Obama says Healthcare will be "Revenue Neutral"??..

[red states rule]

Obama said part of it will be paid by money set aside - $600 billion

Where did that money come from? I thought we borrowed it form China?

Or he will put the money aside after the ink dries from a new batch of cash is run through the printing presses?

Did anyone watch the sham of a speech he gave to AMA?

[emmett]

I am much too busy to watch any more of his teleprompted addresses. I do occasionally like to watch the "Joe Biden Show". Damn...that has a ring to it huh? He is a very very funny man. Very entertaining. I like Joe actually. I don't care for his politics one bit but I do like him.

[red states rule]

I am much too busy to watch any more of his teleprompted addresses. I do occasionally like to watch the "Joe Biden Show". Damn...that has a ring to it huh? He is a very very funny man. Very entertaining. I like Joe actually. I don't care for his politics one bit but I do like him.

This guy has no clue about health care and how to reform it. Our health care does not need to be reformed, we have the best health care system in the world.

Obama talked about $300 billion in "savings" from Medicare/Medicaide, well why have they been wasting $300 billion/year up till now?

Oh, it's Bush's fault :rolleyes:

[emmett]

This guy has no clue about health care and how to reform it. Our health care does not need to be reformed, we have the best health care system in the world.

Obama talked about $300 billion in "savings" from Medicare/Medicaide, well why have they been wasting $300 billion/year up till now?

Oh, it's Bush's fault :rolleyes:

Frankly..I have some issues with our health care system. Insurance too expensive, 50 dollar pills, 43 dollar surgical gloves etc,...

however...


One must look at the cause. Illegal aliens, lawsuits and other left handed issues have had impact on the system. It is almost as if they would prefer to see it taxed the way it is so they can promote the agenda of nationalization.

Best in the world? I don't know. I haven't (Thank God) had the opportunity to make an up close observation. Measured against what I have seen I would say maybe. Japan has a pretty system and very good care considering their burden it seems appropriate for them.

[red states rule]

Frankly..I have some issues with our health care system. Insurance too expensive, 50 dollar pills, 43 dollar surgical gloves etc,...

however...


One must look at the cause. Illegal aliens, lawsuits and other left handed issues have had impact on the system. It is almost as if they would prefer to see it taxed the way it is so they can promote the agenda of nationalization.

Best in the world? I don't know. I haven't (Thank God) had the opportunity to make an up close observation. Measured against what I have seen I would say maybe. Japan has a pretty system and very good care considering their burden it seems appropriate for them.

It's more of aa sham. Obama went on, and on, citing all of the ways billions would be saved here, and billions there, all of which were anything but convincing or even logical, and stating that the program would be revenue neutral.

Logic defies his entire premise. He's going to add 47 million uninsured to the program, and billions would be saved.

The Obamaprompter went on and on, in his usual style, looking to the right, then looking to the left, emphasizing the urgency of going along with the reform, but sounded even less convincing than his performance on the monster stimulus bill .

We all are witnessing how successful the stimulus plan is turning out to be, with projections that were so far off the mark. His projections made to the AMA today sounded even further off the mark, and even more ludicrous.

[Kathianne]

The Congressional Budget Office, often sited by Obama & administration spokespeople as the 'office' to watch for the 'cost savings' on health care plan, last evening seemed to deal a severe blow to that idea:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM1NDUwMDkwODUzYzVlOGEyZjFlNjNjYWIxZTFiNjU=


CBO and the Kennedy-Dodd Bill [James C. Capretta]
The more that is learned about the emerging Democratic reform plans, the less likely they are to pass.

Last evening, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its first cost-estimate for one of the emerging Democratic bills — the Kennedy-Dodd bill that the Senate HELP Committee is planning to take up this week.

As Yuval has already noted, CBO finds that the bill, in its incomplete draft form, would cost a lot — more than $1 trillion — and cover a relatively small portion of the uninsured (about one-third).

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf notes in his cover letter that the bill they scored did not include the planned expansion of Medicaid to all persons with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line. That provision would decrease the uninsured rate, but also add hundreds of billions more to the total budgetary cost.

The CBO cost estimate also makes it clear that the President’s repeated statement that Americans will get to keep the health insurance they have today is simply not true. CBO projects that some 15 million people would get pushed out of their job-based plans and into the so-called “gateways” run by the states. That number will go much higher when the bill includes the promised “government option.”

CBO assumed that the bill would have a somewhat effective “individual mandate,” which penalizes people when they don’t sign up for coverage. They expect the government would collect about $2 billion over ten years from those who don’t buy government-approved health insurance.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

[emmett]

It is that looking from one side.............................................. ...................................... to another isn't it


I hated that about the guy............................................... .................................... from the beginning

[red states rule]

BT, that is $600 billion is only part of Obama's $2 trilllion deficit for this this year alone

And if it's put in the baseline of the budget, the US economy is toast as interest rates soar, unemployment increases, and the econony slips further into the toilet

[red states rule]

Now we have the CBO reporting that while Obamacare will cost over $1 trillion - it will still leave 30 MILLION UNINSURED

Anyone have any thoughts?

snip

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293

[Kathianne]

The Congressional Budget Office, often sited by Obama & administration spokespeople as the 'office' to watch for the 'cost savings' on health care plan, last evening seemed to deal a severe blow to that idea:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM1NDUwMDkwODUzYzVlOGEyZjFlNjNjYWIxZTFiNjU=



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-reel-on-healthcare-2009-06-16.html


Dems reel on healthcare
By Jeffrey Young
Posted: 06/16/09 08:32 PM [ET]
Congressional Democrats and the White House are scrambling to regain their footing after a series of setbacks has stalled political momentum to reform the nation’s healthcare system.

Despite having a popular president in the White House and comfortable majorities in Congress, the Democratic rollout on healthcare reform has encountered significant bumps in the road.

A cost estimate hanging a $1 trillion price tag on an incomplete bill, salvos from powerful interest groups and great uncertainty among key Democrats on what will actually be in the legislation that moves through Congress have emboldened Republican critics.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee postponed the markup of its healthcare reform bill by one day, to Wednesday. On the eve of that markup, the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce publicly ripped the bill.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) initially planned to release his bill Wednesday, but he has pushed back his timetable because of cost estimate concerns.

“Will we have something out tomorrow? Not sure,” Baucus said Tuesday. “Thursday or probably Friday,” he added.

Perhaps more importantly, the unity that Democrats touted earlier this year has cracked. As conservatives lambaste Democrats, liberal healthcare groups are not rushing to their defense because so many questions about the legislation have not been answered. ...

...Meanwhile, Republicans on both sides of the Capitol are ramping up their attacks. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the healthcare debate is in a “chaotic state.” House Republicans announced they would have their alternative plan readied by Wednesday — before House Democrats have issued a bill of their own.

The cost of reform and how to pay for it dominated the discussion Tuesday as Democrats were forced to respond to an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of one incomplete part of an incomplete bill.

The CBO looked at one portion of a draft bill written by the Senate HELP Committee and found, among other things, that it would cost more than $1 trillion while providing a net decrease in the number of uninsured people of 16 million.

The CBO also threw cold water on a promise by a coalition of healthcare industry groups to reduce healthcare spending by $2 trillion over 10 years. Obama announced their promise to much fanfare, but the CBO found that while a few of the cost-cutting measures would save money, others would cost money. In sum, they would not have a big impact on federal spending, the CBO concluded.

Baucus disputed speculation that his bill attracted a score of more than $1.5 trillion. “That reflects the policy of almost two weeks ago. It doesn’t reflect the savings that are also in the bill,” he said.

Asked how much his bill would really cost, Baucus was cagey: “More on the low side than on the high side.”

The White House and Senate Democrats tried to downplay the CBO finding. They also criticized the nonpartisan agency. ...

[red states rule]

The US has the best healthcare system in the world. Yo do not have to take my word for it - ask the illegals who get transplants at US taxpayer expense

Does anyone doubt Obamacare will NOT also provide coverage for illegals as well?

No wonder the CA state budget needs bailed out



Immigration debate hits home for liver transplant patients

The state funded the procedures for two young illegal migrants. But when they hit 21, coverage passed to L.A. County, which doesn't have the resources to implant the new organs they both needed again

By Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2008
Ana Puente was an infant with a liver disorder when her aunt brought her illegally to the U.S. to seek medical care. She underwent two liver transplants at UCLA Medical Center as a child in 1989 and a third in 1998, each paid for by the state.

But when Puente turned 21 last June, she aged out of her state-funded health insurance and was unable to continue treatment at UCLA.

This year, her liver began failing again and she was hospitalized at County-USC Medical Center. In her Medi-Cal application, a USC doctor wrote, "Her current clinical course is irreversible, progressive and will lead to death without another liver transplant." The application was denied.

The county gave her medication but does not have the resources to perform transplants.

Late last month Puente learned of another, little-known option for patients with certain healthcare needs. If she notified U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that she was in the country illegally, state health officials might grant her full Medi-Cal coverage. Puente did so, her benefits were restored and she is now awaiting a fourth transplant at UCLA.

Puente's case highlights two controversial issues: Should illegal immigrants receive liver transplants in the U.S. and should taxpayers pick up the cost?

The average cost of a liver transplant and first-year follow-up is nearly $490,000, and anti-rejection medications can run more than $30,000 annually, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees transplantation nationwide.

Donor livers are also in scarce supply. In California, nearly 3,700 people are on a waiting list for livers, according to the network. Last year, 767 liver transplants were performed in the state. More than 90% of the organs were given to U.S. citizens.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-liver13apr13,1,6190565.story