GOP could care less about jobs!

[Seawytch]

As for what the health care bill "means" for America? One year later health care premiums have shot up substantially and the number of uninsured people has increased dramatically. And that's before the real costs of this monstrosity of a bill kick in.

Got any links to support your claim?

As federal health reforms take effect, Aetna proposes rate cuts

You're kidding, right? The rise of premiums as a result of the mandates in Obamacare is all over the fucking news. I've seen it in my own premiums.
And if you had bothered to read your own link you would see they are talking about CT exclusively.

CT is just the first to do it.

I'd also like to point out that long before the ACA was passed, premiums were on the rise. According to experts, the ACA has little to do with it...

The biggest reason for premium hikes, experts say, is the age of America's workforce and the continuing demand to be treated and tested on demand. "People get sick. They utilize the plan," said Klonk. And "at the end of the day, we utilize too much."[...]

Well before the new law, average annual family premiums for workers at small firms rose from $5,700 to $12,700 in the decade between 1999 and 2009, and the share of small firms offering coverage fell from 65 to 59 percent​

Health care premiums to rise, but 'Obamacare' is only one small reason

Of course, the solution is Medicare for All.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wipe the foam from your mouth and pay attention, genius. The GOP wailed for months that the President doesn't have a job plan that is desperately needed...so the President says hey, I've got one, and I would like to a joint session address to tell it to you guys before you get down to business when you come back from vacation. And in the first time in nearly a century the Speaker of the House REJECTS the Presidents initial request to reschedule.

So evidently, jobs are not that much of a priority with the GOP. Remember bunky, it was Boehner that said if maintaining the Bush tax cuts means screwing off 200,000 federal jobs created, "so be it". His words, not mines or any liberals, Dems. or Progressives.

Deal with reality and grow the fuck up, Matthew.

Pure BS. The man hasnt had a plan for almost three years then suddenly he has one when something else was scheduled, like the opposition debate.

You were called out on the BS, but youre still whining like a little girl. Obama is a little bitch just like you.

Maybe this neocon/teabagger toadie was asleep during all those filibusters and stone walling tactics by the GOP for the last 3 years?

And since when does a fucking debate for candidacy (one of many) is SO much more important than a President presenting an economic plan to a joint session of Congress in the midst of a near depression state?

People like Full-Auto are shooting blanks mentally (as ususal). Boehner's bullshit further demonstrates he and his party don't give a damn about this country beyond the corporations and the 1-3% wealthy....but fools like Full-Auto just drape themselves over the nearest armchair and beg for another. Sad.

Oh really? Democrats couldn't get anything done because of Republican fillibuster tactics? Can you explain how Obama's Health Care Reform Bill passed a FILLIBUSTER PROOF vote of 60-39 in the senate on December 24, 2009 with all Republicans voting against? Maybe you need to do just a little more research next time.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

 

[Oldstyle]

Pure BS. The man hasnt had a plan for almost three years then suddenly he has one when something else was scheduled, like the opposition debate.

You were called out on the BS, but youre still whining like a little girl. Obama is a little bitch just like you.

Maybe this neocon/teabagger toadie was asleep during all those filibusters and stone walling tactics by the GOP for the last 3 years?

And since when does a fucking debate for candidacy (one of many) is SO much more important than a President presenting an economic plan to a joint session of Congress in the midst of a near depression state?

People like Full-Auto are shooting blanks mentally (as ususal). Boehner's bullshit further demonstrates he and his party don't give a damn about this country beyond the corporations and the 1-3% wealthy....but fools like Full-Auto just drape themselves over the nearest armchair and beg for another. Sad.

Oh really? Democrats couldn't get anything done because of Republican fillibuster tactics? Can you explain how Obama's Health Care Reform Bill passed a FILLIBUSTER PROOF vote of 60-39 in the senate on December 24, 2009 with all Republicans voting against? Maybe you need to do just a little more research next time.

Source:
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole "we would have fixed the economy except the Republicans wouldn't let us" story that Libs are trying to float is rather amusing. The fact is the Democrats chased Obama Care and put the economy on hold for the first year they were in office.

 

[The Rabbi]

Got any links to support your claim?

As federal health reforms take effect, Aetna proposes rate cuts

You're kidding, right? The rise of premiums as a result of the mandates in Obamacare is all over the fucking news. I've seen it in my own premiums.
And if you had bothered to read your own link you would see they are talking about CT exclusively.

CT is just the first to do it.

I'd also like to point out that long before the ACA was passed, premiums were on the rise. According to experts, the ACA has little to do with it...

The biggest reason for premium hikes, experts say, is the age of America's workforce and the continuing demand to be treated and tested on demand. "People get sick. They utilize the plan," said Klonk. And "at the end of the day, we utilize too much."[...]

Well before the new law, average annual family premiums for workers at small firms rose from $5,700 to $12,700 in the decade between 1999 and 2009, and the share of small firms offering coverage fell from 65 to 59 percent​

Health care premiums to rise, but 'Obamacare' is only one small reason

Of course, the solution is Medicare for All.

Obamacare was touted as the solution to rising costs. Obama promised his bill would save us billions of dollars.
Your own link shows Obamacare is contributing to the rise of insurance costs. And this is before many of its provisions have even become law.
Thanks for playing.

 

[Seawytch]

You're kidding, right? The rise of premiums as a result of the mandates in Obamacare is all over the fucking news. I've seen it in my own premiums.
And if you had bothered to read your own link you would see they are talking about CT exclusively.

CT is just the first to do it.

I'd also like to point out that long before the ACA was passed, premiums were on the rise. According to experts, the ACA has little to do with it...

The biggest reason for premium hikes, experts say, is the age of America's workforce and the continuing demand to be treated and tested on demand. "People get sick. They utilize the plan," said Klonk. And "at the end of the day, we utilize too much."[...]

Well before the new law, average annual family premiums for workers at small firms rose from $5,700 to $12,700 in the decade between 1999 and 2009, and the share of small firms offering coverage fell from 65 to 59 percent​

Health care premiums to rise, but 'Obamacare' is only one small reason

Of course, the solution is Medicare for All.

Obamacare was touted as the solution to rising costs. Obama promised his bill would save us billions of dollars.
Your own link shows Obamacare is contributing to the rise of insurance costs. And this is before many of its provisions have even become law.
Thanks for playing.

It does save the taxpayer. According to the CBO it would cost billions to repeal it. Yes, the link said A SMALL amount could be contributed to the ACA, but that premiums almost doubled in the ten years before the ACA went into effect. Try another scapegoat 'cause the one you're trying I's a fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

CT is just the first to do it.

I'd also like to point out that long before the ACA was passed, premiums were on the rise. According to experts, the ACA has little to do with it...

The biggest reason for premium hikes, experts say, is the age of America's workforce and the continuing demand to be treated and tested on demand. "People get sick. They utilize the plan," said Klonk. And "at the end of the day, we utilize too much."[...]

Well before the new law, average annual family premiums for workers at small firms rose from $5,700 to $12,700 in the decade between 1999 and 2009, and the share of small firms offering coverage fell from 65 to 59 percent​

Health care premiums to rise, but 'Obamacare' is only one small reason

Of course, the solution is Medicare for All.

Obamacare was touted as the solution to rising costs. Obama promised his bill would save us billions of dollars.
Your own link shows Obamacare is contributing to the rise of insurance costs. And this is before many of its provisions have even become law.
Thanks for playing.

It does save the taxpayer. According to the CBO it would cost billions to repeal it. Yes, the link said A SMALL amount could be contributed to the ACA, but that premiums almost doubled in the ten years before the ACA went into effect. Try another scapegoat 'cause the one you're trying I's a fail.

You're citing the same CBO that said it would be revenue neutral based on the info the Democrats gave it? And then came out a month after it passed and revised the number way up?
Yeah, that's going to fly.
Yes, health insurance premiums were going up anyway. But now they're going up even more because of the mandates in Obamacare. there is no free lunch in insurance: you pay for risk, period.

 

[Political Junky]

Medicare for All: Home
Medicare for all would enable us to join other enlightened countries, who care for their people.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well the democrats were endorsed by the commie party of the UNITED FUCKIGN STATES OF AMERICA. I doubt they care about our economic system or much of anything. A bunch of marxist commies the democrats surely are.

 

[Political Junky]

Well the democrats were endorsed by the commie party of the UNITED FUCKIGN STATES OF AMERICA. I doubt they care about our economic system or much of anything. A bunch of marxist commies the democrats surely are.

Study: Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden | The Raw Story

The actual study is here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf

92 percent prefer Swedish model to US model when given a choice

Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.
<more>

 

[The Rabbi]

Medicare for All: Home
Medicare for all would enable us to join other enlightened countries, who care for their people.

Enlightened countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, Belgium, France, etc etc.
Phooey.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Medicare for All: Home
Medicare for all would enable us to join other enlightened countries, who care for their people.

Feel free to enlighten us on how such a program would be funded.
All these wonderful things have a price tag.
Better still you would be so kind as to explain how such a large government program would be administered. And while you are at it, explain how the prevention of fraud and waste would be eliminated

 

[Political Junky]

Medicare for All: Home
Medicare for all would enable us to join other enlightened countries, who care for their people.

Feel free to enlighten us on how such a program would be funded.
All these wonderful things have a price tag.
Better still you would be so kind as to explain how such a large government program would be administered. And while you are at it, explain how the prevention of fraud and waste would be eliminated

Exactly the same as we fund Medicare now. It is Medicare, but would cover us from cradle to grave.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well the democrats were endorsed by the commie party of the UNITED FUCKIGN STATES OF AMERICA. I doubt they care about our economic system or much of anything. A bunch of marxist commies the democrats surely are.

Study: Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden | The Raw Story

The actual study is here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf

92 percent prefer Swedish model to US model when given a choice

Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.
<more>

92% of whom?
Nobody asked me.

 

[Political Junky]

Well the democrats were endorsed by the commie party of the UNITED FUCKIGN STATES OF AMERICA. I doubt they care about our economic system or much of anything. A bunch of marxist commies the democrats surely are.

Study: Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden | The Raw Story

The actual study is here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf

92 percent prefer Swedish model to US model when given a choice

Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.
<more>

92% of whom?
Nobody asked me.

Perhaps a friend could read the study to you and explain.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Medicare for All: Home
Medicare for all would enable us to join other enlightened countries, who care for their people.

Feel free to enlighten us on how such a program would be funded.
All these wonderful things have a price tag.
Better still you would be so kind as to explain how such a large government program would be administered. And while you are at it, explain how the prevention of fraud and waste would be eliminated

Exactly the same as we fund Medicare now. It is Medicare, but would cover us from cradle to grave.

Not good enough. I want details. Cost analysis. Who's taxes go up. Who runs it. Who makes sure it is run correctly free of fraud and waste. How many new government workers would be required. How many new presidential appointees would you think would be needed?
The government cannot simply waive a magic wand "voila! You're covered".
Somebody's got to pay.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Study: Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden | The Raw Story

The actual study is here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf

92 percent prefer Swedish model to US model when given a choice

Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.
<more>

92% of whom?
Nobody asked me.

Perhaps a friend could read the study to you and explain.

Fuck off you condescending elitist bastard.

 

[Political Junky]

Feel free to enlighten us on how such a program would be funded.
All these wonderful things have a price tag.
Better still you would be so kind as to explain how such a large government program would be administered. And while you are at it, explain how the prevention of fraud and waste would be eliminated

Exactly the same as we fund Medicare now. It is Medicare, but would cover us from cradle to grave.

Not good enough. I want details. Cost analysis. Who's taxes go up. Who runs it. Who makes sure it is run correctly free of fraud and waste. How many new government workers would be required. How many new presidential appointees would you think would be needed?
The government cannot simply waive a magic wand "voila! You're covered".
Somebody's got to pay.

I'm guessing most Americans would like to pay into the government, who operates Medicare at about a 3% overhead, as opposed to a for profit whose CEO makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

 

[Stephanie]

Exactly the same as we fund Medicare now. It is Medicare, but would cover us from cradle to grave.

Not good enough. I want details. Cost analysis. Who's taxes go up. Who runs it. Who makes sure it is run correctly free of fraud and waste. How many new government workers would be required. How many new presidential appointees would you think would be needed?
The government cannot simply waive a magic wand "voila! You're covered".
Somebody's got to pay.

I'm guessing most Americans would like to pay into the government, who operates Medicare at about a 3% overhead, as opposed to a for profit whose CEO makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

That's the problem with you Liberals, you always GUESS people want WHAT you all want.
Well as you can see as usual, you are ALWAYS wrong. And if you are so worried about people making MONEY. STOP voting for millionaire DEMOCRATS to be you MASTERS.

 

[Oldstyle]

Medicare for All: Home
Medicare for all would enable us to join other enlightened countries, who care for their people.

You may not have gotten the memo on this, Junky...but the Medicare we have NOW (never mind adding to it!) is going to totally bankrupt us inside of twenty years. So you want to "expand" a program that we can't come close to paying for now in it's much smaller form?

Would love to hear how you intend to pay for the Medicare we have now...and THEN we can talk about how you'd pay for a VAST expansion of it.

 

[MeBelle]

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

&#9679; Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

&#9679; Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

&#9679; Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

&#9679; Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

Cell phones were in there also, the docs are too large to copy and paste from.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shoot, I must be wayyyyy poor, I don't have an Xbox dammittall!!