Nobody is defending corporatist Democrats here, Obama gave up on the public option and numerous other things at the first sight of a lobbyist. But when Repubs start calling a right wing universal coverage plan as socialism and a 'failure' when it has worked fine in MA and is definitely better than the current system with the Reagan moocher mandate, I can only laugh at your ignorance.
wtf are you talking about. My attack here was on the leftist propaganda you posted. I clicked one of your links.. at politifact.. even that say it is a lie... and here is the cbo... stuff. so are you still supporting your lies in that first article. that whole article is lies... even with your lying spin... premiums are up not down even compared to these projections... (so far.) And here's how the CBO projected the effect of the Senate Democrats' plan on insurance premiums: ⢠For those in the large group market, 0 to 3 percent lower (with average family premiums going from $20,300 in 2016 under current law to $20,100 under the Reid plan) ⢠For those in the small group market, anywhere from a 1 percent increase to a 2 percent decrease (with average family premiums going from $19,300 in 2016 under current law to $19,200 under the Reid plan) ⢠For those in the nongroup market, an increase of 10 to 13 percent (with average family premiums going from $13,100 in 2016 under current law to $15,200 under the Reid plan) So according to the CBO, the vast majority of working families -- who get their insurance through their employer -- would see a slight decrease in premiums. But only in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 a year, nowhere near $2,500 a year. We note that this is just one plan, and it has not passed Congress, let alone been signed into law by the president. Nonetheless, it is in many ways the "working plan" at the moment. And since the CBO does not project average family premium savings anywhere near what Obama promised, we rate this promise Stalled. Sources:
Please read this and stop bothering me. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...d-cruz-says-premiums-have-gone-virtually-eve/
this is not MA... this is not romney's plan... this is obamacare... and so far it is massive failure and no one is comparing it to a law reagan made.
that's the thing about Democrats/Marxists.. they really don't believe that anybody is honest, they all operate on the idea that the rich are holding back something, that the company is lying about everything.. they bankrupt businesses with their ridiculous demands. They bankrupt whole cultures the same way... Anyhow, this thread is about the Public Sector doing something more efficiently than the Private side... and we know how that goes LOL.
It's the Democrat philosophy: "Let's all share everything and give me some". The basic idea is that we will all share what we don't have with everybody! If we just ingrain that into the heads of all the children we'll make a perfect society... someday...
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/senator-cruz-returns-texas-welcome-shutdown-battle-043355751.html "After two months in Washington, it's great to be back in America," Cruz joked in speaking to a crowd of about 750 people in a packed downtown San Antonio hotel ballroom. Cruz was greeted with an eight-minute standing ovation in an appearance organized by the Texas Federation of Republican Women. People in attendance, many of them wearing red to show their support for keeping Texas a conservative-leaning state, lined up to greet him.
Pad, what the data shows, i.e., the chart posted by exGoper, is that the big jump in part time workers was, with very high probability, due to the 2008 market crash and subsequent deep recession. The number of part-time workers is now declining, not increasing, and there is nothing in that data to suggest any connection in the number of part-time workers with the ACA. (One might draw the opposite conclusion, in fact, since the onset of a dropping number of part-time workers coincides approximately with the passage of the ACA, but that would not make much sense.) Any affect of ACA on the number of part-time workers is not apparent in the data, and therefore there is nothing left but anecdotal support for the contention that the ACA has increased the number of part-time workers. A shift from one month to another (what the subsequent chart you posted shows) in the number of part-time workers has little bearing on the overall trend, particularly during Holiday seasonal employment periods. I am afraid you have lost this argument. Let's move on to something where there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. By the way, I personally do not think that coverage under the ACA should be tied to employers, and there is no reason for it. Our goal should be for everyone to have individual portable policies not tied to any particular employer. There is nothing to be gained by this under the ACA ,as it now stands. This bad idea should be used as a bargaining chip by the Democrats. Let's get rid of the employer mandate. We gain nothing by it. It's a negative! I don't understand why this isn't obvious to anyone who understands the thrust of the ACA, i.e., what makes it work!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/tJvCPW8fI5E?list=PLd_cklG4-qJqnIA7QrfBIZ2na3xdhVbUP" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> you can skip to 1:00.