The Reactor Core: What Really Fuels Liberal Rage

[Opti]

Bonus points to anyone who can name any President who didn't support these guys. (Washington and others who existed when Goldman didn't do not count.)

the boys at Goldman Sachs

[chiver78]

May 25, 2011 13:42:59 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

May 25, 2011 13:35:10 GMT -5 Angel! said:

healthcare reform

So how has that benefitted you?

me, specifically? it hasn't. but I'm lucky enough to work for a company that already provided stellar health insurance at low cost to me.

[ed1066]

May 25, 2011 13:57:05 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 25, 2011 13:42:59 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

So how has that benefitted you?

me, specifically? it hasn't. but I'm lucky enough to work for a company that already provided stellar health insurance at low cost to me.

And do you think they will be very keen to continue doing that if they know you could move to a less-stellar government plan that doesn't cost them anything?

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 13:42:59 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

May 25, 2011 13:35:10 GMT -5 Angel! said:

healthcare reform

So how has that benefitted you?

For one - my health insurance is no longer going to be tied to my job. I will be able to purchase health insurance from a private insurer without being rejected for pre-existing conditions. It also helps to make insurance more affordable for the middle/lower class, which will help me immensily.

[chiver78]

May 25, 2011 13:59:45 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

May 25, 2011 13:57:05 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

me, specifically? it hasn't. but I'm lucky enough to work for a company that already provided stellar health insurance at low cost to me.

And do you think they will be very keen to continue doing that if they know you could move to a less-stellar government plan that doesn't cost them anything?

why would they not? they could have been giving us a less-stellar plan all along, at minimal cost to them. why would they change now if they hadn't already? your logic makes no sense.

[cme1201]

May 25, 2011 14:03:34 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 25, 2011 13:42:59 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

So how has that benefitted you?

For one - my health insurance is no longer going to be tied to my job. I will be able to purchase health insurance from a private insurer without being rejected for pre-existing conditions. It also helps to make insurance more affordable for the middle/lower class, which will help me immensily.

We will have to wait until 2014 to see if any of this actually holds true.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

If you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions, why would you purchase health insurance at all? Just wait until you get sick and need it.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 14:23:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

If you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions, why would you purchase health insurance at all? Just wait until you get sick and need it.

If I have a pre-existing condition, then odds are I am already sick & need it. Generally pre-existing conditions are things like asthma, ms, diabetes, cancer, etc - things that need ongoing care & require maintenance meds.

We will have to wait until 2014 to see if any of this actually holds true.

True, but I don't expect policy changes that impact huge businesses to happen overnight. The question was - what has Obama & the dems done to fight for middle class & I believe this is something that he has accomplished that will help many people.

[deziloooooo]

May 25, 2011 14:23:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

If you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions, why would you purchase health insurance at all? Just wait until you get sick and need it.

duhh , Idonno , mmmm, welllll..jus mayb I get sick wid smethin new , want toooo be able to be seen by a doc an have money to pay m..jus maybe..andd the ne w sicum is a long term epansive one..jus maybeeee, duhhhh..huh,huh , waaa u tink , huh, huh,...

[cme1201]

May 25, 2011 14:27:26 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 25, 2011 14:23:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

If you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions, why would you purchase health insurance at all? Just wait until you get sick and need it.

If I have a pre-existing condition, then odds are I am already sick & need it. Generally pre-existing conditions are things like asthma, ms, diabetes, cancer, etc - things that need ongoing care & require maintenance meds.

We will have to wait until 2014 to see if any of this actually holds true.

True, but I don't expect policy changes that impact huge businesses to happen overnight. The question was - what has Obama & the dems done to fight for middle class & I believe this is something that he has accomplished that will help many people.

It may help then again it may hurt, we must wait and see.

I personally am neither for nor against Obamacare, what I am against is a federal mandate that says I must buy something. If the government says that I must buy 1 item we open the door to allowing federal mandates on the purchase of anything.

examples:
to help alleviate the use of fossil fuels mandates can be made to allowing only electric cars to be used on federal highways.
to alleviate the strain on the power grid that powers the electric cars you must use solar powered hot water heaters.

These are just examples, Mandates should be left to state level, thus giving people the choice on what is being offered or demanded by the state you are deciding to move to.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 14:36:42 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

It may help then again it may hurt, we must wait and see.

The question was "what has obama done to "fight" for me (as someone that is middle-class)" On a micro-level, I fail to see how allowing me to get private insurance is going to hurt me. I also fail to see how limiting how much I have to spend on healthcare is giong to hurt me on a micro-level.

I could see the argument on a macro-level, that these things won't benefit everyone. But, that wasn't the question, so I don't see that these things will hurt me personally, now or in 2014.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Actually PBP can get a bit sanctimonious. However, the hallmark of elitist liberals conservatives is the air of superiority they have, or think they have.

You guys are funny. Why do you care so much about what other people think?

No, most if not all of us are right on target. Not one of us feel morally, intellectually, spiritually, etc, superior than anyone else. We typically make better decisions all around.
We only care what other people think when they are destroying the country, labor market, financial markets, the safety nets, the family, etc.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

For one - my health insurance is no longer going to be tied to my job. I will be able to purchase health insurance from a private insurer without being rejected for pre-existing conditions. It also helps to make insurance more affordable for the middle/lower class, which will help me immensily.

Health insurance will be more expensive. Nothing in the healthcare bill does a single thing to reduce costs.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 14:51:35 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

No, most if not all of us are right on target. Not one of us feel morally, intellectually, spiritually, etc, superior than anyone else. We typically make better decisions all around.

Was that said with sarcasm? Because it came across as really funny.

And I really think that many on here do feel they are superior to others.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 14:53:35 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

For one - my health insurance is no longer going to be tied to my job. I will be able to purchase health insurance from a private insurer without being rejected for pre-existing conditions. It also helps to make insurance more affordable for the middle/lower class, which will help me immensily.

Health insurance will be more expensive. Nothing in the healthcare bill does a single thing to reduce costs.

Mandating that everyone is covered lowers costs. Taking healthcare out of the ER & into preventative care lowers costs.

The part that limits what percentage of income of middle/lower class people has to be spent on healthcare lowers my personal costs, although I will admit this does nothing to lower the over-all costs. But, again micro vs. macro view.

[cme1201]

"Mandating that everyone is covered lowers costs."

The mandate is not that everyone be covered, the mandate is everyone must purchase insurance.

Obamacare is chock full of unpopular policies. But few have attracted as much widespread animosity as the “individual mandate,” which requires all adults to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.[/u] The most recent Rasmussen poll puts opposition to the mandate at 54 percent of likely voters – including 41 percent who strongly oppose it.
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38517
says the new health care law's individual mandate, which will require most people to purchase health insurance
www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sen-franken-obamacare-mandate-buy-insura
This individual mandate that almost every American must buy health insurance is the most obnoxious provision of Obamacare, eradicating the concept of limited government. If the federal government can tell you how to spend your own money to buy insurance, then it also has the power to command you how to spend the rest of your money in every area of life, from food, to education, to housing. Nothing would be beyond the reach of Big Brother.
www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-blackwell/the-obamacare-problem-is-_b_794305.html

What is being mandated is that every person must have insurance, without addressing the cost factor.

[Angel!]

The mandate is not that everyone be covered, the mandate is everyone must purchase insurance.

Yes, I understand that. I understand that people oppose it & why they oppose it. However, it is one of the biggest factors in being able to provide insurance for everyone at reasonable costs. It is necessary to spread the risk & lower costs. I have yet to hear other alternatives that will accomplish the same thing & make insurance available & affordable to those with pre-existing conditions.

Even republicans have said the same thing - a mandate is necessary to lower costs, although they always add the point that it should only be mandated on a state level. I fail to see why a state-level insurance mandate is ok, but a federal mandate is bad when it comes to our rights as citizens & the view of the govt over-reaching into our lives.

[EVT1]

May 25, 2011 14:51:35 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Not one of us feel morally, intellectually, spiritually, etc, superior than anyone else. We typically make better decisions all around.

Isn't that the same thing as feeling superior?

[cme1201]

May 25, 2011 15:31:29 GMT -5 Angel! said:

The mandate is not that everyone be covered, the mandate is everyone must purchase insurance.

Yes, I understand that. I understand that people oppose it & why they oppose it. However, it is one of the biggest factors in being able to provide insurance for everyone at reasonable costs. It is necessary to spread the risk & lower costs. I have yet to hear other alternatives that will accomplish the same thing & make insurance available & affordable to those with pre-existing conditions.

Even republicans have said the same thing - a mandate is necessary to lower costs, although they always add the point that it should only be mandated on a state level. I fail to see why a state-level insurance mandate is ok, but a federal mandate is bad when it comes to our rights as citizens & the view of the govt over-reaching into our lives.

And until they address cost the mandate will do nothing except make it harder on those who would be considered the working poor, those no one talks about the ones who qualify for zero government benefits yet will not be able to pay for the forced Insurance, so at tax time they face a fine because they can't afford insurance and they get no help with insurance.

Just because "Even republicans have said the same thing" doesn't make it true, right or needed.

I fail to see why a state-level insurance mandate is ok, but a federal mandate is bad when it comes to our rights as citizens & the view of the govt over-reaching into our lives

On a state level it allows me the choice to determine if I want to live in that state, I have a choice as to deciding my future. On a federal level all choice is removed.

I personally like having choices, not my government dictating what I will and will not do.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 15:46:32 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

And until they address cost the mandate will do nothing except make it harder on those who would be considered the working poor, those no one talks about the ones who qualify for zero government benefits yet will not be able to pay for the forced Insurance, so at tax time they face a fine because they can't afford insurance and they get no help with insurance.

How has this not been addressed? The bill provides subsidization for the lower & middle classes so that they can afford insurance.

On a state level it allows me the choice to determine if I want to live in that state, I have a choice as to deciding my future. On a federal level all choice is removed.

You can still move out of the country. I don't see that as significantly different than having the choice to move out of state.

[cme1201]

May 25, 2011 15:49:53 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 25, 2011 15:46:32 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

And until they address cost the mandate will do nothing except make it harder on those who would be considered the working poor, those no one talks about the ones who qualify for zero government benefits yet will not be able to pay for the forced Insurance, so at tax time they face a fine because they can't afford insurance and they get no help with insurance.

How has this not been addressed? The bill provides subsidization for the lower & middle classes so that they can afford insurance.

On a state level it allows me the choice to determine if I want to live in that state, I have a choice as to deciding my future. On a federal level all choice is removed.

You can still move out of the country. I don't see that as significantly different than having the choice to move out of state.

Asinine comment. Don't like it move out of the country, any argument you may have is now completely irrelevant.

[EVT1]

May 25, 2011 15:31:29 GMT -5 Angel! said:

It is necessary to spread the risk & lower costs. I have yet to hear other alternatives that will accomplish the same thing & make insurance available & affordable to those with pre-existing conditions.

Single payer? I wish people could just figure out that one way or another we are going to wise up get rid of most health insurance companies so we could do it already and start saving money/fix Medicare/etc. The democrats sure don't have the sack to do it- they couldn't even give us a public option because AHIP didn't want it. To bad we can't put it to a national referendum- it would easily pass.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 15:51:43 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

May 25, 2011 15:49:53 GMT -5 Angel! said:

How has this not been addressed? The bill provides subsidization for the lower & middle classes so that they can afford insurance.



You can still move out of the country. I don't see that as significantly different than having the choice to move out of state.

Asinine comment. Don't like it move out of the country, any argument you may have is now completely irrelevant.

Interesting comeback. You don't like one of my responses so therefore everything I say is irrelevant. Way to actually avoid the issue

[cme1201]

May 25, 2011 16:00:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 25, 2011 15:51:43 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Asinine comment. Don't like it move out of the country, any argument you may have is now completely irrelevant.

Interesting comeback. You don't like one of my responses so therefore everything I say is irrelevant. Way to actually avoid the issue

What issue, telling an American who has lived the American way of life that because he is against Federal overreach he can move to another country that does not encompass American life.

As I said Asinine.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 15:55:14 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Single payer? I wish people could just figure out that one way or another we are going to wise up get rid of most health insurance companies so we could do it already and start saving money/fix Medicare/etc. The democrats sure don't have the sack to do it- they couldn't even give us a public option because AHIP didn't want it. To bad we can't put it to a national referendum- it would easily pass.

True, you could go single payer, but that isn't exactly a right-leaning idea.

All I hear from the right is all their complaints, but rarely do they offer any actual solutions. When they have realistic solutions, then I will be more than willing to listen & consider them. In the mean time, Obama's healthcare reform is better than what we have now.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 16:02:24 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

May 25, 2011 16:00:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Interesting comeback. You don't like one of my responses so therefore everything I say is irrelevant. Way to actually avoid the issue

What issue, telling an American who has lived the American way of life that because he is against Federal overreach he can move to another country that does not encompass American life.

As I said Asinine.

I don't see that as different than suggesting who has lived in their hometown, in their homestate their entire lives that they can just up & move. I have no interest in moving to another state anymore than I have any interest in moving to another country.

My comment was more a poke at how I thought your suggestion to just move to another state was ridiculous. If my comment was asinine, then yours was equally asinine, making your original point of state vs federal mandates asinine.

[marshabar1]

GREAT article, Paul. Thanks.

[EVT1]

May 25, 2011 16:02:40 GMT -5 Angel! said:

All I hear from the right is all their complaints, but rarely do they offer any actual solutions. When they have realistic solutions, then I will be more than willing to listen & consider them. In the mean time, Obama's healthcare reform is better than what we have now.

No doubt- it is going to help a lot of people whether they wish to admit to it or not. And, of course all the right has is complaints- they had all the time and the numbers to address health care and they let it sit and fester, well, except for the middle of the night legislative gift to big Phrma that they didn't pay for. (But it sure got Tauzin a hell of a job, didn't it)

[cme1201]

May 25, 2011 16:04:45 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 25, 2011 16:02:24 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

What issue, telling an American who has lived the American way of life that because he is against Federal overreach he can move to another country that does not encompass American life.

As I said Asinine.

I don't see that as different than suggesting who has lived in their hometown, in their homestate their entire lives that they can just up & move. I have no interest in moving to another state anymore than I have any interest in moving to another country.

My comment was more a poke at how I thought your suggestion to just move to another state was ridiculous. If my comment was asinine, then yours was equally asinine, making your original point of state vs federal mandates asinine.

As I stated if done on a state level it leaves choice.

What I would like to see is this issue put to a vote before the people of the United States, not the politicians, Obamacare is a Mandate to make Insurance companies richer without addressing cost.

[EVT1]

Put it all to a vote- 1) Single payer 2) Status quo 3) Ryan plan 4) 'Obamacare' 5) Public option

#1 takes it by far. Wish we could.