Traditional America

[Hemodoc]

I know I have a bad habit of asking a lot in a short space.  Thanks very much for your reply; there is a lot there, and I want to reread it all several times before responding.

Do you think that a more "traditional America" would have gotten involved in Syria?  I am not sure why there are those in Congress who seem so adamant about getting involved.  I'm not sure that God drew the borders for that particular state.  It might have been the Brits.  Why do you think that we'll have a substantial presence in Syria?  Is it because that would be in some way against the Bible's teachings?  Or the opposite?  Sure, PM me with more answers if you'd like.  Or maybe we should start another thread.  I suspect that Syria is going to become a big problem because I'm not sure anyone knows who the enemy really is or might become.

Do you think that charitable hospitals could provide healthcare now to the majority of Americans?  Was it the government that usurped power over healthcare, or was it the Profit Motive and the Corporatization of America?  Or are they all one and the same?  LOL!

In theory, I agree with you about the unfairness of current immigration policy, but I suppose if there were 12million undocumented Phillipinos in the US, things would be different.  Still, I feel for your wife and her family and can understand their distress.

Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.

The cost over runs and overpayment to docs and hospitals in the early days of the Medicare program are well documented. Doctors before the 1960's were not in general in the highest income brackets, remember chickens, etc in payment especially for the old country docs.

As far as Syria, I would be more than happy to pm you what the prophetic implications are from Bible prophecy of these movements, but no, I will not start another thread on that subject nor comment further here.

[YLGuy]

I will not start another thread on that subject nor comment further here.

        






 

[midges]

<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
      Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.

[Bill Peckham]

<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
      Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.

Hey 85% plus is like a B+, it's only 30 to 50 million people facing an early death and or medical bankruptcy with no recourse, what's the problem? 


And people with ESRD have access to Medicare so why should I care about anyone else?

[MooseMom]

The cost over runs and overpayment to docs and hospitals in the early days of the Medicare program are well documented. Doctors before the 1960's were not in general in the highest income brackets, remember chickens, etc in payment especially for the old country docs.

Well, I'm not sure that doctors before the 60's, particularly the old country docs, were performing transplants or dialysis, either.  I doubt you'd be alive if is was the 60s.  Those weren't the good old days if you had ESRD.

[Hemodoc]

I will not start another thread on that subject nor comment further here.

        






 

YL, I thought you like things from the Bible??

[MooseMom]

Well, I'd like to hear, so PM me when/if you have the chance.  I know you have better things to do than PM me about the Bible and Syria, so please don't feel obligated.

[Hemodoc]

<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
      Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.

Hey 85% plus is like a B+, it's only 30 to 50 million people facing an early death and or medical bankruptcy with no recourse, what's the problem? 

And people with ESRD have access to Medicare so why should I care about anyone else?

Not what I stated at all Bill. Kaiser Foundation scored all the states on percentage of their populations. It ranges from it looks like 20% in couple of states with uninsured to a low of 8% in Hawaii just looking over it quickly.  The average is around 15%.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/

Now, Obama took the whole pie instead of fixing the 15% with skyrocketing health care prices SINCE ObamaCare, a disaster brewing on implementation and serious cost over runs. Even the Dems are running away from it now including Max Baucus who was one of the architects of the plan.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/36159/sen-max-baucus-obamacare-s-biggest-advocate-now-warns-of-disaster

That jeopardizes many who currently have health insurance but will likely end up forced into the state exchanges. In addition, we have already been paying the unfunded mandates of hospital patients who are uninsured. A bandaid doesn't really cost $10.00 for one, but hospitals with Federally mandated treatment of ALL patients regardless of ability to pay have had to shift this cost over to the private insurers for years. Obama got his plan, now lets see what his plan does to not only the 85% who already had health insurance, but the 15% who need it. Amazingly, ObamaCare won't cover the entire 15% either.

So in short, ObamaCare will be a disaster to the current system for those already covered and it won't meet the goals for the 15% who were in need. In any case, we have heard the hype about this program for several years since it has enacted, now is the time for Obama to put it into effect and grant all the promises of its benefits. So far, it looks like it is headed for a very dubious opening day. The ball is in his court, let's see what he does with this. It doesn't look good so far.

[Hemodoc]

<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
      Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.

I don't disagree. Never stated I did. The issue is whether Obamacare will actually fix those problems for the 15% who were uninsured?

Here is a comment from a economist that is not optimistic:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/will_obamacare.html

Forbes quotes from the CBO that as many as 12 to 20  million will lose employer based coverage:

Just wait until the broad realization dawns that the harsh reality of Obamacare is that tens of millions will lose their employer provided insurance because of the perverse incentives under the program.  Even the establishment CBO admits that at least 7 million, and as many as 20 million, will lose their employer coverage.  In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/

So, will ObamaCare really improve the plight of those that are uninsured? The answer many are stating today is, we just don't know. We will see in a few short months how well it keeps all of its promises.

[Hemodoc]

The cost over runs and overpayment to docs and hospitals in the early days of the Medicare program are well documented. Doctors before the 1960's were not in general in the highest income brackets, remember chickens, etc in payment especially for the old country docs.

Well, I'm not sure that doctors before the 60's, particularly the old country docs, were performing transplants or dialysis, either.  I doubt you'd be alive if is was the 60s.  Those weren't the good old days if you had ESRD.

We weren't discussing the technological revolution in the last 50 years including dialysis of course. Today, we are waiting for new technology to bring home dialysis to more patients since we have not advanced very far past the 1960's technologies of dialysis care outside of the advances in the materials used of the components. NxStage announced FDA approval of higher dialysate flow rates with the NxStage System One. This is a game changer putting NxStage in a great position with an easy to use system, ultra-pure dialysate which others are struggling to obtain and coupled with higher dialysis flow rates in my opinion makes NxStage the system to beat as far as new technology coming on the market. Note, this is private enterprise bringing these innovations, not government programs.

America is quite far behind Europe with hemodiafiltration which many believe will help patients live a longer and higher quality of life. The status quo between CMS and the LDO's has not done anything to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of patients every year. Interjecting private enterprise competition through technological innovation will be the best way to break the current provision of dialysis stalemate with all of its dysfunction.

[Bill Peckham]

<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
      Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.

I don't disagree. Never stated I did. The issue is whether Obamacare will actually fix those problems for the 15% who were uninsured?

Here is a comment from a economist that is not optimistic:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/will_obamacare.html

Forbes quotes from the CBO that as many as 12 to 20  million will lose employer based coverage:

Just wait until the broad realization dawns that the harsh reality of Obamacare is that tens of millions will lose their employer provided insurance because of the perverse incentives under the program.  Even the establishment CBO admits that at least 7 million, and as many as 20 million, will lose their employer coverage.  In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/

So, will ObamaCare really improve the plight of those that are uninsured? The answer many are stating today is, we just don't know. We will see in a few short months how well it keeps all of its promises.

Here is the whole quote that your bolded section seems to be based on. From a July 2012 CBO report (PDF LINK):

"The change in employment-based coverage is the net result of increases in and losses of offers of health insurance from employers and changes in enrollment by workers and their families. For example, in 2019, an estimated  11 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law, and another 4 million people will have an offer of employment-based coverage but will enroll in health insurance from another source instead. These flows out of employment-based coverage will be partially offset by an estimated 9 million people who will newly enroll in employment-based coverage under the ACA."

The Forbes article is an opinion piece by a contributor, not an employee, of Forbes. Peter shouldn't the fact that the author you are relying on to make your case is purposely trying to deceive you, cause you to reevaluate how and where you are getting your information? The author was purposely trying to deceive you to support the policy position he earns his living supporting (the author is an analysis at the Heartland Institute), are you concerned about that?

[cariad]

Here is a link to an old but quite amusing article about Bill O'Reilly, (the original topic of this discussion being his pearl clutching about the loss of so-called traditional America).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html

This is an especially relevant quote, and writing from 2006 it makes the author look positively psychic. Here Kinsley discusses why O'Reilly would pretend to come out of a hard scrabble childhood when in fact he was decidedly middle class:
"Why fake a humble background? Partly for business reasons: Joe Sixpack versus the elitists is a good posture for any talk show host, especially one on Fox. Partly out of vanity: It makes the climb to your current perch more impressive. Partly for political reasons: Under our system, even conservatives need some plausible theory to qualify for victim status, from which all blessings flow."

Now in the America that I grew up in, yes, the real America, as real as any other's, it was considered shameful to look for ways to claim victim status and moan about how disadvantaged you were. And I note that the likes of O'Reilly are still happy to scold others who might reference their own oppression, but he feels perfectly justified to mine his own background for any hint that he may have had to struggle to make his way in the world. It's a bit nauseating, actually.

Not sure if you are referring to me in some manner about an alleged "victim status." Sorry, not at all. It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way. I am not a victim and I don't know any of my like minded friends who make such a claim.

As I pointed out a few posts back, it appears this a favorite allegation of several left leaning bloggers that I had not read previously. If you believe our message is one of victimhood, you have not understood what we are stating.  In addition, you don't understand our Saviour who states:

John 16:33     These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

The only thing we claim is sadness that people are moving further away from the Lord spiritually since I have no doubt that all things that are good come from above.

James 1:17     Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

So victims, no not at all in any manner since we have already inherited God's kingdom. But God has indeed given us the right to speak up about those things that are wrong and to defend that which is right. So, it is not the status of a victim that gives us all blessings, sorry, all blessings flow from God alone and none other.

What the?

You just said you didn't want to speak to me. Yesterday. Is there a reason you think I was speaking to you?

It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way.

I assume this is a joke, the part about being puzzled. Gee, why does it keep coming up? Hmmm.... Bill O'Reilly whines about how rich white men have lost their iron grip on America.... could that have something to do with it?

I skipped the middle paragraphs in your message because I saw the proselytizing coming. The last paragraph tells me that you just didn't understand what the author was saying. I personally didn't find it that cryptic, but I do have years of literary and communication analysis behind me.

[Hemodoc]

<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
      Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.

I don't disagree. Never stated I did. The issue is whether Obamacare will actually fix those problems for the 15% who were uninsured?

Here is a comment from a economist that is not optimistic:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/will_obamacare.html

Forbes quotes from the CBO that as many as 12 to 20  million will lose employer based coverage:

Just wait until the broad realization dawns that the harsh reality of Obamacare is that tens of millions will lose their employer provided insurance because of the perverse incentives under the program.  Even the establishment CBO admits that at least 7 million, and as many as 20 million, will lose their employer coverage.  In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/

So, will ObamaCare really improve the plight of those that are uninsured? The answer many are stating today is, we just don't know. We will see in a few short months how well it keeps all of its promises.

Here is the whole quote that your bolded section seems to be based on. From a July 2012 CBO report (PDF LINK):

"The change in employment-based coverage is the net result of increases in and losses of offers of health insurance from employers and changes in enrollment by workers and their families. For example, in 2019, an estimated  11 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law, and another 4 million people will have an offer of employment-based coverage but will enroll in health insurance from another source instead. These flows out of employment-based coverage will be partially offset by an estimated 9 million people who will newly enroll in employment-based coverage under the ACA."

The Forbes article is an opinion piece by a contributor, not an employee, of Forbes. Peter shouldn't the fact that the author you are relying on to make your case is purposely trying to deceive you, cause you to reevaluate how and where you are getting your information? The author was purposely trying to deceive you to support the policy position he earns his living supporting (the author is an analysis at the Heartland Institute), are you concerned about that?

Bill, there are quite a few sources stating the same thing. Dealing with the facts at hand, the incentives in Obamacare will shift many currently on employer based group health plans over to the exchanges simply because it is a lot cheaper to do so. The fine is a lot cheaper than the health insurance. Employers will shift more folks to part time defined as 30 hours per week as well and many will choose to pay the fine instead of paying the ever increasing health care costs which are increasing dramatically ever since the Affordable Health Care Act was signed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html

If you don't like the source above, here is a post from the Kaiser Health News listing several sources stating the same thing, many are going to lose their employer based health insurance and shift over to the state exchanges, most of which have not even been set up yet.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/February/06/cbo-and-employer-insurance.aspx

[gothiclovemonkey]

I really love reading this thread.
(just so im CLEAR, and not taken wrong, i am NOT being sarcastic. its a fun read.)

really shows differences among like people.
its what makes the world go round.

I dont reply to any of this stuff because people tend to take me wrong, but i have to say, definitely some interesting points of view being had.
I like people watching

And MM, and Cariad, I want to say I love you guys! SO smart and well worded! (i wish i could be more like you guys!)

[Bill Peckham]

Bill, there are quite a few sources stating the same thing. Dealing with the facts at hand, the incentives in Obamacare will shift many currently on employer based group health plans over to the exchanges simply because it is a lot cheaper to do so. The fine is a lot cheaper than the health insurance. Employers will shift more folks to part time defined as 30 hours per week as well and many will choose to pay the fine instead of paying the ever increasing health care costs which are increasing dramatically ever since the Affordable Health Care Act was signed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html

If you don't like the source above, here is a post from the Kaiser Health News listing several sources stating the same thing, many are going to lose their employer based health insurance and shift over to the state exchanges, most of which have not even been set up yet.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/February/06/cbo-and-employer-insurance.aspx

The WSJ link is to an editorial behind their pay wall from a guy who works for the Hoover Institute, so again someone who makes their living selling Republican dogma.

The Kaiser link is to their Daily Digest – DIGEST – in other words not the considered opinion of Kaiser, rather a DIGEST of reporting by other outfits and once again if you actually look at the CBO report being discussed you can avoid the filter of people who are trying to generate clicks.

From the CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf)

Higher Enrollment in and Subsidies for Coverage Through Exchanges

CBO and JCT’s estimate of the costs of subsidies for insurance obtained through the exchanges and for related spending over the 2013–2022 period is now $32 billion
(or about 3 percent) higher than it was in August, mostly because of higher projected enrollment in the exchanges. Lower marginal tax rates under the American Taxpayer Relief Act will reduce the relative attractiveness of employment-based insurance for low-income workers and for their employers. CBO and JCT anticipate that the change in tax law will increase the number of people who shift out of employment-based coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act by 2 million to 3 million people, many of whom are expected to obtain insurance through the exchanges. Several other technical changes decreased projected enrollment in the exchanges. All told, CBO and JCT now project that 26 million people will be enrolled in the insurance exchanges in 2022, about 500,000 more than estimated in the August 2012 report.

Did you understand that? The lower tax rates that were made permanent (i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts for people earning less than $400,000) results in more people opting to go into exchanges than would be the case if the tax rates reverted to their 2001 levels.

And, like your previous link, the seven million number, while more correct than the Forbes contributor’s 12 million number, misses the context that it is not 7 million increase, rather it is a 2 to 3 million increase from what was already expected.

I also think that these “analysis” miss the true lead – per person Medicaid spending and per beneficiary Medicare spending is trending down in a sustained manner which makes past projections by Heritage, Hoover and the rest obsolete: simply extending historic pre2008 trend lines out 25 years is completely meaningless. To be meaningful the analysis has to contend with good news too.

[Hemodoc]

Here is a link to an old but quite amusing article about Bill O'Reilly, (the original topic of this discussion being his pearl clutching about the loss of so-called traditional America).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html

This is an especially relevant quote, and writing from 2006 it makes the author look positively psychic. Here Kinsley discusses why O'Reilly would pretend to come out of a hard scrabble childhood when in fact he was decidedly middle class:
"Why fake a humble background? Partly for business reasons: Joe Sixpack versus the elitists is a good posture for any talk show host, especially one on Fox. Partly out of vanity: It makes the climb to your current perch more impressive. Partly for political reasons: Under our system, even conservatives need some plausible theory to qualify for victim status, from which all blessings flow."

Now in the America that I grew up in, yes, the real America, as real as any other's, it was considered shameful to look for ways to claim victim status and moan about how disadvantaged you were. And I note that the likes of O'Reilly are still happy to scold others who might reference their own oppression, but he feels perfectly justified to mine his own background for any hint that he may have had to struggle to make his way in the world. It's a bit nauseating, actually.

Not sure if you are referring to me in some manner about an alleged "victim status." Sorry, not at all. It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way. I am not a victim and I don't know any of my like minded friends who make such a claim.

As I pointed out a few posts back, it appears this a favorite allegation of several left leaning bloggers that I had not read previously. If you believe our message is one of victimhood, you have not understood what we are stating.  In addition, you don't understand our Saviour who states:

John 16:33     These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

The only thing we claim is sadness that people are moving further away from the Lord spiritually since I have no doubt that all things that are good come from above.

James 1:17     Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

So victims, no not at all in any manner since we have already inherited God's kingdom. But God has indeed given us the right to speak up about those things that are wrong and to defend that which is right. So, it is not the status of a victim that gives us all blessings, sorry, all blessings flow from God alone and none other.

What the?

You just said you didn't want to speak to me. Yesterday. Is there a reason you think I was speaking to you?

It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way.

I assume this is a joke, the part about being puzzled. Gee, why does it keep coming up? Hmmm.... Bill O'Reilly whines about how rich white men have lost their iron grip on America.... could that have something to do with it?

I skipped the middle paragraphs in your message because I saw the proselytizing coming. The last paragraph tells me that you just didn't understand what the author was saying. I personally didn't find it that cryptic, but I do have years of literary and communication analysis behind me.

Dear Cariad, I didn't say I wouldn't speak with you, just that I am not interested in trading insults with you. Discussion of the topic at hand is a different aspect.

Now, to your comments, there is ONLY one person here taking an opposing view from the "right." That is me. If someone else is participating from my perspective, then perhaps you were addressing those comments to them, otherwise, yes it looks like those comments were addressed at me unless you have someone else you were referring to.

Yes, puzzled was correct since I am not in any sense claiming a "victims" status in any manner. Far from it. Our Heavenly Father is in control of all things. I am quite aware of the conditions that this world is heading whether I like it or not. Victim, no, not at all. The Lord has already overcome the world.

Now as far as Bill O'Reilly, I have never heard his diatribe you are referring to but that is simply his own opinion, something we are all entitled to whether folks agree with it or not. If I was concerned about losing my grip on America, I would not have married two brown skinned women who gave me brown skinned children. Sorry, but losing an alleged racist control or an alleged white supremacy in America is not what motivates folks of my persuasion. That is simply a leftist accusation without merit.

I didn't understand the concepts of freedom and defending our constitution until I joined the military and saw up close and personal what that really means. Lots of folks of all colors and persuasions who understand the concept of defending our constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That is what our beef is, not some false alleged white supremacy complex. Race has nothing to do with it. It is instead about preserving our God given freedoms and the constitutional protections of those God given freedoms as our founding fathers in America so understood.

[Hemodoc]

Bill, there are quite a few sources stating the same thing. Dealing with the facts at hand, the incentives in Obamacare will shift many currently on employer based group health plans over to the exchanges simply because it is a lot cheaper to do so. The fine is a lot cheaper than the health insurance. Employers will shift more folks to part time defined as 30 hours per week as well and many will choose to pay the fine instead of paying the ever increasing health care costs which are increasing dramatically ever since the Affordable Health Care Act was signed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html

If you don't like the source above, here is a post from the Kaiser Health News listing several sources stating the same thing, many are going to lose their employer based health insurance and shift over to the state exchanges, most of which have not even been set up yet.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/February/06/cbo-and-employer-insurance.aspx

The WSJ link is to an editorial behind their pay wall from a guy who works for the Hoover Institute, so again someone who makes their living selling Republican dogma.

The Kaiser link is to their Daily Digest – DIGEST – in other words not the considered opinion of Kaiser, rather a DIGEST of reporting by other outfits and once again if you actually look at the CBO report being discussed you can avoid the filter of people who are trying to generate clicks.

From the CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf)

Higher Enrollment in and Subsidies for Coverage Through Exchanges

CBO and JCT’s estimate of the costs of subsidies for insurance obtained through the exchanges and for related spending over the 2013–2022 period is now $32 billion
(or about 3 percent) higher than it was in August, mostly because of higher projected enrollment in the exchanges. Lower marginal tax rates under the American Taxpayer Relief Act will reduce the relative attractiveness of employment-based insurance for low-income workers and for their employers. CBO and JCT anticipate that the change in tax law will increase the number of people who shift out of employment-based coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act by 2 million to 3 million people, many of whom are expected to obtain insurance through the exchanges. Several other technical changes decreased projected enrollment in the exchanges. All told, CBO and JCT now project that 26 million people will be enrolled in the insurance exchanges in 2022, about 500,000 more than estimated in the August 2012 report.

Did you understand that? The lower tax rates that were made permanent (i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts for people earning less than $400,000) results in more people opting to go into exchanges than would be the case if the tax rates reverted to their 2001 levels.

And, like your previous link, the seven million number, while more correct than the Forbes contributor’s 12 million number, misses the context that it is not 7 million increase, rather it is a 2 to 3 million increase from what was already expected.

I also think that these “analysis” miss the true lead – per person Medicaid spending and per beneficiary Medicare spending is trending down in a sustained manner which makes past projections by Heritage, Hoover and the rest obsolete: simply extending historic pre2008 trend lines out 25 years is completely meaningless. To be meaningful the analysis has to contend with good news too.

Of course I "understood that." There are many who don't agree with that sentiment. We have heard all kinds of hype about this program for about 4 years now. The time to see what the Obama administration will accomplish is now coming to a head. Instead of shoring up Democratic support, it looks like a whole lot of Dems are heading for the hills so to speak because of the impending roll out disaster many see coming.

By the way, the CBO is not at all an unbiased source for this as well. There are many well known economists who question the CBO projections. In any case, we will see in the next 12 months how well Obama has put this together.

[Bill Peckham]

Of course I "understood that." There are many who don't agree with that sentiment. We have heard all kinds of hype about this program for about 4 years now. The time to see what the Obama administration will accomplish is now coming to a head. Instead of shoring up Democratic support, it looks like a whole lot of Dems are heading for the hills so to speak because of the impending roll out disaster many see coming.

By the way, the CBO is not at all an unbiased source for this as well. There are many well known economists who question the CBO projections. In any case, we will see in the next 12 months how well Obama has put this together.

I think I understand your process

• Step one – find article that supports opinion Obamacare is bad.
• Step two – link article that holds up CBO as source of information confirming Obamacare bad
• Step three - when shown what CBO report actually says disparage CBO as source since it does not support opinion Obamacare is bad
• Step four - stick with generalities and claim history will prove Obamacare bad

[cariad]

Dear Cariad, I didn't say I wouldn't speak with you, just that I am not interested in trading insults with you. Discussion of the topic at hand is a different aspect.

Now, to your comments, there is ONLY one person here taking an opposing view from the "right." That is me. If someone else is participating from my perspective, then perhaps you were addressing those comments to them, otherwise, yes it looks like those comments were addressed at me unless you have someone else you were referring to.

Yes, puzzled was correct since I am not in any sense claiming a "victims" status in any manner. Far from it. Our Heavenly Father is in control of all things. I am quite aware of the conditions that this world is heading whether I like it or not. Victim, no, not at all. The Lord has already overcome the world.

Now as far as Bill O'Reilly, I have never heard his diatribe you are referring to but that is simply his own opinion, something we are all entitled to whether folks agree with it or not. If I was concerned about losing my grip on America, I would not have married two brown skinned women who gave me brown skinned children. Sorry, but losing an alleged racist control or an alleged white supremacy in America is not what motivates folks of my persuasion. That is simply a leftist accusation without merit.

I didn't understand the concepts of freedom and defending our constitution until I joined the military and saw up close and personal what that really means. Lots of folks of all colors and persuasions who understand the concept of defending our constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That is what our beef is, not some false alleged white supremacy complex. Race has nothing to do with it. It is instead about preserving our God given freedoms and the constitutional protections of those God given freedoms as our founding fathers in America so understood.

What the flip, Hemodoc?!

If you did not get that this discussion is about Bill O'Reilly's racism, then you didn't even read the opening comment, nor bother to look in to just exactly what he said to spark this discussion. Just because you are conservative does not mean I was addressing you. The way you think everyone is forever talking about and to you comes off as arrogance, paranoia, or a bit of both. What Bill O'Reilly said was racist. I was addressing THE ACTUAL TOPIC with a piece that I very much enjoyed when I read it all those years ago, I thought it would give an extra bit of insight into Bill O'Reilly. NOT you. Bill O'Reilly. Unless you secretly ARE Bill O'Reilly and are prepared to admit that now, don't bother acting insulted toward my comments. There have been plenty of other conservatives in this discussion, so spare me the you-against-the-world stance.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Cariad, I didn't say I wouldn't speak with you, just that I am not interested in trading insults with you. Discussion of the topic at hand is a different aspect.

Now, to your comments, there is ONLY one person here taking an opposing view from the "right." That is me. If someone else is participating from my perspective, then perhaps you were addressing those comments to them, otherwise, yes it looks like those comments were addressed at me unless you have someone else you were referring to.

Yes, puzzled was correct since I am not in any sense claiming a "victims" status in any manner. Far from it. Our Heavenly Father is in control of all things. I am quite aware of the conditions that this world is heading whether I like it or not. Victim, no, not at all. The Lord has already overcome the world.

Now as far as Bill O'Reilly, I have never heard his diatribe you are referring to but that is simply his own opinion, something we are all entitled to whether folks agree with it or not. If I was concerned about losing my grip on America, I would not have married two brown skinned women who gave me brown skinned children. Sorry, but losing an alleged racist control or an alleged white supremacy in America is not what motivates folks of my persuasion. That is simply a leftist accusation without merit.

I didn't understand the concepts of freedom and defending our constitution until I joined the military and saw up close and personal what that really means. Lots of folks of all colors and persuasions who understand the concept of defending our constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That is what our beef is, not some false alleged white supremacy complex. Race has nothing to do with it. It is instead about preserving our God given freedoms and the constitutional protections of those God given freedoms as our founding fathers in America so understood.

What the flip, Hemodoc?!

If you did not get that this discussion is about Bill O'Reilly's racism, then you didn't even read the opening comment, nor bother to look in to just exactly what he said to spark this discussion. Just because you are conservative does not mean I was addressing you. The way you think everyone is forever talking about and to you comes off as arrogance, paranoia, or a bit of both. What Bill O'Reilly said was racist. I was addressing THE ACTUAL TOPIC with a piece that I very much enjoyed when I read it all those years ago, I thought it would give an extra bit of insight into Bill O'Reilly. NOT you. Bill O'Reilly. Unless you secretly ARE Bill O'Reilly and are prepared to admit that now, don't bother acting insulted toward my comments. There have been plenty of other conservatives in this discussion, so spare me the you-against-the-world stance.

Fair enough Cariad, I will simply not address your posts in the future. I address you respectfully and with reasoned answers and this is how you respond. I guess there is no further need to respond to your diatribes in the future.

Have a great day.

P.S. Plenty of other conservatives??? Oh really, I haven't noticed any in the last week since this thread opened up again.

[Hemodoc]

Of course I "understood that." There are many who don't agree with that sentiment. We have heard all kinds of hype about this program for about 4 years now. The time to see what the Obama administration will accomplish is now coming to a head. Instead of shoring up Democratic support, it looks like a whole lot of Dems are heading for the hills so to speak because of the impending roll out disaster many see coming.

By the way, the CBO is not at all an unbiased source for this as well. There are many well known economists who question the CBO projections. In any case, we will see in the next 12 months how well Obama has put this together.

I think I understand your process

• Step one – find article that supports opinion Obamacare is bad.
• Step two – link article that holds up CBO as source of information confirming Obamacare bad
• Step three - when shown what CBO report actually says disparage CBO as source since it does not support opinion Obamacare is bad
• Step four - stick with generalities and claim history will prove Obamacare bad

Sorry Bill, no agenda here. I have never been a fan of Obamacare which you know and understand. Out of respect to you, I have not voiced that concern on my blog or in yours while I was writing for you.

So, no, I haven't gone so far as to have an agenda. I simply thought we were involved in a discussion on this issue. Is that having an agenda?

[cariad]

Fair enough Cariad, I will simply not address your posts in the future. I address you respectfully and with reasoned answers and this is how you respond. I guess there is no further need to respond to your diatribes in the future.

Have a great day.

P.S. Plenty of other conservatives??? Oh really, I haven't noticed any in the last week since this thread opened up again.

Oh, please. Please!

You do not address me respectfully. Calling me names like 'delusional', accusing me repeatedly of ad hominem attacks but failing to ever specify where those supposed insults are, trying to tell me what I am and am not allowed to discuss in these threads, insulting liberals but then crying that any criticism of *any* conservative is against you personally..... and on and on and on and on.

There are plenty of other conservative voices in this thread, but of course once I point that out you change it to "in the past week". In this thread alone you have accused people of talking about you when they weren't no less than 3 times. Maybe if you see yourself in the less-flattering posts that should tell you something, but it is certainly not my fault that you imagine that we are all picking on you all the time.

P.S. It is 10 at night here. I have already had a great day. I have them whether I get your permission or not.

[cariad]

I really love reading this thread.
(just so im CLEAR, and not taken wrong, i am NOT being sarcastic. its a fun read.)

really shows differences among like people.
its what makes the world go round.

I dont reply to any of this stuff because people tend to take me wrong, but i have to say, definitely some interesting points of view being had.
I like people watching

And MM, and Cariad, I want to say I love you guys! SO smart and well worded! (i wish i could be more like you guys!)

Oh, I almost missed this in the fray!

Thank you, GLM! I hope MM sees this, too, because personally your comment has made my week. You are a wonderful, witty, beautiful and strong woman just the way you are, and if you have trouble seeing that we'll just have to keep reminding you. I know what you mean about being frequently misinterpreted, it's a hazard of internet communication, but you add an irreplaceable voice to the forum, so don't hold back if you feel you have something to say. The people who matter will go to the effort to hear what you really want to say.

[gothiclovemonkey]

Thank you
I personally learned long ago that there are certain subjects that I am just better left out of lol Politics, religion, and some random here and theres being my top no-no's!
Mainly because no one ever agrees to disagree, and thats all I am about. I can see both sides to every argument, and I honestly think that pisses people off more than being one-sided!!! I dont like confrontation at all, so i just stay silent for the most part.

In my opinion, Its not really very logical to be one-sided on some of these issues. You, of course, can have an opinion, but to not be capable of seeing another person's side... thats something else entirely. And I have noticed that there is always going to be someone out there who will always believe the grass is blue, no matter how much you can prove that it is green...

[MooseMom]

Thank you
I personally learned long ago that there are certain subjects that I am just better left out of lol Politics, religion, and some random here and theres being my top no-no's!
Mainly because no one ever agrees to disagree, and thats all I am about. I can see both sides to every argument, and I honestly think that pisses people off more than being one-sided!!! I dont like confrontation at all, so i just stay silent for the most part.

In my opinion, Its not really very logical to be one-sided on some of these issues. You, of course, can have an opinion, but to not be capable of seeing another person's side... thats something else entirely. And I have noticed that there is always going to be someone out there who will always believe the grass is blue, no matter how much you can prove that it is green...

It depends on what you really want out of discussions like these.  If all you want to do is to change someone's mind, good luck with that.  If what you want is to appear to be learned and fascinating, then you'll end up just appearing fooling.  But if what you really want is to discuss ideas and to actually LEARN something, then these discussions can be fascinating.

There is a difference between taking a side and presenting information.

If you define yourself solely by defending your position or wedding yourself to your opinion, you'll just feel personally insulted all the time.

However, if you are truly intellectually curious, then you can have great fun.

While you should always respect a person's right to their opinion, it does not follow that you must respect the opinion itself.  However, still be polite.

I often agree to disagree.  If I posted only with those with whom I agree, I'd be quickly bored.

If you see these conversations as "confrontational", then don't participate.  If, however, you can remember that it's not all about you, then you might learn something and might also feel more comfortable sharing your thoughts ("You" meaning a general you, not you personally, GLM).