patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

No, just like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Holland.

The happiest and most wealthy countries on the planet.

Bill,

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I'd like to see the immigration rates/#'s for these countries. I'm betting they don't have the illegal immigration problem that we have here in the US. (I would also bet their border and immigration policies are much stricter, but you'd never hear that part of the argument)...There's also the factor of culture that can't be compared. Tiny countries w/ tiny GDPs may be the 'toast of the single-payer model' crowd... But to me, it's apples to oranges.

sbh says

AverageBear says

the other deadbeat

I love it when Repubbies say the word "deadbeat" as if they weren't looking in the mirror.

^^^ = Seeing the hatred when trying to project hatred is most amusing.

Tell me, do you think Sebelius has done a good job, or should she be fired for her 'work'?

Now that we know Obama lied to us 3 years ago, would you trust him now?

AverageBear says

Bill,

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I'd like to see the immigration rates/#'s for these countries. I'm betting they don't have the illegal immigration problem that we have here in the US. (I would also bet their border and immigration policies are much stricter, but you'd never hear that part of the argument)...There's also the factor of culture that can't be compared. Tiny countries w/ tiny GDPs may be the 'toast of the single-payer model' crowd... But to me, it's apples to oranges.

I think you'd be shocked to know what folks in the US could afford if the top 1% weren't taking all of the money. Lots of programs that can't work under current conditions will work swimmingly under the conditions in Sweden.

tatupu70 says

I think you'd be shocked to know what folks in the US could afford if the top 1% weren't taking all of the money. Lots of programs that can't work under current conditions will work swimmingly under the conditions in Sweden.

As opposed to the top 1% leaving the country and taking their money with them, just like they are fleeing France. How does that help us when they leave?

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the top 1% leaving the country and taking their money with them, just like they are fleeing France. How does that help us when they leave?

It would open up opportunity for new folks.

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the top 1% leaving the country and taking their money with
them, just like they are fleeing France. How does that help us when they
leave?

They pay a tax on their income regardless if they leave or not.

If they renounce their citizenship, they pay a tax on their net worth.

Either way, that works just fine.

tatupu70 says

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the top 1% leaving the country and taking their money with them, just like they are fleeing France. How does that help us when they leave?

It would open up opportunity for new folks.

Money is just an imaginary construct, useful for determining ownership of resources and providing incentive for people to do work. If the oligarch leaves and takes all his money with him, he's taken himself out of the economy, so all debt to him is finished. The citizens of said economy must no longer spend time compensating him for his accumulated trade resources. By leaving, he's left land open to be bought by other interests, left consumables unconsumed, and services unserved. It's a net win for society in general.

It would be like if your neighbor held half a million dollars of your IOUs, meaning you would have to pay him back in labor for most of your life. And suppose he charged interest on this as well, such that you could never get ahead, leaving you forever in his debt.
Now let's say his plane goes down Over the Atlantic and he's lost, leaving no heirs. Are you helped or hurt by his demise?
Easy.

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the top 1% leaving the country and taking their money with them

They can take their fucking money. We'll print more.

The issue with the 1% is the rents their pulling out of the middle class, via real estate, TBTF, healthcare, and energy.

if we can't attack the rents directly (via socialism) we can certainly tax them directly.

You don't like it, fuck off to Galt's Gulch or whatever libertopia you can find.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2012#table1

Top 1% is clearing 20% of the income, one out of 100 making one out of 5 dollars.

Top 5% is clearing 33% of the income, one out of 20 making one out of 3 dollars.

This money isn't coming from the bottom of the sea, but out of the backs of the middle class.

Unsustainable.

My preferred fix is simply eliminating the rents in real estate. It's our biggest line-item life expense and the locus of the injustice, and without fixing it we can't fix anything, since the real estate market is SO tilted against the little guy now, the worst it's ever been IMO.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/hedge-funds-crowd-first-time-buyers-out-housing-market

Speaks for itself.

edvard2 says

and even if it were like I mentioned above- a seeming Republican fantasy bill- they would have balked at it simply because it wasn't THEIR idea.

That is 100% true in most cases. Similarly no matter what Obama does, brainwashed democrats will defend it with the notion that George Bush was worse.

Once you become a Democrat or a Republican its difficult to look at things objectively.

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the top 1% leaving the country and taking their money with them,

How does say a real estate mogul "take their money" and leave?

They can sell all their properties and deprive themselves of future revenue and inheritance. Then they have a lump sum which gets taxed. Now you have to settle in a new country, make new contacts, develop business, learn how to get the right permits and start again....

I'm just not seeing this work on any massive scale like people imply.

Most of the "rich people will leave" guff is like my 5-year old threatening to run away from home. It's fantasy not reality.

Meanwhile all that property you sold is still in America, under new management who is little different from the old one. Rich people often suffer under the delusion they are indispensable.

"The graveyards are full of indispensable men." - Charles de Gaulle

egads101 says

Nobody gives a fuck what your retarded georgecocksuckingcult thnks.

True!

smaulgld says

If you like your plan .....

20

This one has even more affirmative clips "We will keep this promise... if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" than the Atlantic magazine video

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wfl55GgHr5E

No change to my plan.

smaulgld says

if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"

21

smaulgld says

That is 100% true in most cases. Similarly no matter what Obama does, brainwashed democrats will defend it with the notion that George Bush was worse.

Except in the case as of now, the GOP has been far more successful at brainwashing their constituents, who are seemingly unable to form their own opinions and get them from their little right-winger radio shows versus most Democrats, who actually have the ability to come up with logical discussion... which of course irritates the right into saying the same crap about communism or some other un-original response.

No change to my plan either. Plus another Obamacare rebate this year.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Next thing I know Michelle Obama was kicking in the kitchen window while wearing a DEATH PANEL T-shirt.

GodDAMN same thing happened to me.

Except Michelle ravished me on the kitchen table before choppering out.

She likes it when her clitoris is larger and more massive than their puny white puds. It's a power trip, but saves the occasional death conscript from the pitch fork.

Ceffer says

She likes it when her clitoris is larger

I never did a Google Image Search for "giant clitoris" before. Whoa!

No change to my plan, but the employer mandate doesn't kick in until next year so I really wasn't expecting to see any change for this year.

tatupu70 says

I think you'd be shocked to know what folks in the US could afford if the top 1% weren't taking all of the money. Lots of programs that can't work under current conditions will work swimmingly under the conditions in Sweden.

Tatupu,

Lots of programs work swimmingly well in Sweden because nobody wants to go to Sweden to live; or those that aren't willing to obey the law, and pay their taxes, ie become naturalized citizens. I've never been to Sweden, and I'm sure it's a fine place to visit, but none of the poor, uneducated people on this planet are saying "Hmmmmm, you know, my dream is to get my family to Sweden. That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

Obama now lying about his lies. "Period". You couldn't make this shit up...

"That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." – President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009, during the debate over health insurance reform.

....."And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the future." – Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the bill was signed into law.

Washington Post's "Fact Checker" give Obama 4 Pinocchios on this one....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/

I see two possible scenarios:

1. Obama: "I admit I lied about keeping your plan".

OMG!!!!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT???? HE ADMITTED HE LIED!!!!! HE'S A LYING LIAR, THAT'S WHAT HE IS. BENGHAZI!!!!!! DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!! WELFARE STATE!!!!!!!!!!111

2. Obama: "I didn't lie"

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW HE LIED ABOUT LYING!!!!!!!!!! HE'S A DOUBLE LIAR!!!!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!BENGHAZI!!!!!!!! BENGHAAAAZZZIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!

AverageBear says

Lots of programs work swimmingly well in Sweden because nobody wants to go to Sweden to live; or those that aren't willing to obey the law, and pay their taxes, ie become naturalized citizens. I've never been to Sweden, and I'm sure it's a fine place to visit, but none of the poor, uneducated people on this planet are saying "Hmmmmm, you know, my dream is to get my family to Sweden. That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

Please elaborate--you think immigration is the cause of our health care woes?

No change to my plan.

Interestingly, I've had discussions with people who say that ACA was not ambitious enough in that it did not do much to control costs.

Now, apparently there was to be a disruptive force with ACA, but there was to be no disruption?

The issue apparently, that if you wanted to keep your shitty plan, Obama should have exercised some Socialist strength and forced private insurers to keep you in them, somehow.

We should have a plan that makes everything better, inconveniences no one, costs nothing and cures the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Stupid Obama.

sbh says

Tell me, do you think Sebelius has done a good job, or should she be fired for her 'work'?

Now that we know Obama lied to us 3 years ago, would you trust him now?

This is a typical example of how the conservative brain struggles to work: I recall to you how your guys proudly stood up as deadbeats to the nation and their party.......your brain registers "Sebelius". Why didn't you say "Benghazi" or something equally unrelated. Amazing.

If I say "shoehorn" can you incisively balance a ball on your nose?

This is a typical example of how the liberal brain struggles to work: I ask a simple question, and get name-calling, playing the blame-game, and changing the subject (Benghazi). Amazing.

- sbh, do you think Sebelius did a good job of rolling out Obamacare? After all, the question does have much in common w/ the name, and creation of this topic.

- sbh, do you think Obama lied to us 3 years ago, or was at least deceitful, when he said you can keep your doctor, and healthplan?

AverageBear says

Lots of programs work swimmingly well in Sweden because nobody wants to go to Sweden to live; or those that aren't willing to obey the law, and pay their taxes, ie become naturalized citizens. I've never been to Sweden, and I'm sure it's a fine place to visit, but none of the poor, uneducated people on this planet are saying "Hmmmmm, you know, my dream is to get my family to Sweden. That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

Sweden has close to, if not the highest standard of living in the world. But no matter, I'm sure you won't agree. But either way, keep it up. Type all of the anti-liberal stuff you want all day long, each day, and every day. We don't care. Because at the end of the day, no matter what you say, Obama won the election, and he will be our President for the next three years.

AverageBear says

That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

I think you are confusing Alpine Switzerland with Nordic Sweden.
Sweden does have a massive immigrant population nearing 10% mostly from Arabic countries and southern and eastern Europe.
Many immigrants there are getting government subsidies.

AverageBear says

- sbh, do you think Obama lied to us 3 years ago, or was at least deceitful, when he said you can keep your doctor, and healthplan?

I can't believe you guys are hanging onto this so desperately. This has already been dispelled and most people have moved on. But just so we can put this thing to rest, the reason some people- and when I say some- I say a sliver of the overall populace is going to lose their current plan is because the plan they had was crap to begin with.

So in reality those who are bellowing about " obama lied Obama lied!!" are basically saying that it would have been better for those with crappy healthcare plans to keep them instead of getting a better plan in return that basically costs the same and has better benefits. What these people fail to see is that this result is the legacy of the poor healthcare system we had before. In other words the bar has been raised.

Its is not- as some people on the right are so desperately trying to frame it- a case where people are LOSING their healtcare. They are in fact getting BETTER healthcare in return.

So if that is the case... then please let us all know why keeping an inferior healthcare plan over getting a better one is such a grand thing? I am genuinely curious.

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

Lots of programs work swimmingly well in Sweden because nobody wants to go to Sweden to live; or those that aren't willing to obey the law, and pay their taxes, ie become naturalized citizens. I've never been to Sweden, and I'm sure it's a fine place to visit, but none of the poor, uneducated people on this planet are saying "Hmmmmm, you know, my dream is to get my family to Sweden. That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

Please elaborate--you think immigration is the cause of our health care woes?

Tatupu, I think immigration is part of the problem. But that dovetails into the bigger basic problem: Too many people (legal, US citizens who don't pay taxes) getting free/near-free care, and not enough people paying into the system. I also think some industries (drug industry) are protected, that are part of the reason is growing healthcare costs. (You can blame both sides of the isle for this one). I also thing gov't beaucracy/grift/scamming is a HUGE problem as well. Sweden may be successful in its healthcare because: 1) there are more able-bodied, tax-paying, working people paying into the system, and very little 'takers'. here is the US, we now have over 8 million people on SSD. This # has grown disproportionally since Obama came into office, and I don't think this is an anomyly (sp?) I think its by design. Same for food stamps. if the job market is slowly improving, why are food stamp participation still skyrocketing? I think it's by design. Sweden does not have these problems, and again I think is a poor analogy. If you want a glimpse of what I think the US healthcare system will be like if Obamacare continues unabated, look at Canada. If you are over 55 and get diagnosed w/ cancer, you are a 2nd class citizen in the gov't eyes, and it will take MONTHS to get a catscan. (I have friends in Canada who are experiencing this now, and have experienced this in the past, with a sad outcome). It's a race against time to get an MRI, find the cancer and treat it. Why? well, I guess the gov't run healthcare doesn't deem it necessary to have enough MRI machines, or can't pay for them. Below are is a link pointing this out. A little old, but still paints a scary picture. Liberals mock those that oppose obamacare w/ 'death panels'. Well, you get the same result when you find you have cancer, and have to wait a half year to get a scan.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/02/11/pittsburgh-has-more-mri-machines-than-canada/

So instead of heralding the greatness of tiny, northern European countries that have free healthcare, you gotta dig a little deeper, and see if there are any similarities to the US. I don't see many. However, we have waaaay more similarities to Canada than Sweden, and I'm not too thrilled at what Canada has to offer.....

edvard2 says

I say a sliver of the overall populace is going to lose their current plan is because the plan they had was crap to begin with.

Not true. People select the plans they want based on what they think fits their risk profile and their budget.

If they picked it and it was sanctioned by their state insurance commissioners AND the President said they could keep it, it is not right to turn around and say you really didn't want that plan.

It's like an arsonist who burns down your modest fixerupper and claims he did you a favor

And if Obama felt strongly about a legitimate issue of the under insured or deception in the market place-that should have been addressed head on and not glossed over 29 times with "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period."

The issue here has moved beyond the issue. Just like Nixon in watergate-it wasn't the breakin that was so bad it was the deception and coverup that did in Mr.Nixon.

AverageBear says

But that dovetails into the bigger basic problem: Too many people (legal, US citizens who don't pay taxes) getting free/near-free care, and not enough people paying into the system

Don't you understand why that is the case though? Too many people don't have any money. Because the 1% has it all. When disparity gets this extreme, there are obviously going to be lots of people that aren't paying much.

Sweden has a much lower disparity so there are many more people paying into the system. It's quite simple, really.

Here is Obama explaining why he didn't say what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/M_DR0VmHF80#t=113

He is making sense but that is how he should have sold it in the first place without the If you like your plan you can keep you plan, period. shtick.

He is now saying that he said:

"If you like your plan you can keep your plan IF it hasn't changed since the law passed"

Not what he said.

Note he also says -"what WE said was" Wrong! He should have said what I said.

He should have continued. What I said was "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and I misspoke and I am sorry for that. Then he could have explained why it was necessary for these people to lose their plans.

smaulgld says

Not true. People select the plans they want based on what they think fits their risk profile and their budget.

Yes. True. Like I said before- the plans that these people chose did not meet even the bare minimum requirements of the new ACA plan. So as such they were inferior to start with. As also mentioned, they can sign right back up and get a new plan that is actually better and in almost all cases will cost the same.

There's really not much more to say about it. So answer the question: Would it have been better for those on crappy plans to keep those plans or to get better plans while paying the same for them?

AverageBear says

Tatupu, I think immigration is part of the problem. But that dovetails into the bigger basic problem: Too many people (legal, US citizens who don't pay taxes) getting free/near-free care, and not enough people paying into the system.

I believe you just answered the question: Not enough taxes are being paid. This is the huge white elephant in the room that neither party has the balls to address: The tax system. The reality is that if you look at any number of countries that have higher standards of living its usually because they happen to have a better system of taxation.

What's missing is the conversation of the value of the quality of life. So people in Sweden pay more in taxes? Well guess what: Not only does every citizen in Sweden have social healthcare, but free college and a retirement pension among other things. What most people fail to make the connection with is that when it comes to the quality of life, stability and security are probably the highest items on that list: If you know that you will one day be able to retire and not have to worry about starving or winding up in the poor house then the costs associated with that have value.

Taxes in the US are not seen for what they are supposed to be: They are meant to provide Americans with services and infrastructure. But since the very word " taxes" has become a toxic word, we aren't properly collecting taxes in an efficient, balanced way and as a result, the overall quality of life has degraded, as our roads and schools deteriorate and the overall level of socia; security diminishes.

The irony here is that somehow taxes are seen as this great evil thing yet some people almost seem to allude that paying out the nose for things like private healthcare and college is more preferential over paying higher taxes instead to receive the same service and probably for a lot less.

edvard2 says

There's really not much more to say about it. So answer the question: Would it have been better for those on crappy plans to keep those plans or to get better plans while paying the same for them?

I think the issue is no longer substance any more. What is happening is happening because the country is divided on the issue of Obama care. This type of situation requires non partisan leadership by the President even if he is facing a highly partisan Republican party.

Since the roll out has been a disaster many on the fence are having misgivings about the program and then there has been the repeating of Obama's lie if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

At this stage instead of pretending all is well, the president should come clean and lead. Apologize for the poor roll out, fire some people, admit he misspoke and then explain why the program can work and what its intentions are.

The problem from the beginning is this has been a dem/rep redstate/blue state issue with the president acting more like Harry Reid should be acting than the President.

This issue requires strong leadership and Obama is providing strong partisanship by digging his heels in. If he keeps this strategy his polls will continue to drop and he'll end his 2nd in the same disregard as GW did his.

elvis says

The 1% ha$ it all" Another liberal crock of $hit.

Its not "Liberal". Its mathematics. Take a look at any chart showing the concentration of wealth and you'll see that not only does the upper 1% own an astronomically large chunk of the wealth, but beyond that, the upper 1% of the 1% own the lion's share of even that amount.

Now think about that and wonder why middle class incomes have been stagnate since the mid 70's...

edvard2 says

Not only does every citizen in Sweden have social healthcare, but free college and a retirement pension among other things. What most people fail to make the connection with is that when it comes to the quality of life, stability and security are probably the highest items on that list: If you know that you will one day be able to retire and not have to worry about starving or winding up in the poor house then the costs associated with that have value.

Sweden is able to do this because of one huge difference (besides cultural) and it has NOTHING to do with its size. Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

smaulgld says

At this stage instead of pretending all is well, the president should come clean and lead. Apologize for the poor roll out, fire some people, admit he misspoke and then explain why the program can work and what its intentions are.

The President already very clearly said that this was his responsibility. He said that well over a week ago. What's happened here is that its simply another case of the GOP having lost big time over the shutdown and immediately moving onto something else they think they can wring something out of. Almost immediately after the GOP admitted defeat a right-leaning think tank came out with the whole " Millions of people are losing their insurance" as if people were losing it period versus getting a new plan in its place. All made to intentionally mislead and get the base back on track. People are so focused on this one small thing versus looking at the bigger picture.

The one thing I will agree with is that the President needs to put a lid on this thing and nip it in the bud and move on. Otherwise the GOP is going to stick to this thing for all its worth because that's the only thing they've got going for them at the moment.