IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Buffalo- Cyclops is obviously completely ignorant of the fact that according to a recent CBS Poll,

Buffalo- Cyclops is obviously completely ignorant about the disapproval of the American public!

When the CBS pollsters asked "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?" 34% said approve (down 7%), 55% said disapprove (up 4%).

Buffalo. Cyclops is a hard left winger who would use totalitarian tactics to push across his vision of Socialistic Utopia. He doesn't beleive that the people should make choices.

Yes, plainoldme-- I think I must agree with you on this one. Now, concentrate. Name the lobbyist who has visited Obama most frequently since the election of 2009?

You don't know? I'll help you. It was( and is) since he continues to lobby the President--

- Labor leader and Obama supporter Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. Twenty-two Stern visits to the White House are reflected in the records, including at least seven with Obama. Most of the visits with Obama were for group events; the subjects of most of his visits to other people weren't disclosed.


Who is Andrew Stern?

Born the son of a lawyer in West Orange, New Jersey, Stern was a student leftist in the 1960s. He began college as a business major at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business but ultimately graduated in 1971 with a B.A. in education and urban planning.[16][17] After graduation, he spent time traveling in Europe and trained in the tactics of radical activism at the Midwest Academy[18], an educational institute formed by former Students for a Democratic Society member Paul and Heather Booth to teach community organizers how to promote positive social change from within the labor movement[19]. Stern began his career as a welfare case officer and member of the SEIU in 1973, eventually being elected president of his Pennsylvania local.[17] In 1980, he was elected to the union's executive board, and in 1984 the union's then-president Sweeney put him in charge of its organizing efforts. Stern is a backer of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Why, of course, a member of the SDS, the Socialistic, Hate America group which also spawned Obama's close friend, William( the bomber) Ayres.

Cyclops wrote:

According to the CBO, it will SAVE money on the deficit. Even if you don't believe they are right, it's still a bit of a jump to move to 'trillions more' added to the debt by it.
******************************

Well, Cyclops is HEDGING!!! Very Interesting! He is also, as usual, quite mistaken. The CBO has taken the ASSUMPTIONS provided by the President's flunkies. If even a few of those ASSUMPTIONS are not correct, the yearly deficits and total debt of the USA will SOAR!


Martin Feldstein, one of the US's most famous economists tells us just how ruinous Obamacare will be:

Note:

The administration's claim that the health-care plan would be "self-financing" is both false and irrelevant. It is false because it would only be self-financing if one counts a variety of President Obama's proposed tax increases"and even those would produce much less revenue than is assumed in the budget calculations. The claim is irrelevant because those tax increases have nothing to do with health care and could be used instead to reduce other projected deficits.

For example, the administration and the congressional designers of ObamaCare say they would finance a substantial part of health reform with the revenue from new taxes on corporate foreign profits and on high-income individuals. The likely revenue from these tax changes would be much less than the official estimates because of the induced changes in taxpayer behavior that the estimators ignore.

Previous experience with changes in the marginal tax rates of high-income individuals implies that the current proposal to raise the marginal tax rate to about 50% from today's 40% would produce only about half of the official revenue estimates. No one knows how much of the estimated extra tax revenue on foreign profits would be lost as the resulting fall in international competitiveness reduces profits, and as businesses sell their overseas subsidiaries or shift their profits in other ways.

While abandoning health reform would be an important step, it would not be enough to limit the exploding level of future deficits and debt. That requires substantial reductions in existing spending programs, if large tax increases are to be avoided. Since Medicare is the largest contributor to the explosive growth in government spending, a good way to start shrinking government outlays would be by restructuring Medicare to shift more of its costs to supplementary private insurance, perhaps on an income-related basis.

Given the perceived need for significant additional tax revenue to shrink future fiscal deficits, there is now talk in Washington of introducing a value-added tax (VAT), the kind of national sales tax that European governments use to finance their welfare states. That would be a triply bad idea. Although it is a tax on spending, a VAT effectively raises marginal tax rates. Like the income tax, it reduces the reward for work and entrepreneurship by adding a tax to the prices of all goods and services. A VAT would also be grossly unfair to those whose lifetime savings would now be subject to a new tax when they start to spend those savings.

A VAT would open the door to an explosion of new spending programs. That's because, no matter how low the initial rate, the tax rate would be drawn inevitably to European rates of more than 15%"on top of existing income and payroll taxes.

The key to raising revenue without raising marginal tax rates or creating a new tax is to reduce or eliminate some of the "tax expenditures" that now lower tax revenue by special deductions and exclusions. Ending the current exclusion from taxable income of employer payments for health insurance would increase income tax revenue by more than $1 trillion over the next five years and nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. Eliminating this subsidy would also lead to a restructuring of private health insurance that would give patients the incentive to seek more cost-effective care and thereby bring down the overall cost of health care.

Restructuring Medicare and reforming tax rules would be politically difficult. But a failure by Congress to address the exploding path of fiscal deficits would be morally irresponsible.
******************************************************************
Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal's board of contributors.

Cyclops does not understand that we will hear more and more about the VAT mentioned by Dr. Feldstein. When the American Public gets a whiff of the costs involved in that theft, there will be revolution!

I give praise to anyone who helps support others who need medical assistance and helps them to be able to receive it. However. There a other ways of helping them. I am certainly no professional on this matter. But I'm sure there are many organizations out there that are more than willing to accept private donations to help cover the medical needs of those who need help. I believe St. Judes Childrens may be one. I would be curious of what percent of people supporting ObamaCare have donated (by choice) to an organization that is set up to help others with medical needs. If the government can mandate that we all MUST "donate to the cause" then where do we draw the line? The Bible says that we should tithe 10% of our income and MANY people do. But it is THEIR CHOICE! What if the government decided a religious faith other than yours was not growing as fast as the other faiths and the American people where told that starting today, everyone must donate a portion of their income to that religious faith? Would that be ok?

So, you're pissed because the new system means you'll have to help pay for others' health care?

Cycloptichorn

Take a good look at the Universal Health care system in Massachusetts and you'll understand why folks ( in the know ) are pissed.

That's funny, I've seen ol' Mitt Romney on the TV insisting that this new health care plan is nothing like what he passed

Cycloptichorn

Did he expect it to be?

The opposite is true, Spendi - it's very like the plan he passed, he's just running from it as quick as possible, because the mouth-breathers on the right wing here are tarring and feathering him for it.

I know you and I don't agree on much, you old drunk, but I do agree with you that the lack of comprehensive and universal health care in this country cripples us and marks us a backwards nation amongst the elite of the world.

Cycloptichorn

Obama's health deform plan is ludacris and it deserves zero funding.

A couple of pages back, there was some discussion about the different prices in Canadian and US-pharmacies.

Well, today I got a prescription for a cream.
I had to pay my usual 5€ since it's neither a geriatric nor on the list of free medicaments with my mandatory health insurer.

It was imported by a German pharmaceutical importer from the USA, produced there by Schering-Plough.
The normal price here is 15.45€ (=US $ 20.65).
The cheapest price by a Canadian online pharmacy is US $40.99. Shipped from Vanuta, it costs US $52.50. (Add postage/delivery of about $9 to both.)

Just wondering ...

Having a slight involvement with music, I can assure you that there are few to no organizations that cover the medical needs of private individuals. St. Jude's raises money for research. BTW, churches report that donations are down.

The ceiling is set very low in Massachusetts with the dividing line between paying and not just settling at $20,000 for an individual.

White man Willard Romney speaks with forked tongue

Obamacare will never get the money it needs to fund itself because:

As Dr, Martin Feldman has said:

l. For example, the administration and the congressional designers of ObamaCare say they would finance a substantial part of health reform with the revenue from new taxes on corporate foreign profits and on high-income individuals. The likely revenue from these tax changes would be much less than the official estimates because of the induced changes in taxpayer behavior that the estimators ignore.

2. The Congress has vowed to cut Medicare payments to Doctors and Hospitals in the past but they have always RESCINDED those promises in following sessions.

I wonder if they let students like Cyclops read at Berkeley, He doesn't seem to know very much. Oh, he bloviates and writes ridiculous sentences like those below but he RARELY gives any proof. Why should we believe what you are saying, Cyclops?

Here is what he wrote:

I know you and I don't agree on much, you old drunk, but I do agree with you that the lack of comprehensive and universal health care in this country cripples us and marks us a backwards nation amongst the elite of the world.

*********************************************************************
CYCLOPS IS WRONG----
Note--"In the Medical Journal Lancet Oncology in 2008, researchers produced the first direct world wide comparisons of five year survival rates for breast, colorectal and prostate cancers. The US had the highest survival rate for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at91.9% compared to the U. K.'s respective 69.7% and 51.1%.

Buffalo wrote:

And how many MORE trillions of dollars will the ObamaCare program add to the US deficit in addition to what he has already added with his other programs?

******************************

A great question. The Cyclopian one says the CBO says it will save money--
Cyclops is wrong again---

Note:

CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion
BY Jeffrey H. Anderson
March 18, 2010 6:36 PM

The CBO’s most recent analysis is out, and it’s not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence. Even the Democrats are granting that the latest version of their proposed health care overhaul would cost $69 billion more than the previous version. According to the CBO, this version would siphon even more money out of Medicare, make even further cuts to Medicare Advantage, and levy even higher taxes and fines on the American people.


President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and their allies, are cheerfully citing “ten year” costs of $940,000,000,000.00 " apparently believing this to be a far more palatable figure than $1 trillion. But even this colossal tally is like the introductory price quoted by a cell phone provider. It’s the price before you pay for minutes, fees, and overcharges " and before the price balloons after the introductory offer expires.

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

But even that wouldn’t come close to reflecting the bill’s true costs. The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit: just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming. In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion. What would the president leave behind for his successor? According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone. If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs " about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure. This legislation is a ticking time-bomb

IRS will just take ObamaCare penalties out of your tax refund