Times from coast to coast says drop ObamaCare, focus on jobs
posted at 3:35 pm on January 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
It was the best of Times, and it was, er, the best of Times. Two papers that rarely agree on editorial viewpoints both come to the same conclusion today, although for different reasons, which is that ObamaCare needs to be shelved at a moment of national economic crisis. One expects that from the Washington Times, which opposes the Democratic approach to health-care reform anyway. But when the Seattle Times offers its second editorial demand for a shift in focus from creating expensive entitlements to job creation, that’s a signal Democrats should heed:
Much of American politics is driven by imperatives expressed as, “Every American should have “X.” The “X” changes: It can be health care or something else. Often this page has agreed, and no doubt will again. But right now we fill in the blank this way:
Every American should have the best possible opportunity to find work.
Given the shrinkage of the economy since 2007, this is not the time to promise every American a new benefit. And that is what these bills want to do. By their attempt at generosity, they would raise the cost of creating a job, especially by small employers.Some small employers now offer employees no coverage. Under the Senate bill, if employers had one employee receiving a federal subsidy to buy insurance — and the bill creates these subsidies — the employer would have to pay a 2- to 8-percent tax on the entire payroll. And a payroll tax is a tax on the creation of jobs.
They posted the editorial on their website last night, before the new jobs data made their declaration as obvious an imperative as we have seen in a long while. The Seattle Times, not known for their slavish devotion to free-market principles and smaller government, understands that these programs will cost jobs and burdened a stumbling economy. Now that we have seen the actual job loss numbers, and not the somewhat misleading unemployment rate figure alone, their point is all the more valid today.
Last month, the White House leaked a strategy to back-burner ObamaCare and do a “hard pivot” towards job creation. Frankly, given the administration’s big-government notions of how to accomplish that, that may not have been good news anyway. So far in 2010, though, we’ve seen little evidence that Democrats are taking these numbers seriously, or the failure of their Porkulus bill to stem the tide of job losses.
The Washington Times’ editorial focuses more on how to stop the bill from becoming law. They offer contact information for key Democrats in the House who may be open to opposing the ObamaCare bill on the abortion issue. But as Eric Cantor noted earlier this week, there are other issues on which House Democrats could flip into opposition as well. Be sure to see if your Representative is among those listed — and melt the phones accordingly.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
“Oh, your economy is in the tank? I’ll take it under advisement. Hit it again.”
-Barry Gruber
LibTired on January 8, 2010 at 3:38 PM
PROGRESSIVES DON’T CARE ABOUT JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
txag92 on January 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Oh but this bho is focus on jobs, green jobs and government jobs. To heck with the rest of us. Gobs of money goes to each and is about to skyrocket for them.
L
letget on January 8, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Does it take these dire straits to have some effect upon bipartisanship? This is unprecedented. When these two papers, known to be diametrically opposed, are in agreement on an issue, it should be a strong sign to an overreaching segment of our government.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 3:44 PM
all part of the plan
rob verdi on January 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM
What about the NY Times and the LA Times?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Never thought I would cheer on the Seattle Times, but when you are right, you are right. Still very hard to give them a pass for all their other idiotic positions. At this point any help to kill this bill is gladly taken. The chances the progressives take heed, probably slim to none with slim already out the door.
bluemarlin on January 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM
It still cracks me up when I see that Honest Leadership/Open Government sign.
Yep, our enemies can read you like an open book.
Sir Napsalot on January 8, 2010 at 3:46 PM
this is actually bad news as it means we’ll be getting TARP II and Porkulus II. Which means that noone will by our T-bills which means we get our predicted Jimmeh Carter double digit inflation.
Hint: Lock in interest rates. Buy T-bills offering 20% interest. retire once zombie Reagan gets things going again.
joeindc44 on January 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Credit where credit is due from Luicianne.com
“Petition to recall Mary Landrieu”
dhunter on January 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
X is, an always should be, liberty and government cannot give it; it can only take it.
WashJeff on January 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Hey, the countries not going to Cloward-Piven itself.
Chip on January 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Bah. They’re just realizing that they are going to lose their pretty, pretty, POWAH! If 60% unemployment helped them gain more power they would go for 70%.
ronsfi on January 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Kind of like millions of people across the country protesting should have, right? I hope your theory is correct, just can`t get behing it with everything that has happened in Bizarro Wolrd over the last year.
bluemarlin on January 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM
I got an e-mail with the percentage of jobs in the administration appointed to people who ever worked in or ran a business as opposed to having a government job their entire career. With every preceding administration it was 4, 50 percent , with this one : 8 percent. He know nothing about job creation.
Marcus on January 8, 2010 at 3:50 PM
40, 50 percent
Marcus on January 8, 2010 at 3:50 PM
IL is all clear…ugh!
WashJeff on January 8, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Just wait until January’s numbers come out – this isn’t getting any better, hence the rush to pass something on the HC before month end. As the numbers get more gnarly, the greater the chance that the House cries uncle and moves on to something. There’ll be a tipping point in the near future where the House tells Obama that it’s time to move on and I suspect that there are some in the WH that planning for this contingency right now. The reality is that if the UE numbers continue to stink and Obama signs a HC bill that only makes those numbers worse, then he along with anyone associated with it are sunk.
volnation on January 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM
guess you’re right. Signs are only helpful to those who pay heed to them. Millions of protestors, town halls, calls, faxes, closed door meetings, narrow partisan votes, now two polar opposite newspapers saying the same thing….? Pretty much vindicates the TEA Party movement right there.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Drop health care and transform back into useless, inexperienced Senator who did nothing of substance except set the record for voting present and pretend he didn’t hear hate speech from his preacher for 20 years?
Won’t happen. The arrogance is strong in that one, and even worse with comrades Peloski and Reidski
Punditpawn on January 8, 2010 at 3:53 PM
vindicate, er i mean legitimize or whatever.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 3:53 PM
huskerdiva on January 8, 2010 at 3:53 PM
That’ll be one interesting SOTU speech. He’ll try to pass himself off as a deficit hawk while touting new spending to stimulate job growth. And all this after already allocating $1 trillion towards Porkulus and the jobs bill(aka Porkulus 1.5).
Doughboy on January 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Pretty soon we will have Obama on TV promising to fix all these other stuff, only if we can give him his healthcare reform bill beforehand. ===> So that he can have some creds talking tough to his union bosses.
Sir Napsalot on January 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Ed’s channeling a little Charles Dickens there, cool.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 3:55 PM
RED FLAG BS ALERT
RED FLAG BS ALERT
The Times’ newspapers are aware ObamaCare has already passed and is basically a “done” deal. They are simply waiting for conference to seal the deal.
This is nothing more than an obvious attempt at “move on, nothing more to see here” as they gear up to protect Democrats going into 2010.
Don’t let them fool you. The leftists care more about ObamaCare than they do jobs.
ConservativeTony on January 8, 2010 at 3:55 PM
OH MY!!
There must be some horrific polls in the heartland of patchouli.
jukin on January 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM
wow!
moonbatkiller on January 8, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Health “care” will create jobs!!!111!!11
SouthernGent on January 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM
huh! good tip. A little editorial jiu jitsu? IE, Seattle times makes it appear as if they agree with washtimes when they really don’t and they subsequently help the president shift gears (or ‘pivot’) toward his B+…?
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM
False dichotomy. First, you can focus on jobs and still take the only opportunity for the next 20 years to significantly improve the health care system.
Second, whenever conservatives don’t like something, the scream “jobs”. However, the American economy expanded and employment stayed high through child labor laws, unionization, Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, environmental regulation and so on, despite conservative ries of doom. Pushing the effects of the bill back a year might be acceptable in a rfecession, losing the only opportunity for change is not.
Besides, every argument for delay is an argument to kill the bill wrapped in rationalization. Opponents should be honest an stop whining about how fast things are moving or current conditions, they couldn’t care less.
Bleeds Blue on January 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM
I REPEAT. The Dems want Scott Brown to win in MA; it’s their lifeboat from the Titanic’ing of their hopey changey cruise. They will simply spend 2010-2012 blaming BOOOSH for a MadMax economy, and hope for the best…
ParisParamus on January 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Seriously, could it be anything else? Unemployment has been aat 10% for a quarter and they are just now noticing it?
As I say, BS or as Obama and Steele would say, B+
ConservativeTony on January 8, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Democrats = Weathervanes.
2 weeks from now, we’ll Mr. Graybeard say “As I’ve consistently said during the first year of my re-election campaign…uh….administration, I will not sign a healthcare bill that nobody except leftwwing wackos want”.
BobMbx on January 8, 2010 at 4:03 PM
(they don’t want Obama Deathcare either)
ParisParamus on January 8, 2010 at 4:03 PM
sure, you could, but we aren’t. Jobs are being shed by the thousands. Healthcare is not improving and, by all estimations, it will likely get worse as a result of this intervention.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Fine, let’s improve it. The House and Senate versions of health care reform are absolute jokes. They’re about nothing but government control. Period.
BuckeyeSam on January 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM
…Unless it is Steve JOBS JOBS JOBS, hehe.
alohapundit on January 8, 2010 at 4:06 PM
“Welcome to the party, pal.”
Intelligent folks have been screaming that this was going to happen – the Seattle guys are just *now* smelling it?
Midas on January 8, 2010 at 4:06 PM
And you characterize the current plan/process as an ‘improvement’? C’mon, you’re smarter than that, right?
Midas on January 8, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Yes, I have fed Brown`s kitty already, as well as some others. No more money to the Part, only to individuals directly.
bluemarlin on January 8, 2010 at 4:08 PM
That’s funny. The left-leaning tools on MSNBC’s Morning Joe–particularly Barnacle–have been singing the refrain of “jobs, jobs, jobs” for months. With the exception of Scarborough, I bet not one of them has ever pulled the lever for a member of the GOP.
BuckeyeSam on January 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Obama is focusing on jobs. His goal is to destroy as many as he can. More unemployed = more uninsured = more support for govt takeover of health care.
angryed on January 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM
At Foxnews right now. Firedoglake and Kos are after him.
journeyintothewhirlwind on January 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM
No, seriously. When liberals, who hold the “state” as a divine entity, and subsequently see the failure of their plans in front of them, there is a singular answer—more statism. There is never enough government, there are never enough programs, there is never enough gimmesome-gimmesome when it comes to handouts and feel goodies that are shown time and again to “not work.”
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:10 PM
His name is bleeds blue. What do you think?
angryed on January 8, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Nobody here does that. We are quite clear that we want the bill killed. Defeated. Tabled. Whatever. Nobody here is pretending that the bill will be better….later on.
Our strategy is to simply delay the passage of the bill. The longer the delay, the more the independents realize they’ve been had by the Charlatan National Committee, dba as the DNC. Soon, as we’re already seeing, a solid majority of American voters don’t want the bill in any form and the Congress critters are getting nervous about 2010/2012.
BobMbx on January 8, 2010 at 4:11 PM
OT: If you are interested Michael Steele will be on Medved today.
WashJeff on January 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM
conflict of interest?
guilty by omission?
did he get a car and driver too that he failed to pay the taxes on ?
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM
while at the same time, shining a whole lot of sunshine on it. Blue, you’re going to have to live under this too as will your kids, your mom, your sister, your friends. None of us here can concoct a healthcare plan for any of these people from our desks than can Harry et al. for us from their own. Simple as that, ‘cept Harry et al ain’t lissenin right now.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:15 PM
As they should be. But they’re not pretending that health care should be killed because of their deep concern for job creation.
If their so dang concerned, Republicans should actually just allow cloture so they could pass the bill next week and “focus on job creation.” But, of course, Republicans don’t actually care.
In addition, the one coherent point in the otherwise waste of cheap pulp “The Forgotten Man” was that the thing businesses hate the most is uncertainty. So end it. Obama’s going to win anyway, so let’s vote, and move onto the next subject. Deal?
Bleeds Blue on January 8, 2010 at 4:16 PM
+10
KeepOhioRed on January 8, 2010 at 4:16 PM
Yet it crumbles during a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat White House.
What does that tell you about killing growth?
John Deaux on January 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Harry and the boys could bring this bill out TODAY and vote on it. He has a majority, so does Lil Miss Nancy. The reason their not isn’t the republicans, it’s the Americans. Your party’s weak sauce can’t get ‘er done in the POTUS’ timeline and it’s draining political capital at an awfully high rate. Who’s choice was that? Not the minority, but the majority.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:18 PM
My mom’s already under government care. My son’s got a pre-existing condition (minor now, but chronic and potentially serious and expensive) that will haunt him every time he looks for a job his entire life unless we get reform. He thinks the Senate bill is way to conservative, by the way.
As hard working Americans, my wife and I will continue to have private insurance.
My daughter is a jock and apolitical.
Bleeds Blue on January 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM
No kidding, anything to keep that power under their thumbs so they can dispense favors as they see fit. When it came to geting wired, their diagrams were backwards. Why can`t Elite Academia/Liberals look at history and see that the Dole has ruined every civilization.
bluemarlin on January 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ladyingray on January 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM
No, it’s Republicans and that jerk Lieberman.
Give us an up or down vote and we’ll do it. Otherwise, don’t complain that it takes some time (and then bitch that we’re rushing it through).
Bleeds Blue on January 8, 2010 at 4:20 PM
What do you know…liberals like to eat too. Some of them must actually work for a living. I’m waiting for Harry Reid to offer everyone in Seattle a federal job if the Times drops their editorial.
orlandocajun on January 8, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Little late for this, no?
RedNewEnglander on January 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Translation: I love big govt because it gives my family free stuff.
angryed on January 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM
I submit to you that your wife and you will continue to have private insurance as long as you want to keep it (but what if it won’t keep you). I am a healthcare provider and the singular thing that patients should maintain the freedom to do is to choose (or not choose) the type of treatment that they want. Government directed coverage is routinely a one-size fits all, so the meds that your mother needs or the procedure that your wife may need may not match the algorithm that our omnipotents in DC have laid out so well for us and presented in such transparency and clarity.
The fundamental premise of this entire issue are two things—freedom and liberty. I want you to continue to make the right choices for your mother, son, wife, and daughter. I am not convinced that this bill will continue to allow you to maintain that freedom. Nor has there been any effort to convince me otherwise.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM
I don’t think he is, Midas. It’s not like he can claim ignorance because he only reads what the MSM is spewing — he has to at least skim the articles here before he offers his ‘wisdom’ — and if he hasn’t gotten the least bit skeptical yet, then…
suzeecue on January 8, 2010 at 4:29 PM
The likelihood of error or mismatch in medical decisions increases exponentially with the distance between the end user (patient) and the maker of the decision (bureaucrat).
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Under a government healthcare program you will not be treated as a husband, father, breadwinner or member of a family. Your value shall be reduced to a singular line item and resources appropriate, or misappropriated accordingly. No one loves you like you do. Certainly not uncle daddy sugar in the government.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:31 PM
Have you EVER studied Economics? Have you EVER run a business?
What makes you think that your son, with the pre-existing condition, is going to see ANY of the Democratic promised coverages. This bill, if passed, doesn’t go into effect until 2014.
By the way, how are your son’s medical expenses covered now???
PappaMac on January 8, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Bring back W!!!!!!!!!!!1
lavell12 on January 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Translation–Correction: I love big govt because it takes from thee and gives to me!
my family free stuff.angryed on January 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM
chickasaw42 on January 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Perhaps Barry can ask Andy Stern for some “expert” advice on how to create jobs.
GarandFan on January 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM
The bill will increase healthcare costs overall by our government’s own numbers. You know that very well.
Chuck Schick on January 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM
They’re not. Bleeds Blue is actually Mr. Crotchet and Tiny Tim is his son.
angryed on January 8, 2010 at 4:38 PM
So you’re perfectly willing to vote to steal from me and everyone else, right?
Juno77 on January 8, 2010 at 4:38 PM
What makes “reform” the holy grail that will liberate your son from worry about his medical condition? This is the fallacious logic that is a pandemic. Reform is equated to freedom from worry. The government spreads medical resources an inch deep and a mile wide. It is dribbled out to those who use it through a bureaucratic maze. The resources that your son or mother may need or use may, in the future, not exist in your state. The centralized nature of government may concentrate those resources in a neighboring state. Hence, despite “reform” occurring, convenience has gone completely out the window. If you think expense is painful, wait until you drive someone for dialysis or rehab from Barstow, CA to San Diego a few times per week. And drive them right past medical care that could give them the same care. That’s whats in store for us. What you sacrifice in worry, you’ll pay for in quality, cost, inconvenience, and freedom to choose. Mark my words.
ted c on January 8, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Because employers aren’t concerned about things like education or experience. What they really want is someone who will keep their insurance costs down. The only time a pre-existing condition is an issue is when there are gaps in coverage. As long as he stays employed, ERISA will make sure he’s covered.
P.S. I hope he stays well.
John Deaux on January 8, 2010 at 4:41 PM
i love all die hard references…well done.
back atcha with:
“Ho Ho Ho Now I have a health care bill”
Hans Hussein Obama
DrW on January 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM
When even the liberal papers are trumpeting the failure the Obamunistcare plan, its time to punt.
dogsoldier on January 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM
What is this “newspaper” that you speak of…?
Seven Percent Solution on January 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Funny that when the questions are asked to it’s specific conditions, the troll is not to be heard from.
PappaMac on January 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM
This is not about health care anymore, it is about the Democrats and a Democrat President making history claiming they brought a universal health care program to the U.S.
It will pass sooner than we all think.
The only way it would not is Obama suddenly saying he will not sign it.
albill on January 8, 2010 at 4:48 PM
OT but has gotta tell us something real bad is coming
NORAD scrambles two F16′s to intercept a commercial US airliner who reported an ‘unruly passenger’. guy turned out to be a drunk.
so last week we can’t get the prez or his top people to come off of vacay when butt-bomber tries to smoke the flight to Detroit.
this week, we’re scrambling jets to intercept drunks.
exit: vast over-reaction today, or a sign that we are about to be blitzed?
DrW on January 8, 2010 at 4:50 PM
Some people still think that Obama cares about jobs. He is doing his best to destroy the job market. Wake up, America!! He has us where he wants us.
mobydutch on January 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Not to worry. We are going to guarantee ‘affordable’ (read cheap) health care to everyone in the USA.
So whoever is alive after the plane crash will be receiving affordable health care. See nothing to worry about.
PappaMac on January 8, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Here’s a little fundamental economics for you.
-
There’s a million ways to make money but only two ways to create wealth.
-
1- Mining 2- Manufacturing.
-
Service jobs do not create wealth. At best service jobs support wealth creating jobs. Factory workers need doctors, lawyers, barbers (politicians, not so much).
-
Government jobs do not create wealth either. Government is an overhead burden on the economy.
-
Because it does not create wealth, the bigger government gets, the more it sucks the life out of the national economy.
-
A healthy economy generating adequate tax revenue requires private industry employing people, making lots of products. Like they do in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and China.
-
For living standards to go up, production must exceed consumption as it did during America’s first 200 years.
-
For the last 30-35 years consumption has exceeded production with a decline in living standards forstalled by borrowing (12 trillion).
-
So how will Barry create a healthy economy with deficit spending and more government jobs while driving corporate America offshore?
-
Just asking
-
esblowfeld on January 8, 2010 at 5:10 PM
My insurance will cover him until he’s 26 (in 2015) or I change jobs.
He’s in college now. The worry is trying to find a first job when a small company may be looking at insurance payments far larger than his worth as a new/inexperienced employee and not offer him work, or him having to take a job which, after out-of-pocket payments, leaves him living in a cardboard box. And it’s not just him — I was a liberal even before this challenge arose.
And thank you for your kind words.
And, generally (and has someone whose been employed and payting taxes for more years consecutively than my wife and parents would have believed) this isn’t really about my son or my mom, it’s about creating a true insurance system which, as you are born, you enter, which covers you from cradle to grave and which you/me/us all fund with the taxes we pay during our working lives — just as we pay now with foregone earnings. Overhead is slashed, you’re not at the whimes of an insurance bureaucrat interested in making this quarter’s earnings numbers, if you find yourself between jobs, or at a low-wage job, you’re still taken care of, and if a chronic problem arises, you can still get care and contribute to the economy.
Yeah, some people will take advantage. But they’re on Medicaid already anyway. And the rest of us will contribute as we do now.
It ain’t perfect. But I think it’s better.
Bleeds Blue on January 8, 2010 at 5:26 PM
I wouldn’t characterize redistribution of wealth as “generosity” by Obama and congress.
capitalist piglet on January 8, 2010 at 5:27 PM
Pushing the effects of the bill back a year might be acceptable in a rfecession, losing the only opportunity for change is notBleeds Blue on January 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM
If you think this bill is so great, why do you think you will lose your chance in a year, won`t the people still want it then? Is it because you know that the majority of Americans do not want this bill and do not want to entertain your fantasy on our way to bankruptcy. The majority of people overwhelmingly reject this theft of their Liberty and have no desire to continue being the play things of the left wing progressives. You do not really need to answer, I think I know the answers. I wish your family all the best in their health concerns but I think it is very selfish of you to foist this monstronsity upon the whole country.
bluemarlin on January 8, 2010 at 5:27 PM
If you think this bill is so great, why do you think you will lose your chance in a year, won`t the people still want it then? Is it because you know that the majority of Americans do not want this bill and do not want to entertain your fantasy on our way to bankruptcy. The majority of people overwhelmingly reject this theft of their Liberty and have no desire to continue being the play things of the left wing progressives. You do not really need to answer, I think I know the answers. I wish your family all the best in their health concerns but I think it is very selfish of you to foist this monstronsity upon the whole country.
bluemarlin on January 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Why would you rather be at the “whim” of a government bureaucrat than a private one? Have you ever heard of Barbara Wagner?
The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.
What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.
capitalist piglet on January 8, 2010 at 5:31 PM
It appears that this whole problem started when her private insurance plan refused to fill her prescription.
Bleeds Blue on January 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM
I honestly believe that Dear Leader (and many others) have an entirely different definition of wealth than you and I have.
I think that they believe that “free” entitlements and gov’t subdized amenities (like public universities and Amtrak) make a country rich. We also have people like many posters here, who are so busy union bashing and free trade loving that they don’t notice that the Chinese are set to own the west and just finished a year of greater car sales than we had.
On another subject, can this place increase the print size?
IlikedAUH2O on January 8, 2010 at 5:57 PM
We already flipped my Rep. He is Parker Griffith, LOL, and his staff quit when he did. Good riddance they we punks anyway.
UncleZeb on January 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM
You can’t hike payroll taxes and aid job creation. You can’t hit the disposable income of small business owners and aid job creation.
This may be the only opportunity in the next 20 years to hike payroll taxes and pass individual mandates – praise God!– but that’s not compatible with job creation.
The great stumbling block to reform is pretending it has to be COMPREHENSIVE reform.
Oh really? I thought we were noted for our racism. Or our fearmongering.
It’s just that the President has…absolutely…no…freaking…clue…about unemployment, you see.
Huh. I didn’t hear that one during the Bush Administration. Of course, back then liberals cried Bush threatened not only employment and the economy, but also child labor laws, unions, Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage and environmental regulation.
Cheer, you can still emigrate to Canada.
Besides, every argument for delay is an argument to kill the bill wrapped in rationalization. Opponents should be honest an stop whining about how fast things are moving or current conditions, they couldn’t care less.
Bleeds Blue on January 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Chris_Balsz on January 8, 2010 at 6:49 PM
I never, never, never understand this. WHY in heaven’s name would you want to depend on the government to pay/provide for your healthcare, instead of on yourself? Why do insurance companies frighten you more than bureaucrats? What makes you think that the government WON’T withhold the money for care when they simply have run out of money? WHY would you put the reins in the hands of the corrupt people who MAKE the laws, rather than (at the worst) the corrupt people who still have to FOLLOW the law?
I do not understand this implicit trust of government when centuries of examples prove that it is anything but. You may hate corporations, but to make money, they have to adhere to certain business practices and make sure their customers get what they want and need, or they’re SOL. If the rules of the market don’t suit the government, they’ll just change the laws (and tax code) to suit them, and then you, the patient, are screwed.
I agree that the system needs to be reformed, but that’s because the whole PROBLEM is a lack of choice right now because of laws that limit the insurance market. If you could shop for the best plan for you regardless of whether you had a job, for whom you worked, or what state you lived in, costs would be lower and you could choose what services you wished to cover. Nothing really changes with the current “reform” bill, other than that more limitations and another layer of bureaucracy are piled on top of the already dysfunctional health care system.
Your gamble is foolhardy, and I fear for your son in such a system.
Animator Girl on January 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM
ahh so Obama has \’shrinkage\’ the SeattleTimes is saying….
ginaswo on January 8, 2010 at 7:26 PM
It appears to me that there is already a system for your son if those mean Insurance Companies “refuse” to offer him coverage. MEDICAID!!!
PappaMac on January 8, 2010 at 7:31 PM
Great! And when will this begin? – One year in office and no focus yet!
Great! And when will this happen? One year in office – and not even a hint of any attempts to “significantly improve” the system.
Oopsdaisy on January 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM
In actuality – your whole post was excellent.
I quoted the above – to point out that the government is ALREADY out of money…..
Oopsdaisy on January 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM
OK, just what the crap is this idiot’s obsession with “health care?” Out-o-touch fool!!!
jgdp on January 8, 2010 at 8:54 PM
A folow up to fundamental economics, from above.
-
My favorite example is a remote village that annaully grows its own food supply.
-
If it grows a surplus, that surplus can be traded for things it does not have or cannot make. In this case living standards go up.
-
If the village fails to grow enough food, some of the villagers die. I’d call that a lowering of living standards.
-
The same principles apply everywhere, no matter how advanced a society.
-
esblowfeld on January 9, 2010 at 10:07 AM