The purpose of setting minimal coverage rules is to protect citizens from inadequate products and be sure that common conditions like diabetes or age is both sufficiently covered and not discriminated against
Right.
So you don't want a mandate because that is the government saving Americans from themselves, all "for the low low price of personal freedom and choice."
Except for when you want to be protected from "inadequate products," then you want the state to set a mandate and control the coverage rules incorporated into the policy you can buy. Which, if you're going to cover "age," means anything and everything.
John Gibbson played a clip of Obama quoting Warren's Buffett's statement to Congress. He then pointed out that if you tax all the Billionaires and Millionaires at a 100% last year you would just gain about 400 billion in taxes. That is less than 1/3rd of the projected deficit this year.
What Obama wants is taxes from everyone making over 2 hundred thousand dollars. That would include most small and medium businesses. These are the creators of most new jobs and unlike a select few corporate giants are not holding huge cash reserves.
I just feel like someone should point out a reason why these corporations are sitting on cash. Its not only the large corporations, small and medium sized businesses are doing this as well.
Rather than let this myth perpetuate for another 40 pages though, its not "Obamacare", or whatever other democrat centered red-herring you come up with. The reality is that the banks are not really lending to business. Its really that simple. This won't explain a company like Apple per se, but that is just business making sure that they can weather a storm on their own in case the financing isn't there. Nothing devious, nothing political.
I worked for a big US based company once and the Chicago head office laid off a huge amount of people it did not go unoticed that every person that was gone was a smoker. You couldn't prove that was why but I bet it saved a lot of money.
I know CC was quoting some stats on the % of GDP per person spent on Healthcare, but does anyone have a total cost per person average per country?
I bet the US comes out much farther ahead than they already are (in a bad way), factoring in premiums, prescriptions, etc.
I've seen pretty widely varying figures, but every single one of them had the USA well in front in dollars per capita. Here's a chart that seems more or less in line with most of what I've read:
I think there may be a bit less of a spread between Canada and the US than that chart would suggest. Still, I remember reading (and the chart backs this up) that if you take all of the private funding in the US and Canada out of the equation, the US still spends more per capita. So the US government spends more insuring the elderly and the poor through social programs than Canada does insuring every single resident.
So you don't want a mandate because that is the government saving Americans from themselves, all "for the low low price of personal freedom and choice."
Except for when you want to be protected from "inadequate products," then you want the state to set a mandate and control the coverage rules incorporated into the policy you can buy. Which, if you're going to cover "age," means anything and everything.
Have you caught your tail yet?
No because it is not the same. Firstly it is the State rather than the Federal government setting the standard. If you don't like the standard you can move to another state. Secondly, you can chose not to carry insurance or in the case of a business not insure your employees.
There is nothing new with a State setting limits on the quality of a product sold in their State. It is a large part of what they do. If people don't like the law they can move to another State or lobby to have the law changed. There is your personal freedom and choice.
I just feel like someone should point out a reason why these corporations are sitting on cash. Its not only the large corporations, small and medium sized businesses are doing this as well.
Rather than let this myth perpetuate for another 40 pages though, its not "Obamacare", or whatever other democrat centered red-herring you come up with. The reality is that the banks are not really lending to business. Its really that simple. This won't explain a company like Apple per se, but that is just business making sure that they can weather a storm on their own in case the financing isn't there. Nothing devious, nothing political.
Do you have any data supporting the notion that small and medium size businesses are sitting on cash? I understand that corporations including banks balanced their books quickly by downsizing. Smaller businesses shed jobs too but, I would think they would have a harder time balancing their lost of productivity with there overhead.
Do you have any data supporting the notion that small and medium size businesses are sitting on cash? I understand that corporations including banks balanced their books quickly by downsizing. Smaller businesses shed jobs too but, I would think they would have a harder time balancing their lost of productivity with there overhead.
Also why aren't the banks lending money?
fear of default, there are still vast amounts of bad paper out there
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Something like 800,000 people will not get a pay cheque if this happens and many government institutions will shut down. They are really taking it to the wire on this one.
The bad news is, even if they avert it this time, it will likely happen in 6 more weeks again.
From what I understand, the Republicans want Obama to kill Obamacare before they will sign off on anything and Obama said he won't budge on that issue.
Is this as bad as it sounds?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I don't know the concession that the Republicans are willing to horse swap for does sound reasonable to me
Quote:
House Republican leaders met in Speaker John Boehner's office to plan their next move. Officials said that even though time was running short, they expected at least one more attempt to squeeze a concession from the White House, likely a demand to force a one-year delay in the requirement for individuals to purchase health coverage or face financial penalties.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
"I've never seen a time-- can you remember a time in your lifetime when a major political party was just sitting around, begging for America to fail?"
"If I were the president, I wouldn't negotiate over these draconian cuts that are gonna take food off the table of low-income working people, while they leave all the agricultural subsidies in for high-income farmers and everything else," he said. "It's chilling to me. The entitlement spending is going down as the unemployment rate drops and the economy grows. Half of the deficit's already disappeared. The rest of it just seems almost spiteful."
I don't know the concession that the Republicans are willing to horse swap for does sound reasonable to me
And then ext year they request the same, and so on, and so on. The Republicans have no interest in effecting measures that will help the country and they have no interest in compromise, they are conniving little pukes who are more concerned with power plays and making Obama look bad than anything else.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
Next years next year. I don't see how the delay in putting in financial penalties for people who maybe can't buy or can't afford insurance is a non negotiable point.
I don't know if this is a hill that the Republican's really want to die on personally, but there has to be a midway compromise that gets this moving.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I really liked her sticking to her guns and now allowing them to answer in a roundabout way. At least it didn't appear she did it to boost her ego either, so it was a refreshing thing to see.
The Following User Says Thank You to bluejays For This Useful Post:
I'm probably wrong here but wouldn't all these shenanigans hurt the republicans massively??
Or do people have very very short memories...
Normally in most countries the Republicans would get hammered in the polls from tactics like this, but most countries don't have the same number ratio of single issue voters that the US has. i.e. Hard line gun owners, anti-abortionists, Christian fundamentalists and some just plain racists.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
