PDA

View Full Version : Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance



Pages : [1] 2

TopHatter
29 Oct 13,, 01:49
Obama admin. knew for at least three years millions could not keep their health insurance
By Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye
NBC News

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs. “One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on – that doesn’t discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections – but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits,” said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo.

Individual insurance plans with low premiums often lack basic benefits, such as prescription drug coverage, or carry high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. The Affordable Care Act requires all companies to offer more benefits, such as mental health care, and also bars companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president’s promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. “What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide,” Carney said. “So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.”

Other experts said that most consumers in the individual market will not be able to keep their policies. Nancy Thompson, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits, which helps companies manage their employee benefits, says numbers in this market are hard to pin down, but that data from states and carriers suggests “anywhere from 50 to 75 percent” of individual policy holders will get cancellation letters. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the health committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says that estimate is “probably about right.” She added that a few states are asking insurance companies to cancel and replace policies, rather than just amend them, to avoid confusion.

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), an insurance trade association, also said the 50 to 75 percent estimate was consistent with the range they are hearing.

Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.

George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.
And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.
"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."

"I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."

Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, is raising a new baby while running her own PR firm. She said she received a letter last July from Cigna, her insurance company, that said the company would no longer offer her individual plan, and promised to send a letter by October offering a comparable option. So far, she hasn't received anything.

"I'm completely overwhelmed with a six-month-old and a business,” said Goldwater. “The last thing I can do is spend hours poring over a website that isn't working, trying to wrap my head around this entire health care overhaul."

Goldwater said she supports the new law and is grateful for provisions helping folks like her with pre-existing conditions, but she worries she won’t be able to afford the new insurance, which is expected to cost more because it has more benefits. "I'm jealous of people who have really good health insurance," she said. "It's people like me who are stuck in the middle who are going to get screwed."

Richard Helgren, a Lansing, Mich., retiree, said he was “irate” when he received a letter informing him that his wife Amy's $559 a month health plan was being changed because of the law. The plan the insurer offered raised his deductible from $0 to $2,500, and the company gave him 17 days to decide.

The higher costs spooked him and his wife, who have painstakingly planned for their retirement years. "Every dollar we didn't plan for erodes our standard of living," Helgren said.

Ulltimately, though Helgren opted not to shop through the ACA exchanges, he was able to apply for a good plan with a slightly lower premium through an insurance agent.

He said he never believed President Obama’s promise that people would be able to keep their current plans.
"I heard him only about a thousand times," he said. "I didn't believe him when he said it though because there was just no way that was going to happen. They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."

For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.
“Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski said. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."

Link (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite)

I'm shocked SHOCKED! to find that lying is going on in here! Seriously, didn't anybody not see this coming?

I mean, this is the same guy that promised: : “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” (President Barack Obama, Address Before A Joint Session Of Congress, Washington, DC, 2/24/09)

Well...except for your insurance premiums. But that's not really a tax. But those Obamacare fines are! The Supreme Court said so ;)

zraver
29 Oct 13,, 02:20
And QE, QE is a tax on savers.

DonBelt
29 Oct 13,, 04:03
What!? Gambling in Casablanca? I'm shocked-shocked I tell you!

Minskaya
29 Oct 13,, 12:12
Obama had to know. Initial ACA statistics don't look very promising either. The young and healthy (the financial ACA base) only constitute ~20% of applicants thus far. Not enough to float the program.

astralis
29 Oct 13,, 14:39
minskaya,


initial ACA statistics don't look very promising either. The young and healthy (the financial ACA base) only constitute ~20% of applicants thus far. Not enough to float the program.

predictable, given the horrible issues with the website. the true test is how many decide to flout the mandate later and pay the fine instead.

overall, not sure why anyone's surprised by the rate shocks...or the administration oversell, either. as mentioned, the overall thrust of the ACA is to reduce end-user costs (medical care) by increasing initial monies spent on insurance. even more specifically, it is meant to increase the costs to healthy people, especially healthy people whom ignore getting insurance, to cover the most at-risk people.

it's a mess, of course, because it's the result of massive political compromise. in this case, with the insurance companies.

Blademaster
29 Oct 13,, 17:39
These are growing pains. nothing more. It will get better as the system improves.

kato
29 Oct 13,, 19:24
pay the fine instead
What is "the fine" for underinsurance in the US? Or rather what will it be?

Cuz arbitrarily that could vary widely anywhere from an administrative 20 bucks fee up to backpayments on full premiums since enactment (which is the case in some places)...

erik
29 Oct 13,, 22:50
These are growing pains. nothing more. It will get better as the system improves.

Better? Thousands of people who work full time (40 hours a week) on low wages getting their hours cut to 30 hours a week so the companies do not have to pay for Obamacare because they can't afford it, over a million being notified and more that they are being dropped from their own plan and/or have to drop from their plan due to costs tripling or quadrupling, hence cannot afford it, and some Obamacare packages where the deductible is $25,000 does not sound like the system will get better or improve. This is an injustice forced on the American people. Especially those who will have to choose an Obamacare package, but can't afford the monthly payment and will not choose a package so they are fined for not being able to afford it.

TopHatter
30 Oct 13,, 00:48
These are growing pains. nothing more. It will get better as the system improves.

This is highway robbery writ large, as only the government can do it. Nothing more.

antimony
30 Oct 13,, 01:09
Looking at all of this, and having recently experienced the dirty underbelly of the Us healthcare systems, I have a feeling that the gigantic scam called the US Healthcare system will feed off even more once more and more insured come into the fold.

Its very interesting hat in call of this, no one thought of reforming one of the chief sources of the scams, the providers.

astralis
30 Oct 13,, 04:49
antimony,


Its very interesting hat in call of this, no one thought of reforming one of the chief sources of the scams, the providers.

thus the liberal dream of single-payer.

which, incidentally, because of the requirement that hospitals treat emergency-room patients without concern about cost...is what the US -has-, only in its most inefficient and costly form.

on a similar note.

note that for all the conservative screeches of "socialism!" in the ACA...the republican plan for medicare is to essentially convert it into....the ACA.

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 13,, 05:18
Eric,

Like it or not, Obama is viewed is one of the weakest POTUS in history. Only time will tell if he is worst than Jimmy Carter but that is not saying much.

Obama went begging to the Chinese for financial help and he jumped at Putin's rescue at Syria's rescue.

And he bowed before the Japanese and the Saudis ... that does wonders to Asia and Central Asia.

No matter how the Democrats wants to twist things, the fact is that Obama failed before the Canadians ... that will tell you how he failed before the rest of the world.

erik
30 Oct 13,, 14:13
OoE,

It truly is a mess with this president. It especially gets my blood boiling when we have to hear Jay Carney spew crap out of his mouth such as "We're talking about 5% of the country," (in regards to people being dropped from their insurance plans due to Obamacare). Oh only 5%... that is about 14 million people Mr. Carney when Obama said, "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what". Glad to see you aren't affected by this Obamacare.

I don't normally get too involved or emotionally attached to political issues, but this Obamacare has really hit my family and close ones around me and to see all the lies, word twisting, and issues being just brushed aside like it's nothing is just beyond laughable.

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 14:28
Eric,

Like it or not, Obama is viewed is one of the weakest POTUS in history. Only time will tell if he is worst than Jimmy Carter but that is not saying much.

Obama went begging to the Chinese for financial help and he jumped at Putin's rescue at Syria's rescue.

And he bowed before the Japanese and the Saudis ... that does wonders to Asia and Central Asia.

No matter how the Democrats wants to twist things, the fact is that Obama failed before the Canadians ... that will tell you how he failed before the rest of the world.

that is your view but it is certainly not the view of the majority of Americans. He was overwhelmingly elected with a far larger margin of victory than Bush ever got, albeit not the same as Reagan.

All what you said are conjecture not factual and very opinionated.

And you are making too much out of the bowing incidents. It was nothing but more than misunderstanding of protocols and at the time of 2009 nobody knew whether the economy was going to be around and as president, he had to do whatever to save the system. Now the system is back on firm ground, he doesn't have to bend his neck at all and he hasn't done so.

As for Syria, you are way off the mark like your assessments was off the mark regarding the ground realities. Today, events have proven that it would be a disaster if US intervened on the side of the rebels. Now the chemical weapons are being taken care of, the Syrian mess is not US any longer but Russia's and i think Obama got the better end of the deal. Your strong dislike for Obama is distorting your analysis of Obama's policies and actions

Tamara
30 Oct 13,, 14:32
that is your view but it is certainly not the view of the majority of Americans. He was overwhelmingly elected with a far larger margin of victory than Bush ever got, albeit not the same as Reagan.

All what you said are conjecture not factual and very opinionated.

Well, just to look on the bright side of things................Nixon won with a landslide......he still left early being rather hated.

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 14:35
OoE,

It truly is a mess with this president. It especially gets my blood boiling when we have to hear Jay Carney spew crap out of his mouth such as "We're talking about 5% of the country," (in regards to people being dropped from their insurance plans due to Obamacare). Oh only 5%... that is about 14 million people Mr. Carney when Obama said, "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what". Glad to see you aren't affected by this Obamacare.

I don't normally get too involved or emotionally attached to political issues, but this Obamacare has really hit my family and close ones around me and to see all the lies, word twisting, and issues being just brushed aside like it's nothing is just beyond laughable.

That is the fault of the employers and they will be punished for it soon enough and those people can get their own insurance now through the exchanges. Nothing is stopping them from getting another kind of insurance through the exchanges.

I have my own insurance. No employer is paying it for me but me paying out of my own pocket and I am not even that rich. So I am not sympathetic to the whining and belly aching and bitching going on.

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 13,, 14:44
And you are making too much out of the bowing incidents. It was nothing but more than misunderstanding of protocolsHorse Puckey. That's what he got advisors for and bowing before the Japanese dropped points for him in China, Taiwan, and Korea. While the Saudis are elated about him bowing before their king, their neighbours do not like it one bit that put the Saudi king one peg above them. No one bowed to the Kuwaiti head hancho.


and at the time of 2009 nobody knew whether the economy was going to be around and as president, he had to do whatever to save the system. Now the system is back on firm ground, he doesn't have to bend his neck at all and he hasn't done so.Does not changed the fact that he went begging to the Chinese.


As for Syria, you are way off the mark like your assessments was off the mark regarding the ground realities. Today, events have proven that it would be a disaster if US intervened on the side of the rebels. Now the chemical weapons are being taken care of, the Syrian mess is not US any longer but Russia's and i think Obama got the better end of the deal. Your strong dislike for Obama is distorting your analysis of Obama's policies and actionsYou are off the mark. The world sees Putin taking the lead, not Obama and this mess with the drone attacks. Obama had proof all along that the Pakistanis were lying through their teeth. Instead, he let them embarrass the US through all out the world. He didn't even twist their arms to shut the hell up.

And as of right now, Harper is not asking anything of Obama. Ottawa has lost faith in Washington's leadership.

astralis
30 Oct 13,, 16:21
OoE,


Eric,

Like it or not, Obama is viewed is one of the weakest POTUS in history. Only time will tell if he is worst than Jimmy Carter but that is not saying much.

Obama went begging to the Chinese for financial help and he jumped at Putin's rescue at Syria's rescue.

And he bowed before the Japanese and the Saudis ... that does wonders to Asia and Central Asia.

No matter how the Democrats wants to twist things, the fact is that Obama failed before the Canadians ... that will tell you how he failed before the rest of the world.

well, i was discussing domestic politics in this case.

regarding foreign policy:

IMO, obama's correctly identified the long-term foreign policy issues that the US faces. strategically, the shift from the middle east focus on terrorism to east asia.

i disagree that he's "gone begging to the Chinese", because as we all know the Chinese have NO CHOICE but to keep on buying US dollars- they have no place else to put their money.

in the short-term, i agree that the foreign policy execution has been amateurish, with the syria situation being a prime example of this.

having said that, obama's amateur hour has not costed the US what bush's amateur hour did. for all of bush being seen as "tough", this image came at a cost of hundreds of billions and thousands of US lives; as well as a considerable amount of international antagonism.

on a strategic level, what obama has done poorly fades into insignificance (for instance, syria is still relatively unimportant to the US; russia remains a second-rate power), while what bush did poorly affects the US to this very day (tens of thousands of troops still in afghanistan, trillions spent on the GWOT).

note that i don't use bush as an example because i want to say "well bush did it worse". nor am i using this as an example to excuse obama.

what i want to point out is that perceptions of presidential strength matter a lot less now than it did during the Cold War, where perceptions of weakness could mean the difference between peace and global war.

instead, where perceptions of presidential strength matter these days is in domestic politics. one of the reasons why the GOP just tried their suicidal show-down with the democrats is precisely because they view Obama as a weak leader, willing to cave.

Captain Worley
30 Oct 13,, 16:59
It was nothing but more than misunderstanding....

Riiiiiiiiight.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 17:20
Horse Puckey. That's what he got advisors for and bowing before the Japanese dropped points for him in China, Taiwan, and Korea. While the Saudis are elated about him bowing before their king, their neighbours do not like it one bit that put the Saudi king one peg above them. No one bowed to the Kuwaiti head hancho.

Who gives a shit about bowing? Nobody in America remembers it now until you brought it up. And Saudi's neighbors have way less punch than Saudi so a bow to the king in exchange for stable oil prices to allow US to recover is a very very small price to pay.



Does not changed the fact that he went begging to the Chinese.
Do you see Obama begging before China now? Big whooping deal. Problem solved. Next.



You are off the mark. The world sees Putin taking the lead, not Obama and this mess with the drone attacks. Obama had proof all along that the Pakistanis were lying through their teeth. Instead, he let them embarrass the US through all out the world. He didn't even twist their arms to shut the hell up.

And you don't have the complete picture or more information than Obama does so I am gonna take your words with a huge grain of salt. We as Americans are happy to see Putin to take the lead because it means that Russia inherits that mess, not the US. We do not want to own a broken pottery. The Aghanistan and Iraq war taught us the folly of owning a broken pottery without any meaningful benefits.



And as of right now, Harper is not asking anything of Obama. Ottawa has lost faith in Washington's leadership.

I am not surprised because he has a big case of sour grapes after Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline project. That was Harper's baby and he got burnt so he's walking around like a big crybaby. That ain't leadership.

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 17:21
Riiiiiiiiight.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

And Reagan didn't know what was going on? Riiiiiiight.

erik
30 Oct 13,, 17:51
That is the fault of the employers and they will be punished for it soon enough and those people can get their own insurance now through the exchanges. Nothing is stopping them from getting another kind of insurance through the exchanges.

Carney himself is blaming the insurance companies for complying with The Affordable Care Act for the "only 5%" that have lost their coverage. My mother lost hers and had to choose one of the "affordable packages" which has a $25,000 deductible! That won't cover for anything unless she has some sort of extreme accident or life threatening event. Plus she has to pay the monthly Obamacare premiums in order to keep that coverage she must have or choose to accept the yearly fine for not choosing. My boss who paid for his own insurance partially while our employer paid for partial of his too had to drop his insurance coverage because the cost was going to nearly quadruple, something obviously he could not afford. All because that insurance company was complying with the Affordable Care Act so his premiums shot up.


I have my own insurance. No employer is paying it for me but me paying out of my own pocket and I am not even that rich. So I am not sympathetic to the whining and belly aching and bitching going on.

Good for you. Hopefully your premiums won't go up or you won't be receiving a letter in the mail that you are being dropped. Whining and belly aching? All for the right reasons! I am a recent college graduate who has yet to get hired for my career so I am working 2 jobs that pay just a bit more than minimum wage. My girlfriend works one job full time for about the same wage. We have a 3 year old son to take care of. Well her company cannot afford to provide Obamacare to all of its employees (has more than the minimum amount of employees under Obamacare in which the employers has to then provide insurance for the full time employees) so to get around that, the company is cutting her to only 30 hours a week as with many others. That is 40 hours per month that we are losing out on which is money we desperately need to pay off bills, food, etc. etc. And her company, our city, our state, this isn't the only place where this is happening.

So yes, I do believe many people have the right to belly ache, bitch, and whine for something that was forced upon them and completely out of their control. Especially when the people like Jay Carney and Obama do not address the issues or just brush it aside and claim that it's only 5% of the people.

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 18:05
Erik,

You are paying forward for future health problems that will eventually crop up and trust me those costs would be much higher than without insurance. As for the deductible of $25,000 I am sorry but she is getting ripped off and it depends on where she lives. If it is one of those states that chose to opt out of ACA, then it probably explains it but in my state, the deductible ranges from $1000 to $3000, certainly not $25,000.

As for the companies cutting it down to 30 hours to get around the problem, they will get their comeuppance one day and realize their folly of doing so.

Captain Worley
30 Oct 13,, 18:09
And Reagan didn't know what was going on? Riiiiiiight.

And Grover Cleveland didn't know what was going on? Riiiiiight.

OK, we've established we can both be silly.

Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He doesn't like America being 'high and mighty' so he decided to step the US down to the Saudi's level. I think it was a bad move. Why bring a superpower down to the level of a middle eastern country?

His idealism once again runs into the reality, and once again catches the losing end of it. He's done far more than Bush da Second ever did to lower the nation's status in the world.

Captain Worley
30 Oct 13,, 18:12
As for the companies cutting it down to 30 hours to get around the problem, they will get their comeuppance one day and realize their folly of doing so.

Yeah, I fully expect the government to bizzitch slap industry for responding to a problem the government created.

erik
30 Oct 13,, 18:43
Erik,

You are paying forward for future health problems that will eventually crop up and trust me those costs would be much higher than without insurance. As for the deductible of $25,000 I am sorry but she is getting ripped off and it depends on where she lives. If it is one of those states that chose to opt out of ACA, then it probably explains it but in my state, the deductible ranges from $1000 to $3000, certainly not $25,000.

Michigan is our State and they did not opt out of ACA. It was the cheapest one she could choose since she is a single woman. I believe she chose the Bronze plan, so it is a much lower premium, but the out-of-pocket costs are substantially higher.



As for the companies cutting it down to 30 hours to get around the problem, they will get their comeuppance one day and realize their folly of doing so.

How can you put the blame on the company when they simply cannot afford to insure their employees? Punishing them for not being able to afford a government enacted policy?

There is a business that is quite the successful sub shop in my area. The owner, who started from the bottom and built his sub shop to become one of the best in the areas was planning on opening a 2nd store. He however could not due to the Obamacare policy where he would have to provide his employees with health insurance if he had a certain amount of employees that worked full time (I can't remember the number, but is it 40 or something?) Anyways, so he has his first sub shop and cut down the hours of his full time employees because he could not afford to provide the Obamacare to his employees. Why should a company be punished for that when they cannot afford?

This isn't my girlfriend's employer, her employer is a much larger business, but just an example of why should these businesses be punished when it simply is not affordable? They don't have debt limits that can be raised.

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 13,, 20:50
Who gives a shit about bowing?The Chinese, Koreans, and the Taiwanese.


Nobody in America remembers it now until you brought it up.The Republicans.


And Saudi's neighbors have way less punch than Saudi so a bow to the king in exchange for stable oil prices to allow US to recover is a very very small price to pay.The Iraq War was launched from Kuwait, not the KSA.


Do you see Obama begging before China now?Yes. There has been no talk of re-evaluating the reminbi since Obama came to power.


Big whooping deal. Problem solved. Next.Hardly. Chinese still run rampant in their capital expenditures contrary to American desires. Re-evaluating their currency, tariffs, and IP violations are still in the Chinese favour.


And you don't have the complete picture or more information than Obama does so I am gonna take your words with a huge grain of salt. We as Americans are happy to see Putin to take the lead because it means that Russia inherits that mess, not the US. We do not want to own a broken pottery.On the contrary, it saw Russia solving the mess without getting invloved. There is not one Russian trooper overseeing Assad and Assad is given the power to solve his own problem.


The Aghanistan and Iraq war taught us the folly of owning a broken pottery without any meaningful benefits.That is so much bull in this re-evaluation that it makes me sick. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were wars that needed to be fought. Maybe the wars could have been fought better. It certainly could have been fought far worst. To say these wars were broken pottery without any meaningful benefits ignores the fact that 3000 of our citizens died and it taught Saddam how to hurt us.


I am not surprised because he has a big case of sour grapes after Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline project. That was Harper's baby and he got burnt so he's walking around like a big crybaby. That ain't leadership.Yeah, how did the Brits do with the Syrian war cry?

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 13,, 20:59
IMO, obama's correctly identified the long-term foreign policy issues that the US faces. strategically, the shift from the middle east focus on terrorism to east asia.Bowing before the Japanese Emperor did not help in this matter.


i disagree that he's "gone begging to the Chinese", because as we all know the Chinese have NO CHOICE but to keep on buying US dollars- they have no place else to put their money.And gave the world an impression that the Chinese now have a say in domestic American economic matters and silenced American criticism of Chinese ill economic practices.


having said that, obama's amateur hour has not costed the US what bush's amateur hour did. for all of bush being seen as "tough", this image came at a cost of hundreds of billions and thousands of US lives; as well as a considerable amount of international antagonism.This is the kind of bull that I find sickening. There is no clean way to fight a war. Wars are dirty, unpredictable, and damned expensive in both blood and treasure. The only way to avoid it was to avoid the wars all together ... and you can't tell me that we could have avoided Afghanistan.

Iraq was poorly thought out but to this date, no one has ever counter-argued that getting rid of Saddam was not a strategic imperative.


on a strategic level, what obama has done poorly fades into insignificance (for instance, syria is still relatively unimportant to the US; russia remains a second-rate power),That's because the US is also a second rate power.


while what bush did poorly affects the US to this very day (tens of thousands of troops still in afghanistan, trillions spent on the GWOT).A strategic necessity, especially after 11 September.


what i want to point out is that perceptions of presidential strength matter a lot less now than it did during the Cold War, where perceptions of weakness could mean the difference between peace and global war.Instead, we're letting the likes of North Korea, China, and Iran dictate the picture of their own regional peace and war.

Both Obama and Hillary were adamant that Iran would not be allowed a nuke. Too late.

Captain Worley
30 Oct 13,, 21:01
The Republicans.


Not just them. Plenty of people remember it. The only people that claim they don't are just putting their hands over their ears and going 'nah-nah-nah, I can't hear you.'

Coincidentally they claim to no one remembers the Benghazi and IRS scandals.

I think Obama is going to go down as worse than Carter of for no other reason than the voters showed Carter the door after one term.

Carter was a nice guy in over his head. Obama is in over his head

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 22:24
Not just them. Plenty of people remember it. The only people that claim they don't are just putting their hands over their ears and going 'nah-nah-nah, I can't hear you.'

Coincidentally they claim to no one remembers the Benghazi and IRS scandals.

I think Obama is going to go down as worse than Carter of for no other reason than the voters showed Carter the door after one term.

Carter was a nice guy in over his head. Obama is in over his head

Obama got the economy back on its track. Unemployment is below the level that he inherited when he took over the office. The Great Recession is over. Obama got US out of two wars. I don't see Obama being worse than Carter. You are just being hyperbolic like those Tea Partiers.

astralis
30 Oct 13,, 22:24
OoE,


bowing before the Japanese Emperor did not help in this matter.


OTOH...such silliness hasn't damaged the relationships we have with other countries, either. US-ROK, US-JPN, US-PHL, you name it--- all of these relationships have gotten stronger since 2008, primarily because China has been throwing her weight around...and the US was well positioned to take advantage of it.


And gave the world an impression that the Chinese now have a say in domestic American economic matters and silenced American criticism of Chinese ill economic practices.


not sure which serious policymaker thinks that. re: Chinese crappy economic practices, reason why RMB re-evaluation isn't talked about much is because...that's precisely what the Chinese are doing. RMB hit a record high rate against the USD in august.


This is the kind of bull that I find sickening. There is no clean way to fight a war. Wars are dirty, unpredictable, and damned expensive in both blood and treasure. The only way to avoid it was to avoid the wars all together ... and you can't tell me that we could have avoided Afghanistan.

Iraq was poorly thought out but to this date, no one has ever counter-argued that getting rid of Saddam was not a strategic imperative.


it's not bull at all. both you and i know that the planning/political interference in the execution of the afghanistan/iraq wars verged on disaster. blame for this lies within both the military and the political establishment.

so, again, i don't think it's an exaggeration to say the bush administration's amateur hour resulted in both wars being significantly more costly than they had to be. these are costs that the US...and her coalition partners...and the iraqis...and the afghanis...paying to this very day.


That's because the US is also a second rate power.


if the US is a second rate power, then there is no "first rate power".

the US, of all the western powers (with the possible exception of germany) emerged from the financial crisis stronger than before. her long-term fundamentals are better than all of her allies...and all of her potential enemies.


A strategic necessity, especially after 11 September.


the wars were a strategic necessity. bungling the wars was not.


Instead, we're letting the likes of North Korea, China, and Iran dictate the picture of their own regional peace and war.

Both Obama and Hillary were adamant that Iran would not be allowed a nuke. Too late.

frankly that's what they were doing in 2002-2008, as well. past the initial scare in 2003, Iran/China/NK were laughing all the way while hundreds of thousands of US troops were fighting sunni/shia insurgents in the streets of Ramadi and Fallujah for nine long years. Iran was busy fighting the US down to the last of sadr's muppets.

the point is that presidential strength isn't the end-all be-all when it comes to international affairs. even less so today vice twenty or thirty years ago. hell, even then, the US survived jimmy carter. and had a few things gone bad (Able Archer 83 comes to mind), we might not have survived reagan!

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 23:45
The Chinese, Koreans, and the Taiwanese.

China is not an ally of US. Korean is a lesser weight and relies on a US division to anchor S. Korea's defense and same thing with Taiwan. They can grow up and it is time for them to grow up. WWII is nearly 70 years ago and the last generation to experience the horrors of WWII are dying out. Let the past go.



The Republicans.
That ain't much of an argument. It is a non-sequitur.



The Iraq War was launched from Kuwait, not the KSA. And the KSA still holds the world's largest reserves and carries great weight on OPEC, something not matched by any OPEC member. Only Russia can rival KSA in oil reserves non-shale.



Yes. There has been no talk of re-evaluating the reminbi since Obama came to power.

And China will pay for it. Free market rules.



Hardly. Chinese still run rampant in their capital expenditures contrary to American desires. Re-evaluating their currency, tariffs, and IP violations are still in the Chinese favour.
All done in violation of free market rules and they will come to rue their excess spending.



On the contrary, it saw Russia solving the mess without getting invloved. There is not one Russian trooper overseeing Assad and Assad is given the power to solve his own problem.
There are Russian soldiers on Syrian ground. See that naval base (forgot name and too lazy to look it up)



That is so much bull in this re-evaluation that it makes me sick. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were wars that needed to be fought. Maybe the wars could have been fought better. It certainly could have been fought far worst. To say these wars were broken pottery without any meaningful benefits ignores the fact that 3000 of our citizens died and it taught Saddam how to hurt us.

Aghanistan war needed to be fought but could have been handled way better. Based on recent intelligence reports on Saddam not having WMDs and the cost involved, it was not worth it. Of course you would say it was worth it because it is not your tax dollars and the blood and sweat of your countrymen that made Iraq War possible.



Yeah, how did the Brits do with the Syrian war cry?

They rejected and not doing anything with Syria but wants US to do something because they don't want to pay for it. Not a good example of leadership.


Bowing before the Japanese Emperor did not help in this matter.
Oh gawd who gives a frick? All japanese people bow out of sign of respect. George herbert Bush bowed to Japanese PM when he came over and he puked all over the Japanese PM but nobody cares.


And gave the world an impression that the Chinese now have a say in domestic American economic matters and silenced American criticism of Chinese ill economic practices.

Anybody who believes that is a good potential customer for sales of bridges in Florida.


That's because the US is also a second rate power.

That is because the people of US doesn't want to pay the piper's bill to be a first rate power. US is not a second rate power in terms of naval capability. US navy still outfirepower the next 13 navies combined without breaking a sweat. You only think of US as a second rate power because US refuses to be embroiled in wars everywhere. That is the fastest way to become a third rate power.


Instead, we're letting the likes of North Korea, China, and Iran dictate the picture of their own regional peace and war.

Ok then pay up the money necessary to dictate the peace and war in those three regions.


Both Obama and Hillary were adamant that Iran would not be allowed a nuke. Too late.
Then by your standards, it was already too late when Obama took power. Then the blame lies with Bush.

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 23:49
And Grover Cleveland didn't know what was going on? Riiiiiight.

OK, we've established we can both be silly.

Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He doesn't like America being 'high and mighty' so he decided to step the US down to the Saudi's level. I think it was a bad move. Why bring a superpower down to the level of a middle eastern country?


Or he could be responding to criticisms and complaints that US was being arrogant and high mighty so he paid respect to the king as a way to show sensitivities to the Muslim world.


His idealism once again runs into the reality, and once again catches the losing end of it. He's done far more than Bush da Second ever did to lower the nation's status in the world.
Now you are being hyperbolic and in your own reality distortion field. Bush the second did way much more than Obama could ever to lower the nation's status in the world.

Bush's bungling in the Afghanistan theater pretty much ensured that the Taliban would remain and come back and exhausted American's staying power. Same thing with Iraq and Iraq is not the shining beacon of democracy in the Muslim world as we wanted it to be like Germany or Japan.

Blademaster
30 Oct 13,, 23:53
Yeah, I fully expect the government to bizzitch slap industry for responding to a problem the government created.

I fully expect the government to bitchslap the industry for obstructing the very spirit and purpose the law was created for. The problem was not created by the government but by its own circumstances when healthcare costs were spiraling out of control and threatened the nation's financial system.

The healthcare system was a huge mess before Obama came on the scene and Obama is trying to get a handle on the mess with the Affordable Care Act. So instead of being obstructionists, why don't companies and Republicans work with the system and make it work instead of gaming the system?

Gun Grape
31 Oct 13,, 00:46
About the Bowing silliness.

When President Eisenhower bowed before Charles De Gaulle did it make us weak in the eyes of the world?

When President Nixon bowed while meeting Japanese Emperor did it make us weak in the eyes of the world? Or when he bowed to Mao?

When Reagan bowed to the Queen of England did it make us weak in the eyes of the world?

When Clinton bowed to the Japanese Emperor did it make us weak in the eyes of the world?

When President Bush kissed and held hands with Crown Prince Abdullah did it make us weak in the eyes of the world? Or when he bowed when meeting the Premiere of China? Or when he did it when meeting the Pope?

I won't even try to imagine how we looked when President Bush Sr threw up while eating with the Japanese Prime Minister.

Much to do about nothing

TopHatter
31 Oct 13,, 01:38
About the Bowing silliness.

Much to do about nothing

Yeah I've always thought there was plenty else to worry about Obama than his bowing. Cheney bowed before the Saudi king as well IIRC. BFD.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 01:48
About the Bowing silliness.

When President Eisenhower bowed before Charles De Gaulle did it make us weak in the eyes of the world?

When President Nixon bowed while meeting Japanese Emperor did it make us weak in the eyes of the world? Or when he bowed to Mao?

When Reagan bowed to the Queen of England did it make us weak in the eyes of the world?

When Clinton bowed to the Japanese Emperor did it make us weak in the eyes of the world?

When President Bush kissed and held hands with Crown Prince Abdullah did it make us weak in the eyes of the world? Or when he bowed when meeting the Premiere of China? Or when he did it when meeting the Pope?

I won't even try to imagine how we looked when President Bush Sr threw up while eating with the Japanese Prime Minister.

Much to do about nothing

See here: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/presidential-bows-revisited/

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/08/obamas-the-only-president-whos-ever-bowed-except-for-all-the-others

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocQgIBjPzc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyKWAv-6WEA

OOE, based on the above if I were to go by your standards, then President Bush W. would be even more gayer and effeminate than President Obama because he kissed a man on the cheek.

Tamara
31 Oct 13,, 05:15
I fully expect the government to bitchslap the industry for obstructing the very spirit and purpose the law was created for. The problem was not created by the government but by its own circumstances when healthcare costs were spiraling out of control and threatened the nation's financial system.

The healthcare system was a huge mess before Obama came on the scene and Obama is trying to get a handle on the mess with the Affordable Care Act. So instead of being obstructionists, why don't companies and Republicans work with the system and make it work instead of gaming the system?

Why?

The government didn't do it before, why do you expect it now?

When those laws were passed on the phone companies, telling them to provide this and that service, who ended up paying for it? The public with this and that fee. When the AWB bill was passed in the 90's, the companies modified what they were selling to be in the letter of the law but still be able to make a buck. When voters tell a government no we won't let get bonds for this new project, what I am saying with my vote is make do with the money you have, what happens? They go off and find money elsewhere and build it anyway.

Between one side or the other, spirit of the act seems to have very little impact when it comes to the big boys. It doesn't matter to the people who find ways to get around the letter of the law and the people who are passing the acts seem to never learn that if what they are writing is not popular, those they are writing it on will pass it on to another.

What would possibly make anyone think that any retribution is coming for those big boys who aren't in spirit with it?

Quite frankly, any corrective action will probably be felt more by the same people it usually is, the little people.................us.

Tamara
31 Oct 13,, 05:29
Or he could be responding to criticisms and complaints that US was being arrogant and high mighty so he paid respect to the king as a way to show sensitivities to the Muslim world..........

Given the massive divide in philosophies in the Muslim world, I would say that such a summary of an event with such a conclusion..............is really not understanding the magnitude of a situtation.

That is, "so he paid respect to the king as a way to show sensitivities to the Muslim world" IS NOT showing sensitivities to the Muslim world. It may be showing sensitivities of some kind to some section of the world, but, long story short, if that king's policies are in contradiction to a significant part of the Muslim world, it is probably more a slap in the face to that part instead of showing sensitivities.

Don't take one part of a world and assume it applies to all of it.

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 13,, 06:08
OTOH...such silliness hasn't damaged the relationships we have with other countries, either. US-ROK, US-JPN, US-PHL, you name it--- all of these relationships have gotten stronger since 2008, primarily because China has been throwing her weight around...and the US was well positioned to take advantage of it.Not because of anything the US has done and American leadership is still lacking. Instead of a united Taiwanese-Japanese-South Korean stand, it is an American stand with three individual agenda ... which the bowing did no


not sure which serious policymaker thinks that. re: Chinese crappy economic practices, reason why RMB re-evaluation isn't talked about much is because...that's precisely what the Chinese are doing. RMB hit a record high rate against the USD in august.Nowhere near its real value which is what we should have been pushing all along. There is a danger approaching that the US sees but the Chinese do not ... and no one is doing a damn thing about it, especially the Americans - the rise of Chinese unemployment.


it's not bull at all. both you and i know that the planning/political interference in the execution of the afghanistan/iraq wars verged on disaster. blame for this lies within both the military and the political establishment.You missed my point. Can you name me one occupation in earth's entire military history that was easy? Can we expected a better outcome? Initially yeah but historically? It is most likely on par with all other occupations in history ... unless we took a second genocidal campaign. Do recall that the Mongols also did not resort to genocide until the population resisted.


so, again, i don't think it's an exaggeration to say the bush administration's amateur hour resulted in both wars being significantly more costly than they had to be. these are costs that the US...and her coalition partners...and the iraqis...and the afghanis...paying to this very day.I don't buy that. The ISAF has rotated through all major NATO military commands. The Germans, Canadians, British, French, Turks, Italians did no better than the Americans. The point here is that Afghanistan could be as well as could be expected short of a Mongol solution.

Looking at Iraq, the divisions within the population were bound to surface. If Egypt, Libya, and now Syria could not avoid internal civil strife, it would be too much to ask of the Iraqis not to do the same.


if the US is a second rate power, then there is no "first rate power". How far have we fallen when we fear going to war with the likes of Iran and North Korea.


the US, of all the western powers (with the possible exception of germany) emerged from the financial crisis stronger than before. her long-term fundamentals are better than all of her allies...and all of her potential enemies.And here is where American leadership is lacking. What happens when China goes through her own bubble crisis ... and we all know it's coming. Banks can only pay for empty cities only for so long. Before Obama got a lecture from the Chinese, Washington was busy trying to minimize the Chinese downturn, modernize the bank system, put in a modern social net, ... and the pressure to do so was American economic buying power ... gone.


the wars were a strategic necessity. bungling the wars was not.Name me one war that was not bungled. Go through the WWII threads, the starch reality was not anything that anyone done right. Hell, deep battle is completely idiotic. You have to be strong everywhere. The starch reality is that who bungled less.

Can you tell me what UNPROFOR gain for Canada?


frankly that's what they were doing in 2002-2008, as well. past the initial scare in 2003, Iran/China/NK were laughing all the way while hundreds of thousands of US troops were fighting sunni/shia insurgents in the streets of Ramadi and Fallujah for nine long years. Iran was busy fighting the US down to the last of sadr's muppets.You heard this from me before. Iraq was a half war and Afghanistan was a side theatre.


the point is that presidential strength isn't the end-all be-all when it comes to international affairs. even less so today vice twenty or thirty years ago. hell, even then, the US survived jimmy carter. and had a few things gone bad (Able Archer 83 comes to mind), we might not have survived reagan!Jimmy Carter gave away Asia.


Much to do about nothingGS,

This

http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/dof/japan/images/hiro/mcarthur.jpg

vs this

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0128759fd303970c-600wi

Obama's bowing is doing nothing towards what the Americans really need in Asia -a Japanese-South Korean-Taiwanese alliance.

Gun Grape
31 Oct 13,, 06:51
Obama's bowing is doing nothing towards what the Americans really need in Asia -a Japanese-South Korean-Taiwanese alliance.

So Obama is responsible for the lack of such alliance?

Something specifically forbidden in the Japanese Constitution

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 13,, 07:56
So Obama is responsible for the lack of such alliance?If it's his idea to shift American strategy, then pissing off his two other biggest allies in the region ain't a good idea. Then, there is the Daiyou dispute. Obama let it be known that he would have no choice but to defend Japanese interest if it comes to war between China and Japan over these rocks.

Left unsaid but hear very clearly in Taipei, the US would goto war against Taiwanese claims in the area also.

Not a very good start.


Something specifically forbidden in the Japanese ConstitutionGive their lawyers 24 hours to find the wording.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 14:48
If it's his idea to shift American strategy, then pissing off his two other biggest allies in the region ain't a good idea. Then, there is the Daiyou dispute. Obama let it be known that he would have no choice but to defend Japanese interest if it comes to war between China and Japan over these rocks.

Japan is an ally of US while China is not and making a statement of defending Japanese sovereignty is not standing up but pissing off China? This stands in direct contradiction to your statement

How far have we fallen when we fear going to war with the likes of Iran and North Korea.



Left unsaid but hear very clearly in Taipei, the US would goto war against Taiwanese claims in the area also.
Taiwan is not even recognized as an official country and US has toed the line so how can Taiwan make such claims? Moreso, if it does, then it would be China making the claim through its proxy. You cannot have the cake and eat it. Your logic makes no sense.



Not a very good start.
Actually it is a good start. it sends a strong message to the area that US would defend Japanese sovereignty and South Korea knows this and Taiwan knows this and China understands this and Obama is not the first one to do so. You just want to find fault or blame in every action of Obama's. You come across as very biased.



Give their lawyers 24 hours to find the wording.

So your proposed action is to do nothing and say nothing and get his head in the sands? Reminds me of the saying, Do something and you are damned; Do nothing and you're damned.

I have come to the conclusion that you just don't like Obama plain and simple and will find fault in everything he does even it stands contradicted to your principles of leadership or actions based on prior presidents.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 15:15
Not because of anything the US has done and American leadership is still lacking. Instead of a united Taiwanese-Japanese-South Korean stand, it is an American stand with three individual agenda ... which the bowing did no


That is not the fault of Obama and you even admitted it readily. Your recent posts has revealed that they said thanks but no thanks when Obama administration proposed an alliance. those two countries do not want any kind of alliance with Japan and that is the fault of them not Obama.



Nowhere near its real value which is what we should have been pushing all along. There is a danger approaching that the US sees but the Chinese do not ... and no one is doing a damn thing about it, especially the Americans - the rise of Chinese unemployment.

Only a fool would decry about something that is not in his control. A wise man would do something that is in his control. US cannot dictate the policies of China and every time US did so, it was told to mind its own business. US just shrugged off because if China goes down, US won't get that affected and can move its production bases to other countries. You expect US to do everything.



You missed my point. Can you name me one occupation in earth's entire military history that was easy? Can we expected a better outcome? Initially yeah but historically? It is most likely on par with all other occupations in history ... unless we took a second genocidal campaign. Do recall that the Mongols also did not resort to genocide until the population resisted

Germany and Japan became two of the most prosperous societies and 15 years into post WWII, their economies were strongly taking off and moving in a good direction. Contrast it with Iraq and Afghanistan.


I don't buy that. The ISAF has rotated through all major NATO military commands. The Germans, Canadians, British, French, Turks, Italians did no better than the Americans. The point here is that Afghanistan could be as well as could be expected short of a Mongol solution.

Non-sequitur. The combined troops of those countries you mentioned amount to less than a division and US had more than 3 divisions worth in Afghanistan. Americans were in control. They just had different generals from other countries as a propaganda thing but the real control lies with Americans.



Looking at Iraq, the divisions within the population were bound to surface. If Egypt, Libya, and now Syria could not avoid internal civil strife, it would be too much to ask of the Iraqis not to do the same.
Then why get involved with Iraq in the first place when you know that Saddam had no WMD program in place?



How far have we fallen when we fear going to war with the likes of Iran and North Korea.

Maybe because those countries are in deep shit holes and resemble something of a mudpit very hard to get out? A wise man knows when to stay out of the mudpit that has no real gains. You even admit that S. korea doesn't want to get into a war for the very reason it would have to inherit the mess. Why should US inherit the mess for S. Korea's benefit. Even China doesn't want to invade North Korea.

Same thing for Iran. Now US is making inroads into alternative fuel technology and I predict that once Telsa starts producing 400+ mile electric cars, US's need for oil will strongly go down and the benefits of invading Iran becomes even less. Better off to contain Iran and save your dollars to strengthen your IP base and economy and whatnot. US does not have to get into war everywhere. That is not good leadership.



And here is where American leadership is lacking. What happens when China goes through her own bubble crisis ... and we all know it's coming. Banks can only pay for empty cities only for so long. Before Obama got a lecture from the Chinese, Washington was busy trying to minimize the Chinese downturn, modernize the bank system, put in a modern social net, ... and the pressure to do so was American economic buying power ... gone.

No real leadership is putting something to place so that when the shit hits the fan, you won't get affected by the fallout badly. US or EU has no say in China's domestic policies or internal affairs and China is not about to let them to, torpedoes be damned. So why waste your breath and energy when it could be used to strengthen your own economy and improve your situation and create plans to isolate the fallout.



Name me one war that was not bungled. Go through the WWII threads, the starch reality was not anything that anyone done right. Hell, deep battle is completely idiotic. You have to be strong everywhere. The starch reality is that who bungled less.

That's easy. Gulf War I, Panama invasion, Grenada invasion, Indo-Pak 1971, Falklands War, etc.



Can you tell me what UNPROFOR gain for Canada?
Then why do you expect US to go to war in Iran or North Korea? Now you see the problem. what is the gain for US by going to war against Iran and North Korea?

Everybody is decrying Obama's lack of leadership because he refuses to fall for the sucker's line that going to war would benefit US when it actually benefits other countries and not US itself. That is not a good criticism of Obama's leadership. He is just being smart to the BS going on around. US would be stuck with the butcher's bill and taxpayers bills. The people of US is not about to do it again and I don't blame them.



You heard this from me before. Iraq was a half war and Afghanistan was a side theatre.
Then why do you say those wars were strategic necessities in the first place? If it was a strategic necessity, it is not a side theater but a war or front itself, not a half war.



Jimmy Carter gave away Asia.

Please back up this assertion. Did Jimmy Carter pull out American presence in Japan or S. Korea? Did he reduce the USN's footprint in the Pacific Ocean? if you are gonna go by that standard, then I can safely say that Nixon and Ford gave away Asia, too. After all, Nixon went to China and agreed to PRC as the real China and tacitly accepted communism or one party rule in China and betrayed Taiwan. Ford told S. Vietnam to fuck itself and saw it overrun by N. Vietnam.



This

http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/dof/japan/images/hiro/mcarthur.jpg

vs this

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0128759fd303970c-600wi


See this: http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20091116-fncbow1.jpg

Obama is not the first one.



Obama's bowing is doing nothing towards what the Americans really need in Asia -a Japanese-South Korean-Taiwanese alliance.
And S. Korea and Taiwan said no on many times to Clinton administration, Bush administration, and Obama administration. So why the blame on Obama?

astralis
31 Oct 13,, 15:18
OoE,

to simplify matters, i'll compress the argument down.

-bowing: i work military international affairs for a living, and specifically in east asia. i have yet to hear a single conversation which went, "we would have worked more closely with you if it wasn't for the fact that your President bowed in front of the Japanese like a lackey."

instead, the conversation goes: "thank god you guys are finally paying more attention over here. how do we get more american equipment/training/more exercises because we have a big neighbor whom may or may not be friendly to our interests." as i said, each one of our allies is closer to us today than they were 5 years ago. i think it's a bit much to ask that US leadership can wave a wand and make our allies closer to each other.

i find it highly, highly unlikely that if we had President McCain or Romney, that suddenly Japan-ROK-Taiwan would all be allies or even close partners. they weren't all throughout the cold war; why would they be today?

- the iraq and afghanistan wars.

yeah, it's war; $hit happens. but think about the timing of the war, how many troops were used, the complete lack of post-war planning.

that's not "unpredictable $hit happens", many of these issues were brought up in advance. the political leadership took a deliberate blind eye. THAT is why it's the bush administration's amateur hour.


You heard this from me before. Iraq was a half war and Afghanistan was a side theatre.


from a military capability standpoint. from a political standpoint, there was no way bush was going to strike either North Korea or Iran without something -extremely- egregious.

Captain Worley
31 Oct 13,, 15:20
I fully expect the government to bitchslap the industry for obstructing the very spirit and purpose the law was created for. The problem was not created by the government but by its own circumstances when healthcare costs were spiraling out of control and threatened the nation's financial system.

When you start to jack with a complex system to force an outcome to your liking, you better be ready to deal with the unintended consequences of your action.



The healthcare system was a huge mess before Obama came on the scene and Obama is trying to get a handle on the mess with the Affordable Care Act. So instead of being obstructionists, why don't companies and Republicans work with the system and make it work instead of gaming the system?

In other words, why not just acquiesce to Obama?

Yes, there are problems, big problems related to healthcare. They should have been handled on case by case basis.

Business is reacting to new rules. You can't blame them. They didn't make the new rules.

My solution to the whole problem, and I know good and well you can't do this, is ban health insurance altogether.

Captain Worley
31 Oct 13,, 15:29
Obama got the economy back on its track. Unemployment is below the level that he inherited when he took over the office. The Great Recession is over. Obama got US out of two wars. I don't see Obama being worse than Carter. You are just being hyperbolic like those Tea Partiers.

Nope.

Obama probably delayed recovery quite a bit. Of course, that'll always be a point of speculation (like FDR delaying emergence from the Depression was/is) debated in economics classes in perpetuity.

Obama got us out of two wars (on paper, we still will have folks over there for years to come) on Bush's timetable. That's something he stuck with that I agree with his stance on.

I've agreed with his stance on several issues, but they tend to be things like banging on the Chinese for dumping tires, and smaller stuff.

On the negative side, he's repeatedly injected himself into issues he shouldn't (the Redskins, most recently, but I'll always remember his 'the police acted stupidly' press conference), the stimulus was a waste of money, Obamacare is a disaster, Cash for Clunkers was a disaster, Benghazi was a disaster, the IRS scandal was a disaster, cancelling the Constellation program was a big mistake, his foreign policy is a disaster, and on and on.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 16:14
Nope.

Obama probably delayed recovery quite a bit. Of course, that'll always be a point of speculation (like FDR delaying emergence from the Depression was/is) debated in economics classes in perpetuity.

Nope. the problem was that the stimulus was not big enough. the Republicans delayed the recovery by obstructing legislation and acts that would speed up the recovery.



On the negative side, he's repeatedly injected himself into issues he shouldn't (the Redskins, most recently, but I'll always remember his 'the police acted stupidly' press conference),

Those are small stuff.



the stimulus was a waste of money,

No it wasn't. The problem is that it wasn't big enough because the Republicans wouldn't go along with it.



Obamacare is a disaster,

Not for me. You are just being general.



Cash for Clunkers was a disaster
Not it wasn't. It spurred new car sales and gave automakers some breathing room with their cash flow situation.



Benghazi was a disaster
You just love saying the words, "it was a disaster" How could it be a disaster when it was premeditated in the first place. Only four people died. If you are gonna go by that standard, then the bombing of the Marines barracks was a fucking huge disaster and Reagan didn't do diddly squat. You and the others are just trying to hang this around Obama like a burning tire around someone's neck.



the IRS scandal was a disaster
And something was drowned out in the outrage of the Republicans that the IRS also went after liberal groups and it wasn't that widespread as reported in the news.



cancelling the Constellation program was a big mistake
I do not agree with Obama's decision on this.



his foreign policy is a disaster, and on and on. You just sound like a broken record.

Bush's policy was even a bigger disaster. After all he failed to protect a NATO member [I meant to say aspiring NATO member] from being beaten up. That is big.

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 13,, 16:23
Bush's policy was even a bigger disaster. After all he failed to protect a NATO member from being beaten up. That is big.Who?

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 16:42
Who?

Georgia.

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 13,, 16:43
Georgia was not and is not a NATO member. She, along, with Russia, is part of the Partnership for Peace program. Georgia is not part of the NATO alliance.

zraver
31 Oct 13,, 16:46
Those are small stuff.

The economy is not small stuff



No it wasn't. The problem is that it wasn't big enough because the Republicans wouldn't go along with it.

It was a failure, it did not deliver what it promised... To argue after the fact it should have been more... He got what he asked for.



Not for me. You are just being general.

To date, Obamacare has increased the number of uninsured and driven up the premiums of those who are still insured by forcing a one size fits all policy on people. The elderly do not need pediatric dental, and a 20 something needs family planning, not geriatrics... It is a disaster.





At the expense of used car lots and low income Americans who depend on them. Cash for clunkers was paid for on the backs of the poor who faced a massive price spike.

[quote]You just love saying the words, "it was a disaster" How could it be a disaster when it was premeditated in the first place. Only four people died. If you are gonna go by that standard, then the bombing of the Marines barracks was a fucking huge disaster and Reagan didn't do diddly squat. You and the others are just trying to hang this around Obama like a burning tire around someone's neck.

Uhm, Reagan blew the fuck out of Beirut via 16" shells. We can argue if that was enough or not, but it was something... Obama knew the consulate was under threat by AQ and that it was the anniversary of 9-11 and did nothing to save them. He has since spent the time blocking Congress from doing its job in order to cover up his failure.


And something was drowned out in the outrage of the Republicans that the IRS also went after liberal groups and it wasn't that widespread as reported in the news.

4 progressive groups vs 99.9% of conservative groups numbering the hundreds. With direct links established to the White House office of chief counsel. The only conservative group that got through used a progressive name.



I do not agree with Obama's decision on this.

You do if you voted for him in 12


You just sound like a broken record.

Truth tends to be repetitive.


Bush's policy was even a bigger disaster. After all he failed to protect a NATO member from being beaten up. That is big.

No NATO member got beat up. Bush's policies will I think have far less impact on US prestige long term than Obama. Bush was an asshole, not well liked but respected for his solidness. He's a fucking god like hero in Africa. Obama has almost no foreign policy successes.... Other than killing OBL, Obama is pretty much batting sub 100. I bet Jimmy Carter thanks God every night for Obama.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 16:53
Georgia was not and is not a NATO member. She, along, with Russia, is part of the Partnership for Peace program. Georgia is not part of the NATO alliance.

She was and still is aspiring for membership with NATO. I was wrong that Georgia was a member of NATO but the point remains, Bush let a friendly country go to the dogs when you castigate Obama for appearing to be weak. Bush looked very weak when he let Russia beat up Georgia.

zraver
31 Oct 13,, 16:58
She was and still is aspiring for membership with NATO. I was wrong that Georgia was a member of NATO but the point remains, Bush let a friendly country go to the dogs when you castigate Obama for appearing to be weak. Bush looked very weak when he let Russia beat up Georgia.

Because Bush didn't start WWIII over a nutjob he looks week instead of wise... Uh huh, talk about reaching for straws. Obama left Mubarak to his fate and now Egypt a vital strategic ally is in shambles.

Captain Worley
31 Oct 13,, 17:09
No it wasn't. The problem is that it wasn't big enough because the Republicans wouldn't go along with it.

No, the problem was that money was doled out on a political basis instead of a need basis. You should have seen the way stimulus money was wasted locally repaving roads that didn't need it.

It didn't go where it MAY have done some good.



Not it wasn't. It spurred new car sales and gave automakers some breathing room with their cash flow situation.

For Toyota, et all, yeah; for the domestics, not so much. Granted, they didn't really have the high mpg products required, and that aspect of it is on them, but again you have the government coming up with something on the fly, and the domestic industry didn't benefit.



You just love saying the words, "it was a disaster"

No, really, I don't, but if the shoe fits...


How could it be a disaster when it was premeditated in the first place. Only four people died.

Pretty high percentage of personnel....then a response of....meh.

Disaster.



If you are gonna go by that standard, then the bombing of the Marines barracks was a fucking huge disaster and Reagan didn't do diddly squat.

That WAS a gigantic disaster. And, yep, The Gipper didn't do much of anything. That doesn't excuse the Benghazi disaster. In fact it makes it worse because no one learned from something that happened almost 30 years ago.


You and the others are just trying to hang this around Obama like a burning tire around someone's neck.


Who's hyperbolic now?


And something was drowned out in the outrage of the Republicans that the IRS also went after liberal groups and it wasn't that widespread as reported in the news.

IMO, they should have investigated all those groups (that would have been my choice) or none of them. As it was, they picked and chose arbitrarily (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, here), which isn't how the government should work.



Bush's policy was even a bigger disaster.

Bush the Second made more than his fair share of disasters, from NCLB to laying the groundwork for the stimulus.

I don't see our problems through an R/D prism. I think we have a systemic failure in leadership, from the President on down that has been ongoing for decades.

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 13,, 17:09
She was and still is aspiring for membership with NATO. I was wrong that Georgia was a member of NATO but the point remains, Bush let a friendly country go to the dogs when you castigate Obama for appearing to be weak. Bush looked very weak when he let Russia beat up Georgia.I posted this way back when it happenned



Looking back was it a mistake not to offer Georgia NATO membership?Yes, we would've ordered the Georgian Army back to its barracks before it left base.

Mihais
31 Oct 13,, 17:12
Because Bush didn't start WWIII over a nutjob he looks week instead of wise... Uh huh, talk about reaching for straws. Obama left Mubarak to his fate and now Egypt a vital strategic ally is in shambles.

Georgian brigadiers and btn CO's did not knew they were going to war.Or so they claimed.
As for Obama,he has the whole fvck up in the ME,aka the Arab Spring.The jihadists rose because they perceived a weak leader.

Captain Worley
31 Oct 13,, 17:27
^They perceived correctly.

Officer of Engineers
31 Oct 13,, 17:51
Japan is an ally of US while China is not and making a statement of defending Japanese sovereignty is not standing up but pissing off China? This stands in direct contradiction to your statementThe three allies are Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.


Taiwan is not even recognized as an official country and US has toed the line so how can Taiwan make such claims?Because they are the Republic of China and the Daiyou are claimed Chinese territory.


Moreso, if it does, then it would be China making the claim through its proxy.Taiwan is an American proxy.


You cannot have the cake and eat it. Your logic makes no sense.Of all three powers with claims on the Daiyou, Taiwan, Mainland China, and Japan, Taiwan is militarily in the strongest position to enforce that claim. Obama just told the Taiwanese to piss off.


Actually it is a good start. it sends a strong message to the area that US would defend Japanese sovereignty and South Korea knows this and Taiwan knows this and China understands this and Obama is not the first one to do so. You just want to find fault or blame in every action of Obama's. You come across as very biased.Learn the region first. Obama is pissing off the Taiwanese. And it is obvious to the South Koreans where Obama's bias is as far as South Korean-Japanese territorial spats are.


So your proposed action is to do nothing and say nothing and get his head in the sands? Reminds me of the saying, Do something and you are damned; Do nothing and you're damned.That's what his advisers are for. First off, state that Japan needs no help against the PLAN. 2nd, the US is under no obligation to defend disputed territory (and you would be an idiot to do so). 3rd, state that the Courts and not military force is the true arbitrators. 4 - go ask Putin for another bail out.


I have come to the conclusion that you just don't like Obama plain and simple and will find fault in everything he does even it stands contradicted to your principles of leadership or actions based on prior presidents.I have no respect for a President who lets others walk all over him and begs others to bail him out.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 19:25
Because Bush didn't start WWIII over a nutjob he looks week instead of wise... Uh huh, talk about reaching for straws. Obama left Mubarak to his fate and now Egypt a vital strategic ally is in shambles.

I am using OOE's logic against him. Of course George Bush was right in not going against Russia over Georgia the same way that Obama was correct in not going to war over Syria, Iran or North Korea. I am using a counterexample.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 19:26
Georgian brigadiers and btn CO's did not knew they were going to war.Or so they claimed.
As for Obama,he has the whole fvck up in the ME,aka the Arab Spring.The jihadists rose because they perceived a weak leader.

Obama increased the frequency of drone attacks and has killed several high profile jihadists. He even killed an American jihadist without a warrant. No he is not being weak.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 19:27
^They perceived correctly.

You perceive wrong and you are barking up the wrong tree.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 19:33
The three allies are Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Because they are the Republic of China and the Daiyou are claimed Chinese territory.

Taiwan is an American proxy.
you contradict yourself right there.



Of all three powers with claims on the Daiyou, Taiwan, Mainland China, and Japan, Taiwan is militarily in the strongest position to enforce that claim. Obama just told the Taiwanese to piss off.

After Taiwan started cosying up to China. USA wasn't about to let those islands slip into Chinese control and recognizing Japanese sovereignty is the best way of ensuring that.



Learn the region first. Obama is pissing off the Taiwanese. And it is obvious to the South Koreans where Obama's bias is as far as South Korean-Japanese territorial spats are.
What bias? Is it because of the bowing? That is a very weak tenous argument. Is it because of the Daiyou islands? S. Korea has no claims to such region.



That's what his advisers are for. First off, state that Japan needs no help against the PLAN. 2nd, the US is under no obligation to defend disputed territory (and you would be an idiot to do so). 3rd, state that the Courts and not military force is the true arbitrators. 4 - go ask Putin for another bail out.

Ok then by your standards, I would start calling one of the Japanese islands a disputed territory and then US would be no obligation to defend that island. A good way of standing by your ally, isn't it? Your premise was that Obama didn't stand by US ally and I pointed one example of Obama doing so and you claim "Oh well that was a bad move cuz it pissed off other allies." S. Korea knew that US would defend Japan against Chinese hegemony. To extrapolate that into bias with Japanese between Japan and South Korea dispute is a far stretch. And every time you bring it up you undermine your argument for a Japanese- S. Korea- Taiwanese alliance. Your logic is bordering on the lines of Glenn Beck and Fox news commentators.



I have no respect for a President who lets others walk all over him and begs others to bail him out.

I have no respect or use for a such one side biased analysis or conclusion.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 19:41
No, the problem was that money was doled out on a political basis instead of a need basis. You should have seen the way stimulus money was wasted locally repaving roads that didn't need it.

It didn't go where it MAY have done some good.

That is because the Republicans and the red states wouldn't let him do it.



For Toyota, et all, yeah; for the domestics, not so much. Granted, they didn't really have the high mpg products required, and that aspect of it is on them, but again you have the government coming up with something on the fly, and the domestic industry didn't benefit.

One of the worst trade secrets - A lot of japanese cars sold in US use a lot of American parts. It also kept the auto parts supply chain alive and weather through the Great Recession. It saved more jobs than you know.





No, really, I don't, but if the shoe fits...
Speak for yourself.




Pretty high percentage of personnel....then a response of....meh.

Disaster.
Then you are one of those people who run around with arms flailing "it's a disaster! It's a disaster!" when there is a boo hoo.





That WAS a gigantic disaster. And, yep, The Gipper didn't do much of anything. That doesn't excuse the Benghazi disaster. In fact it makes it worse because no one learned from something that happened almost 30 years ago.


It is relevant because it shows the sheer hypocrisy of the Republicans that seek to castigate Obama over the Benghazi attack that killed four people compared to the 256 people killed and the Republicans didn't cry foul and neither did the Democrats. Instead, both of them stood behind Reagan and Reagan dropped the ball. And the Republicans love bringing up Reagan and how great he was and all that BS.



Who's hyperbolic now?
Just imitating your style.




IMO, they should have investigated all those groups (that would have been my choice) or none of them. As it was, they picked and chose arbitrarily (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, here), which isn't how the government should work.
I am surprised at myself defending the IRS because I don't like the IRS but I gotta call a spade a spade. It is no surprise that the IRS chose to investigate both groups because there were too many groups applying for such exception and the BS meter was ringing highly in the IRS circles so they had every right to investigate whether the groups were genuine or not.

Captain Worley
31 Oct 13,, 20:02
Obama increased the frequency of drone attacks and has killed several high profile jihadists. He even killed an American jihadist without a warrant. No he is not being weak.

I do applaud his efforts on that front. The drone program is a great success.

Captain Worley
31 Oct 13,, 20:07
It is relevant because it shows the sheer hypocrisy of the Republicans that seek to castigate Obama over the Benghazi attack that killed four people compared to the 256 people killed and the Republicans didn't cry foul and neither did the Democrats. Instead, both of them stood behind Reagan and Reagan dropped the ball. And the Republicans love bringing up Reagan and how great he was and all that BS.

You will find I don't give a crap about R or D. Just when politicians don't behave to my liking.

Framing everything as a R and D argument keeps us from examining the problems we have.






I am surprised at myself defending the IRS because I don't like the IRS but I gotta call a spade a spade. It is no surprise that the IRS chose to investigate both groups because there were too many groups applying for such exception and the BS meter was ringing highly in the IRS circles so they had every right to investigate whether the groups were genuine or not.

My point is, they should have investigated all of them. Of course, that would infuriate their political masters.

Parihaka
31 Oct 13,, 20:17
I posted this way back when it happenned

That comment completely reset my view of NATO and has influenced my thinking ever since.

astralis
31 Oct 13,, 21:00
mihais,


The jihadists rose because they perceived a weak leader.

really? the arab spring happened because they thought obama was weak? not because, oh, their country's own leadership sucked? ok.

zraver
31 Oct 13,, 21:48
I am using OOE's logic against him. Of course George Bush was right in not going against Russia over Georgia the same way that Obama was correct in not going to war over Syria, Iran or North Korea. I am using a counterexample.

I agree with Obama staying out of Syria. But he bug fucked us on Egypt.

How about the rest of my rebuttal.

astralis
31 Oct 13,, 21:53
don't see how he could have done anything re: egypt.

in fact, the current situation is significantly better than it was in 2008. the MoBros are more unpopular than ever; the old leadership has pretty much re-asserted itself without the old unpopular faces; egypt is still at peace with israel and egypt continues to isolate hamas, even more harshly than ever.

frankly it's a better alternative than obama trying to make mubarak stick.

zraver
31 Oct 13,, 22:01
don't see how he could have done anything re: egypt.

in fact, the current situation is significantly better than it was in 2008. the MoBros are more unpopular than ever; the old leadership has pretty much re-asserted itself without the old unpopular faces; egypt is still at peace with israel and egypt continues to isolate hamas, even more harshly than ever.

frankly it's a better alternative than obama trying to make mubarak stick.

First, i think he could have spoke up and saved Mubarak. Then perhaps eased him out later. Instead he threw our ally to the wolves and our other allies watched him do it. Egypt is now fighting a low level civil war that could go large scale... That is not good for stability.

Mihais
31 Oct 13,, 22:06
mihais,



really? the arab spring happened because they thought obama was weak? not because, oh, their country's own leadership sucked? ok.

The leadership sucked since forever.But they rose on Obama's watch.And not a single relevant individual in that administration saw it coming.

Blademaster
31 Oct 13,, 22:50
First, i think he could have spoke up and saved Mubarak. Then perhaps eased him out later. Instead he threw our ally to the wolves and our other allies watched him do it. Egypt is now fighting a low level civil war that could go large scale... That is not good for stability.


Why would he do that? Mubarak was not a good leader and the people wanted him out. And Obama did try to ease him out only Mubarak didn't play along. Mubarak had several opportunities to make a smooth transition but his obstinacy and ego got in the way. After that, Obama gave up.

zraver
31 Oct 13,, 23:52
Why would he do that? Mubarak was not a good leader and the people wanted him out. And Obama did try to ease him out only Mubarak didn't play along. Mubarak had several opportunities to make a smooth transition but his obstinacy and ego got in the way. After that, Obama gave up.

Obama gave him order sin public, not behind the scenes nudges after the crisis passed. What people want is a fickle thing, he was solid and kept Egypt on a relatively even keel. The status quo worked just fine.

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 13,, 00:04
you contradict yourself right there.Have I? You do know there is a difference between the REPUBLIC OF CHINA and THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

The Taiwan Relations Act states the US is committed to the defence of Taiwan and if taken at face value, that means the territorial integrity of Taiwan and that includes the Daiyou.

The Japanese needs no help against the PLAN on the Daiyou issue. The only military challenge comes from the RoCN.


After Taiwan started cosying up to China. USA wasn't about to let those islands slip into Chinese control and recognizing Japanese sovereignty is the best way of ensuring that.You're reaching. The Taiwanese ain't giving up Matsu and Quemoy. They're not about to let go of the Daiyou.


What bias? Is it because of the bowing? That is a very weak tenous argument. Is it because of the Daiyou islands? S. Korea has no claims to such region.Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_disputes#Geographic_disputes)


Ok then by your standards, I would start calling one of the Japanese islands a disputed territory and then US would be no obligation to defend that island. A good way of standing by your ally, isn't it?I will do you one better. The Kuril Islands.



Your premise was that Obama didn't stand by US ally and I pointed one example of Obama doing so and you claim "Oh well that was a bad move cuz it pissed off other allies." S. Korea knew that US would defend Japan against Chinese hegemony.The only help Japan needs is against Taiwan.


To extrapolate that into bias with Japanese between Japan and South Korea dispute is a far stretch. And every time you bring it up you undermine your argument for a Japanese- S. Korea- Taiwanese alliance. Your logic is bordering on the lines of Glenn Beck and Fox news commentators.Am I? For over 60 years with a direct Soviet threat, Chinese belligerence, and now North Korean temper tantrums, the US could not get their three main allies together. Instead, Taiwanese-American, Japanese-American, and South Korean-American relations got stronger. For the shift Obama is envisioning, a Taiwanese-Japanese-South Korean alliance must occurred. That is the force multiplier that the Americans are counting on.

Instead, Taiwanese-Japanese-South Korean relations are not getting any happier.


I have no respect or use for a such one side biased analysis or conclusion.Consider this.

Bush Sr calls for war. The world answered - twice.
Clinton calls for war. NATO answered.
Bush Jr calls for war the first time. NATO answered. He called for war a second time. ABCA answered.
Obama calls for war. No one answered. Not even the Americans.

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 13,, 00:20
I am using OOE's logic against him. Of course George Bush was right in not going against Russia over Georgia the same way that Obama was correct in not going to war over Syria, Iran or North Korea. I am using a counterexample.Your counterexample is flawed. In the Georgian War, only one army was ready for war in the entire Western hemisphere, the Russian 58th and even they did not have a full compliment.

We did not come to the rescue of troubles of Georgia's own making. The American debacle in Syria is all Obama's.

Your position on Iran is well known. You prefer Iran to have the nuke.

And the Korean peninsula is not an American choice.

JAD_333
01 Nov 13,, 01:15
Wow...how did we go from Obamacare to Korea. The misdirectionists are at work.

JAD_333
01 Nov 13,, 01:17
A nudge here and nudge there, and maybe we will find out how Obama got his facts wrong and whether he can fix whatever it is that is not in sync with his ACA pre-passage pitch.

Blademaster
01 Nov 13,, 02:05
Your counterexample is flawed. In the Georgian War, only one army was ready for war in the entire Western hemisphere, the Russian 58th and even they did not have a full compliment.

We did not come to the rescue of troubles of Georgia's own making. The American debacle in Syria is all Obama's.

How was it a debacle? No the counterexample is not flawed. It shows the limits of the power and ability of US to influence the actions on the ground in Georgia just like in Syria.



Your position on Iran is well known. You prefer Iran to have the nuke.

I did not say that. You are putting words into my mouth.



And the Korean peninsula is not an American choice.
Neither was Syria but we are stuck with the way it is. You seems to think that everything bad happening is Obama's choice and debacle and while the previous administrations, you attribute it to other sources. You don't give Obama the same pass that you give Bush and others.

Blademaster
01 Nov 13,, 02:24
Have I? You do know there is a difference between the REPUBLIC OF CHINA and THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

The latest events and the intent of certain political events have pretty much made the difference in name and style of governing. You have stated in the past that Taiwan had pretty much declared itself as the heir to China and claims all the way to the borders of Tibet.



The Taiwan Relations Act states the US is committed to the defence of Taiwan and if taken at face value, that means the territorial integrity of Taiwan and that includes the Daiyou.

And USA has repeatedly told Taiwan not to declare dependence or open any embassies any where in the world. What does that tell you?



The Japanese needs no help against the PLAN on the Daiyou issue. The only military challenge comes from the RoCN.
Not militarily but politically against China.



You're reaching. The Taiwanese ain't giving up Matsu and Quemoy. They're not about to let go of the Daiyou.
Well Japan doesn't want to let it get into the hands of PRC anytime soon.



Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_disputes#Geographic_disputes)

The first dispute is minor in comparision. It is a bunch of rocks. The Tsushuma dispute is pretty much well in Japanese favor considering the historical ties and the make up of the population. Why does US have to toe the line of South Korea? And it was pretty much well settled before 1950 when US ceded the sovereignty to Japan. It never passed under the control of South Korea.



I will do you one better. The Kuril Islands.
Yes and if Obama didn't do anything about it, you gonna call him a coward or something?



The only help Japan needs is against Taiwan.
The Japanese maritime force doesn't need help against Taiwan. It is way far more potent than Taiwan. It doesn't need help against Taiwan because there is no chance of conflict with the USN in between.



Am I? For over 60 years with a direct Soviet threat, Chinese belligerence, and now North Korean temper tantrums, the US could not get their three main allies together. Instead, Taiwanese-American, Japanese-American, and South Korean-American relations got stronger. For the shift Obama is envisioning, a Taiwanese-Japanese-South Korean alliance must occurred. That is the force multiplier that the Americans are counting on.

The status quo cannot continue as it is now due to the financial strait of the American budget with the defense budget cuts. And S. Korea and Taiwan must learn to put the past behind them and get on with the program. If they can't do that, that's not America or Obama's fault. As far as I am concerned, US has done more than enough to guarantee S. Korea and Taiwan's security at the expense of America taxpayers and America has even contributed to the creation of prosperous societies in S. Korea and Taiwan but there are no such free lunch anymore.



Instead, Taiwanese-Japanese-South Korean relations are not getting any happier.
Not the fault of Obama. He laid out a strategic vision that is workable and S. Korea and Taiwan said no. It is not Obama or America's job to persuade them. That is why he set up a base in Australia.



Consider this.

Bush Sr calls for war. The world answered - twice. during the height of Cold War
Clinton calls for war. NATO answered. That's because Blair made him do and it wasn't out of choice
Bush Jr calls for war the first time. NATO answered. He called for war a second time. ABCA answered.That was a direct attack on US soil and anybody would have answered including Gore and Obama
Obama calls for war. No one answered. Not even the Americans.After two expensive wars and the revelations that the intelligence in Iraq war was BS, I am not surprised. And nobody had the money to fight such wars. Hell, Britain didn't even answer its own PM. By the way, they did answer to Obama's call for war in Libya.

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 13,, 03:53
The latest events and the intent of certain political events have pretty much made the difference in name and style of governing. You have stated in the past that Taiwan had pretty much declared itself as the heir to China and claims all the way to the borders of Tibet.So one US ally, in fact the only US ally militarily capable of stopping Chinese expansion is told to take a hike?


And USA has repeatedly told Taiwan not to declare dependence or open any embassies any where in the world. What does that tell you?Nothing. The Taiwanese will defend their own, including the Daiyou.


Not militarily but politically against China.Taiwan is not about to give any territory to ML China anytime soon.


Well Japan doesn't want to let it get into the hands of PRC anytime soon.Again, the only real military challenge comes from Taiwan.


The first dispute is minor in comparision. It is a bunch of rocks.So is the Daiyou. There's no fresh water there. But those bunch rocks anchor claims to fishing grounds and oil and gas rights ... if you believe the geological reports. People have died trying to live on those rocks.


The Tsushuma dispute is pretty much well in Japanese favor considering the historical ties and the make up of the population. Why does US have to toe the line of South Korea? And it was pretty much well settled before 1950 when US ceded the sovereignty to Japan. It never passed under the control of South Korea.The point is that the US is right to stay out of this fight ... as they also should about the Daiyou.


Yes and if Obama didn't do anything about it, you gonna call him a coward or something?I'm stating outright that the US is under no treaty obligation to defend disputed territory.


The Japanese maritime force doesn't need help against Taiwan. It is way far more potent than Taiwan. It doesn't need help against Taiwan because there is no chance of conflict with the USN in between.The RoCAF has a greater loiter time and the RoCN has a shorter leg time than any of the disputing powers.

Do you know the reason why the Chinese asked the Americans to stay in Korea after unification in the 90s? To prevent a war between a united Korea and Japan. Taiwanese feelings ain't that far off the mark either.


The status quo cannot continue as it is now due to the financial strait of the American budget with the defense budget cuts.Which is why this bowing and the Daiyou statements were completely idiotic. It annoyed the hell out of two very important allies.


And S. Korea and Taiwan must learn to put the past behind them and get on with the program.And if they don't? Are the Americans going to give up 2 of the 4 Tigers?


If they can't do that, that's not America or Obama's fault.Obama's vision. Obama's failure.


As far as I am concerned, US has done more than enough to guarantee S. Korea and Taiwan's security at the expense of America taxpayers and America has even contributed to the creation of prosperous societies in S. Korea and Taiwan but there are no such free lunch anymore.South Korea did her share in Vietnam and the South Korean military answers to American regional command.


Not the fault of Obama. He laid out a strategic vision that is workable and S. Korea and Taiwan said no. It is not Obama or America's job to persuade them.What? Yes it is. His vision. His plan. His actions.


That is why he set up a base in Australia.Yeah, how's that going?


during the height of Cold WarWhat does Kuwait and Somalia got to do with the Cold War? Moscow told both Saddam and the Somali warlords to take a hike.


That's because Blair made him do and it wasn't out of choiceIt was Albright and the blue dress.


That was a direct attack on US soil and anybody would have answered including Gore and ObamaAnd you're calling that war a drain and a failure.


After two expensive wars and the revelations that the intelligence in Iraq war was BS, I am not surprised.And Clinton somehow found the money for Kosovo after going after Bush with the "It's the economy, stupid" chant. If a war is worth fighting, then you find the means. Pakistan didn't stop being a piranha just because she was broke.

Syria's chemical attacks was well worth the effort. You yourself supported it. And there was a way to do it without disrupting the military balance.


By the way, they did answer to Obama's call for war in Libya.Nope, Obama answered British and French calls for war.

astralis
01 Nov 13,, 04:28
z,


First, i think he could have spoke up and saved Mubarak. Then perhaps eased him out later.

i think you over-estimate what exactly the Presidency is capable of doing. if mubarak's army couldn't save mubarak, then not sure what words from obama would have saved him.

conversely, had mubarak stared down such a huge portion of his own populace, whatever it is the americans could do wouldn't have pushed him out, either.

egypt was already in the middle of a low-level civil war when mubarak went down. the difference is, now most of the populace hates the MoBros and not the other way around.

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 13,, 06:49
How was it a debacle? No the counterexample is not flawed. It shows the limits of the power and ability of US to influence the actions on the ground in Georgia just like in Syria.We did not invite ourselves to be involved in the Georgian War. Obama said Assad had to go and provided both covert and overt help to the rebels.


I did not say that. You are putting words into my mouth.I did not say your worlds. I said your position. Your words are more specifically that if Israel has the nuke, then Iran is also justified to get the nuke when neither one has anything to do with the violation of the NPT.


Neither was Syria but we are stuck with the way it is.Obama preferred the rebels and stated as much. He chosed sides and instead of making things controllable. He made it worst.


You seems to think that everything bad happening is Obama's choice and debacle and while the previous administrations, you attribute it to other sources. You don't give Obama the same pass that you give Bush and others.Mainly because I don't see an alternative to the wars Bush 2 fought. Afghanistan was a strategic response and Iraq was a strategic imperative. I also don't see how an insurgency could have been avoided. Both countries are internally divided and you bungled through as best you can.

That is not the same for Libya and Syria.

Jimbo
01 Nov 13,, 08:52
Well to get back on track. The company I work for has health insurance through Kaiser Permanente in Colorado. We were informed that KP was canceling our policy as it doesn't meet the requirements Affordable Health Care Act. So as of Nov of 2014 we will be getting a new policy with new premiums (maybe KP maybe someone else who knows at this point). The funny, for lack of a better word, thing is this was a policy that was supposed to be fine under the Affordable Health Care Act, guess not. It was not a cheap plan as of now either (total premium of about $660 per month out of my pocket and another $900 or so that my employer provides). The number that are not able to keep their policies will go up drastically over this upcoming year. All I know is the projections I am seeing are that my costs are going to be going up. Is that not what the Act was supposed to correct. The Affordable Care Act does not fix the cost of rising health care it merely attempts to make others pay for the rising costs. At best the Affordable Care Act masks the symptoms, but the root cause is still there.

snapper
01 Nov 13,, 12:23
if mubarak's army couldn't save mubarak, then not sure what words from obama would have saved him.

Obama half endorsed the MB which is what inclined the army to desert Mubarak.

Captain Worley
01 Nov 13,, 14:27
No wonder the government didn't want to talk about how many had enrolled:


Early enrollment figures are contained in notes from twice-a-day "war room" meetings convened within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after the website failed on Oct. 1. They were turned over in response to a document request from the House Oversight Committee.

The website launched on a Tuesday. Publicly, the government said there were 4.7 million unique visits in the first 24 hours. But at a meeting Wednesday morning, the war room notes say "six enrollments have occurred so far."

They were with BlueCross BlueShield North Carolina and Kansas City, CareSource and Healthcare Service Corporation.

By Wednesday afternoon, enrollments were up to "approximately 100." By the end of Wednesday, the notes reflect "248 enrollments" nationwide.

Obamacare enrollments got off to very slow start, documents show - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57610328/obamacare-enrollments-got-off-to-very-slow-start-documents-show/)

astralis
01 Nov 13,, 14:47
right... a half-endorsement by a supposedly weak US president was the catalyst for the army to desert Mubarak. not the millions of egyptians calling for his downfall and the prospect of the army getting tarnished/sucked into a civil war without popular support.

the army recognized Mubarak had become a liability in sustaining the deep state.

anyhow, last off-topic post. let's move this back to health insurance.

Albany Rifles
01 Nov 13,, 15:20
All, lets keep it on topic. There are ample threads to discuss the other topics we are vearing off into on this thread.

JAD_333
01 Nov 13,, 16:18
Memo Reveals Only 6 People Signed Up for Obamacare on First Day

Memo Reveals Only 6 People Signed Up for Obamacare on First Day - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/memo-reveals-only-6-people-signed-up-for-obamacare-on-first-day/)

This is scandalous but not a reflection on Obamacare itself. The company managing the Federal rollout, CMS, is also the focus of mismanagement of Medicare payouts and reimbursements.

JAD_333
01 Nov 13,, 16:23
A potential political explosion is brewing. Or an economic minefield. Results so far indicate Obamacare could cost much more than projected.

In first month, the vast majority of Obamacare sign-ups are in Medicaid (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/31/in-first-month-the-vast-majority-of-obamacare-sign-ups-are-in-medicaid/)



When we first saw the numbers, everyone’s eyes kind of bugged out,” said Matt Salo, who runs the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “Of the people walking through the door, 90 percent are on Medicaid. We’re thinking, what planet is this happening on?”

The yawning gap between public and private enrollment is handing Republicans yet another line of criticism against President Obama’s health overhaul — that the law is primarily becoming an expansion of a costly entitlement program.

Parihaka
01 Nov 13,, 22:09
3 years for rollout and the best they can come up with is 'it's the subies fault'?
Obamacare official apologizes for website glitches | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBRE99S0RB20131029)
IT professionals all over the world are snorting coffee out their noses

JAD_333
02 Nov 13,, 01:23
3 years for rollout and the best they can come up with is 'it's the subies fault'?
Obamacare official apologizes for website glitches | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBRE99S0RB20131029)
IT professionals all over the world are snorting coffee out their noses

Lovely image... Of course, it's always the sub's fault. :) My line of business is not much different than any other when it comes to using subs. I've observed that most incompetent subs get that way because they aren't given the right specs, proper guidance and close oversight. Sure, they had 3 years to get it right, but if the bosses keep noodling the regs right down to D-day, you get a turkey with two heads and no legs.

Captain Worley
04 Nov 13,, 14:59
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) -
About a month ago, attorney Tom Dougall logged on to healthcare.gov to browse for cheaper insurance for him and his wife.

On Friday, the last thing he expected to hear on his voicemail was a man from North Carolina who says he can access all of Tom's personal information.

Dougall says he thought it was a scam until he realized his privacy had been breached.

"I believe somehow the ACA, the Healthcare website has sent me your information, is what it looks like," said Justin, a North Carolina man who could access Tom's information on healthcare.gov. "I think there's a problem with the wrong information getting to the wrong people."

Midlands man has personal information compromised on ACA website - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina | (http://www.wistv.com/story/23864518/only-on-10-midlands-man-has-personal-information-compromised-on-healthcaregov)

Captain Worley
04 Nov 13,, 21:07
Looks like cancellations are far outnumbering folks who signed up....

MyCancellation.com (http://mycancellation.com/)

kato
05 Nov 13,, 07:50
Can't make a tally for that until Oct 1st 2014.

Norseman
07 Nov 13,, 11:20
I am not an expert on American domestic politics, but to me it seems as if Obamacare was not written by the Democrats , the law was written by the companies that sell health insurance.

Health insurance companies are going to make a fortune on Obamacare , the federal government is going to make a fortune on the penalty tax and those who are going to lose on Obamacare is the middle class and the poor.

I understand why politicians from the Republican Party is doing what they can to fight against Obamacare . But maybe they should let Obama and the Democrats get their Obamacare completed. The legislation is based on the IT system that runs it and the inflated prices people now have to pay, is guarantee enough that it collapses before the going gets underway .

Most of all , I am sure that Obamacare is being used as an excuse for making a huge political theater where ReBUUUHblicans and DUMBocrats pretend they are fighting each other and then at the 11 hour makes a compromise and nests U.S. from economic collapse . Afterwards, they can pat themselves on the back and tell you how heroic they were facing voters. And the only thing that happens is that the U.S. can become more indebted and continue on the route directly to the inevitable economic collapse.

Wooglin
07 Nov 13,, 17:17
Looks like cancellations are far outnumbering folks who signed up....

MyCancellation.com (http://mycancellation.com/)

Have you seen the premium quotes these people are getting to replace their cancelled plans?

I'm particularly amused by this one: http://mycancellation.com/post/66193254665

"In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year"... or raise them 100% to 300%, same difference.

Julie
12 Nov 13,, 06:08
This is the biggest distribution of wealth ever I've seen. I'm going to have to pay for maternity care and I'm 52 and can no longer have children. My premium increase per month is $257.00, and I can't imagine how I'm going to budget that. In the meantime, I hope I don't have a recurrence of cancer (which I beat in 1992), or I will have to travel 67 miles away for treatment.

The young and healthy are going to pay the $99.00 yearly penalty, and the poverty and stricken are going to sign up for the insurance. It's already happening.

I just want to thank any of you idiots who voted for this moron, not ONCE, but TWICE.

JAD_333
12 Nov 13,, 16:10
This is the biggest distribution of wealth ever I've seen. I'm going to have to pay for maternity care and I'm 52 and can no longer have children. My premium increase per month is $257.00, and I can't imagine how I'm going to budget that. In the meantime, I hope I don't have a recurrence of cancer (which I beat in 1992), or I will have to travel 67 miles away for treatment.

The young and healthy are going to pay the $99.00 yearly penalty, and the poverty and stricken are going to sign up for the insurance. It's already happening.

I just want to thank any of you idiots who voted for this moron, not ONCE, but TWICE.


Julie:

Sorry to hear you're one of the many people losing their policy. There's talk of rewinding the tape and rescinding the cancellations. For your sake I hope they do.

JAD_333
12 Nov 13,, 16:30
A sample of what's driving sentiment. Others urge patience.

Lies, consequences and Obamacare - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/obamacare-ct-edit-1111-20131111,0,459810.story)

bfng3569
12 Nov 13,, 19:07
Julie:

Sorry to hear you're one of the many people losing their policy. There's talk of rewinding the tape and rescinding the cancellations. For your sake I hope they do.

i thought I heard that legally they couldn't if they wanted too.

as well as the fact that doing so would destroy the ACA, by not forcing millions of people to sign up for it?

JAD_333
12 Nov 13,, 22:04
i thought I heard that legally they couldn't if they wanted too.

as well as the fact that doing so would destroy the ACA, by not forcing millions of people to sign up for it?


We're talking about private policies, not those bought through the exchanges.

Blademaster
12 Nov 13,, 22:10
This is the biggest distribution of wealth ever I've seen. I'm going to have to pay for maternity care and I'm 52 and can no longer have children. My premium increase per month is $257.00, and I can't imagine how I'm going to budget that. In the meantime, I hope I don't have a recurrence of cancer (which I beat in 1992), or I will have to travel 67 miles away for treatment.

The young and healthy are going to pay the $99.00 yearly penalty, and the poverty and stricken are going to sign up for the insurance. It's already happening.

I just want to thank any of you idiots who voted for this moron, not ONCE, but TWICE.

You are not paying for maternity care. You are paying for an umbrella of medical services that also includes maternity care. Guess what? That umbrella also covers other services and ancillary services commonly seen for taking care of seniors' medical needs.

As you age, your medical costs is gonna go up because your body will require more medical attention and that is a fact of life. yes the poverty and stricken are going to sign up for the insurance because it helps those hospital to recover those medical costs from the care that they had to provide to the poor and stricken which in the past that they had to eat up. I could sit down all day and regale you with stories of how poor people with no insurance would bilk out millions of dollars from hospital ERs knowing that they don't have to pay and clogging up the system and slowing down the level of care and service to those who really need it the most.

JAD_333
13 Nov 13,, 03:29
You are not paying for maternity care. You are paying for an umbrella of medical services that also includes maternity care. Guess what? That umbrella also covers other services and ancillary services commonly seen for taking care of seniors' medical needs.

True. It makes more sense to have a one-policy fits all from an actuarial approach. Seniors won't need maternity care but they'll be paying for the half that do, and conversely young, healthy people won't need geriatric care and they too will be helping to pay for seniors who do. It's supposed to be a wash. But then why did Julie's premiums jump in price? It seems to me her premiums could have stayed the same or been lowered given the influx of new people required to buy insurance.



I could sit down all day and regale you with stories of how poor people with no insurance would bilk out millions of dollars from hospital ERs knowing that they don't have to pay and clogging up the system and slowing down the level of care and service to those who really need it the most.


The hospitals may finally get paid for all those ER visits, but will that lessen the burden on the ER? Little regard is being paid to the effect that new demand will have on supply. After Obamacare the exchanges kick in big time there will be just as many doctors, clinics and hospitals as before, but millions of more people demanding health services. That may correct itself over time, but in the meantime higher demand for existing supply will drive health care costs up, putting a huge, unexpected burden on the government to either raise premiums or increase subsidies.

Interestingly, all the furor over Obamacare isn't dampening the public's approval of it, or at least that segment of the public that needs it most.

Why Obamacare Isn't Losing Popularity Even After A Month Of Really Bad Press | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/06/2900771/obamacare-public-opinion-press/)

bfng3569
13 Nov 13,, 06:05
We're talking about private policies, not those bought through the exchanges.

so was i.

private policies can't be reinstated unless the law is changed, it was specifically done to prevent grandfathering in of private policies.

to allow, what is it now, millions of people? with canceled policies to get them back would be a huge chunk of cash that the ACA is not getting any more.

unless i misunderstood the comment?

citanon
13 Nov 13,, 08:12
I just want to thank any of you idiots who voted for this moron, not ONCE, but TWICE.

Seriously.

astralis
13 Nov 13,, 20:33
Obama said you can keep your plan: An unwise promise that the president was right to break. (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/11/obama_said_you_can_keep_your_plan_an_unwise_promis e_that_the_president_was.html)

Parihaka
13 Nov 13,, 22:43
Obama said you can keep your plan: An unwise promise that the president was right to break. (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/11/obama_said_you_can_keep_your_plan_an_unwise_promis e_that_the_president_was.html)

Ah of course. Under the old system the insurance companies never actually paid out.

JAD_333
14 Nov 13,, 00:11
so was i.

private policies can't be reinstated unless the law is changed, it was specifically done to prevent grandfathering in of private policies.

I question that. Obama's promise would have been exposed as obviously false from the gitgo. It implied grandfathering. Rule writers forced private health care providers to expand coverage.



to allow, what is it now, millions of people? with canceled policies to get them back would be a huge chunk of cash that the ACA is not getting any more.


How does the ACA get a cut of premiums paid for private insurance?

JAD_333
14 Nov 13,, 00:35
Obama said you can keep your plan: An unwise promise that the president was right to break. (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/11/obama_said_you_can_keep_your_plan_an_unwise_promis e_that_the_president_was.html)

So, in 2008 at the height of the ACA battle, focus groups convinced Obama he should 'lie' to Americans to get the ACA passed and that's ok because it worked? Words fail...

Julie
14 Nov 13,, 01:44
All of these "other" people I am helping with their maternity care, do you think they would all like to contribute to my daughter's college tuition? Probably not. Over 3 grand a year I have to now find and come up with for tuition. I did not expect this since I was told my policy would be safe. Again, thank you, thank you very much.

astralis
14 Nov 13,, 04:35
JAD,


So, in 2008 at the height of the ACA battle, focus groups convinced Obama he should 'lie' to Americans to get the ACA passed and that's ok because it worked? Words fail...

politicians listen to polls and tell people what they want to hear? i'm shocked, shocked i tell you...

anyhow, healthcare costs ultimately need to be borne by -someone-. as US law prevents hospitals from throwing people out of the ER, the US taxpayer is already bearing these costs. maternity care for the poor? where do people think the funds for when poor pregnant women run to the ER is coming from?

the ACA ultimately acts to front-load many of these costs onto heathcare insurance vice healthcare, and to turn previously hidden costs into more tangible ones.

dalem
14 Nov 13,, 04:35
You are not paying for maternity care. You are paying for an umbrella of medical services that also includes maternity care. Guess what? That umbrella also covers other services and ancillary services commonly seen for taking care of seniors' medical needs.

I'm not f*cking your vagina. I am f*cking an umbrella of orifices that also includes your vagina. Guess what? That umbrella also covers other orifices and ancillary landing points commonly used for my seed. And waffles.

-dale

Blademaster
14 Nov 13,, 05:30
I'm not f*cking your vagina. I am f*cking an umbrella of orifices that also includes your vagina. Guess what? That umbrella also covers other orifices and ancillary landing points commonly used for my seed. And waffles.

-dale

Then don't ever ask for medical services when you are sick and dying of diseases and whatnot. You better pay the piper's bill before you receive any services. You can die out on the street for all I care and the dogs and maggots can eat up your remains.

That is basically what you want to happen.

dalem
14 Nov 13,, 06:32
Then don't ever ask for medical services when you are sick and dying of diseases and whatnot. You better pay the piper's bill before you receive any services. You can die out on the street for all I care and the dogs and maggots can eat up your remains.

That is basically what you want to happen.

All I did was draw attention to the fact that you said "You're not paying for maternity care, you're paying for maternity care", and now I'm the guy who should die in the street?

-dale

Blademaster
14 Nov 13,, 06:54
All I did was draw attention to the fact that you said "You're not paying for maternity care, you're paying for maternity care", and now I'm the guy who should die in the street?

-dale

Guess again. Your post was borderline trolling and the aim of your post was very obvious. You decided to engage in non-sequitur arguments and I just gave you a counter non sequitur argument.

dalem
14 Nov 13,, 07:19
Guess again. Your post was borderline trolling

Why?



and the aim of your post was very obvious.

What was my aim then?



You decided to engage in non-sequitur arguments and I just gave you a counter non sequitur argument.

In my previous post I just showed how my post was super-sequitur. Then you went & got all maggoty.

-dale

Captain Worley
14 Nov 13,, 14:45
This is just the tip of the iceberg with policy cancellations. The only ones affected so far are those who buy their own insirance.

Wait until the employer mandate kicks in. Millions more folks will be notified that their policies aren't meeting ACA and will be cancelled. For a lot of folks, this will occur in October 2014.

The month before mid terms.

Any wonder the (D)s are scrambling to make "if you like your policy, you can keep it" a reality?

TopHatter
14 Nov 13,, 20:09
Why?

What was my aim then?

In my previous post I just showed how my post was super-sequitur. Then you went & got all maggoty.

-dale

Yeah that was trolling. I'm hardly a shrinking violet but that post was just dripping with venom.

TopHatter
14 Nov 13,, 20:10
This is just the tip of the iceberg with policy cancellations.

Agreed. And the outrage will continue to grow and grow. Hell, when Bill Clinton (admittedly no fan of Obama) publicly calls the President out on his bullshit, you know you've got problems.

dalem
14 Nov 13,, 20:21
Yeah that was trolling. I'm hardly a shrinking violet but that post was just dripping with venom.

Oh well, I'll go die in the street and get eaten by maggots then.

-dale

bfng3569
14 Nov 13,, 21:24
I question that. Obama's promise would have been exposed as obviously false from the gitgo. It implied grandfathering. Rule writers forced private health care providers to expand coverage.

It was exposed as false by a minority of repubs, and quickly rebutted as 'loony' 'wacky' 'not true' etc etc etc. as to how far the original law went, I have no idea. Havent some internal memos been surfacing of late dating back to 2010 warning about just that? How long after it was passed though did Sebelius start adding in more 'rules' to limit it further?



How does the ACA get a cut of premiums paid for private insurance?

it doesn't. the ACA needs people off of private insurance and into Obama care.

how were they going to do that?

bfng3569
14 Nov 13,, 21:27
does anyone have the actual time line for when the ACA bill was passed and when it came into effect (this past month) and compare that with the election cycles? (and toss in the year long reprieve Obama floated today?)

TopHatter
14 Nov 13,, 21:46
Oh well, I'll go die in the street and get eaten by maggots then.

-dale

And cue the Drama Llama :rolleyes:


Then don't ever ask for medical services when you are sick and dying of diseases and whatnot. You better pay the piper's bill before you receive any services. You can die out on the street for all I care and the dogs and maggots can eat up your remains.

That is basically what you want to happen.

But Dale makes a point, that is also trolling.

Can everybody just act like adults for f--k's sake?

dalem
14 Nov 13,, 22:26
And cue the Drama Llama :rolleyes:



But Dale makes a point, that is also trolling.

Can everybody just act like adults for f--k's sake?

I'm just trying to have a conversation. Commenting on styles is now riding the Drama Llama? You KNOW me better than that - I've chuckled through people here calling me a Nazi, a racist, etc. over the years. You think pointing out style issues is me being dramatic all of the sudden?

-dale

TopHatter
14 Nov 13,, 23:11
I'm just trying to have a conversation. Commenting on styles is now riding the Drama Llama? You KNOW me better than that - I've chuckled through people here calling me a Nazi, a racist, etc. over the years. You think pointing out style issues is me being dramatic all of the sudden?

-dale

No I think you declaring your intention/quoting BM's nonsense about going to die in the street and get eaten by maggots is being dramatic.

Seriously, let's all act like adults and post like normal human beings.

zraver
15 Nov 13,, 01:09
In great news for those of us who despise Obamacare, we got to watch Obama shoot his own legacy in the head. By letting people keep their plans for another year, there is even less reason for the young to sign up for the jacked up premiums thus dramatically increasing the chance of a premium death spiral that will undo the entire law.

JAD_333
15 Nov 13,, 01:20
President Obama on Thursday announced an administrative policy change that will let people keep their existing health insurance for another year, but the plan is already facing pushback from Republicans, some Democrats and the insurance industry -- with some saying the president's move goes too far, and others saying it doesn't go far enough.

The president's decision doesn't force insurers to renew existing insurance plans on the individual and small markets, it only gives them the option of doing so -- it also gives them the option of reaching out to the millions of Americans already dropped from plans and letting them renew their coverage for next year.

Insurers, lawmakers slam latest Obamacare fix - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57612449/insurers-lawmakers-slam-latest-obamacare-fix/)


Who didn't know this was coming? Good news for no one. Obama seems to think he has a magic wand, and all he has to do is wave it for everything to be fixed.

Doktor
15 Nov 13,, 01:26
JAD,



politicians listen to polls and tell people what they want to hear? i'm shocked, shocked i tell you...

anyhow, healthcare costs ultimately need to be borne by -someone-. as US law prevents hospitals from throwing people out of the ER, the US taxpayer is already bearing these costs. maternity care for the poor? where do people think the funds for when poor pregnant women run to the ER is coming from?

the ACA ultimately acts to front-load many of these costs onto heathcare insurance vice healthcare, and to turn previously hidden costs into more tangible ones.

Are you basically saying now Americans are double taxed? Because I haven't heard US taxes dropped.

zraver
15 Nov 13,, 01:58
Insurers, lawmakers slam latest Obamacare fix - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57612449/insurers-lawmakers-slam-latest-obamacare-fix/)


Who didn't know this was coming? Good news for no one. Obama seems to think he has a magic wand, and all he has to do is wave it for everything to be fixed.

You think a constitutional law professor would understand how government works and that he is not King Hussien I of America.

astralis
15 Nov 13,, 03:11
doktor,


Are you basically saying now Americans are double taxed? Because I haven't heard US taxes dropped.

hospitals are required to cover the cost. they do this by raising the cost of healthcare for everyone else. one of the reasons behind exploding insurance premiums.

it'll take time for the ACA to work, as more people need to sign up to increase the risk pool. thus today's decision by obama is truly stupid, both in terms of the ACA implementation and from pure politics alone. he gets to repeat this again next year, and hope that things have been fixed enough with the site/insurance market stabilized for this to be less of a shock.

bfng3569
15 Nov 13,, 03:48
doktor,



hospitals are required to cover the cost. they do this by raising the cost of healthcare for everyone else. one of the reasons behind exploding insurance premiums.

it'll take time for the ACA to work, as more people need to sign up to increase the risk pool. thus today's decision by obama is truly stupid, both in terms of the ACA implementation and from pure politics alone. he gets to repeat this again next year, and hope that things have been fixed enough with the site/insurance market stabilized for this to be less of a shock.

wrong post.

Officer of Engineers
15 Nov 13,, 03:49
Looking at the history of Canadian national healthcare, are any of you Americans are actually serious that your costs are going to come down? Are you all seriously telling me that hospitals will drop their prices? What? Have a sale on open heart surgery? Buy now, use later?

bfng3569
15 Nov 13,, 04:00
You think a constitutional law professor would understand how government works and that he is not King Hussien I of America.

no, but i think he's betting on the fact that the average american doesnt. (plus look at immigration, he has instructed ICE officials to not enforce federal law, yet he has had holder sue arizona for trying to enforce the law. how on earth does he get away with that?)

he also just created scape goats of everyone else, namely insurance companies, and anyone who opposes putting this off for a year.

one of the talking points i keep hearing being repeated by the dems and their supporters is the 'well, the policies getting cancled are sub standard and not really good for you, similiar to a 'predatory' mortgage, and we need to protect you from that, so if it doenst meeet the ACA standards, you were just to dumb to know better and we (the fed. gov.) are to tell you what you really need'. now it will be, 'Well Obama said insurance companies could reinsure those people that got kicked off, if they dont, its not our fault, its there fault'

but now even if insuarance companies re-insure those they had to cancel, and the states agree to it, the policies will be no where near the same cost wise, becuase now the insurance companies will have to figure out how to insure two totally different pools.

all by december 15th as well. (i beleive thats the date?)

Parihaka
15 Nov 13,, 04:10
but now even if insuarance companies re-insure those they had to cancel, and the states agree to it, the policies will be no where near the same cost wise, becuase now the insurance companies will have to figure out how to insure two totally different pools.

all by december 15th as well. (i beleive thats the date?)

Not only that but the Insurance companies use computers to assess policies. they've been reprogramming those computers to compensate for the new legislation. Now all of a sudden they have to roll back those software changes, as well as factor in already failed policies and all within a month? When the Govt. couldn't set up a basic website in 2 years?

JAD_333
15 Nov 13,, 05:35
You think a constitutional law professor would understand how government works and that he is not King Hussien I of America.

I don't know what to think? He seems like an idealist with little executive ability. This email aired on Fox asks a good question.




This message came to us from Bill in Kentucky.

"Putting things in perspective: March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days. December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day. What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this progressive federal government to build a working webpage. Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!! And in that amount of time - this administration can't build a working webpage."
Here is the email I read on the air tonight | Special Report | Bret Baier | Fox News Channel (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/blog/2013/11/08/here-email-i-read-air-tonight)

JAD_333
15 Nov 13,, 06:42
JAD,



politicians listen to polls and tell people what they want to hear? i'm shocked, shocked i tell you...

Asty: you aren't getting away with that lame comeback.:) This was no ordinary 'lie'. It's clear as 'read my lips-no more taxes'. Most political lies are full of conditional words and good intentions. This one has promise written all over it.



anyhow, healthcare costs ultimately need to be borne by -someone-. as US law prevents hospitals from throwing people out of the ER, the US taxpayer is already bearing these costs. maternity care for the poor? where do people think the funds for when poor pregnant women run to the ER is coming from?


You're aware that medical care in the US costs on average $8,000 (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/11/13/US-healthcare-Most-expensive-longest-waits-most-red-tape/UPI-30501384398664/) a person per year. Really, one need say no more than that to illustrate how onerous the ACA is. If you take away subsidies, every American would have to pay $8k a year in premiums just to cover the annual bill for healthcare, but millions can't afford $8k a year. That means millions of other Americans will have to pay higher premiums to cover the shortfall. Of course, the government will subsidize low-income Americans, but subsidies ultimately come from tax revenues. It's not hard to see where this is all heading. It's a big boost for the healthcare industry, which will soon make up one of the largest segments of the GDP. A nice, neat way to pump up the economy.



the ACA ultimately acts to front-load many of these costs onto heathcare insurance vice healthcare, and to turn previously hidden costs into more tangible ones.

What door the money flows through doesn't matter and there is no difference between hidden and tangible costs; they're still costs.

snapper
15 Nov 13,, 12:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHCmpzPZJ1s

astralis
15 Nov 13,, 14:38
JAD,


Asty: you aren't getting away with that lame comeback. This was no ordinary 'lie'. It's clear as 'read my lips-no more taxes'. Most political lies are full of conditional words and good intentions. This one has promise written all over it.


it was certainly a stupid promise. note that in my support of the ACA i never cited this claim as a positive factor. the core premise of the ACA, after all, is to eliminate free-riding. these type of plans represent a type of free-riding by both consumer and provider: plans largely designed with minimum upfront costs, so that when something did happen, the consumer would face a high chance of being denied coverage. it's better than complete free-riding by not having insurance, but not significantly so.


If you take away subsidies, every American would have to pay $8k a year in premiums just to cover the annual bill for healthcare, but millions can't afford $8k a year. That means millions of other Americans will have to pay higher premiums to cover the shortfall.

again, this does not differ significantly from the current situation. the net effect is to expand the number of people paying the increased healthcare costs from those with insurance to a wider population. yes, more people will pay; that's the whole point. increasing the number of people with insurance coverage isn't just a form of liberal do-goodism (although it is), it's also a good small-c conservative idea in the long-term to lower health costs.

OoE mentioned the canadian case. what wasn't mentioned was that despite a significantly more socialist healthcare regime, canadians spend about 55% of what americans spend on healthcare, with government healthcare spending per capita in the US being 25% higher anyway.


What door the money flows through doesn't matter and there is no difference between hidden and tangible costs; they're still costs.

the point of having health insurance exchanges and much more tangible costs is to give the consumer more freedom of choice to pick between plans, which i believe is a rather conservative ideal...:)

finally,


"Putting things in perspective: March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days. December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day. What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this progressive federal government to build a working webpage. Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!! And in that amount of time - this administration can't build a working webpage."


wasn't addressed to me but i always found this a funny argument. an argument against a "progressive federal government" based on an example in which the US federal government commandeered 40-50% of the US GDP, raised taxes to 96% on the wealthy, conscripted millions and nationalized whole industries...i'm sure the ACA webpage would be a fairly stunning success if a tenth of those resources were provided for the cause. :)

zraver
15 Nov 13,, 16:17
OoE mentioned the canadian case. what wasn't mentioned was that despite a significantly more socialist healthcare regime, canadians spend about 55% of what americans spend on healthcare, with government healthcare spending per capita in the US being 25% higher anyway.

And significant wait times for diagnostic and non-emergency procedures and worse cancer survival rates as well. Canada (and the UK's) system is great for meeting the needs of acute illnesses and trauma and sucky for chronic, initial diagnosis, specialized and other types of health care.

astralis
15 Nov 13,, 16:28
z,


And significant wait times for diagnostic and non-emergency procedures and worse cancer survival rates as well. Canada (and the UK's) system is great for meeting the needs of acute illnesses and trauma and sucky for chronic, initial diagnosis, specialized and other types of health care.

i don't see this translated in data. cancer mortality rates are the same; the canadian system is ranked ahead of the US by the WHO; indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates are somewhat better in canada, although of course whether or not this is strictly related to healthcare quality is debateable.

in short quality of care cannot be too different, while the cost differential is extraordinary. moreover, the minimum baseline for canada is significantly better, because poor people have access to a much higher level of healthcare, while of course the middle class/wealthy will always have the option of going into a private system if they want immediate specialized care.

Officer of Engineers
15 Nov 13,, 17:11
My point was that in the Canadian case, our health care costs has not gone down. In fact, it has gone up, though still smaller than the US but our history has stated that if you're looking for savings, forget it. It won't happen. No hospital is going to put heart surgery on sale anytime soon.

Blademaster
15 Nov 13,, 18:12
Looking at the history of Canadian national healthcare, are any of you Americans are actually serious that your costs are going to come down? Are you all seriously telling me that hospitals will drop their prices? What? Have a sale on open heart surgery? Buy now, use later?

perhaps that is the problem. There is no competitive market forces at play and it is not allowed to be at play.

Blademaster
15 Nov 13,, 18:13
My point was that in the Canadian case, our health care costs has not gone down. In fact, it has gone up, though still smaller than the US but our history has stated that if you're looking for savings, forget it. It won't happen. No hospital is going to put heart surgery on sale anytime soon.

With or without ACA, health care costs are going to go up but the question is by how much and ACA is trying to slow down the escalation of the costs.

Parihaka
15 Nov 13,, 19:49
wasn't addressed to me but i always found this a funny argument. an argument against a "progressive federal government" based on an example in which the US federal government commandeered 40-50% of the US GDP, raised taxes to 96% on the wealthy, conscripted millions and nationalized whole industries...i'm sure the ACA webpage would be a fairly stunning success if a tenth of those resources were provided for the cause. :)

I hereby agree to develop one (1) fully functional ACA website for one (1) hundredth (1/100) of fifty (50) percent of the US GDP for one (1) year. You write up the contract Asty and I'll sign :)

astralis
15 Nov 13,, 20:00
do i get a cut? more importantly, can i get the cut in butter cookies?

Parihaka
15 Nov 13,, 20:09
do i get a cut? more importantly, can i get the cut in butter cookies?

But of course, you'll receive a weekend for two at the Kingsgate Hotel in Palmerston North. The butter cookies can be sourced from the dairy down the road, tell them Iain sent you :)

Blademaster
15 Nov 13,, 20:34
But Dale makes a point, that is also trolling.

I agree. I just want to show how ridiculous his argument was. Basically trading BS for BS.



Can everybody just act like adults for f--k's sake?

You know what they say about politics ... I am leaving this blank because I got too many to choose from.

Julie
15 Nov 13,, 21:09
Obamacare is about making people get insurance that doesn't have any. Bottom line, the ones who have been purchasing health insurance is now going to be penalized for doing the right thing. Does that make any sense? Well, no. That is really pissing the insured ones off, and you know what some of them are going to do? Not buy insurance and pay the penalty for awhile. That will bring the entire law to its knees and possibly kill it. I'm thinking about just paying the penalty for awhile myself.

citanon
15 Nov 13,, 21:11
With or without ACA, health care costs are going to go up but the question is by how much and ACA is trying to slow down the escalation of the costs.

It's not. It was meant to be affordable for the people it covered (at least until the country goes bankrupt). Now it looks like its not even that.

astralis
15 Nov 13,, 21:19
if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.

individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...

Julie
15 Nov 13,, 23:34
if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.

individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...It is so like..."whose your daddy now?"

Liberalism is pure poison.

citanon
16 Nov 13,, 00:36
if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.

individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...

Sure Asty,

Individual responsibility, defined in precise and universal parameters for you by the government, subsidized by your fellow citizens, penalized by a tax fine, foisted on every person in the country, run through enormous, complex and cumbersome bureaucracies, including services you will likely never need or want, spending money that we do not have, based on balance sheets that exist only in the imagination, all to turn free-riding into subsidized riding.

Absolutely conservative. As freedom loving and American as apple pie. :)

zraver
16 Nov 13,, 00:46
if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.

individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...

making people engage in commerce at the point of a gun is not in any way shape or form- liberty or personal responsibility, its extortion.

astralis
16 Nov 13,, 03:23
making people engage in commerce at the point of a gun is not in any way shape or form- liberty or personal responsibility, its extortion.

spare me. we forced people to join the military, fight, kill, and die at a point of a gun, too. we still keep that structure within the Selective Service System.

for that matter we force people to pay money for services they will never use, either. it's called taxes.

we force people to save a certain amount of money for retirement through a roundabout way; it's called Social Security.

let's put it another way. the ACA is a clumsy mechanism to approximate universal healthcare through quasi-private means.

conservatives lambast single-payer/public option healthcare as a communist conspiracy, with the ACA as one short step from that. yet they're not willing to deny poor people use of the ER, or other publicly-subsidized healthcare. one wonders what conservatives are for.

"we're for the most-expensive form of subsidized healthcare because free-riding is an individual right!" this is precisely what is being argued here.

Julie
16 Nov 13,, 04:20
This is what I want to know. When are the "free-riders" going to be penalized for anything? I mean really. They get food stamps, Section 8 housing, medicaid and welfare. NOW we have to pay for their insurance coverage cuz Obama wants it off their books. I am furious about paying for maternity coverage for these free-riders to have more babies that we have to take care of their entire life. My child bearing days are over, I shouldn't have to pay for that coverage in my policy. What the hell happened to individuals being responsible for their own decisions and consequences? This isn't a 3rd world country. Jobs are out there, you just got to get off your free-riding ass and go get one.

zraver
16 Nov 13,, 04:36
spare me. we forced people to join the military, fight, kill, and die at a point of a gun, too. we still keep that structure within the Selective Service System.

for that matter we force people to pay money for services they will never use, either. it's called taxes.

we force people to save a certain amount of money for retirement through a roundabout way; it's called Social Security.

let's put it another way. the ACA is a clumsy mechanism to approximate universal healthcare through quasi-private means.

conservatives lambast single-payer/public option healthcare as a communist conspiracy, with the ACA as one short step from that. yet they're not willing to deny poor people use of the ER, or other publicly-subsidized healthcare. one wonders what conservatives are for.

"we're for the most-expensive form of subsidized healthcare because free-riding is an individual right!" this is precisely what is being argued here.

We have never forced people to engage in commerce under threat of death... The power of government as you point out with your statement about selective service includes the power of life and death. That power has now been harnessed to provide profits to private corporations and individuals.

JAD_333
16 Nov 13,, 05:07
if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.


individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...

asty

The proponents of universal mandates are willing to scrap 'individual responsibility', once thought to be protected by the Constitution. The end, in their view, justifies the means. Not long ago, I asked a vehement supporter of the ACA if she favored violating the Constitution to solve social problems. "You bet I do," she said. Ironically, she's a frequent demonstrator and fiercely protective of her right of free speech. We don't have to take issue with the Constitution to solve social problems; we can craft smarter legislation, and, if need be, amend the Constitution.

From the ivory tower of intellectual musing, the idea of a universal mandate for healthcare coverage makes perfect sense. Require all those mortals below to buy insurance that covers every illness. Then all of them will be able to get healthcare whenever they need it. Problem solved. Or, so it seems. In reality, those mortals are not automatons. Many of them value freedom above everything else and subscribe to the idea of individual responsibility. They do not want a government that forces them to buy anything, no matter how good it is. It seems that, over time, the Federal government, under the power of a progressive-leaning Congress, developed a new principle: If it's good for people, require them to do it.

JAD_333
16 Nov 13,, 05:42
... we forced people to join the military, fight, kill, and die at a point of a gun, too. we still keep that structure within the Selective Service System.

for that matter we force people to pay money for services they will never use, either. it's called taxes.

we force people to save a certain amount of money for retirement through a roundabout way; it's called Social Security.

let's put it another way. the ACA is a clumsy mechanism to approximate universal healthcare through quasi-private means.

conservatives lambast single-payer/public option healthcare as a communist conspiracy, with the ACA as one short step from that. yet they're not willing to deny poor people use of the ER, or other publicly-subsidized healthcare. one wonders what conservatives are for.

"we're for the most-expensive form of subsidized healthcare because free-riding is an individual right!" this is precisely what is being argued here.


Asty:

The ACA mandated that all Americans must buy healthcare insurance and that failure to do so will result in a fine. The mandate was challenged by states that maintained it violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court skirted the issue by ruling that the fine was really a tax and that, since the Federal government can levy taxes, it could 'tax' people who do not carry health insurance. In essence, the tax is an incentive to force people to buy insurance, although people are free to not buy insurance as long as they pay the 'tax'.

As far as 'forcing' people into military service, see the list of Federal powers below.

As for Social Security, there is no requirement that a person has to work and therefore pay FICA taxes.

Single payer healthcare may be called 'communist' by some. However, it is not a mandate, but a social program supported by tax revenues. No one has to buy anything or being 'fined' for not buying it.





Powers delegated to U.S. (National) Government:

(1) Exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect import duties.[8]

(2) To pay the debts of the U.S. Government.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian Tribes.

(4) To regulate commerce among the States.[2]

(5) To regulate immigration.[7]

(6) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

(7) To establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.

(8) To coin money and regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and to issue bills of credit.

(9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.[3]

(10) To fix the standard of weights and measures.

(11) To provide and regulate postal services.

(12) To establish protection for intellectual property, including patent, copyright, and trademark rights.

(13) To constitute lower national courts.

(14) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.[3]

(15) To declare war, authorize warlike activities by other than the armed forces, and make rules concerning captures.

(16) To raise, support and regulate the armed forces.

(17) To govern what part of the Militia shall be employed in the service of the United States.

(18) To exercise general Legislation[9] over federal ground, which is limited to federal territories and districts, land purchased from states with the consent of their legislatures, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.

(19) To guarantee a republican form[12] of government to the States.[3]

(20) To enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign state.

(21) To declare the punishment for treason.[3]

(22) To prescribe the manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved to other states and what should be done about them.

(23) To admit new states into the Union.

(24) To dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.

(25) To make laws necessary and proper for executing the powers delegated to the U.S. government.

(2) Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers

(1) To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

(2) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.[16]

(3) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

(4) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress, except the places for electing senators.

(5) To conduct a census every ten years.

(3) Non-pre-emptive non-exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect excise taxes on commerce or income taxes on persons.[8]

(2) To borrow money.

astralis
16 Nov 13,, 07:51
z,


We have never forced people to engage in commerce under threat of death...

nor do we now-- there's a fine for not having insurance, not "death".

in any case, what i'm getting at is that it's not NEW for governments, including the US, to "mandate" commerce. in fact, mandating that hospitals treat all ER patients regardless of ability to pay is an extension of this-- just not as obvious. similarly, restricting goods in wartime and nationalizing industries is another. in peacetime, Social Security is similar to this, as well. and of course there's the Militia Act of 1792 as a very early example, although as with the wartime examples given, is admittedly weaker as a comparison to a peacetime domestic policy.

Doktor
16 Nov 13,, 07:55
Which one is it now?

Hospitals pay for free riders or taxes pay for them? I was under impression from previous posts taxpayers did it in the past. So, what changed?

Officer of Engineers
16 Nov 13,, 08:01
Which one is it now?

Hospitals pay for free riders or taxes pay for them? I was under impression from previous posts taxpayers did it in the past. So, what changed?Both. Both the hospitals and the insurance companies are now double dipping. Being foreigners allow us to see through the bullshit.

astralis
16 Nov 13,, 08:08
JAD,


Single payer healthcare may be called 'communist' by some. However, it is not a mandate, but a social program supported by tax revenues. No one has to buy anything or being 'fined' for not buying it.

as i said, the ACA is a very awkward kludge.

in any case, my original statement, i think, still holds: when you state "Many of them value freedom above everything else and subscribe to the idea of individual responsibility. They do not want a government that forces them to buy anything, no matter how good it is", really, in this case "freedom" here is "freedom to free ride/take advantage of others". in this case, hospitals and ultimately, insured people.

that's certainly not subscribing to the idea of individual responsibility.

that the supreme court ruled the way it did also tells me that they do not put a particularly heavy weight on this type of "freedom". to me, more dismaying is how the -conservatives- are making this type of argument, turning an issue of individual responsibility/paying for services used into a Manichean argument of freedom and tyranny.

frankly, the easy liberal way would have been to just subsidize the poor/require insurance companies to never drop coverage without such an individual mandate; something that would indeed be financially ruinous. encouraging these type of tendencies is not exactly a victory for the conservative cause, i'd say.

Minskaya
16 Nov 13,, 08:11
Democrats Defect on Health Rules
Nov. 15, 2013

More than three dozen House Democrats rebuffed a White House veto threat and backed a Republican plan to change the health-care law, underscoring the tensions among members of President Barack Obama's party a day after he proposed his own fix to tamp down complaints. The Republican plan, a response to unease among millions of Americans who face cancellation of health-insurance policies that don't meet the new law's standards, would give insurers one more year to offer policies that were set to end. The 39 Democrats who backed the plan set a high-water mark in Republicans' efforts to win support from across the aisle to amend or delay portions of the law. Mr. Obama also faces skepticism among insurers about changes to the Affordable Care Act just a month and a half before it fully takes effect.

The health-insurance industry's top trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, has warned that the president's proposal to extend canceled policies could lead to higher prices, a suggestion that the White House disputes. If insurers go along with Mr. Obama's policy shift, as many as several million healthy people may stick with their current plans next year rather than buy coverage on new insurance exchanges set up under the health law. Many consumers upset about the policy cancellations say they enjoyed preferential pricing because of their good health.

Exacerbating the cancellation situation: Many people are having trouble buying coverage that complies with the health law because of problems with the federal HealthCare.gov website, which serves consumers in 36 states, and some state-run websites. Across the country, both insurers and state officials voiced a range of concerns about the president's policy shift. If the exchange plans lose customers with lower-than-average medical costs, that would cut into the profits of insurers, because 2014 premiums were set on the assumption that owners of the canceled policies would move onto the exchanges. That could force premiums higher in 2015. "We've now taken a riskier situation and thrown gasoline onto it," said Allan Einboden, chief executive of Scott & White Health Plan, a nonprofit insurer based in Temple, Texas. "If your premium has to be so high, it's not affordable to anyone."
Source (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303789604579199611237337606)

Oy Vey. What a mess.

kato
16 Nov 13,, 12:13
We have never forced people to engage in commerce under threat of death...
I'm moderately sure the Perry Expedition counts as such.

zraver
16 Nov 13,, 14:18
I'm moderately sure the Perry Expedition counts as such.

Touche', I meant American citizens.

zraver
16 Nov 13,, 14:24
z,



nor do we now-- there's a fine for not having insurance, not "death".

Its not a fine, its a tax and all government power including taxation extends from the point of a gun.


in any case, what i'm getting at is that it's not NEW for governments, including the US, to "mandate" commerce. in fact, mandating that hospitals treat all ER patients regardless of ability to pay is an extension of this-- just not as obvious. similarly, restricting goods in wartime and nationalizing industries is another. in peacetime, Social Security is similar to this, as well. and of course there's the Militia Act of 1792 as a very early example, although as with the wartime examples given, is admittedly weaker as a comparison to a peacetime domestic policy.

None of those examples are even close... Really, comparing Kaiser Permamente's mandate to treat all in need as a requirement to get tax dollars with the new requirement that John Doe preserve Kaiser's profitability at his own expanse... The rest of your examples are just as absurd.

astralis
16 Nov 13,, 17:40
z,


Its not a fine, its a tax and all government power including taxation extends from the point of a gun.

that's sort of like stating that the punishment for littering is "death". yeah, no kidding the state has a monopoly on violence, but that doesn't mean it'll be -used-. especially given that the law specifically states "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section...Such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."


None of those examples are even close... Really, comparing Kaiser Permamente's mandate to treat all in need as a requirement to get tax dollars with the new requirement that John Doe preserve Kaiser's profitability at his own expanse... The rest of your examples are just as absurd.

"neener neener that makes no sense" isn't an argument.

JAD_333
16 Nov 13,, 19:01
JAD,



as i said, the ACA is a very awkward kludge.

in any case, my original statement, i think, still holds: when you state "Many of them value freedom above everything else and subscribe to the idea of individual responsibility. They do not want a government that forces them to buy anything, no matter how good it is", really, in this case "freedom" here is "freedom to free ride/take advantage of others". in this case, hospitals and ultimately, insured people.

that's certainly not subscribing to the idea of individual responsibility.

that the supreme court ruled the way it did also tells me that they do not put a particularly heavy weight on this type of "freedom". to me, more dismaying is how the -conservatives- are making this type of argument, turning an issue of individual responsibility/paying for services used into a Manichean argument of freedom and tyranny.

frankly, the easy liberal way would have been to just subsidize the poor/require insurance companies to never drop coverage without such an individual mandate; something that would indeed be financially ruinous. encouraging these type of tendencies is not exactly a victory for the conservative cause, i'd say.


Out of all the fuss ought to come some consensus on how to give the poor access to healthcare without denying the rest of us a choice. Is it necessary for the government to create a system that not only places the burden on those who can pay, but also forces them to access their healthcare on the government's terms? I would prefer to be taxed to equalize people's access to healthcare than to be forced to purchase an insurance policy drafted by government bureaucrats. I realize the enormous cost of making healthcare accessible to the poor makes it tempting to bring everyone into a single system. I acknowledge that the ACA will eventually function more or less as designed...if it survives.

But we are begging the question. The real question is, at what cost to our individual freedom... You downplay that side of the issue, citing examples of other government demands on people. As I pointed out those demands were done within the framework of the Constitution. You don't see how Federal government nibbling away at your freedom to choose reduces your freedom. You remind me of my liberal friend who values her freedom of speech, yet supports solutions to social problems that could ultimately undermine her freedom.

It is the incremental increases in Federal power that is the issue here. Where will it lead us? Putting fresh paint over rotting wood is not a solution. Entitlements are the rot. They burden the state with conniving free-riders not only in the ERs, but everywhere, from food stamps to SS disability. Is it wise to let this continue simply because some people in real need are being helped? Or, can we help people in the American family who truly need help and do it without constricting our freedom? I think so. We have to stop taking the easy way out. Anyway, these are fundamental questions we should be thinking about.

zraver
16 Nov 13,, 19:09
z,



that's sort of like stating that the punishment for littering is "death". yeah, no kidding the state has a monopoly on violence, but that doesn't mean it'll be -used-. especially given that the law specifically states "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section...Such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

If you believe that no prosecutions will follow I've got a bridge and a working healthcare website to sell you...


"neener neener that makes no sense" isn't an argument.

Then why use it? I said, "omparing Kaiser Permamente's mandate to treat all in need as a requirement to get tax dollars with the new requirement that John Doe preserve Kaiser's profitability at his own expanse." Which is considerably more detailed and specific than neener neener...

bonehead
16 Nov 13,, 19:15
From the point of a gun? Most likely not. Having your tax return evaporate, seeing your bank accounts seized and watching helplessly as your credit rating nosedive are the tools most likely used against you.

zraver
16 Nov 13,, 19:26
From the point of a gun? Most likely not. Having your tax return evaporate, seeing your bank accounts seized and watching helplessly as your credit rating nosedive are the tools most likely used against you.

Which is theft by government whose power extends from the point of a gun. Think about how morally bankrupt it is to make someone in their 30's who is healthy both subsidize those who are not healthy at the expense of their own families and do so in a manner that protects corporate profits. The Gen X, Y and 2k's coming up face net lifetime losses to pay for the ever expanding services provided to the boomers. Its immoral and wrong.

astralis
16 Nov 13,, 19:36
JAD,


I would prefer to be taxed to equalize people's access to healthcare than to be forced to purchase an insurance policy drafted by government bureaucrats. I realize the enormous cost of making healthcare accessible to the poor makes it tempting to bring everyone into a single system. I acknowledge that the ACA will eventually function more or less as designed...if it survives.

But we are begging the question. The real question is, at what cost to our individual freedom... You downplay that side of the issue, citing examples of other government demands on people. As I pointed out those demands were done within the framework of the Constitution. You don't see how Federal government nibbling away at your freedom to choose reduces your freedom. You remind me of my liberal friend who values her freedom of speech, yet supports solutions to social problems that could ultimately undermine her freedom.

It is the incremental increases in Federal power that is the issue here. Where will it lead us? Putting fresh paint over rotting wood is not a solution. Entitlements are the rot. They burden the state with conniving free-riders not only in the ERs, but everywhere, from food stamps to SS disability. Is it wise to let this continue simply because some people in real need are being helped? Or, can we help people in the American family who truly need help and do it without constricting our freedom? I think so. We have to stop taking the easy way out. Anyway, these are fundamental questions we should be thinking about.

both you and i know that there are two ultimate problems with entitlements in general: a pure numbers problem, and the ideological problem.

the two are inter-related but not the same. one of the reasons why i'm for healthcare reform is not so much out of a woolly-headed liberal belief that "healthcare is a right", but because i view reform as a practical solution that will reduce spending, both government and personal, on healthcare. i used the example of canada as a comparison, but of course there are other international examples out there.

to this extent i'm interested in solutions that fall within the bounds of the Constitution, unlike your liberal friend; and the ACA has been ruled as such.

finally, on the ideological point. following welfare reform in the 90s, the shrinking of the national security state following the cold war, and the overall reduction in the size of government, i-- as well as most people-- are comfortable with the overall framework of the state. there's certainly areas where it can be reformed, but given a hard look at the numbers, it does not require a root-and-branch overhaul.

note this is a practical evaluation, not an ideological one. looking at examples abroad, i have my doubts that we're on the path towards some totalitarian dictatorship or communism, with a numbed and welfare-dependent populace. we have multiple examples of states with considerably higher tax loads, considerably higher state spending, and more comprehensive welfare programs-- in fact, pretty much the rest of the developed world. scandinavia, for instance, does not seem like a hellhole filled with freeriders wholly dependent on state largess; neither does germany nor japan. for that matter, we had all of the above 25 years ago, yet no one in their right mind would state that we were on the road to doom.

i'm -not- saying that those states are an ideal. each country has its own traditions and culture, and the US is, both for good and for ill, a highly individualistic culture with a tradition of relatively decentralized power. however, it is some indication, i think, that it's possible to look at these problems less through an ideological lens but through a much more practical lens.

and i think in this case it's very important to use the practical lens. the ideological questions overwhelm the practical one, because it is so very easy to state: "it doesn't matter if it's good for the people/good for the treasury; it's a stepping stone on the way to tyranny, so it must be avoided at all costs."

Parihaka
16 Nov 13,, 21:34
Which one is it now?

Hospitals pay for free riders or taxes pay for them? I was under impression from previous posts taxpayers did it in the past. So, what changed?

The government has dipped into the money flow to 1: help itself to some of it and 2: dictate who pays and who receives. Socialism American style.:rolleyes:

Doktor
16 Nov 13,, 21:38
The government has dipped into the money flow to 1: help itself to some of it and 2: dictate who pays and who receives. Socialism American style.:rolleyes:

Hey it's them Republicans who wont allow more borrowings and wanted savings. The Gov just had to.

bonehead
16 Nov 13,, 21:38
Which is theft by government whose power extends from the point of a gun. Think about how morally bankrupt it is to make someone in their 30's who is healthy both subsidize those who are not healthy at the expense of their own families and do so in a manner that protects corporate profits. The Gen X, Y and 2k's coming up face net lifetime losses to pay for the ever expanding services provided to the boomers. Its immoral and wrong.

Still not a point of a gun. This was all voted in and can be voted out by a major shift in congress demographics. Secondly those "healthy" young -uns are the most risk takers with their health. Just because their past has not caught up with them yet is no excuse. Lastly the idea of subsidies are not new or unique to Obamacare. If you have insurance you have been subsidizing those that don't have insurance. You can live the healthiest lifestyle there is and you are still subsidizing smokers, the lazy, drug addicts, Those that shove unhealthy food in their pie holes, etc. There is no point whining about it now as you have already been subsidizing all these people for decades, and mostly for corporate profits.

There are a myriad of ways to drive down healthcare costs. Instead of focusing on Obamacare it is time to really push to drive down those costs. The pharmaceutical industry needs an enema. Frivolous lawsuits need to be reigned in. Our food industry needs an overhaul, Incompetent healthcare providers need to be fired. Insurance carriers need more competition, etc. Those are issues where you are going to get more bang for your buck but these issues are being ignored for the big dick swinging contest that is the ACA.

zraver
16 Nov 13,, 22:31
Still not a point of a gun.

Every act of government proceeds from the point of a gun.


This was all voted in and can be voted out by a major shift in congress demographics.

As is hopefully happening now.


Secondly those "healthy" young -uns are the most risk takers with their health.

The biggest health care cost are the elderly within 2 years of their deaths... We know what those end of life treatments are and they are not worth it, not on the public dime. Why should my 30 years of smoking (now 4 months without lightning up) gain me 2 million in public funds for cancer treatments? That would be theft plain and simple.


Just because their past has not caught up with them yet is no excuse.

Wow, you've bought the idea of nanny state hook line and sinker...


Lastly the idea of subsidies are not new or unique to Obamacare. If you have insurance you have been subsidizing those that don't have insurance. You can live the healthiest lifestyle there is and you are still subsidizing smokers, the lazy, drug addicts, Those that shove unhealthy food in their pie holes, etc. There is no point whining about it now as you have already been subsidizing all these people for decades, and mostly for corporate profits.

I disagree, but even presuming your premise is correct. Why make things even more expensive and crush the wealth building capability of the young child rearing members we need to carry the system a few decades down the road to pay for never earned benefits today?


There are a myriad of ways to drive down healthcare costs. Instead of focusing on Obamacare it is time to really push to drive down those costs. The pharmaceutical industry needs an enema. Frivolous lawsuits need to be reigned in. Our food industry needs an overhaul, Incompetent healthcare providers need to be fired. Insurance carriers need more competition, etc. Those are issues where you are going to get more bang for your buck but these issues are being ignored for the big dick swinging contest that is the ACA.

You sir, are bought and paid for... You want to drive down cost- stop coddling people who committed health suicide. Insurance profits are modest to say the least. Generally drug therapy is cheaper than a doctor going hands on, and medical malpractice reform is a red herring.

bonehead
16 Nov 13,, 23:47
Every act of government proceeds from the point of a gun.

Sure as the power of the vote means nothing. When did we lose our republic/democracy? You may consider yourself a slave but I am still a free man.




As is hopefully happening now.


We will see in 2014 and 2016


The biggest health care cost are the elderly within 2 years of their deaths... We know what those end of life treatments are and they are not worth it, not on the public dime. Why should my 30 years of smoking (now 4 months without lightning up) gain me 2 million in public funds for cancer treatments? That would be theft plain and simple.



That theft as it were has been going on since the beginning. You still can't walk away from the fact that YOU chose to smoke when you were younger. There is a price to be paid for that even if you stick your head in the ground and ignore that glaring fact. Furthermore those end of life treatments may not be worth it to you but you can not make that decision for others.


Wow, you've bought the idea of nanny state hook line and sinker...

There is nothing nanny about paying your own way.


I disagree, but even presuming your premise is correct. Why make things even more expensive and crush the wealth building capability of the young child rearing members we need to carry the system a few decades down the road to pay for never earned benefits today?


The kids can be covered until they are 25. That is their safety net not a anchor. Secondly even the young get sick and injured. They are getting those benefits every day. If they were smart they would be in for regular checkups and wellness so their liability down the road would be less. Insurance at that age means the difference between being able to have adequate healthcare to alleviate the problems or kicking them down the road in old age. Even a modest injury could bankrupt a young person and a bad credit rating can ruin earnings potential for a good chunk of a person's life.



You sir, are bought and paid for... You want to drive down cost- stop coddling people who committed health suicide. Insurance profits are modest to say the least. Generally drug therapy is cheaper than a doctor going hands on, and medical malpractice reform is a red herring.


Drugs are not cheap. If you think so YOU are the one bought and paid for. BTW while you are ignorantly ranting and protecting the big players in the healthcare industry you have not noticed that healthcare has gone from curing to managing diseases....all for those modest profits you have lied about.

zraver
17 Nov 13,, 00:12
There is nothing nanny about paying your own way.

I agree, but Obamacare is not in anyway shape or form paying your own way. Obamacare is the already old and already sick demanding the young and healthy give up their future.

Julie
17 Nov 13,, 02:31
And then there is the elderly:

United Health drops thousands of doctors from insurance plans: WSJ
Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:00pm EST

(Reuters) - United Health Group (UNH.N) dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

The insurer said in October that under funding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company's other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.

The Journal report said that doctors in at least 10 states were notified of being laid off the plans, some citing "significant changes and pressures in the healthcare environment." According to the notices, the terminations can be appealed within 30 days.

Tyler Mason, a UnitedHealth spokesperson, was not immediately available for comment when reached by Reuters.

The insurer told the WSJ that its provider networks were always changing and that it expected its Medicare Advantage network to be 85 percent to 90 percent of its current size by the end of 2014.

UnitedHealth is participating in about a dozen new state insurance markets that launched on October 1 to offer subsidized health coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

The insurer said previously it planned to withdraw from some markets in 2014 because of the government funding cuts.

Another top health insurer, Aetna Inc (AET.N), also warned in October that it expected slowing growth in 2014 in its Medicare Advantage plans.

UnitedHealth drops thousands of doctors from insurance plans: WSJ | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/16/us-unitedhealth-medicare-idUSBRE9AF01N20131116)

astralis
17 Nov 13,, 05:31
note that this article talks about how Medicare Advantage is doing poorly. Medicare Advantage was an experiment in privatizing Medicare: it was meant to be the more efficient counterpart to traditional Medicare, as payments were routed through private insurance companies (guess which party supported this miniature analogue to the ACA itself).

unfortunately the magic of the market did not work so well here, and the result is that Medicare Advantage actually costs significantly more than regular Medicare. the ACA reduces the payments made to the private insurance companies to the level of regular Medicare, and thus the article above.

Minskaya
17 Nov 13,, 16:04
Obamacare fix "a logistical nightmare," insurance industry consultant says
November 16, 2013

(CBS News) The confusion over the Affordable Care Act only seems to deepen for many Americans trying to figure out what exactly is going to happen to their health insurance. President Obama is now calling for a one-year extension of policies that insurance companies have already canceled, but the companies and state regulators are saying it's not that simple. It's the customers who are caught in the middle. In the next week, millions of people who received cancellation notices of their health care insurance may be getting another letter in the mail, this time a way to extend coverage that was canceled.

"It's a logistical nightmare that if done is likely to lead to serious customer service problems," said Robert Laszewski, a prominent insurance industry consultant with Health Policy and Strategy Associates. Mr. Obama is pressing insurance companies to re-issue canceled plans, but whether that happens also depends on states' insurance commissioners. And while a majority tells CBS News they continue to research the president's fix, at least three states - Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - have already rejected it. Meanwhile, the enrollment clock is ticking, and insurers are staring down Dec. 15. It is a key date on the calendar for anyone wishing to have coverage at the start of the new year.
Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57612698/obamacare-fix-a-logistical-nightmare-insurance-industry-consultant-says/)

The ACA farcical fix is sliding down the rabbit hole.

JAD_333
17 Nov 13,, 19:49
I agree, but Obamacare is not in anyway shape or form paying your own way. Obamacare is the already old and already sick demanding the young and healthy give up their future.

Z:

Of the many arguments against the insurance mandate in Obamcare, this one is the weakest. Insurance is shared risk. I am sure you know how insurance works, but you're overlooking some basic realities when it comes to health insurance. While 'Young and healthy' is a static demographic, the people who make it up are not. They're aging all the time. The insurance premiums they pay into the system, when they need little healthcare, go to pay for the care of their older compatriots, who in time they will join. Come on, stoke up some of the true objections to Obamacare. :)

JAD_333
17 Nov 13,, 19:53
note that this article talks about how Medicare Advantage is doing poorly. Medicare Advantage was an experiment in privatizing Medicare: it was meant to be the more efficient counterpart to traditional Medicare, as payments were routed through private insurance companies (guess which party supported this miniature analogue to the ACA itself).

unfortunately the magic of the market did not work so well here, and the result is that Medicare Advantage actually costs significantly more than regular Medicare. the ACA reduces the payments made to the private insurance companies to the level of regular Medicare, and thus the article above.

Retired people love Medicare Advantage, and they pay for it. It covers things straight Medicare doesn't. I don't care what party came up with it, it's good. Now it's under threat because of the ACA. You'll have to poke through all 2,700 pages of the ACA to find out why.

zraver
17 Nov 13,, 22:28
Z:

Of the many arguments against the insurance mandate in Obamcare, this one is the weakest. Insurance is shared risk. I am sure you know how insurance works, but you're overlooking some basic realities when it comes to health insurance. While 'Young and healthy' is a static demographic, the people who make it up are not. They're aging all the time. The insurance premiums they pay into the system, when they need little healthcare, go to pay for the care of their older compatriots, who in time they will join. Come on, stoke up some of the true objections to Obamacare. :)

If we charge people aged 26-40 up to $20 dollars a day or more to pay for the health care of older people so the older people can avoid the costs and protect their estates by the time the now young are older there wont be any wealth left to tax. Its bullshit, lets call Obamacare what it is- theft of the young's future by the old and/or sick in order to protect corporate profits.

Obamacare will cost a reasonably frugal family more per day than food or shelter, maybe more than food and shelter....

Doktor
17 Nov 13,, 23:13
Z,

If it costs you more then food and shelter when you are young, what it's gonna cost you when you are old?

zraver
17 Nov 13,, 23:19
Z,

If it costs you more then food and shelter when you are young, what it's gonna cost you when you are old?

Dok, thats just it, it doesn't cost more when young except for a federal law that requires premiums to be equalized between members of the pool instead of risk. Say you are 27 and I am 60 and Acme insurance figures the total cost of insuring us will be $1000 a month. Individually before ACA they would charge me $875 and you $125. Under ACA my bills dramatically drop and yours go up to pick up the slack. This protects my wealth and tanks your ability to ever build wealth. It also means premiums are not based on individual risk anymore. There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter.

Doktor
17 Nov 13,, 23:36
Dok, thats just it, it doesn't cost more when young except for a federal law that requires premiums to be equalized between members of the pool instead of risk. Say you are 27 and I am 60 and Acme insurance figures the total cost of insuring us will be $1000 a month. Individually before ACA they would charge me $875 and you $125. Under ACA my bills dramatically drop and yours go up to pick up the slack. This protects my wealth and tanks your ability to ever build wealth. It also means premiums are not based on individual risk anymore. There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter.

Are you saying that before you were evaluated and your premium was settled according to your own risk (smoker, addict, miner, etc) and now it's just a % of your incomes?

If that's the case it sucks. I can tell it to you first hand, since we have that system over here.

Moreover, in our system it doesn't matter how much you earn (therefor how much you contribute to the system), you get the same services and wait the same.

bonehead
17 Nov 13,, 23:39
Dok, thats just it, it doesn't cost more when young except for a federal law that requires premiums to be equalized between members of the pool instead of risk. Say you are 27 and I am 60 and Acme insurance figures the total cost of insuring us will be $1000 a month. Individually before ACA they would charge me $875 and you $125. Under ACA my bills dramatically drop and yours go up to pick up the slack. This protects my wealth and tanks your ability to ever build wealth. It also means premiums are not based on individual risk anymore. There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter.

Having health insurance in no way keeps the younger generation from building wealth. At worse it will make it harder for them to squander money on things they really didn't need, ie smart phones cars with thousands of dollars of accessories, etc. A few might even have to not be able to afford smoking to pay for their insurance..oh the horror.

"There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter" Z, that is about the most offensive thing you have ever posted and you have posted some whoppers. Health is one of the most important things one can have. If you don't have health you aint building wealth.

Doktor
17 Nov 13,, 23:50
Having health insurance in no way keeps the younger generation from building wealth. At worse it will make it harder for them to squander money on things they really didn't need, ie smart phones cars with thousands of dollars of accessories, etc. A few might even have to not be able to afford smoking to pay for their insurance..oh the horror.

"There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter" Z, that is about the most offensive thing you have ever posted and you have posted some whoppers. Health is one of the most important things one can have. If you don't have health you aint building wealth.

BH,

I believe Z was talking in terms of finance. That the system, not the individual, gives no incentives to live healthier life.
I wouldn't be surprised many people to take that as a 'do what you please, we'll cover you'. After all, it seems everywhere people like the idea the state to be their nanny and not to be personally responsible for anything.

zraver
18 Nov 13,, 00:22
Are you saying that before you were evaluated and your premium was settled according to your own risk (smoker, addict, miner, etc) and now it's just a % of your incomes?

Yup, its called premium equalization. In effect it shifts the bulk of the costs of health care on to the backs of young healthy men (who use the least amount of healthcare)

Bonehead,

stop with the personal attacks.


Having health insurance in no way keeps the younger generation from building wealth

Forcing them from a poo of likes (other young healthy people) into a pool polluted with the old and infirm leading to massive subsidy spikes does indeed wreck wealth building. In some cases ACA will cost more than food and shelter... That is crippling.


At worse it will make it harder for them to squander money on things they really didn't need, ie smart phones cars with thousands of dollars of accessories, etc. A few might even have to not be able to afford smoking to pay for their insurance..oh the horror.

And you talk about me saying offensive things? Now you want to control what they spend their money on, well what of it they have left adter you pic-pocket them to pay for your health care. That is offensive.


There is no incentive to live healthy, it doesn't matter" Z, that is about the most offensive thing you have ever posted and you have posted some whoppers. Health is one of the most important things one can have. If you don't have health you aint building wealth.

The system had powerful incentives to live healthy. Lifestyle choices decided what insurance pool you went into. That system of rewarding behavior has been wrecked.

JAD_333
18 Nov 13,, 06:54
If we charge people aged 26-40 up to $20 dollars a day or more to pay for the health care of older people so the older people can avoid the costs and protect their estates by the time the now young are older there wont be any wealth left to tax. Its bullshit, lets call Obamacare what it is- theft of the young's future by the old and/or sick in order to protect corporate profits.

Obamacare will cost a reasonably frugal family more per day than food or shelter, maybe more than food and shelter....


You know very well that the $20 a day isn't paid directly to old people. It's the premium on a healthcare insurance policy. Young people get sick, too.

Preventing the estates of seniors from being drained away by healthcare costs was never the primary reason for Obamacare. You talk about stealing young people's futures. How about stealing their inheritances. The daily cost of intensive care can run $8,000. Insurance might cover half that. With extraordinary measures it's possible to keep someone alive weeks or months. The average estate will be drained dry, and then the hospital or Medicaid, eats the on-going costs.

I agree, it seems unfair that young people should be forced to buy the same policy as old people. It's much the same as taxing everyone the same amount no matter what they earn. If we had a single-payer system paid for out of tax revenues, that wouldn't happen Then young people would have full access to health care, but pay less, because as a group they pay less taxes. But, in reality, they'd be paying more taxes than today, just relatively 'less' than people in higher tax brackets. All brackets would pay more. Here's why. The per capita cost for healthcare in the US is $8,000 a year. Times that by a population of 330,000,000 million and get $2.64 trillion. That would be the tax bill for a single-payer system; (maybe somewhat less with price controls and the elimination non-essential medical procedures.) The bill is the same no matter which system you use. We would just pay it in different ways.

Here's the deal, we can go along more or less as we have for years, buying insurance where we can, relying on Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, using ERs for minor illnesses, and relying on all the other entitlements and niche programs that pay for healthcare. We can let 27 million Americans go without access to adequate healthcare. Or, we can come up with a system that delivers healthcare for everybody.

Obama went with the insurance mandate because it was the path of least resistance. The insurance industry liked it, hospitals liked it, medical providers liked it, big pharma liked it, and all sorts of associations and advocacy groups liked it. Using the insurance model seemed sensible to people. Most already have insurance and a lot wish they could get it. The catch was, it would only work if everyone had a policy. So they made a law that required you to buy one.

The other way, a single-payer system, has a much smaller constituency, the medical industry in general opposes it, and not many Dems are for it, because it meant substantially higher taxes, and that's a bugaboo for voters. It wouldn't have gotten out of committee. So, it's either pay for an insurance policy or go with single payer and pay higher taxes, or just freeload on existing programs and keep taxes where they are.

I'm against the insurance mandate because I believe government has no right to force me to buy anything. I like to think I could live in the woods and survive off nature without some IRS agent hunting me down to make me sign up for Obamacare. At least with single-payer, I would have the choice to work and pay taxes or not work and pay no taxes. Military service is the only government mandate I accept.

Doktor
18 Nov 13,, 10:05
JAD,

I can see where are you coming from for elders vs youngsters pay.

Reading you and Z I am under an impression your old system bankrupted. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the today youngsters to fill the gap.

You have mentioned $2.64tn health care costs being covered by the people. Does that mean all the taxes collected from cigs, booze, lottery etc that were going into health care (I assume you have/had those), are now going to stop being taxed? Does it also mean Federal budget will have no health care in it? Because people will pay to the insurers, they will pay the doctors, circle closed? 26% of federal budget saved. Yay. Is it?

Trying to understand it, for a foreigner it is really complicated.

snapper
18 Nov 13,, 13:25
Retired people love Medicare Advantage, and they pay for it. It covers things straight Medicare doesn't. I don't care what party came up with it, it's good. Now it's under threat because of the ACA. You'll have to poke through all 2,700 pages of the ACA to find out why.

Seems more mature Ladies are actually paying for younger ones potential to have children.

zraver
18 Nov 13,, 14:26
You know very well that the $20 a day isn't paid directly to old people. It's the premium on a healthcare insurance policy. Young people get sick, too.

It is paid directly to the old and already sick in the form of premium supports via premium equalization. That $20 is way more than they use. Todays young face a net lifetime loss of over $300,000. They will never get back what they pay in because our already old and sick keep demanding more. To the point of getting $250,000 per capita more out of the system than they paid in. It is a massive inter-generational theft of wealth.


Preventing the estates of seniors from being drained away by healthcare costs was never the primary reason for Obamacare. You talk about stealing young people's futures. How about stealing their inheritances. The daily cost of intensive care can run $8,000. Insurance might cover half that. With extraordinary measures it's possible to keep someone alive weeks or months. The average estate will be drained dry, and then the hospital or Medicaid, eats the on-going costs.

We need to stop spending millions of dollars to extend the lives of the elderly by 6 months... sorry, hate to sound cruel but its stupid. If I have an estate worth anything I'd want the plug pulled so my kids and grandkids have something. It also means i should not be able to rob your kids and grand kids to buy me another six months. Terminal cases outside of a few exceptions like the very young, war heroes etc need palliative care.


I agree, it seems unfair that young people should be forced to buy the same policy as old people. It's much the same as taxing everyone the same amount no matter what they earn.

Wrong, young people are taxed disproportionately to what they use via premium equalization. Nothing fair or balanced about it.


If we had a single-payer system paid for out of tax revenues, that wouldn't happen Then young people would have full access to health care, but pay less, because as a group they pay less taxes. But, in reality, they'd be paying more taxes than today, just relatively 'less' than people in higher tax brackets.

Look, we know roughly speaking what each age bracket is going to use on health care... we can tax in increasing increments as people both age and earn more in order to protect the wealth building capabilities that are so vital to our economic progress.


All brackets would pay more. Here's why. The per capita cost for healthcare in the US is $8,000 a year. Times that by a population of 330,000,000 million and get $2.64 trillion. That would be the tax bill for a single-payer system; (maybe somewhat less with price controls and the elimination non-essential medical procedures.) The bill is the same no matter which system you use. We would just pay it in different ways.

It would be roughly 7% less minus the insurance company profits. More would be saved by running people under a single administrative system. Reforming end of life care would save huge amounts, even if much of the savings was siphoned off to preserve research on cures. We would also save hundreds of millions on uncompensated care in ER's. There are a lot of costs in our system that are massively inflated.


Here's the deal, we can go along more or less as we have for years, buying insurance where we can, relying on Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, using ERs for minor illnesses, and relying on all the other entitlements and niche programs that pay for healthcare. We can let 27 million Americans go without access to adequate healthcare. Or, we can come up with a system that delivers healthcare for everybody.

better than Obamacare...


Obama went with the insurance mandate because it was the path of least resistance. The insurance industry liked it, hospitals liked it, medical providers liked it, big pharma liked it, and all sorts of associations and advocacy groups liked it. Using the insurance model seemed sensible to people. Most already have insurance and a lot wish they could get it. The catch was, it would only work if everyone had a policy. So they made a law that required you to buy one.

Obamacare's mandate is immoral becuase it put everyone in to the same pot and then deliberately shifted the costs to the least able to pay.


The other way, a single-payer system, has a much smaller constituency, the medical industry in general opposes it, and not many Dems are for it, because it meant substantially higher taxes, and that's a bugaboo for voters. It wouldn't have gotten out of committee. So, it's either pay for an insurance policy or go with single payer and pay higher taxes, or just freeload on existing programs and keep taxes where they are.

Single payer makes more ethical and constitutional sense than Obamacare.


I'm against the insurance mandate because I believe government has no right to force me to buy anything.

I agree


I like to think I could live in the woods and survive off nature without some IRS agent hunting me down to make me sign up for Obamacare. At least with single-payer, I would have the choice to work and pay taxes or not work and pay no taxes. Military service is the only government mandate I accept.

Again I agree.

bonehead
18 Nov 13,, 17:09
BH,

I believe Z was talking in terms of finance. That the system, not the individual, gives no incentives to live healthier life.
I wouldn't be surprised many people to take that as a 'do what you please, we'll cover you'. After all, it seems everywhere people like the idea the state to be their nanny and not to be personally responsible for anything.

No. Under most plans you have to pony up a copay and deductibles every time you get healthcare. That alone is a systemic incentive financially to be responsible for your own health. If you want to blow 5-7k of your hard earned money out the window every year because you refuse to be a bit healthier that is your choice and not a nanny thing at all. If anything the ACA makes you more responsible because you now have to pay something into the system. No more going in uninsured and getting a free ride with little or no personal responsibility. That is the nanny state way the ACA is moving away from.

JAD_333
18 Nov 13,, 18:59
JAD,

I can see where are you coming from for elders vs youngsters pay.

Reading you and Z I am under an impression your old system bankrupted. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the today youngsters to fill the gap.

You have mentioned $2.64tn health care costs being covered by the people. Does that mean all the taxes collected from cigs, booze, lottery etc that were going into health care (I assume you have/had those), are now going to stop being taxed? Does it also mean Federal budget will have no health care in it? Because people will pay to the insurers, they will pay the doctors, circle closed? 26% of federal budget saved. Yay. Is it?

Trying to understand it, for a foreigner it is really complicated.

Dok:

It's complicated for everyone...:)

As you know, the government would pay for single-payer from tax revenues. No question taxes would have to be raised to pay for such a huge addition to the Federal budget. But, yes, it could come from many sources, tobacco, etc, as money is fungible (a dollar is a dollar is a dollar). But most likely, to hit the needed numbers, income taxes would have to be increased. The good news is the increase won't affect everyone the same. People already paying for private insurance, would no longer pay premiums on private insurance. Instead, they would pay that money to the gov't in the form of higher taxes. The people without insurance would feel the pinch of higher taxes more. It sounds simple, but it's really complicated, because the tax increase would probably hit the wealthy disproportionately while lower income people might pay no extra taxes and so on. The mathematicians could figure it all out easily, but politics is anathema to reason... and don't forget the biggest problem is most Americans are cool to single-payer because of their negative impression of the Canadian and British national healthcare system. Things would have to get much worse here than they are now to convince them otherwise.

JAD_333
18 Nov 13,, 20:06
It is paid directly to the old and already sick in the form of premium supports via premium equalization. That $20 is way more than they use. Todays young face a net lifetime loss of over $300,000. They will never get back what they pay in because our already old and sick keep demanding more. To the point of getting $250,000 per capita more out of the system than they paid in. It is a massive inter-generational theft of wealth.

Again, you are viewing young people as a static demographic and as never in need of medical care. You are also discounting the help that young people contribute out-of-pocket to the care and medical expenses of their elderly parents--many thousands in the case of me and my siblings. A lifetime loss of $300,000--your number--can be made up through inheritances in many cases. One can only consider this problem rationally by imaging the wheel of life always turning. You are young and give $20 a day to the care of your aging parents. Then you become old and your children do the same for you. It's an old fashioned custom that faded with the nanny state. It's called familial responsibility, except in this case it's forced on you by the state.




We need to stop spending millions of dollars to extend the lives of the elderly by 6 months... sorry, hate to sound cruel but its stupid. If I have an estate worth anything I'd want the plug pulled so my kids and grandkids have something. It also means i should not be able to rob your kids and grand kids to buy me another six months. Terminal cases outside of a few exceptions like the very young, war heroes etc need palliative care.

The elderly lady I mentioned did just that, but it was her decision. It would have been an immediate relative's decision if she had been in a coma or the hospital's decision if she had left a living will to that effect. I am not ready to play God and take a conscious person's life without their consent. Too many ways that could be abused.




Wrong, young people are taxed disproportionately to what they use via premium equalization. Nothing fair or balanced about it.

You missed my point, but never mind.




Look, we know roughly speaking what each age bracket is going to use on health care... we can tax in increasing increments as people both age and earn more in order to protect the wealth building capabilities that are so vital to our economic progress.

Considering your premise is flawed to begin with, it's hardly worth refuting this. You are not speaking of risk pool insurance anymore, but of a bracket system in which taxes increase with age, irregardless of health. It puts us right back at square one. Private insurance have done that for years and it's the reason why so many middle-aged and early seniors can't afford private insurance, not to mention being frozen out because of prior heath conditions. Oh, and as for 'protecting wealth building capabilities' vital to our economy, adding people to the insurance rolls is a kick up for GDP. But, aside from that, the idea that the health of the economy trumps the health of the people who labored to build it strikes me as coldly ungrateful, if not immoral. What are we becoming? Fodder for the economy...




It would be roughly 7% less minus the insurance company profits. More would be saved by running people under a single administrative system. Reforming end of life care would save huge amounts, even if much of the savings was siphoned off to preserve research on cures. We would also save hundreds of millions on uncompensated care in ER's. There are a lot of costs in our system that are massively inflated.


Agree.




Obamacare's mandate is immoral becuase it put everyone in to the same pot and then deliberately shifted the costs to the least able to pay.

You're changing directions. First it was people who could pay but would lose lifetime earnings. Now it's people who can 'least afford' to pay. The latter won't pay much if anything. How do we judge morality in the latter case?



Single payer makes more ethical and constitutional sense than Obamacare.

Agree on the constitutional sense.

JAD_333
18 Nov 13,, 20:16
Seems more mature Ladies are actually paying for younger ones potential to have children.

Give it some more thought. Everyone buys a policy that covers everything. You're a man and don't need maternity coverage. You're a woman and don't need prostate coverage. It works out in the long run.

zraver
18 Nov 13,, 21:25
Again, you are viewing young people as a static demographic and as never in need of medical care.

No, they are a group, membership changes over time, but the group as a whole uses far less health care than other groups and is taxed far more than other groups. That is immoral.


You are also discounting the help that young people contribute out-of-pocket to the care and medical expenses of their elderly parents--many thousands in the case of me and my siblings. A lifetime loss of $300,000--your number--can be made up through inheritances in many cases.

The young will now have less to spend on familial care because they are being unfairly taxed. A tax that will crush their ability to build wealth and leave anything for their own kids.


One can only consider this problem rationally by imaging the wheel of life always turning. You are young and give $20 a day to the care of your aging parents. Then you become old and your children do the same for you. It's an old fashioned custom that faded with the nanny state. It's called familial responsibility, except in this case it's forced on you by the state.

Except that $20 a day is about $15 a day more than they were promised. The elderly, unhealthy and already sick do not have a right to my sons future earnings.


The elderly lady I mentioned did just that, but it was her decision. It would have been an immediate relative's decision if she had been in a coma or the hospital's decision if she had left a living will to that effect. I am not ready to play God and take a conscious person's life without their consent. Too many ways that could be abused.

I don't want to take anyone's life, I just don't want my son paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatments that at best only bring 6 months of extended low quality life. Palliative care yes, super human efforts for 6 months of mostly hospital bound existence- no. I say this as my own father lies in hospice dying of lung cancer. My grandmother on my mothers side died of the same disease. I will probably die of it after smoking for 30 years... I do not deserve to rip off children as a reward for my bad health choices.


You missed my point, but never mind.

You keep missing mine. Obamacare is theft from the young by the old and already sick to deliver entitlements that were never promised and never paid for.


Considering your premise is flawed to begin with, it's hardly worth refuting this. You are not speaking of risk pool insurance anymore, but of a bracket system in which taxes increase with age, irregardless of health.

What risk pool? Obamacare dispenses with risk pools and puts everyone into the same pot and then shifts the bulk of the costs off the sick and onto the healthy. That is the whole premise of ACA. Age brackets are risk pools


It puts us right back at square one. Private insurance have done that for years and it's the reason why so many middle-aged and early seniors can't afford private insurance, not to mention being frozen out because of prior heath conditions.

So you think the solution is to rip off the 27-40's and keep them from building wealth?


Oh, and as for 'protecting wealth building capabilities' vital to our economy, adding people to the insurance rolls is a kick up for GDP. But, aside from that, the idea that the health of the economy trumps the health of the people who labored to build it strikes me as coldly ungrateful, if not immoral. What are we becoming? Fodder for the economy...

If we remove the ability of those in the 27-40 age bracket to invest, buy homes, make major purchases etc the whole economy collapses.


You're changing directions. First it was people who could pay but would lose lifetime earnings. Now it's people who can 'least afford' to pay. The latter won't pay much if anything. How do we judge morality in the latter case?

Least afford to pay= 27-40 age bracket. The poor cant and don't pay. Obamacare taxes the wealth building of the 27-40 age bracket out of existence. They need that money to raise kids and build wealth, thus they ate the least able to pay.

zraver
18 Nov 13,, 21:33
No. Under most plans you have to pony up a copay and deductibles every time you get healthcare. That alone is a systemic incentive financially to be responsible for your own health. If you want to blow 5-7k of your hard earned money out the window every year because you refuse to be a bit healthier that is your choice and not a nanny thing at all. If anything the ACA makes you more responsible because you now have to pay something into the system. No more going in uninsured and getting a free ride with little or no personal responsibility. That is the nanny state way the ACA is moving away from.

Totally 100% untruthful. I'd call it a lie but that might start a shit storm. The only people getting a free ride are the poor, and guess what they still don't pay into the system, in fact ACA expands the number of free riders via the expansion of Medicaid. Everyone else who had been un/undercovered is forced away from a very efficient pay as you go approach. Now it is pay for other people as you go. It raises costs and will likely increase health care usage especially among the newly covered medicaid enrollees.

JAD_333
19 Nov 13,, 01:25
No, they are a group, membership changes over time, but the group as a whole uses far less health care than other groups and is taxed far more than other groups. That is immoral.

Well, immorality seems to be rampant. For years I've been paying taxes that pay for food stamps and a dozen other entitlement programs I've never gotten anything from. I'm just guessing, but if I could have my share of those taxes back, I'd be richer by far than I am today.



The young will now have less to spend on familial care because they are being unfairly taxed. A tax that will crush their ability to build wealth and leave anything for their own kids.

Well, we can't have it both ways. Medicare, Medicaid and private health insurance relieves many young people from the burden of paying for their parent's healthcare. What young person wouldn't prefer to be taxed rather than to be on the hook to write checks for their parent's medical bills? Contrary to what you believe, paying a tax or an insurance premium will save the 24-45 demographic group a ton of money compared to how much they would have had to shell if there was no Medicare, health insurance, etc.



Except that $20 a day is about $15 a day more than they were promised. The elderly, unhealthy and already sick do not have a right to my sons future earnings.

That is your own moral dilemma. Most people don't consider it a right, but a duty. Or, if not a duty, it's a return on the sacrifices their parents made in raising them.




I don't want to take anyone's life, I just don't want my son paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatments that at best only bring 6 months of extended low quality life. Palliative care yes, super human efforts for 6 months of mostly hospital bound existence- no. I say this as my own father lies in hospice dying of lung cancer. My grandmother on my mothers side died of the same disease. I will probably die of it after smoking for 30 years... I do not deserve to rip off children as a reward for my bad health choices.

Agree.




You keep missing mine. Obamacare is theft from the young by the old and already sick to deliver entitlements that were never promised and never paid for.

Sounds like par for the course in our world already burdened with social programs most people never use, but pay for. You're safer on Constitutional grounds.






What risk pool? Obamacare dispenses with risk pools and puts everyone into the same pot and then shifts the bulk of the costs off the sick and onto the healthy. That is the whole premise of ACA. Age brackets are risk pools

I said 'pool' not 'pools'. You can have one pool, like for fire insurance. Withing the pool, the premium will be set according to the amount you can expect to get if your house burns down. Obamacare has one pool, and 4 premium levels, determined by such factors as income and amount of co-pays and caps on payouts you choose. All premiums go into one pool, unlike private group insurance. Young people choosing the lowest level may pay nothing (http://peoplesworld.org/young-workers-may-pay-zero-premiums-under-obamacare/) at all.



So you think the solution is to rip off the 27-40's and keep them from building wealth?

lol...I ain't falling for that old debate trick. 'Rip off' is your term and, what's more, your conclusion is far from proven.




If we remove the ability of those in the 27-40 age bracket to invest, buy homes, make major purchases etc the whole economy collapses.

Your question assumes Obamacare will make it impossible for 27-40 year old Americans to invest, etc. If you're basing that on the $20 a day you say they'll have to pay in Obamacare premiums, you're saying these young people are incapable of managing their discretionary income to come up $20 to invest. Furthermore, you're assuming the $20 is taken out of the economy, when just the opposite is true. GDP will rise because the money goes to pay for medical services and goods.

zraver
19 Nov 13,, 02:03
Well, immorality seems to be rampant. For years I've been paying taxes that pay for food stamps and a dozen other entitlement programs I've never gotten anything from. I'm just guessing, but if I could have my share of those taxes back, I'd be richer by far than I am today.

Food supports are critical to maintaining social order.



Well, we can't have it both ways. Medicare, Medicaid and private health insurance relieves many young people from the burden of paying for their parent's healthcare.

So you assume the young are obligated to pay for the old?


What young person wouldn't prefer to be taxed rather than to be on the hook to write checks for their parent's medical bills?

No part of our system has ever assumed debts were intra-generational except for minor children. You seem to assume the inverse...


Contrary to what you believe, paying a tax or an insurance premium will save the 24-45 demographic group a ton of money compared to how much they would have had to shell if there was no Medicare, health insurance, etc.

I reject that out of hand. Medicare is paid for via payroll through very modest taxes and reasonable premiums.


That is your own moral dilemma. Most people don't consider it a right, but a duty. Or, if not a duty, it's a return on the sacrifices their parents made in raising them.

There is no duty to impoverish the young to care for the old.


Sounds like par for the course in our world already burdened with social programs most people never use, but pay for. You're safer on Constitutional grounds.

SCOTUS has already decided it is constitutional... right up there with Citizens United as disgusting perversions of what the Constitution intended.


I said 'pool' not 'pools'. You can have one pool, like for fire insurance. Withing the pool, the premium will be set according to the amount you can expect to get if your house burns down.

That is not what Obamacare does. Under your fire insurance example the person with the million dollar home would pay less than the person with the twenty grand single wide... The whole premise of Obamacare is to shift the cost burden off of those who use the services onto the shoulders of those who don't.


Obamacare has one pool, and 4 premium levels, determined by such factors as income and amount of co-pays and caps on payouts you choose. All premiums go into one pool, unlike private group insurance. Young people choosing the lowest level may pay nothing (http://peoplesworld.org/young-workers-may-pay-zero-premiums-under-obamacare/) at all.

Obamacare has one pool artificially divided by both age and coverage levels.


lol...I ain't falling for that old debate trick. 'Rip off' is your term and, what's more, your conclusion is far from proven.

It makes 27-40's pay more in order to decrease the costs of those who use more. What would you call deliberately overcharging one group of customers to benefit another.



Your question assumes Obamacare will make it impossible for 27-40 year old Americans to invest, etc. If you're basing that on the $20 a day you say they'll have to pay in Obamacare premiums, you're saying these young people are incapable of managing their discretionary income to come up $20 to invest. Furthermore, you're assuming the $20 is taken out of the economy, when just the opposite is true. GDP will rise because the money goes to pay for medical services and goods.

First, they will each individually lose up to $600 a month in discretionary income. That is hard to replace, that income is not going into anything productive its a financial black hole. It means fewer TV's, cars, homes, 401k contributions... Its the same argument about taxes you should be familiar with it. More taxes equals less economic growth. Second, that same amount of money was not going to be idle if the government did not seize it, the young don't hide it under the mattresses, they buy goods, property and serves or invest it. So to say taking it from them is going to magically increase GDP is contrary to every rule of economics I've ever heard- its simply re-allocating it from productive to unproductive uses. If anything it is taking money away from investments like 401k's and homes is going to hurt overall GDP and hinder its growth.

JAD_333
19 Nov 13,, 04:50
Food supports are critical to maintaining social order.

That's what the Romans thought.





So you assume the young are obligated to pay for the old?

Legally no. Morally? That's a matter for each person's conscience.




No part of our system has ever assumed debts were intra-generational except for minor children. You seem to assume the inverse...

I was speaking of familial ties, not legal bonds. Just the same, moral considerations do compel people to care for their elderly parents. But I asked you what those people prefer: To pay taxes and premiums for programs that pay the cost of care, or be faced with the moral dilemma of bearing the cost themselves or walking away. You took the position that they aren't legally required to do so. Well, yes. But that doesn't answer the question. Perhaps you would like to make it illegal for people to care for their sick parents so the economy will prosper.




I reject that out of hand. Medicare is paid for via payroll through very modest taxes and reasonable premiums.

You can reject the concept. But the fact remains that many people don't and won't walk away from sick family members in time of need. That is money not spent on TVs and cars. Insurance relieves them of the financial consequences of their moral decision.




There is no duty to impoverish the young to care for the old.

Once again, you speak of legal duty. There are other duties, voluntary thought they may be, that carry a good deal of social force.




SCOTUS has already decided it is constitutional... right up there with Citizens United as disgusting perversions of what the Constitution intended.

Rather obliquely, and I agree with you on both counts. Chief Justice John Roberts...rejected arguments that the mandate was a permissible use of federal authority to regulate interstate commerce. But he said that the mandate was effectively the same as a tax and, as a result, passed constitutional muster (http://www.npr.org/2012/06/28/155907155/new-republic-affordable-care-act-is-constitutional).




That is not what Obamacare does. Under your fire insurance example the person with the million dollar home would pay less than the person with the twenty grand single wide... The whole premise of Obamacare is to shift the cost burden off of those who use the services onto the shoulders of those who don't.

You have a point about fire insurance. Let correct you on your second point: The premise of Obamacare is universal health care. Everyone buys a policy and everyone is entitled to healthcare when they need it. As it happens some people will need it more, and some less. Why should a healthy person pay less today, when inevitably he will grow older and less healthy? Isn't it beneficial that he'll still be paying the same premium in his old age as he did in his youth? That can only happen if he began paying that premium in his youth.



It makes 27-40's pay more in order to decrease the costs of those who use more. What would you call deliberately overcharging one group of customers to benefit another.

Sure, it's deliberate. Is 'deliberate' a disqualification for passing a tax? So are taxes to fund Medicaid. I don't use Medicaid; I am being overcharged.




First, they will each individually lose up to $600 a month in discretionary income. That is hard to replace, that income is not going into anything productive its a financial black hole. It means fewer TV's, cars, homes, 401k contributions... Its the same argument about taxes you should be familiar with it. More taxes equals less economic growth. Second, that same amount of money was not going to be idle if the government did not seize it, the young don't hide it under the mattresses, they buy goods, property and serves or invest it. So to say taking it from them is going to magically increase GDP is contrary to every rule of economics I've ever heard- its simply re-allocating it from productive to unproductive uses. If anything it is taking money away from investments like 401k's and homes is going to hurt overall GDP and hinder its growth.

"Sorry, ma'am, no healthcare for you. We need the money to build cars. And junior wants a Play Station."

I am not an economist, but from everything I've read, the healthcare industry is as much a part of the economy as all the other sectors you mentioned. Your $600 figure is a bit suspect. For one thing, few young people will be paying that much, and those that do probably will be in their late 20s and early 30s, at which point they'll be building families and need healthcare insurance. And in their case, $600/mo isn't bad for a policy. Young people under, say 27, will still be buying stuff because that's what they do, and the $100 or so they'll be paying for a policy will hardly make a dent in their buying habits. See, I can create scenarios too.:) I question your assertion that healthcare premiums divert money from productive to unproductive uses. Since when is a healthy workforce an unproductive use, and what of all the medical devices, healthcare workers, medicines...don't they require paid workers who are also consumers? Keep in mind that healthcare reform came about because health care costs were growing faster than people's income. Here I might agree with you a bit: The upward trajectory of healthcare costs threatens other vital sectors of the economy that we can ill afford to lose.

zraver
19 Nov 13,, 05:33
That's what the Romans thought.

The French ignored it and it cost the King his head... Hungry populations riot and upset the existing social order. History is replete with examples.


Legally no. Morally? That's a matter for each person's conscience.

I've never seen a compelling argument that says the working generation has to care for its parents at the expense of its young. In fact i think any society that assumes such would soon be consigned to the ashheap of history.



I was speaking of familial ties, not legal bonds. Just the same, moral considerations do compel people to care for their elderly parents. But I asked you what those people prefer: To pay taxes and premiums for programs that pay the cost of care, or be faced with the moral dilemma of bearing the cost themselves or walking away. You took the position that they aren't legally required to do so. Well, yes. But that doesn't answer the question. Perhaps you would like to make it illegal for people to care for their sick parents so the economy will prosper.

If I chose to care for my ailing mother, wrecking my estate and leaving nothing for my sons that is my choice. But I should not have the choice to do that to your estate leaving nothing for your sons.


You can reject the concept. But the fact remains that many people don't and won't walk away from sick family members in time of need. That is money not spent on TVs and cars. Insurance relieves them of the financial consequences of their moral decision.

Again that is their choice, but their choice does not entitle them to my sons future.



Once again, you speak of legal duty. There are other duties, voluntary thought they may be, that carry a good deal of social force.

Yup like caring for the poor and disabled. Sorry, but spending a million dollars to buy a former smoker an extra six months of hospital room existence should not be one of them. That is the bulk of health care spending. families should be free to spend that money if they want and if they have it. They should not be free to raid my families piggy bank for it.


Rather obliquely, and I agree with you on both counts. Chief Justice John Roberts...rejected arguments that the mandate was a permissible use of federal authority to regulate interstate commerce. But he said that the mandate was effectively the same as a tax and, as a result, passed constitutional muster (http://www.npr.org/2012/06/28/155907155/new-republic-affordable-care-act-is-constitutional).

travesty


You have a point about fire insurance. Let correct you on your second point: The premise of Obamacare is universal health care. Everyone buys a policy and everyone is entitled to healthcare when they need it. As it happens some people will need it more, and some less. Why should a healthy person pay less today, when inevitably he will grow older and less healthy? Isn't it beneficial that he'll still be paying the same premium in his old age as he did in his youth? That can only happen if he began paying that premium in his youth.

Then our imaginary hypothetical example young man should have his premium increase as his risk increases. Under the ACA it goes down. This puts the biggest burden on the people who should be building wealth.


Sure, it's deliberate. Is 'deliberate' a disqualification for passing a tax? So are taxes to fund Medicaid. I don't use Medicaid; I am being overcharged.

see my point about food supports and your own point about social forces.


"Sorry, ma'am, no healthcare for you. We need the money to build cars. And junior wants a Play Station."

Absolutely, sicne Ma'am obviously is not my mom. If she was it would be mom and I would not expect you to kick in anything. My mom, you, I we are entitled to what we paid in, not more than that.


I am not an economist, but from everything I've read, the healthcare industry is as much a part of the economy as all the other sectors you mentioned. Your $600 figure is a bit suspect. For one thing, few young people will be paying that much, and those that do probably will be in their late 20s and early 30s, at which point they'll be building families and need healthcare insurance.

That is per person, in truth they will likely be paying more than that. Your own figures put the required spending at 670 per month per person regardless of age. Obamcare's premium equization acutally requires that the young pay a disproportionate larger amount than any other group. A disabled person using a grand a month in services will only be charged half that and the healthy person picks up the rest.


And in their case, $600/mo isn't bad for a policy.

per person...


Young people under, say 27, will still be buying stuff because that's what they do, and the $100 or so they'll be paying for a policy will hardly make a dent in their buying habits. See, I can create scenarios too.:)

The last time consumers took a $100 a month hit to their discetionary spending the economy started a death spiral that ended up with a housing collapse (fuel price spikes)...


I question your assertion that healthcare premiums divert money from productive to unproductive uses. Since when is a healthy workforce an unproductive use,

In 2006, six times more health care spending is spent on people in their last 6 months to year of life, (most of them elderly and not part of the work force) than on a normal person.

Cost and Quality Conundrum of U.S. | Medicare News Group (http://www.medicarenewsgroup.com/context/understanding-medicare-blog/understanding-medicare-blog/2013/06/03/the-cost-and-quality-conundrum-of-american-end-of-life-care)


and what of all the medical devices, healthcare workers, medicines...don't they require paid workers who are also consumers? Keep in mind that healthcare reform came about because health care costs were growing faster than people's income. Here I might agree with you a bit: The upward trajectory of healthcare costs threatens other vital sectors of the economy that we can ill afford to lose.

Money spent on the elderly end of life patients is a black-hole. Its not an investment and it takes resources that could be productive used elsewhere. Reform how we spend existing health care dollars and we can cover everyone without the disaster that is Obamacare. Stealing from the young to continue the current system only benefits the monies interests.

JAD_333
19 Nov 13,, 08:19
The French ignored it and it cost the King his head... Hungry populations riot and upset the existing social order. History is replete with examples.

I agree, but remember the context. We were speaking of taxes for things not all people use. Food stamps was an example. The question was, why should I have to pay for something I don't use. Same question goes for people who pay premiums for healthcare insurance they don't use.




I've never seen a compelling argument that says the working generation has to care for its parents at the expense of its young. In fact i think any society that assumes such would soon be consigned to the ashheap of history.

It's not an argument. It's a private matter of love and compassion. Not long ago people did just that. But as government programs stepped in, they cut back. Not saying that is a bad thing. Just saying if your elderly parents had recourse to a healthcare program, your help would not be needed.

As for the rest of your post, I think we've exhausted our arguments. Good discussion.

Doktor
19 Nov 13,, 10:06
So, let me get this right...

Do Americans believe the healthcare costs will lower now?

It is way to high as it is, and instead of lowering it the Gov brings more people in to cover the costs, instead of reducing them :eek:

Tamara
19 Nov 13,, 10:50
So, let me get this right...

Do Americans believe the healthcare costs will lower now?

It is way to high as it is, and instead of lowering it the Gov brings more people in to cover the costs, instead of reducing them :eek:

Quite frankly, it is interesting to see what various people believe...........if not terrifying.

astralis
19 Nov 13,, 14:33
doktor,


So, let me get this right...

Do Americans believe the healthcare costs will lower now?

It is way to high as it is, and instead of lowering it the Gov brings more people in to cover the costs, instead of reducing them

US healthcare costs are already slowing, although whether or not this can be tied to the ACA is up for debate. what i expect to see is something a la switzerland, where healthcare costs slowed down dramatically while out of pocket costs increased modestly.

the swiss system is still not as cost-efficient as a public system, but hell, i'll take 30% overall reduction in healthcare costs over the current horrible mix of private-public support that we have in the US today.

then again we all know switzerland to be a dictatorship where the old run roughshod over the young, that is, if you actually live to get old under such a communist healthcare system...:)

bonehead
21 Nov 13,, 05:07
Totally 100% untruthful. I'd call it a lie but that might start a shit storm. The only people getting a free ride are the poor, and guess what they still don't pay into the system, in fact ACA expands the number of free riders via the expansion of Medicaid. Everyone else who had been un/undercovered is forced away from a very efficient pay as you go approach. Now it is pay for other people as you go. It raises costs and will likely increase health care usage especially among the newly covered medicaid enrollees.

Those people will pay at tax time and/or when they get a major medical event. They may pay late/too little but they will pay something which is better than what was happening before when up to 25% of the patients who go to a hospital are not insured and skip out leaving the rest to pick up the tab via higher healthcare bills and premiums. Joining the plan after the fact will get their bills paid thus saving their all important credit rating and allowing them to.......build the wealth that they would have been denied otherwise. If these people were smart they will keep their insurance, healthier people work more and thus get promoted faster. They will also be able to take advantage of wellness which is highly encouraged under the ACA. If they take care of the small stuff early they can long delay onset of the big diseases or head them off entirely saving the system billions or more down the road.

bonehead
21 Nov 13,, 05:13
So, let me get this right...

Do Americans believe the healthcare costs will lower now?

It is way to high as it is, and instead of lowering it the Gov brings more people in to cover the costs, instead of reducing them :eek:

The system is built for the industry to make tons of money so good luck taking your money back from the major players. What can be realistically done is to lower the RATES of increases in the future. The only way to lower the cost of healthcare is for Americans to get healthier but at the moment there are too many factors working against us. You see the sicker we are the more money someone makes.

Tamara
21 Nov 13,, 05:30
"Bait and Switch"......ever hear of it?

You know, where they get you into the store with the promise of one thing, say when you get there, "Oh, I'm sorry, that's sold out (or he didn't deliver), but we have this here that is good, costs a bit more, but it is good."

We don't like it when a business does that to us and it is suppose to be against the law for them do it.

So how is this any different?

zraver
21 Nov 13,, 05:47
Those people will pay at tax time and/or when they get a major medical event. They may pay late/too little but they will pay something which is better than what was happening before when up to 25% of the patients who go to a hospital are not insured and skip out leaving the rest to pick up the tab via higher healthcare bills and premiums.

Same people are still going to be free loading, only now it'll be via medicaid which gives them vastly expanded access to services and treatments.


Joining the plan after the fact will get their bills paid thus saving their all important credit rating and allowing them to.......build the wealth that they would have been denied otherwise.

Uhm no, becuase the discretionary income they need to build wealth has been taxed away to provided grandma six more months in a hospital bed.


If these people were smart they will keep their insurance,

They can't, the ACA tanked the who realm of insurance that the young actually needed.


healthier people work more and thus get promoted faster.

Oh so it snot base don education, who you know, demand in the feild.... Your just making stuff up.


They will also be able to take advantage of wellness which is highly encouraged under the ACA. If they take care of the small stuff early they can long delay onset of the big diseases or head them off entirely saving the system billions or more down the road.

And guys need maternity coverage to make sure thy get wellness visits? Women need to pay for Ed treatments and prostate exams to make sure they get wellness visits? Hogwash,the who premise of ACA is not to give the young and healthiest anything- the system needs them to continue not using services in order to pay for the steeply discounted services provided to others.

zraver
21 Nov 13,, 05:52
The system is built for the industry to make tons of money so good luck taking your money back from the major players. What can be realistically done is to lower the RATES of increases in the future. The only way to lower the cost of healthcare is for Americans to get healthier but at the moment there are too many factors working against us. You see the sicker we are the more money someone makes.

First, thats not the only way to lower costs. Single payer is cheaper, and switching to a system that is not focused on extending life span but is focused on life quality are two examples. Second, how exactly does steeply discounting care for people who make poor life choices and removing the current penalties for making bad life choices encourage people to get healthier?

citanon
21 Nov 13,, 09:45
Two of the circling sharks, baring their teeth. :biggrin:

Rebranding won't fix Obamacare, top ad exec says (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101215575)

Doktor
21 Nov 13,, 10:40
More nitpicks...

Why Healthcare.gov Sucks? Because They Hired Political Cronies, Not Internet Native Companies To Build It | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131010/01484924821/)

Pari, your offer is still valid?

Parihaka
21 Nov 13,, 12:19
More nitpicks...

Why Healthcare.gov Sucks? Because They Hired Political Cronies, Not Internet Native Companies To Build It | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131010/01484924821/)

Pari, your offer is still valid?

Damn straight, I could move a competent team in tomorrow.

Officer of Engineers
21 Nov 13,, 14:28
It's a trap. They'll change the specs on you every 24 hours.

kato
21 Nov 13,, 19:38
The only way to lower the cost of healthcare is for Americans to get healthier
Actually, the only way to curtail expenses is centralized planning.

Pretty much all countries that have mandatory health insurance also have some sort of centralized fee table that lays out what the health insurances are required to cover, and exactly how much they're paying for it. Seems the US has the first part of that down, but the second part seems to be missing. This second part is usually - in most countries - hashed out between bodies that represent the health insurance side and bodies that represent the actual health care side.

Doktor
21 Nov 13,, 21:49
It's a trap. They'll change the specs on you every 24 hours.

Welcome to the world of creatives, Col. Actually, these days they change the specs every 8 hours.

Parihaka
21 Nov 13,, 21:52
It's a trap. They'll change the specs on you every 24 hours.

Pffft, for 1/100 of 50% of GDP for one year, they can make us all wear barbie costumes for all I care.:biggrin:
It's just a website, throw clever people at it in sufficient numbers and we can implement the changes before they've finished articulating them.

bigross86
24 Nov 13,, 20:27
So, I ask the experts, is this a fair representation of Obamacare? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please explain why people went along with it?

The Affordable CAR Act of 2014 (http://universalfreepress.com/the-affordable-car-act-of-2014/)


The U.S. government has just passed a new law entitled “The Affordable CAR Act” declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new car by April, 2014.

These ‘affordable’ cars will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, tags, registration, fuel, maintenance, or repair costs.

This law has been passed because, until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase cars. This new law ensures that every American can now have an ‘affordable’ car of their own, because everyone is ‘entitled’ to a new car. If you purchase your car before the end of the year, you will receive four ‘free’ tires (does not include mounting).

In order to make sure everyone purchases an ‘affordable car,’ the cost of owning a car will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. But, to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their car will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents car(s) to drive until they turn 27, after which date they must purchase their own car.

If you already have a car, you can keep yours (not really). If you don’t want or don’t need a car, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one, or face imprisonment. If you cannot (or don’t want to) purchase an ‘affordable car’ from a private business, you can buy a starter car from the U. S. government ‘affordable car exchange.’ Such a car will have the basic necessities and will only cost ‘slightly more’ than a similar car purchased from a private business. Plus, since your tax dollars will subsidize the purchase of a car from the U. S. government’s ‘affordable car exchange,’ it will appear that you are getting a good deal.

Failure to use the car will also result in fines. People living in areas with no access to roads are not exempt. Pre-existing conditions such as age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge, nor lack of desire are not acceptable excuses for not using your car.

A government review board will decide everything, including when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your car, along with how many people can ride in your car. The board will also determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their car, and will also decide if your car has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories like spinning rims or a newer and more expensive car.

Those that can afford luxury cars will be required to do so … it’s only fair. The government will also decide the color for each car. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a car, they and their families can obtain cars free at the expense of tax payers. This includes lifetime maintenance and automatic adjustments for fuel charges.

Unions, bankers, and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$), Muslims and Amish are also exempt.

bigross86
24 Nov 13,, 20:38
And now, another question. Like any good newbie, I spent quite a while reading the entire thread, every single post, and there's something that has really stood out for me:

According to Jad, Zraver and Astralis (and according to the law itself, if I'm reading this correctly), everyone MUST pay into the healthcare fund, we'll use Zraver's figure of $20 a day.

Now, the young folks (Generation Y) pay in $20 a day, even if they don't need it, because it pays for the older generation (Generation X) and their healthcare needs. In return, when they are older, the new younger generation (Generation Z) will pay for their healthcare costs, and so on and so forth.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that model sounds an awful lot like Social Security in its current manifestation, where the Generation Y are covering the withdrawal needed for Generation X's retirement costs, and are hoping that Generation Z will be able to cover the withdrawal needed for Generation Y's retirement costs.

So, why would someone take a business plan that was already shown once not to work, and on a massive scale no less, and try to make another gargantuan plan run on the same flawed model?

JAD_333
25 Nov 13,, 00:36
And now, another question. Like any good newbie, I spent quite a while reading the entire thread, every single post, and there's something that has really stood out for me:

Oh, the pain...


According to Jad, Zraver and Astralis (and according to the law itself, if I'm reading this correctly), everyone MUST pay into the healthcare fund, we'll use Zraver's figure of $20 a day.

They're not exactly paying into a 'healthcare fund', but paying premiums for an insurance policy that covers everything, from maternity care to ingrown toenails. The idea is that the cost of all healthcare is evenly spread out among everyone.


Now, the young folks (Generation Y) pay in $20 a day, even if they don't need it, because it pays for the older generation (Generation X) and their healthcare needs. In return, when they are older, the new younger generation (Generation Z) will pay for their healthcare costs, and so on and so forth.

That's one of the arguments in favor of the plan, but also a contentious issue. Z argues that making young people pay a higher premium when they need less healthcare will restrict their ability to build wealth, e.g. buy a house, etc. The counterargument is that today's young will become tomorrow's seniors and that unless today's young pay a higher premium tomorrow's seniors would be paying much higher premiums. The thing to remember is that under Obamacare no one can be turned down for insurance. Seniors who heretofore were denied insurance had to pay out of pocket until they became eligible for Medicare. Giving them coverage is an expensive burden, because many of them have preexisting conditions--the reason they couldn't get insurance before the ACA came along. So, the solution baked into the ACA is that a major part of the financial burden of insuring elderly people will be borne by healthy people, i.e. the young).


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that model sounds an awful lot like Social Security in its current manifestation, where the Generation Y are covering the withdrawal needed for Generation X's retirement costs, and are hoping that Generation Z will be able to cover the withdrawal needed for Generation Y's retirement costs.

So, why would someone take a business plan that was already shown once not to work, and on a massive scale no less, and try to make another gargantuan plan run on the same flawed model?

Good question. One unfortunate similarity is that government runs them both, and that in itself is a questionable model. However, they're really not the same, although both are mandatory, one as long as you're alive and the other as long as you earn income.

Social Security is strictly a pension plan; people get out of it what they are entitled to by law, no more no less, and they have to wait until they reach a certain age to begin receiving monthly checks. By law the 'contributions' are classified taxes. Also, most Americans like Social Security because they get something back. With the ACA, you don't contribute; you pay premiums to buy an insurance product; the only taxes you might pay are fines for not having insurance. If you die after a long, healthy life and never use the insurance you bought and not get back a cent of the premiums you paid.

The premiums under ACA go to private insurance companies; whereas contributions under Social Security come under government management. Currently the tax rate is 12.4% of earned income (up to $113k) and the money is paid into the Social Security Trust fund, not the general fund. Is the model flawed? Yes, but only to the extent that the outflow of pensions paid is generally greater than the inflow of taxes collected. In other words, it's not self-sustaining. Under the ACA, premiums can be adjusted to cover total healthcare costs, but Social Security taxes
can only be raised by Congress, and from time to time it raises the tax rate and changes the eligibility rules hoping to balance outflow with inflow, but it only manages to give the program 20-30 more years of life, and has to come back later with new fixes. Fixing Social Security is our most contentious political issue--the so-called 'third rail' of American politics. The ACA manages to avoid that when it comes to raising or lowering premiums. It's political problems are of a different nature, as you've no doubt seen.

zraver
25 Nov 13,, 01:12
Z argues that making young people pay a higher premium when they need less healthcare will restrict their ability to build wealth, e.g. buy a house, etc. The counterargument is that today's young will become tomorrow's seniors and that unless today's young pay a higher premium tomorrow's seniors would be paying much higher premiums.

As you point out when explaining social security, these premiums are not going into a trust fund with into the coffers of a private company. There is no "investing" in their own future. They are being taxed to provide unearned benefits to younger Boomers and older Gen Xers. They can't even pass their own bills on their children. The Gen Y's are having fewer kids so the 2K's are not a big enough group.


its theft.


Ben

I get my $20 via the following 2.64 trillion in health care spending/ 317,000,000 people = 8328 - 1/4 for reasonable self care costs= 6246/ 30 days= $17.11 a day rounded up.

Gun Grape
26 Nov 13,, 05:04
Which is theft by government whose power extends from the point of a gun. Think about how morally bankrupt it is to make someone in their 30's who is healthy both subsidize those who are not healthy at the expense of their own families and do so in a manner that protects corporate profits. The Gen X, Y and 2k's coming up face net lifetime losses to pay for the ever expanding services provided to the boomers. Its immoral and wrong.

Just a note.

Z you are already doing this.

The only hospitals that are required to treat people without health insurance are public ones. A private hospital that does not accept Medicare/Medicaid is only required to stabilize those with grave injuries to the point where they can be transported to a public hospital.

The local public hospital had a $6 million shortfall last year due to indigent care. How is that money made up? Through taxes. Check out your state. Florida has 4 different tax streams to fund public hospitals.
That shortfall will be made up through an increase in your property taxes, building fees and permits, phone taxes. It may be unseen, but your paying for it.

JAD_333
26 Nov 13,, 08:48
Just a note.

Z you are already doing this.

The only hospitals that are required to treat people without health insurance are public ones. A private hospital that does not accept Medicare/Medicaid is only required to stabilize those with grave injuries to the point where they can be transported to a public hospital.

The local public hospital had a $6 million shortfall last year due to indigent care. How is that money made up? Through taxes. Check out your state. Florida has 4 different tax streams to fund public hospitals.
That shortfall will be made up through an increase in your property taxes, building fees and permits, phone taxes. It may be unseen, but your paying for it.


A good reminder that no matter how it's done or where it comes from, the bill has to be paid somehow, and we the people eventually get stuck with it.

kato
26 Nov 13,, 10:23
its theft.
It's social responsibility.

Doesn't mesh with a calvinist society like the US, i know.

Doktor
26 Nov 13,, 10:52
A good reminder that no matter how it's done or where it comes from, the bill has to be paid somehow, and we the people eventually get stuck with it.

Seems nobody answered my question so far, so let me ask again...

If it was paid by taxes until now, from now the taxes will reduce? Because Federal budget had 20+% expenditures on healthcare last time i checked. Guess it is similar with State budgets, too.

astralis
26 Nov 13,, 19:21
doktor,


If it was paid by taxes until now, from now the taxes will reduce? Because Federal budget had 20+% expenditures on healthcare last time i checked. Guess it is similar with State budgets, too.

these unpaid bills aren't just covered via taxes, but also through increased private healthcare costs for the insured...part of the reason why medical care is so expensive in the States.

so the overall idea is a reduction in overall healthcare costs, both private and public. because from the federal perspective we don't say "these taxes go directly to healthcare", if less money is expended on healthcare, the taxes can be used either to pay for something else (which can potentially be a tax cut).

and privately, of course, if costs go down then the average individual also wins. part of the reason why the ACA site was so screwed up was because the politicals wanted people to log in before seeing any prices, so that they could make a connection between ACA and reduced healthcare costs (among other things).

bfng3569
27 Nov 13,, 00:15
doktor,



these unpaid bills aren't just covered via taxes, but also through increased private healthcare costs for the insured...part of the reason why medical care is so expensive in the States.

so the overall idea is a reduction in overall healthcare costs, both private and public. because from the federal perspective we don't say "these taxes go directly to healthcare", if less money is expended on healthcare, the taxes can be used either to pay for something else (which can potentially be a tax cut).

and privately, of course, if costs go down then the average individual also wins. part of the reason why the ACA site was so screwed up was because the politicals wanted people to log in before seeing any prices, so that they could make a connection between ACA and reduced healthcare costs (among other things).

that doesn't answer the question though, your response is talking about increased health care costs for the insured. yet the next paragraph you talk about reduced healthcare costa?

color me confused.....

JAD_333
27 Nov 13,, 01:42
Seems nobody answered my question so far, so let me ask again...

If it was paid by taxes until now, from now the taxes will reduce? Because Federal budget had 20+% expenditures on healthcare last time i checked. Guess it is similar with State budgets, too.


Asty tried. Let me give it a try. Basically you're asking whether Obamacare will lead to lower taxes, since many people who got government money for medical care in the past will now have insurance under Obamacare. That's a fair question. I'll let the head of the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44760) answer it:


The federal government spent roughly a trillion dollars on health care in fiscal year 2013, and it gave up about another quarter of a trillion dollars in tax subsidies related to health care. That spending figure is a lot larger today than it was a decade or two ago, and it will be much larger still a decade or two from now. Indeed, growth in federal spending for health care is the key factor making the budget policies of the past unsustainable in the future.

Doktor
27 Nov 13,, 09:58
Asty tried. Let me give it a try. Basically you're asking whether Obamacare will lead to lower taxes, since many people who got government money for medical care in the past will now have insurance under Obamacare. That's a fair question. I'll let the head of the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44760) answer it:

So you guys now get taxed twice for the same service? And that is only because the previous system made a huge hole that has to be paid off for few decades if anytime at all?

bigross86
27 Nov 13,, 17:15
I'd just to inject a short bit of humor into this otherwise serious discussion.....

34468

JAD_333
27 Nov 13,, 18:51
So you guys now get taxed twice for the same service? And that is only because the previous system made a huge hole that has to be paid off for few decades if anytime at all?

not exactly taxed... Premiums paid for insurance are the cost of a product. Many policies will be subsidized in part or in whole for people in low income brackets. The biggest part of gov't spending goes to Medicaid payments to states, and to groups not covered by Obamacare, such as retirees on Medicare, many veterans who get nearly free care, medical research, payroll contributions for gov't workers, SS disability...and the list goes on. Obamacare is designed not so much to relieve gov't entirely from healthcare expenditures, but to bring routine healthcare to people who heretofore could not afford it, to people who were denied insurance for preexisting conditions, and so on.

Parihaka
05 Dec 13,, 22:34
Why Obama can’t wave away this scandal (http://nypost.com/2013/11/23/why-obama-cant-wave-away-this-scandal/)

By John PodhoretzNovember 23, 2013 | 9:30am
Modal Trigger
Why Obama can’t wave away this scandal

The media shielded the president from every criticism — until he betrayed a liberal cause
People are puzzled: Why would Barack Obama have lied about how wonderfully everything was going to go with ObamaCare when officials in his administration knew perfectly well that disaster was going to strike?
In one sense, the answer is simple: At the time, just before Oct. 1, Republicans were insisting ObamaCare be delayed or defunded. The president and his team weren’t going to give the enemy the satisfaction of agreeing — or the potent ammunition that would have come from a rueful admission the system wasn’t ready.
Today, a bipartisan agreement to delay ObamaCare seems like it would have been a pretty good deal. It didn’t look that way at all in the last two weeks of September.
But there’s a deeper reason he and his people lied: They did it because they could. They did it because nearly five years in the White House had given Obama and his team confidence they would not face the music and they could finesse the problems until they got fixed.
Consider the events that would have been unprecedented scandals in a Republican administration — with teams of reporters digging and scratching daily at every nook and cranny in every bureaucratic corridor — that have instead been covered dutifully but with relatively little passion and almost no follow-up. Why? Because it would have hurt Obama, that’s why.
First, the Obama Justice Department.
Attorney General Eric Holder has survived three scandals that would have felled a Republican. His department attempted to soft-pedal its responsibility for the so-called “gunwalking” policy called Fast and Furious — which led to the murders of US border agents by Mexican drug-cartel members with guns effectively provided to the killers by the Justice Department.
He approved the secret surveillance of Fox News Channel reporter James Rosen in a leak investigation on the outrageous grounds that Rosen was a possible “co-conspirator” in an act of espionage. And he approved similar tactics against reporters at the Associated Press in another leak investigation.
Holder’s still there. Obama defends him. When was the last time you heard Rosen’s name mentioned, or the AP story referenced, or Fast and Furious come up?
Second, the Internal Revenue Service.
The IRS’s own acknowledgement that it had targeted conservative groups with anti-liberal agendas has led to shamed retirements, hasty changes at the top of the agency and officials pleading the Fifth Amendment. These efforts were clearly undertaken to find means by which to aid Democratic efforts in the 2010 and 2012 election. One can only wonder at what would have been done to George W. Bush by the media had similar outrages been perpetated on leftist groups in 2003 and 2004. Obama suffered . . . a little. A very little.
Third, the State Department.
The unconscionable behavior of State Department and White House officials during and after the killing of four Americans in Benghazi at the height of the 2012 race — during which the American people were deliberately and consciously misled — has had no lasting consequences whatsoever. Obama felt free to select the chief liar, Susan Rice, as his national-security adviser without experiencing a moment’s fear about how her appointment might become a scandal.
Fourth, making law from the White House.
In 2011, the president said that owing to Republican recalcitrance in the House of Representatives, he would use his executive authority to get things done. And he has. As Tara Helfman writes in the December issue of Commentary, the magazine I edit, “Notwithstanding President Obama’s constitutional duty to enforce the law of the Untied States, where federal laws conflict with his policy preferences on gay marriage, illegal immigration and drug policy, the president has simply opted not to enforce or defend them.”
Moreover, to strengthen his hand with Hispanic voters in 2012, he ordered the Justice Department to follow certain provisions of a law governing illegal immigrants that has yet to be approved by the Congress. That is unprecedented.
So, if you want to understand the blindness and arrogance of the Obama White House in failing to appreciate the wave of rage and disappointment and disgusted wonderment that would hit them in the wake of the ObamaCare rollout, you need only consider these factors.
He has always had the protection of his liberal base.
He has always had the protection of Senate Democrats, who have not acted in any way to trouble him regarding these scandals and who have impeded aggressive investigations into them.
And he has always had the protection of the mainstream media.
As a result, Barack Obama and his administration have said what they felt they needed to say and done what they felt they needed to do for immediate political gain. They did so this time. But this time was different, because this time he was mishandling and discrediting the great liberal desideratum of our time — a national health-care system.

This time he hasn’t gotten away with it.

Yet.

astralis
06 Dec 13,, 04:13
that long rant of an article can be boiled down into one sentence: "why isn't everyone as pissed off as we conservatives are? because the media always covered for them! until now!"

so if his theory is right we should be seeing a huge popular wave of revulsion against the ACA any time now, and no one should be signing up.

oh wait...

Enrollment surge on Healthcare.gov (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-100654.html)

this is what happens when you stay in your own echo chamber too long, and begin creating your own reality. this is the type of "forecasting" that felled the romney campaign.

zraver
06 Dec 13,, 04:35
that long rant of an article can be boiled down into one sentence: "why isn't everyone as pissed off as we conservatives are? because the media always covered for them! until now!"

so if his theory is right we should be seeing a huge popular wave of revulsion against the ACA any time now, and no one should be signing up.

oh wait...

Enrollment surge on Healthcare.gov (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-100654.html)

this is what happens when you stay in your own echo chamber too long, and begin creating your own reality. this is the type of "forecasting" that felled the romney campaign.

Your source- 14,000 people a day of a nation of 317 million, and an individual market of roughly 10 million. At the rate of 14,000 a day it will only take a little over 2 years to enroll everyone in the individual market. It will take around a decade to enroll the people about to be thrown off employer plans...

A new Harvard poll (part of a 13 year long survey) shows millennial are disgusted with Obama and would recall him if they could.

The website has really enrolled as many people as you claim- about half the enrollments are so full of errors the enrollments failed on the back end so double the above listed times...

Polls are increasingly showing the Republicans with an edge in the 2014 senate race...

I think you might want to step out of your echo chamber Asty...

JAD_333
06 Dec 13,, 06:35
that long rant of an article can be boiled down into one sentence: "why isn't everyone as pissed off as we conservatives are? because the media always covered for them! until now!"

so if his theory is right we should be seeing a huge popular wave of revulsion against the ACA any time now, and no one should be signing up.

oh wait...

Enrollment surge on Healthcare.gov (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-100654.html)




Asty:

Did you read the article? The thesis is that Obama has enjoyed gentle media treatment on a number of sticky issues, but he can't escape scrutiny over the ACA debacle because this time he's on record for making blatantly false statements. You know the ones: 'like your insurance, you can keep it..."

The other issues got a fair amount of MSM coverage, but Obama's teflon coating somehow leaves him unscathed amidst all the fuss.

Captain Worley
06 Dec 13,, 14:25
The other issues got a fair amount of MSM coverage, but Obama's teflon coating somehow leaves him unscathed amidst all the fuss.

No one wants to be called racist for criticizing him....

astralis
06 Dec 13,, 14:39
z,


Your source- 14,000 people a day of a nation of 317 million, and an individual market of roughly 10 million. At the rate of 14,000 a day it will only take a little over 2 years to enroll everyone in the individual market. It will take around a decade to enroll the people about to be thrown off employer plans...

the numbers will likely accelerate. in any case, i wouldn't be surprised if full implementation does take that long. the swiss took approximately 5 years to get everything set up, IIRC.

either way it's increasingly unlikely that it will be repealed.


The website has really enrolled as many people as you claim- about half the enrollments are so full of errors the enrollments failed on the back end so double the above listed times...

Polls are increasingly showing the Republicans with an edge in the 2014 senate race...

suffice it to say that i think this is mistaking a tactical bungling with a strategic failure. i do not think this is the case, and judging from the GOP response, it's likely the GOP leaders do not think so as well.

and that's my point with this article. "he hasn't gotten away with it" is a fairly meaningless statement in this context, because politically speaking the only real impact of the website bungling/obama's overpromising was to cancel out the Dem high coming off the Tea Party governemnt shutdown.

astralis
06 Dec 13,, 14:46
JAD,


Asty:

Did you read the article? The thesis is that Obama has enjoyed gentle media treatment on a number of sticky issues, but he can't escape scrutiny over the ACA debacle because this time he's on record for making blatantly false statements. You know the ones: 'like your insurance, you can keep it..."

The other issues got a fair amount of MSM coverage, but Obama's teflon coating somehow leaves him unscathed amidst all the fuss.

of course i did. as i said to Z, though, i doubt it will have lasting political effects, or for that matter i doubt the personal hit to obama will last particularly long (not that it matters all that much anymore-- he's not up for re-election, after all).

is it more potent than the other issues which the GOP have tried to feather and tar obama with? perhaps, but not significantly so. to try to forecast some long-term doom for the ACA or for obama based on this is a lot of wish-fulfillment...which in turn actually makes the teflon coating stronger. we saw that with the first President to be given such a nickname. :)

JAD_333
06 Dec 13,, 17:38
No one wants to be called racist for criticizing him....

The conservatives regularly criticize him and lately some in his own party have expressed frustration. I don't know why the MSM would feel they alone would be considered racist if they were harder on him. Perhaps the MSM's the long-standing liberal bias is simply alive and well. It tries to appear balanced, but often slips in little cuts, for example during the Virginia governor's race this year, the media always labeled the GOP candidate as the 'Tea Party backed' candidate in news reports and his opponent as the 'former chairman' of the DNC. All this during the battle over defunding Obamacare, when the Tea Party congressmen were taking heavy flack for forcing a government shutdown. In reality, the Tea Party always backs Republicans in general elections.

JAD_333
06 Dec 13,, 17:57
JAD,


is it [Obamacare] more potent than the other issues which the GOP have tried to feather and tar obama with? perhaps, but not significantly so. to try to forecast some long-term doom for the ACA or for obama based on this is a lot of wish-fulfillment...which in turn actually makes the teflon coating stronger. we saw that with the first President to be given such a nickname. :)


Asty:


You are in for a rude shock, not today but in a year or two, when it becomes apparent that Obamacare is (as Z pointed out sometime back) a theft of the birthright of today's young people. The ACA will add $780 billion to the budget over the next 10 years. At the same time entitlements, which are now 62% of the budget will rise even more. Unless something is done to deal with some realities our young people will inherit enormous debt. Imagine the future impact of the fact that every day 8,000 baby boomers retire on Social Security and Medicare while only 2,000 new potential workers are being born to support them. Not only are entitlements growing, they are pushing down investment in research, education, infrastructure. Once at 32% of the budget, now they are at 12% and dropping. Progressive social programs are eating our seed corn...

astralis
06 Dec 13,, 20:21
JAD,

ah, you yourself mentioned it a while back; the costs have to be eaten somewhere. and i don't see young people not paying their own way in healthcare as a "birthright"; i see it as an abdication of responsibility. an abdication -i- have to pay for, as someone with insurance.


Not only are entitlements growing, they are pushing down investment in research, education, infrastructure. Once at 32% of the budget, now they are at 12% and dropping. Progressive social programs are eating our seed corn...

certainly, this is what the Third Way says as well. unfortunately i find conservatives, or at least Republicans, arguing this point to be unpersuasive. entitlements may eat the seed corn, but tax cuts or tax rates cannot be touched. what non-mandatory budget cuts they do propose are -precisely- the seed corn.

either way at this point in time we're sort of whistling past each other. the compromise solution is not difficult to envision, although it is fiendlishly difficult politics-wise. ultimately it'll involve a combination of higher tax rates, an acknowledgment that the US debt load will stabilize at a somewhat higher level than in the past, plus cuts to entitlements, probably through some combination of means-tested SS/chained CPI.

in short, something which obama put out there, which boehner accepted...and then was forced to back away from two years ago. it's too damn bad that in the intervening time since, the GOP decided to put all of its chips into fighting obama/ACA to the end.

zraver
06 Dec 13,, 21:03
z,

the numbers will likely accelerate. in any case, i wouldn't be surprised if full implementation does take that long. the swiss took approximately 5 years to get everything set up, IIRC.

Doubt it, at a certain point the people who really want insurance (the sick) will be signed up and the people who don't want it wont have signed up which will set up the death spiral. its already happening. especially as it turns out that despite paying more in premiums than an older and sick person, the average subsidy for a young person is 1/4 that of an older and sicker person of the same means. There is simply no incentive for the young to sign up and sign away their future.


either way it's increasingly unlikely that it will be repealed.

100% disagree, I don't think it will make it to the 14 elections.


suffice it to say that i think this is mistaking a tactical bungling with a strategic failure. i do not think this is the case, and judging from the GOP response, it's likely the GOP leaders do not think so as well. [/qupte]

The entire thing is a job killing strategic failure. The only reason its still around is Harry Reid and now it looks like his time in job is limited and a Republican controlled congress after the 14 elections will defund it.

[quote]and that's my point with this article. "he hasn't gotten away with it" is a fairly meaningless statement in this context, because politically speaking the only real impact of the website bungling/obama's overpromising was to cancel out the Dem high coming off the Tea Party governemnt shutdown.

So effectively retursn us to status quo ante-bellum which is good for the right since the President's party usually loses seats in a mid-term election. Plus unlike the shut down which is done and over, ACA is a bleeding, festering stinking wound the Dems cant get away from. Even if Obama gets the individual market fixed on both ends, next up are 10x as many people losing their employer coverage and doctors.... If you like it you can keep it redux.

JAD_333
07 Dec 13,, 05:34
JAD,

ah, you yourself mentioned it a while back; the costs have to be eaten somewhere. and i don't see young people not paying their own way in healthcare as a "birthright"; i see it as an abdication of responsibility. an abdication -i- have to pay for, as someone with insurance.

I did, but I was arguing the proposition like a debater, taking the pro side then. Now I'm taking the con side. Anyway, I'm looking for that 'somewhere' you mentioned. Let me correct you on one thing. I sure as hell wasn't saying that the birthright for young people is to pay nothing for their healthcare. Rather I am inclined to believe that it's wrong to make them pay premiums that are a greater percentage of their income, than the percentage that higher income middle-aged people pay. I understand the concept of shared risk, and it sounds appealing. But as time goes young people will also be carrying more of the burden of servicing the debt and maintaining the fat-and-getting-fatter entitlement programs we already have. Entitlements took 32-35% of the budget during the early Bush years. Now they take 62%. It doesn't take a genius to see that today's young workers are going to have a harder time building wealth than their parents and grandparents had. How do we free them from the load?

We need a comprehensive solution, and I don't think it will happen while the dems have control of the White House and the Senate; they don't want to take responsibility for the unavoidable fixes to entitlement programs coming down the road. They'd rather be seen as fighting rear guard actions, compromising to save what they can.




certainly, this is what the Third Way says as well. unfortunately i find conservatives, or at least Republicans, arguing this point to be unpersuasive. entitlements may eat the seed corn, but tax cuts or tax rates cannot be touched. what non-mandatory budget cuts they do propose are -precisely- the seed corn.

Well, the seed corn refers mostly our young people. If the life is sucked out of them to service the debt and pay for our fast growing population of retired seniors, we may see something worse than the Tea Party rise up. History has seen this play out before. I think we'll fix it; we have time, not much, but enough. First, we have to get someone in the White House who can lead and some smart folk elected to Congress.

BTW, the recent fight over the debt ceiling and keeping the government open wasn't about cutting non-mandatory spending; it was over one thing: Defunding Obamacare. Or, to put it another way--avoiding $780 billion in entitlement spending over the next 8-10 years, most of it new.



]

JAD_333
09 Dec 13,, 07:13
Good news. The Obamacare website has been fixed. You can sign up here.

Affordable Care Act (http://home.roadrunner.com/~pjrpole/ACA.html)

astralis
09 Dec 13,, 16:26
JAD,


We need a comprehensive solution, and I don't think it will happen while the dems have control of the White House and the Senate; they don't want to take responsibility for the unavoidable fixes to entitlement programs coming down the road. They'd rather be seen as fighting rear guard actions, compromising to save what they can.



i disagree. what was the 2011 proposed debt deal, then? obama has said that he wants a grand bargain, and him being able to offer it up and negotiate with boehner back then showed that the Dems could be corralled into a compromise solution.


I think we'll fix it; we have time, not much, but enough. First, we have to get someone in the White House who can lead and some smart folk elected to Congress.



peh, that means the GOP will need to eliminate the Tea Party as an insurgent faction, or at least regain party unity/discipline. if they can't even agree on tactical matters, god help them on strategic ones. in any case the strategic goals of the party remain much more focused on further tax cuts and shrinking government than trying to reduce the debt (NOT the same thing, i'd mention).


Or, to put it another way--avoiding $780 billion in entitlement spending over the next 8-10 years, most of it new.



34577

JAD_333
09 Dec 13,, 18:07
JAD,



i disagree. what was the 2011 proposed debt deal, then? obama has said that he wants a grand bargain, and him being able to offer it up and negotiate with boehner back then showed that the Dems could be corralled into a compromise solution.

A comprehensive solution in the context of GOP control would take in much more than what Boehner worked out with the president. It would include the fate of departments, all manner of spending programs, entitlements, the debt...a sea change of significant proportions all aimed at eliminating the debt. If you ask, what will happen if the GOP controls congress and the White House, that's what I see. Do you see something different? And, if what I see happens, what else can the dems do but save what they can of their legacy. They would much rather be in that position than in the position of having to dismantle it themselves. The dems can't win elections taking apart their legacy, but they can defending it.







peh, that means the GOP will need to eliminate the Tea Party as an insurgent faction, or at least regain party unity/discipline. if they can't even agree on tactical matters, god help them on strategic ones. in any case the strategic goals of the party remain much more focused on further tax cuts and shrinking government than trying to reduce the debt (NOT the same thing, i'd mention).

Eliminate the tea party? They can't. The tea party is more than a formal organization. 80% of its avowed members are long-time Republicans. Many more Republicans are tea party sympathizers. If you mean get rid of Members of Congress in the tea party caucus, there too the GOP is hamstrung. They are there to stay, although if a few of the more radical ones lose elections, the rest will moderate a tad. Asty, the tide is moving right. It is not a pretty move or one that isn't facing opposition and fears of party breakup, but it is going to move. There is little you or I can do about it. The debt and the likelihood of it rising still higher (despite the bitty decreases recently) is working against the dems. The GOP won't give the dems new taxes to cover rising entitlements.







34577

The chart only covers Medicare....is that meant to refute the claim the ACA will add add $780 to entitlement expenses over the next 8-10 years?