Obama Care

IMO this bill is to provide an alternative more affordable health care option for a segment of US citizens who fall btw the crack of not being poor enough to qualify for free health care (medicaid, SS) but dont make enough money to pay the expensive priv health care options.

The poor and lazy who live off welfare or SS get medicaid free of charge.

If you make over 40k you can probably afford 200-300 a month in priv health care or your employment offers a pay-in program.

If you make 20-30k a year, you probably dont have health ins.

Im sorry, but priv health ins groups prices are out of control, they know it and the gov't knows it.

$165 a month to have a 10k deductible is rediculus. I have to incur and pay 10k in medical expenses in a year before my health ins will kick in a penny is a joke.

There is something in place for the poor who sit around and collect gov't checks. The problem is there isnt anything in place for the poor who actually work for a living. Your better off quiting your day job and living off the gov't w/ free health care, food stamps and section 8 vs working, making 9.50 an hour and hoping you don't suffer an accidental injury that would leave a 20k hospital debt hanging over you.

Sorry this bill is the first step for the government to take over health care and lead us to a one payer system. Obama has said so himself many times but he tries to ignore his past statements. By the way if you live in the US and are over like 25 and cannot make more then 9.50 an hour then your doing something wrong or need to move. I'm talking normal times not now so much. My buddy with a high school degree has lost 3 jobs in the past 3 years and all but one paid over $20 per hour. He really does not have any marketable skills either. You also need to shop your ins.

I thought the 1 trillion stimulas was to fix the unemployment issue. Talking about waisted money.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but more jobs were created in 2010 alone than the entire 8 years under Bush. Got that. Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.

It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years | NEWS JUNKIE POST (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-year)

/http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/


In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.

Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.Didn't we already do this?

Allan Meltzer: Why Obamanomics Has Failed - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html)

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/38032-expose-on-the-tea-party-architects-2.html#post734267

In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.Absolutely not. The President's policies are stifling business expansion and job creation.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but more jobs were created in 2010 alone than the entire 8 years under Bush. Got that. Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.

It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years | NEWS JUNKIE POST (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-year)

/http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/


In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.

Got to say that's a good way to skew numbers: Compare a full 8 years worth of recession and recoveries with a specific year of data(not only that but only a part of the years data as they narrowed it to private sector job growth.

Note 1, I am not debating Bush's economic plans cuz they aren't worthy of debate.

Note 2, in the table they provided 4 months (the last 4) were negative, and 5 were positive.

Not a very substantive use of stats. Seemed like a simple biased report to tell people who believe what they want to hear.

Didn't we already do this?

Allan Meltzer: Why Obamanomics Has Failed - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html)

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/38032-expose-on-the-tea-party-architects-2.html#post734267

Absolutely not. The President's policies are stifling business expansion and job creation.

Hmm...okay, you got me. Find me another one, besides Reagan's boy Meltzer. It just seems non-sensical to me for somone of Meltzer's stature to declare with absolute authority that President Obama's policies have failed after just 18 months in office. And to compare Reagan's first 18 months to Obama's is being completely dishonest and ignoring what each president inherited. We just climbed out of the worst post war recession in history, due to in no small part the success of TARP ( which included baling out Detroit, which worked) and the stimulus program.

With all due respect for Ronald Reagan but there is more and more data to suggest that trickle down economics, on the whole, failed.

But since Meltzer penned this wonderful non-partisan Op for WSJ, the econoomy logged it's biggest Q4 GDP growth in years, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years, and the president has issued an executive order for a federal review of regulations that may be too onerous on big business, I just don't know how you could conclude anything an absolute failure or success in the first 18 months of a presidency.

But the main culprit behind why companies aren't hiring is because, well, they aren't hiring. They're hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, as you know. And the bottom line is companies are doing more with less these days. Corporate profits are strong, the DOW has crossed 12,000, and the outlook for economic expanision in 2011 is more upbeat.

I'm betting if Meltzer was writing that article right now, his tone would be much different.

Hmm...okay, you got me. Find me another one, besides Reagan's boy Meltzer.Click on the second link and there's more.

And to compare Reagan's first 18 months to Obama's is being completely dishonest and ignoring what each president inherited. We just climbed out of the worst post war recession in history, due to in no small part the success of TARP ( which included baling out Detroit, which worked) and the stimulus program.You may be too young to remember, and I was just a pre-teen, but what Carter left for Reagan was worse than what Obama walked in to.

With all due respect for Ronald Reagan but there is more and more data to suggest that trickle down economics, on the whole, failed. Depends on the goals, from a liberal perspective for the gov't to redistribute wealth you would consider it a failure. If the goal was for the private sector to create jobs and expand the economy, it was a wild success.

But since Meltzer penned this wonderful non-partisan Op for WSJ, the econoomy logged it's biggest Q4 GDP growth in years, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years, and the president has issued an executive order for a federal review of regulations that may be too onerous on big business, I just don't know how you could conclude anything an absolute failure or success in the first 18 months of a presidency. The only reason any of this happened was because of the very loud message the American people sent to Obama and the Dems in Nov. 2010.

But the main culprit behind why companies aren't hiring is because, well, they aren't hiring. They're hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, as you know. And the bottom line is companies are doing more with less these days. Corporate profits are strong, the DOW has crossed 12,000, and the outlook for economic expanision in 2011 is more upbeat.The large companies are hoarding their cash because of uncertainty. No company is going to make large capital expenditures and hire personnel in this economic climate only to have those actions have a net negative effect on the bottom line due to gov't regulations/requirements. Had the Fed (Obama and Congress) let the free market work we'd have been out of this mess a while ago and the hit wouldn't have been so hard.

Good reading:
Economy Picks Up Steam - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576109772560128768.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

From the article: "It took 12 quarters to recoup the losses and, on a per-capita basis, the economy is still not as large as it was before the recession took hold. Such a prolonged recovery is unusual: It took eight quarters to bounce back from the deep recession of the early 1970s."

Antoher one you'll enjoy:
The American Spectator : So Much Worse Than Carter (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/13/so-much-worse-than-carter/print)

From the article: "The precedent for President Obama is not President Reagan, but President Carter. Indeed, he is not on the same trajectory as Carter, he is doing far worse. In 1978, the unemployment rate was 6.1%. Real GDP grew by 5.6%."

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but more jobs were created in 2010 alone than the entire 8 years under Bush. Got that. Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.

It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years | NEWS JUNKIE POST (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-year)

/http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/


In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.

But didn't we also loose more jobs so the net effect is actually less jobs?

Hmm...okay, you got me. Find me another one, besides Reagan's boy Meltzer. It just seems non-sensical to me for somone of Meltzer's stature to declare with absolute authority that President Obama's policies have failed after just 18 months in office. And to compare Reagan's first 18 months to Obama's is being completely dishonest and ignoring what each president inherited. We just climbed out of the worst post war recession in history, due to in no small part the success of TARP ( which included baling out Detroit, which worked) and the stimulus program.

With all due respect for Ronald Reagan but there is more and more data to suggest that trickle down economics, on the whole, failed.

But since Meltzer penned this wonderful non-partisan Op for WSJ, the econoomy logged it's biggest Q4 GDP growth in years, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years, and the president has issued an executive order for a federal review of regulations that may be too onerous on big business, I just don't know how you could conclude anything an absolute failure or success in the first 18 months of a presidency.

But the main culprit behind why companies aren't hiring is because, well, they aren't hiring. They're hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, as you know. And the bottom line is companies are doing more with less these days. Corporate profits are strong, the DOW has crossed 12,000, and the outlook for economic expanision in 2011 is more upbeat.

I'm betting if Meltzer was writing that article right now, his tone would be much different.

Thats just twisting numbers to make things look better and both sides are guilty of twisting number. Comparing growth numbers to bad years just makes the numbers look better. If sales dropped off in my office to an all time low and then things started turning around I would not compare my sales to the crappy years I would look at the good years to get a good comparison. The goverment seems to always compare its shitty numbers to more shitty numbers which make them look better.

If I had a bad month and sold only 10 policies and the next month sold 20 and used the goverments math I would have 100% growth. When in the real world I would still be down about 60% from the better months.

Looks like Reagan had insurgents in his mist. WARNING, complex material discussed.

-UGQIkYEBPo

Looks like Reagan had insurgents in his mist. WARNING, complex material discussed.

This guy publically mentioned he voted for Obama. Fried also believes the gov't has the right to tax people based on behavior that costs society as a whole.

I guess Reagan was a true leader and wasn't afraid to appoint qualified people who didn't necessarily toe the "party line" 100%.

Anywho, looks like the President needs to abide by the Federal judges decsion, or appeal to the SC.....good luck with that.