Where can I read exactly what Obama has been saying? I've been looking for it but I keep getting shit that other people are saying about the suposed bill. I don;t want the bullshit and the biased opinions, I want to read exactly what Obama has proposed so I can make my own opinions
The only bullshit is that the rich (I'm talking $1mil/year+) won't pay for it, it'll be the middle class, as usual. Otherwise, I'm fine with it.
Obama hasn't "proposed' anything. At least nothing like what evolved when industry got their grubby little hands on the bill and bribed their way into benefitting more than the taxpayer. If we challenge a politician, this is what we get: http://biggovernment.com/capitolcon...office-says-constituent-calls-are-harassment/. It's corruption if another country does this shit. Anyhow, to answer your question, it's all in here, word for word (all other legislations and items up for debate in the senate and house of IDB'ers): HR3590 was ratified yesterday - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590: all other congressional actions are in the Library of Congress (AKA "Thomas" after Thomas Jefferson) http://www.thomas.gov/ or.....the PDF: http://wesawthat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
Similar to be sure. But entitlement is a "guarantee", aka a permanent tax burden that has thus far seemed pretty impossible to get rid of, restrict, or reign in. And in the context of US government entitlements, they are generally fraught with abuse and cost overrun. Anybody remember Old Dirty Bastard driving to get his welfare check in a limousine for example? This. The Clintons made the mistake of showing up to capital hill with essentially a written health care bill and it chaffed a lot of nuts. Obama was smart not to repeat that mistake, but went too far in not even really attempting to frame the conversation, or guide it significantly. So what we ended up with was a sweeping butt-fuck from Pelosi and pals instead of a reasonable incremental step.
Ha, just try to get rid of the corn or oil or gas subsidies and see what happens. Believe me, the people who get them, and the politicians who protect them feel they are a guarantee
Standard American protectionisms, all. Anyone else realize that they pay farmers to plow under crops in order to prop up prices?
Then by your own definition msp this health care bill is not an entitlement program, no one is guarateed health care.
So here's my question, is this bill actually going to lower companies cost of providing health insurance to their employees? So far what I've read kinda indicates the opposite. The reason I ask is that when this bill began the proponents of it gave the US auto industry as an example, of how car makers were moving to Canada because the health care costs there were so much lower per person. Is this going to lower those costs, and if so how?
Still, it's not an entitlement, if the mandate is for you to PAY for insurance! You only get a (ahem!) subsidy to help pay for it, if you're in a category of those who can't pay for themselves. In fact, if you're T-Boon Pickens or a Union shop with some Uber Ultra Major Health Insurance Plan, you'll have the priviledge of paying an extra tax on top of it, so it's more of a DE-titlement in your case! Unlike a purely Government run program like Social Security or Medicare, there's no budget-busting opportunities for the outflow of cash to exceed the inflow, since the prices will still be set by the private insurance companies, who will still, as Mr. Whiskas has pointed out, be in it to make a profit. Ugh. I'm starting to get a headache. The neighbors across the street are having their old (concrete) driveway taken out, with one of those mini-dozer vehicles, equiped with a jack-hammer pick extension thingy. It's nonstop THUMPTHUMPTHUMPthump-thump...THUMPTHUMPTHUMP....
There are co-pays for Medicare too, and I think we can all agree that's an entitlement. The only difference are the percentages. And let's face it, had Pelosi gotten her way there would be a public option and a lot more similarities. This bill wasn't what either sided wanted really. And that "DE-titlement" shit pisses me off because it's true. It's fucking redistribution of wealth, plain and simple.
Citizenship has always meant status for responsibility. You get special status and privileges from the State, in return for giving services TO the State. Lately the U.S. has been long on privilege, and short on service. Broadcast, for instance, got the privilege of using the airwaves in return for community service such as giving local news, and being part of emergency response. For the rest of us, it used to be the Draft. We've gotten away from all that though. Instead of thinking of it as "redistribution of wealth", think of it as your citizenly duty to help that poor old lady get her heart surgery and medication! There! Doesn't that make you feel better now? Uh, MSP? What is that big knobbly vibrating thing in your hand? Why are you approaching me ominously? Uh... "covers butt with hands" I think I'll be going now... "runs away quickly"
Very good point. Civic duty is definitely something that we need to return to. I just don't like it in that form, aka the federal government meddling in state and local affairs. And no worries about the vibrator, when I come for you I'll be wielding the meat puppet! :anal:
[video=youtube;o5t8GdxFYBU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU&feature=player_embedded[/video]
You can be sure that the Gallop poll mixes in some very disparate areas, with some more conservative ones represented by Democrats in dire peril.
I just wonder if these 14 states taking the fed to court will bare any fruit. Are there any recent example of something like this happening? I doubt it'll make any difference, but pretty far out nonetheless.
because half do not have adequate health coverage. MSP posed the question: "what'll happen to the jobs?"One of two things'll happen there. Most likely benefits will bite the big weenee or the other option: mexico, india and china will get more of our jobs than they already have. there's nothing that says a company has to include health coverage, now is there? I foresee even more employers dropping health insurance as a portion of a compensation package than has already.
From what I have read, this bill doesn't do anything different with respect to big businesses, so business as usual. However for small businesses it removes the requirement for them to offer insurance but if the small business wants to give their employees insurance then they will get a subsidy. That alone will make small businesses more attractive to prospective employees or allow them to operate with better margins allowing them to be more competitive. As far as package benifits go, the CBO says premiums will rise BECAUSE people will opt for more coverage (more bang for the buck basically), those that want to keep what they have will most likely see their premiums go down.
