Posts Tagged ‘health insurance’

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Wed Jan 26, 10:56 am ET

WASHINGTON – The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.

Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed “we redouble these efforts.” He coupled this with a call to “freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.”

But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

For example, he said he wants to eliminate “billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.” Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

A look at some of Obama’s statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:


OBAMA: Tackling the deficit “means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit.”

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama’s health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office’s analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there’s little reason to think that will change.


OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include “earmarks,” pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. “Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.”

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. As recently as last month, Obama was prepared to sign a catchall spending measure stuffed with earmarks, before it collapsed in the Senate after an outcry from conservatives over the bill’s $8 billion-plus in home-state pet projects.

It’s a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: “Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination,” he said then.


OBAMA: “I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.

Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has provided grants to test ideas aimed at reducing medical mistakes and resolving malpractice cases by negotiation, but has recommended no change in federal law.

Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases. In October 2009 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that government health care programs could save $41 billion over 10 years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted.


OBAMA: “Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.”

THE FACTS: High-speed rail has been most successful for trips between cities roughly 200 to 500 miles apart — planes are more efficient for longer distances and cars for shorter trips. Administration officials say it’s inevitable that there will fast passenger train service between U.S. cities since projected population growth — 70 million more people in the next 25 years — will otherwise create congestion so severe that air or highway travel between nearby cities will become impractical.

But there are many major hurdles that will have to be overcome. Congress has approved $10.5 billion to jumpstart selected high-speed rail projects, but some industry estimates for the cost of a truly national network with service to major cities in every region of the country range from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Also, it’s doubtful that all service will be truly high-speed, often described as a minimum of 110 mph. Frequent stops could force trains to travel slower for safety even if they are capable of higher speeds.


OBAMA: “The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don’t agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it — in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s fiscal commission did not simply recommend cutting excessive spending; it proposed that the deficit could only be tamed by cutting $3 for every $1 of new revenue raised — in other words, a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Instead, Obama proposed an overhaul of the corporate tax system that would eliminate loopholes and tax breaks but also reduce tax rates. The net effect would be neutral; it would not reduce or raise any revenue. Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be “one of those Washington gimmicks.”


OBAMA: “To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations.”

THE FACTS: With that comment, Obama missed another chance to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, he ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.


OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration’s diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government “faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before.”

THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama’s promise one year ago that Iran would face “growing consequences” if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn’t say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.


Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, giving the GOP response: “Whether sold as `stimulus’ or repackaged as `investment,’ their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much, taxes too much and spends too much in order to do too much.”

THE FACTS: The economic stimulus package passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in February 2009 didn’t raise taxes. Instead, about a third of the package — nearly $300 billion — was made up of temporary tax cuts. The biggest was Obama’s Making Work Pay credit, which provided up $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples. There were dozens of other tax cuts, including a more generous child tax credit, a tax credit for buying a home and a sales tax deduction for buying a car. Many, but not all, of the tax cuts have since expired.

Obama’s health care law imposed new taxes, including a penalty for some people who don’t get qualified health insurance, starting in 2014. But Obama extended Bush-era tax cuts that were due to expire at the beginning of the year. He also enacted a new one-year cut in the payroll tax for 2011 for just about every wage earner.

I been taking alot of flack from people who think that this health care law is a good one. Some saying it’s better then what we have now (is it really). Others calling me an idiot for thinking that this law will increase our taxes and health care insurance.

  • Fact the government has never gotten their hands into something without driving up the costs. They can’t even buy a $10.00 hammer for less than $500.00.
  • The health care providers warned the government that rates would go up by as much as 43% if they passed the bill. I know people who have health care insurance who’s rates have already increased, some as high 20% already. Someone has to pay for all those pre-existing conditions that the health care insurers are now going to have the burden of covering. There should not be any issue with the health care providers covering people with pre-existing conditions. However those people should pay a higher rate. Don’t punish people who have had coverage for years and possibly never used it.

This bill is going to cost roughly 1 trillion dollars over 10 years. Who is going to pay for it? Inspite of what some people believe the tax payer will. Maybe not in the form of higher income taxes, but in all likelihood you will pay for it in higher medicaid taxes or some other tax. Nothing is free if you don’t believe that in some way the people of this country won’t be paying for it than you are very short sighted, or have drank way too much of Obama’s koolaid.

Employees! your employers will be paying more, which means you may end up getting less. Less and in raises, bonuses, etc. You will suffer for this.

Consumers don’t think for one second that you are in the clear. Companies like AT&T, 3M and others are looking at much higher costs to cover their millions of employes. AT&T alone is looking at roughly 1 billion in new expenses in the first quarter alone after the law goes into effect. Who do you think they are going to pass those costs onto?

I’ve asked this question before and no one seems to want to answer it. How does forcing people to purchase something they can’t afford make it any  more affordable? The answer it doesn’t. Health care costs in the USA are the highest in the world. This law has done nothing to fix the problem. It’s just created a whole bunch of new ones. The main source of the problems still exist. Over prices drugs, over priced hospitals, over priced doctors.

I knew a girl who went into the hospital for a simple proceedure. One over night stay cost her insurance company almost ten thousand dollars. Including but not limited to 500.00 for two Bayer asprin. Do you have any clue how many cases of Bayer asprin a hospital can buy with 500.00? I’ll tell you “10”. yes at the average of 4.00 retail cost with 12 bottles in a case you can buy “10” cases and still have money left over. remember folks that’s retail cost. Not what the hospital actually pays which is considerably less than that. approximate wholesale is 3.00 a bottle. You do the math. To me that’s the hospital bilking the health insurance provider.

So please someone tell me, what’s so good about this new law? I can’t afford insurance and I work about 50 hours per week at my day job. I make a decent living. But 300+ a month for health insurance is beyond my personal means. And yes I have priced it out. I can actually get it for less than what my employer can provide (my share through my employer is almost 500 per month).

Instead of jumping all over me. Reseach this for yourself and stop being a sheep. You might not like what you find or is that what your afraid of?