No bargaining with Barack Obluffer

There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening. Continue Readi

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2011 ... -obluffer/

neptunechimney wrote: There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening. Continue Readi

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2011 ... -obluffer/

It is their mentality. They are so economically challenged!

[youtube:19hz00xa][/youtube:19hz00xa]

Watch this gem and wonder why we are where we are with leaders like this for the last 4 years. Pelosi says you should quit your jod to focus on your talents and their healthcare bill will cover their healthcare costs....... WHO IS PAYING INTO IT THEN?? She said, and I quote.....'Then you won't have to be job locked'. Are you serious?? Job locked? It is called employed! THIS is the Democratic leader who has written most of the bills for the last four years that got us where we are!

[youtube:2xta778f][/youtube:2xta778f]

Viking.....I have two friends right now who hope to start their own business, one will probably pull it off, she is in her 40's and healthy, so she is pretty sure she can get in individual health insurance plan she can maybe afford. The other cannot.....even though his dream has been to own his own company. His wife has MS, and they are only in their 50's. For him to get a health insurance policy he would have to go through a high risk pool, and because of her illness the cost would be prohibitive, IF they could actually get a policy that would cover her. This is the kind of situation the Health Care bill covers....and it's a damn good idea. I can't believe you don't know people who stay in their jobs, that they hate, who would like to start their own business, or at least be self employed, but cannot because they would lose their insurance. Tying reasonable cost health insurance to an employer is just wrong.

When I started my own business 15 years ago health insurance was a major consideration.......at start-up the cost ate up the profits so fast I had to take on a part time job just to pay for them.....yeah....no kidding. By the time I retired, after several 20-30% increases on the premium I was paying nearly $1000/month for health Insurance just for me. I couldn't change my policy because I had some health issues. Health Insurance should NOT be the reason that people stay in dead end jobs........it shouldn't be the reason people are afraid to start a business or go to work for an employer who doesn't offer health insurance.....

There are also many people who work well past age 65, they would like to retire, but keep working to keep their health insurance for their younger spouses........those are jobs that would open up for younger workers.

This isn't about getting taxpayers to pay for your health insurance viking....this is about making health insurance available to people who don't have an employer to buy that insurance through. It will also help women who are divorced and no longer have health insurance through their spouses after Cobra runs out.

BTW....the speaker on that video was dead wrong in his commentary....no where did Pelosi say they could quit because tax payers would buy their health insurance. What she did say was that they could quit their day job and focus on their talents because their healthcare would not be job locked.

archer wrote: Viking.....I have two friends right now who hope to start their own business, one will probably pull it off, she is in her 40's and healthy, so she is pretty sure she can get in individual health insurance plan she can maybe afford. The other cannot.....even though his dream has been to own his own company. His wife has MS, and they are only in their 50's. For him to get a health insurance policy he would have to go through a high risk pool, and because of her illness the cost would be prohibitive, IF they could actually get a policy that would cover her. This is the kind of situation the Health Care bill covers....and it's a damn good idea. I can't believe you don't know people who stay in their jobs, that they hate, who would like to start their own business, or at least be self employed, but cannot because they would lose their insurance. Tying reasonable cost health insurance to an employer is just wrong.

When I started my own business 15 years ago health insurance was a major consideration.......at start-up the cost ate up the profits so fast I had to take on a part time job just to pay for them.....yeah....no kidding. By the time I retired, after several 20-30% increases on the premium I was paying nearly $1000/month for health Insurance just for me. I couldn't change my policy because I had some health issues. Health Insurance should NOT be the reason that people stay in dead end jobs........it shouldn't be the reason people are afraid to start a business or go to work for an employer who doesn't offer health insurance.....

There are also many people who work well past age 65, they would like to retire, but keep working to keep their health insurance for their younger spouses........those are jobs that would open up for younger workers.

This isn't about getting taxpayers to pay for your health insurance viking....this is about making health insurance available to people who don't have an employer to buy that insurance through. It will also help women who are divorced and no longer have health insurance through their spouses after Cobra runs out.

BTW....the speaker on that video was dead wrong in his commentary....no where did Pelosi say they could quit because tax payers would buy their health insurance. What she did say was that they could quit their day job and focus on their talents because their healthcare would not be job locked.

I'm certain there are people who would benefit greatly from affordable health insurance as is the case you cite. That is a special situation not the norm. Perhaps the way health insurance needs to be structured is for special cases not a blanket coverage?

Sure there are many who work past the age of 65. It's not always just to keep health insurance. I'm fortunate to have great health insurance, but work for far different reasons. Some work because they have no life outside of work. Others continue to work because their investments have been less than kind. Still others have funded lost causes or simply enjoy what they do. Finally, statistics prove that if you don't retire until you are 65 you have a short life span afterwards, so they work because they like to live longer. There are probably as many reason people work past 65 as there are 65 year olds.

Not having health care locked to a job is good. But to put it into the context of focusing on their talents says nothing about how such a focus will pay for that health care. Simply focusing on a talent does not insure income. Not all talents are marketable, especially in this economy.

Once again you focus on extrapolating the example given to extremes, and suggest that it's an "isolated case", and miss the point.

The point is that if health care were transportable, and tied to the PERSON and not the employer, then EVERYONE would have the freedom to change jobs; take a job in another state, another county, whatever, without having to start all over again with insurance plans and deductibles, and "waiting periods", etc. For people who are in high-risk categories, (and that can include even things like diabetes...and in some cases, spousal abuse!), that makes them FREE to go succeed in something else...even if it's going from a McDonald's on the east side of town to an Arby's on the west side of town. Nobody has said that it makes them free to quit their jobs and sit on their bottoms and collect something from the public-tit... That's the usual manufactured outrage from the right-wing who is scared to death that someone might actually collect something.

In their world, everyone is in perfect health, and everyone is employed, or could walk out and get a job any time... (Of course, it's not that way, but in their world, it's true...)