Obama Slams Health Care Critics For Spreading "Outlandish Rumors"

[me]

And one that will save the American taxpayers 61 BILLION dollars over the next 10 years. Now, I thought one of the main gripes you folks had was cutting costs. . . well, they just cut costs by billions. . .

How is that going to save billions to the taxpayers?  If it's a government job then taxes are going to have to pay the employees.  Now of course there will have to be more employees to do the same jobs which means more people will be employed which means that will mean more taxes to pay those employees.....hum....guess the government will have to create more jobs working for the government since the private sector won't be able to support the extra taxes.....Yes, I see a pattern here.  Since suppliers of medical equipment have no incentive to produce equipment they will move on so the government will have to take that over and, damn imagine that, more government jobs and less private sector......Yes, I see a definite pattern emerging.

[Palehorse]

How is that going to save billions to the taxpayers?  If it's a government job then taxes are going to have to pay the employees.  Now of course there will have to be more employees to do the same jobs which means more people will be employed which means that will mean more taxes to pay those employees.....hum....guess the government will have to create more jobs working for the government since the private sector won't be able to support the extra taxes.....Yes, I see a pattern here.  Since suppliers of medical equipment have no incentive to produce equipment they will move on so the government will have to take that over and, damn imagine that, more government jobs and less private sector......Yes, I see a definite pattern emerging.

All the information is at the CBO site. Do your own homework.  .

Sheesh. . . there is just no pleasing you guys. More jobs, a huge reduction in costs, and you still bitch and moan. . .

I don't get the tax increase complaint though. Most of it is going to come from those employers who do not provide insurance plans for their employees, and those small business subsidies I would have thought you guys would have been joyous over those. . . But like I said, there's no pleasing you. . .

[me]

All the information is at the CBO site. Do your own homework.  .

Sheesh. . . there is just no pleasing you guys. More jobs, a huge reduction in costs, and you still bitch and moan. . .

I don't get the tax increase complaint though. Most of it is going to come from those employers who do not provide insurance plans for their employees, and those small business subsidies I would have thought you guys would have been joyous over those. . . But like I said, there's no pleasing you. . .

Show me where the reduction in cost comes in at by taking private sector jobs and making them government jobs. 

[Palehorse]

Show me where the reduction in cost comes in at by taking private sector jobs and making them government jobs.

Number one - the jobs we are talking about in this case are private sector jobs administering and originating government funded student loans. This is a case of the private sector taking on the role for profit, IE they originate and administer the student loan program for fees that are paid by the government.

Number two - As with anything else in this world, if you want to have work performed then you have to be willing to pay the price for the services, or if you want to save money do the work yourself. The government has chosen to do the work themselves and save the fees and charges associated with the private sector doing the work. And we are not just talking about Sallie Mae here, but many other companies as well, like Wells Fargo for instance.

If you review the CBO numbers you will see that even when the cost of adding the necessary headcount is added to the process, the taxpayers will save over 61 billion dollars over the next 10 years by doing this.

Until now, the federal government guaranteed the private lenders that made Stafford and PLUS loans that it would repay 97 cents on the dollar for loans that go into default. Now the government will make all the loans, thus taking on the last 3 percent of the risk, and keep the billions of dollars it used to pay to private companies for making the loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that's a good deal for taxpayers, with the net gain to the Treasury totaling more than $60 billion over the next 10 years. Private lenders and banks will no longer get paid by the federal government to make the federally subsidized and guaranteed student loans, but they will still be free to raise private capital from investors and make private loans.

[Sandy Eggo]

No Henry, people losing jobs is not boring, but people going off on doomsday tangents w/out remotely being in command of the facts...is.

[Palehorse]

. . . AND these new jobs will be filled by??? You guessed it, those displaced by the financial institutions who formerly originated the loans in the first place. . .

[Locutus]

No Henry, people losing jobs is not boring, but people going off on doomsday tangents w/out remotely being in command of the facts...is.

I just happened to post this on Facebook yesterday.  It certainly applies to what you're talking about.

"Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge." -- Horace Mann

[Henry Hawk]

No Henry, people losing jobs is not boring, but people going off on doomsday tangents w/out remotely being in command of the facts...is.

excuussssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! (doing my steve martin impersonation)

but it has been the left screaming at the top of their lungs that the healthcare was collapsing IF this didn't pass........and that we was going into a depression IF the stimulus didn't pass.......it was doomsday squared with the dems.....so, don't get on me for pointing out some potential mistakes that may very well effect our economy because we passed a healthcare bill that nobody knew what exactly was in it until AFTER it passed.......

[Palehorse]

Health bill lawsuits are going nowhere
By Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Special to CNN
March 24, 2010 6:57 a.m. EDT


Editor's note: Timothy Stoltzfus Jost is a professor of law at the Washington and Lee University. Jost, a Democrat, blogs about legal issues in health reform at http://www.oneillhealthreformblog.org/
(CNN) -- A state attorney general is almost by definition a candidate for higher office. The filing of lawsuits challenging the health reform law by 14 attorneys general -- all but one of them Republican -- may look good for their next campaigns, but these cases are going nowhere legally.
The case filed by Florida and 12 other states challenges obligations allegedly imposed on the states by the statute as well as the individual insurance purchase mandate imposed by the law. The Virginia case challenges only the individual mandate, setting up against it a new Virginia law purporting to nullify it.

One of the states' claims is based on a simple misreading of the health reform law.

The lawsuit claims that it compels the states to enforce the federal law or to operate exchanges that would make health insurance available to consumers. Section 1321 gives states the choice of doing so or not, and if states elect not to do so, the federal government will enforce the law and operate the exchange in the state.

No state has to do anything, except make its choice known to the federal government. Moreover, section 1333 of the act allows states to apply for a waiver to take a completely different approach to covering their residents if they have a better idea.

The complaint also attacks the provisions of the law that provide Medicaid coverage for all Americans whose income is under 133 percent of the poverty level. These Medicaid expansions are not effective until 2014, and the federal government pays the entire cost until 2017, after which the state's share gradually increases to 10 percent by 2020.
It is hard to understand how the states are harmed in any way by the billions of dollars the Medicaid expansions will pour into their states to cover millions of their residents, many of whom would otherwise be treated by providers without compensation. But in any event, states can simply opt out of Medicaid if they choose not to participate.

The Supreme Court has long upheld spending clause programs that require states that accept federal program funds to comply with federal program requirements, and this law simply follows those precedents.

The challenge to the individual insurance mandate is simply not legally credible. First, it is not clear whether the federal courts even have jurisdiction to hear the claim. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts may not decide hypothetical questions but rather only actual cases and controversies. The states are in no way injured by the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, and thus should not be able to challenge it.

But the mandate is clearly constitutional. The mandate requires people who have household incomes above the tax filing limit ($18,700 for joint filers) and who are not covered by their employer or a public program to buy health insurance.
Those who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level will get tax credits to help pay for it. People who are subject to the mandate but choose to remain uninsured will have to pay a tax, which will increase with their income up to the cost of a high-deductible insurance policy.

Under the reform legislation, insurers must take all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions. The insurance market can only function if healthy people buy insurance, helping to share the cost burden with those who get sick. We cannot simply let people wait until they are sick to purchase it.

But more fundamentally, people who can afford insurance and don't buy it are simply being irresponsible. An auto accident or serious disease can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why should the taxpayers or health care providers have to finance the care of those who refuse to buy insurance?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states.

The Supreme Court has long held that this authority reaches all economic activity. The court has recognized as legitimate exercises of the Commerce Power the authority of Congress to prohibit the growing of a few marijuana plants on a window sill for personal medical use or to outlaw a doctor's performing of a partial-birth abortion.

Choosing whether to buy insurance or impose your health care costs on others is economic activity subject to that authority.

Virginia has passed a law purporting to nullify the federal law. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that federal law is the supreme law of the land. Virginia's law is no more enforceable than were its laws attempting to nullify federal desegregation laws in the 1950s.

I am from Virginia. Like most states, we are in terrible shape financially, lacking money for schools, roads or health care. We cannot afford bankrolling frivolous lawsuits.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/24/jost.health.bill.challenges/index.html?hpt=T2

[Palehorse]

. . . we passed a healthcare bill that nobody knew what exactly was in it until AFTER it passed.......

"We" didn't pass anything, congress did. And in case you didn't know it, 99% of the bills passed in congress are subject to this very same statement.

The only bills our congress know everything about are the special interest portions they are sponsoring themselves. . .

[Henry Hawk]

"We" didn't pass anything, congress did. And in case you didn't know it, 99% of the bills passed in congress are subject to this very same statement.

The only bills our congress know everything about are the special interest portions they are sponsoring themselves. . .

Okay let me rephrase, Congress did NOT know what was in it............Nancy Pelosi herself said exactly that!!....until it is passed SHE did not know WHAT was in the Bill..................her quote not mine....I posted a link earlier that proved this.

THAT is what is gripping my ass...the corruption that is so blatantly obvious and the left is saying NOTHING, because it benefits THEM and THEIR causes....

[Palehorse]

Okay let me rephrase, Congress did NOT know what was in it............Nancy Pelosi herself said exactly that!!....until it is passed SHE did not know WHAT was in the Bill..................her quote not mine....I posted a link earlier that proved this.

THAT is what is gripping my ass...the corruption that is so blatantly obvious and the left is saying NOTHING, because it benefits THEM and THEIR causes....

And it is the case with the overwhelming majority of legislation passed through congress. They read the executive summary, if anything, and then listen to what those who fund their re-election stash want done with it. . . Business as usual.

[Exterminator]

Sheesh. . . there is just no pleasing you guys. More jobs, a huge reduction in costs, and you still bitch and moan.

And yet you persist. 

[Palehorse]

And yet you persist.

Well, somebody has to. . . Apparently this shit is getting so out of hand that 10 members of congress have had to hire security details for themselves and their families in order to address "incidents of civil disobedience and threats of violence" that have been directed toward them by teabaggers and others. . .

[me]

Well, somebody has to. . . Apparently this shit is getting so out of hand that 10 members of congress have had to hire security details for themselves and their families in order to address "incidents of civil disobedience and threats of violence" that have been directed toward them by teabaggers and others. . .

SEIU people no doubt.    The "teabaggers" are not the ones doing it.  It is the extreme right just like the exteme left is always doing dumb stuff.  They can't miss a chance to blame it on the "teabaggers" though.