AP IMPACT: A stream of WH health care visits

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6739995.html

AP IMPACT: A stream of WH health care visits
By SHARON THEIMER and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS Associated Press Writers © 2009 The Associated Press
Nov. 25, 2009, 10:37PM



President Barack Obama's top aides met frequently with lobbyists and health care industry heavyweights as his administration pieced together a national health care overhaul, according to White House visitor records obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

The records disclose visits by a broad cross-section of the people most involved in the health care debate, weighted heavily toward those who want to overhaul the system.

The list includes George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist who represents Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association, and numerous lobbyists.

The AP in early August asked the White House to produce records identifying communications that top Obama aides — including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, senior advisers David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse, and 18 others — had with outside interests on health care. The AP in late September narrowed its request to White House visitor records for those officials on the topic of health care.

The White House on Wednesday provided 575 visitor records covering the period from Jan. 20, when Obama was inaugurated, through August. The records give the name of each visitor to the White House complex to see people on AP's list, the date of the visit, the White House staffer they were supposed to see and, in some cases, the purpose of the visit. The records do not identify the visitors' employers, say on whose behalf they were there or give any specifics of what was discussed.

The records list the kinds of people usually involved in Washington policymaking: business, union and trade association executives, lobbyists and political strategists. Wednesday's disclosure was significant because of Obama's campaign promise to change business as usual in Washington, and because he voluntarily released records showing the access of special interests as the administration crafted national health care policy.

Earlier this year, the White House announced agreements under which hospitals and the drug industry promised cost savings in return for the overhaul's expected expansion in the number of insured patients. The arrangements were hammered out in private meetings, drawing comparisons to Vice President Dick Cheney's secret talks with the energy industry as he helped President George W. Bush draft a national energy policy. In that case the Bush White House steadfastly fought efforts to have visitor records released.
Obama recently began releasing visitor information on a rolling basis, and the White House put out another batch Wednesday afternoon apart from AP's request. The president "vowed to run the most transparent and ethical administration in our history, and our release of these records underscores our commitment to following through on that," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. He added that the list demonstrates that the president is listening to voices from across the health care spectrum.

Several lobbyists for powerful health care interests, including insurers, drug companies and large employers, visited the White House complex, the records show:

_ Laird Burnett, a top lobbyist for insurer Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and a former Senate aide. Kaiser has spent some $1.7 million lobbying Congress over the past two years.

_ Joshua Ackil, a lobbyist whose clients include Intel, U.S. Oncology Inc., and Knoa Software Inc., all of which have reported lobbying on the health care overhaul. Ackil met with Dan Turton, the White House's deputy legislative affairs director who works with the House, in August.

_ Peter Orszag, Obama's budget chief, met in late March with representatives for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, including chief executive Serota, in-house lobbyists Alissa Fox and Kris Haltmeyer, and Kies, one of its outside lobbyists and a former top GOP congressional tax aide.

_ Amador "Dean" Aguillen, a former aide to Nancy Pelosi but now with Ogilvy Government Relations, appears to have attended the same Aug. 21 meeting with Turton that Ackil did. At Ogilvy, Aguillen works on behalf of clients including pharmaceutical companies SanofiPasteur and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Pfizer Inc., and Amgen USA Inc., all of which reported lobbying on health care issues this year.

_ Joel Johnson, a lobbyist with close ties to Rahm Emanuel, appears to have met with his friend one-on-one in May, according to the logs. Johnson, a partner at the Glover Park Group, lobbies for several health interests including United Healthcare Services Inc. and Kinetic Concepts Inc., a medical products maker.

_ Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health care ethicist, special White House adviser on health care and brother to Rahm Emanuel, met in late March with lobbyists and executives from the pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. Inc. The meeting included the company's chief executive, Richard Clark, and a vice president, Richard Pasternak, as well as in-house lobbyist Jane Horvath. Also attending was Jonathan Hoganson, a lobbyist at an outside firm who represents Merck as well as PhRMA, the drug industry's major trade association, and several other of its large members including AstraZeneca and Abbott Labs.

_ Rahm Emanuel had an early July meeting with two labor leaders, John Sweeney, then the president of the AFL-CIO, and Gerald McEntee of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and their top lobbyists, Bill Samuel and Chuck Loveless. Sweeney and the AFL-CIO's Samuel also had a visit with Emanuel in March.

The logs show a late-July meeting between Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of Obama's Office of Health Reform, and lobbyists from the Business Roundtable, the association representing chief executives of major U.S. firms. The group has spent $9.3 million lobbying over the past two years and is keenly interested in the outcome of the health overhaul debate. Among the attendees were the group's top lobbyist, John Castellani, and Antonio Perez, the CEO of Eastman Kodak Company.

White House officials met repeatedly with the American Medical Association, which has pushed hard — over the objections of some physicians — for the health overhaul and a corresponding pay hike for doctors. Ezekiel Emanuel included Dr. J. James Rohack, the AMA's president, in a large meeting in March. DeParle met in August with the association's top lobbyist, Richard Deem. That same day, she also huddled with Richard Trachtman, who lobbies for the American College of Physician Services Inc., which represents internists.

Ezekiel Emanuel met in March with executives and lobbyists from Trinity Health, a Michigan-based company that bills itself as the country's fourth-largest Catholic health system. Listed as attending the meeting were Joseph Swedish, the company's chief executive, and Paul Conlon, another top executive, as well as in-house lobbyists and two from the Washington firm Alston & Bird LLP. The lobbying firm is professional home to several former senior health officials in Congress and past administrations, as well as former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle, who served as majority leader and was Obama's original pick as health and human services secretary.

Representatives of the seniors lobby AARP also met repeatedly with White House officials, the records show. Obama's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett met in June with Barry Rand, the group's chief executive, and two of his top lobbyists, John Rother and Nancy LeaMond. Rother and LeaMond were back the following month with a third lobbyist, David Sloane, to meet with Orszag.

AARP in early November endorsed the House Democratic health care bill, giving the legislation a major boost.

The broader White House disclosure Wednesday — issued in response to specific requests — included just over 2,000 visits from the time of Obama's inauguration through August. The White House plans in December to start posting all White House visitor records from mid-September onward, and to do so periodically.

They show the expected, eclectic parade of administration officials, economists, consultants, dignitaries and guests to special functions. Oprah Winfrey's two visits are logged. Reflecting the tenor of the times, the most frequent visitor was Lee Sachs, the Treasury Department's point man on the financial crisis, who came to the White House more than 60 times.


HAve to give him credit for this... don't you?



5,4,3,2,1,...Obama haters find reason to disregard and proceed to act outraged...

[Winehole23]

HAve to give him credit for this... don't you?For what? Letting lobbyists stomp a mudhole in reform?

[George Gervin's Afro]

For what? Letting lobbyists stomp a mudhole in reform?

credit for at least letting people know who had input in crafting the legislation. I am not naive to know that industry does affect the way laws are crafted. How can anyone put together comprehensive reform without allowing those industries to be directly affected the oportunity to offer input? If my plan is to change the way things are done wouldn't it be prudent to at least involve the players who perform those services? Don't misinterpret my understanding of this Washingon process as supporting it. At this point I have more much trust in Obama then I do the insurance industry.

[EmptyMan]

REALLY interested to see what BamBam will run on in 2012.


At this point I have more much trust in Obama then I do the insurance industry.lol, from my experience insurance keeps their end of The Deal. I don't even think about ever expecting to receive my rightful social security earnings later down the road.

[George Gervin's Afro]

REALLY interested to see what BamBam will run on in 2012.

lol, from my experience insurance keeps their end of The Deal. I don't even think about ever expecting to receive my rightful social security earnings later down the road.

well there are 299,999,999 people who don't have your experience with the inusrance industry.

[spursncowboys]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/image001.png

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/image001.png



presented to you by the weekly standard..:lmao


I'd be impressed if you provided something other than a right wing blog or columnist to support your position... just once..

let me go get the DnC propoganda to bolster my position!:lmao

[spursncowboys]

presented to you by the weekly standard..:lmao


I'd be impressed if you provided something other than a right wing blog or columnist to support your position... just once..

let me go get the DnC propoganda to bolster my position!:lmao

refute their facts.

[George Gervin's Afro]

refute their facts.

what facts? you posted a graph from a biased right wing source. i have a feeling you don't know what the facts are...

[George Gervin's Afro]

still waiting to see the facts...

[George Gervin's Afro]

:sleep

[George Gervin's Afro]

still waiting for the facts to refute

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's been almost 24 hours and I'm still waiting for the facts to refute..hey dummy ,sorry I meant sprusncowboys..where are the facts you want me to refute?

Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...

[coyotes_geek]

what facts? you posted a graph from a biased right wing source. i have a feeling you don't know what the facts are...

Apparantly you don't either. Otherwise you'd be refuting the data instead of attacking the source. Prove that it's wrong if you're so sure it is. I eagerly await your supporting data.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Apparantly you don't either. Otherwise you'd be refuting the data instead of attacking the source. Prove that it's wrong if you're so sure it is. I eagerly await your supporting data.

what data am i refuting? he provided a graph.

[spursncowboys]

what data am i refuting? he provided a graph.

This is why I didn't respond to you. Refute the graph. explain why they are lieing, if they are. Stop trolling. 7 out of 9 of your posts do nothing but troll or bump this thread. I have read this estimate in many different sources and believe it to be true. You say it isn't, so show why.

[spursncowboys]

Also according to Gallup, more Americans (49%) would advise their member to vote against Obamacare, then would advocate a vote in favor of the bill (44%).

[coyotes_geek]

what data am i refuting? he provided a graph.

The data on the graph. You do know what graphs are used for, right? If you think the data on that graph is bogus, then back it up.

[coyotes_geek]

Bueller?

[Winehole23]

The data on the graph. You do know what graphs are used for, right? If you think the data on that graph is bogus, then back it up.Posters like GGA, WC and SnC seem to think they are allowed to turn information aside peremptorily because they perceive the source as having an ideological axe to grind. What they don't get is that biased sources have as much to gain as anyone -- and possibly more -- by relying on good information. That very biased sources should do so more than occasionally shouldn't be so surprising.

Pointing out ideological bias doesn't refute anything; it's just a dog whistle for people who already agree. It's an excuse to avoid evaluating the claims, and thus is laziness and a cop out.

[spursncowboys]

Posters like GGA, WC and SnC seem to think they are allowed to turn information aside peremptorily because they perceive the source as having an ideological axe to grind. What they don't get is that biased sources have as much to gain as anyone -- and possibly more -- by relying on good information. That very biased sources should do so more than occasionally shouldn't be so surprising.

Pointing out ideological bias doesn't refute anything; it's just a dog whistle for people who already agree. It's an excuse to avoid evaluating the claims, and thus is laziness and a cop out.

There you go again. I have said over and over to know your source. I didn't ever write about not believing it but to make sure it is true. Don't attack my credibility to help out your on-line buddies. Not realizing Karl Marx's views while reading his writings would be naive not beneficial.

[Winehole23]

There you go again. I have said over and over to know your source. I didn't ever write about not believing it but to make sure it is true. Don't attack my credibility to help out your on-line buddies. Not realizing Karl Marx's views while reading his writings would be naive not beneficial.I was attacking GGA in this thread, but you're a deserving target too. You're very quick to dismiss whatever you don't agree with, SnC.

[Winehole23]

Don't attack my credibility to help out your on-line buddies.I was only pointing out one of the ways you undermine your own credibility here -- information that could be directly helpful to you, IMO.

[spursncowboys]

I was attacking GGA in this thread, but you're a deserving target too. You're very quick to dismiss whatever you don't agree with, SnC.

No, you included me in with this.

I would like to see where I dismiss whatever I don't agree with. Any examples?

[Winehole23]

I didn't ever write about not believing it but to make sure it is true. Bullshit. You're a well-poisoner SnC, one of the biggest on this board.

[Winehole23]

No, you included me in with this.

I would like to see where I dismiss whatever I don't agree with. Any examples?Tell you what, I'll just call attention to it whenever I see it happen from now on.

I'm not making it up. If you really doubt that you do this, I just lost a little more respect for you, but will find the examples when I have time, maybe later on when I have a little more time to waste.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The data on the graph. You do know what graphs are used for, right? If you think the data on that graph is bogus, then back it up.

so i take the graph's word for it. I assume the graph didn't make itself up. I can also assume that there were figures and data on how it was put together. Is that to much to ask for? or do I take a biased source at it's word? Would you take a graph at face value if Moveon.org put it out?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Posters like GGA, WC and SnC seem to think they are allowed to turn information aside peremptorily because they perceive the source as having an ideological axe to grind. What they don't get is that biased sources have as much to gain as anyone -- and possibly more -- by relying on good information. That very biased sources should do so more than occasionally shouldn't be so surprising.

Pointing out ideological bias doesn't refute anything; it's just a dog whistle for people who already agree. It's an excuse to avoid evaluating the claims, and thus is laziness and a cop out.

you have no idea what your talking about so I suggest you either educate yourself or shut up and stop looking stupid.

[antimvp]

Huckabee is done.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I was attacking GGA in this thread, but you're a deserving target too. You're very quick to dismiss whatever you don't agree with, SnC.

You don't want to attack me. I guess you can agree with the graph without any documentation to back it up. right? if you don't need any documentation other than a picture then you are a weak minded person whi is easliy convinced. my point to the idiot was that he should be able to back up a stupid graph. I asked him for it and he could not provide ANYTHING to back it up..you are an idiot as well.

[Winehole23]

You don't want to attack me. I guess you can agree with the graph without any documentation to back it up. right? Before you were content to cite the source dismissively. This is the first mention you make of documentation. (I take you've confirmed for yourself that there isn't any; my own cursory search yielded Sen. Judd Gregg's post hoc fact sheet and not much else.)


if you don't need any documentation other than a picture then you are a weak minded person whi is easliy convinced. my point to the idiot was that he should be able to back up a stupid graph. I asked him for it and he could not provide ANYTHING to back it up.In fairness, you did not provide anything to refute it.


you are an idiot as wellBecause you acted like an arrogant bully, and I pointed it out? Easy, internet tough guy. :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is why I didn't respond to you. Refute the graph. explain why they are lieing, if they are. Stop trolling. 7 out of 9 of your posts do nothing but troll or bump this thread. I have read this estimate in many different sources and believe it to be true. You say it isn't, so show why.

So I should take the RNC staffers at their word? Can you give me one source to verify the figures?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Before you were content to cite the source dismissively. This is the first mention you make of documentation. (I take you've confirmed for yourself that there isn't any; my own cursory search yielded Sen. Judd Gregg's post hoc fact sheet and not much else.)

In fairness, you did not provide anything to refute it.

Because you acted like an arrogant bully, and I pointed it out? Easy, internet tough guy. :lol

I asked for the facts and he has yet to provide one piece of documentation to back up the graph. Are you telling me that you would trust a graph from a biased source as accurate without anything to verify it?

[coyotes_geek]

so i take the graph's word for it. I assume the graph didn't make itself up. I can also assume that there were figures and data on how it was put together. Is that to much to ask for? or do I take a biased source at it's word? Would you take a graph at face value if Moveon.org put it out?

You don't have to assume anything. If you don't want to take the graph's word for it then don't. Go look up the data for yourself. If you don't want people to believe what's on that graph then go find something that disproves it and post it here. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so only serves to suggest that the one thing that is too much to ask for is asking you to back up your own statements. So far the only thing that you've proven is that whoever made that graph was willing to put more effort into researching the subject than you are.


You don't want to attack me. I guess you can agree with the graph without any documentation to back it up. right? if you don't need any documentation other than a picture then you are a weak minded person whi is easliy convinced. my point to the idiot was that he should be able to back up a stupid graph. I asked him for it and he could not provide ANYTHING to back it up..you are an idiot as well.

:rollin

.......says the hypocrite who insists on disagreeing with the graph without any documentation to back you up. You fool.

[Winehole23]

CBO does not provide cost estimates for more than ten years out; what issue do you take with the Republican SBC estimates?More especially so since they are based on CBO estimates and assumptions.


The Senate Republicans' chart demonstrates that the total for all of these costs -- based on CBO projections for the bill's true first 10 years -- is $2.5 trillion. And costs would only skyrocket from there, as the chart's trajectory suggests. In the 5 years to follow (2024-28), spending on "expansions in insurance coverage" alone would be $1.7 trillion, making the bill's total costs in its real first 15 years well over $4 trillion -- based on CBO projections.http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/chart_total_10year_cost_of_rei.asp

[George Gervin's Afro]

You don't have to assume anything. If you don't want to take the graph's word for it then don't. Go look up the data for yourself. If you don't want people to believe what's on that graph then go find something that disproves it and post it here. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so only serves to suggest that the one thing that is too much to ask for is asking you to back up your own statements. So far the only thing that you've proven is that whoever made that graph was willing to put more effort into researching the subject than you are.



:rollin

.......says the hypocrite who insists on disagreeing with the graph without any documentation to back you up. You fool.


so you don't know if the graph is correct either?

:lmao

And I'm the fool..

[coyotes_geek]

so you don't know if the graph is correct either?

:lmao

And I'm the fool..

We're still waiting on you to back up your claim. Put up or shut up you fool.

[Winehole23]

The underlying critique has a sliver of merit to it. Democrats did indeed diminish the cost over the first 10 years (2010-2019) by delaying the tax-and-benefit provisions for a until 2014, long after the bill becomes law. They felt as if they needed to push some key reforms down the road to keep the bill's CBO score from exceeding Obama's $900 billion top line. Hence Gregg's caveat "when fully implemented." But even if you were to start the clock in 2014, and stop it in 2024, the number $2.5 trillion seems to have been made up entirely out of whole cloth.http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/gop-meme-senate-health-care-bill-actually-costs-25-trillion.php

[George Gervin's Afro]

Where does this number--$2.5 trillion--come from? In this USA Today counterpoint, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), cites this article in The Hill. But the article in question simply quotes Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who seems to pull the number out of thin air. "When fully implemented, it will cost $2.5 trillion," McConnell said.

And where did McConnell get this idea?

A bit of digging suggests the number originated in a press release from Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH), written the morning after the CBO unveiled its analysis. It reads "American taxpayers are about to see an unprecedented expansion of the federal government that will cost a staggering $2.5 trillion when fully implemented."

The underlying critique has a sliver of merit to it. Democrats did indeed diminish the cost over the first 10 years (2010-2019) by delaying the tax-and-benefit provisions for a until 2014, long after the bill becomes law. They felt as if they needed to push some key reforms down the road to keep the bill's CBO score from exceeding Obama's $900 billion top line. Hence Gregg's caveat "when fully implemented." But even if you were to start the clock in 2014, and stop it in 2024, the number $2.5 trillion seems to have been made up entirely out of whole cloth.

And, of course, this critique elides the fact that, whatever the federal responsibility for health care becomes as a result of this bill, the total package is projected to dramatically reduce the deficit in both the near and long terms.

you guys are truly idiots..

:lmao

[Winehole23]

I just did your homework for you, asshole. You think no one noticed?

[Winehole23]

Also, if you think that is an authoritative refutation, your own standards of veracity must be pretty weak.

[Winehole23]

Tell me, GGA, since this seems to be your hobby horse, what is the *reliable* projection of costs beyond 2019?

[coyotes_geek]

you guys are truly idiots..

:lmao

I see you're sticking with the personal insult card as opposed to actually lifiting a finger to find something in the way of supporting documnetation. Threads that actually require conversation above a mud-slinging level keep going over your head. I think you'd be better off just sticking to the Sarah Palin threads.

[Winehole23]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Sentate%20Bill%20Cost%20Chart.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

Tell me, GGA, since this seems to be your hobby horse, what is the *reliable* projection of costs beyond 2019?

I don't know or care at this point. So you can rest easy I will not be posting a naked graph and then ask everyone else to prove it wrong. Again idiot all I asked from the very beginining is what facts did he want me to disapprove. From what I know about projections is that they are long term guesses based on historical trends. Of course throw in the fact that the variables will always be changing so to claim that projections are facts is not correct. So now you are asking me for something that doesn't exists.. The CBO has provided documentation that projections are based on assumptions and trends..

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see you're sticking with the personal insult card as opposed to actually lifiting a finger to find something in the way of supporting documnetation. Threads that actually require conversation above a mud-slinging level keep going over your head. I think you'd be better off just sticking to the Sarah Palin threads.

and your better off defending fact-less graphs... nice job! I am not the one making false claims so you need to ask the person who posted the unverifiable pictures as facts..

[George Gervin's Afro]

I just did your homework for you, asshole. You think no one noticed?

I'm still waiting for the documentation on the original graph? Can you provide that?

Oh and thanks for proving me right...

[johnsmith]

This thread is fucking priceless.

GGA, I've told you time and time again, you aren't good at your schtick......leave the witty side comments to Chump and Clambake, at least they look shit up from time to time.

[Winehole23]

I don't know or care at this point.What a cop out.


So you can rest easy I will not be posting a naked graph and then ask everyone else to prove it wrong.Perhaps it is naked because it is based on the CBO's own numbers and assumptions.


The CBO has provided documentation that projections are based on assumptions and trends..The Republican SBC projections are based on the same assumptions and trends, only extended a few years out.

Granting that medium and long term projections are more art than science, what exactly is your objection to some Republicans taking the CBO's own methodology and assumptions extending the analysis out a few years?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What a cop out.

Perhaps it is naked because it is based on the CBO's own numbers and assumptions.

The Republican SBC projections are based on the same assumptions and trends, only extended a few years out.

Granting that medium and long term projections are more art than science, what exactly is your objection to some Republicans taking the CBO's own methodology and assumptions extending the analysis out a few years?

not explaining that the projections are just that. long term guesses..

[George Gervin's Afro]

This thread is fucking priceless.

GGA, I've told you time and time again, you aren't good at your schtick......leave the witty side comments to Chump and Clambake, at least they look shit up from time to time.

hey john I am who I am... I don't need to look shit up when I don't make up a claim. Is it to much to ask for documentation to back up your claim?

[coyotes_geek]

and your better off defending fact-less graphs... nice job! I am not the one making false claims so you need to ask the person who posted the unverifiable pictures as facts..

If it's a false claim you should have no trouble disputing it. Yet for some reason you continuously insist on avoiding any attempt to do so.

[coyotes_geek]

hey john I am who I am... I don't need to look shit up when I don't make up a claim. Is it to much to ask for documentation to back up your claim?

You made the claim that the graph presents false information. That's a claim you still have yet to prove. And you've made it abundantely clear that asking you to back up your own claim is way too much to ask.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You made the claim that the graph presents false information. That's a claim you still have yet to prove. And you've made it abundantely clear that asking you to back up your own claim is way too much to ask.

I never stated it was false.. nice try. Again, I asked for the 'facts' from the idiot who posted the graph. he told me to refute the 'facts' (graph) and I asked him more than once to lay out these so called facts. he never did.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If it's a false claim you should have no trouble disputing it. Yet for some reason you continuously insist on avoiding any attempt to do so.

The only person who is attempting to duck the issue is the one who posted the graph to begin with. Go back and re read the post. Where are the facts to back up the graph?

[spursncowboys]

The only person who is attempting to duck the issue is the one who posted the graph to begin with. Go back and re read the post. Where are the facts to back up the graph?

I'm not attempting to duck them. I'm just not going to argue with you. You are an idiot. There is no discussion with you. The facts are that the CBO came up with it, and not the RNC. You are going back to ignore.

[coyotes_geek]

I never stated it was false.. nice try. Again, I asked for the 'facts' from the idiot who posted the graph. he told me to refute the 'facts' (graph) and I asked him more than once to lay out these so called facts. he never did.


The only person who is attempting to duck the issue is the one who posted the graph to begin with. Go back and re read the post. Where are the facts to back up the graph?

The graph speaks for itself. This "show me the so-called facts" game you're playing is nothing more than an attempt by you to weasel out of having to admit that you are unable to produce any information that could be used to discredit it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The graph speaks for itself. This "show me the so-called facts" game you're playing is nothing more than an attempt by you to weasel out of having to admit that you are unable to produce any information that could be used to discredit it.

so you still can't provide anything to support the graph either? have you noticed the person who actually posted it has given up trying to find anything to back it up?


I tell you what let's simplify this for you.

If you have a statement that you are going to pass along as fact, shouldn't the party on the receiving end be allowed to view the supporting documentation to verify if it is a fact?

very simple question.

Or are we to go along with your current logic in that all you need to do is make a statement without documentation to back it up and then require someone else to disprove it. The best party of your thinking is that the receiving party must provide documentation to refute your original statement. The same one you don't have any documentation for to begin with..

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm not attempting to duck them. I'm just not going to argue with you. You are an idiot. There is no discussion with you. The facts are that the CBO came up with it, and not the RNC. You are going back to ignore.

I don't blame you for ducking it.

[johnsmith]

:lmao

[johnsmith]

And for the record, I have no documents to back up the FACT that I'm laughing at GGA and not with him.

[George Gervin's Afro]

And for the record, I have no documents to back up the FACT that I'm laughing at GGA and not with him.

Logic isn't your strong suit so we give you a pass.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-omeEbV4z-o/ScuslhHP4MI/AAAAAAAACX0/1xXQgkZtrTQ/s400/argue-conservatives.jpg

Well I guess it's official. I have a graph!

:lmao

[Winehole23]

Well I guess it's official. I have a graph!Being an anti-anti-communist isn't the same as being pro-communist.

Similarly, attacking your essentially fallacious (ad hominem, association fallacy) and uninformative attack on SnC doesn't constitute a defense of what he posted.

What he posted wasn't very strong, admittedly. But your own flames were at least as feeble. This is what I meant to draw attention to. Your subsequent remarks did very little to shore up the weak basis of your attack, and the silly strawman you're so proud of (I see you're posting it in other threads now) won't throw very many people off.

[Winehole23]

SnC's graph was at least based on CBO numbers and assumptions. Yours is based on pure partisan spite.

Nice work, GGA. :tu

[George Gervin's Afro]

SnC's graph was at least based on CBO numbers and assumptions. Yours is based on pure partisan spite.

Nice work, GGA. :tu

nah just proving a point. don't worry i won't lose any sleep over hurting your wittle feelings.

[Winehole23]

Your weak bs didn't hurt me.

[coyotes_geek]

so you still can't provide anything to support the graph either? have you noticed the person who actually posted it has given up trying to find anything to back it up?

On four separate occasions winehole tried to explain to you where the numbers came from. See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting documentation.


I tell you what let's simplify this for you.

If you have a statement that you are going to pass along as fact, shouldn't the party on the receiving end be allowed to view the supporting documentation to verify if it is a fact?

See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting documentation.


very simple question.

Or are we to go along with your current logic in that all you need to do is make a statement without documentation to back it up and then require someone else to disprove it. The best party of your thinking is that the receiving party must provide documentation to refute your original statement. The same one you don't have any documentation for to begin with..

See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting documentation.

There you go. It's all spelled out for you. Refute at your leisure. But I'm pretty sure we both already know that you're not going to bother.

[George Gervin's Afro]

On four separate occasions winehole tried to explain to you where the numbers came from. See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting documentation.



See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting documentation.



See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting documentation.

There you go. It's all spelled out for you. Refute at your leisure. But I'm pretty sure we both already know that you're not going to bother.

you bore me

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your weak bs didn't hurt me.

:sleep

[coyotes_geek]

you bore me

:lol

Predictable.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lol

Predictable.

it's a matter of simple logic

[Winehole23]

it's a matter of simple logicGreat. Let's have the syllogism.

[coyotes_geek]

it's a matter of simple logic

Oh, absolutely. Predicting how you'll behave is most definitely a matter of simple logic.

[Winehole23]

ObamaCare’s Cost Could Top $6 Trillion (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/obamacares-cost-could-top-6-trillion/)

Posted by Michael F. Cannon (http://www.cato.org/people/michael-cannon)

(http://www.cato.org/people/michael-cannon)
Congressional Democrats are using several budget gimmicks (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10439) to disguise the cost of their health care overhaul, claiming the House and Senate bills would cost only (!) about $1 trillion over 10 years. Now that critics have begun to correct (http://bit.ly/6pkvBY) for those budget gimmicks, supporters of ObamaCare are firing back.


One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019). Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates (http://budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/2009-11-21Floor.pdf), “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”


Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance (http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp114.pdf). When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).


Here’s where things get really ugly. TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls (http://bit.ly/5p5gxQ) “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.” Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number.


When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion. That’s not a precise estimate. It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.
Beutler and other supporters of ObamaCare can react to this news in two ways. They can continue to deny the enormous cost of the legislation they support. Or they can question how President Obama’s health plan came to be so blessedly expensive, and how (and by whom) they were duped into thinking it wasn’t.


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/obamacares-cost-could-top-6-trillion/

[johnsmith]

I'm never going to let this thread die.

GGA has become a parody of himself now.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm never going to let this thread die.

GGA has become a parody of himself now.

Yeah. I have the unmitagted gall to ask for documentation to back up a picture.... I know you don't need documentation you just make stuff up.

[coyotes_geek]

Yeah. I have the unmitagted gall to ask for documentation to back up a picture.... I know you don't need documentation you just make stuff up.

See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting documentation.

[George Gervin's Afro]

See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting documentation.

I forgot to ask you, did you ever find where I said it was a false claim? I know you qucikly backtracked on that one. I'll wait for the response..if there isn't then I guess it's safe to assume that you mkae stuff up.

[coyotes_geek]

I forgot to ask you, did you ever find where I said it was a false claim? I know you qucikly backtracked on that one. I'll wait for the response..if there isn't then I guess it's safe to assume that you mkae stuff up.

Care to offer any insight as to who/what you were referring to here?


and your better off defending fact-less graphs... nice job! I am not the one making false claims so you need to ask the person who posted the unverifiable pictures as facts..

Sure looks to me like you're suggesting that the "fact-less" graph is making false claims. But if not, here's your chance to set the record straight.

Also, you can see posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for those facts you keep asking for.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Care to offer any insight as to who/what you were referring to here?



Sure looks to me like you're suggesting that the "fact-less" graph is making false claims. But if not, here's your chance to set the record straight.

Also, you can see posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for those facts you keep asking for.

I already answered the question you keep asking me. I answered the sources issue a while back.. now go run back and find it boy... I'll have a biscuit ready for you when you get back!

Do I need to go nack a reference your original post about the false claim? I can if you'd like?

[coyotes_geek]

I already answered the question you keep asking me. I answered the sources issue a while back.. now go run back and find it boy... I'll have a biscuit ready for you when you get back!

Do I need to go nack a reference your original post about the false claim? I can if you'd like?

Who were you referring to when you clearly stated "i'm not the one making false claims?"

Why won't you refute any of the data from posts 35, 38, 44 and 49?

[Winehole23]

Bottom line, the advertised ten year cost of HCR relies on the gimmick of phasing in the benefits in year five of the program. When one asks the question which ten year estimate gives a truer picture of the magnitude of the cost, there is no contest -- under 900 billion is an artificially low, politically driven figure. Even the TPM blurb GGA cited triumphantly as "proof" he is right admits as much.

[coyotes_geek]

Bottom line, the advertised ten year cost of HCR relies on the gimmick of phasing in the benefits in year five of the program. When one asks the question which ten year estimate gives a truer picture of the magnitude of the cost, there is no contest -- under 900 billion is an artificially low, politically driven figure. Even the TPM blurb GGA cited triumphantly as "proof" he is right admits as much.

Exactly. The program doesn't go away in 10 years. It just keeps getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Then one day down the road we end up with one more boondoggle like social security and medicare have become. The fact that the big bucks on the new health care boondoggle start kicking in around the same time that medicare says "we're broke" and social security tells the treasury "we need that money you borrowed from us back" should be something that people get deeply concerned over. The fact that no one in the current administration is even bothering to acknowledge that there is anything to be concerned about is troubling.

[TeyshaBlue]

I forgot to ask you, did you ever find where I said it was a false claim? I know you qucikly backtracked on that one. I'll wait for the response..if there isn't then I guess it's safe to assume that you mkae stuff up.


presented to you by the weekly standard..


I'd be impressed if you provided something other than a right wing blog or columnist to support your position... just once..

let me go get the DnC propoganda to bolster my position!
Back in the loving embrace of your favorite logical fallacy, I see.

I'm guessing here, but the above quote doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the RNC chart...the sentence where you refer to DNC propoganda as something to bolster a position is an obvious ploy to paint the RNC graph as anything but true. It looks like your response is that the RNC graph is not true, or propoganda. Which is it?

[Winehole23]

The fact that the big bucks on the new health care boondoggle start kicking in around the same time that medicare says "we're broke" and social security tells the treasury "we need that money you borrowed from us back" should be something that people get deeply concerned over. The fact that no one in the current administration is even bothering to acknowledge that there is anything to be concerned about is troubling.I read a pretty good article in the Atlantic yesterday about how conservatives and liberals talk past each other on the deficit.

Basically, libs focus on cyclical deficits and minimize structural deficits, whereas conservatives tend to treat all deficits as if they were structural (except when they are in power).

I agree with McArdle that the deficit spending directly related to the economic downturn isn't too serious a problem, long term, even though I disagree about its efficacy.

OTOH the problem of structural deficits, when twinned with our debt load and unfunded social entitlements, is as serious as the grave. While it seems to be true -- like you said -- that very few establishment Democrats are willing to acknowledge it publicly, I suppose the lip service given to the newly proposed commission to recommend tax increases and program cuts is such an acknowledgment. We'll see. The proof isn't in the pudding, but in the eating.

link (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/structural_versus_cyclical_def.php)