# 10 Top Reasons You Owe The Nation



## PoliticalChic (Mar 24, 2011)

Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
Here is the outline.

"These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.

1.  Explodes the Budget Deficit

2.  Kills Jobs

3.  Lose Your Own Doctor and Health Plan

4.  States Budget Deficits Grow to Possible Bankruptcy

5.  Higher Insurance Premiums:

6.  Crushes Businesses

7.  Fewer Americans Have Access to Health Insurance

8.  Senior Citizens Lose Medicare Coverage:

9.  Overburdens Small Business

10.  Tax Hikes
Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After One Year - HUMAN EVENTS

OK, one more opportunity to you Lefties to apologize...
...and genuflecting would be nice.


Waiting.


----------



## del (Mar 24, 2011)

blow me.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 24, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> Here is the outline.
> 
> "These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
> ...



It's a Dream Deal innit?


----------



## editec (Mar 24, 2011)

The abortion that is Obama's plan is hardly anything the "left" was supporting, Lad.

What they wanted was single player HC.

Wake up and smell the conspiracy, lad.


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 24, 2011)

It strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact. Our national conscience - and should I say brain - is a missing item today, not only because of the lack of interest in learning the facts, but also in the FACT that nonsense such as this proof-less crap is posted and considered valid.  It is believed!  How dumb are we as a nation? The same arguments were and are made about Social Security and Medicare by the same ideological and corporate tools, but with just a small bit of tweaking both would be fine. What a nation full of whiners and losers we have today. Rather sad that the nation of 'can do' is now the nation of 'can't do' and constant whining.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 24, 2011)

You mean ObamaCare doesn't really reduce the deficit and provide as much Free Health Care as we all WANT?

Who knew?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 24, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> Here is the outline.
> 
> "These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
> ...



Every item on that list is either blatantly incorrect or a severe distortion of reality. How sad that people actually believe crap like this rather then do their own research.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 24, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> ...



Can't wait to see the rebuttal you produce when you "do their own research."

Or....are you just a compendium of cliches, and the real cause of global warming....


Waiting.


----------



## dreamaccount200 (Mar 24, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> Here is the outline.
> 
> "These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
> ...


Not one of these claims are true. Where do you get this information? Do u ever check sites like Politifact or Fact Check ???
What is true is that:
A Republican plan to withhold implementation funds for the Democrats new healthcare law would add $5.7 billion to the deficit over 10 years, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper said Thursday
This is from a Website called The Hill


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 24, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Here's the thing. Your source uses itself as its source for it's "facts". You're ok with that?


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 24, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> It strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact.



Not that curious. Distortions are pretty old-hat at this point.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 24, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You want to change the subject?

I get it...you were just kidding about "Every item on that list is either blatantly incorrect or a severe distortion of reality."

So what should I glean from the post? That you support and agree with Obamacare...no matter what.

OK...it's still a free country...isn't it?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 24, 2011)

dreamaccount200 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> ...



I suppose it will be simple enough for you to do so, and prepare a precis that extablishes the veracity of your post....

isn't it?


What's keeping you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 24, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > It strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact.
> ...



"That is why I have pledged that I will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade."http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/07/obama_health_ca_1.php

Oh, you mean like that?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 24, 2011)

Obamacare also includes billions in double-counted savings. Over the next decade, Obamacare includes $529 billion in cuts to Medicare and $70 billion in revenue from the new CLASS program. CBO's score assumes that these savings and revenues will offset the cost of new programs in the legislation. But Medicare savings are also pledged to extend the program's solvency. Revenue from CLASS, a new long-term care insurance program, is the result of premiums collected to pay out benefits in outlying years and will not pay for new programs, either. Claiming that these dollars will pay for Obamacare is akin to trying to make a mortgage payment and buy a Macbook with the same paycheck: In the real world, you can spend money only once.
Reality Check: Repeal of Obamacare Would Not Increase the Deficit | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 24, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



What? Change the subject? I said people should do some research to find the truth. Which if you would have done you would have noticed that there are no real sources of information in the link you posted. 

I do not agree with Obamacare no matter what, but what you posted is worthless and the source behind it, even more worthless. That's why I wanted to know if you were ok with that type of "fact".


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 24, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No dice, Rural Delivery...

You claimed "*Every item *on that list is either blatantly incorrect or a severe distortion of reality."

But you haven't been able to put your dinero where you put your dinner.


So, with that claim hanging there in the air like the smoke that Obamacare is made of, you waltz on, casually, to 'everybody should go do research...."
The way I see it, I already got my degree, so you can't give me a homework assignment.

Especially when you're making the claims that you seem unable to support.



Isn't that know as 'bait and swithch' or three-card monte....or something?
Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 24, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



"You got your degree?" 
With what? An article with no facts or evidence? Time to go back to school it seems. 

I'll humor you though. It says this bill "kills jobs". That couldn't be further from the truth. Less people NEED jobs because of this bill does not mean it kills jobs. The jobs are still there for the taking, there are just less people who need them. This has been a persistent distortion of the facts an and outright lie.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 25, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Well, your degree must be in economics, since you have no clue that raising costs for small businesses limits their ability to expand, i.e., create jobs.

What a weak, not to mention bogus, defense of your disquisiton. Didn't you trumpet: ""*Every item *on that list is either blatantly incorrect or a severe distortion of reality."

Every? Since you mention one single item of the ten, (and got that wrong) either you don't understand the word 'every,' or you use hyperbole, usually the venue of teenage girls....Oops! Are you a teenage girl??

Now, since your attempt to obnubilate has fallen short, as has your second attempt, the one above...would you like a third bite of the apple, or simply go down to ignominious defeat?

It won't mean you're a bad person....simply a loser.

BTW, not for nothing, as we say in the Big Apple, but your avatar is one of the two or three most offensive on the board.
Just sayin'...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 25, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



There is no way in hell I am going to waste my time debunking a list of ridiculous claims that have no proof to begin with. I debunked one and you don't like it, not my problem. Post something with actual facts next time. I thought you were smarter then this? Posting something that uses itself as the source? Really? You should know better.

How is my avatar offensive? Did you know Jesus or the dinosaurs personally?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 25, 2011)

I'd like to know what the improvements were.

It's been a year

What got better?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 25, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



1. "There is no way in hell I am going to waste my time debunking a list of ridiculous claims..." 
Now, this is a truly illustrative sentence, taken in context with the fact that you have already put forth several posts attempting, albeit ineffectually, to do just that.
Bravo! A new way to wave the white flag.

2. "I debunked one and you don't like it,..."
Au contraire, mon frère, as John Kerry might say....I showed how utterly incorrect your response was, so you hardly 'debunked' anything.

3. "How is my avatar offensive? Did you know Jesus ..."
See, in your own answer you answer the question you asked! 
You realized right off the bat why one might find it offensive!
And answering your own question!... an excellent time saver it is!


Although you might find this question off topic, but since I do appreciate the fact that you have attempted to respond to the OP, I wonder if you have a theory as to why seemingly multitudes of folks are opposed to Obamacare.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 25, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> I'd like to know what the improvements were.
> 
> It's been a year
> 
> What got better?



The full changes are scheduled to be implemented until 2014 but there have been plenty of changes so far.

Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform

Just in 2010 here is what was put in to place

    * Free mammograms and colonoscopies: Health plans years beginning on or after Sept. 23 have to cover a number of preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies for free. No deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. 
    * No health insurance rescissions: Health insurance companies cannot drop you from your individual health insurance plan if you get sick.
    * Childrens coverage: New individual plans and existing group plans cannot deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
    * No lifetime caps: Insurers cannot place lifetime caps on coverage. Annual limits must be approved by the government.
    * Stay on parents plan until age 26: Adult children will be eligible for coverage as dependents on their parents' policies until they are 26, unless they have access to health insurance through a job.
    * Appeal denials: New plans must include a way to appeal coverage determinations or claims. An external review process must also be established.
    * No lifetime dollar limits: Lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays, are no longer allowed.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 25, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Actually, just like your OP, you have proven nothing, but believe what you want.



> 3. "How is my avatar offensive? Did you know Jesus ..."
> See, in your own answer you answer the question you asked!
> You realized right off the bat why one might find it offensive!
> And answering your own question!... an excellent time saver it is!


What? You know Jesus personally? If that avatar actually offends you, I think you need to lighten up a bit. You're obviously wound WAY too tight.



> Although you might find this question off topic, but since I do appreciate the fact that you have attempted to respond to the OP, I wonder if you have a theory as to why seemingly multitudes of folks are opposed to Obamacare.



Simple answer: Because those individuals are just not smart people. They don't bother to read up for themselves what is actually in the bill and instead blindly believe websites that lack supporting information. (ie. OP)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 25, 2011)

The more time goes by, the more evident it is that:
1. The reasons the Left gave for supporting Obamacare, voiced by the President, as a) will not increase costs, and b) "if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year." http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf and c) everyone will be covered by the plan, as implied in "If you don&#8217;t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance." Ibid.
are untrue, and designed to hide the true motivation.

2. We on the Right have claimed that government take-over of healthcare, with the associated rationing and cuts in choice and quality, and the commensurate depredation of private healthcare companies who will have to increase benefits without increased in price will be the true result....are proving correct.

3. Real improvements such as sale across state lines, elimination of mandates, and tort reform were never even considered by the statists, revealing their true intentions.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 25, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I actually feel a bit guilty, because I do not see myself as a devious person...but I may be so in this connection:
I asked the question fully expecting *the Progressive/Liberal response*: "we know best, we are the smart ones, and anyone who disagrees is a dolt."

And you say: "Simple answer: Because *those individuals are just not smart *people."


This is the essence of totalism. We know best, so we'll simply force you to do what we say!

Dennis Prager, prescient once again, said it so succinctly, the *definition of a liberal*:

*GOOD INTENTIONS PLUS COERSION EQUALS SOLUTION.*

Now, I know you're not a bad person, Rural, just benighted.  You need to pick up some books covering the history of the 20th century, and see the result of totalist thinking in places like Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea....need I go on, or you get my drift?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 25, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to know what the improvements were.
> ...



Well I can tell you from the VAST jump in premiums I'm paying, this didn't work out for everyone.

oh well

No good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 25, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



You're judging the effectiveness of these initial items on your premiums? The full legislation isn't due to be fully implemented for years. Only then can we know the complete affect of how these changes impact health care.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 25, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Everything costs money.

Let me explain what what you said means.

You had to spend more money to cover all the things we did, but wait until you see how high those premiums get by 2014!!
!









ok the muahaha, was an add on.  call it artistic flair.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 25, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



LOL, ok. To be fair you should wait to pass judgment on something only once it's actually complete.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 25, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That doesn't make any sense.

The HC law isn't an unfinished car, house or painting, where the end product has little to no affect on me.

Me and my family just took a hard blow to th body.  I think I can judge a person that punched me as someone that is about to do it again, especially if he says he's not done yet.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 25, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



What? I didn't say the end product has no affect on you. I said that's the most important part to consider...the end product.....which we won't see for a few more years. 

Health care premiums have been going up for years now, which is one of the primary reasons we need healthcare reform. Few if any of the cost control portions of this legislation have yet to be enacted, so of course your costs will still be increasing. If this was an overnight fix, it would have been done years ago with little effort.


----------



## Polk (Mar 26, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I'll start the ball rolling with addressing the first two points...

The first is made up completely cooked up numbers. The claim that the CBO said ACA increases the deficit comes from a report requested by Paul Ryan _where he asked for part of the bill to be excluded from the analysis_. It just happened to be a portion that reduced spending compared to the baseline. CBO's actual analysis of the bill said it will reduce the deficit by 143 billion relative the baseline.

The second proposal is a lie of omission. The ACA will result in fewer people being employed. However, the reason for that is because it enable people cost to retirement age to leave their jobs earlier than they would otherwise, because they don't have to worry about being uninsured until they qualify for Medicare. If anything, that's a feature, not a bug.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Polk said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



"...completely cooked up numbers..."

I don't believe you are dishonest....just ignorant.
After all, if you have an elementary understanding of arithmatic, you couldn't claim to support the bill, the numbers, the context.

Here, let me...and Representive Ryan, help you understand.

1.	CBO &#8220;bill cuts deficit by $132 billion in first 10 years&#8230;&#8221;Rep, Ryan indicates that this is illusory:
a.	The bill *double counts Medicare savings*

b.	*And double counts increased taxes for Social Security*

c.	*And double counts increased premiums for the CLASS* (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports) Act, in which workers are stipulated to send a monthly premium in order to purchase coverage, usually via their employer. *They need to pay into the program for five years at the very least in order to qualify for the benefits for the disabled, poor, or elderly people -which is believed to be least fifty dollars per day and assumed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to reach up to seventy-five dollars per day.*

d.	Without the &#8216;double count&#8217; aspect, the bill actually results in *a $460 billion deficit in the first 10 years and a $1.4 trillion deficit in the second ten years. *

2.	The double count aspect is explained as follows:

a.	The bill raises taxes $ ½ billion and cuts Medicare $ ½ trillion during the first 10 years, *but provides only six years of &#8216;benefits*.&#8217;

b.	While the extra money derives from the premiums for the new CLASS Act entitlement, but then these premiums are then also counted as deficit reduction.

c.	And, while additional money in Social Security taxes is supposedly reserved to pay for Social Security benefits, it is *also claimed in the bill to be a form of deficit reduction.* So, why is it tapped as both payment for benefits, and as reducing costs?

d.	The administration claims that all the Medicare cuts are to increase the solvency of Medicare, as a reserve for the program, but if this is so then *it is unethical to use the &#8216;saved&#8217; funds to create another government program.*

3.	CBO: &#8220;[the bill] would not cause a net increase in deficits in excess of $5 billion in any year of the four 10-year periods beginning after 2019.&#8221;

a.	In the original version of the bill, members of labor unions would not have to pay taxes on &#8220;Cadillac&#8221; healthcare plans, a pay-back by Democrats to the unions- but everyone else who had to pay increased taxes on these plans, and this would pay most of the costs of the new healthcare &#8216;reform.&#8217; When this became public news, the *administration changed the proposal to this: everyone would pay said taxes, but not until 2018! * *But, of course, logic suggests that the Congress in existence eight years from now would not impose a $1 trillion tax that this Congress had not the nerve to impose.*

b.	A new unelected bureaucratic Commission would be in charge of Medicare, to *ration care *and wring out even more cuts than the $1/2 billion in the bill. If unable or unwilling to do this, of course, *the CBO estimates are invalid*.

c.	The Chief Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Obama Health and Human Services department issued a memorandum stating that HR 3200, the basis for *the President&#8217;s plan would increase healthcare costs by $ 234 billion over the first 10 years.* Obama on Health Care: Half Right | Cato @ Liberty


And, of course, the '1099 Fix' the administration is scrambling to install admits that the bill will make it harder for small businesses to be profitable....i.e., to hire more workers.
"In addition to repeal, Sen. Debbie Stabenow has introduced an amendment to eliminate the 1099 reporting requirement, which passed in the health care bill. Congress has tried to eliminate this requirement numerous times in the past several months, as small businesses abhor the requirement that they send out 1099 forms on any vendor purchase of over $600. The requirement was put into health care to increase government revenue (basically by enforcing tax laws on the books), and Stabenow&#8217;s amendment replaces that revenue by rescinding unobligated funds in budgets other than defense, homeland security and the Social Security Administration. This is a real capitulation to Mike Johanns and the Republicans."
Health Care Repeal, 1099 Fix Votes Up Today | FDL News Desk

So the overriding principle, that the bill is an attempt to control, contol, control and grow government, grow government, and then...grow government....is clear to any thinking individual.

Rather than 'start the ball rolling,' you seem to have choked on it.

Next.

(But I like the shirt!)


----------



## spectrumc01 (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> Here is the outline.
> 
> "These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
> ...



1.  The deficit has already exploded, and unless you have investments, or planning to make a life purches i.e. home, it doesn't effect you as much as you would think.  you adapt, like riding your bike when gas gets completely out of hand like it is now.

2.  Kills jobs?  every cut we make in the federal buget is adding to the unemployment numbers, does that make balancing our budget a job killer?

3.  I couldn't afford a doctor or health plan before Obama care and I can't afford one now. no change.

4.  This is the same as number one.

5.  Higher insurance premiums Name one time in the history of man that premiums ever rolled back due to legislation?  I couldn't afford the premiums before Obama care, and I can't now.

6.  The company I worked for cancelled our insurance before Obama care passed because the cost was too high.

7.  Again, No Ins before or after.

8.  I have insufiecent info on the elderly

9.  Small businesses quit providing ins. long before Obama care.

10.  Taxes would go up.  This I agree would happen, but I and my family would have health care.

For me this is a no brainer.  If I get health care out of this legislation, it was a good thing, and the fact that my taxes would go up I would gladdly pay it, as this means that I'm participating in paying my part of the bill, making health care not a freebie.  Helping business by removing the burden of cost of logistical personel i.e. lawyers, customer service.  Businesses would save millions.


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your post consists of:

- More sophistry from Representive Ryan's office on the budget numbers. Color me shocked. Misleading claims about accounting principles? Check. Completely making things up, like say, an increase in Social Security taxes? Check. "The bill won't save money because Congress will refuse to stick to hard choices made"? True, but it's equally true of his plan to gut Medicare by turning it into a massive handout for insurance companies.

- A statement that doesn't mean what you think it means. The statement by the actuary at CMS is about total healthcare cost, not about the impact on the deficit. Of course covering another 40 million people is going to increase aggregate healthcare costs.


----------



## The Gadfly (Mar 27, 2011)

editec said:


> The abortion that is Obama's plan is hardly anything the "left" was supporting, Lad.
> 
> What they wanted was single player HC.
> 
> Wake up and smell the conspiracy, lad.



What I smell, is a product that reeks of corruption in both content and process.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Polk said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



So...that means, what? 

That you couldn't dispute a single one of the statements?

Here are the parts I like:
"...Congress will refuse to stick to hard choices made"? True."

and 

"Of course covering another 40 million people is going to increase aggregate healthcare costs."

Good work!


And, no 'thank you' re: the shirt??
Well, I never.....


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2011)

What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.

And please, expand on why you "like" those two statements.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 27, 2011)

I believe it will cost us money as a nation. Less money than would be sucked out if we do not do this right. Economy of scale. 

Just someday, someone (meaning most of us who have less than 10 million of liquid assests) will be unable to afford a 10k a dose pill that will extend our lives if taken three times daily. Worst part is we will know the pill exists and have to watch our mother, ourself, or our kid die a few years sooner because neither ourself or the nation can afford it. 

Forcing everyone to pay into insurance puts off this day. It buys time for the medical research industry to quit focusing on wonder drugs and switch to finding ways to make existing treatments cheaper.

Immediately a properly implemented healthcare plan will cost little. In forty(???) years as costs rise premiums to fund it may be too much for the population as a whole to pay.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

spectrumc01 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> ...



Specs, specs, specs....

1. "The deficit has already exploded,..."  so, what?...keep on exploding?

"...it doesn't effect you as much as you would think..."
I can see you have a doctorate in economics, but could we consider the words of Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office:

"As background to its estimates, the CBO notes that spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise rapidly in the future, pushing up "primary" federal spending (excluding interest payments on the debt) from 18.2 percent of GDP today to 28.3 percent in 2050 and 35.3 percent in 2082. With interest payments included, spending will hit 41.8 percent of GDP in 2050 and 75.4 per¬cent by 2082."[t]he tax rate for the lowest bracket would have to be increased from 10 per¬cent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent." 
Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Representative Paul Ryan (RWI), May 19, 2008,   Taxes to Pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI | Medicare Insurance | eons.com

Now, I know your lots smarter than ol' Pete, and have far more experience.....but, couldn't he be a little bit right?

2.  "Kills jobs?  every cut we make in the federal buget is adding to the unemployment"
See, I'm going to disagree with this one, too.
Everybody knows that 72.6% of our GDP is the production of red tape....so I'm gonna guess that cutting the size of government will also cut regulation and red tape, and allow business to do what government can't do: create jobs.

3. "I couldn't afford a doctor or health plan before Obama care and I can't afford one now. no change."

Let's make this he last one, Specs.
I don't know you well enough to call you a liar, and, anyway, the term liar is trademarked by the Left, so let's just say you represent the average guy.

Based on that surmise, 'not affording' really means you choose to spend your money elsewhere, and would rather have your neighbors pick up the tab for your healthcare...as every single (and married) individual in the whole country has the emergency room option.

Here is the break-down:

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0908/moneygo900.jpg
US Dept of Labor, april 2009

Heres an interesting graphic of the spending breakdown for the average U.S. consumer. Its based a theoretical household unit consisting of 2.5 people, not individuals. Looks like such a household unit spends approximately $50,000 per year. Click on image for larger version.
Income before taxes $63,091
Average annual expenditures $49,638
2.5 in the family
1.3 earners, 67% are homeowners
Entertainment $2698	5.4%
Food		6133	12.4
Alcoholic Bev.  457	0.9
Healthcare	2853	5.7
Tobacco	323	0.7
Housing 	16,920	34.1
Transportation 8758	17.6
(gas&oil)	2384`	4.8
Average food spending was $6133, of which $3465 was spent on meals at home. Based on this data, one can conclude that the average consumer unit spends roughly $300 per month on meals prepared at home and roughly $225 per month on meals away from home.
Each year, the average American spends $1881 on apparel and services, for example, but only $118 on books.
The chart doesnt include taxes because the government survey doesnt include taxes. If the average consumer unit earns $63,091 but spends $49,648, there are $13,443 unaccounted for. The personal saving rate in 2007 was less than 1%, so Im guessing that most of the unspecified money goes to taxes.


So, entertainment and alcohol accounts for more of your spending than healthcare, huh?

Grow up.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Polk said:


> What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.
> 
> And please, expand on why you "like" those two statements.



See if you can look up 'double counting.'


----------



## FuelRod (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.
> ...



Or in Corporate America, known as "fraud"


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> I believe it will cost us money as a nation. Less money than would be sucked out if we do not do this right. Economy of scale.
> 
> Just someday, someone (meaning most of us who have less than 10 million of liquid assests) will be unable to afford a 10k a dose pill that will extend our lives if taken three times daily. Worst part is we will know the pill exists and have to watch our mother, ourself, or our kid die a few years sooner because neither ourself or the nation can afford it.
> 
> ...



How about you work harder and make 10 million and stop asking for the nation to take care of you?


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.
> ...



The double counting comes in from the statements that the savings in the bill extend the amount of money in the trust fund, not from calculating the bill's impact on the deficit. The bill doesn't change the lifespan of the Medicare trust.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Polk said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Absolutely not true.

I explain very clearly the several areas where moneys are counted more than once.


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



No, you don't. You claim double counting occurred and expect people to take you at your word.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

*Paul Ryan v. the President*

*The Republican dissects ObamaCare's real costs. Democrats stay mute. <March 2010*


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Absolutely not true.
> 
> I explain very clearly the several areas where moneys are counted more than once.




The concept of "double counting" has always referred to rhetoric being used by the administration; it doesn't affect the outcome of the CBO score (i.e. the predicted financial impact of the law, as it differs from the baseline).

This is an issue of words, not numbers. Stop parroting Ryan and think a bit.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > What is there to dispute? Ryan pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass without anything to back them up. The burden is on the one making the positive claim.
> ...




He'll find it in the "the ends justify the means" section of the Progressive Handbook.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely not true.
> ...



Stop being a stooge for the administration's attempts to grab 17% of the economy.

Of course it has meaning.

It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.

Bogus, as is your post.

And if a new program is far too expensive to reveal, use the Healthcare gambit: get OMB to calculate the costs over 10 years, but dont set the program to begin for two or three years, essentially costing for seven years.  They did this Medicare Part D, 2003, which didnt fully phase in until 2006. This gave it the expense of only $395 for ten yearsbut it is now estimated to be $952 billion for the next ten years, or an unfunded $7.2 trillion over seventy-five years.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




And let's not forget that the CBO claims that Obama's budget UNDERSTATES deficits by $2.3T


_A new assessment of President Barack Obama's budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.

The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama's February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years  an average of almost $1 trillion a year.

Obama's budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.

The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections...._

CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion - Politics - msnbc.com

The Obamanoids also cooked the ObamaCare score by assuming much higher rates of GDP growth than respectable economists project.   And, as with all Obamanomics Projectsion, things are consistently UNEXPECTEDLY worse than they assumed.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.



They're not being used elsewhere, that's the point. Show me in the score where the CBO has the slowed Medicare cost growth affecting the deficit impact prediction in multiple places. Don't link to me Ryan and don't link me to an administration quote, we're using only primary sources here (that means the actual CBO score).


----------



## boedicca (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.
> ...




It's why ObamaCare is a BIG LIE.

It does not reduce the deficit; it worsens it dramatically.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.
> ...



You'll be disappointed to learn that I pay as much attention to your orders as every other female who has had the pleasure of making your acquaintance...

... and on that note:

In fact, *every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted*. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, *a staggering $95 billion underestimate*. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion. 
In 1987 *Congress estimated *that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The *actual* bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were *more than twice *projected levels. 

*The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit  subsequently repealed  from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage.* The agency *increased the projected co*st of the skilled nursing benefit *an astonishing sevenfold *over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion. 
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online


So, among the various and sundry...let's call them 'tricks' is the wilfull disregard for experience.

I belive in the experience of the past....
...you should try that approach.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

del said:


> blow me.



Are you rich, white, and conservative?

No?  Sorry, you didn't qualify for that perk.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So I guess the GOP  will be pounding the table demanding massive Medicare cuts, and rationing??

...soon??  ...maybe??

lol


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

> You'll be disappointed to learn that I pay as much attention to your orders as every other female who has had the pleasure of making your acquaintance...



I suspected that level of critical thinking would be a bit beyond you. If you've reached the point where you're actually admitting you can't read a source document to evaluate claims you've heard about it, it might be time to wrap up this thread. Maybe next time you can share with us a chain email you've received or something.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

My healthcare costs haven't gone up any more than usual.  I haven't lost my choice of doctors, my taxes have gone down, not up, you know,

I think the OP's propaganda from the rightwing hack factory 'Human Events' is largely bullshit.

Having said that, the healthcare bill was seriously damaged by the lack of a public option,

but, whose fault was that?

Of course - Republicans, and Democrats acting like Republicans.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> > You'll be disappointed to learn that I pay as much attention to your orders as every other female who has had the pleasure of making your acquaintance...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspected that level of critical thinking would be a bit beyond you. If you've reached the point where you're actually admitting you can't read a source document to evaluate claims you've heard about it, it might be time to wrap up this thread. Maybe next time you can share with us a chain email you've received or something.



She will shut up if you beat on her hard enough.  Take my word for it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



As much of a non-answer as I've ever seen. Well done.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> She will shut up if you beat on her hard enough.  Take my word for it.



I'd much prefer she actually learn to think and evaluate the veracity of a claim, rather than just shut up and go away. You know, "teach a man to fish..." and all that.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > She will shut up if you beat on her hard enough.  Take my word for it.
> ...



She's not here to debate, in the sense of using one's own thoughts and insights along with the evidence to try to prove a point.  She's basically cut and paste and then smartass anyone who disagrees, which btw is fine, to each his own,

but you won't have any luck getting a real originally produced argument out of her - that would mean she'd have to risk losing.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

The CBO put the cost of the December tax cut/tax extension at 800 billion.

How does THAT compare in cost to the healthcare bill?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe it will cost us money as a nation. Less money than would be sucked out if we do not do this right. Economy of scale.
> ...



Oops, bad assumption if you ASS Ume I am not working on it lol.  But despite what standardized testing would make you think my income is only mildly above average.  

My income would immediately be better if a few years back I followed my railroad job to Nebraska.  Darn family is all local though.  More importantly I have a simple enough life I can absorb health insurance costs since I am both smart enough to work for decent money and smart be able to turn a couple wrenches and avoid the financial disaster of buying new depreciating automobiles.

But back to the health insurance topic.  Do you agree with everything I said?  

If your statement was an indication you think Americans need to work harder on the whole I also agree.  We employ a couple fellas who are content with their 32 hour work weeks and complain when we "force" more on them this time of year.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > It strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact.
> ...





the long term care prgm. portion of obama care is a shambles- true or false?

the plan double counts approx. $500 billion in 'savings'..- true or false?


----------



## Trajan (Mar 27, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> The CBO put the cost of the December tax cut/tax extension at 800 billion.
> 
> How does THAT compare in cost to the healthcare bill?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The CBO put the cost of the December tax cut/tax extension at 800 billion.
> ...


 

Good call. Carbonated is good at erecting those.


----------



## Rozman (Mar 27, 2011)

Yeh but it lets the kiddies stay on Mommy and Daddy's insurance until they are like 40 or something right.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> > You'll be disappointed to learn that I pay as much attention to your orders as every other female who has had the pleasure of making your acquaintance...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspected that level of critical thinking would be a bit beyond you. If you've reached the point where you're actually admitting you can't read a source document to evaluate claims you've heard about it, it might be time to wrap up this thread. Maybe next time you can share with us a chain email you've received or something.



You don't really think you have the ability to manipulate me.....do you?

You must be a squirrels version of heaven.

Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking:
Everything I have posted is true, and your reponse, boiled down, is 'it doesn't say that will happen......so there!"

But you did manage to include my fav part of a liberal's post: "Maybe next time you can share with *us* ..."

I love that "*us*" thing; it is so illustrative.

There are only three venues in which one can use "*us*" when referring to himself: royalty, newspaper editors, or those who have a tapeworm.

But liberals often assuage the fear of standing alone, on their own two hooves, and hide behind "*us*," as though the entire world is supporting their drivel.

As you did.

One can only assume that at some deep, deep level, folks like you, or "*us*," know that they will be open to the ridicule that they so richly deserve, and may be able to hide behind that imaginary, delusive "*us.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Snide as my comment seemed, and was, in all honesty I hope that the day is not far off when you have reached nuclear fission- not in the Japan sense, but in the financial sense.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> ...



But you see a lot of us HAVE done our own research--we've read Heritage Foundation, CATO, Forbes, Business Investors, WSJ, Reason Magazine, and others from both left leaning and right leaning--which is why we can thank PC's post that summarizes the net effects of Obamacare.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> You don't really think you have the ability to manipulate me.....do you?



No, it's become pretty clear that you're manipulable by the Paul Ryans of the world, not those who ask that you think critically for yourself. If you're asking if I think I can convince you to try and support the nonsense you're spouting by drawing from the source material, the answer would have to be no. I'm under no illusions that you'll try and do that.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



On a serious note, I do not believe that the current debate about healthcare is framed correctly.

Once you look at the multiplicity of items that are not included in the Obama scam, items which intuitively would reduce costs for all who wish healthcare insurance, then I suggest that we follow Sherlock Holme's dictum:
 "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". 

And that truth is that the statist-collectivists wish to take over the healthcare system. More rules, more regulations, more control.....but not, as it was originally sold, cheaper, cover all, let you keep your doctor....

"...absorb health insurance costs ..."
Let's reframe the discussion: why do you suppose we are not having the same debate about auto insurance?

Exaclty.

The Left wants this, and will do everything they can to see tha you have no choice but to "absorb health insurance costs."

Did you note a number of simple ideas in this thread that would reduce costs? And are not in the 2300 page bill that had to be passed so we could find out what's in it?


----------



## Trajan (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You don't really think you have the ability to manipulate me.....do you?
> ...




the long term care prgm. portion of obama care is a shambles- true or false?

the plan double counts approx. $500 billion in 'savings'..- true or false?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


 
It all boils down to whom is controlling this issue...the Government versus the people...

The Government in my opinion should step off. They Constitutionally have NO DOG in this fight other than to protect the liberty of those of us that DO between us and our chosen path.

Government is blazing a path of thier choosing...or else.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 27, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The most telling and damning reality of Obamacare is the growing number of Democrats who now realize the damage that it is doing and will do and who agree it needs to be reworked.   For them the issue is not whether parts of it need to be repealed and redone but whether it is done piecemeal or just throw the whole thing out and start over as most Republicans favor.

I'm with the GOP on this one.  Throw the whole thing out and focus on REAL and GENUINE healthcare reform that IS the prerogative of the Federal government so that the states can deal with it legally and effectively as is best for their people.  The Federal government has never in its entire history devised a one-size-fits-all entitlement or social program that has not resulted in more negatives than positives.  We don't want the Federal government in control of our healthcare.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


 

Agreed. Throw it out...and interesting that many that supported it are now applying for Waivers _from it..._


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 27, 2011)

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



False. Waivers to improve upon it, is not the same as Waivers to be excluded because you are against it which is what you seem to believe and would be incorrect.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The CBO put the cost of the December tax cut/tax extension at 800 billion.
> ...



Every rightwinger in this thread, for starters, who is complaining about the alleged cost of the healthcare bill SUPPORTED the budget - busting tax cut passed in December.

Why is that?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


 
How so? It's the LAW...How does exepmting one group of Americans from LAW benefit the rest that have to comply? (That is assuming that LAW is written to be equal)...

Justice under law was supposed to be _EQUAL_...

You have alot of 'splainin ta do Loocie...to convince me NOT to ignore you and your posts...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The CBO put the cost of the December tax cut/tax extension at 800 billion.
> ...



A strawman is when you take someone's real position and substitute a fictional position for it that is easier to argue against.

I've done no such thing.  You need to bone up on what a strawman is before you misuse it for the thousandth time.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 27, 2011)

The T said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



The problem is you don't understand what the waiver does. You hear the word waiver and think, they are just allowed to ignore this legislation. That is where you are incorrect.

Waivers are granted for a number of reasons, including allowing more time to get in to compliance or in order to explore the possibility of establishing an even better system on a state by state level that is more tailored to each individual states needs. Again neither of these options lets anyone just "opt out" of this healthcare reform. That is far from the case.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


 
It still poses special Considerations on one entity over another.

Sorry. I don't buy the excuses. All the waivers portend to do is show how flawed it is to begin with...and if it wasn't flawed? WHY the need for waivers?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 27, 2011)

The T said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...






I just told you why the need for waivers. There are major changes that need to take place and the gov't has realized that not everyone can make those changes at the same speed. So, some were granted waivers to allow more time, while others were granted waivers to establish custom tailored solutions that exceed the standards set by the legislation. 

Where exactly are you confused?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


 
Either a written LAW is equal to all or it isn't.

DO the math. Sorry.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 27, 2011)

The Medicare part D prescription drug bill, supported by Republicans under Bush INCLUDING the born-again phoney fiscal hawk Paul Ryan was a far worse bill fiscally and a major expansion of Medicare,

not a nickel of it paid for.

Where's the outrage over that?  Where's the repeal effort from the Right for that?

When does Paul Ryan plan to pay for that?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

And WHILE we are at it? Why isn't the Congress subject to this? Those that participated in the crafting of this power grab?

*Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill*


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 27, 2011)

Do you have any friends IRL PC? I ask because you are one bitter, republi/Koch Bros.- tool. :-(


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

The T said:


> And WHILE we are at it? Why isn't the Congress subject to this? Those that participated in the crafting of this power grab?



They are. 

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are--
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
                              (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).​
                        (ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
                              (II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff' means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.​
Primary sources, people (also known as "read the [law]"). 

The "controversy" you're attempting to invoke isn't about Congressmen. It's indisputable that Congressmen and their staff members will no longer be eligible for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, they'll need to acquire individual coverage through an exchange. What you're talking about is the fact that the definition of "Congressional staff" in the legislation doesn't include _committee_ staff, i.e. staff who are not employed by the "official office of a Member of Congress."

Is that what's keeping you up at night?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 27, 2011)

The T said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...





Ummm, It is equal. 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not very bright, are you? Never went to college? Graduate high school at least?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


 
Again? *IF* a law is written it treats all the same. ASKING for waivers from such a law, and Gubmint granting such a waiver is NOT _equal._


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 27, 2011)

The T said:


> And WHILE we are at it? Why isn't the Congress subject to this? Those that participated in the crafting of this power grab?
> 
> *Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill*



As soon as ya'll appoint me dictator with absolute authority for a year, I will immediately order a law that those elected to Congress will be personally subject to whatever laws they pass for anybody else--no waivers, no exemptions, no qualifiers, no add ons.  And their own pensions/retirement plan and health plan will be voted by the folks in their state who send them to Washington.  They won't have any say in that themselves.

I think that might keep a whole lot of problems from ever developing in the first place.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 27, 2011)

What happens when 2014 rolls around and those given waivers_ still_ can't meet the requirements for whatever reason?  Easy peasy . . the 'temporary' waivers become permanent.  Just wait for it.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> What happens when 2014 rolls around and those given waivers_ still_ can't meet the requirements for whatever reason?  Easy peasy . . the 'temporary' waivers become permanent.  Just wait for it.



The significance of 2014 in this context is that 2014 is when the health insurance exchanges go live. At which point current enrollees in limited benefit plans can choose a plan through their state's exchange.


----------



## rikules (Mar 27, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> Here is the outline.
> 
> "These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
> ...



i'm not a lefty
i am a social liberal/fiscal moderate

i have opposed the mandatory healthcare plan since day 1

 i opposed it when hillary promoted it
i opposed it when obama got elected promoting it

i am opposed to ALL MANDATORY health plans/packages, including vehicular

other than you and emily saying it i don't really have any evidence that these 10 things have happened

perhaps things are different in your area but here in New England I don't believe those 10 problems have occured


----------



## nraforlife (Mar 27, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> it strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact. .................





proof???????????????


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 27, 2011)

The T said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Again, everyone is being treated the same. Anyone can apply for a waiver. Everyone will be required to meet the same set of standards, people will just take different routes to get there. You're not this dense, are you?


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Anyone can apply for a waiver, but not everyone is in the right 'crony' group that allows them to get one.

It will almost certainly be up the Supreme Court to give states the ability to opt out because the Annointed One has thus far not seen fit to allow that and he is ignoring a court order to do so.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Anyone can apply for a waiver, but not everyone is in the right 'crony' group that allows them to get one.



Presumably you're talking about the annual limit waivers. Yet 94% of those waiver applications have been approved.



> It will almost certainly be up the Supreme Court to give states the ability to opt out because the Annointed One has thus far not seen fit to allow that and he is ignoring a court order to do so.



Opt out of what? States aren't actually required to operate their own exchanges  (see "SEC. 1321. STATE FLEXIBILITY IN OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EXCHANGES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS") and, as Vinson recognized in his ruling, the Medicaid expansion is optional because Medicaid itself is a voluntary program that states choose to participate in. And if states want out of something like the individual mandate (which, of course, is levied on individuals and not the state itself), they can pursue the waivers for state innovation contained in the law, if they're able to meet the requirements.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about something akin to nullification--that dog won't hunt, Monsignor.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can apply for a waiver, but not everyone is in the right 'crony' group that allows them to get one.
> ...



I think it's become abundantly clear, they don't know what they're talking about. It's difficult when you base your entire opinion on a single word "waiver" and don't actually bother to research what that word actually means in this case. That's way too much effort for people who already KNOW all they need to know.


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 27, 2011)

The government sucks a gazillion dollars out of my wallet every April 15th with a vacuum cleaner.

They have no standing to complain.


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You don't really think you have the ability to manipulate me.....do you?
> ...



You know, I don't get where Paul Ryan's reputation as a serious thinker comes from. I think it's because he uses numbers, while most of the other Republicans just make raw emotional appeals. The problem is his statements fall apart the instant you go past the surface. He has a deficit plan assumes money will magically appear in the Treasury and a plan to reform Medicare that's a carbon copy of the exchanges, which he thinks are the greatest evil in human history.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 27, 2011)

Polk said:


> ... and a plan to reform Medicare that's a carbon copy of the exchanges, which he thinks are the greatest evil in human history.



It's not just Ryan's proposals for Medicare, the broader health reform bill (The Patients' Choice Act) he introduced about 6 weeks before the Democrats unveiled theirs was based on the idea of state-based health insurance exchanges, subsidized coverage for the poor, and refundable, advanceable tax credits for coverage. From that CRS summary of his bill:



> Sets forth provisions governing the establishment and operation of state-based health care exchanges to facilitate the individual purchase of private health insurance and the creation of a market where private health plans compete for enrolles based on price and quality.
> 
> Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a refundable tax credit for qualified health care insurance coverage. [...]
> 
> Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary to supplement the costs of private health insurance for eligible low-income families through the distribution of supplemental debit cards, which may be used for costs associated with health care and provide direct support in accessing health care.



I eagerly await his re-introduction of that bill this session. Then he can attack his own "government takeover" of health care.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Mar 28, 2011)

del said:


> blow me.


Truth hurts don't it? Idiot!


----------



## AmericanFirst (Mar 28, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> It strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact. Our national conscience - and should I say brain - is a missing item today, not only because of the lack of interest in learning the facts, but also in the FACT that nonsense such as this proof-less crap is posted and considered valid.  It is believed!  How dumb are we as a nation? The same arguments were and are made about Social Security and Medicare by the same ideological and corporate tools, but with just a small bit of tweaking both would be fine. What a nation full of whiners and losers we have today. Rather sad that the nation of 'can do' is now the nation of 'can't do' and constant whining.


Wrong as usual.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Mar 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Bullshit, you are nsaying this bill will make it so people won't need jobs? You are an idiot. Obamacare is all it's opponents said it is. Nothing more than a big gov't. take over of control.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Mar 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to know what the improvements were.
> ...


Those are better? Idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 28, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> It strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact. Our national conscience - and should I say brain - is a missing item today, not only because of the lack of interest in learning the facts, but also in the FACT that nonsense such as this proof-less crap is posted and considered valid.  It is believed!  How dumb are we as a nation? The same arguments were and are made about Social Security and Medicare by the same ideological and corporate tools, but with just a small bit of tweaking both would be fine. What a nation full of whiners and losers we have today. Rather sad that the nation of 'can do' is now the nation of 'can't do' and constant whining.



I find it curious that you can arbitrarily declare something nonfactual and not provide anything to back up your statement.

On the other hand.



Review & Outlook: Unhappy Anniversary - WSJ.com
Starbucks calls for health care that helps, not harms, small businesses | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
News Headlines
Look at that, the first 3 are true, and I have actually posted threads about all of these. My guess is that I could find something to back up the next 7 without any trouble, as I have read about every single one of them in the media.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> ...



Prove it or stuff it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 28, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> dreamaccount200 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I have noticed that progressives seem to believe that all they have to do is say something is a lie, and ignore the evidence that anyone presents that contradicts them, and then demand that you prove what you have already proved. I want to blame this on teacher's unions, but I find that I cannot fault them for having to deal with idiots in the first place.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 28, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely not true.
> ...



Of course it doesn't.

It does, however, affect the actual deficit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 28, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > It means you claim to pay for a program with savings, but the 'savings', etherial that they are, are also, meaning at the same time, being used elsewhere.
> ...



Seriously? I thought your database had everything the CBO ever said about the PPACA, did you miss this part? Or do you think that your contempt for everyone who opposes Obamacare makes them stupid.



> CBO has not undertaken a comparable quantitative analysis for the PPACA incorporating the managers amendment, but the results would be qualitatively similar. The reductions in projected Part A outlays and increases in projected HI revenues would significantly raise balances in the HI trust fund and create the appearance that significant additional resources had been set aside to pay for future Medicare benefits. However, the additional savings by the government as a wholewhich represent the true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programswould be a good deal smaller.
> 
> The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs.
> Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the governments ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the governments fiscal position.



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-23-Trust_Fund_Accounting.pdf


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Does it bother you at all that the waivers are illegal?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 28, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can apply for a waiver, but not everyone is in the right 'crony' group that allows them to get one.
> ...



Since you are an expert on the PPACA and have it all in a conveniently searchable database, can you tell where the law gives anyone the authority to grant waivers for any reason?


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 28, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government&#8217;s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government&#8217;s fiscal position.



Let me translate that for you:_ The concept of "double counting" has always referred to rhetoric being used by the administration; it doesn't affect the outcome of the CBO score (i.e. the predicted financial impact of the law, as it differs from the baseline)._

The actual deficit impact of the ACA remains what the CBO calculated; the rhetoric of the administration implied that the deficit is reduced _even more_ than the CBO calculated because their descriptions did suggest savings were being used to do two things simultaneously. The suggestion that this means the CBO score understates the deficit impact is, of course, incorrect.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Since you are an expert on the PPACA and have it all in a conveniently searchable database, can you tell where the law gives anyone the authority to grant waivers for any reason?



Here's a tip: my searchable database is called THOMAS.

As for your question, you have to be more specific; there are numerous waiver authorities sprinkled throughout the legislation. If you're talking about the annual limit waivers, you'd want to go to the section of the law that establishes the annual limit restrictions. Or rather, the relevant amendments to that section (see "SEC. 10101. AMENDMENTS TO SUBTITLE A."). In which you'll find:

`(2) ANNUAL LIMITS PRIOR TO 2014- With respect to plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2014, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may only establish a restricted annual limit on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary with respect to the scope of benefits that are essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as determined by the Secretary.* In defining the term `restricted annual limit' for purposes of the preceding sentence, the Secretary shall ensure that access to needed services is made available with a minimal impact on premiums.*​
Annual limits weren't completely eliminated, the Secretary was given discretion to ensure the regs developed by HHS include latitude necessary to maintain access or affordability. Hence the regulations that emerged. If Congress wishes to clarify and overturn the rule so as to eliminate mini-med plans, there are mechanisms by which they can do so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 29, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Let me translate that for you:_ The concept of "double counting" has always referred to rhetoric being used by the administration; it doesn't affect the outcome of the CBO score (i.e. the predicted financial impact of the law, as it differs from the baseline)._
> 
> The actual deficit impact of the ACA remains what the CBO calculated;  the rhetoric of the administration implied that the deficit is reduced _even more_  than the CBO calculated because their descriptions did suggest savings  were being used to do two things simultaneously. The suggestion that  this means the CBO score understates the deficit impact is, of course,  incorrect.



You said that before, and claimed that the CBO never said that there is double counting involved. You then demanded someone link to the CBO actually said there is double counting occurring.

The quote you are attributing to me is from the CBO, not me. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. The fact is that the CBO is clearly stating that you cannot count the savings from the PPACA and the Medicare benefits and claim they both reduce the deficit.

You can babble your double speak all day long. The numbers do not affect the law, they affect the deficit. Do you disagree with the CBO assessment that if you try to count the PPACA savings toward both Medicare and the PPACA you do not get the savings that are claimed by both the Democrats in Congress and the administration?

If you agree with the CBO about that, why do you refuse to call what is clearly double counting by what it is?

Do you actually understand that, when the CBO scored the PPACA and established the baseline you keep asking about that they did actually count the Medicare savings as part of the baseline for the PPACA? That, because they counted that savings that way, it actually did affect the baseline?

Are you going to continue your partisanship and deny reality? Or are you going to loose your pay here and admit the truth? The score from the CBO is clearly affected by the double counting, and they admitted it themselves. I provided the link to them saying it. You can either admit the truth, or forever brand yourself as a liar.

Your choice.



Greenbeard said:


> Here's a tip: my searchable database is called THOMAS.
> 
> As for your question, you have to be more specific; there are numerous waiver authorities sprinkled throughout the legislation. If you're talking about the annual limit waivers, you'd want to go to the section of the law that establishes the annual limit restrictions. Or rather, the relevant amendments to that section (see "SEC. 10101. AMENDMENTS TO SUBTITLE A."). In which you'll find:
> `(2) ANNUAL LIMITS PRIOR TO 2014- With respect to plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2014, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may only establish a restricted annual limit on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary with respect to the scope of benefits that are essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as determined by the Secretary.* In defining the term `restricted annual limit' for purposes of the preceding sentence, the Secretary shall ensure that access to needed services is made available with a minimal impact on premiums.*​Annual limits weren't completely eliminated, the Secretary was given discretion to ensure the regs developed by HHS include latitude necessary to maintain access or affordability. Hence the regulations that emerged. If Congress wishes to clarify and overturn the rule so as to eliminate mini-med plans, there are mechanisms by which they can do so.



Where does that give anyone the authority to grant a waiver?

In case you are as bad at legalese as you clearly are at math, that only gives the Secretary the authority to make sure that premiums are affordable. It does not give the secretary the authority to waive any portion of the law itself. The waivers being granted exempt the groups that receive them from the law. They have nothing to do with either premiums or access to the required services. I am quite sure that some lawyer somewhere in the bowels of HHS is more than willing to write a memo that says otherwise, just like John Yoo was willing to write a memo that torture is legal.

Guess what, memos are worth exactly squat when a judge reads the law and rules on what it means.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 29, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You said that before, and claimed that the CBO never said that there is double counting involved. You then demanded someone link to the CBO actually said there is double counting occurring.



Doubled counting involved _in what_? I've said multiple times now that the claims of double counting refer only to rhetoric, not the actual deficit projections. Your quote from the CBO explicitly supports that, as it criticizes _descriptions_ ("To describe...would essentially double-count"), namely those that imply the deficit reduction will be higher than the CBO projected. If you think the CBO's deficit reduction estimates should be lower because savings were counted in two places, show it in the score (numbers).



> The fact is that the CBO is clearly stating that you cannot count the savings from the PPACA and the Medicare benefits and claim they both reduce the deficit.



That's correct, you can't do that. Yet the premise in this thread is that the CBO's score _does_ do that. And, of course, it does not.

CBO uses unified budget rules; money is money, it's in one giant pot, and thus it can't be counted twice as being in two separate compartments simultaneously. The administration's _rhetoric_ sometimes strayed into trust fund accounting rules territory, in which federal money does exist in different compartments and exists for distinct purposes. CBO was asked about this and responded with that memo, pointing out that indeed you can't do that. And lo, they did not.



> Where does that give anyone the authority to grant a waiver?



The timeline of the annual limit phaseout is determined in the statute. Yet the Secretary is granted rulemaking authority to define certain restricted annual benefits and to ensure that access and premiums aren't significantly affected. Given that the latter is impossible for a certain class of plans, the rule establishes a temporary waiver application process.

The most interesting part is imaging a parallel reality where they didn't grant waivers, and thus were harshly criticized for ignoring their mandate to preserve access and protect premiums. I wonder what side you'd come down on in that reality?



> The waivers being granted exempt the groups that receive them from the law. They have nothing to do with either premiums or access to the required services



I take it you haven't actually looked at the criteria for receiving an annual limit waiver recently.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 29, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Doubled counting involved _in what_? I've said multiple times now that the claims of double counting refer only to rhetoric, not the actual deficit projections. Your quote from the CBO explicitly supports that, as it criticizes _descriptions_ ("To describe...would essentially double-count"), namely those that imply the deficit reduction will be higher than the CBO projected. If you think the CBO's deficit reduction estimates should be lower because savings were counted in two places, show it in the score (numbers).



I have heard of selective blindness before, but this is the worst case I have ever actually encountered.

Tell me something, how do you go from "The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA  would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set  aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for  current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other  programs," to "To describe...would essentially double-count."

The administration is counting the savings from the Medicare Trust fund, and they are also counting it as part of the PPACA. Since the PPACA is specifically written, and scored, with those Medicare savings incorporated as part of "paying" for the PPACA the score is obviously affected by it.

You made your choice, you have branded yourself a liar. 



Greenbeard said:


> That's correct, you can't do that. Yet the premise in this thread is that the CBO's score _does_ do that. And, of course, it does not.



No, the thread is about the PPACA being a budget busting bill. As the double counting is only a small part of the way the score for the PPACA was finalized, we can actually ignore it and still make our point. You just chose to focus on a minute portion of the bill problem in the hope that no one would notice your attempt to obnubilate. (Thanks for the word PC)

Guess what, the reforms to the 1099 filing have already changed the score of the PPACA, as did the doc fix that was integral to the claim that the cost of this bill was under $1 trillion. 



Greenbeard said:


> CBO uses unified budget rules; money is money, it's in one giant pot, and thus it can't be counted twice as being in two separate compartments simultaneously. The administration's _rhetoric_ sometimes strayed into trust fund accounting rules territory, in which federal money does exist in different compartments and exists for distinct purposes. CBO was asked about this and responded with that memo, pointing out that indeed you can't do that. And lo, they did not.



Yada, yada, yada.

Guess what, everyone on this board who is capable of rational thought recognizes your attempt to blow smoke for the pathetic thing it actually is. Even if you are entirely correct that this is nothing more than rhetoric from the administration (which I could disprove without any effort whatever) it is actually irrelevent to the point that the PPACA is going to bust the budget.

Crawl back to your boss and inform him that you have totally failed in selling his, or her, lies here.



Greenbeard said:


> The timeline of the annual limit phaseout is determined in the statute. Yet the Secretary is granted rulemaking authority to define certain restricted annual benefits and to ensure that access and premiums aren't significantly affected. Given that the latter is impossible for a certain class of plans, the rule establishes a temporary waiver application process.



Again, how does exempting unions, large corporations, small businesses, and entire states, from Obamacare do anything to ensure that the premiums for minimal coverage insurance does not go to high? All it does is ensure that the people who are covered by the companies that receive those waivers do not have access to insurance that meets the new standards.

The rule does not establish any waiver process. The word waiver does not appear anywhere in the law, if it did you would have linked to it and quoted it.

Want to try again?



Greenbeard said:


> The most interesting part is imaging a parallel reality where they didn't grant waivers, and thus were harshly criticized for ignoring their mandate to preserve access and protect premiums. I wonder what side you'd come down on in that reality?



I do not find imaging alternate universes vaguely interesting. I do, however, enjoy imagining alternate realities where idiots do not attempt to argue impossible conditions. I also imagine a universe where the government is not afraid to admit that a law that was cobbled together, never read, and then shoved down people's throat contains errors that, as written, make it impossible to enforce.

Believe it or not, I would respect a government like that.



Greenbeard said:


> I take it you haven't actually looked at the criteria for receiving an annual limit waiver recently.



What does it matter what rule that HHS is using to describe criteria for an exemption that is illegal in the first place?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> Here is the outline.
> 
> "These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.
> ...



*Well now, here we have another lying Conservative. But of course, something that actually helps small business is not something the Conservatives want. Small business? What's that worth? If it ain't a multi-hundred billion dollar multi-national, it ain't worth nothing. The Conservative mantra for real.*

Small businesses are moving forward on health care | OregonLive.com

By Jim Houser 

On March 10, I was invited to testify before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions of the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee in Washington, D.C. The hearing was titled "The Pressures of Rising Costs on Employer Provided Health Care." As co-owner of Hawthorne Auto Clinic in Southeast Portland, I described the challenges we face in providing health insurance coverage for our nine full-time employees and their families. 

Our company's health insurance costs doubled from 2002 to 2010 to total more than $100,000. I shared my personal story with the committee: This year, our premium costs actually declined by more than 3 percent. When combined with the tax credit we receive because of the Affordable Care Act -- a credit that as many as 4 million American small-businesses could be eligible for if they offer health coverage -- our savings will be between 8 and 10 percent. I don't ever remember our health insurance costs going down before this year. But as I listened to the prepared remarks of the Republican representatives and their invited guests, it became clear to me that they didn't care about my very real story. In fact, they don't care about the realities of how the health care law is helping small businesses at all. They're too invested in a partisan political fight to discredit and dismantle the health care law before more of its benefits kick in -- perhaps because the insurance industry, whose excessive profits and worst practices will be reined in by the law, is too invested in our politicians.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> ...



The author of your article was on the First Lady's guest list for attendance at the SOTU address.  Do you suppose that might color his perspective a bit?   A really ambitious Democrat would testify that pigs fly to get on that list.

Guest List for First Lady's Box at State of the Union | 11alive.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
> ...



Let me see.

One guy, from the most liberal state in the US, tells me one thing. Every other businessman, and my own personal experience, tells me the opposite.

Gotta go with the unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence. You win.


----------

