Yep, let’s just encourage even more laziness and dependency:WASHINGTON — A Congressional Budget Office analysis released Tuesday predicted that the Affordable Care Act would shrink the work force by the equivalent of more than two million full-time positions and recharged the political debate over the health care law, providing Republican opponents fresh lines of attack and putting Democrats on the defensive.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/us/politics/budget-office-revises-estimates-of-health-care-enrollment.html?_r=0
Really? You’re still on with the death panel bull s**t? The real death panels are run by the insurance companies deciding whether or not to pay for their clients’ life saving procedures.
I think Ms. Benson does an excellent job of pointing out what the government does so well but shouldn’t do at all. That is the business of picking winners and losers.
Part of Obamacare’s purpose was too slow the inflation of medical expenses that were on track to crushing Medicare and leaving the Elderly without any access to health care. But to make it work, The Democrats had to force ever more people into a government system so that they could support those receiving the benefits i.e. A PONZI SCHEME.
Social Security and Medicare work only as long as you can get more and more Rubes at the bottom to pay for the benefits of those at the top. When you run out of Rubes – like our country did as the birthrate declined you run out of payers to support the receivers.
Obamacare delays the collapse for a short period of time by forcing the unfettered (The young who don’t need health care) to pay for the Elderly. But soon the Democrats and all those who support Robinhood schemes will need more. Hence the big push for Immigration reform. If they can drive the illegal immigrants out into the light and away from their shadow economy they can be fully taxed and hence you will have another time buying delay.
The only real correction for Medicare and Social Security is to raise the recipient date high enough so that the average citizen only receives 3 to 5 years of benefits. Right now the recipient age is 62 and the average man lives to 72 and the average woman lives to 74. Do the math. They take in way more benefits then they provided – even accounting for the time value of money.
I’m not saying we should do anything to the benefits of the elderly currently receiving SS and Medicare and I even think we need to protect those within 10 years of retirement age but we certainly have to tell those that are expecting to retire at 62 that they will have to wait until 67 before they will receive any benefits.
Oh and Michael: The Latin for Ox/Bull is Taurus with the possesive form of that noun being Tauri … not Taurine. Taurine is an organic acid found in bile, etc.
I asked an ACA opponent once if they’d rather have their life and death presided over by a bottom-line, profit-oriented insurance company with decades of experience in denying care to those who’ve paid in — or by the government that they contend always errs on the side of spending too much. They replied they’d rather put their life in the hands of the company.
I took this as evidence that life was not the real issue for them, but possibly just a hatred for government.
I printed this gem from www.nationalreview.com 2/5/14 editorial:“Obamacare by the numbers, according to the Congressional Budget Office — labor lost: equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs over the next decade; insurance enrollment: down 1 million from earlier first-year estimate; cost: $1.2 trillion over the next decade; number of Americans uninsured: 30 million.”-Entire article prints out 2 pages and is well worth reading and meditating about….-O’Care must be the biggest government SCAM ever!
@Adrian – Yes I do think the 90 year old receiving the heart transplant is fair if it is the 90 year old paying for it either by direct funding from his wallet or because he paid into a more expensive and more inclusive insurance plan that pays for it.
Like it or not; we all make choices that affect our lives forever.We make career choices that limit or expand our opportunity to: Vacation, live in a good school district for our kids, what colleges we can afford to send our kids to and even how much medical care we can afford.
Socialists in the guise of bleeding hearts are always trying to protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Housing assistance, etc. etc. Are all means to protect people from: Wanting or Needing more then they can produce on their own. But it is always done at the expense of those of us who live within our means and save for a rainy day.
I do not resent the 90 year old who saved all his life and now has enough money to buy a heart transplant that will extend his life another 5 10 or 15 years. He sacrificed other things he could have spent that money on so that he could afford it.
I DO resent the 60 year old who expects the Government funded health insurance to extend his life at the expense of a bunch of other tax payers.
@TrustedI agree that people don’t actively choose not to be successful. Instead they CHOOSE to: Take easier courses in college, to smoke dope with their friends rather then work late, to live beyond their means, to fail to save for a rainy day.
It don’t accept, as fact, that everyone doesn’t get AN opportunity but I do accept that some get better and more opportunities then others.
It sounds to me like you are advocating the confiscation of wealth from successful people because they obviously got an unfair advantage over somebody else. If we attribute success or lack of success only to luck then Aren’t we discounting the value of: Hard work, perserverence, self sacrifice, patience and whole host of virtues that I think are what separate the successful to the unsuccessful.
I can acknowledge luck as a component in many success stories. Can you acknowledge virture?
But that still doesn’t justify the taking of wealth from one group to help another. That’s just enslaving the capable to take care of the needy.
If you want to cajole people to give of themselves to help the needy you have my full support. I give to a lot of worthy charities and I do it of my own free will. But I will never say it is OK to steal from one group just to redistribute that wealth to another group no matter how needy they claim to be. That is theft!!! You can wrap yourself up in socialist dogma about how the majority ruled for it but it still doesn’t make it right.
I teach my kids to: Work hard, Be industrious, Live below your means and save for a rainy day. This is what I tell them leads to being successful.
What do you teach your kids? Be lucky or vote for someone who will take on your behalf?
Unemployment is 6.6%. Not great, but greatly improved. It could be lower, but evidently the Conservative Media doesn’t know how to read; Obamacare will enable people to leave full time jobs voluntarily if they were only keeping them for insurance. It’s not costing the economy any jobs at all, according to CBO.
ConserveGov about 10 years ago
Yep, let’s just encourage even more laziness and dependency:WASHINGTON — A Congressional Budget Office analysis released Tuesday predicted that the Affordable Care Act would shrink the work force by the equivalent of more than two million full-time positions and recharged the political debate over the health care law, providing Republican opponents fresh lines of attack and putting Democrats on the defensive.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/us/politics/budget-office-revises-estimates-of-health-care-enrollment.html?_r=0
Jason Allen about 10 years ago
Really? You’re still on with the death panel bull s**t? The real death panels are run by the insurance companies deciding whether or not to pay for their clients’ life saving procedures.
greyolddave about 10 years ago
Yes the work force will shrink because two million people will realize they no longer NEED to work just to keep their health insurance. Cool hey?
Mephistopheles about 10 years ago
I think Ms. Benson does an excellent job of pointing out what the government does so well but shouldn’t do at all. That is the business of picking winners and losers.
Part of Obamacare’s purpose was too slow the inflation of medical expenses that were on track to crushing Medicare and leaving the Elderly without any access to health care. But to make it work, The Democrats had to force ever more people into a government system so that they could support those receiving the benefits i.e. A PONZI SCHEME.
Social Security and Medicare work only as long as you can get more and more Rubes at the bottom to pay for the benefits of those at the top. When you run out of Rubes – like our country did as the birthrate declined you run out of payers to support the receivers.
Obamacare delays the collapse for a short period of time by forcing the unfettered (The young who don’t need health care) to pay for the Elderly. But soon the Democrats and all those who support Robinhood schemes will need more. Hence the big push for Immigration reform. If they can drive the illegal immigrants out into the light and away from their shadow economy they can be fully taxed and hence you will have another time buying delay.
The only real correction for Medicare and Social Security is to raise the recipient date high enough so that the average citizen only receives 3 to 5 years of benefits. Right now the recipient age is 62 and the average man lives to 72 and the average woman lives to 74. Do the math. They take in way more benefits then they provided – even accounting for the time value of money.
I’m not saying we should do anything to the benefits of the elderly currently receiving SS and Medicare and I even think we need to protect those within 10 years of retirement age but we certainly have to tell those that are expecting to retire at 62 that they will have to wait until 67 before they will receive any benefits.
Oh and Michael: The Latin for Ox/Bull is Taurus with the possesive form of that noun being Tauri … not Taurine. Taurine is an organic acid found in bile, etc.
Kip W about 10 years ago
I asked an ACA opponent once if they’d rather have their life and death presided over by a bottom-line, profit-oriented insurance company with decades of experience in denying care to those who’ve paid in — or by the government that they contend always errs on the side of spending too much. They replied they’d rather put their life in the hands of the company.
I took this as evidence that life was not the real issue for them, but possibly just a hatred for government.
kline0800 about 10 years ago
I printed this gem from www.nationalreview.com 2/5/14 editorial:“Obamacare by the numbers, according to the Congressional Budget Office — labor lost: equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs over the next decade; insurance enrollment: down 1 million from earlier first-year estimate; cost: $1.2 trillion over the next decade; number of Americans uninsured: 30 million.”-Entire article prints out 2 pages and is well worth reading and meditating about….-O’Care must be the biggest government SCAM ever!
Mephistopheles about 10 years ago
@Adrian – Yes I do think the 90 year old receiving the heart transplant is fair if it is the 90 year old paying for it either by direct funding from his wallet or because he paid into a more expensive and more inclusive insurance plan that pays for it.
Like it or not; we all make choices that affect our lives forever.We make career choices that limit or expand our opportunity to: Vacation, live in a good school district for our kids, what colleges we can afford to send our kids to and even how much medical care we can afford.
Socialists in the guise of bleeding hearts are always trying to protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Housing assistance, etc. etc. Are all means to protect people from: Wanting or Needing more then they can produce on their own. But it is always done at the expense of those of us who live within our means and save for a rainy day.
I do not resent the 90 year old who saved all his life and now has enough money to buy a heart transplant that will extend his life another 5 10 or 15 years. He sacrificed other things he could have spent that money on so that he could afford it.
I DO resent the 60 year old who expects the Government funded health insurance to extend his life at the expense of a bunch of other tax payers.
Mephistopheles about 10 years ago
@TrustedI agree that people don’t actively choose not to be successful. Instead they CHOOSE to: Take easier courses in college, to smoke dope with their friends rather then work late, to live beyond their means, to fail to save for a rainy day.
It don’t accept, as fact, that everyone doesn’t get AN opportunity but I do accept that some get better and more opportunities then others.
It sounds to me like you are advocating the confiscation of wealth from successful people because they obviously got an unfair advantage over somebody else. If we attribute success or lack of success only to luck then Aren’t we discounting the value of: Hard work, perserverence, self sacrifice, patience and whole host of virtues that I think are what separate the successful to the unsuccessful.
I can acknowledge luck as a component in many success stories. Can you acknowledge virture?
But that still doesn’t justify the taking of wealth from one group to help another. That’s just enslaving the capable to take care of the needy.
If you want to cajole people to give of themselves to help the needy you have my full support. I give to a lot of worthy charities and I do it of my own free will. But I will never say it is OK to steal from one group just to redistribute that wealth to another group no matter how needy they claim to be. That is theft!!! You can wrap yourself up in socialist dogma about how the majority ruled for it but it still doesn’t make it right.
I teach my kids to: Work hard, Be industrious, Live below your means and save for a rainy day. This is what I tell them leads to being successful.
What do you teach your kids? Be lucky or vote for someone who will take on your behalf?
ianrey about 10 years ago
Unemployment is 6.6%. Not great, but greatly improved. It could be lower, but evidently the Conservative Media doesn’t know how to read; Obamacare will enable people to leave full time jobs voluntarily if they were only keeping them for insurance. It’s not costing the economy any jobs at all, according to CBO.