Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:

Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.

There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?

Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.

Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.

You might have had a point if this were 1912, however, it's 2012 and nobody is being held against there will to work the less desirable jobs. If someone doesn't like what the job entails, there are many alternative jobs they can pick from. Also, if a job is that undesirable, the labor market will adjust its price point for that job. McDonalds had to raise its starting salaries not because the job got any more difficult but because they were having a hard time filling positions due to the stigma of working at the golden arches. The supply of individuals willing to work their for minimum wage dropped. To overcome the lower supply they had to increase the demand for its job by raising its salary. You can replace "McDonalds" with any other undesirable job and you can see why the most undesirable jobs typically are not the lowest paying jobs, for example sanitation workers. Everyone will clean toilets and bathroom floors for a price. What that price is is different for everyone.

Do you truly believe that if everyone had a PhD in engineering, we would all have jobs? Again. Someone must scrub the toilets. How you feel about their life choices does not give society the right to treat those people as disposable and unworthy of decent healthcare and a decent standard of living.

I never said everyone had to have a PHD in anything. You were talking about a livable wage. That can be accomplished without a PHD or even college, for that matter. Someone will always scrub the toilets because there will always be a demand for that job at a specific wage point. I never said I look at anyone as disposable or unworthy. Their choices are their's alone. I agree healthcare should and can be made much more affordable. We differ on how that should be accomplished.

Making sure that what is called the working poor has access to decent healthcare is one big factor in not treating them as disposable, but it's not the only factor. And you have also not considered the welfare of people with subnormal IQs, mental problems, physical problems, and other issues beyond their control that makes college and a skilled job impossible for them. Those people are no less deserving than anyone else of a decent wage and a decent life.

...

... Still waiting for a supporter to tell me how Obamacare helps the projected 3 million lower income people that will not be able to afford healthcare AND will be saddled with a tax/penalty (no need to debate semantics as its all the same crap in the end) that they currently do not have to pay.

The Affordable Care Act, while flawed, is a vast improvement over the current system. But first, let me answer your pressing question. It truly IS hard to get a straight answer, though I did skim the 974 page act!!!

It is deceptive to believe the lie that those who pay nothing now for care will be newly burdened. Low income people will be able to enroll in an expanded Medicaid program...IF their states accept it. Of course, many states will object BUT the pressure from the population, including medical staff in the states, will pressure them to accepting it sooner rather than later (one can only hope). By being able to enroll in Medicaid, they pay nothing. In fact, here is the breakdown of those under the ACA who have to buy coverage (from http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/Affordable-Care-Act-What-You-Should-Know-About-The-Affordable-Care-Act.htm) :

Required to buy private coverage
Annual income:
• $43,321 and above for an individual
• $88,201 and above for a family of four
Comments:
• You are not eligible for a subsidy, or financial assistance at this salary level.
• If you remain without health insurance, you may have to pay a penalty of up 2.5% of your income unless you qualify for certain exemptions

Those who currently can't buy health insurance because they can't afford it and who don't fall into the extreme poverty level, have nothing but emergency care. So it is a crock to believe that these people would suffer unduly under the new law. The only way they will suffer under the new law is if individual states decide to continue to exclude them by not adopting the expanded Medicaid.

I love that, and the following:

In every State and for the first time ever, insurance companies are required to publicly justify their actions if they want to raise rates by 10 percent or more and more states have the authority to reject unreasonable premium increases.

Under the new health care law, insurers can no longer impose lifetime dollar limits on care and annual limits are being phased out by 2014.

No more preexisting condition block for employees laid off and forced to get a new insurance plan if they manage to find a new job that actually offers benefits.

There are additional benefits for health professionals. While flawed, it is a huge step in the right direction of modernizing and putting sanity back into "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No one can convince me that affordable health care for all is not in line with these words from the Declaration of Independence. No one can convince me that the monied in this country should have any better access than those who run their industries, produce their goods, harvest their crops, mow their lawns, cook their food and, dare I mention, breed so that this unskilled workforce continues into the future!!!

-Debra

I read the bullet points of the law. I know insurance will be subsidized for the lowest income people. That doesn't change the fact that the CBO estimates 1% of the country will still not have health insurance after the law goes into effect. Most of those people will have an income under single 50k/ family 125k. 25% of those will have an income under single 20k/family 50k.

Is this better? I guess if you are one of the 15% that do not have insurance now and you want insurance then it is better assuming you don't end up part of the 1% the CBO says still wont have insurance.

Those who currently can't buy health insurance because they can't afford it and who don't fall into the extreme poverty level, have nothing but emergency care. So it is a crock to believe that these people would suffer unduly under the new law.

I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.

I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.

{{snip}}
I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.

I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.

Do you have any idea how big a bullet you dodged? It worked out well for you, because you didn't get sick. If you'd found a lump on lefty one morning and needed treatment for testicular cancer you'd have a whole different point of view.

Congrulations on that, BTW. You bet and you won. But let's not pretend that it wasn't a bet.

{{snip}}
I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.

I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.

Do you have any idea how big a bullet you dodged? It worked out well for you, because you didn't get sick. If you'd found a lump on lefty one morning and needed treatment for testicular cancer you'd have a whole different point of view.

Congrulations on that, BTW. You bet and you won. But let's not pretend that it wasn't a bet.

Let's also not pretend that if someone had bet and lost and then come here bemoaning their $700,000 medical bill, people wouldn't have scolded them. People would say that person should have quit college, worked full time at McD's for their pitiful insurance, and then taken one course at a time to graduate (15 years later).

{{snip}}
I would argue that anyone starting their life out in their mid 20s with a clean record of health only needs bare bones emergency care. The government is forcing them to buy a policy that they probably do not need in order to distribute the cost of health insurance for those that do need it. As someone who worked throughout college and still had student loans, rent, etc, it would have been a burden to have been forced into an insurance policy I did not need. In fact, I didn't get health insurance until I was in my late 20s and I assure you I came out well ahead as far as healthcare costs go.

I think we all agree healthcare is a need. We just disagree that health insurance is a need as well.

Do you have any idea how big a bullet you dodged? It worked out well for you, because you didn't get sick. If you'd found a lump on lefty one morning and needed treatment for testicular cancer you'd have a whole different point of view.

Congrulations on that, BTW. You bet and you won. But let's not pretend that it wasn't a bet.

Let's also not pretend that if someone had bet and lost and then come here bemoaning their $700,000 medical bill, people wouldn't have scolded them. People would say that person should have quit college, worked full time at McD's for their pitiful insurance, and then taken one course at a time to graduate (15 years later).

Under Obamacare you can stay on your parents insurance until you are 26.

Yep. The bill isn't all bad, but I think it should have been much better. Much, much better.

The Republican party keeps calling Obamacare “the largest tax increase in the history of the world.” AHHHHHHH – the sky is falling! Everyone run for cover and vote Republican.

So – see if you can follow this logic …

Obamacare allows for A LOT of exemptions to prevent you from being eligible to pay a penalty (or tax) if you fail to purchase health insurance. The vast majority of people who can afford it already have it. Those who can’t afford it – will get it free or subsidized (you know SOCIALISM) … and after all of that – the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office believes that only 1.2% of Americans will end up paying the penalty. True story. (source)

Now Republicans would like Americans to believe that American’s taxes are about to go up. They use misleading language and … they just flatly lie about the facts that are at hand in this debate. I don’t like liars. We know that Obamacare isn’t even the largest tax hike in the last 20 years (source). Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all passed higher tax increases than President Obama. Fun fact.

But while the Republican party talks about the 1.2% of Americans who are going to be hit with a penalty … they have made it abundantly clear that all of the tax credits and tax cuts and tax subsidies for middle class Americans do NOT qualify as tax cuts. Let’s just spell out that logic:

Tax penalty on 1.2% of Americans = Largest Tax Increase in the History of the World

Tax subsidies and cuts for a very large, untold amount of Americans = not a tax cut

Are you following me?

But as the infographic shows … the average American who uses these insurance exchanges to purchase health insurance will receive on average a $5,210 annual tax credit towards their health insurance costs. But – that particular tax credit should NOT be considered a tax cut for middle class Americans according to the GOP.

And Romney’s plan had the same penalty; he says – he increased fees. He says he did not raise taxes. He calls it a penalty even though he’s called it a tax historically as well. But under his plan which is identical … the actual model Romney used … Romney says his plan was not a tax increase but President Obama’s plan is. Makes perfect sense.

Are you saying the Tax penalty for not purchasing healh insurance is the only tax associated with Obamacare?

If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}

I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".

My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen.

I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.

The facts are the facts. In some people's minds, there seems to be a statute of limitations wherein past reality ceases to exist and can no longer affect the present.

Reality doesn't always fit neatly into election cycles.

The reality is that the seeds of the financial crisis and the current disaster we call an economy were sown in the Clinton administration and one can argue even before then. The fact is GWBs policies while he was president didn't prevent what was already in progress so I guess it became the Bush disaster and I don't disagree with that. BHO's policies have not improved what he inherited which whether he (or YOU) likes it or not will effect the election in November. Obama can speak all the spin he wants but in the end he has an awful lot of people in this country that are worse off now then they were on his inauguration day.

That's a different issue altogether. The original statement was something like " you can't blame george bush anymore for the economy", similar to those who were calling it the "Obama recession" on Jan 21, 2009.

Whether Obama's policies have "improved" things or not is a matter of debate. And, yes, that debate is going to shape what happens in November. Obviously "saving the country from financial collapse and another Great Depression" just doesn't carry the same cachet it once did.

Maybe the seeds of "saving the country from financial collapse and another great depression" were sown during GWB's administration?! Or maybe things just settled down despite BHO. :happy:

If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}

I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".

My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen.

I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.

The facts are the facts. In some people's minds, there seems to be a statute of limitations wherein past reality ceases to exist and can no longer affect the present.

Reality doesn't always fit neatly into election cycles.

The reality is that the seeds of the financial crisis and the current disaster we call an economy were sown in the Clinton administration and one can argue even before then. The fact is GWBs policies while he was president didn't prevent what was already in progress so I guess it became the Bush disaster and I don't disagree with that. BHO's policies have not improved what he inherited which whether he (or YOU) likes it or not will effect the election in November. Obama can speak all the spin he wants but in the end he has an awful lot of people in this country that are worse off now then they were on his inauguration day.

That's a different issue altogether. The original statement was something like " you can't blame george bush anymore for the economy", similar to those who were calling it the "Obama recession" on Jan 21, 2009.

Whether Obama's policies have "improved" things or not is a matter of debate. And, yes, that debate is going to shape what happens in November. Obviously "saving the country from financial collapse and another Great Depression" just doesn't carry the same cachet it once did.

Maybe the seeds of "saving the country from financial collapse and another great depression" were sown during GWB's administration?! Or maybe things just settled down despite BHO. :happy:

IIRC, the seeds may have been scattered on the ground (TARP), but it was Obama and the Dems who did most of the sowing (just remembering the votes and which party acted like adults and which didn't).

And maybe the current weakness in the job market would be much, much worse without the actions taken by the Obama administration--we can play that game all night. :happy:

This is an interesting twist:


Health Insurers Secretly Spent Huge To Defeat Health Care Reform While Pretending To Support Obamacare

No matter what your perspective on the Affordable Care Act, this shocking bit of news should concern—and disturb—you greatly.

According to the National Journal’s Influence Alley, at the very same time the American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)—the health insurance industry super lobby—was cutting a deal with the White House leading to its stated support of the proposed Obamacare legislation, they were secretly funneling huge amounts money to the Chamber of Commerce to be spent on advertising designed to convince the public that the legislation should be defeated.

How much money?

A stunning $102.4 million spent over just 15 months.

While one would not think that so much money could be spent in secret, AHIP pulled it off by utilizing a completely legal process of funneling the cash to the Chamber under the radar while putting the giant expenditure on their books under the simple heading of ‘advocacy’.

According to the National Journal:

The backchannel spending allowed insurers to publicly stake out a pro-reform position while privately funding the leading anti-reform lobbying group in Washington. The chamber spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling efforts to kill health care reform.

The behind-the-scenes transfers were particularly hard to track because the law does not require groups to publicly disclose where they are sending the money or who they are receiving it from.

For example, in its 2009 IRS filing, AHIP reported giving almost $87 million to unnamed advocacy organizations for “grassroots outreach, education and mobilization, print, online, and broadcast advertising and coalition building efforts” on health care reform. That same year, the chamber reported receiving $86.2 million from an undisclosed group. Bloomberg’s Drew Armstrong first reported the AHIP-chamber link. The $86 million accounted for about 42 percent of the total contributions and grants the chamber received.

The next year followed a similar pattern. In 2010, AHIP reported giving $16.5 million to unnamed advocacy organizations working on health care reform and the chamber reported receiving about $16.2 million from an undisclosed source, which the Alley has learned was AHIP. The $16.2 million accounted for about 8.6 percent of the total contributions and grants the chamber received that year.

So, why would AHIP try to secretly destroy a legislative scheme that would drive millions of new customers into their arms thanks to the mandated insurance provisions?

According to Neera Tanden, who served as the senior advisor for health reform at the Department of Health and Human Services and was a member of the Obama White House health reform team, it was all about the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)—the provision of the ACA that not only requires the health insurance companies to spend 80 percent of your premium dollars on actual health care expenditures, but further requires that they refund to their customers any amounts they fail to spend as required by the MLR.

The total rebates under the law that will shortly be refunded to insurance customers are estimated to total $1.1 billion for 2011 alone—clearly motivation for the insurers to defeat the law although one wonders if it wouldn’t be easier for these companies to simply follow the law and spend according to the MLR.

Any industry group is free to take whatever position it believes to be in the best interests of its members. However, to present itself as being supportive of critically important proposed law while secretly spending over $100 million to defeat the very same legislation is the ultimate in duplicitous behavior and should make very clear just what the health insurance industry is all about.

Whether you support or oppose the Affordable Care Act, I cannot imagine that this type of behavior would be acceptable to any American and stands as a shining example of the corruption big money imparts to our political system.

If the insurance industry lacks sufficient spine to take a legitimate stand on a piece of legislation that is critical to its interests—and ours— how do you imagine they are going to behave when you find yourself depending on these people to come through for you during a medical emergency?

To borrow a phrase from Keith Olbermann (remember him?), these have to be the worst people in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/25/busted-health-insurers-secretly-spent-huge-to-defeat-health-care-reform-while-pretending-to-support-obamacare/