View Full Version : Obamacare
What if buying coffee was like buying health insurance? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/28/coffeecare_the_affordable_coffee_act.html)
I wonder if the portion of Obama voters - not part of the low-information voter segment - will ever acknowledge the disaster that Obama and Obamacare has been? Anyway, as the next likely history making, feel good disaster-in-waiting has said... "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
Hanson nails another one.
The War on Human Nature
November 26, 2013 11:12 am / victorhanson
For nations as for individuals, pretending self-interest doesn’t exist is perilous.
by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online
At some critical point, everyone makes choices based on incentives and his own perception of self-interest. Somehow the Obama administration has forgotten that natural law.
A therapeutic sense of self-sacrifice is fine in the abstract, but in the concrete such magnanimity causes far more harm to the innocent than does a realistic appraisal of self-interest and a tragic acceptance of the flawed nature of man. The theme of the present administration is that it possesses the wisdom and resources to know better what people should do than they do themselves. From that premise arose most of catastrophes that have befallen this administration.
Consider the logic of Obamacare — a protocol that we lesser folk were supposed to learn about only after the bill was passed, in the expectation that eventually we will surely like it, although we are not able to know that yet. If you use medical care infrequently, you supposedly will rush to sign up to pay more for it, so that those who will pay less can use it more. I wish such idealism were innate to the human character, but nothing suggests that it is. Does providing more coverage at less cost to more people somehow lead to lower costs for all participants? If so, the entire history of capitalism would have to be rewritten. Is it true that the more you try to get onto a website and are stymied, the more you will redouble your efforts to log on? If that were true, wouldn’t Amazon rig its website to fail 20 percent of the time?
Would employers hire more full-time employees in order to up their health-insurance costs, or would they keep their work force small enough that the federal guidelines will allow them not to provide coverage? And how would those incentives affect overall job growth? Will employers decide to forgo more of their profits so that the nation’s unemployment rate will stabilize?
Consider the news that the IRS improperly refunded $132 billion to people who falsely claimed earned-income tax credits. Add in the fact that about 45 to 50 percent of all Americans already pay no federal income tax. Then factor in the idea that conservative groups were more likely to be targeted by the IRS’s tax-exempt division than other nonprofit organizations. What natural lessons do many citizens learn from the IRS that might govern their future behavior? Are they likely to feel a greater need to report cash income, or to worry about unauthorized income while on federal assistance?
Did administration explanations about Benghazi and the IRS scandals help reassure the American people that what the president said about Obamacare was likely to be true? Does serial disingenuousness finally ensure remorse and a return to veracity?
Does promising a new transparency and an end to lobbying and to the revolving door between government and the private sector at least display a heartfelt desire to change the system, even if in reality there is no end to any such influence peddling? Is it better to promise great things and then break those promises than to have never promised at all? Do we operate on the T-ball philosophy that effort and happy talk can substitute for achievement? Does continuously blaming a prior president drive home the message of his culpability, or appear tasteless and reveal a sense of inferiority?
Do the unemployed more eagerly seek employment when they are provided increases in food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and assorted housing, legal, and education subsidies, or are they more likely to remain on public assistance, to become more indifferent to full-time employment, and to augment their subsidies with off-the-books cash income?
If Americans receive essentially zero interest on their passbook accounts, are they more or less likely to save? If they do save, are they more or less likely to rush into the stock market seeking any return over 1 percent? And will that desperation make stock offerings more or less accountable? Are zero-interest-earning savers in their 60s more or less likely to stay on their jobs? If the former, will that more or less retard employment of younger others?
On matters of borrowing, do serial discussions about forgiving credit-card debt, student-loan debt, and mortgage debt encourage more Americans to borrow what they cannot pay back? Does the idea of forgiving debt persuade struggling American consumers that they must continue to meet their debt obligations and make timely interest and principal payments? Do people assume that they must be meticulous in making their payments so as to ensure that others need not be?
Does a president’s expression of racial solidarity with a figure of similar race involved in an ongoing civil or criminal court case lessen racial tensions? Does such editorializing serve to remind Americans that the law and politics are two separate spheres, or that the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty?
Does ignoring provisions in the law — such as the individual mandate or legal requirements for insurance plans in Obamacare, or details of immigration law — persuade Americans in their own lives to follow the letter of the law?
Does suggesting that corporate officials, doctors, and other members of the affluent classes are corporate-jet owners, limb and tonsil loppers for profit, and fat cats, who have reached a point where they have already made enough money, encourage Americans that wealth creation is a positive development?
Does assuring the country that the successful businessman did not really build his own operation encourage others to take such entrepreneurial risks, or does it dissuade them? If someone makes profits in business or a profession, can he expect to be praised for his success or targeted as making too much more money than others? And what effect on the general economy does such an attitude portend? Would it be better to succeed without government or to fail in partnership with it? Do we more greatly admire a private fracking company, or Solyndra?
If Chrysler bondholders are not paid back as quickly as are union creditors, despite having contractual preference, does that make investment companies more or less likely to buy bonds for their clients? Does it make unions more or less likely to make demands on companies that they are probably ill-equipped to afford?
Does curtailing federal leases for new energy production encourage gas and oil companies to expand their efforts to find energy through public explorations? And does bragging that American fossil-fuel production has reached record levels, even as you have sought to discourage this, persuade companies to keep producing more home-grown energy?
Does announcing serial amnesties and praising the DREAM Act during an election campaign encourage a larger or smaller number of foreign nationals to risk entering the U.S. illegally? And would they do so with more or less conviction that their immigration problems were largely political rather than legal? Is amnesty seen as proof of a nation’s tolerance and thus a reason not to abuse immigration law, or proof of its moral confusion and paralysis, which encourages still more illegal immigration?
Does the employment of therapeutic euphemisms — workplace violence, overseas contingency operations, man-caused disasters — reassure Islamists that the United States is now their friend, and recognizably so by our extreme sensitivity in our choice of language? Or does our new vocabulary suggest to enemies that a country that won’t identify them by name will not punish them?
Did leading from behind in Libya impress our enemies by our magnanimity? Or did it encourage France and Britain to take the lead elsewhere rather than waiting for the United States to do so, on the idea that the U.S. wishes to rotate its once-prestigious leadership role?
In Syria, did warning Bashar Assad about “game-changer” red lines, but then taking no action, reassure him of America’s mellowness and therefore convince him to moderate his conduct in gratitude? Or did such flip-flopping convince Assad to press home his attacks with the assurance that the United States could not decide what it was going to do?
By objecting to Hosni Mubarak’s rule in Egypt, welcoming the election of Mohamed Morsi, and then criticizing the coup and subsequent junta of Egyptian military officers, did the U.S. remind Egyptians of our disinterested fairness to all parties, or convince them that we were erratic, confused, and not to be trusted?
Did consideration of watering down U.S.-induced sanctions against Iran in order to initiate discussions with Teheran reassure allies that they had been right to follow the United States’ lead and ratchet up the embargo on Iranian oil and commerce? Did it encourage the Iranian government to negotiate in good faith? Will Iran now cease its nuclear program, given that the United States is dropping sanctions, providing incentives, and showing its eagerness for a settlement? Will Israel and Saudi Arabia sigh in relief that Iran is now postponing its program in exchange for the end of sanctions — thereby cooling down tensions in the Middle East?
Did simultaneously announcing withdrawal dates and surge numbers for Afghanistan encourage our Afghan allies that we were flexible, and mitigate the extremism of the Taliban on the principle that they, just as we, were tired of fighting?
VDH piece continued below:
Did radical Islamists tone down their extremism on the news that the Obama administration had pulled out entirely from Iraq and wished to close down Guantanamo? Did the Cairo speech in front of Muslim Brotherhood grandees remind them why and how the U.S. and Islam were partners?
Have Israel’s enemies been encouraged to negotiate with the Jewish state by the news that America is now a disinterested broker in the region and no longer takes sides between the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Israel?
Does Recep Ergodan’s special relationship with Barack Obama encourage the former to protect human rights in Turkey — on the principle of being positively influenced by friendship with a U.S. president?
Did bypassing the United Nations in Syria, exceeding its resolutions in Libya, and weakening them in Iran strengthen the resolve of the U.N., or at least ensure a positive reception there for future U.S. initiatives?
Does lecturing Vladimir Putin about human-rights abuses mitigate them? Did welcoming him into the Syria discussions provide stability for the region? Is Putin thankful for U.S. acquiescence to his initiatives and therefore more likely to respect us for our belated sobriety?
There is a difference between the way we wish the world would work and the way it unfortunately does. We should know that tragedy from our own often-selfish lives in which we make decisions based on our perceptions of advantage. The problem with ignoring the role of unchanging human nature is that usually someone other than the utopian gets killed, runs out of money, or must live with the chaos brought about by the actions of the better-off, who are permitted by their money, leisure, power, and influence to dream that we are something that we are not.
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=6794
NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
You Lie! - Congressman Joe Wilson during President Obama's first State of the Union speech.
Period! :munchin
Another face of Obamacare, this little guy is only seven. Do any of our politicians really care?
A Gainesville, Texas family is fighting for their cancer-stricken child's life after he was removed from his insurance plan
Ron and Krista Alford’s seven-year-old boy Hunter is in need of another round of chemotherapy costing $50,000
He has lost his insurance after an administrative blunder caused by Obamacare
They face a desperate battle to get him back on his plan as he battle his life-threatening illness.
Their only option might be St. Jude Hospital...
PedOncoDoc
12-03-2013, 05:46
Their only option might be St. Jude Hospital...
The only way he will be accepted for transfer to St. Jude's is if they have an open research protocol for which he is eligible.
Most states have emergency child health insurance programs in place since children cannot provide for themselves - I'm not sure what systems are in place in Texas, but a good social worker at the hospital should be on the case and finding options for the child.
Streck-Fu
12-03-2013, 06:52
For the hell of it, I wanted to see what it would cost me for my family....Here's what I get from browsing the plans.....
Family of 4 with two adults in low 40s and 2 kids under 10....Plan is in Indiana.....Just over $800/mo premium with at least a $10k deductible:
Watching the President, Kathleen Seblius and his other sycophants talk about the ACA is seriously disturbing. They speak about it in a completely detached from reality way. I understand politics, but their behavior on this is bizarre. "Website now works great!", "Most people will be able to get better insurance while paying less money than before (most egregious)", and the list goes on. Real people are being hurt by this, not numbers or percentages or spreadsheets, and they don't seem to give a flying f---. :mad:
Watching the President, Kathleen Seblius and his other sycophants talk about the ACA is seriously disturbing. They speak about it in a completely detached from reality way. I understand politics, but their behavior on this is bizarre. "Website now works great!", "Most people will be able to get better insurance while paying less money than before (most egregious)", and the list goes on. Real people are being hurt by this, not numbers or percentages or spreadsheets, and they don't seem to give a flying f---. :mad:
It's easier for me to understand if I look at it from the perspective that they're virusing the system in order to replace it with a single-payer plan; they learned from HillaryCare that they'd never be able to introduce it in a straightforward manner and get anywhere.
A similar technique is in play with Obama's strategy of ignoring/not enforcing the laws he wants changed.
The predominant media is his army in his war against the status quo.
He envisions himself as the Great Instigator, fitting hand-in-glove with his only forte'-community agitation- and the following demlib POTUS or MPOTUS will be able, over two terms (or more) to capitalize (NPI) on his groundbreaking destructive process.
The ACA is harming lots of people in a very direct way, including people who voted for him. This is no longer an abstract concept. I can't imagine that people could see the government efe this up and then say "well, let's let them manage it entirely."
Of course, this is the same electorate that elected him.....twice.....with all his baggage out there to be seen.
Snaquebite
12-04-2013, 08:16
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/after-repeal-of-obamacare-moving-to-patient-centered-market-based-health-care
This is no longer an abstract concept.
Of course, this is the same electorate that elected him.....twice.....with all his baggage out there to be seen.
That's right.
I've suggested (to my representatives in DC) that if the government is hell bent on spending billions and billions more taxpayer dollars on healthcare - it would have been much better spent on funding increased production of medical professionals, doctors, nurses, PAs, etc., etc.,
Grow the medical and nursing schools to substantially increase supply to meet demand.
At least our tax dollars would go to producing something of real value (medical professionals) as opposed to funding 16,000+ IRS agents and more red tape and bureaucracy.
Worst case scenario...the USA eventually has more docs and nurses than we need (fat chance) and we export to the world and meet the growing world demand and demographics.
I've suggested (to my representatives in DC) that if the government is hell bent on spending billions and billions more taxpayer dollars on healthcare - it would have been much better spent on funding increased production of medical professionals, doctors, nurses, PAs, etc., etc.,
And through the principles of supply and demand, it would have done more to brake, daresay even retard the main escalating cost segment in healthcare.
You would have to sit down and think and plan for years to come up with a better and more complete way to destroy our way of life, re: Obamacare, amnesty, QE and the other strategies.
I really believe it's too late and too far gone for the gaggle of goats we've got in Congress now to affect any repair.
Our only hope to reverse this damage ilies in a fresh, full crop of Tea Party-types in 2014 in both Houses. Even then, after the nuclear option was played, it will be nearly impossible.
And through the principles of supply and demand, it would have done more to brake, daresay even retard the main escalating cost segment in healthcare.
Our political elite are not problem solvers - they fight over rice bowls, power and create political capital by bestowing favors. They are useless bureaucrats pure and simple.
Most, are in permanent campaign mode and are not worth pissing on if they were on fire.
For the kind of money that they have spent already we should have solved this problem and a few others.
Beans and bullets.
Our political elite are not problem solvers - they fight over rice bowls, power and create political capital by bestowing favors.
Especially the uberhypocritical libdemons:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/reid-obamacare-staff/index.html
Washington (CNN) -- Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of Obamacare's architects and staunchest supporters, is also the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the law's new exchanges.
Reid is the exception among the other top congressional leaders. GOP House Speaker John Boehner, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have all directed their staffs to join the exchange, their aides said.
Snip
You would have to sit down and think and plan for years to come up with a better and more complete way to destroy our way of life, re: Obamacare, amnesty, QE and the other strategies.
Cass Sunstein
GratefulCitizen
12-07-2013, 10:09
I've suggested (to my representatives in DC) that if the government is hell bent on spending billions and billions more taxpayer dollars on healthcare - it would have been much better spent on funding increased production of medical professionals, doctors, nurses, PAs, etc., etc.,
Grow the medical and nursing schools to substantially increase supply to meet demand.
At least our tax dollars would go to producing something of real value (medical professionals) as opposed to funding 16,000+ IRS agents and more red tape and bureaucracy.
Worst case scenario...the USA eventually has more docs and nurses than we need (fat chance) and we export to the world and meet the growing world demand and demographics.
Bingo.
Funding a financial system (ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) isn't the same thing as increasing supply.
Money isn't real.
Goods and services are real.
WRT demographics, this is the root of the problem.
It's too late to fix it.
Many of the health care professionals are baby boomers (supply).
Most of the health care consumers will soon be baby boomers (demand).
Many of the boomers in this field will soon be retiring.
Federal meddling will just encourage more to retire earlier.
Giving more money to retiree "A" and retiree "B" does not immediately create an additional provider "C".
It just funds a bidding war between "A" and "B" for the services of "C".
Increasing demand, decreasing supply, and more printed money thrown on the pile.
Healthcare costs will continue to rise.
Unless price controls are instituted...
Then there will be severe shortages.
(Kinda like what's happening in California)
http://washingtonexaminer.com/doctors-boycotting-californias-obamacare-exchange/article/2540272
Bingo.
Funding a financial system (ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) isn't the same thing as increasing supply.
Money isn't real.
Goods and services are real.
WRT demographics, this is the root of the problem.
It's too late to fix it.
Many of the health care professionals are baby boomers (supply).
Most of the health care consumers will soon be baby boomers (demand).
Many of the boomers in this field will soon be retiring.
Federal meddling will just encourage more to retire earlier.
Giving more money to retiree "A" and retiree "B" does not immediately create an additional provider "C".
It just funds a bidding war between "A" and "B" for the services of "C".
Increasing demand, decreasing supply, and more printed money thrown on the pile.
Healthcare costs will continue to rise.
Unless price controls are instituted...
Then there will be severe shortages.
(Kinda like what's happening in California)
http://washingtonexaminer.com/doctors-boycotting-californias-obamacare-exchange/article/2540272
This is so spot on. Health care coverage does not equal actually receiving health care. OK, so if they get Obamacare to work, supposedly there will be money to pay for your health care. Doesn't mean there will be anyone to give it to you.
And as to Obamacare working, they can't even get the front end to work, and it doesn't even sound like they have really even begun to address the back end on payments to the providers. I am hoping they scrap it and start over, but know hat will likely not happen.
GratefulCitizen
12-08-2013, 19:21
The power of the individual in the Information Age is greater than the ambitions of centralized government.
There are always ways to mitigate the meddling.
http://thefederalist.com/2013/12/04/opt-obamacare/
Anyone willing to put in the effort can be faster and smarter than the federal government.
I am in no way advocating breaking the law.
Rather, everyone can exercise options within their own circle of influence to best serve their own priorities.
We are all sovereign citizens.
Nobody else can decide for us what our priorities should be.
The choice is simple:
Whine where influence is minimal, or act where influence is maximal.
Another hit with more exemptions required...
'A public safety disaster': Obamacare could force THOUSANDS of volunteer fire departments to close
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520979/Obamacare-mandates-set-shutter-THOUSANDS-volunteer-departments.html#ixzz2n1PtAYDy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Volunteer fire departments all across the U.S. could find themselves out of money and unable to operate unless Congress or the Obama Administration exempts them from the Affordable Care Act.
'I thought the kinks were worked out of Obamacare at the first of the month, Central Florida volunteer firefighter Carl Fabrizi told Sunshine State News.
'Man, oh, man, this could potentially destroy some real good companies in Florida.'
The U.S. Department of Labor takes the term 'volunteer' literally, but the IRS says volunteer firefighters are technically employees if they're on the job more than 30 hours per week, making them subject to Obamacare's employee-mandate rules.
Javadrinker
12-09-2013, 17:32
The U.S. Department of Labor takes the term 'volunteer' literally, but the IRS says volunteer firefighters are technically employees if they're on the job more than 30 hours per week, making them subject to Obamacare's employee-mandate rules.
and this is surprising? :rolleyes:
Obamacare Pushing Puerto Rico Further Into Social Welfare State, Doctors Warn
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2013/12/13/obamacare-pushing-puerto-rico-further-into-social-welfare-state-doctors-say/
"People in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico may not be grappling with the botched Obamacare website rollout, but the program could spell disaster for the island, which is facing a financial crisis and where half the population already is dependent on free health insurance, members of the island's medical community warned..."
Hey! Nothing to see here. We'll just kick the can a little harder down the road the next time we get up to it.
GratefulCitizen
12-17-2013, 22:01
FYI
Direct primary care does count as ACA compliant insurance if bundled with a catastrophic coverage policy.
Don't know the exact details.
This may well be the way of the future because of the reduced overhead for primary care physicians.
Badger52
12-18-2013, 07:00
Head of Minnesota health exchanges quits
Snippet:
The person in charge of Minnesota's health insurance marketplace resigned Tuesday after facing criticism over the troubled rollout and a questionably timed international vacation.
April Todd-Malmlov submitted her resignation during an emergency closed session of the government board of MNsure, Minnesota's version of the insurance exchange that's tied to the federal health care overhaul. She had been under increasing pressure over insurance sign-up problems and failed to get a vote of confidence from Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton last week.
Full article here. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/17/head-minnesota-health-exchanges-quits/)
That crossbeam had better be structurally sound when all the chickens finally come home to roost. Looks like balsa wood from here...
:munchin
...the ACA is nothing more than a custom built 1972 Ford Pinto.
No matter how nice the paint job, no matter how velvety the interior, no matter how fuzzy the dice, no matter how fancy the rims are...
...its still a fucking Pinto.
I challenge anyone to come up with a more efficient, non-violent way to destroy the Country than what Obama's done so far.
C'mon November. :lifter
I challenge anyone to come up with a more efficient, non-violent way to destroy the Country than what Obama's done so far.
C'mon November. :lifter
If you like your Congressperson, you can keep them - if you don't, you know what to do! (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366617/wapo-every-democrat-should-be-scared-obamacare-ad-john-fund)
Golf1echo
12-18-2013, 20:08
Much of this thread deals with process and the process has gotten fairly complicated at times but here is one of the things that just has never made sense to me. If one was to reform health care, and we all know it needs reforming, why not reform health care?
Here is one small example: Let us say a 73 year old women fell, she has no secondary insurance so Medicare takes care of a percentage of her medical bills leaving her to self pay the rest. Rather than expound on all the details, lets just take ONE: She is given a wheel chair when she leaves the rehab facility for home use...But she is not really given the chair, she now has a copay for 13 months, then it is hers with Medicare picking up the rest of the cost.
Break down: She will pay $ 300.00 over 13 months which represents 20% with Medicare paying $1.200.00 over that same period which represents 80%. Here is the rub, a neighbor who just happens to be the rep for the supply company sells her son the same K1 wheel chair with all the same bells and whistles for aprox. $150.00 ( brand new at a whole sale price ). This saves the 73 year old woman aprox. $150.00 and Medicare $1,200.00.
This is just the tip of the ice burg and my point here is how in the HELL is 0's plan going to help anyone when health care, health care costs, insurance, or any other aspect has not really been reformed...just who pays for folks who don't have health care :confused::confused::confused:
Just one small example of what this ( fill in your own blanks ) and supporters have done to our Country...
This will not stand, it can't stand and even the liberals have begun to understand this just look at the numbers that are becoming evident in every poll across this Country today...THIS WILL BE HIS LEGACY *
* Or "how you make $ 1,350.00 from a $ 150.00 investment at everyone else's expense".
The democrats - the lot of them - own the bureaucratic monstrosity that is Obamacare.
Obamacare was about Obama, power, bureaucracy and redistribution...never about medical care.
If Obamacare was about medical care then the approach they took should invalidate them from ever holding high office.
The architects and advocates for Obamacare were either incompetent or foolish or both - they should be made to pay the political price.
Roll on Tuesday, November 4, 2014.
IMO, it was about power (creating permanent constituencies and winning more votes) and redistribution, but I do also believe it was about healthcare. The problem is that progressives live in a magical fairyland whereby anything can be done so long as the government orders it.
To quote a sentence I once read on leftists: "Reality has a way of jumping up and slamming these suckers in the face."
The infamous statement by one of their leaders...to the tune that, to paraphrase, "we have to pass the legislation to find out what's in it" ...should forever bar that dingbat and her followers from drafting or voting on legislation...would anyone in their right mind suggest that you must sign a 1,000 page contract...in order to find out what's in it...
The infamous statement by one of their leaders...to the tune that, to paraphrase, "we have to pass the legislation to find out what's in it" ...should forever bar that dingbat and her followers from drafting or voting on legislation...would anyone in their right mind suggest that you must sign a 1,000 page contract...in order to find out what's in it...
Libthink.
Badger52
12-19-2013, 06:11
There was a blip on the local news last night about insurers wanting to get injunctions against local hospitals who have charitable programs setup to help those who can't cover their expenses. Apparently the insurers object to local solutions that would negate the need for someone to enroll in OCare. Could logically extend from St. Francis (tech & diagnostic expertise fully linked up with Mayo & St. Mary's across the river) to the scattered excellent clinic system affiliated with them. Gee, now why would they want to stick their no$e in that?
Coming in BluRay/DVD, get yours in time for Christmas:
Clash of the Rice Bowls, with a legal team of thousands.
From a friend...
So, during the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.
Is it worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a functioning web site?
From a friend...
So, during the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.
Is it worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a functioning web site?
In the first instance, they were going all out to save the Country.
In the second, to ruin it.
From a friend...
So, during the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.
Is it worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a functioning web site?
...and for less money than they spent on the non-functional website, could have given 1 million dollars to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. which would have done a lot more for their health!
GratefulCitizen
12-21-2013, 17:10
More non-enforcement and delays.
As obamacare becomes more unworkable, maybe it will go the way of the Real ID act.
The Real ID act will start being enforced in 2014. (again)
The states had better comply...OR ELSE!!! (again)
The limits of centralized governmental power may have been reached.
The limits of centralized governmental power may have been reached.
The limits of centralized govenmental ineptitude and impotence have been surpassed.
The Reaper
12-21-2013, 21:39
...and for less money than they spent on the non-functional website, could have given 1 million dollars to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. which would have done a lot more for their health!
How is $600 million equal to $1 million times 330 million people?
By my math, that would be $2 each and it is still outrageous, till you consider the connections of the website builders.
TR
Wait a sec - let me take my shoes off... oh never mind :o
NurseTim
12-22-2013, 07:05
How is $600 million equal to $1 million times 330 million people?
By my math, that would be $2 each and it is still outrageous, till you consider the connections of the website builders.
TR
Connections that is not getting near enough press. The CGI management should not be out in public due to the shame heaped upon them from an outraged public. The Phil Robertson person has caught way more flak and is suffering more derision that the CGI monkeys have. This is not right.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/07/vermont-backs-controversial-single-payer-system-for-health-care-overhaul-but/
My co pays went up 30% as of Jan 1. Thanks Obama!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bailing-out-health-insurers-and-helping-obamacare_774167.html
Badger52
01-14-2014, 06:22
Another chicken circling the roost. I seriously doubt Americans at large will get exercised over this. When the bite is portrayed as small nibbles with large helpings deferred over some actuarial decade, many who were patting themselves on the back after 2008 (and doubled down in 2012) will feel this is how they are doing their fair share. Probably doesn't occur to Jane Taxpayer that she's still waiting for interest payments from the USPS or that Amtrak lose$ per seat on many routes every time it rolls.
The G is in the insurance business now; it will become "too big to fail" and I doubt Sen. Rubio's measure to repeal Sec. 1342 of this monster gets a hearing without a serious shakeup in the Senate. The plan is going well.
How is $600 million equal to $1 million times 330 million people?
By my math, that would be $2 each and it is still outrageous, till you consider the connections of the website builders.
TR
I think when you calculate the cost of the Iraq war it comes to a large amount of money per Citizen. Not including the billions that is missing or unaccounted for.
Only power we have left is our vote. Thus the reason they divide us with the two party system. Loyalty to either party is the definition of ignorance.
The corruption has become acceptable, transparent, at epidemic levels.
If there isn't a life changing innovation like the internet to boost our economy. Then no way we can maintain the current course.
Badger52
01-15-2014, 14:05
So many possibilities as to where to put this but this has me chuckling. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/15/in-illinois-gun-permit-applications-outpace-obamacare-sign-ups/)
In two weeks, nearly 22,000 Illinois residents have applied online for a permit to carry a gun, according to the State Police.
About 61,000 have selected an insurance plan through the state’s Obamacare website, according to numbers from the state.
In three months.
Full story at the hyperlink above.
For the chuckle.. :o
My Kids do what I used to do,, systems design.
But with much better advertizements at the airport..
Still not sure they can save berry-care??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDE_gsZtfS4
(1VB)compforce
05-26-2014, 18:09
Get ready for the next round of unintended consequences:
From California to Rhode Island, states are confronting new concerns that their Medicaid costs will rise as a result of the federal health care law.
That's likely to revive the debate about how federal decisions can saddle states with unanticipated expenses.
Before President Obama's law expanded Medicaid eligibility, millions of people who were already entitled to its safety-net coverage were not enrolled. Those same people are now signing up in unexpectedly high numbers, partly because of publicity about getting insured under the law.
For states red or blue, the catch is that they must use more of their own money to cover this particular group.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/26/medicaid-surge-triggers-cost-concerns-for-states-101039544/
Those of us that have state taxes (and jobs) can get ready to pay more for medicaid. Does anyone actually make any money after taxes in CA and NY any more?
As long as Obamacare works better than VA health care we should be good to go...
Shouldn't be too hard to score a victory for Obamacare on a scale like that.
VA History
The United States has the most comprehensive system of assistance for veterans of any nation in the world.
This benefits system traces its roots back to 1636, when the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony were at war with the Pequot Indians.
The Pilgrims passed a law which stated that disabled soldiers would be supported by the colony.
http://www.va.gov/about_va/vahistory.asp
In a fashion, we have been trying to develop a socialized medical system for veterans for almost 400 years.
Not there yet.. berry-care has a lot of catching up to do...
Snaquebite
05-29-2014, 08:42
Here is the 2500 page ObamaCare act condensed into four short sentences:
1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.
2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
3. To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured free of charge.