Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, September 25, 2016

If insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, it’s tempting to observe that congressional Republicans have gone stark, raving mad. My own GOP congressman, Rep. Tim Griffin, recently delivered himself of an opinion column boasting about having “voted more than 30 times to repeal all or parts of Obamacare.”

Only in politics does somebody expect praise for sheer futility.

Characteristically, Griffin’s column began by misrepresenting Senator Max Baucus. No, the retiring Montana Democrat didn’t call Obamacare a “train wreck.” In context, Baucus was complaining about Congress’s refusal to adequately fund programs helping people understand the law. With so much disinformation out there, he feared that public ignorance would lead to citizens initially missing out on its benefits.

But then fostering public ignorance is the whole GOP game plan at this point. Having been defeated in the House and Senate, failing to have Obamacare declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and being rejected by voters in the 2012 presidential election, disinformation and sabotage are all they’ve got left.

In that spirit, Griffin quoted The Washington Examiner, one of those tycoon-funded right-wing propaganda publications reporting that “cost estimates from 17 of the nation’s largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100 percent under Obamacare, and that some will soar more than 400 percent.”

Yeah, well the results are starting to come in. In California and New York, the nation’s two most populous states that have set up health care exchanges, premiums have dropped sharply below Congressional Budget Office projections.

According to the New York Times, “State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.”

Similar savings have been achieved in California. They can be expected anywhere that large numbers of Americans can be persuaded to buy into the program and quit playing health care roulette.

But then that’s how insurance works—auto insurance, life insurance homeowners’ insurance, all insurance. By spreading the risk, you lower the cost to individual customers.

That’s the basic insight that led Benjamin Franklin to found the Philadelphia Contribution for Insurance Against Loss by Fire back in 1752. The more people purchase private health insurance through Obamacare, the lower their premiums and the lower the eventual cost to taxpayers.

Not to mention the enormous gain in personal freedom to individuals who can no longer be denied coverage due to “pre-existing conditions,” bankrupted by unexpected medical conditions, or forced to keep a job they dislike for fear of losing health insurance. Under Obamacare they can take it with them.

A certain kind of Republican, however, still doesn’t get it. Here’s GOP patriarch Ronald Reagan in 1961 inveighing against the dangers of “socialized medicine.” Unless Americans rejected it, he predicted, “one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

  • Lynda Groom

    What doesn’t?

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Climb into the Republican bull male psyche and what do you find? The mentalities of men with a case of the Terrible Twos, tantrums unless it all goes their way, refusal to be reasoned with and this, this, these joi bois call critical thinking and mature decision making?

    Most Americans are seeing positive results from healthcare reform. In the bizarre psyche of greedy GOP bull males, no one but them should ever have a chance to get ahead or have their brand of freedom. Who needs a party of bull male dominators to slash and burn democracy?

    Attend a GOP meeting and what do you hear? Male voices rising up in arms over anyone or anything that doesn’t go according to their views. Yeesh…even dictators know to be flexible now and then. These joi bois don’t.

    • Fern Woodfork

      All They Care About Is Making This Country Better For Them The 1% Of The American People 🙁

      • LaRae Bailey

        they did that, they all exempted themselves from this mess called healthcare reform

        • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

          You are incorrect. Please cite your source of that “information”.

  • Dominick Vila

    I strongly disagree with the premise that Republicans have not figured out how the insurance industry works, if nothing else because they are the main architects of that sham. Insurance companies that offer healthcare coverage to their customers do not contribute to the efficiency of our medical system, their contribution as middlemen is to add cost to a system whose cost is already out of control for a variety of reason, ranging from greed, to fraud, and process inefficiencies.
    Showing a picture of the Gipper is appropriate, inasmuch as he was the champion and the man who signed the socialized Emergency Room option for those who cannot afford to pay insurance company premiums and who are in need of medical care. The problem with that approach, which happens to be the only attempt made by the GOP to lessen the impact of one of the worst medical systems, from an inclusion and cost effectiveness perspective, is that it does not offer preventive medical care and that it is an important factor in the escalating cost of medical care, especially hospitalization, in the USA.

    • Germansmith

      Gene Lyons know nothing about insurance…
      Insurance is a contract in which companies pool large number of people (or buildings or cars, etc.) to indemnify against a KNOWN risk.
      That is why insurance companies have morbidity and mortality tables and underwriters , to determine is a client is an acceptable risk and that this client is not going to represent a loss that would affect the insurance company and the rest of the group of people that are in that pool.
      If you are 400 lbs. and smoke and have an extensive medical and/or criminal record, you will not be able to get regular life insurance, but you can get health insurance because the BIG Brother says so and your cost to the system is shared by all of us (in the form of increased premiums and/or subsidies paid by taxes). There is very little incentive for this guy to lose weight and try to have a healthy life style (with the exception of stop smoking) since he would pay the same premium as other people in his age/income level.
      In the long run, since most of the medical providers are private, the COSTS will be horrendous.
      Mixing private insurance with the concept of providing national healthcare is a serious mistake and that is why some of the provisions are being delayed, because they know that it will cost the Democrats any chance of winning the House and will lose them the Senate.
      This kind of remind me of my brother’s marriage. His wife would give the kids all they want it disregarding of cost and budget, expensive birthday parties, expensive computers to play games and so on. When my brother, the working man make them aware the could NOT afford those things, he became the BAD GUY, the Grinch.

      • Dominick Vila

        The reason Democrats may have trouble keeping control of the Senate in 2014 has nothing to do with ACA, but with the fact that there are many more Democrats running for re-election or to fill vacant seats in 2014 than Republicans, and that some of those Democrats represent red districts or states.

        • Germansmith

          No need to beat this issue to death, Time will tell
          You will understand this
          “La Historia me absolvera”

          • Dominick Vila

            Efectivamente, y lo mismo ocurrira cuando los resultados nos permitan discutir este tema con la ayuda de evidencia en vez de hipotesis o conjeturas.
            In any case, I agree, no sense debating the same topic over and over again based on opinions rather than the evidence the end result will provide.

          • jmprint

            LOVE IT, THANKS DOMINICK

          • Germansmith

            I would say the evidence is coming soon in the form of health insurance premium costs and next year in an OBM report listing the real costs of the subsidies.
            If I am wrong, I will acknowledge my lack of faith.
            Can I expect the same from you or are we going to find a way to blame the insurance companies, the evil GOP and the rest of the world?

          • Dominick Vila

            The exact amount of the subsidies needed to finance the expansion of medical care in the United States to make it affordable for every citizen is, indeed, hard to quantify and it may be higher than projected, but is that the only consideration we should have when the issue at hand involves providing medical care to millions of Americans who currently don’t have any? Should material value be the only consideration on matters like this? What would be important to me would be whether or not we can provide preventive medical care effectively to all citizens, whether or not insurance premiums go down or not, and other considerations along those lines. Obviously, our goal should also include the need to reduce overall medical costs to mitigate the effects of the most expensive medical system in the world, and I am still confident that it will be reduced and that the burden placed on the average citizen insofar as insurance premiums, and on employers, will go down. If I am wrong and the opposite happens, I’ll be happy to admit the naiveté of my opinion.

          • Germansmith

            Of course cost is an issue !!!!
            With a fraction of the cost this program is going to end up costing
            we can probably guarantee housing and healthy meals for all Americans that need it.
            How many healthy meals can we provide to an school child with a cost of an MRI? (the most overprescribe imaging in the medical field)
            I am not against providing basic medical care to those who need it. I am just aghast that very little attention has been place in the reasons why we spend more in healthcare than any other country in the world while not even ranking top ten in mortality tables.
            Of course, politically, it sound much more important to design a 2700 pages piece of legislation to promise healthcare to all than to actually fix the problem.
            As I said before, Obamacare is the equivalent of the captain of the Titanic sending his few lifeboats to shore to buy 10,000 buckets to bail the water.

          • Dominick Vila

            I agree with the example you mentioned concerning over prescribed or redundant tests and medication. Considering the technology that is available, it would not take much for our primary care physicians and specialists to share information in order to avoid duplication or unnecessary tests and procedures. One of the process improvements I would make to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of ACA is the use of technology to maximize efficiency and reduce cost. Privacy issues could be easily circumvented by patients signing the applicable documents to allow our service providers to share information among themselves.

          • Germansmith

            In a sort of informal way, all my providers share my results with each other because I take control and make sure I have copies of all my tests and refuse additional test unless they explain to me their reasoning.
            Since I have plenty of doctors in my family, I do respect them, but do not hold them in awe. I believe that the same people willing to question any other professional suddenly becomes very meek when dealing with his doctor and many of the horror stories I hear about people dealing with healthcare providers sometimes is because people are very passive when dealing with their healthcare.
            Centralized records are a good idea, but I would like to have the assurance that the system would be safe, hack proof and that medical office personnel do not treat them carelessly.
            But what are really the hopes of that working when the VA system have been trying for years to get organize and process the claims of disable veterans and they are running a year behind?

          • LibertyIssues

            Then again, we have Canada, where their Supreme Court ruled their healthcare system to be an unconstitutional threat to human life, citing all the Canadians who die on waiting lists of a year or more/

            Then, under threat of court action, their federal was forced to spend our GDP equivalent of a half-trillion dollars to reduce waiting times and add diagnostic testing and staffing that Americans have enjoyed for decades.

            Why would a government need a court order to stop allowing their own citizens to die? The biggest fallacy in political healthcare – tax resistance. The spending cutbacks began during very tight budgets in the early 90s. Politicians cut spending instead of increasing taxes .. exactly what BOTH our parties are doing now.

            Will you trust your life that politicians faced with a choice of cutting benefits or increasing taxes will protect your healthcare? If so, you know NOTHING about Medicaid,

          • Dominick Vila

            And we have systems like the one in the UK, which was highlighted as a major accomplishment during the last Olympic games.
            Waiting in a doctors office, or waiting for surgery, is not limited to
            Canada. My wife and I wait every time we go to the doctor, and I had to wait almost a month for my insurance company to approve cancer surgery 4.5 years ago, admittedly because the surgeon did not fill out certain form correctly.
            The fact that a system, any system, is not perfect does not mean it should be rejected. The solution is to fix its flaws, to make it efficient and cost-effective.

          • LibertyIssues

            Thanks, Dominick, Canada’s system is closer to Medicare for all. I’ve done all my research on Canada, and I worked there in the early 70s. I knew where to find that Canada does no colorectal cancer screenings on men, and 2/3 fewer mammograms on women over 40. Nobody knows Canada’s death rate from cancer, because with so little testing an unknown number of Canadians die of undetected cancers.,

            Our problem is the GOP is the Stupid Party, they helped kill the best part of Obamacare — healthcare co-ops, which the NY Times reported (nor Fox new) would be part of the law INSTEAD of a government plan. If Americans knew about them government health insurance would be dead forever. The model was Seattle’s Group Health Co-op, where I was a member for 17 years.

            It’s a co-op (member owned) and an HMO. Doctors are salaried employees of their patients! They run their own hospitals and pharmacy; pick up your prescriptions on the way back to your car from the doctor’s office. Best part is NO CLAIMS PROCESSING. They do things that would be impossible from Medicare, And they have a direct competitor, which keeps them honest.

            It would destroy both government and for-profit health insurers, so of course both party’s killed it, the Stupid Party and the Liars Party.

            Obamacare says that providers will be forced to become more efficient by cutting their fees. Would a pay cut make YOU more efficient? GHC sets targets for their doctors and they earn a 20% bonus for achieving them.

          • lookolook

            You’re very short-sighted if the only thing you can think about is the health care minimal increase in cost if several millions more would be covered. It is a crying shame that the greatest country on earth was unable to care for all of his citizens/residents per their health care. Remember that if nothing was done as advocated by your loving GOP, the USA economy could be ruined as a result of uncontrollable health care costs. I have not seen your posts opposing unfunded wars entered into by the GOP-led previous Administration that led to the collapse of the US economy. Politics of hate and distraction have taken precedence over patriotism. A house divided against itself cannot stand. What a pity!

          • LibertyIssues

            Perhaps you can help me understand how somebody can start scolding another person, on something they have absolutely no firsthand knowledge about, and are just repeating partisan soundbites they accepted without question.

            We did treat all Americans, before Medicare.Medicaid, in a 95% private system including charity hospitals for the uninsured, with healthcare costs among the lowest in the world at 5.8% of GDP.

            You also have no clue at all why our economy collapsed. Are you saying it’s okay for Obama to be a madman because Bush was a madman? “Mommy, he started it.”

            The subprime crash was caused by Bill Clinton, as reported at the time by the NY TImes (not Fox News). He pressured Fannie and Freddie into reducing the lending standards that had protected taxpayers since the 1930s, turning junk mortgages into safer investments than Google. The Times predicted, in writing, that Clinton’s actions could cause a massive taxpayer bailout,

            There are dozens of C-SPAN videos on Youtube, showing the Bush Administration efforts to regulate Fannie and Freddie, actual congressional hearings, blocked by Democrats screeching that Republicans “hate the poor.” (lol)

            As always, the poor were the greatest victims of Democrat “compassion.” Perhaps you might spend some time learning what you’re talking about before lecturing anybody. Give it a thought. Birthers ain’t the only gullible puppets.

          • Mark Forsyth

            Not bloody fucking likely!

      • Joseph

        Curious that you reason form the specific to the general and then draw broad conclusions based on that tiny percentage of the populace.

        • Germansmith

          If you think is a tiny percentage of the population that is “uninsurable” due to health, BMI or morale hazard, and that I am overstating the costs, then, you are not out there working with the public everyday.

          As an example, What if I tell you that 80% of the Medicare costs in this country are spend by beneficiaries at the last year of their life…just to extend life (no quality of life to speak off, just to delay the inevitable). Would you be surprised?

          I know is a tough question no humanitarian, civilized American would like to contemplate BUT, Is this a wise use of those funds?

          Lets speculate…..What if we use those funds to increase education in minority neighborhoods? Maybe to teach proper nutrition in our schools? Maybe to provide healthcare for people in an early age to reduce health issues at their older years?

          But maybe is what Churchill said
          “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they tried everything else”

          • Joseph

            That 80% of Medicare costs occurs in the last year of life does not surprise me. (Although I suspect that percentage is high) After all Medicare covers mostly elderly folks and while they may have gone much of their life with few expenses, there comes time when the likelihood of a medical catastrophe is significantly increased.

            The fact is that there are unscrupulous doctors and hospitals who will try to cash in on this misfortune. On the other hand there are other doctors that will not encourage unproductive and unneeded medical care outside keeping the patient comfortable.

            Your suggestions are laudable but if we quit subsidizing farming and eliminated some defense spending it would not be necessary to chose between the elderly and the children.

            As to the wise use of funds – well that is a debate that covers a lot of ground and the toes stepped on are a lot more powerful than either children – subsidies to pharmacological companies and oil companies come to mind.

          • Germansmith

            True as well, But the subject was insurance healthcare costs not farm subsidies or defense…
            Maybe we really should go to the root of the problem
            Elective Representatives and their incredible need for money to keep getting elected
            There is no incentive in fixing the system as long as companies and unions and all sort of powerful interests keep buying the best legislators money can buy

          • Joseph

            It is interesting that we started with the problematic “wise” use of funds with late life expenditures of Medicare compared to using those funds farther up the life stream to potentially improve the odds of better outcomes later in life.

            Which brings us to funds allocation and the politicians that allocate funds.

            There was a time when the people chose their pols and sent them off to conduct the peoples business. Unfortunately, many wealthy groups and individuals have created an atmosphere – using the tactics so well learned by Madison Avenue in the 50’s to preempts the process by selling nebulous ideology rather than policy. The Citizens United decision did the country no favors by putting the entire three coequal elements of government on the auction block for the highest bidder.

          • morbius777

            And I think the public has yet to confront the truth: the wealthy 1%, wall street, and corporate interests HAVE NO INTEREST IN DEMOCRACY. THEIR ONLY INTEREST IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS AS A MARKET FOR THEIR PRODUCTS SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY. They believe in hierarchy and feudalism and that the public is unworthy of governing themselves. They would be quite happy changing our flag to a green banner with a dollar sign on it.

          • Joseph

            Indeed, we are experiencing the revival of the aristocracy of the middle ages. I guess having someone to tell you what to do and what to believe and where to work is irresistible – especially since Armageddon is just around the corner.

            At least a lot of folks hope so. It’s a lot of work to stay prepared for gods judgement. You have to stop doing so many things and, of course, your knees get all beat up.

          • Mark Forsyth

            I hear that the corporatist down the street is having a sale on knee pads.

          • Joseph

            Actually, I think he’s installing cobble stones with bleachers so his fellow aristocrats can watch the commoners struggle by.

          • Mark Forsyth

            Sounds about right.That should keep them busy for far too long a time.

          • Mark Forsyth

            And if that were not available they would likely be satisfied with a flag depicting a swastika.

          • Jim Johnson

            Well said. It is very difficult to govern properly when so many of our politicians are unfairly influenced by campaign cash and the need to get more.
            We are governed by selfishness, hatred, greed, racism and horribly corrupt belief systems in this country. Too many worship the god of Money. Way too many politicians only want to obstruct, shrink, default or shrink our government.

            Whatever happened to governing, reasoning, communicating and problem solving. We are not a healthy nation and our politicians are great examples of many of our sicknesses.

          • LibertyIssues

            Is it greed that causes the rich to subsidize over half the middle-class tax burden? Was it greed that sent 85% of the Bush tax cuts to under $250,000 taxpayers, who paid only 45% of the personal income tax?

          • morbius777

            Give me a break. Neither Bush nor the 1% give a shit about the rest of America except as a market place. Bush’s “tax cuts” were for his 1% friends. And then they have the temerity to stick us with the bill and complain about “government spending”. Get some facts and get a life, libertyissues.

          • LibertyIssues

            If all you do is spout partisan gibberish, with no first hand knowledge of ANYTHING, then I assume you’ve grown used to making public spectacle of yourself, As you did here,

            ———from the last full renewal/

            “Following is a breakdown on some of the key measures and their costs, based on revenue estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, unless otherwise noted.

            Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

            The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

            The rest — $81.5 billion — is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

            http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

            —————

            ummm,463 / 544.3 = 85.06% …. precisely as I stated.

            @ morbius 777 “Get some facts and get a life, libertyissues.

            Tell us about all your other conspiracy theories!!

          • morbius777

            My answer to you is the same: work on secession. We’ll both be happier. If it comes to civil war, you’ll be at the top of the list.

          • LibertyIssues

            I’ve just realized that you run away from ALL the embarrassing questions. I can see why you would.

          • morbius777

            If you call expounding on your right wing propaganda, a question, you’re living fantasy land. Work for your secession; we’ll all be a lot happier.

          • LibertyIssues

            I’m not a rightwinger, and stereotyping entire groups means we can add “bigotry” to your resume.

          • morbius777

            Baloney. You may call yourself independent (I think that is probably your current moniker) but your a rightie all right.

          • LibertyIssues

            I am laughing at you again. Your compulsion to put people in boxes with labels reveals yet more bigotry.

          • morbius777

            Laugh away, fuzzball. You prove the right wing is brain dead.

          • LibertyIssues

            So is the left wing. They both are, And you’re STILL a wackjob is you think I;m a rightwinger. Do you also believe white men can’t jump, all blacks are natural basketball players and all Jews own jewelry stores?

          • morbius777

            I think your deranged. Who let you post from the asylum?

          • LibertyIssues

            You’re STILL a wackjob is you think I;m a rightwinger. Do you also believe white men can’t jump, all blacks are natural basketball players and all Jews own jewelry stores?

          • morbius777

            I think you haven’t got a clue as to what reality is.

          • LibertyIssues

            test

          • Jim Johnson

            You don’t understand, or just blindly disagree with, the concept of progressive income tax do you? The rich do not “subsidize over half” of the middle-class tax burden. You are interpreting the facts with a horrible bias towards protecting the interests of the most wealthy.

            If you are assuming that a flat tax is an appropriate baseline and that the higher levels of taxation on those with the highest income are a “subsidy” for those paying less, you are simply confused.

            Maybe you should look into the concept of “utility” (A. Rapoport and others) and try again to understand the importance of progressive tax rates. Get some education (not just reading some right-wing reactionary propaganda) before returning to this kind of discussion.

            The most wealthy are “subsidizing” the middle-class?! What a load of nonsense. Have you heard about the increase amongst the filthy rich in denying their US citizenship so they won’t have to pay any taxes? Not true Americans to my way of thinking.

          • LibertyIssues

            You don’t understand, or just blindly disagree with, the concept of progressive income tax do you? The rich do not “subsidize over half” of the middle-class tax burden. You are interpreting the facts with a horrible bias towards protecting the interests of the most wealthy.

            I’ll just have to prove you a fool. again. At the bottom.

            All I need is a single page on the web. Just one. Let’s look at official data of the IRS. Black and White facts. You’ll see them here:

            IRS data

            http: //tinyurl. com/3v53nhw

            Look to the far right columns. Average income tax rate by income level. What do we see:

            YOUR President’s “$50,000 secretary” averages …. 8.0%
            Core middle class *$40,000-99,999) averages ……… 8.3%
            Millionaires and billionaires average …………………… 22%

            Hmmm. YOUR President says a $50,000 teacher pays a higher rate than millionaires and billionaires. OMG

            It gets worse. Oh yes, it does. Let’s now look at “fair share” of taxes. I’ll use that core middle class again. Same table. All in $billion

            REPORTED INCOME = $8,688
            $40,000 to $49,999…..$499
            $50,000 to $74,999…..1,196
            $75,000 to $99,999…..1,015
            TOTAL………………2,710….31.19% of personal income)

            INCOME TAXES PAID $1,116
            $40,000 to $49,999….34 billion
            $50,000 to $74,999….97
            $75,000 to $99,999….94
            TOTAL…………….224….(20.1% of personal income taxes)

            Now divide, 20.1/31.2 = 64.4% What we now see is that the ENTIRE core middle class — all of them combined — pay only 64% of their own share of taxes. Who subsidizes the other 36% of the ENTIRE middle-class share of taxes, Venezuelans?.

            (That’s reported income only. Include tax exemptions targeted to the middle class, like healthcare and pensions, and the rich pay over 50% subsidy)

            Now divide the other way. 31.2/20.1 = 155% – 100% = 55%. What we see here is that the ENTIRE core middle class must pay an income tax increase of 55% …. JUST TO PAY ITS OWN WAY! (gasp)

            We’re all glad that fairness is so important to you, Jim Johnson so when might you be able to pay your own way, instead of suckling on the rich?

            If you are assuming that a flat tax is an appropriate baseline and that the higher levels of taxation on those with the highest income are a “subsidy” for those paying less, you are simply confused.

            Not what I assume,chump. So you are BEYOND confused.

            The most wealthy are “subsidizing” the middle-class?! What a load of nonsense. Have you heard about the increase amongst the filthy rich in denying their US citizenship so they won’t have to pay any taxes? Not true Americans to my way of thinking

            Your “way of thinking” would make human beings extinct!
            And your example is another memorized slogan which has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand,

          • Jim Johnson

            Wow, you are really lost in your delusions. The rich are not “subsidizing” anyone; that is how you choose to interpret those numbers.
            If you really think the biggest concern is that the wealthy pay too much and the middle class pays too little in taxes, you are very mistaken.
            I’m done with your nonsense little man with small brain and shallow, corrupt heart. And what is that brown smudge on your nose? Atlas Shrugged is just not that relevant.

            You should consider getting out more around decent people and take your life back from the brink of desperate selfishness and greed.

            Or, maybe just stick to counting your money, trolling with your propaganda nonsense and sniffing filthy rich assholes.

          • LibertyIssues

            Wow, you are really lost in your delusions. The rich are not “subsidizing” anyone; that is how you choose to interpret those numbers.

            Your feelings are hurt because you made a fool of yourself, documented. One more b.b. assertion with no explanation Are you also holding your breath?

            If you really think the biggest concern is that the wealthy pay too much and the middle class pays too little in taxes, you are very mistaken.

            I never said that either. (lol)

            I’m done with your nonsense little man with small brain and shallow, corrupt heart. And what is that brown smudge on your nose? Atlas Shrugged is just not that relevant.

            A vicious tashmouth is no replacement for documented original sources from the IRS.

            You should consider getting out more around decent people and take your life back from the brink of desperate selfishness and greed.

            A vicious tashmouth is no replacement for documented original sources from the IRS.

            Or, maybe just stick to counting your money, trolling with your propaganda nonsense and sniffing filthy rich assholes.

            A vicious tashmouth is no replacement for documented original sources from the IRS.

            It wasn’t me who made you look like a blithering fool. You did that all on your own. One more blind-faith partisan puppet, like the Birthers.

            NOW are you done stalking me?

          • Jim Johnson

            You again, little man? I thought I told you to go get some education before coming back here rather than spouting your nonsense and silly, distorted interpretations.

            The rich are subsidizing the middle class? You have got to be in some kind of weird tycoon worship cult to be that deluded.
            Strange silly little man you are…

          • LibertyIssues

            Here AGAIN is the proof that Jim Johnson ignores to invoke childish trash mouth, All from official IRS data, (snicker)

            —–
            All I need is a single page on the web. Just one. Let’s look at official data of the IRS. Black and White facts. You’ll see them here:

            IRS data

            http: //tinyurl. com/3v53nhw

            Look to the far right columns. Average income tax rate by income level. What do we see:

            YOUR President’s “$50,000 secretary” averages …. 8.0%
            Core middle class *$40,000-99,999) averages ……… 8.3%
            Millionaires and billionaires average …………………… 22%

            Hmmm. YOUR President says a $50,000 teacher pays a higher rate than millionaires and billionaires. OMG

            It gets worse. Oh yes, it does. Let’s now look at “fair share” of taxes. I’ll use that core middle class again. Same table. All in $billion

            REPORTED INCOME = $8,688
            $40,000 to $49,999…..$499
            $50,000 to $74,999…..1,196
            $75,000 to $99,999…..1,015
            TOTAL………………2,710….31.19% of personal income)

            INCOME TAXES PAID $1,116
            $40,000 to $49,999….34 billion
            $50,000 to $74,999….97
            $75,000 to $99,999….94
            TOTAL…………….224….(20.1% of personal income taxes)

            Now divide, 20.1/31.2 = 64.4% What we now see is that the ENTIRE core middle class — all of them combined — pay only 64% of their own share of taxes. Who subsidizes the other 36% of the ENTIRE middle-class share of taxes, Venezuelans?.

            (That’s reported income only. Include tax exemptions targeted to the middle class, like healthcare and pensions, and the rich pay over 50% subsidy)

            Now divide the other way. 31.2/20.1 = 155% – 100% = 55%. What we see here is that the ENTIRE core middle class must pay an income tax increase of 55% …. JUST TO PAY ITS OWN WAY! (gasp)

            We’re all glad that fairness is so important to you, Jim Johnson so when might you be able to pay your own way, instead of suckling on the rich?

          • LibertyIssues

            WOULD THAT BE THE SAME WEALTHY WHO SUBSIZES OVER HALF OF THE ENTIRE MIDDLE-CLASS SHARE OF THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX? *THOSE* WEALTHY?

          • morbius777

            Yes, the wealthy that gamed the system to extract money from hard working people. The same wealthy wall street investors who deregulated and gamed the system to create their very own gambling casino. The same wealthy who expect the rest of us taxpayers to bail them out if their bets go south. Yes, that’s the bunch.

          • LibertyIssues

            Mmmmm, the wealthy subsidize half the entire middle-class share of income taxes, while also extracting money from us? hmmm How much?

            Not sure about your will street fantasies, but it was Clinton and the Democrats who crashed our economy last. The evidence is irrefutable.

            Obama may give you a cookie. Any more memorized talking points?

          • morbius777

            Why don’t you just work on secession? Your America is not my America. Frankly, I never want to live in yours.

          • LibertyIssues

            Typical liberal, on the authoritarian plane.
            1) His country, love it or leave it, just like McCarthyism in the 50s.
            2) And perfectly happy to have the rich subsidize him.

          • morbius777

            Typical conservative/tea bagger:
            1. In total denial of his bias
            2. Ignore the excesses of the rich, especially wall street.
            3. Is fine with screaming about his perceived government excesses when it comes to finances, but has no problem with government intervention on social issues (women s health, abortion)
            4. Is busy trying to sell to the ignorant how corporatism is GOOD FOR THEM.
            Mr. Liberty: work for secession; we are as incompatable as oil and water.

          • LibertyIssues

            You’re getting desperate. And I’ll call you out again.

            1) I never defended the excesses of Wall Street, so I’m laughing at YOUR bias!

            2) I’ve pointed out that the rich subsidize half the entire middle-class, but that’s a fact, easily proven. and you can’t deal with it. Once again, like a Birther.

            3) Now you are an even wackier bigot. I’ve never said a word on womens health or abortion, but you probably assume that because of your equally wacky assumption that I’m conservative.

            4) I’ve never said a word about corporatism either, chump. Your just mad because I can prove the crash was caused by Democrat crony capitalism.

            5) You are just as intolerant as Rick Santorum in shouting people down.

            @ morbius 777 we are as incompatable as oil and water.

            Donl’t flatter yourself,
            I’d commit suicide.
            I will now leave you to your book burning.

          • morbius777

            You don’t even know what you are defending. You are hilarious. Please, commit suicide. Improve the gene pool.

          • LibertyIssues

            I’ll call you out AGAIN.

            1) Where did I defend Wall Street?
            2) Where did I say ANYTHING about women’s rights?
            3) Or corporatism?

            Put up or shut up. I’m calling you out.

          • morbius777

            I’m out. Get your gun, asshole.

          • LibertyIssues

            I’ll call you out AGAIN.

            1) Where did I defend Wall Street?
            2) Where did I say ANYTHING about women’s rights?
            3) Or corporatism?

            Put up or shut up. I’m calling you out.

          • Jim Johnson

            Well, LibertyIssues, you seem to be another delusional fundamentalist libertarian working to spread your gospel of free market capitalism. Many of the “facts” you are spewing are just not reality based.

            We often find that troublemakers like you have a very distorted view of what is really going on. Are you paid to spread this nonsense or did you make all of this up yourself? Quite often it is a “love affair” with money and those who make a lot of it. It seems like you are following the path of Ayn Rand and have just become a whore for the most wealthy. Do you really only love money and hate those who don’t?

            Sure, Bill Clinton was the cause of the crash in 2008, the rich are so noble for supporting half of the middle class, our health care system is the best in the world… where do you get this nonsense from? Roger Ailes, Sean Hannity, Koch Brothers, Ayn Rand worshippers?

            It mostly just makes you sound pompous, arrogant, ignorant, delusional and out-of-touch with the real problems most of us are facing. But, you already know that. Please keep your silly comments to yourself while others work to correct so many of the problems that have been created by your delusional, selfish and greedy beliefs.

          • LibertyIssues

            Another One!

            “Well, LibertyIssues, you seem to be another delusional fundamentalist libertarian working to spread your gospel of free market capitalism. Many of the “facts” you are spewing are just not reality based

            (snicker)> Which ones do you challenge?
            For now, I’ll just call you out.

            @John Johnson “Sure, Bill Clinton was the cause of the crash in 2008, the rich are so noble for supporting half of the middle class, “

            Umm, strawman fallacy. Clinton’s guilt does not imply no sins by wall street. This is how partisan puppets see everything as being only two sides, their gang or the other gang.

            Now to the fun part!

            @John Johnson “.. where do you get this nonsense from? Roger Ailes, Sean Hannity, Koch Brothers, Ayn Rand worshippers?”

            Ummm,,The New York TImes and C-Span videos of congressional hearings.

            “It mostly just makes you sound pompous, arrogant, ignorant, delusional and out-of-touch with the real problems most of us are facing.

            I’ll pause so you can wipe the drool that’s running down your chin.

            The greatest victims of the mortgage crash were low-income Americans who thought they were buying into the American Dream. But as my links prove, the mortgage meltdown was caused by Democrats pimping for votes. And my source is the New York Times (not Fox News). First:

            http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

            This is not pretty. Describes how President Clinton pressured lenders into making more subprime mortgages. Lenders pushed back, saying they could not make enough low-income mortgages and meet the lending standards of Fannie and Freddie. So Clinton then shifted the pressure to Fannie and Freddie, which then reduced loan standards — standards which had protected taxpayers since the 1930s.

            At this point, Clinton had used Presidential pressure to convert trash mortgages into safer investments than Google (no taxpayer guarantee). If you can see a pending disaster, so did the Times who predicted one.

            “New York Times
            “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits….

            “… the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.. “

            The Times continued reporting repeated attempts by the Bush administration to regulate Fannie and Freddie, including a desperation attempt to have veto power over Fannie and Freddie. Just a few:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/business/treasury-secretary-insists-on-fannie-mae-veto-power.html?src=pm

            http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/business/governance-rules-proposed-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html?src=pm

            All the attempts to avert the disaster were blocked by Democrats. You’ll need proof of that one, so here it is. Skip the Fox News reports if you wish, but don’t miss the C-SPAN videos of actual congessional hearings. If you still think this was caused by GOP deregulation, don’t miss Alan Greenspan arguing for world class regulation.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

            It gets worse. This next video shows Democrats, prominent like Maxine Waters and many lesser knowns, SAVAGELY attacking the whistle-blower who exposed the fraud at Fannie. Note that they are most aggressive at defending Franklin Raines, Fannie’s CEO.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

            Finally, if you’re not yet enraged, this should do it. Raines was Clinton’s Budget Director. You’ll see him being aggressively defended in that last video.

            Ready for it?

            Raines was forced to pay a $25 million settlement for … fraud.

            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washbizblog/2008/04/regulator_to_dismiss_charges_a.html

            Jon Johnson (lol) It mostly just makes you sound pompous, arrogant, ignorant, delusional and out-of-touch with the real problems most of us are facing. But, you already know that. Please keep your silly comments to yourself while others work to correct so many of the problems that have been created by your delusional, selfish and greedy beliefs.

            Many of the “facts” you are spewing are just not reality based.

            You are indeed as wacky as the Birthers. No proof, just mindless partisan babbllng. Your puppet master will give you a cookie and a pat on the back.

          • LibertyIssues

            Jim Johnson: Many of the “facts” you are spewing are just not reality based

            LibertyIssues Which ones do you challenge?

            Still no answer!!

          • Jim Johnson

            I thought you were concerned that I was “stalking you” by repeatedly calling you out on your misinterpretations.

            Fundamentally, you just don’t get the concept of progressive tax rates and continue to misinterpret them as “subsidies” by the wealthy to the middle class. Those high-bracket rates that you foolishly fixate on are much lower than they used to be, but those rates (and you can quote all the “official” sources that you want about these rates) do not represent what is actually paid.

            Perhaps you are not aware that the most wealthy get a lot of their income from capital gains and that is not taxed at the rates you are frantically quoting in your futility to defend your Libertarian “philosophy”.

            I suspect that Warren Buffet is far more competent to interpret “the facts” than you are, little confused troll, and when he observed that his secretary actually pays a lower rate than him, a billionaire, the injustice was clear. You, in your blind hatred of Obama, dig out your silly talking points on tax rates to copy-and-paste into your rambling responses to dispute this. Perhaps you should try howling at the moon like the insane Ayn Rand worshiper you seem to be.

            All that Libertarian, shrink the government, cut taxes for the wealthy propaganda sure sounds good to those who love only money and the power to get and keep more of it. But, in the final analysis, it is heartless and soulless and only based on greed, selfishness, hatred and competition.

            Jesus said it best in Matthew 25:34-40, that we are judged on how we treat “the least of us”. All of your hard work and passion to protect the interests of the most wealthy is just not as noble or rational as you might think.

            In fact, as the first few sentences of this article states, it is insane to keep doing the same things over and over again (cutting taxes on the most wealthy, trying to shrink the government, repealing Obamacare…) while expecting a different result.

            Ultimately most Libertarians are just modern day economic Hippies who are enthralled by competition, smaller government and “greed is good” philosophies rather than peace, love and harmony. Sure, it all sounds good in the abstract, but ultimately reality dictates what actually works.

          • LibertyIssues

            LibertyIssues: Which ones do you challenge?

            Still no answer!! Cowardly?

            I thought you were concerned that I was “stalking you” by repeatedly calling you out on your misinterpretations.

            Simple denial is not a call-out.

            Now you make a fool of yourself AGAIN.

            Perhaps you are not aware that the most wealthy get a lot of their income from capital gains and that is not taxed at the rates you are frantically quoting in your futility to defend your Libertarian “philosophy”.

            Ummmm, average tax rates include ….. ALL taxes paid! (lol)
            80% of all capital gains are earned by the middle-class and taxed at …. ZERO !! That would include the gains on $20 TRILLION in pension funds … assets in inherited at death by ONLY the middle class … all gains on middle-class home sales.

            One more time, average income tax rates per IRS
            Obama’s $50,000 secretary = 8%
            $40,000-99,999 = 8.3%
            $1 million plus = 22%

            http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0488.xls

            I suspect that Warren Buffet is far more competent to interpret “the facts” than you are, little confused troll, and when he observed that his secretary actually pays a lower rate than him, a billionaire, the injustice was clear

            I just proved you wrong, chump.

            Where are your facts?

            . You, in your blind hatred of Obama, dig out your silly talking points on tax rates to copy-and-paste into your rambling responses to dispute this

            Those were copied and pasted from IRS data. Where are your facts?

            Perhaps you should try howling at the moon like the insane Ayn Rand worshiper you seem to be.

            Where are your facts? Trashmouth.

            Ultimately most Libertarians are just modern day economic Hippies who are enthralled by competition, smaller government and “greed is good” philosophies rather than peace, love and harmony. Sure, it all sounds good in the abstract, but ultimately reality dictates what actually works.

            Where are any facts?

          • Jim Johnson

            You again silly little man?
            You just repeated all of your lame copy-paste replies, further emphasizing your misinterpretation of your “facts”.
            Look, I am done trying to correct all of your delusions. Please just get some education in these matters before composing another of your boilerplate replies.
            Done.

          • LibertyIssues

            My “facts” are all copied and pasted from official sources, like IRS. I recopy so everyone can easily see how you keep running away from the issues … repeatedly.

            Still no answer on which of those facts you challenge, despite repeated requests, and we all know why. But if you prefer to be a bomb-thrower that is your right.

          • Jim Johnson

            I should run away from your nonsense, delusions and, as shown below, misinterpretation of facts.

            Your claim that the the most wealthy are “subsidizing” the rest of us (and in particular that free-loading secretary who earns $50,000 and pays 8%) is not reality based. It is a distortion of those IRS facts that you were posting. I took a look at those, properly interpreted them and here is a more complete and accurate summary than the misleading “extract” that you have been posting. (tax, in billions)

            (See table image below)

            The important figure is total taxes paid, the percentage of AGI figure that you fixate on is just not that important in a proper analysis, but it does represent the importance of the progressive tax rate approach.

            As you can see (if you open your eyes) the total taxes paid by the highest ranges (you ignored the 500K-999K range and many others in your copy and paste deceptions) is almost half of the taxes paid by the rest of us! How is that a *subsidy*? How does your grift look now?

            You seem to think that the highest ranges should pay the same percentage as “Obama’s $50,000 secretary” who pays less than 10%. But if they did, they would pay less than 1/2 of what they pay now. Their $343 Billion would go down to less than $170 Billion and our deficits would skyrocket to the levels. And, of course, nobody is falling for that “cut taxes for the most wealthy to stimulate the economy” grift anymore.

            How is that fair? To have only $170 coming from the highest earners while $667 is coming from all the rest of us.

            Don’t bother responding with an apology or more distorted “facts”, I am so sick of your “the wealthy are the real victims” nonsense.

          • LibertyIssues

            MY GOD. LOOK AT WHAT HE DID NOW!!!!

            I should run away from your nonsense, delusions and, as shown below, misinterpretation of facts.

            Actually you PROVED ME CORRECT!

            And you’re babbling AGAIN! The President says the $50,000 taxpayer pasys a higher average rate than millionaites and billionaires … and your own table proves Obama is a liar!

            YOU show roughly 8% at $50,000
            YOU show 23% for $1 millon plus
            So YOU confirm the president is a liar of psycho proportions.

            duh

            >Your claim that the the most wealthy are “subsidizing” the rest of us (and in particular that free-loading secretary who earns $50,000 and pays 8%) is not reality based. It is a distortion of those IRS facts that you were posting.

            Your table show her paying 8% (LOL)

            And your math is totally wrong.

            I took a look at those, properly interpreted them
            and here is a more complete and accurate summary than the misleading “extract” that you have been posting. (tax, in billions)

            Wipe the drool from your chin.

            The important figure is total taxes paid, the percentage of AGI figure that you fixate on is just not that important in a proper analysis

            WHAT? THAT’S WHAT THEY PAY!!!! OMG

            As you can see (if you open your eyes) the total taxes paid by thehighest ranges (you ignored the 500K-999K range and many others in yourcopy and paste deceptions)

            1) Ummmm, the President compares with millionaires and billionaitres, so I only use $1 million plus which means, millionaires and billionaires. It’s called being relevant

            So you going up to $500,000 while sceeching about deceptions is … pathetic

            2) You FAILED to include share of INCOME!!!!

            is almost half of the taxes paid by the restof us! How is that a *subsidy*? How does your grift look now?

            1) That you’re a moron who says half a million dolars is middle class.
            2) That you failed to include INCOME, which would show you that the core middle class ($40-100,000) reports 32% of the income but pays only 20% of the tax. DUH
            3) The President defines middle class as $250,000 — which is the highest anyone does.

            You seem to think that the highest ranges should pay the samepercentage as “Obama’s $50,000 secretary” who pays less than 10%.

            Shame on you. I never even hinted such a thing. All I said is that the President LIES about the $50,000 wage earner.

            And, of course, nobody is falling for that “cut
            taxes for the most wealthy to stimulate the economy” grift anymore.

            Only by chowderheads like you. And NOBODY EVER CUT TAXES ONLY FOR THE WEALTHY, so cut the cr*p.

            The ONLY economic booms in the past 80 years followed indentical ACROSS THE BOARD TAX CUTS, Reagan and Kennedy. Look it up.

            How is that fair? To have only $170 coming from the highest earners while $667 is coming from all the rest of us.

            1) Ummmm, your table says 343 not 170. Yiou can;’t even get THAT right LOL)
            2) You cheat by including up to half million.
            3) Your data are useless becasue you don’t compare share of income to share of taxes paid.
            4) You just geneate a REALLY BIG NUMBER and go “wow”

            Let’s use your wacky half-million (still laughing)

            Total income $30,000-500,000 $6,035B = 73% of $8,263 total
            Total taxes paid = $667M = 65% of $1,032 total
            Pays only 89% of acual share = 11% subsidy

            Total income $500,000+ = $1,489B = 18% of $8,263
            Total taxes = $343B = 33% of 1,032
            Pays 183% of share

            There are two common definitions of middle-class. The government/Obama go upto $250,000. Most folks think that’s crazy (not as crazy as a half mill), so I always state the “core” middle-class ($40-100k) but calculate both. If you’d ASKED instead of screaming, bullying and REFUSING I would have showed you this:

            Total Income ($40,000-199,999) = 4,536 =55% of $8,263

            Taxes paid 448 = 43% of 1,032Paid 78% of share = 22% subsidy

            Hmm, you lose there also.

            I am so sick of your “the wealthy are the real victims” nonsense.

            Shame on you. I never said they were victims I said the President lied through his teeth … which you have actually managed to PROVE! And I said they subsidize more than half the middle-class share of taxes ($40,000-99,999). You never even looked at share of income, which is useless,

            And no more of your garbage about progressive tax rates. The liar in chief says the $50,000 pays a higher rate than millionaires.

            Did you forget al your screwups on who pays capital gains taxes?

            How is your rage and denial any different than a birther?. You’ve been bamboozled, conned and manioukaedd … per your own data. But you’ll deny it. Again.

          • Jim Johnson

            Lot’s of numbers; very little sense. Mostly nonsense little man.
            You seem to be hung up on comparing those percentages, but if you look carefully at the numbers you will see who is paying most of the taxes.
            You might want to look into some anger management classes. Oh, and have those biased thought processes looked into. They make you look like a raving prejudicial lunatic.
            Or, maybe go back and reflect on the basic point of the original article. Doing the same things over and over again (like your ridiculous misinterpretation of those IRS numbers) and expecting different results is a symptom of insanity.
            Would you like to respond with another of your nasty incoherent rants? Again… again… and again…?

          • LibertyIssues

            Lot’s of numbers; very little sense. Mostly nonsense little man.

            MORE trash mouth?

            You seem to be hung up on comparing those percentages, but if you look carefully at the numbers you will see who is paying most of the taxes. You just don’t agree with the concept of progressive taxation? Simply admit that.

            The issue here is that the President is a psycho liar on average tax rates. You posted your own chart which proved it. And we’ve all seen it.

            You are one scary dude.

          • Jim Johnson

            Be afraid little man…
            And wipe that brown smudge off your nose.

          • Mark Forsyth

            If you are not aware already,I truly hope you feel better to know that there are those of us who are working very hard to pass an amendment to the fascist C.U. and restore government of,by, and for The People.

          • LibertyIssues

            Citizen’s United was supported in an amicus brief by those fascists at the American Civil Liberties Union. Corporate campaign spending was ruled to be protected free speech … in 1976. (Buckley v Valeo) — one reason that even the NY Times reported that Obama was crackers to claim it overturned a century of legal precedents, which made me wonder about the students of the constitutional law lecturer!

            Corporations are not people but, ummm, shareholders are, which is why corporations have enjoyed constitutional protection since the early 1800s. Automobiles aren’t people either, but their owner have full individual rights.

          • LibertyIssues

            You really have no clue, do you?

          • LaRae Bailey

            lets defund the presidents vacations too, the raises they vote for themselves, the waste spending they all do, give them all a 25% pay cut like they give everyone. ect

          • Joseph

            I believe that is attacking the wrong end of the horse. There are more than enough “contributors” able to improve the financial positions of legislators to make up the difference – assuming the legislators do their bidding. Most of the expense of a presidential vacation are mandated by law. Presidents pay for their own personal portions but do not pay for any of the ancillary requirements imposed by law.

            The other end of the house receives the unlimited contributions for campaigns provided by corporations and individuals – Sheldon Adelson comes to mind.

          • Mike Maricle

            Did you say the same thing when Gee Dubya was in the WH?

          • Joseph

            Yep. No difference. I was just happy when George went on vacation.

          • Dominick Vila

            Death panels anyone? Euthanasia may be an attractive option for those who are healthy, I doubt you will find too many volunteers among those who are trying to delay what you so aptly describe as the inevitable. For them, it is not a matter of right or wrong, and I doubt cost is a consideration, as human beings we want to survive and live as long as we possibly can.

          • LaRae Bailey

            go visit some nursing home residents and ask them, you sir are very wrong again or anyone who is very sick or even depressed why do you think suicide rates are so high? or did you ever look at them? very high with young people

          • Dominick Vila

            The point I tried to make, perhaps not clearly enough, is not whether or not people can become so desperate and hopeless that they welcome death, but the right of an intrusive government to dictate who lives or dies and when it is time to pull the plug.

          • Joseph

            Observing parents today, I’m surprised the rate is not higher.

          • Germansmith

            Maybe so…death is very scary
            I on my part believe you never die as long as people remember you and your deeds and that you are judged not only in how you live, but also how you die.
            Between laying in bed in pain having people changing my diapers or dying a quick dignified death, I chose the later.

          • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

            Why is death very scary? Before you were born, where did you come from? Was that scary?

          • Germansmith

            Let me guess…
            You studied philosophy in night school?

          • Larry Woodall

            Now we see germans cannot debate. Makes an insult instead of an argument.

          • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

            Your guess is incorrect….try again!

          • elw

            Exactly you chose, but no one else should have that power.

          • Dominick Vila

            As a genealogy aficionado I love the first part of your comment, and I don’t have a problem with the rest of your opinion, but I prefer to let mother nature or myself make the most important decision in a person’s life – if we happen to have that option – rather than let a politician make it for me.

          • Larry Woodall

            You blundering idiot. Do you truly think you’ll have that choice!

          • morbius777

            Not true. There comes a time when one is tired of feeling crappy and suffering. Believe me, I know.

          • elw

            But do you want to make that choice yourself and let policy do it?

          • charleo1

            Amen to that!

          • Dominick Vila

            I understand what you are saying. I have kidney and colon cancer, and there have been times when I would have welcomed the inevitable. However, I prefer to let mother nature – or myself – make that decision, rather than allowing a politician in Washington make it for me. The latter would be the epitome of intrusive government.

          • Mark Forsyth

            For what it’s worth Dominick,there are plenty of us here at the Memo reading your comments who are glad you are here and hope you stick around awhile.

          • charleo1

            I’ll second that for sure!

          • elw

            Yes and it may be hard for young people to believe but it is possible to enjoy life as you age even when your health is not perfect. I always wonder what kind of a relationship people who talk so coldly about keeping older people alive have with their parents and grandparents.

          • Dominick Vila

            The same thought crossed my mind. My sisters and I helped our parents during the last few months of our lives, even though we knew that there was no way to prevent the inevitable. Financial considerations were irrelevant, even though we are typical middle class people with little money to spare. We did it because we loved our parents, the same way most people do. I wonder how they feel when the person fighting to stay alive is a child. I lost a son, and my only regret is not knowing what else I could have done to save his life, not reflect on how much money I spent trying to save him. Few things are as powerful to illustrate the evils of materialism as this topic.

          • elw

            I think the biggest difference between people like you (and me) and people who talk so coldly about letting sick and old people die are the personalized emotions we have about death on dying. It is not other people that die, it is our loved ones and ourselves. I am not against allowing someone to die without heroics, I just feel it should be their choice not mine or the Governments.

          • Dominick Vila

            Interestingly, the people that don’t share this opinion are the same ones that complain about government intrusion in our private lives.

          • elw

            Agree, except your nicer than me, I don’t find it interesting, I would describe them as hypocrites.

          • highpckts

            Of course everyone wants to live as long as possible, but it’s the quality of life that matters. I do not want to live 2 extra years in pain, immobilized and drooling! That is not quality! I see no reason why we shouldn’t be able to make these decisions for ourselves! We treat our pets better than that!!

          • morbius777

            Yet the same people who are against health care reform (Obamacare) and scream about the cost for the last year of life are the same ones who are against euthanasia on moral grounds.

          • LaRae Bailey

            every state should allow doctor assisted euthanasia then it would not have to be called suicide

          • Germansmith

            Hopefully, you do realize there is a difference between euthanasia and letting nature follows its course. If a person is in serious pain, I also do not have a problem with their own decision to end their lives and we should much to help them.
            Of course everybody is afraid of death (atheists probably more than most), but death is as natural as birth and is an step in our journey we ALL have to take.

          • morbius777

            I just experienced my girlfriends death; believe me, I have a first hand experience with it. We treat our animals and convicted murderers better. I’d like to force the politicians who are against it to sit through the hours of agony that she went through.

          • Germansmith

            You have my sympathies. Sorry you had to go thru that experience

          • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

            Why do you say that “everybody is afraid of death”? And why would atheists probably fear death “more than most”?

          • Joseph

            Because in the operating manual that comes with all religion, if you are not afraid of death then the shaman have no control over you. Also not believing in god does not preclude spirituality. For me, I will just return to the stream with anticipation – after all it can’t be any worse than being drafted.

          • Larry Woodall

            How many atheists have you asked? I’m one and facing an early demise. Atheists are people of reason and we know the mortality rate applies to all.

          • Larry Woodall

            Btw, mortality rate is 100%.

          • Larry Woodall

            .

          • elw

            I think that if a person wants to live as long as possible they should have that choice. People have long been encouraged to leave end of life instructions with their doctors which gives them the choice of when the plug should be pulled. Most people do not want to be kept alive if there is no chance of a real life. They can should be able to make that decision. However, that decision should never be policy, never; remember we are talking about people, someone’s mother, father, sister or brother, wife or husband or child.

          • Joseph

            Unfortunately, most of them are demonstrably not competent to make “life” decisions much less any kind of rational decision concerning their death.

          • elw

            Joseph, I am not sure who you are talking about, who is “them.”

          • Joseph

            Those who are terminally ill and need to make a decision about hanging on as a drooling vegetable or presiding over their civilized departure. A living will describing what their wishes are should they be unable to decide and the consensus of medical opinion is that a reasonably normal life is no longer in the cards. It is not suicide or euthanasia if you, while of sound mind and body, decide that you wish to be pain free but not have any extra ordinary methods used to prolong life. A DNR is also nice to have. It removes the onus of having to decide from you loved ones. Do them a favor – it will be tough enough for them.

          • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

            The state of Oregon has a well-designed law which permits a physician to assist a terminally ill person to end his or her life, ONLY after a number of conditions have been met to ensure that the decision is not taken lightly.

          • elw

            Most people who are terminally ill are not drooling vegetables. My Brother died two years ago of cancer and even when he was heavily medicated because of pain he could answer questions with the same razor sharp intelligence he always had. People who have brain cancer or one form of dementia or another develop cognitive issues as they progress, but most doctors guide them and encourage a DNR well before they get to that point. In the case of an brain injury without a DNR a spouse or other relative makes those decisions. I have had to deal with far too many dying people in the last several years, my experience has been that they are more rational then those of us losing them.

          • LibertyIssues

            Hmm, what’s their position on French cuisine?

          • LibertyIssues

            Fallacy. Conservatives don’t “scream” about the cost for the last year of life, Most of them, like most liberals, have no idea what it costs.

          • morbius777

            Why do you continue to post on a site where most people think your an idiot?

          • LibertyIssues

            Why do you have a near-psychotic aversion to issues?
            Actually, I enjoy exposing trashmouths like you as being totally clueless … and quite vicious if anyone DARES to disagree with Your Lordship. Booga booga

          • morbius777

            That’s precious. What’s the matter? Not used to someone who doesn’t bow down to YOUR LORDSHIP? If anyone wants/deserves that title, its people from the tea bagger party. Stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, buddy.

          • LibertyIssues

            O’m not a teabagger either (snicker)
            Are you also a racist? What about Jews? Opposite gender?
            Why do you have a near-psychotic aversion to issues?

            And why do you keep copying what I say?

          • morbius777

            To illustrate the idiocy of your statements.

          • LaRae Bailey

            you are very correct

          • omgamike

            As a 64 yr old disabled male with multiple chronic health issues — I strongly disagree with your comments. Each elderly person is going to have their own definition of what their “quality of life” is, or should, be. Just because we may be a victim of a catastrophic illness or accident, does not mean that we cherish our life any less. We humans are famous for our ability to adapt to changed circumstances. Nor does it mean that we expect any less than their best efforts and assistance should the need arise, from our physicians and/or our loved ones.

            We should, as individuals as well as a country, always be doing our utmost to improve all facets of our lives, from health care, to education and technology and the environment we live in.

            We all are going to die sooner or later. But I would much rather prefer later.

          • Larry Woodall

            the “right thing” in this case would have been the public option.

          • Mark Forsyth

            Since you raise the question about medicare costs to merely extend life and delay the inevitable being a wise use of funds,I wonder how you feel about well off millionaires collecting their Social Security benefits and then claiming that they are living on a fixed income and accessing Medicare.Hardly seems right does it?

          • Germansmith

            You are comparing apples and pears.

            I have a lot of clients that are elderly business owners who are still working and NOT collecting Social Security. They are AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in Medicare part A , not a choice they made. They maintain their health coverage they PAY for as they want to have a choice and preference with the doctors they have.

            Medicare and Social Security are both programs for which those people have paid into the system from the moment they started working. In my case, for the last 45 years and I still have 11 more years to contribute because I am not retiring up to the last minute.

            What you get from SS is based on your contributions thru your lifetime. Why would anybody not get what they have paid for?

            The problem with Medicare as with any other government programs is fraud and inefficiencies. It has been my experience as an insurance specialist and with my mother in law that Medicare pays without questions to many providers that steal from the system millions of dollars, BUT refused to continue to pay for my mother in law the $213 a month rental for an air bed after 12 months even as she still have the sores the bed was prescribed for.

            This story have a happy ending. I bought the newest model of the same bed for just $356 from Wayfair.com

            What a joke !!!

      • gmccpa

        Are you kidding? “BIG Brother” said so to the insurance companies? The insurance companies are more than happy to get into bed with “Big Brother”. Complaining about the ‘rules’ is a joke.

        Health insurance companies have the biggest sweet heart deal in history. Companies and employees get to purchase insurance with pre tax dollars. ie Cafeteria plan. NOTHING else gets sold this way. And then…when we reach 65, and our medical costs begin to soar….they pass us off to the taxpayers (Medicare). Sure, poor guys. If they don’t want Big Brother involved…let them go sell car insurance. Where they sell it one policy at a time…and like everything else…we pay with after tax dollars.

        • Germansmith

          And your point is?
          Insurance companies are INSURANCE, not an entitlement or benefit program. Their job is to evaluate a risk, price it, sell it, protect it and MAKE MONEY. This money is use to be invested in other businesses, in bonds, in treasury bills and to fuel the economy.
          The problem with government getting involved is that what politicians give, nobody can take away, because no politician ever got elected by taking stuff away.
          The Roman Empire declined when they got overwhelmed by the migration of barbarian tribes, lost their core values and was spending more money keeping the people satiated than they were bringing in in taxes.
          I hope history does not repeat itself.

          • gmccpa

            My point is they’ve had government “involvement” for 50 years. And done quite well BECAUSE of it. So spare us your concern for their finances

          • Germansmith

            not concerned about the insurance companies…could not care less.
            They have politicians in their pocket (both Democrats and Republicans) to do that as it is obvious by Obamacare.
            My concern is the deficit. Using health insurance companies to provide health policies to the poor is the equivalent to hiring Leonardo and Michelangelo to paint the village fence.
            but what the hell….it is just government money !!! Just throw money at the problem and as long as everybody get some goodies we are all happy…RIGHT?

          • gmccpa

            Right now our entire health care system is based on ‘government money’. In the form of tax subsidies (deductions), medicaid, or medicare. And, while I totally agree with educating people to be more health conscience…that too will come from government money. Even then, we will still be left with many ‘unhealthy’ people, many with little ability to purchase insurance. Are you suggesting just saying..’tough luck..no health care for you’? Seriously, not being sarcastic…what’s your suggestion? We throw money at it now..in the way of Medicaid…or picking up the tab for emergency room visits. I just don’t see how Obamacare makes this any worse.

            And for many of us..myself included..it will be better. Meaning, I, as an individual, can purchase insurance without fear of being dropped. Its not a freebee. I’ve paid for insurance my whole life..and for any medical care I’ve received. And there are more like me than you know.

            So, I’ll take Obamacare as an improvement. If universal health care ever comes around..I’ll be even more on board.

          • Germansmith

            And precisely, because the system is mostly sucking on government money is because the costs are so insane for the rest of us.
            Medicare pays this much and set the pricing for customers and health insurance companies that need to pay higher fees than GOV. And so on…
            You want a better system….
            How about Uncle Sam picking up the university loans costs for those doctors willing to work for a government system for a set amount of time?
            How about a requirement of your provider license to work for the NHS for a week a year for a salary?
            How about promoting the idea of the ACO where they get pay to keep you healthy, not by procedure.?
            How about health insurance companies allow to sell a certified product nationwide instead of dealing with 50 different insurance commissioners and their State requirements?
            And many more items regarding approval of medicines, doctors protocol and so on
            The only thing PPACA is doing is subsidizing the health insurance premiums for those that can not afford them with tax money during the worst economy we had in many years and while having the highest deficit this country ever had.
            This is NOT fixing our main problem THE COST OF MEDICAL CARE

          • gmccpa

            OK. Maybe alot of this sounds good. But at some point you are dreaming. NONE of these has a chance in hell. Its that simple. People like me..with no avenue for Group Health Insurance are living in the real world. So, I’ll dream about the above…but for the time being…the only improvement I am going to get is in Obamacare. The Republicans have nothing…and they would outright laugh at your above suggestions.

            As for subsidizing with tax money (personally, I’ll qualify none of that)….if you have had any kind of group insurance provided by your employer, I will make you all a deal. Give up your tax deduction for the next ten years. Then we can talk. Otherwise, its a hollow complaint…meaning “I’ve got mine..but we can’t afford yours”

          • Germansmith

            All the stuff I suggested it is already happening in other states and other countries or would be easier, cheaper and probably politically easier to implement that Obamacare. but hell, why do something simple when you can make a new overwhelming law to put more money in the pockets of doctors, hospitals and insurance companies as we also provide more income to new armies of lawyers and consultants to help companies comply or find loopholes with the law.
            Nobody is giving me health insurance so How about I pay for mine and maybe they should pay for theirs?
            I also do not qualify for subsidies and the only tax deductions I have are my health insurance premiums and my mortgage interest deductions.
            If we can find a politician to have the balls to suggest to eliminate those, I wish him luck in his next career.

          • gmccpa

            I just don’t see the difference between your tax deduction and someone else’s credit for the premium. They may not qualify for a deduction..but instead get the credit. Its basically the same thing.

          • Germansmith

            A tax deduction is a deduction of a tax I would have to pay otherwise (it was my money to begin with)
            A subsidy (not a credit) is the amount of money ( supposedly from other taxpayers or worse borrowed from the Chinese) that the government pays directly to the health insurance companies on behalf of those insured that claims low enough income to qualify. The subsidies are designed to be transparent to the insured. The insured only will know the amount they have to pay, not what the government pays in their behalf.
            Obviously, the lower the income a person claims (government will NOT be checking your claim against the tax returns this year) the higher the subsidy and the lower the premium the person pays for their coverage. I do not know of any penalties for claiming less income than you actually make…it is not part of their marketing.
            or therefore another incentive for people to get pay for work “under the table”. I do not think cash will go out of fashion anytime soon.

          • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

            How about a single-payer health care system?

          • Germansmith

            How about a government system managed and work with government salaried doctors?
            A single payer system in the US is like Medicare for all and I am not impressed the way Medicare is managed.
            Maybe a system would work if we remove elected congress people for determining what is medically necessary or not

          • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

            What’s wrong with Leonardo and Michelangelo painting the “village fence”?

          • Germansmith

            Let me guess
            You are probably a budget director for a government agency.

          • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

            Nope, just one who appreciates great art in public places (as in throughout much of Italy, for example).

          • Larry Woodall

            GermanS contradicts himself (herself). Previously s/he stated insurance companies must eliminate risks by defining their pool.

          • Germansmith

            Not at all
            That is why health insurance companies should not be used as a healthcare system for all

      • jmprint

        Do you realize that a person who is not overweight, doesn’t smoke, exercises, lives a good healthy moral life, but still has hereditary heart problems will be treated the same as the one with obesity. I would hope that big brother cares.

      • elw

        While it is true that it is hard for people to change their health habits, a person’s health status is not as simple as their weight or eating habits. Disease and illness are complicated and are often caused by multiple factors that include behaviors, heredity and environmental exposure. What we do know is every person alive can get ill, injured or have a serious accident and will sooner or later everyone need to see a doctor. Once more we are talking about other human beings, not pets or wild animals. I, for one, find it unacceptable to talk about letting old people die because providing them with healthcare is too expensive or punishing someone whose overweight by withholding health care from him or her by making it more expensive. Doing that would not make you the Grinch, like you brother, it would make you more like a Hitler. There is a big difference between teaching children to respect money and allowing people to die because you do not approve of the health choices they have made and do not want to spend the money.

    • elw

      You are correct about the Republicans, they know exactly what they are doing and it has nothing to do with the Country or what is best for the people who voted for them. It is all about what they personally get out of it. Most them couldn’t even tell you why Medicare was passed in the first place.

    • Fern Woodfork

      I Totally Agree With You As Always My Friend!! 🙂 Very Well Said As Always!!! 🙂

    • LibertyIssues

      Let’s see. Before Medicare/Medicaid we had a 95% private system, the uninsured poor and elderly were treated at Charity Hospitals. Our healthcare costs were among the lowest in the world, 5.8%, with much higher treatment rates than today.

      Today, government provides over half our healthcare, for-profit insurance is below 25%, 50 million Americans get treated in ERs only with no primary care, 12 million Medicaid eligibles have never enrolled because no doctors will accept fees as low as $17 per visit. So we treat a much smaller share of Americans but healthcare is now the highest in the world at 18%. Medicare has $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities and takes a $200 billion subsidy from the General Fund (22% of the entire federal income tax.) Plus another $100 billion subsidy from insurance companies.

      SOMEHOW those dang insurance companies have managed to triple our healthcare costs while losing 75% of their market share. Diabolical?

  • Catskinner

    Everybody knows how insurance works. It works just like the protection racket. The problem is, once it becomes politicized, it’s hard to figure out who the thugs are.

    • Germansmith

      You obviously do NOT. You really need to educate yourself
      Modern society, technological advances, current level of employment would NOT be possible without the protection from risks, funds and risk evaluation provided by insurance companies.
      If you take banks and insurance companies out of the equation we would no more advanced than Angola.
      What insurance is NOT supposed to be is a blanket for ALL. And that is the problem with Obamacare.

      • jmprint

        “What insurance is NOT supposed to be is a blanket for ALL.”

        Only the 1% – If we pay for congress to be insured, why not insurance for all?

        • Germansmith

          You are wrong in so many ways
          I did not voted for Congress to get free insurance. They did that themselves both Republican and Democrats.

          I hope you know than more than the 1% owned and pays for comprehensive health insurance (actually about 83.7% of the population in 2011) Of those people that were actually not insured about half are young and healthy and prefer to use their money in other stuff. Is a free country!!!!…maybe
          And that left us with the sick, uninsurable, unemployed , some of those only thought of buying insurance after they got sick (which for me is like buying life insurance after you are dead)
          I am not against providing healthcare to those people. Many countries have a healthcare system for their poor.
          What I am against is using a capitalistic for profit system and have the insurance companies make money on our tax dollar.

          • jmprint

            What you don’t understand is that they are already profiting from our taxed dollar. We are not expecting free medical care, just affordable, is that too much to ask. And don’t worry about the young, they will get insurance when it’s mandatory. I have been paying for my own insurance since I was sixteen. I just can’t afforded anymore.

      • Pelu Maad

        Insurance companies are in it for PROFIT….period.
        We need to remove PROFIT from health care.
        Health care should be for all…unless you favor an untouchable caste in your “shining city on a hill”….

      • Catskinner

        If we wanted to be more advanced than Angola, why would we elect Barack Obama?

        • Germansmith

          touché mon ami

  • docb

    When repub bagger lies catch up to you like those of the do nothing dead-enders of the rabid right it is just an extension of the madness and mental illness inherent to them and their childish obdurate ongoing anti-American behavior!

    Getting caught and called out just makes them unremorseful ignoramuses ..So be it..Call them out at their local offices daily in August.. They are taking the MONTH OFF!

  • Pamby50

    Here we are again. The debt ceiling crisis is coming and guess what? The republicans are not going to raise it unless we get rid of Obamacare. Good luck with that one. Let’s downgrade are credit standing again. They can live with that. Let’s shut the government down. I would like to see them try that again. It didn’t work out so well for them the last time. Lastly I believe that we are up to number 40 in trying to repeal any or all of Obamacare. What a waste of time.

    • abby725

      what Harold said I didnt know that people can earn $7574 in one month on the internet. did you look at this site w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

      • S.J. Jolly

        ATTENTION MODERATOR: Commercial spam !

  • latebloomingrandma

    Our local Sunday paper featured 2 editorials by local Congressmen, trashing both Obamacare and the Senate’s immigration bill. Both essays were full of untruths. Yet most of the people around here, where fox News is very popular, believe the whole thing. It’s very frustrating. I’m constantly writing rebuttals.

    • morbius777

      This is the problem with democracy: it assumes the intelligence of the electorate.

      • highpckts

        That, my friend, is the big mistake! Never assume!

  • JDavidS

    Jesus H. Christ, RepubliCONs/Tea Clowns. How long are you going to insist on banging your heads against the wall before you realize it hurts, it’s pointless and it’s time to stop?

  • charleo1

    I was a small businessman for the last 25 years of my working life. It’s not why I
    became a Democrat. But, every time the GOP enacted a policy that served to
    make my life harder, and big corporates easier, my politics were confirmed. As the
    self employed person, of a one person business, I purchased my health insurance
    as an individual. From 1996 to 2006, my premiums increased 400%. My deductibles, and co-pays doubled. And the doctors became much more aggressive in requiring a personal visit, with a co-pay for everything! That was before I became uninsurable. You might say, I should have changed. Perhaps. But, the stories shared by others in my many office visits at the time. Even with their employer provided plans, did not support the, I like to fire people that don’t do a good job for me, theory Mitt Romney purposed. I could fire them. And pay all the bills out of pocket.
    Now, I was stuck with my HMO. The specialist’s co-pay was double that of my PCP.
    He would order a test. The authorization required a personal visit, plus co-pay
    to my PCP, and it would take 3 weeks. A co-pay to the specialist for results, and
    a follow up to my PCP, for (consultation.) I had become their rat on a wheel! And the
    insurance co. itself was a nightmare to both myself, and my doctors who were truly
    trying to diagnose what had gone wrong, and help me recover. The insurance co.
    that seemed more determined by co. policy, to allow whatever was wrong, ample time to dispatch with me, before I could cost them any more money. So. I’m biased. And so are most people that’s ever had to be seriously sick, and fight with these people. My personal reason for supporting ACA.

    • gmccpa

      You are not biased Charleo. Anyone who has dealt first hand with the insurance companies, knows your story. I’ve also been self employed for the past 25 years. The increases have been ridiculous…and the fear of being dropped was always looming.

      I’ve found..on a personal level..that virtually everyone I know that opposes Obamacare, is either well covered by an employee group plan…or covered by Medicare. They’ve never purchased health insurance in their life…to them, its just ‘there’. So, I also support the ACA…but somewhat reluctantly…only because what I would really like to see…is universal health coverage across the board. Its time we joined the rest of the western world.

    • highpckts

      We have a 3 man small business and our private insurance premiums would go up every year at least 23 per cent! Tell me what business makes that kind of profit legally! Not ours! If we raised our prices like that, we would have gone out of business long ago!

      • charleo1

        I’ll just bet your business has competition, and if people decide to
        never use the kind of product, or service you and others in your line
        offer, it won’t kill them. Neither of things apply to healthcare of course.
        And, correct me. But, aren’t health insurance Cos. and Major League
        Baseball the only two businesses exempt from anti-trust laws? And,
        you’re right! As a business person, what would justify a 23% increase
        in premiums, while reducing benefits, year after year? Health insurance corporations are extremely profitable cos. Their executives are some of the highest paid in all of Corporate America. And, before ACA they weren’t required to justify a dime. I honestly believe, they would all get together down in Cancun, or somewhere. And raise their rates depending on how much they thought companies could afford in the Southeast, or Northwest, and jacked ’em up accordingly.

        • highpckts

          And your point? Someone has to force the insurance co. Into a fair competition with each other! Otherwise, premiums would ruin everyone! They need regulated badly and this is a start!

          • charleo1

            My first point, although perhaps not stated very well. Is your small businesses, have a lot of competition. And none of them, that I can think of, refuse to sell their product, or charge more to people just because they are likely to need it sooner than other customers. That as products go, healthcare insurance is just not a good fit in a free market. Because a free market implies both the business, and the customer are free. Not the business is free, and the customer over the barrel. I don’t know if they can be forced to compete. I does seem the Gov’t gave insurance cos. a similar choice the insurance cos. have been giving consumers. Until ACA, most of the rules have been from
            insurance cos. to customers. If you are going to have health insurance in this Country, these are our rules….ACA says.
            If you are going to sell health insurance in this Country, we
            have some rules. And, here are a few. One, stop putting caps on coverage. Because when you do that, there are thousands of people that lose their homes, and savings. Then, the taxpayer pays the bills anyway. And number two. You may no longer raise rates, and give the CEO a raise, and claim increased overhead. You’re going to show 80% of premiums were spent on providing healthcare to your policyholders. You can’t do that, this rule says, you overestimated costs, and you must return the unused premiums back to policyholders. And, we’ve cut some deals with the vendors, to which they have agreed. So, you may raise the rates, but you’ll be returning the money. And, we’ll adjust that policy as is necessary, if over-estimates become the rule. Rule three, is you will no longer be able to pick and choose those you insure. Shutting the door on people who have conditions that might require extra drugs. Or might need an operation one day. And so. larding these people off on the taxpayers. Then, after they’ve gotten sicker because of your
            exclusions. And another group of Americans have lost their savings, and homes to pay for life saving operations, all to increase your profits. So, this will no longer be a profit generating technique we find acceptable. Insurance is supposed to be about sharing risk. Not avoiding, or shifting it onto the Gov’t, and taxpayers. So regulating, ACA being a start, absolutely! Abolishing health insurance from basic healthcare, altogether? Even better!

          • LibertyIssues

            (laughing)

          • charleo1

            And, don’t be a smart ass. In NY where the State is cooperating
            insurance premiums are slated to fall by 40%. In States where
            they are sticking to the corporate line, and the expense of the
            poor, people are dying. So, nothing here is very funny!
            Including the part about millions of Americans being over the
            barrel. Where would you be, my cynical friend, if not for the
            Gov’t provided healthcare? You believe the insurance cos. would be covering you today? Or, would you be as destitute, and without, as the widow living on SS, after the hospital bills took the life savings her, and her husband took 40 years to
            accumulate? Still laughing?

          • LibertyIssues

            And, don’t be a smart ass.

            Better than a dumbass!

            In NY where the State is cooperating insurance premiums are slated to fall by 40%.

            (laughing) Look again! READ CAREFILLY. Those are people moving from individual to group coverage

            Still laughing?

            Even harder.

          • LibertyIssues

            Until ACA, most of the rules have been from
            insurance cos. to customers

            What are you, 12 years old. Never heard how heavily health insurers are regulated by state insurance companies? If insurers are so powerful, how do they wind up subsidizing Medicare by over $100 billion per year?

            If you are going to sell health insurance in this Country, we have some rules

            State regulated, but you can’t deal with that. This is the same federal government that screws the Medicaid population so badly? THAT federal government? With Medicare run like a rejected script on Monty Python

          • charleo1

            Yes, I’m 12 years old. So, as a 12 year old, I’d take
            Mitt Romney’s advise, and fire my insurance co.! That’s right
            Mr. Just send that Medicare card right back to the, “Monty Python,” people, and tell them you’ve had enough of their
            incompetent crap. And you’re going to find you a well regulated company, that knows what they’re doing! Oh, and why do they
            subsidize the system? The same reason they do everything
            else they do, profit. Yes, they feed the system they are slowly
            destroying, to keep feeding off the system that has made them
            some of the most profitable, and richest corporations in world
            history. You know, for an old geezer, writer, and political activist, you sure haven’t figured out much.

          • LibertyIssues

            Yes, I’m 12 years old.

            We’ve all seen that you never heard of state insurance regulation! That says all we need to know about how easily you can be manipulated.

            My work is finished here. Just keep howling into the wind

          • LibertyIssues

            Are you on drugs? There is plenty of competition in health insurance — except in a few states which foster near-monopolies.

            I guess you want EVERYTHING reguated then, eh?

          • highpckts

            If it will save us from the likes of you, YES!

          • LibertyIssues

            If you can’t take the heat then stop spewing garbage.
            This is a DISCUSSION forum, and you’re not Mussolini on a balcony.

          • highpckts

            I haven’t seen you “discuss” anything! You want no rules or regulations! Talk about Mussolini! you want it your way, period!

          • LibertyIssues

            I haven’t seen you “discuss” anything!

            (laughing) “Discuss” does not mean kissing your butt. I disageed. You had a hissy fit. It’s all still here, Spanky.

            Geta grip. Stop screaming and throwing hissy fits,

        • LibertyIssues

          Umm, insurance premiums get forced up to subsidize Medicare, and it’s getting worse because the boomers are changing the ratio of workers to retirees,

          Yes, unsurance companies subsidize Medicare, Who do you believe the esteemed Mayo Clinic or politicians? Mayo Clinic reported losses on Medicare of $840 miliion in 2009, and has been refusing Medicare ever since, adding their own 15% on top of medicare — so seniors are subsidizing their own Medicare!

          Anyhow … how did Mayo Clinic offset losses of $840 million dollars? There is onky one ay possible, overcharge insurance companies, which increases premiums … paid mostly by employers ,,, during the great recession?

          If you can tell us how else Mayo got that $840 million, you have one heck of a scoop!

          • charleo1

            You do realize Federal, and State funds, as well as private
            insurance, has been used to pay for indigent care for decades? Your statement on the Mayo clinics refusing to treat Medicare patients, is like a lot of contentions, that seem to foretell a dark future, if the Government becomes more involved, is without context. Like 40% of all Americans are now insured through some form of government funded plan. And, is mostly untrue. In that yes, some Mayo clinics are refusing to provide primary care to Medicaid patients, as a corporate response of sorts, to the lower reimbursement rates. But, will still provide the more extensive care to indigent, as well as both Medicaid, and Medicare patients, as they are still required by law to do. In AZ, where the State is refusing to set up exchanges, and create more competition, insure more young people, and take the load off hard pressed small businesses. The Mayo Clinic Corporations there, are attempting to transfer some of their patients to other clinics within it’s own franchise. But, that’s far from a done deal.
            Then, there is the financial matter of millions of dollars of
            Federal grants provided to the Mayo institutions for research,
            that might be brought to any conversation of refusing to treat
            Medicaid/Medicare patients. So, before we draw any conclusions, we should know there is still a lot of posturing,
            and hard nosed negotiations going on over a giant pot of
            money.

          • LibertyIssues

            <blockquote?You do realize Federal, and State funds, as well as private insurance, has been used to pay for indigent care for decades?

            Of course, Fifty years as a politcal acivist and writer, but ‘m still amazed when people speak so very authoritively, when they have no clue what they’re talkog about, simply reciting memorized slogans.

            Your statement on the Mayo clinics refusing to treat Medicare patients, is like a lot of contentions, that seem to foretell a dark future, if the Government becomes more involved, is without context.

            Which part has confused you?

            1) Mayo already loses big bucks on Medicare.

            2) Bigger losses are required to “pay for” Obamacare, a 25% fee cut required in just four months..

            Like 40% of all Americans are now insured through some form of government funded plan

            More than half.

            Uninsured Medicaid eligbles = 18.84%
            Uninsured private market = 16.3%

            (excludes Medicare eligibles)

            If you;d like the links just ask. I’ll even teach you how to combine the different components.

            And, is mostly untrue.

            Generally kinda dumb to try bluffing anyone who knowds what they’re talking about. Let’s document how littlte you know, and how badly you’be been manulated

            <blockquote) In that yes, some Mayo clinics are refusing to provide primary care to Medicaid patients,

            1) You’ve confused Medicare with Medicaid. Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for low income adults. SCHIP for low-income children.

            2) Untrue. Every Mayo Clinic refuses Medicare as full payment for primary care. All three states as proven below.

            3) Untrue. They provide the care but add their own 15% on top of Medicare, reimbursements, co-pays and deductibles.

            4) I’m on Medicare. Will you guarantee to reimburse any similar surcharges causd by ObamaCare? What if Iose treatment entirely?

            The Arizona clinics are linked below for your both errors

            Medicare refusal, Florida
            http://www.mayoclinic.org/becomingpat-jax/medicare.html

            Medicare, refusal, Minnesota
            http://www.mayoclinic.org/billing-rst/#medicare

            as a corporate response of sorts, to the
            lower reimbursement rates.

            Untrue. Mayo Clnic announced losses of $840 millon on Medicare ftee years.

            But, will still provide the more extensive
            care to indigent, as well as both Medicaid, and Medicare patients, as they are still required by law to do. In AZ,

            Wildly Untrue., as proven on their Arizona website

            http://www.mayoclinic.org/billing-sct/medicare.html

            Untrue. There is NO legal requirement to provide primary care physician services

            The legal requirements, listed on their website.

            *Mayo Clinic Hospital facility charges Example: Room and
            *Laboratory tests covered by Medicare
            *Physician assistant services
            *Nurse anesthetist services
            *Ambulatory surgery center charges

            None of those are Plan B.

            The Mayo Clinic Corporations there, are attempting to transfer some of their patients to other clinics within it’s own franchise.

            Totally untrue … and bizarre!

            All their clincs have the same policies on Medicare and Medicaid. Mayo’s original market test, in Glendale, AZ. explicity prohibited seeking coverage at other clinics

            There are only two Mayo Clinics in Arizona. Florida and Minnesota are a rather long drive.

            <blockquoteThen, there is the financial matter of millions of
            dollars of Federal grants provided to the Mayo institutions for research, that might be brought to any conversation of refusing to treat Medicaid/Medicare patients.

            WILDLY Untrue. Federal law permits providers to add up to 15% on top of Medicare. And Obamacare rewards providers for totally dumping Medicate patients (like me)

            I went extra length here for any others who have been so serioously manipuated. Yours is the first version I’ve seen which is actually worse thn Birhers.

          • charleo1

            I still think you need to settle down. I started with reimbursements, because in your post, if you knew
            other players subsidized providers, you neglected to
            say so. You also left out veterans, and public sector
            employees as those provided their insurance by Gov’t.
            The line about birthers was uncalled for. And the,”loss,”
            of 840 million is on Mayo’s word alone. We have triple
            the healthcare costs of any Country, and rank 14th, or
            15th in positive outcomes. So, I think we can, and must
            do better. Secondly, the fee for service, so called free
            market system, with access to regular doctors tied to
            jobs, and employers increasingly unwilling to pay the
            out of control premiums, is a recipe for disaster. You
            don’t care about bashing the Medicaid program for poor
            doctor payments. But, the ones taking the real brunt of
            our dysfunctional system is those Americans dying an
            avoidable death, from a lack of care. You say you’re a
            political activist, great! I can think of no greater cause
            than preventing this inexcusable occurrence from ever
            happening, because a board of stockholders demand
            a dividend increase. Can you?

          • LibertyIssues

            You also left out veterans, and public sector
            employees as those provided their insurance by Gov’t.

            You said 40% were covered by government. I said over 50% …. black and white … but I left out people!!!!

            The line about birthers was uncalled for.

            You’re stil doing it!

            the,”loss,” of 840 million is on Mayo’s word alone.

            Ummm, where’s your proof? Readers can decide for themselves — your “word” or the Mayo Clinic

            Having been proven wrong … point by point … all documented by original soures … you add a new round of memorized soundbites. Like denying Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

            You’re done.

    • Germansmith

      and if you think PPACA is going to change the hassles you went thru
      you are in for a deep disappointment. It is not Government healthcare, it is managed by the same insurance companies we had before.
      Depending on your declared income (which Gov is not checking the first year) you premium may probably go down if you are eligible for a subsidy (which GOV pays for directly to the insurance companies……or maybe I should say your grandchildren with higher taxes)
      The option that you have is that now, you can change insurance company because what you had was probably crappy. And change your PCP…he sounds like a greedy bastard
      If you look at it logically. Adding another 8% of the population to access doctors in regular basis is not going to make access any easier, because we are not adding 8% more doctors or PCP.

  • gmccpa

    Of course it drives them stark, raving mad. They been lying about Obamacare for the past four years. Outright lies. Once its in fully in place, these lies will become more and more obvious. And worse..for them…many of their supporters will actually benefit from it.

    The funny part, even if its only moderately successful….they’ve come down so hard on it, that they will now really look foolish. This is what they are afraid of..and they left themselves no choice to make sure its never fully implemented.

  • elw

    American Conservatives have been fighting any kind of Government controlled health care since the early 20th century. They fought tooth and nail over Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and to this day close to 100 years since the first social safety net program, Social Security, was passed they continue to used terms like socialism and bankruptcy as reason to repeal them. They are not even creative enough to come up with new rhetoric. Obamacare is just the next step to securing the future of the Country by keeping it’s citizen healthy. Private insurers have had 90 years to get the job done and have failed everyone but their own pocketbook. So do not expect more from the “Party of no ideas” just ignore them and keep voting for progressives and moderates who want the Country to keep moving forward.

    • LibertyIssues

      Actually, your crazy.

      If we look at the current Medicare eligibles, then their UNINSURED rate is higher than the general public, You losers can’t even handle the least fortunate among us, when they have a fundamental right to healthcare — from you, FAIL

      • elw

        You are confusing Medicare with the private health care system in this Country. According to the data*, people old enough (65 and older) to be covered by Medicare have near universal health coverage (99%). On the other hand, the numbers of people and families covered by the private, employee based health insurance in this Country has been shrinking for the last 11 years. In 2011, only 58.3 % of employed individuals under 65 got health insurance through their employer, which left close to 50 million individuals and families out in the cold when it comes to health insurance. Most of them have middle-class income levels that disqualify them for safety-net programs like Medicaid and the Children Health Insurance programs. The whole purpose of ACA or Obamacare is to correct that and to ensure that every American has access to affordable health care coverage. We have already done that for people over 65 via Medicare.

        * Economic Policy Institute

        • LibertyIssues

          You are confusing Medicare with the private health care system in this Country.

          Thanks for the catch! That was a typo. I meant Medicaid. Exclude the over 65’s and the uninsued rate is 20% for the Medicaid eligible population, versus only 15% for the rest.

          You seem to be a numbers guy. I had just resarched it. I knew that 1/4 of all our uninsurede, 12 millon Americans, are eligible for Medicade and SCHIP (children) but have never enrolled. There are no doctors who can afford to work as low as $17 per visiit. In many inner cities there are no doctors at all — not enough privately insured to overcharge for loss recovery.

          So I took that 12 million, added the Medicaid insured (sans dual eligibles) and divided. In round numbers,the current medicaid-eligible popilatio is 60 million. 12 million uninsured is 20%^

          For the private market there are 201 million with coverage and 38 milllion without (50-12). Thtat.s 249 total. 38 million is 14%.

          Rather shocking. I knew Medicad was a moral atrocity, but nevet dreamed it was that bad.

          Mosty them have middle-class income levels that disqualify them for safety-netprograms like Medicaid and the Children Health Insurance programs.

          Doesn’t matter, there are no doctors. Even the NY Times reports we’ll be short 62,000 doctors next year, before Obamacare

          Thewhole purpose of ACA or Obamacare is to correct that and to ensure thatevery American has access to affordable health care coverage.

          That’s irrefutably impossible, but we may be on opposite sides here.

          We havealready done that for people over 65 via Medicare.

          You head it here first. Obamacare’s biggest trainwreck will be Medicare. It will be clear no later than the end of February.

          Plus, as I’ve just suggested, adding 20 million to Medicaid is categorically impossible. How can we add 20 million to Medicaid, when it aleady kills more people (%) than private healthcare, from a lack of doctors?

          I figure both parties will be in collapse for next year’s election, kinda like most Americans suspect!

          • elw

            Libertyissues, I will give you credit for admitting a mistake, but your figures make no sense. Your percentages are all off and misinterpreted. Here is a link to the census bureau’s 2012 report on health care coverage.
            http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf
            You should know that although Medicaid is partially funded by the Feds, it is controlled by the States and is a very different program from State to State. Who and the number of people covered vary greatly across the Country as does the number of doctors who will take it. When it comes to Medicare, people on the right have been yelling that the doctors will not take it for decades and that has never happened. In fact most doctors like it because they are sure they will get paid in a reasonable time and know what that payment will be. In most places in the US, Medicare recipients have no problem finding doctors. You need to back up your claim of 40% of the doctors already refuse Medicare with a reference, because it is simply not true.
            Your predictions are old and much used in the past. They are just as untrue today as they have always been. Your conclusion that Medicaid is killing more people than the private sector is based on what data or information? The sky is not falling, both Parties will not collapse for next year’s election and most American do not think that.

          • LibertyIssues

            elwYour percentages are all off and misinterpreted.

            (snicker)

            As documented here, Medicaid has a worse uninsured record than the private population. On a percentage basis, more people die uninsured in the Medicaid population than in the private population (excluding over-65)

            Medicaid uninsured = 18.8%

            “Medicaid and CHIP provide health coverage to nearly 60 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, parents, seniors and individuals with disabilities”

            http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Eligibility/Eligibility.html

            Now deduct the right number of dual eligibles.

            “Medicaid provides health coverage to more than 4.6 million low-income seniors, nearly all of whom are also enrolled in Medicare. Medicaid alsoprovides coverage to 3.7million people with disabilities who are enrolled in Medicare.

            http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Population/By-Population.html

            The Medicaid/SCHIP uninsured

            “FRIDAY, April 25 (HealthDay News) — One in four Americans — about 12 million people — who don’t have health coverage are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) but aren’t enrolled, a new report shows.
            The results were released Friday by the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation

            “http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042502855.html

            60 – 4.6 -3.7 = 51.7 insured + 12 uninsured = 63.7 eligibles
            12/ 63.7 = 18.84% uninsured (I used more decimals for you)

            ——–
            Private insurance uninsured – 16.3%

            Private coverage (table)
            195 million
            http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0155.pdf

            50 million uninsured – 12 Medicaid eligible = 38 million
            195 + 38 = 233 million / 38 = 16.3% uninsured

          • LibertyIssues

            elwWhen it comes to Medicare, people on the right have been yelling that the doctors will not take it for decades and that has never happened.

            SLOW DOWN, You’re spewing it faster than I can shovel it.

            Cancer clinics are turning away thousands of Medicare patients …
            (CANCER CLINICS –SHAMEFUL)
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/03/cancer-clinics-are-turning-away-thousands-of-medicare-patients-blame-the-sequester/

            Two-thirds of Colorado doctors refuse or limit basic Medicare patients
            http://www.cpt12.org/news/index.php/survey-two-thirds-of-colorado-doctors-refuse-or-limit-basic-medicare-patients/

            Fewer Doctors Treating Medicare Patients, CMS Says – Kaiser …
            (CMS is, ummm, the federal Center for Medicare Services (lol)
            http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/July/29/medicare-doctor-issues.aspx

            Doctors who take Medicare scarce | abc11.com
            http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/abc11_investigates&id=8656615

            PHYSICIANS REFUSE MEDICARE PATIENTS – New York Times
            http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/12/us/physicians-refuse-medicare-patients.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

            elw: ….yelling that the doctors will not take it for decades and that has never happened.

            Your contempt for seniors is noted.

          • LibertyIssues

            ELWYour conclusion that Medicaid is killing more people than the private sector is based on what data or information?

            Keep reading. (lol)

  • ORAXX

    Republican opposition to health care reform, Obamacare or otherwise, has never been about anything but preserving the prerogatives of the health insurance industry, big pharma, and the multi-million dollar salaries of the people who run those industries. They could not care less about Americans getting health care.

    • LibertyIssues

      Ummm, it was Obama who handed all those billions of dollars to the insurance industry, exactly as they demanded of him before he even took office,

      • ORAXX

        The health insurance industry spent over a hundred million dollars lobbying against health care reform. That is money people paid for health care that went to people trying to make sure they don’t get it. The health insurance industry does not want any oversight at all even though they operate as monopolies or near monopolies in many locations

        • LibertyIssues

          That’s another common liberal lie, which is swallowed by only the most gullible (can’t handle economics) Monpolies can exist, through all human historu, if enforced by the state/

          Despite the evil conspiracy theories, why would health insurers oppose a bill that gave then everything they asked for

          And Obama’s crony capitalism saw him bury the best healthcare option of all , which would have forever destroyed governent healtcat, which is a massive failute anyhow, but this wouifld have been cheaper wiith “services” impossible in Medicare, Medicaid and insurance companies.

          • ORAXX

            Can’t handle economics? We spend more on health care as a percentage of GNP, per capita, and in total outlay than any other nation and rank 37th in life expectancy. Why would you be satisfied with such a lousy return on investment?

          • LibertyIssues

            Economics? (lol) How about human lives?
            Ever hear of tax resistance? Political healthcare gambles our lives that polticians, faced with the choice of increasing taxes vs cutting benefits, which will they choose? HELLO? Have you been watching Congress for the past few years? Canada?

            In Canada, Parliament began cutting their share of healthcare spending during a period of tight budgets in the mid-90s. This led to the Canadian Supereme Curt ruling Canada’s healthcare system to be an unconstitutional threat to human life, citing all the Canadians dying on lengthy waiting list. Their federal government then began spending our GOP equivalent of half-trillion dollars to reduce waiting times and add diagnostic testing that is shamefully behind ours (mostly cancer)

            Life expectancy tells you nothing about healthcare. How about all our gunshot deaths? Why do liberals talk about high healthcare costs and high gunshot deaths and never put the two together? There is no valid comparison of healthcare between countries of the type you want. For example, Canadian women over 40 are 1/3 as likely to have had a recent mastectomy. They don’t test at all for colorectal cancer. THINK. If you never test then you have people dying of undiagnosed cancers. We rank at the top of things like percentage of population cancer-tested, but that’s no good either, because different countries have different cancer rates.

            Despite your conspiracy theories, Medicaid has a higher unuinsured rate than the private segment (both pre-Medicare).

            Now the part that’s disgusting. Can you handle it? 1/4 of our uninsured, 12 million Americans are eligible for Medicare and SCHIP (children) but have never enrolled. There are no doctors that will accept as little as $17 per visit.

            Now compare:
            1) Medicaid funding is national disgrace.

            2) Medicare has spent and promised $40 TRILLION in unfunded liabilites, PLUS takes 22% of every penny in personal income taxes ($200+ billion per year).

            Why the difference? Why is one political health plan severely UNDERfunded, and the other other one OVERFUNDED (relative to taxes).

            Seniors vote. Poor folks do not. YOUR TURN. How can you possibly defend such a moral atrocity?

  • fusillijerry

    Obamacare Derangement Syndrome?

  • exdemo55

    There’s been a recent flurry of activities attempting to boost the Affordable Care Act. In mid-June, for example, President Obama’s “Organizing for Action” group reportedly spent seven figures on TV ads (in California, Florida and Texas) claiming, “Americans are already seeing the benefits” of health-care reform.

    Also in June, the administration and an allied nonprofit, Enroll America, described how hundreds of thousands of community organizers will sign up seven million uninsured people for health coverage, once registration for subsidized insurance starts Oct. 1.

    Then on July 2, the administration dropped a bombshell, delaying the employer mandate for a year.

    Even Democrats were taken aback. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, one of the law’s authors, was quoted in the New York Times saying, “This was the law. How can they change the law?” But the rule of law won’t stop this White House from trying to reduce the damage from ObamaCare until after the 2014 midterm elections.

    Political considerations have frequently dictated the administration’s actions on ObamaCare. For example, a week after Democrats were shellacked in the 2010 midterm elections, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius boosted discretionary payments to insurance companies by $8.3 billion over three years to mitigate the impact of cuts in the popular Medicare Advantage program until after the 2012 election.

    Administration figures and supporters have long said that ObamaCare would become more popular as time went by. It hasn’t. A June 2 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 37% thought the health-care plan was a good idea while 49% thought it a bad idea. On May 10, 2010, about two months after ObamaCare passed, it was 38% good idea, 44% bad.

    Other surveys show a similar pattern. A June 9 Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll found that only 35% of Americans had a favorable impression of the health law, while 43% had an unfavorable opinion. On June 22, 2010, four months after the legislation passed, the Kaiser poll reported 48% favorable, 41% unfavorable. These poll numbers have created fear in the Obama White House about the health law’s impact on Democratic candidates next year.

    Meanwhile, the temporary reprieve from the employer mandate will not stop many businesses from preparing their people for when the company stops providing insurance. They’ll also continue limiting more part-time employees to fewer than 30 hours a week, in order to avoid being snared by this provision in the law.

    To offset this development, the administration desperately wants to sign up as many people for health policies as possible, hoping the newly insured will be grateful voters on Nov. 4, 2014. Also, the Congressional Budget Office estimates for ObamaCare outlays assume a disproportionate share of the early sign-ups are young people. They will pay higher insurance rates to subsidize coverage for older uninsured Americans. Organizing for America and Enroll America are focused on workers under 35.

    Political problems still loom. Though ObamaCare provides generous subsidies to the uninsured, they still have to pay something each month. How many uninsured believe their insurance will be free? An analysis published earlier this year in Contingencies, the American Academy of Actuaries magazine, concluded that Americans earning as little as $25,000 can expect to pay higher premiums under ObamaCare—even with the law’s subsidies.

    The administration thinks it can spin its way out of these problems. Take the Department of Health and Human Services inquiry on Tuesday to media buyers about television ad rates in the fourth quarter of this year for a possible ad blitz urging people to sign up. The list of 21 media markets seems suspiciously political. Six of the 10 largest—New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and Washington—are missing.

    But five media markets (Austin, Dallas, Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio) are in Texas, a red state targeted by a Democratic effort called “Turn Texas Blue” led by Obama campaign operatives. Charlotte and New Orleans also are on the list, both in states where vulnerable Democratic senators are defending ObamaCare. With the exception of Indianapolis and St. Louis, the other markets are in states with a Republican governor’s seat up for grabs—Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit, Jacksonville, Miami, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Tampa and Tucson.

    Nevertheless ads are less important than the quality of the product they tout—and ObamaCare is a lemon. There’s little the president can do to spin his way out of that.

    • Yoly

      I smell GOP Corporate-Controlled ThinkTank Horseshit!

      • exdemo55

        You can’t argue intellectually with anything in the post.

    • LibertyIssues

      You know, right?, that Obama’s Organizing for America is …. wait for it ….

      a 501(c)4!!! And one of the mosrt powerful.