SEN. JOHN BARRASSO: ObamaCare One Year Later -- Broken Promises and Unhappy Americans

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by Exotix

You think so ? What's up anyway with the Obamacare repeal ?

While you're at it, how come every (R) who's been asked to come aboard Sen. Rogers (who previous to this committee was known as the earmark king) $61 Billion slash & burn committee has refused ...

HINT: They were all warned that this is a slash & burn committee not a *bedfeathering* commitee favored by the GOP ...

More blah blah blah, Obamacare is moving forward faster with the Florida case with 26 states on board. While this is moving time to defund this crap, or revoke 100% of the waivers, if it is good for individuals and small business, it is good for SEIU, unions and every one of the 1000+ waviers.

[Peter Pan]

PolitiFact, FactCheck, and WaPo All Confirm: The $105 Billion Obamacare Slush Fund Exists
Posted March 9th, 2011 at 12:30pm in Health Care with 22 comments Print This Post

Today former Congressman Ernest Istook testified before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee about the $105 billion slush fund in advance appropriations liberals tucked inside Obamacare. The $105 billion bypasses the traditional yearly budgeting process and is spread throughout the 2,700 page legislation. It took the Congressional Research Service (CRS) seven months to identify all the disparate funds and it was not until February (11 months after the bill passed) that all of the funds could be totaled up.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been beating the drum to raise awareness of this unprecedented level of advance spending. But the liberal media has been attacking her for calling it “hidden” funding. In reality, Rep. Bachmann said that “practically no Member of Congress even knew that $105 billion of funding was” in the bill. FactCheck says that this funding was known to “those who read the bill … including members of Congress.” But does FactCheck really believe that any member of Congress read all 2,700 pages of the bill? Do they have any evidence at all that any member of Congress knew about the $105 billion figure before CRS published their report this February?
But more importantly, in their attempted take down of Rep. Bachmann, PolitiFact, FactCheck, and The Washington Post Fact Checker all confirm her underlying charge: the $105 billion exists. Poltifact writes: “We added up the spending Bachmann was referring to and got $104 billion — very close to her number.”

And a note to The Washington Post Fact Checker: Former Congressman Ernest Istook served in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.







PolitiFact, FactCheck, and WaPo All Confirm: The $105 Billion Obamacare Slush Fund Exists | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


Kill the bill 105 billion this is not chump change

[ChasC5]

House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.

Read and Weep ...

Summary


A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? | FactCheck.org

When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

* Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.
* The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."
* The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.
* The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

There’s little doubt that the new law will likely lead to somewhat fewer low-wage jobs. That’s mainly because of the law’s requirement that, generally, firms with more than 50 workers pay a penalty if they fail to provide health coverage for their workers. One leading health care expert, John Sheils of The Lewin Group, puts the loss at between 150,000 and 300,000 jobs, at or near the minimum wage. And Sheils says that relatively small loss would be partly offset by gains in the health care industry.
Analysis

Attaching misleading labels to legislation is a well-worn tactic in Washington. Conservatives got rid of most of the estate tax after labeling it a "death tax," as though it taxed death instead of multimillion-dollar fortunes. And liberals once won passage of an "assault weapons ban" that didn’t really ban fully automatic military assault rifles, which were already illegal for civilians to own without a very-hard-to-get federal license. Now House Republicans are seeking to repeal what they call "Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law." That’s the title of a study issued by the House Republican leadership Jan. 6.

And the GOP is clearly pushing the "job-killer" claim. House Speaker John Boehner used the phrase "job-killing" to describe the health care law seven times on Thursday in a press conference that lasted less than 14 minutes — that’s once every 2 minutes. He also used the phrases "destroy jobs" and "destroying jobs" once each when talking about the law. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Republicans named their bill to repeal the health care law: "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act."

But is the health care law really "job-killing" as claimed? We find that to be another case of exaggerated and misleading labeling.

Job-Killing?

To support its claim, the GOP report first cites the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — but the report badly misrepresents what CBO actually said.

House GOP Leadership, Jan. 6: The health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the “amount of labor used in the economy by … roughly half a percent…,” an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.

In fact, CBO did not predict a 650,000 job loss. The Republican report cites a CBO report from August, which actually said that the economy will use less labor primarily because many people will choose to work less, or retire early, as a result of the new law. (See Box 2.1, pages 48 and 49.) What CBO projects is mostly a reduction in the supply of labor, which is not the same as a reduction in the supply of jobs.

CBO, August 2010: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.

CBO said one reason fewer people will choose to work is that many low-income people will have more money in their pockets as a result of the law expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies for many who buy insurance privately. "The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources," CBO said. "Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."

Another reason that people might work less is that the new law requires insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, and also limits their ability to charge higher rates for older persons who buy policies for themselves. "As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would," CBO said.

To be sure, some jobs will indeed be lost, CBO said. That’s because the new law requires many businesses to pay a penalty if they do not provide health insurance to their workers. That "will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers," CBO said. But it also said these firms may hire more part-time or seasonal workers instead. CBO did not estimate the number of jobs likely to be affected either way.

In a more extensive look at the subject, CBO on July 14, 2009, said the effect of the employer mandate "would probably be small." The GOP report did not mention that.

Finally, CBO did not attempt to estimate the number of jobs likely to be gained in the health care and insurance industries. It has projected that the law will result in 32 million Americans gaining health insurance that they would not otherwise have, enabling them to buy more services from physicians and other health care providers. More about that later.

Others Estimate ‘Small,’ ‘Minimal’ Impact

As we have reported previously, The Lewin Group also has estimated a small impact on jobs as a result of the health care law. Senior Vice President John Sheils said Lewin’s analysis showed 150,000 to 300,000 jobs lost, all minimum wage or near minimum wage positions that would be lost permanently. That doesn’t account for increases in jobs in other sectors, mainly health care, that Sheils also expects but hasn’t quantified. All told, he estimates, a "small net job loss."

Lewin is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group but operates independently of the insurance company. The reason that some low-wage workers are expected to lose jobs, as CBO also said, is that some employers who are faced with penalties will pass along those costs to workers in the form of lower wages or reduced benefits. For low-wage workers, their wages can’t be reduced below the minimum wage, so those firms would hire less, lay off workers or use more part-time employment.

Sheils notes that there will be distributional effects, as some sectors gain jobs and others lose them, but the people gaining employment aren’t necessarily the same who lost jobs. He says there’s "a potentially painful process here in changes in employment in some industries … versus others." Skilled workers are likely to benefit.

When we reported on this issue in November 2009, the House was debating a health care bill with tougher requirements and penalties for employers than the law now has. Even under that bill, Elizabeth McGlynn, associate director of the health unit at RAND Corp., told us the effect on jobs "is likely to be quite minimal." McGlynn said: "Most large businesses already offer health insurance. And most small businesses are excluded from the mandate. So it’s relatively few firms that will be affected."

And small businesses — those with 50 or fewer employees — are likely to benefit under the law, Sheils says. "I think they actually could come out ahead," he says. "They don’t face the mandate and they could get a tax credit at least for a while for their health benefit. … It gives them an advantage in the marketplace," if they’re competing against larger firms.

Besides Sheils’ numbers and CBO’s estimate, we haven’t found other nonpartisan figures on the law’s impact on jobs. When we asked Sheils if he knew of others, he said no. He added that he thinks that a lot of economists believe the effect is small, and that’s why they’re not doing an analysis.

[Peter Pan]

For large business, it will be as usual. Oh the United Health Care worker failed to show all the jobs terminated since 2009 by the health care companies, if they hire it will get them back to maybe 2008 levels.

On the small company here is how the rules are to be averted, stay under 50 full time employees, this will mean more individuals will need several jobs to make it and buy there own insurance.

With medicade rolls doubling someone has to pay (this is a jobs killer for business more taxes to pay for medicade) for it and the costs are not going to create jobs at all, he is wrong there that people will retire early, as the economy turned south many are working longer and expect that in the future to make it.

Oh this bill needs killed it is not a jobs creater for small business, we get a tax break now for health care in small business, nothing new here been around since I have been in business and Slick Willie was president then. Older people have seen higher rates than young and why? Young are invincible and older Americans need more health care, who does it cost more to insure even in the future.

This bill needs those 18-30ish in health plans as this is the only way to get rates lower for older Americans, they will pay the tax it is 2/3 less than the average insurance policy.

This plan just plain is garbage, I will quit my plan and when I get sick I will call Obama's Health Czar and get my insurance it sure will save me lots of $$ knowing my prex will be covered no matter what

[ChasC5]

Hoping things will happen is different than it happening.

Nice try.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Hoping things will happen is different than it happening.

Nice try.

It is a fact Health companies laid off, fact rates are soaring for individual and small business, the law has started with mandates and this is early results.

It is fact

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

It is a fact Health companies laid off, fact rates are soaring for individual and small business, the law has started with mandates and this is early results.

It is fact

FACT: Not All of Them

[Peter Pan]

Obamacare a ‘Platform’ for Socialized Medicine — Rep. Conyers Makes Startling Admission

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-...ized-medicine/

Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:16pm by Jonathon M. Seidl Print » Email »

In a few moments of candor on Monday, Democratic Rep. John Conyers (MI) admitted Obamacare is just a “platform,” or a step, toward an eventual government takeover of health care:



Conyers made the revelation to CNS News reporter Nicholas Ballasy:

“What we’re trying to do is insure everybody, right? We’re trying to insure more people, not less and so it’s my feeling that the rising costs that are going on will not be solved by getting rid of people’s health insurance–that throws them into emergency rooms and charity and other things. That’s why HR 676 is our ultimate solution–is that everybody’s insured from birth on and that’s what we’re still fighting for.”

CNSNews.com then asked Conyers, “Do you see a single-payer health care system ultimately in the United States?”

“Of course,” he said. “Universal health care–well, every industrial country on the planet already has a universal system of health care.”

When asked if he thinks President Obama’s health-care law will lead to a single-payer health-care system in the U.S., Conyers said: “Well it’s a platform. I don’t think they flow smoothly but without that, if we didn’t have this then health care, universal health care would be an even more difficult legislative objective,” he said.

“Remind me again about the Politifact ‘biggest lie’ of 2010,” Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes, referring to the political fact-check site that cried foul over the phrase “A government takeover of health care.”

Pretty candid of what Obama and the Libs are after, God Bless America and our eroding freedoms

[ChasC5]

Good at my check stub, still no impact.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Good at my check stub, still no impact.

Check out the article from Humana's CEO about the Healtcare Act not being affordable as the law claims

Leadership: Interview with Humana CEO Michael McCallister - Mar. 17, 2011

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

Obamacare a ‘Platform’ for Socialized Medicine — Rep. Conyers Makes Startling Admission

Obamacare a ‘Platform’ for Socialized Medicine — Rep. Conyers Makes Startling Admission | The Blaze

Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:16pm by Jonathon M. Seidl Print » Email »

In a few moments of candor on Monday, Democratic Rep. John Conyers (MI) admitted Obamacare is just a “platform,” or a step, toward an eventual government takeover of health care:



Conyers made the revelation to CNS News reporter Nicholas Ballasy:

“What we’re trying to do is insure everybody, right? We’re trying to insure more people, not less and so it’s my feeling that the rising costs that are going on will not be solved by getting rid of people’s health insurance–that throws them into emergency rooms and charity and other things. That’s why HR 676 is our ultimate solution–is that everybody’s insured from birth on and that’s what we’re still fighting for.”

CNSNews.com then asked Conyers, “Do you see a single-payer health care system ultimately in the United States?”

“Of course,” he said. “Universal health care–well, every industrial country on the planet already has a universal system of health care.”

When asked if he thinks President Obama’s health-care law will lead to a single-payer health-care system in the U.S., Conyers said: “Well it’s a platform. I don’t think they flow smoothly but without that, if we didn’t have this then health care, universal health care would be an even more difficult legislative objective,” he said.

“Remind me again about the Politifact ‘biggest lie’ of 2010,” Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes, referring to the political fact-check site that cried foul over the phrase “A government takeover of health care.”

Pretty candid of what Obama and the Libs are after, God Bless America and our eroding freedoms

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

Check out the article from Humana's CEO about the Healtcare Act not being affordable as the law claims

Leadership: Interview with Humana CEO Michael McCallister - Mar. 17, 2011

Where's that comparison you were gonna do between the original Healthcare Bill and the GOP filibustered watered-down version ?


Let me give you a hint how it works ..

[Peter Pan]

The final bill is the one no one read (pass the bill and find out what is in it) and we are finding out now how bad it is for small business and individuals, must also be bad for unions as the SEIU that was for the bill has gotten a waiver, along with over 1,000 companies and 4 states, plus every major health insurance carrier, our senators, representatives and the president, must be a great bill to exclude them

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

The final bill is the one no one read (pass the bill and find out what is in it) and we are finding out now how bad it is for small business and individuals, must also be bad for unions as the SEIU that was for the bill has gotten a waiver, along with over 1,000 companies and 4 states, plus every major health insurance carrier, our senators, representatives and the president, must be a great bill to exclude them

Oh, I was just wondering if you knew that the originl bill in it's full non-GOP filibusterd watered-down version was to act like the full non-GOP flibustered watered-down TARP & Re-investment Act or Stimulus ... and if so compare and contrast ...

This is important because the 1/4 trillion dollars added to the deficit via Bohner/McConnell via the GOP filibustered waterd-down hold Americans hostage Obma Tax Compromise hasn't come to fruition in terms of catastrophic unemployment ..

So I'm really looking for your *GOP philosophy* in disparity acquiescence with what amounts to contiuation of the Bush high-treason traitors ....

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Oh, I was just wondering if you knew that the originl bill in it's full non-GOP filibusterd watered-down version was to act like the full non-GOP flibustered watered-down TARP & Re-investment Act or Stimulus ... and if so compare and contrast ...

This is important because the 1/4 trillion dollars added to the deficit via Bohner/McConnell via the GOP filibustered waterd-down hold Americans hostage Obma Tax Compromise hasn't come to fruition in terms of catastrophic unemployment ..

So I'm really looking for your *GOP philosophy* in disparity acquiescence with what amounts to contiuation of the Bush high-treason traitors ....

You are so full of hot air, the Healthcare law is the one Nancy and Harry wanted, anything not in there was because the libs took it out, they had all the votes they needed.

TARP was passed by a lib congress and signed by the pres so they are all in on this not one party, we should of let the banks crash, it would of stopped all the crazy spending going on.

The current tax law was extended, it would have affected the lower income more than the rich you whale at. The EIC would be cut in half, but then Bush did not help the little guy.

Bush is gone get over it and the new Obamacare is not a good law for mainstream Americans, unless you get a waiver

[ChasC5]

Wrong; Nancy and Harry had to settle because the GOP wasn't doing anything.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Wrong; Nancy and Harry had to settle because the GOP wasn't doing anything.

Who controlled 100% of law making and did not pass a budget? They had control of congress prior to the Nov elections, they had the votes to change the current tax law, they failed

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

The final bill is the one no one read (pass the bill and find out what is in it) and we are finding out now how bad it is for small business and individuals, must also be bad for unions as the SEIU that was for the bill has gotten a waiver, along with over 1,000 companies and 4 states, plus every major health insurance carrier, our senators, representatives and the president, must be a great bill to exclude them

Diversion; it's March 19th, where the Fork are those Jobs the GOP said they would deliver.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Diversion; it's March 19th, where the Fork are those Jobs the GOP said they would deliver.

What does this have with HC, you are the master of diversion Americans are not for this law. It is a jobs killer in itself

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

What does this have with HC, you are the master of diversion Americans are not for this law. It is a jobs killer in itself

Win a election, then you can make Change. Until then, bla bla bla bla bla.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Win a election, then you can make Change. Until then, bla bla bla bla bla.

More BS from the master of diversion, bad laws are not good for mainstream Americans who will be the ones paying through the nose for Obamacare, and the libs are supposed to be for the little guy and middle class, not here by any chance