OMG !!! Thin-Skinned White House Takes On NY Times Over Obamacare Article

The Hill/The Lid ^ | 11/10/09 | The Lid

[Shellybenoit]

OOPs, it looks as if the NY Times is going to get the "Fox News" treatment. Yes THAT NY Times "the bible of liberalism." Yesterday the "Old Grey Lady" ran a story about how some democrats are concerned that Obamacare will not bring down the costs of healthcare and may bankrupt the economy:

WASHINGTON — As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama’s promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.

Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

But health economists say it is impossible to know whether the bills, including one passed by the House on Saturday night, would meet that goal, and many are skeptical that they even come close.

Of Course the Thin-Skinned White House is now going after the NY Times. It doesn't even matter that the paper was reporting other people's opinion not presenting their own. The Obama government doesn't like dissent.

[Infidel Heather]

Cannot wait till the grownups take charge again. Will not be too soon!

[Lorianne]

There vill be no dissent.

[massgopguy]

Think the Clintons trashed the White House? Wait until ACORN gets through with it.

[chiefqc]

It's the chosen one who is behind this, the act of questioning ANYTHING he does, says or wants is cause for an all out assault. What a POS.

[230FMJ]

Who’da thunk it? The flagship of the liberal media guilty of “Thought Crime”!

[DManA]

Memo:
To: Winston Smith
Re: Next thing to work on.
Winnee, when you are done "fixing" that article on increasing the chocolate ration, see what you can do about that awful health care cost prediction. It was doubleplusungood Thkx. See you at the minute of hate.

[Achilles Heel]

What will they do now? Maybe the loss of dollars means a few articles here and there dissing ZERO. If the WH fears losing the media, that means they are aware of the coming election debacle.

[Yo-Yo]

Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

Let's do that math. $2 trillion over the next 10 years is $200 billion per year.

If 1.5% of something equals $200 billion, then that something has to be $13.333 trillion.

But the US only spends $2.5 trillion per year on health care.

Once again, Zero just doesn't add up.

[Joe Boucher]

When Clinton & his filth left the peoples home it had been used like a bordello, a donation atm and like their personal den of sin.
G.W. Bush treated the White Hoouse like the shrine it is and I can not even imagine how it is now, a cross between a Jive ass chicago punks place, a perpetual basketball hoops court and a place for mrs.obamma lamma ding dong and her spoiled brats.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Rahm Emmanuel is the same nowt that he is Obama’s handler as he was when he was assigned to handle Clinton. He has always been thin skinned and is as juvenile with Obama as he was with Clinton. Still thoroughly dangerous, however.

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

Hey if Dede Scuzza-Fatso can claim a new verb tying her name (and I don't know or care how its really spelled) to "Moderate" (sure Dede!)Republicans being attacked then I think its high time that we start using the same principle toward the Kremlin and His Fascist Majesty when he or his thug minions attack any media: I suggest that they be considered having been "FOXED"

Of course I can think of a derivation or 2 with a similar sounding verb which really connotes how they are being treated and they also start with "F" such as "FOKED?" lol

[DrC]

“But the US only spends $2.5 trillion per year on health care.”

Actually, their calculations are correct IF Obama can achieve the alleged savings. Without reform, health spending goes up 4.8% a year (from 8160 per person to 13,100 per person over 10 years). See http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/business/econwatch/entry5008720.shtml

So if you apply 4.8% annual growth to $2.5 trillion, we’d end up spending a cumulative total of $32.6 trillion during that 10 years. When you drop the assumed growth rate to 3.3% a year, you get $30 trillion. Your calculation ignores the cumulative effect of the savings (that is, the savings is much bigger than just applying 1.5% to $32.6 trillion because by year 10, the savings are not just 1.5% of the base spending amount but also the fact that the base spending amount will be much lower due to small but steady savings in the 9 previous years).

It also ignores the fact that 10 years from now, we’ll be spending $4 trillion, not $2.5 trillion. In that year alone, the savings from trimming the growth rate by 1.5% will be $500 billion, i.e. one quarter of the savings. In year 1, as your figures imply, the savings are only $40 billion. Thus, over 10 years, the savings average $200 billion, but that doesn’t mean it actually occurs in $200b per year increments.

[Yo-Yo]

I see your point.

Starting with $2.5 trillion, increasing 4.8% per year for ten years, total spending is $31.153 trillion.

Starting with $2.5 trillion, increasing 3.3% per year (a 1.5 point drop in the growth rate) for ten years, total spending is $29.059 trillion, a savings of $2.1 trillion over the ten years.

Thanks.