Obamacare Kills Jobs
Thanks Obama! Thanks Feingold!
Assurant Health said Thursday that it will eliminate 130 jobs at its offices in Milwaukee and Plymouth, Minn., by Oct. 1 as the health insurer prepares for the pending changes under federal health care reform.
The company, based in Milwaukee and part of Assurant Inc., sells health insurance for individuals and small employers as well as short-term policies.
Companies that sell health insurance for individuals and small employers face an onslaught of new regulations under health care reform, including the requirement that they spend 80% of premiums on medical care.
“While it always is a tough decision to eliminate jobs, the health insurance industry is undergoing unprecedented change that requires our company to adapt and transform,” Don Hamm, president and chief executive officer of Assurant Health, said in a news release.
Awesome. This is called efficiency. We need more, not less, of it in our health care system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2010 at 2217 hrs
This is really a good news!The government provide efficiency to help our people!
While it always is a tough decision to eliminate jobs, the health insurance industry is undergoing unprecedented change that requires our company to adapt and transform.Posted by Juicy Couture on August 19, 2010 at 2233 hrs
On the contrary, this is horrible news. It will reduce service, reduce options for consumers and ultimately will put the company out of business. And this is only the first. Obamacare is designed to put insurance companies out of business in the name of “fairness”. It will eventually force everyone into the government program where we can all be equally miserable.
Posted by Deekaman on August 20, 2010 at 0453 hrs
If there is one thing the goverment knows about it is effciency!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 0511 hrs
Yeah, because the Obamacare flow chart is the embodiment of an efficient government agency.
Good to know there are 130 more people on the unemployment rolls. Obama should go for record unemployment and call it a success.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 0728 hrs
Two Lies, and a reality-check:
“You may keep your health insurance policy.”
“You may keep your doctor.”
You may keep your job. Bur more likely, you’ll lose it.
Posted by dad29 on August 20, 2010 at 0800 hrs
Less options, less service, that’s what we all want, right? Health care needs to trim the fat, they process claims to quickly as it is, and they have to quick of a response time when I call in with a question. This streamlining will make it much more efficient. Please give me some more kool-aid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 0929 hrs
Awesome. This is called efficiency. We need more, not less, of it in our health care system.
Awesome. We need a hell of a lot more of it in our government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1027 hrs
Well, Medicare is a lot more efficient than your private health insurance. And I think it’s probably a good thing if insurers are required to spend at least 80% of premiums on actual health care. If they can’t survive on a 20% overhead, let them step aside and let someone else in who can.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2010 at 1106 hrs
Well, Medicare is a lot more efficient than your private health insurance.
You’ve never proven that.
And I think it’s probably a good thing if insurers are required to spend at least 80% of premiums on actual health care. If they can’t survive on a 20% overhead, let them step aside and let someone else in who can.
Medicare never would survive on that cut.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1201 hrs
If they can’t survive on a 20% overhead, let them step aside and let someone else in who can.
Oh, and we’re not talking about “surviving”... we’re talking about increasing the unemployment rate. Can’t you stay on topic?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1203 hrs
What statistic could I provide to you to demonstrate that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance? You obviously don’t like the one everyone knows about how small the overhead is compared to the private sector.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2010 at 1203 hrs
What statistic could I provide to you to demonstrate that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance?
One that clearly shows it in an apples to apples comparison. I’ll give you a hint… there isn’t one.
You obviously don’t like the one everyone knows about how small the overhead is compared to the private sector.
You’re right, because of what I just said.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1226 hrs
We’re talking about an industry whose business model is now based on medical underwriting (otherwise known as screwing people with pre-existing conditions) and passing along their overhead costs to every other bit in the economy. So the regulations are going to change so as not to screw people with pre-exisitng conditions. Insurance companies will no longer need medical underwriters and thus have less overhead. (Note that these jobs have nothing to do with actually delivering care.) And competition means that insurance companies will eventually pass those savings along to every other bit of the economy. That’s how a market is supposed to work. It’s what Ron Johnson correctly described as “creative destruction.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1233 hrs
For a group who believes they understand business and free markets so well, you don"t get health care.
My bill for my employee’s health care (Yeah, I pay it) NEVER goes down.
There is no “Business” like this in the world- where costs only go up-except health careWhere an 8% increase is cause for a sigh of relief
The health care industry had its chance to stop the nonsense- and when pressured,actually raised rates in response.
The arrogance of the group is exceeded only by the stupidity of so called capitalists supporting this group of price fixing clowns
“Tea Partiers for staus quo health care “
Kind of hypocritical when you blast the government for it"s many inefficiencies yet give a free pass to those who would charge the common man twice a house payment for heath insurance . The house payment is fixed, the health insurance bill- that only goes UP
Some jobs will go, some companies will go- that happens when you COMPETE for business. We should shed no tears for health care.
Obama’s only policy failure (as has been the case in too many instances ) was not acting boldly enough
Owen and the other sister’s of perpetual indignation will never approve of any of Obama’s policies .They’re just reading and rewriting the talking points anyway
The health care captains of industry are deathly afraid of competition and willing to pay lobbyists any price to keep the system just the way it is.
Want an oxymoron- try ’ Affordable health Care with the current system”
How about some tea Party outrage over that.
OK- guess not
Mark Maley
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1239 hrs
What statistic could I provide to you to demonstrate that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance?
How about total cost for care per individual, Medicare versus private insurance?
Posted by Smeety on August 20, 2010 at 1300 hrs
You obviously don’t like the one everyone knows about how small the overhead is compared to the private sector.
No, I don’t like it. It’s inherently false.
Private administrative costs are sometimes compared to Medicare’s administrative costs without reference to the significant differences in the two programs and their target populations. Medicare administrative costs as a percent of total costs are estimated to be approximately 5 percent as compared to an estimated 13 percent for private plans. To start, they enroll very different populations with different costs per enrollee. On a per capita basis, Medicare monthly costs are about $750 per beneficiary compared to roughly $350 per member per month in private plans.
The differences go far beyond the underlying costs of the two programs. Private insurers develop a range of products; sell them to an under-65 population; develop and support provider networks; promote wellness and prevention; offer disease management services; access to health information; and offer consumer support services related to choice of providers, treatment plans and value. Traditional Medicare primarily provides basic coverage to designated populations, seniors and persons with disabilities, without health management services, provider networks, or consumer choice of benefit packages. Private plans frequently pay state and local taxes from which Medicare is exempt. Similarly, private plans meet state imposed “risk based capital requirements” as well as pay appropriate returns to investors. Medicare is financed not only through premiums, but through taxation and government borrowing. The comparison is complicated further because some of Medicare’s cost of capital—for example, the interest cost of the share of national debt due to Medicare spending—is not included in the calculation of the program’s administrative costs.
Posted by Smeety on August 20, 2010 at 1305 hrs
That would be insufficient, smeety. What medicare comparisons always ignore is the cost of capital. Such costs are built into private models. Medicare pretends its’ capital is unlimited and costs nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1306 hrs
I understand what you refer. My point is that total cost of health insurance for individuals on private health insurance plans is incredibly efficient and any ‘universal’ numbers with regard to the entire Unites States are skewed due to Medicare (and gov’t employee health care plans)...
Posted by Smeety on August 20, 2010 at 1309 hrs
If the status quo is so darn efficient, why do we spend about twice as much per capita on health care as any other developed country?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1313 hrs
If the status quo is so darn efficient, why do we spend about twice as much per capita on health care as any other developed country?
Total cost of health care for individuals who use private industry health care is about $4000 per individual per year. My link above eludes to this cost….
Posted by Smeety on August 20, 2010 at 1348 hrs
What is also often overlooked is that Medicare reimbursements usually do not come close to paying the actual cost of the care. Medicare is subsidised by private insurance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1448 hrs
How about total cost for care per individual, Medicare versus private insurance?
Medicare recipients are sicker and older.
cost of health insurance for individuals on private health insurance plans is incredibly efficient and any ?universal? numbers with regard to the entire Unites States are skewed due to Medicare (and gov?t employee health care plans)
I’ve seen you write this before, but what can you show me that indicates it’s true? I think that it is not. It surely doesn’t account for the double-charge we’re all getting compared to other nations.
Medicare reimbursements usually do not come close to paying the actual cost of the care.
Where by “actual cost of the care” you mean “what providers can get for their services and products.” It’s simply not the case that a physical costs X and Medicare is only paying Y. People in other countries get physicals every day—by real doctors!—and they are paying even LESS than Y.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2010 at 1455 hrs
Medicare recipients are sicker and older....and Medicare is incredibly inefficient.
It surely doesn’t account for the double-charge we’re all getting compared to other nations.
I’d ask you again not to include the one hundred million plus individuals that have health insurance thru private companies when you use the words ‘we’re all’ .... becuase it’s obviously not all of us…
Posted by Smeety on August 20, 2010 at 1546 hrs
...and Medicare is incredibly inefficient.
And how do you figure that? I’m still not getting why I should believe you when you say that.
I’d ask you again not to include the one hundred million plus individuals that have health insurance thru private companies
Explain.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2010 at 1550 hrs
Want an oxymoron- try ’ Affordable health Care with the current system”
How about some tea Party outrage over that.
There is, and there always has been outrage over the problems with the current system Mark, and you know that. Stop being a petulant little child.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1552 hrs
Explain.
If you have evidence contradictory to my link above regarding private health care costs, please bring it forward….
...and Medicare is incredibly inefficient.
if you didn’t read it the first time (linked above)...
Private administrative costs are sometimes compared to Medicare’s administrative costs without reference to the significant differences in the two programs and their target populations. Medicare administrative costs as a percent of total costs are estimated to be approximately 5 percent as compared to an estimated 13 percent for private plans. To start, they enroll very different populations with different costs per enrollee. On a per capita basis, Medicare monthly costs are about $750 per beneficiary compared to roughly $350 per member per month in private plans
Posted by Smeety on August 20, 2010 at 1555 hrs
If you have evidence contradictory to my link above regarding private health care costs,
I didn’t understand what I was supposed to see at the ink, truth be told. Give me a little help?
Also, your quoted paragraph can be paraphrased thusly: “Medicare appears to have lower administrative costs per capita, but it also enrolls sicker people who use more services.” And I don’t understand what one has to do with the other, frankly. Again, help a guy out.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2010 at 1611 hrs
I didn’t understand what I was supposed to see at the ink, truth be told. Give me a little help?
That 100,000,000,000+ Americans pay an average of $4,000 per person per year for health care.
$737 billion spent for $43 million medicare recipients equals over $17,000 per Medicare recipient. And that does not include any costs incurred by the recipients. Government efficiency at work….
- - - - - - - - -
How do you get…
Medicare appears to have lower administrative costs per capita
from
Medicare monthly costs are about $750 per beneficiary compared to roughly $350 per member per month in private plans
Posted by Smeety on August 20, 2010 at 1621 hrs
That 100,000,000,000+ Americans pay an average of $4,000 per person per year for health care.
Ok, and what at the link you provided shows that? Assuming it’s true, so what? Are you suggesting it compares favorably to the per capita expenditures of other countries? Those other countries are most assuredly not excluding the elderly from their per capita numbers the way you are. I think that probably makes a huge difference, don’t you?
How do you get…
Because the first bit is addressing administrative costs. The second figure simply says “costs” which leads me to believe it’s medical expenditures, not just administrative costs. That is to say, Meidcare may have very low administrative costs (money that is used for things other than actual health care), but pay more per person for health care because their patients are elderly and have more health problems. This fact would not indicate that they are less efficient. At all.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2010 at 1628 hrs
So you are claiming medicare costs $750 per month per recipient?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2010 at 1640 hrs
I’m not claiming anything. I’m just saying that you appear to be comparing administrative overhead costs with… costs. I want you to clarify.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2010 at 1648 hrs
If the status quo is so darn efficient, why do we spend about twice as much per capita on health care as any other developed country?
Posted by Jacques on August 20, 2010 at 1313 hrs1. Because we choose to.
2. Because we can afford it.
3. Because we have a higher standard of living than most of the world
4. Because we are FREE to do so
5. Because we subsidize drugs (r&d, production) for most of the world
6. Because we subsidize medical research for most of the world (ever hear of the many medical breakthroughs coming from CUBA?)
7. Because we don’t have (didn’t have) the government limiting what we choose to spend for our own health.
8. Because we have decided it is moral to spend lots of money on newborns and old folks.We also spend more than much of the world on plasma TVs, candy bars, halloween costumes, christmas presents, luxury cars, internet service, and much more. Using your logic (we spend more than others, so we need government to control it), should the government control those industries I listed as well?
If you want a first-hand look at government-run health care, look at our VA system. Even for our military, which all CongressCritters claim to support and spend lots of money, the VA system sucks (think Walter Reed).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 21, 2010 at 1028 hrs
We choose to? I’d like to choose to have what Canadians or Brits have and pay the price they pay. Can I choose that? Apparently not.
We can afford it? You’re dreaming. Wake up.
Lots of medical breakthroughs come from overseas.
By the way, the VA is pretty good care judging by how satisfied it’s participants are. (Cue the guy who always says “oh a government study praising the government, how cute!” because the study is done by a group of researchers with ties to a public university—nice.) And Walter Reed isn’t the VA, genius. it’s an Army hospital.
Posted by scott on August 21, 2010 at 1048 hrs
I’d like to choose to have what Canadians or Brits have and pay the price they pay. Can I choose that?
Go ahead, no one here is stopping you. No one in this country has ever stopped you.
Too bad that you can’t just be an adult and choose to do that without trying to force all of us into your skewed view.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 21, 2010 at 2138 hrs
So what company can I go to to get Canadian coverage at Canadian prices?
Posted by scott on August 21, 2010 at 2152 hrs
I believe your current employer has coverage better than Canada’s at a cheaper rate…
Posted by Smeety on August 21, 2010 at 2223 hrs
I believe you are deluded.
Posted by scott on August 21, 2010 at 2241 hrs
If you’re in the USA, and want an MRI, you can get one same day.
In Canada, you wait weeks or months.If you’re in the USA and need drugs or procedures not covered by your insurance, you can: 1) pay for it out of pocket; or 2) appeal to government. In Canada, you’re stuck with whatever government bureaucrats decide. It is not up to you or your doctor. You take what the government gives (or doesn’t give) you.
The best medical schools in the world are in the US, because we spend the money for them (this is part of all health care spending).
I said “we”. Collectively, we want the best health care money can buy, and are willing to spend it. And yes ‘we’ can afford it.
Yes, some medical advances come from overseas. But I assert that most come from the US. Governments in other countries don’t want to spend the money. We have private companies here that take that risk.
Please tell me what program, what agency, what department is so well run by the government, that you want to turn over your health care to them?
The next time you need health care - tests, exams, procedures - as a way to save money, please tell the doctor to not run all the tests, exams & procedures necessary. Tell the doctor to limit what health care you receive. You want Canadian health care - that’s one way to get it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2010 at 0053 hrs
Canadians are up to $6k per person per year for their coverage. I guarantee Scott is not paying $6k per person per year for his coverage. Scott is incapable of having an honest conversation.
Posted by Smeety on August 22, 2010 at 0858 hrs
$6-highly-subsidized-thousand
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1024 hrs
In Canada, you’re stuck with whatever government bureaucrats decide. It is not up to you or your doctor. You take what the government gives (or doesn’t give) you.
I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. You’re no more limited by “government bureaucrats” in Canada than you are limited by “insurance bureaucrats” in America.
most come from the US.
Like because we heavily subsidize them with our university research and because they make double selling their drugs to us as opposed to other places.
Please tell me what program, what agency, what department is so well run by the government, that you want to turn over…
...your military, your courts, your fire and police protection, your road and highway construction, food and drug safety? But a more direct answer is that Medicare and the VA are both examples of how health care can work with a greater role for government. Neither looks particularly frightening to me compared to the clusterfuck we have right now.
Also, guys, let’s at least occupy the same reality when we’re discussing this. We pay more per capita than any other country. Observe.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita
The very idea that you’re going to frighten people about the cost of Canadian or British health care is absurd. They pay less than we do.
All of this comes down to ideology. You can’t admit—or even believe—that a system which has a greater role for the government can be more efficient or more just than a system relying more on private interests. Simply can’t. No matter what facts are available, including the obvious examples of every other industrialized nation on earth.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1056 hrs
@Scott: If you want to talk ideology:
The government does not have any business in the healthcare realm unless the Constitution is amended. Further, your taking of my property for your healthcare or any other reason because you “deserve it” is nothing more than theft.
Your ideology endorses theft, plain and simple.
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1112 hrs
I’m sorry, but both of those points are just wrong.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1116 hrs
@Scott: How are they wrong. PLEASE tell me. Because they aren’t. Your ideology is bankrupt and morally reprehensible. Tell me how taking from one because of the perceived needs of another is less than theft?
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1315 hrs
Well, by that standard all progressive taxation is “theft.” Basically the only thing that wouldn’t be theft in your eyes is if we added up the costs of all government services, divided it by the number of people in the country and gave everyone a bill for the exact same amount. And there would be no government services for the poor or indigent, as using others’ money to pay for them would also be theft.
That’s a pretty extreme view.
Besides which, the modest amount of redistribution and progressive taxation that we do have is in place because the people who pay the bills vote for them. Even you get a vote. If you don’t like it, talk to your neighbors. They’re the people responsible.
If you don’t like the shared responsibility of living in a community of others I recommend you find a secluded place somewhere where you won’t be bothered by the rest of us.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1321 hrs
It’s not extreme at all. The extreme view is that a small group of people determine that a perceived need should be met by some one who has “more”. It’s nothing more than jealousy and greed.
I have some problem with progressive taxation, but I can live with it. My problem stems from the belief that others are entitled to the property of someone who earned that property. It’s theft, plain and simple. There is no Constitutional authority for the entitlement system. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. I don’t care what the judiciary says, all one has to do is research what the founders (Madison and Jefferson, in particular) intended and it becomes very clear. Further, the entitlement system is unsustainable.
Just because people vote for it, doesn’t make it right. Prop 8. Need I say more? It was voted for by the people and struck down. I happen to believe it was right, I’m sure you don’t. This is a nation of laws, with the Constitution being the defining document. It makes no provision for “entitlements”.
I stand by it being “theft” and Scott, you and your type are thieves.
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1335 hrs
Progressive taxation isn’t theft? But it’s taking one person’s money and using it for the benefit of another, is it not?
I don’t care what the judiciary says, all one has to do is research what the founders (Madison and Jefferson, in particular) intended and it becomes very clear.
And yet few serious Constitutional scholars find your arguments compelling. I’m sure you can explain that. “They’re communists” or something equally compelling.
the entitlement system is unsustainable.
I’m not sure what you even mean by “the entitlement system,” but if you believe that a government cannot provide safety nets for things like retirement, health insurance and unemployment insurance then you’re wrong. It’s done all over the world. And the places where it’s not done are not really places any of us would like to live.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1358 hrs
Scott, you remain wrong and you and your ilk are thieves. If someone asks for my help, I will give it to them without strings, to the limit of my resources. When you tell me who I must help, you are stealing from me. No, the government is not in the business of providing social safety nets. Not at the Federal level anyway. Before FDR, people didn’t die in the streets because Uncle Sugar wasn’t there to bail them out. Constitutional scholars you refer to are wrong. The Constitution says what it means. None of that involves wealth transfer to those who did not warn it.
If you want a Euro-style socialist utopia, amend the Constitution to say so. Then we can all be equal in misery…except for the ruling elite, of course.
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1405 hrs
So is progressive taxation theft or isn’t it?
And I have no need to amend the constitution to enact the kind of social policies I’d like to have. (Not that anyone in Washington is even proposing them.)
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1408 hrs
Of course you don’t because in addition to being a thief, you are a traitor.
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1415 hrs
A traitor? How so?
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1428 hrs
Pretty obvious. You clearly don’t believe in the Constitution as the law of the land. You wish to see the Republic overthrown and remade as you see fit. You are a traitor.
And a thief.
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1431 hrs
Oh…and a coward, a looter and a liar.
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1431 hrs
You clearly don’t believe in the Constitution as the law of the land. You wish to see the Republic overthrown and remade as you see fit.
Really? Explain.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1438 hrs
But a more direct answer is that Medicare and the VA are both examples of how health care can work with a greater role for government.
On what planet are you on? Medicare does not pay the full price - they pay only a portion, and doctors & hospitals have to eat the rest (read: pass on the costs to private insurance holders). Medicare does not pay for the drugs and procedures that private insurance policies do, because some GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT decided not to pay for those treatments. Many doctors are not accepting new Medicare patients, because they cannot afford the losses.
REAL LIFE EXAMPLE OF HOW MUCH MEDICARE SUCKS, AND PRIVATE INSURANCE WORKS:
My mother retired 4 years ago. When she retired, and went off the company’s insurance plan, her doctors informed her that she would not receive the necessary-to-live drugs and treatments under Medicare. BECAUSE MEDICARE DID NOT COVER THE NECESSARY-TO-LIVE STUFF. The solution? She was able to purchase her company’s policy as a Medicare supplement (to cover all the stuff Medicare doesn’t), and pay the full premium price. Guess what she had to pay, as a 70 year old single female? $450 per month. She got to continue all her medical needs for $450/month, plus the regular co-pays she had been paying.
Medicare DOES NOT WORK. Government bureaucrats limit medical treatments. Government wastes fortunes in overhead, bureaucracies and fraud.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2010 at 1652 hrs
Like because we heavily subsidize them with our university research
Which doesn’t happen under Government run healthcare.
Say goodbye (press 2 for Adios) to drug research.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2010 at 1655 hrs
I was going to say Deekaman is just a fool, but he’s certainly mastered the ad hominem attack. So good for him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2010 at 1702 hrs
Just callin’ it like I see it. Lefties are traitors and liars. It’s just true. You can deny it all you want, but it’s true.
I’m out.
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1709 hrs
The way you “see it” is pretty nuts. Calling your fellow Americans traitors because you don’t like their policy ideas?
Paul, lots of other countries pay less than Medicare does for services. How does that work? And I remind you that right now “insurance company bureaucrats” currently decide what you receive and don’t receive.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1744 hrs
No. I am calling the Left a bunch of traitors because they have brought this country to the verge of destruction by using calculated plan to bring on a “worker’s paradise”. I’ve watched it for 40 years now. I just wonder how they sleep at night. It’s very easy to be free with other people’s money and move your yacht someplace where you don’t have to pay the taxes. It’s very easy to criticize George Bush, but not your own party when they are part and parcel to two wars and a recession. The press is in league with them and has been for my lifetime (exhibit A: JournoList).
Joe McCarthy was right. The Left is a lot of liars, hypocrites and traitors.
Posted by Deekaman on August 22, 2010 at 1814 hrs
Are you off your medication by any chance?
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 1819 hrs
Deekaman, I appreciate your vigor.
Who agrees with Scott about the justification of redistribution of wealth? Chavez, Castro, Mussolini, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Obama…fine company if I do say so myself…
This war against the wealthy and middle class….
Posted by Smeety on August 22, 2010 at 2028 hrs
Who agrees with me about what, exactly? Progressive taxation? Social Security? Well, just about every civilized nation on earth has those things. No need to go right to the communists, pal.
Posted by scott on August 22, 2010 at 2047 hrs
lots of other countries pay less than Medicare does for services.
So. That wasn’t part of the discussion. Discussion was how great/how crappy Medicare is vs current private insurance, a tangent off of Owen’s post about government run health care causing job losses.
“insurance company bureaucrats” currently decide what you receive and don’t receive.
Yes and no. In a true free market, insurance companies can compete, and offer a variety of plans, and we can pick and choose what we want. (for examples - please see how car insurance works - you can pick and choose coverages, you can shop around, and even if you’re high-risk, you can still find basic coverage). Also, there is nothing stopping people from paying cash for medical services not covered by insurance (see dental, see eye care, see boob jobs). In government run health care, you can’t do that. Since the government pays the bills, the government decides what you can have, and CANNOT have.
Please discuss why Medicare is so great, that my mother would have died if she was forced to take it, since they would not cover drugs she needed to live. This is a real example of how government run health care will kill people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2010 at 2300 hrs
Lets not fail to mention all of the potential future new hires that this bill is preventing. There are many companies that will choose to stay below the mandate numbers because their profit margin will not be able to grow to match the additional cash outlay…
Why would a company grow from 45 to 55 employees if they are going to make less money doing so? The answer… They wouldn’t.
And Scott, Progressive taxation is theft. Furthermore it is morally wrong for half the population to carry the costs of this nations operations. It is fundamentally unjust.
Furthermore, a flat tax is progressive….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0118 hrs
Last line should have said:
Furthermore, a flat tax is fair.
Those who have the ability to, pay more, and those without the ability to, pay less, but we are all proportionally equal in our stake in the future interest of our country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0120 hrs
In government run health care, you can’t do that. Since the government pays the bills, the government decides what you can have, and CANNOT have.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. And I suspect you don’t either.
Progressive taxation is theft
You conservatives should run on this.
it is morally wrong for half the population to carry the costs of this nations operations.
Oh, here we go. Those unfortunate rich people and those lucky ducky poor people who get a free ride. Do tell me how “this nation’s operations” are funded exclusively by whomever. Go on. Let’s do it.
Posted by scott on August 23, 2010 at 0644 hrs
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
ROTFLMAO
And I suspect you don’t either.
Wrong.
In government run health care (like Hillarycare, like what is being developed here), you cannot pay cash for things not covered by the government. This means you are only able to take what the government gives you. You want more? Nope. You need more? Good luck.
Medicare is nothing more than unelected, unaccountable, unknown bureaucrats deciding what procedures and drugs will be covered.
With government running health care, you have a politically favored disease? You get stuff. You have an unpopular illness, or one without a cute poster child, tough.
We pay more per capita than any other country.
That is the basis of your argument? As I stated before (and you never acknowledged), the US pays more per capita for lotsa stuff (candy, gifts, plasma TVs, luxury cars, internet access service). Using your logic, the government needs to start controlling those industries as well. Just because we spend more, does not lead to a needed cause of action.
You have yet to address any topic. You’ve only participated in ad hominem attacks (from both sides). Next.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0833 hrs
You have yet to address any topic.
That’s what scott always does. That’s why I said what I did way back in post #10.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0842 hrs
Oh, here we go. Those unfortunate rich people and those lucky ducky poor people who get a free ride. Do tell me how “this nation’s operations” are funded exclusively by whomever. Go on. Let’s do it
Do what?
If a person making $100,000 / yr is taxed @ 20% he pays $20,000 in tax.
If a person making $30,000 / yr is taxed @ 20% he pays $6,000 in tax.
The wealthier person is paying more, clearly, but meanwhile the taxation has the same meaning to both people. Since they are taxed on the same proportion of their income, they feel equal pain, and have an equal stake in this country. Both pay their fair share.
The top 50% of wage earners pay 97.11% of all federal income tax. That is unjust, you know justice, allegedly one of the canons of your liberal ideology?
You can go on with your stupid retort of “oh, those poor rich people.”, but that changes nothing, and makes no argument…. The income tax system is unfair and unjust. You can go on about how the poor are hit harder by lifestyle choice taxes (drive throughs, cigarettes, booze) but that doesn’t change the fact that these are burdens they have control of.
Those unfortunate rich people and those lucky ducky poor people who get a free ride.
I posit that this statement is all the more depth of thought that you progressives have put into the subject.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0848 hrs
Furthermore, I don’t think income taxes should be deducted directly from paychecks. I think you should file your 1040’s and 1099’s at the end of the year and receive a bill for the total amount of tax owed.
Were you going to address my point about aborted new hires, due to your healthcare bill?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0854 hrs
Progressive taxation is theft
You conservatives should run on this.
That’s the dirty little not-so-secret isn’t it Scott? Thanks to you progressives and your wonderful “progressive” taxation system you have got an automatic 40-45% voting block… Too bad the rest of your ideas are nothing but rehashed FDR crap wrapped up in a pretty box with a pretty pink bow. Too bad the wrapping paper and the bow aren’t enough to cover the stench of that 80 year old crap. Maybe you guys should try exploring new ideas, new territory…. Nah, that would require thought, effort, and work. We all know how you “progressives” feel about those things. Thought: to be chastised. Effort: to be punished. Work: to be taxed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0859 hrs
This information is really useful and definately is comment worthy! hehe. I’ll see if I can try to use some of this information for my own blog. Thanks!
Posted by coach outlet store online on September 16, 2010 at 2104 hrs
Total Entries: 19655
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 08:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 58
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 09:34 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).