JTT
 
  -2  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 01:30 am
The reality.

" I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours. "

a Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 02:49 am
To reinforce RJB's point that H2Oboy is going to have a hard time coming up with documentation that Obama's approval ratings are going down, since in fact OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATINGS ARE GOING UP, here are the facts from PollingReport.com, 5 polls taken in the last week or so, compared with the same polls from around the end of Sept/beginning of Oct. 2010

POLL JAN. OBAMA APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL OCT.APPROV/DIS
ABC 54-43 50-47
Ipsos/Reuters 50-47 43-53
McClatchy 48-43 43-50
AP 53-46 49-50
Pew 46-44 46-45

The a2k reply formatting is probably going to screw up the columns, and in that expectation let me just summarize the results. These are the five most current polls and in every case Obama is approved by more people than disapprove, and his approval ratings have RISEN and his disapproval ratings have FALLEN. Tough luck, H2

As the old footabll cheer goes:
Rah, Obama,
He's our man
Saved the economy
With his plan.
Rah.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 05:18 am
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample
of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's
numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some
of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 02:15 pm
@MontereyJack,
Thanks, M-Jack for the reference to PollingReport.Com. I visited the site. It reports on some polls that RCP doesn't, but I am having some difficulty find my way around it. I'll learn. I do like that they often will show the wording used in taking a poll. That's important, I think.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 05:40 pm
Quote:

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/what-most-needs-repealing/

Repeal and Replace Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), what many call “ObamaCare.” :
10 Necessary Changes

Tomorrow night the House of Representatives will debate the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), what many call “ObamaCare.” Some critics complain that this is a futile exercise because there is little chance of short-term success. But that’s the wrong way to look at it.

At the time of its passage, most members of Congress had no idea what was in the ACA. Nancy Pelosi was more correct than she realized when she said, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it.” Even now, we don’t know half of “what’s in it,” but we know enough to have an intelligent debate. Ideally, tomorrow night’s proceedings will be educational — in a way that the debate last spring was not.

In anticipation of the event, representatives from the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the American Action Forum will conduct a briefing on Capitol Hill tomorrow at noon. Our goal: to discuss ten structural flaws in the Affordable Care Act. We believe each of these is so potentially damaging, Congress will have to resort to major corrective action even if the critics of the ACA are not involved. Further, each must be addressed in any new attempt to create workable health care reform.

1. An Impossible Mandate

Problem: The ACA requires individuals to buy a health insurance plan whose cost will grow at twice the rate of growth of their incomes. Not only will health care claim more and more of every family’s disposable income, the act takes away many of the tools the private sector now uses to control costs.

Solution: 1) Repeal the individual and employer mandates, 2) offer a generous tax subsidy to people to obtain insurance, but 3) allow them the freedom and flexibility to adjust their benefits and cost-sharing in order to control costs.

2. A Bizarre System of Subsidies

Problem: The ACA offers radically different subsidies to people at the same income level, depending on where they obtain their health insurance — at work, through an exchange or through Medicaid. The subsidies (and the accompanying mandates) will cause millions of employees to lose their employer plans and may cause them to lose their jobs as well. At a minimum, these subsidies will cause a huge, uneconomical restructuring of American industry.

Solution: Offer people the same tax relief for health insurance, regardless of where it is obtained or purchased — preferably in the form of a lump-sum, refundable tax credit.

3. Perverse Incentives for Insurers

Problem: The ACA creates perverse incentives for insurers and employers (worse than under the current system) to attract the healthy and avoid the sick, and to overprovide to the healthy (to encourage them to stay) and underprovide to the sick (to encourage them to leave).

Solution: Instead of requiring insurers to ignore the fact that some people are sicker and more costly to insure than others, adopt a system that compensates them for the higher expected costs — ideally making a high-cost enrollee just as attractive to an insurer as low-cost enrollee.

4. Perverse Incentives for Individuals

Problem: The ACA allows individuals to remain uninsured while they are healthy (paying a small fine or no fine at all) and to enroll in a health plan after they get sick (paying the same premium everyone else is paying). No insurance pool can survive the gaming of the system that is likely to ensue.

Solution: People who remain continuously insured should not be penalized if they have to change insurers; but people who are willfully uninsured should not be able to completely free ride on others by gaming the system.

5. Impossible Expectations/A Tattered Safety Net

Problem: The ACA aims to insure as many as 34 million uninsured people. Economic studies suggest they will try to double their consumption of medical care. Yet the act creates not one new doctor, nurse or paramedical personnel. We can expect as many as 900,000 additional emergency room visits every year — mainly by new enrollees in Medicaid — and 23 million are expected to remain uninsured. Yet, as was the case in Massachusetts, not only is there no mechanism to ensure that funding will be there for safety net institutions that will shoulder the biggest burdens, their “disproportionate share” funds are slated to be cut.

Solution: 1) Liberate the supply side of the market by allowing nurses, paramedics and pharmacists to deliver care they are competent to deliver; 2) allow Medicare and Medicaid to cover walk-in clinics at shopping malls and other unconventional care — paying market prices; 3) free doctors to provide lower-cost, higher-quality services in the manner described below; and 4) redirect unclaimed health insurance tax credits (for people who elect to remain uninsured) to the safety net institutions in the areas where they live — to provide a source of funds in case they cannot pay their own medical bills.

6. Impossible Benefit Cuts for Seniors

Problem: The ACA’s cuts in Medicare are draconian. By 2017, seniors in such cities as Dallas, Houston and San Antonio will lose one-third of their benefits. By 2020, Medicare nationwide will pay doctors and hospitals less than what Medicaid pays. Seniors will be lined up behind Medicaid patients at community health centers and safety net hospitals unless this is changed. Either 1) these cuts were never a serious way to fund the ACA, because Congress will cave and restore them, or 2) the elderly and the disabled will be in a separate (and inferior) health care system.

Solution: Many of the cuts to Medicare will have to be restored. However, Medicare cost increases can be slowed by empowering patients and doctors to find efficiencies and eliminate waste in the manner described below.

7. Impossible Burden for the States

Problem: Even as the ACA requires people to obtain insurance and fines them if they do not, the states will receive no additional help if the estimated 10 million currently Medicaid-eligible people decide to enroll. Although there is substantial help for the newly eligible enrollees, the states will still face a multibillion dollar, unfunded liability the states cannot afford.

Solution: States need the opportunity and flexibility to manage their own health programs — without federal interference. Ideally, they should receive a block grant with each state’s proportion determined by its percent of the nation’s poverty population.

8. Lack of Portability

Problem: The single biggest health insurance problem for most Americans is the lack of portability. If history is a guide, 80% of the 78 million baby boomers will retire before they become eligible for Medicare. Two-thirds of them have no promise of postretirement health care from an employer. If they have above-average incomes, they will receive little or no tax relief when they try to purchase insurance in the newly created health insurance exchange. To make matters worse, the ACA appears to encourage employers to drop the postretirement health plans that are now in place.

Solution: 1) Allow employers to do something they are now barred from doing: purchase personally-owned, portable health insurance for their employees. Such insurance should travel with the individual — from job to job and in and out of the labor market; 2) Give retirees the same tax relief now available only to employees; and 3) Allow employers and employees to save for postretirement care in tax-free accounts.

9. Over-Regulated Patients

Problem: The ACA forces people to spend their premium dollars on first-dollar coverage for a long list of diagnostic tests. Yet if everyone in America takes advantage of all of the free preventative care the ACA promises, family doctors will be spending all their time delivering care to basically healthy people — with no time to do anything else. At the same time, the ACA encourages the healthy to over consume care, it leaves chronic patients trapped in a third-party payment system that is fragmented, uncoordinated, wasteful and designed for everyone other than the patient.

Solution: 1) Instead of dictating deductibles and copayments, give patients greater freedom to save for their own small dollar expenses in health savings accounts, which they own and control; and let them make their own consumption decisions. 2) Allow the chronically ill access to special health accounts, following the example of Medicaid’s highly successful Cash and Counseling program, which allows home-bound, low-income disabled patients to control their own budgets and hire and fire those who provide them with services.

10. Over-Regulated Doctors

Problem: The people in the best position to find ways to reduce costs and increase quality are the nation’s 778,000 doctors. Yet today they are trapped in a payment system virtually dictated by Medicare. The ACA promises to make this problem worse by encouraging even more unhealthy government intervention into the practice of medicine.

Solution: Providers should be free to repackage and reprice their services under Medicare. As long as their proposals reduce costs and raise quality, Medicare should encourage resourceful, innovative attempts to create a better health care system.

Source: John C. Goodman, "What Most Needs Repealing and Replacing," National Center for Policy Analysis, January 17, 2011.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 05:44 pm
@ican711nm,
If Republicans had been willing negotiators on this bill, maybe some of those changes could have been made earlier. But because they weren't, they are now stuck with the law on the books.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 07:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Oh I see, the Democrats aren't responsible for the grotesque legislation they drafted and passed. The Republicans simply opposed the legislation, preferring insurance and medical tort reform instead, and voted against it nearly unanimously. Now you proclaim the many absurdities, contradictions and unworkable inconsistencies in the legislation are the fault of ....... the Republicans.

Do you expect thinking people will take you seriously?
okie
 
  -1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 08:43 pm
@georgeob1,
Its Bush's fault.

Everything else was his fault, so why not Obamacare too?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2011 08:54 pm
@georgeob1,
Oh, I'm sorry; you thought for a second that I believed the list of 'problems' in Ican's post was one I agreed with or took seriously.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 08:41 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Oh I see, the Democrats aren't responsible for the grotesque legislation they drafted and passed.

The Democrats are responsible for the legislation. There is just no evidence for your use of the word "grotesque".

But perhaps you aren't responsible for the complete insane things you post. Or perhaps only you can use adjectives that really have nothing to do with what you are talking about.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If Republicans had been willing negotiators on this bill, maybe some of those changes could have been made earlier. But because they weren't, they are now stuck with the law on the books.

Cyclopti, your post is delusional.

Truth is, the Republican Congressional minorities were kept out of negotiations about the content of the Healthcare bill by the Democrat Congressional majorities. In fact, according to Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, she did not understand the content of the Healthcare Bill before it was passed by the Democrat majorities.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:14 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If Republicans had been willing negotiators on this bill, maybe some of those changes could have been made earlier. But because they weren't, they are now stuck with the law on the books.

Cyclopti, your post is delusional.

Truth is, the Republican Congressional minorities were kept out of negotiations about the content of the Healthcare bill by the Democrat Congressional majorities.


Liar. Republicans in the Senate debated this bill for months and helped kill many of the most progressive elements of it.

This is a matter of public record. You ought to do a tiny bit of research on this issue before making claims like that.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:17 pm
Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-01-17-editorial17_ST1_N.htm

Opposing view on health law: High labor costs = fewer jobs

USA TODAY OPINION
...

By John C. Goodman
Most people intuitively know that the worst thing government can do in the middle of the deepest recession in 70 years is enact policies that increase the expected cost of labor. Yet that is exactly what happened last spring, with the passage of the health care reform bill.

OUR VIEW: Calling health law a 'job killer' doesn't necessarily make it so

How bad is it? Right now, we're estimating the cost of the health plan everyone will be required to have at $4,750 a year for individuals and $12,250 for families. That translates into a minimum health benefit of $2.28 an hour (individual coverage) and $5.89 an hour (family coverage) for full-time employees. In four years' time, the minimum cost of labor will be a $7.25 cash wage and a $5.89 health wage (family), for a total of $13.14 an hour.

Imagine you are an employer. You certainly aren't going to pay an employee more than his value to the organization, and competition from other employers will tend to prevent you from paying less. If the government forces you to spend more on health insurance, you will have to spend less in wages in order to pay for the mandated benefits. For above-average-wage employees, expect wage stagnation for the next four years, as employers use potential wage increases to pay for expanded health benefits instead.

At the low end of the wage scale, however, the effects of this new law are going to be devastating. Ten-dollar-an-hour workers and their employers cannot afford $6-an-hour health insurance.

Although there are some small business subsidies tacked on in a Rube Goldberg fashion, nothing in the new law helps low-wage employees of large companies buy health insurance.

This is undoubtedly why fast-food giant McDonald's told the federal government that it was considering dropping its health insurance for 30,000 employees. The next step will be to drop their jobs. No doubt millions of other workers will be in the same boat.

John C. Goodman is president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market think tank based in Dallas.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:23 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
If the government forces you to spend more on health insurance, you will have to spend less in wages in order to pay for the mandated benefits.


Or, the company makes less profits. That's always an option too. But your correspondent doesn't even seem to recognize that.

Quote:

This is undoubtedly why fast-food giant McDonald's told the federal government that it was considering dropping its health insurance for 30,000 employees. The next step will be to drop their jobs. No doubt millions of other workers will be in the same boat.


Once again, bullshit. McD's previous 'insurance' was **** and they know it. Their employees are better off shopping through the exchange - by a lot - then using their crap insurance.

The concept that McD's is going to fire 30,000 people is a total joke. How are they going to run their restaurants with no workers?

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:30 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, bullshit. McD's previous 'insurance' was **** and they know it. Their employees are better off shopping through the exchange - by a lot - then using their crap insurance.

The concept that McD's is going to fire 30,000 people is a total joke. How are they going to run their restaurants with no workers?

Cycloptichorn


If I'm not mistaken, the "Exchange" doesn't exist yet, and the Federal government has given McDonalds a wavier to allow it to continue its current insurance coverage unmodified. If so you are wrong on both counts.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
="Cycloptichorn"]Liar. Republicans in the Senate debated this bill for months and helped kill many of the most progressive elements of it.

This is a matter of public record. You ought to do a tiny bit of research on this issue before making claims like that.

FALSIFIER!

Republicans in the Senate PROPOSED CHANGES FOR MONTHS, BUT DID NOT POSSESS THE POWER TO ACTUALLY INTRODUCE THOSE CHANGES FOR DISCUSSION IN THE WHOLE SENATE, MUCH LESS kill ANY of THE elements of THE MEDICARE BILL.

I believe that you, Cyclopt actually believe the falsities you post! Your apparent inability to deal with reality, is sad.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, bullshit. McD's previous 'insurance' was **** and they know it.


There is a lot of misinformation about McDonald's and the waivers. Much of the misinformation is deliberate, I think.
There was an article called Health Care Law Waivers dated 12/7/2010:

FactCheck.org
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:36 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, bullshit. McD's previous 'insurance' was **** and they know it.


There is a lot of misinformation about McDonald's and the waivers. Much of the misinformation is deliberate, I think.
There was an article called Health Care Law Waivers dated 12/7/2010:

FactCheck.org


Here's the link -

http://factcheck.org/2010/12/health-care-law-waivers/

And it's a great article on this subject, thanks!

Cheers
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 04:17 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, bullshit. McD's previous 'insurance' was **** and they know it. Their employees are better off shopping through the exchange - by a lot - then using their crap insurance.

The concept that McD's is going to fire 30,000 people is a total joke. How are they going to run their restaurants with no workers?

Cycloptichorn


If I'm not mistaken, the "Exchange" doesn't exist yet, and the Federal government has given McDonalds a wavier to allow it to continue its current insurance coverage unmodified. If so you are wrong on both counts.


Their 'waiver' only lasts a year. It's a temporary band-aid until the exchanges get up and running. So, no. I'm not wrong on either count.

By the way, you should check this out:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Quote:
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'

PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen "government takeover of health care" as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections.

Readers of PolitiFact, the St. Petersburg Times' independent fact-checking website, also chose it as the year's most significant falsehood by an overwhelming margin. (Their second-place choice was Rep. Michele Bachmann's claim that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to India, a falsity that still sprouts.)

By selecting "government takeover' as Lie of the Year, PolitiFact is not making a judgment on whether the health care law is good policy.

The phrase is simply not true.


When a phrase that you like to throw around gets chosen as the 'political lie of the year,' you ought to examine whether you are performing even the lowest level of due diligence on your commentary, George.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 19 Jan, 2011 04:23 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Quote:
="Cycloptichorn"]Liar. Republicans in the Senate debated this bill for months and helped kill many of the most progressive elements of it.

This is a matter of public record. You ought to do a tiny bit of research on this issue before making claims like that.

FALSIFIER!

Republicans in the Senate PROPOSED CHANGES FOR MONTHS, BUT DID NOT POSSESS THE POWER TO ACTUALLY INTRODUCE THOSE CHANGES FOR DISCUSSION IN THE WHOLE SENATE, MUCH LESS kill ANY of THE elements of THE MEDICARE BILL.


Guess what? That's what happens when the voters overwhelmingly elect the other party to be in charge. However, the Democrats on the committee DID take many of the Republican proposals seriously and DID include many of them in the final legislation which the Senate voted on. It was Republicans who successfully got the Public Option taken out of the bill, for example.

Senate Republicans did do exactly what I claimed, and you were lying in your statement which said that they weren't allowed to do it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1917
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 10/02/2024 at 12:21:58