Iraq WMD arguments, seriously? I go away for a day, and this is the level of discussion remaining?
I'm interested in this topic: regardless of whether ACA increases or decreases federal spending, it does increase access to healthcare, and how that changes how healthcare is paid for. We have things like premium increases for some, and subsidies for others.
My central thesis is that the particular distrubtion of costs of the new system unwisely penalizes those who create wealth, for the benefit of those who do not, and that the former group is already experiencing difficulties.Furthermore, we can consider what implications such policy has for the future.
Re: Obamacare enrollments at 7 million
This entire discussion is bullshit, just like the whole website thing. Who gives a fuck? The website will eventually work, and most people will eventually sign up.
Both Dems and Repubs have incentive to keep discussion of real ACA issues sidelined, and so public debate on ACA is a circus, where common sense is suspended. Why? They're either bought or clueless. In either case, just play the blame game, get re-elected, and live the good life.
Common sense like: businesses pass their costs on to those who buy their products/services, and 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'. It infects even intelligent people. We had Vaclav here telling us insurance co's will pay subsidies out of their profits (as if they will just absorb the cost rather than pass it on in officially sanctioned ways - to the young, healthy, successful, and entrepreneurs). hint: insurance co profits are guaranteed by the ACA (i.e. they're not paying subsidies out of profits).
Nevermind that the middle class is shrinking, and we can only expect more and more Americans to need that subsidy (leaving fewer to pay for the subsidy - no free lunch). Just have those few who aren't yet on the gov't dole (except those execs and corps who qualify 'too big to fail') pay more! It's a can't fail plan. Account for the fact that the true, financially independent middle class disappears by redefining middle class as 'median income', and don't consider that purchasing power of median income is in steady decline, to the point that median income earners need a handout just to afford health insurance for their families (my grandfather would have been ashamed). What does middle class have to do with being able to afford a certain quality of life or financial independence anyway?(/s)
This is a cultural problem. There is not a purely political solution. Americans are not ready to face up to the new reality. 1) we're getting fucking poor, and it's our fault, 2) you don't fix 'poor' by going deeper into debt and taking gov't handouts on the back of wealth creators (middle class, entrepreneurs), while crony capitalist parasites at 'too big to fail' institutions destroy what remains of a free market***.
There is no mega-conspiracy. Just a lot of people who don't want to admit the truth and would rather find scapegoats, a media eager to give such people exactly what they want (It's the Reds! No, it's the Blues!), opportunistic corporations chasing profits by any means, in an environment where they're rarely held accountable, and flawed ideology determining public policy (Keynesian econ, Marxism, etc).
Countdown to denouncement of me as a partisan 5... 4.. (He's a Red! Aaaaaughibbrgubugbugrguburgle)
Meanwhile in 1% land:
Jon Corzine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
jon corzine beach - Google Search
***I realize healthcare did not exist in a free market pre-ACA. This does not impact the truth of the above statement. The point is not that ACA does not reduce costs; the point is rather how ACA distributes costs is unwise, and perhaps even that we may not be able to afford what the ACA promises.
