The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a minor addition to the existing budget for the Department of Defense. Obamacare will work its way past that quickly.
CBO now projects that Obamacare’s Medicare and Medicaid cuts will reduce federal spending by over $700 billion over the coming decade. (Most of the cuts come from Medicare, although CBO did not break the estimate down by program.) However, these cuts are being double-counted.[4] The cuts are being used to replenish the Medicare trust fund for hospital and other institutional care and pay future Medicare claims. Over the next 75 years, this will add about $8 trillion to the government’s unfunded liabilities. Over the next decade, when the double-counted cuts are taken out of the equation, Obamacare adds at least $340 billion to projected budget deficits.
Medicare’s chief actuary has repeatedly pointed out that the cuts themselves are very unlikely to be sustained over the medium and long terms, because they would cause severe access problems for seniors. Defenders claim that Obamacare will slow the pace of rising Medicare costs by implementing more efficient ways of delivering services. However, Obamacare’s Medicare savings come from blunt, across-the-board payment rate reductions that are implemented without regard to the quality of care provided to beneficiaries.
Msnbc.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
Does the US get to pay its soldiers and buy its weapons at Chinese rates under your plan? (And won't that "improve" the quality of the armed forces?) A US corporal makes what a Chinese general makes.
That would be my assumption. So it isn't a done deal in the long term, but in the short and medium term, the Republicans won't get many, if any more chances to kill it. I'd say Obamacare, and whatever it ultimately morphs into, is now pretty much cemented into the landscape. Within a few election cycles, no one will be talking about repealing it.
I wouldn't count on it. The law is still kicking in, and though not all of the expense and nasty effects are apparent yet, some certainly are. Many people are already shocked at how expensive their coverage is under the law, and the signup rate has been very low. Many people have already had cutbacks on their hours at work due to the law, and many of them lost health insurance in the process. That is ironic given the previous trend of more companies offering insurance for lower wage jobs. Many insurance companies dropped insurance for children due to the regulation changes, and many companies have forced people off their plans. Many unions are very unhappy with it, and their waivers will be gone shortly. Given the way the law was written, in its present form it will probably destroy the insurance companies over time - probably deliberate - but that will still disrupt the economy. It will end up being an expensive fiasco in its present state. Of course that is no guarantee that it will be repealed, or even changed. People love to point to so called "Romneycare" as the model without looking at the big problems that have been developing with it.
I have to wonder if there is any outcome bad enough from Obamacare that would cause you to reconsider your support for it? I'm not sure I can imagine it.
Why do you think the penalties are so weak for individuals that don't buy the required coverage while the act made policies so much more expensive? The same thing for businesses. The penalties for not providing coverage are less than the cost of insurance, which has also grown more expensive for them. That is why so many companies have been dumping health plans and cutting workers hours to avoid being responsible for workers health care. Massive incompetence or planned failure? How about some of both?
It was an American soldier that attacked other unarmed American soldiers at their base in Texas. He attacked them on behalf of the Taliban. If you don't read more you will remain ignorant. It was a terrorist attack that the administration covered up by classifying it as "workplace violence."
The name comes from the Arabic noun q'idah, which means foundation or basis, and can also refer to a military base. The initial al- is the Arabic definite article the, hence the base.[70]
Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.[71]
BIN LADEN: This has nothing to do with this poor servant of God, nor with the al Qaeda organization. We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed.
We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.
A number of Latin American nations are police states, and since you apparently seek to be outside the reach of the NSA one has to assume you would go to hostile regimes such as Venezuela. Conversation ender? Ah, I see. One may denigrate the United States, but no part of Latin America. I get you. No loss to me. And if you post something silly in the future I will still feel free to respond to it as appropriate. Adios.
Actually no, the NSA doesn't have a free hand in the US. That is what so many of the stories have been about - have they been properly abiding by the limits? But you're thinking about Hong Kong? That is too funny, really. You'll pass on the possibility of US surveillance for a practical guarantee of Chinese government surveillance? As to Scandinavia, both Sweden and Finland have internet surveillance operations, not to mention Germany, France, UK, and plenty more in Europe. Canada does too. In fact they were just involved in a controversy about spying on Brazil. The Latin America police states? Go for it. I'm sure Venezuela would in no way spy on internet use by foreigners. So it looks like you're heading to the non-Cuban influenced parts of the Caribbean for the steady, reliable, "outside the bounds of law" and "beyond the reach of intelligence agency" internet server hosting or access. So, exactly what sort of low profile privacy intensive service are you planning? Nothing illegal or of interest to Interpol I'm sure. I suppose you could try Brazil or parts of Eastern Europe. Both are havens for cyber crime, but both also have intelligence agencies and corruption. Choices, choices.
This is interesting. Could you continue your exposition involving "bizarre logic"? Are you claiming that Snowden wasn't a hacker, wasn't engaged in hacking, or that the data he took (government presentations, documents, etc.) wasn't government data?
Why do you think Cameron wouldn't be able to keep a straight face about it since the whole matter that you've described seems pretty straight forward?
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't an obscure fact, and the news doesn't get better with a different source.
Administration Still Double-Counting Medicare Cuts
No, it's way worse than that. The so-called savings evaporate before you take out the double counting "savings."
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a minor addition to the existing budget for the Department of Defense. Obamacare will work its way past that quickly.
It is easy to show "savings" if you double count them.
HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare budget
Obamacare Remains a Budgetary and Policy Disaster
CBO now projects that Obamacare’s Medicare and Medicaid cuts will reduce federal spending by over $700 billion over the coming decade. (Most of the cuts come from Medicare, although CBO did not break the estimate down by program.) However, these cuts are being double-counted.[4] The cuts are being used to replenish the Medicare trust fund for hospital and other institutional care and pay future Medicare claims. Over the next 75 years, this will add about $8 trillion to the government’s unfunded liabilities. Over the next decade, when the double-counted cuts are taken out of the equation, Obamacare adds at least $340 billion to projected budget deficits.
Medicare’s chief actuary has repeatedly pointed out that the cuts themselves are very unlikely to be sustained over the medium and long terms, because they would cause severe access problems for seniors. Defenders claim that Obamacare will slow the pace of rising Medicare costs by implementing more efficient ways of delivering services. However, Obamacare’s Medicare savings come from blunt, across-the-board payment rate reductions that are implemented without regard to the quality of care provided to beneficiaries.
Nah, that is the job of the "non-partisan" media. Guess which way they broke on it?
Networks blamed shutdown on GOP in 41 stories --- 0 for Dems
You would never guess this, would you?
Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)
Msnbc.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
Do journalists' political donations (mostly Democratic) = news bias?
You'll never guess what he says he found -- 235 journalists donating to Democrats while only 20 gave to Republicans for a total of $225,563 to Democrats and $16,298 to the the GOP-inclined. - See more at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/media-politics.html#sthash.hhVKqE2Z.dpuf
The media needs to get back to being consistently "equal opportunity bastards."
I want to know if it is smarter than the average bear.
Does the US get to pay its soldiers and buy its weapons at Chinese rates under your plan? (And won't that "improve" the quality of the armed forces?) A US corporal makes what a Chinese general makes.
Balloon over time to something like the Canadian system, about 6X cheaper about 4X as good. ... Do the math
If you are doing "math" the only function you seem to be using is hyperbole.
Or, to put it more cynically, US health insurance is a great deal, right up until the point where you need to make a claim.
Tell it to the people waiting in ambulances, dying of thirst, and the elderly. (And that is barely scratching the surface.)
Profitability ultimately determines if they will be able to stay in business, not stock price.
That would be my assumption. So it isn't a done deal in the long term, but in the short and medium term, the Republicans won't get many, if any more chances to kill it. I'd say Obamacare, and whatever it ultimately morphs into, is now pretty much cemented into the landscape. Within a few election cycles, no one will be talking about repealing it.
I wouldn't count on it. The law is still kicking in, and though not all of the expense and nasty effects are apparent yet, some certainly are. Many people are already shocked at how expensive their coverage is under the law, and the signup rate has been very low. Many people have already had cutbacks on their hours at work due to the law, and many of them lost health insurance in the process. That is ironic given the previous trend of more companies offering insurance for lower wage jobs. Many insurance companies dropped insurance for children due to the regulation changes, and many companies have forced people off their plans. Many unions are very unhappy with it, and their waivers will be gone shortly. Given the way the law was written, in its present form it will probably destroy the insurance companies over time - probably deliberate - but that will still disrupt the economy. It will end up being an expensive fiasco in its present state. Of course that is no guarantee that it will be repealed, or even changed. People love to point to so called "Romneycare" as the model without looking at the big problems that have been developing with it.
I have to wonder if there is any outcome bad enough from Obamacare that would cause you to reconsider your support for it? I'm not sure I can imagine it.
Since Snowden bypassed security and deleted logs, your claim is false.
I suspect it will be massaged over the years to work out little wrinkles, with the end result being a single payer system.
Sen. Harry Reid: Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System
Why do you think the penalties are so weak for individuals that don't buy the required coverage while the act made policies so much more expensive? The same thing for businesses. The penalties for not providing coverage are less than the cost of insurance, which has also grown more expensive for them. That is why so many companies have been dumping health plans and cutting workers hours to avoid being responsible for workers health care. Massive incompetence or planned failure? How about some of both?
Metrosexual? Isn't that the subway to the red light district in Paris?
What you're saying is that the understanding of ubiquitous is ubiquitous.
It was an American soldier that attacked other unarmed American soldiers at their base in Texas. He attacked them on behalf of the Taliban. If you don't read more you will remain ignorant. It was a terrorist attack that the administration covered up by classifying it as "workplace violence."
Al Qaida
The name comes from the Arabic noun q'idah, which means foundation or basis, and can also refer to a military base. The initial al- is the Arabic definite article the, hence the base.[70]
Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.[71]
Transcript of Bin Laden's October interview
BIN LADEN: This has nothing to do with this poor servant of God, nor with the al Qaeda organization. We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed.
We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.
A number of Latin American nations are police states, and since you apparently seek to be outside the reach of the NSA one has to assume you would go to hostile regimes such as Venezuela. Conversation ender? Ah, I see. One may denigrate the United States, but no part of Latin America. I get you. No loss to me. And if you post something silly in the future I will still feel free to respond to it as appropriate. Adios.
None of those are quite so odd as that of MI6 Agent Gareth Williams.
Russian automobile insurance companies have required dash cams.
Actually no, the NSA doesn't have a free hand in the US. That is what so many of the stories have been about - have they been properly abiding by the limits? But you're thinking about Hong Kong? That is too funny, really. You'll pass on the possibility of US surveillance for a practical guarantee of Chinese government surveillance? As to Scandinavia, both Sweden and Finland have internet surveillance operations, not to mention Germany, France, UK, and plenty more in Europe. Canada does too. In fact they were just involved in a controversy about spying on Brazil. The Latin America police states? Go for it. I'm sure Venezuela would in no way spy on internet use by foreigners. So it looks like you're heading to the non-Cuban influenced parts of the Caribbean for the steady, reliable, "outside the bounds of law" and "beyond the reach of intelligence agency" internet server hosting or access. So, exactly what sort of low profile privacy intensive service are you planning? Nothing illegal or of interest to Interpol I'm sure. I suppose you could try Brazil or parts of Eastern Europe. Both are havens for cyber crime, but both also have intelligence agencies and corruption. Choices, choices.
Let's just be clear about this, the US did not establish and train al Qaida.
This is interesting. Could you continue your exposition involving "bizarre logic"? Are you claiming that Snowden wasn't a hacker, wasn't engaged in hacking, or that the data he took (government presentations, documents, etc.) wasn't government data?
Why do you think Cameron wouldn't be able to keep a straight face about it since the whole matter that you've described seems pretty straight forward?
State Sponsors: Iran
Outside the US the NSA pretty much has a free hand, not the mention the local law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Take your pick.
Or were you thinking of some countries that have both good internet and no law enforcement and intelligence agencies? Any names come to mind?
The internet makes for a very small planet. It is much more efficient to send a packet by internet than by plane.