sHa

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 12:36 a.m.

Lawyers have nothing to do whatsoever with the cost of drugs. Really, JD, you need to do a little research before you waste everyone's time with your rants. (Just Google: Why do drugs cost so much?)

sHa

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.

Just more of the same old Limbaugh/Fox news mythology. ..

JD

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 6:25 a.m.

That's before the bulk of the health care law takes affect.

sHa

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 12:19 a.m.

"16,000 new IRS agents"?? Sorry, JD. Wrong again. Fact: The Treasury Department on Feb. 14 released the IRS budget request for fiscal year 2012 that shows the agency is seeking 1,269 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) at a cost of $473 million to help implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That includes 291 IRS agents, most of them (193) to "ensure accurate delivery of tax credits." For more information, read our Ask FactCheck, "IRS and the Health Care Law, Part II."

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.

Thank you, snark12. That's it in a nutshell.

sHa

Tue, Jul 10, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.

Those office visit charges are with the University of Michigan Health Care System. Shopping around, as you suggest, is basically pointless. Nice thought, though. And no, I am not "catching on". Healthcare in this country is unaffordable. Doing nothing hasn't helped much, has it? Again, those that can afford it don't want change. Do you really think $1,800/month is an affordable premium for the average couple, mmallen? Even before, as you say, the ACA factors in? What about the unemployed, self-employed, and others who CANNOT AFFORD that kind of premium? Oh well, right? Best of luck to you and everyone else.

maallen

Tue, Jul 10, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.

sHa, sHa, Michigan does have coverage for ALL. And to say that with Blue Cross "any benefits are AFTER you have made payments for 6 months, with NO coverage, if you have a pre-existing condition" is an outright lie. You don't pay 6 months of coverage until blue cross kicks in. There is a 6 month waiting period for pre-existing conditions, but everything else is covered IMMEDIATELY. Only your pre-existing condition has a 6 month waiting period. If you are paying $170 for a primary care physician and $450+ for a specialist, I think it's time for you to shop around and find one that is less expensive. Let's face it, when people shop for a computer they look at multiple stores and compare prices, etc. But for some reason when it comes to doctors, dentists, etc they just pick one without even asking about their prices! People need to shop around just like any other product or services. Am I happy about paying a high insurance premium every month? Absolutely not. Would I like it to be lower? Absolutely! But nothing that the federal government just did will help in lowering my monthly premiums. My premiums are now going to be raised dramatically in 2014. so tell me, what's affordable in the "Affordable Care Act?"

maallen

Tue, Jul 10, 2012 : 3:47 p.m.

sHa, I think you are finally catching on! The $1,800/month premium from blue cross has a 6 month waiting period for pre-existing condition, you are correct. But guess what? The ACA set up a high risk pool for those who had a pre-existing condition when it became law and what did they do? They put in it a 6 month waiting period for those with pre-existing condition. When Kathleen Sebiluis, Secretary of Human and Health Services, was asked why she did that she stated because if they covered things immediately, the government would run out of money! But yet in 2014, the government is demanding all pre-existing conditions to be covered immediately. If you thought the $1,800 premium per month is bad, wait until 2014 those rates are going to jump through the roof. Sure, people are going to get reimbursed from the government, thanks to the taxpayers, but what about those that don't meet the requirements? Not only do they have to pay the higher premiums, but also will be taxed more. Now do you get the picture? The "Affordable Care Act" did nothing to help bring the insurance premiums down, but did everything to cause the insurance premiums to go up.

sHa

Tue, Jul 10, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.

Let's face it, mmallen, health care reform is personal. If you can afford health care right now, you are happy. If you cannot afford it, you are not. Simple as that.

sHa

Tue, Jul 10, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.

mmallen- And I get tired of those who say Michigan has coverage for all. Just checked BCBS rates for a married couple, based on the ages of my spouse and myself: $1,808/month for a decent policy. And that does not include children. And any benefits are AFTER you have made payments for 6 months, with NO coverage, if you have a pre-existing condition. My spouse and I had BCBSM and opted for an HSA plan, because it was the only one we could afford. After a major health issue, we were left on the hook for $10,000 out of pocket. The HSA plan covered two office visits. As anyone who has been there knows, if you have a major health problem, you will be spending a lot of time visiting doctors for follow-up care. That's to the tune of $170/primary care, and $450+/specialists. My husband had multiple office visits after his hospitalization. That is on top of the $10,000 you already owe out of pocket, since BCBS only pays for two office visits on an HSA plan. Really affordable for most folks, right?

maallen

Tue, Jul 10, 2012 : 1:30 a.m.

sHa I pay 100% of my ins. prem. for my family. I buy it on my own. And there is a pre-existing condition. I am getting tired of people saying if you have pre-existing condition then you can't get insurance. That is false. Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI provides coverage for those with pre existing conditions. They don't base your rate on your condition. We were told by politicians that ACA will lower health ins prem, but it hasn't & won't because of all the new mandates that the ins. now has to cover, many of them for free (no copays from the customer.) When you do that, you drive costs up! So not only is our health ins prem going up, but we are now going to be paying more for our coverage because of our taxes going up. Universal health care is not the answer because as you see in Canada, England, France, & other countries they are moving AWAY from it because it is costing too much. Heck, even Cuba is now charging people (besides their high taxes) insurance premiums because the free health care is bankrupting them. The gov needs to streamline the laws & rules that they have on the ins. companies. Why can't ins. companies sell across state lines? If the government would get rid of these archaic laws that they have put in place over many, many years it will help drive down the cost of health insurance. Also, they need to limit the size of malpractice suits that are driving up the cost of ins. for doctors, hospitals, & ins. carriers which affects the cost of our ins. prem. It's a start, but keep in mind in Michigan we have a carrier that accepts everyone, regardless of medical conditions. However, in 2014, when other carriers are no longer able to ask medical questions and base a rate on your health, what do you think will happen to the rates? It will drive those rates up. So now us taxpayers, in 2014, will not only be paying higher ins prem, but also we will be paying higher taxes. So much for the affordable part in the "Affordable Care Ac

sHa

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.

maallen - I realize you most likely are covered by health insurance and have probably never lived with the fear of going bankrupt because of uninsured medical bills for yourself or a family member. I can understand your point of view. But try, for a moment, to understand the plight of millions of your fellow Americans who do not have health care insurance (prohibitive cost, pre-existing medical conditions, job loss and many other reasons) Some o these uninsured might be your neighbors and friends. The status quo with health insurance is unsustainable. No matter how much kicking and screaming one does in objection to the ACA, it does not change the fact that the system is broken. I am willing to listen to your suggestions. Do you have any alternative plan that will not cause anyone to contribute anything all? Or is the status quo fine with you, as long as you & your family are covered by healthcare. I would much rather see a Universal Health Care Plan for all rather than the ACA. Maybe even everyone chipping in for healthcare for all, the same as we do for highways, police, fireman, public schools, national and state parks, etc.

sHa

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 8:44 p.m.

Acme - How does anyone know where the tax penalties in the ACA will fall when the state exchanges haven't been set up yet and people have not had to get coverage yet? It sounds to me like someone is spinning data and jumping to illogical conclusions again.

maallen

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 6:41 p.m.

sHa, "most people will actually be able to AFFORD health insurance after ACA is enacted in 2014." And how do you think these people will be able to AFFORD health insurance in 2014? Because the government will be paying for it, either by the expansion of medicaid or by paying up to 85% of their premiums in the health exchange if they don't qualify for medicaid. Where does the government get its money? From the taxpayers. So, if the government doesn't have the money NOW, how do you think the government will pay for the expansion of medicaid AND up to 85% of someone's health insurance premium? Raise taxes to help cover the Affordable Care Act. The taxpayers are paying for the Affordable Care Act!

maallen

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 6:35 p.m.

sHa, Medicaid is being expanded by the ACA. Who pays for medicaid? The taxpayers. So since Medicaid is being expanded to let more people (millions more) on it, taxes will have to be raised in order to pay for it. If you don't qualify for medicaid, you can buy your insurance through the exchange and get up to 85% of your premiums paid for by the government. Where does the government get its money to pay for this? From us through higher taxes. Drug companies are being hit with more taxes under ACA. So what does the drug companies do with higher taxes? They pass them on to the consumer in higher prices! Medical/durable equipment suppliers/manufacturers are being hit with an added tax. They pass them on to the consumer with higher prices! Because of these taxes, it will now cost an insulin dependant diabetic an extra $2,000 per year to get his/her medicine and supplies. Yeah, so much about the "Affordable" Care Act. And these are just part of the taxes that will hit people.

acme

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 12:17 p.m.

The House Ways and Means Committee reports that there are 21 different tax hikes associated with ObamaCare at a cost of 675 Billion over the next 10 years. The Wall Street Journal reports that 75% of the taxes will be paid by families earning less than 120K per year.

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.

"Individual mandate tax - 2.5% of adjusted growth income" For those who do not purchase insurance. "Medicine Cabinet Tax - takes money from health saving accounts" Penalizes those that take money out of their HSA accounts for non-medical expenses. Sorry, I still don't see how the average American who makes less than $250,000 and carries health insurance, is going to pay additional taxes. In response to your next remarks, most people will actually be able to AFFORD health insurance after ACA is enacted in 2014

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.

These taxes hit everbody, including those making less than 250k Individual mandate tax - 2.5% of adjusted growth income Medicine Cabinet Tax - takes money from health saving accounts. Here, read it for yourself: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.

Does the average middle class family make more than $250,000 (which is the amount above which the taxes come into play)?

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.

Average middle-income families will see thousands in increases.

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.

Excuse me, JD, but which ones apply to people who make LESS THAN $250,000?????

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.

Why would you tax device makers that employ AMERICANS? The cost of every medical device is going to go up. As a result, more taxes, then more device cost increases, then more taxes... This is your government at work, bankrupting the nation. Is that compassionate? Is that fair?

sHa

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.

Second opinion, Acme? Since you do have Cadillac Health Benefits....

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.

"Emotion over substance. You have to scare people. This is your only tactic." Your own words, JD. Those words actually seem to describe many of your comments on this forum.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.

Just who do they think they are to tell us how to live? And if you don't pay your tax, or your penalty, or whatever it is, the IRS will come after you. How's that sound? What if you can't afford the tax? The IRS will audit you, take your assets, house... what the heck is going on here? Wake up people

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.

Acme, heal up fast. You have a good attitude. And you understand that the rationing of care will just be evil. What gives the government the right and who made them the geniuses that are gonna tell us if we are allowed treatment?

talker

Tue, Jul 10, 2012 : 11:19 p.m.

If your health insurance won't pay for a consult with another doctor, then I doubt you have a "Cadillac Plan." Some people concerned about having to pay taxes on a "Cadillac Plan" likely don't have a plan that meets such criteria. Appeal to your insurance company. Insurance company "pencil pushers" sometimes deny people some coverage. Government workers won't be doing that. In fact, the Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to pay out more of each health care dollar for patient care. Please don't blame the Affordable Care Act for how your insurance company may have taken advantage of you in the past. I wish you well and hope you a complete remission forever.

acme

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.

It's not the doctor, its the health insurance.

sHa

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 11:03 a.m.

Since you have a "Cadillac Plan", perhaps a 2nd opinion might be in order?

maallen

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 6:32 p.m.

sHa, Medicaid is being expanded by the ACA. Who pays for medicaid? The taxpayers. So since Medicaid is being expanded to let more people (millions more) on it, taxes will have to be raised in order to pay for it. If you don't qualify for medicaid, you can buy your insurance through the exchange and get up to 85% of your premiums paid for by the government. Where does the government get its money to pay for this? From us through higher taxes. Drug companies are being hit with more taxes under ACA. So what does the drug companies do with higher taxes? They pass them on to the consumer in higher prices! Medical/durable equipment suppliers/manufacturers are being hit with an added tax. They pass them on to the consumer with higher prices! Because of these taxes, it will now cost an insulin dependant diabetic an extra $2,000 per year to get his/her medicine and supplies. Yeah, so much about the "Affordable" Care Act. And these are just part of the taxes that will hit people.

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.

Excuse me, JD, but which ones apply to people who make LESS THAN $250,000?????

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.

sHa, I already listed those taxes, one by one, in a previous post

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.

The Empower Patients First Act . There's your alternative. You are a conservative sHa? And you want to hand over unlimited power to the federal government? Please...

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.

"But that doesn't cause me to want the largest tax increase in history to pay for a massive government program." JD, please list those taxes that those making less than $250,000 per year will have to pay under the ACA. Thank you.

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.

JD, please don't lump me in with Ann Arbor liberals. I am actually quite conservative. I just happen to think that the ACA is a step in the right direction, and probably the only way to eventually reach the Single Payer system in this country. If you didn't have health insurance, (which I am assuming you do) and were unable to obtain it, I imagine you might have a different point of view. So far, I haven't heard one alternative plan from you, Romney, or anyone else who opposes the ACA.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.

Sparty, that huge group is 60% of the country. It's gonna be a landslide, like Reagan had over carter.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.

I have to buy my own, and it's hard to pay for it. But I have to save money and not buy other things I want to make room for the HC payment every month. It's not great. And i have a high deductible. But that doesn't cause me to want the largest tax increase in history to pay for a massive government program. SHa, I already answered the Jennifer thing. Is it compassionate to bankrupt America? Answer that one. Yes or no? As to an alternative, one is already being proposed and it's called The Empower Patients First Act. Instead of unaccountable bureaucrats making medical decisions, we put it in the hands of patients, and doctors. Look it up. Learn something. Wow, look! It's incredible! There's an alternative to letting government make healthcare even worse! Oh, no, that's not possible, the libs say. Government is our God, and god can't be wrong.

Sparty

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.

Good luck finding that huge group, JD.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:51 p.m.

Ivor, NOW you are talking! Someone needs to take a stand. I'm just one, out of a huge group of voters that really is genuinely upset that our country is falling apart. Am I going to convince people to vote against Obamacare? Probably not. All I can do is vote. And so I'm probably wasting time with my 54 comments. I could be out exercising enjoying the town. Bedard is playing tonight. Gotta go see that. I love Ann Arbor. It's just so tough to listen to the liberals go on and on. I like this site too, but realize I'm gonna have to stop reading and writing comments in order to keep any sanity. At some point I have to let go. And that is the most important thing. Vote, and let go.

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.

I guess we know where you stand, right JD? You've got yours, so to heck with everyone else. Your comments are typical Tea Party rhetoric...not one viable suggestion (not even a hint) for solving the health care insurance problems in this country, just more of the status quo. And by the way, you didn't answer my previous questions. What about those people mentioned in Jennifer Belaire's letter? Nice job with skirting the issue.

Ivor Ivorsen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.

JD, I think at this point you account for about 53 of the 116 comments made so far. I think the "libby" media has failed in its mission to crush this conservative voice--good for you!

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 6:58 p.m.

I know, it's all Bush's fault. Obama had nothing to do with it.

Sparty

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:02 p.m.

Actually, the largest expansion of government debt and largest tax increase was Bush's Medicare Part D which he passed, unfunded. It's commonly called the Donut Hole .... ROFL.

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.

I guess we know where you stand, right JD? You've got yours, so to heck with everyone else. Your comments are typical Tea Party rhetoric...not one viable suggestion (not even a hint) for solving the health care insurance problems in this country, just more of the status quo. And by the way, you didn't answer my previous questions. What about those people mentioned in Jennifer Belaire's letter? Nice job with skirting the issue.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:16 p.m.

The Tea Party understands that bankrupting our nation in not compassionate. We simply want to stop spending more than we take in. Any business, family, knows that it is essential to not spend more than you make. Obama himself is doing fine, isn't he? $10 million net worth. It's ok if he bankrupts America, as long as he is doing fine.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 6:08 p.m.

yes SHa, you're just so smug and smart. That sums it up. You, along with King Obama know better than the rest of us evil republicans.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 6:07 p.m.

Trying to push through the largest expansion of govt and largest tax increase on the middle class in American history, by questioning peoples compassion, is typical, standard Left wing warfare, because you are incapable of debating the bill on the facts. Emotion over substance. Republicans don't care. Those rich evil guys.. You lefties have to divide people. You have to scare people. This is your only tactic. Do you think rationing is compassionate? Higher costs for everything in sight- is that compassionate? Is a doctor shortage and skyrocketing insurance rates compassionate? In 1967, they said Medicare would cost 12 billion by 1990. It turned out to be 110 billion by 1990 Today it costs 314 billion annually. Do you think Obamacare is actually gonna cost what they say it will? Not one government-run program costs what they say it will. Is it compassionate to say it will cost 940 billion only to find out it's actually 3 trillion? Doctors hate this bill. A majority of people are opposed to it. Yet we have to "sign it first to see what's in it" That's your hero Pelosi talking.

sHa

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.

Yes, Peter, that just about sums it up, doesn't it. No further comment needed.

Peter

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.

Remember when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul if we should just let sick people die if they can't afford care, and the tea partiers in the audience cheered? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:51 p.m.

In the tank for dems for decades I should have said. Obama hasn't been around for decades. Getting sloppy now, trying to keep up with these lefty move-on.org types

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:48 p.m.

It's really an "anybody but Obama election." Just like they wanted Bush out so bad, people are sick of socialist Barry Obama. I myself could create more jobs than this joker. Romney will be 100 times better for our country. He's very underrated as a politician. He's a solid man and he loves his country. Can't say that for Obama, no way. The war are wrong, if that's what Romney actually believes. We should have learned our lesson by now. We just don't have the money to fight all these pointless wars. But... do you advocate letting Iran getting nukes? Because there is no question they are gonna wipe Israel off the map. Something must be done. Ivor- I don't need a left-wing poll to tell me that every major TV news organization is in the tank for Obama and has been for decades. It's really a shame to the journalism profession. They have no desire to report fairly, because they are are libby club members. Thank god we got somw fresh air from FOX News. They actually QUESTION the administration. Again CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and the major newspapers, gave, and give, Obama a COMPLETE PASS. And HAMMERED Bush non-stop. Complete hypocrites. Now, you found a little left wing poll somewhere from some guy that hates Fox news. Is that supposed to impress me or any intelligent person?

Ivor Ivorsen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.

1bit, This really should come as no surprise. A 2011 poll conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that watching Fox News "lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don't watch any news at all." (source link below) http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

1bit

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : noon

The funny thing is that you actually don't seem to realize that the President doesn't run the country, Congress does. Really, they write the laws and the President just signs or vetoes them. If Congress doesn't like the veto, they can override it. As for Romney, I'm still waiting to hear what his plans will be if elected. His health care law was enacted but he wants to repeal it and replace it (with what)? He wants a war with Syria and maybe China, but I'm not sure how that creates more jobs or erases the deficit. He really seems to have no plan other than to say anything you want to hear and desperately hope that you don't look at what he has said or done in the past.

maallen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:28 p.m.

No, the Obama girl does not have a crush on him anymore. She has already come out and said that this year. But most media outlets didn't cover that.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:49 a.m.

But this is all "gibberish from the right wing mouthpieces" according to Snark12.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:43 a.m.

And again, with all the pain out there, all the uncertainty, unemployment, people losing their homes, jobs, everything, your answer is Obamacare, the largest government takeover in American history. Largest tax increase in American history. Most radical leftist president in American history. Wants to bankrupt the coal industry. "Electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket." his exact words. "The private sector is doing fine." His words. Wants to force religious organizations to pay for abortion drugs. Jammed through an unconstitutional healthcare law. Apologizes for America all around the word. 83 rounds of golf in 3 years. Non-stop debt-ceiling fights, because Obama refuses to cut one dollar of government spending. America's credit rating was downgraded under his watch. He said no to the Keystone pipeline and 20,000 American jobs. He sure will raise taxes though, wont he? His green jobs sham - Solyndra, and three others now, billions of dollars wasted. He refuses to consider drilling on our own coastline and in the Arctic. Gas prices have doubled since he took office. It's ok though, we can use algae and "inflate our tires." Record federal disability handouts. 8.7 million people in June accepted payments, for life. (Everybody knows, you just get a lawyer and wait 2 years) A LL T R U E. This is our president. Obamacare, yeah, that's the answer. This president cares not one bit about getting us out of debt, getting us energy independent. He cares only about socializing america, fundamentally transforming us.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:22 a.m.

Look, I'll try to address this one more time and then I'm going to bed. You can try to understand or not, your choice. 1) I said 4.1% unemployment for college grads over 25% years old. It's a fact. 2) I'll take your 1 out of 2 UNDER 25 as unemployed or UNDERemployed as a fact (it's not a stat that's compiled the same as labor stats but I won't dispute it). But it doesn't conflict with my fact. It's a totally different audience .There are 60+ million people in the population I'm talking about, there are probably no more than a million or two in your population. And you can't now just conveniently drop the "under 25" part as you did above. With total unemployment at 8.2% (not 8.3% as you stated), how can one out of two college graduates be unemployed? That's clearly ridiculous. 3) I'm not try to sugar coat anything, I didn't try to minimize unemployment. I was the one who pointed out 12+% unemployment for those without college education (of all ages!), and the point was that it's really, really tough if you don't have an education in this economy, so it's best to adopt policies that address that. I'm amazed at the Right's ability to brainwash so many people to advocate for policies that help people like me at the expense of people like themselves.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:08 a.m.

There's real pain out there. Real unemployment. And you are trying to sugar coat it with a 4.1% number. 1 in 2 are underemployed or unemployed. Right now. Under Obama's watch. That's a talking point? Well it's a good one then, because it's true.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5 a.m.

1 in 2 recent college grads underemployed or unemployed. 8.3% unemployment across the board, when Obama promised with his stimulus "shovel ready" jobs it wouldn't get above 5.7% And the 8.3 is really 15 because of the people that stopped looking. You can't hide it Snark. Try your 4.1% sugarcoat all you want.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:49 a.m.

You're expanding the audience to included "underemployed," so that's quite a bit different. Also, I should have said I was looking at stats for people 25 years and older, which is the population that's always looked when you hear the monthly unemployment stats. So, it's really apples to oranges. The fact is, Unemployment for college graduates over 25 years old is 4.1%, as of Friday. I'm sure you can go on all night with made up gibberish from the right wing mouthpieces. Such as the "fact" businesses won't spend because of regulations, concerns about healthcare, taxes, etc. etc. I am now or have been personally involved with nearly 20 businesses over the last 15 years, ranging from small start-ups to large manufacturing businesses. Not one time did we consider anything about government regulation or tax policy when deciding a major strategic decision. It's just a non-starter. It's a meaningless talking point, just like the "job creator" nonsense.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:46 a.m.

4.1%.... uh... yeah right.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:43 a.m.

RECENT college grads, Snark, indicating Obama's failed economy. 1 in 2, unemployed or underemployed.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:40 a.m.

It's AP's own research. Here it is again, in a New Yuck Times piece It doesn't capture the grim reality for recent college graduates, whose leg up on their less educated counterparts isn't such a sturdy, comely leg at the moment. According to an Associated Press analysis of data from 2011, 53.6 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 were unemployed or, if they were lucky, merely underemployed, which means they were in jobs for which their degrees weren't necessary. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-imperiled-promise-of-college.html

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:37 a.m.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/22/job-market-college-graduates_n_1443738.html

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:36 a.m.

yes it is. 1 in 2

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:34 a.m.

One in two unemployed or underemployed. That's from AP, an organization that is deep in the tank for Obama. So deep that AP would also get the bends if they came up for air. The problem is that businesses are holding onto their money because they are scared to death of Obamacare and his radical policies. They're afraid to invest after his 5 trillion spending binge has put the economy on shaky ground. And nothing is built here in America these days because if you try, you get shaken down by unions and big gov regulations. They gotta go to China to compete. And education is a good thing, but spending more money on it is not the answer. It's becoming unaffordable, except for the rich. Colleges like U-M see the money from Sallie Mae loans rolling in, so they just keep raising their tuition and building bigger castles on campus to satisfy their ego. It's an un-holy alliance, as they say. What you got next? Cuz I can keep going like this all night.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:33 a.m.

Your "1 in 2 college grads are jobless" stat is so far wrong you don't know what you're smoking. You can go look up the numbers yourself like I did. It's 4.1%, as reported on Friday.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:25 a.m.

The priority, in Romney's eyes, is to grow business, so that these grad will have jobs. 1 in 2 college graduates are jobless or unemployed Snark.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:58 a.m.

Unemployment among college graduates is 4.1%. Unemployment for people over 25 years old without college education is over 12%. This is the heart of the problem. Today's economy is much more "knowledge based" and much less manufacturing based. Neither Obama nor Romney will be able to change that. But at least Obama wants more people to get a college education, whereas Romney doesnt seem to think it's a priority.

maallen

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.

Snark12, I never said to donate ALL your money. You are the one that said you are "very wealthy" and also said "I know how the world works for the upper class because I live there. And I know it's not good for the country. Or me." All I am saying is, if it's not good for you then donate your money to the federal government so that you become a middle class american since being rich is not good for you. What's so hard to lead by example? If you don't think the wealthy are taxed enough, and according to you you are wealthy, then pay extra in taxes. What's so hard about that?

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:24 p.m.

Or Maallen is right I should say. Don't know if it is a guy or gal.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.

She's right. If you despise the rich so much and they are so bad for keeping their own money, then you could be an example and donate all YOUR money to the government. No reason why you should keep your money, Snark, if you are so eager to tell everyone else to pay more. Lead by example, Snark.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.

Yeah, that's the "brilliant" argument used against Buffet and other wealthy people who call for a more rational tax policy. The obvious answer is that confiscating all of my wealth, or Buffet's or Gates', would do nothing to solve the problem. A tax policy that simply asks the highest income earners to pay a tax rate closer to what they paid up until 10 years ago would. Applying your logic to your own position, perhaps you think the top 3% should pay no taxes? "Just think how many jobs would be created then!" See how stupid that sounds?

maallen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.

Snark12, "I'm very wealthy! I know how the world works for the upper class because I live there. And I know it's not good for the country. Or me." Since you care so much about the USA, and yourself for that matter, and being in the upper class is not good for you or the country, you do realize you can donate your money to become a middle class citizen don't you? Heck, if you feel that you don't pay enough in taxes you can always pay more. It's your choice. Why not choose to give your money to the federal government since it's not good for you or the country? Why not let it start with you and voluntarily give your money to the government?

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:29 a.m.

JD, the great majority of money of the truly wealthy (inherited or not) is not put to productive use in the economy. Investing in a start up or investing to buy new equipment in a business, yes, that counts. Buying an expensive house or a fancy car, less so. Investing in Apple stock counts not at all. That does nothing to help the economy. The fact is that wealthy people spend a far smaller percentage of their income, simply because there's only so many things to buy in the world. The rest becomes unproductive, accumulated wealth. Because federal taxes are at their lowest point in last 60 years, the wealthy have gotten wealthier --- relative to the middle class --- faster than at any time since the 1920s. It doesn't create jobs, it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help the infrastructure, it just makes them wealthy. Why do I care? Because I'm an American and I stronger America is better for ALL Americans, even the wealthy. The wealthy got weather faster --- in absolute terms, not relative terms --- under Clinton than they did under Bush, for instance. A stronger middle class helps the wealthy more than a weak one. And why do I care? Because, frankly, I'm very wealthy! I know how the world works for the upper class because I live there. And I know it's not good for the country. Or me.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:21 a.m.

It gets spent, invested, etc. Snark, you just can't stand to see someone with inherited money or something? Who cares anyway? It's their money. It belongs to them. The government (Republicans AND democrats) should keep their greedy hands off it.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4 a.m.

How exactly is that inherited wealth going into the economy?

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:26 a.m.

Dead wrong because one blog entry at the WSJ questions the pattern? Inherited wealth is good too, because it goes into the economy. And because it was earned at one point. They want to tax the inherited wealth too. But why? It was already taxed!

Ivor Ivorsen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:17 a.m.

"And at one point in time, those rich people had nothing, and they had to grind, and save, and sacrifice. " Dead wrong. I suggest you read this short article from the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/22/are-we-entering-the-age-of-inherited-wealth/?mod=WSJBlog

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:32 a.m.

Will, very well said. But the way the left thinks, is that if you earned all that money, then you are greedy and you need to hand it over to the government, so they can dole it out to those that don't work. They use the term "fair share" a lot. I imagine in their eyes, this is also "sustainable," because they love that word, but I can't see how it's sustainable. If you keep stealing people's money, at some point they give up.

Will Warner

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:26 a.m.

Not quite, Townie. They way you have worded it ("rich people should be allowed to go the head of the line") sounds as if the bureaucracy would look around and move rich people to the top of this list. What I am saying is that people should be free to buy services they can afford. I don't want the bureaucracy ever to say to me: "We know you'd like to get that fixed, but really, it's not that bad, so we'll get back to you went its your turn." I would expect that if I were asking for the service as a gift, but not if I have lived my life so as to be able to afford to pay for it.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:25 a.m.

Townie, the rich people will always be in the front line, because they can pay cash up front. And there will be hospitals willing to perform the service and take that cash. Do you suggest we disallow hospitals from taking money to perform a service in a free market? Should we have only government hospitals where our dear leaders tell us what care we are entitled to? It really is a stunning phenomenon. All these class-envy people that would have government tell us what to do in every aspect of our lives. We need to hold our elected officials accountable, not grant them unlimited power.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:16 a.m.

Let me see if I got this right townie - are you saying nobody should be "allowed" to advance and make more money than others, and therefore be able to buy their healthcare? The rich won't be affected because they already can afford it. And the poor will be subsidized, but the poor already get free care to a large degree. Who's really gonna suffer is the middle class. Do you want the middle class to suffer? Because it'll be a massive middle class tax increase, and, as the years go by those taxes will increase.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:18 p.m.

No, you are immune from facts.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:46 a.m.

JD, my links are to factual presentations of data. Math isn't biased. I see that you are immune from facts, however.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:33 a.m.

Snark12- Rush is right, for starters. I have the same philosophy. I don't need talking points to express my opinion. The Washington Compost is hardly a trustworthy source. They're so deep in the tank for Obama that if they came up for air they'd get the bends.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:12 a.m.

BTW, of that $5.05 trillion debt increase, $4.61 trillion was an increase in public debt. That is, an increase in the Federal Reserve balance sheet, so it's owed to...us, the US citizens. It was not financed on the "Chinese credit card." This subtle fact is why US debt is not the same as, say, Greek debt.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.

Gosh, JD, I can't even keep up with all your ridiculous Fox News and Rush approved talking points. The Obamacare tax increase is not anywhere close to the largest in the history of th world, whatever that means, it's not even a large one by, say, Reagan standards. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/no-obamacare-isnt-the-largest-tax-increase-in-the-history-of-the-world-in-one-chart/ You certainly are not one to let facts get in the way of your arguments.

snark12

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:03 a.m.

Attributing the $5 trillion to Obama alone is, of course, inaccurate. Also, given the economic crisis in 2008-2009, the stimulus package was a necessity. Many economists think it was too small, which is why the economy is still just sputtering along. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2 a.m.

What do you think is paying for this Obamacare? The chinese credit card! And of course, the largest middle class tax increase in the history of planet Earth. Obama said time and time again " if you make under $250,000 a year your taxes will not go up. That was a good one! Bush was "unpatriotic" spending 3 trillion in 8 years. Does that make Obama unpatriotic x2 for spending 5 trillion in 3 years?!?! Think about it! Truth is Obama has no intention of balancing the budget. Unemployment could be 25, 30 percent, and as long as those greedy rich people are paying 80, 90 percent in taxes, then he'd be happy. See, it's not about prosperity, it's about beating down the successful people and rewarding those who aren't producing anything. The safety net has turned into a way of life. Again, a country that has 50% of its population on government handouts, cannot possibly survive

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:49 a.m.

I agree, Bush loaded up the debt with the wars. And he bailed out the banks, which was a mistake. But Obama has racked up 5 trillion in just 3 years! And he wants to double down. He thinks more spending will do the trick. What sane business would say we need to borrow and spend more? Bush isn't running for president. Romney is not Bush. I'm afraid blaming Bush won't be enough to get your guy Obama reelected. He can't run on his record. It's horrible. Hope and change. Food stamps for all. Tax and spend.

Townie

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:27 a.m.

Now who created this huge deficit? Let's see: a huge tax cut to the wealthy, then two huge unfunded wars (on our Chinese credit card), then yet another unfunded Medicare pharmacy benefit. Then the unregulated banks and hedge funds destroyed the economy. Some facts: Debt in 2001: 5.8 trillion. 2008 (Bush): 10.6 trillion. And the Bush legacy of debt (tax cuts): 3.56 trillion. When Obama arrived in office the debt was 10.5 Trillion. OMB stats. And I notice you never mention our bloated defense budget... Obama's job growth record is better than Bush's and Obama had to dig us out of the huge hole Bush left. Obama spent a lot less than Bush did as well and there are fewer public sector workers (Bush added a lot - TSA, remember? Clinton left a surplus and the last Republican President left a huge hole. So let's re-elect the same party that dug the hole? Fixing health care saves money because right now it's out of control. And what did the last Republican administration do about it? Nothing in 8 years. And their solution now? Freedom at stake? Bush did away with it with secret wire taps, torture, rendition -- where were you then? The 'Patriot' Act took away the most freedoms ever yet no one seemed to notice.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.

Will Warner. That's the most intelligent thing I've read in all these posts. Well said my friend. Thank God there are still smart people like you out there. You are so right. They will tell us how to live, is completely correct and it is happening everywhere already. And telling us how to live, means massive growth in government too, because you need more gov workers to administer all the new programs. It's like a snowball that is rolling down a hill. With every second it picks up more and more snow. And it goes back to what I wrote about blind trust. This is what happens when you blindly trust government to do as it pleases. Again, look at Europe. Decades of liberal, unchecked social welfare programs, unsustainable spending. Now the bill has come due. They FAILED. Same with Detroit - FAILED. 1/2 a century of government rule ruined the city. Unions, pensions, $30 an hour to sweep floors. Unlimited welfare to irresponsible people. Generations of people living on welfare. Why work? You get free money for doing nothing.

Will Warner

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.

1-bit. Thanks for the reasonable critique of my gobblediegook. My responses: "2. You are blaming the victim here. Your assumption is that lack of insurance is achoice. This is false. Most of the uninsured and underinsured work and want insurance but cannot afford it." It's not an assumption. We all know people who voluntarily forego insurance because they think they will win that bet, or who leave a job that furnishes health care or a salary that would support the private purchase of it, to pursue their less remunerative dream. Isn't it often the case that we afford what we decide to afford? "3. No one is being denied treatment and there is no proposal to do that. If you think you can currently "buy your way to the front of the line" then for the most part you are wrong." But I know people who come to America from Canada for treatment because the line is too long at home or because the bureaucracy there has deemed their condition not serious enough or not amenable to treatment. My posting asked readers to consider a future in which the same conditions exist here. If you listen carefully, you will hear the equality- uber-alles people advocating for the power to say to everyone, "we'll get back to you when it is your turn" – even to people who were not "born to wealth." My biggest fear is something I didn't mention. When my neighbors realize that they must pay for my health care, they will, justifiably, want control over how I live. If you listen carefully, i-bit, you will hear the beginnings of that as well.

1bit

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:51 a.m.

Will, this post is theoretic gobblediegook. 1. Medical expenses are the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. The majority of those people have medical insurance. 2. You are blaming the victim here. Your assumption is that lack of insurance is a choice. This is false. Most of the uninsured and underinsured work and want insurance but cannot afford it. If you are born to wealth you are no more and no less deserving of health care then someone born to poverty. 3. No one is being denied treatment and there is no proposal to do that. If you think you can currently "buy your way to the front of the line" then for the most part you are wrong. Let me just add that "health care" is a broad term encompassing a great number of conditions. There are finite resources and there should be finite limits on what the government should pay for with some responsibility for people to purchase extra coverage if they desire. The irony is that the state legislature has basically declared that health care is a right by repealing the helmet law and putting the rest of us on the hook for their treatment.

Middle America

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:10 a.m.

Romney is a strong conservative? Have you not looked into anything he did prior to running for president? The wool has really been pulled over your eyes.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:45 a.m.

You know it. And Romney is a strong conservative. He can bring that enterprising spirit back that Obama has stomped on for the last 3.5 years.

SEC Fan

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 10:59 a.m.

$300K for the full cost of cancer treatment? Are you joking? Go through that in about 3 months.

Mick52

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:53 a.m.

Oops I am sorry my reply was to JD not 1bit.

Mick52

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:52 a.m.

Not at all 1bit, I think Obamacare is a travesty and a horrible law that now has ended up with a SCOTUS decision that allows the govt to force us to buy whatever they want. I said nothing that supports Obamacare. It is a joke. The folly came right from the start when young Senator Obama promised "High quality affordable health care." Now it is just affordable health care but what has always been missing was the answer to my original question: Just what exactly do you consider "affordable?" What one person considers affordable may be very expensive to another and I see no way to make HC "affordable." By its nature it is expensive and you cannot make something expensive inexpensive. The only way the govt can help people pay for it is by subsidies and that requires a large tax increase, something that the President and the congress that passed this mess could not stomach. I am in the group that has HC insurance at a very low cost to me and I do not want anything to drive up my costs. Others have insurance they consider expensive and feel the same, but Obamacare will not save us money. My point is that the republicans have come up with no good alternative. It is possible there isn't one but when the country is in a serious recession with high unemployment it is not a good time to go down this road. If the economy ever thrives, that would be a better time.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:17 a.m.

Mick52- so you trust Obamacare, coming from the guy that has basically driven our economy to a halt via his record 5 trillion debt and stifling regulations? I know, it's all Bush's fault. Trust government to this degree and it's a certainty that we'll have a permanent recession/depression. But this is the new norm. "The private sector's doing fine," Obama said. It's government that needs more money. Because government is smarter than us, more highly educated. They know what's best for us. There are no solutions other than higher taxes, bigger, more powerful, intrusive government.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:10 a.m.

1bit - Safety nets are needed. But this has gone far beyond that. This is top down government rule. I know exactly what a free market solution is. It's one where the federal government can't tell you what and what not to do. Hence the word free.

Mick52

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:09 a.m.

JD is right and wrong. In countries with universal care, rationing is very common along with long waits. The rationing is to keep costs low. A free market for health care is what we have now and it has not worked very well and I doubt and free market approaches will do any thing to lower costs. The main things republicans promote are 1. reforming malpractice insurance which makes no sense in regard to saving money. To avoid frivolous suits each state can simply create a panel, Drs, lawyers etc that review all malpractice suits and determine the validity of a claim to determine if it should go forward and what value might be expected. I believe we already do this in Michigan. Why should Drs get immunity? They seem to be doing fine with their malpractice insurance and if they don't pay the premiums, we have no proof their savings will go to lowering their charges. The other promotion of the republicans is to open up insurance competition between states. I do not know why dems oppose this, had they included it the argument for intrastate commerce might have been legal. But how many insurance plans do you need to choose from? I heard once Ca has over 200. And how do you know if an out of state insurance company knows anything about your Dr or your hospital of choice? I do not see any plans from Republicans that will do much of anything with HC costs other than to drive up costs by passing laws like letting motorcyclists drive without helmets.

1bit

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 11:15 p.m.

They are not rationing care, JD. You keep saying a "free market" solution is needed, but I don't think you know what that means. In your mind, what is a "free market" solution? In a "free market" there is no Medicare or Medicaid. Is that what you are advocating?

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 10:08 p.m.

Monica, they are going to ration care for seniors. That means rationing cancer treatments. There simply won't be enough money to treat everyone. It will also mean much much longer waiting times. ACA (Obamacare) is just another step toward bankrupting America. Then there won't be money for anyone. Too many people are blindly trusting the government. It won't work. The government bankrupts everything it touches. A free market solution is what's needed

Mick52

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 11:55 p.m.

Tim your costs are not going to go down under the ACA. If anything they may go up. I am somewhat startled by the change in your employer's contribution changes. That is very drastic. Five to six hundred a month is close to what people pay who do not get any contribution from an employer. Also Medicare does not control costs. Medicare controls what they pay for procedures and Dr visits and because their payments are so low, Drs limit how many Medicare pts they take or refuse them. Same issue exists with Medicaid. Here is an article on this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-06-20-medicare_N.htm

johnnya2

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 11:08 p.m.

"Medicare is required by law to pay full retail cost for drugs" Maybe you need to read the ACA. That is a provision that GWBUSH put in Medicare part D to help big pharma, but ACA changed that. It is now competitive as opposed to retail price, but don;t let facts ruin your story.

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:34 p.m.

Medicare is required by law to pay full retail cost for drugs. No competition allowed. This does not control costs.

maallen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:06 p.m.

Johnny2, There is no "Federal Government in the ACA period." Are you sure about that? Did you read the ACA bill? I did. It's part of my job. And it ain't pretty. The ACA has set up more federal government departments to run this thing than you can imagine. The federal government is requiring every state to have 4 plans offered in the exchanges. What's offered in these 4 plans has to be approved by the federal government. Medicaid is being expanded, people buying health insurance through the exchanges can get up to 85% of their premiums paid for by the government. Doctors are being required to send to the federal government your Body Mass Index, your age, language you prefer to speak, height, weight, blood pressure through an electronic file. Do you still want to say there is no federal government in the ACA? I could go on with the list as to how the federal government is very involved in the ACA, but I don't have enough space here, but what I have supplied should change your mind.

1bit

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:34 a.m.

No, I just am not as enamored with pseudostatistics, meaningless jargon, talking points and platitudes as others. By the way, since when was "listening to the other side" anything you advocated (see your previous posts)?

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.

Johnny... private insurance. ok, that's a new one to me. If you say so 1bit- I don't assume you are ignorant, just uninformed and unwilling to listen to the other side.

1bit

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 11:11 p.m.

Wow, the more you post, the more I have to comment. Maybe do your homework before coming on here and assuming the rest of us are ignorant. Let's just take the Post Office debt alone. It's a phony debt because of mandates to prepay retirement expenses (private industry doesn't have to do that). They also have to ask Congress for any rate increase. How much does FedEx or UPS charge you to send a letter in the contiguous U.S.? It's not 45 cents and closer to 15 times that amount.

johnnya2

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.

Post Office, ran profitably for MANY years. I could also list Borders, KMart, almost every major airline, Circuit City, Linens and Things, Enron, Global Crossing, and 100's of private businesses that failed. What is your point? Social Security is VERY secure. It is not nearly ready to go bust. There is currently a surplus of over 2.6 TRILLION dollars and it will continue to have net growth in the trust fund until 2022. But don't let facts spoil your argument Amtrak is transportion and it should not need to make a profit anymore than the interstate highway system should not. The fire department loses money, as does the US MILITARY. Finally, none of that matters, since THERE IS NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE ACA. PERIOD. It is private insurance. Another fact, you can never understand

Ivor Ivorsen

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.

JD, I'm not sure that is the case... From a CNN/ORC Poll (June 28-July 1, 2012.) "Regardless of how you feel about the Supreme Court's decision, how do you feel about the provisions in the health care law? Do you favor all of the provisions in that law, favor most of them, oppose most of them, or oppose all of them?" Favor all 9% Favor most 43% Oppose most 34% Oppose all 13% Unsure 2% 9 43 34 13 2

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.

And the majority of Americans don't want it.

maallen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.

Tim, Please do your research on the rest of the industrialized world. There is a reason why, until recently, America was number 1 and why people wanted to come here. If the universal, single payer healthcare system is so great then why is Canada moving away from it after adopting it in the 70's? Why is England moving away from it? France? Tim, you can look at those countries and say their per capita for health care is a lot less than ours. That's because those governments limit types of procedures that are performed. They don't have the latest and newest technologies. My in-laws live in Canada and 4 hospitals share one MRI machine. When their son needed an MRI, he came to the United States because in Canada there is a 1 year waiting list for that MRI machine. Yeah, nice system they have.

Jimbo

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:10 a.m.

Social Security as an example of efficiency? Really? What are they teaching you at MSU Sparty? Do you know that it is a Govt. sponsored Ponzi scheme and it is broke? They say there are assets but most of those are IOUs from the Feds who raided the fund back in the 60s. Kinda like the briefcase from the movie dumb and dumber.

Mick52

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.

Universal care will not work in the US. It does not work well in countries that have it, but they like it despite its issues mainly because they have lived with it since the 1940s. They pay big for it. It would be impossible to convert our system for many reasons. The issue with HC is that it is expensive, period. You cannot make it inexpensive by its very nature. It requires large numbers of employees, most with advanced degrees and training. It is now highly technical and medical research is very expensive and has returned improved care, which itself increases costs. People live longer and require more care. It is much more complicated than most people understand and not an easy issue to resolve. Also the majority of people are covered. It is estimated that 50 million are uninsured. Of that 50 million, millions are poor and eligible for Medicaid, so in effect they are covered. So almost 262 million are covered and either are happy with their insurance or believe it is already too expensive. Those folks do not want to see increases in their insurance. What Obamacare will do is drive up costs on those insurance holders, not lower it. You cannot cover more people and pay less. See: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf for a well researched paper on global health care and the book "Introduction to US Health Policy" by Donald Barr

snark12

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 11:44 p.m.

The taxes JD cites will have little impact on middle class Americans. For instance, #3, the "Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax," is an additional 0.9% tax on incomes over $250,000 (for a couple filing jointly). So, as example, if you and your wife collectively make $300,000, you'll pay an additional $450 in taxes. If you make less than $250,000, this tax doesn't apply. The others have similar caveats and carve outs, so the impact is not huge. This "biggest tax increase on the middle class" business is complete non-sense.

tim

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.

JD what Sparty says is correct. Medicare's administration cost is only about five percent. Six years ago my employer payed almost all of our health insurance, now we about 500$ a month for the same coverage. That's 6000$ a year so I don't care if I pay tax as long as my overall costs go down. Programs like Medicare control costs that's why hospitals don't like them. Obama care doesn't control costs, but it is the first step toward universal care.

Sparty

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.

Incapable? What about running the most efficiently run government programs in existence, Social Security and Medicare, which operate on just a tiny fraction decided to administration? If they had been left alone, and not had their funds "borrowed", they would still be in amazing shape!

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.

The problem is government never runs anything efficiently. They've proven that time and time again. They are incapable.

tim

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:05 p.m.

Do your research JD on what the rest of the industrialized world pays per capita for health care. Obama care is just the start ( this law would have been much better with the public option). If we had allowed medicare for all ( Republicans voted it down) we could have drastically reduced our over all costs. Look at what people are paying out of their pay checks for insurance , peoples costs keep going up with no end in sight. It would be foolish to do nothing.

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.

It's going to cost the taxpayers and businesses trillions of dollars. And it's gonna kill job growth. It also gives the IRS unprecedented power over the taxpayers. The answer is tort reform, opening up competition. A free market system. Here's some taxes that are coming with Obamacare: 1.) 2.3% medical device manufacturing tax 2.) Obamacare surtax on investment income 3.) ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax 4.) ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap 5.) ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax All of these taxes kick in AFTER the election. How convenient

1bit

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.

@JD: Hmmm... Obama's health care plan and Romney's plan were nearly identical. Private insurance plans still will exist and you will be free to purchase those plans. In fact, you'll even know what you are paying for and what you will get from it. If you are already paying for health insurance then there is no problem and no penalty. If you are a freeloader, then you're freeloading days are coming to an end. As for "free markets", again this is an area where your comment seems confused. Laissez faire economics has not really worked because greed isn't a good motivator for the public good. You are confusing "free markets" for "market forces". They are not the same thing and not interchangeable ideas. Market forces still exist in the new health care law. I believe in the whole "united we stand, divided we fall" thing. That's called being an American. Those who ache for someone to tell them (and everyone else) what to do desire a dictatorship or theocracy. Quite frankly, I find that comment to be absurd because if you actually try to live your life without the help of others then you'll be an abject failure.

Sparty

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.

You mean like the party of NO, as in no compromise Republicans ? As in the party that signs Pledges with individuals outside of Government (Norquist) requiring them to act in a certain way regardless of what might be in the best interest of the USA? You mean like the Republican Senate which has filibustered more bills than any Senate Session in US History?

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 8:37 p.m.

Nothing will get fixed "together." It's dearest Obama and his government socialized medicine, OR Romney and a free, privately run system. Either you believe in this massive new tax on the middle class, or you believe in the free markets ability to make it work. No amount of working together will solve anything. You mean the others should come to your side? That must be what you mean by working together. This whole notion of working together is a joke. Tell that to Obama, who has been the most divisive partisan president of all time. It's his way or the highway.

maallen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:47 p.m.

Laura Jones, Did you know here in Michigan with Blue Cross you can get insurance whether you have a pre-existing condition or not? So the comment "if you can get insurance at all" is hogwash. People with pre-exisiting conditiion can get health insurance in Michigan. Under the Affordable Care Act, medicaid is being expanded. Guess who pays for that? We, the taxpayers. Those that do not qualify for Medicaid can buy their insurance through the exchanges and have up to 85% of their premiums reimbursed by the government. Guess who pays for that? The taxpayers! So, tell me again, why this is so great?

johnnya2

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 10:57 p.m.

So if YOU decide not to purchase "cancer" insurance for your child, too bad, let them die. That is your philosophy? Really? The fact is the US is not high up on any metric as being a healthy nation. Citizens do not live longer, infants die more often, and we spend more than double per person that the next highest country in the world to get horrible results. Any person who advocates that is ridiculous. Of course typical of the right wing to think that the US is the ONLY way to do something, when other countries have proven results that work.

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 8:29 p.m.

Laura, the system is broke, we all realize that, but having government run the new system is what is truly gonna bankrupt us. This is the main point that you libs fail to realize. You trust in government way too much

Laura Jones

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.

bbb: The problem is that it is not just people ending up bankrupt. If they have little to no assets to start with, they are bankrupt fast and still get treatment, that we end up paying for anyway. You are also incorrect about people being forced to "spend their life savings" due to pre-existing conditions. Have you any idea at all what premiums are for people with health conditions? If you purchase your own insurance, they can be staggering and unaffordable, if you can get insurance at all. Over a thousand a month for many people is unaffordable and bankrupting.

bbb

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.

@1bit: No, I'm advocating letting people make their own decision and not be forced to pay for something they don't want to buy, whether that's a good decision or not.

1bit

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.

So...you're advocating perhaps some kind of penalty for those who do not get health insurance?

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 8:55 p.m.

High taxes led to low revenue in Greece. Social welfare, cradle to grave, busted Greece.

1bit

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.

Bipartisanship did not ruin Greece - do you even know how their system works? High expenses, low revenues, a failing global economy and a currency problem are the issues.

maallen

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 6:07 p.m.

Sparty, When has the CBO ever been right in it's forecast? And yes the CBO has forecasted beyond 10 years and of course have been wrong. As the same with forecasting only 10 years. CBO has never been right in its forecasts.

Dick Jaeger

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 3:04 a.m.

Aside from missing the point of Ms Bellaire's letter in it entirety I have to question your editorial comment as respects the first sentence. In my opinion it was thoughtfully written to express an opinion that many of us who have had cancer share. As someone who has had two bouts with cancer I applaud the Affordable Healthcare Act and Ms Bellaire for stepping up and commenting on the Supreme Court's decision from the viewpoint of the cancer survivor or patient.

JD

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:29 p.m.

Sparty, the GOVERNMENT is historically unreliable. It always costs 10, 20x more than they promise. This is fact. And you don't care. It's ok in your mind because it's government. You know, your God. So it's ok to you. Tax tax tax.

Sparty

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.

Projections beyond 10 years are historically unreliable and that's why they aren't used by any Government Agency.

maallen

Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:41 p.m.

Sparty, But what happens after 2019? The deficit explodes under the obamacare. When the CBO looked at the numbers, they only looked at the first 10 years. But now CBO has looked beyond the ten years and it has stated that the deficit explodes and can't be funded under it's current set up.

DBH

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 11:15 p.m.

@JD, I suspect @Billy Bob Schwartz was making a suggestion due to your pulmonary complaint of breathlessness. And regarding the length, it's only 73-76 words long (depending on whether or not you consider hyphenated words one or more words). William Faulkner, famous (or, perhaps, in your opinion, infamous) for long sentences, had one sentence in "Absalom, Absalom!" (judged the #1 Best Southern Novel of All Time, http://www.oxfordamerican.org/articles/2009/aug/27/best-southern-novels-all-time/ ) of 1,288 words!

johnnya2

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 10:49 p.m.

Other than the fact that it IS actually a private insurance mandate AND the scorekeeper for all things budget related (CBO) says it will reduce the deficit You can not use CBO figures for one argument, then turnaround and dismiss them for your own sake. By the way, what is the amount we can afford to have healthier LIVING citizens? Your post says we can not afford it. Tell us how much you would spend to save your child with cancers life? I think that will tell us what you really are.

Sparty

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by about $132 billion from 2012-2019." By the way, the CBO is the bipartisan arm of Congress that determines these things. But don't let facts get in your way. Continue on.

JD

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 8:26 p.m.

It's too long Billy Bob, whether you read out loud or to yourself. Time for you to go to college

Billy Bob Schwartz

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.

JD...Time to try reading to yourself (mentally) rather than out loud. It makes breathing much easier while reading.

1bit

Sat, Jul 7, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.

The private sector is involved. Through the health exchanges our State legislature should be working on right now instead of dragging their feet. You are mistaking the health care law for a single payer system. If this law is scrapped, honestly that's probably the next step. Be careful what you wish for...