jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (18 posts)

Healthcare Reform "Winners and Losers" (+ Unemployment Rates): Yahoo!

  1. fishskinfreak2008 profile image60
    fishskinfreak2008posted 8 years ago

    Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100326/ts … RoY2FyZXJl

    Obviously, states with higher unemployment rates will need more help as far as insurance is concerned.


    Arizona (Unemployment Rate: 9.7%) Home state of REPUBLICAN Sen. JOHN MCCAIN; OK, 9.7% unemployment IS high

    Delaware (Unemployment Rate: 9.6%) Home of Vice President JOE BIDEN; OK, 9.6% unemployment IS high

    Hawaii (Unemployment Rate: 7%): OK, this is STILL high

    Maine (Unemployment Rate: 9.3%): Home of REPUBLICANS Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins; OK, 9.3% IS high & Maine is a small economy and small economies need more help than large economies

    Massachusetts (Unemployment Rate: 10.4%): Home of Democratic Sen. JOHN KERRY & Republican Sen. SCOTT BROWN (the man who won the seat held by TED KENNEDY for 47 years because MARTHA COAKLEY BLEW THE SPECIAL ELECTION); OK, 10.4% IS high (it's the highest figure so far on this list) and again, Massachusetts is a small economy

    New York (Unemployment 9.4%) Home of Democratic Sen. CHUCK SCHUMER; OK, 9.4% IS high

    Pennsylvania (Unemployment Rate: 9.5%): Home of REPUBLICAN-TURNED-DEMOCRAT Arlen Specter; OK 9.5% IS high

    Vermont (Unemployment Rate: 7.5%): Home of DEMOCRATIC Sen. Patrick Leahy; OK 7.5 IS high

    Washington State (Unemployment Rate: 10.2%) Home of DEMOCRATIC senators Patty Murray & Maria Cantwell; OK once again we're looking at a state with over 10% unemployment which IS high

    Wisconsin (Unemployment Rate: 9.6%) Home of DEMOCRATIC senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold; OK, 9.6% IS high

    Washington DC (Unemployment Rate: 12%), which IS HIGH


    MICHIGAN (Unemployment Rate: 14.9%)

    CALIFORNIA (Unemployment Rate: 12.5%)

  2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years ago

    I know, Right?

  3. DevLin profile image61
    DevLinposted 8 years ago

    Arizona, the paper said today, 650,000 unemployed, not counting every illegal. Now we know why taxes were raised on unemployment benefits. Gotta pay for that tax they added for everyone over $88,000, to pay for this monstrosity.

  4. profile image0
    Ghost32posted 8 years ago

    Arizona is also in deep dollar trouble due to the health care law language--directly so.  If they proceed with a Medicaid cut the state had already planned, they'll be cut off from billions of dollars in federal medicaid funds.  This has led state government folks to ponder whether they should cave in on the issue or sue the feds.  Tonight's local news sounds like the administration, at least, is leaning toward the lawsuit option.

    Doesn't sound like much of a winner so far.

  5. MikeNV profile image79
    MikeNVposted 8 years ago

    The Federal Government takes your income.  They they decide to which states it gets redistributed.

    We need to eliminate all but absolutely necessary Federal Involement in State issues.

    Would you not agree that people should be able to Govern themselves locally?  With every issue.  Gay Marriage, Marijuana, Guns, Schools, etc., let the people decide these issues on the State Level.  Because then the people who make the laws live with the laws they make.

    The Federal Government wants to step in and tell everyone what to do and how to do it with no regard for the will of the people.

    And people can't see a problem with this?  Why would you want to relinquish power of the States to the Federal Government?

    This is the real battle that is coming States vs. Feds.

    1. Rafini profile image85
      Rafiniposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      this real battle has been going on for a long time - you are wrong about the people who make the laws live with the laws, because people move from state to state.

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image94
        Rochelle Frankposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        If they move to the state where the laws suit them-- why not?

  6. Doug Hughes profile image58
    Doug Hughesposted 8 years ago

    Mike NV says - "We need to eliminate all but absolutely necessary Federal Involement in State issues."

    In the past 35 years how many states have stepped up to SOLVE the issue of universal health care for its citizens?

    One - Not Massachusettes - MA is struggling with their recent experiment. Hawaii has had near universal health care -  paid for by employers - for 35 years. And it works!

    "...Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/healt … .html?_r=1

    The correlation between universal health care and lower Medicare may be that people with health care throughout their life cycle have fewer and less expensive problems as seniors. The importance of this can't be overstated as we look at rising Medicare costs.

    So here's my point. Mike sees this as something the states can solve - as Hawaii did 35 years ago. BUT THEY HAVE NOT! The power of the Chamber of Commerce and the Insurance Industry would rise up in opposition at the state level and crush any attempt to implement local health care. The states KNOW HOW to fix it locally and they will NEVER do it.

    It was just BARELY possible for the federal governemnt to overcome the power of those two lobbys and implement what  would nave NEVER happened at the local level.

    The argument to keep it local is the argument to do NOTHING!

  7. Ohma profile image75
    Ohmaposted 8 years ago

    Doug if I may ask a question. Is the federal governments sollution in any way close to what they are doing in Hawaii? I am not meaning to be ignorant I would really like to know.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image58
      Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The solutions are not similar. In HI 35 years ago, the state legislature laid the burden on business - AS A REQUIRMENT - to offer health care at company expense to any employee working over 20 hours per week. I think the coverage can be extended to cover family, so the result is nearly universal coverage.

      About 70% of citizens in the US are covered through their employer. Most of those people are satisfied enough.  The political dynamics of that statistic required a solution that left in place the existing system - and bridged the gap (as much as possible) to the remainder of the people.

      Had the US examined universal health care 40 or 50 years ago, we might have implemented a system radically different. . It's where we are - the reform that passed is a 'work-around' of that nescessity.

  8. Ohma profile image75
    Ohmaposted 8 years ago

    If Hawaii has the answer and it is working so well for them why can't the model be expanded on to work for the rest of the country?

    1. Doug Hughes profile image58
      Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Good question. The answer works there because it was put in place 35 years ago before health care became so expensive and at a time that labor had parity with business in political influence. To duplicate the system in the US would require a mandate that all employers offer insurance to all employees at company expense.

      The democrats calculated that they could not have overcome the resistance from the business community and the insurance industry. The labor movement doesn't have the strength it has in the 70's when Hawaii enacted health care.

  9. Ohma profile image75
    Ohmaposted 8 years ago

    Well that makes sense to me. See I am not hopeless!

    1. Doug Hughes profile image58
      Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I never thought you were.

      And I'm always willing to research an honest question and provide support for my position. Occassionally, that research will bring me back with a correction. Nobody's right all the time. Especially me.

  10. profile image46
    janetsrantsposted 8 years ago

    In Massachusetts, we have mandatory health insurance already. Many in Washington have pointed to our state while debating the health insurance issue. What was never publicized was the fact that Massachusetts had to eliminate some of the benefits the "state" plan offered and the state(technically a commonwealth) is now facing an enormous deficit, partly as a result of this health insurance policy.

  11. JON EWALL profile image74
    JON EWALLposted 8 years ago

    While the discussions were on healthcare reform, president Obama slipped in a student loan bill.
    What has student loans have to do with healthcare?
    The government after president Obama signed the bill into law took over the student loan industry without a congressional debate.
    The private sector banking industry will lose some 33,000 employees adding to the unemployment problems.The Obama administration surely don't understand the private job sector as yet.

    1. LiamBean profile image87
      LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure that's completely correct. I read some of that and it's geared toward loan forgiveness and easier loan applications to students of medicine. The idea, I suppose, is to encourage more Americans to go into and practice medicine.

      At least that's what I got out of it.

      1. JON EWALL profile image74
        JON EWALLposted 8 years agoin reply to this


        The government will now issue all student loans, President Obama stated that the government is cutting out the middle man ( THE BANKING INDUSTRY )  and will be saving $ 66 billion over 10 years.

        Another government take over of private business, sounds a little like Russia, Cuba or Venezuela. Socialism and unions  progressives are taking over our country.