Again, perhaps you should read the source of your claims, the source that I actually provided a link for. People want the government involved in all sorts of health care issues, including increased spending in many areas. They may not like “Obamacare” in particular (hell, I don’t), but that’s likely a product of misinformation as much as anything for many of them. See, I can make shit up as well, although the shit I make up will be much harder to disprove than your claims and while I do have evidence in my favor, I acknowledge that I can’t back up that particular statement with absolute certainty. Since almost half of those polled in an NBC/WSJ poll from 2009 think “death panels” are part of the package, I’m going to go with my take. When said poll (PDF) says that 47% of the public doesn’t like how Obama is handling the health care issue, but 62% don’t like how the Republicans are handling it, I’m pretty sure that that doesn’t say that people want government out of it, and in fact, roughly the same number of people want the public option as those that oppose it. The numbers say that some do, and some, like me, want the government in it, but differently. Additionally, when they give a brief overview of what the plan actually does, the majority are actually in favor of it. Look ma, cites.
Also note, that the question in the earlier linked poll that was the source of your invalid claims was not specifically about their health insurance, but their health care, which is a pretty vague term. So, 83.5% of the population is “somewhat satisfied” or greater with their health care. The middle-class uninsured that might spend a couple of hundred dollars on an occasional visit might be perfectly happy with their health care, but think the health insurance industry is a scam. The perfectly healthy uninsured that haven’t been to a doctor in decades might be satisfied with their health care. None of those things means they wouldn’t like single payer, especially when educated on how it actually works.
The poster’s premise was that his friend was locked into their current job and unable to leave. Which I guess would be true if they were wishing to leave a position where they had benefits for one where that wouldn’t be available (which would seem foolish to me for someone with serious health issues, but I’ll play along).
However, they would still be able to maintain their existing coverage via COBRA, but would most likely be paying higher premiums in order to do so.
I can illustrate this with real life numbers. I lost my job 18 months ago, pre-layoff it cost $55/month for coverage for the two of us. Cobra cost us $985/month. I am now paying for private coverage and am at risk for recission, denials of treatment and all the wonderful insecurities of individual coverage.
IIRC from another thread, Mr. Bricker is to be envied. He has guaranteed participation in his current plan for life - even if he loses his job.
What do you think would happen if U.S Department of Education stopped appropriations to States for the upcoming fiscal year? How many States could continue to provide public education without federal assistance?
I also don’t much believe it is fair to pay for the Medicare of your later years, but I think it makes common sense compared to what was happening when that was not available.
And the reality is that you and many that support the efforts to dismantle any reform are in reality tying an arm of America to their back, and that is shown in the evidence that the current system makes America less effective in creating jobs and competing with the world.
I said: “…so he retains his current coverage at the same cost it was the prior month.”
I did NOT say, “…so he retains his current coverage at the same expense to him that it was the prior month.”
The cost of the coverage remains the same. He has to cover both the employer’s share as well as his own. But that makes perfect sense – the employer’s share was a portion of his compensation, just like his salary and vacation time accruals. You’re not upset that after he loses his job he longer gets paid salary or earns vacation days, I assume.
Yeah, but similar to what you “assumed” before, if a benefit is there it would be foolish not to use it, it is hardly hypocritical as it seems you are assuming here.
I’m not **Squink ** but I already did show evidence that jobs are being lost with the health care system we have, indeed causing considerable damage to America. The ignorance is somewhere elsewhere.
So what? How does that translate to “trapped” at a job? I’m “trapped” in the same way if the new company doesn’t provide a company car. I need a car, so I’ll have to buy one, an expense of thousands of dollars – much more than COBRA for one month. But you’d never have the bare-faced gall to claim that you’re trapped in a job because other jobs don’t offer you a company car.
How is that remotely relevant? Do you believe that Cuccinelli won because he batted his eyes at the judges and said, “Trust me, this is true?”
The case was decided on summary judgment. That means that there were no facts in dispute. The question was entirely one of law. There was no “misleading” or “fake” research in evidence, because there were no factual disputes. For the purpose of the decision, the judge assumed true every single one of the federal government’s claims.
I base that on the post **elucidator **made, to me it is very likely that the judge made a mistake and yes, with a troglodyte guy like Cuccinelli I would say that he gave the judge information that was misleading.
Or both Cuccinelli and the Judge trust no one else will notice the mistakes made.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
They’ve repeatedly said they want Obama to fail, and IMHO, have done considerable damage to the national interest in working toward that goal.
[/QUOTE]
I was replying to the implication that you don’t consider this to be causing considerable damage to the national interest.
Is this like your last legal analysis, where you asserted the ACORN law was a bill of attainder because you read it somewhere? How did that one work out for you?
The problem in the judge’s decision is not a “logical flaw.” It’s that the decision rolls back precedent to the 1940s. The decision is perfectly logical. It just uses a view of the Commerce Clause that the Supreme Court rejected sixty years ago. I wish they hadn’t, and I’d love them to take this chance to rethink their idea.