patrick.net

"Don't you understand ? We need this guy to fail !!"

I know it's late, but I'm expecting to hear either silliness or...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/K8E_zMLCRNg

marcus,
"Can you explain how this will be paid for.."

That's to hard a question for Republicans.

A few smart friends to the right of me think that health care reform should look like this:

* Providers are prohibited to charge different entities different rates. (Ie: negotiated rates.)
* All rates must be posted.
* Encourage high-deductible plans.
* Consider ending the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance.
* Tort reform, permit cross-state competition, et cetera.

They think the market would take care of the rest. In terms of costs at least. So do I. Doesn't do much anything to expand access, but most conservatives don't view current accessibility as a problem for government to solve.

Not many actual politicians are shouting a plan like this from the rooftops, of course.

msilenus says

* Tort reform, permit cross-state competition, et cetera.

That one kills me the most. If malpractice suits are the number one cause of high health cost, then why in the hell are we over paying for inadequate care, wrought with ineptitude and incompetence?

Now I would like to think, CEOs of Insurance firms, hospitals conglomerates and bioceutical company Salaries coupled with a work force shorting their healthcare in the form of 401K contributions that are in their very nature expected to perform month over month or one ten million dollar CEO will be replaced with a 20 million dollar CEO.

Has a fuckload more to do with the high cost of healthcare in this country all the Civil court suits combined for every industry. Including big tobacco.

msilenus says

* Consider ending the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance.

So republicans think it is okay to remove a tax break on the middle class? Isn't that not what they call raising taxes?

evilmonkeyboy says

msilenus says

* Consider ending the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance.

So republicans think it is okay to remove a tax break on the middle class? Isn't that not what they call raising taxes?

Evil monkey I don't think you realize the ramification of employer sponsored health care in this country. With out it, private insurance would probably be cheaper than what people are paying for their Smartphone family plan.

Also with out employer based healthcare minimum wage would be 10 to 12 dollars an hour. And there would be a lot more 40K to 60K per year jobs.

Many companies hire 10 to 15 people at minimum wage, for a few possitions, to get the tax breaks associated with the volume of bodies. Rather than pay a few key qualified people a substantial salary, and let them fend for their own affordable healthcare.

msilenus says

They think the market would take care of the rest. In terms of costs at least. So do I. Doesn't do much anything to expand access, but most conservatives don't view current accessibility as a problem for government to solve.

I have heard arguments similar to this.

Not only does it not address access (and I understand - the libertarian view on that), it also doesn't address preexisting condition coverage or people with coverage being driven to bankruptcy because of a major illness, or worse being kicked off of a plan because of illness.

If those things don't matter, then a high deductible catastrophic coverage combined with a so called health savings account might be a way for the market to address costs.

But I still don't see it as being as effective as some kind of single payer. Imagine the price negotiating leverage of one payer. "Sorry, but this is what we pay for that procedure, it's 130% of the average price for the developed world, and we think it's fair, period."

marcus says

But I still don't see it as being as effective as some kind of single payer. Imagine the price negotiating leverage of one payer. "Sorry, but this is what we pay for that procedure, it's 130% of the average price for the developed world, and we think it's fair, period."

This system exists already, it's called medicare. The same could have been true for drugs, except the Bush admin insisted that Part D providers could not negotiate for lower drug prices.

CaptainShuddup says

msilenus says

* Consider ending the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance.

So republicans think it is okay to remove a tax break on the middle class? Isn't that not what they call raising taxes?

Evil monkey I don't think you realize the ramification of employer sponsored health care in this country. With out it, private insurance would probably be cheaper than what people are paying for their Smartphone family plan.

That is a different point all together, I am making the point that republicans favor taxing employer sponsored insurance, which would cause the average person with the average job to pay a lot more in taxes.

I am not saying that employer sponsored insurance is good or bad, but you can not make an argument for the republicans by changes the subject.

marcus says

If there's no mandate but there is preexisting condition coverage, what's to prevent me from waiting until I'm sick to get insurance ? In other words being covered by a subsidy from your insurance.

What's to prevent poor people doing this in the first place? We'll be treating their symptoms so they can go back to having babies and using food stamps. They'll go pick up insurance until they're fixed up then drop it.

StoutFiles says

Friends: 1
Threads: 15
Comments: 382
14 Sat, 30 Jun 2012 at 12:07 pm Share Quote Permalink Like Dislike

marcus says

If there's no mandate but there is preexisting condition coverage, what's to prevent me from waiting until I'm sick to get insurance ? In other words being covered by a subsidy from your insurance.

What's to prevent poor people doing this in the first place? We'll be treating their symptoms so they can go back to having babies and using food stamps. They'll go pick up insurance until they're fixed up then drop it.

The mandate prevents them, if they drop their insurance they have to pay a penalty (tax).

CaptainShuddup says

I'll explain how this will be paid for, after you explain how the average middle class is going to pay the premiums for Obamacare.

How exactly does this response make your position look stronger or better thought out?

It sounds like your saying you have no answer, but your willing to gamble with the solvency of the entire health care system.

I'm not a republican, but if I were, I'd be insisting on price controls, transparent pricing, a single health care clearinghouse (i.e. single payer) to enforce the law, and a divorce or health care from employment. Then again, if I were a democrat, I'd be insisting on those same things.

evilmonkeyboy says

The mandate prevents them, if they drop their insurance they have to pay a penalty (tax).

And if they choose not to pay? Will the hospital's look to see if they've paid their taxes to confirm if they'll help them or not? What I see happening is a lot of the poor won't pay, won't be turned away from hospitals, and won't go to jail because you can't throw that many people in jail.

StoutFiles says

evilmonkeyboy says

The mandate prevents them, if they drop their insurance they have to pay a penalty (tax).

And if they choose not to pay? Will the hospital's look to see if they've paid their taxes to confirm if they'll help them or not? What I see happening is a lot of the poor won't pay, won't be turned away from hospitals, and won't go to jail because you can't throw that many people in jail.

First of all, poor people already have medicare/medicaid. So that is not what we are talking about, the mandate is for people that can afford insurance but don't get it because they feel they can wait until they get sick before buying insurance or use the ER as a doctor's office.

The other thing is that the current system will not let people buy insurance if they are sick and you can loose your insurance for being sick. So those people have no choose but to use the ER as a doctor's office, and that makes everyone's premiums go up. If the free market solves all problem, then why can't it solve this problem?

Dan8267 says

CaptainShuddup says

I'll explain how this will be paid for, after you explain how the average middle class is going to pay the premiums for Obamacare.

How exactly does this response make your position look stronger or better thought out?

It sounds like your saying you have no answer, but your willing to gamble with the solvency of the entire health care system.

I'm not a republican, but if I were, I'd be insisting on price controls, transparent pricing, a single health care clearinghouse (i.e. single payer) to enforce the law, and a divorce or health care from employment. Then again, if I were a democrat, I'd be insisting on those same things.

Apparently they like the current health care system in which premiums go up at about 20% a year, people can't get insurance if even if they want it.
Whenever you bring up things like this they simple change the subject or or drop the argument.

evilmonkeyboy says

First of all, poor people already have medicare/medicaid.

Poor people have medicaid. Medicare is seniors. Two totally different unrelated programs.

bob2356 says

evilmonkeyboy says

First of all, poor people already have medicare/medicaid.

Poor people have medicaid. Medicare is seniors. Two totally different unrelated programs.

That is true that young people are not on medicare however, many seniors have private insurance. My point was that medicare/medicaid are both government run healthcare that is offered to people that can not afford insurance.

evilmonkeyboy says

Whenever you bring up things like this they simple change the subject or or drop the argument.

You forgot they invoke the "We're smarter than you, you wouldn't understand" retort.

evilmonkeyboy says

First of all, poor people already have medicare/medicaid. So that is not what we are talking about, the mandate is for people that can afford insurance but don't get it because they feel they can wait until they get sick before buying insurance or use the ER as a doctor's office.

You want to talk about Medicaid as it pertains to Obamacare? In 2014, Obamacare extends eligibility to almost everyone with income below 138 percent of the federal poverty level under the age of 65. Guess what that means? By 2020, it's projected 1/4 of Americans will be eligible for Medicaid, and if they're being taxed otherwise, they'll get it. Medicare spending up to 2020 is supposed to increase 619 BILLION dollars.

While the federal government can just shrug that off, the state governments will take a huge hit and will have to cut more money to programs such as education, police, etc. For every action there is a reaction. If we make it easier for the poor to receive free or discounted service, that is lost money that still needs to be made somehow. The middle class lifestyle just keeps getting hammered.

StoutFiles says

You want to talk about Medicaid as it pertains to Obamacare? In 2014, Obamacare extends eligibility to almost everyone with income below 138 percent of the federal poverty level under the age of 65. Guess what that means? By 2020, it's projected 1/4 of Americans will be eligible for Medicaid, and if they're being taxed otherwise, they'll get it. Medicare spending up to 2020 is supposed to increase 619 BILLION dollars.

While the federal government can just shrug that off, the state governments will take a huge hit and will have to cut more money to programs such as education, police, etc. For every action there is a reaction. If we make it easier for the poor to receive free or discounted service, that is lost money that still needs to be made somehow. The middle class lifestyle just keeps getting hammered.

States can opt out of the medicaid as it relates to Obamacare, but most will not because it is a lot of money from the Federal Gov. and therefore most states see it as a benefit.
As for the middle class getting hammered, you need to realize if we do nothing to fix healthcare cost we will be in much worse shape. Insurance premiums increase at a 20% rate a year is not sustainable and that hurts the middle class.
I don't think this is a perfect bill however I think it is a lot better then current broken system we have. All I hear from the right is how they want to repeal this bill and replace it with something covers people with per-existing conditions, children and everything else that is good with the bill but then they don't say any thing about how to pay for it.

Right now, I am paying extra on my insurance to pay for people who choose not get insurance or can not get insurance (per-existing condition) when they show to the ER. This is the problem that needs to get fixed. Do you think it is okay that the insured pay for the uninsured and that people who want insurance are not allowed to buy it?

StoutFiles says

While the federal government can just shrug that off, the state governments will take a huge hit

Actually 90% of the new 133% FPL medicaid program cost to the states is covered by the Feds.

And getting something close to universal coverage will reduce system costs overall (provided the increased demand doesn't drive up the market price more than these savings).

At any rate, it's like conservatives don't understand the basic idea behind "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

In the current non-working system, we can avoid treating the medicaid cases for a while, but eventually they WILL present in the ER, and then we're fucked. That's why our per-capita health costs are twice that of the rest of the world.

But such indirect thinking is way way beyond the capabilities of the conservative mind apparently.

StoutFiles says

By 2020, it's projected 1/4 of Americans will be eligible for Medicaid, and if they're being taxed otherwise, they'll get it. Medicare spending up to 2020 is supposed to increase 619 BILLION dollars.

Yup. The median boomer is age 57 now but will be 65 in 2020, LOL.

I think we're going to have to double the Medicare tax across the board by then, which is why I'm not bullish on housing.

I think the only way out is to raise taxes on everyone a lot, and in the end it's my thesis that that will come out of rents and land values.

We can't cut our way back to prosperity. Too many pigs at the troughs of Big Medicine and Big Defense. Rest of Fed spending is irrelevant compared to those two.

bob2356 says

Poor people have medicaid. Medicare is seniors. Two totally different unrelated programs.

Poor seniors qualify for both, and are on Medicaid since it's a better deal.

In my view there should be a thread titled, "No, "intelligent Democrat followers" is not an oxymoron."

It is ironic to consistantly see how many Democrats fail to acknowlege the rich and manipulative people within their own party, who pocket plenty and prey on the poor and the simpleminded under the guise that they are doing something for them.

Ignorance is sheer bliss indeed.

Almost 50 people get shot every weekend in Chicago, not one of them pays a dime on their hospitals bills but ObamaCare will magically pay the tab now- not us? I do not want to wait 6 months for an MRI once the system is filled with new people paying that want to get what they think they pay for. They'll be scheduling appointments every few weeks since most rarely work. We need a free market in health care. Insurance should be for major medical not everyday doctors visits. My company's insurance offers a hot line to help plan a vacation and find a dog sitter for you. WTF! Can you imagine the cost of car insurance if they covered routine maintenance like changing wipers then the government mandated and regulated oil change shops making them change out wipers and such like they do in heath care? Why the F*** do you need insurance to get a foot fungus treated? Why the F*** do you need insurance for a yeast infection cream? Government always increases cost all down the line. Look what their meddling did to housing? Look what their meddling in free markets did to higher education? Free markets aren't perfect but it's the best system combined with a charitable society that takes care of their neighbors. Not a centrally planned boondoggle run by bureaucratic idiots who get rich once elected and also bailed out every time at hard working Americans expense!

A lame post without examples? Hahaha. If you'd get your head out of your 4ss you would'd see a blizzard of examples. But that wouldn't serve your liberal agenda in which big, parasitic, ever growing government = good, and limited, consitiutional government = bad.

Fruthermore, your accusation of "an endless stream of blind assertions" IS a blind assertion.

CaptainShuddup says

evilmonkeyboy says

Whenever you bring up things like this they simple change the subject or or drop the argument.

You forgot they invoke the "We're smarter than you, you wouldn't understand" retort.

If they are smarter, then they should be able to explain it to anyone.
sigh.

Delurking says

We can't cut our way back to prosperity. Too many pigs at the troughs of Big Medicine and Big Defense. Rest of Fed spending is irrelevant compared to those two.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we can't go back to "prosperity" at any rate unless the aliens show up with free energy. The "prosperity" of the past was stolen from our future via debt, fossil fuels, and externalized environmental impact.
The "recovery" from the Great Depression was accomplished in a world with a vast, untapped future supply of places to dump the trash, suck out the oil, and borrow people and money from. All that is left from that is more people and fewer resources.
So, my point is that if we are trying to cut taxes or cut services to get "back" to that prosperity, it isn't a matter of cutting or not cutting, because what we thought was prosperity wasn't. It was theft.

The "health" care system is a system of extracting wealth from sick people.
People don't need health insurance. They need to be healthy and useful. They cannot be healthy through paperwork or money. ALL of the arguments about the health care system are about paperwork and money.
In order to actually get people healthier, we have to address their food, their activities, and their environmental conditions, as well as decide what we want people to be useful for in the first place, which requires at least SOME consideration of how many people. If we have to "build prosperity" (a.k.a. "businesses") by extracting resources from the future and polluting the environment, then no amount of stimulating business will result in healthier people or potential longevity for the necessary circumstances of life (clean air, water, and cooperative communities that care for the land to establish sustainable food sources).
Utopian or not, the basis of civilization (freedom) is shared risks. The first step is acknowledging what the risks are.
The present trend of civilized society is to make people sicker, make decisions with money, and let the bullies decide who gets to be bullied.

The argument between Republicans and Democrats is just arguing over the color of the paint lines on the parking lot for the Humvees. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are in any position to discuss the future of human beings on this planet. Their parties have become slaves to the money and rhetoric of personality cults.

Too many actually believe government should be run like a business. That would mean externalizing risks. The WHOLE POINT of having a government is to determine risks that must be faced and to distribute the costs of those risks for the FUTURE people, not to satisfy the fickle desires of present people. The key to democratically electing people to do so is to have an educated public with some sense of decency.
Competition and advertising are all about ignoring common decency and future needs. The current electoral system is all marketing. It has nothing at all to do with the real needs or possible solutions to problems.

rootvg says

I hate to tell you, but the ACA is basically Bob Dole's healthcare plan from the nineties. Parts of it were written by none other than Newt Gingrich.

That's the dirty little secret no one wants to talk about.

Obviously you don't watch The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, or Real Time with Bill Maher. All three have discussed that in detail for the past two years. In fact, all three have pointed out the utter hypocrisy of the Republican Party by stating that the individual mandate was insisted upon by Republicans as a way to pay for HilaryCare, but now they don't want it because Obama is for it.

rootvg says

oday's Democrats are Greens, with their embrace of rabid environmentalism, endorsement of legalized perversion, the right to hill unborn babies and general hatred of most everything those of us who grew up in red state America know to be wholesome and decent.

rabid environmentalism - The desire not to completely destroy the ecosystem of the Earth rendering it inhospitable to human life just to make some short-term profits (and major long-term loses).

endorsement of legalized perversion - I.e., not killing homosexuals, but instead treating them equal under law because there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for making consensual sex between adults illegal. In fact, all anti-homosexual laws in American history were nothing more than the Christian equivalence of Sharia Law. Regulations are for banking and financial institutions, not private bedrooms.

the right to hill unborn babies - The dirty little secret that both sides of the abortion debate won't admit is that the fertile cell only gradually becomes a human being. To state that pro-choices are in favor of baby killing is as disingenuous as stating that pro-lifers are "anit-choice" women haters.

most everything those of us who grew up in red state America know to be wholesome and decent - examples below

You "red state" people have been on the side of evil in every conflict between good and evil in America for the past 300 years. You red state people have always been the most vile and evil people in America committing acts of slavery, genocide, racial terrorism, segregation, lynching, assassination, false imprisonment, execution of innocent people, and condoning the rape of black women.

So don't even think about pretending that red state people are "wholesome" or "decent". You red state scumbags haven't even admitted that the whole slavery and civil war thing was wrong. Instead you keep waving that Confederate Navy flag because it was adopted by the KKK to indicate that they were keeping the civil war going. And throughout the 20th century, red state folk have done nothing but rape, kill, and threaten anyone who wasn't both their sister and daughter at the same time.

The north has done some bad things, but nothing compared to the south. And the blue states sure as hell don't glorify the mistakes and injustices of the past. So fuck red state moral pomposity. History has shown that the red states are morally inferior to the blue states by any rational criteria. "Decent and wholesome" my ass.

I do not call myself a Repub, but a conservo. And I happen to think the entire notion of wealth transfers is unAmerican. I happen to think that the free care / reduced price care needs should be met by public owned facilities that are staffed with fresh students that attended school on a gov loan.
Public purchaced drugs, ok.
Public supplied rooms and beds and lights and water and monitoring, ok.
But, the public should not be paying whatever amount a med supplier dreams up. It is time for the care providers to react to local market conditions and price their product to their customer base. Having a system where the bill is paid by forced wealth transfers is not right. Gov needs to step away, outlaw all forms of non-catastrophic insurance, and force the docs and pharms to adjust their prices to an amount their customers can afford.

I don't like the slide we have been in since 1964. The path back to "normal" might be very bloody. Sooner or later, the normal folks will have enough or this progressive socialist leftest liberal silliness, and the first thing to go will be lawyers, then judges, then the ACLU, then prisoners on death row, then invaders and their spawn, then the EPA, then the IRS, then the Dept of Education, then some State rights will be ironed out, then California will be forced to stop spending beyond it's means ... and that cuts the welfare and silly public spending, and THAT will begin our trek back to normal.

I just saw a bumber sticker that went,

"Are You Losing The Debate? Just Shout Racist And You Will Silence The Opposition."

Bap33 says

And I happen to think the entire notion of wealth transfers is unAmerican.

Does that include the transfer of wealth from employees to employers?

If an employee produces $400 of wealth in a day, but receives only $100 of wealth in wages and benefits combined, then his employer is effectively taxing him at 75% before the government even steps in.

Now, some taxation by employers is necessary to pay for buildings, electricity, advertising, etc. But those CEOs aren't getting $100 million a year from that. Most of the richest 0.1% don't produce wealth, but tax their employees at 50% or more for the "privilege" of working.

Is that kind of wealth transfer un-American? I think so, and it's by far the largest wealth transfer that goes on. Fight the biggest evils first for they do the most damage.

Bap33 says

I don't like the slide we have been in since 1964.

Why stop there? Why not repeal the 15th Amendment? Isn't that what you really want?

Bap33 says

progressive socialist leftest liberal

Are all those terms synonymous to you?

The progressive movement gave us the 40-hour work week, safety standards in factories, outlawed child factory labor, and gave women the right to vote. Exactly which of these do you want to see undone?

Liberalism is the philosophy that the primary purpose of government is to protect people's rights and liberty including the right to life, speech, privacy, and justly acquired property. You cannot be both in favor of curtailing liberty and having small government as they are mutually exclusive and opposing goals. A government that interferes in the personal and sexual lives of its citizens is not a small, unobtrusive government.

The largest social program in America is the military. It is a massive jobs program that wastes over 50% of the federal income tax dollars and over 50% of all federal discretionary spending. It is also mutually exclusive with small government.

Also, what exactly do you have against the ACLU? Other than being pro-choice, which of the following accomplishments of that organization bother you?

Championing Political Freedom during the Palmer Raids in 1920:
In its first year, the ACLU championed citizens being targeted for deportation, including politically radical immigrants. We also supported trade unionists’ right to organize, and secured the release of hundreds of activists imprisoned for antiwar activities.

Defending Science through the Scopes Case in 1925:
When biology teacher John T. Scopes was charged with violating a Tennessee ban on the teaching of evolution, the ACLU was there and secured celebrated attorney Clarence Darrow for his defense.

Fighting the Internment of Japanese Americans in 1942:
The ACLU stood almost alone in denouncing the federal government's internment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII.

Desegregating America's schools through Brown v. Board of Education in 1954:
The ACLU shared a major victory with the NAACP when the Supreme Court declared that racially segregated schools were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Protecting Students' Free Speech in 1969:
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the ACLU won a major Supreme Court victory on behalf of public school students suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a major First Amendment victory.

Defending Reproductive Rights from 1973 onward:
After decades of struggle, the Supreme Court held — in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton — that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. But the battle continues, and the ACLU is still fighting to protect women's right to reproductive choice.

Taking a Stand for Free Speech in Skokie in 1978:
The ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a Nazi group that planned to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie — where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case cost the ACLU dearly as members left in droves, but to many, it was our finest hour and has come to represent our unwavering commitment to principle.

Protecting Internet Free Speech in 1997:
In ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which broadly censored "indecent" speech on the Internet. Since then, Congress has passed numerous laws to criminalize constitutionally protected speech online. Each has been declared unconstitutional after challenges by the ACLU.

Exposing Torture from 2003 onward:
After a five-year legal battle, the ACLU obtained critical documents detailing the Bush torture program, including long-secret legal memos justifying waterboarding and other abuses and an Inspector General's report highlighting CIA abuses. The ACLU is leading the demand for full accountability for those who authorized or condoned torture.

Keeping Religion Out of Science Classrooms in 2005:
Eighty years after the Scopes Trial, the ACLU challenged a Pennsylvania requirement that high school biology classes teach "intelligent design" alongside evolution. The judge ruled that "intelligent design" is not science and teaching it violated the First Amendment, garnering nationwide attention.

Protecting the Right to Privacy in 2009:
In Safford Unified School District v. Redding, the court ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl, when they strip-searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation.

Helping LGBT Americans Serve Openly in 2010:
In a landmark court win, an Air Force major discharged because of her sexual orientation was reinstated, contributing to the eventual repeal of the discriminatory and unconstitutional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

They all seem pretty damn noble and American to me.

Bap33 says

and that cuts the welfare and silly public spending, and THAT will begin our trek back to normal.

Are you including defense spending cuts in your "public spending" cuts? If not, then you aren't even making a dent in the deficit.

Reader says

I just saw a bumber sticker that went,

"Are You Losing The Debate? Just Shout Racist And You Will Silence The Opposition."

Reader

False accusations of racism and false accusations of race baiting are easily disproved through transparency.

Bap33 says

And I happen to think the entire notion of wealth transfers is unAmerican.

Well I guess that would make many of the red states unAmerican:

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

I have never heard a Republican Governor campaign on I will reduce the amount money our states gets from the federal government because we are a drag on the country and we get more then our fair share.

Maybe we should start calling these red states the 'welfare states'

Auntiegrav says

but we can't go back to "prosperity" at any rate unless the aliens show up with free energy

I disagree. We create *way* more wealth than we consume. Problem is the 1% have their parasitical taps on everything.

Ruki says

Sure, when you get done explaining how ObamaCare is to be paid for as is w/o heaping TRILLIONS more on our national debt AND please tell us how it all makes sense when the ObamaCrats PROMISED the middle class taxes won't be raised at all -- yet the Supreme Court has now declared it to be one big tax program.

I await your answer.

I know you, you'll neither listen nor comprehend.

For starters "yet the Supreme Court has now declared it to be one big tax program." This is propaganda. They said if it is construed to be a tax, then it is clearly constitutional.

But let's for the sake of argument say that if you want to consider a mandate that everyone pays for health insurance a tax, then fine, call it a tax. The actual tax as far as I can see is actually the penalty paid if someone doesn't buy health insurance of some kind. This starts out at $95 per year and goes up to $600 or so eventually. (the biggest tax increase ?).

MAybe later the fine would have to be more, if people are treating the penalty as a cheaper way of being insured.

So okay, call it a tax if you wish.

The point is that we are moving forward. And we get the things that everyone wants:

*Preexisting conditions covered

*no lifetitme caps including no caps on medications to seiors (the so called donut hole)

*nobody get's kicked off health insurance for being sick

Everyone wants these things. Obama Care delivers these and attempts to pay for them with the mandate.

Republicans say they can magically deliver these things without a mandate.

What Obama Care has in common with health care systems that all other developed countries is the concept that health care is something we should all be entitled to, and that we should all pay in to.

Yes, I know it's shocking, yes SHOCKING, that we should move in this direction of communist wealth distribution. It's the worst and most un-American development for the people since social security and medicare.

Dan, you seem kinda bitter, so I'll just ask one question:

Dan8267 says

The progressive movement gave us the 40-hour work week, safety standards in factories, outlawed child factory labor, and gave women the right to vote. Exactly which of these do you want to see undone?

I am pretty sure those came from organized labor ... are you saying that organized labor is a progressive thing?

Dan8267 says

Are you including defense spending cuts in your "public spending" cuts? If not, then you aren't even making a dent in the deficit.

I was pointing my comment at State spending for Cal, not fed defense. Sorry for any confusion.