Happy Anniversary, ObamaCare!!! Oh and your costs are up 8.6% btw

[Trajan]

Imagine having an opportunity to start your own business and not being able to because your child is sick and you would lose your insurance

Thanks to Obamacare you can join a collective pool and still insure your child

Imagine losing your home and going bankrupt because you can't afford overwhelming medical bills


Thanks Obamacare

Imagine the horror of having beaten cancer and finding nobody will cover you because of pre-existing condition?

Thanks Obamacare

imagine being a mindless drone=sheeple who does not bother to think on their own because they are so flummoxed by life that they naturally find, no run toward the succor of taking advantage of a middle man using someones else's labor to make up for their lack of ambition, hard work and talent.

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine having an opportunity to start your own business and not being able to because your child is sick and you would lose your insurance

Thanks to Obamacare you can join a collective pool and still insure your child

Imagine losing your home and going bankrupt because you can't afford overwhelming medical bills


Thanks Obamacare

Imagine the horror of having beaten cancer and finding nobody will cover you because of pre-existing condition?

Thanks Obamacare

imagine being a mindless drone=sheeple who does not bother to think on their own because they are so flummoxed by life that they naturally find, no run toward the succor of taking advantage of a middle man using someones else's labor to make up for their lack of ambition, hard work and talent.

Link?

 

[Polk]

Imagine having an opportunity to start your own business and not being able to because your child is sick and you would lose your insurance

Thanks to Obamacare you can join a collective pool and still insure your child

Imagine losing your home and going bankrupt because you can't afford overwhelming medical bills


Thanks Obamacare

Imagine the horror of having beaten cancer and finding nobody will cover you because of pre-existing condition?

Thanks Obamacare

imagine being a mindless drone=sheeple who does not bother to think on their own because they are so flummoxed by life that they naturally find, no run toward the succor of taking advantage of a middle man using someones else's labor to make up for their lack of ambition, hard work and talent.

You may want to step back and reread what you just wrote, because, perhaps with realizing it, you just made the claim that you can place price tags on human lives and illness is the result of "lack of ambition, hard work and talent".

 

[PoliticalChic]

i'm actually impressed the cost estimates only went up 8.6%.

the day after the Medicare Pill Bill passed the cost estimate for it went up nearly 40%, and one year later the estimate cost for it went up 60%.

Skyrocketing costs. The White House report warns that "health care costs have risen rapidly over the last two decades and are projected to rise even more rapidly in the future." The truth is that health-care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased by 10% in 1970 and 13% in 1980. But over the last five years, spending increased less than 7% each year, and reached a low of 6% in 2007. It's true that premiums are increasing rapidly. But the White House report incorrectly blames health costs. The real cause is the declining share of care paid for out of pocket (down to 15% today from 33% in 1975). Auto-insurance premiums would also skyrocket if coverage suddenly included oil changes and tune-ups.
http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/WSJ_-_Obamas_Voodoo_Health_Economics_060509_.pdf

Enact TORT reform...and watch it go down.

Actually, T, I'm going with dropping mandates as the big cost saver:

COVERAGE MANDATES: "WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU NEED"

Insurance coverage mandates refer to the restrictions each state sets on which type of policy can be sold legally within that market. For example, fourteen states now require all insurance plans sold to cover infertility treatments, regardless of the patient's need or desire for these services. Other states ban the sale of insurance plans unless they include coverage for massage therapy, obesity surgery, pastoral care, and wigs.

Needle-phobic consumers cannot buy plans without acupuncture coverage, and teetotalers must pay for plans that include inpatient drug rehabilitation, says Dr. Linda Halderman, a General Surgeon and policy adviser in the California State Senate.

What effect do mandates have on the cost of health insurance?
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, just 12 of the most common insurance mandates currently in place raise premium rates by as much as 30 percent.

The State of California forces over 50 such mandates on the employer-provided (group) insurance market, but not on individual plans; consequently, it costs three times more for California employers to offer insurance than if a plan is privately purchased.

In mandate-heavy states, consumers are denied the option of buying low-cost, basic health insurance plans to cover major illness or injury. They cannot choose to save money by paying out of pocket for ten-dollar pneumococcus pneumonia vaccines and ninety-dollar mammograms, thereby reserving health insurance for significant expenses, explains Halderman.

In those states, insurance is not insurance at all -- it is expensive, prepaid health care. In other words, when Hummers and Ferraris are the only vehicles sold, people on Toyota budgets can't afford transportation, says Halderman.
Source: Linda Halderman, "Senate's Solution: Consumer Choice Is Dead on Arrival," American Thinkers, December 16, 2009.
American Thinker: Senate's Solution: Consumer Choice Is Dead on Arrival


Another example of coersion by the statist-collectivists.

Notice, this savings solution was never brought up in even the limited discussions of Obamaare....Why?
It's not about either healthcare, or about savings, but about control.

 

[rightwinger]

My neighbors across the street owned their home for 25 years. The husband was a self employed trucker and the wife worked for a small company where she got health insurance. The wife came down with fibromyalgia and was able to work less and less because of the pain. Eventually, she was fired
Once she lost her job and insurance, nobody would write a health insurance policy Their house became their health insurance policy as they took repeated equity loans to pay the mounting healthcare bills. When all their equity was used up, the house was foreclosed

This is what is known as Bushcare

 

[PoliticalChic]

My neighbors across the street owned their home for 25 years. The husband was a self employed trucker and the wife worked for a small company where she got health insurance. The wife came down with fibromyalgia and was able to work less and less because of the pain. Eventually, she was fired
Once she lost her job and insurance, nobody would write a health insurance policy Their house became their health insurance policy as they took repeated equity loans to pay the mounting healthcare bills. When all their equity was used up, the house was foreclosed

This is what is known as Bushcare

How much did you offer them?


"Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism"
http://philanthropy.com/article/Obamas-Plan-to-Reduce/63024/

 

[rightwinger]

My neighbors across the street owned their home for 25 years. The husband was a self employed trucker and the wife worked for a small company where she got health insurance. The wife came down with fibromyalgia and was able to work less and less because of the pain. Eventually, she was fired
Once she lost her job and insurance, nobody would write a health insurance policy Their house became their health insurance policy as they took repeated equity loans to pay the mounting healthcare bills. When all their equity was used up, the house was foreclosed

This is what is known as Bushcare

How much did you offer them?


Reduce/63024/[/url]

I guess I could have offered to mortgage my house too......then we both could have lost our houses

Thanks Bushcare

 

[Greenbeard]

Shortage of doctors in the future is already happening.

That's interesting timing on your part because the results of the 2011 National Residency Matching Program came out just over a week ago. Turns out primary care is becoming cool again: not only did the number of family medicine residencies offered increase this year, the fill rate of those offered residencies hit a record 94.4 percent.

Doctor salaries will go down which is why enrollment is down in medical schools.

Did I miss something? That data is available from the American Academy of Medical Colleges:

You guys really can't make up your minds, can you?

If no waivers were issued, you be kvetching about the tyranny of it all.
Since waivers have been issued, you're complaining it's proof the bill is terrible.

The truth of the matter is that the waivers are a necessary political evil. Mini-med policies are useless.

I get the sense that many folks aren't aware that waivers are a pretty common way to insert additional flexibility into federal law. I imagine if you pointed out that in Medicaid there were 44 Freedom of Choice waivers active in 25 states (as of 2009), 287 home and community based service waivers operating in every single jurisdiction (as of 2008), and 66 Section 1115 waivers operating in 41 states (as of this year)--some of those latter ones even cover entire states (see: Arizona), *Gasp*--some of these folks would be surprised.

If Iowa needs a three year phase-in of the medical loss ratio rules and can convincingly justify it, I'd like to see them get it. The same goes for any states mulling an application for an MLR waiver. There's no reason to be vindictive about it.

And I'd love to see the Wyden-Brown proposal to move up the effective date of the state innovation waivers to 2014 passed; Oregon and Vermont have some interesting experiments on deck.

 

[Polk]

i'm actually impressed the cost estimates only went up 8.6%.

the day after the Medicare Pill Bill passed the cost estimate for it went up nearly 40%, and one year later the estimate cost for it went up 60%.

Skyrocketing costs. The White House report warns that "health care costs have risen rapidly over the last two decades and are projected to rise even more rapidly in the future." The truth is that health-care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased by 10% in 1970 and 13% in 1980. But over the last five years, spending increased less than 7% each year, and reached a low of 6% in 2007. It's true that premiums are increasing rapidly. But the White House report incorrectly blames health costs. The real cause is the declining share of care paid for out of pocket (down to 15% today from 33% in 1975). Auto-insurance premiums would also skyrocket if coverage suddenly included oil changes and tune-ups.
http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/WSJ_-_Obamas_Voodoo_Health_Economics_060509_.pdf

Enact TORT reform...and watch it go down.

Which is why Texas, which passed aggressive tort reform, has some of the highest medical costs in the nation. Ditto Florida.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My neighbors across the street owned their home for 25 years. The husband was a self employed trucker and the wife worked for a small company where she got health insurance. The wife came down with fibromyalgia and was able to work less and less because of the pain. Eventually, she was fired
Once she lost her job and insurance, nobody would write a health insurance policy Their house became their health insurance policy as they took repeated equity loans to pay the mounting healthcare bills. When all their equity was used up, the house was foreclosed

This is what is known as Bushcare

How much did you offer them?


Reduce/63024/[/url]

I guess I could have offered to mortgage my house too......then we both could have lost our houses

Thanks Bushcare

So, I can assume that for all your concern, talk was the extent of your commitment to your neighbors....

Difficult to follow how you blame Bush considering your parsimony.

But, I can see why the Obama-Biden team appealed to you.

1. "Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225678/joe-biden-and-american-charity/byron-york

2. Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)


3. Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Ann Coulter

 

[rightwinger]

How much did you offer them?


Reduce/63024/[/url]

I guess I could have offered to mortgage my house too......then we both could have lost our houses

Thanks Bushcare

So, I can assume that for all your concern, talk was the extent of your commitment to your neighbors....

Difficult to follow how you blame Bush considering your parsimony.

But, I can see why the Obama-Biden team appealed to you.

1. "Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Joe Biden and American Charity - Byron York - National Review Online

2. Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)


3. Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Ann Coulter

Bushcare.....What else can we call it?

After Republicans killed the Clinton Healthcare reform (Hillarycare) they said they could do better. Doing better meant blocking any healthcare legislation during the Bush administration. That meant people with pre-existing conditions could not get coverage.

Republicans did not care....they still do not care

Your response is flippant and representative of most Rightwing rhetoric. "If you think they should be helped, why did't you give them the money?"

Is that really the best you can do PC?

You expect neighbors to pay over $100,000 in medical bills

 

[PoliticalChic]

I guess I could have offered to mortgage my house too......then we both could have lost our houses

Thanks Bushcare

So, I can assume that for all your concern, talk was the extent of your commitment to your neighbors....

Difficult to follow how you blame Bush considering your parsimony.

But, I can see why the Obama-Biden team appealed to you.

1. "Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Joe Biden and American Charity - Byron York - National Review Online

2. Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)


3. Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Ann Coulter

Bushcare.....What else can we call it?

After Republicans killed the Clinton Healthcare reform (Hillarycare) they said they could do better. Doing better meant blocking any healthcare legislation during the Bush administration. That meant people with pre-existing conditions could not get coverage.

Republicans did not care....they still do not care

Your response is flippant and representative of most Rightwing rhetoric. "If you think they should be helped, why did't you give them the money?"

Is that really the best you can do PC?

You expect neighbors to pay over $100,000 in medical bills

Talk is cheap, wingy.

And talk is the extent of the aid and help libs are willing to give.

Of course, that isn't true of those on the right, who earn less than the Left, but give far more .
You understand? We put our money where our mouths are. You guys are much better at complaining and moaning about how the government doesn't do enough....you know, by taking other folks money to do it.

"Is that really the best you can do PC?"
No, wingy, ...I can give you the facts.


1. "In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Frank Brieaddy writes for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y.

Newsvine - Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com


2. We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

Now, you probably believe that refering to "Rightwing rhetoric' is a pejorative, but the definition means 'talking or writing effectively.'
So, if that means give the facts, as I have just done, then I plead guilty as charged.

On the other hand, if it means convincing folks like you that the right thing is to actually do something, rather than complain, then, I guess, I struck out.


The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention. - Oscar Wilde

You can still change, Scrooge.

 

[Trajan]

Imagine having an opportunity to start your own business and not being able to because your child is sick and you would lose your insurance

Thanks to Obamacare you can join a collective pool and still insure your child

Imagine the horror of having beaten cancer and finding nobody will cover you because of pre-existing condition?

Thanks Obamacare

imagine being a mindless drone=sheeple who does not bother to think on their own because they are so flummoxed by life that they naturally find, no run toward the succor of taking advantage of a middle man using someones else's labor to make up for their lack of ambition, hard work and talent.

You may want to step back and reread what you just wrote, because, perhaps with realizing it, you just made the claim that you can place price tags on human lives and illness is the result of "lack of ambition, hard work and talent".

we already do.

next?

 

[Trajan]

Shortage of doctors in the future is already happening.

That's interesting timing on your part because the results of the 2011 National Residency Matching Program came out just over a week ago. Turns out primary care is becoming cool again: not only did the number of family medicine residencies offered increase this year, the fill rate of those offered residencies hit a record 94.4 percent.

Doctor salaries will go down which is why enrollment is down in medical schools.

Did I miss something? That data is available from the American Academy of Medical Colleges:

You guys really can't make up your minds, can you?

If no waivers were issued, you be kvetching about the tyranny of it all.
Since waivers have been issued, you're complaining it's proof the bill is terrible.

The truth of the matter is that the waivers are a necessary political evil. Mini-med policies are useless.

I get the sense that many folks aren't aware that waivers are a pretty common way to insert additional flexibility into federal law. I imagine if you pointed out that in Medicaid there were 44 Freedom of Choice waivers active in 25 states (as of 2009), 287 home and community based service waivers operating in every single jurisdiction (as of 2008), and 66 Section 1115 waivers operating in 41 states (as of this year)--some of those latter ones even cover entire states (see: Arizona), *Gasp*--some of these folks would be surprised.

If Iowa needs a three year phase-in of the medical loss ratio rules and can convincingly justify it, I'd like to see them get it. The same goes for any states mulling an application for an MLR waiver. There's no reason to be vindictive about it.

And I'd love to see the Wyden-Brown proposal to move up the effective date of the state innovation waivers to 2014 passed; Oregon and Vermont have some interesting experiments on deck.

flexibility....humm..do I have the flexibility to withdraw from medicare A without say, losing my social security?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I guess I could have offered to mortgage my house too......then we both could have lost our houses

Thanks Bushcare

So, I can assume that for all your concern, talk was the extent of your commitment to your neighbors....

Difficult to follow how you blame Bush considering your parsimony.

But, I can see why the Obama-Biden team appealed to you.

1. "Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Joe Biden and American Charity - Byron York - National Review Online

2. Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)


3. Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Ann Coulter

Bushcare.....What else can we call it?

After Republicans killed the Clinton Healthcare reform (Hillarycare) they said they could do better. Doing better meant blocking any healthcare legislation during the Bush administration. That meant people with pre-existing conditions could not get coverage.

Republicans did not care....they still do not care

Your response is flippant and representative of most Rightwing rhetoric. "If you think they should be helped, why did't you give them the money?"

Is that really the best you can do PC?

You expect neighbors to pay over $100,000 in medical bills

"You expect neighbors to pay over $100,000 in medical bills."

Well....yeah.

. Private sector or government bureaucracy? In 1887, Congress passed a bill appropriating money to Texas farmers who were suffering thorough a catastrophic drought. President Grover Cleveland’s veto included this response:

“And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Cleveland was correct: “So he challenged private citizens to come forward. And here’s perhaps the weirdest part: They responded. A number of newspapers adopted the relief campaign and in the end Americans donated not $10,000 but $100,000 to the afflicted farmers.”
Obama's plan to stimulate the economy should be to do nothing.

And, $100,000 was a heck of a lot more in those days!

Wingy, here is another dose of that 'Rightwing rhetoric':

"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

These words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.


Well, are you eatin' your words?

 

[rightwinger]

So, I can assume that for all your concern, talk was the extent of your commitment to your neighbors....

Difficult to follow how you blame Bush considering your parsimony.

But, I can see why the Obama-Biden team appealed to you.

1. "Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Joe Biden and American Charity - Byron York - National Review Online

2. Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)


3. Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Ann Coulter

Bushcare.....What else can we call it?

After Republicans killed the Clinton Healthcare reform (Hillarycare) they said they could do better. Doing better meant blocking any healthcare legislation during the Bush administration. That meant people with pre-existing conditions could not get coverage.

Republicans did not care....they still do not care

Your response is flippant and representative of most Rightwing rhetoric. "If you think they should be helped, why did't you give them the money?"

Is that really the best you can do PC?

You expect neighbors to pay over $100,000 in medical bills

Talk is cheap, wingy.

And talk is the extent of the aid and help libs are willing to give.

Of course, that isn't true of those on the right, who earn less than the Left, but give far more .
You understand? We put our money where our mouths are. You guys are much better at complaining and moaning about how the government doesn't do enough....you know, by taking other folks money to do it.

"Is that really the best you can do PC?"
No, wingy, ...I can give you the facts.


1. "In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Frank Brieaddy writes for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y.

Newsvine - Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com


2. We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

Now, you probably believe that refering to "Rightwing rhetoric' is a pejorative, but the definition means 'talking or writing effectively.'
So, if that means give the facts, as I have just done, then I plead guilty as charged.

On the other hand, if it means convincing folks like you that the right thing is to actually do something, rather than complain, then, I guess, I struck out.


The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention. - Oscar Wilde

You can still change, Scrooge.

Come on PC...I know it is the weekend when you do your best trolling

What does any of that screed have to do with my neighbors losing their house?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bushcare.....What else can we call it?

After Republicans killed the Clinton Healthcare reform (Hillarycare) they said they could do better. Doing better meant blocking any healthcare legislation during the Bush administration. That meant people with pre-existing conditions could not get coverage.

Republicans did not care....they still do not care

Your response is flippant and representative of most Rightwing rhetoric. "If you think they should be helped, why did't you give them the money?"

Is that really the best you can do PC?

You expect neighbors to pay over $100,000 in medical bills

Talk is cheap, wingy.

And talk is the extent of the aid and help libs are willing to give.

Of course, that isn't true of those on the right, who earn less than the Left, but give far more .
You understand? We put our money where our mouths are. You guys are much better at complaining and moaning about how the government doesn't do enough....you know, by taking other folks money to do it.

"Is that really the best you can do PC?"
No, wingy, ...I can give you the facts.


1. "In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Frank Brieaddy writes for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y.

Newsvine - Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com


2. We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

Now, you probably believe that refering to "Rightwing rhetoric' is a pejorative, but the definition means 'talking or writing effectively.'
So, if that means give the facts, as I have just done, then I plead guilty as charged.

On the other hand, if it means convincing folks like you that the right thing is to actually do something, rather than complain, then, I guess, I struck out.


The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention. - Oscar Wilde

You can still change, Scrooge.

Come on PC...I know it is the weekend when you do your best trolling

What does any of that screed have to do with my neighbors losing their house?

You know what I love about you???
You give me the opportunity to write!

To the point:
1. The Constitution has no allowance for the dole that you demand. Note, that is what President Grover Cleveland, two-time President from the Empire State, opined.

2. The very same President showed the generosity of Americans in the example that I provided....don't pretend you didn't see it.

3. I chose that example because one of your whiney excuses was something like 'you can't expect neighbors to kick in $100K..." and I showed that that is exactly what happened at a time when there were far fewer neighbors.

4. Working up to the usual level of Lefties, you provided no evidence in any post that any of your complaints go beyond a stingyness and reliance on government to do everything, including, I suppose, tuck you in at night.

5. I also provided indicia that the Democrat President and Vice-President also throw nickles around like man-hole covers, that the American people gave $300 billion in charity, and that your fav, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, also agreed that the dole, welfare was a depredation on the human spirit.

6. And the best you can do is suggest that I am a 'troll.'
I'm not sure what that really means, as I have never used the term, but it seems to mean that I am beating the heck out of your argument....True?

7. "What does any of that screed have to do with my neighbors losing their house?"
It means that you should have done something rather than use the fact as a cudgle to beat President Bush with.

I hope you did something, even if it wasn't a cash gift...mow their lawn? bring over a dinner? write letters on their behalf..be a community organizer; you know what that is, don't you?


C'mon, wingy, show some spunk: put up an argument that individuals shouldn't have to help the needy, the government should do it!

 

[rightwinger]

Talk is cheap, wingy.

And talk is the extent of the aid and help libs are willing to give.

Of course, that isn't true of those on the right, who earn less than the Left, but give far more .
You understand? We put our money where our mouths are. You guys are much better at complaining and moaning about how the government doesn't do enough....you know, by taking other folks money to do it.

"Is that really the best you can do PC?"
No, wingy, ...I can give you the facts.


1. "In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Frank Brieaddy writes for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y.

Newsvine - Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com


2. We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

Now, you probably believe that refering to "Rightwing rhetoric' is a pejorative, but the definition means 'talking or writing effectively.'
So, if that means give the facts, as I have just done, then I plead guilty as charged.

On the other hand, if it means convincing folks like you that the right thing is to actually do something, rather than complain, then, I guess, I struck out.


The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention. - Oscar Wilde

You can still change, Scrooge.

Come on PC...I know it is the weekend when you do your best trolling

What does any of that screed have to do with my neighbors losing their house?

You know what I love about you???
You give me the opportunity to write!

To the point:
1. The Constitution has no allowance for the dole that you demand. Note, that is what President Grover Cleveland, two-time President from the Empire State, opined.

2. The very same President showed the generosity of Americans in the example that I provided....don't pretend you didn't see it.

3. I chose that example because one of your whiney excuses was something like 'you can't expect neighbors to kick in $100K..." and I showed that that is exactly what happened at a time when there were far fewer neighbors.

4. Working up to the usual level of Lefties, you provided no evidence in any post that any of your complaints go beyond a stingyness and reliance on government to do everything, including, I suppose, tuck you in at night.

5. I also provided indicia that the Democrat President and Vice-President also throw nickles around like man-hole covers, that the American people gave $300 billion in charity, and that your fav, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, also agreed that the dole, welfare was a depredation on the human spirit.

6. And the best you can do is suggest that I am a 'troll.'
I'm not sure what that really means, as I have never used the term, but it seems to mean that I am beating the heck out of your argument....True?

7. "What does any of that screed have to do with my neighbors losing their house?"
It means that you should have done something rather than use the fact as a cudgle to beat President Bush with.

I hope you did something, even if it wasn't a cash gift...mow their lawn? bring over a dinner? write letters on their behalf..be a community organizer; you know what that is, don't you?


C'mon, wingy, show some spunk: put up an argument that individuals shouldn't have to help the needy, the government should do it!

Damn girl

You sure write a lot just to make a simple point. Of course the neighbors helped. She was very sick and in a lot of pain. I don't know if you have ever been hospitalized, but the bills add up very fast and $100k for a short stay is not hard to do.
The neighbors did what we could, but not with that much money at stake. They went through over $200 k before losing their house.

They were not looking for a free ride, they did not want a government handout. They wanted to be able to buy insurance like anyone else. They were blocked because of pre-existing conditions

It's a shame that this country let it happen

 

[PoliticalChic]

Come on PC...I know it is the weekend when you do your best trolling

What does any of that screed have to do with my neighbors losing their house?

You know what I love about you???
You give me the opportunity to write!

To the point:
1. The Constitution has no allowance for the dole that you demand. Note, that is what President Grover Cleveland, two-time President from the Empire State, opined.

2. The very same President showed the generosity of Americans in the example that I provided....don't pretend you didn't see it.

3. I chose that example because one of your whiney excuses was something like 'you can't expect neighbors to kick in $100K..." and I showed that that is exactly what happened at a time when there were far fewer neighbors.

4. Working up to the usual level of Lefties, you provided no evidence in any post that any of your complaints go beyond a stingyness and reliance on government to do everything, including, I suppose, tuck you in at night.

5. I also provided indicia that the Democrat President and Vice-President also throw nickles around like man-hole covers, that the American people gave $300 billion in charity, and that your fav, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, also agreed that the dole, welfare was a depredation on the human spirit.

6. And the best you can do is suggest that I am a 'troll.'
I'm not sure what that really means, as I have never used the term, but it seems to mean that I am beating the heck out of your argument....True?

7. "What does any of that screed have to do with my neighbors losing their house?"
It means that you should have done something rather than use the fact as a cudgle to beat President Bush with.

I hope you did something, even if it wasn't a cash gift...mow their lawn? bring over a dinner? write letters on their behalf..be a community organizer; you know what that is, don't you?


C'mon, wingy, show some spunk: put up an argument that individuals shouldn't have to help the needy, the government should do it!

Damn girl

You sure write a lot just to make a simple point. Of course the neighbors helped. She was very sick and in a lot of pain. I don't know if you have ever been hospitalized, but the bills add up very fast and $100k for a short stay is not hard to do.
The neighbors did what we could, but not with that much money at stake. They went through over $200 k before losing their house.

They were not looking for a free ride, they did not want a government handout. They wanted to be able to buy insurance like anyone else. They were blocked because of pre-existing conditions

It's a shame that this country let it happen

If ONE neighbor had organized an ad hoc charitable organization, every penny the each person had contributed would have been tax deductible.

"It's a shame that this country let it happen."
Astounding comment.

I have no doubt that, were she still alive, Jeane Kirkpatrick would have awarded you (dis)honorary membership in the club she named the 'blame America first.'

 

[rightwinger]

You know what I love about you???
You give me the opportunity to write!

To the point:
1. The Constitution has no allowance for the dole that you demand. Note, that is what President Grover Cleveland, two-time President from the Empire State, opined.

2. The very same President showed the generosity of Americans in the example that I provided....don't pretend you didn't see it.

3. I chose that example because one of your whiney excuses was something like 'you can't expect neighbors to kick in $100K..." and I showed that that is exactly what happened at a time when there were far fewer neighbors.

4. Working up to the usual level of Lefties, you provided no evidence in any post that any of your complaints go beyond a stingyness and reliance on government to do everything, including, I suppose, tuck you in at night.

5. I also provided indicia that the Democrat President and Vice-President also throw nickles around like man-hole covers, that the American people gave $300 billion in charity, and that your fav, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, also agreed that the dole, welfare was a depredation on the human spirit.

6. And the best you can do is suggest that I am a 'troll.'
I'm not sure what that really means, as I have never used the term, but it seems to mean that I am beating the heck out of your argument....True?

7. "What does any of that screed have to do with my neighbors losing their house?"
It means that you should have done something rather than use the fact as a cudgle to beat President Bush with.

I hope you did something, even if it wasn't a cash gift...mow their lawn? bring over a dinner? write letters on their behalf..be a community organizer; you know what that is, don't you?


C'mon, wingy, show some spunk: put up an argument that individuals shouldn't have to help the needy, the government should do it!

Damn girl

You sure write a lot just to make a simple point. Of course the neighbors helped. She was very sick and in a lot of pain. I don't know if you have ever been hospitalized, but the bills add up very fast and $100k for a short stay is not hard to do.
The neighbors did what we could, but not with that much money at stake. They went through over $200 k before losing their house.

They were not looking for a free ride, they did not want a government handout. They wanted to be able to buy insurance like anyone else. They were blocked because of pre-existing conditions

It's a shame that this country let it happen

If ONE neighbor had organized an ad hoc charitable organization, every penny the each person had contributed would have been tax deductible.

"It's a shame that this country let it happen."
Astounding comment.

I have no doubt that, were she still alive, Jeane Kirkpatrick would have awarded you (dis)honorary membership in the club she named the 'blame America first.'

Um yes...

I do blame America for sitting by idly while our healthcare system deteriorated. It is the mindset of I got mine....you worry about your own

The idea of passing the hat as a solution to the nations healthcare woes is quite original. I would keep it to myself.