Obamacare just ruined my life

[candycorn]

I am unemployed no thanks to your guy, Barry. But this isn't about me, is it? You can't answer the question can you?

[MENTION=31178]MeBelle60[/MENTION]

You must have missed this post in this thread.

You silly boy. You speak of my life experience.....as if you come close.
I don't "assail" people who struggle.....I call out liars. I especially like to fuck with blowhards like you.

A liar accusing other people of lying. How cute.

I am unemployed no thanks to the "savior" you call Obama. He has literally done nothing to help me improve my prospects of employment. I've been in and out four different jobs since he became president. He is too busy starting wars to keep his promises and ensure my job security.

Go ahead, ask him what he does now...

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]

I know what he does now;

He's chronically unemployed and blames everyone except himself for his lot in life. But I'm sure he likes you bringing up his shortcomings...keep it going.

 

[MeBelle]

Employers don't 'pay' for an employee's health insurance

Sure they do! Here's why:

Deductible Premiums
You generally can deduct premiums you pay for the following kinds of insurance related to your trade or business.

Group hospitalization and medical insurance for employees, including long-term care insurance.

Publication 535 (2012), Business Expenses

the employee DOES.

In some cases an employer can sponsor a health insurance plan.
Example:
Money-saving products – members can use pretax dollars to pay for their health insurance premiums, transportation to work, and child care.

Solutions for All Sizes -- Aetna

It is a deferred wage.

Ummmm, no.

An arrangement in which a portion of an employee's income is paid out at a date after which that income is actually earned. Examples of deferred compensation include pensions, retirement plans, and stock options. The primary benefit of most deferred compensation is the deferral of tax.

What is Deferred Compensation? definition and meaning

Deferred compensation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your link:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

In late January 1994 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Princeton University sponsored a conference entitled “Universal Coverage: How Best to Achieve It?” At that conference several prominent economists and policymakers presented papers on the pros and cons of employer and individual mandates. In response, a number of others offered comments on various aspects of the mandate question. Here Health Affairs presents the views of two respondents.

 

[MeBelle]

[MENTION=31178]MeBelle60[/MENTION]

You must have missed this post in this thread.

A liar accusing other people of lying. How cute.

I am unemployed no thanks to the "savior" you call Obama. He has literally done nothing to help me improve my prospects of employment. I've been in and out four different jobs since he became president. He is too busy starting wars to keep his promises and ensure my job security.

Go ahead, ask him what he does now...

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]

I know what he does now;

He's chronically unemployed and blames everyone except himself for his lot in life.

Proof?
TIA

But I'm sure he likes you bringing up his shortcomings...keep it going.

You're 'sure'? Riiiiight, not.

I know what I was doing @ age 25 when the economy sucked.

His shortcomings?
Unless you are married to him or live with him you don't know anything!


Your deflections are AWESOME!

 

[RKMBrown]

Even the complaint that it is causing employers to cut back on hours to escape being part of the program is easy to fix. All that needs be done is to have employers pay into they system by an hourly basis with the employee paying the difference. Employers no longer will benifit from cutting hours and more employee's would be responsible for paying a portion of their insurance. It could prevent many from having to use medicaid.

Why should we pay for YOUR health care when YOU don't work for us? I have a better idea. Why don't YOU get a job looser.

Employers don't 'pay' for an employee's health insurance, the employee DOES. It is a deferred wage.

Personal Freedom, Responsibility, And Mandates
by Robert E. Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow


A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

So you are saying Obuma care is redistribution of income from the working poor to the people who just want to sit on their ass and receive freebies?

 

[candycorn]

You must have missed this post in this thread.



Go ahead, ask him what he does now...

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]

I know what he does now;

He's chronically unemployed and blames everyone except himself for his lot in life.

Proof?
TIA

But I'm sure he likes you bringing up his shortcomings...keep it going.

You're 'sure'? Riiiiight, not.

I know what I was doing @ age 25 when the economy sucked.

His shortcomings?
Unless you are married to him or live with him you don't know anything!


Your deflections are AWESOME!

He says he's without a job; basically a bum. You can argue with him if you like. You're boring me.

 

[candycorn]

Why should we pay for YOUR health care when YOU don't work for us? I have a better idea. Why don't YOU get a job looser.

Employers don't 'pay' for an employee's health insurance, the employee DOES. It is a deferred wage.

Personal Freedom, Responsibility, And Mandates
by Robert E. Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow


A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

So you are saying Obuma care is redistribution of income from the working poor to the people who just want to sit on their ass and receive freebies?

Should help pemplar...

 

[MeBelle]

I know what he does now;

He's chronically unemployed and blames everyone except himself for his lot in life.

Proof?
TIA

But I'm sure he likes you bringing up his shortcomings...keep it going.

You're 'sure'? Riiiiight, not.

I know what I was doing @ age 25 when the economy sucked.

His shortcomings?
Unless you are married to him or live with him you don't know anything!


Your deflections are AWESOME!

He says he's without a job; basically a bum. You can argue with him if you like. You're boring me.

Then stop responding to me. You brought me into this thread with the @ sign I'm responding. You were caught in a lie...own it! Sorry that the truth hurts.

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]



Another deflection fail candy girl. You can't even 'answer' what you think you know. Light emphasis on the word think.

 

[Bfgrn]

Employers don't 'pay' for an employee's health insurance

Sure they do! Here's why:

Deductible Premiums
You generally can deduct premiums you pay for the following kinds of insurance related to your trade or business.

Group hospitalization and medical insurance for employees, including long-term care insurance.

Publication 535 (2012), Business Expenses

the employee DOES.

In some cases an employer can sponsor a health insurance plan.
Example:
Money-saving products – members can use pretax dollars to pay for their health insurance premiums, transportation to work, and child care.

Solutions for All Sizes -- Aetna

It is a deferred wage.

Ummmm, no.

An arrangement in which a portion of an employee's income is paid out at a date after which that income is actually earned. Examples of deferred compensation include pensions, retirement plans, and stock options. The primary benefit of most deferred compensation is the deferral of tax.

What is Deferred Compensation? definition and meaning

Deferred compensation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your link:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

In late January 1994 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Princeton University sponsored a conference entitled “Universal Coverage: How Best to Achieve It?” At that conference several prominent economists and policymakers presented papers on the pros and cons of employer and individual mandates. In response, a number of others offered comments on various aspects of the mandate question. Here Health Affairs presents the views of two respondents.

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.– Goethe

 

[Mac1958]

No, I can't cite any falsehoods or misrepresented facts circulated by opponents of the ACA as a group. Seems to me they're getting it pretty spot on, and because I have done some extensive reading on it and have access to opinions of those in the insurance and medical fields who are dealing with it, there's a lot of stuff the opponents are missing too.

Will any given individual get a fact wrong here and there? Of course. Intelligent people are not infallible any more than are the morons who are buying into Obamacare as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

For those who want a well written, comprehensive, and intelligent synopsis summarizing what is including in the ACA, I recommend Nick J. Tate's booklet: "Obamacare Survival Guide." Just google it and you'll find a number of ways to buy it at a very reasonable cost. It has been on the New York Times best seller list for many weeks. It translates the legaleze in the legislation to everyday English, and I am not finding anything in it that distorts the facts in any way. 221 pages and thoroughly indexed.

Don't forget that the things you suggest are 'lies' and 'distortions' are being reported in the mainstream media that has been in bed with Obama since Day #1. The same media who has bent over backwards to shield him from negative press and has exalted his every word. When THEY concede that Obamacare is a disaster, you can take it to the bank that Obamacare is a disaster.

What is the sixth word in the third paragraph of the 59th page of that Tate book?

Well, the third complete paragraph on Page 59 is:

(Referring to the incentives Obamacare puts out there to win converts):

"The first one is straightforward enough. Under ObamaCare, the doors of Medicaid will be thrown wide open and millions of Americans will now qualify for the program. That's because the income threshhold to qualify for Medicaid will be raised in 2014 to 133 percent of the federal poverty line ($29,327 for a family of four in 2010) in most states in the country."

The fourth paragraph on that same page goes on to discuss states opting out despite threats of losing all their Medicaid funding, a provision of the ACA law that the Supreme Court subsequently ruled unconstitutional.

These paragraphs are included in a comprehensive discussion in Chapter 5 entitled "The Individual Mandate."

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is the sixth word in the third paragraph of the 59th page of that Tate book?

Well, the third complete paragraph on Page 59 is:

(Referring to the incentives Obamacare puts out there to win converts):

"The first one is straightforward enough. Under ObamaCare, the doors of Medicaid will be thrown wide open and millions of Americans will now qualify for the program. That's because the income threshhold to qualify for Medicaid will be raised in 2014 to 133 percent of the federal poverty line ($29,327 for a family of four in 2010) in most states in the country."

The fourth paragraph on that same page goes on to discuss states opting out despite threats of losing all their Medicaid funding, a provision of the ACA law that the Supreme Court subsequently ruled unconstitutional.

These paragraphs are included in a comprehensive discussion in Chapter 5 entitled "The Individual Mandate."

.

How about you, Mac? You want to answer the question of the day?

Can you cite any intentional misrepresentations of the facts regarding Obamacare that have been promoted by the opponents of Obamacare? Or, will you sit there on your very rickety fence and lie like your new heroin here?

Oh! That's right. You have me on ignore! How creepy!

 

[Bfgrn]

May 22, 2009
Is Employer-Based Health Insurance Worth Saving?
By UWE E. REINHARDT

Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton.

Ask any group of health policy experts whether they would have put in place our employment-based health insurance system, had they had the luxury of designing our health system from scratch, the resounding answer most likely would be “No.” In fact, no other industrialized country has quite this arrangement. It is uniquely American in origin and in modus operandi.

Our employment-based system was not the product of a carefully designed health policy. It was a byproduct of evading wage controls during World War II.

At the time it was thought that, as the nation’s drafted military personnel risked their limbs and life on foreign battlefields at low, tightly controlled pay, those who stayed behind should have their wages controlled as well.

But with the wink of the eye with which Congress routinely puts loopholes into the tax laws or regulations it imposes, the wage controls imposed in World War II did not extend to fringe benefits. And thus, employer-paid fringe benefits, including employment-based health insurance, were born.

As was noted in last week’s post, Congress further encouraged the growth of employment-based health insurance by treating the employers’ contribution to their employees’ health insurance as a tax-deductible business expense. On the other hand, it was also not viewed as taxable compensation of the employee.

Remarkably, and quite unfairly, that tax preference was not granted to families forced to purchase health insurance on their own. They had to buy it with after-tax dollars.

From the perspective of health policy experts, however, that approach has serious shortcomings.

First, it keeps opaque who actually pays for the health care used by employees.

Both employers and employees seem to believe that the “company” absorbs the cost of the employer’s contributions to the group health insurance premiums for their employees — typically 80 percent of the premium.

Employers believe that these costs must either be recovered through the prices of the goods or services they sell (i.e., passing along the rising costs of health care to their customers in the form of higher prices), or taken out of the return to the company’s owners. On that belief, American executives now complain pitiably that the high cost of American health care makes their enterprises uncompetitive in the global marketplace.

For their part, employees tend to view employer-paid health insurance as a gift, on top of their pay. Therefore they see little personal gain in attempts to control the cost of their care.

Most economists are persuaded by theory and evidence that, over the longer run, the contributions employers make toward the fringe benefits of their employees come out of the employees’ take-home pay. Economists think of employers as pickpockets, so to speak, who take a chunk of the employee’s total compensation and buy with it whatever fringe benefits they “give” their employees. That process blinds employees to the inroads that their health care makes into their families’ livelihood.

more

 

[Mac1958]

.

Employer-based health care may have been a good idea at one point, but it's a horrible fucking idea now.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

There is usually something in ANY legislation that most people will approve. That something good within any legislation is what dishonest politicians (and their supporters) use to justify the legislation.

Reasonable, honest, and logical people point to the something good and ask why don't we do THAT and dump all the rest?

And as for approval ratings for Obamacare lately the recent polls show:

Rasmussen - September 14/15 - 43% favor - 53% oppose.

ABC/Washington Post - September 12-15 - 42% favor - 52% oppose

CNN - September 6-8 - 35% favor - 57% oppose

Fox News - September 6-8 - 35% favor - 54% oppose

NBC/WSJ - September 5-8 - 31% favor - 44% oppose

USA Today/Pew - September 4-8 - 42% favor - 53% oppose
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

Which of course, since this is just about the ONLY legislation Obama puts out there as something good he has accomplished, is why his own approval ratings are sliding into consistently negative territory.

Do you think those numbers would be the same if every lie that opponents have fabricated was never circulated?

Wait.....let me say it this way......

Can you cite any falsehoods or misrepresented facts circulated by opponents of the ACA? Are there any well publicized claims made by Obamacare opponents that you personally know are false and should never have been made?

Please......

It's your place to specify the Lies that have made the public go against the ACA..............

Should be easy for you, go to daily KOS and I'm sure it's scripted for you..................

Will people like you ever accept that this law is turning our Workforce into Part Time..........

Will you admit that key elements are not ready now, and push for a 1 year delay on the entire law..................as key elements are not in service....................

Will you do this by the Law, aka put the vote up in Congress and stop circumventing the Constitution.............................

Will you admit that Unions are now ticked off because the law is hurting their members..............

Will you continue to deny that millions of our Senors will lose funding that helped them in the Advantage cuts.....................

Will you admit that you passed the law on a LIE that it would cost less than reality because you used years at the CBO with the law not in place................

Will you admit that the cost of 10 year projections has nearly doubled.................

Will you admit that the number of people who would get to keep their insurance has doubled in LOSING THEIR INSURANCE.................

Will you admit that the ACA put a tax on Insurance policies for just having them..........

Will you admit that people are required to put up Personal data into the Federal Hub.........

Will you admit that your personal data can be seen by providers Nationwide, thus increasing the possibility that your personal information can be seen by those without the need to know.......................

Is this a violation of our privacy.................And if not why do you then bitch about the NSA when you don't give a damn about our Medical Records............

Why do you post how affordable it is to those in the FPL ranges but ignore the data about those outside that range when many are getting fucked by paying more to pay for the Free Policies again.

aka Redistribution of Wealth as always.....................

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Employer-based health care may have been a good idea at one point, but it's a horrible fucking idea now.

.

Not sure it was ever a good idea......but you speak truth about the present.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is usually something in ANY legislation that most people will approve. That something good within any legislation is what dishonest politicians (and their supporters) use to justify the legislation.

Reasonable, honest, and logical people point to the something good and ask why don't we do THAT and dump all the rest?

And as for approval ratings for Obamacare lately the recent polls show:

Rasmussen - September 14/15 - 43% favor - 53% oppose.

ABC/Washington Post - September 12-15 - 42% favor - 52% oppose

CNN - September 6-8 - 35% favor - 57% oppose

Fox News - September 6-8 - 35% favor - 54% oppose

NBC/WSJ - September 5-8 - 31% favor - 44% oppose

USA Today/Pew - September 4-8 - 42% favor - 53% oppose
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

Which of course, since this is just about the ONLY legislation Obama puts out there as something good he has accomplished, is why his own approval ratings are sliding into consistently negative territory.

Do you think those numbers would be the same if every lie that opponents have fabricated was never circulated?

Wait.....let me say it this way......

Can you cite any falsehoods or misrepresented facts circulated by opponents of the ACA? Are there any well publicized claims made by Obamacare opponents that you personally know are false and should never have been made?

Please......

It's your place to specify the Lies that have made the public go against the ACA..............

Should be easy for you, go to daily KOS and I'm sure it's scripted for you..................

Will people like you ever accept that this law is turning our Workforce into Part Time..........

Will you admit that key elements are not ready now, and push for a 1 year delay on the entire law..................as key elements are not in service....................

Will you do this by the Law, aka put the vote up in Congress and stop circumventing the Constitution.............................

Will you admit that Unions are now ticked off because the law is hurting their members..............

Will you continue to deny that millions of our Senors will lose funding that helped them in the Advantage cuts.....................

Will you admit that you passed the law on a LIE that it would cost less than reality because you used years at the CBO with the law not in place................

Will you admit that the cost of 10 year projections has nearly doubled.................

Will you admit that the number of people who would get to keep their insurance has doubled in LOSING THEIR INSURANCE.................

Will you admit that the ACA put a tax on Insurance policies for just having them..........

Will you admit that people are required to put up Personal data into the Federal Hub.........

Will you admit that your personal data can be seen by providers Nationwide, thus increasing the possibility that your personal information can be seen by those without the need to know.......................

Is this a violation of our privacy.................And if not why do you then bitch about the NSA when you don't give a damn about our Medical Records............

Why do you post how affordable it is to those in the FPL ranges but ignore the data about those outside that range when many are getting fucked by paying more to pay for the Free Policies again.

aka Redistribution of Wealth as always.....................

You seem upset.

 

[dblack]

Bfgrn,

I couldn't agree more with the notion that the way we've been insuring ourselves, especially the way we've promoted employer-provided group plans, is the root of the problem. I think many Republicans get this a well. This could be used as a starting point for real consensus on a real solution. It's sad and frustrating that the Democrats and the President chose a different course.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bfgrn,

I couldn't agree more with the notion that the way we've been insuring ourselves, especially the way we've promoted employer-provided group plans, is the root of the problem. I think many Republicans get this a well. This could be used as a starting point for real consensus on a real solution. It's sad and frustrating that the Democrats and the President chose a different course.

Yes. If only they'd been willing to work with the GOP on a solution. Instead, they just went all socialist and passed a law that keeps the profit motive in health care! Bastards!

 

[Snookie]

The big fear the republicans have about obama care is that it will be successful.

If it was as screwed up they would let it ride and watch it crash and then cash in on its failure.

 

[eagle1462010]

Do you think those numbers would be the same if every lie that opponents have fabricated was never circulated?

Wait.....let me say it this way......

Can you cite any falsehoods or misrepresented facts circulated by opponents of the ACA? Are there any well publicized claims made by Obamacare opponents that you personally know are false and should never have been made?

Please......

It's your place to specify the Lies that have made the public go against the ACA..............

Should be easy for you, go to daily KOS and I'm sure it's scripted for you..................

Will people like you ever accept that this law is turning our Workforce into Part Time..........

Will you admit that key elements are not ready now, and push for a 1 year delay on the entire law..................as key elements are not in service....................

Will you do this by the Law, aka put the vote up in Congress and stop circumventing the Constitution.............................

Will you admit that Unions are now ticked off because the law is hurting their members..............

Will you continue to deny that millions of our Senors will lose funding that helped them in the Advantage cuts.....................

Will you admit that you passed the law on a LIE that it would cost less than reality because you used years at the CBO with the law not in place................

Will you admit that the cost of 10 year projections has nearly doubled.................

Will you admit that the number of people who would get to keep their insurance has doubled in LOSING THEIR INSURANCE.................

Will you admit that the ACA put a tax on Insurance policies for just having them..........

Will you admit that people are required to put up Personal data into the Federal Hub.........

Will you admit that your personal data can be seen by providers Nationwide, thus increasing the possibility that your personal information can be seen by those without the need to know.......................

Is this a violation of our privacy.................And if not why do you then bitch about the NSA when you don't give a damn about our Medical Records............

Why do you post how affordable it is to those in the FPL ranges but ignore the data about those outside that range when many are getting fucked by paying more to pay for the Free Policies again.

aka Redistribution of Wealth as always.....................

You seem upset.

LOL

You seem to continue to refuse to look at data of this BS Law, and divert the BS on to other areas..................

Next we are going to talk about Elephants and Jack Asses...............

Point to ponder. Elephants have bigger ears. I hope I didn't just offend Elephants you might rant for hours on how a hate elephants.

 

[dblack]

Bfgrn,

I couldn't agree more with the notion that the way we've been insuring ourselves, especially the way we've promoted employer-provided group plans, is the root of the problem. I think many Republicans get this a well. This could be used as a starting point for real consensus on a real solution. It's sad and frustrating that the Democrats and the President chose a different course.

Yes. If only they'd been willing to work with the GOP on a solution. Instead, they just went all socialist and passed a law that keeps the profit motive in health care! Bastards!

PPACA isn't socialist. It's pure corporatism. It preserves the profits of the vested interests, but does away with the free market, with the freedom of health care consumers.