Obamacare will cost us all more than he said

Here comes the really big Obama tax hike. No matter what anybody said, people who already had and were happy with their health will be paying a lot more and will have to make changes. I would say it is irony, but I think it was a result Obama folks wanted. They are making it more expensive for people to take responsibility for their own health care.

Think about health care. Most of us have not thought of those details. Think about them now. We take the deal we get and it comes in a package. My health care has lots of things I would not sign up for if it were unbundled, lots of things I don't want. The controversial part we all recall is birth control funding, which I would not include, but there are lots of others. So now Obama will mandate that my policies have those thing AND he will tax me on the additional costs of those Obama mandates that I would not buy if given a clear choice.

So our Obama is forcing us to buy a product and then taxing us on it too. It is really messed up. It shows the perverted relationship he thinks government should have with us. He calls health care a right and a necessity. Then he makes it more expensive for us to get it. What he really wants is to drive us into the big government barn where government will take care of us, making sure we cannot take care of ourselves and that we all get "equal" care, no matter what we want.

Here is my simple solution.

I pay around 1/3 of my insurance costs. My employer pays 2/3. Good . Why not just let my employer pay me the full amount. Obama can tax it, but I can decide what insurance to buy. I would go for a higher deductible that didn't cover things like birth control, drug abuse etc, thing I have no need to have.

One reason why health care became so expensive is that somebody else pays for it. We don't shop around for health care because we have little incentive to do so AND because we often cannot. Insurers and government glom on extra services that few of us would buy if not bundled into our plan.

What will probably happen under Obama is the worst of all options. We will have fewer choices; they will cost more AND Obama will tax us on it all.

The only bright side, maybe, would be if we get into business selling bumper stickers saying:

"Don't blame me. I didn't vote for Obama."

Posted by Christine & John at December 26, 2012 3:37 PM
Comments
Comment #359444

Well said C/J. It sure seems like obama and his liberal cohorts are determined to change our Republic into a Democracy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 26, 2012 6:02 PM
Comment #359446

Royal

I was just doing some math. I am not a rich man, but I will be paying thousands more in taxes. But it gets worse. The health care changes will cost me thousands more and on top of all that I will have fewer health care choices.

We were told that these fears were just “right wing propaganda” but they are clearly coming to pass must faster than we thought.

I did not believe it, but it really looks like the Obama plan is to destroy the independence of Americans in this important part of their lives. And whether or not this is the Obama plan, it is having that result.

Posted by: C&J at December 26, 2012 6:17 PM
Comment #359448

It is truly frightening C/J that we are daily being subjected to more and more government control, by force, over so many personal decisions we should be making individually in our lives. The left continues to argue that we, as individuals, don’t know how to conduct our lives for our own safety and security. They insist that because some are incapable of good judgement, we must all be subjected to their mandates.

We are entering a time of enforced “leveling” in this country. No longer will some be allowed to have more than others despite their willingness to diligently pursue better lives by being better prepared and more productive.

The deliberately unprepared and unproductive make demands upon others which government enforces by some notion of making us all equal.

I want no part of this utopian world the left envisions. I suspect you don’t either.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 26, 2012 6:35 PM
Comment #359450

Royal

I prefer to make my own choices, but the Obama folks are making that harder and harder.

They dictate what type of health care we need to buy and then tax us on what we don’t want. They define as “rich” anybody who has a job and reasonably diligent work and saving habits and criticize us for not wanting to give our savings to those who didn’t work or invest well.

Remember the story of the ants and the grasshopper? Today the ants would be called insensitive and intolerant “ant supremacists” and they would be forced to fund grasshopper wellness and cultural centers. Young ants would be told that they no longer really needed to work if they voted the right way. Some of the more politically aware ants would team up with malcontent grasshoppers and cockroaches to occupy nearby open areas, where they would mooch food and stay until they filled the place with crap and had to move on. If anybody complained, they would be accused of prejudice against the cockroaches. It is depressing.

Or the “Little Red Hen” - today would be forced to share all the bread with the other animals and as punishment harvest more grain herself.

Posted by: C&J at December 26, 2012 6:52 PM
Comment #359451

C&J,
Perhaps you will be absolutely right in pulling out of the markets for the time being. It is very difficult to predict such things, but at least in an IRA, changes do not come with tax consequences.

I’ll pass on two pieces of experience with investments, especially equity markets.

1) Short term reactions to events are almost always emotional and wrong. Yes, we feel bad about assassinations or bombings, or even seemingly cataclysmic events such as 9/11, but the brutal truth is that they usually do not matter in terms of the economy. We do not have a shortage of politicians, and even in the case of events like 9/11, 3,000 lives and some big buildings do not have much of an effect on a multi-trillion dollar economy. That sounds really, really awful, but it is true, and the past performances of stock markets will bear that out. Even in the case of 9/11, the stock markets recovered all losses in just six weeks. Look at such occurences as rare buying opportunities.

2) Recognize where we are in the econmic cycle and act accordingly. Remember, when it comes to equity markets and when to buy and sell, your emotions are your biggest enemy, and that includes partisanship.

There are four stages in any stock market: 1) Disbelief. The market goes up, but no one believes in it. 2) Recognition, which sets in after the markets have already made gains, and people start to say ‘maybe this is a bull market, but… but… it could go down again… I’m not sure’; 3) Optimism, when people say ‘this is definitely a bull market, and soon I will participate, then 4) Capitulation. At this point, everyone says it is a bull market, and anyone not participating must be crazy, that economic cycles no longer apply, happy days are here again, and so on.

The same stages apply to declines.

Where are we? Most people remain leary of the stock markets despite having lived through one of the biggest bull markets in American history. The media never mentions it. Never. Positive economic numbers are greeted with doubt, questions, and outright disbelief- even conspiracy theories that good news couldn’t possibly be true. Just look at all that bad news out there!

In terms of the big picture, we are clearly still in the second stage.

That’s not to say that the markets couldn’t get tanked by an act of economic sabotage. It would take something truly evil, such as inducing a depression by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, to knock the markets down. That’s possible, but not likely.

Personally, I remain bullish, with most of my net worth dependent on just one stock in the stock market, and margined, at that. It’s scary, and I do not recommend such an action for others. It violates pretty much every common sense rule of investing. You know, do as I say, not…

Posted by: phx8 at December 26, 2012 10:09 PM
Comment #359453

C$J
Your right. If we all had to shop for our healthcare it would get cheaper. What we need to do is get both the government and insurance companies out of the healthcare business.
If folks had to pay for their own healthcare out of their own pockets they would start shopping for doctors and hospitals that give the best service at the lowest rates. Both would be forced to lower their rates and give better service or lose patients.
When I was a youngin no one had healthcare insurance. The closest thing was hospitalization. And very few had that. The doctor would drive the 12 miles from town to our house and treat 4 or 5 of us. His bill would be around $5. And he’d come out on Saturday and Sunday too.
Hospitals would take payments on your bill. Prescriptions coast no more than a buck or two.
Then the insurance companies and the government decided they needed to get into the healthcare business. Prices started going up and insurance rates have gone through the roof. And service took a nose dive.
I’m not saying that healthcare will ever be as cheap as was when I was a kid. But if everyone had to pay for their healthcare out of their own pockets, things would get cheaper and better.
I find it disturbing that no one wants to pay for the things they say are most important to them anymore.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 26, 2012 10:32 PM
Comment #359455
They are making it more expensive for people to take responsibility for their own health care.

C&J you and Royal are special with all this whining about how all of a sudden it is Obama that is taking away your liberty. The fact is you haven’t had a choice to take responsibility for your health care for years. It is your employer who has that choice and has had all this time. You may have had the choice to work elsewhere but that is it. It has been the insurance companies who have raised rates for years, double digit increases year after year.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2012 12:12 AM
Comment #359459

Some people, in their desire to become dependent subjects who are provided for by somebody else, have totally lost all comprehension of what individual rights and freedoms are and how they work.

An individual is responsible for their own health care and, until the ACA is fully implemented, they have a choice in how to provide for it or not.
The insurance ones employer offers is nothing more than another option to include while making a choice on which insurance to pay for. The employer does not have the choice to determine your health insurance unless your choice is to give it to them.

We do not have a right to be provided something because we are too broke or lazy to provide it for ourselves.

Posted by: kctim at December 27, 2012 9:25 AM
Comment #359460

Who are you kidding kctim? The mythical choice you talk about is nonexistent for most Americans.


“According to the United States Census Bureau, roughly 55% obtain insurance through an employer, while about 10% purchase it directly. About 31% of Americans were enrolled in a public health insurance program: 14.5% (45 million – although that number has since risen to 48 million) had Medicare, 15.9% (49 million) has Medicaid, and 4.2% (13 million) had military health insurance (there is some overlap, causing percentages to add up to more than 100%).[3]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2012 9:42 AM
Comment #359461

Man J2, you guys really can’t grasp the concept of freedom, can you.

The fact is that we ALL have the choice on where to get our health insurance. It being cheaper on a group plan through an employer, you not being able to afford it, or you choosing not to have it, does not mean that freedom is no longer there.

Posted by: kctim at December 27, 2012 10:40 AM
Comment #359462

love this.

“Reporting Employer Provided Health Coverage in Form W-2
The Affordable Care Act requires employers to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan on an employee’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, in Box 12, using Code DD. Many employers are eligible for transition relief for tax-year 2012 and beyond, until the IRS issues final guidance for this reporting requirement.
The amount reported does not affect tax liability, as the value of the employer excludible contribution to health coverage continues to be excludible from an employee’s income, and it is not taxable. This reporting is for informational purposes only, to show employees the value of their health care benefits so they can be more informed consumers.”


Of course this will never be used to levy a tax on the employers portion. Ha Ha !


http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

And this is just a small fraction of the new regulations in the 2000 plus page piece of s#!t passed by the democrats in 2009.


“The amount reported does not affect tax liability, as the value of the employer excludible contribution to health coverage continues to be excludible from an employee’s income, and it is not taxable.”

No of course not. Not until these idiots realize they’ve underestimated the cost of this turd, and they need more money.

Posted by: dbs at December 27, 2012 10:54 AM
Comment #359465

What I find funny is that you’re using a hypothetic end of a deduction to claim a real tax hike where one isn’t already. Yes, there is that tax on investment income, but its in a place where the targets can afford it.

You’re just looking for big, counterintuitive shocking news moments.

You want one? A party that claims it wants to create certainty in the markets is the source of the legislation that is creating the most uncertainty, not to mention the party that keeps on putting the markets in doubt that America will pay its debts. Another bit of irony: yours, the party that claims to be all about fiscal responsibility, is responsible for most of the spending increases you blame on Obama, and on the other side of things, threatening to default on America’s debt, a move both irresponsible in terms of policy, and counterproductive in terms of long term management of that debt (in other words, we will pay more).

The party that claimed it would create more jobs and growth is directly responsible for policy that is the biggest threat to both in the current markets.

The bumper-sticker should read “Don’t blame me, I was voting out Republicans first.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 27, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #359467
Man J2, you guys really can’t grasp the concept of freedom, can you.

Using your logic kctim we haven’t lost a thing we are still free to chose.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2012 11:35 AM
Comment #359472

Really J2? We all can still choose not to purchase insurance without fear of punishment? No, we can’t.

The founders logic I used defines freedom and applies to all. Leftist logic that takes away or limits choice, does not.

Posted by: kctim at December 27, 2012 12:29 PM
Comment #359477

phx8,
You have a pretty good track record with predictions. Could you possibly share the name of the company you are all in with - might be worth a nibble.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 27, 2012 1:15 PM
Comment #359484

I believe we are all missing the big picture; the sole purpose of the ACA is to eventually put all Americans on a government run, single payer system. This will put another 17% of America’s economy in the general slushfund of the Federal government. It is also the goal of redistribution of America’s wealth by making those who work pay for the HC of those who won’t and those who are in the country illegally. It’s not really hard to figure it out. Within just a few years, the ACA will be as broke as SS and Medicare:

“The Social Security program ran a $47.8 billion deficit in fiscal 2012 as the program brought in $725.429 billion in cash and paid $773.247 for benefits and overhead expenses, according to official data published by Social Security Administration.

The Social Security Administration also released new data revealing that the number of workers collecting disability benefits hit a record 8,827,795 in December—up from 8,805,353 in November.

The overall number of Social Security program beneficiaries—including retired workers, dependent family members and survivors and disabled workers and their dependent family members—also hit a record in December, climbing from 56,658,978 in November to 56,758,185 in December.

In 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was an average of 112.556 million full-time workers in the United States, of whom 17.806 million worked full-time for local, state or federal government. That left an average of only 94.750 million full-time private sector workers in the country.

That means that for every 1.67 Americans who worked full-time in the private sector in 2011, there is now 1 person collecting benefits from the Social Security administration.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/social-security-ran-478b-deficit-fy-2012-disabled-workers-hit-new-record-december

How long do we honestly think we can keep this up???

Posted by: george at December 27, 2012 3:48 PM
Comment #359486

Treasury is getting ready to sell its ownership in GM. By the time all shares are sold the estimated loss to American taxpayers for the GM bailout will be about $25 billion.

My liberal friends will cheer of course pointing out that an estimated one million jobs were saved. We will never know how GM would have fared with a regular bankruptcy rather than a gov. rescue. The odds are that a buyer would have been found and the taxpayers wouldn’t take a hit of $25 billion. Is spending $25,000 million to possibly save a million jobs a great deal? At $25,000 per job the price seems steep. But then, some of the stimulus programs resulted in jobs costing over $100,000. You have to be a liberal to love that math.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2012 3:57 PM
Comment #359489

Royal Flush-
What would have been the loss to the American Treasury over time for the collapse of the auto industry, and the economies that depended upon them?

As for how they would have fared?

We know private investors not only weren’t interested, they weren’t capable. So you would not have seen a private bailout. Without that, a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the kind that keeps these companies in action would not have taken place.

That leaves Chapter 7, which means liquidation. That means more than just the loss of those jobs.

That means additional applications for unemployment benefits, additional secondary unemployment, this at a point where we were already losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.

Turn four million jobs lost into five or six million, and how much more are you paying out per year in unemployment benefits? How much less are you getting in taxes?

We probably would have lost more than 25 billion the first year alone paying out the unemployment benefits. You Republicans have got to stop imagining ways to make financial crisis situations worse. They don’t tend to benefit you politically when you put them into action.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 27, 2012 4:49 PM
Comment #359498

phx8

Re stocks - I am mostly just playing with this. But I do figure the downside risk is small.

I have no confidence in Obama’s ability to help the economy. In fact, I think he will do harm and has been slowing the recovery that we should be enjoying. I don’t say this as a partisan, but as an investor who is acting with his own money on what he believes is a decent guess about the future.

Re occurrences - 9/11 was a big deal. We recovered because 9/11 was followed by decent economic policy. As I wrote above, I don’t have confidence that Obama policy makers will do the right things and I believe that things like Obama care will harm recovery.

However, I have longer term confidence in the U.S. After the drop, I plan to mostly get back in but buying back at a lower price. We should thank Obama, I suppose, for the buying opportunity.

This is the beauty of the free market. I get to make decisions based on what I think is right for me and you get to make them based on what you think is best for you. We do not have to agree. We will prosper or suffer based on our decisions.

Re ObamaCare - what I don’t like about it is that he is dictating my choices and then taxing me on his choice, not mine.

j2t2

Maybe true health care reform would have been to give us more choices. As I wrote up top, give me the money currently spent on insurance and let me buy what I think best. Obama didn’t offer that. Also, let more of us set up health saving accounts, so that we can pay for our own needs.

Obama’s reforms are taking away choice and freedom.

Stephen

“Yes, there is that tax on investment income, but its in a place where the targets can afford it.” Don’t you ever get sick of trying to take other people’s money?

We have been saving and investing our whole life. I saved money when I was working at McDonald’s. I deserve every penny I have. I already pay big money in taxes. Just because I CAN pay more because I acted responsibly and disciplined my wants in the past, doesn’t mean the less responsible or disciplined have the right to take it from me.

Re the auto industry - It would NOT have collapsed. Plenty of cars are and were made in America by other firms that did not need bailing out. The government helped GM’s unions. Ford did not need the bailout. Neither did the transplants in the South. Why?

By now we would be making the same number of cars in America, but better and less expensively.

George

I think you are right. The ultimate goal is to level us all to the same low level.

“That means that for every 1.67 Americans who worked full-time in the private sector in 2011, there is now 1 person collecting benefits from the Social Security administration.”

YES - our liberal friends want to rip off the young people to make 1.67 of them pay for what we had four or five people to do. Many of them just cannot seem to understand the simple math that 4>1.67.

Posted by: C&J at December 27, 2012 5:44 PM
Comment #359502

C/J wrote; “Just because I CAN pay more because I acted responsibly and disciplined my wants in the past, doesn’t mean the less responsible or disciplined have the right to take it from me.”

That’s about as well said as is possible for even a child to understand. And yet, I recall Daugherty a few posts ago writing…”Why should I pay for my mistakes.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 27, 2012 6:06 PM
Comment #359503

Stephen

“What would have been the loss to the American Treasury over time for the collapse of the auto industry, and the economies that depended upon them?”

What would have happened was the union contracts could have been re negotiated. Obama and the democrats weren’t going to let that happen. It was a payoff to the UAW pure and simple. At the expense of the taxpayers I might add. What a crock of s#!t !

Posted by: dbs at December 27, 2012 6:17 PM
Comment #359514
Maybe true health care reform would have been to give us more choices. As I wrote up top, give me the money currently spent on insurance and let me buy what I think best.

Just more prattle C&J. Your employer can control you a bit more when they pay a portion of your health insurance and you really don’t have a choice but to work elsewhere. Thank Obamacare that should you decide to change employers your health care will not be able to bast you on pre-existing conditions. But hey go ask your employer for your share of the group premium money and see where it gets you.

The fact is the “free market” has made medical care a luxury for the aristocracy unless you are employed. Our health care system is the most costly and the results don’t warrant the costs. The PPACA has attempted to cure a wee bit of that.

A legitimate concern would be to ask why those on medicare/medicaid are forced into buying the much more costly brand name drugs that has been forced upon the American people by conservatives when they “reformed” medicare/medicaid. The drug companies still had the fix in on Obamacare, so much for the “free market”.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2012 12:33 AM
Comment #359516

j2t2

I was/am not in love with the employer pays option. In its current form, it is bad. BUT it appears to be better than the “reform” by Obama.

What it looks like at this point is that my insurance will cost more and I will have less choice than before.

That is why I said that a real reform would have involved more choices and things like health savings accounts more.

So Obama told us that health care reform was the most urgent thing he needed to do. He and his allies spent a year fighting it out. Very heroic. Their contention was they needed to be so tough in order to control costs and improve choices. When all the fighting is done and the dust settles, it looks like we now have a system that costs MORE and gives less choice.

A simple test is to ask how many people if given a choice would prefer to stay with what they had and how many would go into the new plan. I think a majority of Americans would choose what they had. As I wrote, the system I had was not perfect. It could have been improved with reforms. The problem is that Obama not only did not improve it; Obama made something that was not very good even worse. AND he did it at the cost of neglecting the economy and other more important or at least more urgent issues.

Posted by: C&J at December 28, 2012 4:55 AM
Comment #359517

And the reason every industrial country with universal government health care pays less than half of what the US pays is what again? more partisan BS instead of workable solutions.

Posted by: bills at December 28, 2012 8:10 AM
Comment #359519

Stephen:

“Royal Flush-
What would have been the loss to the American Treasury over time for the collapse of the auto industry, and the economies that depended upon them?”

There was plenty of loss to the American treasury with the bailout. Delphi as well as many other suppliers went bust and their employees lost everything. It’s just a crying shame that the democrats weren’t as concerned about non-union employees as they were about protecting their union base.

We will never know how much it really cost the taxpayers. Millions spent in promoting the Chevy Volt, paying for battery companies that went bust, and never forget the government buying Volts for government use. And we will be paying for upkeep and repair of the Volts for years to come. All because Obama knows best.

“We probably would have lost more than 25 billion the first year alone paying out the unemployment benefits.”

We probably wouldn’t have if we stopped extending unemployment benefits into a lifetime income. At some point people have to get out a find a job; since the left keeps telling us how many jobs they have created, and since they are all in favor of importing illegal aliens to do the jobs Americans don’t want.

C&J, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the leftist mind to gasp the concept of businesses operating outside of government inerest. There have been many companies that went belly up over the past 4 years with no help from Obama, and there have been many companies who have gone belly up with Obama bailouts over the past 4 years. The Obama administration has done nothing to save any single business. You are correct, Ford MC did not take the bailout and are doing fine; but GM will go down sooner or later. Obama just postoned the inevitable. How many millions did GM and Chrysler lose because they took the bailout and Americans refused to buy their products for that very reason. I know many people who said that very thing. I am personally buying my wife a new car withing a few months and I will not buy a GM or Chrysler BECAUSE they took the bailout. I WILL buy a non-union made foreign car, built by non-union US workers.

Posted by: george at December 28, 2012 9:36 AM
Comment #359522

“And the reason every industrial country with universal government health care pays less than half of what the US pays is what again?”

Our Constitution and their lack of one like it. But don’t worry bills, we are well on our way to having a government that mandates how you live your life, just as they have.

Posted by: kctim at December 28, 2012 11:54 AM
Comment #359526

“Just more prattle C&J. Your employer can control you a bit more when they pay a portion of your health insurance and you really don’t have a choice but to work elsewhere.”

BS ! You can opt not to participate in the company plan, and purchase insurance privately, or not at all. The not at all is no longer an option thanks to the big gov’t nanny state. Who is really controlling individual choice here ?


“The fact is the “free market” has made medical care a luxury for the aristocracy unless you are employed.”

Gotta call bullshit again. Gov’t interference, and mandates have caused private health insurance costs to rise. Allowing people to puchase just the coverage they feel they need, and from a company in another state if needed would greatly reduce cost. Or not purchase it all, but no we have to force others to buy something they don’t want to so that the nanny state give it to others for free.

George

“There was plenty of loss to the American treasury with the bailout. Delphi as well as many other suppliers went bust and their employees lost everything. It’s just a crying shame that the democrats weren’t as concerned about non-union employees as they were about protecting their union base.”

Spot on. It’s no different than the labor relations board telling Boeing a private company they couldn’t build their airplanes in a “right to work state”. Imagine that, the gov’t telling a private business where they have to operate. Eventual result will be Boeing moving some operations out of the country. Creating jobs for someone else besides the American people, all because Obamas payoff to the unions.

Posted by: dbs at December 28, 2012 12:54 PM
Comment #359529

Always the fallback argument ” They are stealing or freedoms” what BS All you on the right do is point out what’s wrong nothing is ever perfect but the old and tired line is it’s better to do nothing. Have you ever been without health care I have it sucks had small kids at the time very scary. My longest and best friend that was more brother then friend died from no health care at 48 years old left a wife and teenage daughter behind. So if taxs go up so be it better then being dead if we have single payer Great best way to go. It’s the law get over it.

Posted by: Jeff at December 28, 2012 2:08 PM
Comment #359534

The constant liberal drumbeat is very simple…some people have needs and desires and no money to pay for them.

Some people have more money than needed to pay for their own needs and desires.

It is the responsibility of government to force those with more than they need and desire to give to those who have less than they need and desire.

Liberals point to the “Welfare Clause” in our founding documents to prove that it is a legitimate government function to act as Robin Hood.

Liberal political philosophy declares that no one is responsible for their own welfare, that it is a community responsibility. They declare that just as responsibility be shared, so must all wealth.

Daugherty insists that we have become too sophisticated and dependent upon others to rely upon our selves any more in these modern times. And that demands government involvement in nearly every aspect of our lives.

It is true that I can not fix the electrical power-lines when they fail, my car when it stops running, my computer when it crashes, or my heart when it stops beating. What I have chosen to do instead is to work and earn money to pay for those things I can not fix or produce myself. I know that this is a novel idea for liberals, but it works well. I even (gasp) save some of my money for emergencies and retirement.

My liberal friends will quickly tell me that they would also like to work but can’t find jobs. I say…bull crap. What most are saying is that they can’t find a job they feel is worthy of their education or talent and at a wage they will accept. Instead, they insist that I pay them to sit on their ass.

Every person capable of doing some work, and who is receiving unemployment benefits for over three months should be required to perform some type of community work. If the community is responsible for their welfare, the community should also demand some effort on their part.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 28, 2012 3:45 PM
Comment #359544

BillS

“And the reason every industrial country with universal government health care pays less than half of what the US pays is what again?”

Levels of care are different and they benefit from our innovations.

I personally like the Scandinavian methods. They get less care than we do (which is okay, we sometimes get too much); they have a kind of managed care and they don’t involve lawyers. But this is not what the Obama folks gave us. They ostensibly kept the higher, more expensive care (CAT scanners all around); they rejected managed care and they kept and probably strengthened the lawyers. In fact, the Obama folks pretty much kept the problems of our system and just extended it to more people.

Posted by: C&J at December 28, 2012 5:42 PM
Comment #359549

j2
A legitimate concern would be to ask why those on medicare/medicaid are forced into buying the much more costly brand name drugs that has been forced upon the American people by conservatives when they “reformed” medicare/medicaid. The drug companies still had the fix in on Obamacare, so much for the “free market”.

When I turned 65 last year I was sent my Medicare card. I have 4 prescriptions that it helps pays for. All 4 are generic drugs. If this is the case for me, I’m sure that a whole heap of other folks on Medicare are getting generic drugs.
So just where did you get idea that folks on Medicare are ‘forced’ to pay for brand name drugs? From the liberal talking points?
If someone is getting name brand drugs and generics are available it’s most likely because their doctor prescribed them.

Royal
Every person capable of doing some work, and who is receiving unemployment benefits for over three months should be required to perform some type of community work. If the community is responsible for their welfare, the community should also demand some effort on their part.

100% RIGHT! And they should also have to turn in a work search report every week with at least 5 verifiable places they’ve applied to.
I have folks that come in the factory every day looking for work. At least they say they are. I’ve told my receptionist to give them an application and have someone from personnel to interview them. This way if someone from the unemployment office calls we can say that the person has been there.
The receptionist kept track for a week the number of folks that came in ‘looking for work’ and the one’s that actually filled out an application. Of 60 that came in that week 40 filled out the application. That makes 2/3 of the folks that are really looking for work and 1/3 that just wants to say they are. While this is a pretty good ratio, the 20 folks that didn’t fill out an application are just free loading and need to be dropped.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 28, 2012 6:10 PM
Comment #359552

Unemployment insurance is just what it says it’s not Charity. My wife was laid off and it took 10 months to find a job that paid half as much. It was the first time in her 50 years that she was unemployed and I have never collected so what RF and RB posted is just stupid, mean and immature.

Posted by: Jeff at December 28, 2012 6:43 PM
Comment #359553

Ron, j2, I’m on Medicare and the meds I get are all GENERIC, don’t know where you get you info j2 but IMO you need another source.

Posted by: KAP at December 28, 2012 6:44 PM
Comment #359555

Well Jeff at least your wife has good ethics, some would rather collect unemployment than take a job and that’s where it become charity.

Posted by: KAP at December 28, 2012 6:49 PM
Comment #359558

add at half their former wage.

Posted by: KAP at December 28, 2012 6:51 PM
Comment #359571

Jeff
I’m an employer. I pay for my employees unemployment insurance out of my pocket. And I’m happy to do it. It gives them something to live on in case I have to lay them off. And I hope they don’t ever need it.
Unemployment is meant to be short term. In every state it’s 3 months. My rates are based on that. After that the state is paying the unemployed out of taxpayer money. Your money. Not on the unemployment taxes I paid. At this point it become welfare.
I’m not against folks getting unemployment extensions with the way the job market is. But it should be treated the way welfare should be treated. Do some sort of community service for the money.
Those 20 folks that didn’t fill out an application I talked about earlier also most likely won’t be willing to do community service for their unemployment extensions. This would help in thinning out the ranks of those that want to free load off the system.
I’m glad your wife was able to get her unemployment for 10 months. She’s one of many that deserved it. And I’m happy she was able to find a job. I have nothing against her. It’s the free loaders that I have the beef with. They drag things down and cost the taxpayers money they can’t afford.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 28, 2012 11:45 PM
Comment #359583

Unemployment insurance is just what it says it’s not Charity. My wife was laid off and it took 10 months to find a job that paid half as much. It was the first time in her 50 years that she was unemployed and I have never collected so what RF and RB posted is just stupid, mean and immature.
Posted by: Jeff at December 28, 2012 6:43 PM

Jeff, I can assure you that I am not stupid, mean, or immature. What I am is a realist. If taxpayers pay folks to sit on their ass…many will.

But to my main point. If we believe the community is responsible for taking care of folks who are out of work or disabled, or whatever, why is it then unreasonable to expect those who can; to contribute something back to the community?

Please explain why it is only a one-way street. All taking and no giving is “stupid, mean, and immature.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 29, 2012 3:14 PM
Post a comment