Health Care Reform Passes

[Bullet]

I'm so happy, I shit my American flag diaper.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Ray, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting this blatant piece of crap"

Translation: We just got some free shit and you wanna start talking all realistic about it..

You folks with hands held in praise, you've obviously not been on this planet very long. How this will turn out, one only needs to look at auto insurance, minimal coverage and hefty premiums. The Insurance companies via lobbying and other strong arm tactics, convinced the Government, if they force everyone to buy insurance, prices will fall due to higher volumes. Watch and see what happens.. Prepare for thy screwing.

And they keep tossing the 8% tax-fine for businesses that do not comply. If a business is operating on a 10% margin, and some don't even, that's a huge fine..

[Mikeg]

......you should be ashamed of yourself for posting this blatant piece of crap......

You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading beyond the very first part of that "fact-check" article to which Diehard provided a link. The authors determined that only 9 of the 18 e-mail claims they fact-checked were clearly "False".

9 out of 18 means that about 50% of the claims in the chain e-mail were lies, which I would judge to be about the same ratio of veracity for the claims I have witnessed coming from the mouths, pens and keyboards of Obamacare supporters.

[rb336]

rb, Track the increases of federal income taxes and the loss of spending power of the dollar since Roosevelt started implementing Keynesian like principles through his high unemployment ridden presidency. President Obama is walking in Roosevelt's footsteps. Whereas Roosevelt never reduced unemployment below 17% throughout his first seven years of being President, Obama has increased official unemployment to about 10%, or 17% using pre-Clinton methods of calculating unemployment, despite spending trillions of dollars and increasing annual deficits. Keynesianism just plain doesn't work at least the ways in which has been applied. Keynes was supposed to be very intelligent and made observations not observed by modern Keynesians...

ah, please stop regurgitating CATO Institute bunk. Fact is, unemployment decreased every year of the new deal except '37-'38, when FDR tried to start balancing the budget by cutting back programs and GDP grew at 9% until 37-38, and went to 11% afterwards. Further, the greatest economic growth in the history of....the world happened when the highest tax rates were in the 70+% range and we made great strides to improve the infrastructure [[there's an old saying amongst historians - he with the best infrastructure wins)

[oladub]

ah, please stop regurgitating CATO Institute bunk. Fact is, unemployment decreased every year of the new deal except '37-'38, when FDR tried to start balancing the budget by cutting back programs and GDP grew at 9% until 37-38, and went to 11% afterwards. Further, the greatest economic growth in the history of....the world happened when the highest tax rates were in the 70+% range and we made great strides to improve the infrastructure [[there's an old saying amongst historians - he with the best infrastructure wins)

The information is from government records rather than the CATO Institute. Fact is that most of us to don't consider seven years of at least 17% unemployment to tbe a measure of success. I just read yesterday, that counting underemployment, the US unemploment rate went up again last month to 20%. The GDP reflected, in large part Roosevelt's deficit spending and devalueing of the dollar. I could buy a lot of thing too if I could borrow a bunch of money, print more in the basement, and bill it to my children like Roosevelt, Obama, and other Keynesians. Roosevelt even got a little lucky by having a war come along to put people back to work. I do have a soft spot for Roosevelt's infrastructure spending though. Too bad that Obama blew his Porkulus wad [[our money) on other things.

[Diehard]

You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading beyond the very first part of that "fact-check" article to which Diehard provided a link.

Did YOU read beyond the first paragraph? At least to the second paragraph? Where it says: "Most of what the e-mail says is wrong. In fact, it's a clearinghouse of bad information."

The authors determined that only 9 of the 18 e-mail claims they fact-checked were clearly "False".

The rest were mostly rated "barely true" and "half true" - meaning a bizarre, misleading interpretation of something taken from the bill. The factcheckers certainly didn't say 1/2 of the claims were factual.
The more disturbing aspect is how much was obviously added and twisted to whip up the angry, ignorant wingnuts. Why in the world would a health care bill mention ACORN or illegal immigrants? It's extremely insulting to the intelligence of anyone who can read. I'm also angry at anyone who would pass this crap around and assume we're dumb enough to buy it.

9 out of 18 means that about 50% of the claims in the chain e-mail were lies, which I would judge to be about the same ratio of veracity for the claims I have witnessed coming from the mouths, pens and keyboards of Obamacare supporters.

I'm not sure what you've been reading and who you've been talking to, and that claim is too vague to prove, but some links would be appreciated.

[East Detroit]

I've addressed this twice already. rb didn't like the term 'Obamacare' for some reason. From my post #236 on the Obamacare thread-

Neither Obama nor Mugabe are Kenyans but both are Keynesians which often is fiscally debillitating.

So, the only example you could think of for a Keynesian just happens to be from Africa?

Right.

[Retroit]

Now that we have assurance that Obama will pay for all our medical care, do you think we all ought to go into group therapy?

[Mikeg]

I'm not sure what you've been reading and who you've been talking to, and that claim is too vague to prove, but some links would be appreciated.

Read my posts in the Obamacare thread. I've presented more links and factual information than most posters.

The Democrat's most egregious lie is the one we repeatedly heard Sunday from Dems on the floor of the House: there are 45,000 deaths each year in the United States due to lack of health care coverage [link to my Obamacare post on this lie]. Yet the Dems have the balls to claim that it's the Republicans who are the fearmongers?

The Democrat's other big lies involve the financial shell game they've been palying with these health care reform bills [link to my post], particularly the one claiming that the second ten years will bring deficit reduction totaling $1.2 trillion. [link to my post].

[gibran]

Mike what is the real figure? if it is one isn't that one too many...I always heard it was around 4500....even so it's way too many...when you think of the families left behind wondering what if...I agree don't inflate numbers the facts are real enough...

but here i s the article I posted last week...

[[Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.
Health | Healthcare Reform
"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.
Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.
The findings come amid a fierce debate over Democrats' efforts to reform the nation's $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry by expanding coverage and reducing healthcare costs.[[Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

[oladub]

So, the only example you could think of for a Keynesian just happens to be from Africa?

No, East Detroit, you have to practice your reading comprehension skills. They are both Keynesians who have been ruining their respective domestic economies. Mugabe has been a stellar Keynesian as has been Obama in his first sorry year in office. I mean, Obama can't even get the unemployment down while running two wars. Tony Brown is also a Keynesian but hasn't the name recognition or the time in office to build up such a reputation. Mugabe has, of course, the advantage of being at it longer. One of Mugabe's finance ministers once wrote Bush a letter congratulating him for his deficit spending. That was, of course, before President Obama showed up President Bush in his ability to spend the country into bankruptcy.

[Mikeg]

Joe Biden: 'This is a Big F*#cking Deal'

When it's all said and done, I doubt that the US Government will be able to borrow enough money to be able to afford this health insurance reform legislation, so it really won't be such a "Big F*#cking Deal" after all, just a big, broken promise:

Obama Pays More Than Buffett as U.S. Risks AAA Rating


March 22 [[Bloomberg) -- The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffet than Barack Obama.

Two-year notes sold by the billionaire’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe’s Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks..........

While Treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the government typically yield less than corporate debt, the relationship has flipped as Moody’s Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K. America will use about 7 percent of taxes for debt payments in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, moving “substantially� closer to losing its AAA rating, Moody’s said last week.......

Eventually, Congressional legislators and the Chief Executive will be unable to avoid the economic realities of spending too far beyond ones means and the consequences that come with a sustained rate of increasing deficits. You can only afford to pay a certain level of debt interest as a percent of your revenue before the smart money refuses to buy any more of your debt, regardless of the yield and its rating. Today, Greece, tomorrow the EU and by 2014, the United States will all have had their free-spending wings clipped the hard way.

[maxx]

If you think the deficit reduction provided by the reforms is insufficient, then let's discuss the $250 BILLION ANNUAL SUBSIDY given to employer-provided health insurance.

Hopefully, things will be a bit better fiscally when we get out of W's unnecessary war in Iraq. How many billions has that cost us? Not to mention the lives lost and ruined.

[firstandten]

Hopefully, things will be a bit better fiscally when we get out of W's unnecessary war in Iraq. How many billions has that cost us? Not to mention the lives lost and ruined.

War is bad enough in terms of lives lost and ruined but these wars weren't even funded.

[rb336]

The GDP reflected, in large part Roosevelt's deficit spending and devalueing of the dollar.

Hardly. yes, there are government docs, but your reading [[?) of them is totally out of the CATO big bag of bullshit

[maxx]

To generate revenue to pay for the costs associated with the new health insurance reform legislation, for the first time ever, payroll taxes will also be levied on non-wage income. In other words, those above a certain income level will have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on the capital gains associated with the sale of their home, stocks, etc. as well as on retirement annuity payments and other non-wage income. You can be sure that it will only be a matter of time before those income limits start getting lowered and affecting more and more taxpayers.

Maybe someone will get the idea of raising the income cap on SS taxes. It's around $88,000, I think. I never understood why the rich stopped paying SS taxes once their income reached a certain level that a lot of people never reached. And those people don't have the resources to get the medical care that would extend their lives.

[maxx]

Thanks for that Firstandten...

A well written piece.... the words that really come to mind are "hysterical accusations and pseudo-information"... which is what has been the mainstay of nay-sayers whipping their base into a frenzy for much too long.

I bet that Ccbatson [[where's he been lately??).. is probably being fitted for a straight-jacket as we speak....

Maybe he's packing to leave the country.

[maxx]

ah, please stop regurgitating CATO Institute bunk. Fact is, unemployment decreased every year of the new deal except '37-'38, when FDR tried to start balancing the budget by cutting back programs and GDP grew at 9% until 37-38, and went to 11% afterwards. Further, the greatest economic growth in the history of....the world happened when the highest tax rates were in the 70+% range and we made great strides to improve the infrastructure [[there's an old saying amongst historians - he with the best infrastructure wins)

Maybe the top 1% are planning to replace all the bridges and roads as they collapse with their own toll bridges and toll roads.

[Diehard]

Wow. Ladies and gentlemen, we have posts. Thank you.

Read my posts in the Obamacare thread. I've presented more links and factual information than most posters.

The Democrat's most egregious lie is the one we repeatedly heard Sunday from Dems on the floor of the House: there are 45,000 deaths each year in the United States due to lack of health care coverage [link to my Obamacare post on this lie].

What you've posted is a challenge to the way that number was calculated, from a group that promotes a free market approach to health care - which says to me they're against reform. Their point is legitimate, but they've got an agenda to defend the status quo. Statistics and studies provided by either side of such a hot-button issue are suspect, wouldn't you say?
So the real number is somewhere in the middle. I find it a stretch to call this an "egregious lie" on par with that chain email's claims that ACORN will be knocking on your door and illegal immigrants will be covered.
From your perspective, how big does that number have to be for us to call it a problem? If it is "only" 4,500 people a year, should we shrug it off and conclude that our current system needs no improvement?

Yet the Dems have the balls to claim that it's the Republicans who are the fearmongers?

I don't know who's circulating that fearmongering email, but I'm guessing it's not Democrats.

The Democrat's other big lies involve the financial shell game they've been palying with these health care reform bills [link to my post], particularly the one claiming that the second ten years will bring deficit reduction totaling $1.2 trillion. [link to my post].

Again, both those posts are about uncertainty with the way numbers are being calculated. How could it be a "lie" when the whole point is that nobody really knows what those numbers will be, ten years from now?

[maxx]

The information is from government records rather than the CATO Institute. Fact is that most of us to don't consider seven years of at least 17% unemployment to tbe a measure of success. I just read yesterday, that counting underemployment, the US unemploment rate went up again last month to 20%. The GDP reflected, in large part Roosevelt's deficit spending and devalueing of the dollar.

Then I guess the shrub and his cronies were inadvertent Keynesians since this mess we're in didn't just materialize when Obama was elected.

Too bad that Obama blew his Porkulus wad [[our money) on other things.

Like keeping teacher jobs and investing in non-petroleum energy sources.

[maxx]

I heard on NPR that Arizona has a public option for businesses, and of course, the conservatives are trying to get rid of it.

[maxx]

While I was trying to find out details about the closing of the drug donut hole, I came across this. It just reminds me of how little the Republicans care for the average person; we're all expendable to their base, the top 1%. The Republicans could have made such a deal while they were in power, but they didn't.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/06/...e/tab/article/

[oladub]

Then I guess the shrub and his cronies were inadvertent Keynesians since this mess we're in didn't just materialize when Obama was elected.

Like keeping teacher jobs and investing in non-petroleum energy sources.

Yes, Bush's administration did pursue, or at least allow the Fed to pursue Keynesian policies. Obama only outdoes Bush by degree in this matter. Keynesianism did not work for Bush either. The Fed created bubble burst during his administration.

Teachers should be paid by their respective school districts and/or states. The federal government has no such delegated power. What percentage of porkulus was allocated to investing in non-petroleum energy sources? Why didn't the federal government first stop subsidizing the use of petroleum before it started subsidizing non-petroleum energy slurces to be able to compete with petroleum?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: " and by 2014, the United States will all have had their free-spending wings clipped the hard way."

China is already rumbling about our borrowing from them, sending indicators, we may not be doing so in the very near future. Their Government is much smarter than ours, in oh so many ways. This healthcare plan is tantamount to loaning your friend money for food and they buy drugs instead.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I never understood why the rich stopped paying SS taxes once their income reached a certain level"

Because there is a cap on the amount of benefits they can receive? Social security is not a pool of free money as many administrations have treated it.