The WSJ on the contradictions in Osamacare

[Bob Gutermuth]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...357223298.html

[TXduckdog]

Obama doesn't know what hole he's talking out of from one minute to the next.

[YardleyLabs]

Obama doesn't know what hole he's talking out of from one minute to the next.

Interestingly, despite its title and despite the statement that he is contradicting himself constantly, the article did not detail any contradictions. I guess that what happens when the article you cite is from the opinion pages of one of the more conservative editorial boards in existence, and not from the news pages.

[Bob Gutermuth]

Tx Duck Dog, he talks out of both sides of his mouth all the time.

[Marvin S]

Interestingly, despite its title and despite the statement that he is contradicting himself constantly, the article did not detail any contradictions. I guess that what happens when the article you cite is from the opinion pages of one of the more conservative editorial boards in existence, and not from the news pages.

The WSJ would be considered very moderate & business oriented - I quit subscribing to the Journal after having read more than one bit of drivel by that liberal icon, Al Hunt. He was on the WSJ editorial page.

[tpaschal30]

Interestingly, despite its title and despite the statement that he is contradicting himself constantly, the article did not detail any contradictions. I guess that what happens when the article you cite is from the opinion pages of one of the more conservative editorial boards in existence, and not from the news pages.

We can't "keep the system the way it is right now,". You don't think it is a contridiction that if you like your health plan you get to keep it, yet the bill is designed to kill your plan off and let those"bureaucrats meddling in your health care."
Or that he ran as a fiscal responsible tax cutter and is governing as a Fabian Socialist.

[YardleyLabs]

We can't "keep the system the way it is right now,". You don't think it is a contridiction that if you like your health plan you get to keep it, yet the bill is designed to kill your plan off and let those"bureaucrats meddling in your health care."
Or that he ran as a fiscal responsible tax cutter and is governing as a Fabian Socialist.

The bill is not designed to kill off private plans although it will restrict them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions and from canceling coverage based on medical condition if premiums are being paid. The bill assumes that the bulk of all coverage will continue to be provided through private insurers. In fact, private insurers are thinking that their business will improve dramatically because more people will be buying.

[labraiser]

Jeff,

i think you need to lok at pg 16 of the house bill. It is craftly stated that if you leave a job that offers you private ins, then you next ins plan will have to be from the pubic option period. I also have one question, If it's cheaper for a company not to offer you private insurance and you are forced into the goverment plan, where is all the money going to come from to cover all the new people in the pubic goverment option? Estimates are 84 million will be forced in to the public plan. I never had heard this question asked of the president, maybe because the BS Pres can't handle tough questions, he only answers planted quetions in his so called town halls.

[dnf777]

Jeff,

where is all the money going to come from to cover all the new people in the pubic goverment option? Estimates are 84 million will be forced in to the public plan. I never had heard this question asked of the president, maybe because the BS Pres can't handle tough questions, he only answers planted quetions in his so called town halls.

I am not endorsing this answer, but here is one explanation I've heard. Anytime you unburden the private sector (ie tax cuts, or employee benefit cuts), that will be so good for the economy that productivity will increase, GDP will increase, and therefore tax revenues will increase, all without increasing the tax rate.

If this logic held true in 2001, then I assume it still is valid today?

[Nor_Cal_Angler]

I am not endorsing this answer, but here is one explanation I've heard. Anytime you unburden the private sector (ie tax cuts, or employee benefit cuts), that will be so good for the economy that productivity will increase, GDP will increase, and therefore tax revenues will increase, all without increasing the tax rate.

If this logic held true in 2001, then I assume it still is valid today?

The only thing I see with this scenerio is a smart business owner saying...

"Good, less I have to pay out, means the MORE FOR ME"

Thats what I would do, and thats what Americans will do.

Americans are doing 1 of 2 things right now and probally for the next 3-5 years.

1. SAVING

2. Paying down DEBT.

neither of which boosts/increases productivity or the GDP...

NCA