Why Obamacare Doesn’t Work
by Ben DomenechMy latest Health Care News podcast, brought to you by FreedomPub, is with Merrill Matthews, executive director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance and a resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, about his latest column on the individual mandate. You can listen to it here or stream it below:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
When I’m asked on the radio or in person about the biggest problem with President Obama’s health care reform, the answer I usually give isn’t that it’s a recipe for trillions in costs for the American people, that it creates massive new taxes on businesses and entrepeneurs, that it effectively divides us into two Americas, that it squelches innovative programs or that it’s possibly unconstitutional.
My answer is much simpler: it’s a model of health care which is proven not to work, because it assumes consumers will act irrationally.
We’ve seen the proof in Massachusetts. Here’s one report from the Boston Globe:
In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan. Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state’s largest private insurer provided the Globe…
Other insurers could not produce such detailed information for short-term customers but said they have witnessed a similar pattern. And, they said, the phenomenon is likely to be repeated on a grander scale when the new national health care law begins requiring most people to have insurance in 2014, unless federal regulators craft regulations to avoid the pitfall.
The point is, we should always assume consumers will behave rationally, in their own best interest. With the penalties for failing to purchase insurance so low, and with the IRS lacking the power and the ability to properly enforce the mandate, we should expect the exact same thing to happen across the country which happened in the Bay State: people will game the system, and costs will continue to rise. More on that here, here and here.
The entire point of an individual mandate was ensuring that younger, healthier people who don’t currently buy insurance (and make up a significant portion of the uninsured) and whose employers don’t provide it are forced to buy into the insurance market. But if insurers are required to cover you after you get sick, and the penalties are so much cheaper than the insurance costs month to month — a divide which will be even greater by 2014 — there’s no rational reason for these people to enter the market except for small chunks of time, when they will rack up high expenses, and then drop back off. Take the example of one private insurer who reported that from April 2008 to March 2009, a full 40 percent of the individual applicants were covered for less than five months, but ran up bills averaging $2,400 a month.
What’s the left’s response to this obvious policy failing? Well, essentially, they ask consumers to roll back human nature. Think not of yourself or your family, but of the collective!
Ezra and others have argued that doing so would take a cynical customer — someone who would disregard the impact of one’s individual actions on the well-being of others, as well as their own future insurance rates. But unfortunately, I do think that more than a few customers will be tempted to go down that path, since the penalties of not complying with the mandate will be so weak. As a result, supporters of health reform will need to be bolder about emphasizing the moral and civic imperative of buying insurance for those who can afford it — and how collective non-compliance could jack up everyone’s own premiums in the future, as Jonathan Cohn argues.
Maybe they’ve got something there. Harry Reid says the health care law is the “most important thing for the world” — maybe because he believes it will fundamentally change human nature, and make people behave like they do in bad utopian fiction, not how they do in real life?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
104 Comments
The main reason it isn't going to work is because We The People are going to Repeal that Obaminable law at the first opportunity.
So, if Puerto Rico is the next state are we taxing them now since they'll be in "the system" in the next few years?
Or, is there going to be a four year wait for benefits AFTER the four year tax period to build up funds?
DTOM! http://RightWingStuff.com
So, if Puerto Rico is the next state are we taxing them now since they'll be in "the system" in the next few years?
Or, is there going to be a four year wait for benefits AFTER the four year tax period to build up funds?
DTOM! http://RightWingStuff.com
So, if Puerto Rico is the next state are we taxing them now since they'll be in "the system" in the next few years?
Or, is there going to be a four year wait for benefits AFTER the four year tax period to build up funds?
DTOM! http://RightWingStuff.com
Repeal and Replace! Soon, we’ll begin to put the Marxist back in the box 11/10.
I hope your health care coverage charges you extra for the cigar smoking.
"Why Obamacare Doesn't Work"
For the same reason that Obama doesn't work–Obamacare and Obama are about control–not about what works in the best interests of the governing people.
Obamacare and Obama demonstrate the tyranny of control, is totally inconsistent with, this, our Constitutional Republic.
BHO just sucks!
Besides the fact the Obamacare is about government grabbing power and not about effective healthcare, it will not work because central planning rarely works for anything beyond what our countries founders envisioned. Just as Russia was barely able to feed its people using central planning, our healthcare will become low quality and less available under Obamacare. Central planning is evil.
wow, what an insightful response! you must have your thinking cap on too tight today -
The juvenile pretense that the left operates from is that THEY believe they can effect human behaviour – history CLEARLY dictates that it is IMPOSSIBLE! It is the creed of every follower of Marxism, communism and socialism – 'change' the people – too bad they are too damn dense to give up this failed idea of a utopian society -
I don't see it getting repealed until maybe after 2012, but not getting funded until then or forever (The Gov. does this alot just look at all the imigration law's, fence, etc… they pass and ignore) will basically have the same effect. It's very hard to start up new Gov. anything without $$$.
It's not supposed to work, but just create another crisis that only losing more freedom will resolve.
Bingo!
We should indeed assume that customers will always act rationally and in their best interests. And when they are sick they will do anything and pay any amount to get well. And that is why the marketplace has failed us in health care, and why it will now be regulated up like a utility.
Never underestimate the president's ability to move money around to fund lawful operations.
And I hope they deny you care because you're a drain on society,VoR.
In at least 4 dimensions!
To a certain extent, the leftist mindset doesn't call for changes to human nature – after all, only the wealthy would game the system! "The Poor" are always blameless for any financial strife, and would make nice decisions if only there were a kind government steering them in the proper direction.
Obamacare, like cap and trade and everything else the statists in DC have cooked up is about money, as much of our money they can get their hands on. If you labor under the delusion that it's anything else, like medical care, you're in need of a lobotomy.
I will enjoy watching Republicans run on that platform. We'll get to hear them tell voters what they want to replace current reform law with…. because I think they have nothing to offer, and they knew when this thing passed, as I do, that the health care genie is never going back into the bottle.
We are far more likely to see single payer than we are repeal of health care reform laws.
I'm happy to be both honest with my insurer about it, and it's worth the cost to me. But guess what — now that Obamacare is passed, you'll be subsidizing such activity even more, since insurers are now greatly limited in what they can charge people based on wellness. Insurance issuers may only sell individual policies which have varying premiums based on tobacco use — not just cigar, but cigarette smokers — age, and family composition. This means that if you weigh 400 pounds, and you live next to a distance runner, and across the street from someone addicted to heroin, you'll be paying the same amount. Pretty awesome, huh?
"We'll get to hear them tell voters what they want to replace current reform law with…. because I think they have nothing to offer"
Not that you're interested in being educated, but here is just ONE plan that we will be offering (and implementing) in the coming months and years. We have "nothing to offer?" You are delusional, and THAT is why you will lose.
Taken from the Paul Ryan Road Map:
The plan ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure affordable health plans that best suit their needs, and shifting the ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.
* Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families – to purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs.
* Provides transparency in health care price and quality data, making this critical information readily available before someone needs health services.
* Creates state-based health care exchanges, so individuals and families have a one-stop marketplace to purchase affordable health insurance without being discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.
* Equips states with tools like auto-enrollment programs and high-risk pools, so affordable health coverage can be accessed by all.
* Addresses health care’s growing strain on small businesses, by allowing them to pool together nationally to offer coverage to their employees.
* Encourages the adoption of health information technology and assists states in establishing solutions to medical malpractice litigation.
More details at:
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/p...
That's pretty much how it works now with my employer-based plan. Everyone contributes the same amount toward their insurance (varying only if you have employee only, employee + spouse and employee + family). So the distance runner and the 400 pound employees all pay the same. tThis does not seem like all that radical a concept.
Thanks John!
Oh hey Mik…you being a pest! We’ll see, the trick will be to not let the parasites latch on, look at the 11/10 election like using Deep Woods Off, an ounce of prevention…right!
miki, I know you're not going to change your mind (you'd have to find it first), but we don't NEED to "convince" people to repeal this socialist law. The majority ALREADY want it repealed.
And no, the socialist law does NOT do "much of this." Tort reform? Nope. Buying insurance across State lines? Nope. Pooling small businesses together nationally? Nope.
What it does do is eliminate the individual mandate and about 130 or more new federal bureaucracies. Whether through the courts or through legislation, the socialist law is going bye bye.
Get used to it.
Get lost troll.
What do you mean 'your' healthcare coverage? This criminal that you helped elect is screwing YOU over too, brainiac. You best hope that this regime doesn't get as far as it would like. And I'll tell you why, clueless liberal–because your life may depend upon it some day.
Now we know that none of you trolls has a firm grasp on reality, which is why you're here–to pick up facts and drop insults. Don't bother. You've already done the worst you could do by putting this flake in the WH. While we're trying to protect and reinstate our liberties–and YOURS, brain cramp, keep flapping your lips to demonstrate to everyone, beyond a doubt–what absolute spineless, clueless wonders you truly are.
Here is a novel idea for you, how about each person be responsible for their own health insurance. If some decides to eat fast food all the time or be a health nut let the insurer decide what their rate is, now here is the great part of this each individual would also have the choice to accept or reject what the insure is asking to be paid. Another nice part of this plan is that each person would be able to have the insurance plan they feel is best for them.
Mika, the reason for the health care failing is the consumers?
They may be part of the reason for the failure but they are not the only reason for the failure of health care. The govt involvement in regulating the health care industry has also contributed to the health care failure. We have people in DC that have never run a business but seem to think they are experts on how businesses should be run and how much is a fare profit for a business. The very same people who help create the problem are running in to save the day to try and fix what they help create.
I will agree that our health care system needs to be fixed, but the govt is only going to regulate it further and most likely drive the cost up and the quality of service down.
Doesn't work because it will have to be rationed and because they lied about the numbers so it cannot be paid for.
You're welcome…forget it…. you don't owe me anything…….
"they weren't willing to compromise anything to get their ideas included"
That's right. They weren't willing to accept the whole bottle of poison just to get a nice grape flavor included. Instead, they acted almost unanimously according to the will of a majority of the People.
That is why the Republicans have an opportunity to sweep the elections. We like our representatives to represent our will. Then we will apply enough support to our representatives to de-fund, defeat and disrupt every socialist move this administration attempts.
Just imagine, a Conservative government, representing a Conservative country, leading us to a Conservative future. Such is our future. And you cannot escape.
Doesn't cover stupid, and oops, …. so sorry…. an illegal immigrant just got your replacement kidney…. been nice knowing you…
So you want your guy or gal to take a poll each time they vote in the congress? It's just not the way the system works. I don't think polls are accurate enough to substitute for good judgment of elected officials. The only poll that matters is taken every two years.
Regulation is precisely what has been missing. We have granted virtual regional monopolies to a half dozen insurance giants and then act shocked when they behave like monopolies. They drain $300 billion in profit out of the delivery system and still fight us over every claim. They don't make those profits by paying claims and insuring sick people. They make them by insuring healthy people and denying as many claims as possible.
That's an old talking point. There are numerous intiatives to reform health care that are sponsered by Republicans. You have to actually look for them because they've been buried in committee and ignored by the press.
Easy to say when your own are in charge. What happens when they're not?
You forgot the part where COngress holds the purse strings?
Sooo, deregulate and force all companies to compete across state lines.
My experience here in Texas with electrical deregulation is you can make it work for you but you have to watch your utility provider like a hawk. You have to be willing to chase the best price down every year and switch providers, but we have an internet sight that helps us track rates.
But internet providers are not allowed to come in and use Comcast or Suddenlink's infrastructure and compete for your business on price. That is one of the reasons they must be regulated.
You are telling Noah about the flood. My congressman is the grossest righty in the House and he has a safe seat for as long as he wants to sit there and complain that the president was not born in Hawaii.
And you forgot that the president signs the budget… and the checks. I lived under GWB long enough to know how the game is played. You don't like the pesky SEC, just shift their budget around so they have no budget for oversight.
Obama's New Health Care Czar is a Dead Actor – Shocking report from SPN Headlines:
http://spnheadlines.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-na...
Keep smiling!
"deregulate across state lines" is right wing code for don't let the states regulate insurance. This is a national problem and requires a national solution.
Really, well I didn't see one Republican willing to put their name on it or even vote for it. Any idea Republicans offered up was merely a suggestion that needed to appeal to Democrats to win approval. They won nothing that you wanted. You put all of your faith in the blue dogs and it backfired.
I notice Anthem Blue Cross dropped its plan to raise premiums 39%. Interesting those premium increases came at a perfect time for Obama and now they decided they miscalculated and those premium increases are not needed.
Obama and the left could care less if Obamacare works or not. If it works, they will just say how great it is. But it won't work and they already know it. And when it doesn't work, we will all be forced to turn to the government to fix things. When people start gaming the system and insurance companies start going belly up, they won't do a damn thing to stop it. But you can guaran-goddamn-tee they will be quick to offer those insurance companies a little federal assistance….you know, to keep them from failing. Government-regulated health care becomes government-run health care based on a crisis the government created with Obamacare. Haven't we seen this scheme before?
And who are YOU referring to as 'common?' Even in jest, mikaTROLL? You liberals personify "common."
And just what would any of you ingrates know about 'acting rationally?' –to even begin doing that you need a grasp on reality–which not one of you has demonstrated as having. What this 'heathcare system' is after is government control of YOUR LIFE, witless. It offers little else than that. YOU are the utility now, but, as a clueless liberal, you fail to grasp that fact, just as you fail to grasp reality.
You have no true or enlightening 'perspective' to offer, troll, because you and your other troll comrades comprise the boil on the butt of this country that everyone is now trying to remove.
JH19 beat me to the punch! Obama and his ilk are setting up a system to fail so they can move us to a single payer, UK-like system.
Relax, it wasn't an insult. That's her name…
They did take a rate increase of 25% not 39%
I am as sure as I can be that the 39% increase was intentional, intended to help pass Obamacare. For some reaseon (millions of new customers?) Anthem really wanted this to pass. Gotta be careful what you wish for.
Mikatollah, lets apply your same logic to our food. When people are hungry they will pay any amount to be fed, so why not regulate producers and retail grocers like a utility? Because if we did, food would be limited in variety, quantity and quality. We would only get to buy food from companies that greased the political machine in D.C. with contributions. That is why it is best to let consumers control the purchase of basic healthcare and insure for catastrophic illness, and yes, companies who provide this insurance would need some regulation from the government.
I say we just let Rep. Grayson and people like him die early.
Food is a commodity and commodities have historically responded well to market forces. Not so much with health care.
You are assuming the boobs in DC are reasonable and logical people who would say, "Snap! Now that's the ticket! Let's free the market! Problem solved!"
I'm hoping we'll vote in a few reasonable, logical people this November who can teach the DC dorks some home truths.
And in all area codes!
Obamacare does work. It just does not do what most people think it does or is supposed to do.
It's a Ba'al out for Andy Stern, broken Union pensions funds, and of course, to add to Obama's stash for when he is impeached and moves back to Kenya.
It has nothing to do with Health. It has nothing to do with care. It has everything to do with the fundamental transformation of America into a turn-world state.
It has everything to do with "rape-our-nation" for those racists who are scamming the system.
If Obama had really wanted to improve healthcare, he would have resigned office and moved out, taking with him all his National Socialist Caesars.
If you knew dink about conservatives, you'd know that most believe states do a better job than Nanny Sam regulating what goes on inside their borders.
"Deregulate across state lines" means each state will still have its regulatory authority, but the FEDS will no longer be covering insurers' hineys with monopoly power. That will make the insurers work harder to compete for business, and we'll reap the benefits.
If deregulation occurred, guess what? People would act rationally and buy the policy that is the covers what they want/need at the lowest cost. States would continue their job of making sure the policy contracts are honored. And the states that are more nanny-like will have to back off if they want insurers to do business in their state.
Mikatollah, per Wikipedia: "A commodity is some good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. It is fungible, i.e. the same no matter who produces it." A grocery store does sell some commodities like milk and eggs, but because of our free market we have many differentiators in our food products giving us a large variety of choices at great prices. Grocers differentiate themselves to attract customers with shopping atmosphere, quality and variety of inventory and great service. Healthcare is similar, aspirin and other generic drugs are sold like commodities, but we also have other products that have a variety of differentiators. Doctors attract customer by providing great service, varieties of procedure choices, and quality care. With regulation healthcare will degrade to the lowest common denominator and it will become a like a commodity. The same would happen to our food production and distribution if Obama takes over that industry.
Um, that's because health care has been so mangled by govt. intervention that it doesn't know what market forces are.
If you look at the few health care entities that aren't bound up by govt. red tape, such as Lasik surgery providers, you'll see that they have vastly improved the product while slashing the cost in half in the past 10 years or so. They can respond to their local markets' needs and network with similar providers to continue serving patients. My husband had Lasik in 2002 in Michigan. He is getting a touch-up at a network provider here in Colorado, at a low fixed cost (that was part of the sales agreement). No referrals, no permissions, no BS.
You are a trusting soul. We've seen how insurance companies behave in unregulated markets. I'm not interested in revisiting that deal.
Once insurance companies became involved in health care delivery all of that opportunity for free markets when out the window. We are fortunate that our dinner isn't dependent on our "dinner policy". But our health care is, and must be treated as such.
Taxpayer – You are exactly right! Your example illustrates the powerful reform medical savings accounts (MSAs) would have on basic healthcare by placing the consumer in control of their own healthcare choices. I think by Mikatolla's comment above he would agree. The problem is that Government has given tax breaks to "Insurance" provided healthcare, so companies offer it as a benefit to attract good employees to their company. So, the tax structure and government regulation caused insurance companies to become involved in basic healthcare which like Mikatolla said, took the free market out of healthcare. I think we may all agree on more than we know, the question is who do you blame for the mess. I blame the government since their laws and regulation created this disfunctional system. The insurance companies involvment is just a product of the rules the government set up.
Troll, are you trying to be witty? All you brainiacs can do is insult–you have no sense and certainly no facts, to offer.
Your opinions are worthless to us here, so don't even try to hide your inane ignorance behind sarcasm.
You wrote:
"I think by Mikatolla's comment above he would agree. The problem is that Government has given tax breaks to "Insurance" provided healthcare, so companies offer it as a benefit to attract good employees to their company."
Old Mik is a hard core Socialist. He'll deny it, but he is. His purpose here is to waste your time in minor policy scuffles while trying to get you to question the validity of your own philosophy. Watch him shift his focus when you win a point outright. He won't agree with you on any point where you say the government is the problem.
Government "tax breaks"? Go back further. It is always at the root of the problem that you will find government meddling. It was back in the '50's when companies started to offer MEDICAL insurance (not "health" insurance). Why? Because the Gov't. enforced a policy of wage and price controls. How else to attract the top talent but to offer some other non-wage compensation? THAT is what started the queering of the market.
Spend the time you waste with Mik reading A.R. "For the New Intellectual" (as a primer) and then "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Galt99 should be more familiar with his founding documents (and will see how nicely they dovetail with America's founding documents).
Oh, and this would be an improvement over the dull gray guy for your avatar:
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/ASC2968.jpg
GF
The goal of Obamacare was NEVER low-cost insurance for all. It was to impose greater power and control over the lives of Americans, and, ultimately, to sink the American ship under a weight of debt so catastrophic that it will require a "global government" solution!
It's real objective, when all is said and done, is to destroy personal liberty, the US Constitution, and free enterprise in America. The real objective is a world-wide socialist dictatorship under the control of elites! This is NOT merely my opinion. It is the stated goal of these elites that Obama is bringing into his administration!
It may well be struck down by the SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds before we get a chance to repeal it. I'm sure that VA's AG, Mr. Cuccinelli will bring his complaint through the "rocket docket" of the Federal Court. It should arrive at the Supreme Court before all the other suits.
The current law will do much of this. Good luck trying to convince people they need to repeal a law just to rewrite it to your liking.
You people had your chance to deal with health care for 12 years while Republicans controlled the congress. You punted, so it's not going to do you any good to whine now.
Agreed. And an insurance industry will act rationally and in their own best interest rather than in the public interest in deciding which bills to support and oppose with their campaign contributions, which is what has made reforming the health care system so politically difficult.
Republicans had some good ideas, like tort reform, but they weren't willing to compromise anything to get their ideas included. If you won't support the end product you are not going to have any impact on the legislation. I believe any one senate Republican could have traded their support for tort reform, but they believed they could kill the entire bill. They made a gamble and lost. Everything that came after is sour grapes.
Gloria Cubanas?
Doesn't cover stupid, and oops, …. so sorry…. an illegal immigrant just got your replacement kidney…. been nice knowing you…
Hey common…
So more regulation will make this better for everyone? Here in my home state of PA the utility companies have been regulated for years and now they are being deregulated. Since the deregulation the cost per month has increased and will continue to increase for awhile, but the service has improved also. The reason for the improved service is now there is competition for the consumers dollars. All more regulation does is reduce service and artificially suppress that cost of the product or service.
Where has more regulation in an industry helped make the industry better?
Um, yeah–the STATES in which the rogue HMOs operated reined them in. That's what the state is supposed to do. Many other HMOs fell in line rather than lose their shirts. Those who didn't fall in line lost clients and money and were eventually bought up by more successful businesses. That's how the market works.
BTW, I wouldn't trust my life to a highly regulated NHS, where I may or may not get care depending on what street I live on–or where I am in the queue for a specialist–or whether tsome bureaucrat had a good breakfast and decided to approve my chemotherapy.
Why is health care a national problem?
Better yet why is it my problem for what people do for health care in CA, AZ, FL etc…. The people who live in these states should be effecting what health care coverage I get in my home state of PA and I should not be effecting what health care coverage they get in their state. Now before this is brought up if some one does not like the coverage in their state they can move to another state that has coverage they like.
The chuckle heads in DC should have say in what each and every person wants to have health care coverage for, it should be the people who are actually spending the money to purchase the coverage. This whole health care issue has been moved to a national issue when should have been left tot he states to deal with.
Ok we have to be willing to shop for our electric pricing to get the best deal, why is health insurance any different?
I assuming that we have changed subjects in the last part of you post to talk about internet providers?
The only Transparency that the Obama/pelosi/reid/czar power-grabbers have shown is their determination to steal our
Freedoms by first destroying the Infrastructure of America, & then 'fundamentally transforming' US into a Socialist state.
To remedy this, we need to focus on their determination to Increase their Voting Block by co-opting the very groups that obama himself named: Hispanics, Blacks, women, Young people. Hmmmm… We can do that. (puerto rico?)
That's funny. Our guest can't get past the first word without a personal insult, and then accuses me of insulting someone.
You are not interested in facts.
The only Transparency that the Obama/pelosi/reid/czar power-grabbers have shown is their determination to steal our
Freedoms by first destroying the Infrastructure of America, & then 'fundamentally transforming' US into a Socialist state.
To remedy this, we need to focus on their determination to Increase their Voting Block by co-opting the very groups that obama himself named: Hispanics, Blacks, women, Young people. Hmmmm… We can do that. (puerto rico?)
It reminds me of the argument I had with the rest of the compensation board at my church a few years ago. Most of the members wanted to give those who did not "take" insurance extra pay for saving the church money. I argued that the ones that didn't get their insurance through the church got it from other sources, that is their spouse's employers, so they were not acting out of a sense of saving the church money. Most of the people on the board didn't get my point. I said I would approve of giving the spouse's employers the stipend, for they were the ones saving the church money.
I argued that no one would put himself in the position of being financially ruined, and that single employees had no choice but to have the church pay for insurance.
Things have changed with attitudes since that meeting six years ago.
It reminds me of the argument I had with the rest of the compensation board at my church a few years ago. Most of the members wanted to give those who did not "take" insurance extra pay for saving the church money. I argued that the ones that didn't get their insurance through the church got it from other sources, that is their spouse's employers, so they were not acting out of a sense of saving the church money. Most of the people on the board didn't get my point. I said I would approve of giving the spouse's employers the stipend, for they were the ones saving the church money.
I argued that no one would put himself in the position of being financially ruined, and that single employees had no choice but to have the church pay for insurance.
Things have changed with attitudes since that meeting six years ago.
It reminds me of the argument I had with the rest of the compensation board at my church a few years ago. Most of the members wanted to give those who did not "take" insurance extra pay for saving the church money. I argued that the ones that didn't get their insurance through the church got it from other sources, that is their spouse's employers, so they were not acting out of a sense of saving the church money. Most of the people on the board didn't get my point. I said I would approve of giving the spouse's employers the stipend, for they were the ones saving the church money.
I argued that no one would put himself in the position of being financially ruined, and that single employees had no choice but to have the church pay for insurance.
Things have changed with attitudes since that meeting six years ago.
Really, it was that 'funny?'
Of course, I'm interested in facts, but you're a liberal. That means, (1) you probably have no facts and (2) those 'facts' you claim to have are likely very questionable.
As I said earlier, troll, your opinions mean little to nothing to us here, so don't even try to hide your inane ignorance behind sarcasm.
Don't forget that food is regulated by the Department of Agriculture. And grocery stores are regulated to, and are inspected regularly by the government, either by health department, weights and measures, agriculture. Without such inspections, the quality would be questionable.
Falt99 seems to believe these businesses are allowed to open shop and offer anything, but it is this government regulation of the marketplace that guarantees food is safe and affordable. As Obama had mentioned, we can make cheaper meat by eliminating meat inspectors, but the quality would suffer…
As i had mentioned to mikatollah, grocery stores are regulated by the government to insure quality.
I hide nothing and that is what has you so angry. I don't stoop to your level and I won't leave. So the only thing left for a guest is angry name calling.
I have an account at Breitbart with a history that anyone can see. Everybody knows who I am. You are just one of many guests. If you enjoy the site you should sign up so that people will know your reputation.
There are no pure internet sights where you can be guaranteed that no one will disagree with you. That's fantasy land. But you are welcome to ignore any post that displeases you.
[...] » Why Obamacare Doesn’t Work – Big Government [...]
Who cares that you have an account here? Or that 'anyone' can read your comments. You're not enlightening anyone here with your insights even with an account.
I'll step right in your face and tell you what I think, and I don't need an account to do that, troll. Should I feel threatened by your invite to open an account? Mind your own business and continue posting your gibberish.
Remember that only liberals live in fantasy land–without a God, or right, or wrong, or accountability, or responsibility, or justice. Or opposition.
Get over yourself, mikatroll.
I seem to have touched a nerve.
"So the only thing left for a guest is angry name calling."
First off, YOU are the 'guest' here, liberal troll. And, as expected, you've defaulted to a typical liberal response: the opposition must be 'angry.' That's called 'transference." But don't you wish we were as angry as all of you are?
To be sure, you're more pitied than anything else; not pitied enough that we don't stomp on you if need be, but pitied in that you're just a brainwashed liberal leftist who hasn't the courage to think for himself.
You 'hide' nothing? Is that your idea of revealing your 'honesty'? Honest or not, troll, your liberal foundation is WRONG. And so is most of what you say and believe.
I have an account at Breitbart with a history that anyone can see. Everybody knows who I am. You are just one of many guests. If you enjoy the site you should sign up so that people will know your reputation.
There are no pure internet sights where you can be guaranteed that no one will disagree with you. That's fantasy land. But you are welcome to ignore any post that displeases you.
I have an account at Breitbart with a history that anyone can see. Everybody knows who I am. You are just one of many guests. If you enjoy the site you should sign up so that people will know your reputation.
There are no pure internet sights where you can be guaranteed that no one will disagree with you. That's fantasy land. But you are welcome to ignore any post that displeases you.
Who cares that you have an account here? Or that 'anyone' can read your comments. You're not enlightening anyone here with your insights even with an account.
I'll step right in your face and tell you what I think, and I don't need an account to do that, troll. Should I feel threatened by your invite to open an account? Mind your own business and continue posting your gibberish.
Remember that only liberals live in fantasy land–without a God, or right, or wrong, or accountability, or responsibility, or justice. Or opposition.
Get over yourself, mikatroll.
And which 'nerve' is that mikatroll?
What you mean to say is that you 'wish' you touched a nerve. Why do you liberals all sound alike? When you run out of arguments–which are weak enough as they are–you accuse the opposition of either being 'angry,' 'racisit' or 'stupid' (just to name the usual suspects). Now, you've decided that you've 'touched a nerve' because your last comment fell flat.
If you don't have anything else to say why not just say nothing? You'll make any inane statement to save face and to get in a last 'word,' even if you to make something up.
Off with you liberal.
[...] » Why Obamacare Doesn’t Work – Big Government [...]
[...] Last week I wrote about the certainty that Americans, particularly those younger, healthier Americans who insurance companies need to buy coverage in order to sustain President Obama’s new health care regime, will game the new system of individual mandates, just as they have in Massachusetts. [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.