Fact check: Less than meets eye in Obama speech
Kind of surprised I'm first to get this one:
For sake of simplicity, we'll break it into sections. First up, Healthcare:http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-les...-politics.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama promised to clear red tape away from highway projects that actually are stalled because there's no money for them, not because rules are in the way. He's ordering a higher minimum wage for a sliver of the workforce, which affects no one now and not many later.
Going it alone — without Congress making a law — just doesn't go as far as Obama made it sound at times Tuesday night in his State of the Union speech.
And when he talked about his health care law — a source of Obama misstatements in the past — he hit another fact bump.
A look at some of the facts and political circumstances behind his claims, along with a glance at the Republican response:
Oh yeah, awesome, so the rates are actually going up instead of down, they made cuts to the service providers, and did nothing to shore up Medicare, just kick the can down the road again.OBAMA: "Because of this (health care) law, no American can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a preexisting condition like asthma, back pain or cancer. No woman can ever be charged more just because she's a woman. And we did all this while adding years to Medicare's finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat, and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors."
THE FACTS: Some Medicare premiums have gone up, not stayed flat.
As Obama said, insurers can no longer turn people down because of medical problems, and they can't charge higher premiums to women because of their sex. The law also lowered costs for seniors with high prescription drug bills. But Medicare's monthly premium for outpatient care has gone up in recent years.
Although the basic premium remained the same this year at $104.90, it increased by $5 a month in 2013, up from $99.90 in 2012. Obama's health care law also raised Medicare premiums for upper-income beneficiaries, and both the president and Republicans have proposed to expand that.
Finally, the degree to which the health care law improved Medicare finances is hotly debated. On paper, the program's giant trust fund for inpatient care gained more than a decade of solvency because of cuts to service providers required under the health law. But in practice those savings cannot simultaneously be used to expand coverage for the uninsured and shore up Medicare.
Next up, economics:
So basically, no real changes here from the 1970s. Way to spend 5 years.OBAMA: "Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled."
THE FACTS: The most recent evidence suggests that mobility hasn't worsened. A team of economists led by Harvard's Raj Chetty released a study last week that found the United States isn't any less socially mobile than it was in the 1970s. Looking at children born between 1971 and 1993, the economists found that the odds of a child born in the poorest 20 percent of families making it into the top 20 percent hasn't changed.
"We find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s," the authors said.
Still, other research has found that the United States isn't as mobile a society as most Americans would like to believe. In a study of 22 countries, economist Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa found that the United States ranked 15th in social mobility. Only Italy and Britain among wealthy countries ranked lower. By some measures, children in the United States are as likely to inherit their parents' economic status as their height.
Yeah, it pretty much keeps up like this on all points, with either incorrect, or manipulated findings through out. What I find really funny, though, is his going on about Executive Orders to expedite infrastructure projects that aren't actually having expediting problems. Seriously, it's not the bureaucracy, it's the money not being there to do those things. He could send an order an hour til Christmas, and it wouldn't speed the process up any since they can't get started.
His increase to the minimum wage order is specious at best, and besides which, wouldn't even take effect until next year, and wouldn't do anything for contract workers currently working below the line, which is only a few. See, apparently, the hike only refers to new federal contracts, not existing ones, and since most federal contracts pay more than the $10.10/hr that he's promising, it really doesn't effect many people to begin with, and then that cycles down as it goes along.
Yeah, so basically, he didn't really promise anything, didn't accomplish much this past year, but he's gonna look like he's workin' this year!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by DragonStryk72
