you don't even understand the talking point you are trying to regurgitate. You said;
What a deceptive way of acknowledging their original estimate added-in years where taxes were/are collected but before the gubment cheese tap is turned-on all the way. So as they lose the ability over time to rely on the cost-revenue mismatch period they intentionally built into the scam, you try to spin it as the simple passage of time.
Click to expand...

But, I showed you the CBO year by year analysis. It shows that this presumption is false. There are no years where revenues are credited toward the plan without offsetting expenditures.

Your propaganda article said;
"Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation," asserted Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner, "the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014." This accounting maneuver allowed analysts to cloak the true cost of ObamaCare, Klein alleged, making the law appear less expensive under the CBO's budget window.
Click to expand...

But again, I showed you that there is no revenue credited toward Obamacare from the time of the passage of the law to its 2014 implementation in 2014.

This talking point about delay of the law being used to hide the costs is false. I showed you that in black and white.

Now face the simple fact that the CBO estimates say the national debt will be less with Obamacare than without it. Period.
Republicans don't have a better plan, and they don't have facts to back up their criticisms of this plan.
 
Headholio said:
You are all over the place Plunkey. I think you don't even understand the talking point you are trying to regurgitate. You said;


But, I showed you the CBO year by year analysis. It shows that this presumption is false. There are no years where revenues are credited toward the plan without offsetting expenditures.

Your propaganda article said;


But again, I showed you that there is no revenue credited toward Obamacare from the time of the passage of the law to its 2014 implementation in 2014.

This talking point about delay of the law being used to hide the costs is false. I showed you that in black and white.

Now face the simple fact that the CBO estimates say the national debt will be less with Obamacare than without it. Period.
Republicans don't have a better plan, and they don't have facts to back up their criticisms of this plan.
Click to expand...

That answered my question. Thanks.
 
CheneyArticle_debt.jpg
 
-SD- said:
lol @ "projected"

Hey i project i will win the lotto and all will be right in the world.

Lets wait for things to actually happen before throwing up official looking charts and shit.
Click to expand...

That chart was biased, inaccurate and just plain wrong even when it was published. Now that it's dated, it doesn't reflect Barry re-signing the Bush tax cuts as well as Barry's Health Care takeover bill that's 1.8+ Trillion in the hole and counting.
 
mrplunkey said:
That chart was biased, inaccurate and just plain wrong even when it was published. Now that it's dated, it doesn't reflect Barry re-signing the Bush tax cuts as well as Barry's Health Care takeover bill that's 1.8+ Trillion in the hole and counting.
Click to expand...
So why did Barry Re-sign the Bush Era taxs cuts?

And How Does Bary-care cost 1.8 Trillon?
 
brownbrown said:
So why did Barry Re-sign the Bush Era taxs cuts?
Click to expand...

Because he got to have his cake and eat it too. It let him lecture about how the evil rich needed to pay more taxes while avoiding the inescapable fact that raising taxes would have seriously hurt our already screwed-up economy.

brownbrown said:
And How Does Bary-care cost 1.8 Trillon?
Click to expand...

CBO Estimate + $500B in medicare cuts that will never, ever, ever, never, never, ever happen + $500B in doc fix withdrawals that will never, ever, ever, never, never, ever happen.

I'm really enjoying the libs on this board pretending they don't understand revenue/expense matching and unfunded liabilities. I think we need a bill where everyone in the top tax bracket gets their rates taken to 2% starting in 2023. We'll ask the CBO to score my measure so it will prove it has a 10-year cost of $0, yet will begin stimulating the economy several years beforehand. It will be a multi-billion (if not trillon) dollar stimulus plan.
 
mrplunkey said:
Because he got to have his cake and eat it too. It let him lecture about how the evil rich needed to pay more taxes while avoiding the inescapable fact that raising taxes would have seriously hurt our already screwed-up economy.



CBO Estimate + $500B in medicare cuts that will never, ever, ever, never, never, ever happen + $500B in doc fix withdrawals that will never, ever, ever, never, never, ever happen.

I'm really enjoying the libs on this board pretending they don't understand revenue/expense matching and unfunded liabilities. I think we need a bill where everyone in the top tax bracket gets their rates taken to 2% starting in 2023. We'll ask the CBO to score my measure so it will prove it has a 10-year cost of $0, yet will begin stimulating the economy several years beforehand. It will be a multi-billion (if not trillon) dollar stimulus plan.
Click to expand...

Nobody is pretending to not understand, but you are doing a great job of actually not understanding.

Since you keep bringing up the CBO, why do you keep forgetting that the CBO says Obamacare saves money. You still are confusing with gross pay out vs net benefit.
Look at it this way: If I sold you an insurance policy for $700/month, and you could then drop your existing plan that costs $900/month, how should the headline read?

A) Plunkey signs contract costing $700/month!!!
B) Plunkeys new deal will save him $200/month!!

(ps, the answer is B).

You imply, like Fox news, that the CBO cost estimate is the bottom line additional expense for the country. It's not. After cost savings and revenue to counterbalance, the net cost is negative (savings). Fox news portrays it this way because they are liars. How about you?

As for your analogy, its meaningless, and has nothing to do with how the CBO calculates the cost. In your example, the cost for the first 10 years would be zero, and the expected stimulus would be zero.

There's no sense in arguing accounting. There is no better source than Congressional budget office for these numbers, whether you like them or not. It's a common republican argument, when they are caught without logic, to use the the old "I don't believe it" argument. Republicans don't believe in science, math, accounting, facts or logic if it interferes with their blind faith in their ideology.

The cost of Obama care is a savings. sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that.
 
mrplunkey said:
Because he got to have his cake and eat it too. It let him lecture about how the evil rich needed to pay more taxes while avoiding the inescapable fact that raising taxes would have seriously hurt our already screwed-up economy.

Thats Odd, Because I remember that he only agreed to it so the people suffering from the Crash can get a little more time to get back on their feet. As the GOP refused to agree with an extension of UE benefits unless the Rich got said Tax cuts extended. That's the Concrete truth. No sad piddle about lecturing and Cake here.
Click to expand...

CBO Estimate + $500B in medicare cuts that will never, ever, ever, never, never, ever happen + $500B in doc fix withdrawals that will never, ever, ever, never, never, ever happen.

I'm really enjoying the libs on this board pretending they don't understand revenue/expense matching and unfunded liabilities. I think we need a bill where everyone in the top tax bracket gets their rates taken to 2% starting in 2023. We'll ask the CBO to score my measure so it will prove it has a 10-year cost of $0, yet will begin stimulating the economy several years beforehand. It will be a multi-billion (if not trillon) dollar stimulus plan.
Click to expand...
CBO | CBO Releases Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act
Click to expand...
 
Headholio said:
Nobody is pretending to not understand, but you are doing a great job of actually not understanding.

Since you keep bringing up the CBO, why do you keep forgetting that the CBO says Obamacare saves money. You still are confusing with gross pay out vs net benefit.
Look at it this way: If I sold you an insurance policy for $700/month, and you could then drop your existing plan that costs $900/month, how should the headline read?

A) Plunkey signs contract costing $700/month!!!
B) Plunkeys new deal will save him $200/month!!

(ps, the answer is B).
Click to expand...

I'll work with your analogy.

- Let's say I have a $900/month policy.

-And let's say Barry agrees to cover me for $700/month.

- But let's also say Barry's plan will pay me $3 in benefits for every $1 I pay in... JUST LIKE MEDICARE DOES NOW.

Know how much costs went up? Well I was paying $900/month for a private plan. If they miss their cost estimates, they eat the difference.

In Barry's world, we just handed taxpayers a $2,100/month bill. But that bill won't hit for a while, so as the government we'll just quietly sweep it under the rug.

And you still haven't told me. What would you guess the unrecognized liabilities of the US government for entitlements currently is? I'd like to hear your version of that figure.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'll work with your analogy.

- Let's say I have a $900/month policy.

-And let's say Barry agrees to cover me for $700/month.

- But let's also say Barry's plan will pay me $3 in benefits for every $1 I pay in... JUST LIKE MEDICARE DOES NOW.

Know how much costs went up? Well I was paying $900/month for a private plan. If they miss their cost estimates, they eat the difference.

In Barry's world, we just handed taxpayers a $2,100/month bill. But that bill won't hit for a while, so as the government we'll just quietly sweep it under the rug.

And you still haven't told me. What would you guess the unrecognized liabilities of the US government for entitlements currently is? I'd like to hear your version of that figure.
Click to expand...

LOL Plunkey, if the plan was going to pay out 3 bucks for every dollar paid in, then that would be in the analysis. So, you are back to the old republican standby; you don't believe the facts. :rolleyes:
You think accounting experts at the CBO don't think of stuff like how much money will go out and how much will come in? LOL again dude. What the hell have you been reading?

Obamacare is a completely different story with a completely different way of funding than Medicare. What's the economic result of Obamacare? Read the CBO report. It Has stuff in it like money coming in and money going out. :FRlol:

What are the liabilities of the US government? Jesus. If you can possibly make a point, then try to make it. You are now down to bobbing, weaving, denying the obvious, and diverting with quizzes instead of providing facts. I've given you the truth, you should maybe take a break and try to absorb some of it.

I've provided facts from the CBO, you've provided nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. You don't want to believe facts, so its a waste of time to discuss this with you. Good luck figuring it all out.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'll work with your analogy.

- Let's say I have a $900/month policy.

-And let's say Barry agrees to cover me for $700/month.

- But let's also say Barry's plan will pay me $3 in benefits for every $1 I pay in... JUST LIKE MEDICARE DOES NOW.

Know how much costs went up? Well I was paying $900/month for a private plan. If they miss their cost estimates, they eat the difference.

In Barry's world, we just handed taxpayers a $2,100/month bill. But that bill won't hit for a while, so as the government we'll just quietly sweep it under the rug.

And you still haven't told me. What would you guess the unrecognized liabilities of the US government for entitlements currently is? I'd like to hear your version of that figure.
Click to expand...
WTF Are you talking about? You're talking like BarryCare as Single payer or will be Medicare for all.

HealthCare reform bill requires Private Insurance.

And only opens up Medicaid a little more for people making about 15,000 a year.


Anyways. You should be jumping for joy. More people on insurance, more people needing your products, more money you make off cheaply made products from Chinese hands.
 
Headholio said:
LOL Plunkey, if the plan was going to pay out 3 bucks for every dollar paid in, then that would be in the analysis. So, you are back to the old republican standby; you don't believe the facts. :rolleyes:
You think accounting experts at the CBO don't think of stuff like how much money will go out and how much will come in? LOL again dude. What the hell have you been reading?

Obamacare is a completely different story with a completely different way of funding than Medicare. What's the economic result of Obamacare? Read the CBO report. It Has stuff in it like money coming in and money going out. :FRlol:

What are the liabilities of the US government? Jesus. If you can possibly make a point, then try to make it. You are now down to bobbing, weaving, denying the obvious, and diverting with quizzes instead of providing facts. I've given you the truth, you should maybe take a break and try to absorb some of it.

I've provided facts from the CBO, you've provided nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. You don't want to believe facts, so its a waste of time to discuss this with you. Good luck figuring it all out.
Click to expand...
Just have to bump this one.... That is all.
 
Headholio said:
LOL Plunkey, if the plan was going to pay out 3 bucks for every dollar paid in, then that would be in the analysis. So, you are back to the old republican standby; you don't believe the facts. :rolleyes:
You think accounting experts at the CBO don't think of stuff like how much money will go out and how much will come in? LOL again dude. What the hell have you been reading?

Obamacare is a completely different story with a completely different way of funding than Medicare. What's the economic result of Obamacare? Read the CBO report. It Has stuff in it like money coming in and money going out. :FRlol:

What are the liabilities of the US government? Jesus. If you can possibly make a point, then try to make it. You are now down to bobbing, weaving, denying the obvious, and diverting with quizzes instead of providing facts. I've given you the truth, you should maybe take a break and try to absorb some of it.

I've provided facts from the CBO, you've provided nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. You don't want to believe facts, so its a waste of time to discuss this with you. Good luck figuring it all out.
Click to expand...

Medicare's original analysis was off by a factor of 10. The bleed rate of $3 out for every $1 in was an improvement resulting from the government raising rates.

Outstanding dodge on the unfunded liabilities question. Are you refusing to answer it, or do you not have access to "facts" you can't find on the front page of the Huffington Post?
 
brownbrown said:
WTF Are you talking about? You're talking like BarryCare as Single payer or will be Medicare for all.

HealthCare reform bill requires Private Insurance.

And only opens up Medicaid a little more for people making about 15,000 a year.


Anyways. You should be jumping for joy. More people on insurance, more people needing your products, more money you make off cheaply made products from Chinese hands.
Click to expand...

You haven't done your homework.

BarryCare relies on a massive increase in the Medicare rolls.

It also relies on people being added to exchanges, which will invariably lose massive amounts of money.

From a state's perspective, BarryCare is the mother of unfunded mandates.
 
mrplunkey said:
Medicare's original analysis was off by a factor of 10. The bleed rate of $3 out for every $1 in was an improvement resulting from the government raising rates.
Click to expand...

brownbrown's response to this is spot on. It's just not a good comparison. But medicare's problem is not that its a public program, its the rising cost of healthcare in general. Public programs help contain medical costs. Medicare costs have risen, and are expected to rise, less than the cost of private insurance.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...tionalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2010.pdf

Obamacare isn't a single payer system. But, I think its informative to study all the other countries in the OECD and their public programs, how they spend about half of what the USA spends, and how they have overall better outcomes than the USA. The righties have a general fear of public programs, as you are expressing, but fear is no excuse to ignore facts.


Outstanding dodge on the unfunded liabilities question. Are you refusing to answer it, or do you not have access to "facts" you can't find on the front page of the Huffington Post?
Click to expand...

Your question is trollish, and I'm not here to let you lead me along on wherever your convoluted mind is heading (not that I can even imagine).
How about this; list the top 100 most expensive procedures covered by medicare. Make sure they are in order. When you are done, I will tell you if I have a point or not. ;)

In other words, if you have a point to make, make it. But then again, you've already had plenty of chances to try.

As for the Huffington Post comment, the only one who has posted a partisan propaganda piece in this thread is you. I have provided the facts from the CBO (which you seem to want to use, support, deny, misinterpret, and ignore all at the same time!) Facts from the CMS, and now, here's another good reference for you; a GAO report on how much money it would COST to repeal Obamacare:

The Federal Government?s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Fall 2011 Update

That's it for me Plunkey. I'm out. This started with you saying that Obama will be known as the President who "bankrupts healthcare". Readers here can decide if you've been able to substantiate that claim or not. I've provided real facts and can not make it any clearer.

If anything positive has come out of this, I hope that at least you have a better understanding of gross cost vs. net benefit, as you have really been conflating the two.
The costs estimated by the CBO are not new or additional costs to America caused by Obamacare, as Fox news likes to try and dishonestly portray. There are costs we already pay, plus new costs, plus new revenue, plus elimination of some costs, that all add up to a net gain for America. That's what the CBO says.

So if you need to, go ahead and have the last word.
 
Headholio said:
brownbrown's response to this is spot on. It's just not a good comparison. But medicare's problem is not that its a public program, its the rising cost of healthcare in general. Public programs help contain medical costs. Medicare costs have risen, and are expected to rise, less than the cost of private insurance.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...tionalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2010.pdf

Obamacare isn't a single payer system. But, I think its informative to study all the other countries in the OECD and their public programs, how they spend about half of what the USA spends, and how they have overall better outcomes than the USA. The righties have a general fear of public programs, as you are expressing, but fear is no excuse to ignore facts.




Your question is trollish, and I'm not here to let you lead me along on wherever your convoluted mind is heading (not that I can even imagine).
How about this; list the top 100 most expensive procedures covered by medicare. Make sure they are in order. When you are done, I will tell you if I have a point or not. ;)

In other words, if you have a point to make, make it. But then again, you've already had plenty of chances to try.

As for the Huffington Post comment, the only one who has posted a partisan propaganda piece in this thread is you. I have provided the facts from the CBO (which you seem to want to use, support, deny, misinterpret, and ignore all at the same time!) Facts from the CMS, and now, here's another good reference for you; a GAO report on how much money it would COST to repeal Obamacare:

The Federal Government?s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Fall 2011 Update

That's it for me Plunkey. I'm out. This started with you saying that Obama will be known as the President who "bankrupts healthcare". Readers here can decide if you've been able to substantiate that claim or not. I've provided real facts and can not make it any clearer.

If anything positive has come out of this, I hope that at least you have a better understanding of gross cost vs. net benefit, as you have really been conflating the two.
The costs estimated by the CBO are not new or additional costs to America caused by Obamacare, as Fox news likes to try and dishonestly portray. There are costs we already pay, plus new costs, plus new revenue, plus elimination of some costs, that all add up to a net gain for America. That's what the CBO says.

So if you need to, go ahead and have the last word.
Click to expand...

Why so much typing invested just to avoid looking up estimates of the US government's unrecognized liabilities?
 
PICK3 said:
wished all of this was dumb'ed down for a New Orleans public school grad



just sayin'
Click to expand...

tr69ly don't comprehend this stuff

don't know the relevance of the national debt (exorbitant number which we'll never pay) vs moar national debt

it's knot realistic to think that a population comprised of peeps with an "entitlement" mindset will ever make the sacrifices to right decades of poor fiscal decisions ... knot happening




just sayin'
 
PICK3 said:
tr69ly don't comprehend this stuff

don't know the relevance of the national debt (exorbitant number which we'll never pay) vs moar national debt

it's knot realistic to think that a population comprised of peeps with an "entitlement" mindset will ever make the sacrifices to right decades of poor fiscal decisions ... knot happening




just sayin'
Click to expand...

That's 100% dead-on accurate.

There's one way out of this -- we have to grow our way out. And that means unless we take the measures necessary to grow, we're doomed.
 
PICK3 said:
who's we? :confused:

PICK3 will be spreading str8 luv across the big pond



just sayin?
Click to expand...

Good point.

We is...

1) Anyone who isn't diversified outside of the US for their income/assets/livelihood

and

2) Isn't holding a fair amount of non-US currency

and

3) Isn't old enough to just wait it out and count on the fact that they'll be dead before it gets really bad.
 
mrplunkey said:
I bet in RoundBrownLand Barry actually shrank the size and scope of government.
Click to expand...

You weren't crying Big Government when Bushy was in office, but now you cry Big gubment because you're told to now. And Barry just solidified some of the Bush policies.
Federal jobs are down 800,000 since Obama took office. And private sector up 4.6 million.
Along with federal spendinh down 7% compaired to Bush.
Yea Obama signed the Patriot act, Alternative energy bill, stimulus But these were all started under Bush. .


Droid Bionic
 
brownbrown said:
You weren't crying Big Government when Bushy was in office, but now you cry Big gubment because you're told to now. And Barry just solidified some of the Bush policies.
Federal jobs are down 800,000 since Obama took office. And private sector up 4.6 million.
Along with federal spendinh down 7% compaired to Bush.
Yea Obama signed the Patriot act, Alternative energy bill, stimulus But these were all started under Bush. .


Droid Bionic
Click to expand...

I bet RoundBrownLand has unicorns in it too!
 
brownbrown said:
Translation = I have Nothing to say..... So I'll revert to childishness...


Okay. Thank you

DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
Click to expand...

Your comments are so ridiculous that they don't even deserve a response.

You tell me... Between the DAY Barry was sworn in and now (pick any date in the last month or two) how many net jobs do you think Barry created?
 
mrplunkey said:
Oh, then George Bush created 100,000,000 jobs and kept us from being ruled by Iraq.

If you're going to make things up, I will too.
Click to expand...

Facts just bounce right off that curly fro of yours don't they Richard Simmons?
You are a troll. If you don't believe the facts posted, then post something credible and referenced, in your response. All you offer are smart ass remarks and stupid questions at best, and lies at worst, with nothing to back up your retarded ideas. Troll.
I think you are 14 year old Rush Limbaugh and Richard Simmons fan, trying to pretend you are an adult.

If I was a conservative I would hate you, because you make them all look stupid.
Maybe if you are mentally incapable of an intellectual discusion, you should just avoid posting, for the good of your own party. Ever think of that?

http://static5.businessinsider.com/...nemployment-rate-vs-job-growth-jan-6-2012.jpg
 
Since the month Obama was inaugurated, the US has lost a net of 550,000 jobs.

If you want to lie about the starting point and pick some arbitrary point in 2010, then the numbers can be faked to make it look like some jobs were created.
 
mrplunkey said:
Since the month Obama was inaugurated, the US has lost a net of 550,000 jobs.

If you want to lie about the starting point and pick some arbitrary point in 2010, then the numbers can be faked to make it look like some jobs were created.
Click to expand...


And all those losses are at the beginning of his term when he took over the Bush disaster. But he took action and the stimulus worked and he reversed the disastrous Republican trend. It's all quite clear in the graph I posted. Why would anyone lie about the starting point? The starting point is the crux of the whole discussion. The starting point is when Obama first took over at a time when the Republicans brought the world economy to the brink of disaster.
 
Headholio said:
And all those losses are at the beginning of his term when he took over the Bush disaster. But he took action and the stimulus worked and he reversed the disastrous Republican trend. It's all quite clear in the graph I posted. Why would anyone lie about the starting point? The starting point is the crux of the whole discussion. The starting point is when Obama first took over at a time when the Republicans brought the world economy to the brink of disaster.
Click to expand...

So you agree that from the month Barry was sworn in until now, he's lost around 550,000 jobs.

Correct?
 
PICK3 said:
knot unless it's represented in a chart!
Click to expand...

I want to see if he can take a vacation from BarryLand long enough to acknowledge that if you start measuring since January 2009, we've lost a net number of total jobs in the US.

Let's see what happens when there's no room for spin.
 
Plunkey your lack of understanding and dishonesty is astounding. I was about to explain how the state of the economy on Obama's first day in office was not Obama's fault. He took over what was left him. I could go on but I won't. I'm a patient man. I'm used to talking to children. I have children. But I don't come here to teach children. Go to bed little boy.
 
PICK3 said:
knot unless it's represented in a chart!
Click to expand...


The chart says a lot. It shows where we were at under Bush. It shows what a horrible mess Obama started with. It shows how Obama turned the trend from negative to positive. In fact, it shows the improvement to have been quick and quite dramatic.
It shows that Bush crashed the economy. It shows that Obama is fixing it. It shows that Obama's policies are working and Bushes were a failure. For most people, all that information is easily ascertainable in a quick glance. That's why charts are useful.
I don't know about you pick3, but plunkey can't grasp simple concepts like those portrayed on that graph. So where are you at? Do you have a problem with charts or do you have a problem with made up bullshit?
 
-SD- said:
People are self interested, as they should be. Its the way of the world and the government doesnt get it.
Click to expand...

The government DOES "get it". They have very smart people that can predict outcome based upon history. The government today is in the position of stripping rights/freedoms/laws from "The People" so that when "the other shoe drops", we won't have a legal leg to stand on. They're in it for the long haul. This is class warfare, and the elitists are winning.

Romney's biggest contributors are the financial firms of Wall Street. Does anyone REALLY believe he's going to do anything for Joe Sixpack? If so...Get real. You're delusional. Obama is the same.

I could go on, but I'd probably bore you all. I am a student of the Constitution, a political activist, a Reagan Republican, a veteran....and one seriously pissed off American.
 
Headholio said:
Plunkey your lack of understanding and dishonesty is astounding. I was about to explain how the state of the economy on Obama's first day in office was not Obama's fault. He took over what was left him. I could go on but I won't. I'm a patient man. I'm used to talking to children. I have children. But I don't come here to teach children. Go to bed little boy.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for a worthless diatribe.

Let's try again.

If you count from the month Barry was sworn in until now, he's lost around 550,000 jobs.

Do you see that on the chart? And do you agree?

I just want to see if you're even remotely connected to reality. Then we can talk from there.
 
mrplunkey said:
I didn't ask for a worthless diatribe.

Let's try again.

If you count from the month Barry was sworn in until now, he's lost around 550,000 jobs.

Do you see that on the chart? And do you agree?

I just want to see if you're even remotely connected to reality. Then we can talk from there.
Click to expand...


I ran a race once where i was way ahead from the very start through most of the race, but someone pulled ahead of me near the end and i lost. But i was ahead at the beginning!!!!
 
-SD- said:
I ran a race once where i was way ahead from the very start through most of the race, but someone pulled ahead of me near the end and i lost. But i was ahead at the beginning!!!!
Click to expand...

I am the strongest person who has ever set foot in my local gym between 5:24am and 5:27am this morning.

Pownage!!!!!!
 
I'm slammed down the first rounds at record speed in a drinking contest held @ Cutter's




butt, I ended up as bottom :(
 
The New England Patriots won the third quarter of last year's Super Bowl too.
 
mrplunkey said:
I didn't ask for a worthless diatribe.

Let's try again.

If you count from the month Barry was sworn in until now, he's lost around 550,000 jobs.

Do you see that on the chart? And do you agree?

I just want to see if you're even remotely connected to reality. Then we can talk from there.
Click to expand...

Ok third graders listen up. I"m going to explain some basic data interpretation even though it will probably be above your third grade heads.

Plunkey, since you like quizzes, I'm going to give you a fill in the blank quiz. Good luck.

First, I think that yes, this country still has not fully recovered all the jobs lost from the devistating economic disaster caused by __________.

If we are down 550k jobs Since January 09, that doesn't sound so bad considering we were losing more jobs than that every single month in the last few months that Mr. ________ was in office.

Anyone who would try to credit President Obama for the condition of the economy at the beginning of his presidency would have to be re____ed.

When the economy was severely damaged under the watch of George _____, jobs were in a freefall. If Republicans would have forced the bankruptcy of the auto industry, the job situation would be much much _____.

A person who knows the truth but says the opposite is called a ______.

When Willard Romney says that the recent drop in unemployment is caused by people leaving the work force and not because 1 single job has been created, he is a ______.

A graph is useful for showing trends. When the graph trends upwards from left to right, that shows improvement. When the graph slopes downward from left to right that shows failure.
You can see in the graph that under Obama, we have upward slope meaning improvement. Under Bush, we had ________ slope, meaning _________.


Get back to me with those answers.
 
Headholio said:
The best way to increase revenue isn't to raise taxes but to grow the economy.
Click to expand...

You can't grow the economy when the government is sucking the financial life out of small business. Banks are not lending, and it's easier to develop offshore and import to the US than it is to operate here in the U.S.

Wait until 2014 when most Obamacare provisions kick in and companies counter by ending full time employment to circumvent the costs.


Austerity has been a disaster in Europe.
Click to expand...

Which part of Europe? PIGS? Lazy ass socialist countries like Greece and Spain sucked the financial life out of each country. Spain alone is fucked from the massive green energy scam they were sucked into. France is a mess thanks to a generation of lazy asses who never saved thinking the government will cover them.


Reduced spending cuts jobs and hurts people, which reduces revenue more.
Click to expand...

How about raising taxes by 600 basis points.....and cutting salaries in Washington by 600 basis points? 6% paycut across the board. 6% less pension. Cut out all bullshit like Pelosi's $80,000 in fresh cut flowers from two years ago. No more flying your wife and daughters to London or Spain on Air Force One.


The debt is revenue problem more than a spending problem.
Click to expand...

We used to have 16 people paying into the government versus 1 person receiving benefits. We are now almost at 1 taxpayer per 1 person not paying taxes. The problem is spending and funding programs that cannot afford to be funded and operate like they have a neverending access to taxpayer revenue.

Medicare cannot sustain itself. Social security cannot sustain itself. Obamacare cannot pay for itself. Federal government cannot sustain itself. State governments are financially failing. Municipal governments operate at rediculous costs. Some areas have added county government. Section 8 housing a horribly abused program. SSI has become a tool to fund immigrants relocating to the US. I can list another 30 programs that are bloated and abused.
 
Headholio said:
Ok third graders listen up. I"m going to explain some basic data interpretation even though it will probably be above your third grade heads.

Plunkey, since you like quizzes, I'm going to give you a fill in the blank quiz. Good luck.

First, I think that yes, this country still has not fully recovered all the jobs lost from the devistating economic disaster caused by __________.

If we are down 550k jobs Since January 09, that doesn't sound so bad considering we were losing more jobs than that every single month in the last few months that Mr. ________ was in office.

Anyone who would try to credit President Obama for the condition of the economy at the beginning of his presidency would have to be re____ed.

When the economy was severely damaged under the watch of George _____, jobs were in a freefall. If Republicans would have forced the bankruptcy of the auto industry, the job situation would be much much _____.

A person who knows the truth but says the opposite is called a ______.

When Willard Romney says that the recent drop in unemployment is caused by people leaving the work force and not because 1 single job has been created, he is a ______.

A graph is useful for showing trends. When the graph trends upwards from left to right, that shows improvement. When the graph slopes downward from left to right that shows failure.
You can see in the graph that under Obama, we have upward slope meaning improvement. Under Bush, we had ________ slope, meaning _________.


Get back to me with those answers.
Click to expand...

did you really think that was clever enough to type all that out?
 
mrplunkey said:
I didn't ask for a worthless diatribe.

Let's try again.

If you count from the month Barry was sworn in until now, he's lost around 550,000 jobs.

Do you see that on the chart? And do you agree?

I just want to see if you're even remotely connected to reality. Then we can talk from there.
Click to expand...

What about from the time his policies actually began to have an effect, until now?
 
Mr. dB said:
What about from the time his policies actually began to have an effect, until now?
Click to expand...

I saw that and knew he kept specifying the "sworn in" to lump in the residual collapse from day one to Obama.

DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
 
Last edited:
Mr. dB said:
What about from the time his policies actually began to have an effect, until now?
Click to expand...

It's virtually impossible to measure (I'll admit that), because we took what should have been a robust recovery and blunted it with disastrous policies.

So I honestly don't know how many millions of jobs he's cost the US. I'd definitely put it in the millions though. If Romney does get in, we'll have to spot him at least 100,000 jobs per month just to account for the hangover of Barry's screw-ups.
 
Headholio said:
Ok third graders listen up. I"m going to explain some basic data interpretation even though it will probably be above your third grade heads.

Plunkey, since you like quizzes, I'm going to give you a fill in the blank quiz. Good luck.

First, I think that yes, this country still has not fully recovered all the jobs lost from the devistating economic disaster caused by __________.

If we are down 550k jobs Since January 09, that doesn't sound so bad considering we were losing more jobs than that every single month in the last few months that Mr. ________ was in office.

Anyone who would try to credit President Obama for the condition of the economy at the beginning of his presidency would have to be re____ed.

When the economy was severely damaged under the watch of George _____, jobs were in a freefall. If Republicans would have forced the bankruptcy of the auto industry, the job situation would be much much _____.

A person who knows the truth but says the opposite is called a ______.

When Willard Romney says that the recent drop in unemployment is caused by people leaving the work force and not because 1 single job has been created, he is a ______.

A graph is useful for showing trends. When the graph trends upwards from left to right, that shows improvement. When the graph slopes downward from left to right that shows failure.
You can see in the graph that under Obama, we have upward slope meaning improvement. Under Bush, we had ________ slope, meaning _________.


Get back to me with those answers.
Click to expand...

 
Headholio said:
Compare my 414 posts to your [size=+4]33,727 posts[/size]. Who's got too much time on their hands?

I swear to god Plunkey sometimes I just feel bad about taking advantage of what an easy target you are.
Click to expand...

U mad?

Because I love watching liberals melt down.
 
gotmilk said:
You can't grow the economy when the government is sucking the financial life out of small business. Banks are not lending, and it's easier to develop offshore and import to the US than it is to operate here in the U.S.

Wait until 2014 when most Obamacare provisions kick in and companies counter by ending full time employment to circumvent the costs.




Which part of Europe? PIGS? Lazy ass socialist countries like Greece and Spain sucked the financial life out of each country. Spain alone is fucked from the massive green energy scam they were sucked into. France is a mess thanks to a generation of lazy asses who never saved thinking the government will cover them.




How about raising taxes by 600 basis points.....and cutting salaries in Washington by 600 basis points? 6% paycut across the board. 6% less pension. Cut out all bullshit like Pelosi's $80,000 in fresh cut flowers from two years ago. No more flying your wife and daughters to London or Spain on Air Force One.




We used to have 16 people paying into the government versus 1 person receiving benefits. We are now almost at 1 taxpayer per 1 person not paying taxes. The problem is spending and funding programs that cannot afford to be funded and operate like they have a neverending access to taxpayer revenue.

Medicare cannot sustain itself. Social security cannot sustain itself. Obamacare cannot pay for itself. Federal government cannot sustain itself. State governments are financially failing. Municipal governments operate at rediculous costs. Some areas have added county government. Section 8 housing a horribly abused program. SSI has become a tool to fund immigrants relocating to the US. I can list another 30 programs that are bloated and abused.
Click to expand...

Republican propagandists have a philosophy that goes like this: Throw anything imaginable out there, and see what sticks.

They know that the embarrassment of being caught lying is outweighed by the benefit of all the dim witted uninformed Americans who swallow the bait.

I don't think I need to respond in any more detail to someone who posts this:
Pelosi's $80,000 in fresh cut flowers from two years ago.
Click to expand...

:FRlol: Oh the outrage!!!!

Post some references, and please not World Net Daily or I will be laughing even louder!

Better than posting references; how about fact checking the propaganda you have swallowed before posting it?
 
So its no longer the "on my watch" theory of presidential responsibility anymore. Previous administrations bleed over into the next where responsibility can be shifted. When does a president own it all, 3 months into 1st term? 6 months? a year? We have to have a reliable consistent time period with which to measure and gauge president's effectiveness or lack thereof.

If none of this is obamas fault then Reagan gets half the credit for the 1990s prosperity.

As Bill Parcells once said "You are what your record says you are".
 
mrplunkey said:
It's virtually impossible to measure (I'll admit that), because we took what should have been a robust recovery and blunted it with disastrous policies.

So I honestly don't know how many millions of jobs he's cost the US. I'd definitely put it in the millions though. If Romney does get in, we'll have to spot him at least 100,000 jobs per month just to account for the hangover of Barry's screw-ups.
Click to expand...

Should have been a robust recovery?

Umm, last time I checked, Housing resessions take 5 to 10 years to bounce back. This is not Americas first rodeo in something like this.

DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
 
brownbrown said:
Should have been a robust recovery?

Umm, last time I checked, Housing resessions take 5 to 10 years to bounce back. This is not Americas first rodeo in something like this.

DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
Click to expand...

Today's recession is far more complex than just housing now.

Thanks to Barry, it's a broader malaise that has impacted business investment and consumer confidence. The investments that are being diverted away and/or out of the US are long-term problems.

So I guess in a way, we agree in principle; Barry's screw ups will hurt the next president for sure, almost certainly the president after that and perhaps even the president after him.
 
mrplunkey said:
Today's recession is far more complex than just housing now.

Thanks to Barry, it's a broader malaise that has impacted business investment and consumer confidence. The investments that are being diverted away and/or out of the US are long-term problems.

So I guess in a way, we agree in principle; Barry's screw ups will hurt the next president for sure, almost certainly the president after that and perhaps even the president after him.
Click to expand...

Housing bubble burst, then banks failed,then the market crash, ... Along with new laws making it easier to shop jobs out for a lower bottom line.
Not to forget a Senate GOP that Vowed to prevent Obama a second term before he even started working.

All prior to Barry squidly.

So um yea... Snap back into reality.

DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
3 of 4 GOP candidates would add to the deficit???
Replies
19
Views
3K
lartinos
L
PICK3
Barry says he'll risk job for debt deal
Replies
18
Views
2K
the.gladiator1987
the.gladiator1987
Mr. dB
Why the GOP must be stopped
2
Replies
136
Views
31K
PICK3
PICK3
PICK3
Bad day for Barry!
Replies
8
Views
1K
mrplunkey
mrplunkey
hanselthecaretaker
Interesting piece: How to prevent the "End of America"
Replies
6
Views
2K
-SD-
-SD-
Top Bottom