This bill brings gloom and sadness for these children, Make it work now! Why wait til 2014!!

This house of cards is gonna crumble. It's inevitable.

We are 12 trillion dollars in debt. China, the last lender standing, is becoming increasingly reluctant to purchase any more of it. In February 2009 Hillary had to go to China, hat in hand, and literally beg them to keep buying it for the time being. In order to get them to, the U.S. had to convince them we had no interest in their human rights abuses or their publicly outspoken hatred for the United States. China is banking on the fact that, at the moment at least, we will keep buying their exports which supports their GDP. Once the amount of debt surpasses that point the party is over.

This bill and it's passing is a sad day for America. While those supporting it just look at the superficial aspects of it, even they cannot deny we cannot afford it and that trouble is looming on the horizon for our economy and our standard of living. It will eventually collapse under it's own weight and is beginning to as we speak.

Hindsight is 20/20. Once it does maybe then we will have learned our lesson. But by then I'm afraid it will be too late.

This just demonstrates the folly of expecting a highly partisan political party, writing legislation behind closed doors in the middle of the night, to think through the consequences of their actions.

If the law says "coverage cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions for anyone with coverage at the time the bill is signed into law", I doubt that the problem can be "corrected" without new specific legislation to cover those without coverage when the bill was signed. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES.

Also, as the experience in New York shows, premiums will go up for everyone, and this is just the beginning. Any person with brains knows that, if you increase the COST for insurance companies, they will pass along the added cost in higher PREMIUMS for everyone. Since insurance companies have one of the lowest profit margins of any industry in America, they will have no choice.

Welcome to Economic 101.

The original stated purpose of this legislation was to "Bend the cost curve downward", it's clear now that the exact opposite will really happen (Why do you think the bill will cost $940 Billion - it's not because costs will go DOWN).

Welcome to the real cost of socialism.

You are absolutely correct! It does not matter what some group decides will be an explanation of what these provisions ,ean --- yjey mena what they say, the language is very clear and once signed into law, only new specific language proposed, discussed, voted on, etc., willchange anything contained in the bill that was just passed. And this is just the tip of the iceburg as you can imagine how many more errors, oversights, and ommissions will appear now that the public has a chance to actually see what was passed in this massive hurry-up-and-do-it-for-the-party legislation. The American taxpayers cannot afford yet another welfare program.

This house of cards is gonna crumble. It's inevitable.

The house of cards started crumbling a long time ago. The United States has been fiscally irresponsible for longer that Obama's presidency. We all want lower costs and no taxes and premium health services?

Life is precious until that child needs health care. The more fiscally responsible thing to do is to abort children that will cost the system money. For those that are born or develop life threatening illness or injuries should be denied care. Perhaps we could use prayer instead. That way, the overweight sedentary adult (and there are lots of you out there) won't have to pay more for their health insurance.

The fiscally responsible thing to do is to increase taxes, cut all government programs, end the war and pay off the debt. I don't see anyone complaining about not having to pay taxes to pay off money you've already spent. I don't see anyone complaining about using their medicare benefits. I don't see any reference to the irresponsible Bush tax cuts.

If you didn't notice, your premiums are going up anyway. We could bring them down it by deny care to sick people. Change the pre-existing clause so insurance companies can deny coverage for those in group plans-so your employer sponspored health care isn't guaranteed if you have a pre-existing conditition.

I certainly don't feel my child, born with cleft lip/palate, but otherwise very healthy is a superficial aspect as 'The Colonel' would put it. Yet she is deemed uninsurable so I have to work two jobs for her to qualify for group health insurance where they can't deny her. Still, half the time her care is denied by the insurance company and I have to try and fight it. So far I have always lost and had to pay the bills myself AND my premiums.

I AM the American people, SHE is the American people, all that is asked is that there be opportunity to buy into the system. I'm not looking for a handout, just something I am allowed to buy at a cost I can afford.

I don't think that the opponents of this law are taking the time to look at the individual for whom this applies. I am a middle class person working two jobs, I have never had a day of welfare in my life. I have always contributed to our economy and country.

Opponents must be very lucky and blessed people to not have been put into a situation where they were denied or couldn't afford health care. The lack of compassion in this debate is alarming.

I have serious doubts about this story and other stories involving children with diseases not having insurance coverage.

S-CHIP http://www.cms.hhs.gov/LowCostHealthInsFamChild/

You have to be POOR! I am not poor, I am MIDDLE class, so I make too much money to qualify. Unfotuantely, it is based on gross income, not net and expenses are not taken into consideration. I have to work one full time job in order to get into a group insurance plan for my kids. That job ONLY pays for the daycare for the kids and the gas to get to the job. I have to work another job in order to pay the bills.

uninsured children with pre-existing conditions might not get help until 2014, when the law requires insurers to issue policies for all applicants regardless of health condition.

yea, they were pretty unclear of a lot of thins, including where all this $ for people to afford this insurance hike soon to come.

So when his daughter wants to see a doctor for even a common cold, the family pays the full cost.

you dont take your 15 yr old kid to see a doctor for a common cold, unless it's gonna kill her. Yet hey! guess what? this is something as soon as this bill is set full steam ahead, everyone is going to be paying for. Un needed doctor visits... and not just 1 or 2 here and there, it's going to be in the thousands. Waaa.... i have a cold, waaa...my tummy hurts from eating too much...waaaa.....i have a head ache...waaa...waaaa...waaa. Heck when i grew up, the only time we saw a doc, was when we needed to. An infant with a cold is one thing, mabe even a toddler, but 15? get real, go to the pharmacy, buy some cold caplets and some asprine, and ride it out like the rest of America unable to get freebies. NOTE! these people also that they are crying about, are most likely eligable for some other federal, or state run insurance already in place. Medicare, Medicade, and in wisc. we have Badger care, as well do "most" other states, but with a diffrent name.

Still lots and lots of little unsure items in this bill besides that. I actually downloaded it, and so far got maaaybe 1/2 way thru it. It's a bunch of jibberish, so far that in a s sence says were going to make you do this, and you are gonna like it. If you have a job, own a buisness, anything, just be ready to start that check rollin'. Start to thinking if not already how your going to be able to afford gas in your tank, food in your mouth, and a roof over your head too, because insurance is going to make a drastic change, and not for the better. Don'y look for any breaks on your check after taxes are stripped off of it either. GO DEMS!!!

even though it will be effected in 60 day's; until 2014, the statutory accounting method uses to set premium, will make it prohibited expense for those with pre-existing condition's; the drafters and the congress all knew this, however in the hype to pass this monster that was not their concern; the proof will be in the pudding!

I think that, by the sounds of some of the comments on this blog, finger pointing at the administration is the route to follow when, CLEARLY, the onus is on the God Damn insurance industry. They are the evil bastards unwilling to loosen their grip on the money that it would take to simply CARE FOR the children of THIS COUNTRY. We're talking about America's most vulnerable. The ones without a VOICE!

I'm a Democrat so don't start calling me names like I was a Republican. This Democrat has a brain & I do use it. Just as the Republicans said everyone wanted Health Care but they did not want all the ridicules rules that was being put into the plan. (example: Government controlled student loans) There is so much in this Bill that will give the government so much control of our lives.

This President cannot remember what he has said or is he just one big lier? Please watch the video.

Obama has been talked about fines in Health Care since the presidential campaign. One of Obama's knocks against Clinton was that she wanted to fine people for not having insurance. He promised that he wouldn't do that. Hmmm? Flip Flop, or liars you judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU3s2SMhjuI&feature=player_embedded

Thanks for listening to this video.

Remember also that the law does not mandate coverage for illegal immigrants. You can bet that insurance companies will finally start requiring proof of citizenship (more than a driver's license, which can be obtained in a number of lax states), before they will cover anyone. If the child is covered as part of the parents insurance, and the parents are illegal, they will cut the parents off so they don't have to cover the child. This may happen even to US citizens with sick children. More unintended consequences of this massive clusterF of a bill.

this is just the begining tho. just wait, soon rates are going to go up for everyone, an equal amount, and not by just a few dollars. They say " they can not raise the premiums, those will be locked." sure, but untill then best be sure, the insurance co. isn't going to lose out, best well be sure, so before that takes effect, just wait. Thus, if taxes are going to be going to the insurance co. to help cover the "offset", isn't that defeating the purpose, and making just another medicare, medicade program? The only diffrence being, instead of the gov actually handleing the brunt of it, as they said before, it gets passed back to the insurance co.? Did i somehow actually read that wrong, and understand it wrong as well, when whats her face democrat was talking about it on the news as to how this is all gonna be a magicial work of gratness for all? Maybe she meant the insurance co.'s...not sure, but i dont see any way possible you can rob peter, to pay paul, to break out even, when ol' pete dont have too much to give in the 1st place. pete being the American people, not counting buisness. Well you can if you want to, but i don't think the outcome will be any diffrent when i all gets into the wash tub. Yup...it's full of big holes....it's never gonna hold water, just wait. They say everyone is right this minute, covered, they say this, and that....truth is, they say a lot of things, and 90% of it sounds good and all, but it dont add up in any shape or form. Thats if you actually LOOK at it.

Trust assured if i am wrong i will eat my words, but so far, i been on a winning streak as far as calling this administration what it is....one....big....scam.

So this woman doesn't know if her child is covered. Why is that surprising? The creators of this new decree don't have a rats @$$ clue either. There attitude was pass it we'll fix it later.

What a bunch of gullible jackasses those 219 are. Who in their right mind agrees to a contract without all the T's & I's crossed and dotted? Never mind that was rhetorical.

I'd have to say the 52% uninformed gullible fools led by this inept botch-ups were part of this fiasco. It's little solace now to know 48% weren't.

WAIT! Hold the train! You mean that after a year of diligent efforts of the democrats that there are massive loopholes in another government entitlement? How could that happen? They even had a second stab at it and still didn't get it right? The Perpetual Campaigner has assured us that the pre-existing conditions would be covered. Hell, he is even campaigning after the bill became law telling people what a great deal it is. He is falling for the old adage that if you repeat something enough times you may actually believe it yourself. Oh yeah it will be covered once the program kicks in.

Has anybody else noticed the timing of the plan? 2012! Halfway through the next presidential term - which means that obama can use that as a feather in his cap IF he gets elected for a second term. If it is a failure and he is in a second term, it won't matter because he will be a lame duck president anyway since he knows his presidential career is over with anyway. If he isn't re-elected and it is a failure, it is on the new president because they are only allowed a free pass for the first year of the new presidency.

Its scary to think if they could screw this part up what other screwups await us.

Our Congressmen and President can" walk and chew gum at the same time. How can we expect them to do the right thing (except for themselves).

Workinguy, yep! It was more important to pass a bill that nobody had a full understanding of than to do it right.

You have to know a bill by the salesmen/women who created it and want no part of it can't be all that great.

1 thing i didnt understand at all either. 1st they said, "this bill sux, no way will it work, but look, vote it thru, and we'll fix it, make it right before it becomes law, and signed by Nobama." Well, not much of anything was really done to it was there? Some of the wording is a little diffrent, and maybe a few things pulled, or modified, but still looks about the same from here. so why was it passsed? i already wrote my rep, telling how not happy i was with his vote. Also told him why. Then again, i guess it doesnt matter. Now everyone is complaining, how violent this has started to become, left vs right BS. I think if enough people actually educated themselves to what 1/2 of this stuff our gov. has been passing off on us, rep, and democrat, things might actually start to change. Sad to say, R.Paul is probaly right, outside of a complete collapse and overhaul of our own bankrupt nation, nothing is going to fix anything. rep, or demo. The gov. is bankrupt. There is no way you cant see it. It's been bankrupt for at least 2 yrs now, and nothing has been done to prevent it, these clowns just keep taking more and more, and pass it amoung themselves behind closed door meetings.

They had no intention of putting tort reform in the bill. That's part of why they shut the Republicans out. At least 90% of the Democrats in Congress are lawyers. They are all about getting more money for tehmselves.

Tort Reform does not belong in a health care bill. And there are plenty of Republican (and I am one) lawyers in Congress. And there are a heck of a lot of lawyers who do not handle tort cases.

If student loan reform can be in there, why not Tort reform?

If you approach anything with your eyes closed shut or your arms wide open your a fool.

Matrick - you are correct - but you forgot to add that he has no need to worry about buying that car without looking under the hood, since he can just pull off another 'cash for clunkers' give-away program . . . . and yes, again using the American taxpayers money.

And to Workinguy,

I assume you are are referring to the Democratic party fools who approached the bill with their eyes closed shut.

would you buy a car without checking under the hood?

Would you make car payments for four years before being allowed to put the keys in the ignition?

Would you make house payments for four years before being given keys to your new "castle"?

Good for him but not good for the taxpayers!

make all of them in Washington and their families have to use it from day one as well

Absolutely.

The Republicans tried to put that into the fix - the Democrats wouldn't even listen.

Actually there is also a provision that exempts their staff members from having to enroll in this also. Which also tells me that for all the bravado that it is the same Health Care as they have/it could not be or there would be no problem with them using it.

Actually the Federal employees and Representatives and Senators plans will be on the exchange. No you won't be able to AFFORD THEM in all likelihood but once the exchange is up and running they will be required to utilize plans on the exchange.

Afterall It's going to cover 100% of everything all the time every day of the week as much as you want each day. Since the government will be paying itself there won't be an issue.

Actually that is incorrect. There was an amendment put forth to have them purchase from there but it was shot down by the Democrats. there is also a provision in the bill that advises that staff member do not have to participate in the Exchange.

Congress is not exempt, did anyone actually read the bill?

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.-

(i) REQUIREMENT.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

(ii) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.-The term ''Member of Congress'' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.-The term ''congressional staff'' means all full-time and parttime employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

I agree with you that the Obama plan is BAD, and many of your ideas may sound nice, but some are impossible and many could not reasonably be implemented. Non-profit corporations are defined and exist based on the US Tax Code, and are governed by the IRS to make sure they continue to maintain the strict requirements that allow them to be a non-profit.

How would you determine what 'gouging' is on prescription medications? Many prices may seem excessive, and there has been a unfavorable history of marketing and gifts to physicians to prescribe, however, they are allowed to market their products. There must also be a way for the pharmaceutical companies to recover their very expensive research and development costs. The alternative is that there would be few new drugs developed. In our country, private businesses are allowed to be capitalistic and entitled to make a profit.

How would you determine what a reasonable return would be when deciding to pay or not pay physicians? The practice of medicine is not always predictable and the best efforts and treatment may not be successful in all case. How would you determine in which cases a physician should or should not be paid? I want my doctor to do everything possible with the newest medications and procedures if I require treatment, and if I don't already trust my doctor to provide what is his or her best opinion, I would change doctors. Your system would discourage progressive treatment and could result in physicians not taking new patients that may have complicated health care issues.

Insurance companies are private businesses and certainly entitled to make a profit. They can only stay in business if they are able to establish their own risk levels. When they are mandated to provide coverage regardless of risk, the other insureds will just pay more to cover the higher risk insureds or they will shut down. Would you continue to run a business that did not make a profit?

Why do you say that medicine has "chosen" to be a business - what else would you expect a private practice to be called which requires many years of dedication study and very expensive schooling for years before one can go to work; and then the huge investment in property, equipment, supplies, and staff before the doors can open. Add to that other expenses which most all businesses pay, insurance (staff, property, malpractice), taxes (income, property, sales), utilities, etc. What is the alternative to being a business? Please - leave sales and coupons to Walmart, I expect more professionalism from my medical care providers. And as far as posting a menu of costs, I have never heard of a physician who refused to provide a patient with what the charges are for various treatments.

The law already requires that liability and damages be proven, and based on actual loss, in order to be awarded in malpractice cases, yet you cannot eliminate members of a jury that feel sympathy (an emotion) when making a decision in a malpractice case whether liability exists or not when they see a sympathetic plaintiff such as a baby with severe birth defects, etc. Many assume that an award will either be paid for by an insurance company or a wealthy corporation, and that the plaintiff needs financial help, so feel justified to ignore the law in order to provide this help regardless of actual liability or damages. We always blame the lawyers for the high cost of litigation, yet seldom is it ever mentioned that jurors are the ultimate decision maker with in malpractice cases and it's the juror who decides that an award will be given and the juror who decides the amount of that award. Except in the end, we all pay for these awards. However, you also cannot preclude a legitimately damaged individual from recovering damages if they have been damaged in a malpractice or other case. Some states have already legislated Tort Reform and have provisions that require a cap on punitative damage awards, however, this does not preclude large awards for other damages.

These are all complex issues that cannot be decided in short time by just a few. This is also why the Obama program ias a "fix" to medical care cannot succeed.

TRANSLATED: More dead kids = more "insurer" CEO profits.

They knew full well !

For them to have actually known, they would have had to read it before they voted on it. But I guess as long as they got something for their vote, it was all good in their minds.

Profit margins for insurance companies are around 3%, check your facts and since you have no problem spending other people money how about you write a big old check every month just to help cover expenses.

Don't forget the "Kool-Aid"

You Got to be...:

Profit margins for insurance companies are around 3%

Maybe if they paid their CEO's less, it would be higher.

i.e. Read the post you are respnding to before responding to it.

check your facts

Read the posts you are responding to before responding to it.

and since you have no problem spending other people money

If you're refering to taxpayers' money, then I am a taxpayer, so it is my money.

If you're not refering to taxpayer money, then what are you refering to?

how about you write a big old check every month just to help cover expenses.

I do this every year when I pay my taxes.

Do you pay your taxes?

Don't forget the "Kool-Aid"

Thanks for the reminder.

Where would you like it delivered?

I pay my fair share and my wife and I also work very hard to pay our own health insurance, which due to the socialist in office will I am sure be increasing, I guess we will have to just work harder to pay for those who refuse.

You can take that check with you to your local welfare office.

You Got to ...:

...my wife and I also work very hard to pay our own health insurance,

...I guess we will have to just work harder to pay for those who refuse.

I would have thought that this would be considered a blessing by someone, such as yourself, who obviously puts such virtue and value into hard work ... The more work you get to do, the more virtuous you are, right?

Or maybe you'd prefer to be able to redirect that hard work into building your business, rather than buying "insurer" CEOs' yachts?

which due to the socialist in office will I am sure be increasing

Obama is a socialist, but of the NeoCon, not the Marx, ilk.

And I think that it is premature of you to get bent out of shape based on an assumption.

This new law might benefit you.

You don't know yet.

BTW: Good luck with your business.

I do work on building my business, I employ 76 people who I provide health insurance to, the as they call it "Cadillac Plans" with all the added taxes upstream (Any smart business will pass taxes onto the comsumer) this will not be a benefit to any business.

In fact because of this bill I may have to lay off a 3rd of my people, but hell I guess it's to the greater good of 1/3.

You Got to be...:

In fact because of this bill I may have to lay off a 3rd of my people, but hell I guess it's to the greater good of 1/3.

That's truly a sad thing.

But I don't understand how you think you might need to lay people off, when the ink has barely dried on the law...

I understand that, in 2015, I believe, cadillac plans will be taxed. But I don' see how that results in layoffs today ...

You got to be kidding....I own a business and know exactly what you're talking about. Maybe upswing can share the secrets in "his business" that makes this socialist bill so lucrative for him?

Private industry is supporting the this country. Government jobs don't contribute to the gross product, they are a liability. Keep punishing private industries and the working segments of the population and see what happens.

Some people that had no motivation to better themselves and improve their lives are clueless. They are happy in their comfort zone taking other people's money. As a previous poster said, "Why is it selfish when I want to spend my own money, but it is not selfish when you want to spend my money?

wheatfield:

You got to be kidding....I own a business and know exactly what you're talking about.

Well, I don't own a business, so I don't know what You Got to be is talking about.

That's why I asked the question I asked.

Please feel free to answer it for me if you'd care to.

Maybe upswing can share the secrets in "his business" that makes this socialist bill so lucrative for him?

I have no idea what you're refefering to here. Elaboration?

Thanks.

Private industry is supporting the this country

I disagree as this comment applies to big businesses. In fact, it is the other way around: the government is supporting big businesses with bailouts, tax breaks, off-shore privileges etc.

Bush's NeoCon government was a bonanza for big businesses, who the Bush administration put right in front of the public trough, and told them to gorge. It's been that way since Reagan f*cked the country up.

A couple bilion dollars spent on stopping children dying is nothing as compared to this corporate welfare. (See how long big corps last without this welfare... They'd be dead in a hearbeat.)

Keep punishing private industries and the working segments of the population and see what happens.

Without government jobs, there would be no military and plice force, to name just two important categories of government employees.

Don't you think that investing in a US Marine, so that he can help invade a country and steal its oil is a net plus to the nation's balance sheet?

"Why is it selfish when I want to spend my own money, but it is not selfish when you want to spend my money?

So you are going top pay to clear and pave land, to make your own roads to where you want to go, build your own bridges to get across the rivers between you and there?

Maybe you'll also regulate your own aircraft if you want to fly somewhere?

By conveniently ignoring the enormous public investment that enables you to comfortably spend your money on useful endeavors, you are missing the larger picture that there are some common benefits to pooling our money in some cases. And that, without those common -- and collectively funded -- benefits, you wouldn't even be able to earn your money, let alone spend it.

The trick, of course, is to figure out what is fair.

***In fact, it is the other way around: the government is supporting big businesses with bailouts, tax breaks, off-shore privileges etc.***

You haven't a clue what really supports this country or you. My business has NEVER received any tax breaks. The bailout money came from the "government", did it? Now where do you think the "government" gets all its money? Where does the money come that pays the government paychecks? Does it come from the congressmen, or is Obama contributing his from HIS pocket? Is there a money tree at the White House? Government does not contribute one dime to the government cash, they are the liability. They collect taxes on businesses and working individuals, or they do not get a paycheck. And this stimulus alone has cost me thousands of dollars more in taxes to fund the raises in unemployment and welfare. I am now laying people off and not hiring. You'd better go take an economics course.

wheatfield:

You'd better go take an economics course.

LOL!

You haven't a clue what really supports this country or you.

Apparently more so than you have. What you're offering is a bunch of common misconceptions regarding the country's money supply and economy.

My business has NEVER received any tax breaks.

Irrelevant. Here's what I said:

the government is supporting big businesses with bailouts, tax breaks, off-shore privileges etc

Does your business fal into the category of being a "big" business?

If not, then you are misrepresenting what I have said, and your response is nonsensical.

The bailout money came from the "government", did it?

Sort of. The "Federal" Reserve, which is a private bank, prints it and then loans it to the US government.

Now where do you think the "government" gets all its money?

Again, through debt, either created by the "Federal" Reserve, or by selling bonds etc to other countries.

Some money also comes in via taxes.

Where does the money come that pays the government paychecks?

See above.

Does it come from the congressmen, or is Obama contributing his from HIS pocket?

No. and No. respectively.

Is there a money tree at the White House?

Not as far as I know. (Why? What have you heard?)

Government does not contribute one dime to the government cash, they are the liability.

Well. That depends on how you would consider profit made on the back of the national infrastructure that I noted earlier.

If there is no road leading ot the market, then there is no way to sell your goods at the market.

i.e. You are making profit by using the government's infrastructure. Right?

To my mind, that's legitimate argument that the government IS contributing one dime to the government cash, as you put it.

As for the goverment being "the liability," again, you are underestimating the enabling role that the government plays in the functioning of business in the nation. (You have a Reagan-esque "government is the problem" propaganda loop running in your head, and it is drowning out common sense."

Simply put: Whether you admit it or not, without the government's support, you would not have a business.

They collect taxes on businesses and working individuals, or they do not get a paycheck.

Not true.

Not one penny of our income tax goes toward funding any government business or service. It all goes to servicing the national debt.

I don't know what percentage, if any, of our business taxes go toward funding the government.

The US' ability to print money depends on many factors, one of which is that we are a military occupying force in most of the world. This allows us to run a protection racket per our ability to generate "wealth" at the expense of the rest of the world.

And this stimulus alone has cost me thousands of dollars more in taxes to fund the raises in unemployment and welfare

Then you are the only small business for whom this is true

The stimulus isn't even fully disbursed yet. Indeed, some of it seems to have generated a profit.

Also, the stimulus includes tax cuts for the hiring of new employees for small businesses.

I am now laying people off and not hiring.

That's sad, but it has nothing to do with where the govenment gets its money, the stimulus or, and here we return to the point of my post, which you obviously have not grasped, the huge amounts of corporate welfare that the US government doles out to BIG business.

You'd better go take an economics course.

Obviously, you have shown that you have no credibility whatsoever with respect to this remark, since, apparently, you are in need of an economics course AND remedial reading lessons.

Cheers.

You just don't get it. I have now laid people off, and so has yougottobe kidding. WE have businesses. WE have laid people off because of the increasing taxes on our businesses. And YOU don't run ANY business. When you have been in business for 20 years, then I will listen to you. And there have been 12 businesses that have closed on my highway alone this year. The unemployment rate is rising.

***I don't know what percentage, if any, of our business taxes go toward funding the government.***

So, the government is self-funded, eh? Then why am I paying taxes??

Just remember that those government jobs need to be paid from the taxpayers' wages. If there is no private industry to send money to the government and create jobs, how are the government workers going to be paid? Government workers, they are not contributing to the gross product, they are a liability. Take 10 pooled government workers drawing paychecks every week. They pay their payroll taxes, but is that enough to put in the bank to pay their next week's wage? 10 gov't workers drawing $1000 per week, paying $300 in taxes to the govt. Next week, that leaves $3000 to pay the 10 employees.

In my area, tax abatement (welfare) is given to large corporations that establish jobs in the area. This is an incentive to stay here. There is a difference in corporate welfare given to create jobs, as they will be giving back to the government. Government jobs contribute nothing to the gross product. Government jobs require a government paycheck, which private citizens and industry must pay taxes to fund.

Obviously, you have shown that you have no credibility whatsoever with respect to this remark, since, apparently, you are in need of an economics course AND remedial reading lessons.

And what have you done? I've at least provided jobs for 25 years for people to support their famlies. Now, I cannot do it anymore. And if your attitude reflects the future of the employment pool, I can see why corporations are getting out of America.

You are another one who thinks money grows on trees. And I can tell you are on the receiving end of my tax dollars, as you do not exhibit the value of earning what you receive.

Wheatfield:

You just don't get it. I have now laid people off, and so has yougottobe kidding. WE have businesses. WE have laid people off because of the increasing taxes on our businesses. And YOU don't run ANY business. When you have been in business for 20 years, then I will listen to you. And there have been 12 businesses that have closed on my highway alone this year. The unemployment rate is rising.

Again, you are letting your emotions get the better of you.

Please "listen" very, very carefully.

Here goes:

My question to you got to be... was based on the fact that I have never run a business.

So you and I agree on this point. I am not pretending that I know more than you in this regard. I obviously do not.

Are you still with me?

Okay.

Next.

My question is: how can a measure that is not gong to happen for four or so more years cause layoffs now?

Are you still with me?

To recap:

Because I have never run a business, an therefore do not have the experience and information required to know how a measure that will not come into force for several more years will cause immediate layoffs, I asked someone -- you got to be... -- who does have that experience and information, and who, sadly, has been forced to lay workers off, if he could explain that to me.

Now, this question is not, as you seem to think, suggesting either that laying people off is a good thing, or that the economy isn't very bad right now.

Specifically:

I believe that laying people off is a bad thing.

I believe that the economy is very bad right now.

Are we still on the same page here?

Okay.

So this means that the entirety of your first paragraph in #9.13, while describing a bad situation, is irrelevant to the points that I made and to the simple question that I asked.

Would you agree with this?

If not, let me know, and we can go over this again.

***I don't know what percentage, if any, of our business taxes go toward funding the government.***

So, the government is self-funded, eh? Then why am I paying taxes??

Okay.

Now what you have done here is to ask a completely illogical and random question.

Please note: When I stated that I do not know what percentage of the business tax goes toward funding the government, what I am saying is ...

ready?

I --- do --- not --- know --- what --- percentage --- of --- the --- business --- tax --- goes --- toward --- funding --- the --- government.

This means that, as far as I know, the percentage of the business tax that goes toward funding the government could be 0%. It could be 0.0000000000001%. Or it could be 100%.

You see, when someone says that they do not know something, it generally means that they do not know something.

It does not mean they are saying that, in this case, I am saying that, 0% of the business tax goes to funding the government.

You made that up.

So your question:

So, the government is self-funded, eh? Then why am I paying taxes??

is, again, irrelevant and illogical.

So far, your post has contained not one statement tha is relevant or logical.

Let's move on.

Just remember that those government jobs need to be paid from the taxpayers' wages.

No.

I already explained my argument per where income tax goes. Please feel free to review that explanation.

Thank you.

If there is no private industry to send money to the government and create jobs, how are the government workers going to be paid?

See above.

Government workers, they are not contributing to the gross product, they are a liability.

Again, I already gave you my argument as to why I think that they are contributing

It is tiresome,therefor, for you to simply repeat your bald claim that they are not.

Do you have any rebuttal to my argument (in the posts above)? Note: Simply repeating your bald claim is not an argument. It is simply repeating your claim, and it is annoying.

Take 10 pooled government workers drawing paychecks every week. They pay their payroll taxes, but is that enough to put in the bank to pay their next week's wage? 10 gov't workers drawing $1000 per week, paying $300 in taxes to the govt. Next week, that leaves $3000 to pay the 10 employees.

Again, I have given you my take on how government employees are paid. Simply repeating your bald claim with a few random numbers thrown into it does not serve as a rebuttal for my claim/argument.
%

It may be too late for the STD penalty. I think they may all have syphilis already because they all show signs of brain damage in most of their decision making.

@Lu - they need you in the idea room in washington. You rock Lu!

Jaeger...you know what is amusing about that 2014 deadline the insurance companies have in that they can't use health status to set premiums...okay, every premium will triple. I believe the evidence of fairness is when everybody suffers equally. That is socialism in its truest form.

There is a program for poor children.

SCHIP?

The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, was established by the federal government ten years ago to provide health insurance to children in families at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line.

In 2007 the Dems wanted to include families making up to 86K a year. The problem with that was this program is pretty much paid for by the cigarette tax and in order to keep funds flowing into it, 22 million people would have to take up smoking. Even tho the Prez raised the tax 62 cents a pack last year, the program can not be sustained as more people stop smoking.

Open your eyes and ears to the lies you are believing rmantano.

rmantano

Please give a break, this planned all along

rmantano -

Several speeches by Obama and explanations of the bill issued by congressional Democrats left the impression the law would do just that.

Responding to the concerns, Obama administration officials said Wednesday the law does prohibit insurers from denying children coverage starting this year, but they will issue clarifying regulations. "The law is clear: Insurance plans that cover children cannot deny coverage to a child because he or she has a pre-existing condition," Health and Human Services spokesman Nick Papas said.

What kind of clarification is needed??? Either they can or they can't deny this year. Sounds to me like Papas and Obama's administration said that can't deny children. Must be a nicely overlooked loophole. And don't blame the Repubs for this Democratic crafted and controlled bill. Maybe some Insurance industry lobbyist snuck into the back room and made a deal with Pelosi to leave an out for the coverage.

rmantano...do you think that clarifying regulations are on the way because they got caught in the great scam. If you have ever been in a court room or interrogation room, you would clearly see how "caught liars" are constantly clarifying their statements. There is one certain way that you don't need to clarify a statement...that is to tell the truth the first time.

Any person that has ever lied, especially our children, have to come up with an additional ten lies to cover up the original lie. That is what "clarification" means. When our children lie to us it is about self preservation...when our politicians lie to us it is usually associated with a grab for power.

Obama has no private industry experience. He has always been paid from the taxpayer's dollar. Those that only know taxpayer money thinks government is an unlimited money tree. No budgets for him. Although not on topic, you must google the article about the White House parties and the most expensive First Lady staff any presidency has ever known. No tightening of the reins here, despite the destitute economy.

Hank in Maine:

I'm running to get a Big Mac and some Fries (Super Size) for lunch

With a diet like that ... Enjoy running while you still can ... ;-)

Hey.. it's FRIDAY.. why not treat myself?