Jack Nicklaus Endorses Romney, Mitt calls Jack “Greatest athlete of the 20th century.” - Page 5

I can't comment on your personal experiences but as a business owner, our health care costs have gone up over 50% since Obama took office and passed his health care plan.  Not only have costs gone up, but coverage has been reduced and some providers totally opted out of our area. 

 

I'm not putting the full blame on Obama, I wasn't a GW fan either.  I can tell you that my corporate benefits provider (outside firm) told me that Obama's health care deal has caused cost increases throughout the industry that he hasn't seen in over 20 years.  I can confirm the percentage increases have been significantly higher in the last three years. 

And how much did they go up under Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr? My experience is that it is about the same.  Costs double ever decade or so (~7%/year. Some years were 3 or 4% but there were also the 12% years)

 

If you look at the results of Romneycare in Mass there was a minor reduction in growth(~2% over 5 years) but it is way too early to draw conclusions.  When Obamacare is fully rolled out (2014 or so) I expect about the same result.  Without a radical rework (single payer, non employer based insurance, HMOs with an incentive to keep their customers healthy,...) I don't see the cost curve changing. Obamacare messes around with some thing but expecting more than a ~10% savings would be wildly optimistic.

 

The other thing to remember is that all businesses are different.  A restaurant employing 30 people paying them 30k on average is different than a law firm employing 30 people paying them 70k on average.  The first one doesn't offer benefits today so it is a cost for them to do so. The law firm on the other hand is likely to offer benefits and might see a premium reduction since they will be able to get large corp pricing rather than the small business one they have today if the exchanges work.  The net effect on spending might be zero but the individuals involved will have different experiences.

 

 

Quote:

Well, it has nothing really to do with ObamaCare since most of its provisions do not take effect until 2014.

 

And costs more than doubled under Bush.

 

So let's not blame Obama - it is the system, and it has been the system for a long time. It is inefficient.

 

It is just that private industry has jacked up the costs of health care -- that is one reason someone must pressure either through competition or efficiencies - to bring down the costs.

 

That would be a novel approach.

 

Rewind to 2009 when the ACA was being debated in Congress. What did we hear? Death panels, killing grandma, bureaucrats taking over health care, government coming between you & your doctor, socialized medicine, rationing, etc etc etc...

 

Why such immediate outrage? Surely it couldn't have to do with insurance lobbyists getting in the ears of elected officials. 

 

Health costs is the only thing that never comes down. Costs always rise. They rose before ACA was passed and they're still rising now. And yes, health care is rationed...it's rationed to those who can afford it.

 

We have the best health care in the world (or so we're told). But what good is it if you can't access it? It doesn't matter how good it is if you can't afford it. Which is the crux of this whole issue, imo. It's a morality issue. It's about universal access to affordable health care. That's a radical concept here in the US; thus the immediate pushback to any attempts to change it. It has nothing to do with 'socializing' medicine, government taking over health care or killing grandma. But it does have to do with changing a system where people (insurance companies) make obscene money. And those people are well represented thru lobbyists.

 

To me, our current system is vulgar. Bono of U2 said it best in the song God Part 2: The rich stay healthy while the sick stay poor. Your chances of surviving a disease have to do with how much money you have.

 

Obama is trying to change that. And ACA fell well short of the ideal, which was universal free health care. Spare me the Socialist comments. It should be free. It would be wonderful to be free of the worry of financial ruin over getting lymphoma or breaking your hip. It can happen to anyone. 

 

But the ACA is basically expanding the pool of insured by requiring everyone to have health insurance. Libertarians hate that. Hell, a lot of people hate it...they don't like being forced to buy anything by government. But it is a very ignorant person who wouldn't want health insurance in the first place, so that whole 'freedom' argument to me is pretty hollow.

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this subject. Kudos to Obama for trying to fix a broken & out of control system.

So what is "enough" income to contribute some of it towards the benefits they receive as citizens of this country? After all, they're protected by the military, they drive the interstate highways, they're eligible for help under FEMA if circumstances so warrant, etc... All of which costs money. Should only half the population pay for and support the benefits of the other half?

By the way..... I'm retired military, just to add some perspective.

So what?

We're talking contributing to the national common good here. Should not everyone contribute at least SOMETHING towards the military, our common defense.....the interstate highway system that we all use, and the like? Or should half, pay for all?

 

Well, in the case of my 85-yo mother, she already has paid into all that by working for almost 50 years.

 

Thing is, you're trying to squeeze from people who can ill afford it, as opposed to getting it from people who can afford it.

 

Depends on your definition of fairness I guess. Is it everyone paying in no matter how small their income, or having a higher tax rate for those with an abundance of it?

Obama care is affecting the cost of health insurance because health insurance companies are reacting to the additional costs it will cause in advance of it being enacted, just as the cost of gasoline goes up when the current cost of a barrel increase.  Obama knew his bill would cause health insurance prices to skyrocket, it was planned so in his 2nd term he could swoop in and save us all from the evil insurance companies by offering us a federal option i.e. socialized healthcare. 

 

Don't you find it interesting that Obama and other politicians would not utlilize the plan that he's suggesting for everyone else.  He also gave employess that are members of larger unions an exemption.  If socialized healthcare is so great why aren't his kids going to use it?    

The real problem is both parties pursue votes by appealing to their respective prejudices. Facts are distorted or chosen selectively.
1. 47 ‰, this is not a static group. Farmers in a bad year may be in it, but not the next. Students also. This is code for poor or minorities. If you assume that poor choose poverty and not to work at a decent job you need to try it. Yeah a minimum wage job with no medical and you have to pay daycare might not be worth it. Fact real wages after adjustment have not increased since Regan was elected.

2. The Democrats, during the Clinton passed many of the financial deregulation bills and special interest tax loopholes that led to much of our current problems. These tax changes encouraged the lbo's and other business trends which sharp operators, like Romney used to get rich with out any real contribution, they looted pensions, forced wage reductions, but hey they got rich. The Democrats failed to defend the value of contributions from non business people and fight for infrastructure investment.

10+ years of paying for war, could either party really expect that wouldn't harm the economy?

Political rhetoric which doesn't really address issues. For example should the quality of your medical care depend on the quality of your employment. Such social Darwinism guarantees class warfare. Voting values and moral positions which have little effect on the country, preventing discussion on issues important to all. Allowing pursuit of campaign funds result in only big organizations and wealthy not average Joes having a political voice.

Both parties chase their extremist members, until money and focus on radical elements in both parties is addressed we cannot negotiate responses to modern challenges.

I'm talking about people of working age who earn an income, use federal services, and pay no federal income tax. Does that meet your definition of "fair"?

How do you define "an abundance"......and who the hell are you or I, or anyone else to tell someone else that they have an "abundance" of anything?!

It's easy David, if you have more than me, you have an abundance.  Now give me some of it.

Ahhhhh.....

Now I understand. Thank you.

But wait.......won't you then have more than someone else? That doesn't seem very fair either......

OK, this has become a total sideshow and the thread is now about economic and tax issues, so I'll try not to make more of this than necessary.

 

Bin Laden is a member of a wealthy Saudi family. In the Gulf War Saudi Arabia acted as our allies, we deployed troops there and in Kuwait, but it was the Iraqis led by Saddam that we were fighting. We didn't start anything with Bin Laden then, his only complaint was that we had troops there at all. It wouldn't have been a reason to dislike us unless we were already friends with Israel, a predominantly christian nation, etc. We never really did anything against him personally until after 9/11.

 

Desert storm isn't mentioned at all in wikipedia's article on Bin Laden. He claims Desert Storm is a partial motivation in your quote; that's from the horse's ass's mouth, but I think that's more of an attempt to stir up support among those who dislike us, not a legitimate complaint. Many people dislike the US for myriad reasons (anything from WW2 onwards, including the Cold War, DS, all the smaller operations since then, and jealousy of our wealth or dislike of our religion/culture, I could go on) and Bin Laden wanted anyone willing to carry a gun or strap a bomb to their chest to join him. It's not like there wasn't resentment towards our military operations in SA as well as other places, but Desert Storm was directed at Iraq as a nation while Al Qaeda is a terrorist group with members all over.

 

What he claims as his motives are pure propeganda. I'm sure he said the prophet spoke directly to him and told him to attack Americans, but that doesn't make it the truth. He claimed homosexuality in the US as about an equal reason for the attacks. Similar to Hitler placing the blame for the post WWI recession on Jews. Did they ever do anything to him? Not really. But it got him followers, and rabid ones at that. In fact, I believe Bin Laden was quite anti-semetic as well.

 

So you are correct that he said 9/11 was retaliation for DS, but I have good reason not to trust his word; it's just not that simple. There's some truth to it probably, but I think we should agree it's not his primary motivation. He wouldn't have waited until 1999 and 2001 to attack if it were a primary factor. Had we never gone through with DS, I think he still would've tried to attack us because he's a lunatic anyway. 

 

Anyway, I don't want you to be offended or think I'm arguing ad hominem. I respect and value your military service, I just feel strongly that DS was a more national conflict while 9/11 was a terrorist attack by an international group. Having had family members in the military, I know the military as well as the mainstream media often portray things in more simple terms (eg. Let's get them back for Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc and ignore the complexities of international politics) because debating international politics is bad for morale and a distraction.

Seriously?

 

Did you get that from Drudge or Glen Beck?

 

The Dems wanted socialized one payer health care - Obama took the GOP based option because it would pass. He had one, one chance at health care passage and he took it -- knowing that would be his only chance.

 

What a sideshow question to deflect the issues. What utter bs.

 

And no one in Congress - be it GOP or Dem would touch their health care or their pensions. So let's buzz off the Obama blame train. 

I forgot us small business owners couldn't build our business without him.  If Obama's health care is good enough for you and me , the guys that pay his check, then it should be good enough for him. 

 

You want to talk bs, how about Obama's promise to be transparent, meanwhile he was cutting back room deals with the unions and state senators to get his bills passed.  

 

Obama promised us that if the country wasn't in better shape 4 years from when he took office he'd not run for a 2nd term, I suggest he keep his promise and resign from the race. 

 

Now before you label me a Romney guy, let me tell you I don't like Romney either, but I saw what 4 years under Obama was like and I'll take anything over another 4 years of what we just had.   

Less money is spend administering medicare than private health insurance. Or the VA. Or the student loan programs.  Or compare the cost of a Marine to a private security guard. Government is neither efficient or inefficient. It all depends on how it is set up. And a lot of people also don't want efficient government. Mitt and Ryan want inefficient spending. Congressman want to keep inefficient post offices running. Governments and Large corporations are very similiar. They are both spending other peoples money. And neither one is super efficient.

 

 

Okay, so then what's your solution, we just re-elect Obama and accept that government is going to waste our money?  Big business has to answer to it's shareholders and board of directors.  You seem to be content with status quo but I'm not. 

Mr Obama PROMISED to fundamentally change the nation. Too few people understood what he meant, and continues to mean.

This country will not survive as a land of opportunity and personal freedom, to suceed or fail, another 4 years like the last.