The health care law does not even take fdull effect until 2014 which is when Bush appointee Bernanke says the economy will finally rebound. I don't think it will ever rebound to pre 70s levels. Jobs? They started leaving with steel in mid 70s. They had good health care bennies. We all did, through our employers back then. Still need a universal single payer plan. Oh no, you opponents will fight that for another century and continue to trash what we the people come up with. Still broken with a hip hip hooray from the continual naysayers. I want a plan, just like the plan, that mended dear ole dad...
That's the last thing we need. Universal single-payer would finish off this country even faster than the incremental / stealth (although it's not so stealthy, since everybody knows what the endgame is) approach the Freedom-Haters are currently taking.
Now why would it finish off this country? There is still a premium, you know. How do you think the uninsured get their bills paid now? We all pay for it now. It is called medicaid or a hospital write-off which gets buried in the bills you and I pay, if we have to be treated. Anyhow, the Chamber of Commerce's bullshit is just that: bullshit. False bullshit.
The ad said that "Obamacare … will kill jobs across America." The chamber of Commerce has failed to prove that it will, and the best projections we’ve seen, based on how the law is actually written, do not suggest that the law will "kill" jobs. A close look at the studies cited by the Chamber of Commerce in support of the ad -- as well as other independent analyses of the health care law -- provide little, if any, evidence that the health care law will result in a significant net number of job losses. We rate the statement False.
If we went to single payer, the government would get to define the very concept of health care, and what kinds of activities do and do not constute it, and what the prices will be for those activities. That's bad and wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin. Where in the Constitution is anything about government being involved in citizens caring for their health? What happens to some new breakthrough procedure or medicine? (Answer: it has to pass muster with the state's bureaucrats in order to come to market.) How do we implement it given our $16 trillion federal debt? What if someone wants to just pay a doctor or a pharmacy directly? Plus, that Politifact finding is just plain stupid. re-read this post. Employers are not hiring precisely because of socialist health care.
employers don't want to pay for health insurance like they always did in the past. It has gotten to bne simply too expensive. There has been a steady erosion in coverage and a geometric increase incopays and deductibles. There are vast inequities in plans, even among the so called greatest gen whose costs are through the roof so much of their current coverage depends on where they worked, how that corp is faring now and what is going on with Medicare. This is a subject that is very complex and difficult. I truly don't get youir assertion that health care is not. A rightr. OK though, have it your way. It is a command. For the healthy to care for the sick. That is essentially tjhe basis for all the hospitals you still see bearing names of saints, his holy mother and father and even çhrist himself. Keep paying your exorbitant premiums with a smile my boomer brother. Only the neginning. Too bad you weren't military so you could suck off single payer.
You are making a great argument for decoupling health insurance from employment. After all, that trend didn't get started until the 1940s.
You can't have a right to something that requires the labor of your fellow human being. As I've said before, how did people exercise their right to a triple bypass in the year 1300? Same reason there's no such thing as a right to a "decent living standard." Who's going to define that and who's going to provide it? Socialism squelches human inventiveness. See latest post.
The health care law does not even take fdull effect until 2014 which is when Bush appointee Bernanke says the economy will finally rebound. I don't think it will ever rebound to pre 70s levels. Jobs? They started leaving with steel in mid 70s. They had good health care bennies. We all did, through our employers back then. Still need a universal single payer plan. Oh no, you opponents will fight that for another century and continue to trash what we the people come up with. Still broken with a hip hip hooray from the continual naysayers. I want a plan, just like the plan, that mended dear ole dad...
ReplyDeleteThat's the last thing we need. Universal single-payer would finish off this country even faster than the incremental / stealth (although it's not so stealthy, since everybody knows what the endgame is) approach the Freedom-Haters are currently taking.
ReplyDeleteNow why would it finish off this country? There is still a premium, you know. How do you think the uninsured get their bills paid now? We all pay for it now. It is called medicaid or a hospital write-off which gets buried in the bills you and I pay, if we have to be treated. Anyhow, the Chamber of Commerce's bullshit is just that: bullshit. False bullshit.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/15/us-chamber-commerce/us-chamber-commerce-ad-attacking-tim-kaine-says-he/
The ad said that "Obamacare … will kill jobs across America." The chamber of Commerce has failed to prove that it will, and the best projections we’ve seen, based on how the law is actually written, do not suggest that the law will "kill" jobs. A close look at the studies cited by the Chamber of Commerce in support of the ad -- as well as other independent analyses of the health care law -- provide little, if any, evidence that the health care law will result in a significant net number of job losses. We rate the statement False.
If we went to single payer, the government would get to define the very concept of health care, and what kinds of activities do and do not constute it, and what the prices will be for those activities. That's bad and wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin. Where in the Constitution is anything about government being involved in citizens caring for their health? What happens to some new breakthrough procedure or medicine? (Answer: it has to pass muster with the state's bureaucrats in order to come to market.) How do we implement it given our $16 trillion federal debt? What if someone wants to just pay a doctor or a pharmacy directly?
ReplyDeletePlus, that Politifact finding is just plain stupid. re-read this post. Employers are not hiring precisely because of socialist health care.
There is no more dangerous notion in America than that there is some kind of right to health care.
ReplyDeleteemployers don't want to pay for health insurance like they always did in the past. It has gotten to bne simply too expensive. There has been a steady erosion in coverage and a geometric increase incopays and deductibles. There are vast inequities in plans, even among the so called greatest gen whose costs are through the roof so much of their current coverage depends on where they worked, how that corp is faring now and what is going on with Medicare. This is a subject that is very complex and difficult. I truly don't get youir assertion that health care is not. A rightr. OK though, have it your way. It is a command. For the healthy to care for the sick. That is essentially tjhe basis for all the hospitals you still see bearing names of saints, his holy mother and father and even çhrist himself. Keep paying your exorbitant premiums with a smile my boomer brother. Only the neginning. Too bad you weren't military so you could suck off single payer.
ReplyDeleteYou are making a great argument for decoupling health insurance from employment. After all, that trend didn't get started until the 1940s.
ReplyDeleteYou can't have a right to something that requires the labor of your fellow human being. As I've said before, how did people exercise their right to a triple bypass in the year 1300?
Same reason there's no such thing as a right to a "decent living standard." Who's going to define that and who's going to provide it?
Socialism squelches human inventiveness. See latest post.