Printable View
[QUOTE=Jackson;423443]What I want to know from Esten, WT69 and the other liberals here is: What part of [i]"the members of society least likely to sustain themselves.are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers"[/i] do you not understand?[/QUOTE]Jackson, please provide a listing of these rewards, so we can have a look at them.
Thank you.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;423497]The Charts show that the Corporations are making millions by not creating jobs[/QUOTE]The next time I want an economics lecture from a high school graduate (maybe) union worker or his wild-ass liberal side kick, please shoot me where I stand. Of course, large corproations don't create jobs in tough times or even great times. New Flash for you two, in America, job creation has always been drivien by small business! Obamanation hates free enterprise, capitalism and business in total, especially small business. Getting rid of this clown will go a long way to release the pent up aspect of our economy related to small business. LIKE THIS IS NEW NEWS? IALOTFLMAO! You two are a match made in heavan. What planet have you lived on the last half century? My only consolation is that WT69 is too destitute to travel to BA for great pussy (what happened to your union pension dude) and Esten is most likely not far off as hasn't been to BA in recent memory. Tick! Tick! Tick! Just remember ol'Toymann called this deal over a year ago. We'll get this straight in novemeber, and my boy Romney will get us back on track. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
I normally do not get involved in political discussions on this board, but Toyman's post sounds like an angry old white man who likes to brag about what he has at the expense of others. Personally attacking someone for their opinion rather than the substance of the opinion is very characteristic of Republican political speech today and is totally uncivilized. Next time Toyman grow-up and logically rebut the opinion and don't vilify the person. It will add more weight to your argument.
Toyman and his like-minded friends have forgotten who got us into the economic mess-"W" and his ilk. None of the Republican players who profited the most from the economic meltdown suffered any significant economic loss or any loss at all. If Romney is elected and the same short-sighted, economically challenged Republican legislators are returned to power and the "W" team reinstalled, the economy will tank just like it did under Hoover and the Republicans will become a marginal political party.
The CDOs and SWAPS and other sophisticated debt obligations were just as responsible for the financial problems as the housing bubble. Witness the recent JP Morgan fiasco. Two wars, one of which was unnecessary and manufactured, which were almost totally paid for with borrowed money has contributed to most of the current deficit. Historically, the greatest additions to the national debt were incurred during two Republican presidencies, RRR and "W". The current Republican fixation on the national debt wants to ignore the very public statement by Chaney that "deficits do not matter". He should know. He was present and participated in the creation of over 12 trillion dollars of the current US debt while in the administrations of RRR and "W".
There must overtime be a combination of revenue enhancement and spending reduction, but you cannot sacrifice the future to pay for the past. No modern economic theorist believes that reduced public spending during a recession will enhance economic growth. The austerity program for Europe, similar to the Ryan proposal, will be a disaster for the Euro Zone. We will have a laboratory to examine the economic veracity of the Ryan Plan in Europe and will be able to determine its effectiveness in expanding economic growth and reducing government debt.
While working for my employer masters, I managed to get a College Degree.
I guess you did not see the Chart about the Market growth. Looks like he must be a bad commie.
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/05/obama-signs-small-business-legislation/[/url]
If O'Romney gets back in, there goes more jobs, stripped and or sent out of the Country.
P.S.
I forgot to mention that I was in Nicaragua checking out the chicas and making a List for the Guys, in January. That is one reason I have not been to Buenos Aires.
Oh Yes, Please stop smoking those Cow Chips.
[QUOTE=Toymann;423501]Obamanation hates free enterprise, capitalism and business in total, especially small business.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mbronzini; 423502]Personally attacking someone for their opinion rather than the substance of the opinion is very characteristic of Republican political speech today and is totally uncivilized. Next time Toyman grow-up and logically rebut the opinion and don't vilify the person.
[/QUOTE]Uncivilized. IALOTFLMAO! This is the political thread and there is very little civilized about it! I have known WT69 and Esten for a long time now and although our politics are very different we can sit down and have a beer most days without any issue what so ever. I searched your posts and it's just been a while since you swooped in to defend Chanel, TL, etc. Etc. Too funny. Suggest a 3 year newbie like you get off of this thread as you just don't have the stomach for it. Roaring idiot. It comes as little surprise that the "it's all W's fault" nonsense is your point of view. Suggest you research the deregulation of the housing market. You'll find it occurred in the 90's and furthermore the devil W tried to alert the liberals that Fanny and Freddy were in big trouble in his last two years of his term BUT, when guese who was in power. Oh I forgot, how could a neanderthal like me discuss politics with a "free thinkre" like you. Back into your hole silly boy. Neither WT69 or Esten are ever offended by my posts. It's all in fun you prickly dork! Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Permit me to make a few comments on the foregoing posts today.
Esten:
Your response was pretty much what I would expect. You resort to numbers to dehumanize Terry and attempt to trivialize his death. I now ask you to prove Terry would still have been killed if the weapons used had not been available, your turn to prove a negative my friend. Somehow I doubt you would take the same cavalier attitude if it were your life we are talking about here, now would you.
Your response reflects you have never been 'in the trenches' but only 'armchair quarterback' from a point of safety.
F&F is about many things, one of which is Terry's death via weapons supplied by his own government. Another aspect of the investigation is lying to a Congressional Committee. Liberals love to use this against others but whine and complain when the tables are turned, as is the case with Holder. Obama did not do himself any favors by invoking presidential privilege as this will only increases the perception by the public of a cover-up.
WT69:
Unions have withered in the private sector even in states with pro-union laws. The reason is they can no longer compete and even in states with pro-union laws when the membership is given the opportunity to cease paying dues they flee in large numbers. Now the same is beginning to occur in the government sector and it will continue as the people who have to pay the bill demand changes.
What I thing you miss here is that JP Morgan Chase lost privately invested capital for which they have been penalized by the market place while Obama gives away taxpayers money to his chorines with wild abandon.
I thing the principal point both Esten and you miss here is both corporations and private citizens funds belongs to them and not to the government. They earned it and they should have the right to determine how they spend it.
President Obama has now decided to rule by presidential fiat.
Earlier this year Obama clearly stated he could not circumvent statute law regarding immigration issues such as the 'Dream' act as it would be illegal and we lived in a country of laws. Witness his last presidential decree in which he reverses himself in an attempt to sway Hispanic voters to his cause.
If this was such a pressing issue, why did Obama fail to have it passed in his first two years in office when the Dem's had a lock on both the House and the Senate?
After the Supreme Court upheld a key portion of the Arizona law, what does Obama do? He cuts Arizona out of a cooperative agreement between the states and the fed and informs Arizona don't count on the Fed to come get the illegals they find as the Fed is going to get much more restrictive as to who they will accept and not accept. Looks pretty much like a temper tantrum by Obama after losing a key point with the court. I just can't wait to see how he reacts when ObamaCare is struck down.
Here why Obama did not get it passed.
It is called Filibuster by the Republicans.
[url]http://www.worldcorrespondents.com/dream-act-2010-republican-filibuster-vote-won/8811543[/url]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 423507]President Obama has now decided to rule by presidential fiat.
Earlier this year Obama clearly stated he could not circumvent statute law regarding immigration issues such as the 'Dream' act as it would be illegal and we lived in a country of laws. Witness his last presidential decree in which he reverses himself in an attempt to sway Hispanic voters to his cause.
If this was such a pressing issue, why did Obama fail to have it passed in his first two years in office when the Dem's had a lock on both the House and the Senate?
After the Supreme Court upheld a key portion of the Arizona law, what does Obama do? He cuts Arizona out of a cooperative agreement between the states and the fed and informs Arizona don't count on the Fed to come get the illegals they find as the Fed is going to get much more restrictive as to who they will accept and not accept. Looks pretty much like a temper tantrum by Obama after losing a key point with the court. I just can't wait to see how he reacts when ObamaCare is struck down.[/QUOTE]
It started in 2005. Guess who was in office. Why isn't Congress questioning anyone in Bush's Term?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner[/url]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 423506]Permit me to make a few comments on the foregoing posts today.
Esten:
Your response was pretty much what I would expect. You resort to numbers to dehumanize Terry and attempt to trivialize his death. I now ask you to prove Terry would still have been killed if the weapons used had not been available, your turn to prove a negative my friend. Somehow I doubt you would take the same cavalier attitude if it were your life we are talking about here, now would you.
Your response reflects you have never been 'in the trenches' but only 'armchair quarterback' from a point of safety.
F&F is about many things, one of which is Terry's death via weapons supplied by his own government. Another aspect of the investigation is lying to a Congressional Committee. Liberals love to use this against others but whine and complain when the tables are turned, as is the case with Holder. Obama did not do himself any favors by invoking presidential privilege as this will only increases the perception by the public of a cover-up.
WT69:
Unions have withered in the private sector even in states with pro-union laws. The reason is they can no longer compete and even in states with pro-union laws when the membership is given the opportunity to cease paying dues they flee in large numbers. Now the same is beginning to occur in the government sector and it will continue as the people who have to pay the bill demand changes.
What I thing you miss here is that JP Morgan Chase lost privately invested capital for which they have been penalized by the market place while Obama gives away taxpayers money to his chorines with wild abandon.
I thing the principal point both Esten and you miss here is both corporations and private citizens funds belongs to them and not to the government. They earned it and they should have the right to determine how they spend it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you are right. The Union's are losing members, because of things Romney and his like minded cronies have done. Buy a company, strip it down, sell off the assets, lay off all the Workers and send what is left to be done by non-Union workers Overseas.
So, goes the middle class.
WT69, the program run under Bush was a totally different program than F&F.
If the Democrats did not investigate it when they took over in 1/1/09 it appears obvious there was nothing to investigate or they would have been all over it.
The Democrats had a filibuster proof hold on the senate in the first two years beginning in 2009, can you say Arlan Specter?
They passed pretty much whatever they wanted telling the Republicans to sit down and shut up. How quickly you seem to forget!
They didn't pass it because they didn't care about it then. Now Obama is willing to reverse his statements from March and violate statute law via presidential fait, it will be reversed but it takes time to run through the court system and Obama knows this.
So what else would I expect from a person who lies at every turn. Now they are playing the 'race' card but I don't think it's going to get much traction.
Romney has nothing to do with the union's demise; they have done it to themselves. Today unions seem to live in some alternate universe where labor costs don't matter in the production and marketing of goods. They just don't compete well today. I guess the new restriction against unions out on the left coast is because of Romney?
Face it my friend the unions killed themselves and have now over reached again and lost on the public sector. The people who pay the bills just will not put up with it anymore and it has nothing to do with Romney.
Addendum.
What the hell are you doing down there. Say "Hello," to Daniel for me
This video shows Project Gunrunner was at fault for Terry's death.
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7357550n[/url]
I do not recommend Nicaragua. Managua anyway. Granada is worth a visit, but not for mongering.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 423512]WT69, the program run under Bush was a totally different program than F&F.
If the Democrats did not investigate it when they took over in 1/1/09 it appears obvious there was nothing to investigate or they would have been all over it.
The Democrats had a filibuster proof hold on the senate in the first two years beginning in 2009, can you say Arlan Specter?
They passed pretty much whatever they wanted telling the Republicans to sit down and shut up. How quickly you seem to forget!
They didn't pass it because they didn't care about it then. Now Obama is willing to reverse his statements from March and violate statute law via presidential fait, it will be reversed but it takes time to run through the court system and Obama knows this.
So what else would I expect from a person who lies at every turn. Now they are playing the 'race' card but I don't think it's going to get much traction.
Romney has nothing to do with the union's demise; they have done it to themselves. Today unions seem to live in some alternate universe where labor costs don't matter in the production and marketing of goods. They just don't compete well today. I guess the new restriction against unions out on the left coast is because of Romney?
Face it my friend the unions killed themselves and have now over reached again and lost on the public sector. The people who pay the bills just will not put up with it anymore and it has nothing to do with Romney.
Addendum.
What the hell are you doing down there. Say "Hello," to Daniel for me[/QUOTE]
WT69, was the clip you posted accurate, well sort of but not really and here is why. F&F was an operation begun and run under the Obama administration. It was one of several operations under the original Bush ATF initiated known as Project Gunrunner. The weapon which killed Officer Terry was part of F&F which everyone now knows went haywire by letting over 2, 000 weapons "walk" across the border.
Here is the full story on Project Gunrunner and the ATF opertion known as F&F which was initated by the Obama administration under the overall umbrella of Project Gunrunner.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner[/url]
Read what Fortune Magazine says.
[url]http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?iid=SF_F_MPM[/url]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 423546]WT69, was the clip you posted accurate, well sort of but not really and here is why. F&F was an operation begun and run under the Obama administration. It was one of several operations under the original Bush ATF initiated known as Project Gunrunner. The weapon which killed Officer Terry was part of F&F which everyone now knows went haywire by letting over 2, 000 weapons "walk" across the border.
Here is the full story on Project Gunrunner and the ATF opertion known as F&F which was initated by the Obama administration under the overall umbrella of Project Gunrunner.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner[/url][/QUOTE]
Speaker Boehner today said that F&F was responsible for hundreds of deaths (unproven bs), and that the Administration was guilty of lying to Congress (unproven bs). I used to have a little respect for Boehner, but after this political speech it may all be gone.
On this board as well, Doppel still playing the sympathy card for agent Terry, even though as I previously posted there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he would not have been shot without F&F.
As proof positive the F&F sympathy card is a mere political ploy, ask any Republican about the 45,000 people who die in the US each year because they lack health insurance.
[QUOTE=Esten;423559]Speaker Boehner today said that.the Administration was guilty of lying to Congress (unproven bs).[/QUOTE]We don't know one way or the other because Holder is withholding the documents that would settle the issue.
[QUOTE=Esten;423559]As proof positive the F&F sympathy card is a mere political ploy, ask any Republican about the 45,000 people who die in the US each year because they lack health insurance.[/QUOTE]Are you referring to the 45,000 people who failed to exercise personal responsibility and buy their own health insurance?
The Supreme Court upheld Milt Romney's Health Care "individual mandate". Now, you just have to do your civic duty, and pay for it with a smile. Perhaps, you might have to sacrifice one visit to the local massage parlour.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;423566]The Supreme Court upheld Milt Romney's Health Care "individual mandate". Now, you just have to do your civic duty, and pay for it with a smile. Perhaps, you might have to sacrifice one visit to the local massage parlour.[/QUOTE]Once again, no comparison.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 422743]No, not the same thing.
Obamacare was rammed up America's ass by an incredibly narrow vote of 50. 3% of Congress, and without a single vote from any congressional representatives outside the Democratic party. The voting was so narrow that Democratic Party leaders couldn't even risk sending their own bill back to the Senate where it would have been voted down, and instead they passed the old version passed by the Senate just prior to Scott Brown's election.
On the other hand.
The health care law passed in Massachusetts was supported overwhelmingly in the MA legislature with 198 house reps supporting the bill and only 2 voting against it – 99% voting in favor of the plan! The bill also passed through the state senate without a single dissenting vote.
The difference is that Gov. Romney and the Massachusetts legislature worked together and crafted a health bill that had the support of an overwhelming majority of the people of Massachusetts.
I believe that Obama and the Democrats should have done the same thing for the American people by working to create a bill that more Americans could have supported, but that would have required real leadership, something that Obama is completely lacking.
Once again, I apologize for letting the facts destroy a common liberal rant.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]If ObamaCare had been passed by 99% of the members of the US Congress, I would have little to say about it's legitimacy.
Jeez this gets repetive.
Maybe I need to catalog these standard rebuttals so I can just refer to them by number.
Jackson
I can understand Justice Robert's perspective.
If it walks like a tax and it quacks like a tax, then it's a tax, and the government has the power to tax.
That's not how ObamaCare was sold, but there it is.
Now there's only one way to kill this monstrosity.
Of course, Obama no longer deny that he's levied a new tax on the back of every American worker.
Thanks,
Jackson
Except it's [b]not[/b] a tax on the back of [b]every[/b] American worker. It's a wealth transfer program and anyone making up to 400% of the poverty level will come out ahead, most likely. And 400% of the poverty level ($10, 890 x 4 = $43, 520 in 2011) corresponds roughly to the average wage per worker in 2010 ($41, 673. 83 per the Social Security website). Also, one of the ways it is funded is with a tax that definitely falls only on the rich: the Medicare tax on investment income.
What's fun about this stuff is that the IRS always says X% of income and not X% of assets. That makes it real easy to manipulate. This law benefits early retirees such as myself and therefore I favor it. I think it will favor a lot of us, if we do our research. At the very least it should be easy to get the subsidy every OTHER year, if you are living off your prior savings. The way the law defined "income" for the purpose of comparing it to the poverty level was also very favorable to early retirees.
[QUOTE=Jackson;423562]We don't know one way or the other because Holder is withholding the documents that would settle the issue.[/QUOTE]Then Boehner is out of line for making such accusations.
[QUOTE]Are you referring to the 45,000 people who failed to exercise personal responsibility and buy their own health insurance?[/QUOTE]No - the 45,000 people who could not afford health insurance or were denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
Now the confirmed law of the land.
It would be a waste of energy to keep staying mad about this (if one ever was).
The fact is the vast majority of people already have insurance, and will not be affected by the mandate (i.e., won't be loosing any 'freedom'). For those required to buy insurance or pay a fine, it will be according to their means to pay. Conservatives should appreciate that many who were freeloading the system will now have to contribute. And those wanting to have insurance should be able to get it at a more affordable price. That helps folks who don't work for large companies, including entrepreneurs.
There are plenty of good things about the new law. Few people are going to find their lives adversely affected. Most will experience little effect. Many will experience a positive effect.
[QUOTE=Esten; 423579]Now the confirmed law of the land.
It would be a waste of energy to keep staying mad about this (if one ever was).[/QUOTE]Only 70% of american hate this stupidity Esten. In novemeber, the house stays GOP, the senate goes GOP. and Romney is president and January 1st? Good riddence to bad rubbish no room for bad cabbage! Just because it's not against the law doesn't mean it's NOT a total cluster F*CK! Bye Bye Obamacare. Like today even mattered! IALOTFLMAO! Monger On Dude. Toymann.
Ps. Have you already forgotten the Liberal slaughter in the mid-terms. What was that about Esten. Please elaborate? Enquiring minds want to know!
Pps. Wanna bet? LOL. I already asked you long ago dude. You have been silent! IALOTFLMAO!
It is about time we care for all the people and not just the Rich.
These are Countries with Health Care and one State in the U.S. The Mandate is part of Massachusetts' law. And the law works.
Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
I don't know enough about health care to know the solution to our problems, but Obamacare is not it. The USA spends 17% of GDP on health care, and that's going to go up under Obamacare. This is ridiculous and is going to bankrupt the country. Some here believe this is just fine because the wealthy are going to pay for it, via additional taxes which, when added to all the rest, will be over 50% on interest income and over 70% on corporate income distributed through dividends in places like New York and California (lower in states that don't have income tax). Actually, Dickhead et al, you may be right, this may work out just fine for you, as there's a good chance you'll be dead before the country goes bankrupt. You can take everything the rich have and you won't solve the country's problems. Given that in the process you're going to take away funds that would be used for investment to grow the economy, you're just going to make things worse.
No other country in the world spends over 12% of GDP on health care. Many have better outcomes than the USA. Obamacare is doing nothing significant to address this and is going to make the problem worse. Again, I don't know much about health care, but when compared to a place like Singapore, the USA system looks ridiculously inefficient. Singapore spends about 3% or 4% of GDP on health care. People live longer. There's universal health care. They have HSA accounts and when they receive medical care they have to pay for it, or at least for large part of it. The government or the insurance company isn't paying 100%. So the system works efficiently, people spend their money wisely and get quality and value for their money, just as we do in the U.S. for things like cosmetic and corrective eye surgery that aren't covered by insurance or government.
The Difference in the Republican & Democrat Parties.
As the healthcare debate unfolded during the arguments before the Supreme Court, Democrats immediately began bashing the Supreme Court as 'partisan', 'unelected', it was not their place to overturn legislation by duly elected officials and all sorts of venomous attackes on their characters and ability to arbitrate the case before them.
That was then and this is now, what a difference a day makes. Now those same Democrats who loudly debased the court are now singing its praises since they 'won'.
The Republicans on the other hand, having been deemed to have 'lost' the case have accepted the ruling without invective or rancor but with respect to the rule of law.
The contrast between the Republican and Democrat Parties could not be more stark, one adheres to and respects the rule of law the other does not. This conduct is evident in every level of the Democratic machine from a president who wishes to rule by fait regardless of statute law, to an attorney general who believes he is above the law and refuses to accept the legal oversight of Congress.
Homework.
It must be humiliating for congressional democrats to have their homework corrected by the Supreme Court. The lawmakers charged with making the laws failed to understand the difference between the 'commerce clause' and the ability to levy 'taxes'. It must also be humiliating for the president who is a 'legal scholar' having taught constitutional law to be unable to discern the definition of a TAX.
The true arbitrators of this case will be the voters and they will cast their vote in November. As Chief Justice Roberts said, they do not comment on the wisdom of the laws but leave that to the people who elect the officials who enact them.
[QUOTE=Esten; 423559]Speaker Boehner today said that F&F was responsible for hundreds of deaths (unproven bs) , and that the Administration was guilty of lying to Congress (unproven bs). I used to have a little respect for Boehner, but after this political speech it may all be gone.
On this board as well, Doppel still playing the sympathy card for agent Terry, even though as I previously posted there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he would not have been shot without F&F.
As proof positive the F&F sympathy card is a mere political ploy, ask any Republican about the 45, 000 people who die in the US each year because they lack health insurance.[/QUOTE]A couple of points I would like to make Esten:
1. I'm not playing the "sympathy card" merely stating the obvious regarding Terry and you have absolutely no proof Terry would have died had the guns from F&F not been there. Prove the negative my friend; it's what you demand of us all the time. You're pretty glib with other's lives and deaths.
2. Now you're stating the dastardly Republicans are letting 45, 000 people die each year from lack of healthcare insurance? Not sure where you got this number but why aren't you up in arms about the 32, 885 who died in traffic accidents or the 569, 490 Americans who died of cancer in 2010, the latest year with available information?
This chart is old, but it shows that these Countries are low because they have Universal Health Care, except ours. Once we get our Health System under control, it should go down.
Here is some info on why our costs are so high.
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/11/why-does-healthcare-cost-so-much.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 423590]I don't know enough about health care to know the solution to our problems, but Obamacare is not it. The USA spends 17% of GDP on health care, and that's going to go up under Obamacare. This is ridiculous and is going to bankrupt the country. Some here believe this is just fine because the wealthy are going to pay for it, via additional taxes which, when added to all the rest, will be over 50% on interest income and over 70% on corporate income distributed through dividends in places like New York and California (lower in states that don't have income tax). Actually, Dickhead et al, you may be right, this may work out just fine for you, as there's a good chance you'll be dead before the country goes bankrupt. You can take everything the rich have and you won't solve the country's problems. Given that in the process you're going to take away funds that would be used for investment to grow the economy, you're just going to make things worse.
No other country in the world spends over 12% of GDP on health care. Many have better outcomes than the USA. Obamacare is doing nothing significant to address this and is going to make the problem worse. Again, I don't know much about health care, but when compared to a place like Singapore, the USA system looks ridiculously inefficient. Singapore spends about 3% or 4% of GDP on health care. People live longer. There's universal health care. They have HSA accounts and when they receive medical care they have to pay for it, or at least for large part of it. The government or the insurance company isn't paying 100. So the system works efficiently, people spend their money wisely and get quality and value for their money, just as we do in the USA for things like cosmetic and corrective eye surgery that aren't covered by insurance or government.[/QUOTE]
WT69, Please see Table 5 on page 33 of the following:
[url]https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/ActuarialStudies/downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf[/url]
Obama's own Department of Health & Human Services forecasts the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will marginally increase health care expenditures. They predict we'll be paying 21% of GDP for health care in 2019.
We started 2008 with financial chaos, and issues as how to stimulate the economy. When healthcare reforms were introduced, it was under a hostile enviroment. It was socialism or communism vs capitalism. Too much shouting and yelling, there was no dialogue. Except for a small minority, everybody agreed that the healthcare system is broken, but politics has not allowed us to proceed. It is called gridlock, so now, we have another broken system. You can point your fingers, eventually, it will come back to you.
Since we outsorce everything in America, including our factories, it is my hope that the US health insurers will outsource healthcare as an option. I don't know why it has not happen yet, for me, it is a no-brainer when it come down to costs. It will benefit all of us who resides overseas 90% of the time.
Is it greed that they charge you $28 for a box of Kleenex in the hospital? Or is it just Capitalism at work.
WT69 it's called "Cost Shifting" where hospitals and other institutions shift the cost of providing care for those who don't pay for it to those who do. As we have forced health insitutions of all types to accept anyone who walks in the door without respect to ability to pay the amount of "free" service has increased and therefore the cost shifting has increased to the point you just made.
This is what ObamaCare is going to do to healthcare costs in the US as the cost of securing healthcare will be "shifited" to those who can pay. Just like the federal welfare system, the people will quickly find how to game the system to their benefit shifiting even more of the costs to those who play by the rules. This does not even take into account malpractice reform which is another driver of the rise in healthcare costs as physicians and institutions are forced to practice "defensive medicine"
How do you feel about yourself?
Are you a real American?
Skip the soap love part at the start, but the rest of message, should make you THINK About Your Believes.
[url]http://www.hbo.com/#/the-newsroom[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI7Oq8y-jXA[/url]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 423643]How do you feel about yourself?
Are you a real American?
Skip the soap love part at the start, but the rest of message, should make you THINK About Your Believes.
[url]http://www.hbo.com/#/the-newsroom[/url][/QUOTE]
Romney's speech on Health Care.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GL6Sw_U1gk[/url]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;423698]Cats got your tongues[/QUOTE]Oops, pardon me, I've viewed the clip of the Newsroom, as well as your previous link to a Bill Maher segment. I have decided that from now on instead of thinking with my head I will go with whatever HBO and Hollywood promote. They're so much more entertaining than dry statistics.
I have nothing against universal health care. What I do have something against is a health care system that's going to eat up 21% of the economy by the end of the decade. And even more after that. Before Romneycare went into effect only 6% of the Massachusetts population was uninsured. It was Obamacare on a much smaller scale. But still health care costs in Massachusetts have risen and now consume over 50% of that state's budget. While some criticize Romney for not being consistent, I'd sure as hell rather have someone as President who learns from his mistakes and adjusts to make things work, instead of an idealist who will remain on the same path forever, regardless of outcomes.
You have a point though. Neither party appears to be serious about getting costs under control. Gary Johnson for President?
Don't look now but we are in a recession or soon will be. Not surprising considering our commander in chief couldn't run a lemonaide stand much less an economy.
I agree with Bill Clinton and the mayor of Newark who, although professing to be Obama supporters, both claim that Obama's attacks on Romneys business accomplishments emphasize Obama's appalling ignorance of economics.
That this site is mainly for men.
It would interesting to hear what women think about the USA health care.
I do not know what is covered is Socialized Medicine countries, but I know in the USA that coverage for Cancer, and (Breast Cancer) isn't enough.
Ask my sister. After she used what medical coverage she had, she had to use all her retirement savings.
Maybe the Affordable Health Act will help others, men and women with cancer.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 423699]Oops, pardon me, I've viewed the clip of the Newsroom, as well as your previous link to a Bill Maher segment. I have decided that from now on instead of thinking with my head I will go with whatever HBO and Hollywood promote. They're so much more entertaining than dry statistics.
I have nothing against universal health care. What I do have something against is a health care system that's going to eat up 21% of the economy by the end of the decade. And even more after that. Before Romneycare went into effect only 6% of the Massachusetts population was uninsured. It was Obamacare on a much smaller scale. But still health care costs in Massachusetts have risen and now consume over 50% of that state's budget. While some criticize Romney for not being consistent, I'd sure as hell rather have someone as President who learns from his mistakes and adjusts to make things work, instead of an idealist who will remain on the same path forever, regardless of outcomes.
You have a point though. Neither party appears to be serious about getting costs under control. Gary Johnson for President?[/QUOTE]
You may want to learn some history.
This is not true, but it is what they thought would happen then, is happening now, now.
Funny this was in 1936.
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027996/[/url]
As the economy sinks into recession Romney stated, without a telepromptor. 'it doesn't have to be this way'
Well, get used to it. As long as Obama is in office we will have unacceptable unemployment, unacceptable underemployment and job killing regulations and taxes. Does this bother Obama? Of course not. Obama does not have a clue how economies function or how much misery his birdbrain economic policies are causing. Furthermore, Obama is probably astonished that he was elected president with absolutely no experience, a 1.7 GPA in college, unable to speak coherently without a telepromptor and the IQ of a chipmunk (whoops, forget being born in indonesia / kenya). Obama probably thinks we got what we deserved and he is right. Shame on all those simpletons that were duped by hope and change.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 423779]As the economy sinks into recession Romney stated, without a telepromptor. 'it doesn't have to be this way'
Well, get used to it. As long as Obama is in office we will have unacceptable unemployment, unacceptable underemployment and job killing regulations and taxes. Does this bother Obama? Of course not. Obama does not have a clue how economies function or how much misery his birdbrain economic policies are causing. Furthermore, Obama is probably astonished that he was elected president with absolutely no experience, a 1. 7 GPA in college, unable to speak coherently without a telepromptor and the IQ of a chipmunk (whoops, forget being born in indonesia / kenya). Obama probably thinks we got what we deserved and he is right. Shame on all those simpletons that were duped by hope and change.[/QUOTE]You don't want to die a slow death just in case the simpletons multiply enough for Obama to hang around 4 more years. You sound like someone having a dry run, pumping all night with no release.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;423790]You don't want to die a slow death just in case the simpletons multiply enough for Obama to hang around 4 more years. You sound like someone having a dry run, pumping all night with no release.[/QUOTE]Good grief. It is possible that that we will have 4 more years of Obama. 4 more years of economic stagnation. If that is the will of the people, so be it.
Obama is not a bad person. I am convinced that Obama is doing the best he can. Watching Obama is similar to watching Pee Wee Herman trying to hit a Sandy Koufax slider. Obama is way out of his league.