Mr. Hatch's hilarious health care hypocrisy

[Qtec]

LOL. Internet can be a bitch sometimes.

lol (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQELXtHvaF0&feature=player_embedded)

Oh boy!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congressional Republicans on Thursday dispatched some of their best and brightest to the Supreme Court in heady anticipation of the GOP triumph that never came. But when Chief Justice Roberts announced the decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch "folded his arms across his chest, his mouth slightly agape." His slack-jawed response was altogether fitting. After all, the same Orrin Hatch who now describes so-called Obamacare as unconstitutional and "an awful piece of crap" <u>in 1993 co-sponsored legislation with an individual mandate at its center.</u> And as it turns out, while he and his GOP colleagues are now protesting how the Affordable Care Act is funded, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Hatch acknowledged that when President Bush signed the $400 billion Medicare prescription drug program into law, "It was standard practice not to pay for things."</span> </div></div>

YES. its true!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. <u>"We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question."</u> His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good." </div></div>

The ACA does a lot of good, right?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Just so we're clear, according to the rules, Republicans don't have to pay for their programs, and Democrats do. Republicans can build up massive debts, and Democrats can't</span>.

Let's cut the nonsense. Republicans supported Medicare Part D (Karl Rove saw it as a way of creating a "permanent" GOP majority). It was the<span style='font-size: 17pt'> biggest expansion of government into the health care industry since Medicare</span>. By any reasonable measure, <span style="color: #3333FF">it was a huge giveaway to private industries, and came with a price tag of at least $1 trillion -- far more than this year's Democratic health care reform plan. It was "complicated as hell," and left a huge doughnut hole that screwed over millions of seniors. It included end-of-life counseling, which Republicans now consider "death panels." The Republican bill, which passed under almost comically corrupt circumstances, was financed entirely -- literally, 100% -- through deficit spending, leaving future generations to pick up the tab.

And what do these exact same Republican lawmakers say now? That the Democratic reform plan increases government's role in health care (check), costs too much (check), is too complicated (check), and passed under suspicious circumstances (check). Oh, and don't "dredge up history" that GOP finds embarrassing.

Republicans simply aren't serious about health care policy. Anyone who suggests the Democratic bill should have been "bipartisan" need only to be reminded of what transpired six short years ago.</span> </div></div>

read it. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021647.php)

Its amazing. These GOP God people who rant on about abortion and gay rights and God says this and God says that are a bunch of hypocritical liars.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, <u>a false witness who breathes out lies,and one who sows discord among brothers.</u> </div></div>

Is this not the GOP?

Q

[Gayle in MD]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

LOL. Internet can be a bitch sometimes.

lol (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQELXtHvaF0&feature=player_embedded)

Oh boy!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congressional Republicans on Thursday dispatched some of their best and brightest to the Supreme Court in heady anticipation of the GOP triumph that never came. But when Chief Justice Roberts announced the decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch "folded his arms across his chest, his mouth slightly agape." His slack-jawed response was altogether fitting. After all, the same Orrin Hatch who now describes so-called Obamacare as unconstitutional and "an awful piece of crap" <u>in 1993 co-sponsored legislation with an individual mandate at its center.</u> And as it turns out, while he and his GOP colleagues are now protesting how the Affordable Care Act is funded, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Hatch acknowledged that when President Bush signed the $400 billion Medicare prescription drug program into law, "It was standard practice not to pay for things."</span> </div></div>

YES. its true!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. <u>"We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question."</u> His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good." </div></div>

The ACA does a lot of good, right?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Just so we're clear, according to the rules, Republicans don't have to pay for their programs, and Democrats do. Republicans can build up massive debts, and Democrats can't</span>.

Let's cut the nonsense. Republicans supported Medicare Part D (Karl Rove saw it as a way of creating a "permanent" GOP majority). It was the<span style='font-size: 17pt'> biggest expansion of government into the health care industry since Medicare</span>. By any reasonable measure, <span style="color: #3333FF">it was a huge giveaway to private industries, and came with a price tag of at least $1 trillion -- far more than this year's Democratic health care reform plan. It was "complicated as hell," and left a huge doughnut hole that screwed over millions of seniors. It included end-of-life counseling, which Republicans now consider "death panels." The Republican bill, which passed under almost comically corrupt circumstances, was financed entirely -- literally, 100% -- through deficit spending, leaving future generations to pick up the tab.

And what do these exact same Republican lawmakers say now? That the Democratic reform plan increases government's role in health care (check), costs too much (check), is too complicated (check), and passed under suspicious circumstances (check). Oh, and don't "dredge up history" that GOP finds embarrassing.

Republicans simply aren't serious about health care policy. Anyone who suggests the Democratic bill should have been "bipartisan" need only to be reminded of what transpired six short years ago.</span> </div></div>

read it. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021647.php)

Its amazing. These GOP God people who rant on about abortion and gay rights and God says this and God says that are a bunch of hypocritical liars.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, <u>a false witness who breathes out lies,and one who sows discord among brothers.</u> </div></div>

Is this not the GOP?

Q

</div></div>

Describes them perfectly!

Hatch has always been a hack.

G.

[Qtec]

There is more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Recall the situation in 2003. The Bush administration was already projecting the largest deficit in American history--$475 billion in fiscal year 2004,</span> according to the July 2003 mid-session budget review. But a big election was coming up that Bush and his party were desperately fearful of losing. So they decided to win it by buying the votes of America's seniors by giving them an expensive new program to pay for their prescription drugs.

Recall, too, that Medicare was already broke in every meaningful sense of the term. According to the 2003 Medicare trustees report, spending for Medicare was projected to rise much more rapidly than the payroll tax as the baby boomers retired. Consequently, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them--and the federal deficit-</span>-by $395 billion between 2004 and 2013.

However, the Bush administration knew this figure was not accurate because Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, had concluded, well before passage, that the more likely cost would be $534 billion. Tom Scully, a Republican political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, threatened to fire him if he dared to make that information public before the vote. (See this report by the HHS inspector general and this article by Foster.)

It's important to remember that the congressional budget resolution capped the projected cost of the drug benefit at $400 billion over 10 years. If there had been an official estimate from Medicare's chief actuary putting the cost at well more than that, then the legislation could have been killed by a single member in either the House or Senate by raising a point of order. Then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., later said he regretted not doing so.

Even with a <u>deceptively low estimate</u> of the drug benefit's cost, there were still a few Republicans in the House of Representatives who wouldn't roll over and play dead just to buy re-election. Consequently, when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history.</u> The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party.<u>The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.</u></span>

Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith</span> </div></div>

link (http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html)

The GOP added a Trillion $ to the deficit in order to win an election and they all pretend that the Bush admin never happened.

Nothing they say today is true and Romney is their liar in chief. They have no shame.

Q





Q

[Qtec]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To illustrate their impact, he uses a power point presentation to show what would happen in 30 years if the U.S. maintains its current course and fulfills all of the promises politicians have made to the public on things like Social Security and Medicare.

What would happen in 2040 if nothing changes?

"If nothing changes, the federal government's not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else - national defense, homeland security, education, you name it," Walker warns.

Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn't go away, in what's shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Part of the problem, Walker acknowledges, is that there won't be enough wage earners to support the benefits of the baby boomers. "<u>But the real problem, Steve, is health care costs. Our health care problem is much more significant than Social Security,</u>" he says.

Asked what he means by that, Walker tells Kroft, "By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem."</span>

The problem with Medicare, Walker says, is people keep living longer, and medical costs keep rising at twice the rate of inflation. But instead of dealing with the problem, he says, the president and the Congress made things much worse in Dec. 2003, when they expanded the Medicare program to include prescription drug coverage.

"<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s,</span>" Walker argues.

Asked why, Walker says, "Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We're not being realistic. We can't afford the promises we've already made, much less to be able, piling on top of 'em."

With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years.

"We'd have to have eight trillion dollars today, invested in treasury rates, to deliver on that promise," Walker explains.

Asked how much we actually have, Walker says, "Zip."

So where's that money going to come from?

"Well it's gonna come from additional taxes, <u>or it's gonna come from restructuring these promises, or it's gonna come from cutting other spending,</u>" Walker says.

He is not suggesting that the nation do away with Medicare or prescription drug benefits. <u>He does believe the current health care system is way too expensive, and overrated.</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"On cost we're number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth," he says.

"We have the largest uninsured population of any major industrialized nation. We have above average infant mortality, below average life expectancy, and much higher than average medical error rates for an industrialized nation," Walker points out. </span></div></div> read this (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-2528226.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody)

Q