Rock The Vote

[Magox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNfG8gwamKM

 

Idiots

[IDBillzFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNfG8gwamKM

 

Idiots

That's excellent. Kids today are so awesome.

[PearlHowardman]

Question: Has there ever been a President prior to Obama to alienate BOTH the left and the right in their first year in office?

 

I think Obama is setting precedent here!

[IDBillzFan]

Question: Has there ever been a President prior to Obama to alienate BOTH the left and the right in their first year in office?

 

I think Obama is setting precedent here!

Honestly, you have to give him kudos on this one. It's great to see young Americans so enthusiastic for a program that is not only going to cost them a significant portion of their lifetime income, but one that will actually prove to be such a detriment to the job market that they'll be begging to be in charge of the french fryer at McDonalds. I look forward in 20 years to the "Where are they now?" segment that'll cover all these folks.

 

Next on "Where are they now?" She was a Youtube sensation during Barack Obama's inauguration, telling everyone how she was so happy that she wasn't going to have to pay her mortgage, or pay for the gas in her car. We visit "Peggy" 20 years later.

[The Big Cat]

Any of you boners want to explain what the President has to do with Rock the Vote?

[PastaJoe]

Question: Has there ever been a President prior to Obama to alienate BOTH the left and the right in their first year in office?

 

I think Obama is setting precedent here!

 

A president who governs in the middle; that's a good thing.

 

 

 

Any of you boners want to explain what the President has to do with Rock the Vote?

 

Cut them some slack, they're frustrated that their candidates only appeal to the Rock the Chair voters.

[BLZFAN4LIFE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNfG8gwamKM

 

Idiots

 

I went to their site http://www.blog.rockthevote.com/2009/12/ou...1#comment-10307 they put up a letter stating that the video was only a joke. Yeah, right.

Check out the comments about the video/CYA apology letter. The responses are overwhelmingly opposed to this garbage and a good indication of how most Americans feel about this "historic" president and his "historic bill".

[Magox]

I went to their site http://www.blog.rockthevote.com/2009/12/ou...1#comment-10307 they put up a letter stating that the video was only a joke. Yeah, right.

Check out the comments about the video/CYA apology letter. The responses are overwhelmingly opposed to this garbage and a good indication of how most Americans feel about this "historic" president and his "historic bill".

I think I saw a comment from RI or was that Big C?

[Frit0 Bandit0]

I'm sorry but if I'm between 2 smoking hot Colombian chicks I'm going to be rocking whatever they tell me to rock ... twice.

[IDBillzFan]

Check out the comments about the video/CYA apology letter.

 

Assuming those comments are real (and I have no reason to think otherwise), what I found most interesting was how many people were pissed that, satirical or not, the Rock the Vote video strayed from its bi-partisan position on things. Coupled this with how many posters were even remotely knowledgeable about what the bill will actually mean to them, and I don't mind admitting that I was kind of impressed.

 

Like this:

 

I can’t tell you how disappointed I was in the healthcare-themed spot. First, it’s HORRENDOUSLY partisan, which is really shameful. Encouraging engagement by young people in the voting process is great. Encouraging a vote in a certain direction, regardless of the direction, isn’t. Second, the spot paints women as fickle whores, who are incapable of using intellect to win over people of the opposite sex to their way of thinking, and can only offer sex to secure a vote in the direction they like. If that’s Rock The Vote’s position on women’s rights, I really want nothing to do with you.

Your stats on young adults who are denied healthcare currently is an outright lie. You fail to tell these same people that under Obamacare, they will be required to buy healthcare or be fined. If they can’t afford it now, nothing will change except now they will be required by the government to buy it, and pay more taxes to boot. How’s that hopenchange workin for ya? You guys are outright liars.

I am a college student, your target demographic, and crap like this disgusts me. I am not some holier-than-thou right winger, but this Abercrombie-esque style is not a good way to attract the proper attention to a serious issue. Attention, yes, but not the kind that promotes positive political change. Not to mention the serious partisanship this ad (and organization as a whole) displays…

 

Regardless, no young person should support the current health care bill because we will be paying the bulk of the cost. As we leave college and find our first jobs and start our careers we will be paying for this “reform.” Reform is absolutely needed, but force feeding the public this current bill and making sure it is done before Christmas (solely so that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can say they got it done before 2010) is disgusting. This was supposed to be an open debate (as per Obama’s campaign promises) and it has been straight backroom deals and earmarks for difficult senators.

[Magox]

Assuming those comments are real (and I have no reason to think otherwise), what I found most interesting was how many people were pissed that, satirical or not, the Rock the Vote video strayed from its bi-partisan position on things. Coupled this with how many posters were even remotely knowledgeable about what the bill will actually mean to them, and I don't mind admitting that I was kind of impressed.

 

Like this:

Those are some well thought out comments.

 

To add to that point, according to CBO, it is this age group that will be punished the most. The way the bill is written, people who are not offered insurance from the companies that they work for will all pay significantly higher premiums under this legislation.

 

The reason being is that people with pre existing medical conditions can not be denied coverage from health insurance companies. That is a morally correct concept, the only problem is that these individuals are a much higher risk for the insurance companies so in most cases they will lose money. Since the Insurance companies will be forced to have a cap on how much they can charge these individuals, they will have to make it up in other areas, the prime target will be younger healthier individuals who are not nearly as much at risk for medical payouts.

 

CBO has said that these premiums could shoot up to over 30% on average and I've seen other medical studies from WellPoint that say it could be as high as 170% higher. The truth probably is somewhere in between.

 

The reason why I mention this is because if ROCK THE VOTE did their homework, the way I have, then they would see that this is a VERY BAD DEAL for younger adults.

[IDBillzFan]

The reason being is that people with pre existing medical conditions can not be denied coverage from health insurance companies. That is a morally correct concept, the only problem is that these individuals are a much higher risk for the insurance companies so in most cases they will lose money. Since the Insurance companies will be forced to have a cap on how much they can charge these individuals, they will have to make it up in other areas, the prime target will be younger healthier individuals who are not nearly as much at risk for medical payouts.

Another issue which will be interesting to watch is how the insurance companies are affected by people who don't carry insurance UNTIL they're sick or injured. There are going to be so many ways to get around the regulations that it's probably pretty clear that once the private carriers start going under, the government will have to say "Well, we tried, but since they insurance carriers are bailing, it's time for single-payer.

[Magox]

Another issue which will be interesting to watch is how the insurance companies are affected by people who don't carry insurance UNTIL they're sick or injured. There are going to be so many ways to get around the regulations that it's probably pretty clear that once the private carriers start going under, the government will have to say "Well, we tried, but since they insurance carriers are bailing, it's time for single-payer.

No doubt LA, that is exactly what is going to happen, which means higher premiums for everyone else. It's just so frickin logical, that is amazing that they are going to let this thing pass.

 

It's just common sense, if you can't be denied coverage, then why have coverage at all? All you have to do is wait until you are sick and PRESTO, you have coverage.

 

In regards to your second point, ya, I'm sure some will say this, but they will not have the required amount of votes to be able to implement that for a very long time.

[IDBillzFan]

No doubt LA, that is exactly what is going to happen, which means higher premiums for everyone else. It's just so frickin logical, that is amazing that they are going to let this thing pass.

 

It's just common sense, if you can't be denied coverage, then why have coverage at all? All you have to do is wait until you are sick and PRESTO, you have coverage.

 

In regards to your second point, ya, I'm sure some will say this, but they will not have the required amount of votes to be able to implement that for a very long time.

I agree on the latter point. It'll take years for most people to fully realize the fiscal incompetency of the current administration, and even more years for them to forget, at least to the extent that they give them full control of the government again, which is what they'd need to pull off single-payer.

 

Meanwhile, interesting read here on the bill's CLASS Act, and the accounting deception of it all. It's from a Fox Business Network editor, so it'll quickly be dismssed by the bleeding hearts, but it's worth spreading around as it really does a nice job of explaining this idiocy.

[Magox]

I agree on the latter point. It'll take years for most people to fully realize the fiscal incompetency of the current administration, and even more years for them to forget, at least to the extent that they give them full control of the government again, which is what they'd need to pull off single-payer.

 

Meanwhile, interesting read here on the bill's CLASS Act, and the accounting deception of it all. It's from a Fox Business Network editor, so it'll quickly be dismssed by the bleeding hearts, but it's worth spreading around as it really does a nice job of explaining this idiocy.

Great Find!

 

I knew about the subsidy accounting tricks and DOC FIX provision, but I wasn't aware of the CLASS Act. Basically it's from the same play book as the other accounting gimmickry. Pay for it for 10 years, but only receive 5 years of services . That's like going to an auto dealership and purchasing a car, only for them to tell you ok, "start paying now, and 5 years later, we will give it to you, oh and btw, you will pay forever pay for it afterwards."

 

 

I found this interesting as well

However, a report by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' [CMS] chief actuary paints a much more dire prediction.

 

The CMS states that the program will result in a "net Federal cost in the longer term," Farrell notes.

 

The CMS warns that the program is structured in such a way as to result in a classic "insurance death spiral," because most of the people likely participating will be the $5 per month subsidized individuals with higher claims.

 

The CMS adds that "there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection would make the CLASS

[Magox]

I agree on the latter point. It'll take years for most people to fully realize the fiscal incompetency of the current administration, and even more years for them to forget, at least to the extent that they give them full control of the government again, which is what they'd need to pull off single-payer.

 

Meanwhile, interesting read here on the bill's CLASS Act, and the accounting deception of it all. It's from a Fox Business Network editor, so it'll quickly be dismssed by the bleeding hearts, but it's worth spreading around as it really does a nice job of explaining this idiocy.

I thought you would find this interesting.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...57HhY&pos=9

 

The Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly.

 

The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.

 

Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans.

 

“What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.”

 

The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter.

 

“The true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs would be a good deal smaller,” the budget office said.

 

The budget office said that whenever the Medicare trust fund runs a surplus, the savings are turned over to the U.S. Treasury, which issues bonds to borrow for the future needs of participants in the health-care program for the elderly. The trust fund is currently running annual deficits.

 

North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has said that the Senate legislation would postpone the Medicare trust fund’s projected 2017 insolvency by several years.

 

To credit such projected savings as helping to extend Medicare’s solvency “ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund” to pay for future Medicare expenses, the budget office said.

 

Arguments that the Medicare savings would both extend Medicare’s solvency and help finance “new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings,” the CBO said.

 

More accounting gimmickry

[Magox]

Those are some well thought out comments.

 

To add to that point, according to CBO, it is this age group that will be punished the most. The way the bill is written, people who are not offered insurance from the companies that they work for will all pay significantly higher premiums under this legislation.

 

The reason being is that people with pre existing medical conditions can not be denied coverage from health insurance companies. That is a morally correct concept, the only problem is that these individuals are a much higher risk for the insurance companies so in most cases they will lose money. Since the Insurance companies will be forced to have a cap on how much they can charge these individuals, they will have to make it up in other areas, the prime target will be younger healthier individuals who are not nearly as much at risk for medical payouts.

 

CBO has said that these premiums could shoot up to over 30% on average and I've seen other medical studies from WellPoint that say it could be as high as 170% higher. The truth probably is somewhere in between.

 

The reason why I mention this is because if ROCK THE VOTE did their homework, the way I have, then they would see that this is a VERY BAD DEAL for younger adults.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9122501035.html

 

The bill imposes hefty new taxes and coverage rules that will pinch insurers by forcing them to cover more sick people without gaining enough healthy, lower-cost customers, industry insiders say. The industry is also worried the bill doesn't do enough to control health care costs.

Both bills call for the creation of insurance exchanges that help people buy coverage. Insurers likely will lose money on business from those exchanges, said Robert Laszewski, a former insurance executive and president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a Virginia-based health care consultant.

 

 

It's a tradeoff: People without insurance would be required to buy it - in some cases, subsidies will help them pay for it - or face fines if they don't. Insurers, in turn, would no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions such as diabetes or cancer.

 

But the proposed fines are too weak and the subsidies too meager to truly motivate people to buy insurance, Laszewski said. This means the people most motivated to buy coverage through these exchanges will be those who already have health problems - who are money losers for insurers.

 

Insurers need a mix of healthy people enrolled in their coverage to help balance out claims they pay for patients who use more insurance.

 

The Senate bill calls for fines for people who do not purchase coverage and are not exempt from a mandate to buy it. They start at $95 in 2014 and rise to $750 by 2016.

 

That's a lot more affordable than what some people would pay for insurance. A sliding scale of subsidies will help people or families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $88,200 for a family of four this year. But a family of four with income of $65,000 would still have to pay nearly 10 percent of that income, or $6,500, toward coverage.

 

"There aren't a lot of families with an extra $6,500 in their checking account," Laszewski said. "The problem with this bill is the subsidies are really quite modest, and there really aren't any penalties."

 

An ideal bill for insurers, he said, would pair better subsidies for the uninsured with higher penalties that motivate people to buy coverage and get more healthy people into the risk pools.

 

The Senate bill hurts managed care companies in other ways. Insurers use a person's age and other variables to figure out the price of an individual insurance policy. Older people often have to pay more because they tend to generate more claims. But the Senate bill limits how much more insurers can charge for older customers.

 

That means people under age 30 likely will see a "substantial increase" in the cost of a policy - making them less inclined to buy insurance - while older people will see a smaller decrease, said Brad Fluegel, chief strategy and external affairs officer for WellPoint Inc., the nation's largest health insurer based on membership.

 

The Senate bill also calls for the industry to pay annual fees for the plan that start at $2 billion in 2011 and increase to $10 billion by 2017. Analysts say costs like these will be passed to consumers because insurers want to protect profit margins, which are generally thinner than other health care companies like drugmakers.

 

"I think we're going to be discussing health care reform continuously for the next several years as we try to fix all the things that are broken with this existing bill," Fluegel said.

 

Added up, insurers say the bill would mean higher premiums for consumers and likely for employers who buy coverage. And that's on top of hikes spurred by rising medical care.

 

Ironically this means that some of those retards in the Rock the Vote video, you know the ones that are in their twenties are most likely going to be paying much higher premiums under this legislation than if nothing had been done.

 

Ya! Rock the Vote! Idiots

[DC Tom]

The Senate bill also calls for the industry to pay annual fees for the plan that start at $2 billion in 2011 and increase to $10 billion by 2017.

 

What? To who? For what?