Seeking Alpha

The Affordable Care Act actually discourages small businesses from growing, says TheStreet.com's...

The Affordable Care Act actually discourages small businesses from growing, says TheStreet.com's Robert Weinstein. Buried within 2,700 pages of the Act is a requirement that businesses provide all employees with "acceptable" health insurance coverage, but exempts businesses with 49 or fewer full time employees. For small business owners, this is a glaring disincentive not to grow beyond 49 employees as a result of the costs and additional regulations companies face with 50 or more.
Comments (262)
  • Blackbeard
    , contributor
    Comments (107) | Send Message
     
    Find the companies that cater to businesses just under 49 employees in size (PAYX comes to find).
    6 Jul 2012, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • klarsolo
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    Really, so a company that still experienced strong demand for their product would stop hiring just because of this health insurance requirement? I can totally see that.
    6 Jul 2012, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3530) | Send Message
     
    You can always subcontract out work to other under 50 employee firms. This provision is an aid to larger companies who want to hold back competition.
    6 Jul 2012, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    No one is saying that all companies would stop growing cause of the requirement. But even if some do, isn't that bad enough.
    6 Jul 2012, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1030) | Send Message
     
    A company marginally profitable would have to think twice about adding employee number 50 and taking a hit to it's overhead structure.

     

    A company experiencing strong demand and strong profitability may try to hold the line at 49 as long as possible by outsourcing, productivity improvements, or maybe even splitting into two or more companies.

     

    I can see a lot of fighting with the govt over whether a person is a contract agent or an employee.
    6 Jul 2012, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    And invest in technology like crazy to automate and keep headcount low. Besides subcontracting in the US you could do it outside the US and drive costs even lower.

     

    Stupid law and why is 50 a magic number?
    6 Jul 2012, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    And this will lead to yet, stronger trends in outsourcing to other countries than ever before. Why waste money on our work force when you can have it for slaves wages in another country?
    7 Jul 2012, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • bearfund
    , contributor
    Comments (1534) | Send Message
     
    Yes. See also France, which not coincidentally has a bunch of restrictive laws that take effect when you hire your 50th employee. There are a huge number of 49-employee French firms.
    7 Jul 2012, 02:18 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    But France has a great economic and social model for us to follow. They're doing great. Oh, wait.....
    7 Jul 2012, 08:15 AM Reply Like
  • Pasadena Mac
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    No, I'd continue to grow and outsource production.
    7 Jul 2012, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (322) | Send Message
     
    The USA does spend about 5% more GDP on healthcare than France with apparently worse health outcomes. This debate is not about freedom or death panels or 49-person firms. It's about doctors, insurers, hospitals pharmas etc. now getting that 5% of GDP that stand to lose in any more efficient health care system.
    7 Jul 2012, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for your comment Nancy. We love your bill.
    7 Jul 2012, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • bearfund
    , contributor
    Comments (1534) | Send Message
     
    Of course it's about those things. Do you really believe there are tens or hundreds of millions of people so deeply invested in the medical care cartel today that they oppose ACA because of it? Personally I have no exposure of any kind to that sector, and for precisely this reason: I don't accept political risk. One of many problems with ACA is that it clearly demonstrates a willingness to impose similar political risks across all sectors. That permanently devalues all US investment, both existing and new. While I can't speak for others, I will say that I'm much less likely to invest in US companies as a result, and even less likely still to become an entrepreneur in the US.

     

    For those who suggest simply outsourcing everything, you're right. But the part you're missing is that if all your production is foreign, there's no reason for you or your company to reside in the US. Might as well pick the whole thing up and move it somewhere with more favourable tax laws, too. And with your own hide now beyond the borders, you needn't worry about paying US taxes on the money you pay yourself, either. Incentives work. In fact, they work very well. Barring dramatic reversals, in another 20 or 30 years the US economy will be every bit as hopeless as France's is today.
    7 Jul 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13399) | Send Message
     
    bear:

     

    Well, if you don't want to pay U.S. taxes, you're going to have to do more than take your corpus elsewhere. You're going to have to renounce your citizenship and find another desirable one to substitute, provided that the desirable place of your choice will have you. And, don't forget that the U.S. imposes rather sticky punitive taxes for leaving the fold. too.

     

    Nothing's simple.
    7 Jul 2012, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    If you use your witz and get the right info you can do it. April 9th was my exodus ! And, got IRS letter to include with bank wire to open new account !

     

    But, was not simple ! You got that right ! And, like the thousands so far in 2012 you must pay to surrender your Passort ! :>)
    Worth every penny !
    7 Jul 2012, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel Radakovich
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Political risk? The whole economy is under political risk whether its the bonds, quantitative easing b.s., 0% interest, or the financial fiscal blowup in congress. You should go ahead and accept political risk.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • Richard Mackenzie
    , contributor
    Comments (453) | Send Message
     
    Yeah. It holds back competition by giving smaller startups a break on health insurance. The smaller companies don't have to provide what the larger ones do, so their lower costs stop them from competing with the larger companies. Then when they are getting a bit larger, they are hit with - wait for it - - - the same requirements as those larger companies. That will definitely hold them back from competing. NOT. Jeez.
    7 Jul 2012, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    klarsolo
    Really, so a company that still experienced strong demand for their product would stop hiring just because of this health insurance requirement? I can totally see that.
    ======================...
    company experiencing strong demand for their product eventually will hire, but not before they try every other method to meet that demand
    (see Poor Texan and TomasViewPoint )

     

    company whose demand moving in opposite direction obviously would fire before anything else

     

    In summary this law creates upstream and downstream movements

     

    arithmetically presented

     

    number of job lost as result of this law is direct function of stream's speed multiplied by two
    7 Jul 2012, 07:40 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (8054) | Send Message
     
    coddy
    WTF are you trying to say?
    7 Jul 2012, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    yeahhh its all about the fair share those greedy bastards!

     

    yeah stick it to the 1%, screw em yeahhhh....come on, grab your pitch forks...wait I have to put down my iPad first...hold on let me log off my Macbook pro...can we use broom stick handles instead?

     

    No please...not deodorant! Noooo! I''m melting, I'm melting...
    8 Jul 2012, 02:32 AM Reply Like
  • headlocal
    , contributor
    Comments (104) | Send Message
     
    and when employee #49 comes BACK from maternity leave, and jams the headcount over 50...

     

    oh my
    9 Jul 2012, 05:22 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    Not a problem. Donate to Dem party and get a waiver ! That is how unions and rich Dem business owners play the Obama game !
    2900 waivers so far and growing :>)
    9 Jul 2012, 06:12 AM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (322) | Send Message
     
    Bear, real Americans spell favorable the way Jesus and the Constitution intended it to be spelled.
    9 Jul 2012, 07:47 AM Reply Like
  • DougRk
    , contributor
    Comments (1567) | Send Message
     
    It's much worse than this analysis implies. Endless market distortion, govt paperwork, cost burdens... there is simply no hope of a robust US economy ever returning given the staggering levels of regulation we have now with ever more coming.
    6 Jul 2012, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • Eighthman
    , contributor
    Comments (213) | Send Message
     
    Uh.... isn't there evidence reported that this is exactly what prevails in France? That CEO's commonly head bunches of tiny corporations just to avoid the regulatory costs imposed when the magic employee number is hit?

     

    Is such nonsense really what we want?
    6 Jul 2012, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    What, how can any opinions be made now ! Really ! The 2700 pages are just the tease. An outline ! As recently announced the IRS an HSS ( a few other agencies ) have about 18,000 more pages to add and there being written as I am typing. How can we just consider the basic horrors without the telephone book their going to attach to it ~
    6 Jul 2012, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Use your imagination.
    7 Jul 2012, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    Sarcasm trumps imagination... lol
    7 Jul 2012, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • EMS
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Socialism, pure and simple. Enjoy the waiting.......
    6 Jul 2012, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1435) | Send Message
     
    huge blame on the media for cheerleading obama and refusing to vet this entire issue. he lied about everything - said every part would be on cspan, there would be NO tax on anyone making 200k or less, promised you could keep your old plan, said it would be completely transparent and open, promised every version of the law would be place online for review with plenty of time, promised it would reduce costs and positively impact the economy; guess who is writing those 13000 + pages of regulations - left wing lobbyists

     

    he can lie with impunity and the adoring media yawns
    6 Jul 2012, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13399) | Send Message
     
    Look for the advent of passive "holding companies" that own a plethora of less-than-49-person entities. This will be the next "big business," just like contract-employment agencies.
    6 Jul 2012, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • ebworthen
    , contributor
    Comments (2811) | Send Message
     
    We are ALL getting screwed over this.

     

    Where in this act does healthcare become more affordable?

     

    Is it businesses being able to file for waivers, or the tax penalty via the IRS for not sending tribute to an insurance company?

     

    This is the Social Security bait-and-switch, take-the-money-and-run scheme all over again; in 20 years most of us will be denied care or made to wait 8-12 months or be foreced to file for bankruptcy to get treatment.

     

    The tentacles of the Kleptoligarchy grow longer and stronger and no, voting left or right won't change things.

     

    http://bit.ly/LDzAvr
    6 Jul 2012, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    This is a simple plan. National health care system and all private insurance companies will fall one by one.

     

    All this 49s won't go to 50 nonsense and what companies will do ! Not ! Most political companies have gotten a waiver..Smart companies should just pay fine and that's what they want !!!!!!!!!!

     

    I've been on the Costa Rica health care system 45 years even having lived in the US and never setting foot in a Costa Rican facility. That is Obama's goal. He said it when he campaigned and he said it won't happen overnight ! He told the truth and there is no way to stop him... Romney will get crushed and all of you are ***ked.

     

    I packed up April 9th and moved to LA........ Good luck..DL
    6 Jul 2012, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • daro
    , contributor
    Comments (1575) | Send Message
     
    well if you can pay the fine, then there is no obligation to provide health insurance. so I am not so sure why there is a complaint about that. some months back, one of the accountants in my company was quick to point out that if we stop providing insurance for employees under obamacare we will get fined 2500 per employee. (I employ more than 50 people and we spend more than 2500 per employee for the contribution). his inference was that this was very bad. I thought that was a nice out for us. if we pay the fine, we will save a lot of money, eliminate the unpaid time wasted on insurance issues and we dont have to give the bad news that the employees are getting a double digit increase in their insurance every year, which we have done for the last few years. now they can go to their local politicians office and complain to them instead of me (because i cant do anything about it anyway). at least the politicians can lean on the crooks in the insurance companies and put the heat on them for a while (if enough people complain). Maybe then the insurance companies will actually make some changes to keep rates in check. right now they are raising rates with impunity (aka stealing with impunity). and may I remind you that glaxo smith kline just settled a criminal action and paid 3 BILLION in fines for, among other things, kickbacks. I can only imagine how much they stole. i am sure some of that went to insurance companies.
    6 Jul 2012, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    The situation you describe is correct for companies that pay insurance now for mid- to high-wage employees. They now have an incentive to drop healthcare for their employees and pay the fine, which is indicative of how brain-dead Obamacare is, since the supposed intent of Obamacare is to increase insurance coverage.

     

    However there are many small businesses with low-skill workforces and/or are low margin businesses that can't afford to pay for the "everything and the kitchen sink" insurance mandated by Obamacare, nor can they afford this fine. They're now effectively blocked from growing.
    7 Jul 2012, 12:51 AM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    It's been observed that Insurance companies have been increasing their rates over the last few years because there is currently no premium increase limit but I don't know if the premium increase limit survived with the healthcare bill.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:42 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    daro, you don't get it ! Paying the fine is the plan. They want to destroy the private industry and by paying the fine they will force millions more onto this new public plan. And one by one insurance companies wont be profitable until there all gone. You will have the Costa Rica model that even idiots like Rush Limbau tout every time he rages on things going on....

     

    I'm down here now and I use Panamanian doctors as the wait for specialty doctors can be 6 months to 5 years. Oncologists have a 5 year waiting list. Would you say your F*** ed if you have it !

     

    Forget Glaxo look at JNJ.. There is purely a LAW firm hawking dangerous product after product...

     

    Go tell your politician, Right ...
    By the time Obama leaves office in 2017 he will use Executive Orders to all he can't ram through Congress and 40% of good hard working Americans will pay for the useless 60%...

     

    Doctors will drop medicade patients and many will use there law degrees an close there offices or cherry pick patients...

     

    Seems the Dem elite think doctors make too much money. Like we all know there socialists as pointed out mucho above.......Kickbacks ? Or capitalism ? Take it or leave it ! DL
    7 Jul 2012, 04:16 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1435) | Send Message
     
    perhaps most galling of - obama, congress and most federal officials are not on the obamacare plan; not good enough for them; they get blue chip, class A best coverage paid for courtesy of taxpayers
    6 Jul 2012, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    I've never heard this argument used on the conservative side. Usually I hear, "What would congressmen care about the quality or availability of the healthcare plans because they already enjoy Cadillac coverage plans."
    7 Jul 2012, 01:45 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    For what I do for you and the rest of the country some of us deserve it. Don't swipe your brush with such a broad stroke as to demonize all of us in civil service. I wear a uniform and wear many hats, and responsible for 10x more than you it would make your head spin. Don't believe the argument that all civil service are undeserving of good pay and benefits. You try enforcing 3 sections of law as one officer when it used to take 3 separate officers to do the same thing. Work the line for 16 hours straight in 110 degree heat with a 15 lbs leather belt strapped to your waist and a vest and 2 weapons.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:53 AM Reply Like
  • noob
    , contributor
    Comments (384) | Send Message
     
    If you work includes being represented by a Public Union then I have no desire to support you in any aspect of your work or the benefits you receive. You personally may be some kind of exception but the job you hold is immoral.
    Since you hold weapons I can only assume that you are working for the State. Will you be the man gunning me down because I refuse to pay for the useless 60%?
    7 Jul 2012, 07:37 AM Reply Like
  • john12345
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    Well I appreciate what you do and the risk involved. It's wrong to color the entire civil service with a broad brush as you described. However, the numbers are still there. The civil service is growing rapidly. The benefits and cost of the employees is growing. Regualtions increase every year in number. And strangely, whenever some major catastrophe occurs, the applicable civil service is wholly unprepared and then lobbies for more money.

     

    Are you proud of our great TSA?
    7 Jul 2012, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You are an unnecessary expense. You are a pension pit. A drag on the private sector. Please, turn in your badge, resign and do us all a favor.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    So now I am a bad guy, a drag? Trade exists between countries because of what I do, I facilitate trade. In fact, my agency is the only one written and established by the constitution.

     

    How much do you think my base pay is per year? How much do you think my health benefits cost per year? Take a guess.
    9 Jul 2012, 01:22 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    No one willing to step up and find out how much a federal law enforcement officer makes compared to their own salary?

     

    Figures, a lot of hot gas and BS coming from you folks. I belong to a Union and a Republican, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
    9 Jul 2012, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    madav1138, Not all unions are bad, just as not all government workers are bad. But the majority are. With that said, one of the best teams that ever work for me was a union team. They trained their people, did the job right, the first time, in the allotted time, and did not complain or cause trouble. Yes, they had rules and yes they did things according to the rules, but the rules were ok.

     

    But most unions just want to steal as much as they can. They want to steal time, steal money, and steal effectiveness. In effect they are no more than thugs stealing from the poor.

     

    If the unions focused on effectiveness and got rid of bad workers then I don't think anyone would have a problem with unions. Sadly, those two activities are anathema to most union leaders.
    9 Jul 2012, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    The problem with clumping civil service employees in the same lot is that yes, even in my agency there are a lot of useless "mission support" people who are solely responsible for counting fleet receipts, and get paid as much as I do and get the same benefits (except LE retirement). We have fired 2 people in the 3 years I have worked this location. Also there is a reason why probation lasts 1-2 years, and not 90 days as with most corporations. Just because you passed a polygraph doesn't make you a good worker, a safe worker or a clean one.

     

    For my responsibilities, I get paid in the high 60's base and get a 401k with match contributions up to 4%, and they pay 75% of my insurance premiums. I have a basic plan BCBS, total cost is about $7000/yr. I get differential pay for nights and overtime. If I break my back I can make in the 90's, those single younger people can break 100 if they have no life and cap out at 35k.

     

    You tell me if this is excessive pay or not. I have never had a corporate job where they actually gave me a fair wage, corporations have become skimpy on the pay and eager to cut benefits. The government only pays us what was industry standards only 10 years ago. Since then, corporations just aren't willing to invest in their own workers because Apple can make it cheaper for free in China.
    9 Jul 2012, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    I see no one is willing to say I am over paid, go figure, not such a wonderful deal as you thought is it?

     

    Its precisely because I am not overpaid. Go complain about some auto workers who make twice as much as me for screwing in a dash board on an assembly line with a GED and gets workman's comp for scratching his pinky finger.
    10 Jul 2012, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    madav1138, its not, or at least should not be, about how much you earn. I really don't care. People outside of government get paid based on supply and demand. Unfortunately, a lot of people, maybe not you, in government are paid based on what they can get away with, not what supply and demand would indicate.

     

    The problem is people getting paid to do nothing or about them paying others with government funds for nothing. I am not aware of any government function that does not waste more money on fraud than the real value they provide.
    10 Jul 2012, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    If you read one of my previous posts, you will see that I did point out that we have wasteful positions called "mission support" where these people get the same pay grade as I do, yet only serve a single function to bean count or do data entry. This outrages me as well, however they did eliminate two positions recently. yes there is waste, but I get very frustrated when people like Wyatt Junker, who acts like a big man on a blog site, say I am unnecessary.

     

    I would love to stand his ass on the border in front of a smuggler and hand that smuggler his driver's license, and then leave his ass up on the top of the hill to find his own way home when its 110F and 20oz bottle of water. Maybe a fresh pair of under wear and shorts, just to be humane.
    10 Jul 2012, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "I would love to stand his ass on the border in front of a smuggler and hand that smuggler his driver's license, and then leave his ass up on the top of the hill to find his own way home when its 110F and 20oz bottle of water."

     

    Let me ask one question, If you did not have to worry about political decisions, could you or could you not stop the illegal smuggling and immigration?
    10 Jul 2012, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    It could be managed. I am not in a position to give you a definitive answer about that, I like my job.
    10 Jul 2012, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    madav1138, exactly, and that means that although you work hard, try to do the right thing, you are not 100% effective. That is waste. In fact your management is wasting our taxes by holding you back. They do that in everything. So waste in government is not only throwing money away, paying people that don't work, but also keeping good people like yourself working at 50% (my guess) or less.

     

    That is exactly why government won't work for healthcare. Government does not work at anything (except possibly the military, but even the military has huge amounts of waste).

     

    The only option we have now is to just say 'No' to more government. Period.
    11 Jul 2012, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    But your logic is flawed. Just because its not 100% effective doesn't mean you quit doing the job. That is ridiculous, can you apply the same standard to yourself? Your job and employer being 100% effective? Then your customers should stop using you and your company because its not efficient enough. Maybe you are a waste of money. Ever thought of it like that, at any rate...you cannot compare healthcare with national security, that is an absurd comparison. Please come down to a border town and see what its like for yourself, you don't know what you are talking about.

     

    The point I was making is that someone was referring to federal employees as being drags on society and we are over compensated, and nothing is further from the truth.
    11 Jul 2012, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "The point I was making is that someone was referring to federal employees as being drags on society and we are over compensated, and nothing is further from the truth."

     

    The point is that if we are going to let illegal drugs and immigrants into our country, why do we pretend otherwise. Thats all we are doing letting them in. Why spend the government money to pretend to stop it. Now I respect what you are trying to do, and I get that it should be done. But in the end it is wasting taxpayer money. Money we don't have.

     

    If it was up to me, I would say get politics out of the border and let you all do what you want to do, as long as it is legal, to stop people and drugs from coming into this country. It would be good for us and good for Mexico.

     

    But the way its being done now is just wasting our money and we can no longer afford the waste. Its not you being a drag on society, its your government management being a drag on society. It's the politician's being a drag on society. Its the stupid rules that are being a drag on society. None of which you have control over.

     

    As to the 100% effective that is exactly what happens in private industry. If your not closer to 100% than your competitors then your out of business. In government, there are no competitors so effectiveness can languish at 10 or 20% forever and never get corrected. This is why we need to get everything out of government except the constitutionally mandated programs (of which national defense is one).

     

    So in general (not you in particular) federal employees are drags on society and are overcompensated compared to the total value we receive as a society.

     

    Personally, I thank you for your service on the border and am very happy that you are willing to put up with an impossible situation, knowing that given a free, but legal reign, you could have an impact, but are restricted by stupid government red tape and rules that are more concerned about law breakers than law abiding Americans.

     

    I could not do it.
    11 Jul 2012, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    Well again, you are confused because Customs is also mandated in the constitution.

     

    We are very efficient at what we do. Its a misconception and falsehood perpetrated by the right wing that any government is bad government, that is not true. While the border is highly politicized, don't buy into every word you hear on talk radio, they are mostly election talking points to fire up the base, immigration is one of those issues.

     

    A better analogy is the "war on terror", we will never eliminate extremists who want to kill is just like the immigration and drug problem, its a systemic problem if culture not a tangible thing you can eliminate entirely.
    11 Jul 2012, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "We are very efficient at what we do. "

     

    Then why are there billions of dollars of illegal drugs getting through our borders every year? Thats not talk radio.

     

    Why are there millions of illegal aliens come through our borders and some killing American citizens and others soaking up money meant to help American citizens. That is not talk radio.

     

    As such, why you might be doing a good job, but in general, Customs and Border Control are not fulfilling their mandate to protect America.

     

    And I am not right wing, and never indicated in any post that we could go without government. But right now, ours is too large and too powerful, and not responsive to it's mandate. Right now our government has been molded into a vote buying machine. Its no longer, "In God We Trust", but rather, "Its Money We Thrust".

     

    If you are in government and don't want to be seen as part of the problem, then change it. Get the political rhetoric out of mainstream government. Its not right wing talk radio that decided they were not going to enforce the laws of the country. That was our politician in chief.
    12 Jul 2012, 08:15 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    Again, you have a skewed opinion about something you don't understand. We don't have xray vision and it is by volume, impossible to rip apart every car that passes through.

     

    Most of the actual border is unpopulated, and takes hours to reach and costs a ton of money to patrol because of overtime or forward deployment.

     

    You want to blame government but it's not something government can solve. Its as simple as supply and demand, we have too many drug addicts in our country, and businesses are willing to hire illegal, it not so hard to comprehend.
    12 Jul 2012, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    mad

     

    I think that what bothers people is that the rhetoric from government is not honest because they want votes from Hispanics so rather than call out the problems with the border like you just did they prefer to exploit it for votes by talking about discrimination. Furthermore any state that wants to do something is persecuted by our Fed Government which is offensive because they are thousands of miles away in WDC. And the states should have the right to do something about crime and have jurisdiction up to their borders.

     

    It is the full time politicians that are killing us and being as divisive as possible to get votes. That is the problem.

     

    At some point we will get a mass killing or terrorist event that will change the debate and then politicians will wring their dirty hands and talk about how unfortunate it all is and someone needs to do something.
    12 Jul 2012, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    Yes but there you have to direct your argument with the appropriate people who are in charge, not the agency that is in charge of doing the job. It all depends on who is in charge. I get told to do my job, how to do it, and that's how its done.
    12 Jul 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    I think, historically, public-private partnerships have been centers of financial abuse, corruption, and graft. Business is better at business than government and, believe it or not, government is better at governing than corporations.

     

    The biggest reason why government seems so inefficient is that they're objective is to protect the public health and safety while enabling business and doing their best to stay out of the way.

     

    Government has a dual mandate.

     

    Business has a singular mandate: produce profit. It's neither good nor evil but the best that public-private entities have ever accomplished is creating government rules while the businesses try to figure out ways around them.

     

    Keep corporations out of government affairs and keep government rules simple, fair, and effective.
    13 Jul 2012, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    Romney said it worked for him and Mass. when he was governor, its the same as Obamacare. Did he flip-floppy again?
    6 Jul 2012, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    No Romney said it would only work at the state level and each state should decide.
    6 Jul 2012, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    A national tax is not what Romney did in Massachusetts. A state can mandate insurance, you have it for your car don't you?
    7 Jul 2012, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    True...ish....most insurance companies are national or multinational...making it a federal matter prevents insurance companies from threatening not do business with a state.

     

    Oddly enough, I think it was easier to push through on a federal level than it would have been to push through on a state level.
    7 Jul 2012, 02:00 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (8054) | Send Message
     
    When did you come down off the kool aid trip?
    7 Jul 2012, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (672) | Send Message
     
    The car insurance comparison does not fly. You are only required to carry insurance that protects other peoples property. I guess it could be turned around and said that you are required to carry insurance that protects other people from having to pay your medical bills if you need medical care and not have insurance.
    7 Jul 2012, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    Not so, your car insurance also protects you, and pays for your car and medical when you are at fault as well. Who are you kidding?
    9 Jul 2012, 01:25 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    Lets just do single payer and forget about all the machinations. Get employers out of the health care business. The wealthy will still be able to buy whatever healthcare they want.
    6 Jul 2012, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • Playdeep
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Who is going to be the single payer? The Federal Goverment? Let's look at their track record: Medicare broke, Social Security broke, 1.5 trillion annual deficit and 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Yes that's who I want running my health care. Let's bring choice and competition into the healthcare system not a single payer system.
    7 Jul 2012, 12:08 AM Reply Like
  • noob
    , contributor
    Comments (384) | Send Message
     
    Actually he might have a point about going to Government healthcare. If we are going to walk ourselves into an impossible situation maybe we should do it as quickly as possible.

     

    Get it over with and create a back-lash against all this socialist nanny-state dogma.

     

    It takes a crisis to create change - that's what the politicians always work towards. But eventually the crisis backfires - the faster we move to that point the less we have to endure.
    7 Jul 2012, 07:39 AM Reply Like
  • EMS
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Socialized medicine fans, get ready to enjoy the wait.....................

     

    The "99 %" who work will not like Obamacare. For you 1 % who like good medical care, or the concept of having the best healthcare system in the world if you or your loved one do happen to need good healthcare, you will ultimately not like it. Since there will be less incentive to go 400 + K into debt and devote one's youth (10 + years of the 20's and early 30's) to the study Medicine, we will obviously cease to have the best healthcare system at some point in the not too distant future. Doctors may work no more than 35 hrs/ week and even then I predict the richest, most influential (politicians) and possibly doctors (if they are smart) will reserve the best healthcare for themselves and live the longest- EMS
    6 Jul 2012, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • daro
    , contributor
    Comments (1575) | Send Message
     
    we do not have the best health care system. we have the best doctors. the system is completely broken.
    6 Jul 2012, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • EMS
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    I know we have the best doctors. That was my point.
    6 Jul 2012, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    We have the best doctors, the best in equipment, and in facilities. Say bye-bye to it all. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, prepare to enjoy the equal sharing of misery under a "universal system."
    7 Jul 2012, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • klarsolo
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    If we have the best doctors, the best in equipment, and in facilities, why was our healthcare system rated 37th in the world in 2010? We already pay a lot more than any other nation in the world, while receiving less. Good for corporate profits though.
    7 Jul 2012, 04:16 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Link to the agitprop would be nice.

     

    I'll destroy it from there.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (672) | Send Message
     
    "....having the best healthcare system in the world." What country do live in? It's not the US if its the best h'care system min the world!
    7 Jul 2012, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    Fox Business News 3/29/12. You can Google health care expenditures.
    7 Jul 2012, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    Any rating that would rate the US 37th doesn't place the best doctors, the best equipment, the best in facilities, or quick access to care as the top criteria. What's probably highest on the list is "access for deadbeats" even if the wait is six months to get an appointment. We don't pay more than any other nation. That's a complete crock. In terms of value of for dollar spent and speed of diagnosis and treatment we are among the best. Nowhere can you get in to see a specialist so quickly. Last time I went to the doctor I was able to get in to see a gastroenterologist in three days by calling his office direct, no referral, and no prior contact. Try doing that anywhere else, particularly where there is socialized medicine - it simply won't happen. When I lived in Sweden it took me a month to get in to see a general practitioner just to beg for a prescription for 1% hydrocortisone cream to eczema on my hands. Obamacare is going to be the same "wait and beg" for treatment that it is everywhere else you have socialized medicine manipulated by the government.
    8 Jul 2012, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    Notice how the democrats use a statistic like...47th in the nation for this or that? Well, if its already a good system then it won't grow or change that much in comparison to some nation that has rising stats like India. That doesn't make their healthcare any better just because it grew more, they are just catching up with the times.

     

    They do the same thing to Romney, 47th in job creation, but his unemployment rate was 5.4% and it went down to 4.7% oh my how horrid. So he placed low because the unemployment rate couldn't get any lower.
    8 Jul 2012, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    What do you have to compare it to? Have you used other health care systems? I clear Mexicans who come here in droves for healthcare, for free, and I hear its the same for Canadians who need surgery...so why are they coming here if its not better?
    9 Jul 2012, 01:10 AM Reply Like
  • VictorHAustin
    , contributor
    Comments (827) | Send Message
     
    Klarsolo, Because half of our system is already single payer?
    24 Aug 2013, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    We do have the most expensive health care in the world.
    6 Jul 2012, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You mean the most innovative.

     

    Our R&D feeds the entire world.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt

     

    That is so true. We are subsidizing the rest of the world and there are millions of lives saved because of the US. That is the true cost of our health care as we shoulder the burden for billions of others.
    7 Jul 2012, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    No, I don't mean the most innovative, I mean the most expensive. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world. About $8k/yr per person. OECD countries spend about $2k. And we have relatively low rates of doctors and hospital beds per capita. We also spend more on drugs than any other country. So my company plan that costs me $7k/yr. feeds all this wonderful R&D so the companies can export all this stuff but none of that money comes back to lower my healthcare expenses. To top it off, the US has the eighth lowers life expectancy of the 34 OECD member countries. Apparently people live longer with crappy socialized medicine.
    7 Jul 2012, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3530) | Send Message
     
    "Apparently people live longer with crappy socialized medicine."

     

    Well if you can retire at fifty with a guaranteed income for life, your stress level will be much lower and allow you the opportunity for a long life. Isn't this the model in Europe?
    7 Jul 2012, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    So, you think we are working ourselves to death?
    7 Jul 2012, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3530) | Send Message
     
    I was commenting on the relation between stress and stress related problems and life expectancy. Check with your doctor.
    7 Jul 2012, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    Hendershott, that's complete bs. The US doesn't have shortages. That's in fact the situation in single-payer countries like Canada and the UK. That's why they have to ration care and they have mothers in the UK giving birth in hospital hallways.

     

    And yes you have to pay for R&D, and we subsidize other countries because they cap prices on pharmaceuticals (which is one way they reduce cost, shift it to us). The economic fallacy you want to believe is that if we cap prices along with everybody else, that the pharma companies will just keep on producing at a loss and investors will finance the high-risk business of biotech when you promise them no return. You're living in socialist la-la land. There's a reason that the biotech world is centered in the US and non-existent in Europe (all they have is old pharma).
    8 Jul 2012, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    That's another use of skewed data. If you look within demographic groups our live expectancy is as good or better. You're making comparisons between an ethnically diverse society and trying to compare it to countries like Norway with a monoethnic culture of a few million people. It's like trying to represent the US using the Hamptons as your sample population.
    8 Jul 2012, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    I live in Costa Rica now and it just edges out the US ! It also is the model Obama wants ! It also has 3 to 5 year wait times for almost any procedure !
    It's simple to sum it up !
    Affordable Health Care Act = oxymoron

     

    PS UN said it's the happiest country total b/s I stay in Panama & Colombia most of the time now and use there doctors.Dirt cheap !
    8 Jul 2012, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Isn't really the grab for control of the health care system and pricing really boil down to the belief that somehow we are getting screwed?

     

    We don't know how but just that our system is not good enough. Nobody has ever said that doctors make too much or have to pay too much in insurance or that lawyers make too much but somehow we are getting screwed but we don't want to point the finger at anyone other than insurance companies I suppose. We use stats from other parts of the world that compares us to countries that don't even measure to our biggest states and they also import pharma from us at subsidized rates and retire at young ages. Never mind our citizens don't always take care of themselves and lead healthy life styles. Cause and effect is never shown but hey let's blow up the biggest and likely best health care system in the world and start following rather than leading the world so now we will all suffer globally. Never mind that people fly here for procedures and the reverse is rare. Although India will likely take over a lot of our medical care eventually.

     

    One could argue access is the problem but rather than budget an amount for uncovered and unemployed households and just give them vouchers we decided to blow up the entire system. And thereby give employers the perfect opening and excuse to dump health insurance as a reasonable expectation for any employee and push them all on the government and the taxpayer. Corporations at least paid for health care with global revenues which is one of the few times when other countries subsidized US Citizens.

     

    Our leaders are incompetent fools who look at the foam on the waves and think they understand the ocean. Our costs will go up, quality and innovation will go down. And the hype of how great it is will go on until it collapses. Only government can destroy so much so quickly.
    9 Jul 2012, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    Premature death due to work related stress?
    9 Jul 2012, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    First, I did not say or intimate that we have a shortage of doctors. The fact is that we have fewer doctors per capita than the other OECD nations on average. I also did not advocate capping prices or anything else. I simply provided some information on the US versus the other 33 OECD nations re healthcare. You are free to draw whatever conclusions that the data lead you to. If you come to the conclusion that capping prices or whatever produces a longer life span then that's your conclusion, but try to let the data lead you to a conclusion, rather than letting your opinion try to change the data.
    9 Jul 2012, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    You haven't provided anything. So the US has 2.4 per 1000, Canada the same, and the UK has 2.7 per 1000. You're claiming that extra 0.3 in the UK provides much better care in the UK. It's a claim without basis that completely disregards the actual medical outcomes. In fact only Greece is really an outlier at 6.1 per 1000. Obviously Greece is the place to head to for your next heart bypass if you believe this is a proxy for medical outcomes.

     

    And as I said your life expectancy claim is bogus. It's due to demographic skew which has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. Notice how small countries like Monaco not only lead the list, but lead by a wide margin. Healthcare can't explain the nearly 90 year life expectancy for Monaco. The pack is in the 78 to 80 range, and the most ethnically diverse country is the US, and it's in that pack, which is actually quite an accomplishment.

     

    If you really want a proxy for life expectancy try obesity or diabetes rates. Factor those in and I suspect you'll find it a miracle that the US is even in the pack given our obesity and diabetes rates. The best healthcare for most would simply be to take personal responsibility and change one's lifestyle rather than blaming a few tenths of a doctor's head per 1000.
    10 Jul 2012, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    How do you explain the Japanese life expectancy of 82.9?

     

    Healthy diet.
    10 Jul 2012, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    Change the data! Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. The Flat Earth Society strikes again.
    10 Jul 2012, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    That's the OECD data. The same data you're quoting. It's not the data's fault. It's your misrepresentation of it that's a tutorial in "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

     

    Guess which OECD countries have the best, least expensive healthcare by your definition? Turkey, Mexico, and Chile. You're trying to generate confusion around cost and value. Value is a measure that is a factor of not only cost, but also of quality and quantity of goods or services supplied for that cost. You're trying to sell the fiction that cost is all that matters, and you can ignore quantity and quality.

     

    The other thing the data shows (using the available data going back to 1960) is that per capita spending in the US has grown at a rate in line or lower than most other large OECD countries. For example in the last decade the US is up 67%, Canada is up 71%, and the UK is up 84%. Going back to the '60s and '70s you find the same trend. And then (last decade again) there is Sweden up 62%, the Netherlands up 108%, and Norway up 76%. So if you take the data as it is, and don't try to misrepresent it, you find the US healthcare system is fairing better than most comparable countries in the OECD. (And if you're going to continue to argue the US needs to compare itself to Turkey, Mexico, and Chile you'll find that they're up 111%, 82%, and 96% in the last decade. So you're still misrepresenting the situation.)
    13 Jul 2012, 02:03 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Seems to me that when you have only 5% of the population driving over 50% of the cost of healthcare we should look at that 5%. They are beyond material to the equation.

     

    Compare that to other countries and solve for that.
    13 Jul 2012, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    The data just shows expenditure per capita for all 34 OECD nations . Not just for the bottom or the top. It also shows life expectencies for all 34 nations. Again not just the bottom or the top. Other than life expectancy, there is no data on quality of healthcare, only on outcome. Thdere is no effort to generate confusion. There's plenty of that around. The only conclusion I have mentioned is that the US spends more on healthcare per capita than other OECD states and we don't live as long even though the other states are basically socialized medicine, so my comment "apparently people live longer with crappy socialized medicine". The "crappy" comment on quality was my own.
    13 Jul 2012, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Hendershott

     

    If you control for all contributing factors then drawing conclusions is great. For example are the demographics the same including ethnicity?

     

    For example extracting out the Black and Indian population would help US statistics.

     

    There is a lot more going on here then 30K foot stats that may have their own issue.
    13 Jul 2012, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    I took a lot of statistics in college, a long long time ago. The OECD data is big samples which tends to reduce the effects of subset deviations. I have my own theories as to why the outcomes are the way they are, but I have no data to back it up so it's just theory. Basically I suspect that with crappy socialized medicine, small problems, mostly infections, are dealt with before they become chronic or settle in the heart or other organs, so people do live longer. Like I said, that's a theory with no data to back it up. A theory isn't right until proven wrong. It's an unproven theory until proven right or wrong. An anecdote; a friend had an abcess (dental) but went on a trip without getting it taken care of. Around 17k ft, the abcess moved to his brain and he had a stroke, was in a coma for two months, ended up with stroke damage and damage to his heart. After two months in a coma and another 9 months of therapy for the stroke, he passed away from the heart damage. If he'd just gone to the dentist and delayed the trip he'd likely be alive and the insurance company wouldn't have spent all that money for the hospital, doctors and rehab. Simple problems, left untreated can become life threatening and expensive problems.
    13 Jul 2012, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Hend

     

    I took a lot of stats in college also as I suspect a fair number of people have on this board so that should not influence any of our perspectives.

     

    What you say proves my point. We have theories but really don't know why numbers are different. We make assumptions that the data is apples to apples but we really don't know. And we are supposed to run a $2 Trillion industry on that?

     

    My theory is that we spend more money on end of life care than other countries. Only 5% of our health care users drive over 50% of health care costs. If that is all preventative care issues like you state then why is everyone talking about bending the cost curve? I think it is end of life predominantly and that is an emotional issue and a lot of voters in the group. So we don't have an honest conversation about health care and the government looks to take it over while holding people in the dark.

     

    We deserve better.
    13 Jul 2012, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    It may be end of life expenditures that make the US the most expensive health care in the OECD, Most of the other countries have universal healthcare and they spend less than we do, so the cost driver is something else. I agree we deserve better than what we have.
    14 Jul 2012, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Hendershott, you do understand that about 75% of the healthcare costs in England as an example are not calculated. Why? Because everyone with any money at all has private healthcare and its not considered part of the national health care costs. I'm sure other countries are the same way. But I know for a fact that is how it is in England.
    15 Jul 2012, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    75% of healthcare expenditures in England are from private insurance? Companies like BUPA? I'm unable to verify or nor verify that assertion, but it doesn't sound right.
    18 Jul 2012, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "75% of healthcare expenditures in England are from private insurance? Companies like BUPA? I'm unable to verify or nor verify that assertion, but it doesn't sound right."

     

    Thats correct, no one is tracking it because it would make the government look like idiots. Also correct in that it could be 40% or 80%. I just know that the private costs to us as an employer were the same magnitude as in the U.S, plus we have to pay the public costs.
    18 Jul 2012, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    Why were you providing private insurance to employees when public healthcare was available? To retain employees? So it was part of the compensation package? Were higher basic wages an option?
    19 Jul 2012, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • chinacola
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Most are missing the point on Obamacare. It has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with raising your taxes. It is the largest tax increase in American history! The second thing Obamacare is about is control. Control "health care" and you will control everything about the person. The 50 employee threshold is just the starting point it will go down to 40 employees then 20 then 5 then everyone. We need to focus on getting rid of Obama and elect people that will vote to repeal this mistake otherwise we all we regret it.
    6 Jul 2012, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    False. Obamacare is NOT the largest tax increase in American history (with respect to GDP). Check politifacts.org.

     

    Generally, when Rush Limbaugh is speaking, it's a good policy to flip a coin. Heads, he's telling the truth, tails, he's making up facts or immersing himself in hyperbole.
    7 Jul 2012, 02:03 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    False. Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history. Get over it.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    Limbaugh is an absolute bufoon, not far removed from Glenn Beck.
    19 Jul 2012, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Hendershott, considering there are no absolutes regarding ideas, your attitude, as expressed with the above comment, is simplistic and propagandistic. It is also a statement by someone who has not listened to Limbaugh for any time. Limbaugh may be many things (some of which I may even agree with) which cause you to choose to ignore logic and reason, but he is not a buffoon.

     

    When ones ideas are the result of propaganda instead of logic the only way to defend those ideas is with name calling. That worked in High School and most people today never mature past that point. Why do you think you are so easily manipulated with false ideas and lies.
    20 Jul 2012, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    Rush Limbaugh is not an idiot but he is a propagandist who aspires to be Joe McCarthy. Calling everyone he doesn't like "commies" and gaining political power through intimidation and mistruths.

     

    I love how RL is seeing liberal ghosts in everything these days from Clint Eastwood speaking at the Super Bowl to the Batman Movies. He is wholly wrong but will stand his ground against all who would try to assault him with truth.
    23 Jul 2012, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Fr33, "Rush Limbaugh is not an idiot but he is a propagandist who aspires to be Joe McCarthy. Calling everyone he doesn't like "commies" and gaining political power through intimidation and mistruths. "

     

    See that's the problem. A lot of people have been indoctrinated to ignore reality and just blabber what they are told to (like your doing about Rush). Anyone that actually listens to Rush will know that he does not call anyone 'commies'. He does call a lot of behavior communist, socialist, and fascist. But he does it because its true. You may want to ignore the truth, the media may want to ignore the truth, politicians may want to ignore the truth, but that does not change the truth.

     

    A lot of what is being done today under the banner of fairness is the same as what Hitler did in the 1930's. Read up on it. Hitler mandated certain diets, outlawed smoking, and set a lot of other standards for the protection of people. Will at least people that were not Jewish.

     

    The current government is not much different than Hitler's when he first came to power. Will we turn out the same way. Depends on whether you keep spouting your indoctrination points or start looking at what is really going on, comparing it to what has gone on in history, and seeing that there is nothing new here.

     

    The outcome is readily predictable and its not what you expect because you are being lied to. And for those that want to know the truth it's easy to see.
    23 Jul 2012, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    Your argument comes from faulty logic.

     

    Hitler issued mandates
    Obama issued mandates
    Obama is Hitler.

     

    Look up "Affirming the consequent" on wikipedia.

     

    Obama goes to the bathroom
    Neil goes to the bathroom
    Neil is Obama

     

    It's his ability to frame faulty logic in a reasonable sounding way that is where I believe that Rush Limbaugh is either brilliant or a sociopath (if he actually believes his own logic).

     

    "Commie"..."Fascist"...I still fail to see why you can't see any similarity between McCarthy and Limbaugh...both are unobstructed by fallacy. And both used fear and hate-mongering to bring themselves profit.
    23 Jul 2012, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Obama is Hitler." false. I simply said there were similarities. Obama ignores the constitution, ignores the law of the land, ignores the rights of white people, he illegally mandates his agenda and is bad for the country.

     

    We have not had as racist of a president since Johnson or FDR.

     

    McCarthy, I don't know about, I think if you actually look at the facts he was more right than wrong although he may have made a couple of big mistakes. The difference is that McCarthy used secret panels and his political power to destroy people and Rush relies on actual demonstrated behavior and has no power to destroy people. Rush only points out the truth and its usually using people's own words or actions.

     

    If you ask me, Obama is more like McCarty in the way he tries to get things done.

     

    I mean come on, its pretty easy to see if you don't bury your head in the sand.
    23 Jul 2012, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Neil459, first of all I listened to Rush for year, mostly during the Clinton administration and he is one of the most talented propagandists in the country. That being said, he take significant liberties with the english language and facts. Rush knows that he does not need to directly label someone in a libelist way in order to shape the opinions of his audience. Rush uses inuendo, name calling and twisted humor to shape opinions. At the same time he surrounds himself with messages to his audience that he is always right and that the mainstream media is misleading the public to promote a very dangerous and liberal agenda.

     

    Your comparison of Obama to Hitler is not even close. Conservatives like you like to talk about personal responsibility when it suits your agenda, but when it comes to healthcare, conservatives never talk about personal responsibility of those who think that they can save money by choosing not to insure themselves knowing that if they have healthcare needs greater than they can afford that they will get those needs met and "society" will absorb the costs. The mandate and penalty will make that choice a little more difficult, conservative should like a system which encourages personal responsibility.
    24 Jul 2012, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    "those who think that they can save money by choosing not to insure themselves knowing that if they have healthcare needs greater than they can afford that they will get those needs met and "society" will absorb the costs. The mandate and penalty will make that choice a little more difficult, conservative should like a system which encourages personal responsibility."

     

    Incorrect because if a single guy only pays $1000 per year in a penalty, and gets sick and goes to the hospital we will still have to foot the bill and pay his care for free, and his health insurance would have been thousands, so even with a penalty in place he makes out with less cost than us sheep.

     

    I hospital cannot turn you away for any reason.

     

    $1000/yr no insurance $5,000/yr for insurance. Gee...which one is cheaper?
    24 Jul 2012, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Your comparison of Obama to Hitler is not even close."

     

    If that's your opinion then you need to study a bit more history. Hitler also promised to take care of everyone and as a result was elected almost unanimously.

     

    And your wrong about the conservatives I know. The problem is not that your ideas about healthcare are necessarily wrong. Its that you think government can fix it when government has never fixed anything.

     

    All you have to do to know I am right, is to apply your current experience with government organizations to the future healthcare. How will healthcare work when it operates like the local license bureau (stand in line get nowhere). Or how about how the IRS where it takes a court of law to get handled fairly. Oh and the IRS can just seize your property.

     

    So your giving the one government organization that has the power to seize your property without due process command over healthcare. Seems real smart. How about this future. You get sick and the disease is classified as one coming from, lets just say smoking for example (and I have never smoked), the IRS decides that the people should not have to pay for your politically incorrect disease so they just seize all of your assets and put you on the wait list until the asset are sold and money collected. Ahh it's too bad the cancer killed you before your assets were converted to money.

     

    The problem with liberals is not that they have bad ideas, its that they don't consider solving them in the real world. The results is unlimited government power that does not solve the problems. What about all the money for the war on drugs, not solved. What about the poverty problem, not solved. Etc. etc.

     

    Solving anything except war using the government is just wrong, period. Government should regulate not control. There is a reason for the 'balance of power' and we need to make sure it stays balanced. Today it's almost completely off the scale.
    24 Jul 2012, 05:24 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Neil, was it not governments who rebuilt Europe after WWII? Was it not the GI Bill who enabled discharged vets to get affordable housing and college education? Who built the interstate highway system? Who electrified rural America? The National Institute of Health has been remarkably successful in many major medical breakthoughs, for instance "Cervical cancer kills more than 250,000 women worldwide each year. Caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), it is the second deadliest cancer among women.

     

    But thanks to Drs. Douglas Lowy and John Schiller, senior research scientists at NIH's National Cancer Institute, a vaccine is now available to protect against two of the deadliest forms of HPV.
    Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006, Gardasil resulted from advances over 25 years by Lowy, Schiller, and their research teams to boost the body's immune response to HPV infection. The vaccine has been clinically proven to be 100-percent effective."

     

    You can rail against SS because it is under-funded, but that underfunding was largely created by lack of political will over the last 40 years to adjust the successful program to extending life expectancy. SS has been unquestionably successful in lifting what was once a majority of senior citizens out of permanent poverty.

     

    Medicaid is frought with fraud, but that fraud is not fraud by civil servants, it is fraud by private sector doctors and medical providers. As a program to providing affordable high quality access to healthcare for our seniors has been very successful.

     

    Your answer is that because their are problems with some aspects of government programs, then we should abandon them, instead of fixing them and we certainly should not ever attempt to allow the government to solve any big problem.
    24 Jul 2012, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    madav, you are right, but could you imagine how much the conservatives would be screaming if the fine were higher. My point is that a balanced needed to be found and the current incentive or penalty, however one wants to view it, is better than no incentive or penalty as existed prior to the Affordable Care Act.
    24 Jul 2012, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Your answer is that because their are problems with some aspects of government programs, then we should abandon them, instead of fixing them and we certainly should not ever attempt to allow the government to solve any big problem."

     

    So you pick one institution that seems to be work (NIH) against what 40 or 50 that are failed to the ultimate and seem to think that the next one will work ok. That's just dreaming.

     

    The US food and drug administration is a failed bureaucracy. They only respond when the public sees a problem and are in bed with certain food and drug producers. The have established a nightmare of approvals that results in the US being way behind in new drug approvals.

     

    Same with oversight of wallstreet. Same with EPA, in bed with the greenies and hurting our economy, but no one cares. Thats the problem is that none of these agencies work to the good of the people. They only work for the good of one political side or the other. I DONT want my medical advice based on my politics. Its dangerous and you won't see the problem until it's too late.
    25 Jul 2012, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    Governments are only the collective will and wealth of the people. They don't fix anything for long without the support of the people who constitute that government. The government can organize efforts and provide thought leadership and do other things to facilitate but when they believe they exist in spite of the people that is when the disconnect starts and the nation becomes weak.

     

    SSA is underfunded because politicians stole from it to fund other things they wanted to do and seniors lived longer and pulled out much more than they ever put in. And they are not allowed to not take it either which is crazy. And while seniors are living much better, to the extent they live separate from their families which is more expensive, we have a lot of children living in poverty. As seniors dominate health care spending children have less and we dump bigger tax burdens on the middle class. The movement of wealth to senior citizens has been at the expense of other groups. Is that success? And who put that on the ballot?

     

    Medicaid has fraud because large amounts of money attract fraud and governments in general are not good at running anything efficiently. They are a bunch of lawyers not operational people. They would not know Six Sigma if it jumped up and bit them in the butt.
    25 Jul 2012, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Neil, I don't know how much you know about the FDA, but I have professional reasons for being quite familiar with the FDA, especially drug approval. The FDA does change over time depending on who is in the White House so there is some political influence, but that change is generally in the area of just how cautious they are when they award drug approvals. in the early 2000's the FDA had become more liberal in its safety standards until we had the Vioxx debacle. Since that time the FDA has again become much more diligent when it comes to safety considerations. Overall however our FDA is the gold standard drug approval agency in the world.

     

    If you look at the progress that we have made as a country in terms of air quality and water quality since the time the EPA was formed I think you might think differently. Of course the EPA would be more aligned with the "greenies". Do you think that the agency would be more alligned with the interest of the coal industry? Who goes to work for the EPA? People who pursue degrees in environmental studies and those people tend to "greenies". The agency was formed to protect our country and its people against environmental damage. Where in the EPA's mission statement is protecting the economy? Isn't that what the Department of Commerce does?
    25 Jul 2012, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    We have a lot of children living in poverty because we failed as a nation to make sure that high school students from the early 70's through today were prepared for the world which we created. Our foreign policy and economic policies encouraged globalization, but we our public education system simply gave lip service to the realities of the world that we currently live in. You will probably say that public education failed, I will say that we all failed. Public education provided students and parent the correct information, but parents in too many cases could only see a world just like they grew up in and therefore did not make sure that their kids prepared for this new highly competitive world. We all failed.
    25 Jul 2012, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    That is a very weak cause and effect statement to say the least.

     

    There are a number of things going on:

     

    1. The baby boom generation is taking more of the nation's wealth with them into retirement and into SSA, SSI and government paid healthcare. We don't have infinite dollars to go around and the shift of wealth to the older generation has been phenomenal. This is a massive transfer of wealth just in case you miss the point.
    2. Babies born without a father is much higher than the 1970's across all nationalities.
    3. Divorce rates are high across all nationalities.
    4. The economy has been shifting from industrial to services for decades but especially from the 70's onwards. This takes education after High School.
    5. Males are undereducated relative to females causing more problems with unemployment, marriage and out of wedlock children. Females are also cheaper to hire as they don't bargain for higher salaries as hard tilting the field further against males.
    6. Our Hispanic population has exploded since the 70's and they do not value education as highly although they have a very strong family culture.
    7. Our black population suffers from out of wedlock births which is close to all time highs, very high UE, and higher rates of diseases like diabetes, heart disease and also higher rates of STD's. This is a bad combination of issues.

     

    Put all of the above in a blender and you will find children living in poverty.
    26 Jul 2012, 01:00 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Cs, I'm sorry but the EPA is a disaster. Sure business was out of hand from the start of the industrial revolution to sometime between 1970 and 1982. But now the EPA requirements are major reason we are giving so much money to the Chinese. I don't care how green America is if we don't have any jobs. I won't be able to enjoy the green because crime will be so high from lack of jobs it won't be safe looking at it.

     

    Most of what is being done now is just shutting down America, not looking out for America and most of these greenies are not Americans any more, they are liberal socialists that want to shut down America. Get a clue. There is no longer a need for most of the EPA. It should just be shut down. We could go 50 years without any new EPA regulations and it would be just fine.
    26 Jul 2012, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Neil, I obviously would greatly disagree with your characterizations, but I would agree that the EPA, as with many of our federal agencies should undergo a thorough review and overhaul. This should occur on a rolling basis in all major federal agencies every 10 years.
    26 Jul 2012, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Neil, I obviously would greatly disagree with your characterizations, but I would agree that the EPA, as with many of our federal agencies should undergo a thorough review and overhaul."

     

    Change 'many' to 'all' and we agree about that.
    27 Jul 2012, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • Kevin Chapman
    , contributor
    Comments (45) | Send Message
     
    Whatever each side thinks the solution will be... shi*t rolls downhill like my daddy always said. Doesn't the president or his advisers listen to people like daro when they say his policies are forcing small business owners to decide between funding healthcare for their employees or paying the fine because its more cost efficient?
    7 Jul 2012, 12:21 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    The problem is Obama doesn't care how screwed up Obamacare is. In fact it's his goal that Obamacare implode the healthcare system. Once that happens the masses will clamor for a solution to the mess that Obamacare will create, and that solution will be a single-payer system. The same single-payer system that Obama and the leftists wanted from the outset.

     

    Obamacare isn't the end, it's the means to an end - a single-payer end.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • daro
    , contributor
    Comments (1575) | Send Message
     
    neither obama nor any other politician cares about that. all they care about it is trying get more people to buy insurance so they can pay for the services they are already providing for free except now they will get preventive care thrown in and get votes. it is the social security of health care. I suspected the law would get upheld simply because we force people to buy insurance all the time (social security, unemployment insurance, car insurance) and the courts routinely uphold those as consitutional. a few weeks ago I looked up the old supreme court cases challenging social security in the 1930's (I am a lawyer so that is pretty easy for me to do) and guess what the court said. they said it was a tax and the congress had the authority to impose it. and that is what the court said now. not a surprise.

     

    but even if business owners push off insurance to have individuals buy insurance from govenment mandated programs, what difference will that make? all the government is doing is laying new rules for the insurance companies. the insurance companies will do better because they have a lot more business. rates will still go up except as i said before, at least the voters can punish politicians who let rates go up to much.

     

    the real problem is that there are so few insurance companies and no real choice that the insurance companies get to rip us off. unwarranted double digit increases in health care wont end until there is more competition in the health insurance area. the only good thing about the law is that if your employer does not offer insurance you can now get it.plus they cannot exclude you for prexisting conditions. it also eliminates the free loaders who dont buy insurance but get free care when they have a serious illness. however, the "system" (or non-system) is still the same and it is still broken.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:14 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Any programs or money that run through Washington then become levers to garner new voters to said supporters of those programs and monies absconded from taxpayers.

     

    Everything else is packaging.
    7 Jul 2012, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • ironchefw
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    If you recall how the legislation was passed in the Congress, it was very disconcerting. It was flat out ugly. Members seemed to not really know what was in the bill, bribes were used too get votes, tricks were used in budget scoring, and arcane procedural measures were used to get the bill through. Insurance companies, drug companies, doctors and capitalism were all demonized by the bill's proponents. The implementation was even staged to hide the real impact until after the 2012 election.

     

    Now that the law has been ruled upon by the Supreme Court, we will find that the law will be used as a political stick to garner campaign dollars and votes in each future election cycle. The Democrat tactics will focus on ever-expanding coverage and increases in spending, and the Republicans will resist a little, propose spending a dime less in the next year's budget and still be portrayed in election ads as pushing Granny in a wheelchair over a cliff. Such fun! I'm sure that they are already crafting the ads.

     

    The politicians probably did not ask any real doctors how to get costs down because they don't want to hear any of the answers - cut fraud, minimal co-pays for Medicaid patients to prevent overuse, turn away patients who do not belong in the emergency rooms, and make Americans take responsibility for eating right and exercising would have gone a long way.

     

    Now the IRS will be bigger, doctors will spend more time filling out quality control reports instead of treating patients, and the country will be spending its way to oblivion even faster.
    7 Jul 2012, 04:57 AM Reply Like
  • noob
    , contributor
    Comments (384) | Send Message
     
    I almost agree until you get to the point of "make Americans take responsibility for eating right and exercising.."

     

    Who's to decide what's right?

     

    I have this problem today with my employer healthcare. They want to enforce my eating and exercising. But to do that I have to join a gym. I have a gym in my basement, but it's not eligible for insurance credit.

     

    I have to sign up with a certified personal trainer. I'm not working with a certified personal trainer - I am a certified personal trainer. But it's not eligible for credit.

     

    I have to take preventative doctors visits on a regular basis but they all cost $100's and have the same results every time. Last time I went the doctor told me I should be exercising until I finish a $5,000 stress test.

     

    They tell me I'm overweight (BMI index) even though I have 10% body fat (well within limits).

     

    I ride 100 miles a week and run a mile under 8 minutes and bench my weight. I think that's taking responsibility for eating right and exercising but "They" don't seem to agree.

     

    So who's to say if I'm taking responsibility?

     

    Get out of my way. Let me live my life. And if I do it right/wrong then let me bear the consequences.
    7 Jul 2012, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (345) | Send Message
     
    Well said, Noob, well said.
    7 Jul 2012, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    They don't want to let you 'live your life'. They want to force you into their tribe.

     

    The left is the mob.

     

    They are the new mafia.

     

    Fascist, faceless, bureaucrats.

     

    If you are still a believer in 'the individual' then you are passe to them and their agenda.

     

    Fall in line.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Arlen 'turncoat' Spector was the deciding vote on Christmas Eve when they slunk this bill thru.

     

    Also, Mary Landrieu aka the 'Louisiana Purchase'.

     

    And Ben Nelson of Nebraska, bribed with kickbacks.

     

    This is the corruption of the United Fakes of America and her 535 gangsters.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (1013) | Send Message
     
    This is just more PROOF that this president and his anti-business policies and onerous regulations are JOB KILLERS.
    7 Jul 2012, 06:54 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    As it relates to ACA there is an old German proverb " As fast as laws are devised, their evasion is contrived" there will be massive unforeseen consequences to and from business and individual alike to this new law.

     

    Dont you all get it!. Obama the uber brilliant constitutional law professor is not thinking what so ever about anything except what he believes is "fair", he is not able to see beyond his NOSE, he is "educated beyond his intelligence" your arguments/reasoning fall on his deft ears because Obama seeks "fairness" which is based on emotions not logic and so his belief system has nothing to do with how the real world works, its not what makes an economy grow and function efficiently. All this was made once again perfectly clear when he recently said (paraphrase) " I do not believe we build an economy from the top down but rather from the bottom up" what else do you need to know so stop whining about Obama he is what he is and if you dont like his policies vote him out in November, its the only option we have. We can only hope our next President can and will do better for America, and that he can mitigate some of the damage that Obama has done.
    7 Jul 2012, 07:24 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    enigmaman...Slight correction.. Obama was a law lecturer and has no law license.Law school dean made it clear ! He was not a professor !
    And, vote him out ! 60 % of ppl on assistence of some sort will not give up there $s. Not possible to vote him out.Double digit lead in Ohio ends Romney's shot at 270 votes. Case closed !
    The rest of your comment a/o/k
    7 Jul 2012, 07:29 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    D- you may be right in the end but right now your wrong because
    " it's not over till the fat lady sings". Remember the 1980 Miracle on Ice, Americas Olympic hockey team beat #1 Soviet team in the biggest upset ever. It may take a Miracle for Romney to win but as in 1980 Miracles do happen, Romney just needs to go all out and stop worrying about what someone else might think. He needs to win and then he can apologize.
    7 Jul 2012, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • Clyde Capps
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Dont know 'bout you enigmaman, but I'm "numb" from all this "mitigating" from 8 years of the previous guy !!!! Just how can you vote for a "$250 mil. man" who hides his $$$ in Swizterland,Bermuda,Lu... and the Cayman Islands ??? Just why would a guy of his wealth run for president ???? Most readers know the answer.
    7 Jul 2012, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    CC- clearly your mind is made up, your are a bottom up guy, not a pretty picture but it would make a great Dem logo for clothing :)
    7 Jul 2012, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    @Clyde: Comment failure if there ever was one. My guess is your broke-ass has less than $100 in your checking account.
    7 Jul 2012, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    E....... from your SA post to G-ds eyes an ears ! And, that 1980 win brings joyful memories ! lol
    7 Jul 2012, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Clyde

     

    So you support a guy who is also a multi millionaire and has never worked a day in his life? I guess he is just like you huh? It strikes me that Obama being half black and getting the black vote has done nothing remarkable for blacks. I never see him in a photo down in the hood looking at blight and poverty. Bush did more for Africa then Obama. My only conclusion is that Obama is self absorbed.

     

    At Romney's stage in life he only needs to run to take on a monstrous challenge and see if he can get the economy back on track and UE down. He is a problem solver and he sees a BIG problem. And why not give back? Because being President from where he is at is certainly a give back.

     

    Currently all our corporations leave money offshore and more and more Americans are renouncing their citizenship and leaving. We are pretty nasty to our own and that is not a good trend.

     

    I am not saying vote or not vote for him but all the murky innuendos are garbage. Don't judge a book by its cover.
    7 Jul 2012, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Better he keeps his own private property than it gets robbed by force from an IRS gun and get funneled over to your 'ilk' in the gimme gimme free stuff crowd.

     

    Keep yanking donkey chad for the DNC. We'll be Liberia in no time.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (913) | Send Message
     
    When people have something and you try to take it away from them, there is resistance. The Republicans* had the advantage of sales resistance before the Act was passed and vetted by the Supreme Court. Obama has the advantage now if he has the skill and organization to exploit it.

     

    He needs to convince independent voters that:

     

    1) the new law takes nothing they have now away; while providing a safety net for others; and themselves, should they need it;

     

    AND

     

    2) That the PUPPET PARTY* is trying to take away those benefits, and that safety net-- on orders from their paymasters--- the greedy selfish, elitist one per-centers who don't want to share resources to provide basic health care for YOU and your FAMILY..

     

    *(We need a new name for contemporary Republicans. The Republican Party today is like Vichy France. It is a Party that has been captured by Nazis and fraudster corporate criminals).

     

    *( I suggest the PUPPET PARTY so that we can distinguish it from the party of Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush the Elder).
    7 Jul 2012, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    Right !
    Two points !
    1. The election is over ! Romney will not reach McCain's #s

     

    2. The single payer national system is on the way.Your all going to get screwed as the years go by.Private companies CAN'T stay in business and as they fail all will migrate to the national plan.

     

    The best of the best will not choose medicine as there careers and the rich will eventually find a new country to head to for care. I pay almost nothing for care on the 2 national systems I'm on ,but, when I needed serious surgery recently I had the funds to go anywhere I wanted ! I chose Israel over the US because there the best there is. My second choice was Thailand...

     

    Glad you may be one of the few Dem's with a job,but, if your 40 years old and still a Democrat that is sad. As Churchill & Reagan said if you 40 and not conservative there is something really wrong with you ! DL
    7 Jul 2012, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (913) | Send Message
     
    Or: Healthcare will provide a basic guaranteed right of access to healthcare for basic universally recognized necessity for all;

     

    AND; Private companies can insure benefits which are not "vital'--like private rooms, cosmetic, weight loss, additional cash for household expenses (e.g. AFLAC). Certainly it is more important than an oil depletion allowance.

     

    Don't we recognize a need to subsidize, water, gas, electric and phone service; so that all have access. Why is healthcare excluded?
    7 Jul 2012, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    And why stop at healthcare? Food is more pressing than healthcare, kid. I want MY RIGHT to nationalized FOOD CARE now!!!

     

    In fact, I have 'a condition'. Probably an ADA disease. If I don't eat. Food doesn't travel down into my tummy. My tummy hurts! Ouch! Its a medical condition. I have a right to fix that.

     

    I could do this all day with every damn thing, cradle to grave.

     

    Just import your argument to everything you want. Nice lefty?

     

    We just did this little experiment with housing. Everybody gets a home. Look what it got us.

     

    49 million Americans on food stamps. Almost a trillion blown every year.

     

    50% of every state's budget gets shot right into medicaid, free healthcare for 'the poor' *ahem*(now defined as the middle class at $88,000/yr). We already HAVE 'free' healthcare. Its bankrupting the states.

     

    Disability payments now at 9 million zombies strong. Good government!

     

    UI now out and out welfare at 2 years! Good government boy! Good doggie!

     

    Baby momma checks rotting the blue urban puppy mills(ghettos) but the DNC doesn't care. That's more votes for them. Thanks government! Thanks LBJ.

     

    Welfare in the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars and its just not good enough.

     

    Government, public education. We're in the lowest global test score. Throw more money at public employee pensions. That'll do it! Good government doggie! Good boo boo. Sit.

     

    We can do this all day.

     

    I'm hungry!

     

    I have A RIGHT for my healthcare(food). You like that Veruca Salt? I want it NOW! I don't care HOW, I WANT IT NOW!!!
    7 Jul 2012, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt, there are two problems with your food analogy. First is that Medicaid provides food assistance in the form of food stamps to the very poor and the goverment provides unemployment assistances to help those who become unemployed afford to feed themselves and their families. Second, if you don't eat and then die of starvation, that choice that you made does not increase the cost that I have to pay to feed my family. However, when people choose not to buy health insurance, that choice in aggregate across the nation increases what I pay for my health insurance as a percentage of the uninsured will need healthcare services which cost more than they can afford out of pocket and those costs drive up the overall cost of healthcare.
    7 Jul 2012, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You mean like nationalized housing care, which also directly affected the price of everyone else's homes? By your same argument.

     

    And if I don't eat or choose not to, I eventually become one less mouth to feed which should drive down the price of corn or wheat since I create less demand. The fact that food stamps are paid out against my will as a taxpayer means that the price of food remains either static or higher than what it should be just like healthcare.

     

    Try again.
    7 Jul 2012, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • Zigg
    , contributor
    Comments (55) | Send Message
     
    Don't feed the troll
    8 Jul 2012, 08:19 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt, the problem with your argument, if one can call it that, is that we are human beings living in a society. Your argument ignores the human element and boils it down to economic theory devoid of a moral element. I am sure that you can find a country somewhere in central Africa somewhere that would suite your desire to extract any moral element from public policy.

     

    I too could take your approach and say that we could solve the problem that we have in this country with the uninsured by simply denying them healthcare services under any circumstances unless they provide proof of insurance or the ability to self-insure. On paper, this would incent people who can afford health insurance, but simply have chosen not to purchase it to make that purchase and it would eliminate the rest of society from bearing the cost of providing healthcare to those who cannot afford it. This thing is that this would be immoral and not representative of the compassionate nature of the people of our great country.
    8 Jul 2012, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    Compassion with no logic is doomed to fail. And if we are truly compassionate then don't we owe the greater world a very large amount of our largesse as they are living well under US standards? Why stop at our borders? Claiming morality but then setting a limit on it really calls out the depth of the moral claim.

     

    Karl Marx made similar statements that society needed something greater that would share the wealth and provide fairness for the common man. So a few billion people went down the enlightened path and millions of dead later came back again. Where is the morality in 10's if not 100's of million dead? Nothing in life is free. Somebody has to pay and when the number of people wanting it to be free is too large the system collapses.

     

    The availability of the free stuff creates demand as it then becomes a choice. Witness free pizza at the grocery store. People overweight and needing to skip a week's worth of meals line up for the free stuff. Human nature is not too be underestimated.

     

    If we are all in this together then I will send you my bills every month. And I thank you in advance.
    9 Jul 2012, 12:19 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    zorrow, no one else but you should be expected to pay for healthcare for YOU and YOUR FAMILY. Anything beyond that is charity and should be given freely. You're nothing but a punk thief. If you're that much of a loser deadbeat then don't marry and don't breed. In fact if we're going to have a fascist nanny state then we ought to have one that first reduces future healthcare expenditures by rendering you and your ilk unable to procreate.
    10 Jul 2012, 01:56 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (913) | Send Message
     
    I'm a multi-millionaire---and your an amoral fascist. People like you didn't build this country. People like me did. I'm just trying to get the youth on the right track again.
    10 Jul 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    So you are job creator!

     

    So you don't mind forking over the millions you made yourself over to pay for dead beats?

     

    Zorrow has yet to provide a bio...hm.
    10 Jul 2012, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    zorrow, above you referred to "the greedy selfish, elitist one per-centers" and it's clear you weren't claiming to be of that demographic. Not that you're going to get it, but a fascist favors a state with unlimited power and no constitutional restraints placed it. That's you, and that's Obama.
    13 Jul 2012, 02:16 AM Reply Like
  • Brian Nichols
    , contributor
    Comments (2131) | Send Message
     
    There are a lot of hidden areas of concerns in the Care Act. I personally don't think it should be approved and will further slow growth. I think we should quit giving, and begging companies to hire, and start forcing. Just my opinion http://chn.ge/LXpavi
    7 Jul 2012, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    If its bad for small business it's bad for large business.

     

    Just some midwest common sense that is considered Neanderthal in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, the cesspits of America.
    7 Jul 2012, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    I was recently an owner of an 8 person business and we offered a group healthcare plan for our employees and subsidized the premiums. Our cost structure was built upon doing that. If our country does not have a single payer healthcare plan and instead leaves the welfare of its citizens from a healthcare standpoint to the private sector, than the private sector needs to work healthcare into its cost structure. There should be exemptions for very small "mom and pop" companies, however a 49 person company is more than a very small mom and pop company.
    7 Jul 2012, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    IOW, coercion.

     

    You like force.

     

    I don't like force.

     

    I'm not a fascist.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    cs, you do realize we're talking about real businesses here? Not everyone can get the gig of siphoning off client assets in return for "managing" said assets. We can all dream about sitting around managing each others assets, but if we all had that gig we'd end up staring at each other while we all starved to death. Someone actually has to produce, and the cost structure of many producers doesn't allow for that.
    10 Jul 2012, 02:17 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Cinci, I think that it is a real cheap shot and not real intelligent to attack me and my profession on a site such as Seeking Alpha, which is a site dominated by professional asset managers in terms of producing content. The point that I am making is that if the U.S. is not going to have a government provided single payer healthcare system and instead is going to rely upon employers to provide this vital benefit, than employers need to embrace that responsibility and include this in their cost structure. It's that simple.
    10 Jul 2012, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    Why isn't anyone considering that insurance is the problem? They rake in billions while paying out as little as possible, while doctors arbitrarily increase their fees to insurance without the consent or knowledge of the consumer, where it is automatically raised through premiums on us. It's a vicious cycle that needs to be changed. HSA need to be the standard form of insurance where we use a combination of cash and insurance. Doctors need to compete with each other for primary care, and make it a cash business in order to figure out who is the best out there instead of the insurance company making you pick from a list in a phone book.
    10 Jul 2012, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    I think it's a very cheap shot to attack businesses that produce real goods and services as being irresponsible. The reason your "cost structure" supports these benefits has nothing to do with your generosity, or your ability to dictate your cost structure, it has to do with your industry charging clients ridiculous sums for poor advice. The "asset management profession" ranks right up there with used car salesmen and real estate agents. The vast majority of asset managers underperform the indices, and thus most aren't professionals in any practical sense. The fact that you believe businesses dictate their cost structure is as bizarre as your comment that Social Security is a government success story because SS recipients are happy that they're receiving checks.

     

    And yes I realize many of the articles here are infomercials by asset managers seeking a free advertising venue. However there is useful content on SA. There is a lot of good info that comes through the market currents and that's reason enough to access SA. One can ignore the plague of locusts hawking their "services".
    13 Jul 2012, 02:54 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    madav, I agree insurance is the problem, but it's not the insurance companies. Health insurance should operate the way auto insurance works. We don't buy auto insurance to pay for routine service and repairs. We buy it to insure against the threat of single events (accidents) that have the potential for large costs in the $1000s for a single event. Your idea of HSAs to cover most annual healthcare expenses is the way to go, and leave insurance only to cover single events that run into the $1000s range. That would fix a big part of the problem. Traditional insurance with low or no co-pays provides no incentive to shop around for value and encourages overuse of the system.
    13 Jul 2012, 03:11 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Cinci, you obviously have a fairly serious attitude problem in that you have to stereotype an entire profession as worthless and dishonest. You don't know me and if you did, you would very quickly realize that there are very few people who are as critical as I am about the brokerage and financial advisory profession. Unfortunately your comments are not far off for a lot of so-called brokers and advisors who are charging "management fees" for simply allocating client assets to other managers or manager of managers. This is ridiculous and it gives my profession a bad name. For your information, I am and have always been a portfolio manager. We do our own research, construct our own portfolios and we typically charge less for that customized active approach than most brokers and advisors who simply allocate to product based solutions.
    15 Jul 2012, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • john12345
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    The devil is in the details. I think too many people simplify the issue without all the facts; that includes Obama who has no experience in any problem solving circumstance.

     

    When I had a small business (40-120 employees) the health insurance cost constantly went higher. This was primarily a combination of a healthcare system that was inefficient and insurance companies that had to keep raising rates. Meanwhile, everyone was smoking, getting fatter, and enjoying any lifestyle desired. The result was that companies (like mine) had to reduce benefits, make employees pay more, the company pays more, and the insurance costs escalate.

     

    A lot of the increase in costs is due to the inefficient healthcare system. Whether it's a doctor's office, emergency clinic, or hospital the process has similar characteristics -- delays for service, collection of information and payment, numerous tests, etc etc. Litigation by lawyers caused a lot of the steps in the process. By the time you are released with only a simple problem it would be easy for a patient to have contact with four or more people and waste 2-4 hours. That's for a cold. This business model for healthcare has been around for 100 years and doesn't appear to be changeable.

     

    Another part that interferes with a solution is that most of the population has it's greatest medical cost in the first 8 years and last 5 years. At those two ends of life, the costs can be astronomical. But to make an actuarial process work, the younger and middle age citizens have to pay more than they need to help cover the young and elderly costs.

     

    Add in the unemployed, indigent, poor, illegals, etc and you have additional expense (plus need for language translation).

     

    Something had to be done, Obama did it. It won't work. But what will? The problem is still there.

     

    One thing I predict -- the costs will increase and we will suffer more and die sooner.
    7 Jul 2012, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel Radakovich
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Vote Ron Paul. Romney and Obama are no good.
    7 Jul 2012, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • Richard Mackenzie
    , contributor
    Comments (453) | Send Message
     
    That's how a conservative describes it: A dis-incentive for small businesses to grow.

     

    A more rational person might describe it as giving a break to small companies to encourage them. They are, after all, supposed to be the main source of new jobs (though that notion is under attack), and giving them this break makes sense.

     

    Would it be more fair to make even the smaller companies provide the same health benefits as larger ones? Is THAT what we want?
    7 Jul 2012, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    RM

     

    That is how a businessman would describe it. Raising the cost per employee arbitrarily or distorting the market by having some magic cut off number like 50 FTE's is pure central planning and manipulation.

     

    If you want to give small businesses a break then let's get aggressive and say no taxes for the first 5 years. Messing around with health care is just a social agenda initiative that has nothing to do with the interests of small business. Besides they will need the money just to build up the in house staff to deal with regulations.

     

    Every headwind a small business deals with is just more lost revenue and margin. If they are into manufacturing they then face competition from overseas that only has a fraction of the compliance costs. And we wonder why a lot of our light industry is in other parts of the world.
    7 Jul 2012, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • grazy
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Having grown a business from 13 to 144 employees in six months, I can tell you there is a crushing number of laws, regulations and compliance issues including ADA, EEOC, OSHA, DAV, HIPPA, FMLA, etc. when you cross the magic number 50. I hired two human resource personnel, an in-house attorney and a labor law firm. The cost of compliance easily exceeded 180k/year. My training budget for personnel on sexual harassment was an additional 20k/yr.

     

    If the president had any interest in the economy he could simply issue a change to all federal laws raising compliance levels to 500 employees, the SBA's definition of a small business. I understand he doesn't have the legal authority however he could simply declare he can't wait on Congress and do it similarly to the way he does new regulations.
    7 Jul 2012, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    grazy, so lets break the constitution simply because it helps your pet problem. That's why we have a failed country. How about we stick to the laws and fix things the old fashion way.

     

    In the end, two things made America a great country; the rule of law and gun ownership.

     

    The rule of law because it made as level of playing field as anyplace on this planet.

     

    Guns because its the one assurance that we will never be ruled against our will.

     

    Yet most are willing to give up both of these in order to get their concern some lip service. Not even solved, just lip service. It's pathetic.
    7 Jul 2012, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    New AIG CEO has the answer ! It's simple and will work.....

     

    He said we need to ALL work until 80 and that is when bennies kick in !
    Just like FDR when he started this nightmere. The bennies were not supposed to be paid. Only a hanfull of old ladies who outlived the slaves ( husbands).. All fixed ! ( clap hands and pat yourselve on back )
    8 Jul 2012, 04:32 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    To summarize this thread, we have a hopelessly inefficient healthcare system and "Obamacare" is either not going to make any difference or make matters worse by imposing new costs and requirements on businesses. In addition, even though "Obamacare" is not the answer, no one really has an answer to the problem of rising costs and the swelling rolls of uninsured.

     

    I would say that we have a hopelessly inefficient healthcare system because we cover the uninsured by default because we are a moral society. We will not let the poor and irresponsible suffer and die, but at the same time we cannot for some reason come out and say the quality healthcare is a right and we have to find a way to efficiently provide universal care. We cannot do this because somehow this sounds "socialist". So we will continue to give everyone access to healthcare in an ineffective and inefficeint manner.

     

    Secondly, if part of the answer is to relieve the burden on the private sector in relation to healthcare insurance, than why did the number of uninsured rise dramatically during the 1980's, 90's and 00's when these burdens were more relaxed, while corporations grew fantastically more profitable, and the wealth and income gap expanded to levels not seen since 1929?
    8 Jul 2012, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    Saying a government takeover is an answer is just brute force power mongering. By that logic we should invade every country that has a problem because a takeover solves everything.

     

    Obamacare is government care and nobody has confidence in the government running anything well over time. We have no case studies to show it can do it and in a country this large and complex the weight of the system will likely collapse. People have hope but not confidence.

     

    Arguing access is not accurate as hospitals do take on people who have no ability to pay. Is that inefficient access? It depends. Compared to a centralized government program it will probably outshine it over time. Is it pristine where everyone has a health care card and we can pat ourselves on the back and say we are moral society? No but then what will a piece of plastic get a person once the government takes over health care? If health care is reduced in quality and innovation is that moral?

     

    I never understood why we could not fix the uninsured problem by just dealing with uninsured. I never heard an argument that was more than bird bath deep. We already pay for the uninsured the only question is how we do it. A wholesale takeover of health care shows no intellect when it comes to system impact of major changes and knock on affects.

     

    And as you likely know a huge amount of money is spent on end of life care but we are moral so apparently we want granny to hang on another day. Do you want to make a moral statement on the inefficiency of these decisions? That apparently is not going away or is it?

     

    It would have been nice if Obama had just fixed unemployment and we would have trillions less in debt and much more in tax revenues. But of course you don't get your name on a major bill and cannot claim to have changed the country. Welcome to the pantheon of egotistical politicians of every party including Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and you name it.

     

    Don't forget it is not about you it is about them. A chance to be a historical figure.
    9 Jul 2012, 12:38 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Tomas,

     

    I don't hear too many people in our country complaining about a government take over of electricity or water. We have had decades of highly regulated utilities providing critical services to the American people. "Obamacare" is not a government take over of healthcare any more than utility regulation is a government take over of utilities. The private sector utility companies have been very successful in this country raising capital when necessary, producing profits and providing a reliable service to there customers.

     

    By the way fixing unemployment would not fix the structural problem of the uninsured and healthcare cost inflation that has been running at double and triple the rate of CPI during period of both high and low unemployment.

     

    How can you even suggest that using the emergency room for primary care for the uninsured is efficient? Emergency rooms in many high population areas are overwhelmed and cannot adequately serve those people who are in the emergency rooms for the right reasons. Emergency rooms provide triage, not comprehensive care or preventative care. If you want to get the cost of health down over the long-term you must improve access to preventative care.
    9 Jul 2012, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    You were not around to hear anyone talk about the takeover of electricity or water so your statement has no foundation. And those were done at the local or county, region level not a monstrous federal government intercession. And people still have wells so local municipalities did not take over everything.

     

    If Obamacare is not a takeover then why the reams of paper to document the bill? I can claim not to take over your finances but if I tell you how to spend your money and where to go then I have de facto taken over your finances. That is the reality. You cannot say government is not involved but then ignore the size of the bill.

     

    I am not arguing that emergency rooms are very efficient but on a spectrum where government control is another option they might start looking pretty good. And by the way doctors have so much demand during business hours many patients are pushed to after hour care and emergency rooms anyways so that will not be fixed.

     

    Driving down quality and innovation to ostensibly create more access is a big mistake but that is where we are going. Capital will flow away from health care and it will be unsatisfying to everyone. Preventative care calls out a need for more general doctors but the trend here is to have more specialized doctors. So I suppose you want the government to mandate less specialized and more generalists? If we are going to give up freedom let's just say it and admit we are trading freedom for stuff.

     

    Fixing UE would have boosted our GDP, put more people back to work on employer health care programs, reduced our debt and given us capital to deal with uninsured. A strong economy is the first priority so we can do other things. This only demonstrates how inexperienced and self absorbed our politicians really are. The uninsured would have benefited from a stronger economy and then we could deal with the remainder.

     

    It is remarkable that people talk about healthcare costs going up but cannot articulate why it keeps going up. That is fundamental analysis that has to be understood before any remedy is suggested. Those drivers that move the price up can then be addressed and people can make conscious choice like free Americans and not get bamboozled by hucksters at the county fair.

     

    For example oil has went from $20 per barrel to $100 plus in the last 12 years and nobody is calling for federal legislation because they have some sense why and understand it.
    9 Jul 2012, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "I don't hear too many people in our country complaining about a government take over of electricity or water."

     

    1. I am not forced to pay for water or electricity.

     

    2. Obamacare is not regulation its take over. Telling companies how they have to act is a lot different than telling me what I have to pay a private company.
    9 Jul 2012, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Neil459, unless you live in Montana in the middle of the woods and live off the land or live in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere, you have to have reliable and affordable electricity and water. You can have a well as someone else pointed out, but you need electricity to pump the water from the well in order to keep water pressure sufficient to flow through the plumbing in your home.

     

    Furthermore, the government, both Federal and State, tell companies how to act in regard to pollution, safety and in terms of employee benefits. People like you seem to be calling for a return to the industrial revolution times in this country when companies could pollute all they want, can be as lax as they want from a safety standpoint and can have work environment and hiring policies which are very detrimental to the worker. As a business man who is very concerned about my country, I don't understand how business people such as yourself typically aggressively oppose a single payer healthcare system, but at the same time don't want the government telling you that you have to provide health insurance there employees.

     

    What you don't seem to understand is that the Federal Government under the constitution must act in ways to promote the general welfare of "we the people" not we the business owners. If the government is not going to enact policies to ensure that tens of millions of people do not go uninsured for healthcare services, who is going to fill that void. Obviously you have said that it won't be you as a business person.
    9 Jul 2012, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    cstauffer, name one government program that is efficient and reduces cost. The problem is that you don't seem to understand that the government will never do what you want. They can't. It's all an illusion. Yes it sounds good to say the government will fix it. I'm sure it makes you feel good. But the government won't fix it. So we give up our freedoms and get nothing in return. We need to resist this stupid suggestion and work on a real solution.

     

    Example, see England, see Canada, see any other country with a single payer system. The public health care systems don't work anywhere near as good as our old system.

     

    I managed an English company a few years ago, and guess what? We had to provide private health care in order to get any employees. Why? Because the public system was so bad.

     

    I could go on and on. Ideas like yours, while I'm sure make you feel good, are just bad for America. There are other better solutions. But they take a little bit of intelligence to understand. Something, sadly most voters don't take the time to understand.
    9 Jul 2012, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Neil, first of all, by most quantitative measures the single payer systems around the world have better outcomes and lower cost than our private sector. I do understand that our system for people who have very good health insurance or for the very wealthy is the best in the world. Sadly however for many Americans, the system does not work well at all. Again, the Federal Goverment has a responsibility to the entire population, not just for people like myself who has very expensive, but very good health insurance.

     

    To you comment regarding the not doing anything well. That just simply is not the case. Given the scale and reach of our military, we management our armed forces very well. Given the number of people on social security, they receive their checks on time and people are generally very happy with SS. Medicare, given the number of payments and the number of recipients in the system, is very efficient compared to private insurers. The National Institute of Health is very efficient and successful in conducting and promoting medical research. Given the size of our country, the EPA does a terrific job ensuring that we all have clean drinking water and clean air to breath.
    9 Jul 2012, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    Seriously?

     

    So we have the best military in the world and it is due to government organization? Look at the size of the budget. Nobody comes close to us. We bury everyone with scale. Love our military but size matters.

     

    SSA and Medicare which are essentially bankrupt are run well?

     

    Carrying your logic out then maybe we should have the government run everything if they are so efficient. They could run every business we have in the red and we could all claim we are a success. We could make up for the losses on volume.

     

    By the way there is likely well water in every state of the union. You just are not getting out much.
    9 Jul 2012, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    China out spending US on military now. Building ships planes and tanks etc on massive scale ! Wake up. World stopped revolving around US and Obama wants to be a peacenick and be just a voice in the UN..... If Patton was around we'd see a coup !
    9 Jul 2012, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    cstauffer, yes some voters live in la-la land. Its just too bad that we don't have the facilities to lock them up the way we used to.

     

    But your just wrong on the facts. Our health system is the best period, for everyone. At least it was until the government got involved and started making the healthcare system a political hand ball. Don't suppose you remember when the less fortunate could walk into any hospital in the US and get treated for free. It used to be considered an obligation. Now the government will use death panels to make sure they don't run the costs up. And there won't be anyone to blame except for some unnamed panel that issues edicts from afar.
    9 Jul 2012, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    Period ! Ignorance ! The best insurance is for the 1% who have money.. No matter where in the world they live. There are much touted stories about Saudi coming to the US and stuff like that ,but, I know many first hand stories of family an friends who went to several countries because they could get better care and services not available in the US or legal... As always ... Even in the US the rich get the care the rest get ??? And. don't kid yourself... MANY US doctors at big hospitals suck !......... I could have gone ANYWHERE recently and I chose Israel ! Thailand would have been next choice !
    9 Jul 2012, 07:22 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Death Panels, you lost me when you quoted Sarah Palin.
    9 Jul 2012, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    What's with you and the fixation on well water?
    9 Jul 2012, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    look up Dr Emanual ! Rombo's brother. He designed the 15 person panel that will make all the calls ! aka "death panel" Gov lipstick was just quoting him ! Feel better ?Good luck ( your gonna need it ) and die before 70 !
    9 Jul 2012, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3838) | Send Message
     
    It will come in handy during the Zombie apocalypse.
    9 Jul 2012, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    Single-payer systems don't have better outcomes or lower costs. Rationing doesn't reduce cost per unit. Rationing reduces aggregate cost by reducing supply. Nothing in Obamacare will reduce costs, nor was it intended to. Neither will it increase supply. It will increase demand, particularly since it provides first-dollar coverage (really stupid to double-down on a key problem in the current system). From there the math is obvious.

     

    We're stupidly destroying a healthcare system that works well for 80% rather than address the various reasons that the remaining 20% don't have health insurance. (Note they still receive healthcare, they just don't pay for it.)
    10 Jul 2012, 02:45 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    "Given the number of people on social security, they receive their checks on time and people are generally very happy with SS. Medicare, given the number of payments and the number of recipients in the system, is very efficient compared to private insurers."

     

    SS check recipients being happy has nothing to do with success. Write me checks and I'd be happy too. SS has a vast unfunded liability and using any reasonable pension accounting standards would be declared insolvent. That's not success. Medicare fraud is rampant and doctors are dropping Medicare patients. That's not success. The feds just reported that 11% of unemployment benefits paid out in 2011 were bogus and should never have been paid. That's not success.

     

    As far as the EPA, my water supplier (which is not government, just as my electric utility is not government) ensures I have clean drinking water, not the EPA. The EPA is too busy trying to justifying taxing CO2 to worry about such mundane matters. However the fault with your EPA reference is it isn't an analogy to Obamacare. The EPA is a regulator. We already have regulators for doctors, hospitals, insurers, etc.. We don't need Obamacare to regulate healthcare, nor is that what Obamacare is about.
    10 Jul 2012, 03:02 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    cs, well look at the statute. Death panels are there, Palin or not. Reality must really bite for you to keep you holed up in your wonderland.
    10 Jul 2012, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Please post a link to an official government of or White House reference ot the "death panel".
    11 Jul 2012, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    I grabbed this one.but, googeled it and dozens an dozens showed. This one might flavor Dem view points,but, it is very clear it is a fact ! DL

     

    http://bit.ly/N59wgy
    11 Jul 2012, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    DaLatin,

     

    Let me make this simple because there are far too many bogus stories floating around the internet on this subject. I routinely use Snopes to debunk this cyber garbage which leads to much of the dis-information which stokes the anger of people such as a few of those on this thread. See the following link: http://bit.ly/NjtwZf
    12 Jul 2012, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    cstauffer, you asked for a link ! I just took the first one. The Snoops crap you just sent me is spin as well.. I don't need US care of live in the US anymore. So, the cesspool is all yours. The best advise is to read the dam bill as Health Care Act itself ! It's in there in all it's glory ! Then you can see it's law ! You can't use your DEM. rhetoric on this thread !

     

    Hopefully, you can use a tiny segment of your knowledge and figure out over time that all insurance companies will have to follow the rules. Then they will start to lose money. Then one by one they will close ! Then the medical schools will see drop offs in enrollments and the national plan will emerge. Rationing ! And, the poll of US doctors was posted several places on SA. These are the folks who will be the pawns in this monstrosity ! 80% said they were thinking of leaving medicine !
    12 Jul 2012, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    DaLatin, Snopes is not spin, it is the most widely used site to fact check online "urban legends" I have looked at the passages in the Affordable Care Act and no where does it state that end of life care is going to rationed in the manner that is being interpreted by those on this thread who claim that their are death panels.

     

    You can decide that you don't like the Affordable Care Act, as I can decide that their are parts of it that I would have like to have done differently, but it is not constructive to make the predictions that you made above or to twist the contents of the act into something that it is not.
    12 Jul 2012, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    You can write anything you want,but,80% of doctors and 2/3s of the US population see what is what ! There are good things in the Act sure. But, they are paid for by all the people in the form of taxes !Not just 250K an up !

     

    That is a fact too...

     

    Year after year the US spends more money than she takes in and it all somes up is vote buying ! Plain and simple. Spin all you want !

     

    He is a simple way to stop it all.. ( if I were king ) If your a US citizen man or women and you pay US Federal Income Tax you and your immediate family can vote in the national election ! If you don't pay you can't vote ! Then all this freeloading would stop. Church Temple an Mosques would do there things and the charities too.

     

    The Government isn't a caretaker for all. Infrastructure + military and no mass !
    12 Jul 2012, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    DaLatin, infrastructure and military yes, but the Constitution clearly states that the Federal Goverment's role is to "promote the general welfare". General welfare can clearly take on many different definitions, however it should be pretty clear that when very large parts of the population are being put at risk because of distortions caused by the private sector's profit motive or unintended consequences of past public policy, the Federal Goverment must take action to rectify the problem. By my definition, 40 million uninsured Americans and healthcare cost inflation three or more times the inflation rate constitutes a risk to general welfare.
    12 Jul 2012, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    So profit motive is the enemy? And the Fed Gov is the answer? When they have managed to screw up most everything they touch?

     

    The Fed Gov is not a good operator of anything. End of story. Read the news for the evidence. It is run by politicians who are looking out for their own self interest not running the best and greatest.

     

    Healthcare inflation is a phenomena but is it a problem? Are we demanding more every year? Are we paying for innovation? Lawsuits? End of life care which is hugely expensive? Is it the inevitable result of the baby boomers hitting retirement? If you don't understand or want to understand the drivers then you are treating symptoms not the problem.

     

    40 million uninsured is a problem but that is different than health care costs going up and should be treated differently. Driving down UE would help and tunding their insurance could be very simple as we could slice defense spending in half and cut a number of agencies. Trashing our entire health care system though is very foolish.
    12 Jul 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Tomas, I would say that the unreimbursed cost of providing healthcare to the 40 million uninsured each year has a significant impact on the cost of healthcare as those costs have to be compensated for through higher prices for paying patients. Many studies have been done on the cost impact of the uninsured on the healthcare market and it equates to on average around $1,200 per year in additional insurance premium cost for the typical family policy. You see, the uninsured are both a societal tragedy and a major contributor to healthcare cost inflation.
    12 Jul 2012, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    If 40 million cost $1200 each that is $48 Billion. So we trash a $2 Trillion industry over $48 Billion? That does not make sense.

     

    You cannot say that the uninsured are a major contributor to healthcare cost inflation. They have always been with us so they are carried year over year and they make no NEW impact to the cost numbers.

     

    By the way the most expensive and least healthiest of the population is already on the government health care so now we are taking the most healthiest on and letting employers walk away from this obligation which they felt for many years and now feel compelled to walk away from. So now employees are getting socked with even higher health care costs because employers are backing away.

     

    All of this will eventually be dropped on the US taxpayer in its entirety and it will be worse not better.

     

    Again the USG is not an operator of anything that can be held up to scrutiny as best of breed and every year they spend more so that should tell you something.

     

    We are trading a set of problems for potential chaos.
    12 Jul 2012, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    That's a $1,200 tax on every insured family every year to pay for very ineffective reactionary healthcare services for people who either say that cannot afford health insurance or for young healthy people who do not think that they need insurance until they really do. Why not compell as many of those people into the insurance pool and spread that cost over more people, open up preventative care to millions more people and for those who don't want to participate, charge them a penalty to help offset the burden they impose on society? You say that this $48 billion cost has been their every year. The cost has been there every year, but that cost is growing every year and is a major contributor to out of control healthcare cost inflation which is the major risk to the U.S. fiscal situation over the next 10 to 20 years.
    12 Jul 2012, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    cstauffer, nonsense on the 40 million. Most still won't buy insurance and some can't. They don't file taxes and getting a credit .. Right !
    The general welfare is important,but, with your money not mine !

     

    I give 100% of what I take in now away ! And, I do a great job hands on doing it..And, i know my nephew will do the same when I am gone and probably add his funds to it.

     

    And, I moved from the US ,so, the money goes to people who deserve it. I don't go to shelters here and see kids on Istuff and wearing NKE sneakers.

     

    I posted the Argentine President's comments first on SA when she recently said " Equality is more important then freedom !" and that seems to be what your saying........

     

    This last stunt by the Supreme Court saw Judge Roberts write 3/4s of the dissent and then flip during the last few weeks ! This ruling ranks as tied for the two worst rulings in my 87 years where this court gave the GM & Chrysler 1st in line Bond holder's garbage an turned the companies over to the Unions an workers.

     

    The US Republic has been destroyed ! Freedom is now at the whim of selfish me first Congressmen/women !

     

    Now, the US is just simply a mob-rule counrty ! And, this was done during the 40 years the Democrats ruled the whole ball of wax ! The Founders developed the Republic brilliantly and when the State's lost the ability to select the Senators they we all lost the Republic.We see the House pass Bill's left and right as there elected to do by a simple majority and the Senators act like children and put party over country ! On both sides and fear not the Goveners of the State's they represent !

     

    The 40 million you speak of were used as pawns by Obama and go to youtube and watch his comments before he became the President. He said he wants a single payersystem and it is his plan,but, it will take time. Well, he just got help and put the plan in motion from the Court allowing anything an everything to be taxed. I won't be around to see this system most likely,but, as sure as the sun rises it will be !

     

    All the costs will still rocket higher.The US carequality of care will drop and the wait times will be long ! And at the age of 70 will see doctors just making you comfortable.. Or pay them privately ! Yes sir ,sir ! DL
    12 Jul 2012, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Why not just self insure the really young ones who will not need much health care in aggregate and deal with the balance through driving down unemployment and with the unmotivated or truly sick through different tatics.

     

    You cannot say that the uninsured are driving health care cost any more than insured are driving health care cost. In fact I might argue that since the people with the worst health have government insurance they are in fact driving costs more than people without.

     

    And to give you some scale right now each US household owes about $160,000 each for direct federal debt and if we include unfunded liabilities it is about double that.

     

    So how big does $1200 a year look now?
    12 Jul 2012, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    Tomas, I give you credit for thinking this through. Unfortunately, politicians have had 40+ years to think this through and there has only been really two viable alternatives presented, a single payer plan advocated by the Dems and the mandate private sector driven plan advocated by the Republicans until Obama got behind it.

     

    Your comment about debt per capita is really not relevant in that we will never truly pay off our government debt, nor do we ever need to. We just have to control the levels to make sure that interest carry costs do not crowd out everything else.
    12 Jul 2012, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    cs

     

    Debt per capita is the same things as taxation per capita so is absolutely relevant. Both have to be paid. When we burden our tax payers we need to measure how much they can carry so we don't lower their consumption and thereby economic growth. I would swap $1200 per year per family in a nano second with the current level of debt that is resting on the taxpayers over the next 20 to 30 years.

     

    We will pay this back either through real taxes or inflation. Thus far it looks like inflation through easy money is the answer because nobody wants to deal with really paying it back. And you really don't control the level when interest costs take off. Every central planner thinks that until events take over.

     

    This story is coming to an end however as our debt to GDP ratio is at all time highs and likely cannot go much further.

     

    To wrap up the health care issue the approach should have been to address the gaps and not make the federal government the ultimate underwriter. I blame WDC in general with this mess as both parties like big entities even though they don't admit it. Where else can one get big campaign contributions?

     

    By the way did you know that about 5% of the population drives around 50% of the expenditures on health care? That should be where we focus.
    12 Jul 2012, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    Inflating and devaluation is only way out with our politicos,but,what will happen ? As real wise pundits have stated around the world is the US reserve will be dropped.

     

    Quickly and quietly the world trade has gone 70% dollarless. BRICs and others have stopped using it. China has signed 17 separate swap agreements and she is setting up Yuan exchanges outside China, Also the IMF is being pressured hard to increase the new SDR 8 receipt as OPEC an others don't want the SDR 4 with US & JAPAN =ing 80%... The clock is ticking and it is becoming clear the Fed an Treasury want this. Sec Geitner has spoke on the subject publicly and said 20 years is the plan ! I don't think the world will accept that and the US is lucky the world financial market has caused fear to support the US paper.

     

    Diversify out of the US if you have the ability ! DL

     

    PS No China doesn't want the reserve as the Yuan. That would destroy them. She and the BRICs want the IMF to go to the SDR 8 with all currencies at 12%
    12 Jul 2012, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (459) | Send Message
     
    DaLatin, I think that you are very jaded and I don't know you, so maybe you have good reason to be so jaded. I am a proud American, a husband, a father, and a successful capitalist. I am extremely optimistic about the future of the United States. I wish you the best, don't worry about the America that you left behind, we will be fine.
    12 Jul 2012, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    cs, no you're not going to find the words "death panel" but the mechanisms to effect it are there. Obamacare isn't going to be any different than any other system that rations care. There will be guidelines to determine when care should be terminated.

     

    "Sentenced to death on the NHS"
    http://bit.ly/Mpw7zd
    13 Jul 2012, 03:17 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3612) | Send Message
     
    The Constitution doesn't state that the federal governments role is to "promote the general welfare". If it did then no other enumeration of powers would be needed, as you can fit anything under such a vague power, if indeed such a power was enumerated. That phrase is found in the clause that enumerates "the power to lay and collect taxes" and it's purpose is to constrict the power to lay and collect taxes solely to those purposes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." This has been used by the Supreme Court to strike down taxes that were judged as punitive in nature.
    13 Jul 2012, 03:31 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Please post a link to an official government of or White House reference ot the "death panel".

     

    Its called "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)". Look it up yourself because you won't believe anything that is posted by anyone you disagree with.

     

    Also check out the NHS Liverpool Care Pathway.

     

    Also look in the NY Times. http://bit.ly/PVsDfE
    13 Jul 2012, 11:23 AM Reply Like