Trimdingman Posted March 14, 2010 Share Posted March 14, 2010 (edited) The point is: People with money will have to pay more for health care to cover the people that don't have health care. In order for the bill to pass, the statement above has to be covered up to make it sound like health care is free for everyone. My issue with the health care agenda is: The fat, smoking, ill health, heavy drinking, lazy, sugar and fat eating mother fuckers will cost me more money. And I don't want to spend my money on them. You've got the picture. Health care will cost what it costs now, plus the new administration costs. Health care is so restricted by hide-bound government regulation, that advancement is agonizingly slow, and costs keep rising instead of falling. This is fertile ground for insurance companies to grow and exploit. More government involvement will make things worse, not better. Less government involvement is what is needed. Edited March 14, 2010 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted March 14, 2010 Share Posted March 14, 2010 Feel free to watch it. Obama doesn't address Ryan's points, and changes the subject to Medicare advantage. Ryan starts about 49:15. Obama's non-response-response, begins about 55:15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EzIK_b4aA&feature=player_embedded Here you go: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/paul_ryan_and_the_true_cost_of.html#more http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12krugman.html http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/saving-ryans-privatization/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 14, 2010 Share Posted March 14, 2010 Here you go: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/paul_ryan_and_the_true_cost_of.html#more And here's Paul Ryan's direct response to Ezra Klein...... March 2, 2010 Ezra Klein Washington Post 1150 15th St. NW Washington, DC 20071 Dear Ezra, I sincerely appreciate the feedback and the interest in my efforts to examine the Majority’s health care proposals, and my alternative solutions to address these challenges. The health care legislation, if enacted, will have a fundamental impact on the Nation’s budget and economic outlook. The closer the examination, the better for the country. A few thoughts in response to your recent post, of which I respectfully take issue: You argue I intentionally mislead folks by stating the fact that the 10-year cost once the subsidies were fully implemented would be $2.3 trillion. I’m accused of a disingenuous “This is a big number” argument. Your premise assumes a lack of concern with the unsustainable growth of government. I would counter that the narrow focus on deficit arithmetic misses an important point with respect to the size and scope of this legislation. If the health care bill expanded government by $50 trillion, but raised $51 trillion in taxes – would such a policy be okay with you, because it reduced the deficit? Ignoring the size of government denies the adverse economic impact that would result from the level of taxation or debt required from the private economy. You cannot tax your way out of our entitlement problem, much less the entitlement expansion that would occur under this bill (CBO Letter to Ryan). There is room for legitimate debate on how the future of this legislation will play out – but it is a debate that I’d argue is critical before we find ourselves with another out-of-control health care entitlement. You take comfort in the legislation’s efforts to raise taxes at a faster rate than it spends. The subsidies in the Senate bill grow at a rate of 8%, more in line with Medicare’s growth rate than our economy’s capacity to support this spike in spending. You assume Congress will adhere to the tax hikes and Medicare cuts the CBO was instructed to score. I do not question CBO’s scoring – I question the stomach of Congress in sticking with these painful decisions. As the author of an entitlement reform bill you’ve looked at closely, I’m obviously of the opinion that Congress needs to get the stomach for tough decisions. Yet observing the recent history how Congress operates and listening to the rhetoric (“nobody’s talking about cutting Medicare” … “this is the biggest tax cut in history”) – I’d argue these doubts are warranted. You accurately note the problems with future government obligations – yet then conclude that raising this problem with the creation of a new entitlement isn’t fair, because that is how government accounting works. We can either use cash accounting or use trust fund accounting, but you cannot use both. The Administration cannot claim that it is cutting Medicare to pay for this new entitlement and at the same time claim it is shoring up the Medicare trust fund. That’s not my analysis. It’s CBO’s analysis as well (CBO Letter to Senator Sessions). The ability to fulfill our future obligations and avoid what you describe as the “everything goes to hell” scenario is something I seriously question. Whether you look at Social Security and Medicare on a cash accounting basis or a trust fund accounting basis, the conclusion is unambiguously clear. Both programs are going bankrupt and will eventually drag down the entire Federal budget and U.S. economy. Cutting these programs to fund a new entitlement does not change that fact. You note that $124 billion double counting gimmick from CLASS Act premiums and Social Security payroll revenues “isn't much money in the scheme of this thing.” The purpose of highlighting these two gimmicks is to show that they alone erase nearly the entire supposed deficit reductions ($131 billion) claimed by the proponents of the Senate bill. If $124 billion isn’t much money, would you concede that the deficit reduction claim isn’t much money either? I’d agree that it isn’t. The deficit reduction they’ve promised over the next 10 years wouldn’t cover the deficit racked up from last month. You believe efforts to attach the cost of the fixing the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) to the health care bill are “dishonest.” While making its way through the three House committees, the health care legislation contained a significant revision of the SGR. CBO found that this bill dramatically increased federal spending and made the deficit picture much worse. There were no substantive policy arguments made when this provision was removed from the legislation – it was a transparent effort by the Majority to game the CBO score. For the claim of deficit-reduction to stick, doctors must experience a 21% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. Both the House and Senate have made clear that these cuts will not happen. The deficit will not be reduced. Again, I’m not questioning the CBO’s analysis – I’m pointing out what the Democrats have assumed to make their numbers work. If we are going to use CBO scoring, they do not include the cost of fixing the SGR in their budget projections. That cost will need to be recorded at some point under CBO estimates. CBO acknowledges this point in their estimate of the bill (CBO score). Either that or the Medicare physician payments will need to be reduced 21%. I do not give Republicans a free pass on the failure to reform this problem and the much larger problems in Medicare. This is one of the great missed opportunities of the past decade. Yet I find it hard to claim it “nonsensical” to include reforming an outdated and obviously broken reimbursement rate formula for Medicare as part of a comprehensive effort to reform health care. Clearly the authors of the Majority’s bills originally thought it sensible when they originally included it in their legislation. The bill includes nearly $500 billion in Medicare reductions, some of which will be achieved through yet to be determined savings by a Commission. The SGR was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. If we cannot sustain that savings, what does it say about sustaining the Medicare cuts in the health care bill? On the final issue of costs, you appear willing to accept the fact that the legislation will increase the federal government’s spending on health care by $222 billion more in the next decade than the already unsustainable path requires. CBO, by its own admission, does not produce national health expenditure estimates. There does not appear to be serious disagreement with the fact that adding millions more Americans to already exacerbated government health programs, federalizing the regulation of insurance, and subsidizing insurance for an ever-increasing number of Americans will further inflate the cost of coverage. The unspecified “curve-bending elements” from proponents of this legislation derive from what government promises to do once they assume greater control over health care decisions. We’ve discussed at length the question of rationing, and whether cost-benefit analyses are most effectively carried out by centralized government dictates or decentralized individual decisions. Putting aside my view that market forces are a much more effective means than government rationing and price setting to expand access to quality, affordable health coverage to all Americans, I think the Administration’s health care bill is fundamentally flawed. When you take into account other items that were intentionally excluded from the Senate bill and CBO’s score of it, I think that is absolutely clear that the President’s bill will not reduce the deficit, will add to our already unsustainable entitlement problems, and will cause an increase in health care costs. Sincerely, Paul Ryan Member of Congress Ranking Republican, House Budget Committee Here's another direct response to Ezra Klein http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12krugman.html http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/saving-ryans-privatization/ I've read both of these and have to ask the question...... What do either of these articles have to do with Paul Ryan's critique of the Healthcare Bill as seen in the YouTube link in my post? Or did you just feel the need to post them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 The point is: People with money will have to pay more for health care to cover the people that don't have health care. In order for the bill to pass, the statement above has to be covered up to make it sound like health care is free for everyone. My issue with the health care agenda is: The fat, smoking, ill health, heavy drinking, lazy, sugar and fat eating mother fuckers will cost me more money. And I don't want to spend my money on them. "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance...." —Nancy Pelosi (transcript link) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Love the title of the thread. It's almost as good as the title of the ACC thread "proved there is no climate crisis" Just because someone starts a thread claiming that the HC reform has imploded does not mean that it's true. The HC bill still might not pass though, but you won't see my username under some some thread title claiming that it will pass. The process of the bill has been pretty ugly, even though I am for it I sure don't like the way it has been created with some of the back room deals and the partisan, non compromising, political point scoring, sound bite type of process that it is. With that said, if it does pass at least the Govt. is making an attempt to address a very dysfunctional HC system. I mean all these other countries can deliver decent HC to their people and they spend only around %10 of GDP, where as we spend up to %25 of GDP and are ranked 37th in quality of HC acording to the World health organization You guys may hate the Democrats HC plan, but at least they are trying to reform our HC system that we all can agree needs reform. Where were the Repub's on HC over the last 50 years? Where was Bush and the Repub's from 2001-2008 on HC? They would rather have two unpaid for wars than give people insurance. What's the repub's plan for the 30 million that they don't want to insure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 What's the repub's plan for the 30 million that they don't want to insure? Simple, the plan is for them to die as quickly as possible. They do not contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Simple, the plan is for them to die as quickly as possible. They do not contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Nice plan, problem is the repub's are not in power so their "plan" for the 30 million can not be implemented. The democrats however won the elections and have a plan to insure the 30+ million, and that's what they are going to do. What's the republicans plan on eliminating pre existing HC conditions on the insurance industry? You guys can cry about the HC bill all you want but what you really need to do is learn how to win an election, we won you lost, we voted for change and it looks like that's what we will get with the HC bill. STP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 we won you lost As long as this is the attitude of our electorate and our representatives we ALL lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 As long as this is the attitude of our electorate and our representatives we ALL lose. True!! Since we are on the subject of all losing let me take this moment to point out (whine) the hypocrisy in Congress. While I support the bill, back room deals are being cut, the same type of deals that the dem's condemned (Cheney's closed door energy task force, and the pharm. bill that the Rep. passed by extending the vote for 3 more hrs. while votes were sold right on the floor) not long ago. Will it never end? The hypocrisy on both sides in D.C. is part of the reason approval ratings of our Govt., no matter who is in power, are constantly low. Anyway, back to the HC bill, does anyone really think that we can reform HC and not spend more $$ doing it? I am however glad to see that you fiscal conservatives have re-found your religion on spending, I just wish you would of spoke up when we engaged two wars that were not paid for, along with the Republican's Pharma bill they passed that was also not paid for. Pea's and blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 (edited) National Debt Clock It's funny to hear people accuse the others that they spent to much money first. Here are a few of the health care issues: College cost is increasing more than twice the rate of inflation. Doctors are deeper in debt when they start a practice. Doctor's insurance increase is between 2-5X the rate of inflation. Medicare and Medicaid will not keep up with the increase. In fact, most doctors will not take military families due to insufficient payments from TriCare. "...Hospital care is the biggest driver of overall healthcare spending growth, accounting for 33 percent of every healthcare dollar spent. But what single factor is most responsible for spending growth in hospital patient care? The answer is labor costs, according to the new American Hospital Association (AHA) report, "The Cost of Caring." Labor cost increases are responsible for 35 percent of the overall growth in hospital costs. Hospitals are dealing with ongoing shortages of registered nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians and other clinicians. "Continued workforce shortages during a period of rising service demand likely will put further cost pressure on hospitals," says the AHA. Growth in labor costs also accounted for more than half of the growth in the cost of purchased goods and services. Other components included: prescription drugs, 5 percent; professional fees, 5 percent; professional liability insurance, 2 percent; and all others, 18 percent. All told, the increased cost of these goods and services purchased to provide care represented 64 percent of overall growth in spending on hospital care from 2004 to 2008. By comparison, rising demand for care (i.e., change in the number of services provided) drove 34 percent of spending growth, while increased intensity of hospital care and other factors accounted for only 2 percent of the increase. Read more: http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/labor-costs-are-key-driver-hospital-cost-growth/2010-03-15#ixzz0iSUh9aTv Read more: http://www.fiercehea...5#ixzz0iSTXwm1H..." The biggest issue in health care cost is not Insurance Companies... It"s labor!!! Edited March 17, 2010 by mettech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I am however glad to see that you fiscal conservatives have re-found your religion on spending, I just wish you would of spoke up when we engaged two wars that were not paid for, along with the Republican's Pharma bill they passed that was also not paid for. Don't go lecturing me on it. Most fiscal conservatives were less than fanatical of the Bush administration, and by association also the wars, prescription drug benefit, and everything else that wasted our tax dollars for 8 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Nice plan, problem is the repub's are not in power so their "plan" for the 30 million can not be implemented. The democrats however won the elections and have a plan to insure the 30+ million, and that's what they are going to do. What's the republicans plan on eliminating pre existing HC conditions on the insurance industry? You guys can cry about the HC bill all you want but what you really need to do is learn how to win an election, we won you lost, we voted for change and it looks like that's what we will get with the HC bill. STP As long as this is the attitude of our electorate and our representatives we ALL lose. No Shit. Here comes the change (It'll only get better after the HC bill is passed)....... Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 Walgreens will stop taking new Medicaid patients in Washington state as of April 16, saying it loses money filling their prescriptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 No Shit. Here comes the change (It'll only get better after the HC bill is passed)....... Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 Walgreens will stop taking new Medicaid patients in Washington state as of April 16, saying it loses money filling their prescriptions. it's just the tip of the iceberg. My family doctor said he to would stop taking medicaid. he also said he would close his practrce before allowing the government to dictate what he and his patients were allowed to do. oh by the way the people of Mexico thank you for passing this bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 it's just the tip of the iceberg. My family doctor said he to would stop taking medicaid. he also said he would close his practrce before allowing the government to dictate what he and his patients were allowed to do. oh by the way the people of Mexico thank you for passing this bill. This has nothing to do with federal health care reform, this is about the way Washington states calculates prescription drug payments. Read the article, not just the headline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 This has nothing to do with federal health care reform, this is about the way Washington states calculates prescription drug payments. And when the Feds get through doing the same thing (lowering the reimbursements), the same headline will be repeated over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) The "new" future National Health Care Plan will pay for the bus trip to visit the Doctor in Mexico. The high cost of medical care is not due to insurance compaines.... It is due to R & D and Labor cost. Here is a look how the current bill was put together and questioned by the "Tea Party" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM&NR=1 Edited March 18, 2010 by mettech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Here's the reality of the H/C bill: Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100MPublished on March 19, 2010 7:10 AM | Submit a comment Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Start a list of the extra and increased taxs that we will have to pay. An increase in capital gains tax has been added too. A Growing List Below is a list of the tax increases Congress and the Administration have proposed to finance health care reform. This list includes taxes in the bill passed by the House of Representatives, the bill the Senate is currently debating, and other taxes mentioned as a possible way to pay for health care reform. An income surtax on taxpayers earning more than $500,000 a year,[1] An excise tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health insurance plans that cost more than $8,500 a year for individuals or $23,000 for families,[2] An excise tax on medical devices such as wheelchairs, breast pumps, and syringes used by diabetics for insulin injections,[3] A cap on the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance without offsetting tax cuts,[4] A windfall profits tax on health insurance companies,[6] A value-added tax, which would tax the value added to a product at each stage of production,[7] An increase in the Medicare portion of the payroll tax to 3.4 percent for incomes great than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married filers),[8] An excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages including non-diet soda and sports drinks,[9] Higher taxes on alcoholic beverages including beer, wine, and spirits,[10] A tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage of up to 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income,[11] A limit on contributions to health savings accounts,[12] An 8 percent tax on all wages paid by employers that do not provide their employees health insurance that satisfies the requirements defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,[13] A limit on contributions to flexible spending arrangements,[14] Elimination of the deduction for expenses associated with Medicare Part D subsidies,[15] An increase in taxes on international businesses,[16] Elimination of the tax credits paper companies take for biofuels they create in their production process--the so-called "Black Liquor credit,"[17] Fees on insured and self-insured health plans,[18] A limit or repeal of the itemized deduction for medical expenses,[19] A limit on the Qualified Medical Expense definition,[20] An increase in the payroll taxes on students,[21] An extension of the Medicare payroll tax to all state and local government employees,[22] An increase in taxes on hospitals,[23] An increase in the estate tax,[24] Increased efforts to close the mythical "tax gap,"[25] A 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures such as Botox treatments, tummy tucks, and face lifts,[26] A tax on drug companies,[27] An increase in the corporate tax on providers of health insurance,[28] A $500,000 deduction limitation for the compensation paid by health insurance companies to their officers, employees, and directors.[29] Edited March 19, 2010 by mettech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Guys, I want to make this a gentle as possible,,, The bill is going to pass. They continue adding a little bit of a pay off here, and a little pay off there, until they so many payoffs that they have bought their way to success. They keep saying the insurance compaines oppose this, but the truth is they are spending tons of money trying to pass it. They have added so much to the fine print that they see this as the best thing that ever happened to them. Imagine a bill that required every American to buy your product or else! And then getting to write the fine print to insure that there would be no down side effects. Right now there is no strong (as in big corporate money) lobby against passage. The play in Washington right now is incumbents locking in deals where the big corporate lobbyists are promising campaign "support" for members that will vote for this crazy thing. In an election, money conquers all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Guys, I want to make this a gentle as possible,,, The bill is going to pass. They continue adding a little bit of a pay off here, and a little pay off there, until they so many payoffs that they have bought their way to success. They keep saying the insurance compaines oppose this, but the truth is they are spending tons of money trying to pass it. They have added so much to the fine print that they see this as the best thing that ever happened to them. Imagine a bill that required every American to buy your product or else! And then getting to write the fine print to insure that there would be no down side effects. Right now there is no strong (as in big corporate money) lobby against passage. The play in Washington right now is incumbents locking in deals where the big corporate lobbyists are promising campaign "support" for members that will vote for this crazy thing. In an election, money conquers all. Yeah, it'll pass alright. Against the will of the electorate. Let's just hope voters still remember this come November. Realistically, I doubt it. Everybody hates Congress and everybody in it except "their guy". Watch as 95% of incumbents get re-elected again, even though a full 60% of voters seem to be against this legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Yeah, it'll pass alright. Against the will of the electorate. Let's just hope voters still remember this come November. Realistically, I doubt it. Everybody hates Congress and everybody in it except "their guy". Watch as 95% of incumbents get re-elected again, even though a full 60% of voters seem to be against this legislation. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Yeah, it'll pass alright. Against the will of the electorate. Let's just hope voters still remember this come November. Realistically, I doubt it. Everybody hates Congress and everybody in it except "their guy". Watch as 95% of incumbents get re-elected again, even though a full 60% of voters seem to be against this legislation. As an outsider, It seems like BO wants his health care bill to pass at "any cost", I wonder how much good (if there was any) is now being undone by all of the expedient concessions allowed in the name of appeasement... Selling your soul comes at a hell of a cost... Sometimes right or wrong you have to stick to a plan and be prepared to face the electorate. Edited March 19, 2010 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 (edited) edit: I'll come back later. I'm actually reading the plan - and the GOP offering as well. this might take awhile. Edited March 20, 2010 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 (edited) Guys, I want to make this a gentle as possible,,, The bill is going to pass. They continue adding a little bit of a pay off here, and a little pay off there, until they so many payoffs that they have bought their way to success. They keep saying the insurance compaines oppose this, but the truth is they are spending tons of money trying to pass it. They have added so much to the fine print that they see this as the best thing that ever happened to them. Imagine a bill that required every American to buy your product or else! And then getting to write the fine print to insure that there would be no down side effects. Right now there is no strong (as in big corporate money) lobby against passage. The play in Washington right now is incumbents locking in deals where the big corporate lobbyists are promising campaign "support" for members that will vote for this crazy thing. In an election, money conquers all. I agree that it looks like ObamaCare will pass, but I'm not convinced that the insurance companies are in cahoots with Congress and "spending tons of money to try to pass it." (Cite a source if you want, but for now, I'm not convinced.) As I understand it (and no, I haven't bothered to read the 2,700-page bill that was released yesterday, as if I -- or anyone else -- could comprehend its full meaning), the bill is a path to the public option, which will eventually drive the health-insurance industry out of business. The Senate bill, which is what is under consideration by the House, dropped the public option for this reason (which might be what you're talking about), but now members of the House are talking about passing the bill anyway, whichever way they can -- even bypassing constitutional requirements, if necessary, and subjecting themselves to Court scrutiny -- because they envision passing future amendments to the bill that would include the public option, and therefore achieve their ultimate goal of a single-payer, government-run, healthcare system. It is true that corporate campaign donations tend to favor the incumbent party, with the incumbent party gladly accepting them (we have the finest politicians money can buy), and lobbying money tends to favor incumbents as well, but I strongly doubt the insurance industry would support a measure that would eventually put itself out of business. But, then again, I haven't read the "fine print," as you say. The whole thing is a farce. If forcing people to buy health insurance (lest they be fined), and tying people's health-insurance expenditures to their IRS records, survives Supreme Court muster, then it will be time to start researching which banana republic we would prefer to live in, because the U.S. will be among them (because the Constitution is obviously no longer recognized by the Court -- a trademark characteristic of banana republics -- the recent Honduras example being the exception that proves the rule). And if ObamaCare passes, President Obama will claim a significant victory, and he will be emboldened to pass other measures in his vision to "fundamentally change America." Next up: Amnesty. Corporate America probably likes this (cheap labor). Formerly illegal immigrants represent a huge voting block for Democrat politicians in future elections, and which could influence this year's elections among their sympathetic, registered cohorts. After that: Card Check. No corporate money here, but it will be funded substantially by unions. Which, in a terrible economy, pits union members against illegal immigrants seeking amnesty -- and jobs. Should be interesting. After that: Cap and Trade. The House passed this bill a year ago, which gives corporate strategists and trading schemers plenty of time to do the homework necessary to make money on the deal. Even though traders might be able to make money on Cap and Trade, I can't imagine any scenario in which Corporate America could make more money from the increased cost of energy inputs that Cap and Trade would impose on them. But as much as they don't like it, it doesn't really matter, since they will pass their additional operating costs onto you and me. Sounds fun! Edited March 20, 2010 by Roadtrip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.