On 10/13/2010 9:06 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

On Oct 12, 6:17*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

....

On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr....

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. *And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. *In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. *In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. *Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused to
cooperate in good faith.

Then you admit they *were* locked out.


The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

So you say.


What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch.

It's far beyond severly flawed. It's unworkable.


You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support, something
the Republicans will not do!

Yeah, the Dems showed their bipartisan colors, didn't they? Or more
correctly, their complete lack of.

You're so wrong on this. Millions won't have insurance if this thing
isn't repealed. And the people that do will be paying far more for
it.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...care_blowback/

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody’s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now — plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 6:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get
incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.)
are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it,
and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been.
But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent
benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused
to
cooperate in good faith.

Then you admit they *were* locked out.

It's really hard to argue that they were locked out if they refused to enter
the room to begin with. Eventually, the door closes and business gets done.


The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not
even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be
middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

So you say.

Not I. Most people say this. Are you going to claim that McCain is middle of
the road if he panders to the Teabaggers to get elected? He used to be an
honorable guy. What happened?


What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch.

It's far beyond severly flawed. It's unworkable.

So you say.

You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support,
something
the Republicans will not do!

Yeah, the Dems showed their bipartisan colors, didn't they? Or more
correctly, their complete lack of.

Would you expect the party in power not to show partisan colors? Were the
Republicans during Bush inclusive and non-partisan?

You're so wrong on this. Millions won't have insurance if this thing
isn't repealed. And the people that do will be paying far more for
it.

?? 30+ million are insured now that weren't before. How is that fewer than
before? Please cite some factoid that claims that.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...care_blowback/

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody’s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now — plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."


It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

On 10/13/10 12:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

They're not my indicators.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


I didn't conveniently miss anything. All the Teabaggers are complaining
about deficits right? So, which programs do they want to cut?

Your claim that we have a much higher standard of living isn't that
accurate. It depends is a more accurate comment. How about infant mortality?
How about life expectancy? How about medical outcomes per dollar spent? We
certainly don't have the highest stand when you consider all those things.
If you mean, do we drive the biggest cars with the worst mileage, then sure.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
On 10/13/2010 9:06 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Exactly.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.


And those indicators are?? I'm happy to hear it. I'd love to hear it!

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:06:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.

That is the thing people want to ignore.
Sure they have "free" health care in Canada but their tax rate is
about 20% higher than ours.
"Free" starts looking pretty expensive when you run your 1040 against
a Canadian tax return. They are online and simpler than ours so it is
not hard to try for yourself.
When I ran mine on the Ontario web site I would have been paying
$14,000 more in 2009 (I didn't try 2010 but that would have been worse
since 2010 was the lowest tax rate I have paid since 1965 ... when I
was in the service.)

Please tell us who is advocating a Canadian-style system? Nobody here,
except maybe some Canadians who like what they have.

On Oct 13, 1:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201...

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody�s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now � plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How
much of that do you like?