Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Obama cites a RAND study that found widespread use of electronic health records could save up to $77 billion a year in overall health care spending. But the study says that level of savings won’t be reached until 2019, when it projects 90 percent of hospitals and doctors would be using electronic records systems.
Much could be done to speed up the adoption of electronic record-keeping. But experts, including the lead researcher on the RAND study, are extremely doubtful the U.S. could see widespread adoption in the first term of an Obama presidency, or even a second term. Even a campaign adviser acknowledges Obama’s plan likely won’t reach the full savings potential until five years into implementation, by which time Obama could be out of office.
Obama says he’ll "lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year” by investing in electronic health records as well as other efforts. But his adviser tells us that $2,500 figure includes savings to government and employers that could, theoretically, lead to lower taxes or higher wages for families – so we shouldn’t necessarily expect insurance premiums that are "lower" by that amount.
The RAND study on which the campaign partly bases its estimates is one of the only reports available on possible cost savings. It may well be correct – no one knows for sure. But it looks at potential savings in an ideal situation and recently has faced criticism
I don't hear Obama saying anything about those caveat's anywhere in here when talking to the people. No mention of 2019 or electronic health records gobbledeegook.
He made all these claims trying to gin up support in the beginning.
Call it what you want, lies/misrepresentations/lack of truth/not the whole truth/whatever...but it is what it is.....and he just can't get around that. He sold it as a $2500 reduction.....and thats what people believed at that time. Now that isn't happening and the "well yeah, but...." starts up.
Keep in mind Obamacare was signed into law March 23, 2010. Your cites all happen months after that date.
There are numerous vids of President Obama saying:
"If you like your Health Care Plan, you can keep your plan. Period."
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period"
Pretty unequivocal, huh?
And they all happened before March 23, 2010.
I can't find a vid of Obama saying "If you like your rinky-dink coverage, you can't keep that."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexTushHog
HHS Press Release, June 2010: "..........
Released several months after Obamacare signed into law. A HHS Press Release. I wonder how much airplay this got.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexTushHog
Sec. Sebelius, June 2010: If Health Plans Significantly Change, "They Lose Their Grandfather Status." On June 14, 2010, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the administration's grandfathering regulations, saying "if health plans significantly raise copayments or deductibles, or significantly reduce benefits, for example just stop covering treatments like HIV/AIDS or cystic fibrosis, they lose their grandfather status." [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 6/14/10]
.....
Again, months after Obamacare signed into law. Significantly raise co-pays and deductibles? That's Obama's job. Other 'iffy' statements. Again, HHS release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexTushHog
NY Times In 2010: Administration Acknowledged That Some "Might Face Significant Changes In The Terms Of Their Coverage." The New York Times reported in June 2010 that the administration acknowledged that some "might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage":[INDENT] In issuing the rules, the administration said this was just one goal of the legislation, allowing people to "keep their current coverage if they like it." It acknowledged that some people, especially those who work at smaller businesses, might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage, and it said they should be able to "reap the benefits of additional consumer protections."
The law provides a partial exemption for certain health plans in existence on March 23, when Mr. Obama signed the legislation. Under this provision, known as a grandfather clause, plans can lose the exemption if they make significant changes in deductibles, co-payments or benefits.
About half of employer-sponsored health plans will see such changes by the end of 2013, the administration says in an economic analysis of the rules.
The rules allow employers and insurers to increase benefits. But, in a summary of the rules, the administration said, "Plans will lose their grandfather status if they choose to make significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers." [The New York Times, 6/14/10]
Well, at lease this story hit a major newspaper. Dunno what page. No Numbers quoted like your previous quote. Just "possibilities." Said half of employer-sponsored health plan will see such changes but I really cannot tell what they mean by "significant changes in deductibles, co-payements or benefits" mean from that article. So they lowered the rinky-dink changes and they lost their grandfather status?
Nice try though counselor.
I don't know what's worse, the lying and the covering up by the complicit media.
Or the complicit media who knowing these were lies, calling the people who had the audicity to question the President: "racists", "crazy", "haters", "liars" and many other slanderous names with impunity.
I don't hear Obama saying anything about those caveat's anywhere in here when talking to the people. No mention of 2019 or electronic health records gobbledeegook.
He made all these claims trying to gin up support in the beginning.
Call it what you want, lies/misrepresentations/lack of truth/not the whole truth/whatever...but it is what it is.....and he just can't get around that. He sold it as a $2500 reduction.....and thats what people believed at that time. Now that isn't happening and the "well yeah, but...." starts up.
so, he's a hair splitter like the rest of the rightwingers ... stay tuned 2019 and we'll fact check him again... until then he hasn't broken that promise
so, he's a hair splitter like the rest of the rightwingers ... stay tuned 2019 and we'll fact check him again... until then he hasn't broken that promise
so, he's a hair splitter like the rest of the rightwingers ... stay tuned 2019 and we'll fact check him again... until then he hasn't broken that promise
And let's not forget all the right-wing lies that pretty much required him to make that comment.
More to the point, why do you fools defend shitty insurance policies that don't cover anything and foist health care costs not covered off on responsible employers like me that buy good insurance and on tax payers?
Freeloaders aren't good economic policy for conservatives or liberals.
Hey TTH. A pastor friend of mine and his wife, both in their 60s, had their "shitty" BC/BS policy canceled. According to Obamacare, the policy was insufficient because it lacked maternity coverage.
Yeah. More expensive, but they feel so much better knowing that if she gets pregnant, they are covered. [sarcasm alert]
Hey TTH. A pastor friend of mine and his wife, both in their 60s, had their "shitty" BC/BS policy canceled. According to Obamacare, the policy was insufficient because it lacked maternity coverage.
Yeah. More expensive, but they feel so much better knowing that if she gets pregnant, they are covered. [sarcasm alert]
you're a liar ... period.
funny thing, the AHCA affords your pal to get a policy that doesn't include maternity care .. Your pal gets to choose his coverage. FACT !. ... the cancelation was the responsibility of the ins company, not the AHCA.
Hey TTH. A pastor friend of mine and his wife, both in their 60s, had their "shitty" BC/BS policy canceled. According to Obamacare, the policy was insufficient because it lacked maternity coverage.
Yeah. More expensive, but they feel so much better knowing that if she gets pregnant, they are covered. [sarcasm alert]
I think maternity is included in the mandatory coverage. But if they are in their 60's, and that was the only difference, the policy price would have gone down. I'll bet dollars to donunts that there were many other uncovered services in the prior policy. The people who will see their policies go up (assuming that they have good insurance to begin with) are younger insureds.
The day of the freeloaders is over. And for people like me who buy good insurance for their employees, that's a great thing. Defend the freeloaders all you want. It's a fool's game.
And by the way, there are far more people wining than losing.
