Bachmann: Health care law contains $105 billion in hidden pre-approved spending

j-mac said:

Yep I saw them Red. And to tell you the truth, there is an aspect of truth in what you are saying....It was in the bill when offered. However, when you hand over a 2,700 page bill literally hours before the vote on that bill in the middle of the night, are you really telling me that all's on the up and up with that?


j-mac

Click to expand...

The CBO spokesman said it was in the bill quite a bit before that since they used the numbers to do their calculations.

Redress said:

The CBO spokesman said it was in the bill quite a bit before that since they used the numbers to do their calculations.

Click to expand...

Was that before or after he was called to the Oval Office for a friendly chat with 10 of Obama's kindest thugs, I mean advisors?


j-mac

j-mac said:

Was that before or after he was called to the Oval Office for a friendly chat with 10 of Obama's kindest thugs, I mean advisors?


j-mac

Click to expand...

More conspiracy theories? :lamo

j-mac said:

Was that before or after he was called to the Oval Office for a friendly chat with 10 of Obama's kindest thugs, I mean advisors?


j-mac

Click to expand...

Why do you have such a low opinion on the morals of others? Would you lie if you where told to?

j-mac said:

Are you saying that liberal lies are better than repub lies?


j-mac

Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that treating unequal things as if they are equal is bias in itself. You may well be asking Them to be biased. The split is almost never 50/50 at any given time.

Boo Radley said:

More conspiracy theories? :lamo

Click to expand...

So Elmendorf wasn't called to the Oval Office?

No. I'm saying that treating unequal things as if they are equal is bias in itself. You may well be asking Them to be biased. The split is almost never 50/50 at any given time.

Click to expand...

Never said it was...I think at this point in time liberals tend to lie way more than do conservatives. Also liberals seem to be more easily led to their beliefs today.

j-mac

Redress said:

Why do you have such a low opinion on the morals of others? Would you lie if you where told to?

Click to expand...

Me? Perish the thought Red. I do however live in the real world, and see much in my travels.


j-mac

j-mac said:

So Elmendorf wasn't called to the Oval Office?




Never said it was...I think at this point in time liberals tend to lie way more than do conservatives. Also liberals seem to be more easily led to their beliefs today.

j-mac

Click to expand...

Yes, you think that. But what you think isn't equal to what you can prove. When faced with a lie, the question is not who is lying, but whether it is a lie or not. If it is a lie, it's a lie. Whining about bias is pointless. Accuracy is always a better judge of any source.

Oh, j, about Elmendorf. Speaking to the president is not equal to being threatened. Throwing out the thug thing without any evidence is kind of silly. Just saying . . . :shrug: :2wave:

Boo Radley said:

Yes, you think that. But what you think isn't equal to what you can prove. When faced with a lie, the question is not who is lying, but whether it is a lie or not. If it is a lie, it's a lie. Whining about bias is pointless. Accuracy is always a better judge of any source.

Click to expand...

Very clever how you failed to address the first point about Elmendorf....And to think of it your mish mash of words here really addresses nothing.....Sorry Boo, I am not going on one of your obtuse word playing games today.


Stay straight forward will you?


j-mac

j-mac said:

Very clever how you failed to address the first point about Elmendorf....And to think of it your mish mash of words here really addresses nothing.....Sorry Boo, I am not going on one of your obtuse word playing games today.


Stay straight forward will you?


j-mac

Click to expand...

Keep reading.

Not a game j. A lie is either a lie or it isn't. You can't detect bias because the number are not exactly equal. Neither number nor quality of lie is ever an exact equal 50/50 split. You use the bias whine to cloud the fact that there was a misrepresentation.

Boo Radley said:

Oh, j, about Elmendorf. Speaking to the president is not equal to being threatened. Throwing out the thug thing without any evidence is kind of silly. Just saying . . . :shrug: :2wave:

Click to expand...

Rolling Stone didn't think so...They described it as Elmendorf being outnumbered 10 to 1.....Now, neither of us can say definitively what went on in that room, but I am sure they weren't congratulating him on his numbers, seeing as how Elemendorf emerged and all of the sudden HC was a budget savings rather than the loser it was before the meeting...So do me a favor and keep your 'all things equal' garbage will ya, we can tell how that went just fine.

j-mac

Boo Radley said:

Keep reading.

Not a game j. A lie is either a lie or it isn't. You can't detect bias because the number are not exactly equal. Neither number nor quality of lie is ever an exact equal 50/50 split. You use the bias whine to cloud the fact that there was a misrepresentation.

Click to expand...

Oh Bull ****! Quit excuse making.

j-mac

j-mac said:

Rolling Stone didn't think so...They described it as Elmendorf being outnumbered 10 to 1.....Now, neither of us can say definitively what went on in that room, but I am sure they weren't congratulating him on his numbers, seeing as how Elemendorf emerged and all of the sudden HC was a budget savings rather than the loser it was before the meeting...So do me a favor and keep your 'all things equal' garbage will ya, we can tell how that went just fine.

j-mac

Click to expand...

So you admit you can't prove anything. Ok! Have a nice day.

j-mac said:

Rolling Stone didn't think so...They described it as Elmendorf being outnumbered 10 to 1.....Now, neither of us can say definitively what went on in that room, but I am sure they weren't congratulating him on his numbers, seeing as how Elemendorf emerged and all of the sudden HC was a budget savings rather than the loser it was before the meeting...So do me a favor and keep your 'all things equal' garbage will ya, we can tell how that went just fine.

j-mac

Click to expand...

Again, it doesn't matter what someone thinks. If someone thought Bush was the devil, would that be good enough for you? You have to stop with the conspiracy nonsense and actually provide evidence, and more than someone thought.

j-mac said:

Oh Bull ****! Quit excuse making.

j-mac

Click to expand...

j, you're the only making excuses. You're trying to excuse the lies from your side. As long as they are lies, you can't excuse them by whining about bias. :coffeepap

Deuce said:

So you admit you can't prove anything. Ok! Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Careful of the standards you chose Deuce....


j-mac

Boo Radley said:

j, you're the only making excuses. You're trying to excuse the lies from your side. As long as they are lies, you can't excuse them by whining about bias. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

Not at all. And I am not playing semantics with you Joe.


j-mac

j-mac said:

Not at all. And I am not playing semantics with you Joe.


j-mac

Click to expand...

But you are making excuses. :coffeepap



Now, to Elmendorf:

Elmendorf said President Obama asked him and other outside experts for their “views about achieving cost savings in health reform. I presented CBO’s assessment of the challenges of reducing federal health outlays and improving the long-term budget outlook while simultaneously expanding health insurance coverage..”

He said those in the meeting also discussed “various policy options that could produce budgetary savings in the long run.” He described why last week he assessed the health care legislation offered by Senate Democrats as failing in the president’s stated goal of bending the cost curve of health care. “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Elmendorf testified last week. “And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”

Republicans Assail President Obama Meeting with Congressional Budget Office Director As Inappropriate - Political Punch

Boo Radley said:

But you are making excuses. :coffeepap



Now, to Elmendorf:

Elmendorf said President Obama asked him and other outside experts for their “views about achieving cost savings in health reform. I presented CBO’s assessment of the challenges of reducing federal health outlays and improving the long-term budget outlook while simultaneously expanding health insurance coverage..”

He said those in the meeting also discussed “various policy options that could produce budgetary savings in the long run.” He described why last week he assessed the health care legislation offered by Senate Democrats as failing in the president’s stated goal of bending the cost curve of health care. “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Elmendorf testified last week. “And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”

Republicans Assail President Obama Meeting with Congressional Budget Office Director As Inappropriate - Political Punch

Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy if you didn't have things like this 105 billion, and other things coming out now after the fact Joe. Look, If you want to play like everything is on the up and up because its your guy in the WH now, fine, I understand that. But let's have a little perspective here shall we?

During a hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget.

In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee since the health-care law passed, Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.

“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus. “You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

Obamacare Cost | HHS Director Admits Double Counting Funds | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Click to expand...

You can not tell me that there is a lot of dishonesty surrounding this crap.


j-mac

well...

altho the msm have been all over obamacare's SLASHING of medicare by a full HALF TRILLION DOLLARS, the DOUBLE COUNTING of another QUARTER TRIL (according to cbo), the passage of the DOC FIX at another QUARTER TRIL off budget, the fact that doctors are ALREADY refusing to take on new medicare patients, the QUARTER TRIL burden placed on already BANKRUPT states in the form of MEDICAID expansion, the fact that ER COSTS actually INCREASE, the inclusion of more than THREE QUARTERS OF A TRIL of new TAXES (according to cbo)...

Director's Blog » Blog Archive » Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2

Capitol Briefing - Senate votes to keep Medicare cuts

ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Senate passes 1-year doc fix - The Hill's Healthwatch

Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) - Bloomberg

Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe

the first most americans, including DAVID GREGORY, apparently, heard of this HUNDRED AND FIVE BILLION DOLLARS of appropriations occurred when ms bachmann, with her usual visual aids, went on mtp last sunday to tell us all about it

of course, what would normal americans expect from a two thousand seven hundred page bill which must first be passed before we can all know what's in it

most americans recall, for example, how ahab obama PROMISED us all repeatedly that he would work out his health care bill on CSPAN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Api4fUziAnI

he quite evidently LIED about that

but what would an experienced electorate expect from a party that would CRAM a radical redrawing of ONE SIXTH of our economy via SENATE RECONCILIATION, mere days after the party was prepared to DEEM the damn thing

so the hundred and five B's which cbo elmendorf naturally scored with all the other crap presented to him by the party in power were certainly not very well known to most americans before ms bachmann went public with em

but the real problem with the appropriations is not so much its passage in the dark

no, worse is the fact that the allocation of this TENTH OF A T is left to the DISCRETION of ms sebelius over at hhs, INDEPENDENT OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Michele Bachmann Finds a $105 Billion Dollar Spending Bomb Hidden in Obamacare - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

and we've all seen the results of ms sebelius' judgement

Number of healthcare reform law waivers climbs above 1,000 - The Hill's Healthwatch

ME gets new exemption from health care overhaul

why do so many want OUT?

why does hhs keep LETTING EM GO?

how do you EXPAND medicare and medicaid by millions while CUTTING their already overly relied upon FUNDING?

why do so many "adults" spend so much time trying to score microscopic debate points vs anonymous personalities instead of looking at the big, multi trillion dollar picture?

party on, progressives

seeya in committee, bring the media

seeya in the capitols, bring an accountant

seeya in court, bring your counselor

j-mac said:

That's all fine and dandy if you didn't have things like this 105 billion, and other things coming out now after the fact Joe. Look, If you want to play like everything is on the up and up because its your guy in the WH now, fine, I understand that. But let's have a little perspective here shall we?




You can not tell me that there is a lot of dishonesty surrounding this crap.


j-mac

Click to expand...

J, it was always there for everyone to read. So nothing is just now coming up.

And as for your source, I don't know it very well, but it doesn't seem like it's presenting the dicussion without some editing. Any chance it is misrepresenting the actual discussion?

J, you want to believe wild ****, and you want to ignore lies on your side. Now, I can mimic you and say I understand that because it is your side. But, I prefer that we try and stay as factual as possible. The fact is this was in the budget and there for all to read. And there is no evidence to support your thug claims.

Damn what Idiots and devious bastards. There is no doubt the 105 Billion dollar funding is contained in the Health Care Act, the Progressives can do nothing but SPIN and pretend that Mrs. Bachmann is ACTING as if the COST was hidden from DEBATE. Hell even FACTCHECK demonstrates the COST is there in BLACK and WHITE. What Mrs. Bachmann is pointing out is the FACT that the "FUNDING" for those FUTURE COSTS are already appropriated in the BILL. THE ONLY BILL IN HISTORY were funding is locked in a decade in advance...attempting to make any future congresses voice MOOT in appropriating the money.

The ONLY WAY to find the advance PRE FUNDING was to read the BILL in its entirety. Now the spin is that EVERYONE had a chance to read the BILL and in fact DID READ the bill during DEBATE. BULL**** LIES. The SPIN THEN was you must pass it to find out whats in it. But now....HELL, Everyone read it...that was COMMON KNOWLEDGE. When asked if they read it before they voted on it, the response was from the democrats, "...We have people for that....".

Example:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

First off, finding more statements made by those identifying as conservative or republican to be inaccurate is not an inherent sign of liberal bias.

Politifact has been accused of a partisan bias by both sides of the aisle, the only real indicator in this day and age that a news source isn't biased. Plus, there have been some really popular big ones lately (death panels, outlawing fishing, health insurance for dogs, etc.) from the right since the healthcare debate began.

Secondly, after reading the first post, anyone expecting an actual conversation about "news" here is kidding themselves. Same way they would be if the post was "What lying little deceptive cretins repub's are."

In short, too many adjectives, not enough facts.

TheBook said:

First off, finding more statements made by those identifying as conservative or republican to be inaccurate is not an inherent sign of liberal bias.

Politifact has been accused of a partisan bias by both sides of the aisle, the only real indicator in this day and age that a news source isn't biased. Plus, there have been some really popular big ones lately (death panels, outlawing fishing, health insurance for dogs, etc.) from the right since the healthcare debate began.

Secondly, after reading the first post, anyone expecting an actual conversation about "news" here is kidding themselves. Same way they would be if the post was "What lying little deceptive cretins repub's are."

In short, too many adjectives, not enough facts.

Click to expand...

I would suggest FACT CHECK or THE BLAZE....the 105 Billion price tag has always been common knowledge, what has not been common knowledge because the drones in DC are to lazy to READ anything before they tow a party line...is the PRE FUNDING of that total COST. Hell, must you now ask WHO WROTE THIS BILL? Was it Congress? Hell NO. The entire thing was outsourced to a very progressive THINK TANK chaired by RADICAL LEFTIES and it was drafted MONTHS before any debate even began.