Monday, January 17, 2011

And Yes, It's Called "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act"

I'll be curious to see if our conservative readers disagree with this nugget, from Krugman:
The key to understanding the G.O.P. analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do. The War on Logic

Read the rest, it's good.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Written by a left wing media outlet but you didn't mention this article.

The uninsured are in some caes uninsured because they want to be.

Or they have chosen different ways to spend their money.

Plenty of young adults are uninsured.

My sister dropped her health insurance but she just has a brand new mini-van she is making payments on....

My brother kept his health insurance for his kids even though he had to liquidate some retirement savings to do so...
he drives a really old honda accord which he has maintained over the years.

Guess which one is the republican and which is the democrat ? Give you a hint, the democrat is the one expecting to be bailed out, shocker.

40 billion to cover the uninsured. The health care plan was 1 Trillion in cost.

It does a lot more. It doesn't just cover the uninsured, it creates a whole new govt agency to tell all private insurances what they should cover and what they shouldn't cover. Way too big government for me, Big Brother should not be in charge of who lives or dies in a free country.

January 17, 2011 6:37 PM  
Anonymous Baby steps are better than nothing said...

The Speaker of the House is starting to get it that words can have consequences. He has twice replaced the word "job-killing" in the stupid title of that doomed waste of time bill to repeal health care reform, once with "job-crushing" and once with "job-destroying."

And Senator Chuck Shumer said that Senator Tom Colburn has agreed to sit with him during SOTUS this year as suggested by Mark Udall. Let's hope more of our elected officials show a little unity and start to bridge the divide and sit together and talk to each other, not at each other.

January 17, 2011 9:56 PM  
Anonymous Old chap said...

September 11, 2009 was more than a year ago, which is rather old news, don't you think?

January 17, 2011 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

right, words like "they'll bring a knife, we'll bring a gun"

words like "punish our enemies"
"sit in the back of the bus"

Those kinds of words ?

In this case, the President should lead by example.
He is a hypocrite. He is the most divisive president in history.

find me one thing GW Bush said that is close to this unpresidential. Just one.

you can keep ranting about the language on the right, when the language on the left as exemplified by divider in chief is far worse.

January 17, 2011 11:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In fighting against Obamacare repeal this week, Democrats portray their health care law as a money saver, claiming Republicans would add to the deficit by abolishing the legislation. But in their franker moments, the bill's authors admit that "reform" could be something of a time bomb that will cause exploding health care costs down the line. One top Senate aide plainly stated last summer, "This is a coverage bill, not a cost reduction bill." The time-bomb nature of Obamacare was presaged by Mitt Romney's health care bill in Massachusetts, which also expanded health insurance coverage by mandating that all individuals buy insurance, prohibiting insurers from dropping customers, and subsidizing the insurance of those with difficulty affording it.

January 18, 2011 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Slow and steady wins the race said...

Nice spin but remind yourself what the non-paritsan Congressional Budget Office said about this law. They said health care reform will reduce the deficit and create jobs.

Middle class people are seeing the benefits this law is bringing, allowing kids with pre-existing conditions to qualify for insurance, allowing kids up to age 26 remain on their parents' policies, which is especially important now that many young people are having trouble finding scarce jobs, and giving tax credits to small businesses to help them pay for health insurance premiums. As the benefits continue to roll out over time, more and more middle class people are coming to embrace the changes this new law has brought.

"An AP-GfK Poll has found that opposition to the reform has subsided to a mere 30%, down from 39% in March 2010, and 40% of those surveyed now support the law. AP-GfK have been running polls on health care reform since September 2009 and the results show that more Americans are embracing the law, albeit slowly.

Read more:"

January 18, 2011 8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did you know that employers with more than fifty employees pay a tax but those withe fewer are subsidized by the government?

if you have 49 employees and are thinking of hiring a couple more, wouldn't you try to put it off?

only one way the bill prevent job creation

just trying to surmise an "up-or-down" from the CBO analysis is pretty ignorant

you need to ask how they made their analysis

it presumes that Medicare reimbursement cuts will eventually kick in when everyone knows they won't

also, the bill is back-loaded so the effects are down the road, a ticking time bomb

January 18, 2011 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, wow, "Anonymous" really have some family problems, don't you? (Guess which one is the republican and which is the democrat ? Give you a hint, the democrat is the one expecting to be bailed out, shocker.) Such anger and resentment toward your sister. Jealousy perhaps?

"In this case, the President should lead by example.
He is a hypocrite. He is the most divisive president in history."
On top of your resentments toward family members, you also exhibit an appalling ignorance of history. Do some research on Lincoln's Presidency, or try F.D.R.'s Presidency...only two of the many examples history gives us.

January 18, 2011 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, wow, "Anonymous" really have some family problems, don't you?

So, my issue with my sister is she is probably going to expect my mom or my other sister or I to bail her out. And we aren't going to...

Behavior such as purchasing a brand new car right after you lost your house as soon as you have landed another job....

I wouldn't do that. My other sister wouldn't do that. My brother wouldn't do that....

But my democrat sister. That's exactly what she did. I pity the state she is leaving her family finances in by continuing to live beyond her means. And buying a new car when you don't own a house for your kids. Stupid, really really stupid.

I notice by the way that you did not try to defend Obama's remarks.

What, no comment ?

January 18, 2011 3:56 PM  
Anonymous barack hussein obama said...

they'll bring a knife, we'll bring a gun

January 18, 2011 7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How interesting and important for us, "Anonymous". To air your dirty family laundry publicly is so improper and to subject us to your family dynamics is beyond reprehensible.

I suggest that you make an appointment with a family counselor to find ways to reconcile your torn-assunder family.

January 19, 2011 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon-T had a perfectly valid point with an example from those she knows

nothing reprehensible about it at all

get help, fella

January 19, 2011 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem, "Anonymous" is that when that other "anonymous" makes gross generalizations about other people whom she assumes are like her sister she is engaging in sophistry.

We don't want to hear the problems she has with her sister.

And, exactly, what is her point?

January 19, 2011 9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the point is that most democrats seem to have this attitude of entitlement and most republicans do not.

that is the point.

Most democrats believe they are entitled to someone else's money and most republicans believe in responsibility and that they should earn their own money. They DON't believe in handouts. They believe you make your own destiny to a large extent. Hard work is rewarded, slackers are not. that's a key difference between the two parties.

And that is the point.

January 19, 2011 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most Democrats do NOT believe they are entitled to someone else's money, any more than most Republicans believe in a "eat or be eaten" philosophy.
When one lives in the lap of luxury as you apparently do "Anonymous", it is easy to see those less fortunate than you as "slackers" looking for "handouts".
Perhaps if you were to move out of your suburban nivrana and saw the world as it really is: A hard struggle for survival in the face of elitists like you who like to blame all of society's problems on those who are less fortunate, you might get a dose of humility and Christian charity that you obviously lack.

January 20, 2011 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, that is pretty funny.
I am an elitist living in the lap of luxury. Which I assume you believe I did nothig to contribute to...

No, I just believe in hard work and the ability to keep what you earn.

Confiscatory taxation means that we will all become a nation of slackers. You kill the incentive to produce.

Not sure what about that is so very difficult to understand.

January 21, 2011 8:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home