Obama '08?

I heard otherwise.

Health-services researchers call the difference between these numbers, here $1,895, “excess spending.” That term, however, is not meant to convey “excessive spending,” but merely a difference driven by factors other than G.D.P. per capita. Prominent among these other factors are:

1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services;

2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems;

3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries;

4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” " that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative.

CLAIM: CUT MEDICARE; AARP: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits. [AARP Website]

If either the Senate or House healthcare bill or some mixture of the two is passed, it will cause great harm to the American economy and therefore to the American people.

All you understand is fear-mongering without the balls to explain what your fears are. Unfortunately, that's the conservative meme during Obama's presidency, and almost 30% of like-minded conservatives believe you and the NO Party.

What does "great harm to the American People mean?"

{From ImpeachObamaCampaign}

Submit To ObamaCare Or Go To Jail?

The cat is out of the bag... under Pelosi-Care, American citizens who refuse to purchase an Obama-approved health insurance plan will face fines of up to 250,000 dollars and up to five years in jail.

When asked what gave Congress the right to institute such a tyrannical mandate, Democratic Senator Jack Reed actually had the nerve to tell CNS News that it was constitutionally justified.

Why? Because, according to Reed, it was no different than making people “sign up for the draft.”

Got that?

As far as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama and Jack Reed and radical leftists in Congress are concerned, they have every right to force you to purchase a Pelosi-Obama-approved health care plan under penalty of law.

And apparently, like the draft, it's your solemn duty to purchase their so-called health care plan... or else.

If you cross them... if you are not covered by a health care plan that has the Obama-Pelosi Seal Of Approval, the IRS will assess a penalty of up to 2.5 percent and if you resist paying this penalty, you can go to jail for up to five years and/or be fine d up to 250,000 dollars.

Congressman Dave Camp, the Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, put it this way:

“This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing " buy what we tell you or go to jail.”

Specifically, when asked for the justification, under the Constitution, for Congress to make the draconian requirement, Reed told CNS News:

“Let me see... I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]."

< EM>"Get back to you?" ... on the Constitution? ... Is this man actually a United States Senator? ... it should be obvious, Reed has no idea what's in the Constitution. And it should be equally obvious that leftists like Reed and Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama have little regard, if any, for the Constitution anyway.

And lastly, it should be painfully obvious exactly why Pelosi-Care (the spawn of ObamaCare) must be stopped.

Oh... one more thing just recently became obvious... it seems Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to ram Pelosi- Care down our throats before we even know what hit us after all.

Right after some Senior Democrats claimed last week that so-called "health care reform" would n ot be resolved in the Senate this year, Reid immediately (and quietly) moved to bring Pelosi-Care to the Senate floor.

...

It would be easy to dismiss Reed's comments as idiotic babblings were it not for the fact that other prominent Democrats agree with the sentiments.

Liberal ABC News tried to pin Barack Obama on whether he thought jail time was appropriate for those who did not purchase a government-approved health care plan... Obama side-stepped the question.

According to ABC News:

"The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the 'biggest question' the House and Senate are facing right now...Obama said, 'penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance .'”

But an army of liberal bloggers and Internet posters came to Obama's defense and attempted to make the bogus claim that the federal government forcing people to buy government-approved health care was no big deal because, after all, people are already required to purchase auto insurance and homeowners insurance.

Of course, what these leftist fellow-travelers failed to mention is that no one is forced, under penalty of law, to drive a car... the government doesn't send people to jail for up to five years for refusing to take out a mortgage.

Driving an automobile and owning a home are voluntary acts. If (and the key word here is "if") you drive a car, most states (and auto lenders) will require that you carry auto insurance. If you take out a mortgage, the lender will require that you actually insure their property (it doesn't really belong to you until the mortgage is paid-off... right?).

And the federal government is not exactly front-and-center in either of those cases.

But that's not the case when it comes to Pelosi-Care.

The Congressional Budget Office stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action.”
...

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
2009:
January 142,099,000
February 141,748,000
March 140,887,000
April 141,007,000
May 140,570,000
June 140,196,000
July 140,041,000
August 139,649,000
September 138,864,000
October 138,275,000

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18645&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
THE PUBLIC'S BEST OPTION: LESS GOVERNMENT, MORE CHOICE
Consumers benefit from choice and competition. The key to both is not more government regulation and control, but less. More competition among health insurers is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But there are far better ways to get there than a public option, says columnist Jeff Jacoby.
Tear down the barriers to buying health insurance across state lines:
• Under federal law, states are permitted to regulate "the business of insurance" as they see fit, and most of them have seen fit to allow the sale only of insurance policies licensed by their own state insurance commissions.
• As a consequence, there is no competitive national market for health insurance; there are 50 state markets instead, most of which are dominated by a handful of insurers.
Repeal mandatory benefits that make health insurance needlessly expensive:
• Compounding the lack of interstate competition is the way states drive up the cost of health insurance by making certain types of coverage compulsory.
• Consumers and insurers should be free to work out for themselves just how comprehensive or limited a policy should be.
• But state mandates prevent such flexibility by requiring insurance companies to sell a fixed array of benefits that many customers may not want.
• Individuals seeking plain-vanilla health insurance -- a policy that will cover them, say, in case of major surgery or catastrophic illness -- may find themselves forced to pay for a policy that also covers acupuncture, in vitro fertilization, alcoholism therapy and a dozen additional treatments.
• When compulsion takes the place of competition, the result is invariably less choice at higher cost.
De-link health insurance from employment:
• Nothing distorts America's health insurance market like the tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance.
• Until that preference is removed, tens of millions of Americans will continue to rely on their employers' health plan instead of buying health insurance for themselves, they way they buy every other type of insurance.
• Fix the tax code, and no longer could insurance companies routinely bypass employees and deal only with their employers.
• Instead there would be intensive competition for individual customers -- and the lower premiums such competition would yield.
Source: Jeff Jacoby, "The public's best option: Less government, more choice," Jewish World Review, November 5, 2009.

If either the Senate or House healthcare bill or some mixture of the two is passed, it will cause our current depression to depress far further than it already has thanks to the Obama administration.

How will it "depress far further?"
...
Please show us in detail how this initiative will "depress far further?"

Where are you getting your information from? FOX News?

With UHC, our products and services become more competitive in the world marketplace that will increase jobs and tax revenue.

coastal areas need to have evacuation routes away from the Atlantic. My town still doesn't have one,

why don't you help someone and make a difference?

No, it's up to you to decipher what your post means; not for us to translate what you think it means. Q: "How will it depress it further?" It should be quite simple to answer that question on your own.

Obama healthcare will cause the cost of health insurance to increase significantly, and the total number of people employed to decrease significantly, BOTH due to the increased taxes/fees/charges/penalties on small as well as large businesses.