Obama Bait N Switch Continues..

This one is on healthcare.......

The newest Obama bait n switch is that the CBO has re-scored Obamacare and there is an additional $50 billion annually in costs that were not prevously accounted for. The additional costs include the healthcare costs of the spouse and family members of employees who will be covered.

During the healthcare debate the CBO was expressely ordered to do their modeling on single [person] coverage, thus grossly under-estimating the costs of Obamacare by $100s of billions over a ten year time frame. Not quite a lie but very much bait n switch leadership !!!!!!!!!!!!

Hobbyists don't take this kind of bait n switch crap from providers; why take it from the POTUS ??????


:shock 1:


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/08/re...#ixzz1UlqqE81g

Like Pelosi said; "We have to pass it so you know what is in it" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now bend over America and take it up the rear from Obama and Pelosi !

So what's YOUR alternative? (Just hope it's not Perry)

I'm shocked!

This is more of that "let's get the bill passed, and THEN we can figure out what is actually in it"

This is more of that "let's get the bill passed, and THEN we can figure out what is actually in it" Originally Posted by Jackie S

Kinda like starting two wars and giving old folks more free shit and cutting everyone's taxes!

You gotta watch those politicians.....especially the ones you voted for!

A complete non-story. Scoring rules are part of every bill in Congress that effects spending. You have to have uniform scoring assumptions to compare one bill to another. Often the scoring rules are rough approximations, as are all models. I suspect if you get a real look at the story -- instead of some hatchet job from the Daily Caller, a rag started by right wing darling Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney aid Nick Patel -- you might well find that this is the assumptions that have been used on health care bills for some time, including before Obama took office. That isn't at all clear from the story, despite their reference to "corrections."

The record is not disputed: The representative states they were "expressly told to do their modeling on single [person] coverage.”

They were not told "do your modeling the same way you have done in the past" !

Do you understand the difference TTH? I am sure you do, but you are trying to spin the story into fantasy!

Obama should have excluded the insurance industry from the negotiations. Their fees to administer the delivery of health care average between 23%-27% depending on the company while the international average for administration of single-payer health care is 6.3%.

Our system is rationed by price and pre-existing conditions and a whole helluva a lot of people are clueless as to why that U.S. rationing is growing. The number of un-insured or under-insured is now over 50,000,000 AND the LEADING cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is Medical Debt and that is among people who HAVE INSURANCE.

The morons here think they could afford to have insurance without a national health care system! When health care premiums continue to increase at 20%-30% a year, I'm sure all the Uber-Rich Motherfuckers who mouth off here would still be able to afford DOUBLE the premiums in only 3 years, right?

I love listening to people run their mouths when they are clueless and can't connect the dots.

They just practice "avoiding answers" and then go back to Fox or Rush for what to say next.

LMAO!

Obama should have excluded the insurance industry from the negotiations. Their fees to administer the delivery of health care average between 23%-27% depending on the company while the international average for administration of single-payer health care is 6.3%.

Our system is rationed by price and pre-existing conditions and a whole helluva a lot of people are clueless as to why that U.S. rationing is growing. The number of un-insured or under-insured is now over 50,000,000 AND the LEADING cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is Medical Debt and that is among people who HAVE INSURANCE.

The morons here think they could afford to have insurance without a national health care system! When health care premiums continue to increase at 20%-30% a year, I'm sure all the Uber-Rich Motherfuckers who mouth off here would still be able to afford DOUBLE the premiums in only 3 years, right?

I love listening to people run their mouths when they are clueless and can't connect the dots.

They just practice "avoiding answers" and then go back to Fox or Rush for what to say next.

LMAO! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

again, your bull shit is getting very very bad

The record is not disputed: The representative states they were "expressly told to do their modeling on single [person] coverage.”

They were not told "do your modeling the same way you have done in the past" !

Do you understand the difference TTH? I am sure you do, but you are trying to spin the story into fantasy! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Note the deceptive use of the passive voice to avoid responsibility (as we are trained to spot, or do, depending on your needs, in the legal profession). Told by who? Why? Maybe they were told to do so by some staffer in Congress because that's the way bills were scored in the past.

Maybe they were told by some influential insurance lobbyist who was getting all orgasmic over the extra profits his industry was going to get under the individual mandate instead of a sensible single payer system that would actually save money and get rid of the forty cent on every health care dollar that goes into a black hole for insurance costs and profits? Who knows.

But if it's such a big deal, and the administration was the one doing the telling, why not make that clear in the so-called "news" story instead of using weasel words (or weasel passive voice, in this case)?

As written, even had this story been from a real news source instead of some wingnut blog, I'm underwhelmed.

Note the deceptive use of the passive voice to avoid responsibility (as we are trained to spot, or do, depending on your needs, in the legal profession). Told by who? Why? Maybe they were told to do so by some staffer in Congress because that's the way bills were scored in the past.

Maybe they were told by some influential insurance lobbyist who was getting all orgasmic over the extra profits his industry was going to get under the individual mandate instead of a sensible single payer system that would actually save money and get rid of the forty cent on every health care dollar that goes into a black hole for insurance costs and profits? Who knows.

But if it's such a big deal, and the administration was the one doing the telling, why not make that clear in the so-called "news" story instead of using weasel words (or weasel passive voice, in this case)?

As written, even had this story been from a real news source instead of some wingnut blog, I'm underwhelmed. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Not everyone is a lawyer. Your babble makes no sense to anyone except Jewdonstevie. LOL

Nice try to cover over the point of the post; Obamacare is a hell of alot more expensive than Obama told us it would be.

The Obama lies and deceit continue to pile up; middle America understands this guy is incompetent and not to be trusted with out economy = his poll numbers are showing it............


Stay tuned for more...................

A Federal Appeals Court just declared unconsitutional the provision in ObamaCare that mandates citizens purchase health insurance less they be subject to penalty of law.

Of course, the SCOTUS will have the last say. Just another reason to elect a conservative POTUS in 2012.