Obama that is…
Now that Obamacare is projected to cost twice as much as he stated:
Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent — but spent badly — in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year — one-tenth of 1 percent — it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.
That is Obama in his own words from September 9, 2009.
From the CBO yesterday:
The Congressional Budget Office has extended its cost estimates for President Obama’s health care law out to 2022, taking in more years of full implementation, and showing that the bill is substantially more expensive — twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.
In a largely overlooked segment of the CBO’s update to the budget outlook released Tuesday, the independent arm of Congress found that the bill will cost $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.
That only counts the cost of coverage, not implementation costs and other changes.
“The bill spends more than the president promised, it covers fewer people — probably 2 million fewer people — and it taxes more than was expected,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee.
For those paying attention, this also illustrates Obama’s belief in socialism. This line from the aforementioned 2009 speech says it all:
Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent — but spent badly — in the existing health care system.
Obama is clearly stating that the government can allocate resources far better than you and I acting in the free market on our own. He is advocating socialism. Period. No other interpretation is possible.
Socialists believe that economies and production can and must be centrally planned to make sure that they are “efficient” and “equitable”. The problem is that these “planners” have no better ability to forecast economic activity than we know what the weather is going to be a month from now at 3:45 pm in the afternoon.
Think of it this way – assume that it is Saturday and you get up in the morning and in stead of looking out the window or turning on the TV, you consult a printed copy of the Farmer’s Almanac for the weather. It says that it will be sunny and 75 today, except for one thing – that forecast was published a year ago based on a compilation of the best historical weather data available for this date. Based on that information, you get dressed in shorts, a tee shirt and flip flops to head out for a day at the beach.
You open the door to go out and it is not only raining, it is 42 degrees.
Even using that massive amount of weather data and predictive models, the planners still missed it.
What do you do? Do you stick to the plan based on the Farmer’s Almanac and go to the beach anyway?
No, you don’t – a rational human being will alter their clothing and plans to accommodate the changes in the weather.
That’s what capitalism does – it allows the individual to decide and alter their own choices to accommodate and adjust to situations that they decide to tolerate. Socialism/Marxism would compel you to go to the beach anyway because that was the plan…and the plan reigns supreme over the individual.
The activity of individuals acting in their own best interest according to their own needs is the only model that can react quickly enough to market changes to self regulate.
Obamacare is a perfect example of central planned socialism and why the “planners” will never get it right – they only missed the cost on this one by 196% – but then this never really was about cost was it? It was always about central control.
So where do failed socialists turn for a bailout of their failures?
But one Democratic lawmaker says competition will lower costs.
“There are no public options. There’s no big new government health plan being offered. It’s all private sector options, and we hope they compete against each other to get prices down,” said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.
Why free market competition and capitalism, of course.
I’m sure that calling Obama a liar and a socialist is racist but there it is. He is a liar and a socialist.
I can’t think of a program that didn’t exceed the first projected cost estimates. Besides, the plan Obama was proposing then was not the plan that ended up being passed, so you are comparing apples to oranges. I’m not saying he didn’t lie, Obama is a politician, after all. I’m just saying that this isn’t proof.
As far as the socialism is concerned, I laughed when I read Obama’s claim that the government could run things more efficiently. What we have now is in need of some change, but most of that would be getting the government to concentrate on rooting out fraud and collusion in billing, maybe encouraging Medical colleges to expand and produce more doctors, against the AMA’s wishes, as having more doctors per capita would tend to reduce the prices they can charge per visit. And that should be the end of the Gov’t's involvement.
Then based on your definition, a politician can never actually “lie”, they just present statements that they do not know are true or false for the express purpose of supporting a point of theirs.
That, my friend, is called lying.
Or is it that all politicians lie?
You said that Obama is a politician, so by your logic, wouldn’t that also mean that he is a liar?
Greg – the guy lied.
An what was passed into law by the Senate in 2010 was exactly what the House has already approved on November 8, 2009 – two months after his speech. The Senate just “accepted” the House bill in a procedural move.
I’m sorry to tell you but there were a number of non-governmental entities, the Club for Growth for one, that stated that the cost Obamacare would be over 2 trillion – but since the bill was not available in its final form until AFTER the Democratic controlled Congress rammed it through without reading it, they were called illegitimate.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics, then government cost projections.
Utah, I am quibbling here. What Obama said does not ride to level of a lie, such as the zinger Clinton told us(I did not have sex with that woman…), but in terms of cost, it is far more serious. I am quite sure that Obama can produce the studies he was going by quicker than he did his birth certificate. I am also quite sure that he had other studies that had higher, and more accurate cost projections. Whoops! now where did they go?
I wasn’t trying to excuse the man by saying that his obfuscation was not that unusual. I was bemoaning the fact that it is not unusual among our elected and appointed officials to do so. Obama’s race comes up so often, I think, because his skin color is the only quality that distinguishes him and his more recent predecessors in the office.
And I’m engaging in a fit of pique because this stuff matters and I have not had near enough coffee so far. I do accept your point that there are “lies, damned lies, statistics, then government cost projections”.
I would warrant that if you stopped people on the street wherever you are and asked them if the federal government can be expected to understand the 10 year cost of a program within plus or minus 25%, 8 out of 10 would say “no”. If I miss a projection in my business by more than plus or minus 5%, that is a big error for us…
If you were building a house and your contractor said that it is going to cost $250K and then a year later, he said “Oops, I missed my estimate, it is now going to cost $500K – just send me a check for the difference” – we would be up in arms. Why aren’t we having the same reaction to this?
What I don’t get is that why people think (and I’m not including you in “people”) that handing over more power to government is a good thing when points like yours are so obvious. If they can’t quantify the quantifiable, how in God’s green earth could they ever be trusted to manage something that is qualitative like social policy where success is much more difficult to determine?
I think people, and I do include me, want a big brotherly government to take care of mundane matters, such as our health care, our retirement, overseeing the quality of goods and services, so we can concentrate our collective minds on American Idol and the exploding Kardashian population.
It’s a tendency we need to fight. MrGGuy has a pertinent anecdote about Grover Cleveland in his latest blog:
http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/a-good-question-with-an-answer/
I enjoyed Guy’s article. And M.’s, of course! Guy’s Twain quote fits perfectly in with y’all’s argument.
Do you realize you just said that you want to be a SLAVE, and that you believe the majority of us want that, too?
No, I admitted to a tendency to want a good government that I don’t have to personally monitor. And that many would rather not engage in the fundamental debate that has you and Utah in its thrall. It’s obvious, looking back over the presidents in my life, that we had better pay attention to the basters.
So you want a “good” master – but you still want a master.
You certainly should have included the word “some” in your first sentence. Myself and those I assemble with don’t want our govt “to take care of mundane matters, such as our health care, our retirement,”. I am possitive that I can do a better job of both of these than they can. We do want the govt to take care of “overseeing the quality of goods and services”, so you aren’t completely wrong. Also, NOBODY that I associate with wants to”concentrate our collective minds on American Idol and the exploding Kardashian population”. I think that is reserved for the OWEbozoites.
C’mon Dusty. We all heard about your high cell-phone bills, due to.all your phone-in votes for Adam Lambert
what is Adam Lambert?
The first two are called doctors and brokers. Many people hire them to manage those affairs. The one’s who don’t count on the government redistributing tax money from other people to their bank account in both cases.
The other one is something that I think most conservatives would agree is within the enumerated powers of the federal government.
Thanks for the link sir. Glad you enjoyed that article from Sago.
Melfamy,
You forget the CBO originally tried to tell Obama that HIS OWN NUMBERS didn’t work. Obama then called the head of the CBO to the White House and presto, the CBO was agreeing with Obama.
Not lying? In what world, Stalin’s Russia?
B, it is not lying in the sense that The Syrian President is not a terrorist, because the terror is being done in the name of the State.
Never mind that the results are the same, people are deceived or murdered no matter what it’s called.
Call it crony capitalism, call it fascism, call it Obama being a weak deal-maker, the Omnibus Healthcare bill was a gift to the insurance companies, and an albatross around the necks of the rest of us, unless the unread parts have some really amazing surprises.
Gift to insurance companies? It is the beginning of the end for insurance companies, they just don’t see it yet.
Besides, what does Syria have to do with the health care bill? Obama knew bloody well the costs were intentionally off. ALL he cared about was passing the bill for the control it will give the big govt. types. Now, we’re already seeing that control exercised – and in the name of what’s best for us, no less. Always what is best: for the kids, for us, for society…
Tyrants all.
to answer your question…………….YES
test
You know that two trillion dollar projection?…that only takes into account the actual costs of healthcare under ObamaCare. If you figure in the costs of the bureaucracy to run it, it doubles in cost. What’s two Trillion dollars times two? Anyone, Hmmm?
Well, let’s see………why, it’s only four million! Everything is peachy now, Guy! Thanks!
I have trouble with math so the CBO helped me figure it out….