ObamaCare - Free HealthCare 4 Ever! Hip-hip...hooray!?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't know anything about your social position but my point is not about your specific social position. Rather, I am suggesting that all social positions are essentially made available through a publicly subsidized social system. So for example, the emergence of the middle class in the United States was by and large created by public subsidies, namely the New Deal. Not only did the New Deal essentially construct the class system as it was understood for decades but it also made substantial changes in who was being educated, how much education they were to receive, how many were to receive a particularly good education, and so on. And obviously it meant that a particular level of creativity was achieved. Furthermore the 20th century was a period of unparalleled economic growth in the US and this is primarily the result of publicly subsidized industrial development.

This is simply not true. What you have credited the "New Deal" with achieving in the US was actually achieved by the necessities of World War 2 through the military, which covered all bases from industry to transportation to education. The military and the need to expand the military's capabilities and strength in order to win the war was the major catalyst in the socioeconomic earthquake that followed in the post-war years.

The fact that millions of men were called up or volunteered to serve, and got educated, trained, and dispatched to areas they never would have seen nor lived had it not been for the war was the biggest socioeconomic jolt this country has experienced in modern times.

Just a heads-up: My father, my uncles, and various family members served in that war and I have heard many stories and accounts direct from those primary sources, which I trust above any textbook or analyst. They lived it - and what happened in their experience is what happened in those cases, so the revision and analysis will simply fall short of what was the reality of their experience. Was it a 100% shared experience? Nothing is, of course - but many, many people shared something similar in that era.

Consider this: When my father was called to basic training, actually it will be approaching the anniversary of that since he had to board the train two days before Christmas in 1943 directly from high school at age 18, there were men at his boot camp who had to sign an "X" on any paperwork because they were illiterate and had come from very rural areas where they had not gone to school and had worked instead from a young age. Similar stories involved a man who had never seen a bathroom with running water, as outhouses were still the norm in rural areas of the US at that time, and he had never seen a running water toilet before reporting to that camp. Others saw men reporting without proper shoes or no shoes at all, depending on the area. 100% true.

This was happening 10 years or so into the "New Deal" programs, along with the myriad of other programs in place to fight poverty on that level.

These men eventually received an education, through the military, and were assigned and stationed according to their abilities and skill set. My dad, who I've asked numerous times about this because I find it fascinating, probably would not have left his hometown area had it not been for the navy. Especially at age 18. He actually wound up for a stretch near Hollywood, of all places, and got to see live radio shows with Mel Blanc and Dinah Shore and other radio stars, got to hang out at the Hollywood Canteen where actors and actresses helped the USO serve coffee and donuts and would entertain, and he made it to places like the Brown Derby and Graumann's and the Rose Bowl which were places only seen in newsreels and photos for many kids.

Then they shipped him to Saipan after that, where he served the rest of the war and beyond. And many of those guys who came to basic training from all walks of life, often from real poverty versus what passes for poverty today, if they made it home, more of them had a skill set and access to an official "thank you" through the GI Bill, which also opened up academia and access to a college education to the "regular folks" who would have had those same doors slammed in their face if it were 1938 rather than 1947. And some went on to do incredible things, and change a lot of lives because of it. Much of the aerospace and automotive innovation that surrounded places like Hawthorne CA when Brian Wilson was a kid was due to ex-military men getting jobs and innovating in those fields. And that's just one area, not even mentioning medicine and the interstate highway system (which was Dwight Eisenhauer's brainchild) - the boom was simply incredible in what was produced and how much was innovated post-war, and how many people became mobile after the war.

And it was due not to the New Deal, but to the terrible necessities of a war which saw guys from the farms and factories and everywhere in between suddenly being thrown together and scattered around the country, then around the world, and in the process gaining knowledge and skills which never would have been accessible to many of them had it not been for the war.

So it's a terrible necessity, but consider what came afterward. It was not a New Deal plan which brought about that kind of result.

And FYI, my dad also saw the New Deal plans and actually was involved in one of the WPA projects as a teenager. His memory was seeing those who were previously wealthy residents of town working on road crews and doing manual labor outdoors on various WPA projects, and CCC projects for different folks, where they once were rarely seen without a suit and necktie. And many of those men also had come looking for a meal, too, and someone generous enough to share one with them.

Bottom line: There are historians on all sides who can make a case pro or con on the success or failure of the New Deal. Ultimately I side with those who say it was not as successful as advertised, and the historical record of job growth numbers and the like might show that to be true. But whatever the case on those areas, let me emphasize this:

The New Deal had far less to do with the claims made and credit given in rockandroll's initial post than the events surrounding World War 2 which were the real catalyst, and the cultural and economic shift which happened as a result, and manifested itself in what many call the "Post War Boom" of the late 40's and 1950's.

I hope to have cleared up any misunderstandings.

I unfortunately do not have too much time right now to answer both guitarfool and grillo's posts but I will respond to the latter's eventually.

If you read my post that guitarfool is responding to you will note that my central claim was that New Deal policies led to the emergence of a middle class, not an educated class (I discussed education insofar as it relates to a growing middle class along with the acts by the Federal Security Agency which, since you didn't discuss them, I am unclear how you believe them to be ineffective) and you will find if you look at the income distribution from the end of the 1920s up until the beginning of America's involvement in WWII, that this is exactly true. By 1938, several years before America's participation in the war, there began an overwhelming compression of income. The income share of the top one-tenth of households in the United States had dropped from 43 percent to roughly 32 percent and that remained consistent throughout the war and stayed that way until New Deal progams began being dismantled, at which point the gap between the rich and poor grew more steadily once again especially under Reagan who viciously cut these progams and allowed for the diminished role of the middle class in American society and essentially the power structure predictably reverted back to a 1920s model. What guitarfool does say has an element of truth - namely that the war was instrumental in continuing the trend and, in fact, acceletating the policies that the New Deal had begun as there were even more government controls on the economy which worked to maintain the equalizing of incomes that had been put into effect in the 1930s.

[Bean Bag]

Aetna CEO Sees Obama Health Law Doubling Some Premiums
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/aetna-ceo-sees-obama-health-law-doubling-some-premiums.html

While this falls under the "predictions" category -- coming from a CEO in the industry who's job it is to deal with this stuff (as opposed to a professor, media head, politician or Beach Boy fan  ) -- I'm not opposed to mentioning it in here.

Perhaps even more interesting, however is the potential that Washington may delay portions of the 2014 rollout of Obamacare, to help limit said shock.  This too a prediction, but something I think could happen.  Obama and the DemoRats will still be in control 2014 -- with mid-term elections -- I'd say this is likely.  I see them passing this off to the next Administration and Congress.

The one thing Americans agree on is the DemoRats ability to blame Republicans (or Re-"thug"-licans    as they call them).  So...I can totally see the 'Rats kicking this turd down the road.  And when they do...we'll know why, as predicted.  Regardless of what they and the media try to sell all them "low-information" voters out there.

Your friend,
Bean Bag.  Keepin' you one step ahead...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Aetna CEO Sees Obama Health Law Doubling Some Premiums
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/aetna-ceo-sees-obama-health-law-doubling-some-premiums.html

While this falls under the "predictions" category -- coming from a CEO in the industry who's job it is to deal with this stuff (as opposed to a professor, media head, politician or Beach Boy fan  ) -- I'm not opposed to mentioning it in here.

Perhaps even more interesting, however is the potential that Washington may delay portions of the 2014 rollout of Obamacare, to help limit said shock.  This too a prediction, but something I think could happen.  Obama and the DemoRats will still be in control 2014 -- with mid-term elections -- I'd say this is likely.  I see them passing this off to the next Administration and Congress.

The one thing Americans agree on is the DemoRats ability to blame Republicans (or Re-"thug"-licans    as they call them).  So...I can totally see the 'Rats kicking this turd down the road.  And when they do...we'll know why, as predicted.  Regardless of what they and the media try to sell all them "low-information" voters out there.

Your friend,
Bean Bag.  Keepin' you one step ahead...

Did someone mention something about low information voters??

http://youtu.be/nY0M7IdNl7U

[Bean Bag]

Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes up to 20%
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blue-shield-rates-20121213,0,6546740.story

Well... a 20% increase is certainly not "doubling" ...but it's not headed in the right direction -- we can all agree on that.  Of course, nothing in the article gets to the "why," so this could have little to do with ObamaCare.  We simply don't know, because the LATimes doesn't do journalism.  As expected the LATimes provides Communist Opinion and very little facts for those who want to learn and understand an issue.  Instead they offer a bait and switch directly from their Communist Manifesto.

This article spend it's entire saggy length "thugging" readers as to why the insurance company has the audacity to raise rates when it has all them evil "reserves."  Ok...that's helpful.  All we need is a photo of a union thug with a lead pipe standing next to a Blue Shield of CA sign, and this story would be a keeper.  All that an inquisitive, "high-information" voter can thus deduce from this "article" is this:  Communists and Socialists and the LATimes thugs have little compassion for financial reserves.  Perhaps they need a new headline writer!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Well, this is what happens when the "newspapers" and ownership of is consolidated down to just a few controllers and private equity firms. When there is no viable competition doing real journalism, why bother? This has nothing to do with (and is the polar opposite of) any communist leanings. That's just right-wing paranoia talking. Same as left wing paranoia.

Who reads the LA times anymore anyway other than to scour for coupons on sunday?

I just love how hardcore right wingers are just absolutely certain they are nothing like those "liberals" or "libtards" .... We're all exactly the same. Sorry to break it to you. Falling for one line of bullshit over another is simply not enough to differentiate.

[18thofMay]

Aetna CEO Sees Obama Health Law Doubling Some Premiums
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/aetna-ceo-sees-obama-health-law-doubling-some-premiums.html

While this falls under the "predictions" category -- coming from a CEO in the industry who's job it is to deal with this stuff (as opposed to a professor, media head, politician or Beach Boy fan  ) -- I'm not opposed to mentioning it in here.

Perhaps even more interesting, however is the potential that Washington may delay portions of the 2014 rollout of Obamacare, to help limit said shock.  This too a prediction, but something I think could happen.  Obama and the DemoRats will still be in control 2014 -- with mid-term elections -- I'd say this is likely.  I see them passing this off to the next Administration and Congress.

The one thing Americans agree on is the DemoRats ability to blame Republicans (or Re-"thug"-licans    as they call them).  So...I can totally see the 'Rats kicking this turd down the road.  And when they do...we'll know why, as predicted.  Regardless of what they and the media try to sell all them "low-information" voters out there.

Your friend,
Bean Bag.  Keepin' you one step ahead...

Did someone mention something about low information voters??

http://youtu.be/nY0M7IdNl7U

That video is very funny and very sad!

[18thofMay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448

Kill the Bill
 

[Jason]

Well, this is what happens when the "newspapers" and ownership of is consolidated down to just a few controllers and private equity firms. When there is no viable competition doing real journalism, why bother? This has nothing to do with (and is the polar opposite of) any communist leanings. That's just right-wing paranoia talking. Same as left wing paranoia.

Who reads the LA times anymore anyway other than to scour for coupons on sunday?

I just love how hardcore right wingers are just absolutely certain they are nothing like those "liberals" or "libtards" .... We're all exactly the same. Sorry to break it to you. Falling for one line of bullsh*t over another is simply not enough to differentiate.

Like so-called "conservatives" who wanted Romney for president just because "he's not Obama"...when really the two are indistinguishable as far as policies are concerned. BRING ON THE FISCAL CLIFF!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

+ 1

[grillo]

Well, this is what happens when the "newspapers" and ownership of is consolidated down to just a few controllers and private equity firms. When there is no viable competition doing real journalism, why bother?  

Kinda like how, when you have a monopoly on violence (the government), there is no need to provide any anything ever.

[Jason]

Honestly, many Democrats AND Republicans fall into the "liberal" crowd. I say "liberal" because liberals of the last hundred years of so have pushed for and passed policies based on control, force, and the bloating of the state. This is in line with American progressives, the Eastern bloc socialists, the Nazi Party, the Communist Parties of China and Cuba, the Workers' Party of Korea, Hamas, Fatah, Likud, most so-called "parlimentary democracies" and "constitutional monarchies"...

True conservatives do not push for any kind of state control and do not believe in force. They believe in self-defense, not preemptive war. They also believe in "live and let live". Of course, during the colonial period of the United States, these folks were called "liberal". Make of that what you will.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Very well put. And I thank you for making these distinctions clear.

There is such a thing as corporate violence as well though....

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Okay, One last try...
Words have meanings. I have tried to define the words I am using.

Of course I agree that “words have meanings” and I would say that adhering to the accepted definition of terms is crucial if we are going to approach anything resembling a coherent line of thinking or rational discussion. This is why I don’t particularly think your approach has been at all helpful. I agree that you have “tried to define the words” that you are using and this may very well be the source of the problem since the definitions that you come up with have no real connection to actual definitions but are rather entirely constructed by you based on whatever you have chosen to believe about them, and these beliefs have been very much shaped by an ideological worldview. Take for example the definition you give of socialism in this post, which you suggest more than once to be “the forced transfer of wealth.” Now, of course, on the surface this bears no real resemblance to any common definition of the term but if you look deeper what you find is that one can come to an even more striking conclusion – that this definition is neither in the documentary record (for example, the philosophical tradition, such as Marx) nor the historical record (any genuine example of a socialist community). In fact, what you find is quite the opposite of what you claim – that a properly functioning socialist society would see the eradication of all political power (see Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto). Simply defining words is meaningless if you are merely spinning your own personal definitions out of your head. What's more problematic is that it is ultimately  disingenuous to concoct definitions based on no real historical understanding of these terms and I am certainly under no obligation of defending your personal definition, especially when it bears no real resemblance to reality. A similar case could be made for your definition of government throughout this thread, but I am afraid I do not have the time or energy to untangle all of your concoctions.

. If you do not think people can have justly aquired property then yes, you are naive in the extreme.

And here you have entirely overlooked my point (as you do quite strikingly when you offer to take my computer and car) which means that you outright ignored the distinction that I made between personal property and productive property. See, here is where definitions are important and I think that it is telling that you entirely ignored this crucial point. Recall that before the industrial revolution private property was not a term that denoted personal property but rather land ownership. Once industrialization went into effect it became crucial to confuse the population who were to be obedient participants in the capitalist system and so the long-standing definition was altered and to great success, as your own posts indicate. But in the 19th century, it became obvious to some that the distinction between the two was still crucial and held that if one were talking about private property, it would not make sense to talk about personal possessions but rather to talk about ownership of productive property that, at this point, produced profit for those in the ownership class.

Note my inclusion of “at this point” and that is a significant inclusion which reaffirms the point I was making which fostered the above response – namely that the idea of private property in the capitalist sense is and always will be bound with actions that fundamentally robbed the vast majority of the English population from their means of subsistence. Therefore, the preservation of private property in the capitalist sense is simply the maintenance of force over the population. It seems to me that this point is not “naïve in the extreme” as you put it but, rather, historically accurate.

Recall that the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism in England and throughout the general region was part of a long process that essentially began with actions carried out first by landowners than by landowners with the backing authority of British Parliament to dispossess people of commonly shared land, often by force, seizing their land and placing under private ownership. Thus private property as we understand it comes into being specifically with an act of violent force that actively works to undermine and delegitimize the common rights of the population. Thus private property simply doesn’t exist without force. And, of course, this whole system which is now considered mostly by the fringe Libertarian movement as being “natural” and some sort of metaphor for a real and genuine human experience was resisted by large movements that simply had to be put down by the ownership class. Thus, you have movements such as Kett’s Rebellion of 1549, the Midland Revolt and Newton Rebellion of 1607 which was mostly peasant-based activist movements to try to reclaim the commonly shared land from which they were forcefully uprooted and dispossessed. The very beginnings of the industrial revolution are typically credited to this shift away from an agrarian-based economy which was operated commonly under an open field system to a machine-based manufacturing system. This could only, happen, though, once the common system had been destroyed and following that, once the active resistance to this destruction by those who were dispossessed, had been put down.

The inevitable consequence of the land being conquered by the wealthy elite and the creation of private property was, of course, the criminalization of the peasant class (since vagrancy was considered criminal) and therefore the rise of crime and pauperism as villagers lost their means of subsistence. But furthermore, it also provided a necessary labour class for the manufacturing industry to exploit in their need for profit. This is why the age-old argument by the right that “no one is forcing you, you can always find another job” is always painfully hollow and remarkably ignorant since this version of “freedom” is only a freedom that has been created for us on behalf of the ownership class, once they actually historically eliminated the kind of society that allowed people to have real genuine control over what they do and how they live their lives. Historically, then, capitalism (or, a system based on the private ownership of the means of production) simply could not have existed or lasted without the elite class forcefully and violently seizing land of the peasantry, actively suppressing resistance to this movement by force, turning their common productive space into privately owned land in order to make profit, and sending the peasant society into the city because they had no other option for their survival as legitimate citizens. And a similar story is true within the United States, with the history of the seizure of Native land. And furthermore, this is why the Libertarian argument in favour of freedom is so laughable since it so often refers to a freedom for property or a freedom for full control over property which was only achieved because of a history of depriving people from their traditional rights and dispossessing them of their own property. This is akin to murdering a King, taking over the Kingdom and then decrying the moral legitimacy of those who might likewise try to take over the Kingdom through murder. It is this long history of private property that I refer to and thus your quips about my computer and car have no relevance.

. Do you also believe people do not own their actions and the effects of their actions?

I’m not sure what you mean by “own their actions” but I do find your suggestion that we treat actions like property to be confusing the very idea of what an action is. If you mean do people have full control over their actions, I would say that they do to an extent. Let’s take an example though: there are people now who devote their entire working lives to evolutionary biology. Of course, before the 19th century, there was no one devoting their lives to this pursuit. This had nothing to do with choice. Rather, because of when they were born, those people simply didn’t have the options available to them. So, I hope then, that this very obvious example shows that context to a large degree shapes people’s actions but more than that it also shapes belief systems and belief systems, to a large degree, shape our actions. So, yes, people control their actions but the actions people take are largely the results of choices that are made available to them by the contexts in which they live. Take your own point of view, for example. It shouldn’t be surprising that a faux-Libertarian belief like the one that you espouse should be mostly contained to a cultural group within the United States. Take a look, for example, at the readership of Ayn Rand. She’s virtually unheard of outside of North America but in the US she’s a major cult figure. Well that should tell you something about how much people are in “control over their actions.” In the United States there’s not only a history of major rebellion against government force but there’s also a ruling ideology which suggests that it’s a bad thing to help other people since independence and self-sustainability are the supreme virtues. It’s no surprise that in this environment where such beliefs are entrenched and thus are indoctrinally reinforced constantly in media, images, education, etc. that a Ayn Rand-style Libertarian movement would have some degree of popularity amongst a sector of the population. Now, again, people have a degree of choice in that – their choice, in the United States, is to either accept it or not accept it but that’s a choice that is made for you by the context in which you live and it is a choice that others don’t necessarily have to face to the same degree.

If so I feel it is pointless to continue as your definition of freedom is what is best for most, when that is patently false

I don’t understand how a definition of freedom could possibly be “what is best for most.” I highly doubt that I said that since I don’t understand it. That would be like saying that your definition of toast is “what is tastiest for most.” I mean it makes absolutely no sense. But again, this is a problem because if we can’t have a rational discussion when you make up definitions for yourself, we certainly can’t have one if you are making up definitions for me. To be honest, this is a fairly shameful rhetorical tactic and is one of the reasons why I was not particularly motivated to quickly respond to you.

Mob rule, I'm sorry, socialism (the forced transfer of wealth) has failed catastrophically everytime it has been tried because it is based on non-reality.

Perhaps you can give me an example of this and explain how it was “based on non-reality.”

Humans desire things.

I’m not entirely certain what that has to do with either socialism or capitalism but perhaps that is because “Humans desire things” is such a fundamentally vague statement – though I imagine that that’s by design. What do you mean by “things”? Well, let’s take your own words to give us an example:

If I want your watermelon (which you have twenty of) and you want my frisbee, then it is mutually beneficial for us to trade. This is the free market. If you have fifty plastic pigs and you want my frisbee but I do not want your pigs, do you feel you have the right to my frisbee anyway?

First of all, what you describe may be “the free market” (and that would be a fiction - the usual imaginary exercise that you present rather than a reality) but it’s not the capitalist free market since your description does not take into account the ownership of the tools used to make the product nor does it take into account the profit model since (if I’m the guy with the watermelon in this scenario, though not necessarily the watermelon grower, a distinction that you really do have to make clear when talking about free markets) my goal is not to get another product but to make a profit. Thus, under a free market capitalist model, I would want to ensure that a Frisbee had more value than my watermelons. But, of course, if that were the case, then you probably wouldn’t want to trade it which is why if a free market system like the one you describe is going to work, it can’t really work along capitalist lines unless one of the traders is always going to be dim.

Furthermore, you note that humans “desire things” but I am curious, to use your example (though there are endless others), if there is a record of people desiring a Frisbee before it went on the market. I ask this because it seems to me that capitalism does not operate on the grounds of giving people things that they desire. Rather, it operates on the need for profit and thus must create desires in people. I have no doubt that there are things that humans desire but under capitalism those very real desires must be channelled towards items on the market created by manufacturers for the sole purpose of turning a profit. The fact that people buy things now is no evidence that capitalism fulfils basic human needs better than other economic systems – it simply proves that it has been effective at channeling people’s desire in a way that allows for its own survival.  

The state has destroyed almost every vestige of the free market (humans acting voluntarily to serve their own rational best interest) by imposing and inserting itself between individuals.

At which point did this “free market” exist?

Freedom isn't "everyone has the same stuff", but everyone has the same rules applied to them, from the street-sweeper to governor, protecting them from, as well as barring them from coercion and violence.

Applied to them by whom? Who determines these rules?

Leftist Anarchism they way you define it is simply impossible.

You mean the way you define it? Or are you actually referring to the definition that I've given several times on this board? If so, please explain how it is impossible and how do you account for the cases where it has been successful?

Things must be created

Must they? Which things? And what is the historical evidence to suggest that they must be created? Are you referring to babies, which must be created for the survival of the species? Or do you just mean products? Must a Frisbee be created in the same way that a baby must be created? If so, explain how. If not, what do you mean by "must"?

Some people are better at using resources than others.

I realize how it must seem that way now, now that people have had their genuine freedom for the most part taken away. People with a better historical vantage point have understood this. This is why I ultimately agree with Adam Smith who argued that the division of labour essentially de-humanized people and made them "ignorant and stupid" because in such a system, people are reduced to performing "a few very simple operations" and even then, those operations are basically dictated by a dominant force. Smith was acutely aware that when one’s “whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same” then one “has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur” and therefore “naturally loses…the habit of such exertion.” It is for this reason that Smith suggested the inevitable need for government intervention in a capitalist society and it reflects the fact that he witnessed how the division of labor created a system wherein “some people” became “better at using resources than others” as the “great body of the people” had come “to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently one or two.”

You see, you happen to be writing from a period where all of the victories carried out by the capitalist ruling class have been won so that our way of life begins to appear “natural” when in fact it was bitterly arrived at through extreme force and the eventual bludgeoning of the population. Therefore you can say that “Some people are better at using resources than others” as if this is just the way life is, when in fact, life is like this and people are like this because they have been actively shaped this way by the economic system. But there’s absolutely nothing natural or realistic about it. This, by the way, is also why I find videos like the one Billy posted where he repeatedly referred to people as a-holes to be unconvincing (no offense to Billy - I still like the video for its humour and I believe we came to some common ground on this...)

There were a few more statements you made but they were based on the same fabricated definitions that I have already dealt with or restated points that I think I already addressed with the exception of your point that I “do not understand economics” as a consequence of my “12 years of government education" which, to be honest, doesn't merit a response. If you feel there was something legitimate I did not address please let me know but I’m afraid I will be unable to respond further to fabrications.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Very well put. And I thank you for making these distinctions clear.

It's important to note though that these distinctions are not entirely clear, as TRBB states it. There is more than one kind of state intervention - there is the kind that Adam Smith outlined which suggested that an intervention that can help people and there are other kinds which are constructed to harm people. To conflate all state intervention together (lumping in the Nazis with parliamentary democracies for example) is ludicrous but necessary if we are to see a society where corporate power dominates above all else.

[Bean Bag]

It's not ObamaCare, but...
Belgium looks at euthanasia for minors, Alzheimer's sufferers
http://www.france24.com/en/20121218-belgium-looks-euthanasia-minors-alzheimers-sufferers

"Belgium is considering a significant change to its decade-old euthanasia law that would allow minors and Alzheimer's sufferers to seek permission to die.  The proposed changes to the law were submitted to parliament Tuesday by the Socialist party... 'The idea is to update the law to take better account of dramatic situations and extremely harrowing cases we must find a response to,' party leader Thierry Giet said."

You know, they're just looking for solutions.  Yeah.  I have to say... these are also quite effective cost cutting measures, you know.  I'm just saying... 

[Bean Bag]

Well, kiss my grits!  Socialist France is gettin' in too!
France takes first step toward medically-assisted suicide
http://www.france24.com/en/20121219-france-medically-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-healthcare-reform-hollande?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=reseaux_sociaux&ns_fee=0&ns_linkname=20121219_france_medically_assisted_suicide_euthanasia_healthcare

The Socialists know how to do it!  They must have been hanging out with our beloved U.S. Democrats, because they know how to sell this turd...

"Doctors criticised.  The new report ...was scathing of doctors’ reluctance to apply existing laws.  ...accusing them of having a “cure at all costs” culture that was “deaf to the psychological distress of patients and of their wishes”.  He said he favoured amending the 2005 law to broaden the circumstances in which doctors can help the terminally ill die..."

Attack the medical profession.  That's where you start.  You must de-legitimize the doctor's opinions, you see.  They can't move the football if them doctors are in the way...trust me.  Them doctors with their archaic need to "cure at all costs."  Whoops... did you catch that?  Costs.  Yeah, yeah... I saw it.  It was in there.  Did you see it?

[Bean Bag]

Braces for the Kids Just Got More Expensive: Obamacare Tax Hike Case Study
http://atr.org/braces-kids-more-expensive-obamacare-tax-a7407#ixzz2Hjfusahx

In 2013, the tax increases in Obamacare will increasingly conspire against kitchen-table family healthcare decisions.

[Bean Bag]

Southwestern Pa. hospital to stop baby deliveries
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20603065/southwestern-pa-hospital-to-stop-baby-deliveries

"hospital officials believe they can't afford it based on projected reimbursements under looming federal health care reforms... the number of births the hospital would be called upon to perform isn't enough for it to provide the service in the face of lower reimbursements under the federal Affordable Care Act.  Officials aren't sure how many jobs will be lost."

Well, that stinks.

[Bean Bag]

Exclusive - Wal-Mart's everyday hiring strategy: Add more temps
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-walmart-hires-temps-idUSBRE95C05820130613

"It also could set an example for some other companies as they look for ways to cushion themselves from a potential rise in healthcare costs next year as a result of President Barack Obama's health care reforms, according industry experts and retail executives."

[Bean Bag]

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/13/news/economy/obamacare-affordable/index.html?

"States are starting to roll out details about the exchanges, providing a look at just how affordable coverage under the Affordable Care Act will be. Some potential participants may be surprised at the figures: $2,000 deductibles, $45 primary care visit co-pays, and $250 emergency room tabs."

[Bean Bag]

Obamacare "A Massive Transfer Of Wealth From The Young To The Old"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/02/krauthammer_obama_a_massive_transfer_of_wealth_from_the_young_to_the_old.html

"Young people are going to be paying double and triple what [they] would ordinarily be paying in health insurance if the premium were linked to the risk, which is the way that would be for the last 600 years in insurance. But it's not..."

[Bean Bag]

Wegmans cuts health benefits for part-time workers
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130710/BUSINESS/130719892/1003
The Rochester-based grocer that has been continually lauded for providing health insurance to its part-time workers will no longer offer that benefit.

Until recently, the company voluntarily offered health insurance to employees who worked 20 hours per week or more. Companies are required by law to offer health insurance only to full-time employees who work 30 hours or more per week.

Several Wegmans employees confirmed part-time health benefits had been cut and said the company said the decision was related to changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act.

[Alex]

Wegmans cuts health benefits for part-time workers
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130710/BUSINESS/130719892/1003
The Rochester-based grocer that has been continually lauded for providing health insurance to its part-time workers will no longer offer that benefit.

Until recently, the company voluntarily offered health insurance to employees who worked 20 hours per week or more. Companies are required by law to offer health insurance only to full-time employees who work 30 hours or more per week.

Several Wegmans employees confirmed part-time health benefits had been cut and said the company said the decision was related to changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act.

Looks like it's time for the workers to unionize.

[guitarfool2002]

Wegmans cuts health benefits for part-time workers
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130710/BUSINESS/130719892/1003
The Rochester-based grocer that has been continually lauded for providing health insurance to its part-time workers will no longer offer that benefit.

Until recently, the company voluntarily offered health insurance to employees who worked 20 hours per week or more. Companies are required by law to offer health insurance only to full-time employees who work 30 hours or more per week.

Several Wegmans employees confirmed part-time health benefits had been cut and said the company said the decision was related to changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act.

Looks like it's time for the workers to unionize.

Check the recent updates on several prominent unions and union leaders like James Hoffa Jr. from the Teamsters and the union representing IRS government workers - In short, they're not happy and they don't support the Affordable Care Act and the effects they think it will have on their workers. The signatures on the letter:  UFCW stands for United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE-HERE represents certain areas of the hospitality industry including casino workers.

The head of the union which would represent Wegman's employees, the UFCW, signed this letter. Which means even if those workers did join, their union seems to have serious concerns if not outright objections to the Affordable Care Act as it stands to be implemented.

This is a letter sent by three union leaders including Hoffa to Sen. Reid (D) and Rep. Pelosi (D), the actual letter is in italics.

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.


Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

James P. Hoffa
General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Joseph Hansen
International President
UFCW

D. Taylor
President
UNITE-HERE


Interesting.

[Jason]

You know your law is f***ed when even the unions who lobbied for it are now against it.