Leftists drop claims ObamaCare will reduce health costs and lower deficit; media mum.

• Writerbuckeye

  

  In what comes as no surprise to ANYONE who was paying attention, a group of leftists has put together a presentation to sell the health care debacle to the public and have emphasized to those who see it that they should NOT stress cost savings or reducing the deficit -- since neither of those claims is true.
  
  Remember how we were told this would not only lower health costs but lower the deficit and that's why we just HAD to pass it? Remember the mainstream media trumpeting all of that.
  
  Well a conservative group that monitors the media has seen ZIP from almost all of them on this latest revelation.
  
  Just more proof of the OVERT bias the media has favoring Obama and his minions.
  
  Shameful. Just shameful. But not a surprise.
  
  Let's hope there are lots of GOP ads for the November elections that use parts of this presentation to sink those idiots who voted for this mess.
  
  The link...
  
  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/08/24/media-nearly-silent-obamacare-proponents-drop-deficit-cost-savings-c
• gut

  Next up: Cap & Trade
• Ghmothwdwhso

  gut;461083 wrote:Next up: Cap & Trade

  
  No. next up Gibby................
• GeneralsIcer89

  What Obama proposed with those numbers, correct or not, isn't what passed. It's an irrelevant point.
• gut

  GeneralsIcer89;461148 wrote:What Obama proposed with those numbers, correct or not, isn't what passed. It's an irrelevant point.

  
  Did I miss the part where Obama vetoed it and Congress overruled him?
• jmog

  GeneralsIcer89;461148 wrote:What Obama proposed with those numbers, correct or not, isn't what passed. It's an irrelevant point.

  
  You honestly can't be serious with that statement.
• QuakerOats

  The media is largely comprised of people who couldn't hack it in finance, accounting, math, statistics, or any other field that might render one able to comprehend what is in a bill such as this. Effectively they are dumber than a box of rocks, and as a result 'reporting' has become merely writing what 'he says' and what 'she says', as opposed to real reporting which requires digging in to matters, understanding them, and then reporting on the reality of them in a broad context.
  
  The people rarely get the facts, let alone all the facts, and for that the media is incredibly derelict in its main duty as the watchdog of the government.
  
  The health bill is the biggest legislative disaster in the history of the country, and it needs to be repealed in its entirety.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  GeneralsIcer89;461148 wrote:What Obama proposed with those numbers, correct or not, isn't what passed. It's an irrelevant point.

  
  Ahhh now the lying starts to try and revise history. Sorry, not going to work. Obama and his minions claimed TO THE BITTER END that his plan would lower costs and the deficit. Anyone with half a brain knew that was an outright lie, but the media trumpeted it, anyway, without question.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  QuakerOats;461206 wrote:The media is largely comprised of people who couldn't hack it in finance, accounting, math, statistics, or any other field that might render one able to comprehend what is in a bill such as this. Effectively they are dumber than a box of rocks, and as a result 'reporting' has become merely writing what 'he says' and what 'she says', as opposed to real reporting which requires digging in to matters, understanding them, and then reporting on the reality of them in a broad context.
  
  The people rarely get the facts, let alone all the facts, and for that the media is incredibly derelict in its main duty as the watchdog of the government.
  
  The health bill is the biggest legislative disaster in the history of the country, and it needs to be repealed in its entirety.

  
  While your comments are spot on regarding most media members and their lack of economic intellect or skills (I was awful at budgets and such when I began as a reporter) it's THEIR JOB to educate themselves and make sure they understand what they're reporting, so they can appropriately provide both sides.
  
  In this case, reporters didn't challenge the numbers because THEY AGREED WITH THE PROPOSAL. It was the same bias that had (has) them fawning over the president instead of challenging everything he does -- which is what a true Fourth Estate is supposed to do.
• QuakerOats

  ^^^ I hear you.
  
  And then there is this:
  
  “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language,” Baucus said. “We hire experts.”
  
  http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/libby_residents_relate_gains_drawbacks_of_asbestos_aid/19253/
  
  Yes, even the 'author' of obamacare did not read the bill. Incredible.
  
  I don't think a congressman should be allowed to vote on a bill unless they sign an affidavit saying they have read it and understand it - period.
• believer

  

  QuakerOats;461395 wrote:I don't think a congressman should be allowed to vote on a bill unless they sign an affidavit saying they have read it and understand it - period.

  NAW...that would mean accountability and no politician wants that. That's why we have a highly objective and politically neutral mainstream media that analyzes the facts and makes that information available to the American public to help us make informed choices.
  
  OK...well at least we can still vote.
• GeneralsIcer89

  gut;461154 wrote:Did I miss the part where Obama vetoed it and Congress overruled him?

  jmog;461181 wrote:You honestly can't be serious with that statement.

  Writerbuckeye;461371 wrote:Ahhh now the lying starts to try and revise history. Sorry, not going to work. Obama and his minions claimed TO THE BITTER END that his plan would lower costs and the deficit. Anyone with half a brain knew that was an outright lie, but the media trumpeted it, anyway, without question.

  
  Is the bill Obama originally wanted what passed? Not even close. Do I think what Obama proposed originally would have lowered costs? No. Frankly, any form of healthcare would raise costs enormously with the boomers reaching senior status. But you can't change everything in a bill and then decry it for not doing what it was originally proposed to do. What was passed isn't even close to what was originally proposed.
• BGFalcons82

  

  GeneralsIcer89;461684 wrote:Is the bill Obama originally wanted what passed? Not even close. Do I think what Obama proposed originally would have lowered costs? No. Frankly, any form of healthcare would raise costs enormously with the boomers reaching senior status. But you can't change everything in a bill and then decry it for not doing what it was originally proposed to do. What was passed isn't even close to what was originally proposed.

  
  So what about what he originally wanted? It doesn't matter. What DOES matter is the monstrosity called ObamaKare that is now law. It was driven home by the supporters that with no doctor fix, medicare cuts of $500,000,000,000, and his wondrous health care exchanges that costs would be lowered, the seas will quiet, the butterflies will multiply and candy canes will be supplied for everyone.
  
  Turns out the opposition was correct about the spiraling upward costs and now the ObamaKare supporters are in complete denial...as are you. How much freaking Kool Aid do you need to drink to be that obtuse?
• believer

  

  GeneralsIcer89;461684 wrote:Is the bill Obama originally wanted what passed? Not even close. Do I think what Obama proposed originally would have lowered costs? No. Frankly, any form of healthcare would raise costs enormously with the boomers reaching senior status. But you can't change everything in a bill and then decry it for not doing what it was originally proposed to do. What was passed isn't even close to what was originally proposed.

  C'mon...So in other words ObamaKare - as bloated, complicated, and full of expensive entitlement fluff as it is - is not as bloated, complicated, and full of expensive entitlement fluff as the Anointed One wanted?
  
  Decry? No offense but LMAO.
• gut

  GeneralsIcer89;461684 wrote:What was passed isn't even close to what was originally proposed.

  
  And yet, Obama signed it anyway. Just what, exactly then, is he ACTUALLY DOING that has you so giddy? WTF do we pay the guy for? Oh wait, silly me....photo ops, speeches on talk shows and family trips.
• believer

  

  gut;462121 wrote:And yet, Obama signed it anyway. Just what, exactly then, is he ACTUALLY DOING that has you so giddy? WTF do we pay the guy for? Oh wait, silly me....photo ops, speeches on talk shows and family trips.

  Now let's be fair.
  
  First, the photo ops are necessary. BHO wants to be re-elected and we must preserve this moment in history. After all the Anointed One is the nation's first black POTUS.
  
  Second, his speeches on talk shows keep him on the cover of all the ladies magazines. He does have a rock start image to maintain and teleprompters are wonderful things.
  
  Third, Michelle Obama just brought her entourage of close friends home from an exhausting opulent Spanish vacation. The family needed this Martha's Vineyard retreat to rest-up and fuel-up on lobster dinners.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  GeneralsIcer89;461684 wrote:Is the bill Obama originally wanted what passed? Not even close. Do I think what Obama proposed originally would have lowered costs? No. Frankly, any form of healthcare would raise costs enormously with the boomers reaching senior status. But you can't change everything in a bill and then decry it for not doing what it was originally proposed to do. What was passed isn't even close to what was originally proposed.

  
  
  And this is the reason, or at least one of, that the democrat party is out of touch with its roots. It just goes to show that the party will pass any-freakin-thing, no matter what, just for political expediency. Plain and simple.
  
  The party didn't use any common sense with this bill. They just simply couldn't gather up enough between all of them to put it in use. And because of the fact that they don't have enough common sense to fill a teaspoon, this is the kind of putrid rot that's to be expected of them from now on, unless the voters put a stop to it. The party didn't do any favors for itself or its constituents/followers/believers with this insipid piece of legislation. Oh... I take that back... a few states and some unions got a reacharound on it, sorry I temporarily forgot about that.
  
  So in essense, this is the party's mantra. They flat out have admitted that they couldn't do any better than what they did when they pushed and passed this bill. This was the best that they could come up with and the best that they could do. If it wasn't so damn disgraceful, shameful and sad - it would be downright funny. But hey, sometimes you gotta laugh to keep from crying, eh?
  
  The democratic party needs to straighten its ass up and they need to do it pretty damn fast. If it's not too late.
  
  *EDIT
  I just want to clarify that I believe(d) something needed to be done in regards to health insurance. But it wasn't this. Not even close.
  Anyone who isn't/wasn't a shill could discern that this bill was garbage from the getgo.
• fish82

  

  GeneralsIcer89;461684 wrote:Is the bill Obama originally wanted what passed? Not even close. Do I think what Obama proposed originally would have lowered costs? No. Frankly, any form of healthcare would raise costs enormously with the boomers reaching senior status. But you can't change everything in a bill and then decry it for not doing what it was originally proposed to do. What was passed isn't even close to what was originally proposed.

  
  Obama never "proposed" anything of substance. He essentially said "I want HC reform," and then let Nancy and Harry write it. He has no one to blame but himself if it's not what he wanted.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  fish82;462333 wrote:Obama never "proposed" anything of substance. He essentially said "I want HC reform," and then let Nancy and Harry write it. He has no one to blame but himself if it's not what he wanted.

  
  THIS. Let's stop giving him "credit" for actually doing any work on this. He delegated it out to his minions.
  
  But my point for Generals still stands: It doesn't matter whether the bill was what he originally called for (whatever that was). HE touted it and HE signed it. And while he was touting it HE SAID IT WOULD LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS AND REDUCE THE DEFICIT.
  
  It was a bald faced lie and he knew it. And the media knew it too -- but they didn't care. They were too busy on their knees playing Lewinsky to his Clinton.
• BoatShoes

  Now I've mentioned before that I think it's problematic that the news media and society perhaps puts so much stock into CBO projections and that there out to be reports on projections from multiple institutions since the CBO just reports within the limits of that Congress gives them (which can lead to trick accounting); the way I saw the media reporting the idea that Obamacare would reduce the deficit would be to write "The Non-Partisan Congressional budget office reports that this bill will reduce the deficit by X."
  
  Now as every conservative on here has said; that doesn't seem to be true...but what is disingenous about that report? Whether rightly or wrongly, the CBO did project that this would reduce the deficit over ten years...and we know that the reason is baloney...but that is nonethless what the CBO report said. Should just a fact reporting reporter not report that?
  
  Do we expect an AP reporter to inject in the piece that the CBO report is likely the result of trick accounting in each article about health reform? Maybe in a special report about the CBO, but I'm not sure about every article discussing Obamacare (or any other bill scored by the CBO for that matter). Now, an investigative report on the CBO and obamacare, I understand...and perhaps the question is...where are these investigative reports!?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Maybe a reporter can quote a CBO financial quote and then tag in at the end that the CBO, historically, has never been right?
  
  LOL!
• Writerbuckeye

  

  CenterBHSFan;462783 wrote:Maybe a reporter can quote a CBO financial quote and then tag in at the end that the CBO, historically, has never been right?
  
  LOL!

  
  See how hard that was, boat?
  
  Yet I did not see such a statement from ANY mainstream reporter as stories were put out prior to the vote. Now, AFTER it was passed, I began to start seeing some questioning the numbers. But it was the job of the media to do a little digging and actually question what the administration was saying BEFORE it was voted on.
  
  That is what they are supposed to be doing on anything Congress or the president propose.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;462754 wrote:
  Now as every conservative on here has said; that doesn't seem to be true...but what is disingenous about that report? Whether rightly or wrongly, the CBO did project that this would reduce the deficit over ten years...and we know that the reason is baloney...but that is nonethless what the CBO report said. Should just a fact reporting reporter not report that?

  Let me get this straight....You are admitting that the CBO scoring was correct for what was submitted by Congress for their scoring. Right? I agree they did what they were contractually obligated to do. The problem was...and is...that the CBO was given GARBAGE to evaluate. You know the saying...Garbage in = Garbage out...right? I expect Congress to represent the truth...heaven freaking forbid, right? What they did was an abomination, an affront to each and every American, and a fraud on America. I'm thinking the word, "treason" more accurately represents the heinous act they committed, but I'm sure I'm in the minority on that one.
  
  We, as Americans, can either continue to accept the lies spewed by the elitists and say, "that's the way it's been done for a long time", OR we can say enough is enough. Tell us the TRUTH, demand performance, demand accoutability, and get the freaking job done. Damn this pisses me off that we accept fraudulent behavior and reward the pricks by sending them back to Congress for even MORE fraud. We are to blame.
  
  Wake up on November 2 and send a message. Enough is enough.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;462754 wrote:
  Now as every conservative on here has said; that doesn't seem to be true...but what is disingenous about that report? Whether rightly or wrongly, the CBO did project that this would reduce the deficit over ten years...and we know that the reason is baloney...but that is nonethless what the CBO report said. Should just a fact reporting reporter not report that?

  Let me get this straight....You are admitting that the CBO scoring was correct for what was submitted by Congress for their scoring. Right? I agree they did what they were contractually obligated to do. The problem was...and is...that the CBO was given GARBAGE to evaluate. You know the saying...Garbage in = Garbage out...right? I expect Congress to represent the truth...heaven freaking forbid, right? What they did was an abomination, an affront to each and every American, and a fraud on America. I'm thinking the word, "treason" more accurately represents the heinous act they committed, but I'm sure I'm in the minority on that one.
  
  We, as Americans, can either continue to accept the lies spewed by the elitists and say, "that's the way it's been done for a long time", OR we can say enough is enough. Tell us the TRUTH, demand performance, demand accoutability, and get the freaking job done. Damn this pisses me off that we accept fraudulent behavior and reward the pricks by sending them back to Congress for even MORE fraud. We are to blame.
  
  Wake up on November 2 and send a message. Enough is enough.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;462896 wrote:Let me get this straight....You are admitting that the CBO scoring was correct for what was submitted by Congress for their scoring. Right? I agree they did what they were contractually obligated to do. The problem was...and is...that the CBO was given GARBAGE to evaluate. You know the saying...Garbage in = Garbage out...right? I expect Congress to represent the truth...heaven freaking forbid, right? What they did was an abomination, an affront to each and every American, and a fraud on America. I'm thinking the word, "treason" more accurately represents the heinous act they committed, but I'm sure I'm in the minority on that one.
  
  We, as Americans, can either continue to accept the lies spewed by the elitists and say, "that's the way it's been done for a long time", OR we can say enough is enough. Tell us the TRUTH, demand performance, demand accoutability, and get the freaking job done. Damn this pisses me off that we accept fraudulent behavior and reward the pricks by sending them back to Congress for even MORE fraud. We are to blame.
  
  Wake up on November 2 and send a message. Enough is enough.

  
  I agree with you but I suppose that you're suggesting that if I vote for Rob Portman or others with R next to their name that it will be different. I've accepted that both Democrats and Republicans are going to lie and weasel and construe their expensive fiscally irresponsible legislation in the best light they can...but hey, I doon't take CBO projections at face value nor pretty much anything else that comes out of Congress...but that's me, the kind of guy that likes politics enough to talk about it on a message board. The average guy who is apathetic might not.
  
  You really think a message will be sent if people put Republicans back in power in the House and/or Senate Nov. 2? Living a fantasy. I can only imagine how they'll try to play the same game with the deficit projections with their tax cuts that they propose.