Dan:

I was astounded to see this comment:

"Reagan, the Bushes, even Clinton, were not extreme, so there was not as much conflict. More importantly, these leaders did not ARROGANTLY push the portions of their agendas that would not pass."

Have you completely lost your senses?

Bush43 used reconciliation 5 TIMES during his tenure to "arrogantly" push through portions of his agenda that would not pass.

And I can see the Evil Trinity has returned. Oy vey.

Ken, buddy, read the first paragraph in Dan D.'s post. He's trying to convince you it's all the Dems fault, the Repub's are blameless. Read it;

"I am glad you acknowledged that the Democrats had the ability to implement all of "their" changes and Republicans had nothing whatsoever to do with obstructing their efforts. The blame should be placed on the Democrats who obstructed their own party. In fact, two (Lieberman and Sanders) do not even want to be called Democrats. The main stream media falsely blames the wrong people. Republicans are proud they did not join the far left."

Sorry, no cigar.

Who do you think your fooling?

From the time Burris and Frankin were seated until Scott Brown was seated this month, the DEMOCRATS had 60 votes. Factions of the DEMOCRATS are the opposition, not the REPUBLICANS. BO's party does not support him.

So your entire post and all that support this are placing the blame incorrectly. The Democrats could pass anything without the Republicans. So it is the Democrats that are causing this obstruction.

Another take. If the Democrats do not support their leader, why should a Republican, more conservative than the most conservative Democrat, support him?

And these numbers don't reflect the reality of the past years. Two points. First, as Ken quantified, the number of appointments blocked by the Democrats are significantly more than current Republican actions. As second more interesting point. Reagan, the Bushes, even Clinton, were not extreme, so there was not as much conflict. More importantly, these leaders did not ARROGANTLY push the portions of their agendas that would not pass. OBAMA says his way or the highway. And he is being showed the road.

This last point is a direct cause of the Evil Trinity--Axelrod, Rambo Rahm, and Jarrett. The problem is that they don't get it. They still think this is an election, they wind up Mr. Present BO, and push him in front of the people. Ultimately, everyone will cave. No way. 48% did not vote for him. And unless he moderates his views, they will not vote for his socialistic agenda (even though HE claims it is not socialistic). THEY DO NOT HAVE TO.

This last view is just not mine. I hear that a leading Democrat (a former BLACK governor of Virginia--Wilder?) has called for the resigniation of the Evil Trinity. He faults them for the poor performance of BO. And the reason the economy is suffering.

Lastly, none of this is bi partisan. Take health care. There has been no solution for 80 years because it is not easy and too many American values had to be compromised to accomplish the plan. The health care plan that resulted was simply awful. So many liberties are taken away by that one action that our way of life would be destroyed forever.

I think medical programs are a disaster in the US. But it is the result of TOO MUCH government regulation and not enought competition. At the core are hospitals, none of which, NONE are efficient big businesses. Instead, they are inefficient monopolies with price fixing through goverment regulation including the regulation of insurance companies. THAT IS THE HEALTH CARE PROBLEM. Not one paragraph in the thousands of pages addressed this issue.

Look at Edward. Eliminate the Illinois Facilities Board. It perpetuates the monopolies. Take away the guarantees. Let hospitals build where ever they want. AND take away price guarantees. Let interstate commerce control prices.

This is an AMERICAN approach. Let's follow it.

From Obama:

"Today, the United States Senate confirmed 27 of my high-level nominees, many of whom had been awaiting a vote for months.

At the beginning of the week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination. In most cases, these holds have had nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications or even political views, and these nominees have already received broad, bipartisan support in the committee process.

Instead, many holds were motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator's state or simply to frustrate progress. It is precisely these kinds of tactics that enrage the American people.

And so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments. This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken. Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate.

While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future."

Boo-yah!

Psyche, Dan and Who do you think your fooling: It's annoying to go into the archives to access this thread. Let's take this to the open topic. See ya there!

Psyche:

I wasn't ignoring you, I just had to ponder things for awhile. Did I hear today, tho, that Obama was rethinking going after corporations cash hoards abroad? Have you been sending HIM emails too? ;-)

So I guess it goes without saying that Dems are not champions of creative destruction. Yet I understand it's a lot harder to remain philosophical about these things and say it's good for the country in the long run when it's YOUR livelihood that is being destroyed.

"However, the very far progressive left (the elitists?) have been calling the shots, or at least trying, and that makes Obama look not as left as them (which is true), but he is still pretty left of center. Any doubts --- just look at his appointees."

The progressives have, and they still consider O a centrist. And they do not feel they are calling the shots, they feel extremely betrayed by his centrist position of governing and have been losing their collective minds for MONTHS. Seriously. This just goes to show how different impressions can be depending on one's frame of reference.

Whodoyouthinkyourfooling, just who do you, CNN, and President Obama think you are all fooling? Your own post states "The 110th Congress (2007-2008) is the record-holder so far: There were 112 votes on cloture during that two-year period." So what you and your ilk are saying is let's ignore the Democrat obstructionism that went on during the Bush years, and just concentrate on what we claim is obstructionism by the Republicans, even though they did not have the votes to obstruct anything. The Democrats had 180 judicial and agency nominees whose appointments in many cases had been stalled for months during the last year of the Bush administration ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-15280381.html). I guess President Obama didn't think that 180 was a staggering number when he was a senator, albeit an absentee senator.

Again, who do you think you are fooling when you and your liberal ilk cry about the same tactics the Democrats used very successfully for the eight years of the Bush administration? This crying is even more hypocritical considering the fact that the Democrats had the votes to over ride any attempt at obstructionism.

Is Dan D. trying for a job at the RNC, or is he just clueless?

(CNN) - President Barack Obama Wednesday accused Republicans of packing "20 years of obstruction into one." Speaking to Senate Democrats, he declared, "You had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and '60s combined."

Fact Check: Were there more cloture votes in the Senate last year than in all of the 1950s and 1960s combined?

– A vote to end filibuster debate is called a cloture vote. From the 81st Congress (1949-1950) through the 91st Congress (1969-1970), there were a total of 30 votes on cloture. There were no more than seven cloture votes in any single session during those years.

– Starting with the 92nd Congress (1971-72), cloture votes became more frequent. Part of that can be explained by the fact that the Senate changed the required majority in 1975, making it easier to induce cloture.

– The 110th Congress (2007-2008) is the record-holder so far: There were 112 votes on cloture during that two-year period.

– So far, the 11th Congress (2009-2010) has held 41 cloture votes, 39 of them last year, two more this year.

Bottom Line: President Obama is correct. There were 39 cloture votes last year, nine more than the combined total for 1949-1970.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-senate-cloture-votes/?fbid=VUzM2CvJr

The Republicans aren't interested in governing, they aren't interested in helping the people of America, they want to bring Obama down. That's job 1. And then we have Sen Shelby and his blanket holds so he can get his earmarks;

President Obama said tonight he went to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to say he would use recess appointments if Republican senators failed to release their holds on his nominees.

Obama said he spoke to McConnell (R-KY) Tuesday about the tactics used by his caucus, leading some GOPers to release their holds.

"This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken. Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate," Obama said in a statement released tonight by the White House.

He decried that "a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate" since the holds in many cases were "motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator's state or simply to frustrate progress."

WT

I am glad you acknowledged that the Democrats had the ability to implement all of "their" changes and Republicans had nothing whatsoever to do with obstructing their efforts. The blame should be placed on the Democrats who obstructed their own party. In fact, two (Lieberman and Sanders) do not even want to be called Democrats. The main stream media falsely blames the wrong people. Republicans are proud they did not join the far left.

Your whole last paragraph reflects Democratic positions. It is not bi-partison. You know since we sent you the document that there is a Republican alternative. Why not the following:

1. Interstate sales of insurance policies and eliminate all state restrictions.
2. Eliminate pre existing conditions. However, current insurers are responsible for all related medical costs for five years. If a patient changes insurers, 50% of the insurance premium is transferred to the prior company until cured or five years past.
3. Loans, yes loans, to Americans to buy Medical insurance. These loans can be repaid with a 10% surcharge on borrowers income taxes and their estates.
4. Give the liberals the public option. However, doctors and hospitals can turn down these patients, they can only go to medical programs that accept the coverage.
5. Allow all hospitals to choose what insurance coverages (including Medicare) they will accept. Create more transparency on prices of medical providers.
6. People can drop out of Medicare. The Federal government will calculate an "equivalent premium" for Medicare eligible patients and those that drop out would get 50% of this premium (the balance would be used to pay down US Debt). Premise, people who want to exercise choice have to pay for it. Those who are committed to a liberal health care plan can experience a European style of health care. Most major hospitals will turn away pure Medicare and concentrate on private plans.
7. Anyone who does not have insruance are forced into bankruptcyto pay costs. If they do not have enough money, they would be confined to either halfway houses or jail until they have repaid their debts. All income will be subject to a 25% lien to recover costs.
8. No limits on insurance premiums. Let the market decide.

How is that for a clean slate.

Wt, if your re-writing of the last year wasn't so self serving, it would be comical. Unfortunately, President Obama and the Democrats never made an honest effort at bipartisanship, which was very evident by the president's "I won" statement shortly after he took office. Much as you and your fellow liberals want to blame the last year on the Republicans, the Democrats own it and its failures.

Dan:

Yep, the Dems squandered a super majority. There was a lot of disgust with the senate circulating at the super bowl party I attended this past Sunday. Personally, I think they're a bunch of witless douche bags.

The only power the Reps have had is that which Obama has given them, because he has wanted bipartisanship. He made this a part of his platform during his campaign because he said the ways of Washington needed to change, and a lot of us thought, "yeah, well, good luck with that". We had no idea he'd be so damned dogged about it. To tell you the truth, I think Obama extended an open hand to the Reps and has been met with a closed fist. I would have just given them the finger in return and moved on; that's also what most Dems want him to do at this point. Bipartisanship was a great idea, but it's clearly not working out.

When I said the Dems were "white, wheat, multi-grain, whole grain, honey oat", I wasn't talking about racial diversity. I said "There are various factions driven by different issues and worldviews." Not race.

I think the health care summit will be great political theater, if nothing else. The Republicans don't get to set the preconditions for this event; they are the minority. As such, they're going to have to do the best with what they've got; they're going to have to actually make an effort. If the Reps really have such great alternatives, here is their opportunity to make them known and influence this "unworkable" plan. If this is too much of a challenge for them, then fine, they can take their marbles and go home. And all of America can watch them retreat. But the Republicans have to learn that it's just as important for them to respect the Democrats opinions as it is to have their own opinions respected. Compromise doesn't mean getting everything THEIR way.

WT Writes

"So the Senate can't agree on big, complicated issues like health care reform. The way I look at it, who cares that they've (the Democrats) lost their super majority? They (the Democrats) weren't doing anything with it anyway."

I agree with you 100%. No matter what the composition, the Demcrats had the SOLE ability to deliver and did not deliver anything. The Republicans could not obstruct, they had NO power.

Another comment.

"The Democrats, on the other hand, are white, wheat, multi-grain, whole grain, honey oat. The Dems pride themselves on this, they like being seen as independent thinkers representing all types of Americans."

Question, other than blacks, what other group has more more than 5% representation among the Democrats in Congress? I think this "multigrain" issue is out of context. The rest of the party is as white as the Republicans. So you have the blacks who vote on racial backgrounds and whites.

And this summit will be a flop. Republicans ask for a clean slate and they been rebuffed by the Democrats. No start over, take our unworkable plan or nothing else. So much for respecting other opinions.

WT?,

I think you’re there!

I do think the Obama admin is making a mistake by not creating a holiday for repatriation. Some % (even 5.25%) of maybe a trillion dollars is better than 35% of nothing (or a future promise). I am pretty sure the first one had a shorter time limit (I could be wrong).

I say this because I truly believe that if our economy does not fix itself (and by this I mean our idiot politicians need to not just stop the spending increase, but actually decrease spending), then corporations WILL begin to move to other countries.

Make no mistake: Though there are many reasons, three main things started them in the U.S. and keep them here: 1)we have been the dominant economy for over 100 years, 2)we have political stability (vs the rest of the world), and 3)we had a nation open to taking risk and rewarding success. The more we look like Europe, the less stable we become and the more we punish risk & success. Our labor force has become a liability in many areas (high costs, lower education, the ludicrousness of unionizing government jobs --- you get the picture).

The problem with the Obama programs is that they are caught in the distant past. Examples:

---Let’s all face it, as Reid said of the healthcare bill, “We have been trying to get this done for 60 years!”
---Trying to protect the unions over the good of the +83% of the other workers in the country is insane
---Trying to protect low-skill factory jobs is the same
---Creating policies that hinder creativity, risk taking, and rewards for those efforts IF SUCCESSFUL will make us just another economy (especially in the area of Finance.) As much as we are all T.O.d over the meltdown, capital has the easiest time moving (remember my Mobile comments). Our stock market system has already began to pay the price for idiot rules such as Sarbannes-Oxley (just look at the drop in IPOs and the increase of listings on the London exchange)

The idea that increasing taxes creates jobs, or taxing added value that does not exist will add jobs, is a losing proposition. Remember ---- screwing with this will REALLY T.O. our partners throughout the world! Try explaining to, say, Ireland or Poland or even Russia why a company division of a U.S. company over there is forced to close down, or not pay profit sharing to its employess, etc., because the U.S. corp had to pay taxes (and cash) to the U.S. treasury for value that was added in those lands!

So, yes! If Obama really is even average smart, he will figure out a carrot to get cash into the Treasury via repatriated funds. Like I stated earlier, I would prefer a more permanent solution (like my 50% taxed rule). This keeps us in the risk taking business, keeps us friendly with our partners, and gets cash to the Treasury. Though it does not encourage jobs, I will submit that the real problem with jobs are the ones I listed above (mostly centered around cost). Of course, regulations such as OSHA and the EPA are also obstacles, but I think the world needs them in place (though the EPA HAS turned into a political machine more than anything).

Now, let’s turn to your political comments with Dan D and my two cents!

Both parties are fragmented. You seem to think the GOP is homogenuous, but if true then much more would have occurred under Bush. The GOPs fought him at every major issue (partial privatization of S.S., immigration, etc). The only place they marched in tandem was the war on terror. They are both idiots!

Like anything, the realm of politics is a scale --- let’s call it 1 to 100, with 1 the farthest right and 100 the farthest left. We all know the country is slightly right of center (I don’t know, let’s go with 45?) Your scale for the Dems is not bad in terms of descriptions, but I will say that IMHO OBama is about a 75. However, the very far progressive left (the elitists?) have been calling the shots, or at least trying, and that makes Obama look not as left as them (which is true), but he is still pretty left of center. Any doubts --- just look at his appointees.

Remember that today pretty much all of our national elections look like this: on average, about 41% base go GOP, about 41% base go Dem, and the other 18% are up for grabs and actually determine the elections. In 2000, all Gore had to do was take his home state and he couldn’t! Tragic for him, but well deserved. In 2004 Kerry was a pompous ass, and he got what he deserved. In 2008, we “unelected” Bush, so to speak, more than we elected Obama. With the exception of Edwards, whoever the Dems put up was going to win. In all three cases I use you can look at the middle 18% ---- da winner!

Now, in the GOP there is a battle going on not just for the leadership of the party, but more importantly for the future of conservative politics (think back when Republicans took over for Whigs (Lincoln, I think?) That is what you are seeing in the GOP today. The younger thinkers in the conservative movement saw what happened in 2008 (and the past 9 years) and want to “upgrade” to a 21st century thought process. The TEA party movement (much underestimated by all) is a driver here, and of course the established GOP is trying to hijack it as their own --- it won’t work.

Let me interject here and say that when I say “conservative politics” I am referring to a new way of thinking through the meaning of “conservative”. Look at Scott Brown’s platform for a view of what I mean. I truly believe there are at least 1 million voting GOP and “Indees” (that middle 18%) who have a different view of some of the dividing issues, such as abortion. New conservatives are beginning to realize that many of them will never vote for someone just because they are pro life, though they still might never vote for someone who IS pro choice (do you see the slight difference to today?). The GOP needs to get it together, drop some of these issues as “platforms” recognize it is a newer world that needs some younger AND more diverse minds, and get on with it!

The GOP cannot lose regardless of what they do with the 2/25 Blair House summit. If it goes lousy and Obama does a great job of being the professor and constantly lecturing them at the summit, everyone says “yeah, but he is good at that . Wow!” If it goes lousy and Obama stumbles, or the GOP gets the 4-7 things they really want in and the 2-3 things they really want out, they crow they saved the nation by righting the tipped ship. If they decide not to do it, well, the Dems will never vote for the bills and have already sunk themselves.

What a position to be in!

Dan:

Actually, I think Nalco was foreign owned (by the French) for only about three years, then the French sold the company to an investment group, who in turn sold it, but I've lost track of who owns it now.

There are more than two factions of the Democratic Party. There are various factions driven by different issues and worldviews. You have the moderate Dems, the conservative Dems, the Progressives, which I guess are the extremists, the Elitist Dems, and probably more for all I know. This is primarily the reason they can't get their act together to agree on health care.

Look at it this way: the conservative party is largely Wonder Bread, white and homogeneous. You may have a few varieties of this, like thin-sliced or crustless, but the purists believe there should only be one kind of Wonder bread, so the whole purity test thing is an attempt to keep different varieties from springing up.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are white, wheat, multi-grain, whole grain, honey oat. The Dems pride themselves on this, they like being seen as independent thinkers representing all types of Americans. Something like a democratic purity test would never exist, it would never even be considered, Dems don't think or march in goosestep like the conservatives tend to. So when Americans elected a Democratic majority in the Senate, they didn't take all these variances into consideration. So the Senate can't agree on big, complicated issues like health care reform. The way I look at it, who cares that they've lost their super majority? They weren't doing anything with it anyway.

This in no way gets the Republicans off as obstructing, tho. When Obama gave them a voice, they used it to rabble rouse and fear monger, not problem solve. But I guess you've heard about the Feb 25(?) televised health care summit coming up? I've heard the Reps don't want it televised--haven't they been the ones griping about the broken CSpan promise all year?--but my guess is they'll have to consent. It would be a waste of time to do something like this in the dark. Must see TV! I can hardly wait!

Psyche:

"On the Cisco repatriation offer, I was not endorsing 5.25% on 50 %. I was just throwing out things that could get money back to our treasury the fastest (ie, give them the 5,25% rate, OR maybe change tax law so companies can either handle foreign-earned earnings as they are now OR bring the money in faster with only 50% of it being taxed at our 35% rate, etc.)"

OK, now I got you.

"I probably would have refused Cisco’s singular request, but would probably have considered approving another “holiday” where ANY corporation could repatriate funds at a low rate (5.25% sounds good and has precedent) for a very limited time period, say 30 days. I would also have asked for a change in the tax laws to possibly implement what I describe above (my “ie”)."

The Obama admin did refuse Cisco's singular request, but what I have read said they were lobbying hard to get another tax holiday put into the stimulus bill, I don't know if other corps were involved in this effort also, these articles only focused on Cisco. But from what I understand, the 2004 tax holiday lasted an entire year at 5.25%.

"The intent of this is not really to add jobs or spur additional domestic investment (though that would be nice) ----- it is to get cash back into the States and into our treasury (there is the give-and-take, or the “negotiation”) Right now, the cash that is caught “over there” can only be spent “over there”.

Ok, now I get you on this also. The Dems, however, are focused on adding jobs to the U.S. economy and spurring domestic investment, and the 2004 tax holiday didn't do that, so they don't want a repeat. And further offshoring is a threat to that goal as well. So is their intent to tax foreign earnings that stay abroad not only a huge money grab, but also intended as a punitive measure to corps that have offshored? It sounds like you're saying gov. is using a stick to beat these corporations to collect taxes when it would be easier (and more productive) to dangle a carrot instead?

WT?,

You are getting very close to getting it! Just when I think you are there, you slip back into the views (biased, IMO) of the articles you have read. Remember they were written by someone with some agenda!

On the Cisco repatriation offer, I was not endorsing 5.25% on 50 %. I was just throwing out things that could get money back to our treasury the fastest (ie, give them the 5,25% rate, OR maybe change tax law so companies can either handle foreign-earned earnings as they are now OR bring the money in faster with only 50% of it being taxed at our 35% rate, etc.)

I probably would have refused Cisco’s singular request, but would probably have considered approving another “holiday” where ANY corporation could repatriate funds at a low rate (5.25% sounds good and has precedent) for a very limited time period, say 30 days. I would also have asked for a change in the tax laws to possibly implement what I describe above (my “ie”).

The intent of this is not really to add jobs or spur additional domestic investment (though that would be nice) ----- it is to get cash back into the States and into our treasury (there is the give-and-take, or the “negotiation”) Right now, the cash that is caught “over there” can only be spent “over there”.

Again, use Cisco as an example: IF Cisco wanted their U.S. corporation to buy a company , say Tellabs here in Naperville, they could only use cash either earned here or already repatriated here (otherwise, they would need to repatriate cash form “over there” and pay tax on it OR borrow the money). The viable alternative would be to have the foreign division with the cash buy Tellabs. This may sound okay, but think of it this way: Over time, U.S. corporations could end up with more and more activities and economic girth “over there”, thus rendering their U.S. presence immaterial. THAT is when companies then decide to incorporate elsewhere (say, Czeck Republic, or Poland, or Monaco, etc).

This is the answer to your direct question of how taxing offshore income regardless of where the value is added would cause more off-shoring ---- our corporations would just incorporate overseas and we would lose everything!

Result? U.S. economic power takes tremendous hits and we assure a second-rate global status.

We cannot let this happen. As I said, we already have a disadvantage due to our fat labor costs. Do we really want to add to that disadvantage by taxing our major companies and largest employers (I don’t include the government!) until they are forced to move elsewhere? Of course not.

On Ireland ---- they have had for decades some very popular industrial areas, especially around Shannon Airport, that are set-up to provide economic growth and stability within Ireland. These are technology based and were created using tax strategies. (I’m not sure, but if I recall the Corporate tax rate in the Shannon district was/is 10%). It is not new at all and many of out tech companies have used it in the past.

A company does not care where its home office is located. Nalco was foreign owned for ten years.

Overtax foreign profits and companies will simply move out of the country. End of story. What is to hold them here?

The whole topic makes good political talk, but even the Democrats have not capitulated to their socialist left wing. They know this is suicide.

In fact, this illustrates Congress today. There are two factions of the Democratic Party. The one is the party of Roosevelt. The other is the party of the extremists. They do not get along. Otherwise, they could have passed ALL of their legislation last year.

The obstructionists? The Party of Roosevelt, not the Republicans. Democrats just cannot get along.

Psyche:

I needed two aspirin and a nap after reading your last post. I am completely out of my league on this transfer pricing thing, but I think I'm starting to get it (I had to re-read your post several times). Keep in mind I went into medicine; MUCH more straight forward stuff.

If you read the article I linked, you'll see that Cisco requested the 5.25% because that's the rate all offshore corps got in 2004 under the last tax holiday. The Obama admin refused to repeat it. Cisco would have refused your 15% on 50% offer as well. How would you have handled this?

I understand the give-and-take nature of these things, but a 5.25% rate on 50% of their earnings seems like an incredible giveaway. I do think 35% is too high, so I would support a significant reduction in the tax rate, but not to 5.25% and not on only 50% of earnings. I'm not convinced that what the government gives up in taxes would be returned to that extent in further investment. Remember this is what resulted from the 2004 tax holiday:

"While empirical evidence is clear that this provision resulted in a significant increase in repatriated earnings, empirical evidence is unable to show a corresponding increase in domestic investment or employment.

"Instead, as the CRS (Congressional Research Service) analysis shows, the top repatriating corporations closed down facilities and made massive job cuts.

"Another study found that many corporations who benefited from this tax break used the money to repurchase their own stock, which had no impact on job creation."

(From my second link)

"If we do not equalize taxes (or, conversely, if we just said everything you do anywhere gets taxed at U.S. rates right away regardless of where value is added), our corporations WOULD leave our shores and incorporate elsewhere --- no doubt!"

I don't see how taxing offshore income would cause more offshoring, if anything, it would seem to make offshoring less attractive, if this is what you meant. Please explain.

Again, I can see how this is good for corporations who offshore and the global economy, but I don't see how it's good for the U.S. So please explain. Or did you already and I'm just not getting it? I'm really trying here! :}

Re: Cisco ending up in Ireland. I do know the Irish economy is extremely depressed, there's very little investment there and they've been experiencing a brain drain for a long time. So they're offering a lot of sweet deals to lure investment. That probably had a lot to do with it.

It is with out a doubt Britney Spears breast augmentation surgery. Who cares about anything else when you have a blonde with big boobs prancing around and people continue to throw money at it. It's very big news, other wise people would not buy her music, read or write about her. Americas infatuation with Hollywood to supplement their otherwise hum drum boring, small town, gossip driven lives only create news stories like these.

WT?,

Just to clarify, on this subject any reference I made to lib rhetoric was not meant to be directed at you (I am treating this strictly as two people exchanging an idea). I think I was responding to the link and to other stuff I hear on the subject.

I think we all agree on the growing pain phase we are in right now with the tech revolution. We are still in the tranfer stage from the industrial one, and amny7 are caught in it. For what it is worth as someone who grew up Union, I see the Union mentality as greatly hindering this transfer into this new age. Thus, the destruction!

On Cisco, I really don't know if Cisco pulled the 5.25% out of the air the first time or, as I thought, they developed it based on tax rate differences, so I cannot talk on this on much more.

Now, on the transfer thing, you are very close to getting—at this point, it might be a “mind set erasure” exercise for you:

Cisco has facilities in say China, where they assemble routers. We will assume the routers each have $5 parts, $5 labor, and sell for $100. At this point it looks like a profit of $90 for Cisco (the global company).

However, the question becomes what taxing entities get their fists on this profit? I can assure you, regardless of what out under-schooled politicians (most of whom are lawyers and not accountants) say, the IRS makes sure we get our piece of it. In the theoretical case here, they get it two ways:

1)If ANY of the routers made in China and sold ANYWHERE use technology of any kind developed or owned by the U.S. entity (this includes manufacturing process knowledge, patents, etc), the U.S. company has to charge a fee to the Chinese Cisco division on each sale of the items. This fee is worked up using tremendously complex (and expensive) analyses based on current, past, and predictive markets. These fees would be paid to the U.S. corp each month, just like any other vendor. Those payments would be included in the income of the U.S. corp and taxes would be paid on them like any other income item. Similarly, if the Chinese division owns these things, they at one time had to buy them from the U.S. corp at a similarly created market value and paid that money to the U.S. corp (which would have been taxed at that time with cash going into out treasury). At this point, let’s assume China had a 20% tax rate on income there ---- Cisco China would pay taxes to China on the $90, above, less any payments for the technology they owe/paid to the U.S. Corp. Let’s assume that was also $5, so Cisco China pays taxes on income of $85, or $17. If the U.S tax rate was 35%, the U.S. corp has already paid $1.75 in tax to the Treasury (.35 rate times the $5 tech fees) on each unit. At this point, global Cisco has paid $18.75 in taxes somewhere.

If all of this had occurred in the U.S. (like the good old daze with no worries of local content or sparring taxing authorities), the total tax paid by Global Cisco would have been $100 sale less $10 costs = $90 profit times 35% tax rate = taxes of $31.50. So, the $31.5 theoretical taxes less taxes paid somewhere o $18.75 means at this point Global Cisco is ahead by $12.75 per router AS LONG AS THEY DID IT ALL LEGALLY AND KEEP THE EARNINGS OVERSEAS.

2)At some point in the future, the U.S Corp wants the cash here in the U.S. They expatriate it back. At that time, they will pay U.S. taxes on it of $12.75, thus a total taxation of the original $31.50 (the $18.75 earlier, plus the “missing” $12.75). The reason is that in effect the U.S government allows tax credit for taxes paid to overseas taxing authorities (there are numerous trade agreements, etc. that allow for this and try to ensure one country does not rip off another).

The summary of total taxes paid after expat:
$17 to China (18.89 % overall on true biz profits of $90)
$1.75 to U.S. upon tech transfer (1.94% overall on true biz profits)
$12.75 upon expat (14.17 % on overall true biz profits)

= total taxes of $31.5, or 35%, on global business (real U.S. tax rate (which really is too high to compete on a global basis)

All in all, this is inherently fair when viewed as a whole (global economy, ongoing concern, all that). To answer your question, it is fair because the global economy demands both local content and equal acknowledgment of taxing authorities.

In short, the added value inherent in the profits of the sold product is taxed by the localization of exactly where that value was added! Can anything be more fair?

In our case of the U.S corporation, they can only defer taxes on those “value adds” of those other localities! Some day, when the earnings are brought back (meaning they no longer have additional added value “over there”), we true up the taxes.

Now, you had a statement (accidental or intentional?) that “…And to lower the tax rate to something like this permanently would cause a stampede of offshoring”. This is true! That is an example of capital being mobile. If we do not equalize taxes (or, conversely, if we just said everything you do anywhere gets taxed at U.S. rates right away regardless of where value is added), our corporations WOULD leave our shores and incorporate elsewhere --- no doubt! Think of what THAT would do to our economy and our jobless rates! It is not unreasonable to think they would do this, either ---- that is exactly what Western European companies have done for decades in moving over here. Get taxed at 90% in Sweden? Move to the U.S.

Of course, it gets much more complex due to the huge difference in labor costs between the first world industrialized nations and the third world (or emerging) ones, such as China and India (and Viet Nam), etc.

Final quick note, my example on the 50% of repatriation was an example of how to get cash over here, and get taxes. In other words, a “negotiation” to get the taxes into our treasury now instead of waiting for the fir treatment that now exists. The result? A little give-and-take by all involved!

WT

First, you were the one who raised the question about the tax breaks for corporations off shore, not myself or Psyche. In your last post, you allude to legislators who simply want to tax these corporations. I think that is a liberal view.

First, the US tax code always stated that a corporation or an individual with "foreign income" should never have to pay more than the US tax rate. So if a company pays 30% in a foreign country, they only have to pay the 5% when this comes back to the US. I must admit I am rusty on my tax law knowledge, but that is my recollection.

The rest of your post invokes several contradictory theories. First, you feel that somehow we "own" these corporations and we have right of first refusal on their assets. No way. When they go out of the country, they set up foreign companies and they need to comply to the local countries laws. And they rarely go to countries where the tax rates are higher than the US (although there are exceptions--in this case they pay no US tax, it all stays in the foreign country).

Another comment infers that we should tell other countries what to do if our companies locate there. Again, nice idea, never happen.

And remember, corporate income is generally taxed twice. First, at the corporate level and then when individuals collect the money. Now some people say pension plans do not pay taxes, but the pension recipiants do. So corporate taxes are extremely anti-growth.

And for those GM workers, we all have issues. But I have also traveled to Flint, Lansing, Detriot. Their housing is not that great, the communties were the same as steel mills. Since I have been a youngster, people without education continue to fall behind. They can't even work at McDonalds (soon they will outsource the window to India!!). People get what they deserved.

Psyche:

I know you know this stuff, which is why I'm interested in picking your brain on it.

The "liberal rhetoric" comment was originally made by Dan, but both of you are mistakenly attributing the writer's words to me. Not that I mind, really, but I've never been published. So, Dan, what you called "liberal rhetoric" is coming from a different liberal. My point is this is how I've always seen it explained.

I understand the concept of creative destruction and I've seen it happening in our country for a long time. I agree with the premise that it's not a bad thing, as long as people acknowledge it and adapt to it. The problem is many Americans aren't, they are hanging onto the past. You hear it all the time from the UAW people, "Used to be, you could graduate from high school and step right into a good paying job at GM. You could own a house, raise a family and have a good life on the wages there." USED TO BE is the key phrase, just because that's the way it was doesn't mean that's the way it's going to stay forever. The world is changing but these people are resisting it, they're trying instead to hold onto how it was.

That's the frontier mentality I spoke of earlier. We're not a frontier anymore, you need more than brawn and a willingness to work hard to make a living now. Yet a lot of kids will still drop out of high school and then complain that they can't get by on minimum wage. What do they expect? The dipsticks should have stayed in school. The writing was clearly on the wall by the time our kids came along. That's why we raised them to always expect to go on to college, not being educated was not an option.

"Cisco's request for the 5 something % rate is very, very reasonable given the alternative is zero AND they have already paid foreign taxes on it. I would guess (i'm only guessing) that the 5-something % rate is the diff twixt the rate they have paid "over there" and our rate."

Cisco's request for the 5.25% tax rate was what they got back in 2004 during the last corporate tax holiday, they tried to get another holiday written into Obama's stimulus bill. They refused to repatriate at anything higher than that, so they didn't. This is what I refer to about being held hostage by these companies. I can see why many legislators want to just tax them abroad and be done with it.

But you say this is fair, 5.25% is better than nothing and they have already paid foreign taxes on it. That's exactly my point about this problem, the foreign taxes they pay are most likely a lot more than 5.25%, why should a company that is based in the U.S. but operating abroad pay more in taxes to their host country than to their country of origin? Why should the U.S. assume the lion's share of tax loses because they chose to offshore? And to lower the tax rate to something like this permanently would cause a stampede of offshoring. So again, I can see how this is good for corporations who offshore and the global economy, but I don't see how it would be good for the U.S. So please explain.

And you mentioned in an earlier post that corporations should not only get a much lower tax rate, but additionally should only be taxed on 50% of what they repatriate. We pay taxes on ALL our income, why should corporations only be taxed on half of theirs?

One comment about transfer pricing. Look at these iPhones. Created and designed in American, built in China.

Think about the economics. The Chinese get paid $5 to build the iPhone, Apple collects $500 (and maybe more with hidden ATT kickbacks--have not been able to figure this out).

So, Apple US gets $490, shipping company get $5 and Chinese get $5. What a bargain. How much would it have cost Apple to have an Americna manufacturer create the iPhone? Probably $100 or more. With union employees, even more. If there were companies that could manufacture the product. I was thinking Lucent, but they sold all of their manufacturing capacity.

I also do not think our trade deficit reflects the true economics of the iPhone. And I do not know how much money Apple leaves trapped in China.

Even the Japanese are outsourcing to China.

The quickest way to think opf creative destruction is at the end of the agricultural revolution in America.

If everyone had stayed on the farm when innovations in industry came along (Whitney Yonng, Henry Ford, et. al.), we would be a third world nation while someone else ruled the roost. In fact, we might even be starving (not unlike Africa --- wo knows?).

Instead, we left the farms for the cities, moved forward and embraced industrail change, used our brains, and not our brawn, to feed ourselves and the world, etc. One odd little "green" result: since we no longer need what was once all that farmland, we stand now as the single largest reforester in the world (that's right ---- all that unused farmland staring being turned back into forest about 40 years ago).

If you look at the other "revolutions" in economics, you find a similar story. We have obviously entered the tech revolution, with the move to tech in all areas.

It used to be we only acknowledged programmers as tech, but now all areas of life are affected by tech. An example that should be close to your heart (pun intended) is the medical field, where not just drugs, but surgery itself has benefited from tech. Those robots that do heart surgeries? WOW!

Thus, the name: we need to destroy a part of ourselves inorder to make progress and be better prepared for the future..

The saddest thing hapopening right now is that we are so caught up in the past and factory jobs and destroying our economy here in the U.S. that we are willingly allowing other countries to take the lead on things like the accelerator lab in Switzerland and the space station, etc., and we have just announced a budget that basically takes us out of the entire space research lead. It seems our current politicians are willing to be in a situation where we must ask, say, Russia or India if we can hitch a ride to the moon! As it stands, 20 years from now Europe will know a lot more about black holes and space travel than we do. Even worse, we are voluntarily doing this! Some are referring to it as nationalistic suicide ---- not a bad description.

So, the question/trick is can we keep moving forward in the area of tech and keep inventing "stuff", or do we worry too much about making sure there are 6 union folk to hold the ladder while a supervisor changes the light bulb?

(had to get a bit snarky)---- :)

[Oops! two last comment on Dan D's post:

1)It is my observation/opinion that the current crop of the farthest left wants to go beyond providing equal opportuniy and provide equal results. I could not disagree more with this effort.]

2)Capital is absolutely mobile. There are other risks that influence that mobility. In the cases Dan D states, political risk becomes a big influencer. For capital to jump two feet first into, say, Russia again (remember, capital was burnt badly once in Russia very recently), or Viet Nam, etc., the returns have to be so high as to mitigate the high risk. 10% returns? Nope! 20% returns? Nope! Real capital flow would probably have to hit 2.5 times Western Europe/U.S. returns or a minimum of 40 % to create a capital inflow to these areas that has gloabl effect.

Transfer pricing works and it works well.

PLease don't put words into my type --- I said nothing about dem rhetoric on this one --- both sides use it as a lever in class warfare.

I do not know why they do, except becasue they can. Cisco's request for the 5 something % rate is very, very reasonable given the alternative is zero AND they have already paid foreign taxes on it. I would guess (i'm only guessing) that the 5-something % rate is the diff twixt the rate they have paid "over there" and our rate.

Remember! ALL of our elected jerks, both parties, have reached the point where they will spend everything they can PLUS avout 50% (see the latest budget). Thus, any time they can create warfare between us and anyone (in this case corporations) and get more money to spend out of it they consider themselves ahead.

This is exactly why the TEA party movement is still gaining such momentum.

By the way --- I don know this stuff and I ain't "blowing smoke".

The Evil Trinity. I really think that Axelrod, Rambo Rahm and Jarrett oppose America. They not only want to provide equal opportunity, they want to pick those who are treated equal. I think that ANYONE who opposes the American way of life (not BO's version) is EVIL.

But let's call these three the Deceptive Trinity although I contintue to resent your hauty attitude on this matter. They along with the staffers of the leaders of the House and the Senare drafted 99% of the bills, but only let Congress through the committees and floor sessions debate 2% of the content. I ask again. Where was the debate on the concept that premiums should not vary more than 2 times by any insurance company (that is the highest rate cannot be more than the lowest rate?)? I just got alternative insurance pricing for my medical plan. The rate for a single male in the 60 to 64 age bracket is almost ten times higher than an individual in the 20 to 25 year bracket. Make sense, the older person is a greater risk and should pay more.

With Obamacare, insurance companies will be foreced to charge younger people more money (they can't lower the cost of the older people since that is what the actuarial cost is). And in checking out alternatives to my existing corporate carrier, only Blue Cross remains the insurnace company that quotes corporate health premiums to companies based on type of insured--single, married, family. The other companies now have 250 rates for both AGE and family type.

So again, where has been the debate.

The only problem I have with American public education (and it is generally not in Naperville) is that it is wasteful in providing options to people who do not try. Your friend in Germany is an exception. Most of his contemporaries are unemployed skin heads that Germans have written off. And I do think that American education (as illustrated in Naperville) based on one size fits all deprives many students of the best education they could have.

And to your last point, Pshyce and I state that capital is mobile. But only to a certain extent. You do not see capital fleeing to China, Russia, Viet Nam. We might buy goods from these companies, but we will not invest in these countries. The countries provide the investment directly.

Is it worth moving intellectual capital to Ireland? Of course. You follow IRS rules, as Psyche states and tally up your costs (since you cannot deduct many costs of developing intellectual capital under US laws). The sell these rights BEFORE these rights have any real value, so the profit you you pay to the US is reduced (although, as Psyche states is a matter of disagreement with IRS authorities). The Irish lets you recover your cost first from the sales of royalties (including sales back to the US to US goods), so you pay no costs of development costs (in the US, you do). Only then do you pay a lower tax rate.

If the US would allow companies to deduct development costs and plant investment first and lower the taxes, then the US would be more competitive. No need to find a corporate safe haven. But our tax laws ENCOURAGE corporations to go overseas.

I have read (but can't recall the source) that a 15 to 20% corporate tax rate would eliminate MOST, but not all tax havens. Also, remember that corporate tax rates USE to be 50 to 70% in the US and were similar around the world. The US lowered the tax rate to 35% and capital flowed to the US. Now others are following our lead and lowering rates more. So we either compete or lose.

And lastly. What does a corporation owe the people? They owe their shareholders, not the Citizens. If they can sell out to the Chinese and retire, great. They are not indentured servants to the government, another missed guided BO concept.

Psyche:

You brought up transfer pricing in a previous post, but I haven't heard much about this so I'll have to look into it and get back to you. If transfer pricing deals with this problem, then my question is why is this still such an issue (and please, don't say something like the evil Dems just want to milk our corporations to fund their socialist state). There has to be a bigger, real world picture to this. Perhaps there are so many loopholes that transfer pricing doesn't work as intended?

Also, my quotes above weren't my quotes. They were taken from the articles I linked, so this isn't my liberal rhetoric, it's the writer's. But this is how I've always seen it explained.

Regarding your addendum:

>There is nothinfg patriotic about giving away money to the govern,emt.

I agree, I'm not lining up to volunteer extra cash either. The issue is are these corporations paying a "fair share" or using every mechanism at their disposal to avoid paying any? The article addressed this issue about the CEO's first consideration is to the shareholder's. They don't dispute this, they agreed with you.

>Very few countries (if any) actually have zero tax rates on corporations. thus, if teh U;S just changed their policy to charge a tax rate equal to that of teh country where the funds were earned, there would be NO MOTIVATION to keep it there and not here. Voila! Treasury is flush with bucks!

See my comments to Dan above about Cisco. Anything above 5.25% was too much for them. You could halve the tax rate and they still wouldn't repatriate any income. A 5.25% corporate tax rate for all wouldn't flush the treasury with much, plus that's much lower than the tax rate in European countries. At what point to you just say to hell with this, we won't be held hostage, we're just going to tax you there?

>creative destruction outline earlier,outsourcing jobs can, should be, and if done right will be good for the country and the global economy.

I see how creative destruction is good for the offshore corporations and the global economy. I don't see how it is good for the United States, even in the long run. Can you explain this more?

I'll get back to you on transfer pricing thing once I've had time to ponder it. But for now, it's SUPERBOWL SUNDAY!!! I have buffalo dip to make.

Dan:

"And you dismiss all of my comments about the backroom drafting of the health bill because I used the word "evil". I did not use and did not mean Satanic. You know my comment is right, so you try to walk over it. Your tone reverted to the past that everyone detested. But you use the "liberal" tactic of bombast if you cannot refute a comment."

No, Dan, I wouldn't discuss this because you referred to these people repeatedly as the "Evil Trinity". That's extreme verbiage, hyperbole, intended only to inflame emotions and cause fear in others. I don't respond well to it, you know that. The minute I hear this stuff, I stop listening, because when emotion overrides reason, a rational discussion becomes impossible. THAT'S why I wouldn't discuss it.

Evil Trinity is just as over the edge as Satanic, neither serves any useful purpose in a discussion. And this kind of extreme verbiage is so common in the conservative dialogue that it's become normalized to you--evil trinity, re-education camps, death panels, government takeover, etc etc. I detest hearing this crap from you guys just as much as you hate hearing it from me. And I think this kind of language is used to supplant rational discussion; it's a lot easier to make people afraid of something than to get them thinking intelligently about it. This extremism turns a lot of people off, you know, especially the Independents. I think the conservative movement would get a lot more respect without it.

So rephrase your comments on the back room deals without calling Democratic legislators the Evil Trinity, and I'll have no problem replying to it.

I know that in European and Asian countries, they do track students at an early age. In Germany, I know children are tested while in elementary school, and their test scores at that age determine whether a child is put on a professional or working class track. It's a very biased system, children whose parents are professionals tend to be put on professional tracks even if they test low, and children from working class parents who test high can still be put on the working class track at a teacher's discretion. It's done this way because the government pays for all higher education and they don't want to waste resources on people who don't show potential. But the way it's done is very flawed.

We have a friend from Germany who went through school on the working tract. Once out of high school, he matured and got serious about his life, but couldn't go to college in his home country. So he came to the U.S. to pursue a higher education. This guy didn't lack the brains to become a doctor when he was tested in elementary school, he lacked maturity and ambition.

The difference between the U.S. and these other countries is that the U.S. has mandatory education, we try to educate everyone equally and give everyone access to the same opportunities. A lot of these other countries either don't have mandatory education or educate unequally. Thus, U.S. educational resources are spread a lot thinner.

"But "liberals" would rather destroy our dominance to try to grab assets from our companies to waste it on Federal spending. Instead, they should lower corporate taxes, we are the HIGHEST in the world, so companies will want to locate here."

OK, so 35% is too high. But how low should the tax rate for corporations go? Cisco refused to repatriate for anything over 5.25% Is this reasonable? That's a lot LOWER than most countries, and we'd have to give U.S. companies the same rate to keep them from offshoring as well. Even if we halve the corporate tax rate to 17%, companies such as Cisco still would not be happy, so how is this to be solved? Don't at some point you just say, "Enough of this, keep your capital offshore. We'll just tax it there". And like the article mentioned, just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. Is it ethical for companies such as Cisco whose value-giving intellectual property is generated in the USA to dodge US taxes? I don't think so, this allows them to use US resources without replenishing any. So where do you draw the line? Would you be okay with taxing offshore cash hoards if the tax rate were halved?

And I don't believe allowing capital to simply flow where it's mobile works always as intended. We've seen how corporations will manipulate this natural flow to their own advantage while harming others. We need more than an invisible hand guiding the process, we need government regulation.

WT

Simple comment. You get so mad, you do not see what people are saying. Anger management.

Medicare is the IDEAL system for the Democrats. They want to DICTATE to hospitals and doctors how much money they can make. The House "public option" (that ultimately becomes the ONLY option since you can NEVER change insurance coverage EVER again once the law is passed) is based on doctors and hospitals being paid the MEDICARE RATES.

Might have to put the Naperville house up for sale. The reality is BO is starting with the doctors in putting them into the ghetto. He is now targeting banks.

SPREAD THE WEALTH. Rhymes with Health.

WT?,

Come on!

You posted "Yep, you guys are shining examples of humanity."

What the heck kind of intolerant, biased, catch-all is that supposed to be?

Who is "you guys", and why are you disparaging them?

Also nopte:

To Dan D's comment on Cisco selling the tech to the Irish facility: Been there, done that! The IRS ensures that the event is market-based, taxable at U,S, rates, and those taxes were put into the Treasury funds. Also note that when this occurs the IRS tends to be extrem,ely severe in their handling of the event and as a rule over-tax it.

Of course, the idiots we elected have spent it (about three times over according to projections!)

For all: Remeber! CAPITAL IS MOBILE!

WT?,

Oops! I forgot to add the following:

>There is nothinfg patriotic about giving away money to the govern,emt. If Chambers just did that, he would be sued to hell and back by shareholders. In fact, he would be sued on probably at least 4 continents, as such an action would be contrary to the interests of the shareholders' good and against the interests of the countries where the funds were actually earned (and were resting).

>Very few countries (if any) actually have zero tax rates on corporations. thus, if teh U;S just changed their policy to charge a tax rate equal to that of teh country where the funds were earned, there would be NO MOTIVATION to keep it there and not here. Voila! Treasury is flush with bucks!

>Once here, a corporation can, and is expected, and has laws governing, that they must use it to create shareholder wealth. Repurchasing stack is theoreticall a good use of said funds as the decreased shares outstanding increases EPS and, using multiples, increases stock price. The reason and intent is not to create jobs UNLESS that job creation is a good business decision that, again, is good for the shareholders. In the long run, per the creative destruction outline earlier,outsourcing jobs can, should be, and if done right will be good for the country and the global economy.

WT?,

Many of your understandings on corp tax are not entirely correct.As an example, you wrote: "Cisco sets up subsidiaries all around the world, taking care to structure these subsidiaries so that corporate-wide earnings can be ascribed to subsidiaries in low-tax havens [Bahamas, Luxemborg, etc.] Cisco can then attempt to repatriate funds to its US-based headquarters"

This is incorrect. There is a complex analysis generically called "transfer pricing" that ensures any and all income generated by teh U.S. portion of a company is taxed at U.S. rates. The IRS diligently applies it to all companies and it represents one of the biggest pieces of a corporation's tax bills. In short, anything sold overseas by a U.S. corporation needs to be analyzed to identify what portion, of any, of that sale and profit is due to the U.S. portion of teh company. So, in Cisco's case, they build and sell a router in teh Netherlands. IRS rules make the U.S. portion, at a minimum, take a royalty on the technology in that router IF any of the technology was developed in the U.S. Additionally, if any of the manufacturing processes are special (and with Cisco they are), then the U.S. would also recieve a "rtoyalty" on that and pay U.S. taxes on it. So Cisco, by law and by practice, can only keep earnings away from U.S. authorities to the extent they truly were/are attributable only to those foreign subsidiaries.

Thus,back to the fairness issue: The current practice that so many of our jerk elected officials (from both parties) attack is actually tremendously fair and serves as an attempt to:

A)Allow our companies to at least try to compete on a more even field and

B)Allow our trading partners to also collect taxes on the portion of business that actually occurs on their shores.

Summary on CIsco: the funds you refer to truly were earned "over there" and from either a business or a moral sense, should not be taxed until repatriated.

By the way, every once in awhile the government does decalre a "holiday" of sorts and decreases the tax rate on these funds, and the money pours in and fills the fed coffers with cash. Given our dire economy right now, I would fully support a holiday of, say, 15% rate on all repat funds up to a max of 50% of all funds outsdie the U.S.

The deficit might not balance, but it would get darn close!

WT

All of your comments on taxes is repeating the "liberal" rhetoric. By the way, the intellectual value of Cisco is no longer in the Silicon Valley, it was all sold to an Irish subsidiary since the Irish do not tax the royalties from all of Cisco's international operations (including the US) for intellectual property. And Cisco has no intent of sending any of that money back to the US.

OK, you are right on all of your comments. Implement the tax. Do you know how much money you will collect?

ZERO. Why?

Because US companies will take the final step. Become foreign companies. They will set up their headquarters in the Caymen Islands and will pay all the taxes a foreign company is required to pay to the US on operations outside of the US. ZERO.

Capital, like people, flow to where they are most accepted. Why does Elton John live in Atlanta? Because British taxes are punitive. Why have wealthy Americans established dual citizenships and foreign residency? Avoid taxes. Why have one million people left California? Taxes.

One of America's hidden strenghts, that I do not believe is measured, is its international dominance. We do not buy American fast food, people do not use Japanese or Chinese computer systems. We set the phone numbers and the internet addresses. The intangible values of our businesses generate wealth to the US. This is not included in our trade deficit.

But "liberals" would rather destroy our dominance to try to grab assets from our companies to waste it on Federal spending. Instead, they should lower corporate taxes, we are the HIGHEST in the world, so companies will want to locate here.

On your comment about Asian education, like Europe, they track students. Goof off or not be in the top in third grade, you are relegated to a second rate education, probably stop by sixth grade and are given "slave" jogs. The smarter get the resources and better education. The US does not emphasize gifted education. That is why parents who want to give their children an advantage send them to better private schools.

And you dismiss all of my comments about the backroom drafting of the health bill because I used the word "evil". I did not use and did not mean Satanic. You know my comment is right, so you try to walk over it. Your tone reverted to the past that everyone detested. But you use the "liberal" tactic of bombast if you cannot refute a comment.

Forgot something, as usual:

"Doctors will have two choices. Stop taking Medicare patients (so much for the single payer system). Or take less pay.

Since you are supported by someone in the medical industry, shouldn't the doctors make less money?"

I have also worked for many years in the health care field. Everything I know wasn't obtained by osmosis.

Shouldn't YOU make less money? There's no difference to me. If one of your children developed appendicitis, you couldn't remove her appendix and save her life, could you? So what makes you so valuable? Shouldn't your income reflect this?

Blanket statements like yours are irrelevant, since the incomes of physicians vary depending on specialty and location, whether they're in academia or private practice, whether they do research or publish or teach in addition to seeing patients, etc. etc. It's far from a one size fits all situation.

And since Medicare already has such comparatively low reimbursement rates, dropping it another 30% would essentially render it a charity program. And since no one, not even you I bet, would work for free, that would leave Medicare patients without access to care. Which I think is most likely your intent. After all, it's their own fault for growing old and getting sick. If people don't have the money to buy coverage at the high market rates or pay directly out of pocket for their care, then they should just die. It's not your problem. Why should you be taxed so someone you don't even know can get life saving treatment?

Yep, you guys are shining examples of humanity. We should all be proud.

Dan and Psyche:

Yes, there is a difference between an engineer and a scientist, I realized this when making my comments. But it doesn't make sense that China could fail it's engineers to such a large degree (90%), and still do so well with all other sciences. And I know for a fact that the U.S. company I spoke of will be hiring Chinese chemical engineers, a different branch of engineering but engineers just the same. So knowing what I personally know about this industry and this particular company's plans, the WSJ's claim doesn't add up.

And of course all the people who immigrate legally to the U.S. are of high quality, the U.S. is able to cherry pick them this way. It's the illegals that don't bring much to the table (by the way, Mexicans are literate in Spanish. Mexico has a 95% literacy rate). But look again at the picture you're presenting. What does it say when these "real" Asians, as you call them, the students who come to the U.S. as teens after having received all their previous education in China and India, are able to excel so well in our colleges and universities? They wouldn't be able to get into these schools at the rate they currently do--40% you said at MIT?--if their prior education had been so substandard. Just being "smart" as your Indian friend suggested wouldn't make up for this. I have known many first generation Asian moms here over the years, and none have ever said they thought our schools were better that what they left behind; their families moved here for other reasons. I believe the educational systems in China and India are more than adequate.

On corporate taxes:

You and Psyche say not taxing offshore money as long as it stays offshore is fair to international businesses, but what is fair for international businesses is unfair to those in the U.S. If we were to drop or severely reduce the tax on repatriated funds, that would put U.S. based businesses at a disadvantage. And if there were no repatriation taxes to prohibit this practice, what is to stop ALL U.S. corporations from packing up and moving, taking their jobs and resources with them? This company is a classic example of the problem:

Cisco sets up subsidiaries all around the world, taking care to structure these subsidiaries so that corporate-wide earnings can be ascribed to subsidiaries in low-tax havens [Bahamas, Luxemborg, etc.] Cisco can then attempt to repatriate funds to its US-based headquarters.

The problem is, the government looks askance at this practice. The government taxes these repatriated funds, including Cisco’s. In this particular instance, [CEO] John Chambers and Cisco’s bean-counters have refused to repatriate overseas cash holdings as long as they’ll be taxed on them. The government has held firm, so Cisco looks for acquisitions abroad rather than repatriating its money.

Even now, as Cisco shifts jobs from the USA to India and China, most of its value-giving intellectual property is created in the USA. That’s also where Cisco’s headquarters, and the heart of its operational base, is located. Is it right for Cisco to play a shell game with subsidiaries in low-tax havens so that it can avoid paying its “fair share” of US taxes?

Furthermore, is it ethically right for Cisco to then claim that the US government should accord it a tax holiday so that it can repatriate funds that were, in reality, generated primarily from the USA anyway? Cisco wants it both ways, coming and going, all the while transferring jobs to foreign countries.

http://nerdtwilight.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/origins-and-implications-of-ciscos-overseas-cash-hoard/

"US corporations pay a lower tax overseas and as long as they do not repatriate their earnings back to the US, they do not have to pay US taxes. Fair enough. Reinforces my claim that corporate taxes are too high in the US. Lower the taxes and everything would be fine."

I disagree. Many corporations would keep that money overseas even at a lower tax rate, look at Cisco above. Why pay ANY tax when you can get away with paying NONE by offshoring money indefinitely? And how low would taxes have to go to get these companies to repatriate their money? Again, let's use Cisco as an example. They refuse to repatriate anything unless they are allowed to do so at an absolute steal--no more than 5.25%:

In Business Week's report, JMP Securities analyst Sam Wilson gave his take on what (Cisco CEO) Chambers meant during the earnings call with regard to the U.S. Senate repatriation decision and Cisco's $26.3 billion in cash held overseas:

"Cisco made very clear that it wouldn’t repatriate a penny."

Without a doubt yours truly was puzzled as to why Cisco CEO John Chambers appeared to be making the unpatriotic decision of not repatriating Cisco's $26.3 billion in cash back to the U.S.

The answer? Perhaps good old-fashioned greed!

According to a press release from U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan, multinational corporations have been lobbying to get a tax benefit into the stimulus bill to move their money back to the United States at a deeply discounted tax rate:

"The lobbying effort is advocating a repeat of what was specified in 2004 as a one-time only tax break for corporations with funds offshore, when the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 provided a one-year repatriation tax holiday that reduced the 35% federal tax rate that U.S. companies normally owe on their foreign earnings to just 5.25%."

According to Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND:

"There’s another phrase for repatriation – it’s called rewarding the outsourcing of jobs. If we allow U.S. corporations to once again send the money they earn abroad back to the U.S. at a discounted tax rate, it will only lead to more companies moving their profits offshore. The goal is to strengthen our economy with tax policies and investments that will create jobs here. That won’t happen with a tax policy that rewards the outsourcing of U.S. jobs."

Interestingly, Senator Dorgan's press release also noted:

"While empirical evidence is clear that this (the Bush Administration's 2004 tax break) provision resulted in a significant increase in repatriated earnings, empirical evidence is unable to show a corresponding increase in domestic investment or employment.

"Instead, as the CRS (Congressional Research Service) analysis shows, the top repatriating corporations closed down facilities and made massive job cuts.

"Another study found that many corporations who benefited from this tax break used the money to repurchase their own stock, which had no impact on job creation."

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/38618

So could you guys explain to me once again how offshoring jobs and not taxing these companies profits is good for AMERICA?

Evil Trinity? Geez. Have you been hanging out with the far right again? Watching Glen Beck? Here I thought these guys were having meetings, when all along they were really performing Satanic rituals on the Hill! I'm not going to dignify the Evil Trinity comments with a discussion.

WT and all

1. Many constructive thoughts.
2. Much better tone.
3. Chinese engineers. Rememeber, there is a difference between an engineer and a scientist. Engineers implement ideas, scientists dream them up.

Also, a comment from an Indian friend of mine. If you accept that the top 10% of all people are the most intelligient/productive (sounds fair to me), then think about the numbers. 300 million Americans, 30 million smart people. 1 billion Indians and Chinese. 100 million smart people each. And which portion of the population is coming over to the US? The bottom, illiterate people like the Mexicans and the Carribean immigrants. NO. The top people. And that accounts for your observation.

4. Tax issue. US corporations pay a lower tax overseas and as long as they do not repatriate their earnings back to the US, they do not have to pay US taxes.

Fair enough. Reinforces my claim that corporate taxes are too high in the US. Lower the taxes and everything would be fine. But then again, foreign labor costs and construction costs are also lower.

The interesting approach, increase taxes on these US subsidiaries. So our companies now cannot compete with those companies that have lower taxes. That will not only drive away the jobs, but put our companies out of business.

How about work rules in the US that prohibit efficient manufacturing? GM's plant in Brazi would not be allowed in the US. Advanced manufacturing processes use engineers and machines, not people to produce goods. There is a reduction in demand for unskilled labor and all those people who goofed off in high school are sentenced to a life of declining value.

5. Obama's conviction. I am really not buying it. No, I do not think he has been sincere. More appropriately, his PEOPLE (Axelrod, Rambo Rahm, Jarrett--the Evil Trinity) have been deceptive. Overused case in point. The infamous medical program. There has not been constructive debate. The hearings have been a farce, going through the motions. Besides the backroom meetings with the effected special interest groups INCLUDING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY, all of the bills drafting was done by legislative leaders in conjunction with the Evil Trinity behind close doors. So all of the important issues that we have discussed were not debated and the best items put forward. No, this bill is being crammed down American's throats.

So coming back to BO. He knows what he had done. He has been totally disingenuous to ALL Americans, particularly those who oppose him (funny concept, how can the Republicans agree with him when everything is done in a back room?). I think he is afraid of open debate (don't know why, insurance companies have much room to improve). I think it is because he cannot tolerate someone else coming up with a better idea than he did. But instead of allowing for an open debate and ideas of all as he promised in his campaign, he has allowed his Evil Trinity to cram their ideas down the throats of Congress and the American people. I FAULT HIM DEARLY FOR ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN. (And the Evil Trinity feels that once the laws are passed, the people will appreciate them. That is what Stalin and Mao use to say!!!!)

6. How much CHANGE? People did not vote 80% for BO. So don't overplay the mandate for change. I want change. Not all change will be suitable to me. But going back to the previous thought, people wanted change that addressed both parties. Just as the extreme right should be ignored, so should the extreme left liberals (by the way, why are they embarrased by being called liberal that they are trying to change their characterization to progressives--I thought Republicans were progressive!!).

And since Congress is not being allowed to debate his CHANGE, they have to take other tactics. And BO supporters are now mad because he is looking bad. Rather, they should be mad because he tried to implement his CHANGE (or again, the change of the Evil Trinity) without our participation.

7. Reconciliation to pass the health care bill. Has this idea been presented to the Senate rules committee to be debated on C-Span. Of course not. This is being conceived in the West Wing behind close doors by the Evil Trinity, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry (Lame Duck) Ried. Once again, a back room deal.

You feel that the Republicans should roll over so that BO and his crew can get their way? When 68% of the American people do not want this plan, even the people in Massachusetts? No way. Let them try and I hope the Republicans fight it.

And I do not think he has the votes. I think 10 Democratic senators will walk. I also think the House will not be able to hold the Blue Dog Democrats (it passed by two votes). Can Bean or Foster afford to vote for the plan again? Not if they want to be reelected. They were forced to do so last time. I doubt they will do it this time. They want another term in Congress and a vote for health care will be certain death.

The bill did not do what BO said he was going to do. Lower health costs. Instead, they are going up. Although insurance companies are now competing even with the limitations of state laws!!!!!

The only good news is the the reconciliation process will result in a bill that cannot survive court challenge. So this bill will be delayed including the taxes on the Cadilac plans and medical instrument makers.

8. New Idea. Congress should let Medicare reimbursement rates to doctors to be cut by 30% effective October 1. THIS WILL SAVE MONEY. THEY SHOULD NOT REPEAL THEIR OWN BILL AGAIN.

Doctors will have two choices. Stop taking Medicare patients (so much for the single payer system). Or take less pay.

Since you are supported by someone in the medical industry, shouldn't the doctors make less money?

Psyche:

Yes, I did catch Stewart on O'Reilly last night and plan on catching Part II later tonight. That was great, wasn't it? I just loved the humor, bantering and good-natured zingers flying back and forth across the table.

I agree my quote that you repeated above can be applied to the far left as well, I guess you're referring to the Progressives? I thought about this briefly, but the truth is the far right is more frightening. They are so much more homogeneous in thought (reminiscent of the Borg on Star Trek Next Generation "We are Borg. We are one. You will be assimilated) and intolerant of others having freedoms that they don't think are appropriate due to their own personal views or religious beliefs, even if those personal views and religious beliefs aren't shared by a large segment of others in our society; they simply don't care. Take for instance the whole "purity test" thing. It's a Hitleresque form of political eugenics, an attempt to make an already largely homogeneous political group even MORE homogeneous. Now that shows intolerance, don't you think? We've seen this kind of stringent adherence to political ideas in so many dictatorships throughout history that it just creeps me out that these people actually think they are acting as true "Americans". Who was it that said "When Marxism comes to America, it will be called anti-Marxism?"

And I know many on the right consider Obama far left, but what is funny about this is the far left won't own him. The Progressives feel betrayed by Obama because he is governing to close to the center. The right calls O a leftist and the left calls O a centrist and both groups are throwing public hissy fits and proclaiming the end of days for America, for exactly the opposite reasons. You gotta appreciate the absurdity in this.

I agree with your comments on the problem with intelligent labor being outsourced. That's what I was saying to Dan, but you said it better. It really is just the way things are and Americans will have to adjust by focusing on professions that can't be outsourced, like medicine, teaching, etc.

I'll have to get back to you on the overseas tax thing, I need time to process what you've said. But simply dismissing the source (Obama and Clinton) doesn't dismiss the problem itself.

And we can agree to disagree on the amendments to stop reconciliation thing. For me, it does remove all doubt that those previous 876 amendments were used as speed bumps on the road of progress. What came through in the USA Today article was the way Republicans found a loophole in the reconciliation process where they could continue using amendments as a stall tactic. I don't believe this is a recent idea, they've been doing it all along. They admit it's never been done in the reconciliation process before, but it's certainly worth a try. Hey, they've still got those 876 amendments they're just dying to share with the Democrats, all REALLY GOOD IDEAS, I'm sure.

From Wt:

"Like I said before, honest debate isn't possible unless honest people come to the table in good faith. And it's clear that in this and other instances, the Reps do not intend to make a good faith effort."

You do understand that reconciliation cuts off all debate, don't you Wt? There is no "good faith effort" by the Democrats with the reconciliation process. This actually proves that the Democrats have no intention of listening to any ideas from the Republicans, a fact you keep seeming to miss in your unjustified gloating.

WT?, I agree, so please leave your partisan attitude off the keyboard!

Hopefully you both caught Stewart on O'Reilly last night (and tonight). It was a very good exchange, and actually included ideas!

Stewart had an interesting comment/answer for O'reilly on the question about whether or not Obama really is "real & intelligent" (or something like that).

Stewart answered that he was not sure ---- either he was a jedi master playing three dimensional chess or he was over his head.

I am looking forward to tonight's portion of the interview.

I readily admit that I see Obama as way too far left for most of America, and his poor record of assigning cabinet and staff only encourages my sites. The fiascos with Van Jones, Sunstein (sp?) and others is disturbing and classifies him in my mind as potentially part of the "highly emotional extremists on the far left, who I really believe wouldn't hesitate to trample all over our Constitution in their zeal to change our country into THEIR VISION of what American should be. These are the folks who truly scare me. They represent the destructive force that the passions of mob rule can have on our republic that framers like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison warned of". Obama's constant speeches to remodel America do bother me. Oh, by the way --- I voted for Clinton.

On the "change" front. it has been my experience that when people say "people are afraid of change", it is usually the change proposed and not change itself that hinders them. The healthcare bill comes to mind. I know of NO PERSON I know who does not want some revamps to our system. However, none of them want to scrap what is good about ours just for changes sake. Please don't take this as a partisan comment, WT?! From my persective, if they broke the bill down to the basics, kept what now works, adn went at it in stages, most of it would pass. I would also expect almost all of it to pass over a period of, say, 4 election cycles.

But really ---- over 2000 pages of "stuff" that does not protect the pieces that work AND which our wonderfully lazy reps admit they did not read? No way.

On the tax code --- please read up on the code. I am not saying loopholes don't exist. I am saying they are there for a reason. Quoting two politicians (of any party) on taxes is like quoting a fox on hens ------ too subjective and self-serving.

I have a modicum of experience in the area of global corporate taxation, and for what it is worth I can declare with no trepidation that our corporations are held to different standards on taxes (worse standards), and without allowances they cannot compete. The global economy isists on local content, thus we MUST have factories, etc., in foreign lands. Our tax policies punish our companies by applying U.S. tax rates to earnings over there unless they take advantage of tax laws that allow them to keep the money OUTSIDE the U.S. In almost all cases, the taxation in those countries is lower (in some cases much lower) than the U.S.

Doesn't it seem inherently fair that as long as the money stays "over there" it should not be subject to the additional U.S. taxes? I will add that there are very intense, complex rules in place to ensure the money was earned "over there" and stays where it is earned. There are also very complex rules & regs to prevent U.S. compnies from illegally transfering profits from the U.S. to "over there" that don't exist (these rules tend to fall under the over-all area of "transfer pricing"). Let me add that many countries also have rules to prevent transfering earnings (cash) from "over there" back to the U.S. The idea that the U.S. takes in less annual revenue from corporate taxes, measured as a percentage of economic output, than many other major economies is more a measure of the sheer size and output of our economy (the most efficient in teh world) than it is of tax cheating or tax laws.

How competitive can our companies be if they are forced to build over "there", compete with their companies, then get taxed at much higher rates? The answer is "Not very".

As far as labor, that is life right now on earth. As long as the majority of countries allow work to be done at wages (and perks) way below those of the U.S. and western Europe, our companies need to play in the same labor pool. We don't have to like it, but that is the situation we are in. Thus, as in teh past, the creative destruction occurs where new "stuff" is developed/began in places like teh U.S, and other places "backfill" what is termed commodities. In this case, labor, including a lot of intelligent labor (ie engineers), has fast become a commodity. This is partially due to places like China & India, decades ago, deeming engineers as their future and then trampling all over any individual rights of its citizens (who have few, and almost none in China) and forced the brightest and smartest to do so. I understand that what I just described really applies much more to China, but in the caste system of India (the world's largest "democracy"), it has also occurred.

Finally, my two cents on the reconciliation process: No, it doesn't stand to reason that if they are being up front about using this as a tactic now, then they were using it as a tactic before. I believe the current actions (or threats of action) are a distinct parliamentary move to block using tricks in teh reconciliation process to pass the current Healthcare bill around the existence of Brown as the 41 "No" vote. There are tricks in reconciliation, and other processes, that can allow for passing it with only 51 votes, as an example.

Dan:

By the way, congrats on your daughter being at MIT. Mine's at Northwestern with a $64,000 scholarship to boot. Home run!

Dan D.:

I agree, Psyche does have many valid points. But I just can't stand the sneering partisan attitude. I would welcome a discussion without it.

The article reflects your experience, duly noted. Obviously if we had both had the same experience, our votes wouldn't have been different! I've heard this before, that Obama is all charisma and magic but no substance. That's just not what I honestly see. I see a person of excellent character and values, perhaps too excellent for the snake pit he's currently in. Maybe one does have to be more of an a*$#&!/e to be an effective leader. I think it would help if O developed a little bit of this trait.

Of course Obama wants to change our society, he campaigned on CHANGE! But I am not threatened by this as you are, our society has a lot of dysfunctional areas that need improving. However, Obama's first and foremost responsibility as president is to uphold the constitution of the United States. In fact, we have a fail safe to deal with presidents who don't, it's called impeachment. So I think the histrionics from many on the right over just about ANY proposed change as a threat to our freedom is irrational and extreme. I trust Obama, as a rational, educated and thoughtful individual, to uphold our Constitution a lot better than the highly emotional extremists on the far right, who I really believe wouldn't hesitate to trample all over our Constitution in their zeal to change our country into THEIR VISION of what American should be. These are the folks who truly scare me. They represent the destructive force that the passions of mob rule can have on our republic that framers like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison warned of.

"The WSJ had an article about locating in China. The article stated that the majority of the education in China is of substantial lower quality than the US. They state that a typical Chinese college graduate in engineering has 10% of the skills of a similar American."

Dan, I just can't believe this. The situation that I am personally involved in right now does not bear this out. The education in China is not substandard compared to the U.S. Many of these people come to the U.S. for reasons other than education. The Indian and Chinese cultures place a high value on education in a way that American culture does not, many Americans still have a "frontier" mentality about the value of education compared to Asian cultures. The fact that these students come to the U.S. and dominate our colleges and universities speaks to the quality of their education.

And if a typical Chinese college graduate in engineering had only 10% of the knowledge and skills of a similar American, corporations would NOT be moving U.S. research jobs to China. The company I know of, which has corporate offices and research divisions in other states besides Illinois, recently announced that they will not be hiring anymore U.S. scientists, that within 5 years they will be moving ALL research and development to China. The reason? There they can hire scientists just as qualified as Americans for $30,000/year opposed to around $160,000/year for U.S. scientists when all benefits are factored in, it's an enormous cost savings for them. If they believed Chinese scientists would only produce at 10% of the level of those in the U.S., they certainly wouldn't be hiring them, would they? Even if they could employ 5 scientists in China for the price of 1 American, if these 5 people only possessed 10% of the knowledge and skills they would still only be producing at 50% capacity of 1 U.S. hire. So this move would make absolutely no sense if this were true. The actions of this company directly contradict the claims made in the WSJ article, and this one company is not an isolated circumstance, it's happening industry-wide, has been for several years. So this just cannot be true for all scientific professions. Maybe you can dig up the article and take a closer look.

Regarding tax breaks for U.S. corporations based abroad:

"Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have cast it as an outrage that should be a key target for the next president: a tax break they say encourages employers to ship American jobs abroad.

The charge could be dismissed as typical campaign-trail exaggeration during a Democratic primary season marked by populism, except for one thing. Many analysts say it's true. "The U.S. tax system does provide an incentive to locate production offshore," says Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor to Tax Notes, a non-profit publication that tracks tax issues.

At issue is the U.S. tax code's treatment of profits earned by foreign subsidiaries of American corporations. Profits earned in the United States are subject to the 35% corporate tax. But multinational corporations can defer paying U.S. taxes on their overseas profits until they return them to the USA — transfers that often don't happen for years. General Electric, for example, has $62 billion in "undistributed earnings" parked offshore, according to recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Drug giant Pfizer boasts $60 billion. ExxonMobil has $56 billion.

The U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and its corporate tax code has a well-earned reputation for complexity. But despite the high rate, the U.S. takes in less annual revenue from corporate taxes, measured as a percentage of economic output, than almost all other major economies. Part of the explanation for that shortfall is the allowance for corporations to postpone taxes on foreign income."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm

And I don't mean to gloat, really, but what is your reaction to the Reps plan of finding a loophole in the reconciliation process where they could use endless amendments to stall health care reform? Doesn't it stand to reason that if they are being up front about using this as a tactic now, then they were using it as a tactic before? Are you going to say that a lot of the amendments they bring forward from this point on are also REALLY GOOD IDEAS that the Dems are ignoring? I really think their admission ends the debate on this topic. Like I said before, honest debate isn't possible unless honest people come to the table in good faith. And it's clear that in this and other instances, the Reps do not intend to make a good faith effort.

To the ill-mannered WT?,

“Shut up!” ---- Nice comeback! You should take over the Tonight show with intelligent wit like that.

YOU appeared to try and make this a partisan argument (re: tax shelters). You talk to the BUSH TAX CUTS (emphasis yours, not mine). I added some objective points as to which admin tried to prosecute them.

Yes, the loss of those jobs IS a natural economic event. You might want to take some JC courses in the subject matter. Every large move (say, farming to industrial) has resulted in similar losses. To use the government to avoid it would be to deny progress. One of the major reasons for U.S. economic superiority has been the acceptance of this natural move. You also might want to review corporate tax laws to better understand the major implications of them, as you clearly do not understand them at this point.

You seem unable to comprehend that it is a global economy, WT?. I do not understand why. Without being able to compete on a global basis, you have no jobs. No jobs means no medical school money (the hub?) and no big home in Naperville and no Naperville school system.

Whether or not China achieves the exalted status remains unclear (see Dan D’s posts, above, on Japan. At one point (around 1980) it was oft published that Japan was kicking our butt, buying all our assets, and would soon be the reigning world economic power.

Economic forecasting, like the weather, is an art more than a science!

However, I agree with your tissy-fit comments on China and it probably will/should be an economic behemoth. It has resources, low cost (and yes, if you read up on policies in China even free labor), and a government that has NO concern for the environment or safety of either workers or citizens. In short, they have severe economic advantages over the U.S. When you add the debt of ours that they keep compiling, it would appear that only a severe screw up on their part stops them. I am not a debt hawk, but I strongly believe ours has finally reached heights that go beyond economic tolerances and the recent projections on the Obama administration plans will seal our catastrophic collapse unless there is intervention of some sort. Yes, it has been all parties that contributed, so please don’t go there.

My question for all is “Why not?’ As long as they, along with India, Brazil, and other ascendant economic powers pay their way, and offer the same succor to the rest of the world that we do/did as the dominant power, as long as they carry the water for the costs of the U.N. UNICEF. et.al. let them. Our economy, even without the debt to China issue, has a lot of problems based in soft issues (ie gov.t intervention and guidance over the free hand) has issues that are mountainous in size all by their little selves.

Insofar as “tone” I would highly suggest you check your own tone. It is dismissive, intolerant, un-accepting of opposing viewpoints, loaded with partisan sneering, and overall void of facts that do not support your own subjective opinions.

In short, your tone is that of a partisan hack pretending to want an open discussion so that you can put forth your spew.

Gidda, mate!

Before Wt accuses me of some nefarious scheme, Anonymous 10:53 was me...

Ken

Wt:

"Oh, shut up already!"

"I got half-way through your post and completely lost interest." It is obvious that the Republicans are using the amendment loophole to stop health care from becoming a law by the Democrats using the reconciliation route. Stopping a bad law is different than offering amendments during the normal process to make a good law. Seems pretty simple to understand, doesn't it? Unless, of course, you are a completely partisan liberal, and unable to see the forest for the trees...

WT

Psyche had many valid points, he was irritated at your point of view, just as you too. But I will be short.

1. I will ask again, what is the American tax that makes it better to move jobs overseas? This is a key factor to your posts, I don't know what it is.

2. Your comment about Chinese education. The WSJ had an article about locating in China. The article stated that the majority of the education in China is of substantial lower quality than the US. They state that a typical Chinese college graduate in engineering has 10% of the skills of a similar American.

So China (and India) are good for low level jobs that require an associates degree. They send their best to the US to get a better education. Get ready when your daughter applies for college in four years. Over 30% of the spots at the top colleges have been allocated to Foreigners. My daughter at MIT, 40% of the student body is Asian, many real Asian, not Naperville Asians.

3. You do need a slightly different approach to others ideas. I think they need to have mutual respect. At a minimum, agree to disagree. An example. Common Republican wisdom. Tax cuts enhance the economy. Clearly this worked in the US when the marginal tax rates (for people making over $50,000 per year) were cut from 70% to 28%. I think that a cut from 28% to 25% would not yield the same results. And tax cuts for people who pay 5% are really transfer payments (welfare) and would have no meaningful benefit to the economy.

But the article on Obama reflects many of my thoughts. And on the day it was published, it was the most e-mailed article (WSJ tracks this info) and it was fourth three days later. So I am not alone.

More intriguing, if you do not believe that Obama wanted to change our society, is he allowing Congress and his staff do it? Or do you have a view of what his real intentions are? I think he wants to spread the wealth and is envious of those who succeed. And most people will buy into that BS. Instead of being proud people are a success.

4. The Finanical Meltdown was the nail in the casket. But again, people voted for Obama because they disliked Bush, I have several friends that said that. And I pleaded with them that a bad course will set this country back 20 years. Did not matter, throw out ths scoundrels.

Great. 50% of Americans live in homes that have mortgages that are more than the value. Americans lost as average of 40% on their investments (particularly 401ks). These are not very good times. I envision another second dip recession. That is why banks are not lending. Anyone who purchased their house in the last 15 years could not buy their house today. And they will not be able to sell it tomorrow if they had to.

Bushes response was wrong to the financial crisis. TARP was and continues to be a fraud, Obama's "stimulus package" is 10% stimulus and 90% "spread the wealth" (for example, it delayed states cutting their budgets in the last year).

It is a very bad time. We do not need this new social program, it will doom the country. It really will.

To Dan, T.B. and whoever else previously insisted the Republican's 876 amendments to the health care bill were NOT brought forward simply to stall reform:

Nothing is more gratifying than when a hunch turns out to be true, and this one is particularly sweet, given that the admission comes right from the Republicans themselves. I hope you all enjoy this as much as I do:

Republicans find loophole in budget ploy to push through healthcare legislation
By Alexander Bolton - 02/03/10 06:00 AM ET

Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments.

Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, senators lack similar constraints on amendments and could conceivably continue offering them until 60 members agree to cut the process off.

“You could keep offering amendments until you don’t have any more to offer,” said a congressional aide, who said he did not know how long senators would be willing to stay in the chamber to move the reconciliation package. “What the body’s tolerance would be is unknown.”

A former Senate Republican leadership aide said: “The limit is on debate, not on consideration of amendments.”

DeMint said he’s ready to try anything.

“You’ll see Republicans do everything they can to delay and stop this process,” DeMint said. “I think you’ll see us offering amendments to get us into November, if we can."

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/79423-gop-finds-loophole-in-reconciliation-ploy

Dan:

I'm sure the Media file not working has something to do with my computer, it happens periodically. I couldn't download one from a friend a couple of days ago either, so it's not on your end. I read the WSJ article instead. Sure was short, tho.

First of all, I disagree with the writer that Obama was swept into office on the waves of the financial meltdown of Fall 2008. The Obama phenom started long before that, shortly after he began campaigning. The meltdown occurred weeks before he was elected. It probably cinched the deal for some undecideds, but I'm convinced O would have won anyway. Like you're so fond of saying, he wasn't Bush.

Look, this article is undoubtedly penned by a non-fan, it's emotionally unobjective. And that's fine, but if Ajami didn't get Obama in the first place, he certainly wouldn't get him now.

So I just simply disagree. I don't think Obama has been felled as he put it, a lot can change in 3 years. The white guilt stuff is a load, always was, but I can't expect Ajami to understand this, he is neither white nor American born. He's just repeating a popular talking point. The pride from the African-American community is very real, tho, I've heard many articulate as much.

So I guess I have to ask what is your point in bringing this forward? It's very well-written, but this author's comments don't reflect my experience. I'm still on board, will be for the long-term. Maybe some folks were smitten with charisma and fairy dust and maybe those people have dropped away, but many of us haven't. And I think there's a lot more of us still around than you realize.

Dan:

Thanks for taking the time with your last post. By the way, I was less than receptive to a post by Psyche due to his tone. I am so sick of the partisan sneering when it comes to differences of opinion. I'll listen more willingly to an intelligent response without it.

I follow you on what you've described above, and I remember the Japanese depression, their lost decade. But there's an additional reason why the loss of U.S. jobs to countries like China and India are troubling--the cheap cost of labor. And I'm not talking about unskilled labor alone, that's been going to MX for quite some time. India and China have a large, very well-educated work force. And due to supply and demand, they will do the same jobs as Americans for a fraction of the cost.

Here's a recent situation of which I'm aware: The Chinese government pays for the higher education of it's citizens, so they have a glut of highly skilled scientists. Ph.D.s are a dime a dozen there. Here in the U.S., we have to pay for our own college educations, and they're not coming any cheaper with time. Add to that health care costs and retirement plans for employees--American Ph.D.s are expensive. Corporations can hire Chinese Ph.D.s for a fraction of the cost, in the instance I'm aware of, 5 to 1. This company can hire Chinese Ph.D.s for $30,000 a pop flat, no health care to pay for, no retirement to match. So this company has a hiring freeze on U.S. scientists, they're moving their R&D to China. The company headquarters is staying based in the U.S. for obvious reasons, but their labor base in a few years will be based entirely in China. Then I hear Obama talk about how the U.S. is lagging behind in math and science skills. What is the point of making our kids competitive in math and science if they won't be able to make a living with those skills here in the U.S.?

I'm the one pressed for time now, so this isn't as coherent as most of my posts, but I'm sure you get the idea. What are we suppose to do about this problem?

Let me add along thelines of Dan D'd comments on banking & capital.

WT?, you asked/stated that banks are not lending.

Well, back to my free money post ------ the banks are as we speak essentially borrowing money from teh Fed for free and lending it out in a risk-free environment at , say, 5.5-8%.

Why in God's name would they take ANY risk right now to lend to start-ups, small businesses, etc, when they can just "take" the 5.5-8% with zero risk?

Except in a socialist society it would be insane to do so. However, if teh Fed raises rates, the banks then need to take some risk to get that same 5.5-8% return, thus they begin to loosen up and lend at a greater-than-zero risk rate. Of course, given the risk/return laws, the rates they charges are igher, but money flows.

Remember: A little acknowledged law of economics in today's global economy is that capital is mobile!

Psyche:

Oh, shut up already!

I got half-way through your post and completely lost interest. Yes, billions were hidden by INDIVIDUALS in off-shore accounts. I'm not talking about Dems vs Reps, I'm talking about the RICH. Geez, tax cheats are both Democratic and Republican, this isn't a partisan issue, it's a human one. Everything that happens in the known universe is NOT a partisan issue for God's sake. Give it a rest! And the loss of factory jobs is a natural event? You betcha, all those factory jobs that used to be in the U.S. and are in foreign countries now because the U.S. owners got tax breaks for going off shore in addition to paying cents on the dollar for foreign workers compared to their American counterparts--completely a natural event. Well, the U.S. working class had better find other gigs because this "natural" event is here to stay due to the global economy, which is the only thing in the first half of your post I agreed with. You say this is a good thing? Sure it is, the U.S. doesn't manufacture things anymore, other countries are now filling those needs so we're dependent on them for those products. Better pucker up and get used to kissing a lot of Chinese butt because they protect their manufacturing base and the U.S. does not; the Chinese economy is growing in leaps and bounds and they are poised to be the next superpower while the U.S. economy is stagnating. In addition to the fact that we are dependent on China to keep buying our treasury bonds to finance our debt. But hell yeah, this is a NATURAL event! Whatever.

My youngest, who is entering high school this fall, has chosen Chinese as her foreign language. I'd say she's pretty darn smart.

WT

I do not know why the Media fire did not work. Try it again, when the file comes up, you can open up the PDF file. It takes a couple of seconds for the file to appear, but it does.

As an alternative, here is the link to the Wall Street Journal. I do not think it is a restricted article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029110104772360.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

I will also create a defined term for the balance of my response--capital. I look at this as the wealth of individuals (primarily wealthy people), pension plans (that benefit all participants through many different types of plans), mutual funds, corporations (big and small, they accumulate and hold resources) and miscellaneous sources that is invested in stocks, bonds, banks, and all other sources.

Capital is deployed where it can make the greatest, most reasonable return. If you need equity, owners of capital will not part with their money unless they perceive a major return, often in the 20 percent or greater area. Debt has lower returns, but again, it depends on the security that a debtor provides. Look at GM--who would want to loan them money (nobody right now, by the way, except the Federal government).

Capital could be used to build plants in the US. But the potential returns do not justify the holders of capital to do so. On the other hand, the Chinese banks are lending funds to build new plants at rates of less than 5%. Much of this relates to the state ownership of the banks. A US bank would not loan the money to a US company at 10%, but a Chinese bank will do so at 5%. Where do you think the plant will be built?

There is a major risk to the Chinese economy resulting from this "below market" financing of capital. Too many plants may be built. They may be built at too high of a cost primarily due to fraud. The result? These new plants default on their loans, the banks either fail or need Chinese government bailout, or the plants close.

Japan pursued the same policy in the 70's and 80's that the Chinese are doing today. The result in Japan. A lost decade (the 90's). A banking systemt that resulted in most institutions going out of business with the remainder requiring substantial government support.

In the short run, we should not care that these jobs are leaving--we can buy their output at a lower cost with paper that devalues over time (the devaluation in Japan was significant, resulting in overall deflation in their society). Put it another way, we buy $100 of goods today and pay them back 30 years from now for $10. Who got the better part of that bargain?

You refer to "tax breaks" to move manufacturing overseas. I have no idea of what these breaks are. Besides the ability to buy goods at a substantially lower price based on an irrational government selling out their people (by the way, they decide to pay them 20 cents an hour rather than $20 per hour), I am not aware of any other tax break.

My common belief is that the higher tax rates for US Corporations (35%) and the effective higher tax rates on investors (35% to be increased to 39.6% or even more) are the reasons that US corporations do not chose to compete with foreign operations. Besides the lower financing costs, foreigh corporation taxes are lower and writeoff of plant investment more liberal.

Let's illustrate. A corporation builds a plant and promises shareholders a 20% dividend. The corporation earns a dollar and has direct costs of 80 cents. Of the remaining 20 cents, they have to pay the government 35% in income taxes and another 15% in other taxes related to production. So now they have only 10 cents left to.

But if the same corporation could go overseas and buy the product for 90 cents with no investment and make 10 cents, he is better off. More likely, the Chinese company will sell him the goods for 70 cents, so he can make three times the money with no investment.

But these are abstract comments, in the long run, everyone looks at the same issue. But if the Chinese do not tax profits from their companies and provide low interest loans, all other factors being equal (including compensation) is that they will have a competitive advantge.

We could fix some of these issues. We should create loan programs to finance projects. Today, with the current banking system, you need higher equity or personal guarantess to borrow for a project. There are no 80% loans. That is the reason small companies are not borrowing, they simply DO NOT QUALIFY. Their counterparts in China get 100% loans at 5% (and the Chinese have a preemptive right to take their company).

A rational change to US corporate competitiveness would be 100% deductability of capital outlay BEFORE the government takes any taxes. And lower the corporate tax rate, it is a double tax. This would lower risk and make us competitive. We are a good place to manufacture, foreign automakers probably build at least a third of all automobiles in the US at far more efficient plants. Why can't US automakers compete?

I have a parting question. What do capitalists invest in if it is not capital plants? T-Bills, paper. No way. Look at the wealthy in this country (and I work with a few). They invest their "capital" directly into either stocks (that invest) or projects. If they stuck with T-bills, the return is 0.02% NOTHING.

What The?,

What is with all your unfounded accusations?

**You write "..billions that was hidden by the rich in illegal offshore accounts in Switzerland and the Bahamas during the Bush tax cut years that Obama is now having to pursue..."

I guess you've forgotten that the Dem money base has exceeded the GOP money!

I guess you also missed the stories during the Bush years where Treasury went after the the big advisory firms (Peat, UBS, etc) for the offshore tax shelters? Since you missed that, I guess youalso missed where the court system said treasury over-reached on their case, too.

Hey, while we are just yakking, let me add and elaborate:

**Your comment on corporations not getting screwed by our system lacks intellctual understanding. We are in a global economy, and our system has given our corporations a tax rate that is second highest of the 36 "industrialized" coiuntries. Sounds like a screwing to me. And yet, we are all so amazed that we have a jobless recovery (if there is a recovery at all).

Your total lack of grasp of the tax code in entertaining, but it really highlights said lack. The tax breaks to move offshore are not breaks at all --- they are an attempt to avoid having our companies being completely non-competitive when they compete with comaponies in other countries. Oh, let me add here that the US gov (strongly under Clinton, I will add) pushed companies to compete overseas ny particiapting in the laws of local contetn that our European allies demanded. The tax "break" you refer to merely insures that a US company doing business in, sat Spain, dis not competing at such a severe disadvantage that they go broke doing so. Those of us in actual business term this "fair".

**The loss of factory jobs is a natural event --- we have turned into an information and technology based economy. This movement started under Carter and the whipping the Japanese firms were giving us in manufacturing. Over the following 25 years or so we let the Asian market build large machinery (in some cases, whole buildings that were actually a machine), such as SMT lines, and we bought them and used them for light manufacturing in our tech industries.

In other words, heavy manufacturing as a growth industry in America is dead, and will stay dead, and basically from an economic sense that is a good thing. This is the natural transformation that goes with radical innovations via technology and the term for it is "constructive destruction" [also called creatiove destruction]. This phenom has been the major contributor to productivity and improvements in our economic stability that has put the US at the top of the hill in productivity throughout the world.

**You wrote "..ECONOMIC INCENTIVE to take risk is exactly what almost destroyed our economy. There was so much immediate economic incentive that Wall Street totally ignored the risk.".

Are you aware of basic laws of economics? Have you heard there was a credit panic? Have you heard of the risk/return relationship? Have you heard of capitalism? Have you actually researched our economy to understand what happened (if so, you would be aware it is very, very complex) or did you just listen to Arianna again? If you did study it, you would be more aware that our capitalism is, in fact, not "true" in that government involvment via regulations but, more importantly, direct intervention via NGOs and political threats createsa "capitalism" that is almost such.

Your disnmissive comment on economic incentive, though partially true, does ignore all of the other factors affecting the economy --- you left out political gaffes, global influence (remember, the entire world almost collapsed), lack of undersatanding by regulators and, yes, lack of regulation in some areas and too much in others.

Here are some more ---- this is a big one: You left our national debt! Ba Da Bing!!!!!

Oh, oh ---- you also left off monetary policy and the free money the Fed created to buck up the political actions related to mortgages, especially those related to the community reinvestment act (there is that wacky Jimmy Cricket Carter again!). This monetary policy, still in action, will eventually bury our economy. Then you won't need to worry about economic incentives--- there will be no economy!

Let us also note here that Wall Street did not ignore the risk at all. In fact, they leveraged it and insured it! Of course, now we are approaching one of the major factors of the hit we took, but that will take pages and hours!

Dan D ---- can you add your two cents as a tutorial on this?

The following quote is from the Sunday "wag" shows:

Asked about President Obama’s visit to the House Republican retreat in Baltimore, Maryland last Friday, Congressman Ryan said “I think it was great. I'm really happy he came. It was refreshing. It was a good start. That's the first time I and just about every one of my colleagues have had the chance to have a policy conversation with the president. I've never talked policy with him before. So that was fantastic. 2009 was a year of sort of one-party domination, jam things through. Let's just hope that this is a new year of getting things done.”

Does anyone else find it frightening that a sitting President, especially one that promised change and bipartisan work, took a year to actually meet the top GOP officials from the House?

Hey, wingnuts!

Did anyone catch Prof. Laffer the other day? He was asked about stimulus programs in an interview, and he had some great data, to wit:

If the same amount of stimulus money had, instead, gone into a tax holiday, the entire country would have had no personal, no business, no payroll taxes for 1 year and 9 months.

Waddya think THAT would have done for the economy?

Dan:

Your link wouldn't download, it just froze up. Maybe you can just tell me what it was about? I'll trust that you're not BSing.

This is what I have seen: the rich have ALREADY BEEN SHELTERING THEIR INCOME. This isn't a result of higher taxes, they were doing this for years under the BUSH TAX CUTS too! Geez louise, Dan, can't you understand that human nature is such that people are going to shelter as much income as they possibly can regardless of what the tax rate is?

And your defense is the rich won't put money into plant expansions? Most of the rich don't own plants! They are capitalists, they make money on money, that's it! And of those who do own plants, most of those plants are already operating in foreign countries. Why in the world would anyone expand a U.S. plant when they get tax breaks from our government for moving their industries offshore?! America lost tons of manufacturing jobs during the tax friendly Bush administration! It trickled down alright--into Mexico, India, China, Hong Kong! NOT the U.S.

It's the small businesses that reinvest in jobs and infrastructure here in the U.S., and they are the ones getting screwed by our current system, not the corporations. They are the ones who lost lines of credit and couldn't operate, whose health care costs and taxes are so high they can't afford to expand and hire more workers as they would like. And look at all the billions that was hidden by the rich in illegal offshore accounts in Switzerland and the Bahamas during the Bush tax cut years that Obama is now having to pursue. None of THAT money ended up being returned in the form of infrastructure or job creation. It wasn't even taxed at the Bush friendly rate, it was simply sheltered.

And the ECONOMIC INCENTIVE to take risk is exactly what almost destroyed our economy. There was so much immediate economic incentive that Wall Street totally ignored the risk.

You need to stop worrying so much about the rich, they take far more from this country than they give back and will do just fine either way. And they know it too, THAT'S why they're not complaining.

And if you don't stop distracting me with all these sides issues, I'll never get through the GOP health bill. That's painful enough.

Dan:

Remember how I posted earlier that I thought Fox News cut away from Obama's Q&A with the Reps early because it was showing him in too good a light? In case you didn't catch Jon Stewart last night, here it is:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

My absolute favorite part:

CNN carried it live start to finish. MSNBC carried it live start to finish and more than likely replayed it at home using the slow-mo button with their pants off. And Fox, they carried it live--for awhile.
"We're going to cut away because this is against the narrative that we present." Now obviously, I don't know exactly how Fox News is produced. I can only imagine that at some point, they realized that this event violated the prime directive causing what I can only assume is a typically sedentary network exec who packed a year's worth of exercise into one feverish run down the hallway shouting, "CUT THE FEED!!!!"

Gotta love it. Back to slogging.

I would also say that I consult several reputable print sources. I found this article to reflect my impression of the past year VERY ACCURATELY. Please download and read.

http://www.mediafire.com/?l3jkl2oy2im

This is why our country is in trouble. Totay's WSJ asks the question why the rich are not complaining. Simple. They will work hard to shelter their income from higher taxes and pay the taxes that they are required to pay.

But they will also not put money into plant expansions, new endeavors or the like. The extra taxes on these people will translate into lower economic growth. Not theirs, millions of others who would get jobs if these restrictions were not in place.

Obama cannot talk these people into bringing the US out of this economic situation, they need to have ECONOMIC INCENTIVE to take risk.

Dan:

Air America folded, but 99.9 is Chicago Progressive Radio. I never listened to Air America so I'm not missing it.

Most educated people know conservative TV and radio is the "right" way? You better check out these audience demographics before you run around making that claim. Glen Beck's audience is the dumbest by far, but you'd have to be missing a lot of brain cells to waste your time on his crap anyway. Sean Hannity rates somewhat higher, but Fox News has the dimmest following of all news outlets, the knowledge level of their audience rates just above that of morning talk show audiences. Check out "Knowledge Levels by News Source" in the last link. Surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh's audience rates the highest of the four--go figure. Check it all out here:

http://www.quantcast.com/glenbeck.com
http://www.quantcast.com/seanhannity.com
http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

Besides, the liberals already dominate the MSM, haven't you heard?

It's astounding to me that you have talked repeatedly on this blog about wanting to pass totalitarian measures that are in direct conflict with our Constitution yet call alternative ideas unAmerican. I've seen this bizarre disconnect in lots of conservatives. Plan on 7 more years of "suffering". After that you can elect another Republican president on a platform of "real Americanism" then have another war to distract us and funnel billions into the military industrial complex while you ship what remains of U.S. jobs and industry overseas under the label of free enterprise, all the while enriching the top 5% of our population beyond their wildest dreams while eradicating the middle class and perfecting the art of kissing the butts of the huge corporations that will by then be running our government. In other words, you can have a Grand Old Party. Hope this gives you something to look forward to.

Dan:

I just want you to be aware of the sacrifice I am making in slogging through the GOP health "solutions" bill. I put solutions in quotes because I have previewed it quickly, and so far all I see are a lot of claims that everyone can agree with but nothing concrete on how these claims are going to be achieved, but I will persevere for your sake and in the interest of fairness and keeping an open mind. However, I wanted you to know that the opening summary by Boehner was a major turn-off and contains the kind of hyperbole (and you know how I dislike hyperbole) that I try to avoid, to wit:

Fact(?) sheet:

Pelosi's Government Takeover of Health Care this, Pelosi's Government Takeover of Health Care that, Pelosi's Government Takeover of Health Care everything.

And I know common-sense is the new Rep buzz word, Palin packs it into every single sentence. Boehner uses it FIVE times on the first page alone. C'mon people, you're describing policy, not selling Amway products! So far I feel like I'm reading a commercial, and any minute I'm going to get a toll free number and a pitch to call and order now.

Ok, now that I've vented, I feel better. Just so you know.

Also, I found a two-page summary and a document of over 200 pages, but not a 36-page one yet that you mentioned. I'll keep digging.

Since the Scott Brown election, I have dual watched Fox and MSNBC (not totally, but substantively). And I also watch ABC and Meet the Press. So my watching is tilted to the "Progressives" (they do not like the negative view of liberal, notice conservatives do not need a new name).

It is funny. These people are calling for cramming health care down the American's throats, show them who is boss. People might not like what they hear, but they will like the program when they are forced to use it. Amazing.

Axelrod feels that it is the obligation of the opposition to occasionally vote for their opponents. HUH!?!?!!

I was looking for Air America, can't find it. (I know, they went bankrupt and shut down.) I will check 99.9. Curious why people listen to conservative radio and TV? Because most educated people know that is the right way.

Liberal tv and radio is losing, because their ideas are unAmerican and simply do not work. But we will suffer as long as they and BO continue to try.

Dan, I actually have to agree with Wt on a point. You should listen to Reagan, Hartman, etc. on the "progressive" radio station (99.9). It is quite enlightening, to say the least. They have no interest in being fair or balanced, and I have never heard them let an opposing view on their shows. The fact that Wt thinks neither is into "into all the conspiracy theory and nutty stuff like the far right" is quite telling. Give the station a listen, Dan, and be prepared to laugh. Sadly, the hosts don't realize how comical they are...

Dan:

By "she" I'm assuming you mean Arianna Huffington? You bet the paper is far left, I would even say progressive, but here is what many conservatives on this blog don't seem to know. "Far left" does not mean they support Obama. The far lefties are the Progressives, and they are just as critical if not more so of Obama that the conservatives. The conservatives are freaking out about Obama's "socialist" and "Marxist" agenda. The progressives are seriously pissed that Obama is too "centrist" and not pushing the progressive agenda far or fast enough. Try watching Ed Schultz on MSNBC; he's not called the "Limbaugh of the Left" for nothing. Or Ron Reagan, Jr. (yep, the Gipper's son is a Progressive!) or Tom Hartman on Chicago Progressive Radio. They are not into all the conspiracy theory and nutty stuff like the far right is, but they are just as brutal in making their disappointment with Obama known. In fact, the Progressives, who usually vote democratic, stayed home on election night in MA recently to send a message to Obama that unless he stopped being so centrist, they were not going to support him anymore. Have you ever heard of Emily's List? They urged their members to stay home and not cast their votes for Martha C. either. The progressives staying home is attributed to part of the reason Scott Brown won, and the liberals are beside themselves.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier in encouraging you to branch out more. If you just stay in a conservative bubble and get all your info from the same sources all the time, you're missing a lot of other things that are happening out there. That's why I'm all over the place with sources, I don't disregard ANY source just because of the direction it leans (except for fringe hate groups, those people are seriously disturbed).

So don't be so quick to dismiss the Huffington Post just because it leans left and you don't. I watch parts of Fox even tho I'm not very conservative. If I didn't, I wouldn't feel qualified to have an opinion about them. Besides, there are Obama bashing articles in the HuffPost that I'm sure you'd enjoy.

I will download the link you provided and read it, but I won't be able to get back to you until much later tonight. And c'mon, let's stop with the "plantation owners" and "master" and "control" stuff. This is hyperbole that only serves to inflame emotions, not inform, and distracts from rational discussion and the sharing of opinions and ideas. Deal?

It has been obvious for years that economists, business, and government leaders can't agree on what is best for the economy. The only way to see what works is to see what worked in the past. Tax cuts have been proven to work, massive tax hikes have been proven to destroy the economy. Dan's ideas have worked before; why would they fail now?

WT,

You have to get a better source than huffingtonpost. She is EXTREME left wing and her web site does not back off. No objectivity whatsoever.

I thought I would send you a link to an article or two from the Wall Street Journal about Davos. But little was really discussed at this meeting. In fact, the issue with the meeting was that famous dignitaries such as Angelina Jolie did not attend as in the past.

My summary, by the way was to keep short. But you will find MANY with real economic backgrounds that would support the plan. One editorial comment. Obama (and democratic "plantation owners") like to have programs where they control the disbursement of the money. People should say, "Thanks Master". My program on FICA does more and takes out the Democratic "control" from the payment.

Lastly, for all of your comments about the party of no, please read their proposals. You can download the 36 page (not 2,000 pages of BS) from the following web site:

http://www.gop.gov/solutions

Take these matters one at a time and there should be 90% support (except from the Democratic "plantation owners").

Dan:

In regards to my last comments about your solutions for economy recovery, I found this article while reading the news this evening. I'm not saying your ideas aren't good, but don't you think you're oversimplifying the problem a bit? If THESE people can't agree on a solution, what makes you think you've got it all figured out? I'm not saying this in a mean way, but it can't be as simple as you make it sound. There is probably a lot more issues at play than you realize, and given the economy's fragile recovery state, caution is paramount. Read on:

Davos Forum Ends with No Consensus on How to Improve the Economy

DAVOS, Switzerland — The world's foremost gathering of business and government leaders wrapped up a five-day meeting Sunday with widespread agreement that a fragile recovery is under way but no consensus on what's going to spur job growth and prevent another global economic meltdown.

In a group of big egos and many power players attending the annual World Economic Forum, there was even some humility and a realization that overcoming the first global financial crisis is uncharted territory.

At the same time, Sands said, everyone must have "a degree of humility about what we actually know, and how confident we can be, that the ideas we're going to put in place are going to have the consequences that we thought they were going to have."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/davos-forum-ends-with-no_n_443604.html

Dan:

A lot of good points. I read anger and bitterness into your last post because that's how it sounded. I'll start here:

"On one hand, there is never a problem with pre existing conditions as long as you get your medical coverage from an employer plan. For all of these plans, the cost of the preexisting condition is spread in the premium." Agreed. That's the benefit in having an employer plan. They take you as you are.

"A person loses their job and exhausts their COBRA."

This is an aside, but many people who lose their jobs never go on COBRA. COBRA can be prohibitively expensive. Most people who lose their employee coverage thru job loss can't afford COBRA premiums on unemployment benefits, so they skip it entirely and go straight to Medicaid or to taxpayer funded state run health programs like we have here in Illinois. So COBRA is not utilized as much as you think.

"In this case, they now have to qualify for private coverage. Ok, let them in. What should the premium be? But states limit premiums, so people are denied coverage. How should this cost be handled? The Republicans want all people who do not qualify for regular health insurance to join Medicaid. A neighbor tells me this is what has happened for his family members that are high medical risks. For an anti-government guy, this is a bad alternative."

Really, I'm surprised to hear that. The Republicans want to increase the role of the nanny state by putting people who are rejected by the private sector on the government tit? And then they complain about expensive entitlement programs and want to end them? Help me understand, because this makes no sense to me. It does sound like the Republicans first priority is protecting the profits of the private insurers by dumping care of the costliest patients on the taxpayers.

"The second case are the young people who feel immortal, they do not need medical care. They do not join their employers plan to save a couple of hundred dollars. They do not buy alternative insurance either. Then they get cancer or something dramatic. Now they want full insurance coverage. My position, tough. Take a loan from the government for the costs."

TAKE A LOAN FROM THE GOVERNMENT?! I can't believe you said that! This would be just another form of welfare, or the nanny state stepping in, that you're so opposed to. No one in the private sector would give a cancer patient or anyone else with a catastrophic illness a loan to pay for their medical treatment. Why? Because there is a very good chance these people will not survive to pay the loan back! They may not survive the short term much less a 30-year period like you propose. Doesn't matter what their chances of a successful outcome with treatment could be, they are a very bad risk. WHY WOULD YOU REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LOANS TO BAD RISKS THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR WOULD NOT TOUCH? We'll end up with another huge government subsidized loan program with a huge deficit that will have to be paid with taxpayer dollars just like Medicaid. Not a good idea, Dan!

So we're back to square one--how do we cover the cost of health care for all without raising premiums?

"Should there be some risk pool for all insurers to pay into to cover this cost?"

Perhaps, but won't the cost of this just be passed on to consumers in the form higher deductibles or co-pays or other costs if insurance companies can't raise premiums? The goal is to stop runaway health care costs overall; premiums are just one part of the problem.

"Another question, if somebody has a heart attack, why doesn't the insurer at the time have to pay for all heart problems until the patient recovers or dies? If you have an auto accident in 2006, the insurer covering you at the time makes all the payments even if you change insurers."

Yes, the car insurer makes all payments related to THAT INCIDENT just like medical insurers do. Like two car accidents a year apart are treated as separate incidents, so are medical claims. A patient can successfully recover from one heart attack but have another at a later date if he does not take care of himself just like someone can recover from one car accident but have another at a later date if they continue to drive carelessly. If this is not what you mean then please explain further. Otherwise I'd have to side with the insurance industry on this one.

But you're insisting there are alternatives to eliminating pre-existing conditions that just aren't being discussed in committee. Okay, then let's come up with some. The government loan idea was a bad one. Let's hear another. I really don't think there are a lot of solutions out there that are purposefully being ignored. I do believe this problem is a lot more convoluted than many of us think.

"Your comment to vote for something that is 20% bad is ok. NO. NO. NO." That is what George Bush did for six years. It allowed this mortgage mess to grow, that is the main problem in our economy to this day. It allowed government spending to increase, the second largest problem, the deficit. In retrospect, he should have vetoed all of these bills and let the government shut down. . . . so what if government shut down. We would not be where we are today. That is why you cannot support poor plans."

No, we certainly wouldn't be where we are today, things would be a lot worse. Our government would still be shut down. Look, I admit you have a point in general. We shouldn't pass plans that are obviously bad, but poor plans don't always appear poor in the beginning. Not everything that has happened in our economy in the last 10 years can be attributed to that 20% bad that was allowed through. And you can't make the claim that everything would have been wonderful if Bush had shut down the government rather than compromise with the Dems. Our government would not function at all without compromise. This is the all or nothing thinking by Reps that Obama was referring to--if it's not 100% my way then it's no way for no one. Not only is this NOT DEMOCRACY, but it assumes that one group has ALL THE RIGHT ANSWERS. One group does not have all the right answers for all the people. What you're talking about is a kind of one party totalitarianism. And you call this an AMERICAN solution? You I have must have very different notions of what constitutes democracy. Democracies are messier without a doubt, but I still prefer it to totalitarian regimes.

"Money to hire government workers hurts the economy, does not spur growth." My understanding is this part of the stimulus was not intended to spur growth but to curb unemployment until the economy improved. In a lot of instances it's done that.

"In 18 months, unemployment will be back to 5%, our economy will be growing at 5 to 6%, and asset prices, particularly homes, will be back to 2004 levels." I'm not an armchair economist, I'm not going presume I know better than the best minds currently working on these problems. I do know that cause and effect is not always linear as your statements indicate, and without a crystal ball you have no way of knowing for sure how proposed solutions will work out. That's why so many good sounding ideas turn out to be disasters in practice. Like O said, these kind of statements make for great politics, but unless we have experts in the field agree it is workable and could actually improve the situation rather than make it worse, it's just boilerplate.

WT Don't read anything into a couple of paragraphs (unlike some in the past). I am open and welcome new views on ideas. That has been the cornerstone of my personal success. The country needs this as well.

Two points. First, the committee process. There was NEVER real debate. Take the cornerstone issue to the insurance problem. Pre existing conditions.

On one hand, there is never a problem with pre existing conditions as long as you get your medical coverage from an employer plan. As long as you stay covered (something like 60 days), you cannot be denied coverage. In my case, my new company created a plan and the costs and benefits are the same as a major Chicago bank. No issue.

For all of these plans, the cost of the preexisting condition is spread in the premium. I will tell you that my small plan is subject to greater prices if we have problems. But the cost is worth the comfort. I am not looking for a subsidy.

There are two other problems. A person loses their job and exhausts their COBRA. In this case, they now have to qualify for private coverage. Ok, let them in. What should the premium be? In auto insurance, if you have a bad driving record, you pay a higher premium. In fact, if it is terrible, you have to go on a state assigned risk program.

But states limit premiums, so people are denied coverage. How should this cost be handled? The Republicans want all people who do not qualifiy for regular health insurance to join Medicaid. A neighbor tells me this is what has happened for his family members that are high medical risks. For an anti-government guy, this is a bad alternative. Should there be some risk pool for all insurers to pay into to cover this cost? Another question, if somebody has a heart attack, why doesn't the insurer at the time have to pay for all heart problems until the patient recovers or dies? If you have an auto accident in 2006, the insurer covering you at the time makes all the payments even if you change insurers.

The second case are the young people who feel immortal, they do not need medical care. They do not join their employers plan to save a couple of hundred dollars. They do not buy alternative insurance either. Then they get cancer or something dramatic. Now they want full insurance coverage. My position, tough. Take a loan from the government for the costs. If you survive (and due to medical advances, many do), pay back your cost to society for the next 30 years. You took a risk and lost.

Instead, the committes just said, eliminate pre existing conditions. The impact of this change? Increased insurance premiums. Period.

I have not found ANY of this discussed in committees. What I have found is that EVERYONE will be forced to buy the same insurance so that the insurance companies will spread this cost to everyone. That is why the insurance companies did not complain. By the way, their rates were not limited.

On the Stimulus bill, you ACCEPT that the $300 billion state bailout is ok stimulus. Well you drank BO's cool aid. I do not. This component of the stimulus bill was bad.

Your comment to vote for something that is 20% bad is ok. NO. NO. NO. That is what George Bush did for six years. It allowed this mortgage mess to grow, that is the main problem in our economy to this day. It allowed government spending to increase, the second largest problem, the deficit. In retrospect, he should have vetoed all of these bills and let the government shut down. End the subsidies to Fannie and Freddie back in 2003 and they would have stopped making mortgages. Then we would not have the mortgage issues we have today. Stop the wasteful governement spending that the Democrats forced him to pass in his last two years and deficits would have been lower. Do not pass TARP and let Goldman Sachs work with AIG to settle their claims rather than get a 100% payment from the Federal government. The fall of Lehman only hurt the crooks that did bad business, the rest are getting record bonuses from Barclays.

He should have simply said NO and so what if government shut down. We would not be where we are today. That is why you cannot support poor plans.

And last, BO is doing the same bad things Bush did, only at a larger level. So our economy will not improve. Money to hire government workers hurts the economy, does not spur growth. Penalizing ALL banks instead of the worst hurts our economy. That is why unemployment will stay at 10%. These liberal programs dont work.

Want to see an improvement in the economy? Here is a short plan.

1. Extend the Bush tax cuts.
2. Give all employees making less than $100,000 a payroll tax holiday (in other words, exempt the first $100,000 from FICA, then make the next $108,000 subject to the tax).
3. Eliminate capital gains taxes for two years (there are not many capital gains out there anyway).
4. Cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20 to 25%.

In 18 months, unemployment will be back to 5%, our economy will be growing at 5 to 6%, and asset prices, particularly homes, will be back to 2004 levels.

But what is not debated on this is that tax cuts to people making $50,000 ($500 in income taxes) will NOT improve the economy. But that is all we here about. Obama is afraid of an AMERICAN solution (since it is touted by Republicans and disdained by the far left). But if he wants success, he needs to change.

Oh, one more change. Drop the health care for one year. BUT, implement the reduction of waste in Medicare NOW. If there really is $500 BILLION in savings, SHOW US THE MONEY. We need that to stop Medicare, a socialistic single payer Federal plan, from going broke. Show us a real first step and then let's talk.

Dan:

Now specifically regarding some of your comments:

"The Congressman from Utah asked about C-Span. Obama replied that the majority of the bill went through the various committees for 8 months and Republicans were being picky."

That's not what I heard. So I looked up the transcript. Here is Obama's word-for-word response:

"Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process -- just over the course of the year -- overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which guys were participating.

I mean, the -- how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? Countless hearings took place.

Now, I kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including your key leadership.

What is true, there's no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the Capitol trying to figure out how to get the thing together, that was a messy process. And I take responsibility for not having structured it in a way where it was all taking place in one place that could be filmed.

How to do that logistically would not have been as easy as -- as it sounds because you're shuttling back and forth between the House, the Senate, different offices, et cetera, different legislators. But I think it's a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/obamas-qa-with-house-republica.html

Obama says nothing about Republicans being picky. Obama is talking about logistics, not Republicans. And Obama wasn't asked about the meetings with pharmaceutical companies and the union, so how can you claim his answer was BS? He was talking about the various meetings between legislators on the Hill. He answered the question that was asked. I also know a lot of the health care debate was on C-SPAN. I tried to watch it a couple times, but it was just too slow and boring to stick with. I went back to reading about the main points in the news. And Obama takes responsibility for not having a centralized location where all these individual meetings could have been filmed. So I don't think your criticism about this is valid.

"Most of the commitee process was bogus." How can you possibly know this? You weren't there.

"If he would have split the Stimulus plan into say five pieces, Republicans could have voted for a portion of one or two (the infrastructure, corporate tax cuts). But not the entire bill."

This is exactly what Obama spoke of doing going forward:

"It can't be all-or-nothing one way or the other, all right? . . . If there's uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn't get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it's going to be hard to get a deal done. That's because that's not how democracy works.

So my hope would be that we can look at some of these components parts of what we're doing, and maybe we break some of them up on different policy issues. So if the good congressman from Utah has a particular issue on lobbying reform that he wants to work with us on, we may not be able to agree on a comprehensive package on everything, but there may be some component parts that we can work on."

"This portion of the plan was was a local government BAILOUT. Just like GM and Chrysler." It may have been to some local governments, but not all. And if it was to some, so what? A stimulus is a stimulus. But since Reps have such a hard time with compromise, Obama is willing to break up legislation into components to make it easier for Reps to support only what they want. Okay?

What a surprise. Both President Obama and our resident liberal want the Republicans to treat him like his fellow Democrats never tried to obstruct everything that the Republicans put forward during President Bush's tenure. I'm sure that if the Republicans fall for the whole bipartisan act, the Democrats will do the same when a Republican president is elected. I also believe I'm going to win the lottery...

The only reason President Obama wanted the whole session televised was so he could do what he did, act like the Republicans were at fault for the mess he and his party have created in the last year. Both he and Wt just can't admit that the Democrats had the power to do anything they wanted...and failed. He didn't remind me of a principal lecturing recalcitrant students; he reminded me of an executive caught with his pants down trying to pass the blame on to someone else.

By the way, Wt, the Republicans never promised to broadcast everything on C-span; that was one of your hero's many broken promises. I agree that the Republicans won't repeat this exercise in futility any time soon, as it was quite obvious President Obama was only interested in making himself look good, and his opposition look bad. I'm glad that the Republicans showed respect for his office by remaining civil, something the Democrats never did when President Bush occupied the same office. Anyone who observed this event with any honesty came away with another snapshot of the presidents arrogance.

Dan:

You sound bitter. C'mon, I didn't get bitter when Scott Brown won MA and everyone on this blog was popping champagne corks. I think your bitterness and anger is excessive for the situation.

I think both sides were being polite, and I was glad to see it. One of the commentators remarked that the Republican leadership gave the caucus a talking to before the Q&A and told them to behave themselves and be respectful. They didn't want another Joe Wilson "you lie" event or other boorish behavior displayed across the nation. And O was probably restraining himself as well. He could have nailed a lot more people than he did for dishonest statements and hypocritical behavior. I think the reason he let a lot of it slide was because he does not want to antagonize the Reps, he wants to mend fences.

You talk as if the Reps hold no responsibility, that they're all voteless victims. They are not, far from it. Everyone knows the conservative Democrats are to blame as well, this has been common knowledge for months. But at this event, BHO was addressing the REPUBLICAN CAUCUS. He was talking to them about THEIR behavior, not the entire Senate's; he was answering THEIR questions, not everyone else's. That's why his remarks were directed to and were about THEM. And many times he did acknowledge the Democrats for engaging in the same destructive behavior as the Reps did. O was careful NOT to single the Reps out for this, which was more than fair.

I think it's childish to keep pointing to the conservative Dems and saying "yeah, but" this and "yeah, but" that, and "they started it" etc etc. Everyone is an adult, both parties should start acting like it. And that includes the Reps taking responsibility for the role their own behavior plays in how they're treated by the Dems. Several times during the Q&A Obama sounded like he was the only adult in the room, that's why I felt like I was watching a bunch of kids getting lectured by the principal. Obama's parental role speaks to both the pathetic state of our politics and the regressive mentality of our elected officials on both sides.

I heard that Fox News dropped the last 20 minutes of the Q&A. It did run overtime but the other stations broadcasted it in it's entirety anyway, so if you watched it on Fox you missed some of the best parts. I think Fox cut it short because it was putting Obama in too positive a light, I really do. I tuned in to Fox briefly; they weren't dissecting and discussing the event like the other stations were. Hannity was interviewing The Cable Guy. Okaaaay. What does that tell you?

And Rep aides are now saying it was a mistake to broadcast the Q&A like that. I heard the Reps only wanted O's comments at the beginning broadcast, they wanted the Q&A behind closed doors. So much for the Reps wanting to expose THEMSELVES to the sunlight. Obama only agreed to do the Q&A if it was broadcast as well. I have a feeling we had better treasure this experience; I don't think the Reps will be eager to repeat it anytime soon.

I think the Republicans were being polite. Two examples.

The Congressman from Utah asked about C-Span. Obama replied that the majority of the bill went through the various committees for 8 months and Republicans were being picky.

Now that is total BS (as reflected on this blog). Greta van Sustram chastised this guy for asking why the meetings with the pharmecueutical companies were not conducted in the committees and instead with the White House staff. What about the meeting with the unions?

We all know that the a major portions of these bills were not discussed and debated line by line (how could they with 2000 pages). They were all crafted in back room deals. Most of the commitee process was bogus.

The second was when he preached on his Stimulus plan. He specifically referenced the $300 plus billion for state and local governements to hire teachers, expand unemployment benefits, and other factors. Again, total BS. This portion of the plan was was a local government BAILOUT. Just like GM and Chrysler. If he would have split the Stimulus plan into say five pieces, Republicans could have voted for a portion of one or two (the infrastructure, corporate tax cuts). But not the entire bill.

Let's face it. The Democrats controlled the Congress including the Senate Fillibuster limits. They could pass everything BO wanted. But many of them to not want it. So blame the conservative Democrats and the Republicans, the MAJORITY of the Congress. A majortiy CAN block Presidential initiatives.

So put out plans that the MAJORITY wants and don't chastise the Republicans for voting against him, it is their perrogative. The fact that the liberal leaders in Congress will not allow bills that the MAJORITY would support is not a Republican fault. Too bad Congress is not Majority LIBERAL Democrat. Tough.

BHO had a Q&A session with the Reps yesterday, hope a lot of you caught it. It was interesting because many of the things we've been debating on this thread were discussed. While watching this, I had the feeling that ALL OF US had been called into the principal's office for a lecture. Great stuff!

Dan:

Regarding the second half of your question, "but the same goes for when and why the provision (requiring voters to be landowners) was eliminated."

I couldn't remember how this exactly came about; my impression was that it just kind of petered out, that new amendments and laws were enacted over time that gradually chipped away at it. I did a quick search and found this. Hope it suffices:

"Property restrictions gradually disappeared in the nineteenth century. Tax-paying requirements replaced property ownership, though they too waned after the 1820s. By the 1850s, most economic barriers to voting had disappeared.

Some Americans hoped the Constitution would clarify, unify, and perhaps expand voting rights nationally. It did not. Hayden wrote: "Under the constitution, then, the breadth of the right to vote for both state and national elections was fixed by state law. And at the time of ratification, this meant that many people—including most women, African Americans, Native Americans and propertyless white men—could not vote."

By not addressing the suffrage issue more broadly, the Constitution's authors fostered a long-running battle over voting rights. This struggle lasted well into the twentieth century, forming a focal point for the civil rights and women's rights movements."

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm

Dan:

Thanks for explaining more. I'll keep in mind in the future that when your posts are quick and to the point it's because you are rushed for time, not that you're being curt.

I am touchy, I agree. It's a result of others that fault me for being quick with my sword taking the first blow with theirs. Perhaps as the climate on this blog becomes less hostile that will change.

I'm sure you're aware there are a couple of different schools of thought on what the framers really had in mind when drafting the constitution, our government of checks and balances and the electoral college. We know they were members of the elite class, educated and wealthy, whose members at that time comprised only about 10% of the population. Weren't more of the framers lawyers than any other one profession? And they individually owned A LOT of land. In fact, by the framers' definition of who should be allowed to vote, I don't even think most middle class homeowners today would qualify, as their criteria also excluded white male property owners of modest means. We know they did not think the average working man was educated or responsible enough to know what was best. We know they feared the mob rule that would result from a true democracy, which is why we're a representative democracy. And we know they also did not want the Constitution to empower the have-nots which far outnumbered them to be able to seize their land. I can't say I blame them.

So were the framers a small and powerful group of elites who held a disproportionate share of the country's wealth and so drafted a Constitution that protected their own interests, or were they high-minded, selfless individuals looking out for the greater good? The answer depends on which paradigm you favor, I suppose.

I also think there are a large number of citizens, both conservative and liberal, who really aren't educated or involved enough to cast a responsible vote. They were there in colonial times, they're here today. But to disenfranchise these people, as the framers sought to initially, is a slippery slope once we're on it. The potential for abuse by those in power is obvious, which is why we can't in good conscience go there.

"Can a small majority (52%) vote in governments to give them a free ride?" I know the framers were concerned about "rabble rule" and so arranged our system of government in such a way as to have numerous checks and balances along the way that could stop this from happening. But if the majority of have-nots gets a lot bigger, I don't know.

WT

You revert back to brandishing the sword that others fault you.

My question, quick in the middle of my work day (that is very full) was what was behind the intent of the constitutional writers by requiring voters to own land. I should know my history better, but the same goes for when and why the provision was eliminated.

Don't confuse the matter with women suffrage. That was a separate issue and their were constitutional changes to address that issue. For the first 100 years of our country, women did not care. When society changes, when women weren't slaves (and I mean this figuratively, not in any mean spirited manner) and could participate in society, it changed.

And I am not a sole "land owner".

We are at an interesting turning point in our society. Almost 50 percent of citizen's don't pay taxes. Ok, they pay FICA, but they also want social security benefits. And they are trying to eliminate these taxes as well. Can a small majority (52%) vote in governments to give them a free ride? Imagine being a land owner in Zimbawee. No negotiations. Just kill you and take your land. Are we going to turn over the US to a welfare non taxpayer group? Do we become slaves?

In thinking about this concept, it brings me back to what our forefathers had in mind. They left the debtors in Georgia. The new ones were imprissoned just like England (it was really more of a house arrest, these people would go to their jobs, they were just denied the right to stay with their family and went to a cell until they reclaimed their right to return to society.

While I don't necessarily agree with Dan, his point is pretty clear: If you don't pay taxes, you don't vote. Nothing about having to be a wealthy white male property owner, or even wealthy or a property owner.

Having worked in a high welfare occupied area on an election day and listening to a car with a pa system blare out "Vote today or the Republicans will take away your benefits", I can kind of agree. I hate to see our country run by those dependent on the welfare vote, but I also hate to see it run completely by the wealthy either (although it pretty much is now). I don't think taking away the right to vote from welfare recipients is fair, but I would like to see a lot more requirements of those same people.

Dan:

Slow on the uptake again. I'm not really sure what you mean by "so you will feel good" in that comment. Do you mean I'm being politically correct or that I'm getting a charge out of being generous in believing that all citizens should be able to be part of our political process despite race, sex, or wealth? Not sure, perhaps you can explain more.

It sounds like you are implying that you're one of these people who believe we should stay true to the original intent of the framers of the constitution who just happened to be, not surprisingly, white male property owners like yourself? Don't you think THAT view is more than a little self-serving? Can you honestly tell me you would still think that way if you were anything other than white and male?

I'm sure you know the history of voting in this country, how white males over the decades imposed things like literacy tests, poll taxes, white primaries, etc., in an attempt to keep ethnic groups, immigrants and the poor from having a voice. These acts weren't out of a concern for the integrity of our government. These acts were intended to keep power in the hands of a certain class of people who could then have a government that would only be representative of THEIR interests. I doubt very much this is what the framers of the constitution intended either.

To the point about paying taxes to vote

Is your position the intent of the framers of the constitution or how you change their positon so you will feel good?

Dan:

Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake. Now I get what you mean by the house comment. No, I did not lose my house when the economy crashed, or at any time, for that matter. When we moved to Naperville 10 years ago, we bought our house on a 15-year mortgage. We'll own our home in 5 years free and clear because we have no second mortgages or other liens against it. So no, my comments on this subject are not based on self-interest.

And I agree with your comments above--yes, amazing, we agree!!--and with Bauer's basic point, even tho the way he framed it was awful. Social programs that give out benefits requiring nothing in return from the recipients tend to enable the dysfunctional behavior that put them on government assistance in the first place. And it continues not only for them, but they pass these behaviors on to their children, creating the cycle of dependence we have now.

So yes, I think it's about time we make people give taxpayers something in return for supporting them. I think drug testing is a good idea. If a parent tests positive, give them the resources and time to clean up their act. If they don't, put their children in foster care and stop their payments. If they want to be drug addicts, they shouldn't be doing it on the public dime, and it would be a better use of money to support their children in foster care and get them out of that kind of environment.

Same with requiring parents to attend parent/teacher conferences. Not PTA meetings, tho. I support the PTA but I don't even go to their meetings. But attending parent/teacher conferences if a child is doing poorly in school is a reasonable expectation. A child shouldn't be required to get good grades to get free lunches, but there should at least be documentation that the parent and child are working toward improvement. Many parents that are on government assistance got that way because they didn't value their own education, so it should be no surprise that they don't value their children's education either. If the system doesn't try to change this, no one else involved will.

I know what the bleeding hearts will say, I've heard it and you probably have too. But the children are the ones suffering the most now anyway, in addition to society as a whole. Enforcing standards may be problematic at first but will lead to improvement in the long run.

I disagree that citizens should be required to pay taxes in order to have a vote, however. People shouldn't be stripped of their status as citizens because they're poor, just like they're not stripped of equal protection under the law because of inability to pay. The government is for and by ALL the people, just not the ones with money.

WT

I think this blog has fizzled out. But I will address you and Bauer.

Where does the Constitution say that people get welfare or safety nets? Couldn't strings (conditions) be attached? If those conditions are violated, you would be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties? If you want to avoid those penalties, you will do whatever the government asks? Obama has been doing that with TARP to the banks, why not to people taking welfare? The banks have paid back the money (now BO wants more), the welfare people just keep coming.

Let's be serious here and stand up for accountability. I have to. If I miss a filing deadline, I pay a penalty. If I do not deliver what I promise, I get fired or could be sued.

Your response. These people, like stray animals, do not understand. Well make them understand. And I am not extending these "penalties" to those who cannot help themselves.

And if you violate this contract, you should be criminially charged and most importantly, lose your right to vote. As a child, I did not understand why the constitution had the requirement that you needed to own land to vote. In a modern society, you should be a taxpayer to vote. Again, if you contribute, participate. If you free load, tough.

Only if you get caught!

Psyche:

People can get arrested for removing campaign signs?

Uh-oh . . . .

Dan:

Because all of your suggestions, whether to the extreme right or left of this issue, would be unconstitutional. Heard about that thing, the Constitution? Sounds like you'd enjoy living under a despotic government. In a developing country. We may have one right here in the U.S. It's called South Carolina!

http://www.thesunnews.com/politics/story/1276344.html?storylink=mirelated

I'm not saying Bauer is entirely wrong, but he could have made his point in a MUCH better way.

"You took the get your house in a lottery pretty negatively." No, I didn't take it seriously.

The following video SHOULD be a top story of this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CjsDaTuXyA

In the last election cycle, a Democrat candidate was arrested for doing the same and taking down a political sign in Lisle.

The same should happen here ---- it should not matter that it is GOP on GOP crime, or that teh Chairman of teh local committee is involved.

Fair is fair!

to wt

You took the get your house in a lottery pretty negatively.

Why not a safety net like in the 1700's--send all the debtors (another word for failures in society) and send them to Georgia. That state might be too good, maybe Kansas or somewhere off the beaten track where they would be isolated?

What's wrong with that safety net? Cheaper and people would have incentives to work not to be subject to it.

Dan:

Forgot to ask: what do you mean by "Touched a nerve, lose your house"?

Dan:

It all is a matter of where you draw the line, and I would be willing to toughen standards somewhat, depending on which safety net we're talking about, the amount of suspected fraud involved in it, whether it's enabling people to continue to be dependent rather than just helping them through a hard time, etc, etc. This can all be up for discussion and revision. But I would NEVER support ending all safety nets across the board; I believe this would severely damage our societal structure.

Look at countries that have few to no social safety nets, Mexico and India, for example. If Mexico had better safety nets for its people, they wouldn't be streaming to the U.S. and Canada illegally in such large numbers. The poverty and squalor the poor live in is unimaginable by American standards. Children, the old and the sick beg everywhere, corruption in government is institutionalized and crime is rampant because people are so desperate. I DO NOT want to see America become like Mexico or India. And Mexico and India are considered industrialized countries, just like us. I think you need to take a long look at what an industrialized country with no social safety nets looks like before you advocate so strongly for ending ours.

To WT

Touched a nerve, lose your house.

Two points.

1. Why stop with the safety net? This way, you never have to worry about anything.

2. This would be the ultimate centerpiece of the "share the wealth", stick it to the successful (now the banks are in full target by Obama).

It just illustrates where you draw the line. I am right of you, but when push comes to shove, you would side with my plans. I do think they would cost less.

Dan D:

I thought you said you were in favor of social safety nets. Now it sounds like you disapprove of them.

You know, the safety nets that are there for everyone also includes you and your family. Maybe you think you're self-sufficient enough to never need them and thus resent paying for them, but you really don't know what the future will bring, do you? You pay for health and car insurance and go for long periods without making claims on those. The safety nets of Medicare, Medicaid, social security, unemployment compensation, etc, are a form of insurance that would be available to you and your family as well if you needed them. I really can't understand why some people say they would prefer to live in a country where those with food, shelter and medical care begrudge their neighbors the barest amounts of these things needed to survive.

A little bit of socialism is OK, Dan, it's what allows us to be a SOCIETY. Look at the history of human development. Ancient people formed tribes for security and protection because relying on one another increased everyone's chances of survival. Our society now is no different. We're generous with other disadvantaged people, like those currently in Haiti, because we are well-fed and comfortable. Make us hungry and uncomfortable, the generosity decreases. Make us starving and desperate and we'll turn on each other to survive. A civilized society, much less a prosperous one, would be impossible if we did not have social safety nets. Without them, the U.S. would be just like any other second or third world country.

We can certainly disagree on the form these safety nets should take and how generous they should be. But I honestly think you would not like what our country would be like without them.

Another dishonest post by Wt. I guess it is hard for liberals to tell the truth, even when they are caught in a lie.

Another take on this "safety net"

If we need to make sure everyone gets the minimum by taking money from the responsible people, why stop with Social Security and Medicare?

Why not send all salaries to the Federal government and let them dole out equal amounts to all people?

Housing. Take away everyone's house and have housing assigned by a lottery every ten years. You can go from a 3,000 square foot Naperville home to a 1,200 square foot apartment.

This is the problem we have. WE have let a "little" socialism creep into our economy. Whey does it become everything?

Another twist to the finger story lies in the underlying bases of our healthcare system versus those of, say, Europe:

Ours is a technolgy-based system, while those in Europe are based on primary care.

The result? Louie has the option of re-attaching fingers because ot technology (developed long ago, of curse). The same goes for complex heart procedures, and nerve re-attachment procedures, etc. [Note to all:no need to point out htere are wonderful procedures available around the world --- Switzerland comes quickly to mind. My point is that our system tends to be the "think tank" for a overwhelming majority of medical technology. Oddly, it is often developed here than goes over to Europe because our FDA is oft too political to allow its intro into society)

The twist? The tech allows the possibility, but the availability may be more pervasive in Europe versus here!

The conflict here is that we have a great system here that is always at the leading edge of the technology, yet availability is oft hindered here do to cost.

One piece of the argument I have picked-up is whether or not we give up the edge on tech just to have availability? If so, ofer a series of years our healthcare will become inferior, yet available to all.

Quite a quandry!

Anonymous ONE:

"I think having a say in where our SS money goes is a pipe dream that is great to talk about, but can not be implemented successfully."

I agree.

"And as for four finger Louie, One side of me says that here is a guy that apparently could afford health insurance but is classified as someone without insurance. I guess my taxes are supposed to help him out? The other side of me says geez, here is a guy deciding whether to reattach a finger based on the cost of the operation - a sad situation."

Your last statement is the one Moore was focusing on, that it's a sad situation that in the U.S. Louie had to go without a finger because he could not afford the cost of reattachment. But I focused on his "there goes the new car" statement. This told me he could have afforded some kind of coverage but had that money earmarked for something else he wanted instead. I don't feel sorry for Louie for going without a finger, that was his choice. But here is the bigger problem: Louie had a choice about the finger because IT WAS NOT A LIFE-THREATENING CONDITION. If Louie had presented at the ER with chest pains and it was determined that he needed a quadruple by-pass, he would have gotten it immediately. It's the law and should be: no one should be denied life saving medical care based on ability to pay. But if Louie couldn't pay several thousand for a finger, where is he going to get over $100,000 for a by-pass operation? He won't, he would have undoubtedly defaulted. And the cost of his by-pass would have been recouped by the hospital in the form of higher medical costs, and the insurance companies would have recouped these costs in the form of higher premiums. So Louie would have gotten his by-pass courtesy of his fellow citizens, you and me. Those of us with insurance pay for those who don't, one way or another. That's the cycle we can't get out of.

FOR THE RECORD:

I emailed Chris last night and told him sorry, I was just having fun. I can't help giving Ken a tweak now and then, it's so EASY to do. I will try to restrain from further rabble rousing in he future.

Dan D:

Re: O's past relationships, I think you're being too harsh. Ayers and Rezko and White and all of that stuff was hashed and rehashed during the campaign, and there was nothing there the opposition could latch onto. If there had been, you can bet they would have. My understanding is the land deal was scrutinized, and so was the bank loan at Northwestern Trust. Nothing illegal or underhanded occurred on O's end of things with the land deal. The special interest rate for the mortgage is nothing new, banks have always given special courtesy rates and perks to people they deem "celebrities". And as far as Rev. White goes, I've never attended black churches. For all I know, all black ministers throw out this kind of rhetoric which addresses their parishioner's feelings of victimization in white society, who knows. I really think that if you're looking to find fault and discredit someone, you can make a negative out of ANYTHING.

This is what amazes me about all the fuss made about O knowing Ayers socially. Ayers is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar. He has worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in shaping the city's school reform program, and was one of three co-authors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge proposal that in 1995 won a five-year, $49.2 million grant for public school reform. Back in 1997 Chicago awarded him its CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD for his work on the project. And since 1999 he has served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation.

That's quite a resume for a terrorist. So I'll ask you this: why is it no one cares about UIC employing him as a professor or awarding him high honors, no one cares that he is TEACHING STUDENTS at the University (indoctrinating more future terrorists, perhaps?), no one criticizes Daley for working with him or Chicago for making him Citizen of the Year, or the fact that Ayers had a role in shaping the curriculum of Chicago schools. Everyone is OK with Ayers doing all that, and no one accuses Daley or the University of Chicago or the Chicago School Board of "paling around with terrorists". But Obama stands in the same room with Ayers, and that automatically makes O a terrorist? Do you see how irrational this is? Obama didn't seek Ayers out, the guy was impossible for Obama to avoid in the Democratic community even if he had wanted to. If you want to criticize someone for associating with a terrorist, criticize UIC for employing him and Daley and Chicago School's for working with and awarding the guy. IT'S ILLOGICAL TO CONDEMN OBAMA FOR CROSSING PATHS WITH SOMEONE CHICAGO SOCIETY BOTH ESTABLISHED AND VALIDATED LONG BEFORE OBAMA ARRIVED.

Back to the iron fist thing--you would really think it just for an 18-, 19-, 20-year old kid to be imprisoned with killers, sex offenders, gang members and other serious criminals, for not having car insurance? You really think these crimes carry equal weight?

But I do agree we've gone too far in the other direction, we are too soft on irresponsible behavior. I think it's because irresponsible behavior doesn't carry the intent to harm like crimes do. If someone else is harmed, it's usually a by-product of irresponsibility, not the intent, so it seems courts go easier on these kinds of things.

Given your experience with an uninsured driver, here's a story that will probably make your head explode: My husband's sister lives in Los Angeles. A couple years ago, she bought a new car. The car wasn't brand new, it was used, but it was new to her. Her insurance company told her she had a 30-day window to put the new car on her policy. Well, she got busy and forgot to do this. Several weeks later, she was hit by another car. She was not injured, but her car was totaled. When she contacted her insurance company, they informed her the 30-day window had passed without her adding the car, so she wasn't covered. And here's the kicker: the driver that hit her was uninsured himself. He was an illegal alien. When the cops arrived, he was cited for a moving violation, and that was it. Of course, the guy disappeared afterwards, probably never paid the citation either, and she could never find him to pursue a claim for damages. Here's what amazes me: the guy should not have simply been cited and let go. He should have been ARRESTED AND DEPORTED! But police officers don't have this authority, there was nothing they could do. Ain't that America.

The "By Anonymous on January 20, 2010 11:46 PM" was also wt?.

I was the "By Anonymous on January 21, 2010 2:23 PM" post, not Ken.

WT?,

Regarding social security savings, there have been previous attempts to set aside some of the social security portion of FICA(6.2%) One attempt (I think) had 2% out of the 6.2% being set aside and allocated whereby we could decide where it went (mutual funds, etc.). The remaining 4.3% would sit in whatever government holding pot they currently use.

One of the obstacles to this of course is which mutual fund company gets all the business? Or is it run by the government, which in essence puts the government in the finance business.

I think having a say in where our SS money goes is a pipe dream that is great to talk about, but can not be implemented successfully.

And as for four finger Louie, One side of me says that here is a guy that apparently could afford health insurance but is classified as someone without insurance. I guess my taxes are supposed to help him out? The other side of me says geez, here is a guy deciding whether to reattach a finger based on the cost of the operation - a sad situation.

Three Finger Louie

I have three reactions. First, it is a medical miricle that fingers can be reattached. Thirty years ago, once the accident happened, he became three finger louie and that would have been the end of the story. Americans have the best health care.

Second, the whole medical pricing issue is at the heart of our insurance crisis. Rush Limbaugh brags about getting a good price for his hospital visit, less than if he had insurance. But every time a hospital sends out a bill, they show their "best" price. Fortunately, insurance lowers this price by 50 to 75%. This is the price I have to pay for deductables and co-payments.

The hospitals say this preferred pricing is due to the volume the insurance companies bring to the hospitals. Complete BS. Imagine if Wal Mart said they would give you a 10% discount if you used their private label card. Maybe. But a 50 to 75% discount?

So three finger Louie was inevidately quoted ridiculous prices.

Third, Three or Four Finger Louie made his choices. I did not see the movie, but the guy has not jumped off a building. He has to live with them. Again, this happens to be the American way. And the consequences of his choices are tough, just like I advocate.

As to funding social security, two thoughts. First, the government is not setting aside the 6.5% for our future. So we are all at risk. Fifteen years ago the Japanese faced the same situation. They had a vote, two choices. Cut penions by 50% or increase taxes by 150% (from 8% to 20%). The outcome, penson costs were dropped.

Take a very conservative view. If a person had invested just their 6.5% portion for 40 years (age 25 to 65)--say on a $50,000 salary and earned 5%, they would have $392,000 by age 65. If they continued to earn 5%, they would have a salary of $31,000 for another 20 years. By this time in life, living costs (except health care) are lower, no children, limited or no mortgage, etc.

All of this money would be invested helping our economy grow. And if you needed more, you would work longer to save more. Let's face it, the market losses from 2001 and 2009 have eroded everyone's pension plans. So early retirement is out, need to work longer. But this is not a bad thing since we need the boomers to work longer or our economy would fade.

Your policy works fine, put the money away or face a major fine and JAIL. And the fine and taxes would be invested for you in the "government plan". I marvel at a government plan. Illinois has a government health plan--Cook County Hospital. Go to the hospital, wait for the gun shots and other severe cases, no private rooms, wards of 20 people. Just like a third world country.

When I was young and hospitalized, I did not get a private room, my uncle had to spring for the TV. Americans have lost their way in responsibility. Worst yet, everyone feels they should have the same entitlements no matter what their economic position. This is still not true and people should just learn to accept the facts. But if everyone worked to improve their lives, the disparity would not be great.

One final thought. With this health care legislation, a major effort in all of the drafting was to prohibit people from contracting for better services. This undertone once again points to Obama's "share the wealth" attitude. If the poor cannot have a private room, NOBODY can have a private room. Whats next? Limitation on housing to 900 square foot apartments? Joe the Plumber got it right. Rather than let people lower in the food chain work to improve their life, Obama and his extreme left cronies want to take everyone down to the lower levels.

This is not a right in the Constitution and if continued to be pursued, will destroy the country.

By Chris:

"If all you people are going to do is attack one another I'm going to stop posting them. This is getting juvenile.

I agree that it is juvenile, Chris, but I hate to be falsely accused by a known liar. I'd appreciate it if you would confirm that I did not post the anonymous 1/21 2:23 comment to show Wt is wrong, as usual. I am more than willing to drop it if she will quit lying.

Oops! Anonymous on January 21, 2010 6:42 PM is me. :}

Anonymous ONE:

Maybe Dan will answer when he gets the time, I'd like to hear his opinion on your question as well.

In a perfect world your idea would be a perfect solution. People would be required to save for retirement and could chose whatever vehicle for this that suited them. This would also keep the sticky fingers of our politicians from using these savings to offset government overspending. But in the world we have, many people would see this as the government overstepping its authority into meddling in the private lives of its citizens. Taking money out for retirement in the form of a payroll tax is one thing; forcing people to do the saving themselves is something else. I think this would be intrusive. Plus the market could go south and take everyone's investments with it. The government would have to guarantee people's savings like they do with banks.

Since you didn't see the movie, here's what happened to Three Finger Louie. He went to the ER with the two fingers on ice. If he had had insurance, they would have reattached both, no questions asked. But since he did not, Louie was quoted a price for each finger. One was several hundred to reattach, the other was several thousand. Guess which one he had reattached? Yep, the cheaper one. So he's actually Four Finger Louie to this day. He chose to go without a finger rather than pay thousands to reattach it. And I wonder if he still got his new car? If he did, he's driving it around with four fingers and no medical insurance. What do you think about those priorities?

By Anonymous on January 21, 2010 2:23 PM

To all:

Please note that wt? AGAIN shows her hypocrisy in her baseless attack on Ken (1-21-2010 1:23 pm), as she herself did the exact same!!!

See "Anonymous on January 20, 2010 11:46 PM" -- I guess she is trying to get an audience and piling on herself.

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

Another anonymous post by Ken! And this time by Ken about Ken to . . . Ken?

This is getting creepy.

That's too funny, WT. I accidentally forgot to enter my name, just as you did on 1/20/10@11:46pm, and you accuse me of some nefarious scheme. What was your nefarious scheme for posting under anonymous to blast another poster? I noticed that I had forgot to put my name on that post, but thought it was fairly obvious that it was me, and therefore no need to post that it was, in fact, me. Please point out any other post where you thought that I tried to hide under anonymous as I usually state it was my mistake unless the post is obviously mine. This is just another one of your personal attacks, trying to make it look like I lie just as much as you do. I have been posting here for three years and never have tried to hide who I am. Again, since you think this was a ploy, what were you trying to accomplish when you posted as anonymous?

To Annonymous,

There are various illustrations of a negative income tax. The version I learned works like this.

A minimum income threshhold would be set. Let's focus on an individual, but the concept would work for other family sizes in a similar manner.

Minimum Salary for single individual $24,000

If a person made no money, the government would send a check for $2,000 per month.

In order to create incentives to work, employees would not lose funds for increases over the minimum. For example, if someone earned $12,000, the would not lose $12,000, but instead $4,000 to $8,000 (losing $1 of benefit for every $2 or $3 of income). The tax structure would create an incentive to earn money and reduce reliance on the tax. The benefit would phase out at $48,000 and at that point, people would start to pay taxes.

One other feature. All other social programs would be eliminated. Not food stamps, no unemployement insurance, no welfare, no medicaid (people would have to buy insurance). With everyone "guaranteed" a minimum level of sustinance. The costs of the payments would offset the payments to be made under the new program.

It has been noted that of all government transfer payments (that would be eliminated) only 34% gets to the intended recipiant. The other 66% goes to the bureaucrats and waste. These people will lose their jobs, reducing government workers.

Even if we break even, we have people looking for work or settling for the low salary. Over time, no more escalating payments for Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs.

People make the choice, not government. That will help our economy.

To all:

Please note that wt? AGAIN shows her hypocrisy in her baseless attack on Ken (1-21-2010 1:23 pm), as she herself did the exact same!!!

See "Anonymous on January 20, 2010 11:46 PM" -- I guess she is trying to get an audience and piling on herself.

This is great! Now Ken is posting under Anonymous in order to get an audience. I'd read a few anonymous posts before that sounded like him, but this confirms it. I knew he would take the bait. Pile on, guys . . .

Dan D.,

Can you explain/describe what a total negative incomce tax is?
I am unfamiliar with the term.

wt?,

It is truly sad that your dogma prevents you from respecting and acknowledging the views of others. You don't need to agree, but your rude, crude attacks on those you disagree with are misplaced and juvenile. Example: You discount the three I mention because they are "conservatives" to be rallied against you. Perhaps, and just perhaps, I see them as rationale people with coherent thoughts?

Yes, I see you as a prototypical uber-liberal -- You attack and insult people, then when they get tough back you cower and evade. There was no rage in my posts, but there was a large dose of "back at you". Unfortunately, it appears you can give but not take. Sorry to over-estimate you.

Per our little arguments:

Doc titles:
I have conceded to you HOW MANY times now that I accept your point that most docs don't use both titles. I have even conceded that your definition applies. I AM a patient at the place in question, and I am telling you I have seen both titles on nametags, especially where multiple specialties are held. Your nagging is exceptional in its harp-like quality. Either you cannot read or you cannot let go! Are you familiar with the expression “time to move on”?

The letter:
This is your argument, not mine. I see it as non-existent. I was clear that I rec'd the letter on email. This is no mystery. As I said, I thought it was more genuine than it is (look at Snopes [yes, that is a website reference, use it if you want] it's iffy, but not totally debunked). I never called them facts --- you did. Again, I called them "tidbits and teasers". Nothing was hidden. As you hopefully know, the letter was written/posted prior to the completed HR3200.

The item you refer to on ACORN was clearly a comment from the author and not part of the bill. I do not think it is a stretch to include ACORN under the general category of “Community based home medical service”, though it is NOT spelled out as such in the bill (either one). However, as usual, your bombastic over-reaction was uncalled for and out of line. As for illegal immigrants being allowed to get healthcare, I repeat that I have full confidence that the current wording will allow healthcare to illegal immigrants insofar as the writers of the bill blocked an amendment by the GOP to include a “checking” action to determine legal status. In short, a person would just have to say they are legal to receive care!. You disagree. So what? At this point, to call it false or misleading lacks intellectual heft and is antagonistic (inflammatory in your speak) as it is open to interpretation.

Concerning health care, I would advise that you not only read the bills, but also read as many interpretations from BOTH sides of the argument on them. See what YOUR take is (not Nancy’s, Harry’s factchecks, or Snopes, or mine). When I read the House bill it was only about 1000 pages ---- now it is up to 2400!

However, a better use of time at this point is probably to just wait ---- it appears that there will now be MAJOR changes to whatever we will be hit with (the Brown effect)

[TB, Ken, Dan D.--- I would appreciate your thoughts per my three questions:

1)Is it my imagination, or does every single discussion which Whatthe? joins turn into an nasty altercation?

2)Is it not whatthe? that virtually always throws out the first personal insult/attack?

3)Does whatthe? appear to indicate that she can read minds and understands the personal motivation of every other poster on the thread? (ie “you knew it was inflammatory…”)

I would like to know if I am to harsh with her.]

So it is true ----- wt? really can't read.

So sad.

Anonymous 1/19, 6:38pm, I have to agree completely with your post, both about Wt, and the interpretations offered by factcheck.org. Even the example she posts just says that illegal aliens won't get credits for buying insurance, not that they will be denied it. Personally, I think we should give the illegals treatment, and then immediately deport them. That would solve a lot of problems.

In answer to your questions, Anonymous:

Ken, Dan D., ----- I am asking you to provide your views on the following questions:
1)Is it my imagination, or does every single discussion which Whatthe? joins turn into an nasty altercation?
2)Is it not whatthe? that virtually always throws out the first personal insult/attack?
3)Does whatthe? appear to indicate that she can read minds and understands the personal motivation of every other poster on the thread? (ie “you knew it was inflammatory…”)

1)Yes, unless you completely agree with her, she bashes you or ignores you. She also seems to think that her posts are private messages, not to be read by those not addressed, even though this is obviously a public opinion board.

2)Definitely. What is most amusing is that she constantly tries to claim that she will only debate, not fight, but has the most bellicose posts on this and many other threads.

3)Again, definitely. Just as every poster that doesn't agree with her must listen to Beck, Hannity, Limaugh, et al.

This statement by Anonymous also is true:

You are so sure that oyu are right in every interpretation and opinion that you have a lead ear to all others.

This is true of Wt even when one posts facts. In fact, that is why she made the grand announcement that she would not debate me anymore. I posted numerous facts in another thread proving her wrong, and then asked why she bothered to debate if she refused to acknowledge the facts posted and backed by links. She said that she would not debate me anymore because I said it seemed a waste of time to debate anyone who did not acknowledge facts. This is nice for me, as many of her lies are now directed at others and I don't feel the need to personally respond to every one of her numerous lies. However, she fails to realize that her cone of silence style of debate and constant lies (like her claim that only 4 of the 48 claims were true when her own source disagrees with her) show that she is only capable of using the Democrat talking points and has no real intelligent thoughts of her own.

I have to admit, though, that reading the empty rants of someone who managed to marry rich is amusing, so for that I thank her. One takes humor anywhere one can get it...

For BO's past relationships, I agree with you except for one little fact. That land deal was VERY WRONG. It should be investigated and it has not been. And at the same time, BO was able to get a mortgage from Northern Trust at almost 1% below the going market rate. What is behind that situation?

And before leaving character, notice how the guy cuts and runs. You mentioned that you had two people in your past that you had to disassociate from. I think I have had some as well. But Ayers was a neighbor and and a social acquaintence. Maybe only occassional. Same for his racist minister. He was a member of that church for 20 years.

He should have guts and say--"Yea, I knew the man, sat on a board where he (Ayers) paid me over $100,000 for three to five years, yes, I went to a church headed by a rasist." Call it like it IS. Instead, he is a MAJOR COWARD.

And again we do have a different opinion. Why not a more Iron Fist approach? If my son did something wrong, he would suffer the consequences. Has too. Otherwise he would become a dead beat like the ten to 20 % of the people we are talking about. It's like the President in 24 turning her daughter in for murder.

Tolerence of poor behavior increases poor behavior. That is the cornerstone the the US society that we do not see in many other countries.

But get back to the guy with no insurance (the total damage was $1,500, but that man was also drunk). I think a contributing problem was his economic situation. If we had my "total" negative incomce tax, he might have been more responsible rather than drowning his misfortune and making matters worst. The Reverand Wrights of the US should be preaching to their deadbeat parishners to get off their butts and start producing rather than blaming all of their problems on white people.

One more thought. We need to decide what freedom is. The best definition that I learned in college is as follows

"You are free to do whatever you want until you infringe on the actions of others."

Using this definition, you can be a deadbeat until you take resources from others. You can drive as reckless as you want on an open road, but not crash into others. So on.

When we get back to some basic issues, nothing supports a Socialistic Nanny State. Why not try to be BETTER?

Where do Illinois drivers without insurance come from?

* Other states send the police to confiscate the plates from your car if you don't turn them in when you have no insurance, not Illinois. Since the State of Illinois is a total failure in this area perhaps the City of Naperville should start a trend and send the NPD to confiscate plates for cars with no insurance.

* Part of the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama policy (funny how the names change but the unpopular policies remain; if not the people who do the FEDs work for?) of flooding the country with virtual slave workers who might vote for them; is the millions of drivers with no license or insurance. A huge part of the uninsured problem is the total failure of the FEDS to defend the borders and internal enforcement.

* The other game that the politicians play in Illinois is the sub-standard insurance carriers that insure people who shouldn't be driving with insufficient coverage. This forces everyone else to buy more coverage from their insurance company, I wonder how much the insurance companies pay the legislature to keep this game going.

Basically, if you don't buy the optional collision coverage from your own company then file the claim through them, which makes your rates go up; the sub-standard company, with the help of the courts, stiffs you on your claim.

Its a fair bet, that the name brand insurance companies and the fly by night insurance companies both pay off to Springfield to keep the insurance scam going.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By What the? on January 21, 2010 1:07 AM
"What if that driver without insurance had been your son? Kids do stupid things. Would you still say lock 'em up and throw away the key? He's not unemployed or a deadbeat, is he?"

Dan D.:

About O's past, everyone has one, and everyone crosses paths with those types at some point or another. I've had people in my life that I've had to cut loose because they turned out not to be what I thought they were or because they did something underhanded. It's a part of life, O's is no different. None of his were a big deal.

I haven't looked for this information on Summers and Reimer. If I find anything, I'll get back to you.

"The rest of your post basically says some people cannot handle themselves, so we have to submit all people to bad programs. And if we didn't, there would be more irresponsible people and even more cost to us responsible people." Yes, that's how it ALWAYS turns out. We pay for the bad and irresponsible behavior of others by paying part of our income to taxes which are then used to build and maintain prisons, give drug and alcohol abusers rehab and counseling, help support their families while they're incarcerated, pay their legal expenses, on and on. This may be Nanny Socialist Policy, but that's how it's done around the world.

Perhaps we are too soft on irresponsible people, but debtor's prison and an iron fist rule will never happen here; this kind of severe, oppressive authoritarianism is antithetical to a "land of the free".
Let's personalize this a little for clarity. What if that driver without insurance had been your son? Kids do stupid things. Would you still say lock 'em up and throw away the key? He's not unemployed or a deadbeat, is he?

I think it is better to plan for the bad decisions of others than ignore they will happen. It's not fair and it sucks, but the number of people who do these things are to large in number. If we try to ignore them, they'll still take care of themselves, most likely by victimizing US. Either way, we'll be paying. I'd rather pay on the front end to prevent a mess instead of paying to clean it up.

To Anonymous on January 19, 2010 6:38 PM:

There you go, raging and attacking again. Just answer the question, Anon!

You lied about seeing doctors using redundant titles at Western Suburban Internists. I posted a link to their website and physician directory as proof that they don't. I also posted a link to factcheck.org which confirmed your health care interpretation post as a chain email only containing 4 TRUE FACTS OUT OF 48, written by an unknown author, not a doctor, so I was correct about ALL that, too.

It appears I've established which one of us was REALLY full of crap.

If you have a problem with the factcheck statement I posted, take it up with them, I cut and pasted that summary directly from their website. Here is their complete statement on the illegal alien claim:

"Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs."

Go to their website where they discuss each claim individually:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

As to the rest of your post, I was being polite, not sanctimonious. And now you're rallying all conservatives--"hey, let's pile on the liberal!!" What, you can't handle me yourself? You need help?

I've already told you I was not offended by your earlier meltdown, but now your bullying and personal attacks are getting tedious. Find someone else to fight with.

P.S. I will give you credit where credit is due. Those are some great links and helpful tips to negotiating the health care bills, and I look forward to plowing through them. Maybe if you choose to behave better in the future, we can discuss it then.

WT-Putting out lots of info.

I think you see my point about the economists. And Reich is not a true economist, rather a lawyer who is spreading propaganda and not sound theories. You don't hear that information from Sommers and Reimer. Interesting?

And I listened to Reich's spiel on the public option. What happened to competition and economic options? I find a public option as being the option of LAST resort. Cook County hospital. Public clinics.

Obama has some questionable pasts. I think the Tribune focused on his relationship with Rezko going back to his days at Harvard Law. He tried to recruit him and the law firm he joined did significant business with Rezko's firms. To this day nobody questions how Rezko (through his wife) bought a lot for $500,000 and sold a 10 foot portion to Obama making the remaining lot worthless (Rezko cannot build a house on the remaining lot). And all of the sleaze associated with Alinsky and those type of people. Not the high road.

The rest of your post basically says some people cannot handle themselves, so we have to submit all people to bad programs. And if we didn't, there would be more irresponsible people and even more cost to us responsible people. I call this the Nanny Socialistic Policy.

I totally reject this thinking. We should not penalize responsible people for irrersponsible people. Take auto insurance. I feel that a person who does not have insurance and has an accident should be personally and criminally liable. They would lose all of their assets to pay a claim and should have at least one year in jail. I was hit by what turned out to be an uninsured driver and he suffered no penalty. My insurance company and myself had to pay instead of him. I doubt that Jesse White revoked his license.

Instead of the Nanny state, we should have the iron fist state. Take and risk and lose, you lose everything including a potential jail sentence. And the people who would be put in jail are probably unemployed and dead beats anyway. They are holding back our society and probably belong in jail. Bring back the debtors jail.

I know few people who have taken unemployment insurance. When they left a job, they takc care of themselves. In short, two mottos or quotes.

1. God helps them who helps themselves.
2. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

We end up paying something for nothing to maintain the nanny state. We should end this situation.

Dan D on January 19, 2010 5:44 PM
I would like safety nets, but people should be able to pick their net (and consequences). I have long felt that I would be better off without social security. If I could just keep my 6.5%, I would earn more than Social Security will pay me. So I will continue to subsidize. I detest people who say we MUST take social security. There are others who need social security, but why hold back the best to appease the worst? Same for Medicare. Let people take their share of the pot and contract for alternative health care.
_______________________

Dan, I agree with you and saw that WT? addressed this issue as well. I wanted to change a few words around and see if it meets your approval. I agree with WT? that human nature is such that most (not all) people would not take the 6.5% and invest it in something with the intention of it being used for retirement. Like "Three Finger Louie" in the Michael Moore film (sorry I didn't see the film, and made up the 3 finger part). People would probably spend the 6.5% on cars, boats, etc. And then we would be stuck with senior citizens without even the social security benefit.

I would, however, suggest that the 6.5% be automatically deducted from my pay like an IRA / 401K plan etc. but give me the power to decide where it goes, i.e. mutual funds, bonds, etc. This would guarantee that the same amount of money is still taken out, I wouldn't be able to blow it, but would have the choice where it gets invested.

T.B.:

"As to the personal attacks, I speak up against attacks I believed are directed at me. I don’t think it’s my place to police the threads, nor do I have the time to do so."

Yet you took the time to police me. I have not personally attacked you, T.B. You took ONE comment I made about some "people" in general, not you, and misinterpreted it as my having called you stupid, and I have already explained to you multiple times that this is not what I meant. This perceived slight really pales in comparison to attacks made by others here, wouldn't you say?

It would be nice to see at least an attempt at fairness. If you seriously want an honest and civil debate, I don't think this is asking too much.

I know our tax system is currently progressive. Those who have the most pay the most, or should be. As long as the majority of our nation's wealth is held by a small percentage of people at the top, that's where you're going to see the highest percentage of taxes paid. I think your figures speak very well to the disparity of wealth in our country.

I believe what Dan is talking about is discontinuing ALL forms of entitlements in favor of a negative income tax structure, not adding one, like the EITC, to the entitlements we already have.

"And I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that Congress doesn’t want to raise taxes on the rich because that’s where the campaign cash lies."

I don't either, that's why I posed it as a question.

"The Dems seem to suggest a higher tax rate at every turn, especially for the rich. It was laughable that in the health care bill they touted the tax on Cadillac health care plans but then ran into trouble on that tax from the unions, not from the “rich” campaign contributors!"

No kidding. I don't think the unions saw THAT one coming. I wonder if this had anything to do with the Rep victory in MA? (another question).

Top Stories?

Republican drones will re-elect very liberal Judy Biggert to the Congress and she will be provided with financial backing and support from the National, State and local Republican parties.

Judys record:

Strongly pro abortion

Provided one of the last votes for TARP, a total fraud which bailed out the financial institutions which she is supposed to guard dog.

Sponsored unconstitutional and anti free-speech "hate speech" legislation to muzzle people who don't agree with her activist Gay agenda. Free speech criminalized if you don't agree with her, the work of a tyrant. Want to be Senator Kirk also supports this tyrannical legislation.

Big government, aka micro manage the plebs from DC track record.

Continues to sit on the House Banking committee who was the facilitator for the deflationary depression we are in with their social engineering housing programs run out of Fannie and Freddi with Goldman Sacs and the other "investment banks" making billions in bonuses for peddling bad paper on a global scale. 1 in 5 Americans now unemployed as a direct result of the failure of the Banking Committee.

Kirk, Biggert and the rest of the big spending, big government social-liberal, pro abortion Illinois Party Apparatchik Republicans are the reason I will not contribute one penny to any of the Republican Party organizations. My money goes directly to candidates, not parties.

Well, Wt, you may be able to truthfully claim obstructionism in a few days. I hope that the Republicans don't change the way the Democrats used it for 8 years, and have the same success as the Democrats did.

Dan D.:

I don't think these economists are idiots, either. But I don't think they would compromise their professional reputations just to have a job with Obama. Here is a short video of Reich speaking in support of the public option:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-lessons-from-history_b_279389.html

So maybe us non-economists don't fully get their theories, but many critics of "trickle down" said the same thing, and the Reps are still supporting that, aren't they?

This is why I don't think these economists are being disingenuous: it took my husband 11 years to get his professional degree. That's a big chunk of one's adult life. Plus he has a 25-year reputation that he takes VERY seriously; these guys don't sell out at the drop of a hat. And that's what you're claiming they have all done, that they don't really believe what they're advocating but do it anyway. I don't think that's the case. They may be mistaken, but I don't think they're deliberately BS'ing the American people for Obama.

"Obama's only link to corruption was Tony Rezko who he knew from his law school days. He picked an outsider who became the most corrupt insider."

Thank you. This is the sanest clarification of this situation that I've ever heard on this blog.

"I would like safety nets, but people should be able to pick their net (and consequences). I have long felt that I would be better off without social security. If I could just keep my 6.5%, I would earn more than Social Security will pay me."

In principle, I agree. I also think I could invest that 6.5% to get better returns than the Fed Gov will give me. But here is the kicker working against us: human nature.

Did you see Michael Moore's film "Sicko"? I'm not promoting it, I certainly don't believe everything he claims in it to be true. But what caught my attention in this film was one case history he illustrated about a wood worker who cut off two of his fingers on a table saw. This man did not have medical insurance, and he said that as soon as he realized he'd severed two fingers, the first thing he thought was "there goes the new car." Really, rent the film and watch it if you haven't. This guy says he just cut off two fingers, there must have been blood all over the place, and the first thing that goes through his mind is "there goes the new car". Moore never addressed this statement in the film; namely, if this guy could have afforded payments on a new car, then he could have afforded the monthly premiums for health insurance. But he chose to forego buying a health insurance policy because he wanted to use the money for a new car instead. This is the "human nature" problem I'm talking about.

In a perfect world where everyone took responsibility for their own welfare, people would be able to pick their safety net and live with the consequences. But here's what many people do instead: rather than use the money they have to buy a safety net, they choose to use the money for luxuries: a new car they've been wanting, or a vacation, or even a college education for their child. Health insurance is NOT an immediate need for most people until they get sick or injured. Many people choose to use their discretionary income for things they ENJOY rather than what they SHOULD HAVE.

So when these people get sick or injured, they drive in their new cars to the emergency room. They will be treated, that's the law. Chances are the bill will be astronomical and they won't be able to pay it in addition to their car payment, so they default on the hospital bill. The hospital then recoups these losses by jacking up the cost of services for everyone, and when insurance companies have to pay more for these services, they raise our premiums to recoup their losses. Don't you see, the buck stops with US; WE, the insured, you and me, end up subsidizing everyone else who chose to live large with their money rather than buy health insurance.

That's why your model of allowing people to buy their own safety nets will not work. You can reduce taxes so people have the income to buy their own safety nets, but giving them the money to do so does not guarantee that they WILL. And when they don't, you and me will continue paying for them through higher premiums, and the costs of health care go up and up and up . . Do you see the problem?

And how about that MA election? There is definitely something rotten in paradise!

Chris,

Where are the links I posted for wt????

I was outside this evening at about 8:30 pm filling the birdfeeders when I heard a really loud BOOM! It sounded a lot like the sonic booms we used to here in teh late 60's. I

I ran inside and turned on the television to make sure it wasn't an attack of some sort.

Low and behold! It was actually the sound of large, foundation cracks appearing in the progressive left agenda in Washington!

The big story of the year is Scott Brown!

To TB and anon

A $4,000 Earned Income Credit is no where near a negative income tax. And remember the other part of the equation, you DUMP all support programs.

A 5% program is destined to be a bad program.

SCOTT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD!!!

THE BACKLASH IS COMING!! THE BACKLASH IS COMING!!!!

THIS LOSS HAD TO BE GEORGE BUSH’S FAULT!!!!!

LET’S FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS IN ILLINOIS!!!!!!!

I remember being bummed out when Jimmy Carter won. Obama is dead. We do not have to endure four years. Keep it coming!!!!!!!

I would agree with TB that we already have a negative tax via the EIT.

I also agree with the fact that we already have a high;y-progressive tax system (I think I am close when I say that out of the 36 "industrialized" nations, we are 35th worse with Japan as 36? Anyone out there have the exact data?).

The question becomes "How much CAN you take from one segment of society, especially when that segment is the one that actually creates wealth and jobs?"

WT?,

Don't be so sanctimonious! You insult and attack, then you get your feelings hurt when insulted back. Really, how about a real debate here instead of your attacks. I seriously find your rants and illogical threads to be unbalanced.

I will be clear as crystal: EVERY FIGHT ON THIS BLOG INVOLVING YOU AND ANYONE ELSE ALWAYS STARTS WITH YOU BEING MEAN, INSULTING, AND ATTACKING ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO EITHER DISAGREES WITH YOU OR DOESN’T GENUFLECT AT THE ALTER OF THE FAR LEFT.

I will ask this question of those who I actually find to be reasonable in the manner in which they provide discourse. So, TB, Ken, Dan D., ----- I am asking you to provide your views on the following questions:

1)Is it my imagination, or does every single discussion which Whatthe? joins turn into an nasty altercation?

2)Is it not whatthe? that virtually always throws out the first personal insult/attack?

3)Does whatthe? appear to indicate that she can read minds and understands the personal motivation of every other poster on the thread? (ie “you knew it was inflammatory…”)

Now, back to wt? --- there is nothing wrong with sponsoring your dogma, I just wish you would own up to it. As an example, your rants on the list from the chain letter address lies, misleadings, and truths. Yet, the example on illegal aliens is a matter of description and understanding, so including it as either a lie or misleading is in itself misleading, thus you are guilty of that which you point your finger at others of doing! You are so sure that oyu are right in every interpretation and opinion that you have a lead ear to all others. The simple fact is that things are often not as they seem and are often open to multiple interpretations. As an example, I fully read the bill to, in code, be allowing for health care for illegal aliens. I also believe it will be scrubbed out in the combined House-Senate bill.

As for Health care links: There are several places to find & read the bills. Below are a couple that I like:

House Bill (HR3200):
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200 --- select the PDF version as the other is a real download pig. The THOMAS text is okay.

Senate bill: [As you are aware, the senate bill is tougher because it is mostly found in a series of pieces.]

http://durbin.senate.gov/healthcare/healthcareBill.cfm and http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf -- from Durbin’s site
http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf --- This website has a large segment (about +600 odd pages) of somewhat random stuff.
http://help.senate.gov/BAI09I50_xml.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/1123/p09s04-coop.html -- this is from a partisan source

Be readily warned ---- I found a lot of it to be bureacratic gibberish, double talk, stuff intended to lose me (it did), and vague references. In other words, it reads like basically any Bill ou politicians create.

WT,

Just compare Obama (supposedly the Dems best) to the Republican best.

I will say I am down, because the country is not going in the right direction. And it was going well for 28 years, very good years for many people who took them seriously.

My comment about economists, they have to know basic theories. I watched Robert Reich try to expouse his "trickle up" economic theory. No basis, but it accomodated Obama's "share the wealth" platform. Same for tax cuts. I think further tax cuts would not generate additional economic benefits except for an elimination of the corporate income tax. On the other hand, cutting taxes for people making less than $50,000 will not improve the economy. Again, it only "share the wealth".

These economists cannot be idoits. So they have the hold their noses when Obama acts. Have to.

Obama's only link to corruption was Tony Rezko who he knew from his law school days. He picked an outsider who became the most corrupt insider.

I would like safety nets, but people should be able to pick their net (and consequences). I have long felt that I would be better off without social security. If I could just keep my 6.5%, I would earn more than Social Security will pay me. So I will continue to subsidize. I detest people who say we MUST take social security. There are others who need social security, but why hold back the best to appease the worst? Same for Medicare. Let people take their share of the pot and contract for alternative health care.

Competition always results in better results. I think we need radical change, not marginal change.

And Bush should have shut down the government rather than collapse to the excessive spending particularly in his last two years.

WT? –

As to the personal attacks, I speak up against attacks I believed are directed at me. I don’t think it’s my place to police the threads, nor do I have the time to do so.

Yes, the Republicans shot down health care reform in the past and are against the current bill. However, I think it’s a stretch to say that both cases were purely about health care reform as opposed to being about a huge expansion of government and the creation of yet another entitlement program.

I hate to tell you, but our tax system is already progressive with the rich paying the most to subsidize the poor. In 2006 (the last year I could find data), the average tax rate was 2.7% for those with an AGI of more than $1 but less than $10,000 and 23.6% for those making between $500K to $100K. Of course, the tax rate is 0% if your AGI is negative.

Also, the top 1% of income earners (positive AGI only) pay 39.89% of all federal income taxes; the top 5% pay 60.14% of all taxes; the top 10% pay 70.79% of all taxes; the top 25% pay 86.27% of all taxes; and the top 50% pay 97.01% of all taxes.

THAT MEANS THE BOTTOM 50% OF TAXPAYERS (positive AGI only) PAY LESS THAN 3% of ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

As for the negative income tax, just look no further than the Earned Income Tax Credit. It can be paid throughout the course of the year as Dan D suggested (Advanced EITC), or as a lump sum when you file your taxes. The max you can collect from EITC is over $4K and fraud in this program is rampant. Yes, a $4K refundable credit …I’d call that a negative income tax.

And I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that Congress doesn’t want to raise taxes on the rich because that’s where the campaign cash lies. The Dems seem to suggest a higher tax rate at every turn, especially for the rich. It was laughable that in the health care bill they touted the tax on Cadillac health care plans but then ran into trouble on that tax from the unions, not from the “rich” campaign contributors!

T.B.

(Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09winbulinincome.pdf)

To Anonymous and FOR THE RECORD:

It looks like I wasted my time forwarding Anon's chain email to fact check; they've already dealt with it. I found it mentioned under their "Whoppers of 2009":

26 Lies" E-mail: Judging from our editor inbox, one of the most widely circulated chain e-mails of 2009 was a lengthy list of 48 claims about specific sections of the House health care bill, complete with page numbers. We combed through every item and found that only four were true, 26 were false and the rest were misleading. At one point the author claimed that the bill contained "more payoffs for ACORN." But ACORN has nothing to do with the medical home services funded by the bill. The author also claimed that illegal aliens "will be provided with free healthcare services," misrepresenting a provision that simply prohibits discrimination in health care based on "personal characteristics." "Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200," A

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/whoppers-of-2009/

So there it is: 26 FALSE, 18 MISLEADING, and only 4 TRUE.

So please, folks, let's keep this kind of crap off this blog.

Dan D.:

Ok, you're focusing on Palin rather than the broader point I was making, so let's skip it.

It's funny, I've had discussions on other threads with Obama foes who claim that since he came from Chicago, he was part of the Chicago corruption machine. In other words, he was fruit of the poisonous tree and was successful because he was corrupt. Here you are saying the opposite, that he was not an accepted Chicago politician, which sounds like a plus to me, and was successful because he got lucky a couple of times. I guess lucky is better than corrupt, but it goes to show how differently we can all interpret the same events based on the biases we bring to it.

You said "it has to be killing Sommers, Roemer, and the other top economists who know that Obama's liberal agenda will not work". Come now, how can you possibly know what these people truly believe? And "But the Democrats would trick up the bill to give poor even more, they like the current system since they get to control people." SINCE THEY GET TO CONTROL PEOPLE? Are you serious? Now you're crossing into conspiracy territory. You do know that welfare as we had known it since Johnson was changed under Clinton to get people out of the dependency cycle, don't you?

Look, my comments about you sounding bleak were not meant to be snarly, it was an honest question. I've been following the Obama discussions on here for quite some time, and nine times out of ten when I ask someone who sounds like you do what their news sources are, it's predominately right wing commentators, opinionists and publications. I get the same response from family members and others I talk to. Your speech is tinged with a pessimism and contempt that's hard to miss. And since this is the same pessimism and contempt that I hear coming from many right wing media sources, I figure it's soaking into your psyche. These guys get paid MILLIONS to say what they're saying, but you're not getting paid millions to listen to it. And you're certainly not benefiting from feeling lousy about things all the time.

I bounce all over the place when it comes to sources, from MSM to cable, Fox to MSNBC, CNN to Comedy Central, Time and Newsweek to the WSJ, Washington Post to NYT, Huffington Post to Uncle Jay, Limbaugh to Ed Schultz to Tom Hartman, anything but fringe publications and hate sites. I like Shep Smith and O'Reilly when he's not bullying his guests, they are more fair than the others on their network. I'm just suggesting MAYBE you should branch out a bit. It may give you a fresh perspective and lighten your attitude. Much of what I hear and read from the right is unrelentingly negative, this has gotta have a cumulative effect if you spend too much time there.

In a previous post you said you were in favor of having safety nets. Well, social security and medicare are safety nets for our elderly. Are you in favor of replacing these with a negative income tax structure or just dropping them and having nothing at all? Why do you think no one seriously wants to pursue a negative income tax? (And no, it's not because the Dems want to control the poor.)

And what do you mean we were on the wrong direction with Bush?

To Anonymous on January 18, 2010 1:40 PM:

"First, the insults: Ever see teh Untouchables and Sean Connory's comment on fights in Chicago? Well, your insults were merely met and trumped."

What you posted wasn't a trump, it was a complete and total "china syndrome" melt down. It said a lot more about you than it did me, which is why I didn't take it seriously. If you continue to do nothing but this, however, then it's clear you're only interested in fighting, and this I won't do.

"The MD/Doc thing - read my last post again --- I accept your claim that it probably is not a regular practice to use the redundant titles ----- I only wanted to point out that many docs do, though (perhaps it is ego). I think this is a dead issue, is it not?"

No. MANY docs don't. I simply asked where at West Suburban Internists you saw this. If indeed you did, this shouldn't be a big deal. In fact, I think you'd be eager to rub my face in it. If your anger really just got the better of you, then just say so, and we'll move on.

"The letter -- I thought is have been clear that I rec'd the letter on email. This is no mystery. I thought it was more genuine than it is (look at Snopes --- it's iffy, but not debunked). I never called them facts --- you did. I called them "tidbits and teasers", as I recall. My question for you is "Who cares? I merely passed it on. I did not sday it was sanscrit. I WAS SHARING, and you went off the deep end, thus our escalating insults."

It's clear now that you posted a chain email, you weren't making this clear before, you were withholding your source. You knew this was inflammatory, it was written to be. And inflame it did. I was insulted that you thought "those of us who are in love with the health care bill" as you put it, would accept something so obviously biased and false as "tidbits and teasers". Chain emails largely consist of false claims and propaganda, so how 'bout we don't post them here. They're not conducive to a productive discussion.

Also, I forwarded your email to factcheck.org., that's my preferred source. I'll check out their website later to see if there's already something on this.

"The bills --- make no mistake. I READ BOTH BILLS. In the House bill, I even went to the medicare references, etc."

Would you be willing to share your links to this?

Anonymous 1:40 and 1:51, you are making a mistake if you think WT actually cares about facts, or the actual health care bill. In fact, she quit debating or acknowledging my posts because I backed my debating up with facts and links, something she rarely does. As she has made perfectly clear, she would rather stick to liberal talking points and name calling tactics along with disparaging the source instead of the message. While her drivel is amusing to read, she wouldn't know a fact if it was placed right in front of her. I know, as I did it many times and it frustrated her so much that she stated she would not debate me any more, and now only occasionally insults me as she knows she would lose any debate.

Talking abut the Health Care bill, the following quote is interesting:

"The bill Democrats approved on Christmas Eve was drafted "in the shadows, without transparency, just to garner the necessary 60 votes and nothing more," as Mrs. Snowe put it in a statement on Sunday".

Think about it -> It took herculean partisan efforts by the Dems to drive off Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, John McCain, Bob Bennett, Judd Gregg, Mike Enzi and other soft-GOPS who tended to vote with Dems on many social issues. Snowe, Grassley and Hatch have oft and long joined the Dems for health-care subsidy expansions that irritated most conservatiove GOP types.

Then there is this comment: "In the post-dawn Christmas eve hours on Thursday the Senate passed ObamaCare 60 to 39, in the first vote on Christmas Eve since 1895 and after the longest consecutive session in Congress since World War I. We are thus heading toward the first U.S. entitlement program dragged across the finish line on a straight partisan majority, a bill that even its most fervent supporters admit is "flawed" but better than nothing"

And ANYONE wonders why there is so much energy against these bills?

WT? on January 17, 2010 10:24 PM,

First, the insults: Ever see teh Untouchables and Sean Connory's comment on fights in Chicago? Well, your insults were merely met and trumped.

The MD/Doc thing - read my last post again --- I accept your claim that it probably is not a regular practice to use the redundant titles ----- I only wanted to point out that many docs do, though (perhaps it is ego). I think this is a dead issue, is it not?

The letter -- I thought is have been clear that I rec'd the letter on email. This is no mystery. I thought it was more genuine than it is (look at Snopes --- it's iffy, but not debunked). I never called them facts --- you did. I called them "tidbits and teasers", as I recall. My question for you is "Who cares? I merely passed it on. I did not sday it was sanscrit. I WAS SHARING, and you went off the deep end, thus our escalating insults.

The bills --- make no mistake. I READ BOTH BILLS. In the House bill, I even went to the medicare references, etc. Both bills are outrageous, are way to big, take on too much, include too may lingering (some over 50 years old) progressive social programs, include too many games and deceptions, etc, for my liking. In fact, I believe I am as intimate with the bills as any non-professional, non-politician out there. Of course, we are all painted by our beliefs, no doubt!

Thus, I wrote! And will continue to do so.

To WT

My only point about Sarah Palin was that was the best you of the Republican Party you could pick to compare Obama to? She is done, but we still have many other talented people, Kantor, hopefully Brown. Pick a better comparison.

While Obama came from Chicago, he was not an accepted Chicago politician. He lost to Bobby Rush. He was not endorsed by the black causus in Springfield. Chicago politicians despised him because of his arrogance and his present votes. He did not accomplish anything in Springfield. And he lucked out twice in the Senatorial race, with Hull being discredited and Jack Ryan being forced out of the race. Without comprimising references (Illinois legislature), he is viewed as an opportunist that you cannot count on.

With all the problems Illinois has, you can count on one thing about Obama--PRESENT!!

Your next comments get snarly, I thought you were going to stay away from that. To my sources, my top source is the Wall Street Journal, the only real newspaper left in the world (I know, it is now owned by Fox News). I do follow those you list, but put Kudlow (CNBC @6 PM in Chicago) and O'Reilly (Fox News at 7PM) as the top people. They are really more balanced than the others.

We were on the wrong direction with Bush, worst now. There are two reasons the economy is not dead. First, the Fed has flooded the system with liquidity to keep it operating. Second, the confusion in the banking business (primarily AIG and the holders of the bad mortgage loans--ABN, Lehman,Bear Stearns, Hypo Real Estate) was stabilized. In fact, these efforts have offset the negative impacts from the foolish Democratic "stimulus" plan.

As I stated earlier, it has to be killing Sommers, Roemer, and the other top economists who know that Obama's liberal agenda will not work and promoting it only makes matters worst.

That brings me to my concern. We need a real debate and pursue options that work. Your comments about the negative income tax illustrate my point. If it were adopted and ALL OTHER PROGRAMS (Food Stamps, welfare,housing subsidies, etc) were immediately eliminated, the cost of the tax would be more than offset by the cost savings. So there would be NO hand wringing of the wealthy.

But the Democrats would trick up the bill to give poor even more, they like the current system since they get to control people.

My last comment about insurance. The state regulation has destroyed the current system. A Federal controlled system would do the same. People complain about insurance declining coverage. What program denies the most coverage in the US? Answer. MEDICARE.

I would like a society that would give back freedom, free us from Social Security and Medicare, let people use their money to get their own programs. That is freedom, not what we have today.

To Anonymous on January 16, 2010 2:08 PM:

You guys really keep me busy!

A lot of what you consider "lies" really just depends on who you get your info from and which stats you choose to believe. But one of your comments really stood out, because this was in the news just two/three days ago:

"We were lied to that Pres Obama would cut wasteful and ineffective programs. The only department he has eliminated is the Department of Labor division responsible for monitoring corruption in the Unions."

You may want to look at this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/

Yes, in the Washington Times of all places, which is known for its conservative stance on social and political issues!

I heard Fox News ignored the story, so if they're your main news source, that probably explains why you missed it . . .

I find it amusing that WT constantly refers to the Republicans as obstructionists, when they can't obstruct anything. The only "roadblocks" the Republicans have thrown up is letting the truth be known about the bill. If the Democrats had their way, nothing would be known about the nuts and bolts of the bill until after it was passed into law.

I also like how she claims that the Republicans did nothing when she knows (or should know, maybe I'm assuming to much here) that the republicans have never had the votes needed to pass the obstructionist efforts of the Democrats. I'm not saying the blame lies totally on the Democrats as the Republicans did not try any major legislation. I feel they didn't because they saw the real roadblocks that the Democrats put up against changing social security and knew they would not win a debate for a real health care reform bill that would actually reform instead of just tax the rich and promise to help the poor.

Last but not least, I cannot see how WT can claim the bill in its present form is a "good start" when she seemingly has resisted all efforts to be educated on what is actually in the bill.

To Anonymous on January 15, 2010 12:51 PM

Nice to see you've calmed down. I used one term, Porky, a reference to a cartoon character, and you respond with a tirade of no less that 19 insults between two posts. Count them, I did. You really out did yourself, so I think your claim as the wounded party is stretching it a bit. In addition, the comment "We find ourselves asking "Why, why is WT? such a hater of others?" sounds just like Glen Beck. Sure you're not blogging from his Doom Room?

Not to worry, tho, I was not insulted; it was amusing. I love a good rant, and yours was so outrageous that it was funny, so no offense taken.

We do need to clear the air on two issues before we can go forward:

Regarding the redundancy in doctor's titles, could you tell me where you saw this at West Suburban Internists? Neither their website nor physician directory uses this format, so it seems odd that they would in their offices. I disagree that MANY doctors do this as it is not accepted practice within the medical community. Sure, there are physicians whose egos precede their sense, but this error is generally made by non-medical people because the redundancy looks more impressive, hence it's common use in false emails attributed to physicians.

Also, you need to come clean--you did get your health care info from a chain email, didn't you? You said it was sent to you, so this sounds like a yes. Your list and the one I found on free republic are more than partially similar, the format is identical and so is a lot of the wording, some were lifted verbatim. And since you would not reveal your source, I thought you were purposely trying to pull a fast one by taking false claims from a hate speech site, attributing it to a nonexistent author, and trying to pass it as truth. THAT is what offended me.

It also indicates that you're not that familiar with the health care bills, or you wouldn't have brought this forward as "facts". These kind of false emails are written to inflame, not inform, the style makes that obvious. It's also obvious that many of these interpretations are false because they are patently absurd.

Let's find out if the bills are available online, or at least some interpretations of them from a reliable, non-biased source. I won't dignify the free republic crap with a discussion.

Dan D.:

The day after my last post to you (Saturday), I received my weekly copy of Time mag in the mail. In there is an article, "The Uncertain Future of Sarah Palin". I'm not the only one who's noticed.

T.B.:

Actually, we may be able to see if the Republicans really have better solutions sooner than we think. Brown is campaigning for the MA senate seat on the pledge that he will "kill health care". As the 41st vote, he could. And if the current health care bill is thrown out, then the Republicans will have a choice as to whether they will use their new bargaining power to implement some of their "solutions" or if they will just leave health care dead in the road and move on to other things. My money is on the latter.

T.B.:

Yes, personal attacks are not helpful to a civil and productive discourse. But I've noticed you don't object to personal attacks that come from those you agree with; you only condemn those that come from someone you don't. So if you're serious about wanting a civil and productive discourse, you should speak up against ALL personal attacks regardless of the source, don't you think?

"HOW the government steps in is the big question. The idea that the Republicans support the status quo is both wrong and disingenuous. They just differ on the best way to achieve the same goal."

I'm not claiming the Reps want to preserve the status quo in everything, but I do think they are content with the status quo in health care. I say this because of their history with it: they killed health care reform when Clinton tried to do it, then for 8 years under Bush ignored it while costs escalated and the number of uninsured grew. Now that the Dems are trying reform again, once more they're throwing up roadblocks. I really believe all the "better solutions" the Reps claim to have will be forgotten if they regain power. The only time they claim to have better solutions for health care is when the Dems are trying to reform it. The rest of the time, it's a non-issue to them.

Obama knows this too, which is why he's resolved to accomplish as much as he can to change health care before 2012, just in case. No slowing down, no starting over, no endlessly discussing wedge issues and alternatives. Even if the reform now is not everything he wanted, anything's better than nothing because nothing is what we will most likely get later. Sorry, TB, but I sincerely believe that all the Republican hoopla in the past several months about better ideas and better solutions is what's really been disingenuous. The only thing that will change my opinion is seeing different behavior from the Reps. Until then, I'm with O on this.

Sure, the food stamp and earned income tax credit programs are ripe with fraud. There's fraud in everything, even the private sector. One of the reasons a negative income tax hasn't been pursued is because the anticipated costs of policing such a program are through the roof, it's estimated that the potential fraud would be a lot more costly than what we have in place now. The only way to avoid fraud is to do nothing.

Besides, doesn't the watered down version of the health care bill we have now represent the more moderate approach you're suggesting? A public option would have been drastic. What we have instead is just a good start. Many people did want a brand new car, but they'll have to settle for the tune-up. The three-year wait I thought was just another compromise for the insurance industry. And yes, we're going to have to pay for it. But we're paying the insurance industry now and many Americans don't benefit from that. If we'll have to pay either way, I'd rather cover more people with the money than enrich CEOs.

We were lied to about how the TARP funds would be used. No "toxic assets" were purchased. The money went to bail out connected banks and investment banks that should have gone bankrupt which would have opened their books to the public. This is how we learned about the special loans to Sen Dodd and others when Countryside folded.

We were lied to about who AIG would pay tens of billions to (Goldman Sachs and other connected firms).

We were lied to about illegal aliens being covered under the multi trillion dollar "health care reform", nationalization. By Supreme Court precedents, they will be covered as the President is well aware.

We were lied to about the number of "jobs created or saved" under the Trillion dollar "Stimulus Bill". The AP proved the numbers to be fabricated.

We were lied to about the Federal Reserve not printing money and using it to buy Treasury Bills, greatly eroding the value of the dollar.

We were lied to that Pres Obama would cut wasteful and ineffective programs. The only department he has eliminated is the Department of Labor division responsible for monitoring corruption in the Unions.

We were lied to about GM not going bankrupt if the taxpayers would loan them 80 Billion to save 400K UAW jobs. GM went bankrupt, the courts gave 40% of GM to the UAW, the FEDS took the other 60%, the $80 billion will never be repaid by GM.

And so on and so on and so on..........................

Dan D.:

I haven't gotten the vibe that Obama seems to have lost interest. He certainly doesn't look like he's having a good time, but I don't think anyone aspires to be president for the fun of it.

And just because you see a political cartoon showing Obama as an AJ&E (sounds like a railroad) puppet, doesn't mean this is the way it is.

I used Sarah Palin because she's what was in my mind at the time. I had just watched part of her Fox debut online. And her history is common knowledge, I don't know much of the history of the others off-hand. Limbaugh and Hannity are media personalities, not politicians, so I wouldn't compare their career tracks with Obama's anyway. No evil intent, I just drew on what I already knew to make the point that if you want to use Obama's history to make predictions about what he'll do in the future, the same conclusions can be drawn from the histories of politicians whom you probably favor more. And in Palin's case, her history suggests a very uncertain future.

And you also said none of Obama's ladder climbing required him to make tough decisions. Really? How can you possibly know this?

Let me ask you something. Do you spend a lot of time listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, those kinds of opinionists? I ask because you sound so very, very bleak, practically nihilistic. Like you don't see the world in technicolor anymore. An overload of negativism will do that.

A negative income tax has been discussed for a long time, has it not, but politicians are reluctant to completely change over to such a system. This would also make our tax system progressive, where the highest earners would pay the most to subsidize those with the least, and this seems to conflict with "trickle down" theory, where tax cuts are given to the highest earners with the assumption that this will promote growth. Have I got this right? I thought trickle down was the economic theory favored by most Republicans. Plus a progressive tax would undoubtedly alienate the upper class, and that's where a lot of the campaign money is. Maybe this is why no politicians will approach it?

"The interesting dynamic is that the regulatory controls (by state insurance commissions) make it difficult to get competitive prices." Yes, they do. "This is a prelude to the "public option" or these insurance exchanges." How so?

Chris,

Just to be clear, why did you not take umberage when wt? referred to me as a pig (ie Porky)?

Hopefully, it is just because of the cumulative garbage being strewn!

As for wt?. I accept your claim that it probably is not a regular practice to use the redundant titles ----- I only wanted to point out that many docs do, though (perhaps it is ego).

Also, wt?, when you found the letter (or one an awful lot like it) on the right site you found, would it have been so darn hard to post something like "Hey, anon, your letter is posted exactly like that on this wacky site (insert site) I found --- Whaddya have to say?"

I may have posted back "No, I have never seen that site --- it was sent to me this way. Let me snopes it, and there I would have found that it was, per snopes, "partial".

If you go back to the original post, you will note there were no isults, no attacks on the left or right. In fact, I tried to delete as many of the snarkier comments associated with each reference that I read. Your reaction has been a horrible personal attack that has continued to gain momentum. Your assumptions of maliciousness are incorrect and uncalled for on this one, wt?!

I still ask the same question, though: Have you read the references? Have you read the two bills? Do you REALLY think that the bill is the correct onw for this country? Do you really believe tax law belongs in a health care bill? Do you really think anything that takes 2000 pages to write, that is done in a vacuum and in total opaqueness, thatisn't even read by those voting on it, can POSSIBLY be the answer?

FOR THE RECORD:

I googled Anon's medical office, West Suburban Internists in Wheaton, and pulled up the physician directory. There are 8 doctors listed there, 6 M.D.s, 1 D.C. (chiropractic) and 1 D.O. (osteopathy). None of them use Dr. along with their abbreviations:

http://www.goldbamboo.com/yp-ype4436628.html

In addition, if you click on one of those 8 names, you will get a list of more physicians at different phone numbers, two dozen or so. All use abbreviations at the end of their names only--Jane Smith, Ph.D., John Doe, M.D., etc. There is not a single Dr. So-and-So, M.D. listed in their directory.

Here's why it's not done--it's a redundancy. To say Dr. Tim Smith, M.D. is the same as saying Doctor Tim Smith, Doctor. A physician could use this format if he/she wanted to, but it would be incorrect.

Our spoken language is full of redundancies that we use all the time. Like HIV virus, PIN number, ATM machine--all redundancies, but that's how we say them. Even doctorate degree. What else is a doctorate if not a degree? I even heard one on TV the other night--Sahara desert. Sahara means desert in Arabic, so saying Sahara desert is really saying desert desert. It should be called just the Sahara, but we tack on desert just the same.

Take a look at the doctor shows on TV--House M.D., otherwise known as just House, and the character is Dr. Gregory House. Notice only one is used at a time, not both. And The Dr. Oz Show, featuring Mehmet Oz, M.D. Again, one or the other.

Dr. and M.D. are used together on the internet, such as in "Dr. Oz M.D." I suppose this is for search purposes, so the name will pop up if the search phrase contains either Dr. or M.D. Are you sure this isn't where you saw this, Anon?

No medical facilities I have ever worked at over the years have done this, and my husband never has. There's really nothing stopping physicians from doing this if they wanted to, most just know better. Some people think the redundancy looks more impressive; this is probably why chain emails do it. But it's not accepted practice.

Funny how WT claims she won't debate false facts, but never proves anything false. Instead, she takes the time honored liberal tact of attacking the poster or source, as she can't disprove the source. Only she can approve of the source, ignoring the fact that only conservative and right wing organizations are interested in digging into the proposed health care bill to see what is really in it.

I also find it amusing that she has to follow the liberal creed of attacking Sarah Palin. I don't think anyone here has championed Palin as a viable candidate, but WT sure seems fixated on her. I guess she feels if she misdirects towards Palin, no one will notice how incompetent President Obama is.

She claims that health care reform is important and that America is letting its own suffer, but avoids a question about what her husband is doing about it. As usual, it is easier to say something should be done by others instead of doing it yourself. Again, most of us realize that health care reform is vital, but we also realize that the way the Democrats are bent on reforming is the wrong way.

As usual, WT hit all the liberal talking points, and said nothing of importance once more.

WT? –

“What were you saying about personal attacks, T.B.?”

I said they’re not helpful to a civil and productive discourse, whether they come from you or someone else.

“But I don't believe America should be a country where it's government stands idly by while its people suffer if the government has the means to alleviate their suffering.”

You’re right. The government should step in when it can; however, HOW the government steps in is the big question. The idea that the Republicans support the status quo is both wrong and disingenuous. They just differ on the best way to achieve the same goal.

Government is and always has been the least effective and efficient means of helping people, especially the poor. The War on Poverty has gotten us where? Programs such as Food Stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit are ripe with fraud, waste billions of dollars each year (yes, BILLIONS), and haven’t achieved their lofty goal of pulling people out of poverty.

Specifically to health care, why throw out the entire system if something less drastic may suffice? Why not give a moderate approach a try first? There doesn’t seem to be any great urgency related to the current healthcare “reforms” since most of the benefits don’t kick in for three years, right? This is like buying a new car when maybe a tune-up would due. Give the less expensive and less intrusive alternative a try before going for the drastic option.

And remember, you can’t give people a benefit without taking that money out of someone else’s pocket. You want to create a huge new entitlement program? Fine, but someone is going to have to pay for it.

T.B.

WT

Remember my comment. Obama seems to have lost interest. He is a robot fronting for AJ &E (notice Jarrett started this abuse on the banks yesterday). But just a potential view.

Sarah Palin? I guess that is in the appropriate level to compare Obama to. More importantly, my comment was about him, why not compare him to McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy G, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. All of these people have more of a track history.

You are right he was climbing a ladder. And I will not chide it for being an ineffective ladder. His tentative nature is that he no longer has the choice to vote present. And none of his ladder climbing required him to make tough decisions.

Lastly, I will accept government as a safety net. If you go back in this post, I strongly advocate a "real negative income tax" that would allow the United States to dump all of the other programs. People would have the safety net, but would have to buy housing they could afford (not everyone can live in Naperville--although there are some who want to change that), insurance and other essentials. I would facilitate choice that will in turn improve our economy.

And I am evaluating the insurance alternatives to simply paying higher prices. The interesting dynamic is that the regulatory controls (by state insurance commissions) make it difficult to get competitive prices. This is a prelude to the "public option" or these insurance exchanges. Instead of competitive coverage, you get less competition and higher prices.

In short, people always expect to get something for nothing. Instead, they get nothing for something.

Dan D.:

Your last comment is good advice; I will keep it in mind.

I really have no idea whether Obama still cares to be President or not. I know I would never, ever want to be, it seems to be a very thankless job. I read an op-ed piece this morning and the author's impression was "it is clear that Obama enjoys being President", so I guess it just depends on your perspective. I do remember seeing a televised interview of B&M Obama shortly after the inauguration and they both made it clear that he was planning on being in office 8 years, so I fully expect him to run for re-election. I disagree that he plans to leave at the end of his term.

You also said that he has never held a job for more than 4 years so this is consistent. Well, following this logic, you could also say the same for Sarah Palin. She has shown a pattern of committing and later changing her mind, from attending and leaving several different colleges when she was younger to quitting her job as Chair of Frank Murkowski's Oil and Gas Commission after less than a year, then quitting her governorship to pursue other goals. One could make the argument that her history is consistent with someone who quits easily when she's not feeling fulfilled and therefore does not have the stamina needed for public office. These things cut both ways.

I think you need to look at the circumstances involved. Obama may not have spent more than 4 years in any one position, but he was moving up the career ladder rapidly and has already attained the highest position he can. Palin seems to keep changing her course and her mind, she still doesn't seem to know what she wants to do and has now accepted a gig at Fox News. We'll see how long she stays there. So Obama has already attained his highest goal, Palin seems be floundering around trying to find hers. Two very different set of circumstances.

I don't know about Pelosi being a tried and true socialist. Believing than government can be used as a source of good for its citizens doesn't make one a socialist, and I think that's where both Pelosi and Obama are coming from. Reid I don't pay much attention to, sorry to admit. But I don't believe America should be a country where it's government stands idly by while its people suffer if the government has the means to alleviate their suffering. The U.S. is first on the spot when people of other countries need help, look how we're responding to Haiti. Why should we not respond to our own?

Whoa. Man overboard!

Way, way overboard. What were you saying about personal attacks, T.B.?

Hey, I forgot to add: I just got back from West Suburban Internists, and there are several docs there.

Guess what? Dr, Tom Smith, MD.

I guess they are all faking WT? Or your full of crap. Or, and just maybe, it is a simple mistake of either exaggeration or facton your part and not a big leftist conspiracy, just like the letter I forwarded was possibly the same.

Of course, that would not fit your ultra-progrssive left dogma where every non-leftist must be attacked and squashed.

Taking a lead from the imbalanced views of WT?, I can only assume she made her claim of incorrectgrammer was a purposeful attempt to lie, mislead, and force her views on all others.

What a rude pig you must be!

wt?,

Are you off of your meds again? It certainly sounds like it. Your paranoia,your senseless rants, your cockeyed logic and self-described attitudes that you then break. As I said, in my opinion you just gotta be sick!

Your hatred-spewing writings puzzle most of us. We find ourselves asking "Why, why is WT? such a hater of others?"

Of course, the answer can only be that your amount of self-hatred has boiled over to the extent that it now dominates your every thought and action.

As usual, when you are confronted with a discussion, you turn again to verbal violence, you extoll your own racism by attributing it to others, and you become what can only be viewed as an outright nasty person with no self control or respect for yourself or others.

I repeat: Madam, YOU are the disgusting embarassment on this blog! Your attacks are vile and cause this reader to wonder "How many times have you "Heiled!" today"?

Also, have you even attempted to read the bills and find out if any of the oppositions to them have metir, or do you continue to prefer to just do what Nancy & Harry tell you to do?

Now, back on the meds, pronto!

Tough crowd. I agree with those that liken this type of conversation to previous issues on this blog that have so thankfully been gone for a while now. I'm also not saying it's the same person as before, that style would be very difficult to hide for a long period. This type of situation does crop up in places where anonymity causes rude behavior to be more prevalent than face to face interaction, it's the lonely keyboard courage thing. One sling prompts another and the games begin.

Everyone has an opinion, why does trying to change a person's opinion and fight the "right fight" become a life force for some? We have had some good discussions here, some will continue to go bad, I suppose.

I don't understand why the health care issue is so involved. We have great healthcare, if one can afford it or have access to coverage. I am self-employed and as someone that could very easily be uninsured medically due to any unforeseen glitch in income or health, I wonder why the issues couldn't be addressed as far as creating large groups that an uninsured individual or self-employed individual could shop from, with prices comparable to what the big boxes pay? I'm not talking about subsidies for myself, perhaps for those with less advantages. The discrimination is what got us where we are? I understand it's my choice to be self employed, but I do believe that insurance co's have taken advantage of that fact, and also taken advantage of leaving people with disadvantaged health out in the cold. Wouldn't it have been more prudent for all to have developed co-ops or groups way back? I don't understand how humanity has come to dollar signs in the face of health care. I pay for my own, I am willing to pay for my own...it would be nice to pay at a level that my corporate peers are able to pay. I'm happy to help someone that may need it, as long as the rest of us pay our share. I would be devastated if I had to decline health procedures for a family member because I couldn't afford coverage. Is this really what we want for our neighbors? It shouldn't be that difficult, kids. I am fortunate to be able to pay the high premiums that I must pay. Do I worry about the fact that this could change for me at any time, primarily upon the whim of unregulated insurance co's? Yeah, I do.

BTW, my mom (78) passed out, fell and broke her nose last winter. She was admitted in the burbs which turned into five days in Cardiac Care, as there was a fear that a mini stroke caused the fainting. It turned into a too much ice cream, blood sugar thing. It was comforting that every known head/neck/body/neuro/whatever scan and test was done, and done again in that week. But, she tried to tell them over and over again that it was too much ice cream, and this has made her light-headed in the past. 72,000.00 later she was sent home. 100% coverage, she did not pay a penny. Overboard on the care and billing? Probably. Should she complain about anything involved with her Medicare? No. Could she have handled a deductible? Yes.

T.B.:

I'm glad you've returned.

Yes, I have standards. Or call them rules of engagement.

1) I will not discuss bogus issues or extremist views, e.g., death panels, conspiracy theories, birthers, and other such fringe beliefs. I consider these a waste of time and life energy. I am only interested in REAL issues.

2) I will not dignify false information taken from chain emails and hate groups with a discussion either, e.g., the health bill synopsis above from freerepublic.com. Again, a waste of time and energy. I am only interested in REAL facts from legitimate sources.

3) I will debate, but I will not fight; nor will I respond to any blogger who shows a preference for this behavior. Fighting is NOT a debate.

4) I will not engage with anyone who I think is being deliberately dishonest in an effort to fool, mislead or "win" at any cost. Honest debate requires honest participants.

Keep in mind this is just ME, you guys can do as you please. But I won't be bullied into debating someone on their terms. I have my own.

Besides, if you think Anon's post is worth debating, then by all means go ahead and do so. I'm not stopping you.

TO WT

My post back on January 11 had two points. One, to the Annonymous who thinks that a person should post five words or less about their major idea and then put their head in a hole.

My second part was more of a revelation to me that I wanted to share with the others. Really two. Peolosi definitely wants a socialistic nation, not a democracy. Reid is right with her (and probably one third of the Democrats)

Second, there was a "right wing" cartoon that shows Obama as a puppet of Axelrod, Jarrett, and Emmanual. The more I watch him, he has over achieved and now wants to serve out three more years and go back to being a professor (along with Bill Ayers). You can read the rest.

Nothing BOMBASTIC. I think he no longer cares to be the President. He has never held a job for more than four years, so this thought is consistent.

And WT, after a rough start, you had been a respectful blogger. Regain your position.

Let’s see…

1) Being right and everyone else is wrong and simply in need of being educated.
2) Showing outright disgust for opposing viewpoints.
3) Making personal attacks instead of simply debating the actual topic being discussed.
4) A refusal to debate issues.
5) Taking one observation and extrapolating this into a universal fact. For example, one doctor thinks this way so they all must think the same way.

Haven’t we seen this behavior on Potluck before?

I’m not saying this is the same person, I’m just pointing out how detrimental this behavior is to a meaningful discussion.

T.B.

I'd say go out for more air, WT. Even though you choose to ignore people that constantly prove you wrong, this isn't your private blog. If you don't want people to comment on your drivel, don't post it.

Interesting that you have to claim to be a doctor now to try and validate yourself("we ARE doctors."). Even more interesting that you seem to be claiming that doctors are liberals and are in favor of Obamacare. I see several different doctors between my health problems and my children's doctors, and not one of them approves of the proposed take over of health care.

Out of idle curiosity, how much of your husbands practice is made up of All kids assist/family care assist/medicaid type patients? If all doctors are so supportive of government health care, how come so many refuse the All Kids participants as patients?

If you feel you are too good to be bothered with an honest debate, why keep posting here? Just another typical liberal loudmouth who feels since she got hers (through her husbands hard work), she is above everyone else.

Anonymous:

Forgot something: the title "Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD" is grammatically incorrect. Doctors use either "Dr." or "M.D.", but never both at the same time. Any REAL doctor will tell you this. You gotta stop quoting chain emails; these kind of errors are a dead giveaway.

Hi, all!

What a pretty day it was. Bright sun, fresh, crisp air, washed the van, hit a great sale. Life is good. And then there's this blog.

I am feeling much better now, thank you. I was just briefly overwhelmed with disgust for all of you.

Crude Dude is on target with the pig reference, tho, talking to some of you is like casting pearls before swine. Or trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Or waiting for pigs to fly. Or putting lipstick on a pig.

So save it, Porky, you're credibility is shot. Your health bill synopsis was lifted almost verbatim from the far right wing-nut propaganda website Free Republic, home to white supremacists, racists, birthers, murderers and other conservative whack jobs.

What a co-inky-dinky, you say! I got it from a Dr. Of course you did, dear, that's what all right wing chain emails say! This is already a cliche. You guys love using "doctors". Or "successful businessmen", that's another one of your favorites. I've seen tons of these faux chain emails since Obama came on the political scene, and you guys always feel the need to attribute it to some "doctor" or "successful businessman", as if having your views supported by someone more important and knowledgeable validates you. You ditto heads should know that if you guys thought for yourselves you wouldn't need to do this, your own opinions would suffice.

In addition, the "Dr." title doesn't impress me. I'm married to one and have worked with dozens of them over the years. I really believe this is why only the right wing circulates this kind of false information. You guys love quoting doctors; we ARE doctors.

So since you're obviously not being honest, any kind of honest discussion with you is impossible. Bring forth some REAL issues, some original thoughts and ideas, and I'd love to hear them. But I refuse to waste my time on propaganda from the Free Republic or any other extremist nuts. And as long as this is all you have to offer, I will not waste my time on you. Simply put, I'm too good for it.

Except for bombasts, they're a lot of fun. And rants, I love a good rant. But if you want to talk trash, waste someone else's time. How about Ken? No one has talked to him in ages. And it's really pathetic to hear him whining in the background all the time, like a puppy locked in the garage. He's always trying to bait bloggers into fights or trying to horn in on their conversations. And he'll get down in the muck with anyone over anything, no scruples there. Have fun.

Once again, What the cannot attack the facts, so she attacks the source. Then she goes off on a typical liberal rant, attacking everyone because they don't agree with her. Then, she has the gall to say that conservatives don't want to debate, when she has made it very obvious that, to her, only her opinion counts. She even uses the new liberal catch phrase saying conservatives are afraid, conveniently ignoring the fact that liberals sounded more afraid for the eight years of the Bush administration, and still are afraid to let the rest of the world dislike us.

It would be nice to have a fact based, mature debate, but obviously, Wt is not capable of that. As usual, she has taken the liberal move of not debating at all, as she knows she has no chance of winning an honest debate.

Hey, whatthe?,

Are you okay?

This is a serious question as I find your recent posts of January 13, 2010 11:00 AM & 1:02 a.m. to be incomprehensible rants that reminded the rest of us that you can go over the edge at times.

Both are lacking in accuracy and intellect but abounding in your leftist dogma. As usual, you quickly stoop to personal attackes rather than discuss issues. We do not stoop and genuflect at your leftist alter,s o we must be the ones with a problem?

GET A GRIP, whatthe?!

The post of mine that you refer to actually came from a letter from Dr. Stephen E.. Frazer, MD anesthesiologist in Indianapolis , IN to Sen. Bayh (a very good Senator, by the way) about the healthcare bill.

Did you find it on some other sight? Don’t know --- could be. I CAN tell you that I have NEVER heard of or visited the site you refer to. You, however, seem to be very intimate with the site you reference. Are you actually closet "wuss"?

Of course, you don't care as it would interfere with your ceaseless attacks on all those who might have a different view than you.

Now, what about the issues and comments themselves? Do you have anything to say on them? You DO remember that the rest of us were discussing the health care bill and NOT personally attacking each other, don't you?

It is easy to follow the references, so I suspect comprehending them should be easier than just blindly yapping about a bill in general that you did not actually read.

Madam, YOU are the disgusting embarassment on this blog! Your attacks are vile and cause this reader to wonder "How many times have you "Heiled!" today"?

[Huh! Imagine the power of actually discussing specifics and not spending all of your time being a partisan hack?]

TB & Ken, et.a;.,

Please refrain from confusing WT? with details and data.

It is like trying to teach a pig to sing ---- you just tick-off the pig, and you still don't get a song!

Anonymous:

You're busted, I found your source. No wonder you wouldn't identify it. There is a list practically identical to the one you posted right here on freerepublic.com:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2300214/posts

God forbid you would actually review the issues and come to these conclusions yourself. You just cut and pasted from a far right-wing website like a good little ditto head.

Wikipedia defines free republic as:

". . . a moderated Internet forum, activist, and chat site for self-described CONSERVATIVES, primarily within the United States.[1] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers,"[2] using screen names.

There are local chapters "unconnected with Free Republic", organized through ping lists, e-mail, and Free Republic mail.[3][4] that . . . focus on contemporary conservative issues such as the Second Amendment, the pro-life movement, or opposing gay marriage."

Some of the most recent infamous antics that Free Republic is known for is:

Postings by James von Brunn, the white supremacist and "birther" who killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC;

Racist attacks on the Obama family--In July 2009, after Obama's eleven-year-old daughter Malia was photographed wearing a t-shirt with the peace symbol, a Free Republic thread featured racially charged comments about Obama's wife and children, using such terms as "ghetto street trash.

Founder Jim Robinson has made it a point to ban fellow conservatives and others who don't completely share his political mindset."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic

Not too much independent thought being expressed on this website, wouldn't you say, Anon?

What democratic underground says about free republic:

"In my almost fifty years of life, I have never seen a more cowardly, frightened group of individuals than the yellow bunch at FreeRepublic. Their fear is what defines them."

Yep, Anon, that certainly describes your and many other conservative's interpretation of the health care bill. Piddling down your legs at the thought of any kind of change from the status quo. What a bunch of wussies!

This is why I get so disgusted with many posters on this blog. It is nearly impossible to have an HONEST discussion free of partisan BS with any of you. You don't care what is best for us or our country, you only what to be right, you only want to win, and you'll spread any kind of misinformation and hate speech to do it regardless of the consequences. Plus you're all so SCARED. Pop an anti-anxiety pill and grow a backbone, for God's sake. You're an embarrassment to those Americans who still live in the "home of the brave".

The company on this blog stinks. I'm going to take a break and breath some clean air.

P.S. to T.B.: The above is me being arrogant and condescending. Now you know what it REALLY sounds like.

WT? –

I wasn’t trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but after I listed a number of possible alternative reforms (tort reform being one of them) and you said that those who casually throw around tort reform don’t know what they’re talking about, how could I not take that as a directed at me?

My responses were restrained, I believed, as I was just trying to inform you how your words can come across to another party. I thought you just didn’t see that your comments can seem arrogant and condescending, which is harmful to any meaningful discussion or debate.

In reality, I now realize that you are arrogant and condescending--you just don’t care. My mistake.

T.B.

Anonymous:

C'mon, Anon, I'm waiting. What BS right-wing website did you REALLY get this interpretation from? Unless you're willing to disclose your source, you'd do better to forward this kind of crap to Hannity and Limbaugh. Their audiences don't know any better, they'll lap it up. Take it there.

Dan D.:

Whoa, what the heck brought on that last post?

Since the other bloggers here don't object to conservative BOMBASTS, just Democratic ones, if I don't ask no one else will.

And since everyone is being so tolerant of bombasts right now, I'll take this opportunity to reiterate my favorite: Michele Bachmann is Loon Soup. Canned and condensed. Ingredients: tea parties, die-ins, ACORN conspiracies, census conspiracies, re-education camp conspiracies, swine flu and Democrats, armed and dangerous, death panels, nuclear strike on Iran. Calories: Empty, like most junk food. Preparation: add BS, heat and stir. Enjoy.

From What the?:

"Does anyone have any recent NONPARTISAN numbers?

Better yet, do you have any proof that the information provided is wrong? Since you didn't dispute the numbers, and only attacked the foundation, I doubt it. About the only supposedly non-partisan source is the GAO, and they have already shown that the Democrat's numbers do not add up.

To Anonymous on January 12, 2010 10:07 AM--

How about a direct link for convenience? If you know where to find this, it shouldn't be asking too much . . .

T.B.:

You're making this molehill into a mountain, T.B. That's generally what people do when they're looking to find fault with something.

I never used the phrase "I'm right and those who disagree are stupid", you are. If I had meant stupid I would have said stupid, I've done so before on this blog and I'm not shy about using the word when I think it fits. You're the one who keeps morphing my comment into another meaning. I didn't say those who disagree with me don't know what they're talking about; I said THOSE WHO CASUALLY THROW AROUND TORT REFORM AS IF IT WERE AN EASY SOLUTION don't know what they're talking about. This doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with me, it has to do with an awareness of the complexity of the issue. And my experience has shown me that most who use tort reform casually generally don't know all that would be involved; they're just repeating talking points they have heard. Unless they're politicians, then I think they are being deliberately misleading.

So if my awareness of these problems comes across as arrogant and condescending to you, so be it. Maybe you're ok with having misinformation circulate as valid opinion, but I think this does a disservice to all of us. Perhaps you can discuss this with the likes of Crude Dude; his attitude may be more conducive to the debate, compromise, and civil discussion you seek.

whatthe,

I gave you the page references -- look it up yourself you lazy liberal!

WT? --

"Actually, I really think you're just looking to find fault again, so go right ahead if you need to."

Please explain...find fault for what and with whom? And again? When was the first time?

Yes, you can say that your comment had nothing to do with IQ, but it was still arrogant and condescending. You basically said that you’re right and those who don’t agree with you don’t know what they’re talking about. I would hardly call this attitude conducive to debate, compromise, and civil discussion.

T.B.

Health Care for All:

Here's what I found on the Peter G. Peterson Foundation:

Peter G. Peterson Foundation: Billionaire Against Social Programs

Peter G. Peterson and his namesake organization The Peter G. Peterson Foundation often speak out against President Obama's policies around social programs in the United States, so it should be interesting when the two meet up in Washington this week.

President Obama is hosting a summit on fiscal responsibility and Peter G. Peterson is set to attend. The Peter G. Peterson has been an outspoken critic of government spending policies and initiatives for the past few decades. His points in the debate are always decidedly right-wing.

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, is against nationalizing health care in the US. Health care is one of the single biggest holes in the US social safety net today with record numbers of Americans going bankrupt to pay for essential medical care. The foundation is also against clean energy incentives, social security expansion, and extended unemployment benefits. Basically, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation is against some of President Obama's most socially relevant reforms.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/peter-g-peterson-foundation-billionaire-against-social-programs

Does anyone have any recent NONPARTISAN numbers?

T.B.:

When tort reform is thrown around in a casual way as a solution, it infers it would be easy to do. I've heard it said many times--"well, if the high cost of lawsuits is part of the problem, then just change that". Yeah, right, JUST CHANGE THAT. Simple. Just like health care reform was a major battle with very little reform at the end, so too would be tort reform.

This doesn't mean I'm not in favor of tort reform, I am, and I'd certainly support the effort. But I'm a realist. C'mon, T.B., I thought liberals were supposed to be the idealistic dreamers!

I've watched politicians give tort reform lip service for the past three decades, but do you see anyone taking it on? Why do you think no one has? Of course this says something about our politicians, just like the attempt at health care reform has spoken volumes about them. And these same politicians who throw out tort reform as a solution in place of other avenues we are pursuing now KNOW it would most likely not be very successful. And I also believe that some of the politicians who are suggesting tort reform now would be the very same ones who would oppose it if it were ever attempted, for one excuse or another. So yes, I totally believe our politicians are being disingenuous about this at best, lying sacks of you-know-what at worst.

As to the other point, saying someone doesn't know what they're talking about is not the same as calling them stupid. Not knowing what one is talking about means they are either mistaken on the facts or uninformed on the subject. This has nothing to do with IQ. Actually, I really think you're just looking to find fault again, so go right ahead if you need to. You guys can discuss it among yourselves.

Here are links to a recently published study and a shorter analysis for the two health reform bills, from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation;

http://www.pgpf.org/resources/lewin-senate-house-comparison.pdf

http://www.pgpf.org/resources/lewin-analysis.pdf

Anonymous on January 10, 2010 10:45 AM:

How about posting the actual wording from the bill, not your (partisan, most likely) interpretation of it.

And it's interesting that you would offer these tidbits while posting under Anonymous and listing no link for reference . . .

Uh, maybe you might want to read through the entire thread ----- the top stories include Healthcare and partisan politics!

This annonymous who keeps railing about this being the top story, it is. Look at all of the issues it is bringing out. As for this annonymous, follow the prosecution (I meant, persecution) of Scott Harper).

All of what we are posting is an attempt from Comrades Pelosi and Reid (the racist) to change our way of life (thanks Napersouthred for the excellent comparison for all of the pundits who criticise the Republican actions).

And the more I watch Obama, it is both clear that he is not qualified to be president, but he also knows he is not. He is David Axelrod, Rambo Raum, and Valerie Jarrett's puppet. He is enjoying the entrapments of living in the White House.

No different than Dick Cheney controlling Bush, although Dick Cheney was a successful businessman, not a Chicago political hack.

But he would like to pass a couple of game changing moves so that he can pontificate about them for another $40 million or so in book royoalties after he leaves in 2012 (why would he want another 4 years, that is not how a community organizer works--destroy the existing community and move to another).

This perspective is far more damaging than if he really believed in some form of government. He stands up in front of the teleprompters look like Alfred E. Neuman, a total fool.

WT? –

Nothing about health care reform is easy. I don’t think anyone ever suggested tort reform would be easy, it was just suggested that it should have been (or should still be) explored. Is the degree of difficulty really the reason for abandoning any reform? And if so, what does that say about our politicians?

“So this is why it's really frustrating to have people casually throw around tort reform as a solution, and those who do either have no idea what they are talking about or know it's an empty promise but use it anyway because it sounds good politically.”

Sorry WT?, but I’ve re-read the sentence in question (above) several times and still find it arrogant and condescending. Please explain again how this does NOT read as if you know all and those who disagree don’t know what they’re talking about (I’ll leave out stupid here, though I think it could still apply) or are being intentionally misleading.

**********

Dude,

While I agree with you, I found it odd that in the same post you referred to the Pacific Research Institute as both “non-partisan” and “libertarian/conservative”….?

T.B.

Just out of idle curiosity, anon 1/10/10 12:39pm, do you have any idea how a blog site like this one works? Very few blog sites force posters to stick strictly to the topic proposed, as any individual knows a natural discussion or debate flows from the posted topic on to other related topics. Luckily for posters here, none of the moderators of Naperville Potluck have been anal retentive enough to propose or enforce a rule that requires one to stick to the headline topic.

Maybe that could be one of the top local stories: mostly free speech is allowed at Naperville Potluck.

Knock, knock,

HELLOOOOOOOO............

Is there a recommendation for a top story of the year buried in any of this??

WT?, somehow you don't feel that saying someone does not know what they are talking about is "way diff" than calling them stupid.

Hmmm? A very Clintonian word parsing!

As far as tort reform costs:
--A study released by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI), which specializes in health care policy, found that excessive wasteful tort costs topped $589 Billion annually, which is equivalent to about a $7,848 annual tax for the average American family of four. Your .5% of costs that you used above has been developed and put out there by Tom Baker.

-- The Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits.

--Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).

General comment on healthcare:
The one thing I don't see a lot of here on this blog is stuff that ain't just each of our's opinions. Let's check out some new stuff:

>Fixing the individual market (which is expensive and unstable largely because it does not enjoy the favorable tax treatment given to job-based coverage) was the original, stated purpose of "reform."

>CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing.

>CBO found that family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.

>According to CBO, the relatively modest House GOP bill would actually reduce premiums by 5% to 8% in the individual market in 2016, and by 7% to 10% for small businesses. The GOP reforms would also do so without imposing huge new taxes.

>CBO says it expects employer-sponsored insurance costs to remain roughly in line with the status quo

>In a 2008 paper in the peer-reviewed Forum for Health Economics and Policy, these economists (Amanda Kowalski of MIT, William Congdon of the Brookings Institution and Mark Showalter of Brigham Young) found that state community rating laws raise premiums in the individual market by 20.9% to 33.1% for families and 10.2% to 17.1% for singles

>JEFFREY S. FLIER, the dean of Harvard Medical School, has given the healthcare reform bills a failing grade, saying it "..would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants."

>In “The Impact of Tort Reform on Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Premiums” (NBER Working Paper 15371), researchers Ronen Avraham, Leemore Dafny, and Max Schanzenbac focuses on four types of reforms—caps on non-economic damages (such as for pain and suffering), caps on punitive damages, collateral source reform (which reduces plaintiffs’ awards if they receive public or private insurance benefits), and joint and several liability reform (which limits plaintiffs’ ability to go after those parties with “deep pockets”). The authors found that caps on non-economic damages, collateral source reform, and joint and several liability reform reduce self-insured premiums by 1 to 2 percent each. They did not measure the savings of caps on punitive damages

I would recommend viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded for some personal fun

For those of you who seem to be in love with the healthcare bills, here are some little tidbits and teasers from the current Senate bill (referenced by page. I elected to not include the reference to increasing capital gains tax in the bill --- thought I would leave something for ya'll to look forward to!

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services.. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures.. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; & nbsp;guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

T.B.:

Forgot something. I clearly did NOT say that people who threw around tort reform as if it were an easy solution were stupid. I said they did not know what they were talking about, and they don't, because nothing about tort reform would be easy even if it were attempted. They are just repeating talking points. I said it was frustrating to hear people do this, but I did not say or insinuate that people who did were stupid. I think you're clearly projecting your own biases onto my statement here, T.B.

However, I did say that I think some people are being intentionally misleading when they do the same but do so anyway because it sounds good politically. The people who do this are our politicians. They know better, they deal with the lobbyists, they know what a can of worms it is, that even if it were attempted very little of it would probably be successful, but they throw it out as an alternative solution to escalating costs just the same. They are further being disingenuous in suggesting tort reform as a cure to escalating costs as I've seen it estimated many times in the past that high lawsuit awards only account for around .5% of health care costs, that even if we did fight this battle, the returns would be very small. Does anyone have any current (nonpartisan) figures on this?

T.B.:

From today's news:

"Senior House Democrats have largely abandoned hopes of including a government-run insurance option in the final compromise health care bill taking shape, according to several officials, and are pushing for other measures to rein in private insurers.

Some House Democrats say the proposed government insurance option remains alive, although they speak publicly of its possible demise as long as insurance companies aren't let off the hook.

California Rep. Xavier Becerra, who's on the leadership team, said House members would only be willing to abandon the public plan if they were certain the final bill achieves the goals they want, as Pelosi described."

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100109/US.Health.Care.Overhaul/?CID=NET_Newsmain

Like I said, a fail safe. We'll see if it survives the final cut or not.

I don't know if those items we're talking about were originally offered by the Reps or not, it's perfectly ok with me if they were. But let's not claim that the Dems excluded all Republican input then, that the Reps were not listened to. I do think the majority of those 876 amendments were intended as 876 individual speed bumps, the Dems saw them as such too and maneuvered around them instead. They would have been foolish not to. But as I mentioned before, without knowing what each and every one was, we'll never know, so we're all left to our own opinions on this.

I don't know about Reid, but I do think it galled Pelosi to have to include the Reps. Remember that run-in she had with Obama at the very beginning, where she dismissed Rep input and said something to the effect of "we're in charge, we don't have to listen to them". And Obama said oh yes, you do, I want a bipartisan effort? You could see her clenching her jaw! So we will just have to disagree on a lot of this as well.

Regarding tort reform, go back and read what I wrote again. I DID NOT say "people who BACK TORT REFORM either have no idea what they are talking about". I said "people who CASUALLY THROW AROUND TORT REFORM AS A SOLUTION have no idea what they are talking about or know it's an empty promise but use it anyway because it sounds good politically." Big difference. Back tort reform all you want, I just wouldn't hold my breath for it.

Yes, lawsuit awards where the sky is the limit is the bread and butter of the legal profession. Which is why they oppose caps on these awards. You bet they fight anything that threatens profits, just like the insurance industry is fighting health care reform because it threatens their profits. They also claim that caps would hurt consumers, especially lower income ones, as lawyers would then be "forced" to accept less cases on contingency if the amount they could win in court was restricted. They also claim that caps are unconstitutional, that the government doesn't have the right to limit what the courts can award; the list goes on and on. This is why all people do is talk about tort reform, but no one does anything. Just look into it, you'll see what I mean.

A Republican in the US Congress

is like

A czarist loyalist in Stalin's Kremlin.

But to clarify, it IS still in the House bill.

I think we don't disagree as much as you think.

I think I believe that both parties have some blame for the block-out of the GOP --- I just think the Dems are more culpable.

As the party in power, the Dems showed a lack of grace (think 2000 --- there is basically a tie in the Senate with Cheney as the tiebreaker, so the GOP offers co-chairs to the Dems on commitess ---- Grace defined.) It is clear to me (this is where we disagree) that Reid & Pelosi had no intention of inclusion on this one. The fact that they were holding closed-door meetings with no GOP members early on (the words used were along the lines of "The Baucus committee is doing all that bipartisan stuff").

Anyway, life goes on!

TB, your last paragraph nails it!

WT? –

Yes, some of the issues favored by the Repubs are in one or the other version of the current bill, maybe both. I wasn’t trying to say all issues favored by the Repubs were abandoned or excluded. I was simply trying to show you that there was an alternative, that the Repubs did offer up their own solutions and all their suggestions weren’t shenanigans or attempts to derail the process.

So how can I summarize your opinion of tort reform? Are you trying to say the system can’t be changed because “Lawsuit awards are the legal profession's bread and butter”? Or that any change wouldn’t help anything? Or both?

And I especially liked when you wrote that people who back tort reform “either have no idea what they are talking about or know it's an empty promise but use it anyway because it sounds good politically”. It’s pretty arrogant to say that anyone who believes this is a problem is either stupid or misleading.

Here’s pretty much how I see this bill playing out – it won’t help everyone it’s intended to help, it will saddle us with yet another ever-expanding government program, and the middle class will once again take it on the chin. The rich can afford the new fees, price increases or taxes associated with health care reform, the poor are the recipients of the government largess, and the middle class just pay the bills.

T.B.

Psyche:

A strong public option as it was originally proposed was given up pretty early; the Dems were reluctant to fully support it, that was my impression. My understanding is what is left in the house bill is there as a fail safe, so to speak, that it can be reconsidered again at some later time if what is in place fails to correct problems and control costs.

And again, I think how you see this "who left who out first" stuff is really dependent on who's side you're on, don't you think? Yes, the Dems eventually bypassed the Reps because they weren't facilitating the process or contributing much of value, they were just in the way. What I saw was them obstructing from the very beginning, what gave them this opportunity was Obama wanting a bipartisan bill. We can go round and round about this endlessly and you'll still think the Reps were unfairly left out and I'll still think they had a chance to be more involved but blew it with obstructionist tactics. Let's just agree to disagree.

A little clarification is in order, yes?

First, Dems did not abandon the public option early in the debate. If I recall correctly, it is still in the House bill.

Second, the "process" is distinctly different from the bill itself, which is different than the voting on the bill! The writer above states "you can't vote no on every single thing and then complain later that you were not a part of the process". This statement is illogical.

Why? Well, the process occurs to develop a bill which will eventully be voted on. Thus, the process occurs before the actual vote. It consists of al the meetings, input, bill development, conceptual formatting, writing,etc., which is eventually voted on. The GOP was, by the Dems own admittance, aced out of the process. Thus, they voted "no" and, in fact, were not included in the "process".

Third, just because tort reform it tough to accomplish does not disqualify it as a major shortcoming to our system and as one of a few major changes required if we want to really say we "reformed" health care. Without said tort reform, we just fall short. I don't recall th exact numbers, but I THINK the dirst cost of the tort system is about 7-9% of healthcare, but the indirect cost (extra testing to reduce liability, etc) is estimated to bring teh total effect of torts on healthcare to about 25% of the total. Does anyone have the exact numbers handy?

Just for you, WT:

ob⋅struc⋅tion⋅ist
  /əbˈstrʌkʃənɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uhb-struhk-shuh-nist] Show IPA
Use obstructionist in a Sentence
See web results for obstructionist
See images of obstructionist
–noun
1. a person who deliberately delays or prevents progress.
2. a person who delays or obstructs the business before a legislative body by parliamentary contrivances or legalistic maneuvers.

Republicans cannot be obstructionists as they do not have the votes to hold up anything. To constantly claim they are severely weakens your argument, not that it is very strong in the first place.

I find it the height of hypocrisy for you and your liberal ilk to falsely claim that the Republicans are doing what the Democrats actually did from 2000-06. Not only that, they often voted for a bill, and then claimed later that they couldn't support it.

As I said before, the denial and lies issued by the Democrats and their backers while refusing to do what their leader promised is the top story of the year. You just continually prove that point, WT.

T.B.:

I know that three of the options that you claim were offered by the Republicans and rejected by the Dems are in the current bill: no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, dependents staying on health plans until older ages, and public funds for the poor to buy insurance. So what does this mean? These could not have been summarily dismissed by the Dems because they're in the bill. What do you think--were the Republicans listened to after all?

Let me say something about tort reform. It is really exasperating to hear people throw around the phrase "tort reform" like it's a simple solution that's just not being considered. It is not. Tort reform was a big issue when I was in college in the early 1980s getting my degree in health care administration. It has been on and off the table multiple times in the last THREE DECADES. The legal profession has a lot of money and a lot of lobbyists, just like the health insurance industry, that fights this tooth and nail, and it's no surprise why. Lawsuit awards are the legal profession's bread and butter. Caps on damages would really limit their earning power and would ultimately effect the number of medical malpractice cases lawyers would be willing to take on contingency, and this is one of their arguing points against caps.

So this is why it's really frustrating to have people casually throw around tort reform as a solution, and those who do either have no idea what they are talking about or know it's an empty promise but use it anyway because it sounds good politically. Tort reform is as complicated and politically charged an issue as campaign finance reform. And like campaign finance reform, it will never happen. Hasn't in the three decades I've been watching it, never will. So let's just take tort reform off the "solution list" entirely, it's a paper dragon.

I also disagree that the Dems were fixated on the Holy Grail of the public option. That was abandoned pretty early on in the process. Yes, it kept being resurrected briefly at every turn, but my impression was that the public option was not a serious contender except at the very beginning. The Progressives were fixated on the public option, and they are not happy campers these days. But not the Dems, they were uncertain about it pretty much throughout. If the Dems had really wanted a public option, we'd have one now. So I disagree this had anything to do with your perception that the Reps ideas were snubbed.

And no, I don't believe the Reps should have supported a bill they didn't agree with, and they didn't. But you can't have it both ways--you can't vote no on every single thing and then complain later that you were not a part of the process. You can't bring forth motions that hold up progress indefinitely and then complain when others go forward without you. But that's exactly what I'm hearing from the Rep camp now. Like I said, damned if you do, damned if you don't. These kind of tactics are the hallmark of obstructionists. I think you're more annoyed that the Dems didn't allow the Reps tactics to succeed more than anything.

WT--I am glad you see my point.

One clarification. When you see BCBS as your "company's" insurance company, they might not be. A major source of business for BCBS, Aetna, and Cigna is to handle "third party administration" for companies that self insure their medical plans. You think you are dealing with an "independent" insurance company, but rather you are dealing with the "agent" for your employer.

And to amplify the point, the entire insurance policies are unduly complex and "technical". And I am a detailed financial person. The claims process, all the registration (even for my current small business plan), and the state and Federal regulation favors the employer. That is why I would favor transferring the "ownership" and "contracting" for medical services from the employer to the individual, just like all other insurance.

Am I my own boss because of the insurance "fraud"? NO. But if a company stoops to those depths to save money, you can imagine the balance of their practices.

Over the past five to ten years, State and Federal regulations have "neutered" the ability of insurance companies to aggressively negotiate the payments they will make to hospitals and doctors. A policy to allow insurance companies to red line hospitals more agresseively as I previously posted would change the dynamic of the cost of health care.

We hear how Mayo clinic provides more comprehensive services as a reduced cost. I also would expect that Edwards is providing services at a lower cost than say Northwestern Memorial. Now if the insurance company can write a policy that would only pay 90% of the Edwards price, Northwestern would not accept the patients because they cannot compete. If you wanted Northwestern in the hospital plan, you would have to pay a higher insurance rate.

When PPO's first came out, you could only go to half of the hospitals. State regulation of insurance clamped down on this practice and rulings made it harder to negotiate contracts. Now virtually everyone is in the PPO. The Northwesterns wanted the plans to be based on their cost structure, not a lower cost structure and the prevailed. The last argument was when BCBS was going to drop Advocate (Good Samaritan).

I asked my insurance company why I could not get a DuPage PPO. State and Federal regulation. If they "unfairly" went after a hospital chain (say Northwestern), they could be penalized. The hospital lobby overcame the insurance lobby.

If you have an automobile accident, the insurance company will give you their estimate. If you go to a body shop that wants to charge more, the difference is your responsibility. There is no ability for the body shop to get more from the insurance company. Some (but not all) body shops are "qualified" by insurance companies to write direct repair quotes. And I asked body shop personnel if the insurance quotes are fair and they mostly say yes (I do not want to have a poor repair, I lose).

The hospitals do not want this cost control. They fight it. Even Edwards prefers the current system because they also can charge more. In my mind, the battle on costs is at the hospitals and the doctors. For fair reimbursement.

In my humble opinion, a true insurance industry should be not raising the premiums, but controlling the costs. That is why people object to the "interstate sales" of insurance policies proposed by the Republicans. Those policies would accomplish much of what I outlined above, go after the costs. That is why everyone has fought this option--the hospitals, AMA, AARP. It is not just the intestate sales, it was meaningful cost control.

And guess what? 20% or more of the hospitals would close if there were interstate insurance policies free of state regulation. Just like 20% of the car dealerships closed. And just like 20% of excess industrial capacity has been shut down.

You follow the press and the news. What was your take on interstate sales of insurance policies? Just some Republican ploy? Do you still feel that way?

WT? –

There were plenty of options offered by the Repubs such as tax incentives for businesses to offer insurance, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, insurance markets and exchanges, dependents staying on health plans until older ages, tort reform, and public funds for the poor to buy insurance; however, these were summarily dismissed because the Dems were aiming for the Holy Grail of health care change – the public option.

Just because the Dems are going to apparently settle for something less than the public option, don’t think the Repubs could or should go along with this boondoggle of a bill.

T.B.

Welcome to Potluck aka the Naperville Bickford's... nothing more than constant bickering and a whole lot of bad manners displayed on every topic imaginable. A high school debate team could make better points, more succinctly, more quickly, and with a whole lot fewer words.

Dan D.:

I'm going to backtrack a bit to a previous post first, the one under Anonymous on January 4, 2010 1:24 PM which is you, is it not, you just forgot to enter your name?

Regarding your insurance dispute, NOW I get it. Your company was self-insured, so your company was your insurance provider. Our company contracts out with a provider like Aetna, BCBS, et al, and all insurance issues go through them. Even disputes have been outsourced, nothing is handled in-house anymore except the annual sign-up drive, which is done every year. This is where it was announced that BCBS was raising premiums 35% in '10, nothing has been presented in writing yet. So yes, if your company was self-insured, then this does change how things are handled.

That really must have been a difficult situation to be in. It's galling that your company expected you to take an expensive hit like that so they could continue to make millions from other unfiled claims like it. To keep mum about something that employees are entitled to but don't pursue is one thing, as the case could be made it's the employees responsibility to make sure they know the terms of their policies. But to pressure an employee not to pursue is something else. Does this have anything to do with the fact that you are now your own boss?

You made this comment also: "I think the insurance companies love the proposed Democratic bills and would not want to operate in a competitive environment that Republicans are proposing." Again, I need more info. My understanding is that Republicans proposed to keep things exactly as they are now where no competition exists. If you would like to explain more, I'm all eyes.

By Psyche on January 5, 2010 6:16 PM
On the healthcare issue ---- did you guys see where the Mayo clinic in Az has decided to not accept any medicare/medicaid patients?

Wow! Now there is an endorsement for Obamacare!

You know that will be addressed in either this bill or upcoming bills as long as the dumbocrats are in charge. They are going to fine people who don't want to buy insurance. They will fine the practices too who don't accept their insurance. Or they will find some way to tax them higher.

On a positive note, as of right now, it looks like republicans will gain quite a few seats back in both the House and Senate. Maybe that will halt some of this madness.

The Dude Abides is laying the arguement out perfectly. Good job.

On the healthcare issue ---- did you guys see where the Mayo clinic in Az has decided to not accept any medicare/medicaid patients?

Wow! Now there is an endorsement for Obamacare!

Uh, I'm pretty sure you, as usual, engaded the malice on this one, WT?.

Go to the tapes.

To Anonymous on January 4, 2010 5:10 PM,

Are you dense, or can't you read, or are you just so partisan in your dogma that you will attack anything, anytime that even appears to not copmply with your fascist tactics?

If you can read, than you will find that I was very clear in blaming ALL (as in every) politician for our mess. WT?, on the other hand, prefered to concentrate on the GOP. Thus, the argunment was on.

Perhaps your knee-jerk reaction in "defending" WT? reflects your hate?

A couple of points

PURPOSE OF BLOG

The Sun anticipates free wheeling comments. If they just wanted a simple vote on the best news story, they could have had one of their unscientific votes. But I am expressing my thoughts as it relates to all bloggers and not just WT (sorry WT).

Imagine if our elected officials put their ideas on the table to be evaluated like this, maybe we would have nothing to blog about.

REPUBLICAN TACTICS

Let's be perfectly clear. All of the health care strategizing has occurred behind close doors, from the start. If we are going to make a historical change, it should be open for all to look at. That was my concern from the start.

Take one issue, denial of coverage due to pre existing conditions. The current bill forces insurance companies to accept these patients and elsewhere in the bill their are premium limits, so the combined effect of both provisions is that coverage would be provided. But what about the cost of insuring these people? There is a cost and to ignore this cost forces the insurance companies to do one thing--raiser premiums.

Backers of the initiative properly note that many (but not all) of these people were covered by insurance and were dropped. Most were covered through employer plans and people lost coverage when they lost their jobs and exhausted COBRA coverage. But as I noted previously, corporations PLAN for this to happen, it lowers their cost. So they will have to raise rates to address this issue. And their will be more tort costs as people sue companies for not hiring them because of medical conditions.

There were alternative proposals. Republicans proposed that these people be placed on Medicaid. GREAT!! A government plan that is killing state governments. More financial hardship to taxpayers. And a crummy plan.

And I was watching a news show that highlighted a Nebraska family that lost coverage (due to lifetime limitations on health payments) and had to move a child into the Nebraska Medicaid plan. The mother complained that no doctors or hospitals would take patients covered by this plan, a single payer health care plan (at least in her area). This is a clear illustration of rationing that will result from such programs. I suspect she could go to an intercity hospital that caters to Medicaid patients, but she views that as unacceptable.

But none of this matters and as a result count on more rather than less troubles with health care. And I am afraid that this is all being deliberately planned to justify a single payer health system.

But WT is correct about the last 25 days. The Republicans have "enforced" the Senate rules in the same manner as the Democrats had done when they were a minority. Should we be outraged that the Democrats blocked thousands of appointments using these rules? Now that they are in the majority, why don't they suspend the rules? Could it be fear of 2010 elections?

And the Republicans justification was to get more of the bill subject to exposure so that people can really see the bill and decide on its merits.

THE OUTCOME

This bill is a bad bill for two reasons. First, it is purely political and has little to do with Health Care Insurance Reform. Ironically, the insurance companies and the hospitals, the two big drivers of cost, come out ahead. The residents of Naperville who primarily get their health coverage from local institutions are subsidizing the huge costs of Chicago hospitals, both the private hospitals such as Northwestern and Rush as well as County Hospital.

A comment I heard from a highly placed Democratic source. If Medicaid reimbursement was limited to 125% of the median cost of surgical procedures, 75% of the hospitals in Chicago would close immediately. The balance including those mentioned above would be severely impacted. This would be REAL cost reductions. What has this bill done to correct this situation? NOTHING!!

The second reason is that the closed door process created a bad process. We do not know why certain decisions were made. Input was not solicited, we have to rely on political hacks such as Rambo Rahm and Dick Axelrod and people like Larry Sommers that cause Harvard to lose $1.5 billion? Think about it. The first two guys only know how to count votes, the other how to put down women.

And I don't agree to run government by the polls with one exception. That is when the electorate explicitly says no. They have done that on this health care bill for good reason. And WT, I would not rely on the Obama electorate. Many of his supporters were uninformed (again, reflected at the polls by his declining support) or based on the media frenzy, were voting against George Bush.

And I am not a fan of George Bush. His second term in government was a total disaster. He should have allowed government to shut down instead on capitulating to the spend thrift Democrats. And he should have cleaned out Freddie and Fannie over the objections of Congress, he had the power, but no stomach for the battle. But replacing GW with a president who is even more incompetant (forget his radical--yes radical--views) is why a financial crisis comparable to 2001 became a total disaster.

Lastly, you continue to comment that the Republicans have just worthless ideas. That is getting old. They have DIFFERENT ideas. And I would admit that some are not workable. Sean Hannity's proposal for tax credits. They won't work. If a low wage earning family needs $10,000 to purchase insurance, $1,500 in tax credits doesn't pay the bill. On the other hand, I oppose just giving these people the money. It should be a loan that they carry to their graves. The rest of the middle class does that.

But again, the lack of a focused debate on each pertinent topic has created the current disaster. And that is 100% of the Democrats problems. You are right, the Demcrats would not agree with the Republican ideas, but say that. Don't say they are worthless because they have contributed to 30 years of prosperity in this country (I include Clinton years since there was a Republican Congress and he governed in the center to stay in office after being elected thanks to Ross Perot). I would like to give away $900 billion to the poorest people, but that would would not stimulate the economy as we are learning from the Obama stimulus plan.

WT? –

I appreciate the civil discussion, but still disagree on many points.

The main point where we disagree, I think, is the motivation for Repub opposition to the health care bill. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it appears that believe the Repubs oppose the bill simply because it came from the Dems. While I think some Repubs may feel this way, I think the main motivating factor is that they simply don’t believe in the bill. I think there are allot of different avenues which could’ve been explored to spread health coverage to the poor without such sweeping and costly change (not necessarily reform).

“The goal, in the end, is to expedite the congressional process by keeping it removed from Republican procedural shenanigans”. Shenanigans? You mean the same Congressional rules the Dems used such as when they filibustered bills and judicial nominees? See what I mean about a change in perspective? What were effective tools for the Dems in the past are now mere shenanigans when used against them.

If this bill is so righteous, so supported by the public, and so important; don’t you think we should have more debate about it and not less? If this is so right, how could the Dems possibly lose such a debate?

And what’s the rush when benefits don’t kick in for three years? It’s not like the bill will pass in a month and people will instantly get health coverage. The real rush here is the Dems are worried their own fractured party won’t hold together long enough to survive a real debate of the issues (at least not without more bribes like the ones LA and NE get). Plus, they realize that they’ll inevitably lose seats in both houses in this year’s election so they want to get this done while they can.

Tell me, WT?, if BHO’s election was a mandate for his platform, then would a Repub victory this fall be a rebuke of that same agenda?

T.B.

T.B.:

Blaming the lack of honest debate on one side IS too simplistic, and it sounded to me like this was what Dan was doing. He thinks the Reps were not able to make worthwhile contributions to the bill because the Dems kept them out of the process. But it seemed to me that most of what the Reps contributed to the process was stalling, complaining and fear-mongering. From "we need to slow down" to "we need to throw the whole thing out and start over" to "the bill is too large and comprehensive for this kind of legislation" to "the bill is too small to be comprehensive enough". It appeared to me that when the Reps were included in the process, they strove to bring the process to a grinding halt, to make health care Obama's Waterloo so "it will break him", as DeMint so eloquently put it. Perhaps all 876 amendments weren't crap, but I think it's a stretch for Dan to assume they were all really great ideas also. I personally believe the majority of them where brought forward simply to stall progress long enough to kill the legislation altogether. And this is how the Dems treated it.

This is one of the reasons Dems have decided to bypass conference committee to get the health care bill passed. From today's Huffington Post, for example:

"The goal, in the end, is to expedite the congressional process by keeping it removed from Republican procedural shenanigans. By skipping a formal conference committee, for example, Democrats can avoid dealing with motions to recommit on contentious issues (whether they be Medicare cuts, late-life consultation, abortion or anything else). This, in turn, provides a narrower window for the GOP to turn the bill into a series of wedge issues and means that there is less of a potential for moderate and conservative Democrats to grow skittish about supporting the legislation."

I, too, remember the Reps asking for a lot of things to be read out loud, even wanting the entire bill read because they hadn't had time to read it themselves. What was the purpose of all this reading out loud if not to stall? And in the interests of accomplishing something this century, the Dems eventually had to say no more. If they hadn't, they'd probably still be reading. The point is, without knowing what those 876 amendments were, both Dan and I are just making assumptions based on our own biases.

I also noticed that when the health care debate first started, many conservatives on this blog ridiculed the fact that Obama wanted a bipartisan bill, saying that the reason for this was so when it turned out to be a disaster, the Democrats would not have to own it by themselves. When the Dems finally decided to stop courting the Reps and move on, then the conservatives on this blog complained the Reps and all their great ideas were being ignored. I think this kind of no-win trap is a hallmark of obstructionists. Those who complain and condemn no matter which course is chosen really do not want any course charted at all.

I think the Dems did try to include the Reps in the beginning, so I guess we just have different impressions of this. And yes, the Dems now totally own the outcome of the health care bill, for better or worse.

You are very right about BHO not following through on his promise of openness and C-Span hearings. And the back room deal with pharma really disgusted a lot of people, myself included. But I thought Dan was saying Michele Bachmann was entitled to a C-Span broadcast meeting with Obama to give her "ideas". She was not; no one is. In addition, I don't believe MB really had any serious "ideas" she wanted to discuss regarding health care. I do believe she wanted to use Obama and the health care debate to increase her visibility and try to score political points, in short, she was seeking validation, not input. I bet Obama thought so too, which is why she was ignored. And I do think MB is a loon. She's not a loon because she's a conservative; she's a loon because she says and does loony things. That's my opinion. Those of you who like her are free to have your own.

Regarding the CNN poll Dan mentioned, I was highlighting the flip side. No one knows why 60% say they don't favor a single payer system now, could be fear of the unknown, could be misinformation, could be ideology. I don't think people voted for Obama ignoring what he stood for. You elect the man, you elect his platform. I happen to think the fear and misinformation campaign that has been going on for months is having an effect. But this is precisely why no one governs by opinion polls. I'm surprised that Dan seriously thinks Obama should.

Posted by What the:

"If you don't like my posts, then don't read them. Nobody's twisting your arm here. My discussion is with Dan D., not you. I am not pursuing a dialogue with you, nor where you invited to butt into mine.

I think this post points to one of the biggest stories on the national level. All Democrats think they are above debate or dialogue with anyone who not only disagrees with them, but points out the folly of the Democrat point of view. If you dare try to pursue a dialogue with them, you are dismissed out of hand.

Locally

Dugan/Nicarico

Drew Peterson finally being arrested

Scott Huber I guess eventhough I could care less. Seems like more of a waste of tax payer money fighting this than what its worth

This didn't make the news but should have. Naperville men seen wearing spandex or spandex-like wear way too often. Seriously guys. I don't care if you are on a bike ride or in the the gym. You are not going to lose that much time on your bike rides with normal shorts. Over 95% should not be wearing anything that tight. Look in the mirror before you leave the house. And not one of those thinning, hair removal mirrors. Look in a real mirror. More importantly, think about the other person who has to look at you. Not pretty.

Nationally

Tiger Woods

Obama - and none of it good

Recession/Unemployment rate/Economy

Madoff sentencing

Hudson plane landing - Scully

Michael Jackson died

The Dude Abides is right on in his assessment. Great points.

The news of the year should be the demise of the Naperville sun. It appears to be setting.

The newspaper delivery put it with the Tribune so it will not blow away. If you were not interested in Amish heaters or the Sun times classifieds, you had only 16 pages to look at. That took a a minute.

I think the news is the lack of news.

Crude Dude:

If you don't like my posts, then don't read them. Nobody's twisting your arm here. My discussion is with Dan D., not you. I am not pursuing a dialogue with you, nor where you invited to butt into mine.

I couldn't care less about your opinion of me. Yawn. It's obvious you are just another "angry vote" looking for a fight, so I suggest you go somewhere else to find one. I'm not interested.

A glass of chard about now sounds pretty good . . .

At least What The .... admits that the Dems are equally responsible for the problems with Health Care as Republicans - much more than can be said for a single post by the closed minded Dude, and so many others who seem to live and breathe Fox news and find it necessary to regurgitate each talking point on here as gospel.

Pi,

Nice list!

Crude WT?,

We are all again treated to the not-so-cleverly-hidden partisan ramblings of WT [see What the? on January 4, 2010 2:42 AM,By What the? on January 4, 2010 2:42 AM, for the latest examples]. You can try to continue to pretend to be non-partisan,but your posts always get down to conservative bashing.

As usual, when someone disagrees with you, you turn to left-handed insults rather than discuss the actual issue. Since we obviously disagree a tad on politicians (I dislike all, you SAY you somewhat agree with that, than your posts go on to highlight your unhealthy dislike for the GOP), you attack me as ranting and raving.

Does this mean you are happy as a pig in slop with your level of taxes? That you fully endorse and support the nanny state we are in? That the significant amount of control that the Fed gov is taking over our lives and economy is fine with you? If so, Rock On!
because that is the logical conclusion of reading YOUR rants.

Any disagreements with your particular dogma are not read by you as an equal view, but as something you must attack and condemn quickly lest anyone else even look at that path of thought. Nice open mind for debate ---- NOT!

Your posts are loaded with innuendo and left-handed, disrespect for half the political spectrum, or sometimes backwards logic. Examples:

> You post Grayson is Congressman Grayson, but VP Cheney is "Cheney. Hmmm, how about a little respsect for either all or no offices?

>You post 876 amendments by the GOP are all "craP" and can be ignored since you know the motivations of all. Say, WT, have you read the amendments are are you just sure they are crap because they come NOT from your partisan liberal view but from the GOP?

>You describe Bachman as a loon so BHO should not talk with her ---- are you nuts? If BHO did not talk with any officials who are loony, he would be in the WH by himself talking to Lincoln (like Tricky Dick). Of course, Bachman is a conservative, so her "wackiness" is bad wackiness? Atleast we all now your real motivation here.......

>You dismiss the lack of honest debate on health care as a GOP issue. Hmmmm. I t has been well-documented that Dems hid in secret rooms, locked out the GOP and wrote healthcare bills that the Dems outright admit are designed to implement 50 year-old political agendas, denied all attempts at GOP amendments, did not read the thing when it was done. Yet you, only the great and mighty WT?, fully understands the true motivations of those involved and dismisses it all as the doings of the evil GOP folk? WOW! Talk about the epicenter of narcissism.

Sorry, WT?, but your attempts to disguise your sheer pink slip have failed. There is nothing wrong with having a partisan POV, or an affinity for one party of politics, but why pretend it is not there? Are you embarassed of it or something?

Not unlike the the health care bill , if your partisan POV is so good and correct, why not just embrace it?

Of course, since I disagree with you and called you on it, you will refer to this as a rant and rationalize your pureness with a sip of chardonnay and a hearty Heil!

...and yet the hypocrite "Crude What The?" uses the same acronymn!

(by the way: there is more than one definition/use of it!)

What The ? –

I’m not one to normally defend Dan D. I’d like to respond to some of the things you wrote, but don’t consider this a defense of (or endorsement for) what Dan wrote.

I think that blaming the lack of honest debate on one side is too simplistic. There’s plenty of blame to go around. It’s easy to say the Repubs never intended to have an honest debate when they weren’t given the opportunity and the deals were struck without their inclusion. I would only be able to buy your story if the Dems had at least tried, but they saw the numbers and pushed forward alone. If they fail, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Along with honest debate, BHO promised openness and C-Span hearings. Where have they been? Instead, we’ve seen the usual backroom deals with Big Pharm. How is this change?

Assuming all 876 amendments were “crap” is definitely on shaky ground. In fact, one amendment was withdrawn after the Repubs asked for the entire thing to be read aloud. As I seem to recall, this was an amendment put forth by a liberal Dem and was doomed to failure even without Repub objections.

Why is it that when the Dems were in the minority they had a “duty” to do what they could to forward or protect their beliefs (think judicial confirmations), but now that they’re in the majority anyone who opposes them is simply “obstructing”? Isn’t point of view a funny thing?

I think it’s misleading to state that since BHO got elected after strongly favoring a single-payer system, the American people thus openly or even tacitly approved a single-payer system. This assumes that the election was about a single-issue—health care. I don’t recall BHO’s bumper stickers or campaign slogans being about health care, I recall them being about not being Bush. “Change” wasn’t simply about health care, it was about many things to many people.

It’s also easy to say that a poll showing that 60% object to this bill is the result of fear-mongering but the reasons for the way they feel can’t really be known, can it? Isn’t it just as likely that people fear change without any influence or that they actually don’t like the direction this bill is going? The Dems can barely muster the votes for this (even with huge bribes to certain states) but the poor ignorant people are just being frightened into opposing it? Perhaps they, too, need a big government bribe to get on board?

“No one governs by popular opinion”. You’re right. I think Bush proved this.

The bottom line is that nothing is ever free and the people know it. I don’t think most people oppose the objectives of the bill, just the cost and the assumptions the bill is based on. If $500 million can be saved in Medicare, why not do that now? If this bill is so urgent, how come coverage doesn’t kick in for three years?

T.B.

A summary from WT

1. First, this issue occurred when I was an employee and not for the current coverage I have for my own company. The insurance matter related to a "life event" that needed to be reported within 30 days or the person subject to the life event is dropped from coverage until the next open enrollment. My particular situation was complicated since the event (birth of my son) occurred on New Year's Eve and all of the systems (pre qualification and this was my first "life event" since I had joined that company) were closed. Four weeks later, I received an "explanation of benefits" for my son saying that the payment for his services were deferred (the EOB was dated two weeks earlier, two weeks to process and send to me). By the time I called, I missed the 30 days.

There were grounds for appeal that ultimately went to the Board of Directors (for one of the largest publicly traded banks in Chicago). I was granted coverage since it was determined that I was discriminated by being a male. All female employees have a meeting to go over benefits and actions they must take before they leave for maternity leave. Males do not. This was the ultimate reason I was granted coverage even though there were other reasons the company was aware of the situation and could have informed me about the issue.

I was also asked by senior management not to pursue the appeal. They told me that 20% of the life events were missed and the company did not have to insure the dependents when this occurred. The company had self insured medical plan so these actions SAVED the company millions of dollars. Another senior official noted that most of the people that were impacted by this problem were the lower paid minority workers.

Later, the company grapevine found out that I prevailed and I would get hundreds of calls since I was the jail house lawyer on this matter.

So I have first hand information on how companies SAVE money on health care. And I believe that this issue is not addressed in the great Health care bill.

2. Your comments about the 876 amendments and Bachman are way off base and reflect what I will categorize as Democratic BOMBAST. There is an alternative view, you just simply wish to ignore it. That is worst than saying you disagree. You summarily dismiss the alternatives, say you don't like them, and say they are ridiculous. Got it. You do not want an honest debate either. We'll see what happens next November.

I think there are many problems with insurance coverage. I would like a policy with a $25,000 deductable and have the insurance company simply process the payments so I get the deductions and cover catestrophic causes. This policy should cost me $150 per month. They refuse to sell me such a policy. In the last 13 years I have owned my company, I would have saved $100,000 if I could purchase insurance this way. I do not need all of these stupid preventative payments, I would be glad to pay them myself.

But no HONEST DEBATE, a poor outcome. In fact, I think the insurance companies love the proposed Democratic bills and would not want to operate in a competitive environment that Republicans are proposing.

3. Insurance premiums. Go ask your boss for a copy of the renewal letter that accompanied the extension of their new premiums. You are speaking without facts. And my insurance premiums have gone down three times in the last ten years, twice when I changed plan administrators and once directly with Blue Cross. You are right the insurance companies are at fault, but without interstate competition, I have little choice. Only two providers for small businesses in Illinois. No competition.

TO TB

You are right, but it is only for a portion of the cost. The base payment should be increased. The credit is only $457 for people with no children to a maximum of $5,657 for a taxpayer with three or more children.

I am advocating that the credit start at $20,000 for a single individual and phase out when salary hits $80,000. But there would be no welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. People would have to buy these services on the open market.

In Richard Roepers column Dec. 30th titled "Goofs come out of the Woodwork"

Rep. Joe Wilson
When he yelled, "You lie!" we responded, "STFU."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/1964343,CST-NWS-roep30.article

--

If it's OK to print "STFU" in the Sun Times, it must be ok to use it here on the blog.

Anonymous on January 3, 2010 4:37 PM
Yet another useless topic that has veered off into the realm of petty personal rants. Do any of you mutton heads actually have a top 10 story that you would actually like to nominate and help contribute to this topic? The request was not to DEBATE the top stories, but rather to nominate your favorites. Do any of you actually think before you start attacking your keyboards with such vengeance?

Naperville certainly is a big town filled with small minds has never been better exemplified than by what has been written in this topic so far.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anonymous, I must have missed the part where you actually answer the topic question yourself? You are quick to criticize, but at the end of your rant I thought just maybe you would give us your top stories? Kind of ironic that you criticize everyone for not contributing to the topic, and then you do the same thing yourself!

My top stories are (In no particular order): Obama, Iraq/Afghanistan, Blagojevich, Naperville Park district director, Furstenau, Brian Dugan, The Economy, Garden Plots.

The Economy

I don't think I need to add much to this entry.

Texting While Driving vs Avatar

It is the continued dissociation of self from physical society via electronic gadgets. Texting while driving. Yapping on the cell phone while walking. Checking the Iphone while at dinner with live people. Getting movies and books electronically at home rather than venturing out among people.

Avatar. Nope, not talking about this exact movie really. Thankfully, the need to see something with a crowd as a shared social experience is still strong.

Asian Carp and H1N1

Interesting pathogens which cause far away areas to try to control the spread before it gets to them.

Scott Huber Law and Health Insurance Reform

Note that the debate changed dramatically from Health Care reform to Health Insurance reform. The potential of the federal government to mandate health insurance is an interesting and scary precedent. Locally, we have a law which could be applied to people who shop too much. Equally scary.

Facebook and Facebook

Facebook changing their privacy settings to allow users to customize what information is shared is, in fact, revolutionary. What is not so good is what cannot be hidden.

e^(i*pi)

p.s. I will address Mr. Higgins' 7 unit districts malarky in another forum. Suffice it to say, Lisle has no business being on the list, and Mr. Higgins may want to think about how to present a more meaningful average than allowing a district with 2% of the population under consideration to have 14% of the influence. He may also want to make the same chart, but with Geneva to the left (best OPS) and compare it to the other seven districts (now including D203). See how ridiculous that looks and then get back to me.

Dan D –

“I have long supported Milton Friedman's concept of a negative income tax to replace this entire mess. People who earn below the poverty level would get monthly checks to supplement their income. Their subsidies would be reduced as they increased their incomes, not dollar for dollar, rather they would lose $1 of their subsidy for every $3 that they gained.”

We already have this. It’s called the earned income tax credit, though it’s not paid monthly but in one lump sum when qualified people file their tax returns. Oh, and the program runs with an error/fraud rate of about $9 BILLION dollars per year.

T.B.

Dan D.:

I wondered why you were referring to Thom H. I've only seen him post on threads regarding the 203 school board. I don't know what his positions are, but I do know his posts appear well-informed and rational. If you think we sound alike, I'll take that as a compliment.

I said previously your insurance issue at work had me intrigued. Again, why does management think they need to answer to your co-workers about your insurance claim? This is confidential stuff, unless you choose to share it. And you also said "these actions [denying claims] reduced the insurance costs for this renowned company." Do you know this for a fact, or are you just assuming that your company and your insurance provider are colluding to pressure employees not to pursue claims to which they are entitled? If so, they are clearly outside the bounds of legality here.

On to other matters: "During BO's State of the Union on healthcare last fall, he argued for an HONEST DEBATE. And that has simply not happened."

An honest debate can only occur when both parties come to the table in good faith, and the Republicans clearly had no intention of a good faith effort. I do believe the Republicans threw out 876 amendments and would have wanted to debate them all into the next millennium, since their only objective was to stop health care reform in its tracks. There is no way I believe 876 GREAT IDEAS were ignored. I do believe 876 points of crap were thrown out in an effort to delay progress indefinitely, and the Dems did not allow it. If you want to see an honest debate, Dan, then send in honest people who honestly want to debate, not just obstruct.

"This has been a one sided program to set in motion a single payor health care system despite the objections of over 60% of Americans (using CNN's polls)."

Keep in mind that Obama was very vocal during his campaign about his belief that a single payer system was the way to go, and he still got elected, didn't he? So I doubt that many who voted for Obama objected to the possibility of a single payer system since this was part of his platform. I think the 60% figure you refer to is a result of the right-wing fear machine running 24/7 since health care reform began. No one governs by popular opinion; BO is right not to be swayed by this.

"Michele Bachmann sent a letter to BO and asked to discuss her ideas. That meeting should have been on C-Span like BO committed during his campaign and innaugaration. Instead, no response."

Did you really expect the POTUS to have a sit down with the likes of Michele Bachmann? That women acts like LOON SOUP. Canned and condensed. Just add BS and stir. Seriously, the only reason Michele Bachmann wanted a meeting with Obama was to gain visibility for herself and validity for her extremist views. There is no way ANY president would allow himself to be used in such a way. Obama is not obligated to give an audience to anyone who wants one, and especially not someone as hostile and off the wall as MB!

"Again, all I know is that my insurer increased the insurance premiums an extra 8.7% because of "legislative risks". And WT-Thom H. is paying 35% more. His company must have added another 15% on the cost of the insurance premium to compensate them from "legislative risks".

Dan, your insurance premiums would have gone up regardless. The "legislative risks" is an EXCUSE being used to raise rates, don't you see that? What this says is "things are changing, we don't know how, but we MAY make less money because of it, so we're going to squeeze it out of you ahead of time just in case. And if we don't lose money, we're just that much further ahead. Win-win!!"

Our premiums went up 35% this year, but the "legislative risks" excuse was not used. Instead, we were told it was because the employee pool used more medical services than predicted this past year. Maybe it did, but 35% more? I doubt it. But if they hadn't used this reason, I'm sure the "legislative risks" excuse was the next in line. The problem is not the attempt at health care reform, the problem is the predatory practices of the insurance companies which reform is trying to stop. The insurance companies' behavior in response to changes in health care has been exactly the same as the credit card companies' response to legislated changes in the credit industry, and that has been to raise rates proactively while they still can, for whatever reason they can find. Your anger is misplaced at the health care bill; you should be angry at the insurance companies!

This is long enough for now; more later.

Anonymous,

For the record, I post under my own name, and do not allow anyone else to post under it. If a post has my name on it, it's mine. Now Chris will get a bunch of people trying to post something snarky under my name! (Sorry Chris). Also, I am in the corporate fleet leasing end of the car business.

Dan D(enys) has the unfortunate habit of trying to tie me to all sorts of people and causes that I have no relationship with. Even though I ask him to stop, unfortunately he persists. And once again, I have no idea who "What The" (WT) is.

I'm also the co-chair of Quality Education 203.org . We advocate for public education in Naperville. I invite everyone to look at the contents of our website and form your own opinions. Two pages that might interest people are What is the Best Educational Value in Chicagoland that has links and analysis of how well District 203 compares to other top-performing districts in academic performance and cost. We also recently posted Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 the definitive analysis of District 203 teachers salary structure and raises.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Moderator:

The abbreviation introduced here by The Dude Abides went national on MSNBC recently when Congressman Alan Grayson from Florida used it to reply to Dick Cheney about his daily attacks on Obama. As Grayson explained to Matthews, "The first word is "shut". I'm sure you can figure the rest out. I was surprised you let it stand. My response, "STFU? Wow, you're crude, dude" should have been a clue. For future reference, the definitions of questionable abbreviations can be found on acronymfinder.com.

Yet another useless topic that has veered off into the realm of petty personal rants. Do any of you mutton heads actually have a top 10 story that you would actually like to nominate and help contribute to this topic? The request was not to DEBATE the top stories, but rather to nominate your favorites. Do any of you actually think before you start attacking your keyboards with such vengeance?

Naperville certainly is a big town filled with small minds has never been better exemplified than by what has been written in this topic so far. And we are stooping to a new level of crudeness... with vulgarities by initials that most middle schoolers recognize yet the Naperville Sun moderator and editors are apparently clueless or no longer street savvy enough to competently keep the language family friendly or family safe. But why the charade? If this kind of language is now acceptable then why bother with silly initials?

As far as who Thom Higgins is or isn't... who actually cares? Not too many intelligent people take anything said by a used car salesman very seriously without first doing their own fact checking. And as long as any of us can enter Thom Higgins in the name block when leaving a comment then we all need to take all names with a grain of salt. After all this IS the internet and should be regarded as such at all times.

Welcome aboard, What The?!!!!

We can take over this nice area from the conservatives and Republicans. Why should we be left to live with community organizers in rundown neighborhoods?

Good bye Joe the Taxpayer, Dan D. and The Dude Abides. Now we have to knock out Senger, Connelly and Biggert!!

If WT and TH are not the same, then the wayword Dems have two crusaders rather than one. Who speak in the same voice.

Dan D.:

You really have me intrigued about the claim issue with your company. It seems to me insurance decisions are confidential, why is this even being made public knowledge within the company? Lots of questions!

I haven't had a chance to give your last posts the time they deserve. I'm not ignoring them, I've just been pressed for time. I will try to get back to you late tonight.

Crude Dude:

Yes, I realize the health care bill represents more change than reform. I believe I have already stated as much. And you are not the only one disgusted by this. But it also is a start, and it appears a start is as good as it's going to get as long as our Senate has their coffers filled by the special interests they are supposedly trying to "reform".

And for me, at least, that has been the real lesson in all of this. The attempt at health care reform has brought out into the open the extent to which our government, Democrats and Republicans alike, is now owned and controlled by the big $$ of special interests.

You can rant and rave all you want about "the trough of creeping socialism" and "enslaving us and stealing our hard work and money" etc etc. I've been hearing nothing but condemning and complaining from people like you for MONTHS and, frankly, it's now beyond boring. So until you have something useful to add to the discussion, do us all a favor and STFU.

Dan,

I am not WT, nor do I know who Wt is. Please do not use my name in conjunction with your conversation with this person.

Chris, can you help me here please by letting people know I'm not WT?

To be clear, my comments are intended for all, not just WT, or Thom H, or whoever the heck it is! (by the way, is Thom H the same one from all the school board posts?)

For some odd reason the idealogues among us have equated the words "change" and "reform" as being equal.

They are not.

"Reform" would indicate true improvement of that which is wrong or corrupt, a change for the better on a measurable basis, putting an end to abuses, abandoning an evil conduct or error, etc.

"Change" just means to make something different from what it is now. No improvement is implied or required and is often meant to represent an exchange for something else, usually of the same kind.

Even a remedial review of the current Senate & House Health Care bills highlights that these lame bills represent change, and not reform.

These bills are based on lies, extremely bad assumptions, have been cloaked in extreme opaqueness, are the single most partisan bills ever presented to the American people, create even more fiefdoms among both the elected class and, more terrifying, the bureacratic class in theis country, and lack sound financial grounding.

Yet we move forward with statements like "...it's not perfect, but at least it's a start".

This is the same logic that once defended the use of leeches and bleeding as cutting-edge medicine, among other atrocities (see "eugenics" for another) pushed forward as "reform".

Apparently, many are willing to just trust the same politicians they have already decreed as not trustworthy to NOT use their changes (disquised as reform) to further enslave us and steal our hard work and money. To passively accept the swill they throw our way as "a good first step" is the definition of insanity based upon past experiences with these very same elected dolts!

What is the matter with you? Have you no sense of history?

Now. specifically for WT or Thom H or whoever --- I get it now. You will blindly elect any Dem over ANY Repub, anytime, anyplace. It makes it all a lot clearer to me. You ARE an idealogue on that point and I now understand your skew better.

Until now, I thought we were arguing nuance but that you were a little more like me in that I have a distaste for all politicians, all the time. Without term limits we will always be subject to our elected monarchs & despots (and if you look closely at history and the McCain Feingold bill you will understand why I say "monarchs & despots". It appears to me that you don't mind lining up at the swill trough of at least one of the parties ---- the Democrat trough of creeping socialism!

A specific response to WT-Thom H.

YOU DON'T APPROVE OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD THREATEN TO "SPREAD THE WEALTH" NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVE OR USEFULL IT MIGHT BE.

Wow, we actually agree. No I do not. I remember a great quote that sums up all of the waste in social programs in our country. "When you expect to get something for nothing, you get nothing for something."

On one level, these social programs have made 15% of America drug addicts and poverty ridden. The Black leaders love this because they control these people. The are basically trapped in cages.

On another level, of every $1 spent on social programs, only 32 cents gets to the actual "beneficiary". The rest is consumed in administration and waste. The current programs don't work and are destroying our country.

But before you paint me as totally inhumane, I have long supported Milton Friedman's concept of a negative income tax to replace this entire mess. People who earn below the poverty level would get monthly checks to supplement their income. Their subsidies would be reduced as they increased their incomes, not dollar for dollar, rather they would lose $1 of their subsidy for every $3 that they gained. And all money that they collect from these programs would be loans, not grants. If you succeed later in life or win the lottery, you paid back your grants.

My concept of spreading the wealth is that Americans participate in our society and become productive. And we do under this program cast a safety net for those who are currently not making it.

CORPORATE BEHAVIOR

For privacy reasons, I do not want to get into the specifics of my issues with the corporation on medical matters. Let me assure you it was more than a $60 claim. And the comment about 20% being impacted was provided in kind of a backward approach. They wanted me to drop my complaint since it would not look right for an officer to get favored treatment when lower paid employees did not get benefits since they did not pursue.

And think about how many companies fire employees two months before they vest in pension plans.

But all of these problems could be cured if individuals would have the right to take their money and purchase their own insurance and pension plans. The reason companies fight this is because they would have to pay more for the older employer. However, this would only be temporary, ultimately there would no longer be older employers if the individual could control their own destiny.

In short, we do have very different approaches. I would like to see GEICO, Progressive, State Farm, and Allstate compete to provide health insurance. I would like them to impose cost containment over the hospitals and doctors like they have done for auto claims. This approach would result in true change. You hope for more Democratic senators so that a real single payor plan can be implemented. Costs will be reduced, but waste will increase and rationing will be inevitable. We will pay more for less.

So I respect your right to have a different opinion even though I think your solution would be dreadful to America.

Let me put this commentary into what should be the proper direction.

During BO's State of the Union on healthcare last fall, he argued for an HONEST DEBATE. And that has simply not happened. This has been a one sided program to set in motion a single payor health care system despite the objections of over 60% of Americans (using CNN's polls).

There were 876 amendments and not one was worth debating (all of them were not allowed to move forward). WT-Thom H. (I do not want Thom to be caught in a Google trap) dismisses them as well because they were Republican bills.

Michele Bachmann sent a letter to BO and asked to discuss her ideas. That meeting should have been on C-Span like BO committed during his campaign and innaugaration. Instead, no response.

So we do not end up with HEALTH CARE FUNDING REFORM, we end up with the LOSS OF FREEDOM our forefathers put into place. Let's ask some basic questions about the bill.

1. Will it address pre existing conditions accross the board? No. One prominent exception. Corporations will be able to continue to deny coverage to employees who have broken the chain of coverage (one group plan to another). Instead, these people will be forced to purchase private insurance WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDY FROM THEIR COMPANY. Since a majority of Americans are covered by corporate plans, this means a majority of Americans will continue to be denied coverage at tax advantaged prices.

2. Will insurance companies be empowered to redline high cost insurance providers to lower costs? Again, no.

3. Will insurance costs go down with this new legislation? The answer is no, they will go up. In fact, Congress wants to increase the subsidy young people pay to support the system. Our children will face massive cost increases.

4. Will all Americans be covered? No. They claim 30 million, but a big portion of this number are those young Americans that will not take the high cost coverage and pay the fine instead. Most of the increased coverage is an expansion of Medicaid that has already been the cause of the bankruptcy of the State of Illinois.

Other than being a bill, what has this accomplished? It has created yet more layers of government on top of us. I cannot tell you how angry I get when I call my insurance provider and they claim that the cause of a screw up is due to HIPFA (something like that). I own my company, I contract for my services, I PAY FOR THE SERVICE, I should be able to contract and not be subject to state and Federal regulation.

Again, all I know is that my insurer increased the insurance premiums an extra 8.7% because of "legislative risks". And WT-Thom H. is paying 35% more. His company must have added another 15% on the cost of the insurance premium to compensate them from "legislative risks".

Again, I ask for one thing, the HONEST DEBATE. Ladies and gentlemen, while we do not agree, we have debated this issue more on just this one post than Congress has done all year. By the way, let's keep our comments to a HONEST DEBATE.

Dan:

You appealed and won, like I did (above). This happens more often with corporate plans than individual ones; individuals have little recourse in fighting a big insurance co. Employees of corporations have more clout. Most people have these problems at some point or another; people who purchase plans individually have them far more often.

Appealing an insurance denial should not threaten one's job. Your corporation may not be as great to work for as you think. Appealing insurance denials does not influence one's job performance, it's a separate issue. Don't you think this "fear of losing a job" over an insurance dispute is just that, a fear, rather than a reality? Have you known anyone who has been terminated solely because they appealed an insurance decision? I don't believe this really happens today, redress through a lawsuit for wrongful termination would be too easy. I once worked for someone who was suing his department head for discrimination and he couldn't be touched much less terminated while this was active. So c'mon, let's be real here.

Sure, one can go out and purchase health insurance for 80% of the corporate cost, but you're also taking a risk on being stung by higher incidences of denial of coverage or being dropped for no reason other than getting sick, which can't be done under corporate plans. You get what you pay for. Your 20% savings would evaporate pretty quickly if you got sick and your insurer denied your claim or dropped you altogether, don't you think? However, the NEW HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION looks like it will be changing this landscape. Insurers will no longer be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions or be able to drop people when they get sick. We'll see how this changes the open insurance market.

As far as your other points go, if you're clearly against social security, medicare or any kind of government health care assistance, then you don't approve of anything that would threaten to "spread the wealth" no matter how effective or useful it might be. So we'll never have a meeting of the minds on this, we may as well just let this slide. I really don't care one way or the other. I paid higher premiums when I was young and healthier which I suppose supported the older work force and I didn't care; never gave it a second thought much less resented it. So obviously we see our obligations as citizens very differently, since you do resent it. I have no ideology to defend, no notions of preserving values that were present when our country was formed, etc. I just don't think the few should be able to stand in the way of what is best for the many, and that's what is being done now.

BCBS does not negotiate contracts with individual purchasers to get them the best deals. They do, however, negotiate with big corporations to provide their employees with discounts on services as I previously stated. Our corporation hasn't always been with BCBS; the insurers have changed over the years. But we have always gotten lower group rates, like I said, it's simple economies of scale, and it's been this way since I entered the market in the 80s.

The situation with hospitals is a lot more complicated than it appears. Hospitals have to keep beds filled in order to make money. Doctors are encouraged to admit patients to fill those beds, but only for as long as the insurance will pay, so it becomes like a revolving door. None of this is as simple on the surface as Glenn Beck makes it appear. If it were, solutions would be easy to find. So no, Glenn Beck is off on some points and grossly oversimplifying others.

I don't see health care reform as an attempt to take away our freedom. This is hyperbole. I try to avoid it; all hyperbole does is get in the way of rational thought and discussion. We should probably let this slide too.

STFU?! Wow, you're crude, dude!

The richness of the corporations and health insurance companies have nothing to do with what I was addressing, which is GB's assertion that corporate policies have a HIGHER incidence of denials than individual policies. Not true. A lower incidence does not mean denials never occur in corporate policies. It means they occur A LOT LESS.

Actually, I did remember ONE case where something I submitted was denied, so I take back my previous statement. I have had ONE denial in 25 years, but when I challenged it, it was paid. It was a small amount, $60 for an orthopedic insole which they had always covered in the past. I challenged it, they denied it again. I took it to corporate, and it was paid. It wasn't the money, it was the principle of the thing that annoyed me. Conversely, they have paid some items which could have gone either way and that I would not have challenged had they been refused.

Second, yes, the Dems have been the only obstructionists in health care. This is the third time I have stated this. The Reps can obstruct all they want, and they are by voting against everything the Dems propose, but it is not having any effect. It's neither helping nor hurting. The Dems are screwing up health care reform all on their own, thank you very much.

If the bill is so good, why did they need to bribe several people to get their vote? Because many Democrats are as firmly in the pockets of the health care industry as many Republicans are. They literally had to be bought out, pure and simple. The big money of corporations have bought many of our elected officials to the point where they can accomplish nothing for the American people, and the health care reform battle has shown the extent to which this exists. The only way to change this is through campaign finance reform. But we can't even reform health care! Campaign finance reform will never happen.

Medicare/Medicaid denies procedures at TWICE the rate of the insurance industry? You could be right. I know they have the lowest reimbursement structure on the market. It makes sense they would also have the highest rate of denials.

I know about the new exemption from lawsuits for Medicare in the bill. I guess this is now our government's idea of "tort reform". We can now sue anyone but them!

The Republicans offered 876 amendments to the Health Care bill? Do you have any idea what those amendments were? I do not believe 876 REALLY GOOD IDEAS were turned down for discussion. I think the Reps were just throwing out any kind of crap that popped into their heads so they could appear to be offering alternatives. Find out what those amendments actually were, then we'll talk.

"ANY bill that ignores tort reform, limits on punitive damages, no real penalty for frivolous lawsuits (such as loser pays costs), or the elimination of state regulation and anti trust exemptions (ie allow interstate purchase of policies) is NOT a bill designed to help the people of this country, but rather a bill designed to line the pockets of politicians who vote for it to get them perpetually re-elected."

ABSOLUTELY! And it looks like that's what we've got. But I'm not fooling myself by thinking we'd have anything different if the Reps held the majority in Congress; in fact, we'd have less, there would have been no attempt at heath care reform at all. The toothless bill we ended up with is unsatisfactory, but it's a start. My only hope is that in the next election more democrats are elected to the Senate so there is a safe margin beyond 60 votes, thereby stripping any one individual of the power to extort favors or stop reform for personal gain. Campaign finance reform would be better, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

WT, what flavor do you favor? Grape or cherry.

I worked for a major corporation that is viewed as one of the best companies to work for. Needless to say, I had three run ins with the insurance plans. I appealed and won. But it was an effort. And you want to know the interesting fact? 20% of the employees had situations similar to me. But since they were lower paid and afraid to lose their jobs, they chose not to appeal. As an aside, these actions reduced the insurance costs for this renowned company. You should be fortunate you did not get caught in a trap. Ken seems to have. I think Glenn Beck might be right.

When I formed my own company, I went out and was able to purchase health coverage for 80% of the corporate cost. I was under 45 at the time, again, maybe Glenn might be correct again. And I note that you have worked at the same company for 25 years. So you want the current plans to continue so you can have the 20 year olds subsidize your costs.

And you are wrong. If these people could buy insurance policies for what they should cost these people, 90% would jump in a instance. Why would they want to continue to pay higher premiums to help you?

As to costs, I asked if my provider would issue a non Cook County policy, all hospitals in Cook County would be out of network. Based on published information, this should lower my insruance policities. However, no insurer wants to do this. When was the last time a major hospital was kiced out of BCBS? Advocate about ten years ago. BCBS is not aggressively negotiating contracts and getting us (the purchasers) the best deal.

Why isn't auto insurance provided as an employee benefit? There seems to be plenty of competition that has made this an efficient market.

This entire bill is to take our freedom away. I oppose this plan, Social Security and Medicare. Let's go back to John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." He would even look at the current Democrats as extreme.

For all:

First, WT, learn to read a financial statement, then read them, then tell us how rich all these corporations are getting (especially the insurance companies). Until then, STFU.

Second, you should all read the Health Care bill yourselves and not just listen to your talk shows, then discuss and tell us all how good or bad it is. Did you know there are large increases to the capital gains taxes in the Health Care bill, as an example? Can anyone rationlize why THAT is in THIS bill (with a straight face)?

Third, you should all learn to count. The Dems have been the only obstructionists on Health Care. They do not need a single Republican vote to get it passed, yet it took them how many months to get an agreement? And then, only after several bribes and payoffs, which MAY be deemed illegal via the U.S. Constitution in the end? Why doesn't anyone ask the question "If the bill is so good, why did they need to bribe several people to get their vote?". Examples include, but are not limited to:

>>>300 mil in Medicaid subsidies to Landrieu
>>>100 mil in in insurance fee exemptions to Ben Nelson
>>>3 to 5 billion to Florida to keep Medicare ADVANTAGE benefits ONLY for Fla
>>>250 bil to Michigan to exempt BCBS insurance fees for Union-covered policies only

Fourth, and are you all ready for this? Do any of you know which group denies the most medical coverage for procedures? The answer is Medicare/Medicaid, which denies procedures at TWICE the rate of the insurance industry!

Fifth, speaking of the little 2000 page bill, do any of you know that imbedded in said bill is a little phrase that exempts Medicare actions from judicial review (ie the panels that will be set-up to determine coverable events), thus taking the patients right to sue for coverage of denied procedures?

Sixth, for those of you who have drank the kool aid and believe this bill only adds additional help for our nation and takes away nothing, please note that any health carrier that does not use the government exchanges cannot keep its customers, yet once they enter the exchanges they lose control of their business, their pricing, and thus their financial viability.

Seventh ---- WT: Please do some research. the Republicans and others (ie indees, libs) offered some 876 amendments to the Health Care bill ---- ALL were denied even discussion by the leadership. WOW! Those Dems really sound non-partisan, don't they? Yet you state the Republicans would support none of the items posted earlier. Wrongo dongo, bucko!

Eighth, all should take a redemial in economics. Taxes, fees, etc., always get added to the pricing. Thus, anyone who believes all of this won't make it to our insurance bills is either a little slow on the uptake OR such an idealogue that they are incapable of interpreting facts and figures. Either way, they are destined for a huge letdown in the near future.

Ninth, ANY bill that ignores tort reform, limits on punitive damages, no real penalty for frivolous lawsuits (such as loser pays costs), or the elimination of state regulation and anti trust exemptions (ie allow interstate purchase of policies) is NOT a bill designed to help the people of this country, but rather a bill designed to line the pockets of politicians who vote for it to get them perpetually re-elected.

Happy New Year All!

GB:

Ok, party's over and a couple extra points before I turn in:

My understanding is that #1 and 2 ARE in the current health care legislation. Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions by denying coverage, and an insurer can no longer drop patients when they become ill.

So 1 and 2 will be accomplished by the new health care reform bill. But either these ARE Republican ideas and you're misrepresenting the truth when you say the Dems and the MSM are not listening to the Reps, or they are NOT Republican ideas and you're misrepresenting the fact that they are. Which is it?

Back to #4. You don't seem to have a grasp on the benefits of corporate insurance policies. There's no way we would leave the protective umbrella our corporate policy provides and take the premium our employer pays to the open market. This would be nuts. Corporate policies take advantage of economies of scale. Corporations, by benefit of bringing hundreds of potential customers to the table at once, are able to negotiate with insurers for lower rates and group discounts on procedures. I know, I see the discounts on each and every EOB (explanation of benefits) I receive, always have.

We would not have our company advocating for us or negotiating these kind of group discounts if we bought an individual plan on the open market. This is why people who buy insurance individually in this way have the highest rate of denial of services. An insurer jerks around one patient, they lose one patient--no big deal. They jerk around patients on a corporate plan, they risk losing the entire employee pool (in our case, hundreds) if the corporation switches to another insurer. There's power in numbers.

This is also why health care is more expensive for the uninsured. Our company can negotiate a reduced rate of say, $400 for an appendectomy, but an uninsured person showing up in the ER in need of this procedure will be charged the going rate which is hundreds more. And very often an uninsured person is also unemployed. So the people who can afford it the least end up being charged the most.

You need to rethink the corporate policy thing, it's not a problem. I'm sure Glenn enjoys an excellent corporate plan through Fox News.

From what the:

"We have had a corporate plan for 25 years and it has been excellent. Expensive, sure, but excellent. We have NEVER had anything denied, ever!

Out of idle curiosity, did you ever have major surgery or a major illness? I had corporate insurance, and had quite a few things denied. I also had them pick up some things that I thought they wouldn't. Personal experience is just that, not what happens for everyone.

We also used an out of network provider for major surgery done on our daughter, and the corporate insurance backed out of what was written on our policy. They didn't pay until I took them to the state insurance commission. Again, personal experience does not mean that all have had the same treatment, and cannot be claimed as right for all.

It's obvious you have incorrect information, yet refuse to admit it.

Glenn:

Yes, the Republicans have been obstructing. It just doesn't make any difference whether they obstruct, the Dems are doing a good enough job of this on their own.

We've been hearing the Reps complain for MONTHS that their ideas weren't being used. It's not enough to just come up with ideas, they have to be GOOD ideas. Ideas that will actually WORK when implemented, just not look good on a bill of sale. The Reps don't have to come up with workable ideas because they have no interest in reforming health care. If they did, they would have done so when they had the ball.

The above list is a snow job, pure and simple. Most Republicans would never support such measures as tort reform, eliminating the anti-trust exemption or allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. Many Democrats can't even do this, they're so owned by the insurance industry. The Republicans can give this all the lip service they want, but they would ever pass such measures.

And some points on your list are incorrect, such as #5. My insurance company, BCBS, gives a choice of HMO, PPO or a full comprehensive program. Each type of policy charges different premiums, it is NOT the same for all. There are in- and out of-service providers; the in-service providers have contracted with BCBS to give services at a discounted rate, the out of service providers have not. We are free to use either, but we have to pay the difference for the out of service providers ourselves if we want to use them, which is more than fair. So #5 is already being done, has been for years. Where in the world did you get the impression that this is a new idea?!

#4 is also blatantly untrue. Corporate plans DO NOT have the greatest incidence of denial of coverage, individual plans do. Aside from this being a well-documented fact, I can testify to this personally. We have had a corporate plan for 25 years and it has been excellent. Expensive, sure, but excellent. We have NEVER had anything denied, ever! If you check the facts and statistics on this, you will find that the highest incidence of denials occurs with people who buy individual policies on the open market because their employer doesn't offer one. These are the people who get jerked around and have services denied by their insurers. Insurers do not jerk around the employees of big corporations. If they do and employees complain, the corporation simply contracts with a different insurance company the next year. Seriously, google the stats on this if you have to, but what you claim is absolutely wrong.

I'm not going thru each of your points one by one because it's New Year's Eve and I have other things to do. But it's obvious you have a lot of incorrect information about our health care system. That's what comes from watching Glenn Beck.

Mr. "Beck"

It wasn't kool-aid. It was Flavor-Aid made at the Jel Sert plant in West Chicago about 5 miles north of Naperville.

You have to stop watching O'Reilly

What the?

The Republicans are being the obstructionists. It's clear to me you would be first in line to drink Jim Jones koolaid.

First, all of the bickering about healthcare is being done TOTALLY by the Democrats. They want to ram this through, they do not give the Republican alternatives any meaningful consideration. And if you watch the mainstream media, you don't hear this. The Republicans can only sit and watch (and enforce the Senate rules that forces the Democrats to let the public see how bad of an idea this is).

Here are a couple of the Republican ideas.

1. Eliminate pre existing conditions. One caveat, make the insurer at the time a person gets ill to pay for ALL of the costs of the treatement, even those five years later. This might temporarily increase insurance premiums, but people will not get dropped.

2. Prohibit people from being dropped. Once a person gets sick, that insurer has to bear the cost.

3. Establish reinsurance pools to help offset the costs of pre exising conditions. You can prohibit the practice, but someone has to pay the cost. Try to spread out the cost (same practice in all other areas of insurance).

4. Allow people to directly buy their insurance. If you work at a company, you can chose to take the premium your employer pays and go buy insurance yourself on the open market. Part of the problem of insurance today is that the companies monopolize the programs. And these corporate plans have the greatest incidence of denial of coverage.

Corporate plans hurt all employees less than 45 years old by making them subsidize older employees. Take a single person plan. The premium is now $750 to $1,000 per month ($8,000 to $12,000 per year). A twenty five year old could buy the same insurance for $250 per month. They get a $500 salary increase ($6,000 per year).

Oh, you want the young to subsidize the older people? SOCIALISM, SPREAD THE WEALTH. The people struggling the most to establish their careers are being burdened to support their parents!!!!

By the way, subsidies from the young and the working poor are the cornerstones to the Democrat bill. The bills require that the difference between the highest and lowest premiums be no more that 2 to 3 times (Howard Dean, the facist, wants it to be 1.2 times). This means that younger people are going to be forced to subsidize older individuals. What a travesty!!

5. Allow insurance companies to black ball providers or if a person wants to use higher priced providers, they have to either pay more out of pocket costs or higher premiums. This will bend the cost curve. Right now, insurance companies charge the same premium. But there is no difference to the patient if he goes to Edwards and has the services done for $10,000 or Northwestern Memorial for $50,000. That is why insurance premiums are higher. Just as people chose to buy lower priced automobiles, they should have say over the cost of their health care. Right now the insurance companies do not have such power.

6. And there are all of the traditional Republican ideas that all have heard.

Eliminate state regulation and anti trust exemption.

Allow interstate purchase of policies (I must admit that this option needs something that Howard Dean supported, regulation like a utility. They must deliver what they promise.)

Limits on tort awards (again, this could be part of one's insurance policy. If they do not want to be limited, then they could pay a higher premium for this option).

So What If?, there are many more better ideas than Chinese single payer systems liberals yearn for. Let's give people a choice. Do you trust an important package delivery to the US Post Office? And now our lives. NO WAY!!!!!!

Southeast Side Dad

Since it is the holidays, I will not rail on your lack of understanding of the corporate world. Also, you did not have the benefit of the actual words of the insurance company that were posted after your comments so you could see the matter for yourself.

But let's spell out one very basic economic point. All of the mandates and taxes that will be placed on the insurance companies WILL NOT BE PAID BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Same for all of these phony taxes on medical devise makers and pharmaceutical companies.

Instead, these companies will raise the prices on the 160 million people who currently are part of the private insurance system. The 30 million who can get coverage (8 million from private insurers and 22 million from Medicaid) are going to be paid for by all of us. Not the rich, not these other people.

This insurance bill is the first step. A 10% increase to build a fund to offset these future costs. Not starting until 2013, great. The insurance companies will be taxing us 10% extra a year so their profits will definitely not be impacted in 2013.

And since the provisions like pre existing conditions and other barriers that prevent people from shopping for lower prices remain in place AND that the insurance industry is an OLIGAPOLY (in fact, in some states and areas, a MONOPOLY), the market will not work.

One example of foolishness in this bill. There will be a 40% tax on all plans that have a premium value greater than $26,000 for a familiy. The tax will not be on the customer, but instead the insurance company. NOT TRUE. This tax will be added to all policies accross the board. In fact, the "Cadillac plans" will pay the lowest tax.

I have a better solution. Let all those people who want a single payer, Federal plan sign up for it now. The premiums that their employers pay will be funneled to that plan. Let the doctors and the hospitals decide if they want to be Federal employees and join this separate medical system (just like the Post Office).

My prediction. Two hospitals in Chicago, County and reopen the old Copley hospital on the east side of Aurora. For all the liberals or progressives, enjoy your post office health coverage.

Just leave the rest of us alone, let us enjoy OUR freedom.

It’s amazing, that in 2009 the finest investigative journalism was conducted by two students concocting a wildly unbelievable story and then hopscotching across the nation’s ACRON offices as taxpayer funded employees make idiots of themselves. In the end, 2009 might be the year when the fourth estate died.

Fourth Estate – RIP – (1792 – 2009)

For how many years did we hear the mantra “… we pay a small fortune for the uninsured to use the hospitals for their healthcare”

With the advent of the Reid/Pelosi bill, it’s clear that the “cost savings” from the aforementioned quote is merely a lie. Why else would Congress need to tap the rich (House Version) or tax tanning salons and comprehensive “Cadillac” insurance plans to pay for their reforms? Yet, it seems that the media lap dogs have followed the red herring scents too far from the beaten path.

What the, the constant twisting of what happened during the Bush administration by the Obamaites is just as bad as what you decry from the Bushites. After almost a year, you and your ilk are still drinking the kool aid being served by President Obama. His administration even tried to blame the failed attempt on the Detroit bound airliner on Bush policies. Funny how all the Democrats said that President Bush should have been able to stop 9/11 after only 9 months in office, but still try to blame President Bush for everything almost a year after he is gone. Democrat/liberal hypocrisy at its best.

Southeast Side, you are showing the typical liberal duplicity. While the proposed health care plan will not go into effect until 2013, the taxes start as soon as a bill is signed into law. We will all start paying now for a program that is 3 years off.

Thanks again showing how duplicitous Democrats are, and what they stand for: taxing the American people into poverty.

To What the?

Below (at the end of this post) are the actual REASONS given by my provider for the increase in premiums. DIRECT QUOTE. Go ask your boss and owner for the information they were given instead of what they told you.

The words below cannot be any more blunt "Change in Risk and Compliance". This is not more people using the insurance. This is to cover the future unknowns. How do you think the insurance companies were going to pay the 40% tax on "Cadallac" insurance policies? Out of some side pocket.

NO WAY!! EVERYONE WILL PAY FOR THIS COST THROUGH A RISK FACTOR. In fact, the people who use these plans will not pay the entire cost, it will be spread to everyone.

And by the way, Obama was in office when your medical increase went through. And you are telling me that I should be greatful that my increase was 21% versus your 35%?

And lastly, I do think there is a need for insurance reforms. First, all State and anti trust protections should be dropped. We need to allow GEICO to sell insurance without limitation.

Insurance companies should be able to tell hospitals what price they will pay. The insurance companies should in turn inform their policy holders what they will be covered for. For example, if Edward's charges 20% more than Advocate/Good Samaritan, the patient should pay that difference, not the insurance company. As an alternative, the patient can shop for lower cost services (Advocate versus Edward) or pay a higher insurance premium to get coverage for higher cost providers (Edward in this example).

This would be just like an auto accident. The insurance company authorizes the payment of the lower cost. If you want to go to a repair shop that won't do the repair for the price the insurance company authorizes, then YOU pay the difference.

But also remember, if undetected damage is discovered when the repair is being made, the insurer typically covers that as well. This model can apply to hospital care and special tests, the highest cost of medical care.

And I would suspect that our local hospitals have lower prices than most in the metro area. Anyone see the new Northwestern Memorial hospital. And not to be outdone, Rush is building a new edifice on the Eisenhower. The people that use these hospitals should be paying more for insurance than we do. Just like people pay higher taxes and auto insurance premiums in Chicago. People who own Bentleys pay higher insurance premiums than Toyotas.

But this is where the rub is. WE ARE EXPECTED TO SUBSIDIZE THESE HIGHER COST FACILITIES.

This is where the real problem with health care lies. Hidden costs, deceptive practices--all leading to higher costs. This is what should be the focus of reform, not the crap that Congress is focussing on.

EXERPT FROM RENEWAL NOTICE

Health Renewal Premium Change Components

a. Account/Benefit Program Adjustment (incl. Trend): 10.41%

b. Demographic Adjustment: 0.87%

c. Change in Risk and Compliance: 8.57%

Total*: 20.92%

*The total health renewal premium change percentage is calculated by multiplying each of the components in the above table. This change percentage is based upon total monthly premium. Each tier’s rate change may vary from the total change percentage.

Change Component Definitions

a) Account/Benefit Program Adjustment (incl. Trend) includes group and benefit plan specific pricing changes due to factors such as
medical cost trends, pool adjustments, plan, industry and geographical pricing, etc.

b) Demographic Adjustment is the pricing change for age, gender, group size and dependent composition differences.

c) Change in Risk and Compliance is the pricing change resulting from BCBSIL’s analysis of medical conditions and experience and
includes adjustments (if any) resulting from legislative rating compliance.

Thanks to Dan D and the Fox News contingent for blaming the problem ( high cost of health care) on the folks trying to fix it. The damage to your (already low) credibility is priceless.

The health care bills currently under consideration would not really go into effect until 2013. How could they possibly affect the prices you pay now?

Thanks for again showing what buffoons Republicans are. And what they stand for - protecting the profits of mega-corporations!

Happy Holidays!

What the? on December 31, 2009 1:49 AM

I believe you missed the point. Specifically, BHO is in bed (so to speak) with many large corporations which he has enriched during the economic downturn, stimulus, legislation (proposed and enacted,) etc. The mere fact that many of these firms are large successful institutions doesn’t negate the position that they’re enriching his administration, but rather strengthens it.

If you want to put blame squarely where is belongs, how about blaming the Democratic Congress that filed to act when they realized Freddie and Fannie were off the rails. Instead, they were more interested on being a “do nothing” Congress so they could redirect their legislative failures on the President, and batter W’s legacy. Much to this extent, I blame today’s democratic Congress for the prolonged recession as their attention has been diverted from the economy to other matters. Moreover, it’s interesting to note that Congress, and the President, have just granted Freddie and Fannie an open checkbook to issue an unlimited amount of debt. Quite a dichotomy considering that the unfettered issuance of debt was one the largest contributed factor in causing this recession.

Finally, the war on prosperity is this administrations mandate that the government should, in BHO’s words, “spread the wealth around.” This position is bolstered by the various pieces of legislation making its way through the halls of Congress and the executive orders issued by the President.

I’ll leave you with the quote from Dr. Adrian Rogers. Which highlights the war on prosperity better than I can.

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don't multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn't first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruit of their labor.

Enough about the boarding houses. Go after the troublemaker. How much is this "licensing program" going to cost us taxpayers??

To Anonymous on December 30, 2009 9:46 PM:

Most of the corporations you listed above got unbelievably rich starting with the Clinton and on into the Bush administration, notably 8 of the 11 you've listed: Freddie Mac, Fannie May, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JPMorgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley and GE. Planned Parenthood, SEIU and Google I haven't followed, but the other 8 made their billions long before Obama arrived and most of them imploded before Obama took office. Which means the war on Prosperity began before Obama was even in a position to have an influence. And let's not even begin to discuss how Cheney rewarded his cohorts in Blackwater and their subsidiaries to what you think BHO has done; BHOs "rewards" positively pale when compared to the millions Cheney pushed their way over the years. Bush and Cheney practiced crony capitalism on an unprecedented level during their tenure. Nothing Obama has done has remotely come close.

I am sick of this too, but let's keep the blame and credit where it belongs. This continual twisting of history by Obama foes in an attempt to reassign blame of all that accrued during the Clinton and Bush years to him is absurd and only works on the numbest of people. Plus it serves absolutely no useful purpose in solving our problems. Let's move on.

What the?

Let’s see. In the Obama corner (or pocketbook) we have: Planned Parenthood, Freddie Mac, Fannie May, the Unions (SEIU specifically,) Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JPMorgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Google (no wonder why their pushing net neutrality laws,) and GE (wait, don’t they stand to make a ton from cap and trade and the debunked environmental crisis.) That’s even before we begin to name drop some of the bigger fish (aka Soros & co.) and their bundlers.

Based on the list above, I believe that BHO’s cohorts have been well rewarded within his the first year of his presidency.

During the Bush years, we had the war on Terror. Now it seems that BHO has the traded that in for the war on Prosperity. And I, for one, am sick of it.

To Anonymous on December 30, 2009 1:00 PM:

How much Obama is owned by big money is definitely debatable, especially when compared to our past administration, Big Oil Bush and Cheney's dedication to enriching Blackwater.

Besides, Obama is not the one holding up health care reform. It's the Dems and Independents (Lieberman) who are owned by the health insurance industry.

Want to take a big step towards solving the big money problem ownership of politicians? TERM LIMITS!! Control Campaign Contributions!!! Limit them to a maximum of 2 consecutive terms in office and limit the dollars they can accept (and end up keeping) from individuals and special interest groups! Also, put a restriction on post service lobbying activities as well.

Uh, "Breaking News" for what the? ------ Obama IS an elected offical and IS owned by big money. In is cae, you need to add uber-wealthy trial lawyers to the money mix.

Hey, just saying......

To Anonymous on December 29, 2009 3:03 PM:

Glenn Beck in '12? Seriously?! Step away from the hypnotic effect of the glowing tube!

FYI, we already have a country were people with cancer die from lack of chemotherapy. Obama is not creating this; it has been happening for YEARS. THAT is part of the problem with our current health care system. THAT is what reform is trying to change. For God's sake, turn off Glenn Beck and READ something. Get your information from actual facts and reality for a change. Gather information from different sources and think for yourself. Yes, it takes time and effort; but you'll be amazed at how different the world looks. Resolve NOT to be a ditto head!

BTW, I just read that GB put his house on the market for $4 million. How much is YOUR home worth, Anon? GB, Hannity, Limbaugh et al make their fortunes off of catering to the fears and feelings of powerlessness of Americans like you. Whatever happened to HOME OF THE BRAVE? We need to suck up the courage to make some bold changes, not cower and cry and piddle down our legs every time someone forecasts disaster. Scared people don't grow or evolve, they stay stuck exactly where they are until they die. Think about that.

Dan D. and the Anons:

Let's step away from the artificial glow of the Fox "News" Channel and let some actual sunlight into the room.

BO, aka Barack Hussein "Hitler" Obama, is not responsible for the increase in your health care premiums. This is NOT a result of "Obamacare", whatever that is now since the original bill has been watered down so much I don't think much Obamacare remains in it. Our health care premiums went up 35% for 2010, and did so two months ago while health care reform was still in the bickering stage and no one thought it would pass. Our health care premiums are continuing to rise because of the STATUS QUO, which is what health care reform is trying to change.

The reason our company gave for the rate increase of our BCBS PPO was that there was higher usage of health care services in 2009, necessitating the rate increase in 2010. Whatever. I've never seen our rates go down when we use less medical care, so they can give whatever excuse they want. The simple truth is insurance companies raise their rates because they can, because they are exempt from anti trust laws, can form monopolies and engage in price collusion. And like all for- profit companies, their goal is to increase profits for themselves and their shareholders, and raising the price of their services is the easiest way to do that.

You are right about the democrats being a major disappointment, tho. The Republicans ARE obstructing, their obstruction just isn't having any effect. At first I thought the Dems were just being wusses and lacked the backbone to follow through on their convictions. But as the health care debate has dragged on for months, I've begun to see a much different picture emerge--that of how much our politicians have been bought by big corporations, Democrats and Republicans alike. Oil, health care, pharma, you name it, money is power and these corporations have more of it to spend on lobbying and campaign donations than the American people.

I think we need to recognize the bigger problem that exists in our government, that we no longer have a government by and for the people but a government BY AND FOR THE CORPORATIONS. It may simply be too late to change this, or maybe the change has to be done in small steps over time. But I think we're focusing so much on the fight between Dems and Reps that we don't see or care that the big corporations control players on both sides. Obama is not our problem; our elected officials being owned by big money is.

It's a tie: The Scott Huber Witchhunt and Tricky Dick Furstenau dropping his silly lawsuit (Which cost at least 10 city employees their jobs thru layoffs).

This is an easy decision. It's the Marxist takeover of our country. But don’t worry; citizens are going to do what is necessary to take back our country.

I agree, Barack Hussein "Hitler" Obama is tearing this country down from the inside out. In an ideal world, if you have cancer and can't afford the chemotherapy you just roll over and die-- The ultimate punishment for being such an undeserving leech on our economy without the ability to afford medical care.

Glenn Beck '12

We got change all right. It's kicking us in the a$$ and out the door. Imagine how many more jobs will go overseas now because of cheaper labor. When companies have to raise goods/services to cover their insurance premiums they need to make it up somewhere else.

Thanks BO (love his initials).

The big news will be Obama care.

I just got my first dose. An increase by my insurance company of 21%. Of this number, 1% was for "demographic factors" (my employees getting older). The balance were for anticipated medical care inflation (10%) and the other 10%, the risk associateed with regulatory changes. What does that mean?

OBAMA!!!!!!!!OBAMA!!!!!!!!!OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

Another 10% increase because of this idoit. That's right, he wants to change health care and is forcing companies to increse premiums because they do not know what is going to hit them.

CHANGE WE CAN GO BROKE ON!!!!!

What a travesty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anon at 12/28 (9:01 AM) -

Where have you been for the past dozen years or so? Politics in DC has been this way since at least half-way through Clinton's terms.

But yes, the ineptitude in DC is sad. I think especially so in the matter of health care reform. The Dems don't need any Republican votes to pass a bill but are still having trouble and blame the Republicans for being "obstructionists". If it wasn’t so important, it’d be laughable!

**********

I think locally the story of the year was the Nicarico saga. If only the sentence were already carried out and we could put this all behind us.

T.B.

District 204 opening a 3rd high school at the same time that elementary and middle school enrollment continued to decline.
In addition, the district is 1000 students short on the number of high school students it used to sell the 3rd high school to taxpayers.

If enrollment is declining, why were taxpayers sold this boodoggle by the district?

This should have been the story of the year but The SUN never reported on it.

I think the story of the year is the terminal polarization among our politicians this year.

The thought that for the first time in American history we cannot get a major bill approved without ANY bipartisanship is shocking and acts as a complete condemnation of the entire process and all politicians involved.

It is my opinion that our current crop of national politicians has earned themselves a new job outside of government, and I would highly recommend anyone else who feels they have failed us en masse to check out the website goooh.com for an alternative to our current mess.