The increase is a direct result of removing lifetime max caps off policies. The reality is the pool needs all the healthy 18 to 33 year olds to offset the fact that the insurance companies have no max on what they'll pay for the chronically ill 45 to 85 year olds costing the system millions and millions. Just saw it the last 5 years with my dying grandfather, RIP. He literally ran up a ~$7million bill with medicare/private insurers ect to get an extra 5 years that had zero quality. The actuarial data here supports amnesty/immigration for another 25 million people to keep this corporate healthcare ponzi scheme rolling.
Here's all you need to know about the past four years of failed liberal policies: Unemployment: UP Median household income: DOWN Gasoline Prices: DOUBLED National Debt: $5 trillion higher -- a 50% increase in just 4 years Obama has punished the middle and lower classes, and his reckless spending saddles our economy with debt and endangers our national security. Our economy is suffocating under these liberal social policies -- it's time to elect a bipartisan leader like Mitt Romney who is a proven success in both business and government. He knows how to create jobs -- he's done it. Obama has failed.
I think this chart has a major flaw as well. Again, the spike in spending in FY 2009 (something like 17%) was supposed to be a one-time thing to deal with the crisis. The figure then uses that 2009 as the baseline for Obama's spending. So it's saying that Obama has been the most "fiscally responsible" President because he used a one-time increase in spending (in response to the financial crisis) to permanently shift government spending upward. Maybe a more useful way to look at this would be to average spending across each four year term and compare against the prior term?
That was not unintentional -- it was caused by the entire GOP caucus and one or two half-Dems like Baucus and Lieberman insisting all insurance other than Medicare and Medicaid remain private/for-profit. Single payer or at least a public option (each non-profit as health care ought to be) would have done a great deal to offset the payday for insurance companies. And we might not have needed a mandate either if it weren't for relying wholly on insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and needing an offset (new customers) to pay for that. Medicare is extremely popular with the people that use it. It works. Obama wanted Medicare for all and he should have said it that way; Republicans said absolutely not. They insisted on keeping insurance private and for-profit. And as long as the insurance companies are run by boards of directors whose primary responsibility to their shareholders is profit rather than care, you can be sure those costs will be passed on. It didn't have to be this way; the GOP made it so. We could have had a much better bill and law. This was the best Obama was able to get by the party for which you voted. And the only unacceptable option was not to cover the millions of people that weren't covered, because that costs us all more in the end. Not to mention, it is utterly immoral. The stimulus likewise would have been far more effective if Obama wasn't forced to spend 40% (? - don't remember exact #) on tax cuts which, though intended by the GOP to be spent by "job creators" on new hiring and on regular people going shopping, turned out to be spent by regular folks on paying down personal debt or went into savings to guard against future catastrophe. The "job creators," a name given them by the GOP right about the time they stopped creating jobs, weren't about to spend their new zillions on hiring people. Why would they? When nobody's buying widgets it really doesn't matter how much you give the Big Widget CEO; he's not hiring. That's supply and demand, a theory that has been considerably more reliable than the 100% failure rate of supply-side ("voodoo") economics that W favored with his historic tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and that Romney has promised to bring back with a vengeance. Time to cross over, Refman. I don't care if it's foreign policy, domestic policy, social issues or issues of economics, debt, deficits, or taxes -- you have demonstrated far more often than not that you agree more with us than you do with them. It's further my understanding of you that you're not anti-fact, anti-fact-checkers, or anti-science or education. If I am right in this, you are at almost insurmountable odds with your party.
I love reading Batman Jones' lectures on economics -- honestly you could not find an individual with less knowledge of economics than Batman -- a thespian. Anyone whose revenue strategy includes "pay what you can" tickets at his plays really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to financial matters. Sorry. But yes, let's rush to raise tax rates and then watch tax revenues plummet as the economy nosedives, stocks plummet, and hiring dries up. Because THAT will get us out of this budget deficit! Growth is the only way out people -- we thought inflation might do the trick, but it hasn't. We have to grow the economy to improve our finances, and you simply can't grow an economy by raising the costs of doing business.
You have no idea where theaters get their money come from. You are the one that's clearly lacking in economics knowledge on this. I ran a theater company for years and worked with tons of theater companies. The percentage that most make on admissions is next to nothing. The money for theater comes from donations, subscribers, season ticket holder types of programs, grants, some advertising, etc. Having a pay what you can policy is going to bring more people to the theater which will get more money, but more importantly increase the opportunity for people who want to invest and donate (where the real money is) to see the shows and want to put real money into it. This is true of small theater companies and large ones such as the Public in NYC. It's hilarious to see you spouting off about what other people don't know, while only highlighting your own dreadful ignorance on the matter.
so you admit there is an additonal cost it's just not staggering give me 5 biggest achievements of bush which does not involve tax payer money
I know that they are not self-sustainable enterprises and rely on charity from others to exist, a point that you just confirmed. Apparently that type of financial plan is a favorite of Democrats! I also know that they typically operate in crappy little venues and can't pay their employees much money. What a great way to attract and retain talent! Democratic financial planning at its finest.
Democrats just have to get over their financial jealousy and class warfare and accept that business people drive this economy. If businesses are burdened with higher tax rates, then that's less money that they have to invest in the business and grow the business. I know it's tempting to want to punish people who have succeeded, but Democrats have to fight this temptation and do what's best for this economy. The sad irony is that it's the middle and lower classes that suffer from these divisive liberal politics of punishing success.
This is why our economy is utter **** right now. You don't have to be smart to be a businessman. You just have to be obedient and willing to kiss a lot of ass.
why? It's not relevant to my comment. Off the top of my head I would say the Bush Tax Cuts, Appointing General Patraeus and Judge Alito, and banning stem cell research all proved to be very good decisions that did not require spending any tax payer money.
More jealousy. You simply can't make wise policy fueled by jealousy and similar emotions. Look, I'm sorry that my garbage disposal eats better than 99% of people on this earth. Sorry if that makes you jealous. But punishing success does not make America competitive in the global economy, nor does it provide the proper incentives to grow a business, generate cash flow, and create jobs. I live in the business world. I surround myself with businessmen and women (all attractive) that have a track record of success on a global stage. I have access to leaders who are charged with incredible responsibilities, and whose actions impact the lives of thousands of people and their families. I know business. I know what works. I also know what doesn't work, and that's higher taxes, more regulation, and more litigation -- all planks in the democratic platform of failure.
WHy do you I believe those where good decisions? banning stem cell research is less controversial so I'll start there. Scientist now have the means to clone/make stem cells as opposed to them coming from fetuses. Banning the research until this was achieved seems like obviously the right decision. No reason to provide an incentive to destroy/harm babies. The Bush Tax Cuts save the average American family quite a bit of money and I am in favor of this. TPC claims it saves the average family $3000 in 2013. That's a boat load.
...with you unable to even challenge my correct arguments, my points stand tall. And yes, this is very relevant to the point that I originally made, which is that the thespian experience does not qualify one to opine on economic and financial matters. Sorry.
He did not handle that well, I admit, but you bringing it up reeks of pettiness, because the truth is that neither party really handles racial issues in an honest or thoughtful manner.
You made no points. You connected unrelated things. The only thing you proved was that you have no idea about how finances work regarding theater, presuming that they were dependent on admission fees for financial sustainability. Then you went off trying to demean organizations that receive donations. Sadly you've made no point, proven nothing, and wasted everyone's time who've bothered to read your posts.
er...thought this would have been obvious. Trader is a good foil to throw policy positions off at, as the juxtaposition of his absurd, unsubstantiated positions does chime pretty well with well-articulated and well-argued points, but the default assumption has to be that if you are taking his posts seriously, you are losing out on this one.
