Obama: (On obamacare) "That's going to increase our costs. We knew that."
By dboman
@dboman (457)
United States
September 14, 2010 1:27pm CST
So, on September 10th, when asked about the most recent report by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that Obamacare will increase costs...President Obama stated in reference to adding millions to the insured: "That's going to increase our costs. We knew that."
Hmmmmm...that sounds like the exact opposite of what he was saying before it passed. In fact, it is EXACTLY the opposite of what he said. "Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions-families, businesses, and the federal government."
Well, insurance premiums have already started to go up this year and will continue to go up. Obamacare was supposed to lower insurance costs in the future by "preventative medicine" and other highly skeptical means (including double-counting savings in the bill). Now, report after report have come out that say costs will go up, Obamacare will cost more than expected, taxes will go up, and it will hurt the bottom line of most companies, in the present AND the future.
Here's the link for the new study done by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362404575480161749608830.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews
Here's a link to Obama's remarks on how Obamacare will lower costs:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-health-care-reform
Here's a factcheck done by the AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_FACT_CHECK?SITE=NMALJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
So, what do we think? Did Obama lie? Why is he changing his tune now? Didn't he see this coming? Should we even be questioning him, after all he did "win the election". Can anyone who supports the bill make a convincing argument as to the benefits of the bill with links and unbiased sources? For those who don't support the bill, how do you propose lawmakers go about reversing the bill?
2 people like this
3 responses
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
16 Sep 10
Of course he lied. He knew he lied. They all knew. The point was never to bring down costs anyway. The point was to bring about a government takeover of health care. It would have gone more smoothly for them if they had got the public option in place, but this plan will work eventually. The government dictates what the insurance companies must provide and then prohibits them from raising premiums. Kathleen Sebelius has issued a threat to health insurance companies, telling them they won't be allowed to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange in 2014 if they even try to pass their costs along to the consumer - meaning, we are not going to allow you to sell the product you want to sell, you must sell the product we tell you to sell and you must not charge more for it, you may not make a profit. Eventually, private health insurance companies will go out of business and the public option will appear to be a necessity. Then the plan will be complete.
This is what comes of party politics. Dems who would do anything for their president, others afraid to be seen as opposing their president, others who were lied to or promised things. Members of Congress selling their votes. It seems impossible that something like this could pass over the outraged cries of the American people. My biggest fear is that it will not be repealed no matter who gets into office. They will find there are provisions and rules changes that have been enacted to prevent it. Besides, even if November gives us a sea of new faces, it may be difficult to find enough brave congressmen and women.
@dboman (457)
• United States
16 Sep 10
Well, I think repeal is a possibility two years from now. For now, we will have to accept de-funding as a viable option. At the very least, the unconstitutional aspects of the bill will be struck down by the Supreme Court. You could be right about the provisions and rule changes not allowing for repeal...the thing is over a thousand pages.
I've been seeing that some think this was just an excuse for an extremely large redistribution of wealth.
@dboman (457)
• United States
15 Sep 10
We are stupid. But, if we're stupid, and we knew the repercussions of the bill before it was passed and they didn't...what does that make them?
There's a liberal media backlash going on as we speak, in which the American people are being belittled and told that we are "children" throwing "temper tantrums" (Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post) and some are worried about "crazy voters" (Chris Matthews, Hardball, MSNBC), racists (Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution) and the list goes on.
So, now that we've been proved right in so many ways...we're crazy racist children. Don't forget, we're the stupid ones and the aristocrats know what's best for us.
@mattic (282)
• United States
15 Sep 10
Did Obama lie? Does Michelle like lobster and ice cream sundaes? As far as the bill is concerned, I belive the 20 or so states challenging the Constitutional vailidity of the bill began hearings today. Personally, I am willing to refuse insurance and refuse to pay the fine - a little civil disobedience. I don't believe we have enough Congressional testosterone (or estrogren as the case may be) for an all out repeal effort. Most who are singing the repeal chorus are only doing so to get re-elected. Those on the Repub side will then do their usual two-step and dance across the aisle to the "bipartisan boogie".
@dboman (457)
• United States
15 Sep 10
Does she like lobster and ice cream sundaes? Sundaes have a lot of calories, and she was spear-heading the stimulus-funded movement towards less childhood obesity.
The states are going to win the challenge to constitutionality. It's amazing that a "Constitutional scholar" really knows so little about the Constitution (though, a friend keeps reminding me of the "living Constitution" theory).
I think/fear you may be right about the Republicans doing the "bipartisan boogie" because they've always been soft on their campaign convictions. After all, they are the party of kinda-not-quite-as-much spending. At this point, all-out repeal is unlikely thanks to a presidental veto...BUT defunding it is a very viable opportunity.
