How Much Obamacare Costs the Average Family

No problem. I was named after an ancient relative. He probably fared better than my French relatives that were "rednecked" via le Guillotine! At birth, I was given FOUR surnames, including two that end with the letter "x". And, if that wasn't enough, I was born on Mardi Gras Day. The nurses placed a plastic tiara on "ma tete" before they brought me to ma mere. Bonne chance when Zulu coconuts are a'fallin'!

I am very grateful for the service of your son-in-law. Please tell him that, at least, one American has him in my thoughts and prayers.

Check out my blog.

My son-in-law, a Marine stationed in Okinawa, is a Dennis.....

My Bad

"St. Dennis, I fear you are correct, however, it may serve to make the liberal mind go "tilt."

I hope that I am wrong, but the Liberal mind has switched "fairy dust" for "angel dust".

"As for the rest of your points; I have come to the belief that this Administration has a scorched-earth strategy to move their agenda without regard to the losses they may suffer in the next two elections. I don't think they care about the polls."

"Scorched-earth" has become "Cloward-Piven".

"The question is, do the members of Congress care about re-election...."

One would think so, but "transforming America" might be their "Higher Power". We must fight, fight, fight so as to honor the principles of our Founding...

St. Dennis, it is a lot easier to spend money on un-proven environmental theories of climate change when you have a job and the Fed's are living within their means.

Of course, it doesn't help that we have been in a cooling trend for the past 10 years and the Hurricane Season was a big dud.

Frankly, I was counting on global warming to help expand my golfing every year,

The results of the quarterly Public Trust Monitor poll indicate a shift of priorities among respondents. When a similar question was last polled in March, respondents had a much narrower tilt, 52 percent to 48 percent, in favor of economic growth over environmental concerns. Last December, those polled showed a nearly identical split of 51 percent to 49 percent toward economic concerns.

Why the shift? The poll finds that voters have remained sensitive to government spending and deficits over the last few months, perhaps a result of the massive spending on the Democratic agenda. They mistrust the federal government’s efforts at fiscal discipline by almost a 2-1 margin, although they also distrust corporations by a smaller...

St. Denis In Obama's Red Amerika
Location: LA
Reply # 1
Date: Oct 20, 2009 - 4:12 PM EST Jim Weber -

St. Dennis, I fear you are correct, however, it may serve to make the liberal mind go "tilt."

As for the rest of your points; I have come to the belief that this Administration has a scorched-earth strategy to move their agenda without regard to the losses they may suffer in the next two elections. I don't think they care about the polls.

The question is, do the members of Congress care about re-election....

Thanks for your response. I enjoy reading your posts.

JW

Jim, you will be waiting for a long, long time...

"The Public Strategies poll has a bit of skew in it as well towards Democrats in its sample. Even with a ten-point gap for Democrats over Republicans, though, the economy takes center stage for voters, leaving health care and climate change in the dust. As Politico reports, as a partner to Public Strategies in this poll, pro-business sentiment has increased since Barack Obama took office, which makes the effort to regulate less popular now:

For voters, the economy outpaces all other issues by a wide margin, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll.

As the nation struggles to climb out of a recession, 45 percent rated the economy as the most...

Why we should give the Feds control of 15% of our economy when they preside over a bunkrupt Social Security System; a bankrupt Medicare System; a bankrupt Medicaid System; a bankrupt Postal Service; a bankrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; a bankrupt Amtrak, etc., etc., etc.

This is bizarro world!

You just love the government option, don't you? Did you know that Medicare refuses reimbursement for treatment more often than private insurance? Of course you don't. If you're serious about quality medical care the involvement of bureaucrats is contra-indicative.

Wagner horse about as far as she deserves. You do know that the story was old when you got it in your mailbox? That it was a political distraction out of Oregon against the concerns of voters in Washington State?

Do you realize, B2Slim, that if the reform proposals had been in effect when Wagner was 42 that she might not have been the wreck that so affected your heart? That she might have been given advice towards solving her destructive personal choices? Because she would have been eligible to buy health insurance or to have economic support if needed in order to buy health insurance.

Do you need a Barbara Wagner for a bad example or do you need a functioning Barbara Wagner?

Post: Oct 19, 2009.

you regressive GOPers are morally bankrupt!

Interesting to see your perspective on morals.

Most Progressive believe in abortion at the whim of the mother, which terminates a life while it is still on life support provided by nature. That's moral in your mind, but I classify it as an act against nature that is equivalent to murder.

Most Progressive also believe the government should steal money from the citizens to fund their pet projects. That's moral in your mind, I classify it as theft.

Since you approve of both of the above, you and all progressive are essentially accomplices to murder and theft. That's moral?

There is a huge difference between removing life support...

Aniko is not lying. If you bothered to educate yourself you would find that in 1985 EMTALA law was passed which guaranteed that regardless of ability to pay or legal status that no ER could turn you away. That means, Dave, that anyone must be treated for any condition they showed up for.

It also means that this law is helping to bankrupt hospitals and they eventually close down. What part of that do you not understand? All the fearmongering is just that. Apply some common sense and economics. Not feelings.

That IOM report is under contention. You are like the rest of the people who believe the Government can fix everything.
COnsider this: An uninsured smoker who is overweight and dies, now add this: the insured smoker who is overweight and dies. How can you say that because someone is uninsured it means they will all die? That is your implication but it is an out and out lie. Otherwise the figure per year would be 18 million deaths, not 18,000.

Do any of you leftists even take into consideration that there are undetected conditions that kill people who ARE insured? Or that people are killed in accidents who are not insured?

It's simply not logical to claim that because people are not covered that they are going to die.

From the article-
"Families scraping by on only $44,0000 a year will have to pay 7 percent of their income (about $3,000) on insurance. Even those making just $33,000 will have to ante up 4.5 percent of their income (about $1,500) for health insurance. The required payments reach so far down the scale that those who are living at the federal poverty level of $22,000 will have to shell out 2 percent of their totally inadequate incomes ($440) for insurance."

This is a funny way of saying - if you spend at least a certain amount, for instance- "at 44,0000 a year"..."7 percent of income (about $3,000) on insurance", you can get a subsidy for the rest. This is because insurance is so expensive and only fair to make it affordable if...

From the article-
"Obama’s health care bill will cost you dearly."

Doing nothing will cost us dearly. Insurance rates have doubled in the last 10 years and is projected to triple in the next 10.

"Without significant marketplace reforms, if current trends continue, annual health care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over the next decade, from $10,743 per employee today to $28,530 by 2019[1].

• These runaway costs, combined with a $56 billion cost shift to payors from uncompensated care, would cripple the employer-based system that currently provides coverage for the majority of Americans and their families.

• If nothing changes, by 2019, total health care spending will reach $4.4 trillion,...

From the article-
"The tax will take 40 percent of all premiums above $21,000."

Actually, that's an excise tax that is going to be imposed on insurance providers and employers, not consumers. It has been suppported by, of all people, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican leader on the Senate Finance Committee along with other Bi-partisan suppport.


"White House officials are embracing a plan to tax "gold-plated, Cadillac" insurance policies, giving momentum to an idea that is receiving bipartisan consideration on Capitol Hill.

"A premium charge on top of the most expensive packages is one of the ways to ensure that there's a lid on health-care costs," a top administration official told POLITICO....

If America is SOOOO wealthy, then...

#1) Why are we borrowing from China?

#2) Why are we dissing Tibet?

#3) Why is the Fed PRINTING TRILLIONS?

#4) Why did the Fed give $600bn to financial institutions so that they could buy Treasuries? (monetizing the US debt)

#5) Why were there nearly 1mn foreclosures in September alone?

#6) Why are 35mn Americans on food stamps?

#7) Why are there more Americans (30mn) receiving unemployment benefits for a longer period of time than in the history of such data collection (~60 years)?

#8) Why is the unemployment rate nearly 10% when the "stimulus" was SUPPOSED to keep it under 8%. BTW: The U-6 is 17% AND African-Americans clock in at...

As the economy continues to turn Republicans will get yet another big fat foot up their rears. They might pick up a couple of seats and governorships but that's it. The only way it would be a landslide for Pubs is if there's no public option or, at minimum, a public option with an opt out clause for states. Just because you're in the vehement minority that despises the president does not a mandate make. To date, Republicans have no real leaders and have offered no pragmatic ideas or solutions to anything. I'd love to hear any of you Cons lay out the Republican agenda for positive change for 2010. And who's the bell cow candidate/leader? All I'll get in response from you Hallers is commie this, socialist that and various tired...

did your husband tell you to come to bed.................

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/

Go to bed! Your brain ain't working! The treasury is E M P T Y!!! When will you and the morons in the WH get that message? WE the people, the MAJORITY don't want anymore spending! 2010 will prove you ALL what the majority thinks!

Can't believe you buy the self serving propaganda of D. Morris who is only looking out for number one. Have heard him a million times on the radio and he spends the first several minutes of every interview talking about himself, his projects and where Con sheep can send their hard earned money. The likes of D. Morris and D. Armey are merely serving their corporate masters who are only interested in the unsustainable status quo. As soon as health insurance companies realize that there will be a public option, then they will shift gears and see expanding coverage for the opportunity that it is - a chance to make money, lots of it. The free market will be alive and well with the public option and you should quit acting like sheep for...

you could take every dime from OPRAH, Rockefeller, the KENNEDY's, Pelosi, BOXER, Feinstein, Chris Dodd, and the other ultral wealthy seantors, congressmen, plus every dime from the mega rich HOLLYWOOD lunatics, even SOROS, Bill Gates, the yahoo and google owners, STEVE JOBS
and you could not pay of the unfunded domestic and foreign welfare liabilities of the USA in the next 10 years.

My polls are superior in one aspect-- they don't claim to say anything that they don't actually prove by the design and content of the poll. There is no ambiguity about the question or jiggling the content of the polling sample. Those last two qualities are significantly absent in the polls you cite. In short, your polls were designed to support a pre-determined conclusion. Mine were merely designed to elicit concrete, unambiguous information

I AM THE XENO, YOU IGNORANT!!!