Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
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 ...
More shock and surprise! Stuart Butler not telling the truth...WOW, who would believe the people who invented the individual mandate would now say it is a bad idea?
BTW, Thank you for not reading what Robert Moffit wrote. I will provide the paramount issue he explains.
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.
He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations 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.
Here is much more of what Moffit wrote.
Personal Freedom Responsibility And Mandates
The Taxpayer Mandate
Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a consumer choice plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.
On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a metaphysical abstraction. 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.
We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.
Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.
Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.
So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.
3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698), Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).