How 'bout that Rahm!

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Watching Democrats squabble like a bunch of High School girls is damn fine entertainment.

Massa: Rahm Emanuel "Would Sell His Own Mother" For Votes (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/08/massa_rahm_emanuel_would_sell_his_own_mother_for_v otes.html)


"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."

Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: "I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me."
If you haven't heard the radio interview with Massa, it's at the link; I highly recommend it. Pure comedy gold.

By the way; we here Obama bitching quite a bit about Republicans being the fly in the ointment on Obamacare but, if you can't even get your own party behind the effort, why would even pretend to expect the opposition would buy off on it?

Worst.administration.ever. In fact, I'd say this is the worst clusterfuck of a government we've ever had. C'mon November!

:corn:

[Duff McCartney]

Worst.administration.ever. In fact, I'd say this is the worst clusterfuck of a government we've ever had. C'mon November!

I know your ad hominem attacks are all bullshit but no way is this the worst administration ever. You obviously don't recall Andrew Johnson or Warren G. Harding.

[clambake]

or either bush.

[Marcus Bryant]

Harding did manage to not impede the country from quickly leaving a depression.

[Marcus Bryant]

or either bush.

Hmmm...Bush41 managed to wage a "successful" war in Iraq, bucked his own party on taxes, and set the stage for a reduction in military expenditures. Not that all of those float my boat, but by the modern standards of what makes for a "successful" presidency, he wasn't that bad. Sure, he lost re-election, thanks to an economic downturn and a robust 3rd party challenge.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course, we're taught that Harding was a bad man because of Teapot Dome. Compared with quite a few of his predecessors he was a piker. More than anything, he was more unaware (when he should have been aware).

[Winehole23]

Worst.administration.ever. In fact, I'd say this is the worst clusterfuck of a government we've ever had.What a surprise. You predicted it beforehand.

Don't you love it when your own nightmares come true? :hat

[ChumpDumper]

Still better than W.

[EVAY]

Hmmm...Bush41 managed to wage a "successful" war in Iraq, bucked his own party on taxes, and set the stage for a reduction in military expenditures. Not that all of those float my boat, but by the modern standards of what makes for a "successful" presidency, he wasn't that bad. Sure, he lost re-election, thanks to an economic downturn and a robust 3rd party challenge.

I know that Perot had a lot to do with the GHW Bush's loss, but I always felt that it was GHWB's own party that did him because of his gutsy move on taxes. Plus, you're right about the downturn, which was brought on by Greenspan raising interest rates at an inopportune time for GHWB. That was the last time that Greenspan ever risked the economy taking a downturn due to interest rates that close to an election...even to the detriment of the country during the nineties sometimes when he SHOULD have increased them or left them higher.

[spursncowboys]

I know your ad hominem attacks are all bullshit but no way is this the worst administration ever. You obviously don't recall Andrew Johnson or Warren G. Harding.

Yeah how could we forget those years. I had just gotten out of college when johnson took office. :greedy

[Winehole23]

That was the last time that Greenspan ever risked the economy taking a downturn due to interest rates that close to an election...even to the detriment of the country during the nineties sometimes when he SHOULD have increased them or left them higher.Yes, it was. The bursting of the tech bubble and its aftermath comes to mind in connection with this too. Greenspan apparently wouldn't take the chance of something similar happening before 2004.

http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/images/uploads/us_rates1.gif

[Yonivore]

http://www.drudgereport.com/rf.jpg

[Duff McCartney]

Yeah how could we forget those years. I had just gotten out of college when johnson took office. :greedy

I know you're being obtuse, but you do understand how ridiculous it is for him to call the Obama administration the worst ever..nevermind the fact that Obama has barely been in office for over a year, he hasn't dick to fuck up the country compared to Johnson or Harding.

As much as people bash W. he probably isn't ranked in the top 5 of worst Presidents of all time and neither is his administration.

[Yonivore]

I know you're being obtuse, but you do understand how ridiculous it is for him to call the Obama administration the worst ever..nevermind the fact that Obama has barely been in office for over a year, he hasn't dick to fuck up the country compared to Johnson or Harding.

As much as people bash W. he probably isn't ranked in the top 5 of worst Presidents of all time and neither is his administration.
Well, he's only a year in and look where we're headed...

This administration is a total fuck up. Corrupt. Incompetent. Wrong-minded. Did I mention incompetent? I'm going to hedge my bets and say, by the end of his term, he will rank up there with Johnson and Harding. He's already flown past Jimmy Carter...

And, you're right, W. wasn't anywhere near this category.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, he's only a year in and look where we're headed...

This administration is a total fuck up. Corrupt. Incompetent. Wrong-minded. Did I mention incompetent? I'm going to hedge my bets and say, by the end of his term, he will rank up there with Johnson and Harding. He's already flown past Jimmy Carter...

And, you're right, W. wasn't anywhere near this category.


I think incompetence would be starting an unecessary war.. but hey that's just me..

[Winehole23]

This administration is a total fuck up. Corrupt. Incompetent. Wrong-minded. Did I mention incompetent?I felt much the same about Bush. There are some strong resemblances, so far.

[Yonivore]

I think incompetence would be starting an unecessary war.. but hey that's just me..
No, you're right. Obviously, we disagree on your characterization of what constitutes an unnecessary war.

So, apparently does the Congress who have continued to support, fund, and pass the legislation necessary for this and the previous administration to continue our military activities around the globe.

[Yonivore]

I felt much the same about Bush. There are some strong resemblances, so far.
Bush was a two-term president who was re-elected convincingly.

People are already wanting 2012 to be here so they can throw Obama out of office. I'd say there is no resemblance except where Obama has continued to right-minded foreign policies and terrorism-related policies, instituted by President Bush, that is so enraging his base.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, you're right. Obviously, we disagree on your characterization of what constitutes an unnecessary war.

So, apparently does the Congress who have continued to support, fund, and pass the legislation necessary for this and the previous administration to continue our military activities around the globe.

An unecessary war is one that didn't hve to be fought.. which sums up Iraq nicely.. that's fine go back to complaining about Obama..

[ChumpDumper]

No, you're right. Obviously, we disagree on your characterization of what constitutes an unnecessary war.

So, apparently does the Congress who have continued to support, fund, and pass the legislation necessary for this and the previous administration to continue our military activities around the globe.We broke Iraq, so we're buying it.

[Yonivore]

An unecessary war is one that didn't hve to be fought.. which sums up Iraq nicely.. that's fine go back to complaining about Obama..
Again, we disagree and reasonable people can do that. There are many people who believe the invasion of Iraq was the necessary and right thing to do. I will grant you this, however, many of those people fled to safe ground and started re-writing history as the war -- driven by a political narrative -- became unpopular here at home.

Mostly Democrats.

You know, all the ones we've quoted ad nauseum saying how evil and dangerous Saddam Hussein was -- right up until March of 2003.

That's okay. I'm convinced history will vindicate President Bush. I'm equally convinced history will condemn Barack Obama.

[EVAY]

Yes, it was. The bursting of the tech bubble and its aftermath comes to mind in connection with this too. Greenspan apparently wouldn't take the chance of something similar happening before 2004.

http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/images/uploads/us_rates1.gif

Bush 43 blamed Greenspan for Bush 41 losing, and I think it really really influenced Greenspan's policy decisions. He WANTED to stay in office...he loved doing it...his book reads like a megalomaniacal paean to himself... you are right that he was absolutely responsible for the bubbles repeating themselves over and over again...and i don't see Bernanke changing much.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Again, we disagree and reasonable people can do that. There are many people who believe the invasion of Iraq was the necessary and right thing to do. I will grant you this, however, many of those people fled to safe ground and started re-writing history as the war -- driven by a political narrative -- became unpopular here at home.

Mostly Democrats.

You know, all the ones we've quoted ad nauseum saying how evil and dangerous Saddam Hussein was -- right up until March of 2003.

That's okay. I'm convinced history will vindicate President Bush. I'm equally convinced history will condemn Barack Obama.

so now you are blaming everybody else.. poor bush. he was duped..

[ChumpDumper]

History already says Bush fucked up Iraq.

Yoni thinks they are still translating the documents.

[Yonivore]

so now you are blaming everybody else.. poor bush. he was duped..
Duped? No. I believe today, that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. By all indications, so does the President. I never claimed anyone duped him into doing anything.

I said the Democrats changed their tune when it became apparent President Bush intended to follow through on his pledge to hold Iraq accountable and use the authority granted him by Congress to use military force to enforce the Security Council resolutions and stop Iraq WMD programs -- that EVERYONE believed he had.

I don't think President Bush ever claimed to have been duped by anyone either.

And, further, I continue to believe history will prove he was on the right side of this issue all along.

Of course, Democrats will be able to claim they were on the right side of the issue -- at one time or another and sometimes multiple times when they weren't on the other side of the issue.

[ChumpDumper]

lol WMDs.

[Winehole23]

Bush was a two-term president who was re-elected convincingly.The manner of Bush's accession to office was unique and his reelection was successful as you say.


People are already wanting 2012 to be here so they can throw Obama out of office.Sure.


I'd say there is no resemblance except where Obama has continued to right-minded foreign policies and terrorism-related policies, instituted by President Bush, that is so enraging his base.That's part of it, sure. Canoodling with banks and big finance both publicly and in the dark is another.

I read an interesting piece by Larison on Obama's popularity today.


Breaking: People Who Didn’t Vote For Obama Don’t Approve Of Him (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/03/07/breaking-people-who-didnt-vote-for-obama-dont-approve-of-him/)


Posted on March 7th, 2010 by Daniel Larison (http://www.amconmag.com/searchr.php?v&author=Daniel+Larison)



Bigotry cannot explain, however, why Mr Obama’s approval rating among white Americans has fallen since he took office, from roughly 60% to 40%. As the president pointed out in September: “I was actually black before the election.” White voters have changed their view of Mr Obama not because of his skin colour, but because of what he has done—and what he has failed to do—since he took office. And although he is not on the ballot this year, this matters. The less people admire the president, the less likely they are to vote for his party in the mid-terms. ~Lexington (http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15606284)
According to CNN’s national exit poll (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1), 43% of whites and 41% of white men voted for Obama, and this is approximately where his approval among these groups is now. What needs to be explained is what that approximately middle 20% of whites were thinking when they said they approved of Obama when they had not voted for him. Perhaps it was simply goodwill for a new President and relief that our long national nightmare was finally over. Perhaps it was something else. Whatever the reason for this gap between approval and actual voting habits, the fall in Obama’s approval among whites was a function of the broad but extremely shallow base of a lot of those early high approval ratings.



When people point to Obama’s “low” approval numbers among whites, which do indeed hover around 40%, I am unsure what they mean. Give or take a couple of points, whites who disapprove of Obama’s performance are whites who did not vote for him. The genuinely disaffected white independent voter who voted for Obama and has since been scandalized by his agenda is rarer than gold. The whites who did not vote for Obama have also not voted for Democratic nominees for many previous cycles. In other words, the change that needs to be explained is not why McCain-voting whites disapprove of Obama (after all, they wanted the other candidate and almost always vote Republican for President!), but why for a period of several months millions upon millions of McCain-voting whites said that they approved of Obama as he embarked on an agenda they presumably did not support at the polls.



White approval, or lack of it, is very close to white voting in 2008. Democratic House candidates ran slightly ahead of Obama in 2008 with these voters. According to the national House exit poll (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USH00p1), Democratic House candidates received 45% support from whites and 43% support from white men. In Rasmussen’s generic ballot poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot), whites favor Republicans 50-30 with 5% choosing “other” and 14% “unsure.” What seems likely is that most of this undecided and would-be third-party vote will come back to Democrats. 53% of whites backed Republican House candidates last time, and it seems reasonable that roughly that many will back them this year. White 65+ voters backed 2008 Republican House candidates 53-44. They are likely going to do the same thing this year. The difference is that they will make up a larger share of the electorate than they have in the last two cycles. Added to this is the shift among all 65+ voters away from the Democrats and towards those stalwart Republican champions of unsustainable entitlements (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot).



The story of the 2010 elections is not that Obama has been losing that many white voters, because the disapproving whites were mostly never Democratic voters anyway. The story is that the electorate will be disproportionately made up of those groups who had not been voting for Democrats all along, namely whites and specifically whites 65 and older. The GOP’s completely shameless but politically effective defense of the sanctity of Medicare has also managed to pull away other 65+ voters who had been preferring Democratic House candidates by a narrow margin in the last two cycles.

[Yonivore]

I read an interesting piece by Larison on Obama's popularity today.
There are many people who did vote for him that are livid with his continuing the Bush administration policies on terrorism.

[Winehole23]

There are many people who did vote for him that are livid with his continuing the Bush administration policies on terrorism.There are many people who didn't vote for him who feel the same way.

[Yonivore]

There are many people who didn't vote for him who feel the same way.
Good for them.

[DMX7]

If you haven't heard the radio interview with Massa, it's at the link; I highly recommend it. Pure comedy gold.

By the way; we here Obama bitching quite a bit about Republicans being the fly in the ointment on Obamacare but, if you can't even get your own party behind the effort, why would even pretend to expect the opposition would buy off on it?

Worst.administration.ever. In fact, I'd say this is the worst clusterfuck of a government we've ever had. C'mon November!

:corn:

Why do you hate America?

[SnakeBoy]

Still better than W.

That pretty much sums up how the left views this presidency. Far cry from the Hope & Change of only a year ago isn't it.

[DMX7]

That pretty much sums up how the left views this presidency. Far cry from the Hope & Change of only a year ago isn't it.

Still 3 times that left at min... at min.

[SnakeBoy]

Still 3 times that left at min... at min.

Doesn't matter. Best Obama can do is pass a crappy healthcare bill before the dems lose a bunch of seats. That'ss not enough to make the left all hopey changey again. The styrofoam greek columns won't be making a comeback.

[ChumpDumper]

That pretty much sums up how the left views this presidency. Far cry from the Hope & Change of only a year ago isn't it.I never expected much from Obama -- just to be better than W.

Mission accomplished.

[George Gervin's Afro]

There are many people who did vote for him that are livid with his continuing the Bush administration policies on terrorism.

Not livid enough to go to the dark side though ...

[Wild Cobra]

History already says Bush fucked up Iraq.

Yoni thinks they are still translating the documents.
I guess you liberal historian wannbees say that. Others would disagree. There is not a good consensus on that with historians, therefore, your statement is invalid.

Don't ask me to prove a negative. You know how difficult that is.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess you liberal historian wannbees say that. Others would disagree. There is not a good consensus on that with historians, therefore, your statement is invalid.

Don't ask me to prove a negative. You know how difficult that is.OK, give me positive evidence that the occupation went smoothly and according to plan.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, give me positive evidence that the occupation went smoothly and according to plan.
Isn't the news on the recent elections good enough for you?

[ChumpDumper]

Isn't the news on the recent elections good enough for you?If you don't want to answer, just say so.

[Wild Cobra]

If this audio wasn't linked yet:

Massa: Rahm Emanuel "Would Sell His Own Mother" For Votes (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/08/massa_rahm_emanuel_would_sell_his_own_mother_for_v otes.html)

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess you liberal historian wannbees say that. Others would disagree. There is not a good consensus on that with historians, therefore, your statement is invalid.

Don't ask me to prove a negative. You know how difficult that is.

But we did ask Saddam to prove a negative to avoid war. It's good to see that a conservative finally came out and acknowledged this. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

But we did ask Saddam to prove a negative to avoid war. It's good to see that a conservative finally came out and acknowledged this. :toast
We asked him to show us evidence he already knew he was suppose to, but he didn't.

Far different.

[boutons_deux]

Saddam said didn't have WMD,

and

the weapons inspectors (that dubya pulled out, Saddam didn't kick them out) didn't find WMD,

and

US military couldn't find WMD

Looks like Saddam was telling the truth, and dubya/dickhead/neo-c*nts WERE ALL LYING.

WMD was the Repugs smokescreen lie, along with mobile weapons labs, aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, democracy to bloom in the M/E, Saddam-WTC, Saddam-AQ, "bad man" in their agenda to invade Iraq to grab the oil.

The Repug lies have been exposed and documented OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

[Wild Cobra]

Saddam said didn't have WMD,

and

the weapons inspectors (that dubya pulled out, Saddam didn't kick them out) didn't find WMD,

and

US military couldn't find WMD

Looks like Saddam was telling the truth, and dubya/dickhead/neo-c*nts WERE ALL LYING.

WMD was the Repugs smokescreen lie, along with mobile weapons labs, aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, democracy to bloom in the M/E, Saddam-WTC, Saddam-AQ, "bad man" in their agenda to invade Iraq to grab the oil.

The Repug lies have been exposed and documented OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Idiot.

He had them when we stopped short of taking Baghdad. We knew he had them. Part of the agreements that precipitated us leaving then, included him destroying and accounting for the know arsenal he had then

He didn't do that. The known WMD just came up missing.

Do you really believe Saddam's word that he destroyed them, without evidence?

[ChumpDumper]

Idiot.

He had them when we stopped short of taking Baghdad. We knew he had them. Part of the agreements that precipitated us leaving then, included him destroying and accounting for the know arsenal he had then

He didn't do that. The known WMD just came up missing.

Do you really believe Saddam's word that he destroyed them, without evidence?So where do you think they are?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Idiot.

He had them when we stopped short of taking Baghdad. We knew he had them. Part of the agreements that precipitated us leaving then, included him destroying and accounting for the know arsenal he had then

He didn't do that. The known WMD just came up missing.

Do you really believe Saddam's word that he destroyed them, without evidence?

Seriously, how would you prove you don't have any?

[Wild Cobra]

Seriously, how would you prove you don't have any?
Proving what I said, or proving the got rid of them?

Disposal:

There are various ways to prove disposal. He simply never allowed the participation to see them destroyed, and then one day, he say's they are all destroyed without evidence.

What would you think?

[Duff McCartney]

Well, he's only a year in and look where we're headed...

Yeah where are we headed? Recovering from one of the worst economic downturns since the Depression, caused by a President that like I state before isn't even considered the top worst Presidents yet.

Not only that we are on the verge of health care reform something that no President has ever done before.

You're delusional if you think that based on his one year in office he's coming anywhere near Johnson or Harding. And this administration is like every administration when it comes to corruption, although not as bad as Harding or Johnson..in fact not even close to the corruption of the Harding administration.

And he's not nearly as incompetent as the last Presidency was.

It's like I say, you'll say anything that isn't even remotely true. Simply stating them off your baseless opinions.

[nkdlunch]

Still better than W.

[Winehole23]

That is pitiful praise.

[coyotes_geek]

Not only that we are on the verge of health care reform something that no President has ever done before.

That's not something to be excited about. It's a crap piece of legislation that will only make things worse.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's not something to be excited about. It's a crap piece of legislation that will only make things worse.

How will it make things worse? Please provide specifics when you break down the ramifications of this legislation.

[coyotes_geek]

How will it make things worse? Please provide specifics when you break down the ramifications of this legislation.

The senate bill is paid for by taxes on the cadillac plans and cuts in medicare reimbursements to the states. The insurance companies will distribute those taxes along to all of their policy holders, whether they have cadillac plans or not, because they don't want to run off the cadillac plan holders. End result, premiums go up.

By cutting the medicare reimbursements to the states, the federal government is merely playing a shell game where the cost of one program is covered by shortchanging another. The states would then have to decide how to make up for those lost reimbursements, with the only two options being a reduction in service to those on medicare, or new tax increases to make up for the lost funding. End result, taxes go up, or the quality of care goes down.

The theory goes that premiums will go down once everyone is forced to buy insurance, but no one seems to be able to quantify that. Certainly not in any detail near to how much has been put into how much the thing will cost. Also of concern is the fact that the current plan does not address what we're to do with the illegals.

Basically what we have is the people speaking up and saying health care is too expensive and the insurance companies are a bunch of meanies. The government's response to the people is "give us a trillion dollars, buy insurance and cross your fingers". Some people look at that and say "hey, wait a second", some people choose to grab their pom-poms and say "yay healthcare reform". :cheer

And if that's not enough for you then just think about who you're dealing with here. Look at medicare, look at social security, look at the budget. Look at how screwed up those all are and then tell me why I should believe for one second that the same buffoons who created those disasters are going to be able to pull this off. Asking the U.S. government to fix healthcare is like asking Isiah Thomas to make the Spurs championship contenders again.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The senate bill is paid for by taxes on the cadillac plans and cuts in medicare reimbursements to the states. The insurance companies will distribute those taxes along to all of their policy holders, whether they have cadillac plans or not, because they don't want to run off the cadillac plan holders. End result, premiums go up.

Where's the source?


By cutting the medicare reimbursements to the states, the federal government is merely playing a shell game where the cost of one program is covered by shortchanging another. The states would then have to decide how to make up for those lost reimbursements, with the only two options being a reduction in service to those on medicare, or new tax increases to make up for the lost funding. End result, taxes go up, or the quality of care goes down.


Where's the source?


The theory goes that premiums will go down once everyone is forced to buy insurance, but no one seems to be able to quantify that. Certainly not in any detail near to how much has been put into how much the thing will cost. Also of concern is the fact that the current plan does not address what we're to do with the illegals.

So you criticize the lack of detail yet your response to my question is lacking details. Got it.



Basically what we have is the people speaking up and saying health care is too expensive and the insurance companies are a bunch of meanies. The government's response to the people is "give us a trillion dollars, buy insurance and cross your fingers". Some people look at that and say "hey, wait a second", some people choose to grab their pom-poms and say "yay healthcare reform".

You're making this up.



And if that's not enough for you then just think about who you're dealing with here. Look at medicare, look at social security, look at the budget. Look at how screwed up those all are and then tell me why I should believe for one second that the same buffoons who created those disasters are going to be able to pull this off. Asking the U.S. government to fix healthcare is like asking Isiah Thomas to make the Spurs championship contenders again.


Nothing again. No specifics and your (or someone else's) opinion. I'll wait for the documentation to back up your post. You do have that, don't you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates
Jonathan Gruber, MIT
November 27, 2009

The Senate Bill issued this week provides premium assistance and market reforms which will make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market. The premiums that individuals will face in the new exchanges established by this legislation are, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, considerably lower than what they would face in the non-group insurance market, due to the market reforms put in place by the Senate Bill, the mandate on individuals to participate regardless of health, and the market economies of new exchanges. This memo illustrates this point by relying solely on analysis available from CBO, as well as the details of the premium assistance available through premium credits in the Senate plan.




This conclusion is consistent with evidence from the state of Massachusetts. In their December 2007 report, AHIP reported that the average single premium at the end of 2006 for a non-group product in the U.S. was $2613. In their October 2009 report, AHIP found that the average single premium in mid-2009 was $2985, or a 14% increase. That same report presents results for the non-group markets in a set of states. One of those states is Massachusetts, which passed a health care reform similar to the one contemplated at the federal level in mid-2006. The major aspects of this reform took place in 2007, notably the introduction of large subsidies for low income populations, a merged non-group and small group insurance market, and a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance. And the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of non-group insurance in the state: the average individual premium in the state fell from $8537 at the end of 2006 to $5143 in mid-2009, a 40% reduction while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14% increase.

[coyotes_geek]

Where's the source?

My source for the concept of how businesses pass along costs to consumers can be found in any elementary level business textbook. Go find one if this is too hard of a concept for you to grasp.


Where's the source?

Go read the bill.


So you criticize the lack of detail yet your response to my question is lacking details. Got it.

What you don't "got" is anything suggesting that anything I've said is inaccurate. Instead you've just chosen nitpick about elementary concepts like whether or not big mean insurance companies will pass taxes along to their customers.


You're making this up.

Really? which part? The part about people not liking insurace companies? The part about people thinking healthcare is too expensive? The part about the government's plan costing a trillion dollars? The part about the government forcing everyone to buy insurance? Or the part about there not being meaningful data detailing exactly how much money we're going to save off of this? Please, be specific in your response.


Nothing again. No specifics and your (or someone else's) opinion. I'll wait for the documentation to back up your post. You do have that, don't you?

You don't need documentation to come up with a reason as to why I should believe the government can fix healthcare. So do you have a reason or not?

[George Gervin's Afro]

My source for the concept of how businesses pass along costs to consumers can be found in any elementary level business textbook. Go find one if this is too hard of a concept for you to grasp.



Go read the bill.



What you don't "got" is anything suggesting that anything I've said is inaccurate. Instead you've just chosen nitpick about elementary concepts like whether or not big mean insurance companies will pass taxes along to their customers.



Really? which part? The part about people not liking insurace companies? The part about people thinking healthcare is too expensive? The part about the government's plan costing a trillion dollars? The part about the government forcing everyone to buy insurance? Or the part about there not being meaningful data detailing exactly how much money we're going to save off of this? Please, be specific in your response.



You don't need documentation to come up with a reason as to why I should believe the government can fix healthcare. So do you have a reason or not?




The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates
Jonathan Gruber, MIT
November 27, 2009

The Senate Bill issued this week provides premium assistance and market reforms which will make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market. The premiums that individuals will face in the new exchanges established by this legislation are, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, considerably lower than what they would face in the non-group insurance market, due to the market reforms put in place by the Senate Bill, the mandate on individuals to participate regardless of health, and the market economies of new exchanges. This memo illustrates this point by relying solely on analysis available from CBO, as well as the details of the premium assistance available through premium credits in the Senate plan.



Background

In a letter to Senator Reid on November 20, the Congressional Budget Office (the official government scoring agency) reported that they estimated the cost of an individual low-cost plan in the exchange to be $5200 in 2016. This is a plan with an “actuarial value” (roughly, the share of expenses for a given population covered by insurance) of 70%. In their most recent communication with Congress, CBO also projected that, absent reform, the cost of an individual policy in the non-group market would be $5500 for a plan with an actuarial value of 60%. This implies that the same plan that cost $5500 without reform would cost $4460 with reform, or almost 20% less.

The CBO has not reported many of the details of their analysis, such as the age distribution of individuals in the non-group market or in the exchange. So these data do not provide a strictly apples to apples comparison of premiums for the same individual in the exchange and in the no-reform non-group market. And their conclusion may change as legislation moves forward. But the key point is that, as of now, the most authoritative objective voice in this debate suggests that reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.

This conclusion is consistent with evidence from the state of Massachusetts. In their December 2007 report, AHIP reported that the average single premium at the end of 2006 for a non-group product in the U.S. was $2613. In their October 2009 report, AHIP found that the average single premium in mid-2009 was $2985, or a 14% increase. That same report presents results for the non-group markets in a set of states. One of those states is Massachusetts, which passed a health care reform similar to the one contemplated at the federal level in mid-2006. The major aspects of this reform took place in 2007, notably the introduction of large subsidies for low income populations, a merged non-group and small group insurance market, and a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance. And the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of non-group insurance in the state: the average individual premium in the state fell from $8537 at the end of 2006 to $5143 in mid-2009, a 40% reduction while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14% increase.

[coyotes_geek]

Your quote only refers non-group coverage. Also, nowhere in that document is a dollar figure estimate for cumulative savings. The program costs the taxpayers a trillion dollars. I'd like to know how much of that money the taxpayers will get back in the form of lowered premiums.