“Giving patients and consumers control over health care resources would make all Americans less dependent on big business and big government for our health security; give us more control over the care we get; and force health care providers to compete for our business,” Ryan said.
What a horrible idea!
I can’t even count the number of times I have had to ask my employer to step in an intervene in a dispute with my employer sponsored health plan. Employers have a huge incentive to keep employees happy and employers have much more influence with the insurers than would an individual policyholder.
I like my current plan just the way it is, thank you very much. Hey Mr. Ryan: Where is the job plan you are Mr. Cantor promised when you ran for reelection in 2010? Still waiting on that.
We all need to grow up. What else do you rely on others to do for you? You sound like the Greeks, they want to retire with full benefits at 50 years old. We all need to take care of our own business.
“Make all Americans less dependent on big business…for our health security?” By forcing vast numbers of people into the tender embrace of for-profit individual healthcare insurers? Companies who make their living by charging as much as they can possibly manipulate the market to bear while paying out as little in benefits as they possibly can? One thing this proposal would most certainly accomplish would be a colossal surge in healthcares costs as everyone will be paying the 40-50% administrative/fees/taxes/risk charges that these insurers will ladle out on top of actual healthcare expenditures. If Ryan had set out to purposefully design a program to maximize healthcare costs, he could not have possibly done any better than this hare-brained scheme.
So when did your boss or Government owe you anything but an oportunity to succeed? All of you sound like whinning socialists from Greece or France, You can see where they are headed financially and so are we soon. If your looking for a Nanny state please leave. We cannot afford you. The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.
I would prefer to pick out which company I want to purchase my health insurance from, choose my own deductible to fit my budget and obtain any optional coverages I would like to purchase, such as long term disability etc, and if I do not like the service and claims reponse I get from my service rep, I will cancel my policy and place it elsewhere. Kind of like I do with my auto and home insurance. I really would not like my employer who is trying to save as much money as he can pick out my carrier and coverage. Call me crazy, but I dont think he might have my best interest at heart. Thanks Paul Ryan, for a diferent point of view. You see conservatives understand there is a quality issue here at hand and if you want to get your claims handled by the government, good luck!
I wouldn’t hold up France as an example if I were you. The World Health Organization ranks their health system Number 1 in the world.
Employer sponsored health plans have the advantage of negotiating the lowest possible premiums because of the number of employees involved. And most employer plans allow you to opt of of their coverage. My employer and many others even pay you if you opt out. Employers don’t “owe” me health care, but they would be stupid not to offer it because they need to in order to be competitive in the workplace.
And, please, can the Right Wing please stop asking those of us they don’t like to “leave?” It’s just as much my country as it is yours. Asking peopel to leave is tantamount to telling people not to express their opinions. How un-American can you get?
Are we talking the same world health organization that forgot to account for the 33% obesity rate in the U.S. as well as other factors which would pull a mortality rate down? Stastics OPV. I’ve been over it with you, it’s why liberal sources can’t be listened to. The WHO (and I’ve seen the study you’re talking about) when you remove the unnatural deaths (U.S. ranks high in crime/violence/vehicular deaths as well) our life expectancy is HIGHER than both Canada and France, and our lifestyles are WORSE. What does this state about healthcare? You decide. If you’d prefer to make the numbers yourself for once rather than citing others look up the obesity rates in each country and then look up vehicular deaths over a 10 year period. Remove the numbers and do the math. You can also look into black/african american population, which has a lower life expectancy as well and then note our country has more black people percentage wise than say Canada. It isn’t substantial, but the fact that the WHO did NOT have these studies separated and only looked at the infant mortality rate, as well as some cancer death rates (which we win out in several of them) as well as the average life expectancy, they did NOT successfully link HEALTHCARE into the study. Nice try OPV.
Now moving forward: I already had a post going over Ryan’s jobs plan. You missed it, your problem. I’m not putting a second post up here about what happened about a year ago that YOU missed and democrats refused. Basically the corporations with 1 trillion dollars (yes, 1/14th our gdp) stated they would bring back all operations to the U.S. if we lowered the corporate tax rate to 5.25%. Democrats refused on principle. Canada has grown their numbers of businesses opened proporionately and increased their corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP since they lowered it to 15% and are considering lowering it again. So a deal could have been made and wasn’. Drilling in our own country was suggested, as well as removing regulations for energy to allow for expansion. You should study. Canada pulled out of their recession over ten years ago with surpluses for a much more prolonged period of time than during the Clinton years and OIL was a lot to do with it. Or you missed the trade agreements we want to we-work to have us able to sell more goods to other countries with unfair trade practices (China, Korea, etc). I really don’t know how you miss all these jobs plans. This isn’t even the half of it. I won’t even go further as all these plans have been OPPOSED or IGNORED by the current administration. And by the way: Do not give me the liberal debating tactic that oil production went up during Obama’s presidency so he is doing better. He has NOT reformed the oil production laws the increase was on contracts put into place based on old regulations. They are restrictive. I would debate further but you’re arguements in here are extremely tiring and repetitive.
If you’re going to downgrade my post, then prove my comments wrong. No more typical liberal distaste please. I notice no one has to either of my comments.
That may be because most of us have to WORK during the day, instead of spending our time posting screeds that would absorb our day to argue against. I’ll disagree with you silently and on my own time, thank you.
September 28, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Bill says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Factless emotional outburst of ridicule. That is how all liberals respond when they are proven wrong Chris. Do not worry, they will be back and never address your sound positions of fact and logic. They are liberals who would rather based on therories of their utopian world that does not exist rather than logic or facts.
September 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m a producer. I work well and happen to be very good in my field. I do work. I do planned breaks through my day to help my efficiency. Chances are I make more than you and I’m comission based son. I bring in my own meals based on how I perform. And my renewals to give you an idea only make up about a third of my book because I have signed a substantial amount of business this last year. So trying to calle lazy is a bad idea. My facts were sound. If you liberals can’t handle it it’s not my problem. I criticize my party often, and in fact only vote republican (sometimes) to avoid a complete government take over as opposed to lack of assistance. I’d rather lack coverage as it was my choice than have a single payer system and then have the government unable to pay when they go bankrupt. I’d rather have a situation where I control my spending. And I’ve done well with that mindset. I’m extremely well off from it. I imagine you must not be and must be waiting for the government to help you? Don’t insult me in a crude manner if you don’t want a come back.
September 28, 2011 at 3:45 pm
The Other Point of View says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You don’t like the WHO rankings because they don’t fit your preconceived notion of how things should be. Fine. Here’s a link to the National Geographic’s study that shows that the U.S. spends billions more on healthcare per citizen than any other developed nation in the world, yet our life expectancy isn’t nearly as high.
The rest of your post made me chuckle. Ryan and the rest of the Republicans “job’s program” wasn’t a jobs program at all. It was a plan to reduce taxes on businesses, once again. Aren’t you tired of trickle down economics? Even George Bush Sr called it voodoo economics. Just keep giving those tax cuts to the corporations.
You accept the WHO because it fits YOUR precoceived notions.
Now then: I took WHO’s study, and used THEIR paramaters to find the errors. Could you see how measuring mortality rates and infant mortality rates, without accounting for the increased mortality rates due to our lifestyles would mix up the statstics? And can you see how maybe, just maybe, it’s a problem if their life expentancy is the same as ours when you remove the factors in our section that would cause *gasp* for someone to die when that factor DOES NOT exist in the other country? As for your healthcare spending numbers: Does that prove ANYTHING regarding the healthcare quality? Absolutely not. Your numbers are just as much a farce as the WHO’s.
Furthermore: Actually in this case it wasn’t a measure of trickle down. The corporations had a trillion dollars of revenues for jobs that ALREADY EXISTS (key words ALREADY EXISTS it’s not a matter of saying ooooh booo hooo lower taxes will create more these revenues ALREADY EXIST) out of country which they stated they would MOVE BACK to the United States if the rate was pulled down to 5.25%. Nice try to label it the “common” republican ideals. This was not an ideal it was a DEAL that the democrats didn’t take. It WAS a jobs plan. You might not like it and choose to ignore 1/14th the GDP because it caters to your ideals, but your party failed and missed a deal to create $1 trillion dollars worth of jobs. OOPS!!
Now before I laugh further at your comments, I must guess you are about 25-35. Your voice screams it. But moving forward: The plan was to change regulations to allow for oil and energy to expand, the plan was to rework the trade agreements with several countries, and to get the government out of the way. Whether you like it or not kiddo, the government cannot make jobs. I would say the best way that would be bi-partisan, and would not be a government favored stimulus to attempt to inject money would be to give 100 banks the stiumuls money to lend to builders etc as needed. You’ll note instead Obama wants to have government make those choices, oops, his green energy company that failed was a great idea correct? Even my plan just listed would fail, and isn’t really a “right” or “left” ideal becuase try as you might the government cannot create an idea, a product, or manufacturing in the long run. Your failed ideals bleed liberal. Get your indoctrinated head out ofe liberal left’s sources, and start making studies yourself.
September 28, 2011 at 5:28 pm
AZ Ins Man says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OPV, WHO do you think creates the jobs? Those evil rich people and those evil corporations!
So, lowering their taxes to get them to take more risk and create jobs or expand corporations would be a bad idea?
Why, because you have a job currently? Well, some of us do not have a job and want this incompetent Chicago thug out of our White House.
Why do you think the effective date of this alleged Healthcare law was subsequent to his re-election? Because it will double current healthcare costs before it is done. Please name another function, of any kind, that the Govt does better, more efficiently that private industry?
Now, let’s be fair, the Post Office would be a bad example with 80% of their expenses represented by labor! Again, unions will drive the P.O. out of business just like the car companies and airlines.
WAKE UP socialists. It does not and DID not work wherever it has been tried and to whatever degree it was implemented.
Socialism eventually runs out of money…
Say bye bye to this child president who is offended by anyone and takes immediate action to ruin their lives where possible.
We can not keep writing off debt as “it is for the economy” so we MUST spend ridiculous amounts of money on Obama’s friends.
I hope you all got your paybacks for electing this idiot, as he is done and it will take years to repair his mess…
YOUR president voted one way as Senator but reversed course totally as president. i.e. present , no on increasing debt limit each time.
Talking out of both sides of your face may fool liberals, but we are not that easily mislead…
September 28, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Longtime Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey OPV! How is that making the rich pay their fair share scenario working out to create jobs? Have you ever got a job from a poor man? Herman Cain has the best plan with a 9-9-9 tax rate. Everyone has some skin in the game instead of the 20% of the well off paying 70% of the taxes. It is time for serious people to handle the reins of leadership since the Pretender in Chief has no clue except to raise taxes and spend us into oblivion.
September 28, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Revision: The corporations with 1 trillion in revenues OFFSHORE. Left that word out. My post doesn’t make a bit of sense without that detail.
Other, As far as I can tell, no one ever leaves the US to go to France to have surgery. Pretty much the other way around.
“Employers don’t “owe” me health care, but they would be stupid not to offer it because they need to in order to be competitive in the workplace” WRONG, NOT WITH OBAMACARE! The incentive is gone!
Your employer is going to cancel their plan purchase the lowest cost plan and pay the penalty if necessary and avoid the cost all together. KISS YOUR CADILAC PLAN GOODBYE!
Sarah: You are not crazy. But, you may want to rethink your reality if you feel you can find good health coverage (comparable to your employer sponsored plan) and think that some unknown tax credit is goig to make up for the cost. I don’t have to be a whining socialist to know what Senator Ryan has proposed is nowhere close to reality. I am sure many good honest conservatives find it a ridiculous idea as well. Your name calling and high-pitched posts make it hard to take you seriously.
Stephen, the whole plan is set up to convert to a single payer plan, even Obama has stated many times that is the plan to convert to a government controled entitlement. If you read the law, this is the entire purpose of the law. They created triggers that are almost guaranteed to make the healthcare law convert to a single payer system. SOCIALISM. READ THE LAW!
It just shows you how clueless this guy really is. Go out and get an individual policy? In my case that would be 3 (dental, medical, prescription). You know what kind of a tax credit I would need to make up for that in the individual market? I’d probably be paying no taxes. How dependent on “big business” would I be in this Senator’s fantasy world? A lot more than I am now. I think he drew up this plan on the plane on his way to make this speech. He should throw the napkin he wrote his plan on into the waste basket. I am very lucky to have employee sponosored benifits I have now. I could never get this deal on the open market. Here is the poster child for term limits. He needs to get out into the world to see how it really is out there. Let’s all do this: Ignore Senator Ryan.
What an intriguing idea. So the folks who earn $45,000 at Wally-Mart and get family coverage can get a tax credit of what, $500? And that’s supposed to buy how much coverage?
Giving away tax credits is a naive way to buy votes. Even a good conservative like me can understand I couldn’t get a cheaper program on my own.
And didn’t I read somewhere recently that EB producers don’t get to earn commisions on some placements? Competition would only be between direct writers if that were the case.
I agree with this. The $500 or whatever tax credit wouldn’t do much to help. And in an interesting kicker, disagree with this ideal on the right. Probably shocking to OPV as I haven’t seen him once say something in critical thought about the left, only critical support.
Now this is rich. I agreed with OPV on the fact that I don’t like the tax credit, he finally figures it out and downgrades my post. Haha. I love it. But anyway I think we can all agree something better can be done. OPV: I have not downgraded one of your posts. If you’re going to downgrade mine o do the research I keep telling you to. You might find rather than downgrading instantly, that maybe, just maybe, I’ve put this research together myself and it has nothing to do with citing sources and following. It has to do with real research. Studying a study is not studying.
What Rep. Ryan and most of our elected officials don’t understand (or don’t seem to care about) is ACCESS to health insurance. How many people who have pre-existing conditions would be able to find coverage if not through their employer? Try finding coverage anywhere but through a state FAIR plan and you will find that no one wants you, and amazingly, doesn’t have to offer you coverage. It isn’t like the P&C market where you can find coverage. In health insurance, companies deny coverage every day. We are forced to give auto insurance to drivers who have been convicted of a DUI, but health insurance companies can deny coverage for any conditons they choose to.
Before anyone jumps on this bandwagon, do yourself a favor and go shopping for an individual health insurance plan, one with the same bells and whistles that you have through your group plan. You may be shocked at what you find the premium is. Then find out what sort of tax credit Rep. Ryan is advocating.
One last thing about getting the most value for your health insurance dollar: Has anyone tried calling around to see what a clinic will charge you for an x-ray or an MRI? It’s an exercise in futility! This type of comment just shows (once again) how out of touch our elected officials truly are.
Access and pre existing conditions can be solved legislatively. If everyone is purchasing healthcare individually then the laws would need to be changed to allow for transfer to another carrier without underwriting. We do need standard policies like we have with medicare suplements plans A thru J, we also need to be able to sell across state lines. If the market were regulated just enough to protect the consumer but not so much as to eliminate competition, I believe that individual health insurance could work. Here are some of the benefits. You would not have to purchase extremely high cobra benefits and be put on medicaid if your job is terminated. You could take your coverage with you if you want to change jobs. You could deduct the cost from your taxable income, you could structure the plan the way you want it with standardized plans A through J like Medicare suplements. With new legislation, individual plans would be extremely attractive and beneficial to the public and employers.
By the way the cost of insuring someone with a DUI is alot more than someone who has no tickets at all. Also there is no requirement that any carrier is required to cover the DUI driver if they chose not to.
It’s important to remember that people cannot bargain for health care and health insurance the way they can for other commodities.
To illustrate, consider cosmetic and elective surgery, the freest market in medicine and generally the least expensive. Why is that? Because a buyer can take time to decide how important an elective procedure, how much he or she is willing to spend, and “bid the job,” so to speak.
All of that is rarely possible with medical or dental treatments that could have serious, even life-threatening, consequences if delayed or forgone. Second opinions are essential in severe cases, but for medical, not financial, reasons.
One of the prior post is right we are headed towards being Greece. One day we will have austerity measures imposed on us. If you do not believe this, please explain in details what your plan is to solve the problem with the run away cost of healthcare. Besides having Government pay for it, without an explanation of where the money will come from. At least Mr Ryan is addressing the tough questions that the left is putting their head in the sand about.
Free market capitalism has taught us over and over again, if you do not have competition, you will pay more!
“What about broke do you liberals not understand!”
We’re not broke and we have the means to have budget surplusses again if we only had the will to turn back the tax clock to where it was before Bush and his cronies gave away the farm to the top 1%.
Tax revenues increased during Bush’s presidency. You forget a great deal. When oil prices are low the economy is prime for growth. Bush doesn’t affect oil costs. Many economists agree the economy was prime in the 90’s due to global economic situations. compared to Canada, we did extremely poorly during the 90’s boom. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. They reduced tax rates and spending. They paid of a portion of their DEBT. Clinton did not pay off the DEBT. Their is a difference between deficit and debt. Research it.
Bush and his “cronies”?
Wow. Just wow. Actually at this point no, we would not have surpluses again by going back to Clinton’s tax code, and the surpluses were after a 1995 congress take over by republicans, and who makes taxing and spending decisons? Do you really need to go back to highschool? The growth rates between 1997-2000 were the highest, after a modification made to decrease taxes (not the marginal rates, but rather deductions) and the economy grew over twice as fast between 1997-2000 as it did 1992-1995.
“We would not have surpluses again by going back to Clinton’s tax code, and the surpluses were after a 1995 congress take over by republicans, and who makes taxing and spending decisons? Do you really need to go back to highschool?”
1. Stop with the personal insults.
2. By your logic, that the Republican House of Representatives under Gingrich gets the credit for the Clinton economy, I’m sure you will have no difficulty accepting the blame for today’s economic disaster under Speaker Beohner. He’s had over a year to fix the problem. Why hasn’t anything been done?
Wrong again OPV. Beohner took over just months ago. We have had a democratic controled Senate and House since 2006. Congress spends our money and sets the tax rates. Why didnt the Democratic led Senate and House along with the president increase taxes to Clinton years. Huh? They had their chance. Obama said he couldnt raise taxes in his economic position that he has created. This is not the Bush tax cuts anymore its the Obama and Democratic Congresses Tax rates we are paying now! And by the way This is the third year of his presidency. When will he own it?
September 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
1. I won’t stop with the insults when you are insulting good people on the right with misquoted information playing it as fact while talking down to the people of this post (as I have seen you do to Sarah when you called her a republican when she is not, and a tea party acitivst when she is not) Do not talk to me with a superiority complex in order to gain honest points as a counter debating tactic. It doesn’t work.
2. By my logic, the revenues from that time frame are attributable and the surpluses, due to the fact that conress controls spending. The Clinton surplus was not his. That’s just a fact. The other comments about economic growth, you’ll note it was implied and it not a certain fact. But actually, if we make it EQUAL note that congress swtiched republican 1995, it was TWO YEARS later that things changed. so by my logics, 2012 could be a fair measure to some degree for economic status. But that is only assuming action is made. You must take a normal environment, and see a change to analyze it. 1992-1995 the economy grew twice as slow as from 1997-2000. Just a fact. The control was not in democrat hands. It could not have been them. If we use your logic, then the 2006 congress should have been responsible for a 2010 boom. Ooops…Didn’t happen did it? THAT would be equal. Do the math. If I take your flawed method of believing the democrats did it, they would have had to have done something in 1994 that took effect in 1997. Well then, the democrats in 2006 had 4 years, so are we suffering from the effect of them right now? Just got a chuckle out of your logics. I’m being sarcastic. Don’t take the end literally my friend.
September 28, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Bill says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Other, you are out completely of your mind if you think we can turn back the clock, The spending as almost doubled since 1992 and actual revenue is up with the lower tax rate. You could take 100% of the income of the top 1% and it would not put a dent in the budget. Please do your research. over 50% of the tax payers pay nothing at all in income taxes, they recieve it all back at the end of the year, Is that their fair share? LOL…
They would need to remove the preexisting condition clause for individual plans before they did this. Also employers would then need to pay their employees more as the employee is then required to pay for their insurance. I don’t see this happening. I am a republican and I don’t see this as a good idea. Repeal Obama care is my number 1 goal.
I was in Greece on vacation and I took a cruise through all the islands of Greece in May of this year. Now you have to look at Greece, What has their government created for their citizens? What kind of economy do you think they will have in the future? It is so scary to watch the riots and the total future financial collapse and future poverty and there is nothing that anyone can do about it because, They spend more money than they take in. It is that easy to solve. Here is our story.
United States of America:
Our tax revenue 2.1 trillion.
Our annual expenses 3.8 trillion (excluding non funded future liab)
Our National Debt 14.6 Trillion (and rising)
At least Paul Ryan is talking about solving the problems whether they be the budget or healthcare. You have to give him that. He is the one of the only politicians telling you the truth, either democrat or republican. Which Democrat has really come out and put forth any idea to fix the above problems? I HEAR CRICKETS! NONE! Even President Clinton was heard telling Ryan good job but no one will listen and you will pay a price for telling the truth.
By the way, Healthcare costs and how we deal with them are a very important problem for the budget deficit and our National debt problem. Medicare and Obamacare together combined will bankrupt our country and put us on a fast paced course towards Greek economics.
2003 we passed the tax cuts. Now why is this important? You made the comment that George W made a farm for the wealthy…Uh…Corporate tax revenues tripled on the third year. The economy crashed in 2008, I don’t know if you realize those are separate statements. The tax cuts could not have caused the crash. Corporate revenues always go down in a crash. But they went up by THREE TIMES in 3 years. Want to take back your statement now, or should I just call your bluff of knowing nothing now? It was aimed at dividends. Hmm, do you recall something OBAMA has being trying to sell lately? Something about…Taxing…dividends and capital gains…Because the wealthy aren’t being charged their fair share…Known as the BUFFET RULE??? And now do you maybe realize, why republicans are blocking his ideals? More importantly can you see that tax cuts help?
The tax cuts did spur economic growth. The economy itself was built on bad blocks, but that tax cut helped. NY Times was having a hard time trying to spin this one for liberals.
chris you can never argue with a liberal, they have spent their entire adulthood pretending that the world should provide for them no matter what their lack of effort is. They will always ignore reason and accountability, and avoid logic and facts that they would prefer did not exsist. They will always revert to an emotional outburst of ridicule when confronted with reality.
…you can never argue with a liberal, they have spent their entire adulthood pretending that the world should provide for them no matter what their lack of effort is. They will always ignore reason and accountability, and avoid logic and facts that they would prefer did not exsist. They will always revert to an emotional outburst of ridicule when confronted with reality.”
Sarah, that is just plain out not true. We don’t ‘pretend the world should provide for’ us no matter what. That is just an ignorant thought.
We are hardworkers just like you. We listen to reason and facts. We just have a vastly different attitude about the role of government, and that if government is here to protect the greater good of the people, ALL the people, then that means helping out those less fortunate, protecting our envirnment for the health and well being of all, keeping the country safe and much more. We are not just lazy people looking for handouts.
If compassion, care and concern for our fellow citizens is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.
No…Not really. I’ve debated with liberals. It’s more emotional concepts than real concepts. She’s quite correct.
As for the lazy aspect: If you don’t believe that a great deal more of the age class in 18-25 is lazier than 40+ than you’re lying to yourself. Demographics: 18-25 lean democrat by over 60%. 40+ it flips the other way. Coincidence? You decide.
At any rate: It is actually you who mistake the goal of republicans. They don’t like “wasteful” or “inefficient” spending or regulations, they do not mind programs that make sense. Perry did after all give out HPV vaccinations he felt were needed. That was an active government role was it not? You may argue against that one, but in 2006 democrats argued for the same vaccination to be national. So we’re not doing any flip-flopping are we now friend?
It’s not a matter of differing opinions of the role of government, it’s the level of government versus it’s efficiency. If it isn’t efficient, they scrap it. Privitizing social security is a good example. We are in the insurance field. You know it works. You follow the main stream liberal label that the right is anti-governement. Why do you think Ron Paul is trailing in the match ups? That is clearly untrue. Why do you think Texas actually has a large government growth of employees and services? Texas, North Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, all do very well. And they don’t have “anti government” beliefs. Indiana is running a surplus in 2011. Texas added 36% of the new jobs to the country since the recession began. Their system is fluid, their tort law is excellent. Your liberal left mock the conservative ideals of Idaho, North Dakota, Indiana and Texas while they do very well and refuse to listen to reason. How well are Michigan, Washington, and California doing?
Let’s weigh the advantages: Unemployment rates: Similar, other than Michigan which is abysmal. Government employees: You might be surprised this one goes to Texas in recent times. Deficit/Surplus is the kicker though…California, Washington, and Michigan fail in catyclsmic fashion. I have heard people make the arguement that oil is the reason for Texas’s and Alaska’s old surplus. Very well, then we should adopt their energy plan and get more oil for the nation as a whole yes? Ok well if it’s not the oil, then it is the conservative ideals yes? You can’t claim the negative on both sides on that one. You just can’t. Not to mention…It’s actually the HEALTH industry that makes up for many of the new jobs in Texas. Only about 10% are oil jobs. So in essence, they have better tax laws, better revenues, the add 36% of the recession jobs (up to 45% of the nations total if you count a 10 year period, so raw jobs)and have good programs to support the minimum wage worker(some people try to make the bold claim that the jobs are minimum wage jobs, but we all know health care jos, oil jobs, and professional service jobs as well as hard labor are generally not minimum wage jobs. I’ve worked each of them). Sounds good to me. It’s just a fact they have had more revenues to help whatever minimum wage workers they have had during that 10 year frame.
October 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
Sarah says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
DS,
We don’t ‘pretend the world should provide for’ us no matter what. That is just an ignorant thought.
Then why does every word that comes out of a liberals mouth contradict what your above statement says. You cant say one thing then denie it in the next sentence. I am tired of dealing in feelings when argueing a point. Talking to a liberal is like eating a soup sandwich. You can never get a handle on them, they alway revert to illogical arguments based on feelings and not facts. Very frustrating to say the least.
September 28, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Sarah says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Watch Europe to see where we are headed financially with our Obama financial, pension & healthcare wellfare mentality.
We are headed on the same path as Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, France, Etc. They will all be on an austerity programs soon, just like greece is now. we will as well, when our dollar collapes and our treasuries are worthless. If we do not change something soon. We are destined for a financial depression like no other our country has endured.
The other day, The bank of New York stated that if you bring into the bank more than 50 Million, they were going to charge you a fee for doing so and no interest payments at all. What does this mean? Our dollar is worthless. When asked why, The president of the bank said; “Why would I pay you for your money when I can get it for free from the Government” Scary!
I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but the author of the article blatantly got one important fact wrong. A Republican won a heavily Democratic district:
Many people saw this as a snapshot of the country’s feeling toward Obama, perhaps Obamacare specifically. Whichever way you feel about the topic, it would be nice if the “jounalists” writing these articles could research the topics for more than 20 seconds. Getting the facts straight kind of puts a whole new slant on their story.
“Giving patients and consumers control over health care resources would make all Americans less dependent on big business and big government for our health security; give us more control over the care we get; and force health care providers to compete for our business,” Ryan said.
What a horrible idea!
I can’t even count the number of times I have had to ask my employer to step in an intervene in a dispute with my employer sponsored health plan. Employers have a huge incentive to keep employees happy and employers have much more influence with the insurers than would an individual policyholder.
I like my current plan just the way it is, thank you very much. Hey Mr. Ryan: Where is the job plan you are Mr. Cantor promised when you ran for reelection in 2010? Still waiting on that.
We all need to grow up. What else do you rely on others to do for you? You sound like the Greeks, they want to retire with full benefits at 50 years old. We all need to take care of our own business.
“Make all Americans less dependent on big business…for our health security?” By forcing vast numbers of people into the tender embrace of for-profit individual healthcare insurers? Companies who make their living by charging as much as they can possibly manipulate the market to bear while paying out as little in benefits as they possibly can? One thing this proposal would most certainly accomplish would be a colossal surge in healthcares costs as everyone will be paying the 40-50% administrative/fees/taxes/risk charges that these insurers will ladle out on top of actual healthcare expenditures. If Ryan had set out to purposefully design a program to maximize healthcare costs, he could not have possibly done any better than this hare-brained scheme.
So when did your boss or Government owe you anything but an oportunity to succeed? All of you sound like whinning socialists from Greece or France, You can see where they are headed financially and so are we soon. If your looking for a Nanny state please leave. We cannot afford you. The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.
I would prefer to pick out which company I want to purchase my health insurance from, choose my own deductible to fit my budget and obtain any optional coverages I would like to purchase, such as long term disability etc, and if I do not like the service and claims reponse I get from my service rep, I will cancel my policy and place it elsewhere. Kind of like I do with my auto and home insurance. I really would not like my employer who is trying to save as much money as he can pick out my carrier and coverage. Call me crazy, but I dont think he might have my best interest at heart. Thanks Paul Ryan, for a diferent point of view. You see conservatives understand there is a quality issue here at hand and if you want to get your claims handled by the government, good luck!
I wouldn’t hold up France as an example if I were you. The World Health Organization ranks their health system Number 1 in the world.
Employer sponsored health plans have the advantage of negotiating the lowest possible premiums because of the number of employees involved. And most employer plans allow you to opt of of their coverage. My employer and many others even pay you if you opt out. Employers don’t “owe” me health care, but they would be stupid not to offer it because they need to in order to be competitive in the workplace.
And, please, can the Right Wing please stop asking those of us they don’t like to “leave?” It’s just as much my country as it is yours. Asking peopel to leave is tantamount to telling people not to express their opinions. How un-American can you get?
Are we talking the same world health organization that forgot to account for the 33% obesity rate in the U.S. as well as other factors which would pull a mortality rate down? Stastics OPV. I’ve been over it with you, it’s why liberal sources can’t be listened to. The WHO (and I’ve seen the study you’re talking about) when you remove the unnatural deaths (U.S. ranks high in crime/violence/vehicular deaths as well) our life expectancy is HIGHER than both Canada and France, and our lifestyles are WORSE. What does this state about healthcare? You decide. If you’d prefer to make the numbers yourself for once rather than citing others look up the obesity rates in each country and then look up vehicular deaths over a 10 year period. Remove the numbers and do the math. You can also look into black/african american population, which has a lower life expectancy as well and then note our country has more black people percentage wise than say Canada. It isn’t substantial, but the fact that the WHO did NOT have these studies separated and only looked at the infant mortality rate, as well as some cancer death rates (which we win out in several of them) as well as the average life expectancy, they did NOT successfully link HEALTHCARE into the study. Nice try OPV.
Now moving forward: I already had a post going over Ryan’s jobs plan. You missed it, your problem. I’m not putting a second post up here about what happened about a year ago that YOU missed and democrats refused. Basically the corporations with 1 trillion dollars (yes, 1/14th our gdp) stated they would bring back all operations to the U.S. if we lowered the corporate tax rate to 5.25%. Democrats refused on principle. Canada has grown their numbers of businesses opened proporionately and increased their corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP since they lowered it to 15% and are considering lowering it again. So a deal could have been made and wasn’. Drilling in our own country was suggested, as well as removing regulations for energy to allow for expansion. You should study. Canada pulled out of their recession over ten years ago with surpluses for a much more prolonged period of time than during the Clinton years and OIL was a lot to do with it. Or you missed the trade agreements we want to we-work to have us able to sell more goods to other countries with unfair trade practices (China, Korea, etc). I really don’t know how you miss all these jobs plans. This isn’t even the half of it. I won’t even go further as all these plans have been OPPOSED or IGNORED by the current administration. And by the way: Do not give me the liberal debating tactic that oil production went up during Obama’s presidency so he is doing better. He has NOT reformed the oil production laws the increase was on contracts put into place based on old regulations. They are restrictive. I would debate further but you’re arguements in here are extremely tiring and repetitive.
If you’re going to downgrade my post, then prove my comments wrong. No more typical liberal distaste please. I notice no one has to either of my comments.
That may be because most of us have to WORK during the day, instead of spending our time posting screeds that would absorb our day to argue against. I’ll disagree with you silently and on my own time, thank you.
Factless emotional outburst of ridicule. That is how all liberals respond when they are proven wrong Chris. Do not worry, they will be back and never address your sound positions of fact and logic. They are liberals who would rather based on therories of their utopian world that does not exist rather than logic or facts.
I’m a producer. I work well and happen to be very good in my field. I do work. I do planned breaks through my day to help my efficiency. Chances are I make more than you and I’m comission based son. I bring in my own meals based on how I perform. And my renewals to give you an idea only make up about a third of my book because I have signed a substantial amount of business this last year. So trying to calle lazy is a bad idea. My facts were sound. If you liberals can’t handle it it’s not my problem. I criticize my party often, and in fact only vote republican (sometimes) to avoid a complete government take over as opposed to lack of assistance. I’d rather lack coverage as it was my choice than have a single payer system and then have the government unable to pay when they go bankrupt. I’d rather have a situation where I control my spending. And I’ve done well with that mindset. I’m extremely well off from it. I imagine you must not be and must be waiting for the government to help you? Don’t insult me in a crude manner if you don’t want a come back.
You don’t like the WHO rankings because they don’t fit your preconceived notion of how things should be. Fine. Here’s a link to the National Geographic’s study that shows that the U.S. spends billions more on healthcare per citizen than any other developed nation in the world, yet our life expectancy isn’t nearly as high.
http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
There are dozens of other studies. You can find some of them here:
http://mphdegree.org/2010/25-best-global-healthcare-rankings/
The rest of your post made me chuckle. Ryan and the rest of the Republicans “job’s program” wasn’t a jobs program at all. It was a plan to reduce taxes on businesses, once again. Aren’t you tired of trickle down economics? Even George Bush Sr called it voodoo economics. Just keep giving those tax cuts to the corporations.
OPV:
You accept the WHO because it fits YOUR precoceived notions.
Now then: I took WHO’s study, and used THEIR paramaters to find the errors. Could you see how measuring mortality rates and infant mortality rates, without accounting for the increased mortality rates due to our lifestyles would mix up the statstics? And can you see how maybe, just maybe, it’s a problem if their life expentancy is the same as ours when you remove the factors in our section that would cause *gasp* for someone to die when that factor DOES NOT exist in the other country? As for your healthcare spending numbers: Does that prove ANYTHING regarding the healthcare quality? Absolutely not. Your numbers are just as much a farce as the WHO’s.
Furthermore: Actually in this case it wasn’t a measure of trickle down. The corporations had a trillion dollars of revenues for jobs that ALREADY EXISTS (key words ALREADY EXISTS it’s not a matter of saying ooooh booo hooo lower taxes will create more these revenues ALREADY EXIST) out of country which they stated they would MOVE BACK to the United States if the rate was pulled down to 5.25%. Nice try to label it the “common” republican ideals. This was not an ideal it was a DEAL that the democrats didn’t take. It WAS a jobs plan. You might not like it and choose to ignore 1/14th the GDP because it caters to your ideals, but your party failed and missed a deal to create $1 trillion dollars worth of jobs. OOPS!!
Now before I laugh further at your comments, I must guess you are about 25-35. Your voice screams it. But moving forward: The plan was to change regulations to allow for oil and energy to expand, the plan was to rework the trade agreements with several countries, and to get the government out of the way. Whether you like it or not kiddo, the government cannot make jobs. I would say the best way that would be bi-partisan, and would not be a government favored stimulus to attempt to inject money would be to give 100 banks the stiumuls money to lend to builders etc as needed. You’ll note instead Obama wants to have government make those choices, oops, his green energy company that failed was a great idea correct? Even my plan just listed would fail, and isn’t really a “right” or “left” ideal becuase try as you might the government cannot create an idea, a product, or manufacturing in the long run. Your failed ideals bleed liberal. Get your indoctrinated head out ofe liberal left’s sources, and start making studies yourself.
OPV, WHO do you think creates the jobs? Those evil rich people and those evil corporations!
So, lowering their taxes to get them to take more risk and create jobs or expand corporations would be a bad idea?
Why, because you have a job currently? Well, some of us do not have a job and want this incompetent Chicago thug out of our White House.
Why do you think the effective date of this alleged Healthcare law was subsequent to his re-election? Because it will double current healthcare costs before it is done. Please name another function, of any kind, that the Govt does better, more efficiently that private industry?
Now, let’s be fair, the Post Office would be a bad example with 80% of their expenses represented by labor! Again, unions will drive the P.O. out of business just like the car companies and airlines.
WAKE UP socialists. It does not and DID not work wherever it has been tried and to whatever degree it was implemented.
Socialism eventually runs out of money…
Say bye bye to this child president who is offended by anyone and takes immediate action to ruin their lives where possible.
We can not keep writing off debt as “it is for the economy” so we MUST spend ridiculous amounts of money on Obama’s friends.
I hope you all got your paybacks for electing this idiot, as he is done and it will take years to repair his mess…
YOUR president voted one way as Senator but reversed course totally as president. i.e. present , no on increasing debt limit each time.
Talking out of both sides of your face may fool liberals, but we are not that easily mislead…
Hey OPV! How is that making the rich pay their fair share scenario working out to create jobs? Have you ever got a job from a poor man? Herman Cain has the best plan with a 9-9-9 tax rate. Everyone has some skin in the game instead of the 20% of the well off paying 70% of the taxes. It is time for serious people to handle the reins of leadership since the Pretender in Chief has no clue except to raise taxes and spend us into oblivion.
Revision: The corporations with 1 trillion in revenues OFFSHORE. Left that word out. My post doesn’t make a bit of sense without that detail.
Other, As far as I can tell, no one ever leaves the US to go to France to have surgery. Pretty much the other way around.
“Employers don’t “owe” me health care, but they would be stupid not to offer it because they need to in order to be competitive in the workplace” WRONG, NOT WITH OBAMACARE! The incentive is gone!
Your employer is going to cancel their plan purchase the lowest cost plan and pay the penalty if necessary and avoid the cost all together. KISS YOUR CADILAC PLAN GOODBYE!
Hows your “Hope and Change” working out for you?
Ah yes …. France … used to be great in the 1600’s!!!
Sarah: You are not crazy. But, you may want to rethink your reality if you feel you can find good health coverage (comparable to your employer sponsored plan) and think that some unknown tax credit is goig to make up for the cost. I don’t have to be a whining socialist to know what Senator Ryan has proposed is nowhere close to reality. I am sure many good honest conservatives find it a ridiculous idea as well. Your name calling and high-pitched posts make it hard to take you seriously.
Socialism? Obamacare forces you to BUY coverage from a PRIVATELY OWNED HEALTHCARE INSURER.
Where is the socialism in that?
Stephen, the whole plan is set up to convert to a single payer plan, even Obama has stated many times that is the plan to convert to a government controled entitlement. If you read the law, this is the entire purpose of the law. They created triggers that are almost guaranteed to make the healthcare law convert to a single payer system. SOCIALISM. READ THE LAW!
It just shows you how clueless this guy really is. Go out and get an individual policy? In my case that would be 3 (dental, medical, prescription). You know what kind of a tax credit I would need to make up for that in the individual market? I’d probably be paying no taxes. How dependent on “big business” would I be in this Senator’s fantasy world? A lot more than I am now. I think he drew up this plan on the plane on his way to make this speech. He should throw the napkin he wrote his plan on into the waste basket. I am very lucky to have employee sponosored benifits I have now. I could never get this deal on the open market. Here is the poster child for term limits. He needs to get out into the world to see how it really is out there. Let’s all do this: Ignore Senator Ryan.
What an intriguing idea. So the folks who earn $45,000 at Wally-Mart and get family coverage can get a tax credit of what, $500? And that’s supposed to buy how much coverage?
Giving away tax credits is a naive way to buy votes. Even a good conservative like me can understand I couldn’t get a cheaper program on my own.
And didn’t I read somewhere recently that EB producers don’t get to earn commisions on some placements? Competition would only be between direct writers if that were the case.
Utter nonsense.
I agree with this. The $500 or whatever tax credit wouldn’t do much to help. And in an interesting kicker, disagree with this ideal on the right. Probably shocking to OPV as I haven’t seen him once say something in critical thought about the left, only critical support.
Now this is rich. I agreed with OPV on the fact that I don’t like the tax credit, he finally figures it out and downgrades my post. Haha. I love it. But anyway I think we can all agree something better can be done. OPV: I have not downgraded one of your posts. If you’re going to downgrade mine o do the research I keep telling you to. You might find rather than downgrading instantly, that maybe, just maybe, I’ve put this research together myself and it has nothing to do with citing sources and following. It has to do with real research. Studying a study is not studying.
What Rep. Ryan and most of our elected officials don’t understand (or don’t seem to care about) is ACCESS to health insurance. How many people who have pre-existing conditions would be able to find coverage if not through their employer? Try finding coverage anywhere but through a state FAIR plan and you will find that no one wants you, and amazingly, doesn’t have to offer you coverage. It isn’t like the P&C market where you can find coverage. In health insurance, companies deny coverage every day. We are forced to give auto insurance to drivers who have been convicted of a DUI, but health insurance companies can deny coverage for any conditons they choose to.
Before anyone jumps on this bandwagon, do yourself a favor and go shopping for an individual health insurance plan, one with the same bells and whistles that you have through your group plan. You may be shocked at what you find the premium is. Then find out what sort of tax credit Rep. Ryan is advocating.
One last thing about getting the most value for your health insurance dollar: Has anyone tried calling around to see what a clinic will charge you for an x-ray or an MRI? It’s an exercise in futility! This type of comment just shows (once again) how out of touch our elected officials truly are.
Access and pre existing conditions can be solved legislatively. If everyone is purchasing healthcare individually then the laws would need to be changed to allow for transfer to another carrier without underwriting. We do need standard policies like we have with medicare suplements plans A thru J, we also need to be able to sell across state lines. If the market were regulated just enough to protect the consumer but not so much as to eliminate competition, I believe that individual health insurance could work. Here are some of the benefits. You would not have to purchase extremely high cobra benefits and be put on medicaid if your job is terminated. You could take your coverage with you if you want to change jobs. You could deduct the cost from your taxable income, you could structure the plan the way you want it with standardized plans A through J like Medicare suplements. With new legislation, individual plans would be extremely attractive and beneficial to the public and employers.
By the way the cost of insuring someone with a DUI is alot more than someone who has no tickets at all. Also there is no requirement that any carrier is required to cover the DUI driver if they chose not to.
Good Post Sarah. Sic Em!
It’s important to remember that people cannot bargain for health care and health insurance the way they can for other commodities.
To illustrate, consider cosmetic and elective surgery, the freest market in medicine and generally the least expensive. Why is that? Because a buyer can take time to decide how important an elective procedure, how much he or she is willing to spend, and “bid the job,” so to speak.
All of that is rarely possible with medical or dental treatments that could have serious, even life-threatening, consequences if delayed or forgone. Second opinions are essential in severe cases, but for medical, not financial, reasons.
What about broke do you liberals not understand!
One of the prior post is right we are headed towards being Greece. One day we will have austerity measures imposed on us. If you do not believe this, please explain in details what your plan is to solve the problem with the run away cost of healthcare. Besides having Government pay for it, without an explanation of where the money will come from. At least Mr Ryan is addressing the tough questions that the left is putting their head in the sand about.
Free market capitalism has taught us over and over again, if you do not have competition, you will pay more!
“What about broke do you liberals not understand!”
We’re not broke and we have the means to have budget surplusses again if we only had the will to turn back the tax clock to where it was before Bush and his cronies gave away the farm to the top 1%.
Another lie OPV.
Tax revenues increased during Bush’s presidency. You forget a great deal. When oil prices are low the economy is prime for growth. Bush doesn’t affect oil costs. Many economists agree the economy was prime in the 90’s due to global economic situations. compared to Canada, we did extremely poorly during the 90’s boom. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. They reduced tax rates and spending. They paid of a portion of their DEBT. Clinton did not pay off the DEBT. Their is a difference between deficit and debt. Research it.
Bush and his “cronies”?
Wow. Just wow. Actually at this point no, we would not have surpluses again by going back to Clinton’s tax code, and the surpluses were after a 1995 congress take over by republicans, and who makes taxing and spending decisons? Do you really need to go back to highschool? The growth rates between 1997-2000 were the highest, after a modification made to decrease taxes (not the marginal rates, but rather deductions) and the economy grew over twice as fast between 1997-2000 as it did 1992-1995.
“We would not have surpluses again by going back to Clinton’s tax code, and the surpluses were after a 1995 congress take over by republicans, and who makes taxing and spending decisons? Do you really need to go back to highschool?”
1. Stop with the personal insults.
2. By your logic, that the Republican House of Representatives under Gingrich gets the credit for the Clinton economy, I’m sure you will have no difficulty accepting the blame for today’s economic disaster under Speaker Beohner. He’s had over a year to fix the problem. Why hasn’t anything been done?
Wrong again OPV. Beohner took over just months ago. We have had a democratic controled Senate and House since 2006. Congress spends our money and sets the tax rates. Why didnt the Democratic led Senate and House along with the president increase taxes to Clinton years. Huh? They had their chance. Obama said he couldnt raise taxes in his economic position that he has created. This is not the Bush tax cuts anymore its the Obama and Democratic Congresses Tax rates we are paying now! And by the way This is the third year of his presidency. When will he own it?
1. I won’t stop with the insults when you are insulting good people on the right with misquoted information playing it as fact while talking down to the people of this post (as I have seen you do to Sarah when you called her a republican when she is not, and a tea party acitivst when she is not) Do not talk to me with a superiority complex in order to gain honest points as a counter debating tactic. It doesn’t work.
2. By my logic, the revenues from that time frame are attributable and the surpluses, due to the fact that conress controls spending. The Clinton surplus was not his. That’s just a fact. The other comments about economic growth, you’ll note it was implied and it not a certain fact. But actually, if we make it EQUAL note that congress swtiched republican 1995, it was TWO YEARS later that things changed. so by my logics, 2012 could be a fair measure to some degree for economic status. But that is only assuming action is made. You must take a normal environment, and see a change to analyze it. 1992-1995 the economy grew twice as slow as from 1997-2000. Just a fact. The control was not in democrat hands. It could not have been them. If we use your logic, then the 2006 congress should have been responsible for a 2010 boom. Ooops…Didn’t happen did it? THAT would be equal. Do the math. If I take your flawed method of believing the democrats did it, they would have had to have done something in 1994 that took effect in 1997. Well then, the democrats in 2006 had 4 years, so are we suffering from the effect of them right now? Just got a chuckle out of your logics. I’m being sarcastic. Don’t take the end literally my friend.
Other, you are out completely of your mind if you think we can turn back the clock, The spending as almost doubled since 1992 and actual revenue is up with the lower tax rate. You could take 100% of the income of the top 1% and it would not put a dent in the budget. Please do your research. over 50% of the tax payers pay nothing at all in income taxes, they recieve it all back at the end of the year, Is that their fair share? LOL…
They would need to remove the preexisting condition clause for individual plans before they did this. Also employers would then need to pay their employees more as the employee is then required to pay for their insurance. I don’t see this happening. I am a republican and I don’t see this as a good idea. Repeal Obama care is my number 1 goal.
I was in Greece on vacation and I took a cruise through all the islands of Greece in May of this year. Now you have to look at Greece, What has their government created for their citizens? What kind of economy do you think they will have in the future? It is so scary to watch the riots and the total future financial collapse and future poverty and there is nothing that anyone can do about it because, They spend more money than they take in. It is that easy to solve. Here is our story.
United States of America:
Our tax revenue 2.1 trillion.
Our annual expenses 3.8 trillion (excluding non funded future liab)
Our National Debt 14.6 Trillion (and rising)
At least Paul Ryan is talking about solving the problems whether they be the budget or healthcare. You have to give him that. He is the one of the only politicians telling you the truth, either democrat or republican. Which Democrat has really come out and put forth any idea to fix the above problems? I HEAR CRICKETS! NONE! Even President Clinton was heard telling Ryan good job but no one will listen and you will pay a price for telling the truth.
By the way, Healthcare costs and how we deal with them are a very important problem for the budget deficit and our National debt problem. Medicare and Obamacare together combined will bankrupt our country and put us on a fast paced course towards Greek economics.
Hey OPV:
Not like you will listen to this (as you are far too limited in thought to know why this is important)
http:www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?pagewanted=print
2003 we passed the tax cuts. Now why is this important? You made the comment that George W made a farm for the wealthy…Uh…Corporate tax revenues tripled on the third year. The economy crashed in 2008, I don’t know if you realize those are separate statements. The tax cuts could not have caused the crash. Corporate revenues always go down in a crash. But they went up by THREE TIMES in 3 years. Want to take back your statement now, or should I just call your bluff of knowing nothing now? It was aimed at dividends. Hmm, do you recall something OBAMA has being trying to sell lately? Something about…Taxing…dividends and capital gains…Because the wealthy aren’t being charged their fair share…Known as the BUFFET RULE??? And now do you maybe realize, why republicans are blocking his ideals? More importantly can you see that tax cuts help?
The tax cuts did spur economic growth. The economy itself was built on bad blocks, but that tax cut helped. NY Times was having a hard time trying to spin this one for liberals.
chris you can never argue with a liberal, they have spent their entire adulthood pretending that the world should provide for them no matter what their lack of effort is. They will always ignore reason and accountability, and avoid logic and facts that they would prefer did not exsist. They will always revert to an emotional outburst of ridicule when confronted with reality.
“Sarah says:
…you can never argue with a liberal, they have spent their entire adulthood pretending that the world should provide for them no matter what their lack of effort is. They will always ignore reason and accountability, and avoid logic and facts that they would prefer did not exsist. They will always revert to an emotional outburst of ridicule when confronted with reality.”
Sarah, that is just plain out not true. We don’t ‘pretend the world should provide for’ us no matter what. That is just an ignorant thought.
We are hardworkers just like you. We listen to reason and facts. We just have a vastly different attitude about the role of government, and that if government is here to protect the greater good of the people, ALL the people, then that means helping out those less fortunate, protecting our envirnment for the health and well being of all, keeping the country safe and much more. We are not just lazy people looking for handouts.
If compassion, care and concern for our fellow citizens is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.
No…Not really. I’ve debated with liberals. It’s more emotional concepts than real concepts. She’s quite correct.
As for the lazy aspect: If you don’t believe that a great deal more of the age class in 18-25 is lazier than 40+ than you’re lying to yourself. Demographics: 18-25 lean democrat by over 60%. 40+ it flips the other way. Coincidence? You decide.
At any rate: It is actually you who mistake the goal of republicans. They don’t like “wasteful” or “inefficient” spending or regulations, they do not mind programs that make sense. Perry did after all give out HPV vaccinations he felt were needed. That was an active government role was it not? You may argue against that one, but in 2006 democrats argued for the same vaccination to be national. So we’re not doing any flip-flopping are we now friend?
It’s not a matter of differing opinions of the role of government, it’s the level of government versus it’s efficiency. If it isn’t efficient, they scrap it. Privitizing social security is a good example. We are in the insurance field. You know it works. You follow the main stream liberal label that the right is anti-governement. Why do you think Ron Paul is trailing in the match ups? That is clearly untrue. Why do you think Texas actually has a large government growth of employees and services? Texas, North Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, all do very well. And they don’t have “anti government” beliefs. Indiana is running a surplus in 2011. Texas added 36% of the new jobs to the country since the recession began. Their system is fluid, their tort law is excellent. Your liberal left mock the conservative ideals of Idaho, North Dakota, Indiana and Texas while they do very well and refuse to listen to reason. How well are Michigan, Washington, and California doing?
Let’s weigh the advantages: Unemployment rates: Similar, other than Michigan which is abysmal. Government employees: You might be surprised this one goes to Texas in recent times. Deficit/Surplus is the kicker though…California, Washington, and Michigan fail in catyclsmic fashion. I have heard people make the arguement that oil is the reason for Texas’s and Alaska’s old surplus. Very well, then we should adopt their energy plan and get more oil for the nation as a whole yes? Ok well if it’s not the oil, then it is the conservative ideals yes? You can’t claim the negative on both sides on that one. You just can’t. Not to mention…It’s actually the HEALTH industry that makes up for many of the new jobs in Texas. Only about 10% are oil jobs. So in essence, they have better tax laws, better revenues, the add 36% of the recession jobs (up to 45% of the nations total if you count a 10 year period, so raw jobs)and have good programs to support the minimum wage worker(some people try to make the bold claim that the jobs are minimum wage jobs, but we all know health care jos, oil jobs, and professional service jobs as well as hard labor are generally not minimum wage jobs. I’ve worked each of them). Sounds good to me. It’s just a fact they have had more revenues to help whatever minimum wage workers they have had during that 10 year frame.
DS,
We don’t ‘pretend the world should provide for’ us no matter what. That is just an ignorant thought.
Then why does every word that comes out of a liberals mouth contradict what your above statement says. You cant say one thing then denie it in the next sentence. I am tired of dealing in feelings when argueing a point. Talking to a liberal is like eating a soup sandwich. You can never get a handle on them, they alway revert to illogical arguments based on feelings and not facts. Very frustrating to say the least.
Watch Europe to see where we are headed financially with our Obama financial, pension & healthcare wellfare mentality.
We are headed on the same path as Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, France, Etc. They will all be on an austerity programs soon, just like greece is now. we will as well, when our dollar collapes and our treasuries are worthless. If we do not change something soon. We are destined for a financial depression like no other our country has endured.
The other day, The bank of New York stated that if you bring into the bank more than 50 Million, they were going to charge you a fee for doing so and no interest payments at all. What does this mean? Our dollar is worthless. When asked why, The president of the bank said; “Why would I pay you for your money when I can get it for free from the Government” Scary!
I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but the author of the article blatantly got one important fact wrong. A Republican won a heavily Democratic district:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-14/politics/new.york.special.election_1_special-election-weiner-republican-jewish-coalition?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-wins-democratic-new-york-house-seat/2011/09/13/gIQAoos5QK_story.html
Many people saw this as a snapshot of the country’s feeling toward Obama, perhaps Obamacare specifically. Whichever way you feel about the topic, it would be nice if the “jounalists” writing these articles could research the topics for more than 20 seconds. Getting the facts straight kind of puts a whole new slant on their story.
Oops, perhaps I should read a little more carefully. The very next paragraph mentioned the more recent election.