Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think if you put your feelings aside for a moment and look at what you've written you'll realize that you are arguing myopically for more of what you constantly rail against simply because you have an experience or a tragedy close to you that you feel needs being corrected....this is how all of these "safety nets" get set up, some politician finds a sad story, demands that this "never, ever happen to anyone again", proposes a government managed solution, claims anyone that disagrees is coldhearted and draconian and..... poof...we have a new government program sold to cure some societal ill...funded by tax dollars from a "general fund" that is never fully funded.... forever ...but we know how it always ends up....Jim...if you start a fund to help your friends today, I'll be the first to contribute without even knowing them....or...I could send the same money to some government agency and let it trickle through the machinations of the bureaucracy where they might end up with a tiny percentage of the original "contribution" which means many others must be made to "contribute"...of course, if you set up your "safety net to guarantee more equality of [U]opportunity"...you authorize the government to take and spend from others as/when it sees fit and where it sees need for equality of opportunity...if it's a local institution, you may have some measure of control but if it's the federal government, I doubt you'll like how it picks and chooses eventually and there is nothing that you can do once that ball gets rolling....this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the way that government inherently operates, a symptom of how we've been conditioned to "feel" that wrongs should be righted and not only don't you seem to see it, you are participating in it and feeding the beast,

If you knew me before my friends were in this situation, you'd know that I felt exactly the same way. Exactly the same way. I'm sure I'm more emphatic about it now, but it did not alter my thinking.

What I rail against is waste, stupidity, political kickbacks/bribery, and spending more than we can ever afford on things we don't need. I'm not an anti-government anarchist, there are some things I'd like the government to do. This is one of them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Did your friend's daughter survive and is she better? Are your friends recovering from the economic disaster? Are they gradually doing better. I hope all of that is the case. If it is, then they seized the opportunity they were given to overcome a terrific obstacle, and they should be a lot stronger for it.

If not, is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes for everyone by eliminating disasters for some?

She is doing better, thanks God.

They are not recovering economically. They will likely never be able to own a home, and likely never be able to retire.

"is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes "

Not to equalize outcomes. The answer is to equalize opportunity. Those 2 things are very different, and I must be doing a terrible job articulating that, because it seems you and Scott are under the impression I'm talking about equalizing outcomes.

Let's say the average family will soend $150,000 on medical expenses oveit lives. SOme families might spend none, some spend a lot more. I'm making this up...but if there was some public fund that we all poaid into, that paid for all of our medical expenses (for thjings that are random, which we have no control over) over $150,000, that would eliminate the "penalty" that some families suffer, and give them the opportunity to achieve the same success that others enjoy.

I don't think the unlucky families "deserve" the financial struggles and limited opportunities that they will face through no fault of their own, nor do I think the people born healthy "deserve" the financial windfall that comes with being lucky enough to be born healthy.

It would be moral, in my opinion, to normalize opportunity for life-altering events that are completely beyond anyone's control.

I cannot make the case that it will be perfect, flawless, inexpensive, without waste, easy, or constitutional. You and Scott have me there, I concede that. But it feels right to me.

[Jim in CT]

Scott and detbuch, you keep stating that I'm advocating for equality of outcome. Not even close.

A made-up, hypothetical scenario. Lat's say it costs $500,000 to open a McDonalds. Let's say my friends were able to save that much. But all of a sudden, that $500k is wiped out to pay for catastrophic medical expenses. In that case, because of the specific event which they had no control over, let's assume there was a federal program that picked up that tab.

Now he has the $500k to open a McDonalds. I am not suggesting, in any way, that his success should be guaranteed. If the business fails because he is incompetent, or lazy, or because he blows the money betting on college football, or because a better businessman opens up a Burger King across the street, I would never say that society has a responsibility to provide him the wealth he could not acquire.

Say there are 2 identical famillies who want to open a McDonalds. Each family has squirreled away the $500k to pay the fees. Family A has an unforseen medical situation that wipes out their savings. I don't think that Family B 'deserves' the opportunity to open a McDonalds any more than family A does. I'd like to see them both have the same chance to succeed.

Opportunity. Not outcome.

[Raven]

the WHOLE political system is in SHAMBLES because of his presidency....

I doubt it'll ever recover....

he's about as QUALIFIED as Michael Jackson playing for the NFL.

well, that's just my less than Humble Opinion....

ok rant over CARRY on

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Scott and detbuch, you keep stating that I'm advocating for equality of outcome. Not even close.

A made-up, hypothetical scenario. Lat's say it costs $500,000 to open a McDonalds. Let's say my friends were able to save that much. But all of a sudden, that $500k is wiped out to pay for catastrophic medical expenses. In that case, because of the specific event which they had no control over, let's assume there was a federal program that picked up that tab.

Now he has the $500k to open a McDonalds. I am not suggesting, in any way, that his success should be guaranteed. If the business fails because he is incompetent, or lazy, or because he blows the money betting on college football, or because a better businessman opens up a Burger King across the street, I would never say that society has a responsibility to provide him the wealth he could not acquire.

Say there are 2 identical famillies who want to open a McDonalds. Each family has squirreled away the $500k to pay the fees. Family A has an unforseen medical situation that wipes out their savings. I don't think that Family B 'deserves' the opportunity to open a McDonalds any more than family A does. I'd like to see them both have the same chance to succeed.

Opportunity. Not outcome.

See, your overlooking the pre-existing condition that people have, as you say, "zero control" over. The most obvious one in the case of your hypothetical scenario is that there are no two "identical" families. Unless by some rare twist identical twin brothers married identical twin sisters. But even in that event differences would occur through nature and nurture. So if it takes equal identity to create equal opportunity ... well, you get the picture.

But, if in your scenario what makes the families identical is that they both saved up $500k so that they both had the same financial opportunity to open a McDonalds, but one lost the money due to uncontrollable circumstances, it would only be "fair" for the rest of society to make the losing family whole by giving them a $500K gift from the rest of us . . . umm, that is problematic. Are you assuming that the rest of us have the "opportunity" to save $500K? What about the many somebodies that are born into families that lack such attitudes of thrift or potential to even earn that amount? What about the individual that didn't have the "opportunity" to earn the $500K due to family background, negative inherited capabilities, and so on that he had no control over? If he/she wanted to open a McDonalds should the rest of us give him/her the $500K gift? Are you saying that if we all put in a few extra bucks into some anti-catastrophic fund it would cover the massive potential of payouts to "deserving" recipients to do what they wish but are not capable because of things they had no control over.

And if the federal gvt. owns this insurance fund, will it even restrict itself to whatever minimal enumerations you limit it to which you think would make this fund fair and operable? The evidence is, as you might say, "irrefutable" that it wouldn't. This sort of "fairness," of so-called "equal opportunity" is what gives the federal leviathan the legitimacy to totally control our lives.

[Jim in CT]

Detbuch, you guys are very, very skilled (and fair, by the way) at playing devil's advocate. As you say, no 2 situations are identical, and my lefty pie-in-the-sky collecticivist notion here would entail a lot of difficulties. All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect. This feels like one of those things to me, but reasonable people can certainly disagree...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But, if in your scenario what makes the families identical is that they both saved up $500k so that they both had the same financial opportunity to open a McDonalds, but one lost the money due to uncontrollable circumstances, it would only be "fair" for the rest of society to make the losing family whole by giving them a $500K gift from the rest of us . . . umm, that is problematic.

ya think?....

btw Jim, this has not at all been "playing devil's advocate"...it's pointing out the obvious problems with your logic, it "feels" right to you in your scenario, the government simply writing a check to your friends in this case...but applied broadly, given what we know about the propensities of those that you'd like to see administering this and the Pandora's box you'd be opening...it makes no sense...but nothing else makes sense....come up with a catchy name for it and I'm sure it will pass......" The Elimination of Life's Hardships And Equal Opportunity(but not Outcomes) Through Government Benevolence Act of 2013"...need a jingle that sort of rhymes too...that always works..."when things get bad...we'll pick up the tab"

Originally Posted by Jim in CT
All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect.


looking to the government to write a check..is not "hard"...it's actually the "easy" solution...which is why it's so popular....holding fund raisers, rallying a community and media, swallowing your pride and "asking for help", calling charities and corporations and others who have interests in these types of situations ...is "hard"...but often prove wildly successful

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Detbuch, you guys are very, very skilled (and fair, by the way) at playing devil's advocate. As you say, no 2 situations are identical, and my lefty pie-in-the-sky collecticivist notion here would entail a lot of difficulties. All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect. This feels like one of those things to me, but reasonable people can certainly disagree...

So, being hard, overcoming obstacles, losses, tragedies must be beautiful. Are they less beautiful if government makes it easier? Is the beauty lost if the difficulty is lost?

We don't disagree a whole lot. Mostly on one small item--the fundamental damage done to founding principles when the federal government goes beyond its enumerated powers to "solve" societal or individual problems. It has never been a secret what happens to moral or governing principles when they are violated and then accepted. That it not only changes the rule for a temporary "good," it sets a precedent for constant changes so that the principle is eventually lost.

Your Catholicism, I think, would agree with your political conservatism on that point. Maybe not.

How about the greatest poet/writer in the English language, Shakespeare? In his play, The Merchant of Venice when Portia in disguise is acting as a judge is asked "To do a great right, do a little wrong," she replies,

"'Twill be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
Will rush into the State. It cannot be."

The great right you wish to be accomplished by establishing a way to help individuals in time of catastrophic need is noble. Many have done such great things. I think even your Catholicism, which has charity as a prime action, would agree that its fundamental faiths and structures must not be subverted for charity. That no charity should take from an individual his responsibility toward church and God and shift it to the State. We have fundamental founding principles that not only place the burden of responsibility for their own lives on individuals, but prevent the State from usurping those responsibilities to grow its own power. The Federal Government was founded to have no business in charity. That was left to individuals and their local and state governments. That was an extremely important restriction. Without it, individual sovereignty is lost. That cannot be overstated.

Individuals and local governments have always been involved with charity. They are less so now that the central government has taken on so much of what individuals and their States had done. You have argued against what has become of this country because of it. Go ahead and be charitable. Campaign in your city, county, State, to help when individuals can't.

Just don't insist that the federal government do it. That is the little difference between us.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Why UUU putting down people with less costly plans?....some people can not afford a larger plan....yours is probaly paid for by the company U work for....people bought plans that they could afford on their own

You mean just like the people having their plans cancelled? Carry on.

[justplugit]

I still would like to know, where in the Constitution does it allow the Govt. to decide what you need for yourself, and if what your buying doesn't come up to their standards, you have to buy what they tell you to or pay a penalty?

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by likwid

You mean just like the people having their plans cancelled? Carry on.

I know U believe in Obama and believe like him that policies R being cancelled because they R inferior to his debacled plan ....U know he is a liar.... cancellations of his doing... where insurance companies would not cover condoms or abortions does not mean people had bad policies....some of them cancelltions had great policies....UUUU should explain it to this lady Edi Littlefield.... and your president bullied this person....if all of yours or partially paid for by a company UUU may be losing yours next year....and he blames the insurance companies

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I still would like to know, where in the Constitution does it allow the Govt. to decide what you need for yourself, and if what your buying doesn't come up to their standards, you have to buy what they tell you to or pay a penalty?

When the Supreme Court was bought and declared it a tax and not a penalty .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

When the Supreme Court was bought and declared it a tax and not a penalty .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

You're half right as usual
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

Yeah, that pesky whatever (progressive/neo-con/establishment Republican/independent/goofy or bribed?/whatever) Roberts appointed by quasi-progressive/compassionate conservative/mixed bag/whatever (oh yeah that dumb as a rock) Bush. The labels really matter,don't they? Let us not pay attention to the actual constitutionallity of Roberts' decision, lets use shifty labels to end the discussion.

Actually, Roberts' calling it a tax is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes two specific taxes that the federal gvt. can impose and a third specific type, the direct income tax, was added by ammendment. There is no general, unspecified tax allowed by the Constitution. The Obamacare tax does not fit into any of the three specific types of taxes listed in the Constitution. Roberts justifying his decision by the government's power to tax implies there is a general, unlimited power to tax. There is no such power in the Constitution given to the federal government. Why he did it only he knows. If he felt personally that it was the moral thing to do, or that if was the best social or economic answer to medical costs, or if thuggish politicos threatened to expose some deep dark horrible secret about him or his family, only he knows. But none of those motivations are judicially justified.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, that pesky whatever (progressive/neo-con/establishment Republican/independent/goofy or bribed?/whatever) Roberts appointed by quasi-progressive/compassionate conservative/mixed bag/whatever (oh yeah that dumb as a rock) Bush. The labels really matter,don't they? Let us not pay attention to the actual constitutionallity of Roberts' decision, lets use shifty labels to end the discussion.

Actually, Roberts' calling it a tax is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes two specific taxes that the federal gvt. can impose and a third specific type, the direct income tax, was added by ammendment. There is no general, unspecified tax allowed by the Constitution. The Obamacare tax does not fit into any of the three specific types of taxes listed in the Constitution. Roberts justifying his decision by the government's power to tax implies there is a general, unlimited power to tax. There is no such power in the Constitution given to the federal government. Why he did it only he knows. If he felt personally that it was the moral thing to do, or that if was the best social or economic answer to medical costs, or if thuggish politicos threatened to expose some deep dark horrible secret about him or his family, only he knows. But none of those motivations are judicially justified.

You sir, put my thoughts in a much more articulate way, then I ever could.
Well put!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

You sir, put my thoughts in a much more articulate way, then I ever could.
Well put!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, especially so when it comes to the Constitution.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

I know U believe in Obama and believe like him that policies R being cancelled because they R inferior to his debacled plan ....U know he is a liar.... cancellations of his doing... where insurance companies would not cover condoms or abortions does not mean people had bad policies....some of them cancelltions had great policies....UUUU should explain it to this lady Edi Littlefield.... and your president bullied this person....if all of yours or partially paid for by a company UUU may be losing yours next year....and he blames the insurance companies

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446

You know, before you start swinging and patting yourself on the back, you should make sure you know what you're talking about. Maybe use paragraphs, and intelligible language.

If you read the article, she lost her insurance almost a year ago, before the mandated date. Not now. Why is this news now? Oh right, it fits your agenda *now*. So United long pulled out of Cali after announcing it, what? Oh almost a year prior! So it was a known fact it was going away.

Do you take people in when they lose their house to foreclosure when they knew they were going to lose it for a year? No, you tell them "too effing bad you leech!"

But this is about cancer. Cancer is bad, everyone knows someone who's died of cancer.

As far as my personal insurance, I won't be losing mine, we've long changed plans with BCBS that fit the model for Obamacare. And infact its less expensive than my prior insurance. Clean the mud off your face.

As far as my beliefs in the system, I don't trust it, sorry to burst your bubble. And I think people who throw around "oh I know YOU trust him" are complete losers. Enjoy being on ignore.

[spence]

I'm not sure her being dumped a year ago means all that much. What's more important is that UHC is leaving the individual market in California because they don't make any money.

Employer provided insurance shifts all the time, I have to change every few years and with it doctors and coverage change. Should I be outraged also?

-spence

[spence]

Very interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpe...lth-insurance/

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Very interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpe...lth-insurance/

-spence

But at what cost
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ow-to-elderly/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Back to my original question, it appears the Dems will pay a price. Obama's approval ratings now start with a '3', still absurdly high, but moving in the right direction. And in VA, where there was a (1)tea party Republican running for governor, AND (2) an idiot libertarian running as a third party candidate, the Democrat won 48-45 in an election that should have been a rout.

To the Libertarians who like running as a 3rd party candidate - all you are doing is handing victories to the Democrats. In a place like VA especially, that is all you are doing, because no place with that many federal workers is ever going to elect a Libertarian, ever. If you want to change the Republican Party, you do what the Tea Party did, and they didn't even exist 5 years ago.

[TheSpecialist]

Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?

Honestly what could happen to him politically now, he has his two terms as president and he is going to be forever done with politics unless his wife runs for office. Screw them both

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Back to my original question, it appears the Dems will pay a price. Obama's approval ratings now start with a '3', still absurdly high, but moving in the right direction. And in VA, where there was a (1)tea party Republican running for governor, AND (2) an idiot libertarian running as a third party candidate, the Democrat won 48-45 in an election that should have been a rout.

To the Libertarians who like running as a 3rd party candidate - all you are doing is handing victories to the Democrats. In a place like VA especially, that is all you are doing, because no place with that many federal workers is ever going to elect a Libertarian, ever. If you want to change the Republican Party, you do what the Tea Party did, and they didn't even exist 5 years ago.

Totally agree.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Screw them both

Totally agree!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?

Here's my understanding, based on the tortured jibberish that Obama has been spouting since his approval ratings took a dive.

From what I understood Obama to say...Obamacare set minumum guidelines that plans had to meet. In the individual market, many plans did not meet those guidelines. It looks like existing plans that did not meet the guidelines would be grandfathered in (not required to meet the new requirements), UNLESS those plans changed in any way. For a cheapo plan to get grandfathered, it had no stay identical to what it was last year. If those plans changed at all, then they now had to meet the new minumum standards. And I gather that it's unheard of for those plans to not change at least a bit, so essentially, very few plans would be able to get grandfathered.

This time next year, Obamacare could clobber the Dems worse than it did in 2010. Back then, it was all theory. Next year, many Americans will be keenly aware that they are paying a lot more, and businesses will be keenly aware that Americans suddenly have less disposable income.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?

People are getting forced to take up preventative plans, instead of catastrophic plans.

Sorry for bringing facts to the party.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's my understanding, based on the tortured jibberish that Obama has been spouting since his approval ratings took a dive.

From what I understood Obama to say...Obamacare set minumum guidelines that plans had to meet. In the individual market, many plans did not meet those guidelines. It looks like existing plans that did not meet the guidelines would be grandfathered in (not required to meet the new requirements), UNLESS those plans changed in any way. For a cheapo plan to get grandfathered, it had no stay identical to what it was last year. If those plans changed at all, then they now had to meet the new minumum standards. And I gather that it's unheard of for those plans to not change at least a bit, so essentially, very few plans would be able to get grandfathered.

This time next year, Obamacare could clobber the Dems worse than it did in 2010. Back then, it was all theory. Next year, many Americans will be keenly aware that they are paying a lot more, and businesses will be keenly aware that Americans suddenly have less disposable income.

Americans suddenly had less disposable income a long time ago.. Specifically when oil prices started climbing and food costs started climbing.. Who was president then???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Americans suddenly had less disposable income a long time ago.. Specifically when oil prices started climbing and food costs started climbing.. Who was president then???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gas was under 2 bucks a gallon when Bush left office ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by likwid

People are getting forced to take up preventative plans, instead of catastrophic plans.

Yes, forced and mislead would exactly be the right words when talking
about Obamacare.