Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   A government report says ObamaCare will add $6.2 trillion to deficits. Here are five reasons it's sure to add much more than that   (news.investors.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, obamacare, federal deficits, insurance exchange, health spending, deficits  
•       •       •

1862 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Feb 2013 at 12:37 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-27 10:24:42 AM  
"The Alabama senator asked the office to estimate what would happen if the cost containment provisions in the law -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board, excise tax on high-cost plans, and reductions in Medicare payments to providers -- are 'phased out over time' while the coverage provisions remain."

This is roughly the equivalent of the Boston Celtics' coach asking someone on his staff, "Figure out what our record would be if our opponents' points didn't count." Then, soon after, the coach called a press conference to declare, "Good news everyone! We're undefeated! We've won every game in a shutout!" Link
 
2013-02-27 11:27:06 AM  
The article is about why those are reasonable assumptions.
 
2013-02-27 11:40:28 AM  
What will happen if Obamacare mandates everyone gets a unicorn that craps gold bars?!?!?! The budget hawks demand answers!
 
2013-02-27 11:43:08 AM  
There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.
 
2013-02-27 11:43:33 AM  
And what does this mean for the Benghazi investigation?
 
2013-02-27 11:47:21 AM  
I heard that even with obamacare you're still going to die anyway so lets talk about some nice tax cuts instead.
 
2013-02-27 11:55:55 AM  
This is exactly the dollar figure Obamacare was sold to us with.
 
2013-02-27 12:09:02 PM  

MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.


So much so that we didn't even have to count it as part of the budget as we spent it!

/Yippie!
 
2013-02-27 12:30:37 PM  

beantowndog: I heard that even with obamacare you're still going to die anyway so lets talk about some nice tax cuts instead.


I heard that everybody is still going to die someday BECAUSE of Obamacare.
 
2013-02-27 12:30:51 PM  
6.2 trillion over the course of 75 years, or in other terms, a tiny fraction of what Bush's Medicare Part D costs.
 
2013-02-27 12:34:16 PM  
FTFA: When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

Federal budget projections are ten years at a time. This doesn't even make sense. The war against Alpha Ceti 1 led by Emperor Springsteen II in 2035 will dwarf that cost alone.

/oops, I've said too much already
 
2013-02-27 12:38:22 PM  
I'll take point here guys.

First, these are nonsense numbers extrapolated out over a stupid amount of time. Now onto the meat.


'Obamacare' adds government subsidies for people who cannot afford healthcare insurance to get it. Without healthcare insurance, these people still use healthcare and do not pay, causing healthcare organizations to charge more to everyone else to make up for it. One way or another, YOU are paying for it. The benefit of paying through the government means that they can negotiate lower paid prices to the healthcare organizations, driving down the average price paid for procedures, offsetting the increased cost of the initial subidies. Otherwise, what motivation does the healthcare organization have to lower prices? They'll simply take the new increased revenue as profit and say "Thank you very much." The government actually has some of the lowest reimbursement rates across the board.

 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)
 
2013-02-27 12:38:27 PM  
And I've never even gotten a call back on my death panel application!
 
2013-02-27 12:45:12 PM  
Good point.  Lets change to single payer instead.

Or just scrap everything (including medicare, medicaid) and let the "Free market" continue sucking the lifeblood from our economy.
 
2013-02-27 12:46:03 PM  
In 75 years I'll be either dead or too senile to care.
 
2013-02-27 12:46:43 PM  
Investors.com is pure republican math.......they even oppose Obama when he's bailing out banks/wall street.
 
2013-02-27 12:47:55 PM  
Presidential fartiness IS at an all time high

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-27 12:48:46 PM  

justtray: I'll take point here guys.

First, these are nonsense numbers extrapolated out over a stupid amount of time. Now onto the meat.


'Obamacare' adds government subsidies for people who cannot afford healthcare insurance to get it. Without healthcare insurance, these people still use healthcare and do not pay, causing healthcare organizations to charge more to everyone else to make up for it. One way or another, YOU are paying for it. The benefit of paying through the government means that they can negotiate lower paid prices to the healthcare organizations, driving down the average price paid for procedures, offsetting the increased cost of the initial subidies. Otherwise, what motivation does the healthcare organization have to lower prices? They'll simply take the new increased revenue as profit and say "Thank you very much." The government actually has some of the lowest reimbursement rates across the board.

 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)


Its Investors.com. Nobody's paying you overtime to refute them.

Could have just wrote "Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"
 
2013-02-27 12:53:14 PM  
Someone explain to subby the difference between deficits and debt - actually, someone explain that to Investors.com, too. If you aren't literate in financial terms, you probably shouldn't be giving investment advice.
 
2013-02-27 12:54:32 PM  
Investor's Business Daily's editorial page?  You might as well be getting financial advice from a drunken Jim Cramer high on cocaine laced with Courtney Love's vaginal mucus.
 
2013-02-27 12:55:36 PM  
 
2013-02-27 12:55:48 PM  
jeff sessions......6.2 trillion....is that the outrage du jour this time?

ok jeff....see ya in another month or two when you have new numbers and/or you smooth-talk another online rag to publish your derp.
 
2013-02-27 12:56:20 PM  

MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.


Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.
 
2013-02-27 12:56:40 PM  

CPennypacker: justtray: I'll take point here guys.

First, these are nonsense numbers extrapolated out over a stupid amount of time. Now onto the meat.


'Obamacare' adds government subsidies for people who cannot afford healthcare insurance to get it. Without healthcare insurance, these people still use healthcare and do not pay, causing healthcare organizations to charge more to everyone else to make up for it. One way or another, YOU are paying for it. The benefit of paying through the government means that they can negotiate lower paid prices to the healthcare organizations, driving down the average price paid for procedures, offsetting the increased cost of the initial subidies. Otherwise, what motivation does the healthcare organization have to lower prices? They'll simply take the new increased revenue as profit and say "Thank you very much." The government actually has some of the lowest reimbursement rates across the board.

 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)

Its Investors.com. Nobody's paying you overtime to refute them.

Could have just wrote "Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"


It's nice, though, when someone takes the time to refute Republican positions using reasoned arguments.  Otherwise, one day we might find ourselves in the "Anti-idiot, rape-is-bad, not-anti-browns-people" camp, and not remember why.
 
2013-02-27 12:57:27 PM  
Investors Business Daily is World Net Daily minus some racism
 
2013-02-27 12:57:57 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The article is about why those are reasonable assumptions.


Meh, I don't quite trust IBD as a reasonable source.

You know who else doesn't trust IBD as a reasonable source?

www.independent.co.uk

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/08/12/hawking-serves-crow-to -i nvesto/
 
2013-02-27 12:58:15 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: beantowndog: I heard that even with obamacare you're still going to die anyway so lets talk about some nice tax cuts instead.

I heard that everybody is still going to die someday BECAUSE of Obamacare.


Sounds like a good way to solve the social security and medicare problems!
 
2013-02-27 01:04:30 PM  
I like how Fark Cons were citing this yesterday like it was the end all of all reports.
 
2013-02-27 01:07:54 PM  
Dogs are getting fatter. At the present rate, in 75 years, dogs will be bigger than cows.
 
2013-02-27 01:10:03 PM  

Somacandra: FTFA: When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

Federal budget projections are ten years at a time. This doesn't even make sense. The war against Alpha Ceti 1 led by Emperor Springsteen II in 2035 will dwarf that cost alone.

/oops, I've said too much already


And I'm sure MRI's are going to cost just as much in the year 3000.  Medical technology probably won't become any more advanced or less expensive in 75 years.
 
2013-02-27 01:10:49 PM  
When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

So, $82.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, our annual defense budget is about 8 times as much.

Hell, the interest we're paying on debts from past wars is  $109.1-$431.5 billion (in 2012).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Bu dg et_breakdown_for_2012

Let's just not get into any more long-term wars of choice based on made-up intelligence and we should be fine.

But thanks for the concern, subby & hack journalist.
 
2013-02-27 01:11:03 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Dogs are getting fatter. At the present rate, in 75 years, dogs will be bigger than cows.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-27 01:14:24 PM  
The real question is: How many Stephen Hawkings must Obama personally murder before we realize that Obamacare is an abomination?
 
2013-02-27 01:17:51 PM  
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.
 
2013-02-27 01:18:03 PM  

thurstonxhowell: The real question is: How many Stephen Hawkings must Obama personally murder before we realize that Obamacare is an Obamanation?


FTFY
 
2013-02-27 01:19:41 PM  

chiett: It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.


This is what Republicans actually believe!
 
2013-02-27 01:20:31 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.


And that's assuming nothing at all changes for 75 years.
 
2013-02-27 01:20:58 PM  
Is there anyone out there who has been really sick (or a family member) that doesn't supper a single payer system? I can't imagine anyone who receives a $100,000 hospital bill and their insurance only covers 80% is going to think "gee we have a great system"
 
2013-02-27 01:24:41 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

So, $82.6 billion a year.


and $80 billion a year has been cut from Medicare to cover the cost.
 
2013-02-27 01:26:11 PM  

chiett: It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.


this is what Republicans are actually programmed to believe
 
2013-02-27 01:27:41 PM  
chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.


Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)
 
2013-02-27 01:27:55 PM  
This is a blog from Investor's Business Daily, whose initials are IBD.

IBD also stands for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Therefore, does Investor's Business Daily = Inflammatory Bowel Disease?

Coincidence? I think not.
 
2013-02-27 01:28:20 PM  

Carth: Is there anyone out there who has been really sick (or a family member) that doesn't supper a single payer system? I can't imagine anyone who receives a $100,000 hospital bill and their insurance only covers 80% is going to think "gee we have a great system"


But without the insurance it would have been much higher, think of all the guns and freedom you could buy with all the money you're saving!
 
2013-02-27 01:28:33 PM  

PanicMan: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

And that's assuming nothing at all changes for 75 years.


Baby Boomers will be nearly 150 years old in 75 years.  Do you have any idea how expensive it will be to keep them alive?
 
2013-02-27 01:30:13 PM  

chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)


Why do you keep such poor company?
 
2013-02-27 01:33:46 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

So, $82.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, our annual defense budget is about 8 times as much.

Hell, the interest we're paying on debts from past wars is  $109.1-$431.5 billion (in 2012).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Bu dg et_breakdown_for_2012

Let's just not get into any more long-term wars of choice based on made-up intelligence and we should be fine.

But thanks for the concern, subby & hack journalist.


The other thing to note is that actual dollars is fairly meaningless without context. Over those same 75 years our working population will increase as will our GDP. Of course we will spend more, but what that spending amounts to per capita, or more importantly as a percentage of our GDP is much more meaningful.
 
2013-02-27 01:34:16 PM  

chiett: Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)


You and clane need to learn how to use a quote button.

What a Fark Con trying to respond to someone looks like:
 
2013-02-27 01:34:55 PM  
That's nothing. Over 750 years, the cost will be $620 trillion dollars. That's almost a Brazilian dollars or something. Thanks a lot, Fartbongo!
 
2013-02-27 01:34:58 PM  
That's $6.2 trillion each, per day.
 
2013-02-27 01:35:13 PM  

chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)


It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.
 
2013-02-27 01:36:21 PM  
www.kurzweilai.net
 
2013-02-27 01:39:52 PM  

chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)


What chiett meeting a bleeding heart Democrat who believes what he wrote might look like.

www.poynter.org
 
2013-02-27 01:42:28 PM  
Obamacare will make millions for rich healthcare companies and executives and since they don't have to pay taxes because socialism it leads to large deficits.
 
2013-02-27 01:44:14 PM  
Does the PPACA mean that people will stop being so fat?  No?

Does the PPACA mean that people will stop getting $3,600 MRIs every time they stub their toe?  No?

Unless we find a way to SPEND LESS on healthcare, nothing is solved, no matter how much the PPACA shuffles the costs around.
 
2013-02-27 01:46:07 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-27 01:48:21 PM  
didn't click, was it basically this?

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-02-27 01:48:53 PM  

RexTalionis: 6.2 trillion over the course of 75 years, or in other terms, a tiny fraction of what Bush's Medicare Part D costs.


It's over 75 years? So it will cost us $80B per year? That's...not that much.
 
2013-02-27 01:49:40 PM  
6 trillion is the low-ball estimate.  "Not a single dime" is technically accurate....
 
2013-02-27 01:50:43 PM  

LarryDan43: Obamacare will make millions for rich healthcare companies and executives and since they don't have to pay taxes because socialism it leads to large deficits.


not with that 80/20 rule in place.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/reports/mlr-rebates06212012a.html
 
2013-02-27 01:52:05 PM  

jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.


True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.
 
2013-02-27 01:52:40 PM  

chiett: .
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.


What work is "truly" doing in that sentence?
 
2013-02-27 01:54:40 PM  
justtray:
 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)


One thing people don't mention when they argue for a company dropping health insurance is that I believe (no citation) that it's illegal to offer insurance to some employees and not others.  In other words, you can't offer it to senior executives and not the lower level employees.  I would think it would be harder to attract upper level talent if you don't offer health insurance.

I'm sure there'd be ways around it like offering (even higher) bonuses to higher level employees, but I got to believe that it's more trouble than it's worth to go through all that crap just to remove a benefit you're already offering at the expense of your employees.
 
2013-02-27 01:55:53 PM  

DamnYankees: chiett: .
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.

What work is "truly" doing in that sentence?


You know, excluding all those lazy Democrat voting 'takers'.
 
2013-02-27 01:55:54 PM  

chiett: jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.

True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


8/10 you had me believing you right up to the last line. Had you left it off it would have been perfect example of poe's law.
 
2013-02-27 01:56:07 PM  

chiett: jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.

True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


Awww, looks like I hurt someone's feelings. If you don't want anyone to bust your chops don't make obviously dishonest statements in your posts, it isn't difficult.
 
2013-02-27 01:57:16 PM  

chiett: I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-27 01:57:54 PM  

maweimer9: justtray:
 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)

One thing people don't mention when they argue for a company dropping health insurance is that I believe (no citation) that it's illegal to offer insurance to some employees and not others.  In other words, you can't offer it to senior executives and not the lower level employees.  I would think it would be harder to attract upper level talent if you don't offer health insurance.

I'm sure there'd be ways around it like offering (even higher) bonuses to higher level employees, but I got to believe that it's more trouble than it's worth to go through all that crap just to remove a benefit you're already offering at the expense of your employees.


They just offer better coverage to the higher level employees.

/used to work for a health care insurer
 
2013-02-27 02:00:03 PM  

chiett: I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


Don't you make her call twice!
 
2013-02-27 02:07:57 PM  
I believe when chiett gets called out for his bullshiat he moves the goal posts by falling back to vague statements that are pretty much universally agreed upon.

chiett: I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.


Of course, everyone does.

I believe I should give back to my country.

Of course, aside from some fringe groups everyone agrees with this, the debate is about how much and how.

I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.

Of course, aside from some outlying exceptions most agree with this, the debate is about what is "fair".

I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.

Of course, everyone does, but there is a vague word in there.

After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.

Who said you did?

and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

Of course, there is waste in any large organization and government is no different. I can't think of many people who would disagree with this statement.

I believe you have nothing useful to add to the conversation.
 
2013-02-27 02:16:13 PM  

maweimer9: justtray:
 
The argument that Obamacare is going to force employers to drop employee health insurance plan is at best, laughably stupid. Just because it's cheaper to pay a fine than to pay for insurance they already provide, doesn't mean they'll drop it. Right now it's EVEN CHEAPER THAN THAT to drop employee insurance and pay no fine, yet it's not being done. The only reasons why a company would now decide to remove your insurance is twofold; because they were going to anyway, or because it's politically motivated (we can blame the blah guy)

One thing people don't mention when they argue for a company dropping health insurance is that I believe (no citation) that it's illegal to offer insurance to some employees and not others.  In other words, you can't offer it to senior executives and not the lower level employees.  I would think it would be harder to attract upper level talent if you don't offer health insurance.

I'm sure there'd be ways around it like offering (even higher) bonuses to higher level employees, but I got to believe that it's more trouble than it's worth to go through all that crap just to remove a benefit you're already offering at the expense of your employees.


If it causes a few companies to remove health benefits to a few senior executives that is hardly a big concern - they can afford it, and have the negotiating power at the company to solve it themselves one way or another, so that is hardly a meaningful criticism of the program.
 
2013-02-27 02:23:13 PM  

ansuz07: MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.

Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.



You be surprised. The conversion isn't as far off as you think, and is better than converting 90% of other positions.
 
2013-02-27 02:25:02 PM  
Meh, that's not what the report says at all, but when have neo-cons every given a flying fark about reality?
 
2013-02-27 02:26:20 PM  

chiett: jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.

True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.


If this is what you believe in, you are way off backing the GOP.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.

We understand it, but not for the reasons you meant. Enjoy your cheetos.
 
2013-02-27 02:27:50 PM  

RexTalionis: 6.2 trillion over the course of 75 years, or in other terms, a tiny fraction of what Bush's Medicare Part D costs.


6.2 Trillion over 75 years if you assume that all the fraud and overpayments will get restored to medicare, absolutely no cost-forwarding savings happen (poor people will still vector pneumonia and the like to 10 other people instead of seeking more immediate care or preventative care), and totally unsustainable inflation rates continue in the health insurance and healthcare industries, and nobody tries to do anything about it. Basically, if we only count the parts we hate, and we assume we can undo any of the cost savings measures, it looks pretty bad.
 
2013-02-27 02:29:34 PM  
Just for shats and giggles i tossed "6.3 trillion dollars divided by 350 million people divided by 75 years " into WRA and got 240 dollars per person per year, about 20 dollars per month (BTW, if you don't know the Zen of Wolfram Alpha, learn it). Granulating further, that's 65 CENTS per day. That seems entirely reasonable to me.
 
2013-02-27 02:33:24 PM  
*facepalm*

75 yrs
 
2013-02-27 02:34:27 PM  
US MILITARY SPENDING IS ADDING QUINTILLIONS OF DOLLARS* TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT WE HAVE TO CUT ALL MILITARY SPENDING IMMEDIATELY

*Over the next millennium
 
2013-02-27 02:35:44 PM  

theknuckler_33: They just offer better coverage to the higher level employees.

/used to work for a health care insurer


Let me see if I can update this Clinton-era health insurance joke:

As Obamacare kicks in, Michelle Obama is getting a tour around a large hospital. At one point the group walks into a patient room and the patient there is receiving a handjob from the nurse. Michelle explodes: "I can't believe I'm seeing this! No wonder our health costs are out of control! This is the most unprofessional, inappropriate thing I've ever seen!" The doctor leading the tour says "Please, Mrs. Obama, calm down. This patient suffers from a condition called 'hyperspermatosis.' His body simply manufactures too much sperm and if the pressure isn't relieved occasionally, he could literally explode." Michelle Obama is mollified and they continue their tour. After a while they walk into another patient room and this time the nurse is giving the patient a blowjob. "I knew there was something fishy going on here!" screams Michelle. "I can't believe these kinds of activities go on in our hospitals!" Again the doctor tries to mollify her. "Please calm down, Mrs. Obama," he says. "This patient also suffers from hyperspermatosis... he just has a better insurance plan."
 
2013-02-27 02:37:04 PM  

saintstryfe: Just for shats and giggles i tossed "6.3 trillion dollars divided by 350 million people divided by 75 years " into WRA and got 240 dollars per person per year, about 20 dollars per month (BTW, if you don't know the Zen of Wolfram Alpha, learn it). Granulating further, that's 65 CENTS per day. That seems entirely reasonable to me.


cdn.prosebeforehos.com
"That's less than the price of a cup of coffee!"

 
2013-02-27 02:38:30 PM  

clambam: theknuckler_33: They just offer better coverage to the higher level employees.

/used to work for a health care insurer

Let me see if I can update this Clinton-era health insurance joke:

As Obamacare kicks in, Michelle Obama is getting a tour around a large hospital. At one point the group walks into a patient room and the patient there is receiving a handjob from the nurse. Michelle explodes: "I can't believe I'm seeing this! No wonder our health costs are out of control! This is the most unprofessional, inappropriate thing I've ever seen!" The doctor leading the tour says "Please, Mrs. Obama, calm down. This patient suffers from a condition called 'hyperspermatosis.' His body simply manufactures too much sperm and if the pressure isn't relieved occasionally, he could literally explode." Michelle Obama is mollified and they continue their tour. After a while they walk into another patient room and this time the nurse is giving the patient a blowjob. "I knew there was something fishy going on here!" screams Michelle. "I can't believe these kinds of activities go on in our hospitals!" Again the doctor tries to mollify her. "Please calm down, Mrs. Obama," he says. "This patient also suffers from hyperspermatosis... he just has a better insurance plan."


www.socialyodev.com
 
2013-02-27 02:39:53 PM  

PanicMan: In 75 years I'll be either dead or too senile to care.


I'll be 125, still getting my government prescribed Viagra and hookers. For health reasons!
 
2013-02-27 02:41:00 PM  
I presume that's assuming tax revenues stay constant while medical spending increases at historic rates for the next 500 years?
 
2013-02-27 02:50:22 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-02-27 02:52:18 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: ansuz07: MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.

Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.


You be surprised. The conversion isn't as far off as you think, and is better than converting 90% of other positions.


While I don't have data to back this up, I have to believe that the conversion is a little more difficult.  We can't just convert all of our soldiers into doctors/nurses a.  The training alone will take years (4+ additional years of education to become a licences health care professional) and will only be practical to a very small subset of the armed forces (the ability to retain that much medical knowledge is a rare trait).

Now, even if that conversion can be made at a high enough rate to be practical, you still have the cost of retrofiring factories to manufacture medical equipment. The skills and tools needed to build a Patriot missile are different that those required to build an MRI machine.  Assuming that we can ramp up manufacturing of the component parts and train the workers fast enough to build these new machines (a big assumption) we are still talking hundreds of billions of dollars to retrofit factories.

While I do believe that some of this conversion is possible, it will not be one-for-one (probably pretty far from it).  Regardless of how close it is, the only point I was making is that saying "We spend $XXX on the military.  Why can't we just spend that on healthcare," is a flawed assumption.  Healthcare is rationed because we have a constrained supply (which makes it expensive), not because we are lacking the will to pay for it.

If you want to fix the issue, you have to fix the supply problem.  Reallocating funds alone won't come close to solving the problem.
 
2013-02-27 02:55:50 PM  
 
2013-02-27 02:58:39 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.


I love how democrats tell us cutting $82.6 billion a year for sequester is cataclysmic, but adding $82.6 billion a year to deficits for Obamacare wouldn't even be counted as a rounding error.
 
2013-02-27 03:03:25 PM  

SlothB77: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

I love how democrats tell us cutting $82.6 billion a year for sequester is cataclysmic, but adding $82.6 billion a year to deficits for Obamacare wouldn't even be counted as a rounding error.


DId you cross a couple wires or something?
 
2013-02-27 03:07:36 PM  

SlothB77: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

I love how democrats tell us cutting $82.6 billion a year for sequester is cataclysmic, but adding $82.6 billion a year to deficits for Obamacare wouldn't even be counted as a rounding error.


Do you even read what you type anymore?
 
2013-02-27 03:08:41 PM  

Somacandra: FTFA: When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

Federal budget projections are ten years at a time. This doesn't even make sense. The war against Alpha Ceti 1 led by Emperor Springsteen II in 2035 will dwarf that cost alone.

/oops, I've said too much already


So we're talking about 82 billion a year. That's 151 Planned Parenthood. Outrageous!
 
2013-02-27 03:13:45 PM  

ansuz07: machodonkeywrestler: ansuz07: MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.

Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.


You be surprised. The conversion isn't as far off as you think, and is better than converting 90% of other positions.

While I don't have data to back this up, I have to believe that the conversion is a little more difficult.  We can't just convert all of our soldiers into doctors/nurses a.  The training alone will take years (4+ additional years of education to become a licences health care professional) and will only be practical to a very small subset of the armed forces (the ability to retain that much medical knowledge is a rare trait).

Now, even if that conversion can be made at a high enough rate to be practical, you still have the cost of retrofiring factories to manufacture medical equipment. The skills and tools needed to build a Patriot missile are different that those required to build an MRI machine.  Assuming that we can ramp up manufacturing of the component parts and train the workers fast enough to build these new machines (a big assumption) we are still talking hundreds of billions of dollars to retrofit factories.

While I do believe that some of this conversion is possible, it will not be one-for-one (probably pretty far from it).  Regardless of how close it is, the ...


You don't change a large percentage them into doctors, you fill EMT and other programs, such as nursing, which usually require a year or less of training. Support staff for Dr. can free up an great amount of the Dr's time.

The skills and tools needed to build a Patriot missile are different that those required to build an MRI machine.

Not as different as you might think. Life Sciences is full of retired Army engineers fixing instruments.

The bottom line is it is a Will problem and not a Supply problem. The changeover isn't 1:1, but it is a lot closer than most fields.
 
2013-02-27 03:19:52 PM  

PanicMan: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

And that's assuming nothing at all changes for 75 years.


Well, I'm sure the Vulcans landing in 2056 will force us to recalculate.

blog.nola.com
 
2013-02-27 03:22:53 PM  
machodonkeywrestler:

Not as different as you might think. Life Sciences is full of retired Army engineers fixing instruments.

The bottom line is it is a Will problem and not a Supply problem. The changeover isn't 1:1, but it is a lot closer than most fields.


I have no reason to doubt you that this does happen for some.  Still, what percentage of the total armed forces is capable of making that change?  Being a medical practitioner is far different from being an engineer - very different skill-sets and knowledge requirements.  Per the WSJ, we will face a shortage of 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230450690457518033152842 4 238.html).  Given that we have about 400,000 active military (http://us-military-branches.findthedata.org), do we really believe that 37.5% of the active military can become doctors or nurses?

It really is a supply problem.  One can't simply will oneself into being a doctor.  You need the aptitude and the training.  There is only so much of that to go around.
 
2013-02-27 03:25:58 PM  

eggrolls: PanicMan: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

And that's assuming nothing at all changes for 75 years.

Well, I'm sure the Vulcans landing in 2056 will force us to recalculate.

[blog.nola.com image 453x240]


You magnificent bastard.
 
2013-02-27 03:31:02 PM  

ansuz07: machodonkeywrestler:

Not as different as you might think. Life Sciences is full of retired Army engineers fixing instruments.

The bottom line is it is a Will problem and not a Supply problem. The changeover isn't 1:1, but it is a lot closer than most fields.

I have no reason to doubt you that this does happen for some.  Still, what percentage of the total armed forces is capable of making that change?  Being a medical practitioner is far different from being an engineer - very different skill-sets and knowledge requirements.  Per the WSJ, we will face a shortage of 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230450690457518033152842 4 238.html).  Given that we have about 400,000 active military (http://us-military-branches.findthedata.org), do we really believe that 37.5% of the active military can become doctors or nurses?

It really is a supply problem.  One can't simply will oneself into being a doctor.  You need the aptitude and the training.  There is only so much of that to go around.


My point is that you don't need that many doctors. That # could be reduced by at least 1/3-1/2 by reassigning duties currently assigned to a doctor to other medical professionals. You do not need to be a doctor to fulfill a lot of functions that are currently done by doctors. The rise of the CVS pharmacy/Minute Clinic has shown that many of these functions can be turned over to nurse practitioners and PA's. It's not like being a doctor takes a highly scientific mind, anyway. Most doctors are not doing any type of scientific research during their career. It is a trade school, after all.
 
2013-02-27 04:12:20 PM  
By the way, has anyone mentioned that the $6.2 trillion in deficits only are projected by the GAO if Congress decided to strip every budget-saving provision from the Healthcare Reform Law?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/02/26/conservative-media-echo-m i sleading-gop-claim-on/192809
 
2013-02-27 04:19:21 PM  
So some stupid right-wing money-obsessed blog thinks that Obamacare is going to jack up the deficits.  Big surprise there.

I really gotta wonder how much money might have been saved if the private sector would have stepped up and offered affordable health care to the public.

This is why we are seeing government intervention once again. Greed, and the "right" to dominate this country economically.
 
2013-02-27 04:22:20 PM  

saintstryfe: Just for shats and giggles i tossed "6.3 trillion dollars divided by 350 million people divided by 75 years " into WRA and got 240 dollars per person per year, about 20 dollars per month (BTW, if you don't know the Zen of Wolfram Alpha, learn it). Granulating further, that's 65 CENTS per day. That seems entirely reasonable to me.


lol, and that's the number from the people doing their best to fight *against* the bill.
 
2013-02-27 04:46:25 PM  
I'm sure that the most increases in the debt and/or deficit is pretty much always from Republicans and the "defense" budget. We still need to occupy Germany and Japan and we still need to invade random countries but God forbid we try to take care of our own citizens like every other civilized country in the world does.
 
2013-02-27 04:48:05 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Investors Business Daily is World Net Daily minus some racism

 
2013-02-27 05:04:30 PM  
 
2013-02-27 05:23:46 PM  

RexTalionis: By the way, has anyone mentioned that the $6.2 trillion in deficits only are projected by the GAO if Congress decided to strip every budget-saving provision from the Healthcare Reform Law?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/02/26/conservative-media-echo-m i sleading-gop-claim-on/192809


Imagine how much worse the deficit would be if we repealed FICA but kept Social Security!
 
2013-02-27 05:56:04 PM  

jigger: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/306778350574260224
[i52.tinypic.com image 452x212]


There a date on that? That could have been anytime in the last 10 years.
 
2013-02-27 06:03:51 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

So, $82.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, our annual defense budget is about 8 times as much.


Thanks to inflation, $82.6 billion in 75 years will be the equivalent of about $5 billion today. Macroeconomically speaking, that's chickenfeed--about the annual budget of a large American city.
 
2013-02-27 06:08:58 PM  
I just wish Obama would not have backed down from the fight for a public option.  It would have driven the insane over-the-top prices health insurance companies charge to not help you when you need it most.  With a low-cost public option, the shiathead insurance companies would have had to lower prices to compete, you know the way capitalism is supposed to work.  However, the billions put into buying off members of Congress and the bullshiat fear propaganda about socialism that the companies strategized worked.
 
2013-02-27 06:11:44 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/306778350574260224
[i52.tinypic.com image 452x212]

There a date on that? That could have been anytime in the last 10 years.


If you had clicked the link:

6:50 AM - Feb 27, 2013
 
2013-02-27 06:12:56 PM  

jigger: If you had clicked the link:

6:50 AM - Feb 27, 2013


And you completely missed the point.
 
2013-02-27 06:16:01 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/306778350574260224
[i52.tinypic.com image 452x212]

There a date on that? That could have been anytime in the last 10 years.


Here. Satisfied?

i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-27 06:16:39 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: If you had clicked the link:

6:50 AM - Feb 27, 2013

And you completely missed the point.


I guess you missed the point of the AFFORDABLE care act.
 
2013-02-27 06:34:35 PM  

jigger: I guess you missed the point of the AFFORDABLE care act.


It didn't do enough in preventing insurance companies from jacking up costs because "fark you."? Yeah, that could have been done better. Doesn't change the fact that the insurance companies have no clear or better reason now than they did at any point in the last decade.
 
2013-02-27 06:45:39 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: I guess you missed the point of the AFFORDABLE care act.

It didn't do enough in preventing insurance companies from jacking up costs because "fark you."? Yeah, that could have been done better. Doesn't change the fact that the insurance companies have no clear or better reason now than they did at any point in the last decade.


Actually:

Obamacare requires more generous insurance plans at a minimum
It requires coverage of people with pre-existing conditions
It requires that people with pre-existing conditions pay the same as everyone else
With the medical loss ratio set in stone at 80/20 the way to make more money is to jack up rates

These are just some of the reasons Obamacare is directly causing rates to jump double digits.

I'm not saying these requirements are necessarily bad things, but anyone could see in 2010 when the law came down that it would increase insurance premiums.
 
2013-02-27 06:56:36 PM  

jigger: It requires coverage of people with pre-existing conditions
It requires that people with pre-existing conditions pay the same as everyone else


It also gave the insurance company a larger pool of customers. That more than offsets the cost of the people with pre-existing conditions. This is not a case where the insurance company are raising rates out of absolute necessity.
 
2013-02-27 07:01:17 PM  

jigger: These are just some of the reasons Obamacare is directly causing rates to jump double digits.


Obamacare is an easy thing to point to, nothing more, for the exact same behavior the insurance industry has been doing for the past decade for no good reason at all.  Our bills would have gone up regardless. At least some of the provisions in the ACA mean that money will actually have to go to caring for people that need it, and get more people insured.

Getting more people insured. Forming a larger pool. That by itself should lower rates. Insurers are jacking up rates when they're going to get a goddamn subsidy, using the exact same reasoning they've used for the last 10 years: water is wet, the sky is blue, the CEO needs a new yacht, fark you.
 
2013-02-27 07:03:11 PM  

ansuz07: MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.

Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.


I used to be a house painter, now I'm a web developer. I must be unpossible.
 
2013-02-27 07:16:30 PM  

chiett: jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.

True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


Truly less fortunate - you mean anyone that has the poor judgement to develop a long term illness and has to deal with the American medical system right? Because they're less fortunate that pretty much anyone else in western society.
 
2013-02-27 07:21:31 PM  
hobberwickey:

I used to be a house painter, now I'm a web developer. I must be unpossible.

Of course its possible.  Janitors can become astronauts.  Fry cooks can become doctors.  Its possible, just uncommon.

Any individual can change professions.  All I am saying is that it isn't one to one.  Continuing your example, if I ran a web programming frim I couldn't just wake up and say, "Lets divert all the building maintenance funding to programmers.  Find every painter, give them a laptop and get them programming!"

Would some make the transition?  Yes, some would.  However, I would bet that the vast majority would be unable to change jobs; the skill-sets are not analogous and many would be unable to make the transition.

Now, the "cut war funding" camp would say, "But you moved the money.  That should fix the problem!"  However, the issue was never the money; it was the availability of resources capable of doing the different task.  Some can change; most can't.
 
2013-02-27 07:24:47 PM  

SlothB77: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

I love how democrats tell us cutting $82.6 billion a year for sequester is cataclysmic, but adding $82.6 billion a year to deficits for Obamacare wouldn't even be counted as a rounding error.


ansuz07: machodonkeywrestler:

Not as different as you might think. Life Sciences is full of retired Army engineers fixing instruments.

The bottom line is it is a Will problem and not a Supply problem. The changeover isn't 1:1, but it is a lot closer than most fields.

I have no reason to doubt you that this does happen for some.  Still, what percentage of the total armed forces is capable of making that change?  Being a medical practitioner is far different from being an engineer - very different skill-sets and knowledge requirements.  Per the WSJ, we will face a shortage of 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230450690457518033152842 4 238.html).  Given that we have about 400,000 active military (http://us-military-branches.findthedata.org), do we really believe that 37.5% of the active military can become doctors or nurses?

It really is a supply problem.  One can't simply will oneself into being a doctor.  You need the aptitude and the training.  There is only so much of that to go around.


So let's keep pumping money into the military and convert none of those people into doctors?
 
2013-02-27 07:28:42 PM  
hobberwickey:

So let's keep pumping money into the military and convert none of those people into doctors?

Again, I'm not advocating that.  I think that we SHOULD divert money from the military to other social programs - our military is a relic of an older age when major countries could actually go to war with each other.  That age is over.

All I am saying is that its isn't one to one.  You can't slash the military and expect that to solve the entire problem - the solution is far more nuanced.
 
2013-02-27 07:40:06 PM  

ansuz07: hobberwickey:

So let's keep pumping money into the military and convert none of those people into doctors?

Again, I'm not advocating that.  I think that we SHOULD divert money from the military to other social programs - our military is a relic of an older age when major countries could actually go to war with each other.  That age is over.

All I am saying is that its isn't one to one.  You can't slash the military and expect that to solve the entire problem - the solution is far more nuanced.


I know what you're saying, but I think what you're missing is no one is advocating retraining military personnel as doctors, or even nurses. You take money out of one thing and put it into other things (including healthcare) and some people migrate from the military to healthcare, some to other sectors, some people from other sectors migrate to healthcare, some people from the military migrate to those jobs other people left, and so on. That's the benefit of a large diverse economy like ours.

Maybe if we took some of the money out of the military and put it towards subsidizing medical school so people didn't come out with $250,000 in debt more people might do it, and doctors maybe wouldn't need to get paid so much, and smart soldiers could become doctors and dumb soldiers could become janitors at medical schools. Hell, smart soldiers could become janitors - who knows.
 
2013-02-27 07:47:19 PM  
jst3p:
Awww, looks like I hurt someone's feelings. If you don't want anyone to bust your chops don't make obviously dishonest statements in your posts, it isn't difficult.

Far from it. I would first have to care what you think.

So, Put up. What do you believe in? Or do you only try and judge?
 
2013-02-27 09:53:08 PM  

chiett: jst3p:
Awww, looks like I hurt someone's feelings. If you don't want anyone to bust your chops don't make obviously dishonest statements in your posts, it isn't difficult.

Far from it. I would first have to care what you think.

So, Put up. What do you believe in? Or do you only try and judge?


I believe in a great many things. What I don't believe is that you know anyone who holds the point of view that you claimed every "bleeding heart (mostly Democrats) hold. I believe you are a liar.
 
2013-02-27 10:24:02 PM  
jst3p

Aw, now you have hit on the one thing that I'm not and am instantly offended by.
So here is my moment of "internet Tuff guy".
Pray we never meet.
 
2013-02-28 12:54:49 AM  

Isitoveryet: chiett: It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

this is what Republicans are actually programmed to believe


And Democrats programmed to deny. And obfuscate. And ignore. And denounce as "racist".
 
2013-02-28 08:37:30 AM  

jjorsett: Isitoveryet: chiett: It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

this is what Republicans are actually programmed to believe

And Democrats programmed to deny. And obfuscate. And ignore. And denounce as "racist".


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


Subby's article is funny.  "The Right Wing; Suddenly Giving a Damn About Deficits Since January 20, 2009!"
 
2013-02-28 06:48:57 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 124 of 124 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report