"You didn't get there on your own"

[saveliberty]

Guess I own your sorry ass then. Question is now, what could I possibly need it for? I can't think of a single purpose. I'll just throw you back like a carp.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Oh please. An editorial in the WashPo?

 

[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.

Bullshit....Employers will drop insurance coverage because it is cheaper for them to do so.
Step back from the Obama cheerleading and face some facts.
My wife has us under her employer's insurance. She pays almost $500 per month.
The rest of the cost is on the employer. Roughly $18k per year. So, the employer will look at that cost and compare it to the 8% that the federal government would fine the company for not providing the insurance coverage. Case closed.
Reduce cost? No. Obama care may reduce the price charged to the recipient of care, but the plan will not be able to control COST. The COST of medical care will continue to rise.
New technology, new medicines, etc...Those items COST money. The only way to achieve any "savings' is for government to subsidize the COST. In other words more debt will be created to cover the COST.
Brilliant.
Obamacare MUST be repealed if not then gutted.
It's job killing disaster.

NONE of the 'cost' is on the employer. ALL of the cost is on YOU.

A Snare And A Delusion - Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 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.

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

 

[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.

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.

Is that where the indivdual would foot the cost of things like having the police come out to your house o, well, wouldn't you be charged for everything pretty much? At this point i'm wondering because im not sure....dude

 

[Bfgrn]

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 ?

these people on the left just do what they are told. They believe the propaganda.
These government organizations are under the control of the Obama regime. Non partisan my ass.
No department of the federal government is going to publicly write or say anything that makes Obama look bad.
These 'so-called' facts are bullshit.

The CBO is under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. The President is the head of the executive branch. No wonder you right wingers are so confused.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government that provides economic data to Congress. The CBO was created as a nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

History

The Congressional Budget Office was created by Title II of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (P.L. 93-344), which was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on July 12, 1974. Official operations began on February 24, 1975, with Alice Rivlin as director. wiki

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Oh please. An editorial in the WashPo?

Reporting the results of an Reuters-Ipsos poll.

Try again...

 

[Neotrotsky]

Not telling the truth not at all

But the Left's desperation to cover for the monstrosity of PapaObama Care
is noted

As the article says:

Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.​

While one can appreciate the Left's desperation to cover their ass on this one,
PapaObama Care went far beyond any discussion by these groups.

It is rather amusing that the Left can only justify their position by
trying to claim it is conservative. Understandable, but still funny

One would think the Left would be proud and brave to say
"Hey this is our baby and we are taking all the credit for it"

Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:

"If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]

[1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).

Here is a history lesson for you.

The Individual Mandate, a Brief History — Part I, Conservative Origins

Oh I have and outside of the word mandate
there is not much

state control, catastrophic coverage- Papa Obama care- not

tax credits--- Papa Obama care - not and with a penalty/tax
so yes there is a mandate but the Heritage plan does not
impose a penalty for no coverage- one just loses the tax break

Under Papa ObamaCare each person would be allowed into pools without regard to age or
preexisting conditions and the same cost to all of them- This would act as a large regressive cost to everyone in that pool

Fundamentally, Papa Obama always wanted single payer. He and the Democrats tried to get as close to it -
But that was curbed by public response to their plans

So what go instead is the "first step" to that goal- Papa ObamaCare

A plan that was designed on purpose for employers to drop employees as quickly as possible into gov't run pools
since the penalty is less than the cost of covering them. Insurers will leave the marketplace as the customer base dries up.
That makes a lot of economic sense- not

Furthermore with penalty/ tax for not having insurance being cheaper than buying
your own insurance, people will just wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance and then billions will be removed from the insurance pool.
Net effect we will have these pools and the gov;t sponsored plans
acting as drains on the insurance market-It will not take much for this Ponzi scheme to collapse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again they share the word mandate- that is the majority of similarity.
One was a system designed to be tax credit based system for working people
to get help with catastrophic insurance costs in the market place

The other, PapaObama care is a comprehensive system designed on purpose
to strain the markets, lead to their demise to be replaced by single payer

The goal of PapaObama care was never about market based solutions to the problem
The goal was for the Left to get their foot into the back door
Frank clearly states what the intentions of the Left were all along
The left just dropped the word public option to replace with mechanisms that will
act as the same.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98[/ame]


Again this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care belongs to and is owned
by the Left

 

[Bfgrn]

Not telling the truth not at all

But the Left's desperation to cover for the monstrosity of PapaObama Care
is noted

As the article says:

Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.​

While one can appreciate the Left's desperation to cover their ass on this one,
PapaObama Care went far beyond any discussion by these groups.

It is rather amusing that the Left can only justify their position by
trying to claim it is conservative. Understandable, but still funny

One would think the Left would be proud and brave to say
"Hey this is our baby and we are taking all the credit for it"

Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:

"If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]

[1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).

Here is a history lesson for you.

The Individual Mandate, a Brief History — Part I, Conservative Origins

Oh I have and outside of the word mandate
there is not much

state control, catastrophic coverage- Papa Obama care- not

tax credits--- Papa Obama care - not and with a penalty/tax
so yes there is a mandate but the Heritage plan does not
impose a penalty for no coverage- one just loses the tax break

Under Papa ObamaCare each person would be allowed into pools without regard to age or preexisting conditions and the same cost to all of them- This would act as a large regressive cost to everyone in that pool

Fundamentally, Papa Obama always wanted single payer. He and the Democrats tried to get as close to it - But that was curbed by public response to their plans

So what go instead is the "first step" to that goal- Papa ObamaCare

A plan that was designed on purpose for employers to drop employees as quickly as possible into gov't run pools since the penalty is less than the cost of covering them. Insurers will leave the marketplace as the customer base dries up.

Furthermore with penalty/ tax for not having insurance being cheaper than buying
your own insurance, people will just wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance and then billions will be removed from the insurance pool.
It will not take much for this Ponzi scheme to collapse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again they share the word mandate- that is the majority of similarity.
One was a system designed to be tax credit based system for working people
to get help with catastrophic insurance costs in the market place

The other, PapaObama care is a comprehensive system designed on purpose
to strain the markets, lead to their demise to be replaced by single payer


Again this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care belongs to and is owned
by the Left

Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because 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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Attention: This thread is NOT about Health Care Reform. There are many many threads out there to discuss healthcare reform.

This thread is about American business and how much it owes to Obama and the government.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not telling the truth not at all

But the Left's desperation to cover for the monstrosity of PapaObama Care
is noted

As the article says:

Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.​

While one can appreciate the Left's desperation to cover their ass on this one,
PapaObama Care went far beyond any discussion by these groups.

It is rather amusing that the Left can only justify their position by
trying to claim it is conservative. Understandable, but still funny

One would think the Left would be proud and brave to say
"Hey this is our baby and we are taking all the credit for it"

Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:

"If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]

[1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).

Here is a history lesson for you.

The Individual Mandate, a Brief History — Part I, Conservative Origins

Oh I have and outside of the word mandate
there is not much

state control, catastrophic coverage- Papa Obama care- not

tax credits--- Papa Obama care - not and with a penalty/tax
so yes there is a mandate but the Heritage plan does not
impose a penalty for no coverage- one just loses the tax break

Under Papa ObamaCare each person would be allowed into pools without regard to age or
preexisting conditions and the same cost to all of them- This would act as a large regressive cost to everyone in that pool

Fundamentally, Papa Obama always wanted single payer. He and the Democrats tried to get as close to it -
But that was curbed by public response to their plans

So what go instead is the "first step" to that goal- Papa ObamaCare

A plan that was designed on purpose for employers to drop employees as quickly as possible into gov't run pools
since the penalty is less than the cost of covering them. Insurers will leave the marketplace as the customer base dries up.
That makes a lot of economic sense- not

Furthermore with penalty/ tax for not having insurance being cheaper than buying
your own insurance, people will just wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance and then billions will be removed from the insurance pool.
Net effect we will have these pools and the gov;t sponsored plans
acting as drains on the insurance market-It will not take much for this Ponzi scheme to collapse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again they share the word mandate- that is the majority of similarity.
One was a system designed to be tax credit based system for working people
to get help with catastrophic insurance costs in the market place

The other, PapaObama care is a comprehensive system designed on purpose
to strain the markets, lead to their demise to be replaced by single payer

The goal of PapaObama care was never about market based solutions to the problem
The goal was for the Left to get their foot into the back door
Frank clearly states what the intentions of the Left were all along
The left just dropped the word public option to replace with mechanisms that will
act as the same.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98]Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank - YouTube[/ame]


Again this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care belongs to and is owned
by the Left

We'll take it, even though it is not single payer or offers a public option. And the legacy of Republicans and conservatives will go down as the traitors who tried to undermine reform and destroy the President of the United States of America. They used their favorite method:

Insurgency

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

 

[Neotrotsky]

Will it

smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public


Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets

 

[saveliberty]

Agreed it is all driven to create a socialist state. That is why Obama worked so hard on it and let the country slide even further into economic chaos. Now business owes the government even more in his mind. He'll slip up and mention this in the not too distant future.

 

[Bfgrn]

Will it

smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public


Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets

WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.

BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?

 

[Bfgrn]

Agreed it is all driven to create a socialist state. That is why Obama worked so hard on it and let the country slide even further into economic chaos. Now business owes the government even more in his mind. He'll slip up and mention this in the not too distant future.

I am amazed at the hatred on the right. Obama did not destroy our economy, Bush did.

 

[Listening]

Will it

smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public


Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets

WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.

BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?

The USA.

Now, can we get back to Obama and the off speech yacking he did that essentially reminded so many people who in love with the government he is.

I've already described the issues one of my family members had with the start up a travel agency in a small town in AZ. Nobody on the left wanted to address the fact that besides spending time going through a great deal of red tape which cost a lot of money and brought no value it also delayed the opening (only for red tape reasons) long enough for them to miss the busy season.

Why ? Because there is nothing to say. Obama's attitude is why he needs to go.

 

[Listening]

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

She asks if Romney knows how the economy works !!! I love it. He can't seem to get anything right with regards to it (other than to whine when we won't raise spending).

Isn't this the whore who managed to slip the word felon into some of her acid-high musings ?

 

[Bfgrn]

Will it

smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public


Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets

WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.

BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?

The USA.

Now, can we get back to Obama and the off speech yacking he did that essentially reminded so many people who in love with the government he is.

I've already described the issues one of my family members had with the start up a travel agency in a small town in AZ. Nobody on the left wanted to address the fact that besides spending time going through a great deal of red tape which cost a lot of money and brought no value it also delayed the opening (only for red tape reasons) long enough for them to miss the busy season.

Why ? Because there is nothing to say. Obama's attitude is why he needs to go.

The USA?

The Cost of Doing Nothing
Why the Cost of Failing to Fix Our Health System Is Greater than the Cost of Reform

2008

The U.S. health care system is in crisis. Health care costs too much; we often get too little in exchange for our health care dollar; and tens of millions of Americans are uninsured.

Our economy loses hundreds of billions of dollars every year because of the diminished health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Rising health care costs undermine the ability of U.S. firms to compete internationally, threaten the stability of American jobs, and place increasing strain on local, state, and federal budgets. As health care costs continue to rise faster than wages, health insurance becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day.

Yet, the recent financial services meltdown has led some people to suggest that we cannot afford health reform and that fixing our broken health care system will have to wait once again. But waiting comes with a price. The crisis worsens every day that we do not act. Premiums will continue to rise; Americans will continue to pay more for less-generous health coverage; and fewer employers will offer health insurance to their workers.

We must reform our struggling health system not in spite of our economic crisis, but rather because of the impact health care has on the American economy. The economic and social impact of inaction is high and it will only rise over time.

Economic Cost

The economic cost of failing to fix our broken health care system is greater than the upfront expense of comprehensive health reform. In 2006, our economy lost as much as $200 billion because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. This is by most estimates as much as, if not greater than, the public costs of ensuring all Americans have quality, affordable, health coverage. The economies in California, Texas, and Florida suffer most from productivity loses stemming from the uninsured. Yet, Delaware’s economy loses more per uninsured person -- over $6,800 per uninsured resident.

Affordability

As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.

More

 

[Listening]

.

Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."

On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.

This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.

Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.

Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'

.

Yes, and you are stupid to think you got there because you worked harder than others.

Or because you were smart.

You don't work hard.

You are not smarter.

That would sound like a collectivist propaganda rollout if ever there was one.

 

[Barb]

 

[Listening]

President Obama's stray sentences however point to a bolder conclusion. If it's not brains or work that account for success, what is it? The answer must be … luck. Not maybe entirely luck, but luck to a great degree. By definition, however, luck is amoral. Nobody can deserve luck, otherwise he wouldn't be lucky. To the extent success is due to luck, success is undeserved—and to the extend that success is undeserved, the successful have no very strong claim to the proceeds of their success. Whereas Warren suggests that the wealthy should be taxed to repay tangible benefits they have personally received, Obama is indicating a possibility that the wealthy should be taxed … because their wealth is to a great extent an accident of fate.

Why "You Didn't Build That" Stings the Successful - The Daily Beast

And from another site:

Commenting on the president’s dubious exposition, small business owner Debi Somers, who runs a furniture store in Las Vegas, Nevada, concurred that “there isn’t any way that a small business owner can achieve their dream if they don’t have the support of the government.”

However, Somers said the notion that businesses and wealthy individuals owe their success to government “isn’t necessarily true.” She added, “We put in — we work 80 hours [per week], and we live it, we breathe it, we sleep it.”

In fact, Obama and Warren seem to have the argument backward: If it were not for private entrepreneurs applying their ingenuity and sweat-equity to building businesses, creating wealth, and hiring others — hence spreading their newly created wealth — government would have no source of wealth with which to build public roads in the first place.