The gargantuan Obama tax increase...

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

What the Republicans have focused in Ed is trying to get everyone to forget that this is very close to Romneycare. Romney just doesn't like the idea because Obama beat him to it.

As to the fine/tax, I have no problem with the idea that a tax is levied on someone who is costing us all money by refusing to protect themselves. And taxes are already income graduated.

William, as to being a "statist" what I am is a Democrat. Democrats believe that the government is here to help us all to work together for the common good. You obviously have very little trust in government but seem to have an inordinate trust of the free market system. Government may not be as much about the welfare of people as it should be but it is very clear that business is about the welfare of the business owner and the stock holder. Expecting the market to help us fix the healthcare mess is expecting business to do something it wasn't designed to do.

Don't forget that Romney is far more in touch with the wealthy than he is with the common woman and man. His solution, for example, for students getting college loans is to borrow the money from Mom and Dad. He has no clue as to what it means to grow up in a working class neighborhood with working class jobs where that extra bill for medicine might mean Grandma has to choose between her pills and dinner. I've been there, I've seen it, and I can't believe Money Bags Romney has any idea how to be the President of the people I work with and grew up with.

Call Mitt if you want your job outsourced.

[Tim Bonney]

By the way William, since I'm blessed to have status as your favorite Methodist, here is the position of the UMC on healthcare. The UMC is already on record as supporting a single payer system.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nl/newslet ... 9#e6869503

[William Thornton]

Love the faith in government shown here.

If my statist friends want a preview of what things would be like then watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-span. The discussion often is about the govt putting more money in the health system, waiting times, doctors and nurses hired, etc.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

William, I'm not sure why you are using the term "statism." I don't think it applies. But be that as it may, it isn't so much that I have faith in the government as it is that I believe we need to be working to get our government to be the positive force in the world our founders intended it to be. It isn't about being like England. It is about being a place where the government is expected to be more about "we the people" rather than we the wealthy people.

All I can see out of Republicanism right now is the promotion of whatever is going to benefit the rich and powerful the most. For many I still see a belief in Trickle Down economics that George HW Bush called "Voodoo Economics." The benefits don't trickle down. If you look at our nation those who are CEOs of large companies make more and more while their employees make less and less. The middle class is bit by bit disappearing and as far as I can tell the Republican leadership doesn't care.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

Ed I agree that it is a problem that so many members of congress are wealthy. Unfortunately the system right now is set up in favor of moneyed interests. You need way too much money to run for office and way too much to keep running. Sadly the Supreme Court tossing out campaign reform contributes to it all. And this is yet another result, ironically, of Republican conservatives. If Republicans wanted money out of politics they could have supported campaign reform. But many Republicans seem to lionize wealth almost equating money with righteousness.

When I support government measures to control the cost of healthcare or some other legislation that benefits the common person I realize that the government isn't going to administer such programs as well as it should because of monied interests. However the government is geared at least somewhat to be responsive to the voters. Business interests are only ever responsive to money and profit. As such I really don't get why working class Republicans choose rich business over wealthy government when the government provides them at least some benefit but business practically provides them none.

[Sandy]

Interesting list. At least two of those politicians, Kerry and McCaul, are rich because of who they married. Kerry married into the Heinz family. McCaul's father in law owns Clear Channel Communications.

It is also interesting that the socialized medical system of Britain is brought up as a bad example of why we don't want that in America. What's interesting is that accessing a physician in the US costs twice as much as it does in Britain, because of the profit margin built in to privately owned medical clinics and hospitals, and to the system of financing how it is paid for. And yet, in terms of quality of care, medical advances, and success rates, the per capita numbers there are pretty close to what they are here, which is remarkable because it isn't anywhere near where it should be if it were based solely on the resources and money available. For what we are paying, we should be getting twice as much as they are, but we're not even close to that.

The British system isn't perfect. Nothing ever will be in this life. But they have the right idea. Health care is a basic human right, not a for-profit business arrangement.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Uh, Mr. Soft Facts, I generally ignore the links. But I think triple figure billions as far as the eye can see qualifies for garguantuan. Thanks.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: KeithE, When you say in two separate post one before the info in my link and once after it;

"Your link is from Hoover Institute located at Stanford but separate. I have noticed that they are fond of making pronouncements w/o much backing aand always from a conservtaive/big business favoring outlook. I have noticed this wrt economics (John B Taylor and ET's favorite Thomas Sowell), war/peace (Condileeza Rice), envionment (Geoge Shultz although he is breaking ranks some lately) and now helath are. I will document ths is due time - it s alreday started but I'm on a family vacation at the moment. Needless to say the Stanford commnity is embarrassed and angry that they use the ame Stanford"

But Keith, my link did not come from any one using the Sanford Institute "the name Stanford" or the name "Hover Institute", it came from the "National Center for Policy Analysis." But yes the writer Scott Atlas is or has been at Stanford.

And Keith "I have noted" that you often discount most anything that differs from your opinion. And I can't resist pointing to the spelling errors in your reply and saying, with all of the misspelling, you must have been in a terrible hurry. But then I wonder?

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

Regardless of who wins in November, unless Republicans have 60 seats in the Senate, the Affordable Care Act will remain law. Like its predecessor, Medicare, everyone knows it will undergo several changes as it is implemented. Alarmism seems to take away from working toward changes that are needed and predicting catastrophes that seem more and more unlikely.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

The comparison of the Affordable Health Care Act to the medical systems of Britain or Canada isn't even an apples vs. oranges comparison. The Affordable Health Care Act isn't a government operated health care system. It is, to a limited extent, government regulation of the health care financing system, but not even to the full extent of that. And when it comes to discussion of "everything that is going to happen as a result," well, if that information is coming from Republicans or conservative talk radio, it is not based on any of the actual facts or information found in the bill itself. And by the way, the "tax" isn't even close to "historic proportions". Anyone can avoid paying it by securing minimum health insurance coverage.

The current health care system stays in place. The profiteers in the insurance industry will continue to make trillions of dollars in profits, and continue to have their case workers and agents skimp on the provision of health care in order to do so. It doesn't really matter how many MRI or CT machines we have in America if your insurance company case worker decides they don't want to pay for your scan, you aren't going to get to use it. The cost of operating the health care finance system in this country is nearly as much as the cost of the health care itself. The only real difference I see with the Affordable Health Care Act is that the built-in costs to provide care to the uninsured will be covered, which may reduce the actual cost of providing health care (or increase the corporate shareholder's profit margin), and insurance companies will have to cover pre-existing conditions which is, if you do a genuine comparison of the figures, a drop in the bucket compared to their profit margins. I think they should at least be required to do that much for the privilege of doing business.

All of the other scenarios raised by the tea partiers and the GOP about the horrible things that will happen are nothing more than speculation. Insurance companies would aquire millions of new people to share the costs of operating the system, which, in a free market economy, is supposed to lower costs, not raise them. And why would they opt to raise rates and risk losing business to a government subsidized program? A ten percent profit would be a large amount of money. Most insurance companies pay dividends of upwards of 50% margins now. They're not going to turn down any additional revenue on the plus side.

If the Republicans want to make an issue out of health care reform, they need to tread carefully. The numbers are deceiving, when it comes to the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions, prescription coverage for senior adults, and the raising of the age limits on children to 26, and what happens to those poll numbers when the factors regarding the cost of health insurance is included in the question. Also, favorable ratings change drastically when the actual provisions of the bill become known. Thursday's ruling secured Obama's re-election, and the coming weeks, as the facts about this bill get sorted out from the rhetoric of the radio disc jockey propagandists, the chances of returning to a Democratically controlled congress also increase.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Keith I very often find the Facts you offer to be questionable. The same is true of much of your Data.

And when you say "Scot Atlas is from the Hoover Institute on the Stanford Campus my alma mater. Look at the bottom of your link."

I have a perfect example of why I am skeptical. I had looked at the bottom of my link before writing, and as I replied when you said my link came from the Hover institute; My link did not come from any one using the "Sanford Institute" or "the name Stanford" or the name "Hover Institute", it came from the "National Center for Policy Analysis." which has the copyright

And I quite agree with William who said "...but I understand spin. you are very good at it. "

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Keith it is not the "bottom " of my link where Scot Atlas is identified and you have not dealt with the facts he presents in that link.

You are entitled to you opinions of Atlas and the Hover Institute but as I see it your credentials in rocket science pale in light of those held by Dr. Atlas who is a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at the Stanford University Medical Center, and is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, when speaking to this issue. He’s the author of the new book “In Excellent Health: Setting the Record Straight on America’s Health Care.

Some may want to hear him for themselves; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCLDg0zHsEE Note his emphasis on looking at the "DATA"

[Stephen Fox]

Make great points.

They seem to have more in common withfounder of UAB, one of the premiere medical teaching institutions in the nation; than they do with Thornton on this matter.

Would be great if the WMU which resides in same town as UAB would weigh in on this matter.

See my posts on this board about Brandt Ayers and the founder of UAB.

Sandy is correct. As this health care goes forward got to be found a way to gut the greedy insurance industry and trial lawyers. But they may be impossible as long as the Demon karl Rove and his American Crossroads in conjunction with Roger Ailes walks the earth with the Koch brothers seeking whom they may devour.