Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

NC_Skins, you have the correct source.

Well, if you not once, but twice try to make a false insinuation about the health care program, what do you expect?

It was said twice that Massachusetts had the highest premiums in the nation and it was implied heavily that it was all due to Romneycare (aka..obamacare). Now this person doesn't do any research into the state. Didn't find out they also have one of the highest costs of living AND also have one of the highest averages of income in then the nation as well. In the end, we find out that the people of Mass. are paying LESS of a % of their income towards health care premiums than say the people in the southern states.

It's slanted and false misinformation that's going to land you a "nice try" from people like myself. It's the least that should be afforded to me since I have to research and debunk the misleading info. :)What did I falsely insinuate about the new health care bill?

Do you think costs to people are going down as a result of this bill? I've seen the opposite.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2011/06/26/cost__1309074859_7193.gif

What did I falsely insinuate about the new health care bill?



Sorry. I was referencing "firstdown" when I said that. I was using the hypothetical that if you DID falsely insinuate stuff multiple times, expect a "nice try".

NC_Skins, you have the correct source.A more accurate picture is spending as % of GDP, as is mentioned in my link:

from the link:
Yes, it is true that in fiscal year 2012, under Obama, the anticipated federal spending of 24.3 percent of GDP is 3.6 percent less than the 25.2 percent the federal government spent in fiscal 2009, when Obama voted for President Bush’s $700 billion TARP and signed his own $831 billion stimulus.
But it is also true that the 24.3 percent of GDP that Obama’s OMB says the federal government will spend this year is 16.8 percent higher than the 20.8 percent it stood at in fiscal 2008--and a full three times as great as what federal spending was when Herbert Hoover left office.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/22325682.jpg

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0908/have-at-thee-my-reputation-grows-with-every-failure-demotivational-poster-1250609151.jpg

:food-smil

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&units=b&size=m&year=1950_2012&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g&spending0=70.33_75.94_99.90_110.05_111.33_110.72_1 15.80_125.46_134.73_145.75_151.29_164.83_169.50_17 7.35_189.11_193.89_216.22_248.07_277.19_296.09_321 .84_354.79_388.25_411.64_453.23_550.53_620.29_668. 15_734.47_809.24_940.24_1051.82_1179.43_1283.58_13 53.81_1496.30_1592.72_1662.02_1771.33_1915.12_2088 .85_2230.30_2349.28_2420.82_2506.90_2634.73_2719.3 0_2813.40_2923.17_3053.31_3239.91_3428.54_3697.49_ 3934.54_4131.75_4397.10_4697.84_4923.25_5336.65_59 42.71_5920.00_6050.51_6282.00

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&units=b&size=m&year=2005_2012&sname=US&bar=1&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g&spending0=4397.10_4697.84_4923.25_5336.65_5942.71_ 5920.00_6050.51_6282.00

Obama's not the biggest spender ever, but he's still increasing government spending overall. With a new massive increase to individual and federal spending that some are applauding now.

Sorry. I was referencing "firstdown" when I said that. I was using the hypothetical that if you DID falsely insinuate stuff multiple times, expect a "nice try".I see what you mean now. Cool. :food-smil

edit: I'm not saying firstdown has falsely insinuated anything, just that I understand NC_Skins comment and it's cool.

A more accurate picture is spending as % of GDP, as is mentioned in my link:

from the link:
Yes, it is true that in fiscal year 2012, under Obama, the anticipated federal spending of 24.3 percent of GDP is 3.6 percent less than the 25.2 percent the federal government spent in fiscal 2009, when Obama voted for President Bush’s $700 billion TARP and signed his own $831 billion stimulus.
But it is also true that the 24.3 percent of GDP that Obama’s OMB says the federal government will spend this year is 16.8 percent higher than the 20.8 percent it stood at in fiscal 2008--and a full three times as great as what federal spending was when Herbert Hoover left office.

What I will say does not invalidate your argument, Sammy, because it is just a side remark. But who would want to use Hoover as any kind of economic benchmark? That's like comparing the success (or not) of some boat with the Titanic.

One would hope that we are doing things differently than Hoover.

SS33, you sources about the costs are off, my man. The CBO this Spring projected the law would cut the deficit by $50 Billion more than they originally thought. I would suggest you take a gander at the real numbers.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

Ezra Klein gives a good breakdown of the numbers here.

CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cbo-health-reform-to-cut-deficit-by-50-billion-more-than-we-thought/2011/08/25/gIQAXgPSES_blog.html)

Also, you say that $500B in new taxes on ALL Americans. Well that's not true either. Without even breaking out the calculator the law doesn't affect ALL Americans, so how could it jack up taxes on ALL Americans?

You make no mention of these benefits, some of which have kicked in now. Some later when the law fully kicks in 2014.

No mention of $800 billion tax credits for lower income families.
Insurance companies can't drop you because of pre-existing condition.
No mention of closing the Medicare doughnut hole for seniors

I've been following this one:
RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html)

but as you said, this will be close.

From the looks of it Romney has to win 65% of the toss up state electoral votes. For your sake you better hope people don't hold the fact that he is a Mormon against him and he manages pull in 89 of the 136 toss electoral votes.

What did I falsely insinuate about the new health care bill?

Do you think costs to people are going down as a result of this bill? I've seen the opposite.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2011/06/26/cost__1309074859_7193.gif

The full law doesn't go into effect until 2014, when the exchanges are up and running. What analysis could possibly capture it's effect on healthcare inflation and spending? We still don't know the number of people that will join the pool.