"You didn't get there on your own"

[Bfgrn]

"Pravda Reports"
of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well



7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds

The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers.​

Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage

Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.
"The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

​

So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it
Yes unintended consequences and more
costs that were not factored in.....

The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.

The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the health care legislation enacted in March 2010—will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance “exchanges” that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCT’s estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.

Sure it will

No doubt it will run just as well as the Post Office

...one scenario examined here shows that larger reductions in employment-based health insurance than expected by CBO and JCT might lower rather than raise the cost of the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA.

 

[Listening]

The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.

The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the health care legislation enacted in March 2010—will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance “exchanges” that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCT’s estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.

It has just as good a chance of bringing my mother back from the grave.

The CBO ? Really ?

 

[Neotrotsky]

What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world



Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare

“Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a “Recovery Summer.” Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.”

Sherk writes that Obamacare “discourages employers from hiring in several ways:​

 

[The T]

The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.

The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the health care legislation enacted in March 2010—will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance “exchanges” that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCT’s estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.

It has just as good a chance of bringing my mother back from the grave.

The CBO ? Really ?

CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.

Our choices are that we weren't the primary ones who built our own businesses or we "don't need civilization?" Those polar extremes are our only choices? What a load.

I'll tell you one thing though. Civilization needs us more then we need to do what we do for civilization.

Sure, you can have a business without all this infrastructure. Just read about the Wild West if you want a decent example, maybe not a perfect example though.

Anyone can walk a field instead of a road, anyone can shoot someone instead of calling the police, hell, anyone can take something without paying for it. What I'm saying is that businesses, as a whole, do better with government than without.

 

[Murf76]

My bad, I guess romney wasn't first

Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read

Was just copying off the President then.

Suggesting a round of applause isn't quite the same as imposing additional taxation, which is ultimately enforced at the point of gun. But nice try.

The IRS usually seizes bank assets or garnishes wages and salaries when it is owed money you refuse to pay. Seldom does it require a weapon. I have no idea how we got on the subject of law enforcement - but why not? So go ahead and explain to us how you would prefer the IRS collect unpaid taxes? Should they just ask nicely? Perhaps send a singing telegram?

Seldom is not never. We all know that if you give 'em enough guff about it, you'll be headed to prison at the point of a gun. Question is, what level of force is Mitt Romney going to use in order to get that suggested round of applause?

 

[Bfgrn]

What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world



Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare

“Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a “Recovery Summer.” Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.”

Sherk writes that Obamacare “discourages employers from hiring in several ways:​

OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!

Did Sherk tell you THIS?

• American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?

• Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

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

 

[Listening]

CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.

As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions. They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.

But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.

So if you have: GARBAGE IN

You get: Obamacare

 

[The T]

CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.

As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions. They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.

But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.

So if you have: GARBAGE IN

You get: Obamacare

YEP...but when you have an INSTALLED minion?

Garbage has a megaphone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.

True. Attempting to address this with rightist ideologues is pointless. They’ll adhere blindly to dogma, ignoring the facts.

 

[boedicca]

No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.

Look at my thumb...........gee you're dumb.


It is such a Tired Moonbat Talking Point that conservatives don't value civilization. What you neglect to understand is that Civilization is not the same as Government.

Civil Society is made up of voluntary relationships managed responsible individuals. Decent CIVIL people don't need the Government to Nannystate them into proper behavior.

 

[The T]

No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.

Did it EVER occur to YOU that Business IS civilization that operates under a set of rules that Government has perverted, and that YOU have bought into the Government meme?

IDIOT.

 

[Neotrotsky]

What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world



Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare

“Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a “Recovery Summer.” Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.”

Sherk writes that Obamacare “discourages employers from hiring in several ways:​

OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!

Did Sherk tell you THIS?

• American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?

• Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

Oh yes the Left's attempt to justify their position by trying to equate it to
a conservative proposal.

Granted, while a liberal plan that was a true and complete copy of a Conservative idea would be the only way to guarantee that the liberal plan was any good,
Papa Obama Care does not meet this test ,....

Indeed, the myth that Papa ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation continues

As Stuart Butler himself says:

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features.

First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others.
Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs —
so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher,
financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare,
the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.​

Granted misery loves company and the left is trying to diffuse blame for this thing
But this monstrosity all belongs to the Left and Papa Obama ...

 

[Bfgrn]

CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.

As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions. They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.

But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.

So if you have: GARBAGE IN

You get: Obamacare

Poly want a cracker?

Obama’s 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill

At the height of President Bill Clinton’s health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, President Obama revived republicans’ ’93 health reform plan.

Today, we hear republicans’ feigned and plaintive wails of “Socialized medicine,” and “unconstitutionality.” Oh my!

Really? No, really? …’Cause seems to me that “Obamacare” actually saw birth as a republican idea!

In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.

♦A mandate that individuals buy insurance, ♦subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, ♦the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and ♦refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in “Obamacare.”

Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by today’s Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. “The main thing that’s changed is the definition of a Republican,” he said. Hum… changed to what definition? Oh yeh… that’s right: Party Of No.

Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the President’s goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, what’s new here? …Same complaint about Obama).

How close are Obamacare and Republican’s Alternative Health Plan ’93? Very!

Republicans support Obama’s health reforms — as long as his name isn’t on them

What’s particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the law’s main provisions.

* Eighty percent of Republicans favor “creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support “providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance.” That’s backed by 67 percent of independents.

* Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor “requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty two percent of Republicans favor “allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26.” That’s backed by 69 percent of independents.

* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support “banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor “banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.” Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.

* One provision that isn’t backed by a majority of Republicans: The one “expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.”

“Most Republicans want to have good health coverage,” Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. “They just don’t necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.”

I’d add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate — not to mention Obama himself — that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.

more

 

[Listening]

What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world



Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare

“Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a “Recovery Summer.” Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.”

Sherk writes that Obamacare “discourages employers from hiring in several ways:​

OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!

Did Sherk tell you THIS?

• American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?

• Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

Oh yes the Left's attempt to justify their position by trying to equate it to
a conservative proposal.

Granted, while a liberal plan that was a true and complete copy of a Conservative idea would be the only way to guarantee that the liberal plan was any good,
Papa Obama Care does not meet this test ,....

Indeed, the myth that Papa ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation continues

As Stuart Butler himself says:

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features.

First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others.
Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs —
so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher,
financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare,
the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.​

Granted misery loves company and the left is trying to diffuse blame for this thing
But this monstrosity all belongs to the Left and Papa Obama ...

Yes Bfgrn is all bought into the book of "How to argue for Obamacare".

I could care less if Ronald Reagan wanted it.

Here are the same rebuttals to the same stupid argument:

In 1993, the GOP was pretty much irrelevant.

They were fighting off HillaryCare which they thought was terrible. They go find this mandate idea put out by Heritage (the left loves to quote Heritage on this one...but won't read anything else they say....talk about selective memory) and use it as a smoke screen.

It was a smokescreen.

Hillarcare dies and the GOP takes over congress in 1994...no more talk of health care.

Now, does anyone really believe that the GOP wanted health care.

Oh, and because Simon and Co. put it out there...it has to be constitutional. Can anyone explain that logic to me ?

If the GOP had wanted health care they had ample opportunity from 1994 to 2008 to pass anything they wanted (do you really think dems would have stood in the way ?).

It just gets to funny to have these secluded left batwing morons spit this stuff out like Pavlov's dog.

 

[The T]

OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!

Did Sherk tell you THIS?

• American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?

• Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

Oh yes the Left's attempt to justify their position by trying to equate it to
a conservative proposal.

Granted, while a liberal plan that was a true and complete copy of a Conservative idea would be the only way to guarantee that the liberal plan was any good,
Papa Obama Care does not meet this test ,....

Indeed, the myth that Papa ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation continues

As Stuart Butler himself says:

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features.

First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others.
Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs —
so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher,
financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare,
the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.
​

Granted misery loves company and the left is trying to diffuse blame for this thing
But this monstrosity all belongs to the Left and Papa Obama ...

Yes Bfgrn is all bought into the book of "How to argue for Obamacare".

I could care less if Ronald Reagan wanted it.

Here are the same rebuttals to the same stupid argument:

In 1993, the GOP was pretty much irrelevant.

They were fighting off HillaryCare which they thought was terrible. They go find this mandate idea put out by Heritage (the left loves to quote Heritage on this one...but won't read anything else they say....talk about selective memory) and use it as a smoke screen.

It was a smokescreen.

Hillarcare dies and the GOP takes over congress in 1994...no more talk of health care.

Now, does anyone really believe that the GOP wanted health care.

Oh, and because Simon and Co. put it out there...it has to be constitutional. Can anyone explain that logic to me ?

If the GOP had wanted health care they had ample opportunity from 1994 to 2008 to pass anything they wanted (do you really think dems would have stood in the way ?).

It just gets to funny to have these secluded left batwing morons spit this stuff out like Pavlov's dog.

NO ONE in the GOP voted for Hillarycare OR Obamacare...

The Left is left with a MYTH.

 

[Listening]

CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.

As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions. They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.

But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.

So if you have: GARBAGE IN

You get: Obamacare

Poly want a cracker?

Obama’s 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill

At the height of President Bill Clinton’s health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, President Obama revived republicans’ ’93 health reform plan.

Today, we hear republicans’ feigned and plaintive wails of “Socialized medicine,” and “unconstitutionality.” Oh my!

Really? No, really? …’Cause seems to me that “Obamacare” actually saw birth as a republican idea!

In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.

♦A mandate that individuals buy insurance, ♦subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, ♦the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and ♦refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in “Obamacare.”

Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by today’s Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. “The main thing that’s changed is the definition of a Republican,” he said. Hum… changed to what definition? Oh yeh… that’s right: Party Of No.

Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the President’s goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, what’s new here? …Same complaint about Obama).

How close are Obamacare and Republican’s Alternative Health Plan ’93? Very!

Republicans support Obama’s health reforms — as long as his name isn’t on them

What’s particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the law’s main provisions.

* Eighty percent of Republicans favor “creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support “providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance.” That’s backed by 67 percent of independents.

* Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor “requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty two percent of Republicans favor “allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26.” That’s backed by 69 percent of independents.

* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support “banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor “banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.” Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.

* One provision that isn’t backed by a majority of Republicans: The one “expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.”

“Most Republicans want to have good health coverage,” Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. “They just don’t necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.”

I’d add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate — not to mention Obama himself — that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.

more

Hey asswipe....

How does that apply to what I posted.

Or did you just need to get this off your chest even though it has no relevance to the topic at hand ?

Feel better ? Good. Now go f**k yourself.

 

[The T]

CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.

As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions. They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.

But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.

So if you have: GARBAGE IN

You get: Obamacare

Poly want a cracker?

Obama’s 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill

At the height of President Bill Clinton’s health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, President Obama revived republicans’ ’93 health reform plan.

Today, we hear republicans’ feigned and plaintive wails of “Socialized medicine,” and “unconstitutionality.” Oh my!

Really? No, really? …’Cause seems to me that “Obamacare” actually saw birth as a republican idea!

In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.

♦A mandate that individuals buy insurance, ♦subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, ♦the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and ♦refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in “Obamacare.”

Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by today’s Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. “The main thing that’s changed is the definition of a Republican,” he said. Hum… changed to what definition? Oh yeh… that’s right: Party Of No.

Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the President’s goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, what’s new here? …Same complaint about Obama).

How close are Obamacare and Republican’s Alternative Health Plan ’93? Very!

Republicans support Obama’s health reforms — as long as his name isn’t on them

What’s particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the law’s main provisions.

* Eighty percent of Republicans favor “creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support “providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance.” That’s backed by 67 percent of independents.

* Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor “requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty two percent of Republicans favor “allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26.” That’s backed by 69 percent of independents.

* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support “banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor “banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.” Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.

* One provision that isn’t backed by a majority of Republicans: The one “expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.”

“Most Republicans want to have good health coverage,” Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. “They just don’t necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.”

I’d add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate — not to mention Obama himself — that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.

more

BuFU? you're full of SHIT.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bfgrn seems determined to derail this thread with incessant spamming if he can't do it any other way, and I thank the sane people for not taking the bait.

So back on the topic, President Obama's campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been out on the circuit doing damage control this week. But she hasn't quite managed to reverse the concept that people object to in President Obama's remarks, and in fact managed to reinforce them.

. . . .The Obama campaign walk-back on the president’s July 13 remarks then took the form of claiming that big federal government programs are equally responsible for business successes. In essence, the Obama campaign denied government created business successes, and then Cutter backtracked again to Obama’s original position, stating:

The President said that together, Americans built the free enterprise system that we all benefit from…. He has invested in our roads, bridges and highways, he has doubled Pell grant scholarships and reformed the student loan system to help students afford college, and he is committed to making sure that every community in America is connected to the digital age by expanding broadband access. Ironically, Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business can’t always do it alone…. These attack ads make you wonder. Does [Romney] even understand how our economy works? You and I know how it works. We build our businesses through hard work and initiative, with the public and private sectors working together to create a climate that helps us grow. President Obama knows that, and he’s fighting to strengthen our economy on that basic principle.

Cutter’s remarks echoed Obama’s remarks about small businesses that “we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology.” Of course, the federal government has not always subsidized education and technology; these are extra-constitutional innovations of the last 40 years and not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. And the federal government has a poor track record of backing technology with tax dollars.

More troubling than the lack of historical and constitutional history is the fact that Obama and Cutter’s summary of Obama’s economic agenda as “the public and private sectors working together” serves as a succinct definition of economic fascism and the opposite of free enterprise. Furthermore, Obama seems to be unaware that business owners, through their tax dollars, are actually paying for the “roads” and “bridges” and “education” that they supposedly depend upon. So perhaps the president should be thanking businesses for contributing to the government
» Barack Obama Walks Back

 

[The T]

Bfgrn seems determined to derail this thread with incessant spamming if he can't do it any other way, and I thank the sane people for not taking the bait.

So back on the topic, President Obama's campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been out on the circuit doing damage control this week. But she hasn't quite managed to reverse the concept that people object to in President Obama's remarks, and in fact managed to reinforce them.

. . . .The Obama campaign walk-back on the president’s July 13 remarks then took the form of claiming that big federal government programs are equally responsible for business successes. In essence, the Obama campaign denied government created business successes, and then Cutter backtracked again to Obama’s original position, stating:

The President said that together, Americans built the free enterprise system that we all benefit from…. He has invested in our roads, bridges and highways, he has doubled Pell grant scholarships and reformed the student loan system to help students afford college, and he is committed to making sure that every community in America is connected to the digital age by expanding broadband access. Ironically, Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business can’t always do it alone…. These attack ads make you wonder. Does [Romney] even understand how our economy works? You and I know how it works. We build our businesses through hard work and initiative, with the public and private sectors working together to create a climate that helps us grow. President Obama knows that, and he’s fighting to strengthen our economy on that basic principle.

Cutter’s remarks echoed Obama’s remarks about small businesses that “we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology.” Of course, the federal government has not always subsidized education and technology; these are extra-constitutional innovations of the last 40 years and not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. And the federal government has a poor track record of backing technology with tax dollars.

More troubling than the lack of historical and constitutional history is the fact that Obama and Cutter’s summary of Obama’s economic agenda as “the public and private sectors working together” serves as a succinct definition of economic fascism and the opposite of free enterprise. Furthermore, Obama seems to be unaware that business owners, through their tax dollars, are actually paying for the “roads” and “bridges” and “education” that they supposedly depend upon. So perhaps the president should be thanking businesses for contributing to the government
» Barack Obama Walks Back

Obama got off-topic...told us WHO he was...Teleprompter or not.

The MASK is OFF.

The PEOPLE are awake.

NO recovery for Obama.

That simple.