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???

Yes, and why from all over the world ?

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.

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-...k-2?g=2&c=ufb1

-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 that there is the irony....

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.

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?

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...

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...

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.

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...

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

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?

"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

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'?

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

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

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

OPE
 

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

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

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.

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:

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