Affordable Health Care Declared Legal

28Jun12

Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
Published: June 28, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday largely let stand President Obama’s health care overhaul, in a mixed ruling that court observers were rushing to analyze.
The decision was a striking victory for the president and Congressional Democrats, with a majority of the court, including the conservative chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., affirming the central legislative pillar of Mr. Obama’s term.

The debate over health care remains far from over, with Republicans vowing to carry on their fight against the law, which they see as an unaffordable infringement on the rights of individuals. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has promised to undo it if elected.

But the court ruling is a crucial victory for the law that will allow its introduction to continue in the coming years. Passed in 2010, the law is intended to end the United States’ status as the only rich country with large numbers of uninsured people, by expanding both the private market and Medicaid.


So…it looks like both Obama and Romney were correct. Individual mandates are legal. We now expect long tirades from the GOP, Tea party and Portia. In the meantime we will have to suffer with not being denied coverage due to pre-existing illnesses, capping coverage or kicking young people off their parents policies.

Advertisements


86 Responses to “Affordable Health Care Declared Legal”

  1. 1 jezebel282

    Of course Mitt Romney, the Tea Party and the GOP wants to repeal and replace the Affordable Health Care Act with….errr….ummm…hmmm….help me out here. Anybody know?

  2. 2 sudds

    Must you poke the sleeping bear (i.e. Portia) with a giant/pointy stick (that is also on fire)??????

  3. 3 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    You are right. What was I thinking? Shhh! Let’s not tell her.

  4. 4 1george1

    With defined legal mandates, the market has to react within
    the newly defined parameters.

    Uncertainty is an enemy. People can adjust once there is a level
    of certainty.

    If 30% of the market can afford Healthcare @ $ 15,000 annually,
    then the Insurance companies have approximate the same pool
    of potential revenue @ 90% of the market @ $ 5,000 annually.

    If Legislative created Tax Code and Credits for Businesses to be
    able to pay $ 5,000 annually with $ 1200 for workers, then more
    businesses would be able to afford Health Care at virtually no cost
    because of the Tax Credits and IRS Code changes.

    Businesses & Tax Payers paying $ 15,000 annually per employee, may
    now recover almost all of that as income/profit and may, repeat may
    be able to increase pay so employees could afford $ 100 a month for
    their share of Health Care.

    If IRS Tax Codes and Credits allowed for HSA & HRA accounts to cover
    any/all deductable and also basic costs, via income tax returns to a
    middle & upper income class that helps their savings & disposable $4.

    The more profit and cash flow available to small business it relieves
    debt and frees revenues to hire and pay higher wages helping lower
    -middle income, who are the driving force in GDP/GNP since consumer
    spending is 70% of the GDP / GNP.

    To be considered upper income, annual income is about $ 68,000 if
    I read correctly, or lower than most STRATFORD MANAGERS PENSIONS
    where they SWAP LIQUIDITY with POLITICAL PARTY & ATTORNEYS.

    If there is majority rule in any given state against this LAW, the Supreme
    Court only mandated it was CONSTITUTIONAL.
    If there were timely NOVEMBER REFERENDUMS at local, state, or Fed
    Level there exist possible exemptions, I doubt would happen.

    The political realities are no one wants to be told what to do or to pay
    and unfair share, which to many people means to pay nothing.

    Another political reality is that there is a huge need for reform in the
    pay in the Health Care industry, and the cost, as the demand of the
    BABY BOOMERS and very aged parents has exploded.

    A funding source used in europe for socail & health care programs
    was the Petro carbon tax, compareable to the 1980 Windfall profits
    Tax which cojoined with FED 20% prime rate, FORCED the PRICE of OIL
    down from a peak of aroun $ 42 – 44 a barrel.

    Sept 2008 the NEW PEAK was $ 145 / bARREL.
    That total OIL – NATURAL GAS / COAL SALES / PROFITS could have a
    huge effect on HEALTH CARE needs.

    I recognize other only want one word or short post, and this post is
    longer than others, yet I don’t have a mail order diploma nor claim any
    one solution is the only solution …. just posting food for though.

  5. 5 1george1

    S.C.O.T.U.S. = Supreme Court Of The United States

    Catholic Philosopher of HAECCEITY > DUNS SCOTUS
    who was born before the SCOT RITE.

    Old SCOTUS & I share a BIRTH DATE.
    Since my social security number spells an unusual message,
    and since ST VINCENT HOSPITAL charity & science allowed
    my mom to give birth to me, unlike JOB …. I know WHY ME?

    I am against abortion and prefer choice for life.
    However, I also see the abuses of so many children and people,
    which include stratefied Health Care …..

    We are given temporal equity by G-D.

    A song points out ….
    “Life is what we do, while we are waiting to die.”

    In this world of technological cascading evolution,
    is there any reader who would not like to improve
    the quality of his / her / families lives into getting
    close to reaching our potential doing things which
    fulfill our lives, liberty, happiness, tranqulity, and
    other good things?

    Instead of waiting to die, why not help each other
    to enjoy life?

    Even the most cold hearted brute would stop to help
    a tottler who was obviously in danger ….

    And yet the things people do to the same tottler
    when growing to and into adult is inconsistent with
    the inherent decency and protectiveness that we
    do for those we love …..

  6. 6 jezebel282

    Ok…well, back to the subject.

    Somehow the entire burden of healthcare costs fell upon businesses in the U.S. Practically, the only method to obtain health insurance is through an employer. Of course, businesses have reacted to the astronomic premium increases for the past 10 years by shifting more and more of the burden to their employees. We find in order to “reduce” premium costs, employees have been forced into high deductible plans. While this may marginally reduce the amount of weekly extractions of cash from paychecks it has made doctor visits and prescription medications prohibitively expensive. The result being that people see doctors less, forgo prescribed medications and gamble that nothing will get worse.

    When you add that to the denial of coverage for pre-existing illnesses, caps on coverages, lack of dependent care, and just outright denial of coverage it is apparent to anyone that this trajectory was unsustainable. Something had to be done.

    Unfortunately what we got was this hodgepodge called the “Affordable Care Act”. Some think it didn’t go far enough and others think it went to far.

    What is missing from these arguments is a defined goal. As I have previously stated, if you don’t know where you are going then any road will get you there.

    In anticipation of a response from Portia, (are you sure you are not related to Darwin?), healthcare is not a choice. Ideas like free enterprise, free markets, profit and loss are irrelevant.

    Breast cancer is not a choice. Strokes are not a choice. Leukemia is not a choice. Muscular Dystrophy is not a choice. Alzheimer’s is not a choice. Renal failure is not a choice. You get the idea. Why should care for these conditions be dependent upon how much you earn or who your employer is?

    What we should be discussing is how we get to a point where all Americans have health insurance. (You know, like the citizens of Massachusetts do.)

  7. 7 1george1

    Back on subject?

    analogies about why viable health care and decent treatment
    of fellow american are important and fair is off subject?

  8. 8 jezebel282

    “analogies about why viable health care and decent treatment
    of fellow american are important and fair is off subject?”

    Let’s review:
    “Since my social security number spells an unusual message,”

    My answer is “Yes, off subject”.
    Do you even read what you write before you hit “Post Comment”?

    If you want to actually try, how about posting your plan to provide healthcare to every American?

  9. 9 portia1776

    Jez,

    CNN and Fox had an excuse for being wrong–they needed to fill the airwaves with something no matter how wrongheaded immediately in the wake of the ruling before anyone had time to–er–read it. What is yours, exactly?

    “it looks like both Obama and Romney were correct. Individual mandates are legal.” — Nope. If you–er–read the actual ruling (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf ) or at least made it to–er–page 2 of its summary, you would know the Court actually found that “the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

    What does that mean? The “court held that economic mandates are unconstitutional,” according to Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center.

    Happily, comrades (capital “C”?), I am the bearer of good news for the Constitution and awful news for you and the hapless Chris whose “arguments” in favor of unlimited national government were thoroughly discredited.

    Remember how you and Chris had such trouble spotting the difference — going so far as to deny there even was a difference worth discussing — between an individual voluntarily buying a product (health insurance) and the government mandating (coercing) an individual to buy a product (health insurance)? The Supreme Court?… not so much.

    Congress, the Court ruled, has “the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.” (Now where have you heard that before? Oh, right, from me.)

    And to the trick of claiming that the “necessarily” unconstitutional means of achieving Obamacare justifies its unconstitutional and quality of life destroying ends… the Court ruled that “Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.”

    The “mandate” only survives as a “tax” on those who go without insurance and is thus subject to the limitations governing Congress’s taxing power: “The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.”

    I agree with President Obama — shocking, I know — that the “mandate” is actually a “penalty” and not a “tax.” But, for constitutional purposes, this is not a matter of semantics. Had the mandate stood, it would have allowed “Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce,” which would have brought “countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the Government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. That threat has now largely been averted.

    “we will have to suffer with not being denied coverage due to pre-existing illnesses, capping coverage or kicking young people off their parents policies.” — Are you completely unaware that Obamacare supposedly remedies all of these “ills”?

    “Somehow the entire burden of healthcare costs fell upon businesses in the U.S.” — Thank you F.D. Roosevelt for your glorious economic planning, including government-mandated caps on wages, which, as an unintended consequence, gave us employer-based health insurance coverage!

    “Practically, the only method to obtain health insurance is through an employer.” — Here is a crazy idea, why don’t we pass a law that allows consumers to buy health insurance on the open market like–er–almost all other forms of insurance?

    “Of course, businesses have reacted to the astronomic premium increases for the past 10 years by shifting more and more of the burden to their employees.”–Wrong. The burden has always been on employees. Employers offer health insurance as a benefit in lieu of salary or other benefits.

    “The result being that people see doctors less, forgo prescribed medications and gamble that nothing will get worse.” — You do have–er–something to back this up, right? Except, if you did your homework, you would know that Whole Foods, to name only one employer, has a healthy and happy workforce that gets to decide yearly on its health plan. a combination of an HSA controlled by the individual employee and high-deductible insurance. It turns out that when people are allowed to be responsible for their own health care decisions most — not all, there will always be those who make bad choices and they should pay the consequences for them (be my guest if you would like to pay the same auto insurance rate as someone with three DUIs) — they do go to the doctor, take their medication, and take better care of themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEXITaCHGnw

    “When you add that to the denial of coverage for pre-existing illnesses,” — A small problem (look up the numbers of the supposedly uninsurable who are now being covered by Obamacare) that was in any case created by the lack of competition in the state-based insurance markets because of government-protected insurance company cartels.

    “it is apparent to anyone that this trajectory was unsustainable. Something had to be done.” — As “anyone” let me say that yes, Medicare, Medicaid, and government-protect insurance cartels are unsustainable and need to be liberalized. Too bad you oppose any meaningful reforms that would result in affordable health insurance and better health care for all.

    “Unfortunately what we got was this hodgepodge called the “Affordable Care Act”.” — Disenchanted by the sausage-making process, are we? What did you expect?

    “Some think it didn’t go far enough and others think it went to [sic] far.” — And others know Obamacare, based on decades of reality, to be fundamentally and irredeemably and unconstitutionally wrong, sort of like proscribing the wrong medicine for the wrong disease. The US health insurance and health care markets were pre-Obamacare already too nationalized. Despite the contraindication for nationalization, Obamcare delivers more of what ails us: government mandates, insurance company cartels, subsidies for substandard care, collective, bureaucratized decision making for what should be private and individualized decisions. Real health reform would have gone in the opposite direction, empowering individual consumers to make their own health insurance and care decisions.

    “What is missing from these arguments is a defined goal.” — Jez–er-the stated goal of Obamacare is to guarantee “near-universal coverage” at lower cost. You can disagree with that goal or how it is achieved (I disagree with both), but you cannot deny it was ever the goal without calling President Obama and every elected Democrat a liar. Dear readers just note that Jez is saying that, not I.

    “In anticipation of a response from Portia, (are you sure you are not related to Darwin?),” — I would not mind a relation to the great scientific champion of evolution and don’t mind being begrudged arguing for evolutionary liberal policies over stone age socialism. You know that just because Marx didn’t like someone doesn’t mean you… oh, never mind.

    “healthcare is not a choice.” — What is your point? Many things in life are not a choice. We all need food and shelter, too. Are you saying that your need for food, health care, and shelter gives you the “right” to demand food from the farmer, treatment from the doctor, and a house from the builder? This is the tortured logic of the criminal collectivists. The free market empowers individuals to morally pursue their self-interest by exchanging value for value. I need food? There are a plenitude of stores — supermarkets, markets, big box stores, wholesalers, bodegas, farm stands — competing for my business. Maybe not individually at least on every item but, taken together, I and fellow consumers can thank the free market for universal access to fresh, wholesome, and affordable food.

    You just answered your own question “replace the Affordable Health Care Act with….errr….ummm…hmmm….help me out here.” “Ideas like free enterprise, free markets, profit and loss are irrelevant.” — LOL! Yes, of course, the only proven and effective means of providing high quality and affordable health care to everyone is “irrelevant,” but you’re really dedicated to finding a solution, LOL! “Forward!”

    “Breast cancer is not a choice. Strokes are not a choice…. Why should care for these conditions be dependent upon how much you earn or who your employer is?” — Practicing medicine is a choice. Becoming a chemist is a choice. Working as an EMT is a choice. Dedicating your life to developing a drug to treat breast cancer (or anything else) is a choice. Founding a biotech company is a choice. Investing in that company as it risks billions of dollars researching life-savings treatments is a choice. Running a hospital is a choice. You get the idea. Why should all of these essential choices be dependent upon the decisions of politicians and government bureaucrats and how many of our taxpayer dollars they decide to spent to benefit themselves and cronies? To take these choices away from individuals is to condemn everyone to an equality of mistreatment.

    “What we should be discussing is how we get to a point where all Americans have health insurance.” — No, what we should be discussing is how we get to the point where all Americans have high quality health care regardless of their employment status (employed/unemployed, government/private sector). Because, after all, isn’t that what health care should be about… you know, the quality of health outcomes?

    But since you and your name-resistant ideology insist upon imposing — against the Constitution, economic science, and the right reasoned will of the American people — a one-size-fits-all, politician and bureaucrat run health care system… here is yet another practical example of the same from the real world.

    The Russian government, continuing in the tradition of the USSR, guarantees the “right to health protection and medical aid. Medical aid in state and municipal health establishments shall be rendered to individuals gratis.” The system has such good cost controls that it only costs about $669.44 or 4% of GDP to guarantee that a full half of Russian hospitals have heat or running water! Russian medical innovation is so far beyond Western capitalist medicine that it has solved the intractable and costly problem of aging. To paraphrase a Stalinism, no patient, no problem! (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-russia-makes-universal-coverage-work/)

    Russia is the end result of “Forward.” An extreme example — aren’t they all? http://www.socialhistoryshop.com/sites/default/files/productfotos/D21-488.jpg — certainly. But only by the number of steps along the same “progressive” road to….

    “(You know, like the citizens of Massachusetts do.)” — Jez a Romney supporter? I knew there was some reason I didn’t like you.

  10. 10 jezebel282

    Editor’s note: Multiple links within a post will probably get caught by the spam filter and delay posting….until I get around to it. And now back to our regularly scheduled posts.

    Portia,

    “the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”
    That’s a lot of words to describe a very small victory for your point of view. Kinda like Harkins calling it a sewer use “fee” instead of a tax isn’t it? And we have about the same level of choice don’t we? Of course, I could choose not to flush my toilet….

    “between an individual voluntarily buying a product (health insurance) and the government mandating (coercing) an individual to buy a product (health insurance)? The Supreme Court?… not so much.”
    I get the feeling you are deliberately missing my point. Maybe that’s just me. I think my point was creating a system where everyone can afford (or has access to) adequate healthcare. Sort of like Medicare. You remember Medicare, right? You pay into it whether you use it or not. Oh and it’s pretty much involuntary. You can’t walk into HR and say, “I’d like to not pay my Medicare portion any more.”

    “Thank you F.D. Roosevelt for your glorious economic planning, including government-mandated caps on wages, which, as an unintended consequence, gave us employer-based health insurance coverage!”

    ROTFLMAO! Seriously? Wait, lemme see if I can remember what was going on besides FDR’s relentless effort to convert the country to communism (I got that right, didn’t I?) Oh yeah! Now I remember! The greatest depression of all time (until now). And then there was that war thing. If I also remember that prior to FDR’s imposition of communism, businesses in pretty much every industry were unregulated. And as a result we got…wait for it….the complete collapse of our economy. Thanks for the example.

    But I think my question was how to unburden businesses from weight of providing healthcare.

    “they do go to the doctor, take their medication, and take better care of themselves”
    Except when they don’t. Perhaps you are not familiar with the 18-30 year old demographic. You are probably unaware that they believe they are immortal, invincible and immune to any malady. Or perhaps you are less familiar with the senior who finds that after losing a spouse, realizing that no matter how much was scrimped and saved it could not match $4/gallon gas, rising property tax, astronomic healthcare costs and now must choose between food, heat or medications. I know, I know, you’ll say it’s a free market and the irresponsible 85 year old should get his butt out and get a job.

    “Are you saying that your need for food, health care, and shelter gives you the “right” to demand food from the farmer, treatment from the doctor, and a house from the builder? This is the tortured logic of the criminal collectivists. ”
    “Criminal collectivists?” Astounding. Any program that provides food, shelter or healthcare is a result of the efforts of criminal collectivists? And by the way, doctors take an oath which makes each and every one of them “Criminal Collectivists”

    “The free market empowers individuals to morally pursue their self-interest by exchanging value for value.”
    I am not sure what value an Alzheimer’s patient can exchange for treatment. I guess you’ve got me there.

    “The Russian government, continuing in the tradition of the USSR,”
    Sigh…what is it with you and Russians? You never use Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Brazil, Singapore or France as examples. Did they ALL get it wrong too?

    “but you cannot deny it was ever the goal without calling President Obama and every elected Democrat a liar.”
    Trust me, I can call many elected Democrats “liars”.

    “Because, after all, isn’t that what health care should be about… you know, the quality of health outcomes? ”
    No.
    What is the benefit of a high quality outcome if you aren’t able to be treated? You can have great outcomes, but if only heads of state or hedge fund managers are treated, what benefit is there?

    “To take these choices away from individuals is to condemn everyone to an equality of mistreatment.”
    If the only reason to become a doctor, chemist or biotech founder (how did he get in there? Those guys are usually venture capital companies.) was for the money, then I am not sure they would be the ones I chose to treat me. I would want someone who could at least pretend to be interested in me.

    But, let me try once again. Maybe I started off with a false premise. Let’s go back to an even more basic question;

    When we state things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (please note which comes first), do we even agree that as an American citizen (just being an American citizen employed, healthy and able bodied OR NOT) should you be able to access healthcare?

  11. 11 1george1

    Jeze comment about Portia, which also describes Jeze posts,
    comments, & actions relative to some of my posts ….
    And to be fair …. it also applies to me, because I refuse to fit
    into anyone’s round hole, with my “square” views that “encompass”
    relationships which create context & relevance:

    “I get the feeling you are deliberately missing my point.”

  12. 12 1george1

    CNN and Fox had an excuse for being wrong–they needed to fill the airwaves with something no matter how wrongheaded immediately in the wake of the ruling before anyone had time to–er–read it.

    I disagree with Portia.
    CNN & FOX are part of the CORPORATE MILITARY – INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
    which ERIC BLAIR describes as OCEANIA’S Ministry of TRUTH.

    They report what they are told to report.
    They don’t report the real issues, nor whole truths.

    Portia & Jeze would you disagree & why?

  13. 13 1george1

    “The free market empowers individuals to morally pursue their self-interest by exchanging value for value.”
    I am not sure what value an Alzheimer’s patient can exchange for treatment. I guess you’ve got me there.

    EXCHANGE: Stem cells, organ harvesting, lab experiments ….
    They conduct experiment with people in the military and civilian
    populations who are ignorant of being used.
    Alzheimers patients are not just ignorant of being used, they forget
    what happened and can’t report it, and/or are in a controlled area
    or environment ….. paging nurse Ratchet … (Tin foil hat – LOB alert)

  14. 14 1george1

    It’s kinda like exchanging the Constitution and Wealth of America for:
    – Shakespeare Theater getting opened.
    – Pensions over base pay to Government Managment.
    – 6 figure Attorney Fees.
    – Virtually no show government jobs @ each level, with rolls royce
    benefits for parties’ graft.
    – License to steal land.
    – Insider Trading
    – Drug traffic

  15. 15 jezebel282

    George,

    “CNN & FOX are part of the CORPORATE MILITARY – INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
    which ERIC BLAIR describes as OCEANIA’S Ministry of TRUTH.”
    “Portia & Jeze would you disagree & why?”

    Yes, of course I disagree. CNN got it wrong because they are, well, incompetent. In Fox’s case it was clearly wishful thinking.

  16. 16 1george1

    CNN got it wrong because they are, well, incompetent.
    In Fox’s case it was clearly wishful thinking.

    Neither FOX nor CNN are competent or/& both are whimsical???
    Or either/or???

    There’s no chance they are doing as directed to do and very well
    compensated to simply lie or choose not to investigate & report
    fuller or whole truths?

  17. 17 jezebel282

    Sigh…

    Why do I bother?

  18. 18 portia1776

    Portia,

    “That’s a lot of words to describe a very small victory for your point of view.” — Why are you such sore loser? It’s actually kind of a big deal, the difference between unlimited government (tyranny) and limited government (freedom).

    “I think my point was creating a system where everyone can afford (or has access to) adequate healthcare.” — I don’t want adequate care and don’t know any American who does. If you need care, you’re not going to want access to adequate care, you will want the best care and will not care how much it costs. The question is who pays for it? Your answer is that everyone has a to be forced to pay due to some vague ideological notion of “shared responsibility.” That is nonsense.

    “Sort of like Medicare. You remember Medicare, right?” — Medicare is a health insurance scheme not a health care system. And oh, by the way, it is nothing to be proud of. You are blissfully unfamiliar that Medicare is fiscally unsustainable, Obamacare makes it more so with massive cuts, Obamacare will result in seniors having their care rationed (via Medicare reimbursements being reduced or denied) which will be devastating considering Medicare already rejects more claims than any government-protected insurance company cartel member, and its discriminatory to the young.

    “You pay into it whether you use it or not. Oh and it’s pretty much involuntary. You can’t walk into HR and say, “I’d like to not pay my Medicare portion any more.” — Why shouldn’t you be able to opt-out? If the program is so good, like you maintain, then surely only a small percentage of people would be so stupid, right? Except, as we learned with monopolistic unions, when workers are not forced to make dues payment… most tend not to see the value. Help me out here… what is the name of the ideology that requires everyone to be forced to act the same way and does not allow for dissent or conscientious objectors? Hint: it is not Americanism.

    “Wait, lemme see if I can remember what was going on besides FDR’s relentless effort to convert the country to communism (I got that right, didn’t I?)” — Never heard of the “red decade,” huh? Never read Roosevelt’s speech — undelivered — in which he was to declare himself a dictator? Never heard of his so-called “Second Bill of Rights?” Never heard of the National Recovery Administration? Your knowledge of history is quite impressive. Roosevelt like Hoover was a “Progressive” — so more of a nationalistic socialist than a communist, but labels don’t really matter. We’re talking about policy, what works and what doesn’t, right? His polices turned a great recession into the Great Depression, prolonging the suffering Americans endured until his death, the end of the war, and a Republican “Had Enough” Congress enabled the real recovery to begin in 1946.

    Now who is missing the point? It is a fact that Roosevelt’s unconstitutional capping of wages and prices as an unintended consequence, compelled employers to begin offering benefits, including health insurance, as a way to retain and entice workers. This is the original sin that gave us the awful employer-based health insurance system.

    “The greatest depression of all time (until now).” — Nope. The “greatest” (why not “worst”?) was the Great Depression of 1920-1921.

    “And then there was that war thing.” — Which did not come until Franklin D.’s third term. What I was referring to happened in his first term.

    “If I also remember that prior to FDR’s imposition of communism, businesses in pretty much every industry were unregulated.” — Actually, we had already suffered through the “Progressive” era imposition of regulations, the income tax, centralized banking, direct election of senators, a little adventure abroad called THE FIRST WORLD WAR, and that Great Depression of 1920-1921. So, no, businesses were not unregulated, either by consumers or the government.

    “And as a result we got…wait for it….the complete collapse of our economy.” — Actually, it was caused by bad monetary policy. Guessing you don’t know what that is….

    “But I think my question was how to unburden businesses from weight of providing healthcare.” — Here is the difference between us. You want to “unburden business” whereas I want to liberate and empower individual consumers. There is no good reason for you to get health insurance through government or your employer (apart from Roosevelt’s historical mistake).

    “Except when they don’t.” — You have come to a gun fight with a spoon. I cited an actual example of a working private health care system that is worker-run and approved. (My guess is a large number of Whole Foods employees also happen to be 18-30). In response you cite? Anecdotes.

    “You are probably unaware that they believe they are immortal, invincible and immune to any malady.” — Ah, but that is the point. Why should I be forced to pay for other people’s irresponsible behavior. If those people know that I have to pay than what is to incentivize them to be more responsible?

    “I know, I know, you’ll say it’s a free market and the irresponsible 85 year old should get his butt out and get a job.” — No, we don’t have a free market in health insurance or health care or the economy in general. And no it’s not the 85 year olds fault. Seniors and soon-to-be seniors have planned their lives around the lies of politicians who promised to “protect our seniors” with retirement and disability “insurance” (Social Security) and health “insurance” (Medicare and Medicaid). By your own example of the seniors who tragically finds “that after losing a spouse, realizing that no matter how much was scrimped and saved it could not match $4/gallon gas, rising property tax, astronomic healthcare costs and now must choose between food, heat or medications” these programs have been a cruel and expensive fraud. Where are the regulators and lawyers when you need them?

    “Any program that provides food, shelter or healthcare is a result of the efforts of criminal collectivists?” — Why is it so hard for you to see the difference between voluntary cooperation and government coercion, between Habitat for Humanity and HUD?

    If your idea of a social program is that it must and can only be government-run — steal from Peter to pay Paul or force Peter to do a service for Paul for “free” — then, yes, you’re advocating collectivism. This activity would be criminal if pursued individually. But don’t take my word for it. Next time you’re at the supermarket, why don’t you try asserting your “right” to food at the check out. I’m sure the manger and security and police will appreciate your entitlement arguments on why food is not a choice and should be provided a no cost to “each according to his need.” Please report back after you get out of jail.

    “And by the way, doctors take an oath which makes each and every one of them “Criminal Collectivists”” – LOL! Doctors voluntarily take an oath that they individually strive to uphold. A far cry from your wish to force them to become doctors and provide you with care. Personally, I don’t want to buy a service from someone who doesn’t wish to serve me. And agree with President Lincoln that
    “When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

    “I am not sure what value an Alzheimer’s patient can exchange for treatment. I guess you’ve got me there.” — Perhaps if we had a free market in health insurance, this poor person would have been voluntarily paying into their plan for decades enabling them to have care when they need it. You know, kind of like life insurance, which gets more costly with age and medical underwriting requirments.

    “Sigh…what is it with you and Russians? You never use Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Brazil, Singapore or France as examples. Did they ALL get it wrong too?” — Actually, I have previously mentioned all but Singapore. I even praised aspects of the French system, which is in some ways freer than our own now and much freer than what we will suffer under Obamacare. You obviously haven’t noticed.

    “Trust me, I can call many elected Democrats “liars”.” — I agreed with Obama in the last post on the “tax” and “penalty” issue. Since you obviously belief it, why don’t you say clearly that Obama, Pelosi, and every Democrat who voted for Obamacare lied when they claimed it would achieve “near-universal coverage” at lower cost? Don’t expect a reply until you do so.

    “No. What is the benefit of a high quality outcome if you aren’t able to be treated? You can have great outcomes, but if only heads of state or hedge fund managers are treated, what benefit is there?”” — And there we have it… You would rather have a health care system in which everyone receives bad care than one in which there are disparities between care quality. What you don’t realize is that in a “universal” system, such as Cuba, the inequalities are horrific and far worse than anything experience in a free market system. The heads of state and the politically connected receive dramatically better care than the populace — but everyone from the lack of innovation.

    “If the only reason to become a doctor, chemist or biotech founder (how did he get in there? Those guys are usually venture capital companies.) was for the money, then I am not sure they would be the ones I chose to treat me. I would want someone who could at least pretend to be interested in me.” — So you would turn down a life-saving treatment if you knew its inventor had been motivated solely by profit? Get real. Money is an incentive. Should it be the only incentive? For most people, especially those who achieve happiness, it is not. But their intentions are of no concern to me. The best doctors, chemists, and biotech founders should be free to earn as much money as they can by providing treatments that health care consumers need. The venture capital company that underwrites the development of a breakthrough breast cancer drug is not “pretending” to treat breast cancer to earn a profit, they are earning a profit by treating breast cancer. The more money they make, the more attractive those professions are for the best and brightest to pursue, you know, instead of going to Wall Street and using their abilities to “invent” too clever by half investment instruments or going to Washington to become “Masters of the Universe,” lawyers, and regulators.

    “do we even agree that as an American citizen (just being an American citizen employed, healthy and able bodied OR NOT) should you be able to access healthcare?” — Yes, just like every American should have the freedom to buy food, they should have the freedom to buy health insurance and health care.

    Access to care is not a problem. Every American, regardless of insurance status, already has access to emergency health care (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986). We also already have near-universal access despite the fact that, depending on the estimate, less than 15% of Americans do not currently have health insurance.

  19. 19 cstratct

    Portia,

    The Affordable Care Act is constitutional. All your links and protestations won’t change that fundamental truth.

    Five of the justices found it ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. Hardly a unanimous opinion.

    “We also already have near-universal access despite the fact that, depending on the estimate, less than 15% of Americans do not currently have health insurance.” – Hmmm, 15% of 312 million people. What is 46 million uninsured among friends, right Portia?

    By the way, how many scientific, medical and technological advances came about as a result government investment in research? Research that no venture capitalist or other “free market” investor saw fit or chose to invest in?
    One other question. What about all those people who pay for health insurance for years, only to have their coverage dropped or procedures denied because the health insurance company chooses profits over patient care? Or what if the treatment costs more than the amount the individual has paid in to your voluntary plan? Too bad for him/her? Perhaps you can provide a measured response instead of a Koch. . . sorry, I mean Cato-inspired diatribe.

    Unfortunately I’m sure you’ll provide another excruciatingly long response sprinkled with a healthy dose of personal insults.

    No matter. The Act is still constitutional, regardless of your righteous indignation.

  20. 20 portia1776

    Cstract,

    “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional. All your links and protestations won’t change that fundamental truth.” — I linked to the ruling and quoted from the majority opinion of the Court. Obviously you are incapable of understanding it, which is, again, not my problem. Or do you wish to impose a “social responsibility payment” for that, too?

    “Five of the justices found it ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. Hardly a unanimous opinion.” — Amazing, you can tell that 5 is less than 9. Good for you! Five of the justices found that the “mandate” was only justifiable in the majority opinion as a “tax” and not a “mandate.” The other four thought that even as a “tax” it was unconstitutional. How long did it take you to come up with this non-sequitor? But you’re right. Since the decision was not unanimous, why don’t we just call the whole thing off?

    “Hmmm, 15% of 312 million people. What is 46 million uninsured among friends, right Portia?” — Why are these people uninsured? How many of them qualify for existing government programs but are not signed-up? How many of them self-insure? How many of them could afford insurance but decide not to get it? How many of them are temporarily uninsured in-between jobs? How many of them legitimately can’t get insurance due to pre-existing conditions because of the government-protected insurance company cartels don’t have to compete for customers? How many of them have access to health care despite not being insured?

    You don’t know who these people are, and really need to stop exploiting them to serve your ideological and political needs. You don’t care about them, you don’t care about improving health care quality for everyone, you don’t care about individual economic or civil liberties. We have long since established who you are. Your ideology is reprehensible and dangerous, something even you must realize, if only by the omission. I will not be cowed into silence for fear of hurting the apparently fragile feelings of a Mironistas/Obamaistas bully.

    Jes, on the other hand, is not a complete lost cause. I have some hope he can be reasoned with.

    “By the way, how many scientific, medical and technological advances came about as a result government investment in research?” — If you’re talking about the civilian applications derived from research originally sponsored for legitimate (Constitutional) defense purposes… there have been a number of examples. DARPA is a remarkably well structured organization with a solid track record of innovation for which we should all be proud (sorry George).

    “Research that no venture capitalist or other “free market” investor saw fit or chose to invest in?” — You have no idea what kind of research government funds, do you? It is typically basic research that does not directly lead to medical breakthroughs. Is it helpful? For what we’re spending — sorry, what is being spent on our behalf — it better be. I’m skeptical. Government “investments” are less likely to be made on the basis of good science than those made with people with skin (money) in the game. Political considerations invariably are taken into account, creating a situation where politically connected scientists and projects get funding when other more worthy scientists and projects do not. Then there is the fact that taxpayer dollars designated for research have been funding political “science”… seriously.

    Perhaps the best example for you is the Human Genome Project. The government project started in 1990 with a budget of $3 billion taxpayer dollars. Dr. Craig Ventor’s private project started in 1998 with a budget of $300 million private investor and grantor dollars. The result? President Clinton recognized both projects for achieving the same result. Of course Ventor’s project did it in less time and at less cost, and all the cost was borne by private individuals and foundations instead of taxpayers. Are you going to argue that Ventor’s private, profit-driven project is less of a service to humanity than the government project? Get real.

    Still putting scare quotes around “free market”? The free market is you and me and Jez — you might say that we’re all in the free market together.

    “What about all those people who pay for health insurance for years, only to have their coverage dropped or procedures denied because the health insurance company chooses profits over patient care?” — What about all those people who are forced to pay for government-run health “insurance” for years, only to have their procedures denied because of a ruling by a Medicare or Medicaid bureaucrat?
    Who has the highest denial of coverage rate in the health insurance market? Right, Medicare. Are they putting profits over patients? No. Your beloved bureaucrats are putting political priorities over patient care. And you know the funny thing? They still manage to waste tens of billions of our taxpayer dollars on on waste, fraud, and abuse yearly. Who is there to regulate the regulators? Where are the lawyer when we need them?

    Let there be no doubt that I stand for the individual health insurance and health care consumer against Big Government and the ill-gotten profits of Big Insurance, which are only possible because health insurance cartel members have to answer to politicians and regulators rather than consumers.

    “Or what if the treatment costs more than the amount the individual has paid in to your voluntary plan? Too bad for him/her?” — LOL! By this comment you reveal you total ignorance of what insurance is. What you have described is a debit card, not an insurance plan.

    Let’s try this again, shall we? You pay into an insurance plan to insure that you are covered for risk that you would not be able to afford otherwise. If you could afford to self-insure for every eventuality then, arguably, you wouldn’t have need for insurance in the first place. Car insurance covers catastrophic, not routine, occurrences. A single car accident may have the insurance company pay out more money than you have ever paid in. How do they do that? Magic. Actually, no, it’ss called good underwriting standards, careful risk to asset management, and prudent investments. Alternatively, the government-run plans simply raid the general fund, raise taxes on everyone, and deny and otherwise ration coverage. Nice.

    “Perhaps you can provide a measured response instead of a Koch. . . sorry, I mean Cato-inspired diatribe.” — You are familiar that the Koch’s took CATO to court and that CATO remains an independent, non-partisan (more like anti-partisan) think tank? But, you know what? It doesn’t matter. Because you think saying “Koch” is an answer to a question that hasn’t been asked or a point worth making instead of responding to a worthy point. For fear of Kochies (like cooties, but much, much worse) you probably didn’t even click on the post. If you had, you would have seen quotes from the Washington Post, a US government study on mortality rates, and a Russian doctor leading a campaign to improve health care quality — all part of the “Kochtopus,” right?

    If I were to stoop to your level — don’t worry I have no plans of getting out the shovel that would be needed to accomplish such a feat — I would ask how much you’re getting to shill for the government-backed insurance company cartels in defense of their cash cow Obamacare? I would also ask if your job is dependent upon government funding? For your sake… it better be. And you better be in a union with seniority.

    “Unfortunately I’m sure you’ll provide another excruciatingly long response sprinkled with a healthy dose of personal insults.” — Voluntary choice is a wonderful thing, isn’t it? You can choose to read or not read what I write.

    “No matter. The Act is still constitutional, regardless of your righteous indignation.” — The ruling was on two fundamental points — the mandate and Medicare expansion — and on both Obamacare as written and as argued by you and this administration was found unconstitutional. The rest of this quality-of-life destroying monstrosity was not considered. Don’t worry, it will be… at the ballot box and in court cases making their way up to the Supremes.

    This victory for the Constitution should be just the first of many to come.

  21. 21 phineast

    portia-clearly cstratct’s address may have changed but clearly his lung capacity has not. c is clearly out of his element with this topic-you on the other hand have almost nailed it. the health insurance companies are no better than drug cartels. they are held accountable to their investors and the CEO’s bonus check and not much else. there are supposed laws that govern insurance companies both locally and nationally. BUT in CT if your company is considered “self insured” they are completely exempt from those regulations so you are left to beg and go postal in order to get your benefits that are in contract paid. these type of insurance company slanted loop holes are one of the biggest reasons that health care is being warped and steered by the ins companies. the second biggest reason is litigation driven malpractice costs.
    if you want to see things change you have to make each individual accountable-accountable for a healthy life style. why should anyone have to contribute to paying health care costs of a person who has abused their body by personal choices? if you smoke you should be denied, if you abuse drugs same thing…let a philanthropic soul pay for those things-but to be able to “up” the costs of anyone who has coverage to help fund those who need to “buy in” is actually making the problem worse.
    personally i am sick of government that is forcing dependency instead of independence and accountability.

  22. 22 cstratct

    Portia,

    You simply can’t come to grips with the fact that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional can you?

    And as for the Cato Institute, are you kidding me? The Cato Institute was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Murray Rothbard, Ed Crane and Charles Koch. in July 1976 the name was changed to the Cato Institute. Over 35 years the brothers have contributed over $30 million, about 10% of the funding for the organization. “It was more in the early years – for the first few years of Cato’s existence, Charles Koch provided 100 percent of the funding. It dropped off to about 4 percent of total funding after 1990, to 0 percent the last two years.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriebennett/2012/03/13/the-kochs-arent-the-only-funders-of-cato/)

    Portia – “Perhaps if we had a free market in health insurance, this poor person would have been voluntarily paying into their plan for decades enabling them to have care when they need it. You know, kind of like life insurance, which gets more costly with age and medical underwriting requirements.”

    My response regarding was based on your wording that I copied above. You talk about “voluntarily paying into a plan for decades enabling them to have care when they need it.” Except when those that have been paying into a voluntary plan for years only to find the insurance company denies procedures or cancels coverage in order to limit their financial losses. But that never happens does it?

    Or maybe it does. “An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.” (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17)

    So your answer to the health insurance cartels is to deregulate them even more and let individuals consumers go up against multi-billion dollar companies with what exactly? According to your theory, the market will take care of everything. As long as an individual can negotiate directly with the corporation everything will be okay for the consumer. Sure, that will work.

    And Phin, apparently you don’t agree with Portia’s free market philosophy which dictates that corporations only responsibility is return profits to investors. You honestly believe that were Portia’s ideology to be fully implemented the health insurance companies would be any more accountable to consumers? You can’t be that delusional.

    As for medical malpractice, what is the actual impact on health spending? “The cost of defending U.S. malpractice claims, including awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs, was an estimated $6.5 billion in 2001—0.46 percent of total health spending.” (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/4/903.full) Of course the Manhattan Institute, citing Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, reported that “malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975.” Health expenditures in the U.S. in 2010 neared $2.6 trillion. Even using the Manhattan institute numbers, we’re talking $30 billion on $2.6 trillion. This hardly seems like the “second biggest reason” for increased costs. But yeah, I’m out of my element.

  23. 23 1george1

    Phin – Where have you been?
    I apologize that you are also a very capable poster.
    OUCH on the “GOING POSTAL reference!”

    We have a HEALTH CARE blog string TAG TEAM MATCH.

    In the RED CORNER we have PORTIA & PHIN

    In the BLUE CORNER are JEZE + CHRIS (cstratct).

    This should be interesting, if people follow through.
    I would be curious about what solutions each might propose?
    At least I posted some general ideas or outline towards solutions.
    Wouldn’t it be great if a win-win solution could be created?

    I’m curious which side REX & GAVIN would post?

    I doubt the final version will have penalties as no one likes
    to be coerced to do anything.
    Yet IRS is allowed to have penalties.

  24. 24 jezebel282

    Whew!

    So many wild and crazy posts!

    While I actually take a little time to read them and try to filter out the hyperbole (tyranny?) and just plain wrong statements, I couldn’t help but comment on this myth.

    “I don’t want adequate care and don’t know any American who does…you will want the best care and will not care how much it costs.”

    “Adequate” care, the kind that actually fixes a problem, is more than a lot of people currently get. The “best” care is pretty much a myth. Although everyone would like to believe that “their” doctor is the best there is, it is simply not true and that is not how the practice (whether or not they are a free market doctor or communist doctor) of medicine works.

    There are millions of doctors in the world. They all can’t be the “best”.

  25. 25 1george1

    Hypothetically, if there were 3 times the numbers of
    Doctors graduating from American Colleges & Universities
    Nurses/RN graduating from American Colleges & Universities
    Technicians & staff graduating from appropriate
    Grand Mothers to support Nursing Staffs

    And if Government Tax Credits, Deductions, Low cost student
    loans, and Loan Repayment fees delayed / waived for certain
    civic type service

    – with intellgent adjustments in government malpractice & insurance
    policies and practices, with lower fees to LAWYERS (JEZE will like)

    – with intellgent adjustments in government per education and
    technologies policies and practices.

    OXYMORON: intellgent adjustments in government policies
    and practices.
    It’s not that the INTELLIGENCE isn’t there.
    I believe there are too many GREMLINS who intentionally
    cause problems for their own benefits.

  26. 26 cstratct

    Had to come back to this comment from Phin for a moment:

    “why should anyone have to contribute to paying health care costs of a person who has abused their body by personal choices? if you smoke you should be denied, if you abuse drugs same thing…”

    Hmmm, so it’s okay for Altria and other companies to aggressively market and sell the tobacco products that cause the health problems, to manipulate the product in order to get people addicted, but the hell with those people that get addicted to those products because they should have known better? How about alcohol? Perhaps you would like to set a limit on how much a person could smoke or drink, since these legal drugs affect different people in different ways. No wait, it’s all about personal choices, so you can’t regulate consumption, and I’m guessing you don’t want to regulate the companies selling the products.

    So it’s okay if the companies market and sell these products, but people definitely shouldn’t be using them because by doing so they would be abusing their bodies, which according to your post should allow insurance companies to deny them benefits.

    And how about providing your definition of abuse. Is there a limit on the number of cigarettes a person can smoke a day, or a week, to determine whether or not he/she is abusing the drug? What about alcohol? One drink, two drinks? Or is this a zero tolerance issue? One smoke or drink and you’re out?

  27. 27 jezebel282

    Portia,

    It takes me a while to wade through your rhetoric and figure out which is an actual plan and which is a tirade against anyone that thinks civil Darwinism isn’t the one and true answer to absolutely everything.

    “Your answer is that everyone has a to be forced to pay due to some vague ideological notion of “shared responsibility.” That is nonsense.”
    See? I mean really? “Nonsense”? We all have shared responsibilities that we are forced to pay for. Your tax dollars help build highways in Montana. Ever been to Montana? Your tax dollars fund the military. Have they come to your house lately? Your tax dollars fund the Coast Guard along with tax dollars from residents in Kansas. I wonder how they feel about that? You also fund the education system for your neighbors’ kids. You fund the FAA even though you might never have flown out of Taos Regional Airport. No shared responsibilities? Nonsense.

    “You are blissfully unfamiliar that Medicare is fiscally unsustainable, ”
    I’m not sure I would go with “blissfully” but i know you love your adjectives. Let’s see now, if we remember back in the day that the reason Medicare was created was that the health insurance industry didn’t want to touch seniors with an eleven foot pole. So the government got stuck with the most expensive demographic. And as we all know, Americans stopped having babies in the early 60’s. Unless we come up with a solution that works, your name calling is not very productive.

    “Actually, we had already suffered through the “Progressive” era imposition of regulations, the income tax, centralized banking, direct election of senators, a little adventure abroad called THE FIRST WORLD WAR, and that Great Depression of 1920-1921.”
    I could have sworn that the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. You know, by 3/4 of the state legislatures? It didn’t seem to hurt Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Mellon or Morgan. I’m also not sure but I’m pretty convinced that the Depression (that one we all talk about) started on…what was the name of that road?….oh yeah!…WALL STREET.

    But this is fairly tedious.

    If it makes you feel better, you may continue to post rants about obamacare, slavery, tyranny, medical care in Cuba, Russia, China or wherever.

    However, what is ultimately true is that obtaining health insurance is extremely expensive, administratively prohibitive and nearly impossible if you are unable to obtain it through an employer. It must also be remembered that health insurance although intertwined is not health care. What the health insurance industry has evolved (devolved?) into is a denial service. This is understandable since their primary goal is not health.

    I think a perfectly plausible solution would be to make the eligibility age for Medicare “birth”. At least part A. If you want private insurance beyond that you may pay for whatever you can afford. If you want to talk about the competitiveness and efficiency of private free enterprise let the insurance companies compete against that. How do you think they would do?

  28. 28 1george1

    BASED on PASSION INDEX the Health Care debate TAG TEAM of

    CHRIS + JEZE
    leads
    PORTIA + PHIN

    The PASSION INDEX is noting it’s a PRIORITY to ADDRESS ISSUES.

    For now there is insufficient posting to suggest leaders in the
    MERIT of ARGUMENTS INDEX.

    REX + GAVIN have yet to comment.

    SUDDS rarely comments if it can’t include YALE or PCS.
    They would make an interesting TAG TEAM if they choose
    one side of the issue & REX + GAVIN choose different side?

    Ron is from the voccola school – not say / write much.

    I’m surprized Mike Reynolds hasn’t posted.
    I’m guessing he’s join JEZE, but not like mandatory.

    Who else is out there?

    Professor?
    Want to school the blog with your educated inpout

    Nedsmitty – Are you gonna side with the Obamacare or
    Paulryandon’tcare?
    Neither is perfect.
    Plenty to attack.

    Come Join the debate.
    The PATCH has over 300 posts.

  29. 29 jezebel282

    George,

    “Come Join the debate. The PATCH has over 300 posts.”

    Thanks anyway. The problem with the entire discussion is that it gets bogged down in Left and Right ideologies (and of course, whichever side you claim on your planet). What doesn’t get discussed is how to provide healthcare to all Americans.

  30. 30 1george1

    What doesn’t get discussed is how to provide healthcare
    to all Americans.

    Hmmm. – Time to differ about people who post ideas to
    provide healthcare:
    :
    # 25 > Hypothetically, if there were 3 times the numbers of
    Doctors graduating ….

    # 23 > At least I posted some general ideas or outline towards
    solutions.
    Wouldn’t it be great if a win-win solution could be created?

    # 7 > analogies about why viable health care and decent treatment
    of fellow american are important and fair is off subject?

    # 4 > A LIST or OUTLINE on potential ways to improve healthcare
    and to pay for it?

    # 4 > With defined legal mandates, the market has to react within
    the newly defined parameters.

    Uncertainty is an enemy. People can adjust once there is a level
    of certainty.

    If 30% of the market can afford Healthcare @ $ 15,000 annually,
    then the Insurance companies have approximate the same pool
    of potential revenue @ 90% of the market @ $ 5,000 annually.

    If Legislative created Tax Code and Credits for Businesses to be
    able to pay $ 5,000 annually with $ 1200 for workers, then more
    businesses would be able to afford Health Care at virtually no cost
    because of the Tax Credits and IRS Code changes.

    Businesses & Tax Payers paying $ 15,000 annually per employee, may
    now recover almost all of that as income/profit and may, repeat may
    be able to increase pay so employees could afford $ 100 a month for
    their share of Health Care.

    If IRS Tax Codes and Credits allowed for HSA & HRA accounts to cover
    any/all deductable and also basic costs, via income tax returns to a
    middle & upper income class that helps their savings & disposable $4.

    The more profit and cash flow available to small business it relieves
    debt and frees revenues to hire and pay higher wages helping lower
    -middle income, who are the driving force in GDP/GNP since consumer
    spending is 70% of the GDP / GNP.

    To be considered upper income, annual income is about $ 68,000 if
    I read correctly, or lower than most STRATFORD MANAGERS PENSIONS
    where they SWAP LIQUIDITY with POLITICAL PARTY & ATTORNEYS.

    If there is majority rule in any given state against this LAW, the Supreme
    Court only mandated it was CONSTITUTIONAL.
    If there were timely NOVEMBER REFERENDUMS at local, state, or Fed
    Level there exist possible exemptions, I doubt would happen.

    The political realities are no one wants to be told what to do or to pay
    and unfair share, which to many people means to pay nothing.

    Another political reality is that there is a huge need for reform in the
    pay in the Health Care industry, and the cost, as the demand of the
    BABY BOOMERS and very aged parents has exploded.

    A funding source used in europe for socail & health care programs
    was the Petro carbon tax, compareable to the 1980 Windfall profits
    Tax which cojoined with FED 20% prime rate, FORCED the PRICE of OIL
    down from a peak of aroun $ 42 – 44 a barrel.

  31. 31 1george1

    Sometimes I wonder if Jeze has a program to automatically
    move my post and type it was irrelevant, without reading
    what I write? < comment likely to be moved?
    The prior comment is actually relevant per suggesting some
    "possible" solutions…

  32. 32 jezebel282

    George,

    I actually read them (as difficult as that is).

    Instead of throwing up random ideas, how about picking ONE and explain how it will expand healthcare to all Americans?

  33. 33 1george1

    Managed inflation increases disposable income of the masses,
    thus building GDP / GNP; Mean & Median Income, & tax revenue
    of Federal, State, & Municipal goverments.

    Savings from eliminating expenses relative to under employment,
    unemployment, & lack of preventive medicine & dietary benefits
    furth boost revenue.

    Tax Deductions, Tax Credits, Tax Incentives to Insurance companies,
    Government/Education, Corporate, Military, & Private sectors can
    be designed to cut Health Care Rates from $ 15,000 annually to $ 6000
    GROSS annual, because there is about the same PROFIT POOL if 98 %
    of population is insured $ 6,000 compared to 32% insured @ $ 15,000

    Compare relative Income pool potential:
    $ 15,000 x 32 =
    . $ 5,000 x 98 =

    What company would rather pay $ 15,000 or 50 % of same, than
    $ 6,000 of FREE HEALTH CARE with specific deduction?

    What worker would not be willing to place $ 25 a week into a HSA
    to cover $ 1300 annually, with roll over of a $ 500 – 750 deductable?

    Since State & Municipal governments have built in Federal / State
    Grants & MANDATE FUNDING, their realistic Health care coverage
    should be a moot issue.

    Since the Federal Goverment prints money and can be efficiently
    run IF TERE were ever a desire to do so … (not utopia)

    Since Corporate and Government contractors are subject to Federal
    Laws and derives so much income & profits from governments, then
    there exist a realistic pool of money analogous to COMMAND ECONOMY
    of WWW II (Post DEPRESSION & WW II)

    Since almost all businesses are license or have a tax number and they
    have to compete with PUBLIC SECTOR or they have to pay PREVAILING
    WAGE, to get juicy government contracts …
    Since they have to compete for quality employees ,,,,
    THEORETICLLY (Portia / Jeze) Market pressure should force PEER
    Compensation & benefits.

    Since technology & communications have advanced and continue to
    advance …..

    Since Education in Medical fields can get GRANTS, CONTRACTS, TAX
    CREDITS, TAX DEDUCTIONS and other conveyances, is there any
    reason there can’t be many times more highly qualified Doctors,
    Nurses, Tech, and MD Support staff?

    Where others seek simple isolated solutions …..
    I see a series of relationships which can have success with linkage.
    Portia might like the Nixon term DETENTE which some can also
    link to perestroika and reformations.

    How else can these be paid?

    Windfall profits tax & technological energy related savings.

  34. 34 jezebel282

    George,

    So you have no plan?

  35. 35 1george1

    JEZE, I guess you can’t read that there needs to be a concerted
    program including legislative Tax Code & other changes which can
    benefit businesses of all sizes, individuals and families.

    Here’s something you are more likely to relate to as an overview:

    ..Howard Schultz: ‘The American Dream Is in Jeopardy’
    By Andy Serwer, managing editor | Fortune – 21 hours ago..

    The Starbucks CEO is concerned about the economy, unemployment and the general direction of the country. As the 4th of July approaches, he is speaking out — and not pulling any punches.

    As Americans begin observing Independence Day, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has written an open letter to the nation, “How Can America Win this Election,” in which he spells out his concern about our economy and specifically unemployment. In the letter he asks politicians to stop fighting and for business leaders to step up. “I love America, but we all know there is something wrong. The deficits this country must reconcile are much more than financial, and our inability to solve our own problems is sapping our national spirit. We are better than this,” he writes. (See the full letter here.) Schultz is running the letter in an advertisement in national newspapers and websites this week. Schultz previously voiced his unhappiness with the state of the union last summer during the deadlocked federal budget debate. I caught up with Schultz by phone as he was in Colorado speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

    Please go to the link for the balance & hit the link in the online verson to see his LETTER.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/howard-schultz—the-american-dream-is-in-jeopardy.html

    Lest JEZE or anyone else mockan OUT LINE as a PLAN – here is
    something to consider. The outline delivered by George Marshall
    is & was called the MARSHALL PLAN:

    wikipedia: The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet communism.[1] The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan. Marshall spoke of urgent need to help the European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

    The “Marshall Plan” speech at Harvard University, 5 June 1947

    George Catlett Marshall was born in Pennsylvania on 31 December 1880. He graduated from the Virginia Military Institute to launch a career as both a soldier and a statesman. After duty in the Philippines and the United States, he served in France during World War I and later in China and in other posts in the United States. Appointed Army Chief of Staff from 1939 to 1945, he became Secretary of State in 1947 until 1949 and was nominated Secretary of Defence in 1950.

    Below is text from the speech he gave at Harvard University on 5 June 1947. This speech initiated the post-war European Aid Program commonly known as the Marshall Plan.

    http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3746,en_2649_201185_1876938_1_1_1_1,00.html

    The Marshall Plan – YouTube

    ► 1:40► 1:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUd2W6aMng4
    Jan 25, 2009 – 2 min – Uploaded by LambersPublications
    This short video has footage of George Marshall testifying before Congress in January, 1948 about the …

    The Marshall Plan – Google Video

    ► 56:31► 56:31 video.google.com/videoplay?docid…
    Apr 30, 2007 – 57 min
    The Marshall Plan (from its enactment, officially the European Recovery Program [ERP]) was the primary plan …

    Europe in Ruins and the Marshall Plan – YouTube

    ► 6:40► 6:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUt7Lr3lubc
    Jun 7, 2009 – 7 min – Uploaded by psdutch
    More starvation to enrich US military officers. Marshall Plan? More economic oppression and US imperialism …

    The Marshall Plan – Video Dailymotion

    ► 1:39► 1:39 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd50l9_the-marshall-pla...
    Apr 30, 2010 – 2 min
    This short video has footage of George Marshall testifying before Congress in January, 1948 about the …

    More videos for the marshall plan video »
    Marshall Plan — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Factswww.history.com/topics/marshall-planCached – Similar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    (April 1948–December 1951), U.S.-sponsored program designed to rehabilitate the economies of 17 western and southern European countries in order to …
    Browse Audio/Video – The George C. Marshall Foundationwww.marshallfoundation.org/library/index_av.htmlCached – Similar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Browse Audio/Video. Featured Audio. The Marshall Plan Speech – The remarks by the Honorable George C. Marshall, Secretary of State, at Harvard University …

    Whereas PORTIA posts links to various nebulous concepts,
    and some babble quoting the Times, FOX, RUSH, O’REILLY, W S J,
    or other non sense …. the MARSHALL PLAN WORKED.

    Repeat: The MARSHALL PLAN actually WORKED!

  36. 36 jezebel282

    George,

    “JEZE, I guess you can’t read that there needs to be a concerted
    program including legislative Tax Code & other changes which can
    benefit businesses of all sizes, individuals and families.”

    Oh, I read it alright. Do you think it’s possible you that you didn’t write it very well?

    To be honest, you plan pretty much says what the song said. “C’mon people, now, let’s all get together and love one another right now.”

    You are such a hippie, George.

  37. 37 1george1

    You are such a hippie, George.

    Naaaah – Well rounded.
    While play nice isn’t quite the same as love one another, it’s
    the basic concept of enlightenment & religions, where more
    can get done by cooperating than sabotage.

    I was looking for Naders emails on Health care, and there have
    been a few, especially espousing single payer …..
    I was surprized to not find exact fits in the last couple months.
    I had to leave. Ya got what ah found.

  38. 38 1george1

    Would ANYONE CLAIM that the MARSHALL PLAN was NOT EFFECTIVE
    in putting significant portions of Americans, Western Europe, and
    the Pacific Rim to being rebuilt and working?

    Balance moved here: https://stratfordcharter.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/upgrade-now/#comment-19245

  39. 39 jezebel282

    George,

    “where more can get done by cooperating than sabotage.”

    Cooperation and capitalism rarely mix well. As Hoover said, the only problem with capitalism is the capitalists.

    Perhaps it is the way we look at healthcare in the first place? We spent trillions and trillions of dollars on a system that is designed to kill people; the U.S. Military. It works pretty well. If we want people dead that’s pretty much how they always end up. Nobody ever complains that is unconstitutional or that it is just like Russia, Cuba (Portia’s favorite) or China although it is. There are hundreds of thousands of dedicated, intelligent and talented people willing to serve in this system for very little pay. Some make a lifetime career out of it. It even has it’s own world class healthcare system. If you are a vendor (think Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, IBM, UTI and thousands of others) you can make a tidy little profit.

    Why are we not thinking like that when it comes to saving lives?

  40. 40 1george1

    The Military, like every other organization has very dangerous
    and willfully malicious people, who have actively used war and
    international / national situations for personal profit or political
    reasons – to REBUT your above post.

    Then there is the GOOD MILITARY who leaves NO ONE BEHIND
    and has done not just GOOD, but GREAT THINGS, such as the
    MARSHALL PLAN and reconstructed or constructed countries
    and parts of countries.
    A significant percent of our great athletes are sons/daughters
    of the military.
    D.A.R.P.A. INVENTED the INTERNET, which is changing the world,
    relatively peacefully.

    The worst things in HISTORY are NEVER DONE by a single INDIVIDUAL,
    but always done by GROUPS.

    Conversely many of the best things in HISTORY are a single
    INDIVIDUAL who is different than the herd and attracts
    people who change other peoples’ conduct, again replying
    to your above post.

    I believe Enlightened self interest and doing good things is more
    rational than doing bad things, which is EXTREMELY RATIONAL, as
    long as the perps believe they can get away with that conduct!

    Or as you wrote above:

    There are hundreds of thousands of dedicated, intelligent and talented people willing to serve in this system for very little pay. Some make a lifetime career out of it. It even has it’s own world class healthcare system. If you are a vendor (think Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, IBM, UTI and thousands of others) you can make a tidy little profit.

    Why are we not thinking like that when it comes to saving lives?

    I think the numbers are in the tens of millions to hundreds of
    millions …. around the world ..

  41. 41 jezebel282

    George,

    Again, the focus we should have is how to arrive at a goal of universal access to healthcare. Is that goal even correct? On the other hand, has Portia actually stated the goal; access to healthcare should only be for those that can afford it?

    If we don’t even have a goal how can we possibly get there?

  42. 42 ronmoreau

    Perhapsthe 2 cow theory of government should be reviewed at this time. Which one best fits the direction in which this country is going?

    http://www.rense.com/general29/cow.htm

  43. 43 jezebel282

    Ron,

    “Which one best fits the direction in which this country is going? ”

    Really? You think the Affordable Care Act or just going back to 2008 (the GOP Plan) are the two best choices to achieve universal access to healthcare?

  44. 44 1george1

    Ron’s 2 cows.

    Nova IN-LAWS, unrelated to original owners:
    Family has a herd of bulls and cows, for milk & meat, suppling
    themselves and the community.
    Husband dies.
    Widow remarries.
    Widow dies, leaving Widower unrelated to herd builders.
    Widower remarries.
    Living in the home of the couple who ran the farm / ranch are
    two married people, who contributed nothing to the building
    of the herd.

    Corallary: Lawyers & probate get involved, stealing most assets.

    Corallary: Cattle russelled.
    A) Robin Hood
    B) Hoods

  45. 45 1george1

    Again, the focus we should have is how to arrive at a goal of universal access to healthcare. Is that goal even correct? On the other hand, has Portia actually stated the goal; access to healthcare should only be for those that can afford it?

    If we don’t even have a goal how can we possibly get there?

    Ron’s 2 cow proposition raises the issue that different people have
    different objectives & goals.

    There can be no consensus without vetting facts and arguments.
    Kinda like I tried to do with Jim Miron blog, which I haven’t checked.

  46. 46 phineast

    Cstrat- with regard to your regulating comment-I have no problem regulating tobacco and etoh and all drugs even more tightly-no problem at all-personally i think sugar and imitation sugar should be classified as a drug too, it serves no nutritional purpose and is destructive to the body as well. In America we know these things are destructive to our bodies any brilliant American tuned in to NJ housewives or other intellectual programming like it knows this….. 😉 if you are stupid enough to participate in things that you KNOW are harmful to your health the public should NOT have to pay for your bad choice(even if it is one cig or one drink…)-that is what is currently happening-obamacare magnifies the problem by not addressing the real issues-you have an entire generation and a second generation of people that believe the government should pay for everything in their lives. i am not saying that in extenuating circumstances there shouldn’t be a temporary safety net-but it should be very temporary. not a lifetime achievement award.
    what we are already seeing is American insurance jobs being sent over seas, big time within the last 3 1/2 years-you ever try to call a health insurance company? pick one-the worst offender is UHC-you get someone from india that can’t understand you and you can’t understand that has to sort through technical language they don’t understand to create a larger problem to deny the paying customer a covered benefit-they stall, they deny-you appeal, they stall, they stall and they stall until the legal time frame has elapsed and then they give the client only a portion of what their documented coverage is. the only thing this does is stall the payments to those who deserve it and makes the quarterly reports look better for exec bonuses. so here is what happens back here in good ole’ America-the doctors and hospitals have to guess at what the expected coverage ratios will be and then they determine their pricing based on what they have to get to pay the rent , malpractice insurance and staff expenses as well as equipment costs and energy costs for starters-so they jack up the price for the average customer-this excludes washington politicians as well as obama and his wife’s entire staff…. they are covered on the platinum pink panther plan….. so what i am saying is if a regular family practice doctor needs to make cash in hand of $120 for a 10 minute office visit they have to jack up the cost to about $230-less the copay in order to get what they need from the insurance company to cover their cost. Now you tack on the fact that if they participate in medicare-and accept assignment- the loss they take gets tacked on to you bill–that is currently happening. so now we have the “miracle” of obamacre which is a mirror of medicare that is going to be offered to the general public and bam! guess what???? the patients lose, jobs are gone, and the actual good medical care is gone to the general public. the good care will go to those who can pay out of pocket-which is also happening now. what you ARE going to see is doctors that will op out of accepting any of the insurances and people will have to submit and be paid directly-what does this mean???????? it means all of us poor fools that may have had a few pennies that were considered disposable income will lose those pennies and OUR grocery and mortgage money to pay the medical costs AND we still are mandated to pay for F’n insurance.
    so here we are back to the beginning-what obamacare should have done is rewarded those that take excellent care of themselves in the form of a premium rebate. if he wanted to add taxes he should have added them to the businesses that make these toxic things that are killing people and expand the education programs to teach healthy lifestyles and create a uniform compliance legislation to force the insurers to uphold the terms of their contracts-no loopholes, AND he should have taken welfare dollars and literally made it seed money-for actual organic seeds-you don’t need a farm to have fresh produce -just a clean pot with some clean dirt, water and sunshine. maybe if people have to grow their food they will live healthier-and think about what they are eating and why they are eating it. just some simplistic ideas for improvements-and one last one—-how about seizing all those bonuses of the exec’s and using those to fund some of the junk in this legislation-
    what i see in the days ahead is the collapse of the best health care system in the world, which will be followed by the collapse of the nations economy that is already a frail paper tiger. yup-obama def. achieved his goal-change.

    Editor’s note: ETOH = Alcohol

  47. 47 jezebel282

    Phin,

    I’m a little confused. You described the nightmare of private health insurance where much of the effort is the delay and denial of coverage despite astronomical increases in premiums . You project a worse scenario in the future although that remains to be seen.

    Obviously, what we had umm…errr…well…sucks. None of us have read the 2300 page Affordable Healthcare Act and even if we did we probably wouldn’t understand it. I am uneasy relying on clearly slanted news reports of what is actually in it.

    So…I have to ask; Is the goal universal access to healthcare or should it be reserved for those who can afford it?

  48. 48 1george1

    Phin, yours was a good post. agree some / disagree some.

    I’m an example of bad effects of sugar. My weight is from soda.
    I’ve been on my own since I was 18.
    Not every family understood/understands nutrition.

    I worked in the early 2000s in New Haven, about 1 mile from Yale.
    There was a SHAW’S GROCERY STORE about 1/2 way between.
    It was the ONLY grocery store in NEW HAVEN south of I-15.
    It was virtually the only place with affordable & decent produce
    and selections of healthy choices.

    All around are low cost fast food & pizza places.

    I worked as assistant manager of a TEMP LABOR place where we
    had day laborers working @ $ 6.90 & then $ 7.10 per hour.
    They worked harder in one day, than A N Y reader of the blog.
    MANUAL Labor outdoors or indoors. RAIN, SNOW, HEAT, COLD.

    I ws told they could BUY 6 nickle bags for $ 25.

    There are people who read or post in this blog who have worked
    hard and deserve the just rewards of there efforts.

    There are also readers who were handed jobs, because of their
    family or political connections. TEST SCORES can be changed.

    Many workers / managers work hard! Highly proficient/profesional.

    It is an emerging fact that most people with upper incomes
    discount their family connections, access to education, and
    resources, as helping them to be the success they are today.

    However, all it takes is a dibilitating disease or injury and the
    ability to maintain life style, can change dramatically.

    I read the rage of those who rant about socialism …. but have they
    ever been unemployeed for over 1 year or needed government
    cheese to feed their children, because no one would hire them?

    Get training? How many white, middle/upper class professionals
    or degreed people have had to take jobs at fast food places or
    grocerystores to put food on their table and are being TAXED out
    of their homes by the LIKES of MIRON / HARKINS/ NORM / LOU/
    BURTULAS/ KELLY/ FLOREK and the OVERPENSIONED MANAGERS?

  49. 49 1george1

    FYI – SUGAR / NUTRITION
    I was not OBESE, nor overweight, at 9 years old when my mom died.
    By 10 – 11 years old, I was OBESE.

    Who among the readers, has never put themselves in the shoes of
    an orphan or single parent household, of a parent who maybe or
    maybe not finished HS. There were pre-post WW II families who
    never had a HS graduate among their family, never mind College
    graduate.

    Could you live on $ 8,000 / year to get food stamps / heating /
    other help, when no one would hire you?

    Could you live on $ 14,000 / year like lady who took care of CATS
    with a little money she set aside from social security.
    She likely doesn’t have a mortgage.
    Her taxes must exceed $ 4,000
    Her utilities/heat should exced $ 4,000

    Yeah.
    These people abuse the system, where the T.A.R.P. or
    Stimulus packages to millionaires exceed all social programs cost.

    I don’t favor abusive taxes, nor abusive pensions/benefits.

  50. 50 blodgettave

    I’m still waiting to hear what Romney would do if elected and succeeds in repealing Obamacare. What will he put in place of it, Portia? Anyone? What happens to those many popular aspects of the bill that have been buried under the posturing over a “tax” – once proposed by the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romneycare – to the small percentage of people who can afford healthcare but refuse to cover themselves? You know, those folks that the Republican Party usually denounce for not pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps?

    The overwhelming news out of the Supreme Court decision has focused on the ‘tax’ or penalty….which will affect 1-2% of the American people. The right is misleading the vast number of people who haven’t a clue what just happened with threats to their tax rates, and old Mitt still isn’t being pressed on what he’d DO in place of a healthcare policy he created. Word has it, he’d go with Paul Ryan’s cynical plan, but won’t say given how very unpopular it is to the Medicare-loving base.

  51. 51 cstratct

    Phin,

    You really threw a curveball with your last post. I believe the regulations you describe would definitely run afoul of Portia’s free market, which makes your comment that she has “nailed it” very curious. No one here (certainly not me) is arguing that the government should pay for everything. This particular topic is about healthcare and health insurance. I am curious to know whether you believe healthcare (not health insurance) is a basic human right (regardless of circumstances) or if it should only be available to those deemed worthy based on how an individual lives his or her life. If you believe the latter, who should be making that determination? Is this where you believe the market (i.e. the health insurance companies) should decide?

    And what about those who get ill as a result of environmental pollutants or just in the course of human existence? Not every illness is the result of someone making poor lifestyle choices. How about children born with medical problems or those living in areas of high pollution who develop asthma or other chronic diseases?

    It seems there are limited options with regard to how healthcare is paid for. If you don’t want the government to pay for someone’s healthcare, then the individual mandate makes sense, as it makes those who are able to afford coverage pay for it so that in the case of a catastrophic event or chronic illness it is the individual and/or his/her insurance company that is responsible for payment and not the government. Those who cannot afford insurance are another issue. What is your recommendation for providing healthcare to that group? It would either be government intervention or philanthropy. Or are those without means to pay for coverage to just go without it and hope they don’t get sick?

    Personally I think Jezebel provides a starting point above: “I think a perfectly plausible solution would be to make the eligibility age for Medicare “birth”. At least part A. If you want private insurance beyond that you may pay for whatever you can afford.” I would add if employers want to offer that private insurance as a benefit to retain workers then so be it. I don’t believe it is detrimental to either employers or employees to include medical benefits as part of an overall compensation package if they are inclined to do so. There could be opt outs as there are now. I think Jezebel and I differ on this as she has advocated removing health insurance benefits from the workplace, but I may be overstating that. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth Jezebel, and if I’m wrong I apologize and will stand corrected.

  52. 52 1george1

    Chris / cstratct, yours was a good post. agree some / disagree some.
    There were many good counterpoints to Phin, who I expect can
    defend / explain positions.

    I’m an example of bad effects of sugar. My weight is from soda.
    I’ve been on my own since I was 18.
    Not every family understood/understands nutrition.

    In the Tag team, I have Jeze & Chris pulling away from Phin & Portia,
    who does not appear to have a priority to back up his positions.
    Portia’s style reminds me of a steam roller, more than a reasoned
    debating style, despite superb abilities.

    I have to conceed to Phin, Chris, & often Jeze their posts are often
    shorter and easier to debate than Portia or myself.
    Their post remind me of a fencing match.

  53. 53 jezebel282

    CS,

    “I don’t mean to put words in your mouth Jezebel, and if I’m wrong I apologize and will stand corrected.”

    S’OK, I’m used to it.

    I do not believe American business should be burdened with health insurance costs. It’s bad for businesses, it’s bad for employees and it’s bad for American competitiveness.

  54. 54 jezebel282

    Blodge,

    “I’m still waiting to hear what Romney would do”

    You may be waiting a long, long time. Aside from cutting his taxes and removing all regulation of anything there doesn’t seem to be any kind of plan about anything.

  55. 55 cstratct

    Jezebel,

    But if those businesses choose to offer those benefits, is that really a burden? The businesses have a choice on whether to offer or not offer health insurance. It really comes down to the businesses competing for the best workers. I’m not sure I understand why you believe it is necessarily bad for businesses or employees if both have the choice to offer and accept or decline those benefits. The corporations benefit from a tax break and the employees get coverage. Are you saying individuals would be better off negotiating with health insurance companies directly? Would you prefer the companies pay a higher salary so that individuals can purchase insurance and obtain a tax credit for purchasing insurance? Or should no tax credits be offered for either businesses or consumers?

    I don’t agree that American businesses are “burdened” with the costs, as they are free to offer or not offer health insurance benefits. If it makes them more competitive, then it is not necessarily a burden, especially if it is a tax write-off. If I understand you correctly you’re in favor of a single-payer system for basic coverage, then anything above that the individual would be responsible for the costs. If you’re only advocating for Medicare part A to be universal, that means no wellness coverage, no annual checkups, no routine dental, etc. All those basic services would have to be paid for out-of-pocket or “whatever you can afford.” How would this type of set up make America more competitive?

  56. 56 jezebel282

    CS,

    “is that really a burden?”

    Seriously? Do you really need an answer to this? No German, Japanese, Chinese or Canadian company carries this burden. A tax “break” or even a “credit” is only a partial bennie.

    This is the basic problem. Insurance costs are hidden from the American consumer. It is added to every product and service we buy. Most Americans think they only have a copay to worry about. That is simply not true.

    “as they are free to offer or not offer health insurance benefits.”
    Oh they try and try, but the fact is that except for the smallest companies they are required to offer insurance.

    “If you’re only advocating for Medicare part A to be universal”
    Actually that should be minimal coverage. Hospitalization is the largest part of catastrophic healthcare. Just look at the cost of supplemental Medicare insurance compared to full coverage.

  57. 57 jezebel282

    Oh wait. Portia may be reading this. That goes for Russian and Cuban companies too. I left out North Korean companies because A. They don’t have any and B. They probably don’t have healthcare either.

    Happy?

  58. There is a train of thought, albeit a short one that would argue that as Pogo said, “I have seen the enemy and it is us.” And by us I mean everyone that complains of health care based on what they feel is their inherent right, and the pharmaceutical companies that have preyed on our ability to accept, for lack of a better term, the status quo.
    We’ve reached a point where, while we understand we’re not 18 anymore we don’t want to accept the process of aging. Apparently we’re not quite at the point where we’re immortal but we’ve turned our attention to not being inconvenienced in the process. And Big Pharma has jumped on it, advertised it, and offered doctors all sort of incentives to prescribe it, and to make it’s miracle drug, regardless of the 30 seconds of a 1 minute commercial dedicated to the side affects worse than the problem what you need right now. All to pay the billions it invested to offer you something that will cure what until the commercial masks the idea of staying in bed,taking an aspirin, and not eating Big Macs 24/7 might actually work. But hey, isn’t liver disease, blood clots, dizzyness, and God knows what else as long as for 3 hours and 59 minutes to can have an erect penis?
    I’m not going broke paying for your cancer treatments, I’m going broke paying for your irresponsibility of thinking that you have the right to not being held accountable for your actions and your misguided notion of your self worth.
    George, you’ve referenced your obesity several times in this thread. Two words. “Spare me.” You have no one to blame but yourself and the sooner you realize that the quicker you’ll realize it, the better for me because I’ll eventually pay for that if you don’t. It’s classic that you bemoan the fact and continue your bad habits and at the same time rant and about all the forces when the bottom line is your lack of control is part and parcel why we go through this.
    Rather than fix these problems at their core we glorify it on TV with shows like World’s Biggest Loser. How ironic that we glorify and praise the word loser.
    Soda? Really? In your world of black helicopters, carbonated water and sugar you couldn’t stand up to?
    Insurance companies suck, but I might suggest that when it comes to what’s truly important, we as a whole, suck worse. And guess what? The insurance companies know it and exploit it.

  59. 59 cstratct

    Jezebel,

    I wasn’t trying to antagonize you. The initial question was specifically directed toward those companies that might choose to offer health insurance benefits. I was simply putting forth some questions so that I might better understand your position with regard to this topic. Why is it a burden if the employer chooses to offer the benefit in order to retain employees the company values? It may be more about retention or the owner’s/organizational philosophy than a tax credit or break. I don’t believe healthcare costs are hidden to the American consumer. Many people know very well the costs that are incurred (on the part of the individual, corporation and insurance company).

    I get that large corporations are required to provide insurance or pay a penalty. But that doesn’t change the fact that some may still choose to offer those benefits not because it is required but for other reasons that may be beneficial to the organization.

    So if I understand this correctly the only aspect of universal coverage you would support is catastrophic coverage. But there is also the argument that universal preventive care could eliminate a significant portion of the catastrophic costs.

  60. 60 jezebel282

    David Durgy,

    You are absolutely correct. When big pharma discovered that DTC (direct to consumer) marketing could substantially increase drug sales of slow moving medications, we were suddenly overwhelmed with epidemics of dry eye, restless leg and urinating too often. At least lately some influential people are speaking up about the poor salty and sugary choices we make. Unfortunately, tackling big pharma is like herding cats. That’s why you have companies like GSK pushing their salesforce to sell meds like Paxil and Wellbutrin for non-approved applications. The trouble is that we believe this crap. We take antibiotics for the sniffles, anti-anxiety meds for normal life stresses and God knows how many untested supplements for everything else. Perhaps it is cultural but can be addressed with education. One health class in high school dealing with reproductive issues probably won’t do it. Relying on the media (and commercials) probably is not a good choice either. Every single medication has a side effect, even aspirin. An individual should have a really good reason for taking any medication.

    “based on what they feel is their inherent right”
    Well, it is their inherent right. We said so in that silly Declaration of Independence. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Remember? Being alive is kind of like the first requirement for everything else. There is no stronger human endeavor than staying alive. It is even more powerful than making a profit.

    CS

    “I wasn’t trying to antagonize you.”
    LOL! Portia and George do a way better job of that.

    “So if I understand this correctly the only aspect of universal coverage you would support is catastrophic coverage.”
    No. But it’s a start.

    “Why is it a burden”
    Let me try to state it in simpler terms. Let’s use my oft repeated example of Town Fair Tire. Their mission is to distribute tires and make a profit doing so. Why does their HR director (or whoever does it there) have to be an expert negotiator with health insurance companies? Why does Town Fair have to divert resources from tire distribution to health insurance companies? Why does the owner(s) of Town Fair Tire have to build in health insurance costs into the price of every tire? To put it in even simpler terms, health insurance is a cost that is unrelated to every company’s core activity. Unless the company is in the health insurance business.

    Now (still following?) imagine if no company had those expenses anymore. Every employee, by virtue of being an American, already had insurance or access to healthcare. Preventative or otherwise. IMMEDIATELY that company becomes more competitive and profitable. What is the mystery here?

    Once again, the basic question is whether or not the goal is universal access to healthcare. If it is, then providing insurance through employers is untenable since there is no universal employment.

  61. 61 1george1

    JEZE: I do not believe American business should be burdened
    with health insurance costs.
    It’s bad for businesses,
    it’s bad for employees,
    and it’s bad for American competitiveness.

    GEO: It’s not necessarily true, if done comprehensively with various
    incentives, penalties, and offsets, which can be voluntary.

    JEZE: If it is, then providing insurance through employers is
    untenable since there is no universal employment.

    GEO: This is conventional wisdom, predicated on conventional
    knowledge. If the foundations for hypothesis are wrong, all that
    follows is normally wrong too.
    There can be truths within the hypothesis.

    DAVID: George, you’ve referenced your obesity several times
    in this thread. Two words. “Spare me.” You have no one to
    blame but yourself and the sooner you realize that the quicker
    you’ll realize it, the better for me because I’ll eventually pay
    for that if you don’t. It’s classic that you bemoan the fact and
    continue your bad habits and at the same time rant and about
    all the forces when the bottom line is your lack of control is
    part and parcel why we go through this.

    GEO: David, there are things I might be able to do, and things I
    might not be able to do about my OBESITY.

    Do you know what ….. you don’t know?
    Does anyone?

    Are we wholly responsible for all of our actions?
    Are we taught by parents/family, education, work, government,
    ambient situations?
    I accept responsibility for my inabilities?

    I hold myself as an example that SUGAR / SODA is causation for
    self inflicted disease, not dissimilar to COCAINE / CONTROLLED
    SUBSTANCES- ALCOHOL Effects on people who also know there
    are CAUSE and effect relationship:
    Diabetes, Cancer, Liver Cirrhosis, Heart / Circulatory problems.

    Do you accept your responsibilities?
    Or, are you P E R F E C T in every way and O W E nothing to any
    one or society or country?
    Did you build you hour house, road, infrastructure?
    Do you grow your own food?
    Are you free of needs of utilities or staples?
    Are you I M M O R T A L?

    Your lack of compassion, meanness, and selfishness are consistent
    with the (various types of)class warfare existing throughout history
    and consistently shown by cowardly anonymous bloggers.

    At least you have the self respect to post your name (if real)
    And while you missed my point …. many do … right JEZE ..
    you gave me the opportunity to point out there are exceptional
    and professional ambient pressures causal to health problems:

    ATF & E, DEA, IRS are all part of the FEDERAL TREASURY
    There are some people who have legitimate reprisal & legal
    cause to not confirm their identities.

  62. 62 jezebel282

    George,

    “This is conventional wisdom, predicated on conventional
    knowledge. If the foundations for hypothesis are wrong, all that
    follows is normally wrong too.
    There can be truths within the hypothesis.”

    Whatever.

  63. 63 1george1

    Direct retort to your direct retort immediately above this post.

    JEZE:
    Do you believe everything you
    1 – read in Newspapers, Magazines, or on the Internet?
    2 – see / hear on TV, RADIO, or INTERNET?

    How many of those ENTITIES are either FOR PROFIT or
    supported by …. $$$ ?

    Hypothetically:
    – If reporters tell the truth about what Press Releases tell them,
    from government, corporations, military, private sectors or from
    individuals who either intentionally lie or are told intentional lies,
    THEN do you BELIEVE LIES?
    EXAMPLE: REAGAN seemed to actually believe what he was told,
    and some MEDIA reported or played the SOUND BYTES / QUOTES.

    – If media/reporters/personalities tell LIES about what Press Releases
    tell them, from government, corporations, military, private sectors
    or from individuals who either intentionally lie or are told intentional
    lies, THEN do you BELIEVE LIES?
    EXAMPLES: FOX, RUSH, O’REILLY, Wall Street Joural, NY TIMES,
    NY NEWS, NY POST, CT. POST, STAR, PATCH, Ffld County, WTNH,
    # 61, # 12, # 79

  64. 64 jezebel282

    George,

    Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. It is likely that that makes two of us. But, hold on there, stop typing. I’m not that interested in what you meant. It wasn’t about what I wrote anyway.

    The simple truth is that health insurance shows up on every company’s P&L. That’s not hypothetical. That’s Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

  65. 65 1george1

    JEZE: The simple truth is that health insurance shows up on
    every company’s P&L.

    GEO: If there were ways to increase the numbers of Insured,
    with dramatically lower rates for the covered, the businesses,
    and of not loss of revenue pool to the insurance companies,
    whould that be of interest to anyone?

  66. 66 jezebel282

    George,

    “whould that be of interest to anyone?”
    No.

  67. 67 ronmoreau

    Jez,

    “Really? You think the Affordable Care Act or just going back to 2008 (the GOP Plan) are the two best choices to achieve universal access to healthcare?”

    “I do not believe American business should be burdened with health insurance costs. It’s bad for businesses, it’s bad for employees and it’s bad for American competitiveness.”

    I don’t have the answers.George was right, my point was it depends what “hat” you are wearing. I do know one thing, being employed and provided negotiated health care by my employer is a wonderful thing. Will that change with Obama Care? I hope not.

    For those not so fortunate, given a choice between paying the family bills or purchasing manditory healthcare is a no brainer. People will take their chances without the insurance.The penalty/tax for non compliance will just dig a deeper hole for cash strapped citizens.

  68. 68 ronmoreau

    If my employer decides to drop my healthcare because of Obama Care my standard of living will drop with the added cost of heathcare.

  69. 69 ronmoreau

    NEW YORK CORPORATION
    You have fifteen million cows.
    You have to choose which one will be the leader of the herd,
    so you pick some fat cow from Arkansas.

    With 15 million cows, why would they pick some fat cow from Arkansa to lead the heard?

  70. 70 jezebel282

    Ron,

    “being employed and provided negotiated health care by my employer is a wonderful thing.”

    My friend, you are one pink slip away from being uninsured. Can you afford COBRA payments without an income? For only 18 months and then you are completely on your own?

    “If my employer decides to drop my healthcare because of Obama Care”
    If you employer is hit with a 15, 28 or even 62% (see BOE) increase in premiums they may drop your coverage anyway…or lay you off (whichever is worse).

    On the other hand, if CT has a giant pool of participants in an exchange program and you can buy affordable insurance AND get a tax break…..tell me again, what’s wrong with that?

    I think we have to get rid of this fear factor and start talking about insurance rationally.

  71. 71 cstratct

    Jezebel,

    Where does the money to pay for the coverage of every American? The existing tax structure? The government-sponsored option will require significant additional monetary resources that would have to come from taxes, either personal or corporate. So there will have to be a tax increase somewhere. Either the revenue returned to the balance sheet will have to go to higher wages to offset the loss of the benefits or they will have to go to taxes to cover the government-sponsored insurance. There’s no need to snarky. I follow your argument, I just don’t agree that the elimination of those expenses means all that revenue immediately leads to a larger amount of retained profits for the organization. The healthcare has to be paid for in some way.

    Something I’m not seeing is any discussion that deals with the spiraling cost of healthcare. I don’t believe taking insurance companies out of that part of the market will necessarily lower costs. And as I pointed out earlier, tort reform isn’t the cure-all for cost containment. It is a very small part of overall healthcare-related spending.

    “Medical liability reform is unlikely to bend the health care cost curve significantly,” said Michelle Mello, an attorney-researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health. “Reforms to the health care delivery system, such as alternations to the fee-for-service reimbursement system and the incentives it provides for overuse, probably provide greater opportunities for savings.” (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/September/14/ft-cost-benefit-tort-reform.aspx)

    So what is driving healthcare costs? “Hospital care and physician/clinical services combined account for half (51%) of the nation’s health expenditures.” (http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx)

    I disagree with your premise that “health insurance is a cost that is unrelated to every company’s core activity.” It is related insofar as the company seeks to retain good employees. It may not be related to the products or services they provide, but it is definitely related to maintaining a good workforce, which is vital to maintaining any business entity. Would you agree that a productive workforce is a cornerstone of any entity?

    Now I absolutely agree with you final paragraph. I’m all for universal coverage, how to get there is one of the primary issues.

  72. 72 jezebel282

    CS,

    “I’m all for universal coverage, how to get there is one of the primary issues.”

    Precisely.
    I’m a believer in doing the first thing first, not third, tenth or sixth.

    The first step is agreeing that universal access to healthcare is something we want. That is definitely not resolved yet. People who are “secure” in their jobs (ask the 14+ million who were “secure” in their former jobs) and already have adequate insurance are not going to leap at a new arrangement until they are convinced that the alternative is better. That case has not been made. Read Ron’s comment above.

    “the elimination of those expenses means all that revenue immediately leads to a larger amount of retained profits for the organization.”
    I’m not speaking about retained profits only. It is also possible that they can be used in capital investment, development or additional hiring. For example, how many people are working part-time simply because a company wants to avoid providing health insurance?

    Here is one thing that’s for sure; if you are lost in a forest you definitely don’t want the people who led you there to give you advise about getting out. Having lobbyists for pharma, insurance companies and healthcare providers writing the law is crazy.

    “the spiraling cost of healthcare.”
    Again, the consumer is removed from the process. Bills are submitted to the insurance companies for payment. The insurance company pays. Later the insurance companies raise your premium. Do you know why? No, of course you don’t. You are not involved in the process.

    There are no facile answers. But we have to understand the what the destination is before we can figure out how to get there.

  73. 73 1george1

    Most of this belongs as a direct rebuttal to JEZE

    GEO: If there were ways to increase the numbers of Insured,
    with dramatically lower rates for the covered, the businesses,
    and of not loss of revenue pool to the insurance companies,
    whould that be of interest to anyone?

    JEZE replied “NO!”

    GEO: ??
    Moved to: https://stratfordcharter.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/upgrade-now/#comment-19314

    George, only you can go from universal access to healthcare directly to Al Qaeda.

  74. 74 1george1

    Ron, thank you for your general support and example why my
    general theoretical hypothesis, which JEZE dismissed, had
    real and pragmatic value, which you personified & articulated.

    Ron, your posts are normally much briefer with good points.
    Yet you tend not to argue a point & let facts speak.
    Above you did both.

    Chris & Jeze – There does exist pools of money to cover the Health
    Care issue, if there were political will to do so.

    George’s solution can be found at https://stratfordcharter.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/upgrade-now/#comment-19313

  75. 75 1george1

    The political parties cause problems to get the changes they want.

    I believe Obamacare has intentional flaws.
    Republican’ts lack of plan was Miron’s role…Balance moved to: https://stratfordcharter.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/upgrade-now/#comment-19321

  76. 76 cstratct

    Jezebel,

    You are correct that the issue of universal coverage is hardly settled. It appears from this thread that many (I assume Portia is not among them) posters here on this blog support universal coverage. Since this is a debate blog, let’s for the sake of argument say we’ve agreed that universal coverage is the way to go. So if the next station stop is how to pay for universal coverage, it would likely have to come from either higher corporate taxes or higher personal taxes. I’m not sure I see a universal coverage option that is completely market driven. If one exists I’m all ears, as I’m sure are others. But given that is unlikely, we’ll likely have to go the corporate or personal tax increase course. This is where I’m undecided.

    As for the discussion of profits (revenue), I’m still not convinced that the revenue off-set by removing the health insurance “burden” from companies will necessarily result in any greater capital investment, development or hiring. As I said earlier, removing health insurance benefits from the mix will certainly drive salaries higher as individuals will demand higher wages to off-set the loss of benefits. So that could be a wash. And any profits that may accrue might not be reinvested at all. They could simply be pocketed by the owner. That would be his/her prerogative, but again, I don’t necessarily agree that removing these benefits from the compensation package makes these businesses more competitive. As for part-timers, there are certainly some employees that would prefer full-time employment, but there are also a number of those part-timers that prefer that option and could lose their position because they are unable to commit to full-time employment. It also may simply be a case of the business not needing those extra man/woman hours. I’m sure there are more part-timers looking for full-time than those preferring to remain part-time, but the shift may not be as great as you might think.

    You said “People who are “secure” in their jobs (ask the 14+ million who were “secure” in their former jobs) and already have adequate insurance are not going to leap at a new arrangement until they are convinced that the alternative is better. That case has not been made.” I agree that the case hasn’t been made. I think many people just want to know that the alternative will be equal to or better than the current arrangement. If people retain the same coverage but overall pay less, that is better. Others might feel that if everything remains the same (costs and coverage) but it means those without coverage are now under the umbrella that is a win. This is pretty much where I fall with respect to the issue. But you’re correct, the case is so muddled that no one knows which end is up.

    Regarding spiraling costs, I suppose you’re talking about people in general, because there are some (including some on this blog) who make an attempt to understand why these costs increase. For example, the Kaiser Family Foundation link I cited points out, ” At least 7% of health care expenditures are estimated to go toward for the administrative costs of government health care programs and the net cost of private insurance (e.g. administrative costs, reserves, taxes, profits/losses). Some argue that the mixed public-private system creates overhead costs and large profits that are fueling health care spending.” That is significantly higher than the percentage of costs related to medical malpractice, which some point to as a primary cause of spiraling costs. I’m not saying there isn’t a need for limited tort reform, but it is hardly a cure-all with respect to cost containment. Medical care has also become more adept at treating chronic conditions, which means people are living longer and require others to care for them. Obviously doctors, nurses and all those associated with the healthcare field are not going to voluntarily reduce their wages and benefits or allow them to stagnate, so those the ability to treat chronic conditions coupled with rising wages also contributes to those higher costs.

    I enjoy coming to your blog because I believe those participating can have constructive dialogue regarding issues such as healthcare.

  77. 77 1george1

    Chris,
    What are your positions on using Tax Credits and Deductions
    for individuals and businesses, to decrease out of pocket
    costs?

    What are your positions on using Tax Credits and Deductions,
    changes in Employment and Contract Laws, and other Legislative
    Acts with incentives and penalties to Insurance companies as
    cause to help market forces create Gross policy costs to between
    $ 10,000 and $ 5000, annually before being further reduced on the
    out of pocket costs to Individuals and businesses (presently paying
    far higher rates)?

    What is your maco economic perspective on whether or not lower
    Insurance Rates, Costs, to Businesses, and Cost to Individuals will
    also lower Government costs related to a wide range of inflated
    costs?

    What is your view that if unemployment were at 4 % and under-
    employment had offsets to boost real income, increasing disposable
    income, it would increase government revenues, business profits,
    and individuals’ quality of life?

    What do you see as threats to these concepts, besides the trends
    of OUTSOURCING OVERSEAS or to INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS?
    > To be adddressed separately.

    JEZE and others ignore my points.

  78. 78 jezebel282

    CS,

    “And any profits that may accrue might not be reinvested at all. ”
    What? Are you suggesting that the Bush tax cuts didn’t cause the “job creators” to hire more people?

    “the case is so muddled that no one knows which end is up.”
    Thank you. I’m am exhausted from wasting so much time reading the ideological blather about health insurance. Health insurance doesn’t make anyone better; healthcare does. Now, how do we get healthcare?

    George
    “JEZE and others ignore my points.”
    You have yet to propose a single (You know…”one”?) idea in any post that is either understandable or reasonable. That’s why they are ignored.

  79. 79 cstratct

    Jezebel, I agree that it would be great if the discussion would be about healthcare and not health insurance. But it is nearly impossible to discuss one without the other, at least in our system. I’m sure you and many others are exhausted debating the topic. I tried to very carefully compartmentalize the health insurance discussion and the healthcare discussion. What is your recipe for how we “get healthcare”? Are you advocating a single-payer, government run system? What role would insurance companies play in this setup? You mentioned earlier about these companies offering supplemental insurance people could purchase voluntarily? Is that their only function in your proposed setup? These would be far, far smaller companies and would put a lot more people on unemployment. So what are the ramifications of your proposition? Shouldn’t that be discussed as well? I’m trying, like you I suppose, to get at specific ideas or suggestions. Contrary to what you (or others) might believe I am interested in those specifics and the general ideas. I’m also curious about the unintended consequences of each potential course of action.

  80. 80 jezebel282

    CS,

    “What is your recipe for how we “get healthcare”?”
    I don’t have one. That’s why I’m still an avatar and not President. I do know if I had a choice between Medicare part A, B and D and say, Connecticare or BC/BS I’d go with the former.

    I have a bad feeling that the only solution to universal access to healthcare is a complete rethinking/restructuring of the entire system.

  81. 81 cstratct

    By the way Jezebel, I loved the sarcasm with this question:

    “What? Are you suggesting that the Bush tax cuts didn’t cause the “job creators” to hire more people?”

    This is the exactly the kind of distortion we get from conservatives with regard to unemployment. This goes back to when Newt was in the House, condemning Democrats for opposing capital gains tax cuts. Apparently “job creators” are like Tinker Bell, if you clap your hands and say “I believe in job creators” the jobs will magically appear! Of course the last decade of lower rates and cuts to capital gains did nothing, but that apparently is because we didn’t believe hard enough.

  82. 82 1george1

    JEZE – define understandable & reasonable in your world.
    > I use standard definitions.
    > I also don’t believe all government press releases nor views of
    the USA versions of PRAVDA, ISVESTIA, & the UK SUN.

    Chris > that apparently is because we didn’t believe hard enough.
    > Maybe you need to click your heels & wish yourself to Kansas,
    with TOTO.

  83. 83 1george1

    Here’s to SUDDS:

    Red wine may soon have company on the healthy drinks menu.

    According to a recent review of more than 18 studies on booze,

    BEER is just as good for your heart as vino. Drinking a little more than a pint of beer a day could make you 30 percent less likely than non-drinkers to suffer from stroke, heart attacks, and heart disease, researchers found. Credit heart benefits to the alcohol itself, and polyphenols (antioxidants) in beer. And make sure to drink that beer with a smile—click here to learn

  84. 84 jezebel282

    CS,

    “This is the exactly the kind of distortion we get”

    Well, there are some honorable conservatives that would have nothing to do with the GOP or Tea Party. This “job creator” thing is a total political fiction.

    This is a true job creator: A guy has an idea for a company. He saves the money, goes into debt or risks his house to start the company. He works his butt off never knowing if he can succeed but does it anyway. if he’s very lucky, he can generate enough revenue for some stuff like equipment or people. If he’s very very lucky, he can pay back the money he owes that started the business.
    This is a job creator.

    Somebody who has a boatload of cash that takes a small portion of it to make another boatload of cash is a businessperson. Their goal is to make more cash, not create jobs. Jobs are a byproduct, not a goal.

    Maybe the point is that if the “job creators” are taxed more maybe they will work harder to create more jobs to make up the difference? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  85. 85 1george1

    There are more than a single ways to create jobs.
    Greatest job creation was the marshall plan – it worked.

    However the BAD STARS running this country and their GREMLIN
    DESPICABLE TOUCHABLES can sabotage any business.

    Or they can make it obscenely profitable.

    Right now the greatest job creators are concentrating on the BRIC
    BRAZIL
    RUSSIA (Warsaw Pact)
    INDIA
    CHINA

    Roughly 1/2 of the World’s Population.
    Only top populated countries otherwise are
    MICRONESIA & US – They European Union population is about US.

    If there were no WEAPON, DRUG, & HUMAN TRAFFIC there would
    or could be real progress to every country in the world.

    I’m content if I can pay my bills and feel others are treated fairly
    and equitably to pay their bills, as I seek protecting livelihoods &
    lives. If only we had HONEST RANK LAW ENFORCMENT & POLITICS…

  86. 86 1george1

    Define AFFORDABLE.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: