Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:29 AM ET, 01/14/2011

There's no 'job-killing health-care law'

By Ezra Klein

boehnerpapers.jpg

I'm glad the House GOP is planning to "resume thoughtful consideration" of their bill to repeal the health-care reform law. Nothing about the tragedy in Tucson makes the health-care law any better, any worse or any less worthy of further debate. It's important that we're able to continue discussing it and improving it and thinking it through. But if we are going to have "thoughtful consideration," then let's have it. In particular, let's change the name of H.R.2, which is now called "The Repealing the Job-Killing Health-Care Law Act."

There's no "job-killing" health-care law. There's only the health-care bill. And my problem with the modifier "job-killing" isn't that it's uncivil, though perhaps it is. It's that it's untrue.

The GOP lifted the claim from this Congressional Budget Office report (pdf) -- but the report never says the bill will kill jobs. What it says, rather, is that the law will slightly reduce labor. It's not that employers will fire workers. It's that potential workers -- particularly older ones -- will retire somewhat earlier. "The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."

This is true for anything that increases financial resources. One effect of tax cuts, for instance, is that people work less because their income is more adequate to their needs. When you make people richer, they find they have more choices. That's a good thing.

Another way the bill will reduce labor supply, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is through "provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of preexisting conditions and that restrict how much prices can vary with an individual’s age or health status, will increase the appeal of health insurance plans offered outside the workplace for older workers. As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would." So if you're a 62-year-old with the means to purchase health care but the impediment of a preexisting condition, you can now choose to retire because you'll be able to buy care on the individual market. If you think giving older workers that choice is a problem, then you must really hate Social Security.

I don't believe it's the GOP's position that we should maximize labor supply by making people poorer and making it harder to get health care on the individual market. Quite the opposite, actually. I think the GOP wants people to be wealthier, and I know from the McCain campaign and from speaking to Rep. Paul Ryan that they want to transition away from the employer-based market. But just as it wouldn't be civil or thoughtful for a Democrat to call H.R. 2 "The Keep Americans Poorer and Discriminate Against People With Pre-Existing Conditions Act of 2011," it's neither civil or thoughtful to call it "The Repealing the Job-Killing Health-Care Law Act."

I can't deny, of course, that "The Repealing the Health-Care Law Which Might Slightly Reduce the Long-Term Labor Supply Act of 2011" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Repealing the Job-Killing Health-Care Law Act." But civility means sacrifices.

Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque.

By Ezra Klein  | January 14, 2011; 8:29 AM ET
Categories:  Health Reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wonkbook: Obama's tax woes; health-reform repeal vote rescheduled; do we know who is too-big-to-fail?
Next: Are liberals more inclined toward compromise than conservatives?

Comments

could you link to an example of the GOP citing the CBO report?

This is a fairly significant argument that I'd feel should have i's dotted and t's crossed.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

"I don't believe it's the GOP's position that we should maximize labor supply by making people poorer and making it harder to get health care on the individual market."

What actions have the leadership of the GOP taken re: healthcare reform that would allow you to support that belief?

Posted by: eRobin1 | January 14, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

How about "repeal of the life-saving ACA"?

Posted by: Jeff37 | January 14, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

All in favor, say, "I promise to stop beating my dog."

Posted by: billh39 | January 14, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

All opposed say, "I do not promise to stop beating my dog."

Posted by: billh39 | January 14, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

>>I don't believe it's the GOP's position that we should maximize labor supply by making people poorer and making it harder to get health care on the individual market>>

Maximizing the labor supply by making people poorer means lower costs for business. That's what's important for the GOP. Their entire agenda is geared towards increasing profit for their corporate masters. Cheaper labor means lower costs means higher profits.

This may sound cynical, but it does an excellent job of explaining GOP behavior.

Posted by: fuse | January 14, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

It's obvious by the absence of Republicans at funerals in Tuscon that they don't give a a damn who dies so long as it's not them or one of THEIR constituents. They didn't care when they condoned the Iraq war based on lies that it killed 4000 or more of our men and women for their political gain.

Boehner didn't shed a tear for the victims in Tuscon not even the 9 year old and that's because she was attending a meeting where a democrat presided.

So now the republicans instead of moving forward with proposals and legislation that might help the American citizen they're going to spend our time and waste OUR money on trying to undo the last two years.

Let's see how many tearful deliveries there will be when the Democrats filibuster the GOP's move to repeal! Little Nancy Boehner will certainly cry then and cry foul won't he?

GOP the Party of P*ssies.

Posted by: davidbronx | January 14, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for your commentary on the Health Care law. It is time one set the record straight that this is not a bill which will eliminate or "kill" jobs. Second, I find it very interesting the Republicans, who supposedly now profess a willingness to join with others in creating a civil tone in America as rightfully they should, still use the gun-language of Sarah Palin and The Tea Party in labeling it "Job-Killing."

When are we going to get off such vitriolic, spin-language which not only doesn't contribute to civil debate but also stirs up the hatred, anger and emotional reactivity of people? It makes no real contribtuion to fulfilling the dreams of our children nor our country a better place.

Posted by: wmdteam | January 14, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

It's obvious by the absence of Republicans at funerals in Tuscon that they don't give a a damn who dies so long as it's not them or one of THEIR constituents. They didn't care when they condoned the Iraq war based on lies that it killed 4000 or more of our men and women for their political gain.

Boehner didn't shed a tear for the victims in Tuscon not even the 9 year old and that's because she was attending a meeting where a democrat presided.

So now the republicans instead of moving forward with proposals and legislation that might help the American citizen they're going to spend our time and waste OUR money on trying to undo the last two years.

Let's see how many tearful deliveries there will be when the Democrats filibuster the GOP's move to repeal! Little Nancy Boehner will certainly cry then and cry foul won't he?

GOP the Party of P*ssies.

Posted by: davidbronx | January 14, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The fact that some older workers may stop working does not mean that the work force will decline. In most instances, retiring workers are replaced, which ultimately leads to an unemployed person being hired, for a net worker reduction of zero.

Posted by: dside | January 14, 2011 9:01 AM | Report abuse

If the Republicans would cease from trying to manipulate the free market health care system in America, the number of well paying health care jobs would increase as a natural result of the supply and demand law of free market economics. Everybody wants good healthcare...especially when they get sick. Instead, the Republicans want to drive down costs just like they do for taxes...these guys want everything cheap...or free like a bunch of socialists. But then, can a socialist be rich...darn!

Posted by: denim39 | January 14, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

As a small business employer who tries to do right by my employees, I'm squeezed by premiums that leap from one year to the next and benefits that drop dramatically. And as a taxpayer, I pay for people with no insurance one way or another or hear stories of people who are sick and don't go to the doctor because they have no coverage. Maybe in their bubble, these Congress people don't see sick people leave a prescription at the counter because they don't have the money, but out here in the real America, I see it and it bothers me.

"You Lie," is the big lie. Always up is down and around is under. Clean Air Act is license to pollute. Job Killing Health Care. Why can't they care? They would kill a job in a heartbeat if there was a dollar sign to be had. Any real problem this country has, like the escalating cost of health care and issues with having it tied to employment and insurance, they want to fix with a get quick rich scheme for somebody that probably makes it worse. And threaten violence while they are at it. We deserve better.

Posted by: SarahBB | January 14, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Klein, you and your fellow shipmates on the ship of fools in D.C. haven't a clue. Because of the health care bill, our premiums just increased 33%, for no reason.

No job kill off for the health insurers here, just a kill off of people who can 't afford Obama care.

The health insurers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: wesatch | January 14, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Ah, Mr. Klein, don't bother. It's a waste of time. This century's Republican party does not want to engage in problem solving, civil discussion or moving the country in the right direction.

They just want to be "right". I used to think Democrats based their policies on emotional viewpoints, but that's flipped.

Forget about it. Most of these noisy folks will be gone in 20 years.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | January 14, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

If expanding health insurance coverage will kill jobs, the German economy should have been in dismal long ago as they adopted Universal Health Care in 1880's. Not only did Germans rebound after WWII, but they absorbed East Germany all under Universal Health Care. Perhaps we are better off sending all Republicans to Germany for a retreat and eye-opener.

Universal Health Care will help us become much more competitive globally and create much more productive jobs, unlike health insurance jobs.

Thanks!

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 14, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I find it amusing Ezra calls out the GOP out the label for their legistlation. This from the biggest cheerleader at the WaPo for the ACA, aka the "Affordable [Health] Care Act".

The same ACA, of course, which has done and will do nothing to lower the cost of health care, and has done and will do nothing to expand the supply of health care.

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

If expanding health insurance coverage will kill jobs, the German economy should have been in dismal long ago as they adopted Universal Health Care in 1880's. Not only did Germans rebound after WWII, but they absorbed East Germany all under Universal Health Care. Perhaps we are better off sending all Republicans to Germany for a retreat and eye-opener.

Universal Health Care will help us become much more competitive globally and create much more productive jobs, unlike health insurance jobs.

Thanks!

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 14, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad you wrote about this. As a matter of pure coincidence, I visited the speaker's website twice yesterday contemplating writing a respectful and sincere email asking they change the name. What stopped me? I simply decided to think about it for a day. And now, you've done the work for me, louder and better, so that's great.

The American people seem to be particularly naive in the face of the power of language and definition. They don't even see it coming. Someone says death panels, Obamacare, Obama-era tax increases, cap and tax, job-killing health care law--and Americans become hypnotized and want to know where to sign. It's uncanny.

Conservatives are quite adept at messaging. Whether through sacred language (Marietta, 2010) or a simple talent for decorated wording, they know how to work the advantage. And they are clearly aware of that power as they urge one another to sharpen these skills (Palin, 2010).There may be a lot of talk about how there are no hateful pundits on the left, but there are also no sophists crafting such compelling rhetoric.

Sources:
Marietta, M. (2010). The absolutist advantage: Sacred rhetoric in contemporary pesidential debate. Political Communication , 26 (4), 388-411.

Palin, S. (2010) The Way Forward. NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131092609&f=1014&sc=tw)

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Hey, I wonder what other entitlements Obama can get through in his last two years...its not about free healthcare for all...that would be great....I'd like to go out and buy a new car...problem is, I CAN'T AFFORD IT & NEITHER CAN THE US TAXPAYER!!

Posted by: mjandrews8 | January 14, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

"And my problem with the modifier "job-killing" isn't that it's uncivil, though perhaps it is. It's that it's untrue."

Amen to that.

And the latest is, in an effort to be less "uncivil," they will no longer be talking about "job killing", but will be protesting the "government takeover" of healthcare.

Reminds me of the time I baselessly called my brother-in-law a "love-killing adulterer" in front of his wife and he got upset with me. But then I dropped the offensive "love-killing" and switched to baselessly calling him a "pedophile"--which I think we'll all agree is a very civil term for this sort of person--and he was STILL upset with me!

What is WRONG with this guy? It doesn't matter how polite you are when you baselessly accuse him of something horrible, he still gets upset with you! What's the point of being polite with a fellow so sensitive?

Posted by: theorajones1 | January 14, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

SarahBB:
"As a small business employer..."

So, every time your tax bill increases, how many additional employees does that allow you to hire? I'm curious to learn of this magical twist to traditional economics that stipulates that when business tax burden increases (as it will for many businesses under the ACA), it reduces the ability of those businesses to give raises and/or hire more workers.

"Why can't they care?"
If you ever visit my community, I will be glad to give you a tour of a non-profit health clinic that is already providing care for the poor and uninsured that the ACA pretends it will deliver for the first time. This clinic is funded mainly by religious conservatives who are routinely demonized by left-wingers such as yourself as 'not caring'.

I'm not sure if you are guilty of intentionally perpetuating the myth progressives love to create that "compassion = voting for liberals and supporting big government programs", or if you have merely been misled and hoodwinked by their false promises.

The fact remains you don't need a federal government bureaucracy to provide health care to the poor and uninsured.

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

I wish they would just call it "H.R. 2 - Repealing the ACA of 2010". The whole " Job-Killing" just seems juvenile to me. At this point, everyone who cares pretty much has a firm opinion of the ACA one way or another.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 14, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Ezra Journolist wants to quibble about semantics? Fine, the health care bill doesn't "kill" jobs.

How about instead

"The health care bill makes jobs more expensive to create if, as an employer, you want to provide health insurance as a benefit."

Better?

Or how about simply,

"The health care bill, a baroque monstrosity of 2700 pages with a raft of currently unknown unintended consequences, with dubious financial projections, with a variety of ad hoc exemptions and potentially unconstitutional components, the health care bill.....what's the word I'm looking for?...oh yeah...

The health care bill sucks."

Is that better Ezra Journolist? Meet your standards?

Posted by: karl-keller | January 14, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"our premiums just increased 33%, for no reason"

Actually, there is a reason. The individual mandate portion of the bill hasn't kicked in. Until that time - insurance companies by law have to cover all the new benefits given to you now... without the expanded enrollment to cover those costs.

If you had paid attention, you would know this. This short term jump was explained and graphically depicted many times over.

Posted by: trident420 | January 14, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

The consequences of the health care reform bill on labor supply is way beyond what I can discern. I am a bit confused though at the apparent contradiction between the argument that the reform is a job killer while at the same time arguing that we will not have enough labor to provide the benefits intended by the reform? As to what the Republicans want in terms of labor supply, I believe their actions clearly demonstrate they favor a high level of unemployment to depress labor costs while killing off unions. They are also quite open to having global companies move labor and capital to other countries when it is in the interests of the corporations bottom line at the expense of the United States. Ultimately, this philosophy is a race to the bottom for the US workforce as wages and benefits must be cut to stay competitive with Vietnam, China, Mexico, and the like.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | January 14, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Insurance companies are using the "excuse" of the Health Care Bill to raise premiums this year, however, I have been buying my own health insurance for the past 4 years, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield has been raising my premiums every year. God knows they need that money to pay millions to their CEO. They even automatically raised my premium when I turned 60, just because I turned 60 -- not because of any change in my health. The greed of insurance and drug companies is the biggest reason your health premiums are rising and the biggest reason we need a single-payer system (i.e. Medicare for everyone).

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | January 14, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

trident420,

that's not necessarily true. A portion of that 33% increase I would expect is due to regular medical inflation of 12-14% which wasn't really addressed in PPACA.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 14, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

It took a massacre for the GOP to begin to admit that a civil tone is needed in this country when discussing politics. What will it take them to now stop lying about every initiative that is not their own?

Posted by: DrFish | January 14, 2011 9:33 AM | Report abuse

stella12:
"The American people seem to be particularly naive in the face of the power of language and definition."

You seem to be well-read in this area. Could you please help define for me the new buzzword I'm hearing on left: "false equivalency".

Example: I heard a person ask a left-wing talk show host (Mark Thompson, M.I.P.) how Palin's crosshairs map contributed any more to the 'culture of violent rhetoric' that is being blamed for Tucson, than say Obama's boast about 'bringing guns' to a fight with Republicans.

All the host could do was shout 'false equivalence!!', without explaining the term or why it applied, and moved on to the next less-inconvenient caller.

The best definition I've been able to come up with for this left-wing buzzword so far is:
false equivalence = "dang it, you've found examples of the same 'hate speech' from leaders on the left that we are claiming faux outrage over from leaders on the right. Acknowledging the truth will ruin our ability to score political points off the tragic deaths of innocent victims, so we are going to refuse to address our hypocrisy and hope no one notices."

Does that sound about right?

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse


The only thing that the reports from the CBO on health care have done is diminish its credibility. They have to make many dubious assumptions to claim that this bill would lower the deficit. The entire funding mechanism is under reasonable legal assault. Apparently the CBO has a crystal ball to know how that will turn out.

Posted by: edbyronadams | January 14, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse

You are even more naive and amateur than can be imagined. If you think the increases in health insurance premiums, the increase in the costs of Medicaid dumped in the lap of the States which will have to raise taxes to pay for, and the savings claimed for Medicare which will either not occur or will cause more doctors to refuse new Medicare patients will not cause job losses and negatively affect the economy, then you are certainly not doing the arithmetic and looking at all the factors related to the health care bill. This is not about how the health care bill affects the federal budget, it’s about how it affects the Nation as a whole. And, on the basis, it fails the test for economic sanity!

Posted by: hydroron | January 14, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Sure, inflation plays a part. When doesn't it? That is beside the point.

You cant require by law that I offer more service while taking in the same amount of capital and expect me to keep my prices the same.

Insurance companies got on board because the expanded enrollment would help cover these additional costs. That hasn't happened yet, but the additional costs have.

Posted by: trident420 | January 14, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

You are even more naive and amateur than can be imagined. If you think the increases in health insurance premiums, the increase in the costs of Medicaid dumped in the lap of the States which will have to raise taxes to pay for, and the savings claimed for Medicare which will either not occur or will cause more doctors to refuse new Medicare patients will not cause job losses and negatively affect the economy, then you are certainly not doing the arithmetic and looking at all the factors related to the health care bill. This is not about how the health care bill affects the federal budget, it’s about how it affects the Nation as a whole. And, on the basis, it fails the test for economic sanity!

Posted by: hydroron | January 14, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

iddoyle2002 is another example of why left wing rhetoric goes too far. He/she has no idea that health insurers have razor thin profit margins (most are non-profit OR large employer self insured plans where the large employer keeps the profit) and health insuers CEO's that make at or below the national averages for CEO's in other industries. But hey they're an easy scapegoat so go right ahead. Would I rathe they make nothing and have some idiot doing their job, NO. Would I rather they work for free, sure. But that still would affect yours and my premiums by pennies. Attack the true drivers of cost and then you could make some sense.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 14, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

It's a demagogue title. Period. There biggest and initial complaint was that the health care bill was "unconstitutional". The job killing is going to be in a lot of bill titles as everything the Democrats have supported is "job killing".

Republicans would have some credibility is they put their replacement on the table at the same time they want to repeal but they don't have one and it would be a budget buster because they would have to include all of the popular provisions of the health care act with no particular offsets.

I just want to know what they are going to tell the seniors about wanting to preserve the Medicare Part D donut hole.

Posted by: chucko2 | January 14, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"our premiums just increased 33%, for no reason"

Actually, there is a reason. The individual mandate portion of the bill hasn't kicked in. Until that time - insurance companies by law have to cover all the new benefits given to you now... without the expanded enrollment to cover those costs.

If you had paid attention, you would know this. This short term jump was explained and graphically depicted many times over.

Posted by: trident420
_____________________
actually it's not that either. covering kids to 26 doesn't cost insurers much at all. blue cross of CA announced a 59% premium increase and said not one penny of it had anything to do with health reform - and regardless of the need for the increase, that claim is correct.

health reform is meant to trim the exponential increases in the cost of insurance we have seen and continue to see. no one is claiming that it's supposed to actually reduce premiums year over year.

and it's no new entitlement. Reagan enacted the EMTALA law that "entitled" everyone to care in the ER even if they couldn't pay. We're all paying for that entitlement in our premiums now. Insuring those folks is cheaper than paying their ER bills even before adding the money they can put toward the premium they will have to pay, only the balance being subsidized under health reform

Posted by: JoeT1 | January 14, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

My problem withe the GOP's name is not just that it's untrue, but that the GOP persist in lying to the American people. I realize the Dems do it too, and that lying, fabricating, and manipulating words are part of the political scenario as a way to get elected or re-elected or win political power. But I'm really tired of it. As an American citizen, I believe I and my fellow Americans deserve better. We deserve better from our elected leaders. We deserve the truth.

I just finished reading the WaPo article about people and families who've fallen out of the middle class as a result of this Recession and the overall changes that have taken place in employment during the last 20+ years. It's heart rending. At time same time, the article in Atlantic on the very wealthy creates a picture of an economic class that holds the non-wealthy in contempt and essentially feel no loyalty to the country or its people. Is this picture one which the GOP wants to represent and uphold?

ACA is not perfect; no law is from its outset. But it offers some relief from the hugely rising costs of health care, particularly at a time when so many people need help.

The American people are not stupid, but they can be misled by politicians and pundits who for partisan reasons fail to tell the truth. When they do so, the American people, ultimately, are hurt.

Politics, en toto, needs to change, not just the "over-the-top" rhetoric and vitriolic words being used. The change needs to be a collaboration on setting a new course for the country that enables everyone to succeed to the best of their inherent abilities - and being truthful in explaining to the people what that vision is and how to get there.

Right now, the people don't know who or what to believe.

Posted by: valkayec | January 14, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats plan of predatory pricing (which is illegal under antitrust law for private companies) with a public 'option' plan would definitely kill a lot of jobs in the health insurance industry.

I guess leftists don't care about those jobs.....

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse

not one government program is financially solvent, not one government program cost less to administer than in the private sector, not one government program if free from corruption & fraud, like paying 400.00 for a toilet seat or a can opener.
now we have one political appointee behind close doors making the decision for every American what will be the minimum standard of medial insurance coverage, that most likely most American's the majority have the coverage they want and they pay for it now, I over 20 years ago made the responsible decision to find employment to provide good insurance coverage for my family, ( individual responsibility ).
It is not my individual responsibility to provide health care coverage for un-responsible people, or illegal aliens illegally crossing our boarder. in fact if some one get health care and human being, they should have to pay for that service, stop allowing people to bankrupt on medical expenses and they will work out a payment plan even it take 30 yrs or they will purchase health insurance. and no illegal alien should receive free health care at any American's expense. The federal Government that as of now does not pay in full for medical services charged make the fed's dead beats also, and we the insured are paying for the dead beat fed's, they pass laws they can not fund like Obama care.
as a small business due to this law i will not hire the 51st employee and that keeps me from being required to provide health insurance, next If i have more than 50 employees the business can chose to pay the "Unconstitutional penalty " per all three court cases so far. the penalty which is up to $ 2,000,00 a YEAR is cheaper than paying up to $ 1,000.00 a month for company provided insurance.
THAT adds up to a yearly savings of
$ 10,000.00 per employee.
The most important issue out of all the one's i have listed above is " Freedom" & "Liberty" our forefather when founding this nation had just come from a nation of total government control, when they formed These United States they wrote the Constitution that limits the power of the federal government to protect American's from the corruption power causes.
bottom line
MY MONEY, MY CHOICE OF WHAT TO OR NOT TO PURCHASE. MY FREEDOM IS NOT NEGOTIABLE, AND AM TIRED OF GIVING AWAY OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY TO A CORRUPT INEPT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. HECK WITH MILLION'S OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAY'S MORE PER FAMILY THAN A SMALL BUSINESS WITH LESS THAN 3 EMPLOYEES THE FED'S DO NOT KNOW HOW NOR DO THEY ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE LOWER PRICES, IN FACT THEY ALL WAYS PAY MORE FOR LESS.
REPEAL OBAMA CARE AND STAY AWAY FROM MY MONEY, MY FREEDOM AND LIBERTY AND SUPPORT YOURSELVES

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

My problem withe the GOP's name is not just that it's untrue, but that the GOP persist in lying to the American people. I realize the Dems do it too, and that lying, fabricating, and manipulating words are part of the political scenario as a way to get elected or re-elected or win political power. But I'm really tired of it. As an American citizen, I believe I and my fellow Americans deserve better. We deserve better from our elected leaders. We deserve the truth.

I just finished reading the WaPo article about people and families who've fallen out of the middle class as a result of this Recession and the overall changes that have taken place in employment during the last 20+ years. It's heart rending. At time same time, the article in Atlantic on the very wealthy creates a picture of an economic class that holds the non-wealthy in contempt and essentially feel no loyalty to the country or its people. Is this picture one which the GOP wants to represent and uphold?

ACA is not perfect; no law is from its outset. But it offers some relief from the hugely rising costs of health care, particularly at a time when so many people need help.

The American people are not stupid, but they can be misled by politicians and pundits who for partisan reasons fail to tell the truth. When they do so, the American people, ultimately, are hurt.

Politics, en toto, needs to change, not just the "over-the-top" rhetoric and vitriolic words being used. The change needs to be a collaboration on setting a new course for the country that enables everyone to succeed to the best of their inherent abilities - and being truthful in explaining to the people what that vision is and how to get there.

Right now, the people don't know who or what to believe.

Posted by: valkayec | January 14, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I've seen you before on television, and you appear to be a bright young man. Please stop quoting the Congressional Budget Office as the though it is absolute, undeniable, correct source of how business and labor coexist. I'm not sure a single person on that staff has ever run a business....I know the Chairman hasn't.
If you want credibilty on this argument quote the CEO of Walmart...show us the health cars data at the Post...provide information from several small businesses...in other words, do some work to collect actual information/data from businesses before you write an article claiming this bill isn't destuctive to employment.

Posted by: bmccormick70 | January 14, 2011 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats plan of predatory pricing (which is illegal under antitrust law for private companies) with a public 'option' plan would definitely kill a lot of jobs in the health insurance industry.

I guess leftists don't care about those jobs.....

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 9:50 AM | Report abuse

JoeT1,

First off CA announced a premium increase of UP TO 59%. Not everyone gets a 59% increase but that doesn't fit Ezra's talking points so he doesn't bring that up. Kind of ironic for ezra to ask for the real story to be told but he doesn't go into that in detail.

STOP. You don't understand so just STOP. google insurance death spiral. At every price point increase healthy people will make the conscience decision to either continue to pay high premiums or drop coverage altogether. Sick people do not make that choice so when healthy people that are paying premiums drop coverage its a net loss to the risk pool so the spiral continues until everyone is required to get coverage.

Oh and there is costs other than the dep to age 26 coverage. There's free preventative care, there's an end to pre-ex for children. NONE OF THAT IS FREE. We all pay for it, we just spread the cost around.

Its amazing liberals love to tout the benefits of reform but want us to conveniently forget that each postive has a cost attached to it.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 14, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

There is no 'job-killing health-care law'.

There is, however, a job-killing coalition of GOP businessmen who have thumbed their collective noses at the American populace.

Posted by: aorj | January 14, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

lddoyle2002:
"God knows [Blue Cross] needs that money to pay millions to their CEO. The greed of insurance and drug companies is the biggest reason your health premiums are rising..."

I'm so glad a liberal played the 'greedy CEO' card. It allows me to point people toward the facts and the truth; I can't make them believe it, but I can illustrate it and they can make their own conclusions.

There are roughly 30 national/large-regional health insurers that provide the insurance coverage most of us enjoy. If you total up the salaries and benefit packages for ALL 30+ CEO's (not just Blue Cross's), did you know:
1) you could pay all 30 CEO's wages for the next 250 YEARS with just the 'wasted' portion of the Democrat's stimulus boondoggle! And that's being very generous and accepting the low-end estimate that 'only' 7% of the stimulus money was wasted.

2) you could pay all the health insurer CEO's salaries for the next 270 years with the money currently lost in ONE YEAR in Medicare through fraud and abuse....because it stands to reason that government agencies, who aren't responsible for turing a profit, have been less motivated to ferret out abuse than their 'greedy, for-profit' counterparts in the insurance industry who are required to make a profit or they lose their jobs.

3) you could pay all the health insurer CEO's salaries for the next 497 YEARS with the money spent bailing out Fannie/Freddie as a result of their mismanagement largely at the hands of the liberals and Democrats who were usually in charge (read "Frankin Raines").

4) but perhaps my favorite....you could pay the health insurer CEO's salaries for the next 103 YEARS with the money our friendly big-government bureaucrats sent via the IMF to help bail out Greece, when their experiment in socialism nearly bankrupted them.

So you see, it's all about perspective. Why liberals/Democrats believe government management will make health care cheaper is beyond me, as there is no historical evidence to support the belief. And when I read the demonizing of CEO's as the reason for the escalating cost of health care, it reveals a person's lack of perspective....so I'm here to help :o).

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Simple

Journolista push to defend ObamaCare

Explain the 100's of Exemptions Obama has granted Unions and certain businesses

Explain why 50% of the states are suing over ObamaCare

Democrats: Legislating Recession into Depression since the 1930's

Posted by: georgedixon1 | January 14, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats plan of predatory pricing (which is illegal under antitrust law for private companies) with a public 'option' plan would definitely kill a lot of jobs in the health insurance industry.

I guess leftists don't care about those jobs.....

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse

krazen,

i had a sad chuckle about this because my job as a health insurance agent is in jeopardy but like you say I don't count to them. maybe i can get a job working for the government and get a cushy 6 figure salary with a sweet pension and work half has hard as I do now.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 14, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

dbw1:

"Why can't they care?"
If you ever visit my community, I will be glad to give you a tour of a non-profit health clinic that is already providing care for the poor and uninsured that the ACA pretends it will deliver for the first time. This clinic is funded mainly by religious conservatives who are routinely demonized by left-wingers such as yourself as 'not caring'.

The fact remains you don't need a federal government bureaucracy to provide health care to the poor and uninsured.

**********************************

You don't think your religious clinic is being funded in part by Medicaid payments? Or that the religious conservatives donations aren't motivated, at least in part, by the tax code? You don't think that both of these depend on the existence of federal government bureaucracies?

Posted by: WK437 | January 14, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Total Nationalization of Health Care is the only way to keep Medical Costs down. That would probably be the worst possible outcome.

But; Health insurance for all will in time lower individual Costs. As more people pay for their own Medical care instead of those with insurance paying for those without.

One must also take into account the amount of money the Government spends to Subsidize Doctors and Hospitals to keep them from Closing their doors which directly effects everyones taxes Federal, State and Local.

Posted by: ddoiron1 | January 14, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

dbw1:

"Why can't they care?"
If you ever visit my community, I will be glad to give you a tour of a non-profit health clinic that is already providing care for the poor and uninsured that the ACA pretends it will deliver for the first time. This clinic is funded mainly by religious conservatives who are routinely demonized by left-wingers such as yourself as 'not caring'.

The fact remains you don't need a federal government bureaucracy to provide health care to the poor and uninsured.

**********************************

You don't think your religious clinic is being funded in part by Medicaid payments? Or that the religious conservatives donations aren't motivated, at least in part, by the tax code? You don't think that both of these depend on the existence of federal government bureaucracies?

Posted by: WK437 | January 14, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"Insuring those folks is cheaper than paying their ER bills even before adding the money they can put toward the premium they will have to pay, only the balance being subsidized under health reform"

How does anyone get convinced of this nonsense?

Obama's disgusting expansion of the Medicaid program has swelled the program to about $350 billion a year in federal spending alone, and some extreme value of state spending on top of that.

Uncompensated ER care, of course, runs at about $60 billion a year.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

dbw1:

"Why can't they care?"
If you ever visit my community, I will be glad to give you a tour of a non-profit health clinic that is already providing care for the poor and uninsured that the ACA pretends it will deliver for the first time. This clinic is funded mainly by religious conservatives who are routinely demonized by left-wingers such as yourself as 'not caring'.

The fact remains you don't need a federal government bureaucracy to provide health care to the poor and uninsured.

**********************************

You don't think your religious clinic is being funded in part by Medicaid payments? Or that the religious conservatives donations aren't motivated, at least in part, by the tax code? You don't think that both of these depend on the existence of federal government bureaucracies?

Posted by: WK437 | January 14, 2011 10:01 AM | Report abuse

dbw1:

"Why can't they care?"
If you ever visit my community, I will be glad to give you a tour of a non-profit health clinic that is already providing care for the poor and uninsured that the ACA pretends it will deliver for the first time. This clinic is funded mainly by religious conservatives who are routinely demonized by left-wingers such as yourself as 'not caring'.

The fact remains you don't need a federal government bureaucracy to provide health care to the poor and uninsured.

**********************************

You don't think your religious clinic is being funded in part by Medicaid payments? Or that the religious conservatives donations aren't motivated, at least in part, by the tax code? You don't think that both of these depend on the existence of federal government bureaucracies?

Posted by: WK437 | January 14, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

YOU ALSO NOTICE THAT THE DEMOCRATS NEVER TALK ABOUT THE MAJOR NEW AND THE INCREASED TAXES THEY PUT IN THIS LEGISLATION TO PAY
FOR THIS NEW UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENTITLEMENT
THE ONLY REASON THE REPEAL COST MONEY IS DUE TO THE REPEAL OF THE BILLIONS OF TAXES OBAMA PUTS ON THE BACKS OF RESPONSIBLE TAX PAYERS.

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Covering kids up to 26 isn't the big cost driver. I would say that particular provision is to make sure that students and immature wage earners don't have to buy insurance or apply for government assistance to do so.

Making it harder to deny coverage to the sick (read: costly) is what is expensive here. Insurance companies can no longer use that method of cost control, and have to fund it with the same limited enrollment they had before.

I understand that premiums aren't necessarily going to -decrease- with expanded enrollment. The idea is to level it off. But that doesn't mean that during this "gap" premiums wont increase to cover additional costs that weren't there before.


Posted by: trident420 | January 14, 2011 10:04 AM | Report abuse

"Universal Health Care will help us become much more competitive globally and create much more productive jobs, unlike health insurance jobs."

Lying out of your teeth. US economic growth from 1946-2009 outdid all those socialist European nations in all those metrics.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for the multiple posts. I only hit the submit button once.

Posted by: WK437 | January 14, 2011 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"Universal Health Care will help us become much more competitive globally and create much more productive jobs, unlike health insurance jobs."

Lying out of your teeth. US economic growth from 1946-2009 outdid all those socialist European nations in all those metrics.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I READ THIS STATEMENT AND IT IS NOT TRUE, I WATCHED BOEHNER IN TEARS ON THE HOUSE FLOOR MAKING HIS STATEMENT DURING THE RESOLUTION IN THE HOUSE, A LITTLE HONESTY GOES A LONG WAY.

Boehner didn't shed a tear for the victims in Tuscon not even the 9 year old and that's because she was attending a meeting where a democrat presided.

So now the republicans instead of moving forward with proposals and legislation that might help the American citizen they're going to spend our time and waste OUR money on trying to undo the last two years.

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

If the health bill isn't killing jobs, then how come the unemployment rate is 9.4 percent? Certainly, employers are holding back on new hiring because they fear the revenge of Washington regulations on their business, including increased health costs. I think this health bill is a disaster that will only increase out-of-pocket costs for individuals as insurance companies pass along the costs of insuring those with prexisting conditions, etc. I also think the courts are going to shoot a hole in the legislation by declaring the government cannot order citizens to get health insurance. Business is waiting to see how this all falls out, and so yes is not hiring. In that sense, it is destroying jobs.

Posted by: edwardallen54 | January 14, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

valkayec - right on. Also, see this peer-reviewed study of truthiness in news (below, in sources section). As well, consider that Americans are absorbing more news than ever before (The Pew, 2010).
dbw1 -

false- intentionally untrue
equivalency - equal in force, amount, or value

And, if I had a dollar for every time the false equivalency defense included that Obama/knife/gunfight example, I'd be rich. Y'all really need to have more than just Fox News talking points if you want to participate in a real debate.

The truth about toxic political rhetoric is this, it is manufactured from the culture itself (Bruner, 2006). So, the toxic tone of your post doesn't surprise me. Nor does the tone of this country. Rhetoric does not create toxicity. It reflects the toxicity of the culture. The president seems to understand this in a way people like Palin never will. The media is not creating our reality, it's reflecting it. So, the president didn't ask for less or different media coverage. He mentioned civility--the way we act towards one another.

Sources:
Bruner, M. L. (2006b). Rhetorical theory and the critique of national identity construction. National Identities , 7 (7), 309-327.

Ramsay, C., Kull, S., Lewis, E., & Stubian, S. (2011, January). Misinformation and the 2010 Election. Retrieved from University of MD: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

The Pew Research Center. (2010, September 12). Americans Spend More Time Following the News. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: http://people-press.org/report/652/

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 10:16 AM | Report abuse

SarahBB:
"As a small business employer..."

So, every time your tax bill increases, how many additional employees does that allow you to hire? I'm curious to learn of this magical twist to traditional economics that stipulates that when business tax burden increases (as it will for many businesses under the ACA), it reduces the ability of those businesses to give raises and/or hire more workers.

"Why can't they care?"
If you ever visit my community, I will be glad to give you a tour of a non-profit health clinic that is already providing care for the poor and uninsured that the ACA pretends it will deliver for the first time. This clinic is funded mainly by religious conservatives who are routinely demonized by left-wingers such as yourself as 'not caring'.

I'm not sure if you are guilty of intentionally perpetuating the myth progressives love to create that "compassion = voting for liberals and supporting big government programs", or if you have merely been misled and hoodwinked by their false promises.

The fact remains you don't need a federal government bureaucracy to provide health care to the poor and uninsured.
***************************************
That's wonderful! Will this clinic be offering cardiac surgery? MRIs? Cancer treatment? Organ transplants? Will all the non-paying customers suddenly disappear from the nation's emergency rooms?

Spare us the cut-and-paste BS from the conservative book of pat answers, okay?

Posted by: st50taw | January 14, 2011 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm pretty entertained by people talking about how they were 'responsible' when they got healthcare through their job, and that they shouldn't have to pay for 'subsidized healthcare for the irresponsible'. Nevermind that the healthcare they've been getting through their job all these years is, of course, subsidized by all those Americans who don't get their healthcare paid for by their employer.

Saddened for humanity, yes. But also entertained!

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

valkayec - right on. Also, see this peer-reviewed study of truthiness in news (below, in sources section). As well, consider that Americans are absorbing more news than ever before (The Pew, 2010).
dbw1 -

false- intentionally untrue
equivalency - equal in force, amount, or value

And, if I had a dollar for every time the false equivalency defense included that Obama/knife/gunfight example, I'd be rich. Y'all really need to have more than just Fox News talking points if you want to participate in a real debate.

The truth about toxic political rhetoric is this, it is manufactured from the culture itself (Bruner, 2006). So, the toxic tone of your post doesn't surprise me. Nor does the tone of this country. Rhetoric does not create toxicity. It reflects the toxicity of the culture. The president seems to understand this in a way people like Palin never will. The media is not creating our reality, it's reflecting it. So, the president didn't ask for less or different media coverage. He mentioned civility--the way we act towards one another.

Sources:
Bruner, M. L. (2006b). Rhetorical theory and the critique of national identity construction. National Identities , 7 (7), 309-327.

Ramsay, C., Kull, S., Lewis, E., & Stubian, S. (2011, January). Misinformation and the 2010 Election. Retrieved from University of MD: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

The Pew Research Center. (2010, September 12). Americans Spend More Time Following the News. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: http://people-press.org/report/652/

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse

valkayec - right on. Also, see this peer-reviewed study of truthiness in news (below, in sources section). As well, consider that Americans are absorbing more news than ever before (The Pew, 2010).
dbw1 -

false- intentionally untrue
equivalency - equal in force, amount, or value

And, if I had a dollar for every time the false equivalency defense included that Obama/knife/gunfight example, I'd be rich. Y'all really need to have more than just Fox News talking points if you want to participate in a real debate.

The truth about toxic political rhetoric is this, it is manufactured from the culture itself (Bruner, 2006). So, the toxic tone of your post doesn't surprise me. Nor does the tone of this country. Rhetoric does not create toxicity. It reflects the toxicity of the culture. The president seems to understand this in a way people like Palin never will. The media is not creating our reality, it's reflecting it. So, the president didn't ask for less or different media coverage. He mentioned civility--the way we act towards one another.

Sources:
Bruner, M. L. (2006b). Rhetorical theory and the critique of national identity construction. National Identities , 7 (7), 309-327.

Ramsay, C., Kull, S., Lewis, E., & Stubian, S. (2011, January). Misinformation and the 2010 Election. Retrieved from University of MD: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

The Pew Research Center. (2010, September 12). Americans Spend More Time Following the News. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: http://people-press.org/report/652/

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

davidbronx Your comments reveal your stupidity, and intolerance. Go back to your coloring books and crayons. You're boring.

Posted by: LarryG62 | January 14, 2011 10:22 AM | Report abuse

TO: davidbronx

I DO NOT RECALL ANY NEWS REPORTS ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT DIED BEING REPUBLICAN'S OR DEMOCRATS ( GABBY WAS BLUE DOG DEM, SHE WAS NOT A TOTAL LEFTIST )
BUT I DID HEAR LAST NIGHT THAT THE KILLER WAS A " REGISTERED DEMOCRAT" THAT DID NOT VOTE IN 2010.

It's obvious by the absence of Republicans at funerals in Tuscon that they don't give a a damn who dies so long as it's not them or one of THEIR constituents. They didn't care when they condoned the Iraq war based on lies that it killed 4000 or more of our men and women for their political gain.

Let's see how many tearful deliveries there will be when the Democrats filibuster the GOP's move to repeal! Little Nancy Boehner will certainly cry then and cry foul won't he?

GOP the Party of P*ssies.

Posted by: davidbronx

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 10:23 AM | Report abuse

when healthcare jobs because of the MLR's strict regulation happens and you end up speaking to Binu instead of Mary does that not count as a job lost? Healthcare companies are already starting to go there.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 14, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

@Krazen:

I don't think it necessarily follows that because putting the onus of paying for our healthcare system when healthcare accounts for 4% of our GDP didn't hurt our businesses proves that putting the onus of paying for our healthcare system on our businesses when healthcare accounts for 20, perhaps 25% of our GDP still won't hurt business competitiveness.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"Universal Health Care will help us become much more competitive globally and create much more productive jobs, unlike health insurance jobs."

Lying out of your teeth. US economic growth from 1946-2009 outdid all those socialist European nations in all those metrics.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

WK437:
"You don't think your religious clinic is being funded in part by Medicaid payments? Or that the religious conservatives donations aren't motivated, at least in part, by the tax code?"

Love it! More left-wing myths I get to blow out of the water....

Actually, the clinic only recently qualified for federal status that allows them to collect some Medicaid offsets. But they were completely privately funded for years, and private non-coerced funds are still the major source of their existence. All the ACA accomlishes is shifting this money given freely to non-profits, to coercing it via taxes to Washington because liberals believe they know how to spend it better than those at the local level.

Second, I love when left-wingers go to the "well, conservatives only donate to charity because of the tax benefit". I invite you to google 'bleeding heart tightwads'.

One of the best columns I've read by a liberal (of the NY Times, no less), who faced up to the studies and statistics that all show over and over and over that no matter whether you are comparing financial giving, or giving of time or other resources, conservatives always outrank liberals. And it cuts across gender, race, and income levels....meaning a rich conservative gives more than a rich liberal, a conservative Hispanic gives more than a liberal Hispanic, a conservative male gives more than a liberal male, etc, etc.

And as the liberal NY Times columnist pointed out in debunking the myth you subscribe to, if you are going to ding conservatives for their charitable donations to religious causes, then you have to likewise ding the 'charitable' giving by liberals to symphony orchestras, art galleries, and museums....none of which does much to provide food and health care for the poor.

Please feel free to post more left-wing myths about evil conservatives and how they don't care about anybody else or anything other than their checking account. This is fun!

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

sorry meant to say when healthcare jobs are "outsourced" because of the MLR.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 14, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

@wmdteam

you say "I find it very interesting the Republicans, who supposedly now profess a willingness to join with others in creating a civil tone in America as rightfully they should, still use the gun-language of Sarah Palin and The Tea Party in labeling it "Job-Killing."

When are we going to get off such vitriolic, spin-language which not only doesn't contribute to civil debate but also stirs up the hatred, anger and emotional reactivity of people? It makes no real contribtuion to fulfilling the dreams of our children nor our country a better place."

-------------------------------------------------

While we are both likely (though there is no way to tell for sure) on the same side of the health care debate, I think your classification, as well as that by pundits both right and left, of "job-killing" and other such "violent" or "gun toting" is inaccurate.

While the word kill does mean to take a life, like many words it has many different meanings which are determined by context. Used in this, and MOST political context, it is far more accurate to define kill as "to put an end to" or to destroy the essential qualities of", which are the effects that the GOP (incorrectly in my opinion, but that is beside the point) will gave on job creation.

Just as implicitly or explicitly violent rhetoric, such as ads that name specific people, whether by the right or left, or directly call for acts of violent should have no place in pliticc (and should possibly be prosecutable), neither should we embark on a "nicification" campaign that is designed to censor the freedom of speech which is so important in this country, especially when such language is used in its correct context and when said speech is aimed at redressing grievances with our government.

Posted by: johnqpublic1 | January 14, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Let's engage in honest labeling and call it "The Repealing the Job-Killing Health-Care Law Act Which has Absolutely No Chance of Passing the Senate and Would be Vetoed by the President if it did." This is the first of undoubtedly many acts of political theater to be performed by the new congress.

Posted by: kguy1 | January 14, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

If CBO is correct assuming that the health care law will reduce labor supply because some older workers may decide to retire earlier, than it should also mean that the law will reduce unemployment because, presumably, the positions of retiring workers will need to be filled. Furthermore, if more people have health insurance under ACA, demand for health care services and prescription drugs will increase thus creating more jobs in the health care field.

Posted by: ehruboska | January 14, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Democrats demonizing buzz word, talking point nonsense speech?

really, libs have nothing on this issue.

dems deserve FURTHER condemnation on the issue, if anything.

Posted by: docwhocuts | January 14, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Does the CBO say anything about the effects of the ONE TRILLION DOLLARS a year sucked out of the private economy to fund the DeathCare monstrosity?

No? I didn't think so.

The alleged federal budget numbers are built on the backs of working people, after all, ie., the effect on the deficit may (officially) be projected to be neutral, but all that money is coming out of the little guys' wallets.

What will be the effects of another trillion out of the economy? And what will be the effects on the fifty state budgets?

Posted by: msoja | January 14, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

" don't think it necessarily follows that because putting the onus of paying for our healthcare system when healthcare accounts for 4% of our GDP didn't hurt our businesses proves that putting the onus of paying for our healthcare system on our businesses when healthcare accounts for 20, perhaps 25% of our GDP still won't hurt business competitiveness. "

Well, even though this is completely speculative, reducing the share of gdp devoted to healthcare spending and providing 'free' 'universal' health care to the unproductive underclass are 2 very different things. In fact, the simplest way to reduce the share of gdp devoted to healthcare spending is not to give healthcare to everyone.

For the most part, providing health care to the Democratic base at taxpayer expense is a liberal policy goal. It's not an economic growth goal; we didn't need such a thing in the 1990s.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Could someone please tell me. Is this the same Ezra Klein who recently implied that the Constitution to the United States of America was too difficult to understand because it was written over a hundred years ago? Does anyone know?

Posted by: packard1 | January 14, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

THIS STATEMENT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME, I PAY MY PART OF MY PREMIUM AND MY EMPLOYER PAYS THE PART THEY CHOOSE TO PAY, AS FOR AS ANY SUBSIDIZE I HAVE NEVER ASKED THE FED'S FOR ANY THING, AND AS FAR AS SUBSIDIZES GO I SAY AS THE DEBT COMMISSION STOP THE MASSIVE TAX CREDITS AND CUT THE TAX RATE, IN FACT I SAY GET RID OF THE IRS AND STOP THE YEARLY TAX FILINGS AND PASS A NATION SALES TAX, THEY CAN ONLY BE RAISED EVERY FOUR YEARS, THAT MUST BE PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE BY THE PEOPLE AT THE POLLS.
A SALES TAX WOULD BE RATED BY THE MORE EXPENSIVE THE ITEM ( LUXURY ITEMS ) THE HIGHER THE TAX. NO TAX ON FOOD, GAS OR UTILITIES.

I'm pretty entertained by people talking about how they were 'responsible' when they got healthcare through their job, and that they shouldn't have to pay for 'subsidized healthcare for the irresponsible'. Nevermind that the healthcare they've been getting through their job all these years is, of course, subsidized by all those Americans who don't get their healthcare paid for by their employer.

Saddened for humanity, yes. But also entertained!

Posted by: eggnogfool

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Could someone please tell me. Is this the same Ezra Klein who recently implied that the Constitution to the United States of America was too difficult to understand because it was written over a hundred years ago? Does anyone know?

Posted by: packard1 | January 14, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Visionbrkr,
You always have good stuff to add when it comes to HC, and someone needs to tell the whole story that Ezra always neglects to do. It's a shame that the other poster (can't remember his/her screen name, started with a W) who knew a lot about healthcare stopped posting.

Posted by: novalifter | January 14, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Could someone please tell me. Is this the same Ezra Klein who recently implied that the Constitution to the United States of America was too difficult to understand because it was written over a hundred years ago? Does anyone know?

Posted by: packard1 | January 14, 2011 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Visionbrkr,
You always have good stuff to add when it comes to HC, and someone needs to tell the whole story that Ezra always neglects to do. It's a shame that the other poster (can't remember his/her screen name, started with a W) who knew a lot about healthcare stopped posting.

Posted by: novalifter | January 14, 2011 10:44 AM | Report abuse

novalifter,

i think you're talking about wisewon. yes I miss his or her posts as well. He or she always had very good points to retort some of Ezra's points.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 14, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

novalifter,

i think you're talking about wisewon. yes I miss his or her posts as well. He or she always had very good points to retort some of Ezra's points.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 14, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Thank you so much for the first explanation of the GOP "Job Killing" libel I've read anywhere. Maybe you should put it on the Front Page.

They've got a point about the "doc law". If we KNOW the budget is going to be off every year, because there's a law we will vote to waive every year, then that law should also be waived by the Budget Office. (They could repeal the law itself, but it was no doubt passed in the first place to game some earlier budget crisis.)

Posted by: Casey1 | January 14, 2011 10:55 AM | Report abuse

@FREEDOMFROMGOV

Mob wives never ask their husbands to do the kinds of things they do to pay for the great lifestyle they get to live. But they aren't stupid.

Maybe you didn't specifically ask for the thousands of dollars in healthcare subsidies the federal government showers on you each year,

but I'll bet more than a nickel you fill out a form each year asking the government to subsidize your housing costs (in the form of deductible interest payments). And I also bet you think subsidies for low income housing should be abolished.

Because anything less than the absolute height of hypocrisy would be unworthy of a true Republican.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

eggnogfool:
"anything less than the absolute height of hypocrisy would be unworthy of a true Republican"

Speaking of hypocrisy, would you like to weigh in on Democrats transferring wealth from the poor to the rich by subsidizing the purchase of $40,000 automobiles?

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"Or that the religious conservatives donations aren't motivated, at least in part, by the tax code?"

You mean that if it weren't for taxes, religious conservatives would donate less to charity? Are you kidding me?

Taxes reduce the ability and inclination for most people to give to charity. That a $1,000 gift might reduce one's tax bill by $250 is but a tiny offset to the many thousands paid in taxes.

Posted by: justin84 | January 14, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse

dbw1

The more you write, the more you prove my point. If you are going to spout "facts" and present them as "the truth," perhaps you would consider citing some research to back your claims.

Otherwise, it's all just what you saw on Fox News this morning.

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 11:11 AM | Report abuse

TO:eggnogfooL

WELL FOR YOUR INFO NO I DO NOT WRITE OFF HOUSING INTEREST, MY INTEREST AMOUNT IS TO LOW TO QUALIFY, WHY YOU ASK BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN IN THE SAME HOME I HAD BUILT OVER 25 YEARS AGO,
AND YES, I SAY NO TO ANY SUBSIDIES FOR ANYONE. YOUR PURCHASE YOUR INTEREST, YOUR CAR YOUR PURCHASE, THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS WAS JUST ANOTHER FANNIE AND FREDDIE.
OUR FOREFATHERS ( OUR FAMILY TREE ) BUILT THIS NATION WITH HARD WORK & SWEAT, AND THEY NEVER ASKED ANYONE TO HELP THEM BUILD OR PAY FOR THEIR HOMES.
JUST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT DID AWAY WITH A TAX DEDUCTION FOR YOUR AUTOMOBILE INTEREST THEY SHOULD DO AWAY WITH THE MORTGAGE DEDUCTION.
IF YOU CAN NOT AFFORD THE HOME YOUR PURCHASED, AND THAT INCLUDES THE INTEREST THEN YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT IT.
IN 1985 WE BUILT OUR HOME FOR A TOTAL OF 36,000.00 AND WE DID NOT PAY FOR OR BUILD A HOME LARGER THAN OUR REAL NEEDS. HOMES TODAY HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF CONTROL, I GREW UP IN A HOME WITH 5 KIDS AND ONE BATHROOM AND WE WERE FINE, NOW PEOPLE HAVE HOMES WITH 3 KIDS AND 3-4 BATHS. ( SEE THE PROBLEM MORE HOME THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CAN AFFORD )

Maybe you didn't specifically ask for the thousands of dollars in healthcare subsidies the federal government showers on you each year,

but I'll bet more than a nickel you fill out a form each year asking the government to subsidize your housing costs (in the form of deductible interest payments). And I also bet you think subsidies for low income housing should be abolished.

Because anything less than the absolute height of hypocrisy would be unworthy of a true Republican.

Posted by: eggnogfooL

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I don't see it as 'hypocritical' to think that encouraging technological innovation and improving the standard of living of the poor are both worthwhile goals.

It's certainly true if you have more than one goal, it is possible that action toward one of your goals will be counterproductive towards progress toward a different goal. We can acknowledge reality, or we can lock ourselves in our rooms, knowing that anything else we do will have multiple consequences. I endorse the former.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Maximizing the labor supply by making people poorer means lower costs for business. That's what's important for the GOP. Their entire agenda is geared towards increasing profit for their corporate masters. Cheaper labor means lower costs means higher profits.

This may sound cynical, but it does an excellent job of explaining GOP behavior.

Posted by: fuse | January 14, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

This statement I think is mostly true! Now the same argument may be said that all of the policies of the liberals are higher wages and benefits, both direct from employer and indirect from the taxpayer to fund their retirement pensions.

The problem here is labor jacks up the price so high we have to take jobs overseas for businesses to make money or survive. The business's wants such low labor rates, like they can get in Mexico, India, China, that American labor and unions will not cooperate, so business goes overseas.

All politics are reduced, due to the money given to the parties, as business mainly for Republicans and labor/unions mainly for Democrats. We must get an equilibrium between business and labor or we get wiped out by foreign competition and labor. Mostly all the hatred in politics is caused and financed by this conflict.
It makes no sense condemning or idolizing either party, they both have their own agenda. If you go all the way in one direction to support either, you ruin the nation. It must be a compromise, and right now we need jobs, so business should be supported at this time. Labor is too expensive, jobs will be lost joining that side. Union workers, State and Federal workers, are bankrupting this nation with their exorbitant benefits, wages and retirement funds. In addition they do not get the job done, with the most personnel, try getting something accomplished through a government agency, it is deadlock.

Posted by: 1bmffwb | January 14, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

My employer pays for my health care but I must pay for my dependents. The cost of covering my dependents in 2011 rose from last year so I have to assume the cost of covering me also rose, thereby increasing business operating expenses.

Anything that increases a businesses expenses per employee is job killing as businesses will limit the number of employees to reduce these expenses.

Posted by: ahashburn | January 14, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"I don't think it necessarily follows that because putting the onus of paying for our healthcare system when healthcare accounts for 4% of our GDP didn't hurt our businesses proves that putting the onus of paying for our healthcare system on our businesses when healthcare accounts for 20, perhaps 25% of our GDP still won't hurt business competitiveness. "


Well, then, I guess we shouldn't be expanding healthcare coverage. The easiest way to lower healthcare costs is to not provide as much of it to people who do not pay for it.

And it certainly doesn't follow that providing 'free' 'universal' healthcare to the Democratic base unproductive underclass will generate superior GDP growth. 'Free' 'universal' healthcare was not a necessary condition for GDP growth for 60 years.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Please pardon me while I inject a little dose of economic reality between the Teabagger talking points. Here are a few of the jobs that will be created by initiating ( startin up. for all you Palin fans )a new market in health care with 40,000,000 new customers. Tea Party folks. I know that number hurts your head. To understand. Just think of it as the number of times you've been screwed by the Republicans you voted for. Doctors. Nurses.PAs.Various techs. Including. For example.X-ray,CT,MRI,Phlebotomy. Nursing Assistants. Cafeteria workers. Laundry. Education and support services to train these people. Guess what you teaconomic geniuses. These people will spend that money buying groceries or a car. Or. At your beloved "mom and pop" business.Guess what. A healthier population costs less and produces more.You already pay taxes. Stop being stupid enough to hand over your money while getting nothing in return. That is bad business. Would you just drop off some money at the Nascar booth and not demand a ticket. Here is a big clue. Taxes are not going away. So. Be a good free market capitalist. Demand something for your tax money. That is not a handout. It is a business deal. So far. You are a rube at a carnival. Show us that you are smart enough to catch on. It will be Patriotic to demand what is yours by right. Something for your blood,sweat and treasure. Something for something. Not nothing for something. Good luck Gomer.

Posted by: jk8588 | January 14, 2011 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Please pardon me while I inject a little dose of economic reality between the Teabagger talking points. Here are a few of the jobs that will be created by initiating ( startin up. for all you Palin fans )a new market in health care with 40,000,000 new customers. Tea Party folks. I know that number hurts your head. To understand. Just think of it as the number of times you've been screwed by the Republicans you voted for. Doctors. Nurses.PAs.Various techs. Including. For example.X-ray,CT,MRI,Phlebotomy. Nursing Assistants. Cafeteria workers. Laundry. Education and support services to train these people. Guess what you teaconomic geniuses. These people will spend that money buying groceries or a car. Or. At your beloved "mom and pop" business.Guess what. A healthier population costs less and produces more.You already pay taxes. Stop being stupid enough to hand over your money while getting nothing in return. That is bad business. Would you just drop off some money at the Nascar booth and not demand a ticket. Here is a big clue. Taxes are not going away. So. Be a good free market capitalist. Demand something for your tax money. That is not a handout. It is a business deal. So far. You are a rube at a carnival. Show us that you are smart enough to catch on. It will be Patriotic to demand what is yours by right. Something for your blood,sweat and treasure. Something for something. Not nothing for something. Good luck Gomer.

Posted by: jk8588 | January 14, 2011 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I would hope that some responsible member of Congress will address the name of this bill. America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the manipulated. There has to be a check and balance on this kind of misleading propoganda. Democrats, right now we need you to be that check and balance! Speak up!

Posted by: buyacme | January 14, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

TO: eggnogfooL
Maybe you didn't specifically ask for the thousands of dollars in healthcare subsidies the federal government showers on you each year,

TO STOP HEALTH CARE SUBSIDIES
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MAKE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MEDICAL EXPENSES THEY INCUR, OUTLAW BANKRUPTING ON MEDICAL EXPENSES, STOP FORCING HOSPITAL TO ACCEPT ILLEGAL ALIENS, FORCE HOSPITALS TO PREFORM LEGAL BILLING PRACTICES LIKE ONLY BILLING ONE PATIENT FOR THE SERVICES AND ITEMS PROVIDED BY THE HOSPITAL AND DOCTORS, STOP THE ABILITY OF HOSPITALS TO BILL ANY PATIENT FOR THE NON PAYMENT BY ANOTHER PATIENT, IF A PERSON CAN NOT BANKRUPT ON MEDICAL EXPENSES THEN MORE PEOPLE WILL PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE EXPENSE. THIS IS THE FREE MARKET AND THE HONEST WAY TO RAIN IN HEALTH CARE COST. ANY PERSON THAT DOES NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE WILL THEN BE FORCED TO MAKE PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS WITH HOSPITAL OR THEY WILL FIND IT CHEAPER TO GO TO THE DOCTORS OFFICE IN STEAD OF THE HOSPITAL.
AND YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE TO FORCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PAY ALL THE MEDICAL BILLS FOR MEDICARE SERVICES AND DOCTORS IN FULL SO THAT THE COST IS NOT PUSH UPON THE INSURED THE WAY IT IS NOW, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EVEN PAY IN FULL THE BILLS THEY OWE FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. THE FED'S ARE ALSO A PART OF THE NON PAYMENT PROBLEM

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Let's give credit where credit is due. "Job-killing" may be a blatant falsehood and fairly uncivil, but it's not nearly the demonizing lie that "death panels" was. So it's a step in the right direction.

Who knows? Maybe in some of our lifetimes, the Republicans might actually start arguing their case based on its merits, rather than on gimmicky, inflammatory, hyperbolic bumper-sticker slogans.

Posted by: js_edit | January 14, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I would hope that some responsible member of Congress will address the name of this bill. America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the manipulated. There has to be a check and balance on this kind of misleading propoganda. Democrats, right now we need you to be that check and balance! Speak up!

Posted by: buyacme | January 14, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Health care prices have been skyrocketing for at least the last five years and the Republicans simply wish to maintain the status quo.

Where is all that money going?

Posted by: mikem1 | January 14, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The government passes laws such as interest deductions so that people will invest in homes. I own four homes in which I provide housing for three other families who either can not or will not purchase their own. I bought them because of the interest deduction and the hope of appreciation. I get a break on interest, I pay all expenses and absorb all loss. I put my credit rating on the line if a tenant does not pay. Then I pay the state and federal government approximately 30-35% of what I MAY earn if I sell, after I pay 6-7% to the realtors. So I get all the risk and others take approx. 42% of any possible gain. I could lose if the market goes down and I go bankrupt and ruin everything I worked for my whole life because jackwagons like you think you know what is right and wrong with tax policies. People make investments based on existing laws. Capital gains, business write offs, interest write offs is what makes people take a chance in placing their money into the marketplace.

People say if you take SS then you are a hypocrite to condemn government spending. SS was involuntarily taken from us when we got our first paycheck and has been taken ever since in the assurance we would get it back when we met certain conditions. The government stole that money from the fund and spent it on other things that had little to do with SS. It is our right, it is our money.
Any benefits showered on the American people came from one place, the American peoples pocketbook. Do not wax poetic about the government providing for the people, it is the people providing for the people in all cases. It is the people providing for legislators the vast amounts of money they wast every year, month, day and minute of their time in office.

Posted by: 1bmffwb | January 14, 2011 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of job killing, how many U.S. jobs are lost because our companies are competing against foreign companies who don't pay for employee health care costs? Name the company, Germany, Japan, China, etc.

So there is the flaw (and the lie) in conservative and Republican beliefs. They live in yesterday's world where American companies sell goods in America. But we live a global economy and our companies' foreign competitors are highly subsidized by their governments with cheap healthcare, cheap capital (in the case of China), state sponsored espionage of intellectual property (in the case of China, France, etc.)

The GOP and the Tea Baggers are missing the forest for the trees. They're focused on the moste insignificant of issues while our nation's economy is quickly eroding and burning.

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | January 14, 2011 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of job killing, how many U.S. jobs are lost because our companies are competing against foreign companies who don't pay for employee health care costs? Name the company, Germany, Japan, China, etc.

So there is the flaw (and the lie) in conservative and Republican beliefs. They live in yesterday's world where American companies sell goods in America. But we live a global economy and our companies' foreign competitors are highly subsidized by their governments with cheap healthcare, cheap capital (in the case of China), state sponsored espionage of intellectual property (in the case of China, France, etc.)

The GOP and the Tea Baggers are missing the forest for the trees. They're focused on the moste insignificant of issues while our nation's economy is quickly eroding and burning.

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | January 14, 2011 11:47 AM | Report abuse

jk8588 wrote:
"Please pardon me while I inject a little dose of economic reality between the Teabagger talking points. Here are a few of the jobs that will be created by initiating ( startin up. for all you Palin fans )a new market in health care with 40,000,000 new customers. Tea Party folks. I know that number hurts your head. To understand. Just think of it as the number of times you've been screwed by the Republicans you voted for. Doctors. Nurses.PAs.Various techs. Including. For example.X-ray,CT,MRI,Phlebotomy. Nursing Assistants. Cafeteria workers. Laundry. Education and support services to train these people. Guess what you teaconomic geniuses. "

Ignoring your attempts to insult people to make up for your lack of knowledge is not the way to debate.

What new market in health care are you referring to? Are there not already X-ray,CT,MRI,Phlebotomy. Nursing Assistants. Cafeteria workers. Laundry. Education and support services to train these people? Why would about a 10% increase in potential patients increase jobs rather than increase cost? The two factors, supply and demand, controls price. If demand jumps and the supply of available services is limited, price of the service will rise. If more people are hired to meet the demand, the increase in expenses for the people hired will be reflected in an increase of prices for service. Or are you planning on making the health care so unappealing via lower wages (to get expenses under control) such that no one worth their salt would want to work in the field and leave (there by lowering supply again while demand is high)?

Posted by: ahashburn | January 14, 2011 11:47 AM | Report abuse

jk8588 wrote:
"Please pardon me while I inject a little dose of economic reality between the Teabagger talking points. Here are a few of the jobs that will be created by initiating ( startin up. for all you Palin fans )a new market in health care with 40,000,000 new customers. Tea Party folks. I know that number hurts your head. To understand. Just think of it as the number of times you've been screwed by the Republicans you voted for. Doctors. Nurses.PAs.Various techs. Including. For example.X-ray,CT,MRI,Phlebotomy. Nursing Assistants. Cafeteria workers. Laundry. Education and support services to train these people. Guess what you teaconomic geniuses. "

Ignoring your attempts to insult people to make up for your lack of knowledge is not the way to debate.

What new market in health care are you referring to? Are there not already X-ray,CT,MRI,Phlebotomy. Nursing Assistants. Cafeteria workers. Laundry. Education and support services to train these people? Why would about a 10% increase in potential patients increase jobs rather than increase cost? The two factors, supply and demand, controls price. If demand jumps and the supply of available services is limited, price of the service will rise. If more people are hired to meet the demand, the increase in expenses for the people hired will be reflected in an increase of prices for service. Or are you planning on making the health care so unappealing via lower wages (to get expenses under control) such that no one worth their salt would want to work in the field and leave (there by lowering supply again while demand is high)?

Posted by: ahashburn | January 14, 2011 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Klein, you and your fellow shipmates on the ship of fools in D.C. haven't a clue. Because of the health care bill, our premiums just increased 33%, for no reason.

No job kill off for the health insurers here, just a kill off of people who can 't afford Obama care.

The health insurers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: wesatch
-------------
I disagreed with your premise attributing the increase in premium on the health care bill:

1st, it has not been implemented in full.

2nd, the cost reflect what is happening today when you have fewer people on the roll for various reasons and people using the emergency room (aka freeloaders) ) which the insurers and Federal/state government pay to cover due to a Federal law Reagan signed in the 1980s. That impacts what you pay now. Healthcare is something you can not opt out.

3rd, there is no cost containment because it based on what was provided between the doctors and the insurers via agreement rather in comprehensive approach which the PPCA is supposed to do over the long term.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Classic Ezra Klein pretzel logic. Is there any record of Ezra Klein ever running a business, making a payroll week after week, gauging revenue expectations and determining whether to hire, dealing with health care costs, etc.

No evidence whatsoever. He has no experience other than assuming that he thinks he is so intelligent that he can imagine being a successful business person. Ezra Klein does NOT know what he is talking about folks.

Another Ezra Klein lie is that the GOP wants to scrap the entire bill. They don't. They want to start over and get a bi-partisan bill with the things people want and that the government can afford.

Just more liberal propaganda from Klein.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 14, 2011 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Death panels will be in effect with this health care legislation. I work in the the health care field and see every day how insurance companies make decisions on what should be spent on whom. The more power and influence that is given to those that control the money the more people will be denied because of their age, condition, and chances of being productive in our society. More people on the roles mean more needs for more people with less money to accomplish it. The examples are set in other countries with nationalized medicine. WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM, WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM, but we do not need one party setting the policies and ignoring cost saving methods, thats what some of this was supposed to do. Tort reform, to stop large legal payouts on medical lawsuits, Interstate competition on policies, to reduce policy cost are necessary. Providing coverage to Americans who entered the country legally and are not slipped in in the middle of the night. Get Healthcare Reform everyone can believe in. Start over and do it right, not with bribes and arm twisting, and not obscure parliamentary proceedings, thats over the objections of the majority of the American people, who have heard enough on the subject and still dont like it.

Posted by: 1bmffwb | January 14, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Klein, you and your fellow shipmates on the ship of fools in D.C. haven't a clue. Because of the health care bill, our premiums just increased 33%, for no reason.

No job kill off for the health insurers here, just a kill off of people who can 't afford Obama care.

The health insurers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: wesatch
-------------
I disagreed with your premise attributing the increase in premium on the health care bill:

1st, it has not been implemented in full.

2nd, the cost reflect what is happening today when you have fewer people on the roll for various reasons and people using the emergency room (aka freeloaders) ) which the insurers and Federal/state government pay to cover due to a Federal law Reagan signed in the 1980s. That impacts what you pay now. Healthcare is something you can not opt out.

3rd, there is no cost containment because it based on what was provided between the doctors and the insurers via agreement rather in comprehensive approach which the PPCA is supposed to do over the long term.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Death panels will be in effect with this health care legislation. I work in the the health care field and see every day how insurance companies make decisions on what should be spent on whom. The more power and influence that is given to those that control the money the more people will be denied because of their age, condition, and chances of being productive in our society. More people on the roles mean more needs for more people with less money to accomplish it. The examples are set in other countries with nationalized medicine. WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM, WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM, but we do not need one party setting the policies and ignoring cost saving methods, thats what some of this was supposed to do. Tort reform, to stop large legal payouts on medical lawsuits, Interstate competition on policies, to reduce policy cost are necessary. Providing coverage to Americans who entered the country legally and are not slipped in in the middle of the night. Get Healthcare Reform everyone can believe in. Start over and do it right, not with bribes and arm twisting, and not obscure parliamentary proceedings, thats over the objections of the majority of the American people, who have heard enough on the subject and still dont like it.

Posted by: 1bmffwb | January 14, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

@RufusPlimpton, great points made on how jobs are really lost in the US. It also doesn't help that China manipulates its currency. Right now the US is playing hard ball with China too on its currency, and it is helping our exports.

Bottom line: Businesses that protect American jobs should be rewarded.

We have too many sell-out executives who blindly support the GOP.

Posted by: ringlingj | January 14, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I SAY THIS IS NOT CORRECT, SICK PEOPLE ARE SICK PEOPLE, WHEN WE THE TAX PAYER IS FORCED TO PAY FOR THE MEDICAL CARE FOR 30 MILLION MORE THUR FEDERAL TAXES AND THEN THE FED'S CUT OFF THE MATCHING FUNDS TO THE STATES THEN YOUR STATES TAXES WILL HAVE TO BE INCREASED TO HELP COVER THE BILLIONS MORE IN MEDICAID EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE STATES DUE TO THE FEDERAL MANDATE TO EXPAND THOSE COVERED THROUGH MEDICAID. ( 10 YEARS OF TAXES, PENALTIES AND FEES FOR 6 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED COVERAGE & LIMITS) THAT ALONE TELLS YOU THAT THE BILL IS NOT FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. SO THE TAX PAYER IS GOING TO SUBSIDIZE THE HOSPITALS AND THAT MEANS THE PAYROLL OF THE JOBS THAT YOU SAY WILL BE CREATED, SO WE THE TAX PAYERS IN FACT PAYS THE PAYROLL AND THE PAYROLL TAXES OUT OF THE TAXES THEY COLLECT, THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS ONE BIG SCAM. THEY TAKE MONEY OUT OF ONE POCKET THE TAX PAYER TO SEND THE DOLLARS BACK WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE BEGINNING, I SAY LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ( THE TAX PAYER ) SUPPLY FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, POSTAL SERVICES, ROADS AND LETS KEEP THE REST OF OUR MONEY IN OUR OWN STATES AND THEN THE CITIZENS IN EACH STATES CAN DECIDE HOW TO SPEND THOSE DOLLARS.

a new market in health care with 40,000,000 new customers.

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

They (republicans) want to start over and get a bi-partisan bill with the things people want and that the government can afford.

Just more liberal propaganda from Klein.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 14, 2011 11:53 AM | Report abuse

====
Yeah, just like O.J. wanted to find the real killer.

Sorry, but I'll believe it when I see it. If they had such a plan, why do they always refuse to talk about it?

Posted by: mikem1 | January 14, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Classic Ezra Klein pretzel logic. Is there any record of Ezra Klein ever running a business, making a payroll week after week, gauging revenue expectations and determining whether to hire, dealing with health care costs, etc.

No evidence whatsoever. He has no experience other than assuming that he thinks he is so intelligent that he can imagine being a successful business person. Ezra Klein does NOT know what he is talking about folks.

Another Ezra Klein lie is that the GOP wants to scrap the entire bill. They don't. They want to start over and get a bi-partisan bill with the things people want and that the government can afford.

Just more liberal propaganda from Klein.
-------------
Again, another misinformed piece, because the current repeal does not offer something in its place. Only at a later time it will be something. Based on what they proposed, it doesn't do what it is advertised because they have invested emotional appeals to someone like you to believe it.
I have heard several Republicans support the individual mandate as American Enterprise Institute have suggested but they are stuck on the talking points based on party ideology rather than facts.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2011 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Also attached to the Healthcare bill was a new provision on the 1099 reporting laws that has already started to have an effect on employment. Many small business folks will not be able to or feel it not worth while to spend many hours and much money to comply with a stupid law like this. The only benefit of the law will be to the big banks and those hired by IRS to screw up the new IRS edicts. Provisions for 16,500 new government leaches for IRS were included. You and I pay these people for life. And that is just the start. I'm sure they will all need cars, buildings, desks, health care, retirement programs....! The people tasked with figuring the addition income from this question if the cost of the program will not exceed any additional income. And then there is the little problem of all the records being kept on every dime paid out. There has to be information given to any and all persons you deal with that will include every thing on a 1099 form. There is no way all your information that is required can be kept secure by these small businesses. Good-by security, hello identity theft. This is a push by big banking to have a cashless society where every dime moving in the US is monitored, controlled and profited on by banking. And the Democrats pushed this through! ....Our government and the Boy Scouts have one major difference. The Boy scouts have adult leadership!

Posted by: gunnysgt77 | January 14, 2011 12:05 PM | Report abuse

( 10 YEARS OF TAXES, PENALTIES AND FEES FOR 6 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED COVERAGE & COVERAGE LIMITS )

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans and their corporate supporters have killed more jobs in America, by exporting them to low-wage countries, than Obama's health care reform bill will ever do.

Even if the Republicans could repeal the bill, which they can't for the next two years anyway, what are they going to replace it with? Nothing! They have no solutions to the health care crisis, they have no answers to the 30-40 million (and growing every day) people in this country without health care. No, all they care about is ensuring that the insurance company executives can go on stuffing their pockets with the premiums that should be going to pay for health care.

Posted by: Chagasman | January 14, 2011 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, you can't argue facts with ideologues. They don't hear you, they don't care what you have to say, and they change facts with impunity to better fit confirm their point of view.

The facts tell us that while this bill is far from perfect, and even farther from what liberals like me would have liked, it kills no jobs and provides coverage yo millions of Americans who were otherwise left to fend for themselves. Unfortunately this does not fit the Tea Party or Republican worldview, the worldview that says that benefits are only for Republicans and Tea Partiers, not for the general population.

Posted by: pblotto | January 14, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

This bill isn't a job killer, it is an American industry killer. Businesses wholesale will collapse because of the cost of this legislation. We are already seeing a 30 percent increase in premium costs because insurance companies are passing through the increased costs of insuring the uninsurable, etc. Business isn't going to assume these costs, so it will become a choice between staying in business or declaring bankruptcy and laying off everyone. It is a disaster.

Posted by: edwardallen54 | January 14, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"I think the GOP wants people to be wealthier"

Sure seems like they only want the wealthy to be wealthier. They are fighting tooth and nail to stop modest improvements to healthcare affordability (let alone what we really need - universal healthcare), which would be particularly beneficial for lower to mid income people. I could go on an on about fighting consumer protections, cutting taxes for the rich, etc.

If it isn't good for rich people, screw it. Nice slogan, eh?

Posted by: mjm67 | January 14, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

ringlingj--read my comment at 11:25am and you will see why your way of looking at job loss is just as wrong minded as anyone in the GOP is. It is a global economy and that is where American business must compete. Without quality and reasonably priced labor they will perish. Labor in America is vastly overpriced. Plumbler $150 an hour to come to your house. Electrician, nearly the same. Autoworker, $75 in wages and another 75 in benefits. Air Conditioner repair, who knows? People are out of jobs and I post an ad on Craigs list for a handyman to do 8 hours worth of work, 3 come over to place bids. Simple carpentry work, $1200 lowest bid. Thats $150 and hour. Business can get that labor for 10-15% of that cost overseas for those jobs or any other. The equilibrium between labor and business has not been met in America. Other countries labor rates will rise slowly over time, they will go through unions and group bargaining, but it will take a decade or two. In the meantime we need to get with it in this country so that our people will still have skills. Tax breaks for business's located in America hiring Americans. Tariffs and tax penalties, with no government assistance to businesses who take jobs overseas. Unions and workers getting a living wage for the type of job they do. No more taxpayer support for pensions, and reasonable pay.

Posted by: 1bmffwb | January 14, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

ringlingj--read my comment at 11:25am and you will see why your way of looking at job loss is just as wrong minded as anyone in the GOP is. It is a global economy and that is where American business must compete. Without quality and reasonably priced labor they will perish. Labor in America is vastly overpriced. Plumbler $150 an hour to come to your house. Electrician, nearly the same. Autoworker, $75 in wages and another 75 in benefits. Air Conditioner repair, who knows? People are out of jobs and I post an ad on Craigs list for a handyman to do 8 hours worth of work, 3 come over to place bids. Simple carpentry work, $1200 lowest bid. Thats $150 and hour. Business can get that labor for 10-15% of that cost overseas for those jobs or any other. The equilibrium between labor and business has not been met in America. Other countries labor rates will rise slowly over time, they will go through unions and group bargaining, but it will take a decade or two. In the meantime we need to get with it in this country so that our people will still have skills. Tax breaks for business's located in America hiring Americans. Tariffs and tax penalties, with no government assistance to businesses who take jobs overseas. Unions and workers getting a living wage for the type of job they do. No more taxpayer support for pensions, and reasonable pay.

Posted by: 1bmffwb | January 14, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Did the GOP say "job killing" bill? Hmmm. And repealing it will be an American killing bill. There are your so-called "death panels". The GOP is useless.

Posted by: jckdoors | January 14, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Of course there isn't; there are only republicans using scare tactics. we need truth in advertising: all bills should be officialy titled by the CBO.

Posted by: michael5 | January 14, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"I think the GOP wants people to be wealthier"

Sure seems like they only want the wealthy to be wealthier. You don't have to get out a magnifying glass to see the pattern.

Besides, our employer based healthcare system is what really kills jobs. I have pretty nice health insurance in that the premiums that I pay are low. But the share that my employer pays is huge, thousands a year. If you add all that together for a company and divide it by the average salary, it's interesting to see how many more workers they could theoretically hire for the same cost if they weren't burdened with paying our health insurance.

Anyways, failing to fix our healthcare system (which we're very good at) is already hurting the US on in the global economic market.

Posted by: mjm67 | January 14, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

10 YRS OF TAXES, PENALTIES, FEES FOR 6 YEARS OF SOME KIND OF COVERAGE IS A TOTAL FISCAL DISASTER. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER BROKEN EVEN ON ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR PROGRAM, THEY CAN NOT EVEN BALANCE AND PAY FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID AFTER DECADES OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL. ANY HUMAN BEING THAT REALLY WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY HOME OWNERS INSURANCE FOR 10 YEAR BUT ONLY GET 6 YEARS OF COVERAGE HAS TO MENTALLY CHALLENGED.
( WE STILL DO NOT HAVE THE EXACT COVERAGES MANDATED )

TENS OF THOUSAND OF NEW GOVERNMENT AGENCY'S AND THOUSANDS OF MORE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MORE TAXES ( MONEY ) OUT OF YOUR POCKET TO PAY THE NEW EMPLOYEES. THE NEW GOVERNMENT AGENCY'S, NEW CORRUPTION, MORE FRAUD. AND LESS FREEDOM.

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN'S ARE RESPONSIBLE AND COVER THEIR OWN MEDICAL EXPENSES THE PROBLEM WITH THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS THE MAJORITY IS BEING THROWN TO THE WOLVES FOR THE FEW.

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

It's obvious by the absence of Republicans at funerals in Tuscon that they don't give a a damn who dies so long as it's not them or one of THEIR constituents. They didn't care when they condoned the Iraq war based on lies that it killed 4000 or more of our men and women for their political gain.

Boehner didn't shed a tear for the victims in Tuscon not even the 9 year old and that's because she was attending a meeting where a democrat presided.

So now the republicans instead of moving forward with proposals and legislation that might help the American citizen they're going to spend our time and waste OUR money on trying to undo the last two years.

Let's see how many tearful deliveries there will be when the Democrats filibuster the GOP's move to repeal! Little Nancy Boehner will certainly cry then and cry foul won't he?

GOP the Party of P*ssies.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Judge was recommended by John McCain and appointed by Bush.

BTW is this the civility and healing words that you Messiah has called for?

Posted by: rexreddy | January 14, 2011 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"We are already seeing a 30 percent increase in premium costs because insurance companies are passing through the increased costs of insuring the uninsurable"

And there it is. Nobody wants to pay for the uninsurable. Certainly not the hospital's emergency rooms where they now go. Certainly not the middle Taxed-Enough-Already class who already feel they pay too much in taxes. Certainly not the rich who already feel they pay too much in taxes.

Posted by: mikem1 | January 14, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

GET WITH IT PEOPLE--Business has little chance of survival if they don't go overseas. Unions have killed the advantage we had in quality of labor, it is now wiped out by the cost of cheaper labor overseas. We are in a contest in which other countries and business is keeping score. There are no tied games in business. You win, you get the job, you lose, you go hungry or you get food stamps. We are getting food stamps and unemployment because we are losing. Get used to it because we are not making the changes to be competitive. The government must stop taxing business out of business. It must reward businesses that create jobs. Job holders have to sacrifice demands of wanting to drive Expeditions and be happy with what they can afford on a fair wage. A stereotype I know, but an accurate one. Unions must concentrate on worker safety and innovation, not constant wage hikes. Everyone will be safer and more secure.

Posted by: 1bmffwb | January 14, 2011 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Again I see the silly argument that 'the bill is far from perfect...' by a supporter. Yo, what the heck is wrong with a perfect bill? What the 'hey' is wrong with at least reading the danged thing before you vote for it? What is wrong with honest debate (you Democrats are now whining about) before the bill was passed? What was the rush to pass this BS and Black Magic rather than pass a good bill? What the heck did the new 1099 law have to do with health care? Many of your own Democrat legislators have done the hot potato shuffle since voting for this garbage. What is the Democrat position that passing a good bill is wrong, fast and confused is good?

Posted by: gunnysgt77 | January 14, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse


How does Ezra Klein have any credibility after the Jourolist revelations? How does the CBO have any credibility after issuing these prognostications when the very funding mechanism of health care reform is under credible legal assault?

Posted by: edbyronadams | January 14, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

NOTHING LIFE IS FREE, WHEN THE DEM'S SAY
LOOK FREE THIS OR FREE THAT, PLEASE REMEMBER NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE,
YOU CAN GET UNLIMITED LIFE TIME BENEFITS, FREE ( NO OFFICE VISIT CO-PAY )
HIGHER DRUG COVERAGE
LOWER DEDUCTIBLES
NO PREEXISTING CONDITIONS

THE ISSUE IS THE MORE BENEFITS YOU HAVE ON YOUR INSURANCE POLICY THE HIGHER THE PREMIUM.

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Universal Health Care will create productive jobs as our economy recovers from wasteful ineffective spending on health care and thus makes American made products much more competitive globally. Health benefits for union members are almost half of their pays. It will be a lot of cost reduction for American made products.

Universal Health Care will then reduce our deficits as well as our trade imbalance.

From an Independent.

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 14, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"This is true for anything that increases financial resources. One effect of tax cuts, for instance, is that people work less because their income is more adequate to their needs. When you make people richer, they find they have more choices. That's a good thing."

Not true. You've correctly identified the possibility of workers favoring leisure over over consumption. Any exogenous change to after-tax wages will have BOTH a labor and and an income effect. Depending on workers' preferences, the income effect can swamp out the labor effect and result in an increased demand for leisure, but there's no reason why the labor effect cannot be bigger and workers provide more labor despite having increased financial resources.

I would have hoped that someone being paid as much as you are to blog about economics would grasp this.

Posted by: chgobluesguy | January 14, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

rexreddy-YOU LIE-Boehner gave a talk at a senate session in which he showed deep emotion over the shooting. It was on national TV. Nice try though to get in a low blow!
Speaking of not attending funerals, did you know that Obama did not attend the funerals of the military or civilians that was shot and killed at Ft Hood? Using your way of describing it I guess there were no Democrats to honor the dead there. I dont believe that could possibly be true, and I dont believe there were no Republican in Arizona. Did you set up a polling station and ask the participants as they were leaving the service what their choice of political party was? YOU ARE A ZOMBIE, AND A COWARD. BTW Your Obama is still waging the war in Iraq after campaign promise to the contrary. Liar In Chief. If you were within arms reach you would never, ever use the "P" word or you would be on the ground looking for your teeth, out of the one eye you had left. You sound like you have a little sugar in your underwear, Zippy

Posted by: 1bmffwb | January 14, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

How does Ezra Klein have any credibility after the Jourolist revelations?
Posted by: edbyronadams | January 14, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

====
What's with the ad hominem attacks? Ezra clearly trends left, but does that automatically disqualify anything he says? Why don't you argue on the merits of the argument?

Posted by: mikem1 | January 14, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Reforming Healthcare is going to be a 20 year process if Republicans, at the behest of those who want the job-and-people killing status quo to continue don't succeed in killing it first. Let's hope not.

Two thoughts. First, we need the natural cycle of Government control (which swings from left to right and back) to help make the ACA better. Republicans need to be in power for the cost controls that hit the Lawyers to be implemented. Democrats need to be in power for any cost controls to be placed on Big Pharma, Big Insurance and/or the Doctors. Both parties seem willing to reign-in Hospitals, although the Republicans slightly less-so than the Democrats -since Doctor Groups own many Hospital chains. Such is life. These are facts based on which of these groups support which parties financially.

The only reason the current bill passed was precisely because it didn't gore any of the oxes listed above (this time around). The Democrats even had to cut a deal with the Drug makers (that they would not touch them in the current bill) or nothing would have passed at all. Just as with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid... it will take years to get this right. Why can't people see that, accept it and work to make it better? Why go right for the jugular in a divisive way and shoot for total repeal with no replacement? My answer is: "because that's what the people who contribute the most to the Republicans want -total repeal, no replacement". Status quo anyone?

Thought two: My belief is that many of the people objecting loudest to the passage of the Health Care Act are the folks that have been running for years without health insurance. Now that they are finally being pulled-over and asked to pay their fair share, they are mad about it. Too bad. Most of us get our Insurance through work, we only get a small range of choices, they all cost us (big) money -and there's no turning it down. All you folks who have NOT been carrying health insurance.... get over it. The free ride is over and the rest of us are NOT going to pay for you or your kid's emergency room visits any more.

Dr. Krugman over at the Times has a good column on the differences between the two political parties today. Its worth reading. He's right when he says that some on the far right don't believe in any social safety net -much less trying to make sure everyone is insured. If "we're all in this together" vs "survival of the fittest" is where the Republicans want to fight the next election, let's go. That's a battle I look forward to seeing.

Posted by: dlo455 | January 14, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

jk8588:
"Please pardon me while I inject a little dose of economic reality between the Teabagger talking points..."

Ah, this must be that 'civility' thing the left has been pining for. You know, tell everyone how hateful and divisive conservatives are because they think their representatives should actually read the bills they vote on....and then continue using vitriolic and inciteful labels like 'teabagger'.

I wonder how many left-wingers even know what that label means.....

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, we as Americans are in the position where universal health care coverage is held in abeyance due to the greed and immoral political power of the giant Insurance Industry and its selfish CEOs and political lapdogs. No where else in the industrialized world, do we find individuals left to the mercy of health insurance big wigs to select the type and nature of care and its associated variable costs. We have been thrown to the whims of fabulously wealthy and powerful men and their desire to make huge profits off the well being of the common citizen. This is nothing if not disturbing and immoral.

When will we see that we are being screwed? What will it take for people to stop voting against their own best interests as opposed to the best interests of the politically powerful and uber-wealthy, debased industrialists who rule our country?

Posted by: bruce19 | January 14, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

" All you folks who have NOT been carrying health insurance.... get over it. The free ride is over and the rest of us are NOT going to pay for you or your kid's emergency room visits any more."


No, you'll just continue pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to the freeloading losers on Medicaid instead.

The utter idiocy of this kind of position astounds me. Medicaid is the worst creation in US history.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

dlo455:
"Dr. Krugman over at the Times has a good column....he says that some on the far right don't believe in any social safety net -much less trying to make sure everyone is insured."

And with that, you nearly destroyed any credibility you had. Krugman is a political hack masquerading as an 'expert' with a Phd. If you have ever watched his act on "This Week", you would know the man has one narrow tunnel-vision view of the world and refuses to acknowledge or address any legitimate counterpoints ever offered by those on the other side of the table.

And by the way, don't confuse "don't support big-government" with "don't support any social safety net". I've made the point a number of times on Ezra's boards, but I know liberals have a hard time getting their heads around this....big government does not equal 'compassion'.

Most conservatives believe in 'social safety nets', but believe they are best adminstered locally....where those receiving the help are best known by those providing the help. Liberals, by contrast, believe big-government bureaucracies can solve any and every problem.

The reason progressives love 'big-government' solutions is because it consolidates power to themselves to force others to live how progressives believe they should live (right, Bill Maher?), instead of allowing individuals to run their own lives.

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

If expanding health insurance coverage will kill jobs, the German economy should have been in dismal long ago as they adopted Universal Health Care in 1880's. Not only did Germans rebound after WWII, but they absorbed East Germany all under Universal Health Care. Perhaps we are better off sending all Republicans to Germany for a retreat and eye-opener.

Universal Health Care will help us become much more competitive globally and create much more productive jobs, unlike health insurance jobs.

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 14, 2011 9:10 AM |
=======

Germany and all the other developed countries of the world with Universal Health Care are not offering free health care to 10% of Mexico's population (as well as Latin America)living illegally in our country, as well as their illegtimate anchor babies.

The next time you talk with your German, Swiss, UK, French, Canadian friends, ask how they handle illegal aliens in their countries.

The US is providing FREE (tax payer funded) Health Care to 50M illegal aliens and their illegitimate anchor babies. This will NOT change with Obamasham -it will only mandate more people drop a dime into the bucket to CONTINUE providing free health care for illegals.

Obamasham MUST be repealed. It will do nothing in the long term to reduce costs or improve care.

Posted by: asmith1 | January 14, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100716/NEWS01/7160343/1006/news01/Feds-probe-Medicaid-payments-to-9-facilities-for-developmentally-disabled

Federal officials have launched an inquiry into Medicaid payments to nine state institutions for the developmentally disabled, after the Poughkeepsie Journal revealed the facilities had reimbursement rates of $4,556 per day for each of 1,400 residents.

"It has come to CMS attention that several New York state operated developmental centers currently claim ... daily Medicaid rates in excess of $4,500 per beneficiary," said the letter to Donna Frescatore, deputy commissioner of health. "CMS is requesting that New York provide us with additional information about these claims."


$1.6 billion a year. At least social security has a designated tax. Why do we keep racking up so much deficit spending on healthcare?

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"Universal Health Care will help us become much more competitive globally and create much more productive jobs, unlike health insurance jobs."

Lying out of your teeth. US economic growth from 1946-2009 outdid all those socialist European nations in all those metrics.

Posted by: krazen1211
********************************

Really? Then why are we 160th on this list?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html

Posted by: MichelleKinPA | January 14, 2011 1:03 PM | Report abuse

WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LEFT WITH IS MEDICAL INDUSTRY THAT WILL HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF MEDICAL CARE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HAVE AND MAINTAIN A INDIVIDUAL , FAMILY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE WHICH WILL PAY BETTER AND FASTER THAN THE FED'S WILL, THE MORE DOCTORS WILL PULL OUT OF PROVIDING GOVERNMENT COVERED HEALTH CARE,
AND THAT WILL LEAVE THE WEALTHY FEW WITH THE BEST DOCTORS , FASTER MEDICAL TESTING, AND FASTER ADMITTANCE TO HOSPITALS FOR MEDICAL PROCEDURES. SO NOW WE WILL HAVE CLASS AND COVERAGE DEPENDENT MEDICAL CARE.
THE NON GOVERNMENT DOCTORS WILL MAKE MORE LIKE THEY DO NOW SEEING PRIVATE INSURANCE PATIENTS THAN THEY MAKE SEE GOVERNMENT PAID PATIENTS. NOT ALL DOCTORS OR HOSPITALS TAKE MEDICAID NOW AND IT WILL GET WORSE.

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Ezra; you are absolutely correct. I'm tired of these duplicitous claims by the GOP, and of all the ill-informed people on this, including the sign-waver the WaPo had a picture of today, with the healthcare isn't free sign. Nobody said it was free.

I am in exactly the position you state, I could retire early, and one thing I would want to do this is assured access to healthcare. I don't want what some healthcare opponents seem to want, to be uninsured and hope I don't get sick, and expect free emergency room care (paid by someone else) if I do. I'm willing to pay a fair price for insurance, but up to now, availability is not assured. Anyone attempting to buy insurance as an individual is viewed with suspicion by insurance underwriters, and if you can get insurance, it's expensive, quality of coverage is not assured, and there's always the risk of losing it when you need it most.

If I do retire, I would not be counted as unemployed, but the vacancy I leave might allow an actual unemployed person to be hired to fill my space, actually reducing the number counted as unemployed.

I'm just so sick of all the spin on this, that it's job killing, that anyone who wants health reform is nothing but a freeloader looking for free coverage, etc. So many of those claims are simply not true.

Posted by: GaryInNY | January 14, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

bruce19:

Please scroll up and read my post from earlier today debunking the 'greedy insurance CEO's' talking point.

When you see the numbers in their proper context, I'm sure you will agree this frequent divisive tactic of the left to incite public discord by playing class warfare is nothing but a red herring in the health care debate.

By the way, if the salaries of insurance company CEO's is so egregious, what do you liberals have to say about the hundreds of millions collected by trial lawyers every year filing frivilous malpractice suits?

You know that money doesn't come from "Obama's stash", right? Those judgments and attorney fees are paid by insurance companies....who have to turn around and jack up our premiums to cover them.

Oh, but wait a sec....trial lawyers lavish millions on the political campaigns of Democrats...so don't hold your breath that Democrats will ever take malpractice reform seriously.

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I might be the one of the few that look forward to continuing the debate on the health care law. Too many measures - individual mandate, rationing, funding - were discussed behind closed doors between select Democrat leadership and health care and pharma lobbyists. If this is really the best plan to reform 16% (and growing) of the economy it should be debated openly and honestly, not behind closed doors an its costs obscured by biofuel tax credits.

Posted by: cprferry | January 14, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"Really? Then why are we 160th on this list?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html"

Your link doesn't actually measure GDP growth from 1946 to 2009. During the above time frame, we didn't have Barack Obama in office.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 14, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone be surprised at this?

Republicans are too stupid to make any sort of intelligent argument so this is another example of their childish, insulting ways of getting things done

They have morons like Palin and Bush running their party and these so-called leaders are too stupid to have simple conversations with anyone outside Fox News

Posted by: Bious | January 14, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"Total Nationalization of Health Care is the only way to keep Medical Costs down. That would probably be the worst possible outcome.
Posted by: ddoiron1"

You would still need willing participants. Hospitals and doctors are already refusing to take Medicaid/Medicare patients because the low rates and difficulties negotiating with the government health programs.

Posted by: cprferry | January 14, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

There is no "job killing healthcare bill", but there is a people killing attempt on the part of the Rethulickins to kill healthcare reform.

Posted by: Jihm | January 14, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

To the two id-io-ts who responded to my email that the GOP had no alternate the the job-killing health care bill:

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20TH
On Thursday, the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes for the week are expected by noon.

H.Res. 9 - Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the Job-Killing Health Care Law (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. David Dreier / Rules Committee)

Posted by: hz9604 | January 14, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

health care is not a constitutional right, it is how ever a personal responsibility.

it is not constitutional to force American's to support other American's in any way shape or form, this nation was founded on each person taking care of themselves and their families. this nation was not founded on not being the like Europe, We are the exceptional nation we are unlike the socialist nations and the reason we are exceptional is our individual freedom and individual liberty from government take overs and person limitations on our freedom of chose on personal issues, like health care, abortion which means less government and more liberty which is what the democrats originally stood for.

Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"All you folks who have NOT been carrying health insurance.... get over it. The free ride is over and the rest of us are NOT going to pay for you or your kid's emergency room visits any more."

You never paid for them anyway. They paid 35% out of pocket and government programs picked up another 35%. The remaining 30% was further cut into by private grants and charity.

Those without health insurance (or non-comprehensive coverage) also sought a fraction of the health care we do. <30% of a fraction isn't much.

Now let's consider if every one was forced/given comprehensive coverage. The previously uninsured will expand their health care spending.

And what's that? The number of people who will qualify government subsidies predicts to outnumber the existing uninsured?

How does this reduce medical spending again?

Oh, that's right by rationing. By locking people into government-designed plans, refusing to cover certain procedures on one hand while encouraging euthanasia on the other.

Posted by: cprferry | January 14, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the whole "job killing" rhetoric is vitriolic or uncivil. It when the eliminationist (I know that's not an actual word, BTW) rhetoric is used towards a group of people or the United States government. Job killing is just hyperbole, which has always been part of politics.

However, I am for anything that will get people to start retiring. Us recent graduates are dying (hopefully not literally) for full time, permanent positions. Those are hard to come by because nobody is retiring right now. And, for anybody who makes some claim about illegal immigrants, my post has nothing to do with them. I'm a recent law school grad who passed the bar, but I still cannot find a full time, permanent position and many friends of mine are in the same lot. I don't think too many illegal immigrants manage to put themselves through law school and pass the bar (which includes passing a moral character requirement, meaning you have not committed any felonies, which I think being in this country illegally is a felony).

Please, older population, especially in the professional ranks, RETIRE! It would help us entry level folks actually get the experience required to obtain the jobs that are actually open now (all those require 3-5+ years experience, which is impossible to get if there are no jobs!).

Posted by: cartoonsrock | January 14, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

To the two id-io-ts who responded to my email that the GOP had no alternate the the job-killing health care bill:

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20TH
On Thursday, the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes for the week are expected by noon.

H.Res. 9 - Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the Job-Killing Health Care Law (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. David Dreier / Rules Committee)

Posted by: hz9604 | January 14, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse


Did I call you names? Is it really necessary to demean others that have valid, if differing, viewpoints? Try showing a little civility for a change.

Look, they had eight years to do something about health care before, there is ZERO indication that things are going to be different this time around. The strength of the hard-right conservatives (who want a drastically smaller government) will ensure that nothing else will be done.

Posted by: mikem1 | January 14, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Responding to ahashburn. 1.What new market in health care are you referring to? Are there not already X-ray,CT,MRI,Phlebotomy. Nursing Assistants. Cafeteria workers. Laundry. Education and support services to train these people? 1. answer The new market refers to new patients. Not new providers. 2.Why would about a 10% increase in potential patients increase jobs rather than increase cost? 2.answer. The increase is greater than 10%. Currently about 240,000,000 Americans are covered.Many of these are covered by Government programs such as medicare or champus.40,000,000additional customers represent a greater than 20% increase. An increase which any good capitalist would be very happy with. 3.The two factors, supply and demand, controls price. If demand jumps and the supply of available services is limited, price of the service will rise. If more people are hired to meet the demand, the increase in expenses for the people hired will be reflected in an increase of prices for service. 3. answer. The service supply is a variable. As it rises in response to increased demand many new jobs are created causing prices to fall.Capital outlay and expenses do not rise on a 1/1 basis per employee as much service infrastructure is not reproduced on a per employee basis.Thus expenses per employee fall as the number of employees increase. This is an endogenous function of market efficiency. As Ronald Reagan has pointed out. Competition lowers prices for consumers.You will note that early in the last century, as demand for automobiles increased, suppliers proliferated, there was a net unit decrease in cost and cars became affordable for the average working person.4.Or are you planning on making the health care so unappealing via lower wages (to get expenses under control) such that no one worth their salt would want to work in the field and leave (there by lowering supply again while demand is high)?4.answer. In a free market, providers attract customers from their competition by offering higher quality goods and services at a lower or comparable price. This economic Darwinism works to the customers advantage. Note that quality is a variable that must be included in the equation. This competition leads to higher quality at better prices. Wal-Mart vs Target is a good example.

Posted by: jk8588 | January 14, 2011 1:55 PM | Report abuse

FREEDOMFROMGOV:

The Democrats originally stood for participative government (Merone, 1998).

Insurance does not work unless the entire pool of citizens are insured. Otherwise, it will not have the features necessary to work the way insurance does. It's a fundamental, existentialist necessity. Otherwise, it's unsustainable. You can't argue with that--that's the way insurance works.

Source:

Merone, J. A. (1998). The Democratic Wish. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

health care is not a constitutional right, it is how ever a personal responsibility.


Posted by: FREEDOMFROMGOV | January 14, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

In principle, I absolutely agree (really I do). By this same thinking, we should also repeal the job-killing social security and medicare programs.

However, like it or not, some members of society won't get the memo and won't save for retirement. As they get older, they won't be able to work and then what?

Posted by: mikem1 | January 14, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

mlkem1--exactly.

We decided long ago (long before I was born, anyhow) that it is not in the best interests of our society to simply abandon those who cannot/will_not care for themselves.

Whether you believe government does it out of the goodness of its heart or out of fear of class warfare does not matter. They do it because our society has decided it will be done.

What we usually disagree about is how it will be done. However, some people think we're still deciding on the "whether it should be done" part. We're not. That's a done deal, and there's no sense in letting it make you crazy.

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

@stella:

If you make it a big enough nightmare to tweak the system every time the welfare state needs an adjustment,

maybe people will eventually give up on it.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

@eggnogfool

Maybe. Tweaking the system sure does bring out the worst in people. I know both sides fundamentally agree on some things, and quite honestly, two sides make for good governance. So, I truly welcome the debate.

What drives me batty is the volume of misinformation generated by a certain TV station (which rhymes with box). People actually bring TV talking points to conversations like this one and think they are contributing analysis. It's not analysis.

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

@FREEDOMFROMGOV:
"health care is not a constitutional right,"

The 9th amendment debunks this line of argument.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Of course it's a job-killer. Perpetuating, no, enshrining the employer-based health care system is a noose around the neck of the US in the global economy.

Posted by: michaelh81 | January 14, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

michaelh81:

"Perpetuating, no, enshrining the employer-based health care system is a noose around the neck of the US in the global economy."

Interesting after we've spent the last few weeks dealing with anti-PPACA types claiming the real problem with it is that it will end the employer based healthcare system.

Really, while the PPACA won't significantly change the extent of employer based healthcare in America, it creates a path away from it to an individual system that we can opt to take down the road.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

eggnogfool:
" 'FREEDOMFROMGOV: health care is not a constitutional right,'
The 9th amendment debunks this line of argument."

So then, using your logic, I have the right to a car, a house, and a four-week vacation every year....all paid for by the U.S. government?

Another example of baffling liberal logic that says we have a 'right' to, well, whatever we want, at government expense.

I kindly urge you to read one line further in the Bill of Rights, and try to digest the 10th Amendment.

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

stella12:
"Insurance does not work unless the entire pool of citizens are insured."

And the price of insurance premiums would go down if the collective cost for providing health care to those in the 'pool' were to decrease due to, say, requiring those in the 'pool' to live healthier lives.

If you, like other liberal-progressives, believe our FEDERAL government has the power to compel us to buy a product (insurance), then you have to explain why the FEDERAL government would not have the power in the future to:
- restrict how many calories we eat in a day.
- require each of us to log 30 minutes a day of exercise.
- require monthly weigh-ins, and assess a tax on those who are overweight....since obesity is an obvious adder to health care costs.

I have never heard a liberal split this hair and successfully argue why, constitutionally, our government can have the power to force us to buy insurance but would not have the power to do the other things above.

Now, I know I'm being downright silly....it's not like any government entity would EVER think of trying to regulate people's diets because of the ramifications to their health (and ultimately the cost to the taxpayer to care for them). That's just a divisive 'talking point' of right-wing radio and those radical hate-mongering conservatives....

"Push to ban soda purchases with food stamps"
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07stamps.html

Posted by: dbw1 | January 14, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

@dbw1:

"So then, using your logic, I have the right to a car, a house, and a four-week vacation every year....all paid for by the U.S. government?"

No, by my logic, if you proposed legislation to that effect I would have to argue against them on policy grounds, not on "Not in the Constitution!" grounds.

the 9th doesn't deliver any specific rights, it just declares "All arguments of the form 'people don't have right X because right X isn't listed in the Constitution' are hereby invalid."

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

dbw1

I am an independent.

A NY Times opinion article is not research.

Insurance does not work unless the entire pool of citizens are insured. It's existential. There is no point in arguing it. If you want health care reform, that is the way it needs to be done.

This may surprise you, but freedom is actually more a part of the liberal ideology than the conservative (Hahn, 2003). Conservatives are all about control--banning books, censoring art, etc.

But aha--I finally get you. You're one of those people who think the government is trying to control you. Well, nothing I can say going to convince you otherwise, so you just keep on stoking that paranoia fire.

Source:

Hahn, D. (2003). Political Communication: Rhetoric, Government, and Citizens (Second ed.). State College, PA, USA: Strata.

Posted by: stella12 | January 14, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

@dbw1:

Hard to argue that the commerce clause isn't all-powerful when a marijuana plant in my yard can be 'regulated' under the commerce clause. I'd probably fight those specific actions under 'right to privacy' grounds tho.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 14, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

So the health reform legislation means "Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."

In other words, creating new job openings and reducing competition for jobs, and so helping lower the unemployment rate?

So I guess the Republicans really meant to call it the "reducing unemployment" bill, but made a (huge) typo.

Posted by: quickj | January 14, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Let me explain what they mean by "job killing".

If employers are required to offer healthcare to their employees once they reach 50 employees or face huge penalties, then to compensate, they won't hire that 50th employee. There is no incentive to grow your business. Hence, Job Killing bill plain and simple.

Posted by: UpperPerkConcernedCitizen | January 14, 2011 5:35 PM | Report abuse

To UpperPerkConcernedCitizen

"If employers are required to offer healthcare to their employees once they reach 50 employees or face huge penalties, then to compensate, they won't hire that 50th employee. There is no incentive to grow your business. Hence, Job Killing bill plain and simple."

So I guess your hypothetical employer's 50 workers are all buying their own insurance (mandated), because s/he isn't offering an insurance plan.

So when it's time to add more staff, all the employer has to do is say, "Hey, guys, you can stop paying your health insurance premiums, 'cos from now on I'll be paying them for you, and reducing your pay by whatever amount I'm paying for you." (Which may end up with employees being ahead if the employer gets a decent group rate.)

Then the employer can hire the 51st worker on the same terms as the other 50.

See how it works?

(Obama's Tucson speech called for "a more civil and honest public discourse". Maybe renaming the repeal bill would be a good first step on both counts.)

Posted by: quickj | January 14, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I feel embarrassed for the Republican Congressmen, who themselves don't seem to be embarrassed by their show of childish petulance. What's next, "The Repealing the Stinky Estate-Tax Act"?

Posted by: gzuckier | January 15, 2011 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Hey, I wonder what other entitlements Obama can get through in his last two years...its not about free healthcare for all...that would be great....I'd like to go out and buy a new car...problem is, I CAN'T AFFORD IT & NEITHER CAN THE US TAXPAYER!!
-------------------------------------
Where did you get the idea that it's FREE healthcare? People still will be paying premiums for coverage, copays, etc. The entire reform is based on insurance co. plans, so why would you think it's free?

Posted by: mglbrown1 | January 15, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse

I forget who gave the best description for the popularity of disco music; "They put the beat where even the white people could find it".

The Gop put their message on the healthcare reform where even their base could find it.

Posted by: edmichael | January 15, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse


Until the GOP started attacking healthcare reform, I never imagined there were so many US businesses with fortysomething employees.

Does anyone have an actual number of such? Can anyone tell me how many have the magical 49 employees?

Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

Posted by: edmichael | January 15, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

MichelleKinPA: You mean the same list were the Unites States is ranked #133? What? No #1 USA? How come?

That is because it is a GDP GROWTH RATE table, which has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING even remotely connected with the issue at hand. The countries at the top of the list are all oil producing nations, hence why the GDP GROWTH RATE is so high.

But the list that DOES show and is relevant to the issue at hand is this one, the annual GDP (PPP) table, which ironically has them as #1 in 2010 and JUST BEAT the US for the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Next, try to use a calorie chart in a bag of Cheeatos. Maybe you'll have better luck....yokel.

Posted by: Mighty7 | January 15, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse


"123 Get Samples" is the best source for free health product samples. Find tons of great stuff.

Posted by: ritaluis16 | January 16, 2011 2:33 AM | Report abuse

fuse... what?

In elecion2008, morer funds from big business "corporate America" went to support the Obama campaign. So much for your foolish argument about the Republicans Master.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | January 16, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"Because of the health care bill, our premiums just increased 33%, for no reason."

Actual i work in HR and in negotiating new medical rates, a Blue Cross rep informed me our rates increased nearly 20%, but only 3% was due to health reform changes, such as no lifetime max and coverage for kids up to 26. The remainder would have happened no matter what. Had this bill not been put in place for future benefits, and I received news my rates were increasing 17%, you best your a** I'd be begging for health reform. Luckily it is in place, and I'm confident these ridiculous rate hikes will be scrutinized more so

Posted by: philipiz | January 19, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company