http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/12/hill-republicans-launch-pre-emptive-strike-on-union-subsidies-for-obamacare/

Obama said Obamacare would lower healthcare costs.

Even his most staunch supporters, big labor, know that's not what's happening, so they complain.

Reports are that the White House is looking at a proposal that would offer subsidies of $20 billion a year, to help union members, and only union members, pay for Obamacare premiums.

This, from the guy who said that his election would end politics as usual?

Spence, Paul S, any liberal here...please tell me why union members deserve this subsidy, and everyone else does not? If this isn't a classic Chicago-style payoff, what the heck is it?

How long, O Lord?

Its not just unions that will receive subsidies.Welfare recipients and immigrants will get up to 70%,yes I said 70%,of their healthcare paid for by the gov.Take a guess as to where that money will come from.Affordable care act my ass.

http://pages.townhall.com/campaign/th-overturn-obamacare

Spence, Paul S, any liberal here...please tell me why union members deserve this subsidy, and everyone else does not? If this isn't a classic Chicago-style payoff, what the heck is it?

How long, O Lord?
You need to reach out a little, there is no story here.

Unions claimed their members should be exempt, the White House said no.

Your story isn't about reality, it's about a Republican lawmaker's stunt to pass a bill for a problem that doesn't exist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/white-house-labor-obamacare-exemption-96793.html

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.. This is ever so evident if we look at the last decade and the shrinking middle class. So when the poor get poorer, and I'm talking the working poor here.. The ones who bust their asses every day just to make ends meet.. These are the people who will be helped by obamacare. I don't hae time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Houses are expensive, food is expensive.. Everything is.. All due to the falling value of the dollar.
Am I for this idealistically? No... But realistically, the average American working an average job has been priced out of the American dream. This can help so many. And who's to say that the money they save won't be spent on other goods and boost the economy somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.. This is ever so evident if we look at the last decade and the shrinking middle class. So when the poor get poorer, and I'm talking the working poor here.. The ones who bust their asses every day just to make ends meet.. These are the people who will be helped by obamacare. I don't hae time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Houses are expensive, food is expensive.. Everything is.. All due to the falling value of the dollar.
Am I for this idealistically? No... But realistically, the average American working an average job has been priced out of the American dream. This can help so many. And who's to say that the money they save won't be spent on other goods and boost the economy somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was funny :rotf2:

that was funny :rotf2:

You disagree that the dollars value has dumped? That the middle class is shrinking and that people can't afford to live Ina home that they used to be able to afford 10 years ago and that affordable healthcare won't help people? That's even funnier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You disagree that the dollars value has dumped? That the middle class is shrinking and that people can't afford to live Ina home that they used to be able to afford 10 years ago and that affordable healthcare won't help people? That's even funnier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The poor are poor because we take too much from the rich and give it to the poor.

That is why wealth is being consolidated at the top.

:devil2:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

any liberal here...please tell me why union members deserve this subsidy, and everyone else does not?

How long, O Lord?

And their answer is ? They have no answer.
Where are the Libs hiding on this forum anyway?

The poor are poor because they are either lazy or stupid (or a combination of the 2)
The rich (self made rich) didn't get rich being lazy, stupid or a combination of the 2.
Always the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing apologist Spence !





The poor are poor because we take too much from the rich and give it to the poor.

That is why wealth is being consolidated at the top.

:devil2:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The poor are poor because they are either lazy or stupid (or a combination of the 2)
The rich (self made rich) didn't get rich being lazy, stupid or a combination of the 2.
Always the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing apologist Spence !
Are you rich?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You disagree that the dollars value has dumped? That the middle class is shrinking and that people can't afford to live Ina home that they used to be able to afford 10 years ago and that affordable healthcare won't help people? That's even funnier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

can't possibly be happening in the age of Obama, it was declared early in his presidency that we are all socialists now, we've not been practicing "capitalism" for quite some time, we've been slouching toward progressive socialism which is built on lies as is becoming quite obvious....you can blame it on some "fatal flaw" with capitalism , it's convenient but nonsensical...I think a lot of Americans would like a whole lot more capitalism right now...:uhuh:

The poor are getting poorer because there are fewer jobs in this economy for them to work at. However, I keep seeing help wanted signs in many small retail businesses, but people can make out just as well with all their Govt. give a ways. Takes away incentive.

Jobs are being lost in the poorer states like W. Virginia because the EPA is causing the coal mines to produce less coal with lay offs of up to 70% of the work force. The Keystone pipe line, drilling and fracking would help workers as these, who want to work, get jobs. At the same time we could become energy independent and not have to deal with all this stuff in the Middle East.
But that makes too much sense.
I laugh when people put down the rich, they have no clue as to how much sacrifice time and effort are required to become rich. They provide jobs and benefits for people and pay taxes.
Obama loves to see them become richer as they are the ones who are paying the large % of the taxes that he can use to give away more.

I don't have time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Oh, good....so without more capitalism, now that it has peaked and is clearly unsustainable probably due to that "fatal flaw", how do you plan to pay for peak sustainable government dependency? and peak sustainable government debt? which if we are not currently at, is frightening to think of the possibilities if we continue on this path (with less capitalism)?

Are you rich?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Am I rich, no
Am I poor, no
Somewhere in the middle and have worked my ass off my whole life and have never taken or asked for a hand out, ever !

And another thing, try and find a machinist... YOU CAN'T why? se During the Clinton years the GVT controlled monopoly education system decided to stop teaching the trades and send everyone to college and transition to a "Service Economy", look what that did for us.

Why are house prices out of control? The governmnet got involved in the mortgage business, Barney and crew hauled the bank presidents in fromt of a Senate Sub-Comittee and forced them to give out loans to everyone without verifying income etc... Then Chris Dodd made the statement that the loans were backed by fannie and Freddie and didn't need to be capitalized at 20%, 2% was good enough because the loans were backed by the faith and credit of the GVT, which then created the derivative market which caused the crash...

The government isn't the solution, it IS the problem. Read von Hayek, we are on the rod to serfdom..

this represents your average conversation with a liberal/progressive though...

Jim points out that many Unions are unhappy with Obamacare, along with so much of the nation and that they want special treatment from their buddies

Spence replies suggesting that Jim has no idea what he's talking about and blames it all on some unnamed Republican

Eben then rambles on some nonsense about how this is all the fault of peak sustainable capitalism, which sounds too much like peak oil and sustainability(catch phrases) rolled up in a ball....or something but doesn't have time to elaborate

and of course....ARE YOU RICH?......

I'd be afraid to answer that these days, like putting a target on your shirt, unless you are Lefty Rich, then you are the BEST!

oh, brother :uhuh: Hope and Change!

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer..

Under what "system" do the rich not get rich and the poor do not get poorer? What is it about "capitalism" and only capitalism that causes this phenomenon? And why is that necessarily fatal? Is there some ideal "system" in which the rich and the poor constantly stay at the same level of economic separation? Perhaps, the only "solution" to the discrepancy is to eliminate it. Perhaps, some new form of "socialism" not yet invented will make everyone "equal."

And what do you mean by "capitalism"? Is there some intrinsic mechanism peculiar to it that necessarily exacerbates the effects of poverty and enhances those of wealth? I constantly hear references to "capitalism" which cast it as various causes of social evils, many of which have nothing to do with the capitalistic process as much as they have to do with human nature, greed, stupidity, politics--as witnessed by the oppressions of people under monarchies, dictatorships, and, yes, those blessed socialist societies in general. Perhaps, one big strike against "capitalism" is its invention by Marx, Until him, it was an age old process of market economics. He cast it as a stepping stone, with a "fatal flaw," toward a more egalitarian society. And it has suffered under that stigma ever since, especially in academic circles which in turn inform the greater outlets of information such as the "media."

Rather than a fatal flaw in capitalism, which process allows greater numbers of people to rise from poverty, there is a fatal flaw in socialistic systems(which includes all forms of government control and ownership, dictatorships, monarchies, fascism, etc.) which does not have a means to rise above a prescribed level. Rather than as fatal flaw in capitalism, its process is a marketplace for progress and freedom unknown to purely socialistic societies. Keep in mind that even socialistic societies use capitalistic methods to improve their lot.

This is ever so evident if we look at the last decade and the shrinking middle class. So when the poor get poorer, and I'm talking the working poor here.. The ones who bust their asses every day just to make ends meet.. These are the people who will be helped by obamacare.

They are already being "helped." The supposed reason for Obamacare is to give them all some form of "insurance." And, supposedly, to lower the cost of healthcare. But for that to happen in the way Obamacare prescribes, healthcare will be more expensive, and the cost will be born by the beloved "middle class."

I don't hae time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Houses are expensive, food is expensive.. Everything is.. All due to the falling value of the dollar.
Am I for this idealistically? No... But realistically, the average American working an average job has been priced out of the American dream. This can help so many. And who's to say that the money they save won't be spent on other goods and boost the economy somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The value of the dollar is not dictated by capitalism. A shrinking dollar is no friend of capitalism. The value of the dollar is more directly contrived by government manipulation. For capitalism, the dollar is a medium of exchange. For political purposes it is a medium of control. Government printing of more dollars than necessary for given volumes of business is a means to pay for its pet projects and means of control. It is also a means, by lowering the value, to a bit more easily pay off debt which was borrowed at a higher value. Inflationary prices have to do with too much money, which the government controls. Those who have saved a little bundle find it harder to use it for what they once thought they could. That does not help capitalism, as a whole, but it does prop up, momentarily, government.

And another thing, try and find a machinist... YOU CAN'T why? se During the Clinton years the GVT controlled monopoly education system decided to stop teaching the trades and send everyone to college and transition to a "Service Economy", look what that did for us.
The reason you can't find a machinist is likely because they're in demand. While lower end production has largely left the country precision manufacturing is doing quite well. Companies right now can't get enough local talent. The work is increasingly most sophisticated as well, that engineering degree is a prerequisite for many jobs.

-spence

Spence, if you want to know the truth about Machinists ask Professor Moriarity
about the demand for Machinists.Unless there has been a 360 in the last year
or so it is quite the opposite of your post.

Scottw, LOL waaay to funnie. :D

"Perhaps some new form of "Socialism", not yet invented, will make everyone Equal.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________

Not only is it not yet invented, but never will be , because there will always be people who are ambitious, like hard work and all the satisfaction and self worth it brings and there will always be lazy slackerds. Human nature will never change.

Capitalism is as close to being fair as possible because you are rewarded on the basis of what sacrifices and hard work you are willing to make and do.
Socialism is unfair because slackerds benefit from the hard work of others.

Spence, if you want to know the truth ..........

or so it is quite the opposite of your post.

:D

this is usually the case isn't it? :)

Spence, if you want to know the truth about Machinists ask Professor Moriarity
about the demand for Machinists.Unless there has been a 360 in the last year
or so it is quite the opposite of your post.

Scottw, LOL waaay to funnie. :D
Wait, I'm wrong and if I want to find out go ask someone else? :smash:

It might not be perfect for everyone everywhere, but overall demand is certainly up. The challenge many companies have is finding the right skills in the right location.

-spence

this represents your average conversation with a liberal/progressive though...
And this represents your typical post. Add nothing...misinform.

-spence

Before you guys get too far off topic, can I just remind everyone again that Jim got this story completely wrong. Hell if anything he should be praising the POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Before you guys get too far off topic, can I just remind everyone again that Jim got this story completely wrong. Hell if anything he should be praising the POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama said Obamacare would lower healthcare costs. true


Even his most staunch supporters, big labor, know that's not what's happening, so they complain. true

Reports are that the White House is looking at a proposal that would offer subsidies of $20 billion a year, to help union members, and only union members, pay for Obamacare premiums. true

This, from the guy who said that his election would end politics as usual? true

Spence, Paul S, any liberal here...please tell me why union members deserve this subsidy, and everyone else does not? If this isn't a classic Chicago-style payoff, what the heck is it? good question maybe Jim didn't know that the administration declined the request regretfully "A senior administration official said the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies but couldn’t find one." but they tried real hard :uhuh:

Labor officials met privately with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Labor Secretary Tom Perez on Friday afternoon to press their case that the Affordable Care Act will have consequences for the benefits of union employees. wow...a private audience, they must be special!

How long, O Lord? true

Ok, so you've both got it wrong. I can live with that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait, I'm wrong and if I want to find out go ask someone else? :smash:

It might not be perfect for everyone everywhere, but overall demand is certainly up. The challenge many companies have is finding the right skills in the right location.

-spence

Spence, seriously, go to the horse's mouth. P. is a skilled professional Machinist and will give you the right skinny.

he doesn't care about the facts, he just likes to bloviate.....


had to include this definition from the Urban Dictionary because it freakin' hilaroious and perfect:uhuh:



bloviate


To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner.

A key attribute to those that sell. To pretend to understand technical subject matter and sell it to others even dumber then oneself.



the problem is a lack of those "even dumber then oneself" for him to sell to :rotf2:

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.. This is ever so evident if we look at the last decade and the shrinking middle class. So when the poor get poorer, and I'm talking the working poor here.. The ones who bust their asses every day just to make ends meet.. These are the people who will be helped by obamacare. I don't hae time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Houses are expensive, food is expensive.. Everything is.. All due to the falling value of the dollar.
Am I for this idealistically? No... But realistically, the average American working an average job has been priced out of the American dream. This can help so many. And who's to say that the money they save won't be spent on other goods and boost the economy somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is the alternative? And where has the alternative ever worked?

Why is the money deflated?

I'm actually in favor of universal healthcare but WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.

The reason you can't find a machinist is likely because they're in demand. While lower end production has largely left the country precision manufacturing is doing quite well. Companies right now can't get enough local talent. The work is increasingly most sophisticated as well, that engineering degree is a prerequisite for many jobs.

-spence

If you want to know the truth about hiring machinists, ask Fishpart, if you want to know the truth about running a crew machinists, ask Fishpart

Spence, if you want to know the truth about Machinists ask Professor Moriarity
about the demand for Machinists.Unless there has been a 360 in the last year
or so it is quite the opposite of your post.

Scottw, LOL waaay to funnie. :D

If you want to know the truth about hiring machinists, ask Fishpart, if you want to know the truth about running a crew machinists, ask Fishpary

I'm actually in favor of universal healthcare but WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.
And that there is the irony.

-spence

I'm in favor of Healthcare for the 30 million that don't have it. But to change the health care of 300 million citizens for the sake of 30 million is stupid, unless of course your a Socialist.

And no, we can't afford Obamacare. Projections show healthcare costs
will increase 5.8% annually through 2022 which will be 1% faster annually
than our projected economic growth. The CBO upped projected costs again last week.

A special program for the 30 million without insurance, including Tort Reform and
allowing Interstate Insurance would be a way to go rather than upset the whole apple cart.

A 100% change for 30% defies common sense. With all the so called "Brilliance"
of this Administration,it should certainly be able come up with a better more affordable plan
for those who don't have healthcare.

And that there is the irony.

-spence

When we annually spend 600billion to 1 trillion more dollars than we take in receipts - yes, we can't afford it.

I'm in favor of Healthcare for the 30 million that don't have it. But to change the health care of 300 million citizens for the sake of 30 million is stupid, unless of course your a Socialist.

And no, we can't afford Obamacare. Projections show healthcare costs
will increase 5.8% annually through 2022 which will be 1% faster annually
than our projected economic growth. The CBO upped projected costs again last week.

A special program for the 30 million without insurance, including Tort Reform and
allowing Interstate Insurance would be a way to go rather than upset the whole apple cart.

A 100% change for 30% defies common sense. With all the so called "Brilliance"
of this Administration,it should certainly be able come up with a better more affordable plan
for those who don't have healthcare.


How much has it been rising at present? Same, more, less?

How is it we spend so much more per capita than other developed natoons?

Last # I saw was 49 mil from Atnea, 2011 number....

When we annually spend 600billion to 1 trillion more dollars than we take in receipts - yes, we can't afford it.
The irony is that I believe we spend about twice what other industrialized nations spend on health care...but we can't afford it.

-spence

The irony is that I believe we spend about twice what other industrialized nations spend on health care...but we can't afford it.

-spence

I think it's the same with education . Truth be told we do have the best health care .... Not so much for education
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where do we rank compared to the rest of the world for deadbeat handouts (welfare) ?

Bet we are number 1 & number 2 is not close !




QUOTE=buckman;1014693]I think it's the same with education . Truth be told we do have the best health care .... Not so much for education
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it's the same with education . Truth be told we do have the best health care .... Not so much for education
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This was rated not to long ago by the WHO...The US came in 37th.

-spence

This was rated not to long ago by the WHO...The US came in 37th.

-spence

You are correct . And 1 in spending .
I don't anticipate either ranking being improved with Obama care
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How much has it been rising at present? Same, more, less?

How is it we spend so much more per capita than other developed natoons?

Last # I saw was 49 mil from Atnea, 2011 number....



#1 The projection of the 5.8% included 2011 to 2022.

#2 We spend more per capita because of the advanced diagnostic and treatment
regimens we have, many used to protect the physician from law suites when
lesser cost tests etc. would be enough . Thus the need for Tort reform.

#3 Atnea just dropped out of NJ because of Obamacare so evidently they are
concerned about rising costs and less profits.

In edumacation we are 12th and spend SEVEN TIMES the next highest spending country, talk about success.....

Don't worry once we get healthcare costs down all the innovations that the manufactures fund with their profits can come from maybe Canada or Hati? Next question, why do doctors from Canada come to the US to train???

Next question, why do doctors from Canada come to the US to train???

Yes, and why from all over the world ?

When we annually spend 600billion to 1 trillion more dollars than we take in receipts - yes, we can't afford it.

but John, but John....what about all of the women and children dying in the streets because they've been turned away from hospitals because they could not afford unaffordable healthcare????? surely we can afford it?????

sure we can....."YES WE CAN".....haven't you heard that increasing our debt ceiling and exploding our spending isn't really spending more money or increasing our debt (it's actually the path out of debt), it's simply paying for promises and money that we've already spent and we've already promised OBAMACARE and we're not a Banana Republic(though there are a lot of similarities currently) and we aren't deadbeats and we pay our bills or at least borrow more money to pay our bills....we need to expect to spend or need to spend whatever we have to spend to keep people moderately happy and crooks in office regardless of their actual needs, whatever figure you ascribe to healthcare cost is going to be spent by "WE" anyway right?.... so it makes much more sense to have the government provide it for everyone and do whatever it deems necessary to either pay for it, promise to pay for it or claim or arrange to pay for it at some undetermined point in the future at the same time constantly referring to it as "affordable" like everything else that they currently "pay" for....

just raise the OBAMACARE CEILING, which I believe has already been raised several times and significantly, just keep raising.....who cares???

everything appears "affordable" when you don't have a budget...or a conscience

but John, but John....what about all of the women and children dying in the streets because they've been turned away from hospitals because they could not afford unaffordable healthcare????? surely we can afford it?????

sure we can....."YES WE CAN".....haven't you heard that increasing our debt ceiling and exploding our spending isn't really spending more money or increasing our debt (it's actually the path out of debt), it's simply paying for promises and money that we've already spent and we've already promised OBAMACARE and we're not a Banana Republic(though there are a lot of similarities currently) and we aren't deadbeats and we pay our bills or at least borrow more money to pay our bills....we need to expect to spend or need to spend whatever we have to spend to keep people moderately happy and crooks in office regardless of their actual needs, whatever figure you ascribe to healthcare cost is going to be spent by "WE" anyway right?.... so it makes much more sense to have the government provide it for everyone and do whatever it deems necessary to either pay for it, promise to pay for it or claim or arrange to pay for it at some undetermined point in the future at the same time constantly referring to it as "affordable" like everything else that they currently "pay" for....

just raise the OBAMACARE CEILING, which I believe has already been raised several times and significantly, just keep raising.....who cares???

everything appears "affordable" when you don't have a budget...or a conscience

Since, in our great democracy, We The People are ultimately the government, or so we were once led to believe, we need to return back to each individual citizen a piece of the power we relinquished to the few folks who act as overlords. We originally gave them a few, but important, duties and left the greater responsibilities for our lives to ourselves. Since they have decided that we are not capable of fulfilling those responsibilities, and taken them from us, and showed how it can be done, we should now, having learned from them how to do it, take back those responsibilities now fully armed by the knowledge imparted to us by their superior wisdom. We can now solve our problems in the way they have showed us. We can demand, through our representatives (ha-ha) that we each can "monetize" our debt by selling individual securities (backed by the full faith and credit of our government which is ultimately We The People) to the Federal Reserve. And we can each have unlimited spending power backed by unlimited borrowing (monetizing) power (supported by annual debt ceiling raises) enabling each of us to enjoy all the fruits of whatever anyone else (if they still exist) produces. Why should we leave such power to "representatives" and those who supposedly serve us (for our own good) if we can keep it for ourselves.

this represents your average conversation with a liberal/progressive though...

Jim points out that many Unions are unhappy with Obamacare, along with so much of the nation and that they want special treatment from their buddies

Spence replies suggesting that Jim has no idea what he's talking about and blames it all on some unnamed Republican

Eben then rambles on some nonsense about how this is all the fault of peak sustainable capitalism, which sounds too much like peak oil and sustainability(catch phrases) rolled up in a ball....or something but doesn't have time to elaborate

and of course...

I'd be afraid to answer that these days, like putting a target on your shirt, unless you are Lefty Rich, then you are the BEST!

oh, brother :uhuh: Hope and Change!

I am not happy with it because i will be taxed on it in the future

One of the best rants I've seen in a while...watch the whole thing.

http://www.upworthy.com/his-first-4-sentences-are-interesting-the-5th-blew-my-mind-and-made-me-a-little-sick-2?g=2&c=ufb1

-spence

The irony is that I believe we spend about twice what other industrialized nations spend on health care...but we can't afford it.

-spence

Who are referring to when you say "we"? Can you afford what you pay for health care? Are you going into unsustainable debt because of it? "We" can bitch about the constantly rising costs, but we pay them. If we didn't the health care industry could not exist. And who are the "we" of "other industrialized nations"? Are they individual citizens or are they governments? And are those governments spending their nations into debt?

And is the health care you get worse than what those in "other industrialized nations" get? Are "we" who pay through third party insurance or out of pocket getting worse healthcare than those in "other industrialized" nations. And if the health care that "we" who pay for it is worse, how will Obamacare make it better for us who pay?

And is the health care you get worse than what those in "other industrialized nations" get? Are "we" who pay through third party insurance or out of pocket getting worse healthcare than those in "other industrialized" nations. And if the health care that "we" who pay for it is worse, how will Obamacare make it better for us who pay?

And that there is the irony....

Before you guys get too far off topic, can I just remind everyone again that Jim got this story completely wrong. Hell if anything he should be praising the POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, according to what I posted (which may not have been true, I'm sure you know more than those folks) the White House was considering a bill which would offer subsidies to those in labor unions.

And Spence, let's not forget...when Obamacare was first passed, Obama said the bill would tax cadillac health plans, EXCEPT for those in unions . The country went berserk, and Obama backed off. But his initial thought was to tax all cadillac health plans, except those for union members. He thought that was, somehow, fair.

Try making that wrong, comrade.

Before you guys get too far off topic, can I just remind everyone again that Jim got this story completely wrong. Hell if anything he should be praising the POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Instead of lobbing insults, please tell us with specificity, how I got this all wrong. Is it incorrect to say that the White House was considering subsidies for unions, Spence?

As I said, Obama tried to give subsidies to the unions, right off the bat with Obamacare, in the form of a tax loophole for cadillac plans that were for unions. Do you deny that? Want me to dredge that up for you?

You need to reach out a little, there is no story here.

Unions claimed their members should be exempt, the White House said no.

Your story isn't about reality, it's about a Republican lawmaker's stunt to pass a bill for a problem that doesn't exist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/white-house-labor-obamacare-exemption-96793.html

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, from your very own post...

"the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

In other words, the White House wanted to pay off the unions for political suport, but try as they might, they couldn't come up with a way to do it.

Spence, what does it say to you, that Obama wanted to give the unions this kickback. Why does Obama want to give $$ to those who work in a union, but not give $$ to someone doing the same job, for the same pay, with the same healthcare, but in a non-unionized capacity? Spence, what does it say to you, that if Obama had his way, everyone who voted for Romney would subsidize those who voted for him? You're OK with that?

Obama sincerely wanted to pay them off, his advisors told him that it wouldn't fly. And Spence sees this as something we should praise Obama for.

Now, that is an apologist...

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, all of us hate the fact that poverty exists. But can you name an economic system that provides more upward economic mobility than capitalism?

It's harder to avoid poverty than it used to be...used to be you could get C's in high school, get your diploma, and walk into a manufacturing plant and be middle class. Not so anymore.

So what's a poor person to do?

[LIST]
Get good grades.
Go to college, major in engineering, accounting, or anything related to healthcare (pharmacy, physical therapy, physicians assistant, etc)
Not college material? Learn a specialized trade, or join the military.
Don't make babies until you are self-sufficient.

How hard is that? Harder than it used to be, but for the vast majority of us, it's within reach. And we owe it to those few who don't have the necessary tools, to take care of them.

Drive through a big city, and the poverty I see isn't huge numbers of people who are biologically precluded from going to college. I see huge numbers of people who made Godawful choices - like voting for liberal Democrats who are hellbent on guaranteeing the continuation of poverty, by making poor people addicted to a sense of welfare and entitlement...

In other words, the White House wanted to pay off the unions for political suport, but try as they might, they couldn't come up with a way to do it.
No, you still have it backwards. The unions came to the Administration asking for easement. The Treasury department looked at their claim and denied it.

Your subconscious bias is so strong you don't even know when it's happening.

-spence

No, you still have it backwards. The unions came to the Administration asking for easement. The Treasury department looked at their claim and denied it.

Your subconscious bias is so strong you don't even know when it's happening.

-spence

From the article you posted, Spence...

""the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

Spence, maybe it was the Treasury Dept who told the unions "no". That was after the White House attempted to find a way to give the unions what they wanted.

You are acting as if the immediate answer was "no, that wouldn't be fair". If that were the case, I would commend the President for that. But according to you own source, the White House wanted to give the unions a kickback. And it's that fact, which clearly shows that Obama, despite his campaign promises, wants to give kickbacks to his political allies.

From the article you posted, Spence...

""the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

Spence, maybe it was the Treasury Dept who told the unions "no". That was after the White House attempted to find a way to give the unions what they wanted.

You are acting as if the immediate answer was "no, that wouldn't be fair". If that were the case, I would commend the President for that. But according to you own source, the White House wanted to give the unions a kickback. And it's that fact, which clearly shows that Obama, despite his campaign promises, wants to give kickbacks to his political allies.
Now you're just making things up.

-spence

Now you're just making things up.

-spence

Again Spence, a direct quote from the link that you posted...

"the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

What did I make up, exactly? Please be specific now...

What did I make up, exactly? Please be specific now...

Jim, Spence is a Bob Dylan fan when it comes to answering questions-

"the answer my friend is blowin in the wind, the answer is blowin in the wind" :D

Still gotta luv the guy though. :hihi:

Jim, Spence is a Bob Dylan fan when it comes to answering questions-

"the answer my friend is blowin in the wind, the answer is blowin in the wind" :D

Still gotta luv the guy though. :hihi:

Absolutely, I luv the guy.

What I don't luv, is that his vote counts the same as mine...

Why would the Whitehouse give an immediate answer? If the unions made a reasonable and potentially legal claim shouldn't that be investigated? I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions...and the Treasury reports to the Executive Branch just in case you forgot.

-spence

Why would the Whitehouse give an immediate answer? If the unions made a reasonable and potentially legal claim shouldn't that be investigated? I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions...and the Treasury reports to the Executive Branch just in case you forgot.

-spence

Spence, what legal (or moral) basis could there be, to give subsidies to unionized workers, but not to an otherwise-identical non-unionized worker?

I brought this up before, and you ignored it, so I'll do it again for laughs...

Whan Obamacare first came out, one feature was that it taxed the so-called 'cadillac healthcare plans', unless the insured was in a union. You tell me, Spence, how is that proper legislative practice, and not a payoff?

We are all ears...

And I have a question for you in the other post I started yesterday, regarding Obama's flip-flop on raising the debt ceiling, which Obama described as "un-patriotic" when a Republican was president...when Bush proposed it, it was un-patriotic. Now that Obama is proposing it, it seems unpatriotic to oppose it. Why is that, Spence? Maybe now, Obama is hoping that the US will be the one-millionth customer of the Bank Of China, and that we get a prize for that?

Why would the Whitehouse give an immediate answer? If the unions made a reasonable and potentially legal claim shouldn't that be investigated? I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions...and the Treasury reports to the Executive Branch just in case you forgot.

-spence

"I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions"

No? For the 3rd time, from your link...

"the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

Now you have read somewhere that the White House was leading such an effort. In stupifying fashion, that smoking gun was provided by you.

That doesn't mean they're trying to pay them off, it's called due diligence.

So biased.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That doesn't mean they're trying to pay them off, it's called due diligence.

So biased.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I'll ask again...what conceivable legal or moral obligation could the White House possibly have, to reward a subsidy only to those in a union, which would not apply to an identical citizen not in a union?

You repeatedly dodged the cadillac health plan tax exemption, which was proposedf to only be rewarded to unions. More 'due diligence'?

Spence, I'll ask again...what conceivable legal or moral obligation could the White House possibly have, to reward a subsidy only to those in a union, which would not apply to an identical citizen not in a union?
It has nothing to do with the group being singled out, it has everything to do with the legal considerations given the existing members insurance plans. If it was approved I'm sure you'd have other groups coming out of the wood work claiming similar legal exemptions.

-spence

It has nothing to do with the group being singled out, it has everything to do with the legal considerations given the existing members insurance plans. If it was approved I'm sure you'd have other groups coming out of the wood work claiming similar legal exemptions.

-spence

"It has nothing to do with the group being singled out"

No? So how come when the tea party gets 'singled out', it's the IRS that is singling them out for persecution. When the AFL-CIO gets 'singled out', it's to single them out for cash gifts from the White House? Just a coincidence, right?

"If it was approved I'm sure you'd have other groups coming out of the wood work claiming similar legal exemptions."

That's what happened when Obama wanted to include cadillac plan tax amnesty for unions, and hge thought no one wold notice. When Obama realized that he couldn't single out the unions that way, he deleted that amnesty from the law. In other words, Obama didn't remove that lophole until it was clear to him that he couldn't apply it just to the unions. Menaing, his original intent was for the amnesty (kickback) to apply only to his staunchest political supporters.

Do even you believe the stuff you type?

Still waiting for a response on why Obama said raising the debt ceiling was "un-patriotic" in 2006, but a sign of brilliance today. Hmmmmm?

When in doubt, conflate issues...nice.

Can you show the language where they walked back the union exemption thinking "no one would notice". I can't find it anywhere. Where's Scott when you need him?

As for raising the debt ceiling (more conflation) Obama addressed this in 2011.

-spence

As for raising the debt ceiling (more conflation) Obama addressed this in 2011.

-spence

Indulge me...what did he say?

Just talked to my neighbor who is a manager for a small cardiology medical device company, pace makers etc. Because of Obamacare now taxing all medical devices, hips, knees etc. they are laying off 30% of their work force.
Nice, real nice helping the middle class and small business. :(
But then again Likwid is saving $10 a quarter because of Obamacare.

2 percent sales tax and he has to gut his workforce? Doesn't add up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2 percent sales tax and he has to gut his workforce? Doesn't add up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That would be 2.3% Spence. Ava Med, a medical device industry group, concluded
43,ooo jobs would be sent overseas in response to the fee.
Obamacare is just great for our US economy. :doh:

That would be 2.3% Spence. Ava Med, a medical device industry group, concluded
43,ooo jobs would be sent overseas in response to the fee.
Obamacare is just great for our US economy. :doh:
Wait, an industry trade group who vehemently opposes the tax is predicting job loss? That's hard to believe.

Why would jobs go overseas? The tax is on sales, not just domestic goods.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait, an industry trade group who vehemently opposes the tax is predicting job loss? That's hard to believe.

Why would jobs go overseas? The tax is on sales, not just domestic goods.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hard to believe? The President is supposed to set the example for honesty. not.
The tax is an excise tax predicted to bring in 60 billion over the next years 10 yrs.
to Obamacare.

Hope ya never need one Spence, but I'm sure a pacemaker made in China
would give you an extra sense of security. :D

Hope ya never need one Spence, but I'm sure a pacemaker made in China would give you an extra sense of security. :D
You'd have to pay the same tax if it was made in China. Plus the additional expense to ensure FDA compliance and transport would likely offset any measurable gains by moving production over seas.

The biggest reason the industry is against the tax is a fear for loss of profit. Some think a lot of this will be easily balanced by more people in the system consuming insurance and hence medical devices.

-spence

The biggest reason the industry is against the tax is a fear for loss of profit. Some think a lot of this will be easily balanced by more people in the system consuming insurance and hence medical devices.

-spence

Of course, profit is the driving force to spend $ on research, hire new employees
expand the business and improve the economy.
Isn't that the basis of Capitalism,where people work hard and reap the benefits for their lot?

The Govt. also profits as the more "big bad profit" made,the more tax profit they reap.

Please tell me who "SOME" are in your second statement.

When Carney was asked about how many had signed up for Obamacare at his news conference ,he said they wouldn't have an accurate count until mid November. LOL, we can send a man to the moon but they can't get a computer count.

I think Obama should of had the honor to be the first to sign up for his own plan.

When Carney was asked about how many had signed up for Obamacare at his news conference ,he said they wouldn't have an accurate count until mid November. LOL, we can send a man to the moon but they can't get a computer count.

I think Obama should of had the honor to be the first to sign up for his own plan.

It's embarrassingly low . There is a reason they can't count, the computer system doesn't work . 600+ million and 3+ years doesn't get you what it used too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gotta luv the reduction Obamacare is making in Med insurance costs. :hs:
My secondary policy just went up $918 a year, the copay doubled on RX
and individual Med deductable went to $2,000 per person. :yak6:
Nice, real nice helping the middle class. :( :bs:

Gotta luv the reduction Obamacare is making in Med insurance costs. :hs:
My secondary policy just went up $918 a year, the copay doubled on RX
and individual Med copay went to $2,000 per person. :yak6:
Nice, real nice helping the middle class. :(

are you surprised? this was predicted

are you surprised? this was predicted

No not at all Scott, and this is just the beginning of what is being perpetrated
on the American people.
I predict it will go down as the worst legislation ever passed in US history. :(

So now that we know that the shutdown could've been avoided and the mandate for individuals should have been postponed for year, as the GOP said, I'm dying to hear Spence and Paul's spin on
this.
The shut time was "catastrophic."It's the reason the jobs performance was so poor and now we find out the incompetent IRS can't do their job and things will be delayed 2 to 3 weeks because of the shutdown. What a bunch of buffoons. I'm actually stunned these people manage to get themselves up in the morning.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The shut time was "catastrophic."It's the reason the jobs performance was so poor and now we find out the incompetent IRS can't do their job and things will be delayed 2 to 3 weeks because of the shutdown. What a bunch of buffoons. I'm actually stunned these people manage to get themselves up in the morning.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey Buck, have no fear, the newly hired 16,000 IRS advisors for Obamacare got 20 days training for their jobs to advise us on what our individual health care needs are.
I would bet it would take 20 weeks to read and understand Obamacare as it is written let alone be an advisor with what was supposed to be 30 days of training but reduced to 20 so this debacle could be rolled out on time.

If your on "Florida Blue",
you just lost your health care !!
That's 300k future votes for the tea party I figure. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Speaking of the IRS


http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20131023&id=17028449

So now that we know that the shutdown could've been avoided and the mandate for individuals should have been postponed for year, as the GOP said, I'm dying to hear Spence and Paul's spin on
this.

So you're asserting the GOP had insight into IT issues? I'm all ears...

-spence

So you're asserting the GOP had insight into IT issues? I'm all ears...

-spence

You don't need to be Nostradamus to have guessed that if Obama had anything to do with it, it would turn into a puddle of vomit.

The problem is, Ego has taken over in place of what's best for the American people.
If Obama was a true leader and servant of the people he would take this Affordable? Health Care Act back to the drawing board , help the 28% of the people without health care as it was orignally supposed to do and leave the other 72% alone.
Where is the $2500 savings/ average family when mine has gone up over $900 for 2 people? Hope no one has gone out and bought a big ticket item with their anticipated savings.
People are finally waking up, including the Dems, as this thing rolls out and it starts
hitting people in their pocket book.

The biggest problem with medical care in this country, is the disparity that hospitals and doctors charge, and the reasonable amount they accept from insurance companies. If you are not insured or have a week plan you pay through the nose. The government needs to set a fee schedule for all things medical, then worry about insurance for all. In the long run it will save billions of dollars...

If your on "Florida Blue",
you just lost your health care !!
That's 300k future votes for the tea party I figure. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This isn't true at all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The biggest problem with medical care in this country, is the disparity that hospitals and doctors charge, and the reasonable amount they accept from insurance companies. If you are not insured or have a week plan you pay through the nose. The government needs to set a fee schedule for all things medical, then worry about insurance for all. In the long run it will save billions of dollars...
Sounds like central planning. Perhaps all the private companies that have lobbied for price fixing over the years should fess up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like central planning.

Yup. And government price controls generally create negative distortions on the market. If it were possible for the government to impose the exact price levels which would achieve a true equilibrium in market transactions, it might be a good thing. So far, that doesn't seem to have been possible.

Perhaps all the private companies that have lobbied for price fixing over the years should fess up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That would expose their request for crony capitalistic suppression of competition. We all know that crony capitalism is a No-No. But, alas, it happens anyway. The "left" and the "right" rail against it, but neither is able to eliminate it.

The biggest problem with medical care in this country, is the disparity that hospitals and doctors charge, and the reasonable amount they accept from insurance companies. If you are not insured or have a week plan you pay through the nose. The government needs to set a fee schedule for all things medical, then worry about insurance for all. In the long run it will save billions of dollars...

this could probably work....we'll have the government give one of Michelle's college classmates a no bid contract for millions of dollars to fix the pricing of all medical related everything....and then worry about insurance for all (oh, we've got that now thanks to Obamacare)...and we'll probably save billions and all will progress quite swimmingly....


we are in so much trouble......

this could probably work....we'll have the government give one of Michelle's college classmates a no bid contract for millions of dollars to fix the pricing of all medical related everything....and then worry about insurance for all (oh, we've got that now thanks to Obamacare)...and we'll probably save billions and all will progress quite swimmingly....


we are in so much trouble......

Yes, I agree we are in much trouble. To a great degree, in the social and political realms, we have become a society based on ad hoc decisions rather than on principles. What works, how it can be fixed, is based on narrow situational problems and perspectives rather than on the grand scheme. Fix economic problems such as the cost of health care by the most obvious idea--fix the price so everyone can afford it--rather than applying economic principles. Rather than understanding economic forces which make things "affordable" to greater numbers, let's just have the government fix the thing and by fiat lower the price--theoretical consequences be damned. Isn't that what government is for, and if not, what's it good for?

And so government responds (or instigates). It abandons principles and "fixes" things by "pragmatic" mandates which most "obviously" and immediately produce solutions. That the solutions, not being results of time tested principles, become further and even larger problems is not seen as a result, but as a flaw in execution. Not enough money, not enough time, not enough of some x factor which more regulations will surely address. Obstructionists will only slow down the progress of solving our problems. They are the kooks and must be marginalized, destroyed if necessary, in order to continue toward the perfection of society. And principles are like huge stones in a garden. They petrify the soil, and must be discarded.

We've progressively dug ourselves into deeper holes in this way, and the only solution of management by ad hoc managers is more of the same. Just in more expansive and larger quantities.

Yes, I agree we are in much trouble. To a great degree, in the social and political realms, we have become a society based on ad hoc decisions rather than on principles. What works, how it can be fixed, is based on narrow situational problems and perspectives rather than on the grand scheme. Fix economic problems such as the cost of health care by the most obvious idea--fix the price so everyone can afford it--rather than applying economic principles. Rather than understanding economic forces which make things "affordable" to greater numbers, let's just have the government fix the thing and by fiat lower the price--theoretical consequences be damned. Isn't that what government is for, and if not, what's it good for?

And so government responds (or instigates). It abandons principles and "fixes" things by "pragmatic" mandates which most "obviously" and immediately produce solutions. That the solutions, not being results of time tested principles, become further and even larger problems is not seen as a result, but as a flaw in execution. Not enough money, not enough time, not enough of some x factor which more regulations will surely address. Obstructionists will only slow down the progress of solving our problems. They are the kooks and must be marginalized, destroyed if necessary, in order to continue toward the perfection of society. And principles are like huge stones in a garden. They petrify the soil, and must be discarded.

We've progressively dug ourselves into deeper holes in this way, and the only solution of management by ad hoc managers is more of the same. Just in more expansive and larger quantities.

this also assumes a benevolent government that will not grant favoritism and benefits to political supporters and cronies, free of corruption and one that will not use the power given to intimidate and manipulate and one that is competent enough to manage this responsibility which will result in the savings of billions( I believe it would be a first)...rather than cost multi-billions in the long run