|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 18:41:41 GMT -5
As Republicans seek to repeal health care reform, they have assaulted "Obamacare" as a job-killing, freedom-crushing behemoth that's pushed the country onto the path to socialism. In order to defend their landmark legislative achievement, Democrats, meanwhile, have tried to highlight the bill's most popular provisions, ones that have already gone into effect. "We can either talk about abstraction, or we can talk about real people," said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), at a hearing on Tuesday, where Democrats invited ordinary citizens to testify about how health reform has helped them personally. "None of us did a good enough job" explaining the legislation the first time around, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) admitted to reporters. And so the party has scrambled to play catch-up as the GOP has launched their all-out war against reform. Though most of the major changes under the Affordable Care Act won't take effect until 2014, Democrats deliberately frontloaded the law with key reforms early on, in hopes of building political support for the measure. They've now trotted out those benefits as the Republicans have made health care repeal the first priority of their new House majority—even creating a map that details the benefits of reform by each congressional district. Here's a by-the-numbers rundown* of how the Democrats' health care legislation has affected Americans so far—and what the GOP is threatening to take away with Wednesday's scheduled vote on a repeal bill: Four million Medicare beneficiaries are expected to receive a $250 rebate check for their 2010 prescription drug costs since the "donut hole" that exempted some seniors from drug discounts was closed on January 1, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. More than four million small businesses are eligible to receive a tax credit for purchasing employee health insurance in 2010, according to a July 2010 study by Families USA and Small Business Majority (both are pro-reform advocacy groups). About 1.2 million small businesses are eligible to receive the maximum 35 percent tax credit. About 2 million uninsured children with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage under the current law. By 2014, everyone with a preexisting condition (as many as 129 million Americans) would receive the same insurance protections. Nearly 2.4 million young adults can now receive coverage through their parents' health plans, under a provision that extends coverage to dependents up to age 26, according to the Obama administration. That number includes 1.8 million young adults who weren't insured previously, as well as some 600,000 who had to buy insurance on their own. This year, about 10,700 people will keep their insurance coverage due to a provision in the bill that prohibits an industry practice known as "rescission," which entailed stripping people of their coverage when payouts grew too costly. Pre-reform, about 18,600 to 20,400 people hit a lifetime limit in insurance coverage each year and were denied coverage for claims above this ceiling. The reform bill prohibits insurers from setting these coverage caps. Finally, repealing the legislation would also increase the deficit by an estimated $230 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. To be sure, not all who are eligible for these benefits will end up receiving them—either because they choose not to or because they aren't aware that they can claim them. To that end, one of the Democrats' biggest challenges in both protecting the law and improving its political appeal will be to educate the potential beneficiaries about the specific aspects of reform that help them. And the Republicans can still do significant damage to health reform by impeding this effort and obfuscating the real numbers behind the law. *Clarification: There are 12.4 million ways in which Americans have already benefitted from reform (the aggregate of the numbers cited above). But there are less than 12.4 million people in total, as some qualify for more than one kind of benefit—e.g. young people under 26 who can qualify for their parents' insurance who also have pre-existing conditions. motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/health-reform-by-numbers
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 18:42:45 GMT -5
Fox Prepares For Health Care Repeal By Misinforming About Health Care Reform ... AgainIn advance of the House GOP's health care repeal vote, Fox News hosts, contributors, and guests have repeatedly misinformed about the health care reform bill with attacks ranging from falsely claiming that the bill "did not include incentives for wellness" and that the bill will cause jobs "to be lost," to rehashing old falsehoods such as that the bill does not reduce the deficit because it creates "10 years of revenue against six years of expenses." CLAIM: Health Care Reform Won't Reduce The Deficit CLAIM: Health Care Reform Will Cause "Jobs ...To Be Lost" CLAIM: Health Care Bill "Manipulating Budget Window" By "Creating 10 Years Of Revenue Against Six Years Of Expenses" CLAIM: Incentives For Wellness And Prevention "Was Missing From The Health Care Bill" CLAIM: Reform Is A "Government Takeover" Of The Health Care Industry CLAIM: Health Care Reform Won't Reduce The Deficit Krauthammer: If Dems Say "This Is Going To Reduce The Deficit," They're "Talking Out Of [Their] Hat." On the January 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer claimed: KRAUTHAMMER: People are not stupid. If people say we're passing a bill that is going to expand coverage to 33 million Americans who haven't had it, and this is going to reduce the deficit, they know you're talking out of your hat. Or that you've jiggled the numbers in such a way as to make it look like that. The argument against this deficit reduction is so clear, it's so obvious, so easy to make; if Republicans can't make it, they don't deserve to be the opposition. [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 1/18/11] Johnson: "A Lot Of People Are Saying ... 'I Believe The Deficit Will Go Up.' " As part of his list of objections to the bill that "a lot of people are saying," Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. included, "I believe the deficit will go up." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 1/19/11] FACT: CBO Estimated That Health Reform Bills Would Reduce Deficits Over Next 10 Years And Beyond CBO, JCT Found Health Care Reform Legislation Would Reduce The Deficit By $143 Billion Through 2019. From a March 20, 2010, CBO cost estimate of the Senate health reform bill and the health care and education reconciliation bill: CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation--H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal--would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenues (see Table 1). That figure comprises $124 billion in net reductions deriving from the health care and revenue provisions and $19 billion in net reductions deriving from the education provisions. [Congressional Budget Office, 3/20/10] Estimate Also Found Reform Legislation Would Continue To Reduce Deficit In Second Decade. CBO further stated: Reflecting the changes made by the reconciliation proposal, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would also be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law--with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. [Congressional Budget Office, 3/20/10] CLAIM: Health Care Reform Will Cause "Jobs ...To Be Lost" Johnson: "A Lot Of People Are Saying ... 'I Believe The Jobs Are Going To Be Lost.' " On Fox & Friends, Johnson claimed, "A lot of people are saying ... I believe jobs are going to be lost." [Fox & Friends, 1/19/11] FACT: Health Care Reform Will Kill Jobs Is A "Myth ... Deliberately Confusing The Public" AP Calls GOP Job Loss Estimate "Shaky," Claims Statistics "Used And Abused." In a January 18 article, The Associated Press wrote that "the widely cited estimate" of job losses "by House GOP leaders is shaky." The article further noted that the report "cites the 650,000 lost jobs as Exhibit A, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as the source of the original analysis behind that estimate. But the budget office, which referees the costs and consequences of legislation, never produced the number." The article continued: What CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job. "The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount -roughly half a percent- primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year. That's not how it got translated in the new report from Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other top Republicans. [...] The Republican translation doesn't track, said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. "CBO isn't saying that there is job loss as much as they are saying that fewer people will be working," explained Fronstin. "There is a difference. People voluntarily working less isn't the same as employers cutting jobs." For example, the budget office said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65. The law "reduces the amount of labor supplied, but it's not reducing the ability of people to find jobs, which is what the job-killing slogan is intended to convey," said economist Paul Van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The center advocates for low-income people, and supports the health care law. [The Associated Press, 1/18/11] Economist Van de Water: Claim That Reform Kills Jobs Is "Perpetuating Myths And Deliberately Confusing The Public." In a January 18 interview with Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Van de Water called the claim that health care reform will cause the economy to lose jobs "perpetuating myths and deliberately confusing the public." From the interview: House Republican leaders say that the Affordable Care Act will destroy jobs by making it more expensive for employers to provide insurance for their employees. Is there any truth to this? No, it's completely wrong. CBO also looked at this issue and they found that health reform is unlikely to raise most businesses' health insurance premiums -- in fact for most firms, premiums are likely to go down. What CBO did say is that some people who are currently working primarily because they need their health insurance might choose to retire early or work a little less. But that has nothing to do with firms hiring fewer people. Opponents of reform who claim that will happen are not only wrong but are misleading the public. Paul, what's the bottom line? Two key points. First, in attacking the CBO estimate of health reform's costs and making false claims about the law's impact on jobs, opponents of reform are perpetuating myths and deliberately confusing the public. Health reform will reduce the deficit and will not kill jobs. Second, at a time when the nation faces serious long-term fiscal challenges, it's extremely troubling to see Congressional leaders rejecting CBO analyses they find politically inconvenient and promoting their own partisan estimates. CLAIM: Health Care Bill "Manipulating Budget Window" By "Creating 10 Years Of Revenue Against Six Years Of Expenses" Carlson Calls GOP Lawmaker's Claim That The Bill "Creates 10 Years Of Revenue Against Six Years Of Expenses" A "Great" Argument. On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson allowed Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) to cast doubt on the reform bill's deficit reduction by claiming that Democrats "do something really strange" in calculating the deficit reduction qualities of the bill by "manipulating the budget window by creating 10 years of revenue against six years of expenses." Carlson said in response, "You're doing a great job proving your point." [Fox & Friends, 1/19/11] FACT: CBO Found That Health Care Reform Would Continue To Reduce The Deficit Beyond 2019 Krugman: Claim That The Bill "Front-Loads Revenues And Back-Loads Spending" Is A "Lie." In a March 27, 2010, New York Times blog post, Paul Krugman responded to former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin's claim that health care reform legislation is filled with "gimmicks" designed to make the legislation appear to reduce the deficit. Krugman wrote: OK, I finally got around to reading Douglas Holtz-Eakin's op-ed on health care reform. It's much worse than I thought; time to scratch Holtz-Eakin off my shrinking list of reasonable, reasonably honest conservatives. How bad is it? Holtz-Eakin declares that Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending. I think that's what is technically known as a "lie". Holtz-Eakin, of all people, knows how to read a CBO report. So he's perfectly capable of looking at the actual report (pdf) and seeing that the revenues, like the costs, are minimal for the first four years. Here's the chart: [...] His implication that there's funny business going on is totally false, and he knows it. Wait, it gets worse: Holtz-Eakin implies that there are hidden, delayed costs: Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation's new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation. Claims that the plan is window-dressed to look good in its first decade only to go sour later might sound plausible -- except for the fact that the CBO projects bigger deficit-reduction in the second decade of the reform than in the first decade, something that wouldn't happen if lots of costs were being hidden by being pushed off into the future. That said, we do learn something important from Holtz-Eakin's article. If this is the best critique a conservative budget wonk can come up with -- if deliberately misrepresenting how the legislation works is the only way to make it seem irresponsible -- then the bill must be pretty sound in fiscal terms. [The New York Times, 3/27/10] CBO Director Tells Deficit Commission That Health Care Reform Slightly Improves Budget Outlook. As The Washington Post noted on July 1, 2010, CBO director Doug Elmendorf said during a June 30 presentation that the health care reform bill "did not substantially diminish" the long-term deficit problem, but that it "made a dent": "Growth in spending on health-care programs remains the central fiscal challenge," CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf said in a presentation to Obama's bipartisan deficit commission. "In CBO's judgment, the health-care legislation enacted earlier this year made a dent in the problem, but did not substantially diminish that challenge." Although more starkly stated, CBO's position has not changed since the health-care legislation was approved. The new forecast simply incorporates CBO's cost estimates from that time, which predicted that the plan to expand coverage, raise taxes and cut Medicare spending would reduce deficits by about $140 billion over the next decade and by more than $1 trillion in the decade after. "Slowing the rate of health care cost growth is the single most important action we can take to reduce our long-term fiscal shortfall," White House budget director Peter Orszag said in a statement. "The report confirms that the enactment and successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act is a key step toward a healthier fiscal future." [The Washington Post, 7/1/10] CBO Budget Outlook Says Health Care Reform Law Will "Reduce Budget Deficits Over The 2010-2019 Period And In Subsequent Years." CBO's June 30, 2010, long-term budget outlook states that the health care reform law "is expected to increase federal spending in the next 10 years and for most of the following decade. By 2030, however, that legislation will slightly reduce federal spending for health care if all of its provisions are fully implemented, CBO projects." CBO noted in a footnote that although the law -- which will reduce the number of uninsured by 32 million by 2019 -- will increase federal spending on health care in the next two decades, it will still reduce budget deficits: If all of its provisions are carried out, the legislation will also increase federal revenues and reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. [Congressional Budget Office, 6/30/10] CBO: In Long-Term, Health Care Reform "Slow The Accumulation Of Debt Considerably." While cautioning that long-term estimates of health care spending are uncertain, the CBO budget outlook stated that if the health care reform bill is implemented as written, it "increase projected revenues, particularly in the 2030s and beyond, thus slowing the accumulation of debt considerably." [Congressional Budget Office, 6/30/10]
CLAIM: Incentives For Wellness And Prevention "Was Missing From The Health Care Bill" Carlson: Incentives For Prevention And Wellness "Seems To Be One Thing That Was Missing From The Health Care Bill On Capitol Hill." On the January 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Carlson interviewed a Michigan city administrator about a local program that incentivizes "screening and risk assessment." Carlson reacted to the plan by claiming "the one thing that struck my mind as you're talking there is that the one word is 'incentive.' You incentivize these people with a $100 gift card to come and get checked out, and that seems to be one thing that was missing from the health care bill on Capitol Hill." [Fox & Friends, 1/19/11]
FACT: Health Care Reform Bill Provides Numerous Incentives For Prevention And Wellness Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 4108, Provides "Incentives For Prevention Of Chronic Disease In Medicaid." Section 4108 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC) creates "incentives for prevention of chronic diseases in Medicaid." From the PPAC:
SEC. 4108. INCENTIVES FOR PREVENTION OF CHRONIC DISEASES IN MEDICAID.
(a) INITIATIVES.--
(1) ESTABLISHMENT.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall award grants to States to carry out initiatives to provide incentives to Medicaid beneficiaries who--
(i) successfully participate in a program described in paragraph (3); and
(ii) upon completion of such participation, demonstrate changes in health risk and outcomes, including the adoption and maintenance of healthy behaviors by meeting specific targets (as described in subsection (c)(2)).
(B) PURPOSE.--The purpose of the initiatives under this section is to test approaches that may encourage behavior modification and determine scalable solutions. [Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act of 2010, accessed 1/19/11]
Bill Provides "Grants For Small Businesses To Provide Comprehensive Workplace Wellness Programs." Section 10408 of the PPAC provides "grants for small businesses to provide comprehensive workplace wellness programs." From the PPAC:
SEC. 10408. GRANTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE WORKPLACE WELLNESS PROGRAMS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--The Secretary shall award grants to eligible employers to provide their employees with access to comprehensive workplace wellness programs (as described under subsection (c)).
[...]
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.--For purposes of carrying out the grant program under this section, there is authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2011 through 2015. [Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act of 2010, accessed 1/19/11]
Bill Provides Grants To "Provide Physical Activity Opportunities" In Order To Reduce Chronic Disease. Section 4201 of the PPAC Creates "Community Transformation Grants" which may be used toward activities such as "creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases." From the bill:
SEC. 4201. COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION GRANTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as the ''Secretary''), acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (referred to in this section as the ''Director''), shall award competitive grants to State and local governmental agencies and community-based organizations for the implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of evidence-based community preventive health activities in order to reduce chronic disease rates, prevent the development of secondary conditions, address health disparities, and develop a stronger evidence-base of effective prevention programming.
[...]
(B) ACTIVITIES.-Activities within the plan may focus on (but not be limited to)-
(i) creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases;
(ii) creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;
(iii) developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee;
(iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives;
(v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues;
(vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health; and
(vii) addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas. [Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act of 2010, accessed 1/19/11]
Bill Increases Amount Of Premium Discount Available To Individuals Participating In Wellness Programs. As part of Section 2705 of the PPAC, the bill rewards participating in a wellness program up to "30 percent of the cost of employee-only coverage under the plan." The provision also allows the secretary of Health and Human Services to raise the reward "up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage if the Secretaries determine that such an increase is appropriate." [Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act of 2010, accessed 1/19/11]
CLAIM: Reform Is A "Government Takeover" Of The Health Care Industry Krauthammer: Health Care Reform Bill Is "Essentially A Federal Government Takeover Of A Sixth Of The U.S. Economy." On the January 18 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Krauthammer stated that health care reform is "essentially a federal government takeover of a sixth of the U.S. economy. That's a high price to pay for a couple of goodies which you can get without any of that." [The O'Reilly Factor, 1/18/11]
FACT: "Government-Run Health Care" Is "Among The Biggest Falsehoods" Of The Health Care Debate PolitiFact: "Government Takeover Of Health Care" Is The "Lie Of The Year." In its article declaring "a government takeover of health care" the Lie of the Year, PolitiFact wrote:
"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
•Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies. •Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it. •The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors. •The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers. •The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine. PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.
It's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market.
Republicans who maintain the Democratic plan is a government takeover say that characterization is justified because the plan increases federal regulation and will require Americans to buy health insurance.
But while those provisions are real, the majority of Americans will continue to get coverage from private insurers. And it will bring new business for the insurance industry: People who don"t currently have coverage will get it, for the most part, from private insurance companies. [PolitiFact, 12/16/10]
FactCheck: Claim Of "Government-Run Health Care" Among The "Biggest Falsehoods" Of Health Care Debate. On March 19, 2010, FactCheck.org included "It's government-run health care" among the "biggest falsehoods" of the health care debate, writing:
Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the "public option") is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn't. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so. There would be increased government regulation of the insurance industry, however, to require companies to cover preexisting conditions, for example. [FactCheck.org, 3/19/10]
mediamatters.org/research/201101190017
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 18:49:17 GMT -5
Health Care Reform is dead on arrival when it is moved to the Senate so today's House vote was for political purposes only and BTW the Republicans were not alone voting to repeal it there were a few dems who crossed party lines and voted with republicans. They can forget about having lunch with Nancy Pelosi but somehow I doubt that they could care less...
So once again Lakhota is lambasting republicans again but failed to mention that there were dems who think that the health care reform is a necessity for our country.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 18:51:34 GMT -5
Public Trust In Fox News Is PlummetingFox News' 2010 featured the network's hosts and contributors aggressively campaigning and fundraising for the GOP, trafficking in over-the-top rhetoric, and hyping an unending cavalcade of manufactured scandals (like Obama supposedly giving a major chunk of Arizona back to Mexico). 2010 also marked the network's hiring of Sarah Palin, their continued employment of serial misinformer Glenn Beck, and the revelation that Fox execs are deliberately slanting the network's news coverage. In likely related news, Public Policy Polling released their second annual TV News Trust Poll, which found that, in contrast to a year ago, a plurality of Americans now distrust Fox News. As they explain in their blog post about the poll's findings, this loss of support comes mostly from moderates and liberals. Trust among conservatives has fallen slightly: A year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don't. Conservatives haven't moved all that much- 75% said they trusted it last year and 72% still do this time around. But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the network- a 12 point gain from 48% to 60% for moderates and a 16 point gain from 66% to 82% for liberals. Voters between left and center tend to be more trusting of the media across the board, which is why a fair number of them were still rating Fox favorably even a year ago at this time. But it looks like with a lot of those folks it has finally crossed the line to being too political to trust. Here's PPP's graph showing the highest net trust for networks to the worst: mediamatters.org/blog/201101190031
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 18:53:16 GMT -5
Public Trust In Lakhota's Reposting Progressive/Liberal Media Matters News Is Plummeting...... Plummeting down the toilet and ought to be flushed ASAP Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 18:57:24 GMT -5
Republicans' Crazy Plan to Roll Back Advances on Health Care Would Also Wreck the EconomyRepealing Obama's signature health care legislation would undermine these same lawmakers' stated goals of fostering job growth and slashing the deficit. This week, conservatives in the House and Senate plan to push to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health care reforms that President Obama signed into law last March. By repealing this legislation, these lawmakers plan to make good on a major campaign promise that they championed during the election season. But the truth is that repealing the legislation would undermine these same lawmakers' stated goals of fostering job growth and slashing the deficit. Most importantly, repealing the legislation would remove access to health care for millions of Americans, and continue to lead to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people. Furthermore, while the right may claim that Americans want to see the legislation repealed in favor of a more free-market approach to health care -- which has no history of working anywhere -- the truth is that more Americans want to see the law made more progressive, not less. REPEAL AND REPLACE?: The Republican-controlled House of Representatives was originally scheduled to vote for repealing the federal heath care law on January 13, but the measure was postponed due to the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and eighteen others. In order to repeal the law, House Republicans have introduced H.R. 2, the Repealing The Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. While one of the rallying cries of the Republican Party was that it planned to "repeal and replace" the health care law, their bill includes no replacement for the expanded coverage and protections found within the text of the recently-passed federal health care legislation. The Washington Post reports that, in the "absence of a plan, Republican leaders nevertheless are eager to convey that they have ideas about health care," yet the only resolution they have drafted to accompany the repeal legislation simply lays out "broad, long-held GOP health-care goals, but no specifics." This lack of specificity about what exactly the Republicans will be replacing the bill with irked Dan Fonte, a constituent of Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH), who confronted his representative during a recent town hall meeting. "Why don't you make a replacement plan before you repeal it so we can look at it?" he asked, receiving applause from the audience. "Let's think about this before we jump and do whatever we wanna do." Renacci had no response for Fonte. Of course, those pushing for repeal may not seriously be thinking about fixing the American health care system at all, considering they know that their repeal push will likely not make it past the U.S. Senate or the president's veto pen. THE COSTS OF REPEAL: What would happen if the conservatives actually succeeded in repealing the health care law without replacing it with any meaningful legislation? For one, many of the GOP's own campaign promises of growing the economy and lowering the debt would be undermined. While House Republicans have given their legislation an Orwellian title that suggests that the health care law kill jobs, the opposite is actually true: repealing the bill would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. "The claim has no justification," said Micah Weinberg, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation's Health Policy Program, of the GOP's job-killing claims. As CAP's David M. Cutler notes in his report "Repealing Health Care Is A Job Killer," repealing the law would slow annual job growth by "250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually." Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that repealing the bill would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next ten years. Even more importantly, repealing the new law would cause 32 million Americans to lose health care coverage and put insurance companies back in charge by allowing them to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. This would be particularly tragic when looked at in the light of a new Health and Human Services study released this week that finds that nearly half of the population under the age of 65 has one or more pre-existing conditions. Additionally, as Richard Kirsch of the Roosevelt Institute writes, repealing the new law would lead to the death of 32,000 Americans every year simply because they couldn't afford to get the health care they need to live. NOT WHAT AMERICANS WANT: The right often claims that it has a wide mandate from the American people to repeal the health care law and pursue a right-wing ideological approach that leaves more individuals to fend for themselves in the private market. Yet the most recent polling on the subject shows that this simply isn't true. An Associated Press-GfK poll released yesterday found that "only about 1 in 4" Americans support repealing the health care law (the strongest support for repeal is from Republicans, where 1 in 4 actually want to keep it). Meanwhile, polling suggests that Americans actually either support the law or want it to be made more progressive, not less. A CNN/Opinion Research poll published last month found that 56 percent of Americans either favor the law or want it to be more "liberal." A recently released Marist poll finds that more Americans want to change the law "so it does more" than want to "change it so that it does less" and that more Americans want to keep the law than replace it. Indeed, a large majority of Americans support progressive policies like adding a Medicare-style public option and allowing re-importation of drugs from Canada. What is clear from all this polling is that Americans are ready to fix our broken health care system and want to continue to make progress, not repeal the law and force the country down the old path with more than 50 million people uninsured and a health care system that is bankrupting Americans and causing thousands to die simply because they can't afford to live. www.alternet.org/health/149581/republicans%27_crazy_plan_to_roll_back_advances_on_health_care_would_also_wreck_the_economy/?page=entire
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 18:59:59 GMT -5
P.I., is attacking the messengers all you got? Can you debate factually with the messages?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:00:52 GMT -5
Republicans' Crazy Plan to Roll Back Advances on Health Care Would Also Wreck the Economy
Then why did three House dems support repealing the Health Care Reform Bill??
How about this comment by Dem Congressman Steve Cohen:
"Democrat Compares Republican Health Care To Nazis Propaganda"
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 19:06:40 GMT -5
Three? WOW! You mean the same BLue Dogs who originally voted against health care reform? What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:09:00 GMT -5
Three? WOW! You mean the same BLue Dogs who originally voted against health care reform? What's your point? My point is your postings are just a lot of liberal/progressive propaganda that doesn't pass the smell test....much the same as the nonsense by congressman Steve Cohen comparing republicans to nazis
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 19:10:17 GMT -5
Why don't you try being factual instead of "smelling"...?
Also, I would appreciate you keeping your "nazi" stuff on your own thread.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:14:19 GMT -5
Why don't you try being factual instead of "smelling"...? Facts.....repeal of health care is both a dem and repub issue. Facts.....progressive liberal media matters articles are highly biased reporting as well as the Huffington Post ... or garbage in garbage out journalism...
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 19:17:27 GMT -5
Empty barrels make the most noise. Got any facts that can be verified?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:17:58 GMT -5
Also, I would appreciate you keeping your "nazi" stuff on your own thread.
Why?? It is a lead story in the news tonight on CNN, CBS, and NBC so are you just trying to sweep it under the rug??
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jan 19, 2011 19:21:14 GMT -5
lAKHOTA HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THE BILL? I will give you one example where costs will rise in healthcare. This is one area where I have 30 years experience. They are going to add an additional tax on manufacturers of medical equipment and supplies. Sounds good does it not? Well who do you think in the final equation is going to pay that tax? Not so good eh.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 19:23:16 GMT -5
lAKHOTA HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THE BILL? I will give you one example where costs will rise in healthcare. This is one area where I have 30 years experience. They are going to add an additional tax on manufacturers of medical equipment and supplies. Sounds good does it not? Well who do you think in the final equation is going to pay that tax? Not so good eh. Can you provide some facts and verifiable links? Assuming what you say is fact, shouldn't Republicans be trying to make health care BETTER rather than trying to REPEAL it?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:24:36 GMT -5
Thirty-nine percent believe the health plan that Obama signed into law last year is a good idea, versus another 39 percent who think it's a bad idea. But those saying it's a good idea is at its highest level since September 2009, and those saying it's a bad idea is at its lowest level since June 2009. The poll also finds that 46 percent of respondents are opposed to repeal (with 34 percent strongly opposed), while 45 percent support the repeal effort (with 35 percent strongly in favor). firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/19/5877937-nbcwsj-poll-public-divided-on-health-law-and-repeal
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:28:08 GMT -5
[i]Can you provide some facts and verifiable links?[/i][/b]
Why you just shun them as not being credible
Assuming what you say is fact, shouldn't Republicans be trying to make health care BETTER rather than trying to REPEAL it? [/b]
Congressman Paul Ryan wants to scrap it and start over with a new and improved health care bill but his challenge is convince the senate that this is the best way to go...so stay tuned there are some dems and repubs in the senate who want to change the health care bill
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 19:32:54 GMT -5
Americans don't want health-care repealIt is simply not true that "the American people" want President Obama's health-care reform law repealed. House Republicans should be aware that while conservative activists may support the action they're about to take, surveys indicate that the general public clearly does not. A new Post poll shows that 50 percent of those surveyed oppose the "Obamacare" law, while 45 percent support it. But these numbers are misleading, since The Post reports that "a quarter of those who oppose the health-care law say the legislation is faulty because it did not go far enough, not because it pushed change too far." In other words, one-fourth of the law's opponents believe it should have been more ambitious and far-reaching, not less so. These are people who would have liked to see single-payer universal care, or tighter regulation of insurance companies, or less restrictive language on abortion rights -- hardly positions that John Boehner and Eric Cantor would endorse. By counting them among opponents of the law, Republicans are essentially arguing that Michael Moore is on their side. Subtracting these dyed-in-the-wool progressives from the "anti-" column leaves just 37.5 percent opposed to the health-care law. Putting the Moore crowd in the "pro-" column, where ideologically it belongs, means that 57.5 percent of Americans support what Republicans deride as a "big government takeover of health care." So the next time somebody tries to tell you how unpopular "Obamacare" is, remember one thing: It isn't. voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/americans_dont_want_health-car.htmlPost Poll: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/18/AR2011011804665.html
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:34:30 GMT -5
So the next time somebody tries to tell you how unpopular "Obamacare" is, remember one thing: It isn't.
Then why is the Congress trying to repeal the Obamacare?? Repeal of the Health Care passed today in the House and the Senate is on record to amend it...
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 19:40:34 GMT -5
Duh, only the House voted to REPEAL - not AMEND.
Can you provide a verifiable link that the "Senate is on record to amend it"...?
Also, if the House repealled it, how can the Senate AMEND it?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:44:26 GMT -5
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jan 19, 2011 19:54:12 GMT -5
Lakhota you constantly ask for links. Just read the bill and the answers will be there for you. The links are the bill it's self. You defend it as a wonder to mankind but you don't seem to know what it says.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 19:57:21 GMT -5
Lakhota you constantly ask for links. Just read the bill and the answers will be there for you. The links are the bill it's self. You defend it as a wonder to mankind but you don't seem to know what it says. handyman2, how about YOU posting the section of the bill you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 19:59:36 GMT -5
What we don't know is whether or not all the dem senators will line up with Harry Reid since they are working with republicans to amend the health care bill....senator Grassley is the leader for amending it and there is some bipartisan support in the senate. But the question remains will Harry Reid let it come to the senate floor for debate and voting??? Who knows??
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 20:05:59 GMT -5
Harry Reid has already said he won't bring it up for vote. Why should he?
After all, Democrats still control government!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 20:06:48 GMT -5
The law faces another challenge, well beyond the reach of Obama's veto pen. Several lawsuits have been filed, and while some judges have upheld the legislation, one recently ruled it was unconstitutional to require individuals to purchase insurance. The Supreme Court is widely expected to have the final word.
In the meantime, Republicans clearly relished the day
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 20:09:51 GMT -5
Harry Reid has already said he won't bring it up for vote. Why should he? After all, Democrats still control government!!!!! Republicans in the senate have said they will force a vote for repeal/amending Obamacare ....so we shall see what happens I guess the key would be if they garner some support for repeal or amending it by the senate dems. But Obama has the veto pen but may be open to some changes to Obamacare but I am just speculating on that point.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 19, 2011 20:14:42 GMT -5
Are you on medication, or what? Republicans can't FORCE anything in the Senate. All Republicans can do in the Senate is continue to filibuster and say NO.
Health care repeal CAN'T come up for debate/vote in Senate - UNLESS HARRY REID AGREES TO DO IT.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 19, 2011 20:21:12 GMT -5
P.I., is attacking the messengers all you got? Can you debate factually with the messages? I would but the messages are just a lot of hype and spin and probably not worth reading ..IMHO
|
|