<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ObamaCare&#8217;s Redistribution of Health</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:20:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SprocketTheRocket</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-441655</link>
		<dc:creator>SprocketTheRocket</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-441655</guid>
		<description>#40.  Of course the population isn&#039;t agitating for &quot;more freedom.&quot;  They have all the civil and personal protections and liberties we have, plus a few.  They are demanding that the government work for them, including the poorest among them, and are holding the government&#039;s feet to the fire.  They vote parties in, and if a government doesn&#039;t give close attention to the needs of the citizenry, they vote them out.  Calling them agitators when they press the government to focus on the needs of the population seems odd, to say the least.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#40.  Of course the population isn&#8217;t agitating for &#8220;more freedom.&#8221;  They have all the civil and personal protections and liberties we have, plus a few.  They are demanding that the government work for them, including the poorest among them, and are holding the government&#8217;s feet to the fire.  They vote parties in, and if a government doesn&#8217;t give close attention to the needs of the citizenry, they vote them out.  Calling them agitators when they press the government to focus on the needs of the population seems odd, to say the least.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JOHN</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-441358</link>
		<dc:creator>JOHN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-441358</guid>
		<description>My company does not offer an health insurance and the insurance cost is $900/month for a family coverage. So I thought of not taking any insurance and for all sickness I will visit emergency. My emergency bill is about $40k already this year and I am not going to pay for it. I know this kind of method makes insuarance cost go up but I don&#039;t care because I cannot afford any insurance. Only if government comes up with a affordable health insurance I will take it otherwise I will keep visiting emergency even for a flu.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My company does not offer an health insurance and the insurance cost is $900/month for a family coverage. So I thought of not taking any insurance and for all sickness I will visit emergency. My emergency bill is about $40k already this year and I am not going to pay for it. I know this kind of method makes insuarance cost go up but I don&#8217;t care because I cannot afford any insurance. Only if government comes up with a affordable health insurance I will take it otherwise I will keep visiting emergency even for a flu.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Blumer</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-441149</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Blumer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-441149</guid>
		<description>#38, the problem is that the citizenry is merely agitating for richer &quot;free&quot; benefits and not for more freedom. Big whoop.

Even AP acknowledged a couple of weeks ago that the profit margins in health insurance are very thin, and the idea that eliminating them would accomplish anything in and of itself is ludicrous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#38, the problem is that the citizenry is merely agitating for richer &#8220;free&#8221; benefits and not for more freedom. Big whoop.</p>
<p>Even AP acknowledged a couple of weeks ago that the profit margins in health insurance are very thin, and the idea that eliminating them would accomplish anything in and of itself is ludicrous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Baker</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-441122</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Baker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-441122</guid>
		<description>addendum #2  - please see the example of #38 above.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>addendum #2  &#8211; please see the example of #38 above.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SprocketTheRocket</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-441024</link>
		<dc:creator>SprocketTheRocket</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:11:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-441024</guid>
		<description>It seems that many have bought into an idea that for me, at least, is fundamentally fallacious:  government radically reforming healthcare does not lead to more control over my life - it is the government FINALLY becoming more responsive to my life.  To claim that people become meeker when they have the government as the insurer instead of a for-profit corporation as the insurer - i.e. more controlled - is to ignore the extremely engaged citizenry of most european countries.  French citizens PROTEST their government, fighting for additional healthcare benefits, and the government listens and responds according to their will.  Britain, hardly known for sheepish folk, press their claims for benefit reform, and the government responds.  There is more evidence for saying that the government becomes MORE responsive to its citizenry when they are responsible for important social benefits.  Case in point:  although the Hammer, Tom Delay, still clamors for the removal of Social Security and Medicare, most conservatives now act as if they are the great protectors of these essential (socialist) programs.  Personally I&#039;m disappointed that the current reform may come out weak as water, leaving the for profit crowd still getting rich off of illness while the &quot;government run option&quot; may be too lethargic to really matter.  Let&#039;s go all out and do government run health care just like the VA and retirees have.  We&#039;d have a better, leaner, tougher country because of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that many have bought into an idea that for me, at least, is fundamentally fallacious:  government radically reforming healthcare does not lead to more control over my life &#8211; it is the government FINALLY becoming more responsive to my life.  To claim that people become meeker when they have the government as the insurer instead of a for-profit corporation as the insurer &#8211; i.e. more controlled &#8211; is to ignore the extremely engaged citizenry of most european countries.  French citizens PROTEST their government, fighting for additional healthcare benefits, and the government listens and responds according to their will.  Britain, hardly known for sheepish folk, press their claims for benefit reform, and the government responds.  There is more evidence for saying that the government becomes MORE responsive to its citizenry when they are responsible for important social benefits.  Case in point:  although the Hammer, Tom Delay, still clamors for the removal of Social Security and Medicare, most conservatives now act as if they are the great protectors of these essential (socialist) programs.  Personally I&#8217;m disappointed that the current reform may come out weak as water, leaving the for profit crowd still getting rich off of illness while the &#8220;government run option&#8221; may be too lethargic to really matter.  Let&#8217;s go all out and do government run health care just like the VA and retirees have.  We&#8217;d have a better, leaner, tougher country because of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kipling</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-440194</link>
		<dc:creator>Kipling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-440194</guid>
		<description>Reply to ione @ 29:  Let me begin by apologizing for being so abrupt in my previous response to you.  Perhaps I misunderstood your post @19.  In the original post you seemed to blame social conservatives (comparison to country club Republicans) for the loss because of their objection to the abortion issue.  You even referred to them as &quot;one issue&quot; people.

Here is where I think your analysis is flawed.

1.  Social conservatives are rarely one issue people.  The principles they stand for are much deeper than a simple antagonism to abortion.  Without abortion, true social conservative would still not vote for the bill because it violates these larger principles.  The Bill opens the door to intrusive government, euthanasia, rationing, etc.  All of these violate social conservative principle so just the removal of abortion should give no one the political cover they need to beef up their social conservative credentials at home.

2.  Over 51% of the American people now identify themselves as pro-life.  Recent polls show around 40% (working from memory here) identify themselves as conservative.  That leaves 11 % who are pro-life but do not identify with conservatism.  Such a precentage could prove critical in the Democrats narrow margin of victory.  Soloman Ortiz, in Texas, represents such a group.  He could in no way be called a social conservative or a blue dog.  His constituents are liberal but, because of their Catholicism, they are conservative on the abortion issue.  His Washington office told me that his vote depended on the abortion issue.

3.  The Dems knew they would have to compromise on the issue to gain some votes and had several such proposals waiting in the wings.  See National Review Online.

I guess my main point is: Why attack the social conservatives who have supported the Republican Party for years without much in return?  We are still with you and have not abandoned the ship so please do not turn your guns on us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reply to ione @ 29:  Let me begin by apologizing for being so abrupt in my previous response to you.  Perhaps I misunderstood your post @19.  In the original post you seemed to blame social conservatives (comparison to country club Republicans) for the loss because of their objection to the abortion issue.  You even referred to them as &#8220;one issue&#8221; people.</p>
<p>Here is where I think your analysis is flawed.</p>
<p>1.  Social conservatives are rarely one issue people.  The principles they stand for are much deeper than a simple antagonism to abortion.  Without abortion, true social conservative would still not vote for the bill because it violates these larger principles.  The Bill opens the door to intrusive government, euthanasia, rationing, etc.  All of these violate social conservative principle so just the removal of abortion should give no one the political cover they need to beef up their social conservative credentials at home.</p>
<p>2.  Over 51% of the American people now identify themselves as pro-life.  Recent polls show around 40% (working from memory here) identify themselves as conservative.  That leaves 11 % who are pro-life but do not identify with conservatism.  Such a precentage could prove critical in the Democrats narrow margin of victory.  Soloman Ortiz, in Texas, represents such a group.  He could in no way be called a social conservative or a blue dog.  His constituents are liberal but, because of their Catholicism, they are conservative on the abortion issue.  His Washington office told me that his vote depended on the abortion issue.</p>
<p>3.  The Dems knew they would have to compromise on the issue to gain some votes and had several such proposals waiting in the wings.  See National Review Online.</p>
<p>I guess my main point is: Why attack the social conservatives who have supported the Republican Party for years without much in return?  We are still with you and have not abandoned the ship so please do not turn your guns on us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mac</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-439943</link>
		<dc:creator>mac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-439943</guid>
		<description>If this isn&#039;t proof positive that all the Democrats and some of the Republicans are completely insane, I can&#039;t imagine anything more definitive. Passing the largest entitlement in history when the country is almost certainly at its lowest economic ebb since the Revolutionary War is just sheer lunacy. 

The only explanation I can find for it is that the Dem pols know THEY and THEIRS won&#039;t have to live with this bill, while the people who really want it don&#039;t pay taxes anyway. Of course, after watching Rangel, Dellums, Tim Geithner, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and most of the other Dems, they actually don&#039;t pay taxes either even though they owe them.

The people who passed this bill don&#039;t have a clue about how real businesses work. Tax receipts have already fallen off a cliff. Be prepared to see them collapse into a black hole and NO jobs, outside of government, be created in the U.S. for twenty years. Wonder why Asia is taking over economic primacy from the West? Look no further than damned stupidity like this bill.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If this isn&#8217;t proof positive that all the Democrats and some of the Republicans are completely insane, I can&#8217;t imagine anything more definitive. Passing the largest entitlement in history when the country is almost certainly at its lowest economic ebb since the Revolutionary War is just sheer lunacy. </p>
<p>The only explanation I can find for it is that the Dem pols know THEY and THEIRS won&#8217;t have to live with this bill, while the people who really want it don&#8217;t pay taxes anyway. Of course, after watching Rangel, Dellums, Tim Geithner, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and most of the other Dems, they actually don&#8217;t pay taxes either even though they owe them.</p>
<p>The people who passed this bill don&#8217;t have a clue about how real businesses work. Tax receipts have already fallen off a cliff. Be prepared to see them collapse into a black hole and NO jobs, outside of government, be created in the U.S. for twenty years. Wonder why Asia is taking over economic primacy from the West? Look no further than damned stupidity like this bill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mishu</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-439941</link>
		<dc:creator>mishu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-439941</guid>
		<description>One more thing P. Stewart&#039;s interview doesn&#039;t address *any* of the points in Betsy McCaughey&#039;s points in her WSJ column. Your comment fails.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One more thing P. Stewart&#8217;s interview doesn&#8217;t address *any* of the points in Betsy McCaughey&#8217;s points in her WSJ column. Your comment fails.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mishu</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-439939</link>
		<dc:creator>mishu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:59:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-439939</guid>
		<description>Praetorian, I apparently watched a different clip in that link than what you watched. Stewart did no such thing to what you claim. He made smug comments and funny faces. While it&#039;s very magnanimous of him to say he&#039;s happy to pay more in taxes (a choice he always had), he doesn&#039;t acknowledge the financial strain on those people who aren&#039;t as well off as him that will pay more in taxes. You know, the people who Obama promised won&#039;t pay more in taxes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Praetorian, I apparently watched a different clip in that link than what you watched. Stewart did no such thing to what you claim. He made smug comments and funny faces. While it&#8217;s very magnanimous of him to say he&#8217;s happy to pay more in taxes (a choice he always had), he doesn&#8217;t acknowledge the financial strain on those people who aren&#8217;t as well off as him that will pay more in taxes. You know, the people who Obama promised won&#8217;t pay more in taxes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kmbr</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-redistribution-of-health/#comment-439917</link>
		<dc:creator>kmbr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71206#comment-439917</guid>
		<description>**If this get passed through we will have permanent 20% unemployment and 90% tax rates.**

That&#039;s not even a over exaggerating. I live in Sweden. Highest tax rate is nearly 60 percent. The VAT on most good and services is 25 percent. So, thinking about it. Unless you are a low income earner, you very well can be paying 90 percent in taxes on quite a bit of your income.

Another note about Sweden&#039;s FREE healthcare. Consumer prices are out of this world. Everything costs, at least double, many times four or five times as much. Dinner for a family of four out at a casual restaurant is easily $100.

Also--the healthcare doesn&#039;t cover anywhere near everything. No dental over the age of 19. None. No, chiropractic. No physical therapy. Long waits for tests and procedure IF you can get them to order it for you. (big if)..No mental health type stuff. I don&#039;t know about you all, but all of that is currently covered with my insurance plan.

Americans, you have zero idea what you are headed for. The ONLY people who might benefit from this are the chronically unemployed. But, they don&#039;t really allow themselves to benefit from much anyway so it&#039;s a zero sum game. Oh, and maybe the illegal aliens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>**If this get passed through we will have permanent 20% unemployment and 90% tax rates.**</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not even a over exaggerating. I live in Sweden. Highest tax rate is nearly 60 percent. The VAT on most good and services is 25 percent. So, thinking about it. Unless you are a low income earner, you very well can be paying 90 percent in taxes on quite a bit of your income.</p>
<p>Another note about Sweden&#8217;s FREE healthcare. Consumer prices are out of this world. Everything costs, at least double, many times four or five times as much. Dinner for a family of four out at a casual restaurant is easily $100.</p>
<p>Also&#8211;the healthcare doesn&#8217;t cover anywhere near everything. No dental over the age of 19. None. No, chiropractic. No physical therapy. Long waits for tests and procedure IF you can get them to order it for you. (big if)..No mental health type stuff. I don&#8217;t know about you all, but all of that is currently covered with my insurance plan.</p>
<p>Americans, you have zero idea what you are headed for. The ONLY people who might benefit from this are the chronically unemployed. But, they don&#8217;t really allow themselves to benefit from much anyway so it&#8217;s a zero sum game. Oh, and maybe the illegal aliens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

