You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Here's the problem on the immigration thing (we're just going to disagree on the other stuff) is that it would hurt the economy to offer large wages, or even average wages for those migrant jobs. What will the effect be on the economy, small business, and farmers if the price of food skyrockets? It doesn't matter about supply and demand, that extra money is going to have to come from somewhere with the average family.
I'd think the obvious solution is to offer those jobs to Americans first, but if they don't take them, offer them to immigrants on guest worker visas. The whole Dream Act offers what you want: the fines, paying back taxes, only people who were here as children, for the past 7-10 years, have a high-school diploma and things like that. It's pretty strict, actually, and doesn't cover the vast majority of illegal immigrants that are here currently.
And the educated sect of illegal immigrants is so small, I don't see how they're having a huge impact on the economy. And actually, they fall into that Dream Act realm.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Here's the problem on the immigration thing (we're just going to disagree on the other stuff) is that it would hurt the economy to offer large wages, or even average wages for those migrant jobs. What will the effect be on the economy, small business, and farmers if the price of food skyrockets? It doesn't matter about supply and demand, that extra money is going to have to come from somewhere with the average family.
I'd think the obvious solution is to offer those jobs to Americans first, but if they don't take them, offer them to immigrants on guest worker visas. The whole Dream Act offers what you want: the fines, paying back taxes, only people who were here as children, for the past 7-10 years, have a high-school diploma and things like that. It's pretty strict, actually, and doesn't cover the vast majority of illegal immigrants that are here currently.
And the educated sect of illegal immigrants is so small, I don't see how they're having a huge impact on the economy. And actually, they fall into that Dream Act realm.
I think it's bigger than you think it is. I went to school with them when I was a kid and that was over 20 years ago. The illegals are undeducated. Their kids? Not so much. I know they didn't all come with kids, but some did, and I think it's mor ethan you think it is. Even if the number is small, ask someone just graduating college how their career is getting started...
As for the rest of it, if you think that the Dems are right to do the same thing the Reps are doing, you're right...we will never agree on it. Just because the Reps are better at it (or worse depending on how you're looking at it) than the Dems doesn't mean the Dems aren't/weren't doing the same thing. The whole system is corrupt and until people stop spending their entire term running for reelection, nothing is going to change.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
James, it would save the government money in the long run, because the government covers the bill for those with no health insurance when they go to the hospital. So it would save the government money if everyone does have insurance, so that is correct.
It doesn't save money in the short or long term. The gov is either wasting billions on the uninsured going to hospitals or placing them on medicare. Placing them on medicare(or something else) costs much more than leaving them without insurance. How in the hell does either save money?
I'm not really against giving Americans health insurance. I just don't want my intelligence insulted by the government telling me it SAVES money to give tens of millions health insurance. That's ludicrous. Next thing you'll tell me we'll save a ton of money if we invade Syria.
Our standing trade issues had nothing to do with Obama. It's been this way since 1976 and peaked with Saint President Reagan who crushed efforts to turn the tide (by Dick Gephardt) when we had the chance in 1987.
"There you go again....."
Are you on crack? None of this shit peaked under Reagan. It's funny how 30 years later, people try to pin this nightmare on him.
Is this peaking?
A Reagan trade deficit with China of a couple billion is peaches and cream compared to the sellout that started under Clinton, continues today, and the bipartisan corruption prevents it from being a party issue. Both sides are knee deep in Chinese shit.
The US trade deficit with China today is 28 times larger than it was during the Reagan era, according to new figures released by the US Census Bureau. That daunting deficit has grown by 18 percent per year since China first entered the World Trade Organization in 2001.
Census figures now show $103.8 billion in US exports to China during 2011, and $399.3 million in imports, a stunning $295.5 billion difference.
China’s enormous trade advantage, now the largest nation-on-nation trade deficit in the history of the world, has put it in the enviable negotiating position of being able to say “bu” -- that is, “no” -- to most American demands.
America’s political, policy and business leaders aren’t doing much to address the shocking statistics that suggest a real erosion of America’s once-strong manufacturing and technological advantage...
“The Congress and the administration are too afraid to provoke China and do not sufficiently protect the American economy from the negative effects of Chinese economic policies,” Optimal Investing chief investment officer Wojtek Zarzycki told The Daily Caller “They have had several opportunities to officially name China a currency manipulator, but they have not.”
Zarzycki, whose boutique investment firm has offices in the US, Canada, and Europe, added that China has no qualms about blasting the Federal Reserve “and blaming them for keeping the US dollar weak – however, US government officials are slow to do the same in an equally forceful manner.”
In a federal budget proposal slated for a Monday unveiling, Obama plans to offer the latest in a series of government programs aimed at jump-starting manufacturing and rising to the Chinese challenge.
Obama will seek tax incentives for firms that relocate their foreign operations back in the United States, and Internal Revenue Service penalties for those that don’t. He’s also looking for more training and educational programs for the 50,000 manufacturing workers who are losing their jobs every month because their employers can’t compete effectively with low-cost Chinese products.
http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/4538
--------------
Obama will seek tax incentives for firms that relocate their foreign operations back in the United States, and Internal Revenue Service penalties for those that don’t.
Obama should have focused on that immediately after inauguration instead of this health care crap. He had a majority in both houses and in 2012 has nothing to show for it.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
If people are insured, the government won't be flipping the bill, where they otherwise would be. If it's mandatory, people who are going to emergency rooms and hospitals, who would otherwise be uninsured, will have a source of payment methods, that goverment would otherwise eat.
Straightening out Medicade isn't that difficult, especially you allow people to "buy into" it like an insurance company.
The wasted money is 100% squarely on the medical and pharmaceutical cartels.
And what I meant by peaking under Reagan, was from the start in 1975. That it wasn't one single president's fault, either way.
Trade deficits and inflows of foreign capital are not necessarily a sign of an economy's weakness, it's a sign of strength and up to a point, desirable."
At the same speech he said we were not headed towards a recession, just some doom and gloomers trying to scare people.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Reagan wasn't referring to trade deficits reaching a half trillion a year.....the Reagan trade deficits were what Ralph Kramden would refer to as "a mere bag of shells.."
If the government places all the uninsured on medicare or some new program, who pays for it then?
I agree it's not one president's fault. You're placing the blame on the wrong president though. The deficits were manageable under Reagan. They're not anymore.
It didn't peak under Reagan no matter which way you try to slice it. If you want to say it started under Reagan with an almost non existent trade deficit that grew out of control every year after his presidency, I'll give you that. That graph goes to 2006 with no peak in sight yet you claim it peaked somewhere between 1981-1989(or 1975).
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Reagan wasn't referring to trade deficits reaching a half trillion a year.....the Reagan trade deficits were what Ralph Kramden would refer to as "a mere bag of shells.."
If the government places all the uninsured on medicare or some new program, who pays for it then?
I agree it's not one president's fault. You're placing the blame on the wrong president though. The deficits were manageable under Reagan. They're not anymore.
It didn't peak under Reagan no matter which way you try to slice it. If you want to say it started under Reagan with an almost non existent trade deficit that grew out of control every year after his presidency, I'll give you that. That graph goes to 2006 with no peak in sight yet you claim it peaked somewhere between 1981-1989(or 1975).
*pulls hair out*
That's not what I meant. I was pointing out that Obama didn't cause the trade deficits, that it really started in 1975 and that even Reagan, who folks want to claim was perfect (George H.W. Bush was a better president!), played a role in it and it actually peaked under him since 1975. The quote was showing how wrong people were to where we were headed, almost to the point of being in denial (like his assertion we were not headed for a recession). It's nothing new.
I'm talking about a public opition, where you can pay for a medicare "basic type coverage."
Medicare isn't free, you still have to pay a monthly fee to have it once you're eligible to receive it.
Again, Medicare is not the problem, it's the out of control medical, pharmecutical industries price-gouging the programs, who make the oil industry look like boy scouts.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
PPACA had to be crafted in an unconstitutional manner and passed with aid of parliamentary technicalities, so I have no sympathy should it be struck down in Court. You can't say it's popular, only that it's less unpopular than often reported. And polls that break the policy into subcomponents are nice, but it's easy to in favor of more stuff. Phrasing is often 'Do you support allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until 26?' and you would obviously say yes unless you were a Republican who knew that wasn't the Republican answer. We're not insurance experts, of course we favor something as simply-good-sounding 'would it be cool if insurance cost less for people?' which is how it's phrased. The question is if the cost estimates are accurate, if it creates more problems than it solves, and if it's constitutional. None of that can be conveyed in opinion polls that ask about specific provisions of benefits. Personally, I also don't believe for a second that it'll save money. Is there a single government health care program cost projection that has proven accurate? Whether it's Medicare, Medicaid, UK's NHS or Japan's, they all saw explosions in cost.
I disagree with a "solution" to the health care problem in our society that relies heavily on the government, for a number of reasons, but I get the appeal. And our system currently is in an ungodly mix of market and government mechanisms that go horribly together: the French system would honestly be preferable for most things. I wouldn't deny that. But I'd like to see us work backwards on health care first, addressing the incentive problems in our pharmaceuticals to make it easier to invest in new treatments (MediCare guarantees coverage of any new treatment for an existing condition you can come up with, so there's much more investment in improving, at inflated cost, current 'standard' drugs and procedures, rather than in refining cost-effective methods and investing in truly new drugs). Insurance should be divorced from employment, and then there should be a national market for health insurance so we can economies-of-scale it to affordability without selling our souls to our employers or the government. At that point, I think more conservatives and independents would be open to a legitimate public option and you wouldn't have to stretch the Commerce Clause to include everything except school gun zones.
I'm glad to see this discussion, because (and this is one of the reasons I don't want government in health care heavily) the big national political 'fights' are kind of fads. Way too often we forget to check our work, declare victory just for passing something, and go home. I hope health care isn't an issue where people say "come on, we did that in 09-10!" even if it doesn't improve. I feel like that happened with the anti-war movement.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
It was upheld as constitutional.
All I was told for months on end was "it's not constitutional. It will never be upheld in the Supreme Court".
Now it has.
And what have the Republican state governors done? "Well i'm just not gonna implement it. I'm not gonna follow it"
So now Conservatives are doing what they accused Liberals of doing all those years. Cherry picking which laws they want to follow, as it suits their needs.
Obama and the government are gonna have to find a way to enforce this law legally, otherwise well be dealing with a redo of the "Articles of Confederation" situation that couldn't enforce taxation and ultimately failed.
Rick Scott in Florida (an absurd idiot; words cannot describe how stupid and flat out evil this dude is), has constantly talked about how "it will cost Florida more money", yet Scott has cost Florida FAR MORE MONEY NOT implementing it, than he ever did just following the law.
These are the things they don't tell you.
"It doesn't work. It won't work"
Listen, people can have their opinions, but the smoke blowing up my ass is pissing me off. The true reason the Republicans are crying foul, is its more taxation of the rich. That's all. That's their only dog in this fight. They don't care about you. You're care. You're life. You're money, and neither do the insurance companies.
If you don't agree with the law, you don't. That's fine, and i'm not saying it's not a valid opinion. But just call your dog by name. The GOP only fight this thing tooth and nail over the taxes thing.
I love my country, but I honestly don't know WHAT THE FUCK it's doing anymore.
And honestly, to get the care I need, its looking more and more that i'm gonna have to leave the South. Have to. I'm not saying that as an exaggeration, I mean it. This is a major political discourse going on right now that politics are becoming more and more partisan, and there's a major confusion over how to handle it and go into the future.
What I don't understand is the Democrats concepts have worked abroad for YEARS. Yet Americans and the politicians fight it tooth and nail and frankly it perplexes me. If ANY country in the WORLD is WAY BEHIND THE TIMES -- it's America. What happened to the America that use to pave the way for improvement?
I'm as old fashioned as the next guy, but honestly i'd rather live in 2012, and be making 'progress' with liberals, than staying stagnant with Republicans. I was a registered Republican from the very beginning of voting. I've actually spent more years as a registered Republican, than 'Non Party Affilated', and honestly i'm so disillusioned with that party, I don't know what they even stand for anymore other than just being "Anti-Whatever a Democrat said". Trust me the Democrats were no better during Bush's tenure. Alot of this Republican anamosity comes from the bed the Democrats made for themselves during that period. This is the GOP getting revenge.
And we lose.
And just to show how many people know HOW LITTLE of politics... and NO i'm NOT kidding... absolutely serious....
Do you know how many people freaked when the Affordable Care Act was upheld, and said "fuck it, i'm moving to Canada"?
Yes i'm serious.
I was shocked, yet not shocked at the same time. It goes to show how little some know about what they even oppose. Not only does Canada have socialized health care, and has had for years... pretty much THE WORLD does too. So where are you gonna move to?
I really don't mean party politics by any of this. I'm sick of it all. But Obama and his people were right when they said it. It's time to move on. Time to tweak what needs tweaking with the health care bill to get it implemented nationwide, enforced, and move on to fixing the economy and worring about OTHER PROBLEMS.
Instead the Republicans are gonna spend every ounce of energy in them STILL talking about health care and the mandate not being constitutional.
LET IT GO. It's done. It's law. DEAL WITH IT.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
It is unconstitiutional. One of the guys that supported it even admitted as much, then decided it was a tax (which it isn't). Even though I am an independent, I am voting republican simply because of this, which is sad. I will never let it go. Wrong is wrong, and I'm not going to look the other way because the supreme court decided to ignore the constitution.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Here's what's going to happen:
People will blow off buying insurance until they need it. IF they get caught, they will pay a small fee. If they wait until they need it (cancer or a bad accident), they will gladly pay the "tax" then purchase insurance and promptly spend 100K+ on whatever happened - they won't be denied since there is no preexisting clause anymore. Then they will drop coverage again, so they will be taking from insurance, but only paying in a little bit while they use much more than they are putting in. This law is simply going to destroy the private insurance industry AND make insurance so expensive that NOBODY will be able to afford it because we will ALL be paying for the people scamming the system. The process will repeat when the gov't takes over after this bill destroys the industry and nobody will be able to afford it or the country will go bankrupt. This isn't solving anything, but it sure is creating a lot of problems.
This is like allowing people on their death bed to purchase $1,000,000 in life insurance for $15/month. Think about that for a bit and how there's NO WAY THIS CAN WORK.
Come up with something that fixes things and I will support it 100%. Forcing this pile of crap illegally down our throats is unacceptable.
