The Website and the Roll Out
The close to $450 million website, and the chaotic rollout of ObamaCare only re-enforces the now common perception that the president's major domestic governmental intervention is a massive failure. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
And like the iceberg that sank the Titanic, Obama's iceberg i.e. ObamaCare will sink the economy into the depths of a recessionary-inflationary whirlpool.So if a website about the US Constitution failed because of technical issues, that would mean that the constitution was a failure?
I said the website and the rollout...together. Of course the founding fathers would be so perplexed of the technology that are now available to us... and I doubt it very much if they would be willing to pay $450 million for a website that was tested before Oct. 1 and was found to fail altogether when several hundred people asked by the HHS to test/access it crashed the website in multiple different places. The question is now being asked... what did Obama know and when did he know that the website crashed, and why did the HHS under his direction of course decided to go ahead with the roll out when they know that the website could not handle a few hundred testers of its viability. If he did not know...why in the heck did he not know.
No, but it would mean that the website was a failure. It would also mean that it was an expensive failure. It MIGHT mean that other aspects of Obamacare will be a failure. We won't know for quite some time, but you have to admit it certainly wasn't a good start.
That's an interesting way to make your point. It's actually a good point.
The problem is that people also had the opportunity to call and talk to an operator. Operators were standing by, and phones were working. There were still only six people who signed up on day one. Something is amiss, and it's not just a website. Is it a lack of interest? Is it a system that is too complicated? Is it poor communication? I don't know the answer, but there should have been more than six people signing up on the first day. Even one of my hubs had greater traffic. . .
LOL. Yes, that would be the fallacious way of looking at it.
Can we therefore conclude you will be just as dogmatic to other products or services that have glitches to their websites and chaotic roll-outs as being massive failures?Consumers wouldn't necessarily think the product was poor, but sales would be abysmal. Few start-up companies could survive such a poor beginning.
While I might not conclude that the product was poor, I would conclude that the management was likely poor.Perhaps, but products that didn't make it successfully to market were not usually a result of web glitches, it was the result of other factors such as there being no market for the product or falls short of the claims of what the product can do, which at this time are not apparent in the roll out of the health care program.
We don't know what the market is yet. Six people signed up on the first day; while the website wasn't functioning, people had the option to call. That doesn't really indicate a great demand. Only time will tell, and I may be wrong about that. We'll see.
There were also some $5+ billion in grants given to the states for them to set up their exchanges, so all in all we're looking at essentially a $6 billion online marketplace, that isn't even close to working.
Par for the course, the government does something worse than the private sector for 10,000 times the cost.
Also, people are putting their personal information into the website, the risk of identity theft is so ridiculously high, I'm afraid we're going to find a lot more problems coming from this.
It's not just that the website isn't working. It's the entire thing. Billions of dollars and years of preparation, and they screwed up step 1. They screwed up handling visitors on a website, they screwed up the registration process, they screwed up the application process, and they screwed up the transmit-to-insurance-companies process. I don't want to be forced to have these loons in charge of my healthcare.
And then there's the juicy tidbit about them changing the website at the last minute to force people to register before seeing prices. If people could just login and see the prices(you can go through a backdoor anyway), they wouldn't have so many registrations to tout about it being such a success.
BCBS in ND today said they were told not to release the number of people who have signed up for insurance by Obama's administration, but they did it anyway. 14 have signed up.
I'm wondering if this wasn't designed to fail. I have a hard time believing our government would be so incompetent as to hire a firm that has a reputation of failing to fulfill its contracts, and had just screwed up health websites for Canada and Hawaii.
Such a joke, it's painful to watch.The irony of it all is Obama, because of the so called "glitches" may be forced to postpone the individual mandate, which the Republicans were pushing him to do earlier in the debate, but won't and didn't. So now the Republicans are gloating (secretly of course) and just waiting for the whole thing to collapse on its own incompetent weight.
I love how you are always predicting inevitable doom. Remember when you predicted that Obama would lose the election in a landslide? Or when you predicted Obama wold be impeached over Benghazi? etc. etc.
You are pretty much the perfect predictor of what will not occur.Didn't you predict the end of the Republican party, today?
I don't think I predicted it would collapse in the next two hours so I wouldn't say I was wrong.
Besides I believe I conceded you had a point and amended that statement to be about modern conservatism rather than the republican party.@Josak: Since we're on the topic of predictions... Obama predicted that the whole cost of ObamaCare would be $900 billion over a 10 year period. Now current estimates by the CBO put the cost at $1.5 trillion (maybe more) most of it coming from the taxpayer's pocketbook. Now I know you liberal-leftist folks love to give money to the government (in the form of higher taxes) to provide for folks (about 50% of the US population ) who do not pay federal taxes at all)...... but Obama's mantra of wealth redistributuion is just getting way out of hand. At some point, the folks (tea partiers, and ordinary americans etc.) would rebel at such imposition and then what?
If giving people basic healthcare is "wealth redistribution" I am all for it. It is a better use of my tax dollars than 99% of what the government does.
@Psycheskinner: If as you say, you don't like what the government is doing with 99% of your tax dollars ... then you should be marching with the Tea partiers who are demanding greater governmental accountability for how it spends those tax dollars. The idea of wealth re-distribution have been tried in all of the socialist states, extinct or still existing, and have failed miserably to alleviate the economic misery index/status of most of its inhabitants
Ok, I'll accept the ACA if we can get rid of income taxes.
To make Obamacare successful the way it stands right now, the wealth redistribution is going to have to come from young, healthy people, not necessarily rich people. As a teacher, I can tell you that many of my old students went to college, earned a degree, and now live with their parents, unemployed or underemployed. Putting a greater burden on young people seems inherently unfair; we're also pushing the debt on to them.
How is this really going to be a tax that wealthy people pay? They already have insurance. They'll have insurance after Obamacare takes hold. Are they paying a greater tax to support Obamacare? Nope. Again, the only wealth redistribution we have here is taking away from people who are healthy to pay for those who are not, and that typically hits young people the hardest.Because the tax on higher than 250 000 income yearly doesn't exist...
Neither does the tax on Cadillac insurance plans...
Because the tax on brand name pharmaceuticals doesn't exist...
Wait all of those do and are part of the PPACA?
You still don't actually know the legislation *sigh*.Josak, you're right. People will have to pay more, but that won't be limited to wealthy people. It's not just wealthy people who buy name brands or have "Cadillac" insurance plans. Even so, these taxes aren't enough to pay for Obamacare, and you know it. I'm a conservative, and I hate tax increases. Still, I will admit that these taxes won't raise enough revenue to pay for the expenses. You and I both know that the only way Obamacare will succeed is if millions of people, probably at least six or seven million, sign up for coverage, and many will have to be healthy people who pay extra. That's passing the burden on to young, healthy people, and it's flat out immoral. Our children deserve better.
Yes, I do know the legislation, sadly. I also know that the extra tax on "Cadillac" plans will hit many people who are not rich. One of my colleagues has a medical condition that is not covered by most insurance plans. She opts for our district's "Cadillac" plan to pay for this serious and expensive condition; the plan is expensive. She has to do so, because only a "Cadillac" plan covers her condition. Her concern is that now she has to pay a tax on her healthcare; she is being penalized, by Obamacare, for having a health condition that requires really good insurance. The cherry on the cake is the fact that her husband's insurance was dropped last week. Now, she gets to pay to insure her entire family. Needless to say, she's pretty irate and unhappy with Obamacare. The assumption is that everybody who has a "Cadillac" plan is wealthy. That's not always true.
Does anybody find it ironic that the government will tax you if you don't have insurance, and it will tax you if you have really good insurance?"Nope. Again, the ONLY wealth redistribution we have here is taking away from people who are healthy to pay for those who are not, and that typically hits young people the hardest." (capitalization is mine)
Btw if you don't think taxes on 250 000+ households isn't distributive then nothing in the world is.
So time to stop lying
I am going to address each of your points separately otherwise you will dishonestly ignore some.Josak, anybody who has to consistently call a person a liar because they have a disagreement has a serious problem. What kind of a person has to be so venomous? Take a government-provided Prozac.
When did I even mention the 250,000 tax? Learn to read.You said the ACA ONLY had redistributionf ro healthy to sick
The ACA has a tax on people making 250 00+ irrespective of health.
So either you were lying or you still don't know the law. Or both I guess.
Simple fact.What's a simple fact is that you resort to name calling when you know you are losing a debate. We both know Obamacare will be a failure unless major changes are made. Let's keep our eye on Obamacare, not childish insults.
There you are again ignoring the facts. You were wrong, or you lied. You know it. It's a demonstrable fact.
Hopefully just wrong so go read the law, I know it's long but you should make the effort to inform yourself.
It's funny when you comment on Obamacare and major changes when you don't know what is in it in the first place.
This is not a debate this is me pointing out a legal fact and quoting that you were incorrect about it. There is no discussion just a factually wrong and a factually right.
Young people (here meaning 27 on wards since parental coverage extends to 26) are the biggest supporters of the bill and one of the demographics were already according to Gallup most people support it. So actually they seem to be fine with it, these are not children they are adults.
Yes ultimately the young and healthy always end up supporting the sick and elderly in civilized nations, it's the same principle as Medicare, free emergency rooms and SS as well as all the plans aimed at helping the elderly. When we can we help others so that when we are old we will in turn be helped thus the sick and the elderly are not left to die.
Oh the horror.
The vast majority of conservatives support those things (like free ER rooms) which do exactly the same thing so this is just hypocrisy.Lastly your Cadillac plan story makes no sense whatsoever, she will now be much, much, much, much, much better off.
Seriously the ACA is a godsend to this person you know.
Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage on the basis of pre existing conditions so she should immediately quit her plan and join a standard gold plan which will offer unlimited coverage for her condition (again due to the ACA)
I am glad the PPACA will help someone you know so much and save them thousands yearly.
Just goes to show YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW THE LAW.
You are posting great positives as negatives. Inform yourself just a little, please.She doesn't need Obamacare to get insurance. She already has insurance. Her husband used to have insurance, and now he does not have insurance; he was told that his insurance was dropped because of Obamacare. She will now have to pay to add her husband and children to HER policy, a "Cadillac" plan. She certainly doesn't consider Obamacare a Godsend. In fact, she's irate. Do you want to call her a liar too?
If she is Irate then she is simply wrong (in relation to her own insurance anyway) the PPACA will make her insurance significantly cheaper and better.
If she had a Cadillac plan even the cheapest plan to quality and moves to gold she is still saving at least 10 000 a year (on a family plan) for a greater coverage plan.
Again just a simple fact.
So I amend, neither she nor you know the law.That's not true. Rates increased in Arizona, much as they did in 41-44 other states. Have you done your research?
Study: Obamacare Results in Premium Increase in 45 States
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass … s-n1726211
The High Costs Of Obamacare Hit Home For The Middle Class
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorf … dle-class/
Obamacare Raising Premiums, Hurting Middle, Lower Class
http://freebeacon.com/obamacare-raising … wer-class/
Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/26 … k-20131027
This is not about rates in general this is about a specific case. This person's rates are going to drop as soon as she learns the law.
The PPACA means she cannot be refused insurance and all plans are unlimited and chronic disease treatment is a zero deductible treatment now. Meaning her costs are about to plunge.
*Sigh* why am I bothering? These are simple legal facts I am repeating. There is nothing to discuss. Read the legislation for Christ's sake.
Oh and as separate point (you should not ignore the last one just to avoid the facts again) those are heritage foundation figures and they have been shown to be false by two fact checks. They do not account for subsidies making them irrelevant.
The CBO on the other hand which is not a partisan organisation has some very different figures which are that health care insurance costs will rise 2.3% down from 4.5% last year. It's called healthcare inflation and it has never stopped in America. Thanks to conservatives creating the most expensive and fastest cost growing system in the world.
Edit: Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/fighti … more-spin/
From the first post mentioning that specific case you refer to:
"One of my colleagues has a medical condition that is not covered by most insurance plans."
What, pray tell, is that "medical condition", and which plan in which state will cover it under the ACA? What is the cost of her current plan and what is the cost of the plan under ACA?
You've made several claims that her new insurance will be cheaper, but frankly don't seem to have the information to even attempt to make such a claim.Yeah I am working on the assumption that it's a medical condition that is chronic (since she knows she has it and is ongoing) (if somehow it isn't chronic there is still a massive saving) which is not considered cosmetic (does she need constant face lifts?)
I also know that her plan is a Cadillac plan, since that was made clear in the post, which means I know it is at least $10 200 for an individual and $27 500 for a family. Even if it that bare minimum for a Cadillac plan it still means a massive saving under the PPACA.You don't know what the condition is but assume that it will be covered. Are you also assuming that every real or imagined condition outside of cosmetic is covered for every treatment plan in every plan the ACA offers?
Chronic medical conditions and no I specified Gold plan or higher.
If it's imagined... Well yeah then it won't be covered, amazing right?Don't know. My daughter in law has fibromyalgia - something most insurance plans really drag their feet on a diagnosis for. Hard to get insurance to cover much in the way of treatment as there is no real symptom list that works all the time.
Real or imaginary? That's a good question, and when the answer comes from the pocketbook, well...
Did you see my article that used CBO data? Do you read what people write?
Ha! This isn't about rates in general? Are you saying that you know rates will increase for the majority of Americans? Tell that to the millions of people who are losing health insurance and finding that replacing it is more expensive.
OBAMACARE RESULTS IN A RATE INCREASE FOR MOST PEOPLE!
I was responding to the picture you posted showing costs.
This conversation was about the coworker you mentioned. You changed the topic because you were wrong about that too...
The trite one line pictures are just sad, you are better than that.
No, you won't address a deeper issue, rising costs for the majority of Americans. If you want to debate or "educate" the person whose insurance changed, I can get you in touch with her. She can provide all the specifics you desire. Until then, you are avoiding the bigger topic, how Obamacare is increasing costs for young, healthy people, most middle-class citizens, and the majority if Americans in general.
![http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/obamacare-poll[1].bmp](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/obamacare-poll[1].bmp)
No you changed the topic. Because you were wrong, because you don't know the legislation...
The other topic, well we don't have complete costings yet so I can't say one way or other other if costs will rise, from the available data and reliable predictions my guess is the cost will rise less than it did last year while offering significantly better coverage. (Like unlimited plans for everyone).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165548/appro … nches.aspx
Might want to look at what is happening with the polls, approval has been rising steadily.
Electoral College results:
Obama 332
Romney: 206
Except my public opinion "poll" is the one which really matters.Whatever Josak.
Here we go with election results again. We know Obama won. Now, let's talk about Obamacare, a program that the majority of Americans oppose. President Obama lied to get elected, and now the truth is coming out.You were the one who started posting polls.
Actually only 50% of Americans oppose the bill, I don't know how well you grasp mathematics but that isn't most. According to the latest Gallup polls.
At this rate give it two more months and most Americans will support it.
I kept my doctor just fine, my plan is now (like everyone's) also unlimited so it's different but better.What you're saying is that less than half of America is for Obamacare?
"A Washington Post–ABC News poll conducted Oct 17 to 20 and released Oct. 21 found that 56% of those surveyed believed the “website glitches” are “part of a broader problem with the health care law.”
"While about 41% of Americans approve of the ACA, according to Pew, negative public perception of the exchanges could hinder the administration’s plan to enroll 7 million people in private health plans through the exchanges by the end of 2014."
http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/22/am … obamacare/
So two irrelevant stats how surprising one about "wider issues" which is does not mean they approve or disprove of the whole law (I would fall into that wider issues category) and another posting how many support which is irrelevant to your statement of how many disapprove.. Let's be clear, you said most American disapprove. THAT IS FALSE.
That is all.
Watch how the approval rises, it's already begun.Ignoring facts again . . .what's new?
Obamacare is a loser. It won't work without being renovated before it even starts.You posted irrelevant facts (explained how in the edit above.) Either you don't understand how polls work or you are being misleading on purpose. If your poll asks a different question it's irrelevant.
The healthcare issue is already over, Obamacare is set no massive changes will be made, approval is already rising,in 20 years we will change to a single payer system and that will be that.You may be right that Obamacare is set, with no massive changeovers coming.
But if so, there will be no single payer system in the future because there will be no system at all. Within that 20 years we will have deteriorated to the corner witch doctor for health care because that's all the country can afford. All the sharing of the wealth in the world runs out when the money does, and the "plan" our wonderful liberals have forced on the country will absolutely accomplish that.Uhuh like has happened precisely nowhere else ever even in places with similar systems. Sure, very convincing.
Josak,
I bet you can't name a single country that has a universal healthcare plan that is worse than Obamacare. Obamacare is the worst universal healthcare plan in the world.The problem is we wouldn't agree on the problems with it. Israel has a very similar system and it works very well, it is not as good as pure single socialized systems but good nonetheless.
So, you can't name a single country with a universal healthcare system that is worse? The best you can come up with is one that is similar? Why should America settle for the worst universal healthcare system in the world?
As I said there are worse systems in my opinion but we would disagree on why. America should not settle for the system it has but it is much better than what came before. Hopefully in twenty years we can pass single payer and be done.
But yes Israel has a very similar system and it's results are good so this is no disaster.
It's also worth pointing out that the PPACA is not a universal healthcare plan. Universal means everyone gets it, that is not how the PPACA works (unfortunately in my view).What are those countries with worse universal healthcare systems? Shall we call it socialized healthcare? You used that term recently.
What are the countries with socialized healthcare that is worse than Obamacare?
I hope you are wrong. Neither of us know what will happen. We're both predicting.
My prediction is that there won't be enough people to pay for Obamacare, so the open enrollment date will have to be postponed. I believe there will be major changes, sooner than later. As it stands, I seriously doubt that Obamacare can fully fund itself. Only time will tell.
The Republican party is going to die. It might reform, but it would just be a new party with the R name.
The Republican party as we know it, simply cannot last. They are too progressive fiscally, and too old fashioned socially.
They can reform their social standpoints, but then they will be too similar to Democrats.
They can reform their fiscal standpoints, but they will still alienate women, youths, and minorities.
They can reform both, and they will be Libertarians.
The R party is on its last legs. It's played a stupid game.More or less what I said/meant but with a more leftist view
When I've made bold predictions in the past, I've had a mixed record. Thus, I try not to make these kinds of predictions. However, based on what has happened in the past, it might just be that we're (Republicans) in for a solid congressional election. I could be wrong, but we'll both see when it's election time. Democrats hold a slim majority in the Senate. It wouldn't take many seats, and then the Republicans would have a majority there too.
Democrats buy votes, so yes, they are doing quite well right now. Yes, they'll likely do well for quite some time.The congressional election looks pretty good for Republicans just because of what seats are up.
Senate flipping is very unlikely.
The buying votes theory as we have covered before is impossible. Liberals (and further leftists like myself) who these polices are supported by are the people PAYING for these policies by virtue of being significantly wealthier on average.Your statement about Democrats generally being wealthier can coexist with my statement about Democrats buying votes. There have to be some Democrats who do not earn a lot, right? If you had a low income, and you were receiving public assistance, whom would you vote for? Would you vote for the Republican who wants welfare reform or the Democrat who has expanded food-stamp benefits, unemployment benefits, and public assistance? We both know the answer here. I personally know two people who will tell you that they voted for President Obama for one reason, continued government assistance. I'm sure many, many more voted the same way. Free money is alluring. Would I vote for a governor who was adamant about pushing through higher teachers' salaries? Perhaps I would, and I might even do so if he/she were a Democrat! I'm broke. So, please don't tell me that Democrats are not buying votes by spending more money and expanding public assistance. We both know the reality here.
Now, we both know that many wealthy people's votes can be purchased too. Republicans have been accused of this from time to time. Now, I accuse President Obama of the same thing. If you promise a corporate bailout, low-cost government loans, or preferential treatment, you can purchase the votes of wealthy people. Remember, the rich get richer mentality? Part of that is because of sweetheart deals the government offers, favorable treatment. Why do you think that happens? It happens for votes, influence, and campaign donations. Both sides cater to wealthy people, a small group of people. The Democrats also cater to a much larger group of people, the expanding masses of poor people. Who do you think wins on election day? It's like a little kid bringing cookies to class and asking kids to vote for him. We teachers see who will win, and we Republicans also see who receives the votes when the metaphorical cookie is offered to the electorate.Yeah that doesn't work because by the same (flawed) logic that you are using if people are voting to give themselves more entitlements the people who do not receive entitlements but in fact in greater proportion pay for them (the majority of liberals) would not be OK with paying for it and would thus vote conservative.... but they don't. Instead they vote to raise their own taxes to give to other people.
Based on those facts the only reasonable conclusion is that people actually just vote on their ideology rather than selfish self interest (how uncynical) sure a minority will vote for entitlements because they receive them another minority will vote Republican so that they can produce more greenhouse gases without challenge or mine areas they would otherwise not be allowed to.
But both those groups are an insignificant minority, the demographics prove it.
The problem I think is strict capitalists are so used to basing their decisions on self interest that they struggle to comprehend others might not. I honestly never remember ever considering a vote based on how it would affect my life, twice I remember considering how it would affect my children but other than that it's how it will affect the lives of those less fortunate, every leftist I have spoken to about this has expressed the same.
I guess we just don't vote the same. TO be fair though I think most conservatives vote the same way, on what they think is best for the country, there is a portion that does not and from there comes this mathematically unsound "they are voting themselves money" theory.
Absolutely you can buy rich people by offering subsidies to businesses, but not the kind of rich people liberals comprise, liberals on average are highly educated professionals not magnates or entrepreneurs and I see nothing a democratic platform is offering these people except higher taxes and the satisfaction that they are doing what is right.There are millions of Democrats. Some are wealthy, but most are not. Many of the poor Democrats absolutely vote their wallets. You can't seriously say that rich Republicans vote their wallets and vote against taxes, but poor Democrats don't do the same thing and vote for entitlements. Again, if you were on public assistance, who would receive your vote, the Democrats who expand entitlement programs or the Republicans who want to limit entitlements?
You and I will NEVER agree on this one. I firmly, adamantly believe you are wrong. I've seen it first hand. I'm a teacher and work with the public. I see how many people want government assistance, how many feel it's owed to them. Your logic doesn't sway me one bit; I work in a job where I see people who are all too willing to try to get free money from the government, education. I see it all the time. I could give tons of examples of people trying to get money for nothing, parents who are all too willing to exploit their children for a dime. It's wrong. It's sick. It's part of the problem in America, and Democrats are cashing in on it. I also see hard-working, amazing parents who pay for this, whose children suffer because of this greedy, self-entitlement philosophy. It's not right.
To be fair, Republicans are trying to buy votes right now too. Many are offering amnesty to illegal aliens in an effort to buy their votes. It's a sell out.I thought I made it quite quite clear I thought neither did this in any significant number.
"sure a minority will vote for entitlements because they receive them another minority will vote Republican so that they can produce more greenhouse gases without challenge or mine areas they would otherwise not be allowed to.
But both those groups are an insignificant minority, the demographics prove it. "
Yeah sorry but anecdotal data based on your possibly flawed observation of parents as a teacher is a really bad predictor of national demographic trends.... OBVIOUSLY.
The thing is the group that most strongly supports entitlement programs is the wealthiest in America. You can try to twist that all you like but it will still be the case that the strongest support base for these policies are for from the people who disproportionately pay for them.
One more time for clarity. The strongest support for these policies comes from the wealthiest demographic.
Democrats aren't buying votes they are asking their core voter group to pay for things for others... and they do. I know compassion is really incomprehensible to you but there it is.
One last time liberals pay more taxes than anyone else and support raising these taxes on themselves. That is the opposite of buying votes.
I know logic doesn't sway you one bit but there is nothing I can do about that problem.Josak,
You did make your opinions clear. I made mine clear. I use anecdotal evidence, because I have no intention of trying to sway you, but I see the truth on a daily basis.
Yes, millions of people's votes are purchased. It's nothing short of naïve to believe otherwise; all your logic and "data" sidestep reality.
You tell me that I don't see your logic. Your logic flies in the face of the reality I see. Recently, I was speaking to a parent who got her child diagnosed with Asperger's, something that she had been attempting to do for a few weeks. She initially started the process at the school by asking what kind of assistance she would receive. The child likely doesn't really have it, and the parent even acknowledges that it's questionable, but she was willing to have her child labeled to make a buck. Nobody, including the school psychologist, the child's teacher, the nurse, and other professionals believe he truly has Asperger's. Doctors, however, typically use only a checklist to diagnose; everybody knows which doctors are the most likely to provide a liberal diagnosis to please parents. Parents can manipulate the diagnosis by filling out the checklist however they wish. This parent is very happy, because her child now qualifies for government assistance. The first bit of assistance she is now receiving is money to pay for daycare. This is bad enough, but what's worse is the fact that she is now paying the same person who used to watch the child every day for free, the child's grandmother! You see, they didn't need daycare assistance; they just want free money. You'll call this anecdotal evidence, and frankly, I don't blame you for doing so. We have many people here on HubPages who provide these kinds of examples. We all take them for what they are worth, because we don't know how reliable the claims are. That's precisely why I do not intend to sway you with my examples, but conversely, I also don't have any intention of being swayed by what you call logic when I see the truth so often.
What's sick is the fact that resources will now be given to somebody who likely doesn't need them, and all that does is take away from somebody who does. We live in a nation that has changed. Kennedy talked about people doing for their country. We live in a country where millions expect the government to do for them, and yes these freebees buy votes.
You claim I don't have compassion, but you don't know me. You base your opinions on the fact that I believe people are bilking the system. Well, one of the core reasons this angers me is the fact that it takes away from those who do need help. Isn't that compassion?
I could quite literally write a book of examples, but time doesn't permit, and it would be pointless.
@Josak: Predicting and hoping are two different things. I never predicted that Obama will lose the election; neither did I predict that he would be impeached over Benghazi. I was HOPING he would... but that's the audacity of HOPE... Hmmmmmm reminds me of a certain book that its author used as a title..
The Obamacare Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax starts in 2014. Anyone who does not have “qualifying” health insurance, as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services, must pay an income surtax to the IRS. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that six million American families will be liable for the tax. The Associated Press states that, “Most would be in the middle class.”
Income redistribution used to mean taxing the rich and helping the poor. With Obamacare, it means taxing the rich, many people in the middle class, and young, healthy people to help pay for everybody else. Is this really what Democrats stand for now days? I sincerely hope not. Many of us middle-class, working people can't afford much more of this kind of change.
Related Discussions
- 184
The End of Liberalism
by Alexander A. Villarasa 10 years ago
The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism and Progressivism. Quite a leap this idea of Krauthammer's , liberals have...
- 206
Fraud Committed During 2020 Election Will Be Uncovered
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
I said it before and I'll say it again. The intense fraud committed by the Democrats during the 2020 election will be revealed This isn't going away. It's too late to change the outcomes of the election, but it is a good time to reveal the total and complete disregard for the rule...
- 42
Mitch McConnell - The Baffling Continued Support for Donald Trump
by Sharlee 3 years ago
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their...
- 39
Election Integrity 2024! What's happeing on the battle front?
by Tim Mitchell 3 weeks ago
‘They Are Miles Ahead’: Despite ‘Election Integrity’ Hype, GOP Could Be Walking Into 2024 Legal Buzzsaw by the Daily Caller (Mar 14, 2024)https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/14/repu … h8QW8SmTL0Phew! About a 4,000 word article or somewhere around a 16 minute read. I moved from a cup of coffee to...
- 36
Post Mortem-So why did Romney lose?
by Credence2 11 years ago
I am taken back to the site 'unskewed polls' where the conservatives were saying that the mainstream polling system was unfairly skewed in favor of Mr. Obama. So, I bet I could not find them now anywhere among all the bits and bites of the internet. Maybe you guys can add to this most interesting,...
- 21
Do you think Mitt Romney could beat Hilary Clinton for president in next electio
by Audrey Selig 9 years ago
Do you think Mitt Romney could beat Hilary Clinton for president in next election? Explain.Romney may try another run at presidency.