Text 12570, 224 rader
Skriven 2010-04-03 12:15:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av John Massey
Ärende: Obama Derangement Syndrom
=================================
 JM> On 4/2/2010 12:16 AM, Bob Klahn -> John Massey wrote:


 JM>>> * They don't want to have to defend the revelation that
 JM>>> Obama and his family will not be subject to the
 JM>>> restrictions, requirements and penalties of ObamaCare.

 BK>> Uh... the president has his own medical team.

 JM> Like I said that he's exempt from his own program that he
 JM> is pushing on the rest of the country.

 Only while he's in office. He don't get that medical team once
 he's out of office.

 The military is exempt also.

 For that matter, anyone with employer provided insurance will
 see little difference. What little they will see will be more
 service.

 BK>> Are you willing to defend the fact that Bush got gold plated
 BK>> medical care while 45 million had no coverage, and limited care?

 JM> Bush is no longer president, I don't care what Bush did. I
 JM> care about what the current president is doing to the
 JM> United States.

 IOW, it's all about Obama. Thanks for admitting it.

 BTW, do you denounce Mitt Romney for writing and getting enacted
 a program very much like this one?

 JM>>> * They don't want to have to explain how an insurance
 JM>>> company can charge lower premiums when its healthier
 JM>>> policy holders take a hike and they're forced to insure
 JM>>> people who are already sick.

 BK>> That is why they have mandated coverage. The only other
 BK>> alternative is single payer government medicine.

 JM> No Bob, that is not the only other answer.

 I noted that in the next line.

 BK>> Or do you prefer the alternative of uninsured Americans?

 JM>>> * They don't want a discussion on how our children and
 JM>>> grandchildren are going to pay off the massive debt
 JM>>> they will have to overcome courtesy of ObamaCare.

 BK>> They won't have to worry, the massive debt going back through
 BK>> Gwb to GHWB to Reagan will be enough to worry about.

 JM> Those debts will be peanuts compared to what Barack Obama
 JM> is going to settle this country with.

 Reagan inherited a debt of 32.5% of GDP. He left a debt of 53%
 of GDP. Bush I left a debt of 66% of GDP. Clinton left a debt of
 57.4% of GDP. Bush left a debt of 90% of GDP. Obama is expected
 to increase that to about 100% of GDP. About a 10% increase.

 Clinton increase the actual debt by 33%. Bush more than doubled
 it, increasing it by 123%. The reports I have seen say Obama's
 wrost case is expected to double the debt over the next 8 years.
 If he is reelected.

 However, if the GDP grows at the same rate as the debt, which is
 the other prediction, the percent of GDP will remain the same.

 However you look at it, the debt the next generation will have
 to pay will be almost all Reagan/Bush I/Bush II debt.

 And given a revived economy that can be worked down again just
 as it was after WWII. However, if the Fed goes into inflation
 paranoia mode as they usually do, it will never be paid down.

 Just my prediction.

 BK>> Do you want to explain to your grandchildren why they are living
 BK>> in a third world country, that used to be the United States of
 BK>> America?

 JM> I don't have children.

 Then you don't have to worry about it, do you.

 See the tagline.

 JM>>> * They don't want to have to defend the gimmicks they
 JM>>> used to force the Congressional Budget Office to
 JM>>> falsely report that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit.

 BK>> You mean the truth? Or how it will save $1 trillion a year if
 BK>> it's pushed to match the Swiss most expensive national health
 BK>> care in the world?

 JM> No Bob, I mean things like taking doc fix out of the
 JM> program and making it a separate issue, so it wouldn't be
 JM> considered under Obama care.

 Since the "Doc Fix" was required in any case, it is not a
 National Health care issue. It is not affected by the health
 care reform law.

 JM> Things like putting the
 JM> college loan program under healthcare.

 I don't know why they did that, but that is a good idea, however
 they did it. Probably because the republicans were going to
 sabatoge it if they got a chance.

 JM> The Democrats were
 JM> dishonest from the day they started this program. It's to

 No, they were not. The started out to make a change, and they
 made pretty much the change they started out to make. It was all
 known before they started. The only thing different was what
 they had to do to get it past the consevatives.

 JM> be expected. The fact that you believe them doesn't
 JM> surprise me one bit.

 The fact that you don't doesn't surprise me. Nor does the fact
 that you raise such meaningless objections.

 ...

 JM>>> * They don't want to discuss just why Democrats
 JM>>> absolutely refused to consider simple and easily
 JM>>> enforced private sector options, such as allowing
 JM>>> insurance companies to sell their policies across state
 JM>>> lines, before moving toward healthcare nationalization.

 BK>> Possibly because insurance companies already can and do sell
 BK>> health care policies across state lines. So you have zero score
 BK>> on that one.

 JM> Sorry Bob, you are just flat out wrong

 Oh? I recently got a letter from a company in Omaha offering me
 health insurance. Before my employer switched my health
 insurance came from Met Life, in NY City. In case you haven't
 noticed, NYC is in NY State, not Ohio. And Omaha is in Nebraska.
 Or was when I passed through there nearly 40 years ago.

 They are both selling health insurance across state lines.

 ...

 JM>>> * They don't want to have to explain why Caterpillar
 JM>>> has already announced that as many as 1000 workers will
 JM>>> lose their jobs after the passage of ObamaCare.

 BK>> They didn't? Caterpillar increased their employment in North
 BK>> America by 4000 from 2007 to 2008, then dumped 10,000 North
 BK>> American Employees, in 2009. If they are going to dump another
 BK>> 1000 they will use health care legislation as an excuse, but it
 BK>> wasn't the reason last year, now was it.

 BK>> Caterpillar announced a $100 million charge against earnings, on
 BK>> a section that doesn't go into effect until 2014. They claim
 BK>> they have to account for it immediately, but what they don't say
 BK>> is the cost won't come due for years. And they also don't
 BK>> mention the change is closing a tax loophole that let them
 BK>> collect a subsidy from the govt on insurance benefits, then
 BK>> deduct that subsidy as if they had paid the money themselves.

 BK>> Now, do you support that fraud?

 JM> You're the one supporting fraud Bob. The benefits go into
 JM> effect in 2014, the taxes start coming out much sooner.

 Which is not relevant to the Caterpillar issue. And some of the
 benefits start this year. It is phase in, not all delayed.

 The fraud is Caterpillar taking a $100 million reduction in
 taxes for a govt subsidy. Which is like you collecting social
 security, working and earning $100K/yr, and then deducting your
 social security from your income at tax time. It don't work that
 way. Not for us people, but for some big corporations it does.

 And you call yourself a libertarian.

 JM> If you don't like the example of Caterpillar, then explain
 JM> why AT&T said they will lay off people because of Barack
 JM> Obama's health care plan. When you through defending AT&T
 JM> and telling me how they're lying about what they're doing,

 They're not lying, they're whining. They are losing a piece of a
 govt subsidy, and they think they are entitled. In the amount of
 $1 billion/yr.

 JM> then you can move on to the whole list of other companies
 JM> that have come out and said this plan will cost jobs.

 AT&T claims they will lose a $1 billion tax reduction. That is
 also based on deducting the govt health care subsidy they are
 getting under the medicare drug plan from their income.

 I don't know what percentage they pay, but if it's 33% that's a
 $3billion subsidy. At 25% it's a $4 billion subsidy. And so on.

 Now just why do they get to deduct a gove subsidy from their
 income for tax purposes?

 And you call yourself a libertarian.

 And those other companies are bleating about the same subsidy
 deduction.

 IOW, they got to pay less taxes because the govt gave them
 money. Now that is ending and they are whining about it. Or
 screaming like stuck pigs, a more appropriate version.

 And you call yourself a libertarian.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Don't tell me you are pro-life if you don't support health care for all.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)