Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Sanity -> Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 4:10:12 PM)


Do you believe in magic??? Unicorns and fairies, oh my...


quote:

Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible


Monday In Strongsville, Ohio, Obama said that if his health care bill passes, American employers could wind up paying 3,000% less for their health insurance plans. Well, even 300% would be impressive.

But let's do the math: 100% percent of anything is all of it. If you pay 100% less, you don't pay anything at all. Ever go to a 100%-off sale? Probably not.

The only explanation is that in order to achieve the negative number that would result from a 3,000% reduction, insurers would have to pay businesses and individuals to take their insurance policies. Or someone would have to pay that money.

Let's say you as an individual are paying $1 a month for health insurance (which if you are, congratulations). Reduce that by 100% and you get zero, that is, you subtract the entire amount, $1. To reduce your payment by 3,000%, which is 30 times as much. Subtract $1 thirty times and you should have a negative payment of $29, which means the insurer should be paying you that much.



http://www.examiner.com/x-16358-Cincinnati-Independent-Examiner~y2010m3d16-Obama-says-3000-lower-insurance-payments-are-possible



Video





Sanity -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 4:19:21 PM)


We know where big insurance stands, because under Obamacare you'll be forced to buy one of their policies. But where does "evil greedy big Pharmaceuticals" stand?

The answer -

quote:

Drug industry preparing pro-reform ads – Anti-abortion groups mount final push – Pelosi leaning toward 'deem and pass' – Obama uses crowd to try swaying Kucinich


COMING SOON – The drug industry, which has held off running ads until officials sign off on the final reconciliation bill, is growing more comfortable with the emerging legislation and is preparing a substantial pro-reform ad buy in 43 Democratic districts, according to a senior industry source. The amount and timing of the buy have not yet been set and hinge largely on action in the House. Still, the development is a substantial step forward from Monday morning, when industry officials, coming off a tough weekend of negotiating with Democratic staffers, said there were no ads in the works. The movement should also help appease the White House, which has been leaning on the industry to provide Democrats air cover, according to industry sources.

More here


Everybody's getting a secret deal from this corrupt administration. I wonder what kind of secret deal they got.






NeedToUseYou -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 4:56:08 PM)

WTF, he didn't even blink when he said 3000%. LOL...

I mean whether the teleprompter said that or not, any body with a 5th grade understanding of math should have saw that is impossible. Maybe it should have said 30%?




mnottertail -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 5:03:09 PM)

well, his math is better than hipshooters, hipshooter said we were going to be in Iraq FOREVER.

NUCULAR. Did you know by example that percent means for every hundred?

So, if we decide to spin this, take math out of it, because that is not the problem with healthcare is some single formula .....

So, employers can see a three thousand percent decrease, that is, for every hundred, the cost goes down 3,000.......

Sorta the same fucked up math you use when you say we freed some 24 million people in Iraq Tom.

percent is not always a mathematical concept.

Ron




thornhappy -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 5:42:52 PM)

It's an error - if you go to the transcript at the White House web site, it says "3000% [sic]".

"Unicorns" seems to be the popular quote on the blogs.




Sanity -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 5:50:11 PM)


Its what he's telling the crowds that matters, not whats on the official White House revision.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

It's an error - if you go to the transcript at the White House web site, it says "3000% [sic]".

"Unicorns" seems to be the popular quote on the blogs.





servantforuse -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 6:06:25 PM)

Maybe he is adding in the 500 billion dollar cut in medicare ?




thornhappy -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 6:06:34 PM)

Jesus, Sanity.  I'd even give Bush a break on an error like that.




Brain -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/16/2010 8:15:56 PM)

 

It's over, nothing matters because the bill is going to pass.   You can't stop it despite all the Republican lies and the
misrepresentations. And it's also going to improve the budget deficit which is something you say you are concerned about but it looks like you are disingenuous just like all the lies Republicans have made about  health care reform.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Its what he's telling the crowds that matters, not whats on the official White House revision.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

It's an error - if you go to the transcript at the White House web site, it says "3000% [sic]".

"Unicorns" seems to be the popular quote on the blogs.






Sanity -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 3:42:11 AM)


I bet that Democrats are starting to really hate it when Obama's speeches get "fact checked":

quote:

FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan

WASHINGTON – Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people. Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.

Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."

And that's not all.

Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

More


Well, duh...

The Drudge headline for the following article says that

"
Massachusetts Treasurer: Dems healthcare plan will 'bankrupt the country in four years'..."


Isn't the Massachusetts plan the one that the Democrats keep saying proves that Obamacare can work?

quote:

Tim Cahill slams Barack Obama, Dems on health care

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, taking swipes at both Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama, boosted his bipartisan chops yesterday, telling Herald columnist Howie Carr on WRKO, “I voted for John McCain, believe it or not.”

Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn’t endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, “My own party basically voted me out.”

“I was afraid of what we had already been getting in Massachusetts, and at that point in 2008, I was aware that it wasn’t working,” he said. Separately yesterday, Cahill accused Obama of “propping up” the Bay State’s health plan with federal aid in order to help push the Democrats’ plan through Congress.

“The real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that it’s being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1240176




StrangerThan -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 3:53:11 AM)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_fact_check

I'll let the sides bitch slap each other as they always do in these threads, but here's clarification.




Sanity -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 4:11:47 AM)


Thats the same article that I linked to up above, so consider yourself bitch slapped...

[:D]








tazzygirl -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 5:35:56 AM)

FactCheck already did there story back in Feb.

It all started with Alexander’s remarks, when he said the president’s proposal, much like the Senate bill on which it is largely based, would increase premiums:

Alexander: For millions of Americans, premiums will go up because those — when people pay those new taxes, premiums will go up — they will also go up because of the government mandates.

Later, Obama took on that claim directly, saying that Alexander was wrong.

Obama: No, no, no. And this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight. … So let me respond to what you just [said] Lamar, because it’s not factually accurate. Here’s what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage as they’re currently receiving would go down 14 to 20 percent.

Actually, both men were misleading.

What CBO said (see Table 1) is that for those who are in group policies, there would be no significant change in premiums, compared with what would be paid under current law. For those in large groups, there would be somewhere between no change at all and a 3 percent decrease in premium cost. For small groups, the change could fall between a 1 percent increase and a 2 percent decrease.

The only significant increases would be seen by those who buy their policies individually, CBO said. For those persons, the average premium per person would be between 10 percent and 13 percent higher

Alexander was technically correct when he said premiums would go up "for millions." CBO figured that 32 million persons would fall into the nongroup market by 2016, should the Senate bill become law. What he didn’t mention is that they would make up only 17 percent of workers covered by private insurance. And he didn’t mention these costs would go up because benefits would improve in the nongroup market.

The senator was correct when he cited "mandates" as one cause for the increase – but that’s not the only reason premiums go up. The bill would require plans to have a standard level of benefits. However, most of those buying their own coverage would receive subsidies that would prompt them to buy more expensive plans than they normally would. CBO said "the average insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees’ costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits." People would basically use money from the government to buy themselves a nicer plan than they would if they were only using their own money. CBO said well over half of those buying individual policies — 57 percent — would get government subsidies "that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law."
..................
One last point: Alexander said “taxes” would also cause premium costs to go up – but that’s not really the case, according to CBO. Paradoxically, CBO predicts that the Senate bill’s excise tax on high-cost health plans would actually bring premium costs down. That’s because the tax would induce employers and employees to choose lower-cost plans with less coverage, to avoid being hit by the tax. CBO said the average premium for those affected by the tax would be 9 percent to 12 percent lower. The bill also includes some taxes on medical device manufacturers and drug importers; CBO found those taxes would have a less than 1 percent effect on premium costs.

..........
Republican Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana claimed that the House GOP health care bill would bring down health insurance premiums:

Boustany: We put forth a plan earlier in the year, during the debate, that actually the Congressional Budget Office showed that it brings down the cost of premiums up to about 10 percent. And, actually, for individuals seeking — and families seeking insurance in the individual market, those cost savings could even be higher.

It’s true that the CBO found that health care premiums for those in the small group market would decrease between 7 percent and 10 percent by 2016. But the small group market accounts for just 15 percent of premiums, according to the CBO. It estimated smaller drops for other segments of the private market. For example, premiums in the individual market, which accounts for just 5 percent of the private market, would go down between 5 percent and 8 percent, CBO said. The other 80 percent of premiums, which make up the large group market, may go down by as much as 3 percent, CBO said, but may actually stay the same as under current law.


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/health-care-summit-squabbles/




KcFunDom -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 5:46:02 AM)

Nice work tazzy.  I am glad someone bothers to look it up!




RacerJim -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 6:21:08 AM)

I'm willing to give Obama a pass on saying 3,000% rather than $3,000 annually.

But I'm not willing to give Obama a pass on not saying anything about "Obamacare" including a Federal government takeover of the college student loan industry.

Yet even more proof that "Obamacare" is not about healthcare reform at all but, rather, it is all and only about more Federal government control over "We the people..."




mnottertail -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 6:32:55 AM)

well his guy talked about it.

So what happens currently is that the govt funds student loan money, the banks loan it and service it, and if the scholar defaults the bank gets the service money from the govt.

Real sweetheart deal.

The administration says, fuck em, if they default we are already out the principle, why pay the bank the balance of the full servicing fee as well?

So, actually they are trying to reduce government involvement in it and save the taxpayers some bucks in the process.

Sounds like an entirely different situation than the normal fucktard tries to pass it off as, without knowing the least little bit about it.

Ron




thornhappy -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 6:45:39 AM)

Yep, and the savings would go into the Pell Grants.




mnottertail -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 6:47:05 AM)

thats gotta be some form of communism or socialism or government takeover, instead of fiscal responsibility, since this is a democratic idea.




Sanity -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 7:45:08 AM)


Its incredible how the very Liberal Annenburg foundation managed back in February to fact check a speech that Obama didn't give in Ohio until just this week. 





mnottertail -> RE: Obama says 3,000% lower insurance payments are possible (3/17/2010 7:49:04 AM)

you are spinning this insincerely, Tom. it is a fact check checked feb and updated mar (he has been speaking about this for some time, and not much new has been said, (either side)).


Ron




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
9.301758E-02