[Emphasis mine]
Typo?
Yeah, obvious braino is obvious. “pro-creationism”.
I blame the beer.
I know, right? :rolleyes:
How’d that work out for you? 
A few points about ^^ this^^…
Evolution vs Creationism should not be part of the equation. Yes, it is, but it shouldn’t be!
Climate “change” is a ruse. I’ve seen massive improvements in air-quality in Southern California over the last 3 decades. I’ve seen massive improvements in all kinds of “green” thinking all over the country and I think it’s great. We are making great strides in reducing pollution and waste. These people are in it for a profit at our expense, just like they were in the 70’s with global cooling, the 80’s with acid rain, the 90’s with global warming and the 00’s global climate change. The flow of dupes is endless. (I was born in '64 and have witnessed every one of these claims. )
And lastly, what is it you like about this Huntsman dude? I don’t know much about him?
I loled. 
The best thing they could do would be to repeal it.
Put aside your lefty-ism, open your mind, and read this. It’s a piece by the (right-leaning) Wash Examiner about how many many companies, in a survey by some benefits company, are considering dropping plans, paying the 2 grand, and letting people go to the government-funded exchanges. Of course this will cost taxpayers big money, in the aggregate, but cost containment wasn’t Obama’s mission, it was (and is) expanding the government footprint, for reasons already discussed.
And while a $2k/person ‘fine’ may not seem like much, many small businesses operate on margins just barely higher than that. I have some people on deals where I might see $4-5k per person in profit; take into account risk, the cost of managing the person or contract, etc, then throw in this cost - you can see how it can cost jobs.
Actually, the real cost is in the practice of defensive medicine, a discussion of which you either willfully omitted or are ignorant of. The most common survey cited of it’s cost is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan, go check it out - the cost of that defensive medicine, that tort reform would eliminate, is somewhere on the order of 5-9%.
Actually, 3 of them are broads. The other 2 are 8(a)s (one of the more racist programs out there… gotta love liberalism…)
Yes. That explains a lot. Seems every time I go to the doctor these days they diagnose and treat for everything they can.
Son had a chest cold, they treated him for pneumonia and prescribed some wacked out anti-biotic that made him even worse. When we took him to a different doctor they were like “WTF!?!? Why would the first dr diagnose pneumonia?”
They simply can’t afford (literally) to make the wrong diagnosis because some laywer-happy hippy will try to sue them.
I’ve got the perfect Free Market solution for you.
Next time your son gets sick, treat him yourself. Think of all the money you’ll save. And if he dies because you don’t trust doctors … well, that’s the price you pay for being free, huh?
You don’t know what the exchanges are, do you…
Getting insurance through the exchange is not paid for by the government, unless you are indigent. I would not think people with jobs whose employers drop their insurance would qualify.
Coverage comes from private insurance companies, not the gevernment, and in the vast majority of cases, the premiums are paid by the covered, not the government.
LOL, who doesn’t know about the exchanges? Read this, then we’ll talk
$88k? 102K? That’s indigent to you? Wow, you must make some serious coin.
As CBO has said,
And that’s why we can’t afford this program, not when we’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar from Beijing as it is.
The upshot is, employers will drop people and pay the $2k ‘fine’. So much for people being allowed to keep their insurance. I expect the GOP will be able to make an incredible amount of hay with this, if it happens, in 2014 (ie, assuming the left steals the election in 2012 and this monstrosity of a law doesn’t get repealed).
You’re saying something that isn’t true there. The CBO said, that the affordable care act reduces the deficit by 1.3 trillion over 20 years.
You’re quoting an opinion piece by a puerile partisan. Maybe you could make that more clear, since you are giving a highly misleading impression.
We are not going to talk about anything if you keep quoting right wing propaganda that is utterly false. Those numbers are fabricated out of whole cloth.
You also display ignorance about the why employers offer health insurance to begin with. They don’t have to, you know. Health insurance is a voluntary benefit offered to attract and retain valued employees. The employer who drops his health benefits will see his employees leave to go to work for his competitors who do offer health insurance, and he will be unable to attract new employees.
By the way, if employees decide to stay and opt for insurance under the exchanges, isn’t that an endorsement of high quality coverage?
Not sure who is displaying the ignorance here, but I know it ain’t me.
*Some *employers offer the coverage because they need it to recruit people. If what you suggest is true, then why have a fine for non-coverage in the first place? It’s not a problem, right, since everyone gets offered insurance otherwise employers wouldn’t have any new hires? In fact, why even have Obamacare in the first place, since everyone who has a job has insurance?
Oh yeah, because that’s not the case. If Obama had only fixed that problem (the one in 6 without it), then maybe I’d be in favor of it (if it were deficit neutral, which of course it’s not). But when lefties are pointing to some fictional analysis that only uses 6 years of expenses, against 10 years of revenue, they are deluding themselves. Pointing to the fictional cuts to doctors and hospitals as a means to pay for this abortion, when historically they’ve been overridden every time in response to their powerful lobbies, is deluding yourself.
You know it, and I know it. You want to believe that tripe because you like the idea of more socialized medicine, and I’m guessing a larger Federal footprint in the lives of Americans, which is the liberal Holy Grail. Fine, it’s a free country.
But don’t ignore facts just because you don’t like the result.
Ironic, that. You have been told before that you misunderstand the whole six years of service for ten years of tax thing. Think hard about this now: if the affordable care act only seems to save money by offering six years of service for ten years of taxes, why does the CBO have it saving even more in the next ten years after the first.
Being mislead by right wing liars is forgivable. Not being able to see those lies when pointed out to you is less so.
Also, will you now admit that you misstated the CBO attribution above?
I do like the idea of more socialized medicine, but not for the reasons you have been fed. Socialized medicine covers more people, with more positive health results at a lower cost than private health insurance. You cannot deny this, because it has been demonstrated world wide for decades. It just works, no matter how much you stamp your foot and insist it does not. You are on the wrong side of reality, my friend.
I’m having trouble squaring basically every comment you’ve made with the claim that you’re a “moderate”.
I take it you have no idea what an ICP is, either, or what importance it might have for a government contractor worried about health care cost changes?
Sorry to butt in. Sometimes I skim these threads to learn how right-wingers think.
The frightening thing is: In this Brave New World where Bachmann is the “moderate” alternative to Paul, Mr. Smashy may be right here. :smack:
When I skimmed this, I thought Smashy advocated a mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes to balance the budget, and almost wanted to welcome him home from the asylum. 
But on re-read … he thinks budget balancing in an era of record-low taxation requires still lower taxes! :smack:
I hope you’ll forgive me for not addressing your “substantive” points, Smashy. Instead I’d like to see your cite for this nonsensical 40 cent Beijing factoid. You don’t have one? Then you fit in real well with the other right-wingers here.
Fucking health care! How does it work?
For the record, 16% (Cite[sub]1[/sub] Cite[sub]2[/sub]) of US debt is owned by China. It’s possible that you mistook the 36% of total foreign debt that China holds for 36% of total debt.
See, this just highlights the fact that liberals don’t understand economics. Sure, Chronos’s proposal looks fair, but go back to the original scenario. It clearly states that the kid just got his allowance, meaning money that was given to him, rather than money that earned, like the “rich” guy who just got his paycheck. We don’t know how much the kid already owes society for all the money that’s been given to him to support his lifestyle, but let’s ignore that for a moment. If we want to get him off his dependency and have him be a productive member of society in the future, clearly he’ll need a job. Now maybe the rich guy could hire him to work in a factory or a mine, but in order to build a new factory or mine, he needs to be given proper incentives in the form of reasonable tax breaks. So the kid should be taxed the entire $5, which sounds harsh until you take into account the massive subsidies he’s been receiving all this time under the guise of “allowance.”
Now, I’m not suggesting that the rich guy in this scenario should be entitled to harvest the kid’s body for parts and mineral components, but really, if you have a better suggestion that doesn’t involve taking property from the only person in this scenario who’s actually created wealth, I’d like to hear it!