This has cost our nation MILLIONS, its time for Congress to step up and repeal this law… The uncertainty alone, of the costs and effectsof this law, is dragging our economy fruther into the hole our government has thrown us into..
Using your reasoning, that we should eliminate laws that create uncertainty, I suppose we ought to toss out the First Amendment since that also generates hundreds of lawsuits every year over the extent of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion etc.. The health care law was passed to address a real problem in this country. The mandate was a Republican idea that they decided they no longer liked once Obama agreed to supoort it too.
Other, what the American People are crying out for is “certainty”, not more “uncertainty”. Small Business is the main engine for job creation and they see uncertainty with all the Progressive spending policy, running the country over the cliff and tacking on another trillion dollar Obamacare bill. If Small Business is uncertain about the future, they will not hire or expand and the country will continue to tank. People do not like these Progressive solutions and it is reflected in the polls and the two elections we had for the House.
Are you implying the Obamacare legislation was passed as a Constitutional Amendment? You ought to consult that document (The Constitution), as you would then understand why the comparison you make is both ridiculous and historically inaccurate. Have you absolutely no concept of Natural Rights?
Can someone in the Justice department please request an emergency constitutional crisis Supreme Court ruling of this issue. Employers in the US can not wait around until 2014 to find out what the ramifications of Obamacare are going to be to hiring a new worker. You want a job stimulas, Get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something that truely reduces the cost of healthcare and cost to employers, instead of artificially reducing premiums with tax dollars. We are broke!
Sarah, do you really think Eric Holder wants to speed this issue to the Supreme Court? His interest is to delay as long as possible until the law would be very difficult to undo. This case should have been heard by the Supreme Court within a few months after passage since it was so bad. All the court rulings have made the issue move as slow as molasses in January. The longer it goes on, the worse the economy gets since employers do not know what is going on with their costs, so they won’t hire.
“Obama, a Democrat, pushed for the law to help stem soaring health care costs and provide coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.” This provision has nothing to do with providing coverage for 30 million uninsured Americans and everything to do with generating revenue for a government health care program that few want or can afford; it does little to stem soaring health care costs. A subsidized efficient government program is an oxymoron.
“This provision has nothing to do with providing coverage for 30 million uninsured Americans and everything to do with generating revenue for a government health care program that few want or can afford.”
Huh? The mandate doesn’t force people to purchase government run healthcare! It mandates that you purchase health insurance from private health insurance companies.
Imagine that…a bunch of insurance professionals opposed to the idea of people being forced to purchase private health insurance. Amazing.
Oh, OPV, if it was only that simple, I might even be for it. The problem is the way employers and individuals are TAXED ON IT!!! Obamacare says that only certain plans are “okay” in their mind, while others are “Cadillac” plans (well, unless you get a waiver, right? – but that is another discussion) and they will be taxed. I have Kaiser – uh, definitely not top of the line program – and I have a $2,500 deductible before any coverage kicks in and it is considered a “Cadillac” plan under Obamacare and because of the way both my employer and me will be taxed on it, it is no longer affordable. The goal of this administration has been and always will be Universal coverage provided by the governement. Which we are seeing on a daily basis DOES NOT WORK. There were many other ways to get those that are not insured insured that did not put the government in control of our health care.
How about forcing physicians and the medical industry to reduce the costs of work performed to that of what they “agree” to with health insurance companies? After a procedure and bloodwork, my costs WITHOUT insurance were over $700. However, after the “allowed reduction” of my insurance, it came to less than $300 which then fell under my deductible. So, since I’m insured the same prodecures cost me $300 instead of $700? Tell me, how does that make ANY sense? Get rid of Obamacare and reduce the costs of medical procedures. Done. Fixed.
I agree with your sentiments but I think you’re focusing your ire on the wrong parties. Medical providers only play this silly game because they are forced to by the health insurance companies. Reform health insurance into a true insurance program which covers (catastrophic) costs above a selected deductible and allow the patient-consumer to be responsible for the dad-to-day costs. Only when consumers can see the true cost of a good/service can there be a true competitive market for such goods and services.
Obamacare is a mess and leads us in the wrong direction . . . but I am thankful for it, since it forces the conservatives to attempt to address the issue instead of kicking the can down the road like they did for the past 20 years.
The politicians cannot do this. Why? Because to do so would give away the lie. What lie? The lie that is both Medicare and Medicaid. How so? Medicare and Medicaid essentially set prices for amount doctors are reimbursed for goods and services. Of course, many/most of the amounts paid out for procedures and office visits are less than the cost of goods and services received. So, what do the doctors do? Due to the federal government programs, which, once again, set the payment rates for goods and services for doctors, hospitals, and other professionals, (which are below cost) doctors then overcharge EVERYBODY’S private insurance to make up the difference.
“How do they get away with this”, you ask? To this point, the scheme has worked. Why? Because there were more people with private insurance, relative to those taking money from Medicare and Medicaid. However, as the price for these programs is rising ever more, due to more and more people going onto Medicare and Medicaid each day, the governmnet has “run out of other people’s money”, so to speak.
This entire system is a scheme, cooked up by leftists/Democrat Party members, to buy votes. Every time solvency comes up as a realistic way to solve the problems (for the most recent example, plese see Bush’s run for his second term), leftists/democrat party members accuse anyone involved with trying to save an insolvent system THEY set up of wanting to kill their own parents, all old people, puppies, pretty birds, and children. And, by doing so, leftists/Democrat Party members have kept politicians from getting to a fix and solving this issue. Of course this simply makes it much more difficult to solve the systemic problems.
So, leftist/Democrat Party members:
1. Set up the system as a scam to begin with, all to buy elections.
2. Refuse to fix the problems and make the system at least sustainable, because…
3…to do so would remove an election cudgel for leftist/Democrat Party members, and remove it as a campaign issue.
In other words, leftists/Democrat Party members are more interested in having a wedge issue for each election than actually solving the crisis. That is sickening and craven. Even for the party of:
– Slavery
– Jim Crow
– Segregation
– Bull Connor
– Lynching
– The KKK (once known as “The Terrorist Wing of the Democrat Party” – Both Truman and Carter campaigned at KKK meetings!)
– Union Thuggery/Violence
Why would we expect anything different from leftists/Democrat Party members? That would be like expecting a fish to exist outside of water. The history of this party is such they cannot be trusted, in any way, shape, or form.
Of course, the Republicans are barely better. But at least their history isn’t replete with such gross abominations as listed above for the leftists/Democrat Party members. And I have no idea why that party is historically so full of hate and violence.
If an employer needs to hire a new employee right NOW – 2011, the argument that they won’t hire that person because of the uncertainty of health care legislation that will take effect in 2014, does not make any sense. If they provide their employees with health care now as most employers do, they see uncertain rate increases every year. Bank of America is not laying off 30,000 employees because of the uncertainty of the health care legislation. HP did not buy out EDS and lay off 10,000 employees because of health care legistation that takes effect in 2014. The health care legislation is an excuse, not a cause.
Right on Will. If we abolished every law that had some uncertainty to it, we wouldn’t have any laws at all. Uncertainty in the law is the reason we have courts!
Will, I can’t list all of the reasons why the economy is tanking in this post, but the combination of very stupid Progressive policies including Obamacare are the chief culprits. When you have an administration totally tone deaf to the American People and Small Business, they will not hire or expand. When you are stifled by EPA and regulated to death, you won’t hire. When you see your operating costs of doing business skyrocket, you will not hire. The tried and true Conservative solutions to stimulate growth were thrown out in favor of massive Keynesian spending which did nothing by increase our debt by a Trillion dollars. Obamacare will cost about that much as well. Enough is enough.
The rewriting of history knows no bounds. Your comments make it sound like Obama inherited the economny that George W Bush inherited.
Bush and his cohorts knocked a huge hole in the bottom of the boat and as the ship took on water, they jumped ship. Now they blame Obama for not bailing the water fast enough.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest amoung us that cost trillions, two wars run off the books, an unfunded federal prescription drug plan, and a blind eye toward Wall Street. Those are the Bush legacies. Unemployment was tanking long before Obama took office. TARP was signed into law by Bush.
But, in your world, all of our problems are caused by a health care law that won’t even take efect for another three years.
Good grief, OPV, you don’t seem to be able to take a concept and bring it through to the conclusion of cause and affect. There is no such thing as things happening in a vaccuum. Sure, it sounds great that everyone should have “free health care,” except there is no such thing as “free health care.”
And regarding your comments on Bush, I certainly don’t agree with everything Bush did, but the Dems took control in 2006 – this is their economy. Period – get over it, and move on. Your guy (Obama) owns this economy for good or bad. He’s the one who spent the trillion dollars on the 2nd stimulus for all those shovel ready jobs (!), and on the green jobs (Solyndra anyone?) He’s the one who endorsed a bill “that had to be passed before they could find out what was in it.” His positions, while I’m certain well intentioned – DO NOT WORK!
I hate to break it to you, but I have yet to see any post containing conservative cheerleading for Bush’s spending. Please let me know when that occurs, as I have yet to see ANYONE on the right, ANYWHERE, back Bush’s spending (aside from those in that administration, trying to justify the spending for which they are responsible).
At the same time, please explain to me why you are blaming Bush for the two wars, when leftists/Democrat Party members voted in large margins to support both of those ventures.
Of course, Bush inherited a popped tech bubble, caused primarily by donors to Bill Clinton cooking their books (please show me one major Silicon Valley firm – aside from Cypress Semiconductor – which did not donate to leftist/Democrat Party members, including Clinton. Please do some research and locate how Apple, Cisco, EMC, Yahoo! and Google all had to “restate earnings” at the time. Clinton also played a lot of golf with, and accepted quiate a bit of campaign cash from, Ken Lay – of Enron. You may have heard of him.
Also, Bush inherited failed national Clinton administration defense policies, which allowed 9/11 to happen. In fact, Bush still had Clinton’s Sec of Defense at the time of the attacks, did he not?
And, one last item: Bush also inherited a huge Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid funding crisis, due to Clinton’s childish desire to maintain the programs as election gambits (much like the rest of the leftists/Democrat Party). So, while the books at the time showed the “deficit” was fine, anyone believing this has to be completely blind to the facts of the scams that are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as it seems you are. The dmographics alone have been warning us for over a generation.
See, I can play the blame game, too. In respect to the spending you bring up – that is a justified point. Of course, in less than 3 years in office, Obama has generated MORE DEFICIT DOLLARS than Bush did IN EIGHT YEARS – which included a tech bubble bursting, two of the most devastating hurricanes in American history (Katrina and Rita), and the deadliest attack on U.S. soil in our history.
So, please spare us the “Bush did it all” garbage, as Bush is a piker on spending when compared to Obama.
In respect to the healthcare law, you have to be a blind partisan, or completely bereft of an understanding of the legislation, to miss how negatively interfering with the single largest expense for employees (health insurance), and causing employers and employees alike confusion (and, yes, uncertainty), would cause businesses not to hire.
Here’s a small thought experiment for you:
Imagine you are an employer, charged with providing income, protection and benefits for a number of families, represented by your employee base. You would like to expand, but have absolutely no idea how much your largest expense per emplyee will increase, or be affected by, Obamacare legislation. Your choices are:
1. Due to the fact Obamacare legislation is not completed (recall, the legislation is merely a framework, within which unelected beauracrats will insert whatever they desire – with zero recourse at the ballot box – they are unelected), no business owner, of ANY SIZE, can predict with any degree of accuracy what will happen next week, much less in 5 years. Yet you hire new people anyway, increasing your costs. This places all those already in your employ at risk of losing their jobs, should the rise in insurance costs cause insolvency.
2. You ensure those already working for you still have steady jobs (and can care for their families), and are taken care of by not hiring and taking on a large, federally-mandated group of costs, even though doing so could possibly make the owners and shareholders more money.
Which one of those choices would you make? Would you hire the new person, with the knowledge Obama’s regulations could kill your company, leaving many families with no income or future? Or, would you choose instead to take care of those already in your charge by choosing the safe route and not hiring new people?
This is the choice presented for every employer across this nation. This choice was setup by Obama and the other leftists/Democrat Party members in their zeal to pass legislation a majority of the country loathes.
Apparently, you do not think this is causes uncertainty for employers.
Also, please elaborate on why you state the law “won’t even take efect (sic) for another three years”, when many provisions have already been implemented? While many aspects of this abomination have yet to be employed, many of the stipulations are already in place, and are already driving up the cost of private insurance as we speak (dependents up to 26 – 31 in some states! Preventive Care. Taxing for exchanges. I could go on but lack time). Please, at least take a few moments to gain at least a cursory understanding of the legislation.
Bravo! Standing ovation on your post! Thank you for articulating exactly our points in a way that I am hopeful even blind partisans will be able to understand.
September 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm
AZ Ins Man says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Other Point,
Do you remember Congress passes bills and the President signs them? Someone needs to remind Obama he does NOT write legislation, just sign or veto.
Bush did not sign anything except to get what was hidden in massive spending bills.
Quit blaming Bush for this idiot in the White House.
Sill nothing about Tort Reform. Let the Lawyers argue about it while costing you and I, Joe Small Business Man. Keep us guessing at what to do personel wise. I need to hire another, but at what cost? Throw a dart at the board? $15.00 per hour seems to the correct wage for the position, but throw the new cost of health insurance into the mix and I can not do it.
So, lets keep shipping jobs over seas where they dont have to put up with this crap. Does anyone know someone in a country that hates us, but loves our money I can hire for that amount?
Sincerely,
Fed Up with our government and all the sue happy lawyers.
Before new healh law there were a few items to be addressed within the current structure. 1. uninsurables who want coverage…allow application to insurance of their choice with a subsidy paid by the FEDS for demonstrated cost overruns due to accepting these applicants compared to those otherwise insurable. 2. Healthy persons who cannot afford a policy…same as #1 but subsidy [income based] is towards premium and not cost overruns due to uninsurability. #3. Require all to be insured using the current systems in place at federally mandated base lines of coverage and deductibles [or better at insured’s cost] and now allow providers to deny services to those without coverage. Those who shouldn’t be here in the first place cannot participate in in #1,2 or 3 and could purchase without accomidation or be subjected to no services as others who choose to be uninsured. Life is tough if if you do it right and is tougher if you do it wrong. There is no free lunch.
Your topics do not address the heart of the problem, which is the COST of health care.
Also, as for not providing care, you are walking a fine line. There are tons of homeless people on the streets of America that are legal citizens, but have no income, many due to mental illness. Just because they have no income, they should not get treatment? It all goes back to “Do no harm”. By not providing care, they are causing harm. Also, providing care for these people also prevents the spread of disease. As for people that are not in teh country legally, I have a solution. Provide the care they need so they will not die, ship them back to the country they are a citizen of after it is confirmed that they are in the USA illegal, then send the bill to that country if the citizen does not pay. If that country does not pay, embargo time.
Tort Reform would address what drives the cost – law suites. Hang Nail? Get an MRI just to rule everything else out(Defensive Medicine).
Here is an idea – The people that are willing and able to afford their COBRA, let them continue – remove the 18 month limitation. Have the carrier bill the insured directly. Maybe have the carriers offer a roll over provision to an individual policy so my losses at 60 dont hurt the group? As it sit right now, my cost is going to jump to about $1800 a month from $757 – my cobra premium.
And this does not address the issue of having to put a group policy in place and my contribution for my other employees much less the fact I need to hire another employee.
Thanks President O Bumb a. Way to keep up the umemployment rate!
This has cost our nation MILLIONS, its time for Congress to step up and repeal this law… The uncertainty alone, of the costs and effectsof this law, is dragging our economy fruther into the hole our government has thrown us into..
Using your reasoning, that we should eliminate laws that create uncertainty, I suppose we ought to toss out the First Amendment since that also generates hundreds of lawsuits every year over the extent of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion etc.. The health care law was passed to address a real problem in this country. The mandate was a Republican idea that they decided they no longer liked once Obama agreed to supoort it too.
Other, what the American People are crying out for is “certainty”, not more “uncertainty”. Small Business is the main engine for job creation and they see uncertainty with all the Progressive spending policy, running the country over the cliff and tacking on another trillion dollar Obamacare bill. If Small Business is uncertain about the future, they will not hire or expand and the country will continue to tank. People do not like these Progressive solutions and it is reflected in the polls and the two elections we had for the House.
Are you implying the Obamacare legislation was passed as a Constitutional Amendment? You ought to consult that document (The Constitution), as you would then understand why the comparison you make is both ridiculous and historically inaccurate. Have you absolutely no concept of Natural Rights?
Can someone in the Justice department please request an emergency constitutional crisis Supreme Court ruling of this issue. Employers in the US can not wait around until 2014 to find out what the ramifications of Obamacare are going to be to hiring a new worker. You want a job stimulas, Get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something that truely reduces the cost of healthcare and cost to employers, instead of artificially reducing premiums with tax dollars. We are broke!
Sarah, do you really think Eric Holder wants to speed this issue to the Supreme Court? His interest is to delay as long as possible until the law would be very difficult to undo. This case should have been heard by the Supreme Court within a few months after passage since it was so bad. All the court rulings have made the issue move as slow as molasses in January. The longer it goes on, the worse the economy gets since employers do not know what is going on with their costs, so they won’t hire.
“Obama, a Democrat, pushed for the law to help stem soaring health care costs and provide coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.” This provision has nothing to do with providing coverage for 30 million uninsured Americans and everything to do with generating revenue for a government health care program that few want or can afford; it does little to stem soaring health care costs. A subsidized efficient government program is an oxymoron.
“This provision has nothing to do with providing coverage for 30 million uninsured Americans and everything to do with generating revenue for a government health care program that few want or can afford.”
Huh? The mandate doesn’t force people to purchase government run healthcare! It mandates that you purchase health insurance from private health insurance companies.
Imagine that…a bunch of insurance professionals opposed to the idea of people being forced to purchase private health insurance. Amazing.
Oh, OPV, if it was only that simple, I might even be for it. The problem is the way employers and individuals are TAXED ON IT!!! Obamacare says that only certain plans are “okay” in their mind, while others are “Cadillac” plans (well, unless you get a waiver, right? – but that is another discussion) and they will be taxed. I have Kaiser – uh, definitely not top of the line program – and I have a $2,500 deductible before any coverage kicks in and it is considered a “Cadillac” plan under Obamacare and because of the way both my employer and me will be taxed on it, it is no longer affordable. The goal of this administration has been and always will be Universal coverage provided by the governement. Which we are seeing on a daily basis DOES NOT WORK. There were many other ways to get those that are not insured insured that did not put the government in control of our health care.
How about forcing physicians and the medical industry to reduce the costs of work performed to that of what they “agree” to with health insurance companies? After a procedure and bloodwork, my costs WITHOUT insurance were over $700. However, after the “allowed reduction” of my insurance, it came to less than $300 which then fell under my deductible. So, since I’m insured the same prodecures cost me $300 instead of $700? Tell me, how does that make ANY sense? Get rid of Obamacare and reduce the costs of medical procedures. Done. Fixed.
I agree with your sentiments but I think you’re focusing your ire on the wrong parties. Medical providers only play this silly game because they are forced to by the health insurance companies. Reform health insurance into a true insurance program which covers (catastrophic) costs above a selected deductible and allow the patient-consumer to be responsible for the dad-to-day costs. Only when consumers can see the true cost of a good/service can there be a true competitive market for such goods and services.
Obamacare is a mess and leads us in the wrong direction . . . but I am thankful for it, since it forces the conservatives to attempt to address the issue instead of kicking the can down the road like they did for the past 20 years.
Theresa,
The politicians cannot do this. Why? Because to do so would give away the lie. What lie? The lie that is both Medicare and Medicaid. How so? Medicare and Medicaid essentially set prices for amount doctors are reimbursed for goods and services. Of course, many/most of the amounts paid out for procedures and office visits are less than the cost of goods and services received. So, what do the doctors do? Due to the federal government programs, which, once again, set the payment rates for goods and services for doctors, hospitals, and other professionals, (which are below cost) doctors then overcharge EVERYBODY’S private insurance to make up the difference.
“How do they get away with this”, you ask? To this point, the scheme has worked. Why? Because there were more people with private insurance, relative to those taking money from Medicare and Medicaid. However, as the price for these programs is rising ever more, due to more and more people going onto Medicare and Medicaid each day, the governmnet has “run out of other people’s money”, so to speak.
This entire system is a scheme, cooked up by leftists/Democrat Party members, to buy votes. Every time solvency comes up as a realistic way to solve the problems (for the most recent example, plese see Bush’s run for his second term), leftists/democrat party members accuse anyone involved with trying to save an insolvent system THEY set up of wanting to kill their own parents, all old people, puppies, pretty birds, and children. And, by doing so, leftists/Democrat Party members have kept politicians from getting to a fix and solving this issue. Of course this simply makes it much more difficult to solve the systemic problems.
So, leftist/Democrat Party members:
1. Set up the system as a scam to begin with, all to buy elections.
2. Refuse to fix the problems and make the system at least sustainable, because…
3…to do so would remove an election cudgel for leftist/Democrat Party members, and remove it as a campaign issue.
In other words, leftists/Democrat Party members are more interested in having a wedge issue for each election than actually solving the crisis. That is sickening and craven. Even for the party of:
– Slavery
– Jim Crow
– Segregation
– Bull Connor
– Lynching
– The KKK (once known as “The Terrorist Wing of the Democrat Party” – Both Truman and Carter campaigned at KKK meetings!)
– Union Thuggery/Violence
Why would we expect anything different from leftists/Democrat Party members? That would be like expecting a fish to exist outside of water. The history of this party is such they cannot be trusted, in any way, shape, or form.
Of course, the Republicans are barely better. But at least their history isn’t replete with such gross abominations as listed above for the leftists/Democrat Party members. And I have no idea why that party is historically so full of hate and violence.
If an employer needs to hire a new employee right NOW – 2011, the argument that they won’t hire that person because of the uncertainty of health care legislation that will take effect in 2014, does not make any sense. If they provide their employees with health care now as most employers do, they see uncertain rate increases every year. Bank of America is not laying off 30,000 employees because of the uncertainty of the health care legislation. HP did not buy out EDS and lay off 10,000 employees because of health care legistation that takes effect in 2014. The health care legislation is an excuse, not a cause.
Right on Will. If we abolished every law that had some uncertainty to it, we wouldn’t have any laws at all. Uncertainty in the law is the reason we have courts!
Will, I can’t list all of the reasons why the economy is tanking in this post, but the combination of very stupid Progressive policies including Obamacare are the chief culprits. When you have an administration totally tone deaf to the American People and Small Business, they will not hire or expand. When you are stifled by EPA and regulated to death, you won’t hire. When you see your operating costs of doing business skyrocket, you will not hire. The tried and true Conservative solutions to stimulate growth were thrown out in favor of massive Keynesian spending which did nothing by increase our debt by a Trillion dollars. Obamacare will cost about that much as well. Enough is enough.
The rewriting of history knows no bounds. Your comments make it sound like Obama inherited the economny that George W Bush inherited.
Bush and his cohorts knocked a huge hole in the bottom of the boat and as the ship took on water, they jumped ship. Now they blame Obama for not bailing the water fast enough.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest amoung us that cost trillions, two wars run off the books, an unfunded federal prescription drug plan, and a blind eye toward Wall Street. Those are the Bush legacies. Unemployment was tanking long before Obama took office. TARP was signed into law by Bush.
But, in your world, all of our problems are caused by a health care law that won’t even take efect for another three years.
Good grief, OPV, you don’t seem to be able to take a concept and bring it through to the conclusion of cause and affect. There is no such thing as things happening in a vaccuum. Sure, it sounds great that everyone should have “free health care,” except there is no such thing as “free health care.”
And regarding your comments on Bush, I certainly don’t agree with everything Bush did, but the Dems took control in 2006 – this is their economy. Period – get over it, and move on. Your guy (Obama) owns this economy for good or bad. He’s the one who spent the trillion dollars on the 2nd stimulus for all those shovel ready jobs (!), and on the green jobs (Solyndra anyone?) He’s the one who endorsed a bill “that had to be passed before they could find out what was in it.” His positions, while I’m certain well intentioned – DO NOT WORK!
Other Point of View,
I hate to break it to you, but I have yet to see any post containing conservative cheerleading for Bush’s spending. Please let me know when that occurs, as I have yet to see ANYONE on the right, ANYWHERE, back Bush’s spending (aside from those in that administration, trying to justify the spending for which they are responsible).
At the same time, please explain to me why you are blaming Bush for the two wars, when leftists/Democrat Party members voted in large margins to support both of those ventures.
Of course, Bush inherited a popped tech bubble, caused primarily by donors to Bill Clinton cooking their books (please show me one major Silicon Valley firm – aside from Cypress Semiconductor – which did not donate to leftist/Democrat Party members, including Clinton. Please do some research and locate how Apple, Cisco, EMC, Yahoo! and Google all had to “restate earnings” at the time. Clinton also played a lot of golf with, and accepted quiate a bit of campaign cash from, Ken Lay – of Enron. You may have heard of him.
Also, Bush inherited failed national Clinton administration defense policies, which allowed 9/11 to happen. In fact, Bush still had Clinton’s Sec of Defense at the time of the attacks, did he not?
And, one last item: Bush also inherited a huge Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid funding crisis, due to Clinton’s childish desire to maintain the programs as election gambits (much like the rest of the leftists/Democrat Party). So, while the books at the time showed the “deficit” was fine, anyone believing this has to be completely blind to the facts of the scams that are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as it seems you are. The dmographics alone have been warning us for over a generation.
See, I can play the blame game, too. In respect to the spending you bring up – that is a justified point. Of course, in less than 3 years in office, Obama has generated MORE DEFICIT DOLLARS than Bush did IN EIGHT YEARS – which included a tech bubble bursting, two of the most devastating hurricanes in American history (Katrina and Rita), and the deadliest attack on U.S. soil in our history.
So, please spare us the “Bush did it all” garbage, as Bush is a piker on spending when compared to Obama.
In respect to the healthcare law, you have to be a blind partisan, or completely bereft of an understanding of the legislation, to miss how negatively interfering with the single largest expense for employees (health insurance), and causing employers and employees alike confusion (and, yes, uncertainty), would cause businesses not to hire.
Here’s a small thought experiment for you:
Imagine you are an employer, charged with providing income, protection and benefits for a number of families, represented by your employee base. You would like to expand, but have absolutely no idea how much your largest expense per emplyee will increase, or be affected by, Obamacare legislation. Your choices are:
1. Due to the fact Obamacare legislation is not completed (recall, the legislation is merely a framework, within which unelected beauracrats will insert whatever they desire – with zero recourse at the ballot box – they are unelected), no business owner, of ANY SIZE, can predict with any degree of accuracy what will happen next week, much less in 5 years. Yet you hire new people anyway, increasing your costs. This places all those already in your employ at risk of losing their jobs, should the rise in insurance costs cause insolvency.
2. You ensure those already working for you still have steady jobs (and can care for their families), and are taken care of by not hiring and taking on a large, federally-mandated group of costs, even though doing so could possibly make the owners and shareholders more money.
Which one of those choices would you make? Would you hire the new person, with the knowledge Obama’s regulations could kill your company, leaving many families with no income or future? Or, would you choose instead to take care of those already in your charge by choosing the safe route and not hiring new people?
This is the choice presented for every employer across this nation. This choice was setup by Obama and the other leftists/Democrat Party members in their zeal to pass legislation a majority of the country loathes.
Apparently, you do not think this is causes uncertainty for employers.
Also, please elaborate on why you state the law “won’t even take efect (sic) for another three years”, when many provisions have already been implemented? While many aspects of this abomination have yet to be employed, many of the stipulations are already in place, and are already driving up the cost of private insurance as we speak (dependents up to 26 – 31 in some states! Preventive Care. Taxing for exchanges. I could go on but lack time). Please, at least take a few moments to gain at least a cursory understanding of the legislation.
Bravo! Standing ovation on your post! Thank you for articulating exactly our points in a way that I am hopeful even blind partisans will be able to understand.
Other Point,
Do you remember Congress passes bills and the President signs them? Someone needs to remind Obama he does NOT write legislation, just sign or veto.
Bush did not sign anything except to get what was hidden in massive spending bills.
Quit blaming Bush for this idiot in the White House.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-healthcare-push-20110915,0,6543205.story
Sill nothing about Tort Reform. Let the Lawyers argue about it while costing you and I, Joe Small Business Man. Keep us guessing at what to do personel wise. I need to hire another, but at what cost? Throw a dart at the board? $15.00 per hour seems to the correct wage for the position, but throw the new cost of health insurance into the mix and I can not do it.
So, lets keep shipping jobs over seas where they dont have to put up with this crap. Does anyone know someone in a country that hates us, but loves our money I can hire for that amount?
Sincerely,
Fed Up with our government and all the sue happy lawyers.
Bunch of Jack Asses in DC. Can them all!!!!
Before new healh law there were a few items to be addressed within the current structure. 1. uninsurables who want coverage…allow application to insurance of their choice with a subsidy paid by the FEDS for demonstrated cost overruns due to accepting these applicants compared to those otherwise insurable. 2. Healthy persons who cannot afford a policy…same as #1 but subsidy [income based] is towards premium and not cost overruns due to uninsurability. #3. Require all to be insured using the current systems in place at federally mandated base lines of coverage and deductibles [or better at insured’s cost] and now allow providers to deny services to those without coverage. Those who shouldn’t be here in the first place cannot participate in in #1,2 or 3 and could purchase without accomidation or be subjected to no services as others who choose to be uninsured. Life is tough if if you do it right and is tougher if you do it wrong. There is no free lunch.
Your topics do not address the heart of the problem, which is the COST of health care.
Also, as for not providing care, you are walking a fine line. There are tons of homeless people on the streets of America that are legal citizens, but have no income, many due to mental illness. Just because they have no income, they should not get treatment? It all goes back to “Do no harm”. By not providing care, they are causing harm. Also, providing care for these people also prevents the spread of disease. As for people that are not in teh country legally, I have a solution. Provide the care they need so they will not die, ship them back to the country they are a citizen of after it is confirmed that they are in the USA illegal, then send the bill to that country if the citizen does not pay. If that country does not pay, embargo time.
Tort Reform would address what drives the cost – law suites. Hang Nail? Get an MRI just to rule everything else out(Defensive Medicine).
Here is an idea – The people that are willing and able to afford their COBRA, let them continue – remove the 18 month limitation. Have the carrier bill the insured directly. Maybe have the carriers offer a roll over provision to an individual policy so my losses at 60 dont hurt the group? As it sit right now, my cost is going to jump to about $1800 a month from $757 – my cobra premium.
And this does not address the issue of having to put a group policy in place and my contribution for my other employees much less the fact I need to hire another employee.
Thanks President O Bumb a. Way to keep up the umemployment rate!
So, no one would like me to pay for my own.