Ms. Pelosi said the ACA would create 4 million jobs while the CBO says it will
give incentive for 2 million to quit working and get a government subsidy. The
ACA does not save each family $2500 or "bend the cost curve down," as
many as 30 million people will not be covered with a medical plan and you cannot
necessarily keep your doctor if you like her/him. Those facts do not support a
victory lap for Mr. Obama.
You understand, Wonder, that it's the conservatives who give of their
money, much more than the liberals? Libs are happy to have government take from
you and they will decide how to portion it out. So spare me the
remarks about the Tea Party, you have no idea what they do.
Yes, lets go back to the good old days when parents who didn't have enough
money gave their children up to others to raise, old people ate canned cat food,
poor people died of disease because they couldn't afford a doctor, etc.
After all, it's way more important that I keep every penny that I make than
that poor people get any assistance at all. After all, they are probably lazy
and deserve it. Well, if I see a "good one", I'll give them $20 or
$100 and feel good about it, but as a society, we should not ever collectively
do anything to help anyone out. (Says the typical Tea Party conservative)
Gildas: Just to finish his statement which is taped to my desk: "The
government will take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have
nots.' Both have lost their freedom. Those who 'have,' lost
their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they
desire. those who 'have not,' lost their freedom because they did not
earn what they received. They got 'something for nothing,' and they
will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift." Howard W.
Hunter, from "The Law of the Harvest" - Devotional address at BYU.
@ Gildas. You are right, I jumped to the wrong conclusion about your comments.
Re: "I am so grateful for the ACA. Without it, millions of Americans would
be without healthcare."Uh . . . maybe you missed the memo.Millions of Americans are without health care. And millions more will
soon be, when their employers dump their health care benefit. And most of the
millions Obamacare promised would quickly be newly insured . . . aren't.Millions that believed the cynical lie, "if you like your plan, you
can keep it," couldn't. And most of them can no longer afford
insurance, because Obamacare forced them out of their familiar plans, into weird
boutique plans, with rates based on offering expensive anti-life, anti-sanity,
anti-health items that are the darling of one or another Democrat constituency,
but are completely irrelevant to real people.It's just sad that
liberals are grateful for so much pain and misery.
"Obamacare will push approximately 2 million people out of the labor market
by 2017, according to Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times, citing the latest
estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office."This
comment was given three pinochios by the Washington Post fact checker. In other
words, it's mostly a lie.
Thid BarkerMight I respectfully ask that you read the statement more
carefully. Howard W Hunter is not recommending the world's version of
welfare at all. As the sub-section title cited obviouisly suggests,
welfare comes b'c of a failure of the better off to deal sympathetically
with the problems of the many honest poor people. He states that this is not a
good thing since it takes away the freedom of both giver and recipient.I am a big fan of Ezra Taft Benson and am not inferior to you in my knowledge
or understanding of these things. However I do not take a partisan view. It is
very obvious that a "dole" is a bad system, but it comes about when
private philanthropy fails to meet the needs of the honest portion of the worse
Mike-Neither of my post said I support the redistribution of wealth. Both
of my post said the ACA redistributes wealth, as does SS, Medicare, and
Education. I think a more pertinent question anyone needs to ask is how much of
their own wealth would they support to be redistributed by goverment. I
don't have a solid opinion on that. I truly don't know that there is a
correct answer of if I know what it is. I pay over 30k a year in taxes and feel
more grateful than bitter to live in a country that takes that from me but
provides me with freedom, security and a right to pursue hapiness.
It's not really on point to the article, but since the comments predictably
fell into "lazy people don't deserve my charity" rhetoric, I submit
the below quotation: "Suppose that in this community there
are ten beggars who beg from door to door for something to eat, and that nine of
them are impostors who beg to escape work, and with an evil heart practise
imposition upon the generous and sympathetic, and that only one of the ten who
visit your doors is worthy of your bounty; which is best, to give food to the
ten, to make sure of helping the truly needy one, or to repulse the ten because
you do not know which is the worthy one? You will all say, Administer charitable
gifts to the ten, rather than turn away the only truly worthy and truly needy
person among them. If you do this, it will make no difference in your blessings,
whether you administer to worthy or unworthy persons, inasmuch as you give alms
with a single eye to assist the truly needy."-Brigham Young
FT,Do you want your wealth taken from you and given to Obama's
half-brother? It's a very simple question. You've told us in both
your posts that you support the redistribution of wealth. Are you willing to
participate fully? Are you willing to pool your money with all people in all
places and let each receive back an equal amount? Are you willing to work 40,
or 50 or sixty hours a weeks so that someone else can live without working?
Obama is not willing to do that. I am not willing to do that. I don't
expect you to do that for me or for my family. That is a sure way to ruin a
man, his family and the society that he lives in. If he wants to help others,
he is already free to do that. If he believes is assisting the poor and the
needy, he can contribute his time and his money as freely as he desires. What you are advocating is forced charity. Who is the father of forced
charity? His use of "force" caused him to be ejected from heaven.
@ Gildas. Obamacare is no "gospel plan". Perhaps you should read what
the prophets (especially Ezra Taft Benson) have taught about the evils of the
government dole which is exactly what Obamacare is!
"If a man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily,
through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that
through "a democratic process" he will be forced to come to the aid of
his brother. The government will take from the "haves" and give to the
"have nots". Both have lost their freedom. "Howard W
Hunter: The Teachings of Howard W Hunter: Page 169, under sub-heading
"Personal unrighteousness can lead to a welfare state".
Obamacare has lots of problems but the largest of them all and the one that will
untimely harm our economy the most is that it has far too many takers and far to
few payers and is hemorrhaging red ink! The Demos are already planning a massive
tax payer bailout of insurance companies from an ocean of red ink in an effort
to salvage Obamacare from imploding.
Mike Richards-You interpert or assume a lot from my short post. A
sizeable amount of our taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Social Security,
Education, Food Stamps, Unemployment, etc. The ACA is another tool of wealth
redistribution which I believe is the biggest objection critics have of the law.
As I stated, many of the wealthy have their insurance and don't want to
sacrifice further for those who don't. Why don't we just get down to
debating what the ACA, SS, Education, Food Stamps, etc are (wealth
redistribution) and if it is benefical to our society or not? Not sure all the
other points about BO's 1/2 brother or his salary are really relevant to
the discussion and am suprised the DN review did not reject them for being out
Perhaps "FT" would like to tell us where he draws the line? President
Obama drew the line at $20. He refuses to send $20 to a half-brother in Africa,
even though that $20 would DOUBLE the yearly income of his half-brother. In
other words, President Obama is totally against the redistribution of HIS own
wealth, but he continually talks about the "rich guy" that needs to have
the government help him rid himself of excess wealth. What is excess? Obama
has everything furnished, yet he gets a salary of more that $400,000. In
addition to that, he makes another $1 million a year. What is enough?Does "FT" want his wealth redistributed to the poor in other parts of
the world? Does he want to pay for health-care for Obama's poor
half-brother? If not, why does he demand that only those who are wealthier than
he should have their wealth confiscated to pay for his or someone else's
health insurance? If the principle is a good principle, it should extend to
everyone all over the world, shouldn't it?
I'm not big on ad hominem reasoning, but when the Washington Times says
something, I'm afraid I have to discount it. It's sort of like not
trusting the daily GOP Briefing I get on the internet. With some people you
don't trust . . . and it's not worth the bother to verify.
Up until now I didn't realize that the DN allowed "press releases"
in the comments section. The "Utah Health Policy......" is nothing more
than a press release.For instance: how MANY insurance policies were
offered to Utahns BEFORE Obamacare? Also, Utah always HAS HAD some of the most
affordable insurance in the nation - thats' nothing new!Also,
to the DN; I have always thought web addresses were NOT allowed in the comments
section. The last line quotes a web address. The Utah Health
Policy.....seems to think its GREAT that people have subsidies; its' almost
as if subsidies are "free" money.There is no such thing.IF Obamacare is so great, why does Obama continue to spend millions on ads to
promote it? If its' so great, I would think people would be "lining
up" to sign up.Thats' not happening and we all know it.
A Utah family of four can earn between $23,000 and $94,000 a year and receive
monthly subsidy to help with insurance paymentsThat statement hit me
in the stomach too. Can you imagine? Up to $94,000 for 4 and you get
someone else to help pay for your health insurance? What a country?
Printing presses will be going night and day.And don't worry "the
real maverick" no Republican will ever, ever take any credit for this
The article identifies the real objection behind the ACA, and that's the
redistribution of wealth. The wealthy have theirs and don't want to
sacrifice for those who don't.
The "Utah Health Policy Project" comment should leave us speechless. It
reported that 82% of those who have signed up in Utah expect another American to
pay (at least in part) for their health insurance. It reported that a
"family of four can earn between $23,000 and $94,000 a year and receive
monthly subsidy to help with insurance payments".Just who is
paying those subsidies? Subsidies are not paid by the government. Subsidies
are paid by you and me. In addition to paying for someone else's
insurance, we still have to pay for our own. The "Utah Health
Policy Project" thinks that subsidies are a good idea? If the
system is fair, it would allow all to buy insurance at the same price with no
subsidy of any kind. Subsidies are another word for "transfer of
wealth". Nothing in the U.S. Constitution allows the Federal Government to
transfer wealth from one class or group of citizens to another class or group.
Russia does that. China does that. Cuba does that. America was not built on
the premise that government gives personal welfare to its citizens.
I am so grateful for the ACA. Without it, millions of Americans would be without
healthcare. Give it some time and repubs will attempt to reclaim the ACA as
their own. Too bad, because the rest of the country has left the GOP in the
Thanks Utah Health Policy for the useful information.
After reading this article, I'm glad to focus on how the ACA or Obamacare
is operating in Utah. >We have 91 private insurance plans for sale on
Utah's ACA marketplace>These 91 plans are offered by 6 private
insurance companies>Utah's Avenue H offers insurance for small
businesses and their employees>Utah has one of the most competitive
and affordable ACA marketplaces in the nation>After January 1st, no
Utahns can be denied insurance (or charged more) based on an illness or their
health history>After January 1st, older Utahns pay less for insurance
because their age is less important in calculating premiums. >Over
18,000 Utahns signed up for ACA private insurance in 2013>82% of
Utahns enrolling in ACA insurance received a premium subsidy to make it more
affordable>A Utah family of four can earn between $23,000 and $94,000
a year and receive monthly subsidy to help with insurance payments>Utahns have until March 31st 2014 to sign up for ACA insurance on
healthcare-dot-gov>Find answers to your questions, or receive help
signing up for insurnace at takecareutah-dot-org, or call United Way's
The Stephen Dinan article in the Washington Times quotes the CBO's figures.
The entire article should be read. It foretells, using the CBO's own
figures, what will happen to destroy our economy by 2024 - which is as far as
the CBO projects. It shows that not only ObamaCare, but Obama's complete
financial package is destroying America's finances. People are being paid
not to work. It quoted Jay Carney, Obama's Press Secretary,who said that
ObamaCare will give workers the freedom to retire rather than working.Perhaps Mr. Carney would like to explain to us how workers, who are not even
able to find full time work, workers who pay 50% more for health insurance than
they did last year, workers whose deductible is 50% higher than it was last
year, can afford to retire. What world does Mr. Carney and Mr. Obama live in?
Millions are out of work because of the uncertainties caused by
ObamaCare. Millions more will lose their health insurance because of ObamaCare.
Even more millions will have their hours cut back because of ObamaCare. This
is what Obama considers a "success"! What would he consider to be