March 17, 2014 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Might try getting your information and analysis from some other sources than Fox News and columnists such as Charles Krauthammer.
Excellent rebuttal. Marx would be so proud.
Amazing, suggesting that someone should use other sources makes me a Communist? Your logic overwhelms me, I'm speechless with wonder.
LOL, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, buddy. If you don't like it I suggest you don't do it to others.
Still don't follow your logic, but maybe that's due to the total lack of such.
Hey, the LTE author watches Fox News and you read Marx. There's no logic here, just you and me making things up.
Not sure why you assumed I read Marx. In fact I have, Groucho Marx brainy quotes found on web.
I don't read the Bible. That does not mean I'm not a Christian.
I'm not sure why you'd want to brag about your ignorance.
I'm not sure why you assumed the LTE author watches Fox News, Mr. Nolan. But you and me are just making things up because logical responses are too hard.
Probably because the LTE writer is also a frequent poster here. Just a guess.
Nah. It was a bad attempt at guilt by association. Instead of attacking the substance of the letter Mr. Nolan took the low road. These types of attacks result from low self-confidence. Mr. Nolan doesn't believe in his ability to logically discuss issues so he makes vicious attacks instead. People get low self-confidence like this because they were dominated by their parents to a degree that they remain children emotionally their whole lives. The State becomes a substitute parent for them, paying for college, helping them out when they are low on cash, buying groceries, taking care of them at every turn.
Social democrats are the result of mental child abuse.
I'm going to have to go get a surge protector for my irony meter now.
Have a nice day, and don't beat your kids.
There you go again...
"In fact, the CBO report says in the short term (2014 to 2016) the law will increase employment while the economy is still weak." FactCheck, http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/the-aca-losing-job-vs-choosing-not-to-work/
Or if you want an easier to understand rebuttal, try Steve Colbert http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/432873/february-05-2014/obamacare-jobs-debate. The Comedy Central is a better source of real news than Fox. ;-)
From your link:
CBO, Feb. 4: Subsidies that help lower-income people purchase an expensive product like health insurance must be relatively large to encourage a significant proportion of eligible people to enroll. If those subsidies are phased out with rising income in order to limit their total costs, the phaseout effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work. In addition, if the subsidies are financed at least in part by higher taxes, those taxes will further discourage work or create other economic distortions, depending on how the taxes are designed.
Pretty well sums up my letter.
If ACA is so good, why the dozens of delays with the law? Is Obama teasing us and saving the best for last?
It's a giant system that nearly a fair portion of the individuals in the government will do anything possible to ensure fails. If you expect it to miracle perfection on the first release you have no understanding of the scope of the project.
Will it work as well as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?
We can hope, of course all those systems would work better if everyone would actually work to make them better, rather than impede them.
None of this letter is backed with substantiation…….. none. It is almost a lie in fact.
My opinion is that it's all being thought of backwards. Instead of trying to insure everyone's very high health costs by trying to buy health insurance for all, there should be more thought about WHY health costs are so high here in the United States. That topic does not seem to be addressed at all. And of course, WHY does the health care that the citizens of the United States receive rank so low compared to so many other countries?
Clipped from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2225rank.html
"This entry provides the total expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP. Health expenditures are broadly defined as activities performed either by institutions or individuals through the application of medical, paramedical, and/or nursing knowledge and technology, the primary purpose of which is to promote, restore, or maintain health."
Number 3! United States (17.90% of GDP) (2011)
Out of 190 countries listed.
Only Liberia and Sierra Leone have higher health care costs!
And what do we get for our money?
Clipped from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
"This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year; included is the total death rate, and deaths by sex, male and female. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country."
Number 174 United States 5.90 (2013 est.)
Note: This ranking might appear to be in reverse order than the above citation. This ranking is from highest infant death rates to lowest. There are 224 countries and territories listed.
That means that in a general way, the level of health care in the United States ranks:
Although the health care expenditure of the citizens of the United States ranks number 3, the level of health care received at such a high cost ranks number 50! Of course, that is true in only a very general way.
What bothers me is that with about 200 different health care models to examine and then select the best features from, something totally new has to be thought up. It's the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome, for sure!
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·