CNN Business says Obamacare is a job killer.

1. 92

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/smallbu … /index.htm
   
   This really concerns me, and you can't say CNN is right wing.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Another thing  you can say about CNN - who saw that story.  Their audience share is miniscule and shrinking.  Before long CNN's audience will be one guy on a smartphone waiting for a delayed flight in Duluth.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I get news from many sources - conservative, liberal, and moderate. CNN seems to be about the fairest, overall.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            CNN is just not as inflamatory as MSNBC but still liberal news - hence the decline.  Conservatives have no use for it and liberals find it timid.  CNN will be shifting either to more balanced stories by removing the overtly anti-conservative bias or by becoming shrieking, demented, frothing, rabid liberals like MSNBC - if it want to survive.  Given its investment in international news, a good, solid hatred of America would be more beneficial than to shift to the middle.  Watch for CNN to flirt with more balance and then swing for the lunatic viewer since it will not errode FoxNews audience share it will have to pursue MSNBC's audience.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               "NEWSFLASH"  All of the network news on television and for the most part newspapers is "NEWS ENTERTAINMENT".  CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc........... are there to capture your attention and keep it through their paid sponsorship dribble it wants you to watch till they can pump you up again for the next commercial break. To ignore it is lunacy.  The only way to combat it is to read many different things from very diverse sources.  If it does not make sense you can see for yourself.  To trust one source is crazy as you are then propogandisized into one thought process and therefor trapped into skewed understanding of the issues.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  On this we will agree, in concept if not in tone.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      rickyliceaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
      So Duh, of course this is going to happen, and when it does, Liberals will say that we need more government intervention to create jobs.
      And the cycle will continue.
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Angela Blairposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Love the cartoon you posted. The verbage : "I'm the government; I'm here to help you." Before one takes this to heart they should ask any Indian!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No kidding.  I can't think of a group that more clearly illustrates the incompetency - immorality - of government than how Indians have been treated for over a hundred years.  BIA should be dissolved - just on principle.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            rickyliceaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, its quite famous cartoon on the interwebs.
            Yeah they would make a treaty, and then break it 10 years later, and then go through the same process over and over again.

            replyreport
   3. 74

      Ann1Az2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think it will provide numerous jobs for 2 job sectors - healthcare and the IRS.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Except among physicians
         http://www.doctorsandpatients.org/resou … -june-2012

         replyreport
      2. 69

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I can see it increasing IRS agents, but it will not increase the Health Care employment situation. It's just not going to materialize new jobs because that's not what the Health Care Reform was meant to do.

         replyreport
      3. 0

         rickyliceaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         yeah by shifting resources to those sectors it will destroy jobs that would have been created in other sectors.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The fundamental notion unaccepted by interventionists is that government does not create jobs it merely changes the type of job and its location, the end result of which is more destruction.  When the money that would have created a manufacturing job in Indiana is moved to Washington DC to create an IRS job the manufacturing job is destroyed.  What happens to the person doing that job - he is now unemployed all to serve the goals of a centrally directed economy

            replyreport
            1. 0

               rickyliceaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Well said.
               Have you read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes and Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" and Bastiat's "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen."
                  
                  Bastiat is free online
                  http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
                  
                  as is Hazlitt
                  http://www.fee.org/library/books/econom … ne-lesson/

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     rickyliceaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Cool.
                     Great minds read the same books.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Becareful, I am not one with which you should readily associate.  I am a faithful Catholic - not good company for an atheist.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           rickyliceaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Oh no! I would have guessed you were an atheist, usually I'm right about that after reading a person's posts.
                           But I'll make an exception for you.
                           I was also a a Catholic until I went to the dark side at 13-14.
                           
                           Yeah I  have Bastiat Collection Pocket Edition on my Amazon wish list.

                           replyreport
                     2. 60

                        tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Studied Thomas Sewell's Basic Econ in college.  It still  is a good book.  I like to read it every decade or so.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Sowell is a great man.  The only thing that prevents him from being acknowledged as a great black intellectual is his politics - there is a litmus test - instead, black liberal icons offer a poor subsititute for men like Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell and the brilliant Shelby Steele.

                           replyreport
            2. 71

               rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               What a stretch!  You think this notion of yours will stretch across every industrial economic function in place. Your really over characterized theories and simplified results are really provacative but bare little reality in the scheme of things.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  A commonly accepted notion in economics.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I love how there is an aristocratic air to your comments as though the common people haven't the capacity to comprehend your unfounded theories.  Your understanding of economics doesn't neccesarily make you right.  Good show but there isn't any substance that I can see other than scholastic theory to your notions.. None of this answer to your post is meant to insult you but rather understand the insult you offer.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        If money is taken by the government from a business in Indiana and moved to create a job in California - what happens? 
                        
                        1) If that money was available to create a job in Indiana or was already being used to support an existing job, that job is destroyed.
                        
                        2) The job intended to be created by taking that money may or may not create a job but to what end?  The job didn't exist in the first place because there was no demand for it and so a job may - MAY - be created where one is unneeded, unnecessary, unwanted or unsupportable.
                        
                        3) Since the job in Indiana was destroyed and one not necessarily created in California who is to fill the job now that the Indiana worker is unemployed?  Is he expected to uproot himself and his family to California for a job that may not exist at all or at best exist until the artificially supported job becomes too expensive to maintain?
                        
                        4)  This is exactly what happens when the government insinuates itself into the economy.  Things are maintained that should parish, be restructured or modernized and other things are destroyed that were actually working.
                        
                        5) The history of government controlled job creation is replete with high unemployment, destroyed jobs, distorted markets and destroyed wealth. 
                        
                        It isn't some hair brained economic BS but actual economics.  You should read Bastiat's "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen."  it explains in plain language some important principles in political economics.

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           If you are speaking to government subsidies I totally concur.  And I agree that the government should not be in the business of creating jobs.  All of that has been a dismal failure.  But the goverment doesn't take money from one private business and hand it to another other than through tax credits or punitive means, so I can't follow your validity as either there is more to the situation or it is purely hypotheoretical.  If the business loses out because of a tax credit issue than they had better get a new set of accountants. There are too many assumed facts and theories to make this a credible answer.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              We're done.

                              replyreport
                              1. 71

                                 rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Very well then.

                                 replyreport
2. 69

   Cagsilposted 11 years ago

   Thank you Habee for the link. It was an interesting report to say the least.
   
   The question is....Now what?

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Now what?" Bush 3 and another Great Recession.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Another Great Recession and Bush 3 isn't about to happen. I would suspect that a recession really isn't our future problem, but a Depression via Oppression is.

         replyreport
3. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   The real job killer is the American insurance system. Period.
   Saddling ANY employer with the burden of providing health care benefits to their employees adds a huge expense to each employee's compensation. And we wonder why companies outsource?
   
   That is nothing new.
   Responsible employers have been doing just that for decades.
   And dealing with rampant insurance increases for a long time.
   Cost sharing with employees can only go so far.
   As this article points out, the answer is not skirting the obligation and denying people both jobs AND health insurance.
   Imagine if public sector employers tried to pull the same thing? We're going to keep our teacher force or police force or DMV office to 49 employees so we don't have to offer health care? Imagine the hue and cry if that happened!
   
   Alas, Obama didn't get the single payer system he wanted.
   Here's to Obamacare 2.0.
   Hopefully the private sector will drive that bus and we can move to single payer.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Businesses know how much room they have in gross receipts to support the compelled increase in costs associated with the Federal government's dictates regarding insurance.  Much like increases in minimum wage, requiring insurance be purchased by employers naturally reduces the demand for labor as it increases labor costs.  It is simple economics.
      
      Economics so simple as to escape liberals.  Since when is providing health insurance, life insurance, paid holidays, etc...the obligation of an employer to an employee.  If the conditions for employment are made plain and the association is free will than where is there an obligation?  Benefits became common during WWII because FDR and the Federal government had imposed wage  and price controls.  the only way a business could gather sufficient numbers of employees was offer things beyond wages.
      
      The interference of the government in a market place always - ALWAYS - alter that market and not for the better, since government dictates are universal in scope, unlimited in reach, unresponsive, inflexible, insufficiently informed and always - ALWAYS - coercive.  Nearly 50% of medical spending  already distorts the market because it is governemtn/taxpayer provided.  imagine what it would be like to buy food with a Federal program that encompasses 50% of grocery costs - how much would that distort costs?
      
      McDonalds-Buger King-Wendy's-Taco Bell are nearly universal providers of fast food - how much governmetn interference is there in the daily operation of each restaurant?  Though not the healthiest diet, one could eat, every day, enough calories of sufficient nutrition to keep body and soul together for about $10. 
      
      Government wage controls created massive insurance companies during the 40s.  Worker expectation and state governments have added to the size and power of insurance companies. State's and the Federal governments have ignored free markets by limiting access to insurance across state lines, mandating specific types of coverage - like drug treatment - legislated away the actual,. economic reality that women use more health care than men, resulting in higher costs, less flexibility, fewer insurance providers, more bureaucracy, more paper work and more regulation - making insurance companies giant, clunky, inefficient, quasi-governmental agencies.
      
      What would that kind of idiocy do to fast food?  Maybe McDonalds would have a $50 menu instead of a $1 menu.  If you want to lower the cost of insurance and medical care - institute a consumer directed market - like fast food, beer, groceries, sports equipment, electronics or any other consumer driven market.
      
      If your goal is to ration health care, increase waiting lists and costs, reduce access, reduce the number of doctors, lower the quality of care than pursue a nationalized healthcare system.  It is a simple economic principle.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So simple is your logic that with your theories nobody could afford healthcare.  Since we don't or are not allowed to have a large pool of participants to draw claims as shot down by the single payer alleviation from the bill,  where would you expect to get another pool of participants to defray costs over a long term enrollment.  Are you suggesting that insurance companies would just add people to their rolls in large enough voloumes as to lower the cost to them and their customers?  Since we currently have no single payer based system the only logical basis to acquire one is from the government employees and the private employer medical insurance system already in place.  This because it is the steadiest means to get groups large enough to defray costs to both the employer and the employee. The failing is the amount of time that instantly insures so many that have never had or have serious medical conditions that precluded their involvement in these programs.  The mandate is only a fraction of what needs to happen to cover such individuals.
         Government may not have the answer for this dilema but neither does anybody else and burrying our heads in the sand is how we got to this point.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            So your solution is not end the foolish practice of insurance but instead make indurance even more bureaucratic, clunky, paperwork heavy and inefficient.  Your solution is to render the healthcare user even more distant from the cost of health care and therefore from its judicious use.  Your solution is to make chosing services even less free (by the way there is no such thing as free of cost someone must bare the cost.)  Universal, single payer healthcare is to move in the direction that health insurance has been moving for decades rather than reversing course and subjectin healthcare to more, not fewer, market forces.
            
            Market forces push prices down because it is not driven by vast pools but by the organic motion of consumers.  Why should I be compelled to buy insurance that covers pregnancy if I cannot get prehnant?  Why should I be compelled to buy insurance that covers substance abuse counciling if I have never, ever abused any substance?  Why should I be compelled to purchase insurance that covers the stupid, ill advised choices that others make when I do not live as they do?
            
            Insurance itself is a kind of tyranny punishing the virtuous and rewarding the unvirtuos.  As a non-drinker, non-smoker  I should be able to purchase insurance that covers my life choices not forced by the mechanism of the state to purchase insurance that covers you life choices.  Freed of the stupidity of dictated conditions the cost of healthcare for those who treat their bodies right would be far less than those who do not.  That would be some high quality healthcare reform.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Single payer works, it works all around the world.
               
               How exactly do you intent to eliminate health insurance, the average person just cannot bear the cost of a serious illness or injury, insurance is the only way that works.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Does it work, how ell?  Isn't the single payer system a large part of the insolvency of the PIIGS, Belgium, Britain, France?  If single payer is so brilliant why is there so much medical tourism to the US?
                  
                  The recommendation of conservative organizations is that daily and ordinary healthcare should be totally free market driven with insurance for catastrophic illness and injury insurance be available/  That is still a radical departure from where we are and the opposite of where we are headed.

                  replyreport
            2. 71

               rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               No my suggestion is to do something about the the costs associated with the running of the healthcare system.  I have had two parents recently run through the healthcare system at the end of their lives and seen first hand how absolutely inefficiently it operates.  My wife is a nurse and comes home at the end of her shifts screaming about the worthless tests and redundancy that takes place everyday.  Most of this is to stay off the lawsuits and liability the hospital and doctors want to aepose themselves too.
               
               The problem with a sinking submarine is not to take on more water as it sinks but to plug the hole before it is too late and work on getting air back into the tanks to resurface.  It is a two pronged attack that nobody wants to acknowledge.  The tort laws are way to broad and the medical business is a paperwork monster.  How about we start there?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What has caused the redundancy and over testing?  Could it be avaricious lawyers that have caused malpractive insurance to sky rocket in cost?  Liberals also fight the tort reform that would help reduce the cost of medicine.
                  
                  So the solution is to add the government????  If you want a nightmare add those idiots to the mix.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     What makes you think that liberals will profit over conservatives in congress with opposing tort reform.  For some odd reason you think there is some sort of moral compass in congress that the conservatives have a good report with.  The problem with congress is not that they are liberals obstructing progress against conservatives that want to fix the problem but that whenever anything gets done they all have to get paid in some way or another.  Look what has happened in the past when one side dominates the other.  Bad laws take affect such as prohibition, the blue laws etc.......  This was never about the law but about the process.  Once in awhile the slimebags sneak something of value through of value despite themselves.
                     
                     My suggestion is plug the holes before the submarine sinks.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Because conservatives have proposed tort reform many times to be blocked by liberals.  The Tort Bar supports Democrats and many Tort Bar attorneys are Democrat congressional members - and Presidential candidates - remember John Edwards? Republicans and Democrats are both lounging in the DC hot tub/ cess pool but which one has a greater stake in expanding the welfare state?

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           The claims you make does not cover all conservatives and there are a number of liberals who cross the isle in favor of tort reform.  If this is such a big part of the conservative led house why is there no vote on it now?  They vote continuously to repeal Obamacare why not this just the same since they seem to be connected.
                           
                           How can you get behind a bunch that has held up just about all other legislation with the likes of Mitch Mc'Connell who's only mission is to defeat Obama.  Some group that is looking to do anything GEEESH!

                           replyreport
   2. 79

      Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Insurance and banking are at the heart of everything that is awful, destructive and evil in the U.S (world?). And every time someone tries to point out something good that comes from one of them, I always smile and nod and point out that I have also read stories where people get brain cancer and the tumors cause them to become geniuses or savants. For a while.

      replyreport
4. 60

   tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

   CNN said it, so must be true.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That isn't the point.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry Cas, I was being sarcastic.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I wasn't sure, which is why I posted. It's not a problem.

            replyreport
5. 69

   Teddletonmrposted 11 years ago

   Just imagine what the unemployment numbers will be after another four years of the current administration and their anti-private sector agenda.
   No jobs, and no quality health care in a timely manner will be availible.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Oh yeah look how job numbers have plummeted in this administration... Wait no unemployment fell despite rising enormously under the last "pro business" administration.
      
      Public healthcare has increased the standard of average healthcare in every country it was instituted and it has never been repealed due to getting almost immediate public support once it has been seen in action, I see no reason to believe that won't happen here.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         If public healthcare is so wonderful why do so many come here for treatment?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Healthcare tourism to the US is actually pretty small, for example the tiny island of Cuba gets about a third of the healthcare tourism that the US does, the US is not a particularly popular healthcare tourism spot, our system is good if you are very wealthy which is why the rich come here for care but public healthcare is about helping our people who are not rich.
            
            Only about 60 000 people come here yearly for care which is actually not very many at all.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Unemployment has barely budged at all under Obama.
         
         You just have to count the people who are un-unemployed as well.
         
         Or do you think that people who are no longer eligible to collect unemployment checks don't count? It paints a pretty picture that way if you like the current President...

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            It's called trend reversal, When Obama took power unemployment had risen astronomically, since he took power we have seen moderate improvement (yes even in terms of real unemployment)

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Did you know that market corrections happen both ways, all on their own, all the time?
               
               Obama didn't stop the rising unemployment rate. The market achieved its natural equilibrium.
               
               And no, we haven't seen moderate improvement. We're still above Jan 2009 levels, and going back up.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, you see that top line? You call that a moderate improvement? Looks more like a horizontal trend to me.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes it's a moderate improvement, the trend is downwards and all the fluctuations have been to below the original mark, considering the economic climate it's quite heartening.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Not the black line. The top line. That's a horizontal trend. There is a range with a top and a bottom, and the line trends between the two.
                           
                           Keep in mind, that chart looks out of date. Your argument would look better if you got one more up to date.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              The long term trend is horizontal but the movement has never been upwards. As for he graph I believe it's for December 2011, which means it's not all that out of date.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Never argue with fools, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    I should keep that in mind for times when I post an irrefutable fact in primary source format, and people argue against it.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       feistyfoodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       If and when that day arrives then I 'm sure we'll all recant.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Haha, sadly it happens all the time.
                                          
                                          I've had people that wouldn't admit that GE pays taxes when I posted their SEC filing with the page and line number that shows their taxes and tax rate, or deny how much pharmaceutical companies pay into R&D when I post their SEC filing that shows their R&D budget, or deny how much someone will actually pay in taxes, when I post the tax table from the IRS.
                                          
                                          It happens all the time, otherwise more people on these forums would know that GE pays taxes around 20%, and more people would know that the middle class doesn't pay more federal income taxes than the wealthy.

                                          report
                              2. 0

                                 JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, by 2010 the unemployment rate stopped increasing. It's been horizontal ever since.
                                 
                                 Which is exactly my point. Things aren't getting better. We're stuck at over 10% unemployment, but you call that 'very effective'.
                                 
                                 As for the timing, the markets generally take a year or two from start to finish to make a big move. Sometimes a little longer, sometimes a little shorter.

                                 replyreport
                  2. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Here's a primer on how to identify trends from charts:
                     
                     http://www.learn-stock-options-trading. … lines.html

                     replyreport
               2. 61

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes markets self correct but different economic models disagree on when this happens and all acknowledge that political policies can affect this the economic adjustment was surely very conveniently timed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, models disagree. Obama's model for the economy under the stimulus claimed we would never rise above 8%. It claimed that without the stimulus, we would go up to 9%. It claimed that by now, with the stimulus, we would be under 6%.
                     
                     We went higher with the stimulus than Obama thought we would go without it, but surely he understands the economy well enough to be attributed with its correction.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        As you probably well know predicting economies is a very inexact science, I meet up with a few economic major buddies every week and we as a group we hardly ever agree on what is going to happen even though we are all economists, having said the consensus is that the stimulus was very successful and a variety of international bodies have said the same.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Very successful? With unemployment over 10% you call it very successful?

                           replyreport
               3. 66

                  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Had it not been for the Tea Party House of Representatives we would be significantly farther along toward recovery from the Bush Great Recession.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     How so?

                     replyreport
6. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Do you remember this Josak?
   
   

   replyreport
7. 92

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   Okay, I'll admit that I don't know much about "single payer." Would that be like Medicare for all? Why are so many people against that?

   replyreport
8. 56

   Alternative Primeposted 11 years ago

   After studying legitimate sources and using a touch of common sense, a clearer understanding of the facts would emerge indicating that "ObamaCare" aka "The Affordable Care Act", is a job enhancer and critically important "Life Saver" for millions of Americans including those of whom already own an individual or group insurance policy -
   
   The real job slashers are of course Mitt Romney, the shady, crooked tax avoiding corporate sympathizer together with his Republican cohorts - Proven job killers with a track record to prove it -
   
   
   Mitt with virtually zero experience in private sector job creation other than reducing MA unemployment rate from last in the U.S. to somewhere in the 30 range, a result of thousands simply giving up the job search and not necessarily a result gained from the supposed illusory Romney "Expertise", would have, and unquestionably will if he gets the opportunity, allow the auto industry or any other sector to simply FAIL, leaving untold millions unemployed - The very definition of "Job Killer" -
   
   According to his own admission, one of his first agenda items after hand on bible, if god forbid he were to ever become president, would be the slashing of our critically important Federal Agencies which provide necessary services and stable full time employment, obviously resulting in tens of thousands of job losses if not more -
   
   "Let students borrow money from their parents" is Romneys appallingly condescending mantra - The Romneys are simply weird, out of touch characters who should probably be preparing for a lengthy prison stay subsequent to a thorough investigation into finances verses uncontrollably drooling over the prospects of owning the White House keys -
   
   "ObamaCare" a job killer? Where does that leave Mitt Romneys unconscionable track record of profiteering by using the guise of Bain Capitol to intentionally dismantle companies for personal monetary gain? - It's literally unbelievable to even think a guy of this character is even considered by the GOP for a paper route job, let alone Presidency of the United States -

   replyreport
   1. 61

      undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      
      and there common sense ended.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly -

         replyreport
   2. 69

      Teddletonmrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      After studying legitimate sources and using a touch of common sense, a clearer understanding of the facts would emerge indicating that "ObamaCare" aka "The Affordable Care Act", is a job enhancer and critically important "Life Saver" for millions of Americans including those of whom already own an individual or group insurance policy -
      Say good-bye to the free market system, hello-overreaching bureaucrats.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         that is redundant

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Teddletonmrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Really, you noticed,

            replyreport
      2. 78

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         In a free market system those who want a good  or serviceand are willing to pay a fair price for the good or service should be able to buy it, right?
         They should not be prohibited from buying it, right?
         Not so with health care.
         Not so with health insurance.
         
         There is an artificially created scarcity of this commodity which instead of leading to increasing the  supply at less per unit cost is leading to less supply at greater cost.
         
         And the real problem here. We're not talking about buying the latest TV or designer cell phone.
         Americans are DYING.
         What part of that do you people who oppose the ACA not get?
         

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Pricing structure is based on what you are willing to pay, it's not about being fair. Supply and Demand is the thing that matters. If there's a high demand and a limited supply, then you can bet the pricing structure of that product/good or service is going to be higher, until the supply can catch up. The problem with this is that it gives corporations the power over consumers because a company can order only so many, test the marketability of the product/good/service and if warrants increase shipments, then increase price accordingly. Again, I don't approve of businesses passing on taxation to consumer, when consumers already have to pay multiple taxes on whatever it is they buy(with a few exceptions).
            Restrictions can be put in place, such as Alcohol, Firearms...etc.
            The reason Health Care has risen up in price is due to many different things and nothing is solely responsible for it.
            Health Insurance is just another Product/Goods or Services. It shouldn't operate any different than any other business.
            
            Health Care services and Health Insurance are part and parcel of the Health Sector of America's Economy.
            Mighty Mom, the quality of health care in America has been going downhill for at least the last 15 years or so.
            No we are not. We are talking about Government failure to do anything right in the past 100+ years, political corruption, poverty, homeless, starving(if you can believe that), ignorance in Congress and people believing these same idiots could fix Health Care in America.
            Yes, what makes you think people are not going to DIE anyways?
            We get it Mighty Mom, trust me we really do. But, the Government IS NOT the answer to the problem.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               The health insurance companies are parasites.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Good Job Ralph.

                  replyreport
            2. 78

               Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               There are only so many choices to lead this much needed and long overdue industry reform:
               1. The insurance companies. Where is their incentive to insure more people or charge less? None.
               2. The health care providers. Where is their incentive if they're laying out more care but their costs are not going to be reimbursed?
               3. The government. Can inflict short-term pain on both segments to achieve the overall goal of more care for more people that is paid for.
               4. Other. Can't think of any. Can you?

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Really? I would say reform of the Health Insurance industry can be done and yes it's long overdue.
                  Their incentive is the service they provide, they make money by having policy holders and the revenue it generates. Why should be there be any other incentive given?
                  There's a difference between affordable and quality care vs greed and power of position.
                  So you think ACA is a short-term thing? That's the first time I've heard anyone refer to anything the government implements as short-term.
                  Would you like to solve the problem with people and health care? If so, then look at it this way- Uneducated people for the most part don't pull their weight within the constructs of America's society. Now, if you better educate people, then they will do better things for themselves and they will most likely be grateful in the end, when they look back.
                  
                  We need Teachers who give a damn. We need to remove all religion and politics from the public school system(except for them to be taught as a generalized study). We need States to not be dependent upon Federal Money to keep public education afloat. Get the Federal Government out of the school financing marketplace, except maybe at private colleges. State Colleges should have their own revenue resources to maintain operation. After all, it is a College. The people running it shouldn't have to depend on State Funds to operate. That means we need to find multiple reliable sources for supplies needed for schools and ensure they have the most up-to-date technology at their disposal.
                  
                  Lastly, it is time for citizens to start thinking seriously about themselves. Better behavior, because what's seen now is appalling and completely disrespectful on so many levels and this is only achieved through better educated parents about parenting. Never mind, learn as you go BS. People having babies they have no clue how to take care of is absurd. The only two ways to fix is through parenting or education.
                  
                  People need to start being more health conscious about what they put into their bodies. Since the FDA isn't really trustworthy, people should be investigating what they are eating and drinking, and putting into themselves. They need to start understanding what it means to live within your means and do it honestly. When people don't live within their means, that means their actually living on some else's dime. Why? Because it's borrowed money they are living with. You do know, money doesn't grow on trees, right?(sarcasm- )
                  
                  Well, at least that's a start.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     That is quite a plan!
                     I cannot disagree with any of your points on the fundamental problem being education and bad behavior.
                     Believe me, I see the full spectrum of all you describe every day.
                     On a massive scale (California -- nuff said).
                     
                     I don't get why it's become fashionable to hold up willful ignorance as a quintessential Amerian value. 
                     That is just "rediculous."

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, the level of willful ignorance and/or chosen ignorance in America has truly grown to epic level, more than any other time in history, aside from the Dark Ages. At least during the Dark Ages, a lot of humans had no awareness to the actions of others because there just wasn't a fully integrated society as there is today, which begs the question- Why are the levels higher now in willful ignorance/chosen ignorance than then?

                        replyreport
                  2. 69

                     Teddletonmrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Hey Ray, how do you really feel? 
                     I find your insights both timely and refreshing.

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Hello I'm doing well. I feel pretty good actually. Hope you're well also.
                        Thank you. Much appreciated.

                        replyreport
9. 61

   Miss Belgraviaposted 11 years ago

   Another view:
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opini … ef=opinion

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Everyone misses the point. Obamacare doesn't address the real cost of healthcare, because most people don't know, and don't seem interested in knowing, the real cost of healthcare.
      
      The article you posted mentions how Obamacare, according to a report, would reduce costs over the next decade by a whopping $500 billion.
      
      Unfortunately, that's less than 2%. It sounds good, until you realize that, even if true, that would reduce the average American's yearly bill from $7,500 to $7,350.
      
      You can never fix the problem if you don't know what the problem is.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There are a lot of assumptions taken for granted because politicians know they have no hopes in controlling the pricing structure of the Health Care Industry in this Nation.
      
      There are just too many factor that contribute and most of them are being ignored.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Teddletonmrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Believing that the cost of health care in the U.S actually going down due to the implementation of Obama care is absolute nonsense, the cost will increase exponentially. With eighty + million folks added with the additional governmental regulations that will need enforcing the costs will most certainly skyrocket to support the ever-expanding scope of the program.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What people don't realize is that there is no physical way for government to completely implement the regulations it requires because business models can change and will change once regulations are placed on them.
            The point is that government has NO hope of ever being successful.
            
            I mean seriously, these idiots in Congress want to claim a victory here and they cannot. There was nothing for them to win except more money, guaranteed money for corporations.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               i sincerely doubt that the solution to any problem is to make the government more powerful increasing its reach and scope.  That is a major reason for the mess we are in now and Europe - home of over reaching governments - is being preserved from full collapse by the industrious Germans.  Who, by the way, retire at 67 not 60, 62 0r 65.
               
               If you want prosperity, unwind government from the economy.  That includes healthcare.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Dude, seriously. Do try to read my posts better.

                  replyreport
10. 78

    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    That is a pretty strong but apt indictment!
    We as a country have reverted back to a low period in history centuries before our founding.
    Must be latent European DNA being activated by too much fast food and video games.
    I see us as a combination of Dark Ages plus Fall of Rome plus Puritanism plus Wild, Wild West. All of the worst of all of 'em.
    

    replyreport
    1. 69

       Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Just calling the actions of citizens as they are and have played out for the last 20+ years or so.
       We're getting there.
       
       Interesting perspective to say the least.

       replyreport
    2. 69

       Teddletonmrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yee haw Mighty Mom its going to be a long ride

       replyreport
       1. 69

          Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          

          replyreport
       2. 78

          Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Bring yer guns!

          replyreport
    3. 61

       undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       California has been dominated by liberal politics for decades - since before Pete Wilson - and you think more will help there and in the country as a whole?

       replyreport
11. 59

    Xenonlitposted 11 years ago

    Yeah right. You go ahead and get your information from CNN, the most busted name in news.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       ++++

       replyreport