Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Hacksaw]

I would guess the uncertainty of knowing how far it's going to go long-term, particularly in light of the fact that Obama is on-record saying that his eventual goal is "single payer" and acknowledging that it will have to be done incrementally in order to get it past the majority of people who don't want it. Future costs, contrary to what Obama has promised, are already being estimated to be exorbitant. And there's no way to know how high they will rise, or what effect it will have on the overall economy. The huge increase in the national debt since Obama was sworn-in doesn't seem to have phased him, so it's natural for people to wonder how much more he'll add to it and what effect it will have.

[bluetick]

You're making way too much sense, puter.

No doubt. Especially the part about how the payroll tax cut extension "isn't really a tax cut that is going to help the economy."

If only you could call it something else...like a rebate, maybe. And then stick dubya's name on it somewhere. Then - magically - it would become a major boon to the economy...a master stroke of stimulus strategery.

You gotta love it. Puter cheerleads with all his might for extending tax cuts for the "job creators" - even while they have mega-billions of cash sitting on the sidelines while they purport to try to "figure out how the future will unfold." When all they've really done is figure out how to produce more with less U.S. manpower.

But tax cut extensions for working people - fuck that, right? They must not need it - since this holiday buying season has been successful beyond anyone's expectations. Although come to think of it - people DID have that extra takehome pay to spend...thanks to the payroll tax cut of 2011.

that really didn't help the economy - LOL

[bluetick]

I would guess the uncertainty of knowing how far it's going to go long-term, particularly in light of the fact that Obama is on-record saying that his eventual goal is "single payer" and acknowledging that it will have to be done incrementally in order to get it past the majority of people who don't want it. Future costs, contrary to what Obama has promised, are already being estimated to be exorbitant. And there's no way to know how high they will rise, or what effect it will have on the overall economy. The huge increase in the national debt since Obama was sworn-in doesn't seem to have phased him, so it's natural for people to wonder how much more he'll add to it and what effect it will have.

Gotta love that old single-payer canard. Oprama mouthed that little snippet many years ago; long before he sat down with the CEOs of the top 50 health insurers. Reality always trumps rhetoric (see: Cheney and rose petal parades)

The odds of us ever having a single-payer healthcare system are about the same as the odds of us having a state-run oil industry.

[Owlman]

No one really can predict the cost to the government of providing for thes employees.

If the large company pays for the penalty, then that is less cost to the corporation, meaning the only uncertainty is a windfall for the corp. Otherwise, the costs remain the same. Also, if they don't pay for their employees, they don't go on any govt insurance (medicaid) because they make too much to qualify.

[Owlman]

I would guess the uncertainty of knowing how far it's going to go long-term, particularly in light of the fact that Obama is on-record saying that his eventual goal is "single payer" and acknowledging that it will have to be done incrementally in order to get it past the majority of people who don't want it. Future costs, contrary to what Obama has promised, are already being estimated to be exorbitant. And there's no way to know how high they will rise, or what effect it will have on the overall economy. The huge increase in the national debt since Obama was sworn-in doesn't seem to have phased him, so it's natural for people to wonder how much more he'll add to it and what effect it will have.

First, even if Obama wanted a "single payer" system, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current health care bill. Plus, regardless of what conservatives are saying, the Congressional Budget Office, has estimated that the costs of PPACA is cheaper than what the status quo was.

And third, none of that has anything to do with the current health care bill and so called uncertainty in hiring. And while I agree with you that some people wonder what it will do longterm, corporations don't. I actually have a student who just wrote a health law paper (still have to grade it) with the premise that it caused increased cost to corporations that were already providing health care to their employees and the only case he found it (at least in his draft) was where the corporation was providing minimum coverage.

[Owlman]

I would guess the uncertainty of knowing how far it's going to go long-term, particularly in light of the fact that Obama is on-record saying that his eventual goal is "single payer" and acknowledging that it will have to be done incrementally in order to get it past the majority of people who don't want it. Future costs, contrary to what Obama has promised, are already being estimated to be exorbitant. And there's no way to know how high they will rise, or what effect it will have on the overall economy. The huge increase in the national debt since Obama was sworn-in doesn't seem to have phased him, so it's natural for people to wonder how much more he'll add to it and what effect it will have.

Thank you for a serious response.
First, even if Obama wanted a "single payer" system, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current health care bill. Plus, regardless of what conservatives are saying, the Congressional Budget Office, has estimated that the costs of PPACA is cheaper than what the status quo was. This latter point therefore, really doesn't seem to effect longterm decision making by corporations more than many other decisions by the govt.

And third, none of that has anything to do with the current health care bill and so called uncertainty in hiring. And while I agree with you that some people wonder what it will do longterm, corporations don't as far as I can see. I actually have a student who just wrote a health law paper (still have to grade it) with the premise that it caused increased cost to corporations that were already providing health care to their employees and the only case he found it (at least in his draft) was where the corporation was providing minimum coverage.

[Owlman]

Look, this doesn't mean that their isn't going to be an increase cost to those that were already providing health care insurance.. It doesn't mean it won't. I keep hearing that there will be and have never heard an explanation from anybody as to how?

[AugustWest]

judiciary committee meeting today to vote on SOPA. sign a petition, call or write you congressperson to put a stop to this blatant attack on our civil liberties...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

Happy Birthday, Bill [of Rights]: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/ob ... americans/

[Jungle Rat]

I still chuckle every night when the local news says at 11 that Newt is still the Republican front runner. In fact, im laughing now.

[sardis]

No one really can predict the cost to the government of providing for thes employees.

If the large company pays for the penalty, then that is less cost to the corporation, meaning the only uncertainty is a windfall for the corp. Otherwise, the costs remain the same. Also, if they don't pay for their employees, they don't go on any govt insurance (medicaid) because they make too much to qualify.

Under Opramacare, employees who are within 400% of the poverty line (about $88K) will receive subsidies to help them participate in the CHIP program.

[Owlman]

govt subsidy chart for exchanges:

http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator.aspx

for a 40 year old single man at 400% of poverty, his subsidy is $128.

[Owlman]

By the way, I still don't understand how this would retard hiring. If you have a business plan, you hire based on that business plan. If there is a govt program that may give me a windfall profit in a few years but it may get repealed, I will still hire based on that original business plan. I just don't understand the argument, I may get a bunch of money down the road, so I'll not hire who I ordinarily would have hired.

[Toemeesleather]

the Congressional Budget Office, has estimated..


White flag raised, end of argument.

[Professor Tiger]

Chris Hitchens has died. I always liked him. He was my favorite atheist.

[crashcourse]

wish I had a dollar for every column he wrote that was posted on PNN

[bluetick]

Didn't he say some harsh things about the Big Guy.

....esophageal cancer....um

[Hacksaw]

"Gotta love that old single-payer canard. Oprama mouthed that little snippet many years ago; long before he sat down with the CEOs of the top 50 health insurers. Reality always trumps rhetoric (see: Cheney and rose petal parades)

The odds of us ever having a single-payer healthcare system are about the same as the odds of us having a state-run oil industry."

Well, I'm not going to apologize for holding the man to his word. They were his words, after all, not mine. He said it. You know that I have the video to prove he said it, because I've posted it several times -- back when you guys acted like it was bullshit that he ever said it. So the video was posted and then your argument became, yeah, but he didn't really mean it or he changed his mind since then.

I'm sure that if there was a video from the early '90s that showed George W. Bush or Dick Cheney talking about how we needed to start a war with Iraq, but we would have to figure out a way to do it slowly, over time, because no one would go for it as the then-current situation stood -- I'm sure you guys would accept all assurances that they didn't really mean it. Go ahead and try to convince anyone here of that.

Obama is on record saying, in his own words, that his ultimate goal is single-payer -- and that he realizes that we will have to get there incrementally over time, in order to achieve that goal, since that's the only way he can sell it to the American people. Since then, he has done everything he can to steer health care towards that ultimate goal. The fact that you would characterize these facts as a "canard" speaks volumes.

[AlabamAlum]

Hate to lose Hitchens. Hilarious guy.

[Professor Tiger]

Something about a cocky guy with a ubiquitous cigarette, martini, and English accent, is just plain cool.

[bluetick]

Well, I'm not going to apologize for holding the man to his word. They were his words, after all, not mine. He said it. You know that I have the video to prove he said it, because I've posted it several times -- back when you guys acted like it was bullshit that he ever said it. So the video was posted and then your argument became, yeah, but he didn't really mean it or he changed his mind since then.

I'm sure that if there was a video from the early '90s that showed George W. Bush or Dick Cheney talking about how we needed to start a war with Iraq, but we would have to figure out a way to do it slowly, over time, because no one would go for it as the then-current situation stood -- I'm sure you guys would accept all assurances that they didn't really mean it. Go ahead and try to convince anyone here of that.

Obama is on record saying, in his own words, that his ultimate goal is single-payer -- and that he realizes that we will have to get there incrementally over time, in order to achieve that goal, since that's the only way he can sell it to the American people. Since then, he has done everything he can to steer health care towards that ultimate goal. The fact that you would characterize these facts as a "canard" speaks volumes.

Heh - a video from 2003. Was he still a community organizer back then? Or just a lowly state senator?

All the recorded statements oprama's made since then have him backing off singe-payer. Even going back to 2004 he told the AP that "government should be the healthcare provider of last resort."

But whatever. He said it once, so he can't change his mind, right?

Gitmo closed when? I missed it..