The ACA simply makes it easier to get insurance and requires people to purchase it.
There is nothing free about it.
Simply? Not exactly. You're overlooking the many penalties, fees, new taxes, subsidies, mandates, restrictions, governing boards, massive new hiring at the IRS to enforce it, the new individual reporting requirements, and so forth. Simple is the last word anyone should use for that monstrosity. Just the regulations alone run well over 10,000 pages.
Now, IMHO, in the US at least, we could come up with all the money we needed if we restrained our military from trying to outspend the rest of the world by orders of magnitude. We don't need 11 carrier battle groups. We don't need the F-35. And so on - the money is there, we just have to figure out what our priorities are.
The UK spends considerably less as a percentage of GDP on defense than the US, and is making substantial cuts again, but it still has problems affording NHS as it currently exists. As part of those cuts the UK is taking on considerable danger.
And yesterday a former First Sea Lord and Security and Counter-Terrorism minister, Admiral The Lord West of Spithead, warned that Britain is "standing into danger" - a naval term for going on the rocks.
He said that in any fleet three ships are needed for a commitment - one on station, one coming back and one working up to replace it.
He said: "I know we are in a period of austerity but we have cut the military to too great a degree. We are standing into danger.
"We have 19 frigates and destroyers and that is simply too few for the UK.
"In contrast, we had over 60 destroyers and frigates at the time of the Falklands War. The Royal Navy is now at its smallest for hundreds of years.
"You only have to look at Egypt and Syria to realise we are in a very dangerous and uncertain world.
"We run global shipping from London. How capable are we of protecting it?"
The US has interests around the world, and its aircraft carriers are a vital means to protect them. China certainly seems to find them important since they are both building a fleet of aircraft carriers themselves, at least 4 more, and continue to work on weapons to try to defeat American carriers. At the same time China is threating many of its neighbors over territorial disputes.
As to the F35, other nations continue to improve their aircraft, the US ignores that at its folly. A number of American allies are planning to buy F35s to upgrade their air forces. If the US ditched it that would lead to massive disruption for both it and its allies.
Much of the US defense costs are tied to personnel costs. The US and UK both have volunteer militaries, not conscription like most other larger nations have had until quite recently. As a result the personnel costs are higher. A US corporal is paid about what a Chinese general is paid. Both the US and UK have high quality personnel in their militaries, and a high standard of training. That would suffer if they went to conscription, which would lower the personnel costs. That would mean lower effectiveness in combat, and likely cause more casualties - and more need for medical treatment.
Both the US and UK have paid a price in blood in the past for not being prepared for war. Both nations are already heading into danger again, the UK more so than the US... for the moment.
Cuba’s once-vaunted public health system has slipped significantly since the end of Moscow’s massive subsidies in the early 1990s. During one 24-hour period in January, three flights from Cuba to Toronto arrived with groups of passengers suffering from nausea, vomiting and fever.
- Up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily because of appalling care - Labour's obsession with targets and box ticking blamed for scandal - Patients were 'routinely neglected' at hospital - Report calls for FOURTH investigation into scandal
Oh no, no, no. ACA was passed on a party line vote. It was what the Democrats would support that was the limiting factor. As it was they passed it by hook or by crook, with plenty of pork bribes to key holdouts.
The House gave final passage to the Senate's health legislation on a climactic 219-to-212 vote, as Democrats muscled the measure through on the strength of the party's big majority. In the final roll call, no House Republican voted for the bill, and 34 Democrats voted no, many of them representing Republican-leaning districts.
A short while later, the House, voting 220 to 211, approved a companion bill making changes to the Senate bill, a measure necessary to attract support in the House. Those changes now head to the Senate, where action is expected this week. All Republicans voted against the companion bill, as did 33 Democrats.
Guessing is generally a poor substitute for knowledge, but I respect the fact that you stated that. I suggest you do a little outside reading. It could be dangerous though, it might broaden your horizons.
My sig is a reminder for people with a mod point that don't like my arguments because of their politics, and can't prove them wrong because they are based on facts, to act responsibly. Feel free to write whatever reply you care to, preferably one with facts and good arguments.
As to the analysis, if you go to the link you will see that it is based on an analysis of a report from the Congressional Budget Office.
LOL... My good doctor, that is an amusing troll, even if it is beneath you. I suppose given our respective political polarity I should expect it.
Contrary to your statement, I consider the US Constitution to be a supremely valuable document. However, it is also a bigger document than many people here suppose it to be. It is not comprised solely or primarily of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. It has entire other articles in it which have a meaningful say or influence on how the American republic is governed, and what is constitutional. There is also the matter of constitutional jurisprudence which has no small effect, and which many here would wave away as an inconvenient impediment to a diatribe.
As to the political activity of pressure groups, mischaracterizing a small hand full of them to represent all women is nonsense. It is also nonsense to ascribe feminist ideology to only women. Besides, it is certainly true that the leadership of pressure groups can pursue agendas that are contrary to the overall good of society, or even its own membership. I think the linked article shows just such an instance.
No basis in fact? Really? Now I'm intrigued (or is it trolled?).... Are there any that you consider particularly egregious examples? (Preferably a couple.)
You seem to have a big hang up on the Weekly Standard, any particular reason? Would you feel better if I linked or referred to something in National Review, Commentary, or Reason?:D I share little in terms of politics with the Guardian, for example, but link to them frequently for their reporting. If you are unwilling to consider either ideas or factual material from sources you disagree with in some respect, you are limiting yourself greatly.
If it makes you feel any better, that list was one I drew up from memory. Just a recap of what has been in the news over the years. I would expect you might have heard of at least elements of a couple of those bullets if you pay attention to the news. But since they might not be from approved sources, maybe you missed it. Good luck with that.
The true idiots are the ones that tried to pull funding from US troops in Iraq around 2007.
I think you are overlooking the many advantages of a Saddam free Iraq, such as: - No sons of Saddam will rise to power in Iraq. Those would be the sons that Saddam had to reign in for being too cruel! - No more children dying because Saddam stole the Oil for Food money intended for medicine and food so he could build palaces and buy weapons. - No more genocide against the Kurds - Reversal of the massive environmental damage done by Saddam, such as the areas inhabited by the Marsh Arabs - No more invasions of surrounding countries like Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. - No more missile launches on surrounding countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel - No more Iraqi government support for terrorism in the region - Libya gave up its WMD program after the 2003 invasion of Iraq - The Iraqi government was helping Libya dispose of its chemical weapons using their recent experience - Iraq is another democracy in the region - Al Qaida lost enormous support when they went to Iraq since so many ordinary Arabs and Muslims could see them in close up action. - The Iraqi economy is rebuilding
I think if you want to claim that the war in Afghanistan was unrelated to 9/11 you've got a pretty steep hill to climb. The war in Iraq wasn't a result of 9/11, but it did result in political circumstances that made it feasible. As to bubbles, likewise I'm sure. A pity you probably won't read the article, you might learn something.
It's money that probably wouldn't have been spent at all if al Qaida wouldn't have attacked the US. And once again, compared to the defense budget it is minor. If it makes you feel any better the defense budget is dwarfed by social welfare spending (Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid).
As to waste and crumbling bridges, there is another culprit at least as large.
No Country for Burly Men - How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.
You've shown great initiative in getting half the numbers you need. Now go get the actual defense budget numbers and compare them. For a fuller understanding you may need to look inside the additional funding to see what all the goodies are, and correlate them.
So no, the additional funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a minor portion of the total defense budget.
The funny thing about that "liquor store" is that the "assholes" that run it are, practically speaking, "stealing" from the customers the entire time it's open.
Slashdot Mirror
The ACA simply makes it easier to get insurance and requires people to purchase it.
There is nothing free about it.
Simply? Not exactly. You're overlooking the many penalties, fees, new taxes, subsidies, mandates, restrictions, governing boards, massive new hiring at the IRS to enforce it, the new individual reporting requirements, and so forth. Simple is the last word anyone should use for that monstrosity. Just the regulations alone run well over 10,000 pages.
Now, IMHO, in the US at least, we could come up with all the money we needed if we restrained our military from trying to outspend the rest of the world by orders of magnitude. We don't need 11 carrier battle groups. We don't need the F-35. And so on - the money is there, we just have to figure out what our priorities are.
The UK spends considerably less as a percentage of GDP on defense than the US, and is making substantial cuts again, but it still has problems affording NHS as it currently exists. As part of those cuts the UK is taking on considerable danger.
Proof that our Navy is on the scrapheap
And yesterday a former First Sea Lord and Security and Counter-Terrorism minister, Admiral The Lord West of Spithead, warned that Britain is "standing into danger" - a naval term for going on the rocks.
He said that in any fleet three ships are needed for a commitment - one on station, one coming back and one working up to replace it.
He said: "I know we are in a period of austerity but we have cut the military to too great a degree. We are standing into danger.
"We have 19 frigates and destroyers and that is simply too few for the UK.
"In contrast, we had over 60 destroyers and frigates at the time of the Falklands War. The Royal Navy is now at its smallest for hundreds of years.
"You only have to look at Egypt and Syria to realise we are in a very dangerous and uncertain world.
"We run global shipping from London. How capable are we of protecting it?"
The US has interests around the world, and its aircraft carriers are a vital means to protect them. China certainly seems to find them important since they are both building a fleet of aircraft carriers themselves, at least 4 more, and continue to work on weapons to try to defeat American carriers. At the same time China is threating many of its neighbors over territorial disputes.
As to the F35, other nations continue to improve their aircraft, the US ignores that at its folly. A number of American allies are planning to buy F35s to upgrade their air forces. If the US ditched it that would lead to massive disruption for both it and its allies.
Much of the US defense costs are tied to personnel costs. The US and UK both have volunteer militaries, not conscription like most other larger nations have had until quite recently. As a result the personnel costs are higher. A US corporal is paid about what a Chinese general is paid. Both the US and UK have high quality personnel in their militaries, and a high standard of training. That would suffer if they went to conscription, which would lower the personnel costs. That would mean lower effectiveness in combat, and likely cause more casualties - and more need for medical treatment.
Both the US and UK have paid a price in blood in the past for not being prepared for war. Both nations are already heading into danger again, the UK more so than the US... for the moment.
God knows it can't be worse than what the US has, even Cuba trounces the US.
Not so much.
Cholera reportedly kills 15, sickens hundreds in eastern Cuba
Cuba’s once-vaunted public health system has slipped significantly since the end of Moscow’s massive subsidies in the early 1990s. During one 24-hour period in January, three flights from Cuba to Toronto arrived with groups of passengers suffering from nausea, vomiting and fever.
Michael Moore's Wish For America.. Cuban Healthcare
And as a consequence....
Patients facing eight-hour waits in ambulances outside A&E departments
bullshit.
I'm not up on all the most current regional slang. In your area does "bullshit" also mean, "I don't know and can't bother to find out"?
Saving money on surgery and more, negotiating medical costs
How to Negotiate Hospital Bills and Avoid Medical Bankruptcy
30 Ways to Cut Health Care Costs
Sorry, but you are confused. Progressive lobbyists helped the Democrats write that bill. Republicans had nothing to do with it.
Center For American Progress* President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"
* Not at all a Republican think tank.
Actually, if you follow international news at all, there has been a strong Conservative/Tory assault on the NHS for several years now.
If you follow the news you realize that Labour might have some involvement since they ran the government for so long.
Labour must bear the blame for the shameful decline of the NHS
Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets... yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one's to blame
- Up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily because of appalling care
- Labour's obsession with targets and box ticking blamed for scandal
- Patients were 'routinely neglected' at hospital
- Report calls for FOURTH investigation into scandal
I'm sure there is plenty more to find.
I think you're probably right.
Agreed. Too long. :(
I understand that protocol is planned to be discontinued. We'll see what really happens.
Gracias compadre, gracias! ;)
Oh no, no, no. ACA was passed on a party line vote. It was what the Democrats would support that was the limiting factor. As it was they passed it by hook or by crook, with plenty of pork bribes to key holdouts.
House Passes Historic Health Bill
The House gave final passage to the Senate's health legislation on a climactic 219-to-212 vote, as Democrats muscled the measure through on the strength of the party's big majority. In the final roll call, no House Republican voted for the bill, and 34 Democrats voted no, many of them representing Republican-leaning districts.
A short while later, the House, voting 220 to 211, approved a companion bill making changes to the Senate bill, a measure necessary to attract support in the House. Those changes now head to the Senate, where action is expected this week. All Republicans voted against the companion bill, as did 33 Democrats.
NHS has clearly been under pressure for quite some time. Strange that it rarely comes up in discussion.
Complaints about doctors 'double in five years'
Crackdown on migrants rights to NHS and council homes
Patients facing eight-hour waits in ambulances outside A&E departments
Watchdog issues NHS with financial health warning
Why do the UK's cancer survival rates still lag behind the rest of Europe?
Thousands of NHS operations cancelled because of blunders as complaints about standard of treatment rise
The frightening truth: NHS-managers are incentivized to ignore problems
Hungry, thirsty, unwashed: NHS treatment of the elderly condemned
Dying for a drink: Over 12,000 killed by dehydration in hospitals every year
Labour must bear the blame for the shameful decline of the NHS
I sense controversy in the air, a lot of it.
So in short you have no actual familiarity with its content. Maybe you could critique this article?
Obamacare Website Violates Licensing Agreement for Copyrighted Software
Or maybe this one at National Review?
Europe Tries Welfare Reform
Guessing is generally a poor substitute for knowledge, but I respect the fact that you stated that. I suggest you do a little outside reading. It could be dangerous though, it might broaden your horizons.
If you pay closer attention you'll see that the reporting is skewed in the opposite direction.
My sig is a reminder for people with a mod point that don't like my arguments because of their politics, and can't prove them wrong because they are based on facts, to act responsibly. Feel free to write whatever reply you care to, preferably one with facts and good arguments.
As to the analysis, if you go to the link you will see that it is based on an analysis of a report from the Congressional Budget Office.
It would be helpful if reality actually entered the discussion at some point.
LOL... My good doctor, that is an amusing troll, even if it is beneath you. I suppose given our respective political polarity I should expect it.
Contrary to your statement, I consider the US Constitution to be a supremely valuable document. However, it is also a bigger document than many people here suppose it to be. It is not comprised solely or primarily of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. It has entire other articles in it which have a meaningful say or influence on how the American republic is governed, and what is constitutional. There is also the matter of constitutional jurisprudence which has no small effect, and which many here would wave away as an inconvenient impediment to a diatribe.
As to the political activity of pressure groups, mischaracterizing a small hand full of them to represent all women is nonsense. It is also nonsense to ascribe feminist ideology to only women. Besides, it is certainly true that the leadership of pressure groups can pursue agendas that are contrary to the overall good of society, or even its own membership. I think the linked article shows just such an instance.
No basis in fact? Really? Now I'm intrigued (or is it trolled?).... Are there any that you consider particularly egregious examples? (Preferably a couple.)
You seem to have a big hang up on the Weekly Standard, any particular reason? Would you feel better if I linked or referred to something in National Review, Commentary, or Reason? :D I share little in terms of politics with the Guardian, for example, but link to them frequently for their reporting. If you are unwilling to consider either ideas or factual material from sources you disagree with in some respect, you are limiting yourself greatly.
If it makes you feel any better, that list was one I drew up from memory. Just a recap of what has been in the news over the years. I would expect you might have heard of at least elements of a couple of those bullets if you pay attention to the news. But since they might not be from approved sources, maybe you missed it. Good luck with that.
The true idiots are the ones that tried to pull funding from US troops in Iraq around 2007.
I think you are overlooking the many advantages of a Saddam free Iraq, such as:
- No sons of Saddam will rise to power in Iraq. Those would be the sons that Saddam had to reign in for being too cruel!
- No more children dying because Saddam stole the Oil for Food money intended for medicine and food so he could build palaces and buy weapons.
- No more genocide against the Kurds
- Reversal of the massive environmental damage done by Saddam, such as the areas inhabited by the Marsh Arabs
- No more invasions of surrounding countries like Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.
- No more missile launches on surrounding countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel
- No more Iraqi government support for terrorism in the region
- Libya gave up its WMD program after the 2003 invasion of Iraq
- The Iraqi government was helping Libya dispose of its chemical weapons using their recent experience
- Iraq is another democracy in the region
- Al Qaida lost enormous support when they went to Iraq since so many ordinary Arabs and Muslims could see them in close up action.
- The Iraqi economy is rebuilding
I think if you want to claim that the war in Afghanistan was unrelated to 9/11 you've got a pretty steep hill to climb. The war in Iraq wasn't a result of 9/11, but it did result in political circumstances that made it feasible. As to bubbles, likewise I'm sure. A pity you probably won't read the article, you might learn something.
It's money that probably wouldn't have been spent at all if al Qaida wouldn't have attacked the US. And once again, compared to the defense budget it is minor. If it makes you feel any better the defense budget is dwarfed by social welfare spending (Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid).
As to waste and crumbling bridges, there is another culprit at least as large.
No Country for Burly Men - How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.
You've shown great initiative in getting half the numbers you need. Now go get the actual defense budget numbers and compare them. For a fuller understanding you may need to look inside the additional funding to see what all the goodies are, and correlate them.
So no, the additional funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a minor portion of the total defense budget.
The funny thing about that "liquor store" is that the "assholes" that run it are, practically speaking, "stealing" from the customers the entire time it's open.