• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]


Let's not derail this thread on what Obama said into a HC debate. Sorry I took the bait earlier.
 
washunut said:
I also do not think it is a good thing. That being said, if America would back up that sentiment with their pocketbooks more things would be built here.
Click to expand...

That certainly would help.
 

I have also read most of the bill, and I must say, that unless you are a lawyer, I highly doubt you are able to understand most of it. Having said that, let me address a few of your questions. First, it doesn't resemble the Reagan plan all that much really. How it does mimick the Reagan plan is by creating "Co-ops" for PRIVATE insurance companies, or "exchanges" of PRIVATE insurance companies, who compete for the business of the un or under insured. Problem is, the Obamacare plan creates an unfair advantage by punishing (taxing) companies who do not seek health insurance through the government exchanges, or individuals who do not purchase through the government exchanges. This isn't spelled out directly, it's more of an indirect consequence.

Here's how that works. The government exchange will consist of companies who offer GOVERNMENT APPROVED plans, called "qualified plans". Who approves the plans? A regulatory board of politicians primarily, with a few ex-doctors as well. By utilizing tax dollars, and operating at a sure loss, the government will deeply discount the premiums. So, the unspecified goal is to have private companies ditch their current insurance carriers and opt into the plans only offered through the government exchange. Reagan's plan did not do this. Also, if an individual cancels their private insurance, they are FORCED to buy from the government exchange. After 2014, they will not have the option to choose any other insurance plan OUTSIDE the plans offered through the exchange. That's specifically written into the bill, and Reagan's plan did not do this as well.

Think of it in steps, not an "all-encompassing" swipe. First step the left is wanting to take, is to get as many people into the exchange as possible. They do this through manipulating the price of premiums that are subsidized by tax dollars (unfair advantage). Second step is to ensure that individuals who either lose coverage, or drop coverage, only have ONE place to purchase health insurance, which is through the exchange (eliminates competition and choice along with individual freedom).

Now, it may take a decade, but once virtually ALL of insurance is regulated through the public exchange, it will be regulated by a GOVERNMENT board of politicians. In the meantime, it will put large private insurers out of business, because they will have lost a huge chunk of their clients to the cheaper offers through the government exchange (all of which was created by the unfair advantages of pooling tax dollars for plans offered through the exchange).

Last step will be to nationalize the remaining private companies that offer plans into the exchange. How do they do that? By bailing them out, just like they did GM. They will essentially own those companies doing business through the government exchange. They will certainly "run" them, because it is the government who decides what a "qualified plan" consists of.

Now, if you think running private insurance companies out of business will help our situation, I urge you to think twice. We are running record deficits now, can you imagine what they would be if the tax payers were on the hook for say, 70% of the entire country's health insurance? It's a systematic approach to universal, single payer health care. You may think that is good, but again, look at countries with Socialized medicine, they do not compare to the quality of care in the US. LIke in England, the most effective breast cancer drug in the world is not covered under their government plans. Why? Too expensive. In Canada, the average waiting period for a common hip replacement is 4 months, in America, it's less than 15 days. Why? Because of the bureaucratic red tape of getting that procedure approved. In Japan, if you are over the age of 70, and are diagnosed with a terminal disease, you don't receive treatment at all. Imagine that kind of policy in America!

Romney's plan is different because he takes a "State's Rights" approach. Should States be allowed to implement a universal health plan? Sure, as long as the citizens of that State are funding it, and have voted to accept it. I don't recall voting on Obamacare. As a matter of fact, if it were to come up for a popular vote, polls show that it would likely be defeated.....overwhelmingly.

There are good things about the bill, but like a doctor friend of mine told me last week in a long conversation about Obamacare, is that it's no silver bullett. It's not going to bring costs down. Getting people covered is the most minute problem in the broad sense. The number one reason driving up the cost of care has more to do with Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. The government only reimburses doctors 17 cents out of every dollar on average. That's why doctors and hospitals charge $5 for a cotton swab, just to recoup their "cost". That in turn moves insurance premiums up, which in turn affects the bottom line of businesses, which in turn affects employment numbers, which in turn affects tax revenues, which in turn affects our GDP and deficit problem. It's a vicous cycle.

So what's the solution? There's not a single solution, but here are some key ideas that we should consider: 1. Ceasing ALL medical care for illegal immigrants. They should not be allowed to cross our borders illegally to receive medical attention. They are not refugees, they are illegal immigrants. 2. Increase the retirement age to 67 or higher. People are living longer now, and Medicare and Social Security were not established to support someone's medical expenses for 20 years; more like 10 years. 3. Anyone under the age of 50, make Social Security and Medicare OPTIONAL. By allowing me to invest in my own retirement, and my own health savings accounts, I can ensure that I have enough money to cover my premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc when I'm older. 4. Entitlement reform. Billions of dollars are simply wasted in Medicaid. Impose stricter guidelines for participants of Medicaid. 5. Create a pro jobs atmosphere. If people are working, chances are, they are working at a place that offers insurance. Keep in mind, that 90% of Americans ALREADY HAVE health insurance. 6. Malpractice reform. Doctors unneccessarily perform too many diagnostic tests just to cover their own butts out of fear of a lawsuit. They prescribe too much medicine. They perform too many unneccessary procedures just to cover the bases of being sued in court. Let doctors treat their patients, and reform malpractice laws. 7. Allow insurance companies to compete in other states. In the highest states, there are less than 10 health insurance providers, in a country with more than 4 dozen insurance companies. Competition drives prices down. In a state like mine, where only 4 companies compete for ALL the business, what affect would it have if 30 companies were competing for my business?

What too many people refuse to acknowledge, is that Obamacare is bad for business too. Under Obamacare, only a business with more than 50 employees are required to offer health insurance. What does this bill do to companies with fewer than 50 employees? I'll tell you. Say I own a business with 15 employees, and I cannot afford to offer health insurance. But the Supreme Court upheld the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. This means that my employees must purchase health insurance BY LAW. What do you think they are going to do? First, they are going to come to me and say, "hey boss, we have to get health insurance, aren't you going to purchase it for us seeing as how you are our employer?" When I tell him that I cannot afford to purchase health insurance for all my employees, he's very likely to quit, and go find a job were health insurance is offered, so he doesn't have to pay for it out of his own pockett. Now, multiply that scenario times 5. My company only has 15 employees. What if 5 of my best employees quit me because I cannot afford to purchase their health insurance? Good for my business? Absolutely not.

What about a company with 54 employees. Think they'll purchase health insurance for everyone, or simply lay 5 people off in order to get under the requirement? What about a company that sells goods or a service? Think they'll happily eat the cost of providing insurance for their employees? OR is it more likely they will increase the cost of doing business with them on to their customers in order to recoup some of that cost?

It has negative affects. Real ones. I run a business, and these questions are already being asked by employees. "When Obamacare fully kicks in, and we have to purchase insurance because of the indidual mandate, are you going to purchase insurance for us because you are our employer?"

And if I don't, or cant, what will I do if they quit to go work somewhere that does and can afford to offer benefits? How effectively will I be able to attract new hires when they will be forced to have insurance, but my company simply cant afford to purchase it for them?

Think about that. It's horrible for business. It really IS a jobs killer. And frankly, it's my opinion that a JOB is far more important than Insurance. Especially when we are only dealing with 10% of the ENTIRE population of this country.
 
But back to the original thread, and how it does relate to Obamacare, is the fact that Obama, and most of his advisors from the far left, simply don't understand business. They've never owned businesses, they've never had to meet a payroll, they've never had to balance a budget for a business, and they've never had to stress over a company and the employees working there. Therefore, they simply don't understand HOW this bill affects businesses of all sizes.

Instead, what they focus on is "social justice". To them, destroying jobs in order to cover 10% of Americans who are uninsured is a good trade off. If insuring just 10% of the population results in several hundred small businesses going out of business, well, that's just a small price to pay to ensure that EVERYONE has an insurance policy. It's the same old thing time after time with far left liberals, they never study the unintended consequences of their policies, they simply demand that everyone praise them and support them because they have good intentions. And when you try to explain these things to far lefties, they either ignore you, call you a liar, or they simply don't understand a word you are saying. Owning a business is foreign to these people. They must think that small businesses have basements full of money and can afford to to all this crap. Here's my trade off, I have 15 employees. I've done the math. I can offer NO insurance, and run the high risk of losing key employees. Or, I can downsize my company by 5 employees, and afford to pay for insurance for 10. Either option is a lose lose for me, and what really irritates the business people in this country, is that men like Obama don't even think about scenarios like that because they are simply ignorant to the facts or reality, OR they simply don't care if I have to lay 5 people off just so I can afford insurance for my employees. Remember, those 5 employees I just laid off are still required to purchase health insurance, but guess what, they just lost their job, how are they going to afford it now? Which brings me back, JOBS are far more important for the welfare of this nation than insurance is.

Silly liberals......will they ever learn to think.....????
 
Good for you that you have researched it, which is more than most on either side of the question can say. That said ... I think your interpretation is a bit off in some areas.


So, here's the first major error. The participants in the exchanges are private health insurers. The government, through a board of health care professionals, sets a floor for minimum coverage. Other than that, the government has no control over what the insurance companies can charge, EXCEPT that they must spend at least 85% of premium dollars on actual health care, as opposed to advertising and administrative costs. The government does not determine the premiums.


Yes, but there is a very good reason for this; presently, individuals and small companies generally pay much higher rates than large corporations because the rates are determined on the basis of a very small pool: in effect a pool of one to 50, depending on the business size. With state-based exchanges, the premiums will be based on a much larger, state-wide pool, which should result in considerably lower premiums. Obviously this is also beneficial to insurance companies as they will only have to come up with underwriting standards for 50 states, as opposed to, e.g. 500,000 businesses and indivduals.


Again, "the left" can't do this as the premiums are set by the insurers. Further, this is essentially a plan that was developed by "the right."


Nonsense, for the reasons mentioned above. In addition, the insurance industry generally supports ACA. In fact, insurance industry lobbyists wrote most of it. Do you think they're suicidal? They will benefit tremendously from an influx of roughly 30 million new customers.

Let me see if I have time to address the rest of your post later....
 

Most of what you said is inaccurate. These exchanges are private companies, I said that earlier. But you are wrong about them setting their premiums. What is stated in the bill, is that these private companies, who are part of the exchange, can set their own MINIMUM premiums, but they are capped on the top side. Meaning, the exchange will determine the maximum cost for the premiums, and the exchange will also have sole discretion on any future increases in premiums, and by what percentage. So, if a private company does a cost analysis of premiums vs. claims, and determines they need to raise premiums by 12%, they can't just do it, it has to be approved through the committee.

So, who does the "committee" consist of? Mostly politicians, the director of health and human services (Sebelius), and appointees of the administration. In other words, it's controlled by the government, not the private sector.

The only reason private companies support the ACA is because of the individual mandate. That's it. Nothing else. They are wrong to assume this is good business for them. If they thought it was truly good business for them, why are the majority of major medical providers cutting their agent's commissions by 50%? The nation's largest health insurance provider, Blue Cross Blue Shield, has announced they have already cut agent's commissions by 30%, and will be cutting them an addition 20% over the next 5 years. Sounds to me like they are preparing to lose some money, not make more money. No, they aren't committing suicide, they are bargaining for a seat at the government table, because they see the inevitible, or what they deem to be inevitible, which is single payer.

What they acknowledge, but have yet to accept, is that once the majority of people in this country are covered through the exchange, they will be losing money. Follow me here. The government is going to require these companies to cover pre-existing conditions. The penalty, or I should say "tax", for not purchasing health insurance is pretty low in comparison to a year's worth of insurance premiums. So, what people will do, is pay the "tax", up until the "tax" becomes higher than the premiums, which is estimated to be at about 5 years. But, if a person is diagnosed with cancer, they will be able to rush out and purchase the insurance. The government is also requiring these companies to cover dependents all the way to 26 years of age. They are already requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, and according to their loss ratios, companies are raising premiums on average by 18% nationally. And that's just because of the influx in claims paid to people who had been previously denied for coverage.

The government is also requiring these companies to spend 85% of their premium dollars on claims and care instead of advertising, marketing, or investing. Remember, insurance companies don't make their money on selling insurance. None of them do. Premiums serve as a constant cash flow so that the company can make investments with those premium dollars. Investments that yield returns, and build their net worth. Government is limiting their ability to do that by forcing them to utilize 85% of their premiums be paid back in claims or for care. This dramatically reduces a company's ability to make profits, because now they are limited to 15% of their revenue stream as a means of investment. Bad for business.

They will not benefit from the influx of 30 million additional customers. Almost half of those 30 million are illegal immigrants first of all, and over a 1/3 of them are people with pre-existing conditions. So, we are imposing all these taxes and regulations onto the entire nation for the sake of illegal immigrants, and approximately 9 million Americans with pre-existing health conditions which guarantees the company is going to pay substantial claims for that person. Do the math on a single person. Say the premium is $300 a month. That's $3600 per year. Now say that person has diabetes. You think the insurance company is "making money" on a diabetic who is only paying $3600 per year for the coverage? lol....not even close. They will lose money on those 9 million people.

Keep in mind, because of the government exchange, that private company will not be allowed to offset those expenses by raising premiums on everyone else. Therefore, the company LOSES money. How long before their stock devalues, and the investors lose money? How many years can they sustain a loss? I want you to think AMTRACK. POST OFFICE.

Private companies are going along with this bill because they are bargaining for their scraps, their seat at the table with Uncle Sam. This is true. Why else would they pre-emptively be cutting agent's commissions? Why else would they be raising premiums by 18-30%?? They are trying to make hay while the sun is shining. Believe me. They also think that the government is going to grandfather these high premiums in. They are going to flip when they dont. But by that time, it will be too late. The majority of those people in this country without insurance are either illegal immigrants, or they have a pre-existing condition. That's also a documented fact. 9 million uninsured because of a pre-ex. That's a guaranteed claim that company will have to pay. That's a loss. I've done the math for you already.

Your other point about covering large pools is meaningless too, and only adds to the problem. According to the info I've received, there will be no more than 10 carriers that are offered through the government exchange. With a good possibility that the Department of Health and Human Services develops their own "government plan" to compete with private companies within the exchange (unfair advantage because it will be subsidized with tax money). Ten companies competing for an entire state's citizens is about what we have now. We need 30-40 companies competing in every state, otherwise, you are trading one for the other with no real affect on premium costs. But how can any private company compete with an insurance company that can print it's own money, levy taxes at will, and regulate all their other competitors????? THINK!!!! Yes, I'm talking about the federal government becoming an insurance company, and competing within the exchange. It's going to happen, I can assure you. They will unfairly be able to offer plans at lower premiums, which will steal business away from the private companies. They can operate at a loss and still exist. LOOK AT AMTRACK AND THE POST OFFICE. How long have they lost money, but still remain in business???? How can any private company compete with an insurance company that is subsidized by the entire nation of tax payers???? Simple answer, and one the far left is relying on......they cant.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's all under the same umbrella of preserving life.
Click to expand...

I love how you have your beliefs and ran out of arguments as it's obvious it makes no sense any further, but instead of changing the view you stay right on course and pretend you are still right. Its a simple fact that if you ever both to read Mason on the statement you would know I'm exactly correct here, and furthermore Locke that was the origin of both statements by Mason and Jefferson you would know I'm exactly right here. Life in that statement has nothing to do with healthcare. Hell, ask Jefferson on it that did nothing but take inspiration from the prior two and he will say the same. The next time you speak of something like the DOI and a well known part of it be sure you are right. You were not, sorry.
 
Last edited:

*yawn* the full speech.

OK fine, you did build those roads on your own, you're your own fire department, and you went to the moon by yourself. You are a special little snowflake.

lol. 196 likes, 666 dislikes Obama's problem is that he didn't stroke your ego.
 

AASHTO or an organization like it could allocate contracts more efficiently than the way it is done now. The contract bidding process is already ripe with corruption. We should try something new...you know? Change! Besides, allocating contracts doesn't justify the massive federal bureaucracy we have now. Similar to way the NFPA exposes most of the bureaucracy regarding fire safety as irrelevant. And, it is state DOT reps "calling the shots" at AASHTO, then for billions of tax dollars bureaucrats rubber stamp their suggestions and pass them on to Congress. Time to cut out the middle man.


If it weren't for the private toll road you were able to take, there would be no road to where you wanted to go. Mexico is no bastion of free market capitalism, they just don't have the tax base to build the infrastructure seen in developed countries without capital investment. Also, businesses don't work like you described, they don't price themselves out of market share in order to save costs. Your favorite strip club would never double the price of drinks and admissions in order to save wear and tear to the carpet.


Again, this assumes the people of Mexico could afford the increase in users fees needed for a toll free road. Or, assumes investors would trust the Mexican government enough to issue bonds to finance the road's construction. They obviously didn't or couldn't, so your anxiety over the toll price is silly considering you might of had to ride a donkey to your destination if not for the toll road.
 
Thunder said:
have Republicans admitted yet that this accusation against Obama, is a fraud?
Click to expand...

If you have to spin it after the fact to make it say something it did not, its probably the after the fact spin that is the fraud.


Cool avatar bro, advocate violence much?
 
Last edited:
Since the majority of people agree with the view that the President was saying small business owners didnt earn their success, you do the math.
 
Thunder said:
have Republicans admitted yet that this accusation against Obama, is a fraud?
Click to expand...
No, but it is interesting that Romney seems to be basing his entire campaign on a fraud. lol
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
No, but it is interesting that Romney seems to be basing his entire campaign on a fraud. lol
Click to expand...

You would at least categorize the sentence most widely repeated as a gaff, wouldn't ya?
 
Moot said:
No, but it is interesting that Romney seems to be basing his entire campaign on a fraud. lol
Click to expand...

A Romney presidency would be basically identical to an Obama presidency.

It's a fraud when these candidates claim otherwise.
 
Hilarity should ensue

Star of Romney ‘My Hands Didn’t Build This’ Ad Received Millions in Government Loans and Contracts


This next bit is truly 'special'

How can you say you're "getting some of my tax money back" when some of the government funding helped you start the business - that is before you were paying much in taxes?

The question is being raised everyday; if Mitt Romney is running on his "executive experience" why are so many of the people he has employed to run his campaign completely incompetent? From Etch-a-Sketch guy to the clowns who created this ad without bothering to investigate the man's past, Mitt's campaign workers show their lack of skills and knowledge every day. The American electorate is supposed to think hiring dimwits and incompetents is a positive?
 
First of all, they are not "pricing themselves out of market share" because there is no market share to be had-they already have all the market share in this particular case. They are, in essence, a monopoly and they alone get to set the prices on the road and do not have to compete with any other company in the area. My point here is that they found a price point that maximized there profits, not maximized traffic to help the local economies. Vehicle usage on a road has huge impact on road maintenance itself(unlike the carpet wear in your analogy, which is a corollary minor cost). If a private company has a toll price of $2 and is getting 3000 vehicles each day, but they research the matter and recognize that if they set a price of $6, they will only get 2000 vehicles each day, guess what they will opt for? It's a no-brainer, they would set it at $6, take the extra money, and cut down on road repairs to boot. BUT if they actually owned all of the little towns alongside the road, they would actually set the pricepoint in order to maximize traffic because then they would make serious money on the hotels, souvenir shops etc. that were in the towns. (The stipclub owner doesn't really care about minor wear and tear on his carpet because he knows that waitresses are probably walking across that carpet to deliver very expensive drinks(profit) to the clientel.) So my point is this: THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF A PRIVATE COMPANY CAN BE AND ARE, IN SOME CASES, DYAMMETRICALLY OPPOSED THE INTERESTS(ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL ETC) OF THE CITIZENS THEY ARE "SERVING". This is not up for debate, and I can give you hundreds of examples of this. For this reason, it is sometimes actually better to let government run some of the things which are so critical to our economy.



I disagree and I do assume that Mexico has the money to build roads. It has more than enough money to build roads. What they don't have is a sound and moral government that protects the interests of its people. I've lived and travelled in Mexico extensively and I can almost guarantee you that they could have built the road themselves, but instead a few corrupt local politicians greased their own palms and gifted the contract to a group of millionaires.
 
Last edited:

I think you are mistaken. Can you please cite the section(s) of ACA that lead you to conclude that premiums can be set by anyone other than the insurance companies participating in the exchanges?

So, who does the "committee" consist of? Mostly politicians, the director of health and human services (Sebelius), and appointees of the administration. In other words, it's controlled by the government, not the private sector.
Click to expand...

And please cite the section discussing the alleged committee that controls premium increases.

The only reason private companies support the ACA is because of the individual mandate. That's it. Nothing else. They are wrong to assume this is good business for them.
Click to expand...

All due respect, but I think that this multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry, with its legion of lawyers, accountants, and actuaries, probably has a better idea of what's good for it than you do.


Again, the info. you've received is bull****. First, states are responsible for setting up their own exchanges. They can choose the carriers they prefer. If they choose not to do the work then the residents of the state will have access to the federal exchange. There will be no "government plan" as the public option was specifically nixed. There can, however, be independent nonprofit cooperatives.
 

Most road wear and tear is associated with weathering and large trucks not tourist traffic. To your larger point yes, sometimes government has to step and protect individuals from business--those instances are rare--and the onus of proof is on those calling for government intervention. Because the vast majority of our current regulatory environment--albeit well intentioned by some consumer activists--simply act as protection for large corporations from smaller competitors.


Ya, I looked into this, Mexico just doesn't have much money to build roads:

Mexico still banks on privately run toll roads

From the article...


Take away private toll roads, and you'd be riding a donkey at 4mph to your destination. We here in the U.S. are doing fine with publicly financing our roads through users fees, just understand we can afford those user fees because we are rich (relative to Mexicans), because we have relatively more economic freedom than Mexicans. Remember though, at the federal level we have a useless multi-billion dollar bureaucratic middle man that should be cut from our budget. This is not what Obama wants to do.
 
My understanding is that fuel taxes and other fees only cover about 1/3 of the cost of road construction and maintenance, and the amount is diminishing as cars and trucks become more fuel efficient.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
My understanding is that fuel taxes and other fees only cover about 1/3 of the cost of road construction and maintenance, and the amount is diminishing as cars and trucks become more fuel efficient.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about Federal highways or are you conflating spending by states and towns that are paid for seperatly.
 
washunut said:
Are you talking about Federal highways or are you conflating spending by states and towns that are paid for seperatly.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about federal highways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…