Obama '08?

okie, How do you account for the fact that Obama met most of his campaign promises? Are those "failed presidency and policies?" If they are, it's the American people who are confused - and that includes you.

One more comment, Finn. I just hope all the other libs here on this forum are feeling proud of their own? Actually I hope they are not, and would have the gumption to condemn this nonsensical poster, but so far, we haven't seen it.

Don't hold your breath.

The state has given Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield the go ahead to raise premiums by as much as 47 percent for some members, and says health care reform is the reason why

The new rates took effect Oct. 1, and include increases from 19 percent all the way to 47 percent depending on the individual, the Hartford Courant reported.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19940&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Right to Work = Economic Growth

California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) has introduced legislation to repeal right-to-work laws in the 22 states that have them. "Right-to-work" refers to the right of states to prohibit closed shops, a workplace that requires a worker to be a member of a labor union and to pay dues to that union, says Greg Schneider, a senior fellow with the Kansas Policy Institute and an associate professor of history at Emporia State University.

Private sector union membership has declined since the mid-1950s, especially as companies shifted production to lower-cost states in the Sun Belt. Private sector union membership was once as high as 45 percent of the workforce but today it's around 15 percent.

Unions blame right-to-work laws for their plight. But increasingly the number of union jobs declined because the companies where unions were dominant -- the Big Three automakers for instance -- could not remain competitive under the old economic model, says Schneider.

Let's look at some facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

From 1999 to 2009, right-to-work states have added 1.5 million private sector jobs for a 3.7 percent increase; states which are not right-to-work lost 1.8 million jobs over the same decade, for a decline of 2.3 percent.

Some states, like Michigan and Ohio, home of the powerful United Auto Workers Union, have hemorrhaged private sector jobs, declining 17 percent and 10 percent respectively over that time period.

The question here is simply about individual liberty, says Schneider. Should the individual worker have the right to decide whether to pay dues to a union, or should that decision be forced on him by others?

Source: Greg Schneider, "Right to Work = Economic Growth," Daily Caller, October 13, 2010.

dont know why she has had a hate going against me, and to tell the truth it really isnt important why.

It is naive to suppose that regulations requiring insurance companies to accept and cover all applicants, regardless of the current state of their health, will not significantly raise the prices that everyone pays. The essential feature of the health care reform act was to require people to pool their health care costs in the hands of insurers and to force those able to pay to subsidize those unable to do so. The government has given itself the right to write the rules requiring us to join one insurance pool or another (but with only light enforcement of this part of the scheme), then requiring the insurance pools to accept all comers whenever they decide to apply (heavy enforcement here); and specifying what shall be covered (heavy enforcement here too). Non-compliant insurance programs will be shut down, and the paying customers of the remaining insurance programs will pay the bill. The politicians then get to blame the evil insurance companies for the result.

At least today we have some flexibility in dumping an insurer we don't like and shifting to another. (My company does employee surveys of service quality for insurance providers and uses it to periodically change the makeup of the plan options we offer.) Soon enough, after the government gets through homogenizing the industry, or reducing us to a single payer, we will have no options and no personal choice at all.

... you follow my posts and make childish comments for the sole purpose of angering me and that is what a bully is.

You probably haven't treated those who defended you in the same way. You are a bully, plain and simple.

Quote:

dont know why she has had a hate going against me, and to tell the truth it really isnt important why.

I don't have the grammatically non-sensical "hate going against you." I have told you that you are bully. You approach the level of an internet stalker, you follow my posts and make childish comments for the sole purpose of angering me and that is what a bully is.

You probably haven't treated those who defended you in the same way. You are a bully, plain and simple.

You ought to at least mention the fact that the insurance industries receive a huge pool of new, healthy people paying into their system, thanks to the mandate. It isn't as if they have exactly gotten the shaft in this deal; they all stand to profit tremendously.

I haven't seen any persuasive proof that the HCReform bill has actually raised the costs for any insurer. I've seen them CLAIM that, but without additional evidence there's no reason to believe that this is in fact true.

However, as I noted, the mandate isn't really enforced and the penalties associated with it are small enough to make opting out and waiting until they get sick to seek insurance a good economic bet for a great many folks.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You ought to at least mention the fact that the insurance industries receive a huge pool of new, healthy people paying into their system, thanks to the mandate. It isn't as if they have exactly gotten the shaft in this deal; they all stand to profit tremendously.

However, as I noted, the mandate isn't really enforced and the penalties associated with it are small enough to make opting out and waiting until they get sick to seek insurance a good economic bet for a great many folks.

Finally the mandate is being challenged in court and may well be overturned. At least that will save us the $16 billion annual cost of doubling the size of the IRS to enforce the mandate with fines that won't deter anyone with a calculator.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I haven't seen any persuasive proof that the HCReform bill has actually raised the costs for any insurer. I've seen them CLAIM that, but without additional evidence there's no reason to believe that this is in fact true.

Well, I suppose a healthy skepticism is a good thing. After all the Administration CLAIMS that unemployment is still about 9% in the country as the election approaches. The fact is that several insurtance companies have voted with their feet, leaving the market in some states and for some policy types. That's fairly convincing to me.

Further your blanket skepticism with respect to all the insurance company claims, in the face of new regulations that obviously DO significantly increase their costs, and, perhaps more significantly, as yet unpublished regulations that may increase future costs even more. Unlike the government insurers face requirements (not always met) for the actuarial soundness of their plans: they must maintain revenue streams today to meet all likely future requirements. Our government hasn't done that in years.