Adapted from my facebook page:

Voted - "Four more years" ... Hotbutton Issue: Healthcare ... I have long been angry and frustrated with a healthcare system where healthy people can opt out of the insurance pool and sick people can be thrown out via "pre-existing conditions". I would have accepted a solution from either party, but after 30 years of debating I feel that each party has had their chance. I don't want to see those gains rolled back.

Fred: As I watch more and more people loose thier jobs, and business close, I keep looking for these great gains you people talk about. I just don't get it.

Bob: More and more people aren't losing their jobs, and more businesses aren't closing (despite the gloom and doom of the election season). Things are on the upswing. Here is a Bureau of Labor Statistics graph of unemployment since Obama took office: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bikini-Graph.jpg

Fred: I dont have to read it, I SEE it every day. Open your eyes to the truth. I am not reading any blogs or following any politics, I am just seeing the truth. ANYONE CAN MAKE UP ANY GRAPHS OR FAKE DATA.

Fred: If so many are not loosing thier jobs, why is food stamps increasing out of sight? And those requesting more and more handouts? Are you really that blind? Bob, I thought that even you could see the truth and not the hype.

Bob: I check a variety of sources, but, if I'm going to believe one, it's the Bureau of Labor Statistics ... It's the same data they use to beat him up with, and the same data he uses to tout himself. I know that things are still bad, but they are on the upswing. He took on the worst economy since the great depression - and it took us 13 years and a war to get us out of that (with all the WPA stuff) ... Like I say, healthcare is my hot-button issue. I don't want to move backward. Or, in the words of Wayne Gretzky: "Skate to where the puck is going."

Fred: Well, I guess you could say this to make those numbers. Think about this, how many illegals have come into this country and taken the jobs that legal citizens had. Do those numbers make that right? I don't know, but I am pissed at watching all my friends loose their jobs with little to no hope of getting new ones. Not political at all with that statement, just American. I'm done ranting. I actually hope your right, but if your not....

Ricky: I can see your point regarding health care. I think of my aging parents and the future for Terrie and I. There has to be a solution, however; I do not believe Obama's abilities will lead us to a better place in the future.

Ricky This was an interesting website if it loads for you. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ As our debt grows, the middle class will pick up the main load in paying it down.

Bob: I don't disagree with you on that Ricky ... It's one of those things I'm disappointed in Obama about. ... At the same time I don't think it is just something we can tax cut our way out of. Romney balanced the Mass. budget by instituting user fees on everything. Add to that tax cuts at the high end and it's a recipe for middle and lower class suffering. I think we have to raise taxes at the high end. The stock market is almost at an all-time high. People investing are making money hand over fist. If it hasn't "trickled down" to the middle class, it's time to have a long hard talk with the "job creators".

Ricky: I fundamentally disagree with this approach, to me that sounds more like socialism.

Bob: Ricky, they only call it socialism when the money moves downward. When it moves up it's called, "a good business environment". In both cases it's usually due to government policy. Right now we have the biggest gap between rich and poor since right before the great depression ( http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/graphics/2012/0220/awealthgap_g1/11743278-1-eng-US/AWEALTHGAP_g1_full_600.jpg ). It isn't by accident. Policies on globalization have pitted American workers against the lowest wage workers in the world. This has been good for business and helped lift developing nations out of poverty. It hasn't been so good for U.S. workers. It used to be that increases in productivity were followed by increases in real income. This is no longer the case ( http://stateofworkingamerica.org/m/?src=http://stateofworkingamerica.org/files//Median-income-productivity-growth-47-11.png&w=640 ). Now most of the benefit goes to business. Before the housing bubble burst people could compensate for these pressures by taking out money from the only asset they owned (their homes). Now they can't. That's why we have seen such an increase in the need for government services (food stamps, etc.). On the other side of the coin, the stock market is back up and there are record profits, but it hasn't translated into more American jobs - all while the marginal tax rate is the lowest it's been since the great depression ( http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WKZIieKYe3Q/TO9BYfEDEkI/AAAAAAAABgo/lCn49bnuJ7I/s1600/top+US+marginal+tax+rate.png ). No wonder government debit is going through the roof. Businesses and investors are doing fine, but there is no middle class tax base. Yes indeed, with all these changes, I do think it's time to take a hard look at the historical "social contract". People with money think it's because of hard work. People without money know it's policy.

Ricky: And Obama's policies have left out the middle class...... There are a tremendous amount of people unemployed, and he did not address them..... He has been so focused on Obamacare that he has left everyone else behind.

Bob: I think Obama did everything he could. He bailed out the auto industry, which saved millions of jobs - which is something Romney wouldn't have done (Ask the people in Ohio if he was concerned about the middle class). And if you look at the graph I posted above he turned a unemployment free-fall into positive job growth. Of course, he couldn't work with the Republicans on Capital Hill, so he had to do almost everything through executive order. One study said his arrogance and disdain for Republican Congressmen was a problem, and I'm sure there is some truth to that, but you can't discount the Norquist Pledge. It's tough to negotiate jobs programs when 95% of Republicans on Capital Hill have signed a pledge not to raise taxes, for any reason - even if there is a 100 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue. I'm surprised more people have not brought that up during this campaign season: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7419360n ... I think the real pressure on the middle class comes through the geopolitical influences that I listed about. There is a lot of equity out there, it's just that the "job creators" aren't using it to create American jobs.

11/4/2012 11:52:09 AM

Quote :

" LOOSE THEIR JOBS "

11/4/2012 12:03:23 PM

Quote :

"I have long been angry and frustrated with a healthcare system where healthy people can opt out of the insurance pool and sick people can be thrown out via "pre-existing conditions"."

So is the problem that health care is too expensive, or not comprehensive enough?

Because you're simultaneously complaining about both of these, but you can't have both.

11/4/2012 12:11:20 PM

Comprehensive healthcare is definitely less expensive if "comprehensive" includes preventative medicine and regular checkups.

11/4/2012 12:12:45 PM

I basically believe that the only tenable model for health insurance is one where everyone has to participate ... And that can't be done at the state level.

11/4/2012 12:15:33 PM

Quote :

"the only tenable model for health insurance is one where everyone has to participate"

What is participating? Health insurance will only pay above a certain amount. They will only pay up to a certain amount. Now, in many cases even that area in-between is split between the insurer and the patient. That's assuming that they pay in the first place, which places more burden on the patient.

How do I know any of health insurance is actually protecting me and not just a tax on living? To the extent that these attitudes are propagating (which they are), it should be obvious that people don't want to participate.

Insured people go bankrupt due to medical bills.

Wages have been stagnant in large part due to increased health insurance. While total compensation goes up, we're not living any better.

As far as I can tell, there seems to be a giant black hole that is sucking value out of our economy in the form of health insurance. I don't know why it's growing, but I don't think you know any better than I do.

People have always been afraid of illness. I am too, there are plenty of things that could happen. There's always risk.

Then it changed to people fearing not just illness, but both illness and bankrupting medical bills. Note that the danger of illness is still there. We didn't trade one for the other, we have them both.

Now, we have illness, medical bills, and on top of that, a complete bankrupting effect on our entire economy by the growth of the health care sector.

In dire circumstances, I would like to preserve the ability to trade the 3 grave dangers for 1. But you want to take that away.

11/4/2012 12:33:56 PM

Quote :

"I fundamentally disagree with this approach, to me that sounds more like socialism."

Holy fuck. We've had a progressive tax system for 100 years. The top tax rate was 94% during WWII, is 35% now, and letting it go back up a few percentage points would be socialism?

11/4/2012 2:30:14 PM

I'm still amazed that some people think that making people buy stuff with their own money is better than the "socialist" approach of taxing them and buying it.

11/4/2012 2:51:37 PM

Because so many healthy people had opted out of the insurance pool, insurers had to find ways to limit their exposure - i.e. pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits. Obamacare basically makes the trade-off: everyone must have health insurance in return for getting rid of pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits (see the Kaiser Foundation video on Obamacare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Ilc5xK2_E )

Republicans demanded healthcare reform be kept in the private sector, so mandating private health insurance was the only option. And yes, there is a difference between being required to participate in private insurance, and being taxed for national healthcare. That's why Romney implemented it in Massachusetts (although Republicans would never admit that Obamacare is anything but a government takeover of medicine).

11/4/2012 5:31:45 PM

I am all for Obama, but he needs to stop saying things like "don't boo, vote for your revenge" and "I am just a prop". Dude, just run the fucking clock out man.

11/4/2012 5:50:13 PM

Quote :

"Obamacare basically makes the trade-off: everyone must have health insurance in return for getting rid of pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits (see the Kaiser Foundation video on Obamacare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Ilc5xK2_E )"

I don't believe, and I never have believed, that the "broadening of the base" by getting more people into health insurance will accomplish what they claim it will. They made the fine small so it wouldn't be burdensome, but this is double talk. Is health insurance so expensive that people and companies will opt-out, or isn't it? If cost is keeping people away, the penalties won't fix it, if costs aren't keeping people away, it isn't needed.

The video specifies that you can't be turned down for health insurance. This is a giant red flag. Can you be charged differently for health insurance compared to someone else?

Do you see how this is bullshit? I have no guarantee, or even reason to think, that I will have anything resembling affordable options for health insurance in 5 years. I'm not going to be in the "high risk" pool that the government temporarily funds (which may as well sink financially).

Health care isn't expensive because insurance company profits (although Obamacare will charge a fee is these are too high). It's expensive because of the costs of the insurers and the hospitals. I don't care what black magic you use to argue your point, this is not addressed, and it is arguably made worse.

Quote :

"Republicans demanded healthcare reform be kept in the private sector"

look, you shouldn't socialize something half way. Yes, I'll grant you that the Republicans are the reason the bill sucked so much, but it's the Democrats who felt they had to absolutely had to pass it no matter what. Because of that, it's their fault.

You're trying to help people by further limiting their freedom. That's what it comes down to. We need medical innovation. Obamacare is a promise that we will continue delivering care (not insurance) in the same way that we always have.

People have to start to look for other ways to address their health. It's as simple as that. As a nation, we can't do that, all we can do is try to enable the conditions in which that can happen. Obamacare does the opposite. It is a commitment that we will continue paying for health insurance no matter how expensive it gets. Sure, we'll put our heads together and talk about how we can distribute payments, but the problem isn't addressed.

[Edited on November 4, 2012 at 6:18 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2012 6:01:40 PM

Any liberal supporting ACA either hasn't thought about it or is not a liberal

11/4/2012 6:07:46 PM

Quote :

"Bob: Ricky, they only call it socialism when the money moves downward. When it moves up it's called, "a good business environment". In both cases it's usually due to government policy. Right now we have the biggest gap between rich and poor since right before the great depression ( http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/graphics/2012/0220/awealthgap_g1/11743278-1-eng-US/AWEALTHGAP_g1_full_600.jpg ). It isn't by accident. Policies on globalization have pitted American workers against the lowest wage workers in the world. This has been good for business and helped lift developing nations out of poverty. It hasn't been so good for U.S. workers. It used to be that increases in productivity were followed by increases in real income. This is no longer the case ( http://stateofworkingamerica.org/m/?src=http://stateofworkingamerica.org/files//Median-income-productivity-growth-47-11.png&w=640 ). Now most of the benefit goes to business. Before the housing bubble burst people could compensate for these pressures by taking out money from the only asset they owned (their homes). Now they can't. That's why we have seen such an increase in the need for government services (food stamps, etc.). On the other side of the coin, the stock market is back up and there are record profits, but it hasn't translated into more American jobs - all while the marginal tax rate is the lowest it's been since the great depression ( http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WKZIieKYe3Q/TO9BYfEDEkI/AAAAAAAABgo/lCn49bnuJ7I/s1600/top+US+marginal+tax+rate.png ). No wonder government debit is going through the roof. Businesses and investors are doing fine, but there is no middle class tax base. Yes indeed, with all these changes, I do think it's time to take a hard look at the historical "social contract". People with money think it's because of hard work. People without money know it's policy."

image-ify!







Most of TSB has seen these a quadrillion times before.

11/4/2012 6:26:28 PM

^ Are you making a point?

Quote :

"but it's the Democrats who felt they had to absolutely had to pass it no matter what."

For God's sake ... This has been a problem for 30 years ... No wonder they felt they had to implement something, before it gets stalled for another 30 years.

11/4/2012 6:31:51 PM

^ and now it's a bigger problem, so no, they didn't have to implement something.

they should have created a decent solution, let it fail by Republican votes if they have to, and campaigned on that in the next election. Like a democracy.

11/4/2012 6:35:10 PM

^ Dude, rewind that and play it back. You basically applaud posturing and caution advocating change.

^^ He is regurgitating the same data and charts that people have seen before which all show that top-down economics puts the tax burden on the middle class, favors the distribution of wealth to the already extremely wealthy, and does not correlate at all with any significant economic growth.

[Edited on November 4, 2012 at 6:41 PM. Reason : v]

11/4/2012 6:41:19 PM

i'm advocating for change that doesn't blow

11/4/2012 6:49:31 PM

I disagree that it's a bigger problem ... They got rid of pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps. Those were the big ones. ... God knows the Republicans have had 30 years to do something better. Maybe that's why they got voted out ... Just like in a democracy.

11/4/2012 8:14:15 PM

Quote :

"It is noteworthy that four of the best decisions that Obama made during his presidency ran against the advice of much of his own administration. Numerous Democrats in Congress and the White House urged him to throw in the towel on health-care reform, but he was one of very few voices in his administration determined to see it through. Many of his own advisers, both economists steeped in free-market models and advisers anxious about a bailout-weary public, argued against his decision to extend credit to, and restructure, the auto industry. On Libya, Obama’s staff presented him with options either to posture ineffectually or do nothing; he alone forced them to draw up an option that would prevent a massacre. And Obama overruled some cautious advisers and decided to kill Osama bin Laden. The latter three decisions are all highly popular now, but all of them carried the risk of inflicting a mortal political wound, like Bill Clinton’s health-care failure and Jimmy Carter’s attempted raid into Iran. (George W. Bush, presented with a similar option, did not strike bin Laden.) In making these calls, Obama displayed judgment and nerve."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/barack-obama-is-a-great-president-yes-great.html]Barack Obama Is a Great President. Yes, Great. -- Daily Intel

11/4/2012 10:26:56 PM

Quote :

"They got rid of pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps."

1. Cost of health insurance is rising, and rising too fast
2. These two things will increase price further
3. This increase in cost is supposed to be made up for by the individual/employer requirement
4. I don't believe it will

So let's start at the beginning, the two issues are, in fact, connected to cost. Insurers are worried that healthy people will opt out and they'll just get a sour pool of people. People are opting out in the first place because of cost.

Again, the mandate is supposed to fix this, but it won't. See my prior dichotomy. It's either too high of a fine, or it won't have an effect.

This system is going to be more broken with the reforms. It's like you're immune to these arguments. You can't hear it. All you hear are buzz words. But these "good" things come at a price, and the Democratic portrayal is like Santa going around tossing out more health insurance. By that I mean deeper coverage and coverage to more people. The reality sounds a lot more like economic destruction than Christmas.

11/5/2012 8:29:38 AM

I am, indeed, immune to those arguments ... maybe it's just a dose of weak sauce.

11/5/2012 2:47:49 PM

plus its more government money to private companies, so that will increase prices

11/5/2012 2:51:22 PM

government money handed over to private companies can decrease prices. Just replace the payment with a handout paid for by taxes. I wouldn't argue against that.

Quote :

"maybe it's just a dose of weak sauce."

Health insurance after reform is game-able. The companies will game it. We will be worse off.

11/5/2012 3:07:37 PM