Report: Health care rebates will top $1 billion

Thursday, April 26, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 3 million health insurance policyholders and thousands of employers will share $1.3 billion in rebates this year, thanks to President Barack Obama’s health care law, a nonpartisan research group said Thursday.

The rebates should average $127 for the people who get them, and Democrats are hoping they’ll send an election-year message that Obama’s much-criticized health care overhaul is starting to pay dividends for consumers. Critics of the law call that wishful thinking.

The law requires insurance

companies to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on medical care and quality improvement or return the difference to consumers and employers. Although many large employer plans already meet that standard, it’s the first time the government has imposed such a requirement on the entire health insurance industry.

“This is one of the most tangible benefits of the health reform law that consumers will have seen to date,” said Larry Levitt, an expert on private insurance with the Kaiser Family Foundation, which analyzed industry filings with state health insurance commissioners to produce its report. Kaiser is a nonpartisan information clearinghouse on the nation’s health care system.

Still, health insurance is expensive, and $127 may not even pay a month’s worth of premiums for single coverage.

And the insurance industry says consumers should take little comfort from the rebates because premiums are likely to go up overall as a result of new benefits and other requirements of the law.

“The net of all the requirements will be an increase in costs for consumers,” said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main industry trade group.

“Given that health care costs are inherently unpredictable, it’s not surprising that some plans will be paying rebates to policyholders in certain markets,” Zirkelbach added.

But the Kaiser report said the rebate requirement may be acting as a brake on the industry, discouraging insurers from seeking big premium increases to avoid having to issue refunds later and face possible criticism.

The new law has “provided an incentive for insurers to seek lower premium increases than they would have otherwise,” the report said. “This ‘sentinel’ effect on premiums has likely produced more savings for consumers and employers than the rebates themselves.”

The study found the largest rebates will go to consumers and employers in Texas ($186 million) and Florida ($149 million), where Govs. Rick Perry and Rick Scott have been among the staunchest opponents of the federal law. Both states applied for waivers from the 80 percent requirement and were turned down. Hawaii is the only state in which insurers are not expected to issue a rebate.

Here’s how the rebates break down nationally:

More than 3 million individual policyholders will reap rebates of $426 million, averaging $127 apiece. These are consumers who are not covered through an employer and buy their policy directly. Consumers in Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Arizona are most likely to be eligible.

Insurance companies must notify policyholders, and the rebates are due by Aug. 1. Some companies have already begun to pay.

In the small-employer market, plans covering nearly 5 million people will receive rebates totaling $377 million.

Employers do not have to pass their rebates on to workers, and can also take them as a discount on next year’s premiums.

Insurers serving large employers face a stiffer requirement. Under the law, they must spend 85 percent of premiums on medical costs. The study found that 125 plans covering 7.5 million people at large employers will give back a total of $541 million.

Most plans operated by major national employers are exempt from the requirement. The biggest companies usually set aside money to cover most of their workers’ medical expenses. Typically they hire an insurer to administer their plan, but they do not buy full coverage from the insurer.

Separately, a Goldman Sachs report estimated insurers would pay rebates of $1.2 billion. Among major insurers, UnitedHealth would pay $307 million, Aetna $177 million, WellPoint $94 million and Coventry $50 million.

Supporters of the requirement say it will keep insures from padding their profits at the expense of unsuspecting consumers.

“Millions are benefiting because health insurance companies are spending less money on executive salaries and administrative costs and more on patient care,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., a leading advocate of the rebate provision.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the report shows how Obama’s law is “already strengthening the health care system for millions of Americans.”

Like everything else about the overhaul, the future of the rebates depends on whether the Supreme Court upholds the law in a decision expected by early summer.

Seventeen states applied for waivers from the 80 percent standard, producing evidence that it would destabilize their private health insurance markets. Federal regulators granted adjustments to seven states, usually meeting each state’s request part way.

Data from the nation’s most populous state, California, were not ready and thus were not included. Final statistics on the rebates will be issued by the federal government in early summer.

More like this story

Graceful 1 year ago

And the destruction of America continues.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

What a concept! Health insurance companies required to pay benefits! Wow! That might to cut into someone's bonus a bit. The only companies caught out of compliance with these requirements are the insurance equivalent of payday loan companies. Did you notice that virtually all the bigger companies meet the requirement?

FussyOno 1 year ago

"But the government is forcing them to pay what it wants, not what the market allows" I think it's more the government is forcing them to pay what is fair. We are talking Health Care not some commodity you might buy and sell. We are talking people's lives. I want an economy where there are checks and balances on Corporations. I don't hate them. What's harmful to a stable thriving economy is outrageously high CEO salaries at the expense of everyday wage earners hard earned wages.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

I like business and I like corporations. There are a lot of them that are both ethical and profitable. We are not discussing those companies. These very special little companies are not good corporate citizens. They pay bribes and kickbacks to get contracts with employers; they do not benefit the covered employees as the market would indicate.

eileen10 1 year ago

I have been and will continue to be a staunch president Obama supporter.I feel his health care plan is good and I know there are those who disagree and thats fine.As us citizens we have the right to express our feelings and even to somewhat bash the president.Insurance companies have had the upper hand for far to long and pres Obama is trying to put a stop to it.With time he could get this country on track and i dont give a flying ---- if anyone disagrees with me.I have faith in the man.

whatif 1 year ago

A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish. The Truth About the Health Care Bill - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government. However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

We're not buying any of that stuff. You may have been conned, or you may be indulging your own wishful thinking. That particular writer is a formerly retired small town attorney and a self-styled constituional law instructor. He "teaches" an online course of his own design. He is not nor has he ever been recognized by any formal educational institution.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Please just go read Connelly's bio. Obama has his faults but Connelly is much more of a huckster than he is an attorney.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

The people have a right to leave. The states do not. It's there, in writing, clearly. Please go back to the very beginning of the Constitution. It says "We, the people..." It does not say anything about the states until Article IV, and the states are properly treated as subsidiary entities from there to the end. Article VI makes the federal government and law supreme in all legal matters, and no state law or state constitutional provision in conflict with that can stand. By ratifying the constitution, the states agreed to that. You can try your marriage analogy on that, but the Civil War you want so badly would go the same way as the last one.

John 1 year ago

While I only partly agree with what Tonto . . . writes, it is a very simple solution. The United States, by law, now accepts that corporations have the same rights as an individual, therefore, if a corporation has that distinction, then most assuredly do states. Therefore, when an indidual right is mentioned, it also includes corporations and states. Therefore, corporations have the right to secede as do states.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Curiously circuitous, and not convincing.

whatif 1 year ago

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide... If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights... Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us. Michael Connelly, Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor, Carrollton , Texas

dokeus6 1 year ago

Why is it just the one person has come forward and declared that he has read the entire Bill?

Wouldn't think that if just this one person could find all the loopholes and all the bad stuff in the law that others would come forward and say the same?

asb 1 year ago

Plug the source's name into google and wikipedia, and brace yourself Effie!

Localroofer 1 year ago

There have been numerous people to come forward about this bill. To insinuate otherwise is disingenuous.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Try reading the second half of the sentence before responding. How many people have read the whole bill? Not even the bill drafters read that whole bill, they kept copying and pasting until they decided it was ehavy enough.

JCLifer 1 year ago

We can't afford this bs.

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

The only ones on this page who cannot afford this are Graceful, and JC Lifer! All these small, and large employers need to carry insurance on their employees. Period. Thanks eileen 10 there is alot of people out here who see the whole picture, not just the tea party's distorted version for the USA. Rob

spelchek 1 year ago

"All these small, and large employers need to carry insurance on their employees. Period." -- You've apparently never taken Economics 101. Rob, does your business carry insurance for your employees?

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

If the tea party are the only ones who grasp reality. Then the entire country will be deporting everyone who isn't caucasion because they don't believe in helping anyone just every man for himself and this country will devolve into a third world country in a continuous civil war of rich vs poor! THE TEA PARTY HASN'T GOT A CLUE! AND AS FAR AS INDIVIDUAL MANDATES GO THEY WERE MADE IN THE 1700S BY OUR FOREFATHERS. "The Militia Act mandated every man over 18 and under 45 purchase a firearm. Plus they forced shipping business to provide insurance for their employees and ultimately required all sailors to purchase individual insurance." So the whole constitutionality issue is BS these laws were signed by George Washington himself. Which means that there is a standard for the scotus to look at before they try to say it is unconstitutional but i guess that is why we have so many republican appointed justices to reward the treasonous republicans that are putting elections before their constituents.

Localroofer 1 year ago

More liberal propaganda. How does deporting people who are in the country illegally equate to deporting everyone who is not Caucasian? Oh, I forgot all republicans are racist. It's funny that you bring up the gun mandate as support for your arguement as the gun mandate actually allowed the citizen to protect themselves from government intrusion in their lives. This health care bill is on the opposite end of the spectrum. It is laughable that you could call any supreme court justice treasonous but not include Kagan in you statement. Heck she was making the case for the government as she sat on the bench presiding over the hearing, if that isn't treason what do you call it? The whole problem with this debate is the the liberal side acts like the only way to solve the problem is for the government to take over. The cost of insurance would drop dramatically if tort reform were introduced and the current interstate insurance laws were changed.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Sham issue....we have lots of tort reform in Missouri, and medical costs have not come down. Try again.

asb 1 year ago

Only the weird movie in GOP propogandist heads sees the government taking over health care. In reality the government is finally being given a chance to properly regulate an insurance monopoly and to provide health care equal in principle to that of Elbownia. I didn't see where MO4 called any of the SCOTUS judges treasonous, rather a more generic slam on Republican politicians who are acting only in the interest of a few over the many (not so much treason as human nature). It is you who specifically accuse a SCOTUS judge of treason. The gun mandate (imagine the wiggles such an idea today would give the marketing arm of the NRA) was a direct order to buy a gun (essentially a military draft), and it is one of many government mandates that have stood the tests of time, constitutional muster and reason. And Tort Reform? Every such language introduced in every legislature in the US says one thing . . . let us do what we want and don't let anybody complain, let alone litigate, about the consequences. Write some real Tort Reform and we can talk.

Localroofer 1 year ago

Really!!!???. No it is the liberals who don't want people to take responsibility for their lives. Someone spills hot coffee on their lap? Just sue McDonalds and you are an instant millionaire. What should have happened was that the judge should have said, "Sir (or Ma'am) if you aren't intellegent enough to know that coffee is hot then it wouldn't matter how many warnings were on the coffee." The kind of tort reform I am talking about would make issues like the one above a no issue. How about allowing Dr.'s to not have to over perscribe because they are fearful of a lawsuit? But you are right that most of these kinds of tort reforms will never happen because of all the liberal judges writing laws from the bench. BTW you are right the government won't be taking over health care because the Supreme Court will rule Obamacare unconstitutional next June.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Try to understand your issues more clearly. It's the individual insurance mandate that makes the freeloaders pay their own way. It was a conservative idea before the Obama administration got blamed for it.

JCLifer 1 year ago

I can hardly afford health insurance for my family. How am I gonna be able to afford paying for another 15 million slackers' health insurance premiums?

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

You are paying for the slackers now, but the complexities of the current health care financial system hide it from you. Most of it is buried in the rates that your insurance carrier and private pay patients pay for services. Another big chunk passes through the Medicare system. IFFFFFFF we can actually get something like the current reform program running, the current slackers will be forced into carrying more of their own cost.

JCLifer 1 year ago

BS. Our premiums will continue to increase drastically to start covering more people. Health care charges will increase due to all the government red tape. This huge boondoggle will not help people who work for a living and who alteady take responsibility to take care of their family's healrhcare needs

Sequoia 1 year ago

What if you get sick, lose your job (and health coverage), then can't get new health coverage because of your pre-existing condition? Isn't this the risk that plagues ALL people who work for a living?

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Then why does every civilized country in the world have better coverage than we do for more of their people, at lower cost? We are nowhere near the top in terms of infant mortality or life expectancy, but we have the highest cost. The Kaiser Foundation has a good set of reports on this. The World Health Organization does too. Then, please have someone that doesn't work for Fox Fake News explain the Medicare cost reporting system to you. You, yes you, can get an understanding of where the money really goes. Here's a hint - it's NOT malpractice insurance.

JCLifer 1 year ago

I have friends in canada who hate their system and they come to the US for their care.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Of course you do. We have lots more and better expensive specialists than other countries, and if you have money and want a specialist to look at every boo-boo on your hiney, you come to the US of A. Where we fall behind is family care, health maintenance, screening, and all the other unglamorous parts of the medical business.

Localroofer 1 year ago

You just want the rest of us to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves. Let's pay for the guy who can afford to smoke 3 packs a day but not go to the doctor. How about the drunk who can afford a bottle of whiskey everyday but can't afford to go to the dentist. The fact of the matter is that these people choose not to do the right thing for themselves or their families but then want the rest of us to pay for their health care when the inevitable occurs. This isn't rocket science you smoke 3 packs a day and you are going get sick eventually. Basically you liberals want everyone to be able to do everything that they want when they want and the rest of us who are out doing the right thing, day in and day out, get to pick up the bill when it comes due.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

You really do need to get your facts sorted out a little better. The insurance mandate is there to make freeloaders pay more of their share. It was a GOP idea before Obama got blamed for it.

JCLifer 1 year ago

Time to make the lower 47% start paying taxes. Everyone should pay at least 10%.

asb 1 year ago

A reminder, we all pay taxes; sales, property, income, etc. With food and gas taxes alone the lower 47% pay a larger proportion of taxes than the upper 15%. Having said that, I agree that a minimum tax on earned wages, even minimum wage, could be arranged . . . right after investment income is also taxed at closer to standard income rates. And, what would you think of that minimum rising as income goes up, you know, like it was meant to in the first place.

JCLifer 1 year ago

"A reminder, we all pay taxes; sales, property, income, etc."

THIS IS A LIE! Only property owners pay property taxes. Nearly 1/2 (47% of the lower income citizens) pay NO income tax. Many even get "refunds" of our tax dollars that they did not even pay in the form of earned income credit.

Money invested has already been taxed.

John 1 year ago

He did not write that ALL pay INCOME tax. He wrote that we all pay TAXES. and we do.

JCsleeper 1 year ago

Wonder who's gonna pay for that ?

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

Thanks JC Lifer, I too pay my premiums, self pay when I am not working for extended periods? These small employers? " I heard well the guys wifes work for the state" " That is where they get there insurance from" "They will not insure me because of my heart, so I cannot see getting into a plan for you guys, if they will not include me". You are lucky if you have insurance JC, alot do not, and these quotes are true. They took place here in Central Missouri and all those owners had Insurance! No one should get a free ride but if more people are insured we would get lower premiums, or maybe stop the steady climb of insurance. Rob

wyriontair 1 year ago

Raising the taxes on investments is double taxing the individual, why should those who have already paid taxes on that income then turn around and invest it be required to pay a higher tax on that investment? Most retirees live off their investments, not all investors are extremely rich, they're just average people. It's clear from some comments people have not actually read the health care law, so I would suggest you do so. It's a difficult, time consuming read that not even most lawmakers read, they just towed the party line and voted lock-step. Remember, former Speaker Pelosi, "we have to pass the bill in order to see what's in it"? That's not how bills are supposed to be passed. While it would be good for people to have insurance, it's not the governments job to mandate it's citizens to purchase a product as a requirement of citizenship or face fines and jail. Many companies introduced providing insurance to their employees as a way to get good employees, now under this law, employers can stop providing the insurance and just pay a fine. Missouri has a high risk insurance program for those who seem to not be able to get conventional insurance, as someone with a disability, I've never had problems getting insurance, yes we pay a little more, but we still get it. It's also important to remember that the new law took nearly half a billion dollars out of medicare, where's the outrage over that????

Daddy 1 year ago

Gotta love when the Republicans start getting angry because their doomsday predictions are wrong!

Littleinvestor 1 year ago

The value of the original investment normally is not taxed, although traditional IRAs are among those investments where the original investment can be taxed when it is taken out of the account because it went in pre-tax and was a deduction to income the year it was invested. Taxation on Roth IRAs is exactly the opposite. The income from the investment is taxed on things like savings accounts and CDs. Stocks and mutual funds are different because the added value of the original investment may be taxed at the time of sale so keeping exceptional records of the original price is essential and becomes exceptionally complicated if you reinvest dividends. If a person's income is under a certain amount, even the sale proceeds may not be taxed as I encountered this in 2011 when preparing an elderly relative's tax return. They did not have enough income for the proceeds to be taxable and they, in fact, were among the 47 percent who paid no income tax that year because of enormous medical deductions that were three times their income. I don't think anyone wants to tax old people in that situation so it is important to know what you are talking about. The tax code is too complicated and needs to be changed so that we all can pay lower rates and those of us with significant Form 1099 income need to pay our fair share, though I'm not sure what the rate should be. At least 15 percent if your 1099 income exceeds $10,000 a year might be a starting point.

linoge 1 year ago

Wow, a rational and intelligent post. Thank you Littleinvestor. You really outshine the ones who regurgitate what they hear on the Rush Limpbaugh show.

spelchek 1 year ago

Tell me Daddy, do you like monopolies? If government were to run private insurance out of business and take complete control of the health sector (which is the point of Obamacare); what would you call that?

asb 1 year ago

I would call that a fairytale. It is not the point of National Health Care to take complete control of health care, only to make sure that everybody is covered by competent, properly regulated providers and insurors.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Yeah, I really don't get the hysteria over health care. The Republicans had a chance to do something about it. We got the Iraq War instead. I think it is too early to tell whether the ACA works or what kind of tweaks it will need. But, as someone who worries about getting sick and losing a job, losing health care and being unable to get it again, I'm glad someone is trying to do something. It don't expect the ACA (or what of it survives the court) will be perfect, but it is a first try at tackling the problem of health care costs that is really hurting American competitiveness.

Sequoia 1 year ago

And here's a depressing irony. The same people who thought the U.S. government was perfectly capable of "transforming the Middle East" through military occupation NOW suddenly believe that the U.S. government is INcapable of making sure everyone IN OUR OWN COUNTRY has some kind of health care.

They saw invasion of another country and thought: our government can do no wrong. They saw intervention in the health care market and thought: our government can do no right.

Interesting.

spelchek 1 year ago

"They saw intervention in the health care market.." -- "intervention", that's what you call 3,000 pages of new regulations and taxes slammed by the SCOTUS? Besides, your point is pointless. As "the same people" includes many Democrats who voted for the joint resolution to go to war. One worthless RINO voted on Obamacare.

spelchek 1 year ago

Fairytale? If you can't see that the private sector which runs on profits can't compete against government exchanges run on tax revenues (endless borrowed fund stream) then there is no arguing with you. If you can't see that new regulations increase the costs of doing business in the private sector and the costs get past on to us consumers, there is no arguing with you. If you can't see if a private insurance company was ran like a government agency, they would be out of business, there is no arguing with you. Simple math and trillions in debt says I'm right.

asb 1 year ago

The private insurance industry isn't going anywhere Spelchk. They're just going to have more customers, and better performance due to federal and state regulations. If you see ACA as taking over or replacing private insurors, then there's just no arguing with you.

spelchek 1 year ago

Our federal government already can't control health care fraud which costs Americans $100,000,000,000 a year. So now they're (Team Obama) touting $1 billion dollars in rebates which are being replaced by higher premiums = Amazing.

asb 1 year ago

Really $100 trillion in fraud? Golly, that's a lot . . .and you're complaining that the feds aren't doing enough to stop it? Gee, maybe we need a health care regulatory framework that allows them to do that . . .

dokeus6 1 year ago

asb, check your math.

asb 1 year ago

Really $100 billion in fraud? Golly, that's a lot . . .and you're complaining that the feds aren't doing enough to stop it? Gee, maybe we need a health care regulatory framework that allows them to do that . . .

dokeus6 1 year ago

Tell us Grace, how will this nation collapse?

How will we sink any further down than we have been the last eleven years?

How can we recover from the hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent fighting a needless war in Iraq?

How can we recover from the hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent propping up a failed financial system that was under the watch of a Republican President?

Tell us how ? Please do so everyone can just move on from blaming the rich and the corporations for having the power and influence to line the lawmakers wallets so they make laws to protect the rich peoples' money!

Localroofer 1 year ago

We surely can't recover by spending our grand children's inheritance. Adding more money to the deficit isn't the solution. More government isnt the solution. Having people take personal responsibility is a good starting point tho. When it is just you against the world things seem alot more simple. All this talk about ow the governs,nt is going to take care of,people from cradle to grave is just liberal utopia. When you add in the human element it is impossible. Hopefully if the right people are elected come fall we can stop the collapse. Heck it might be to late with all the race baiting that the democrats have been doing for the last 3 years.

asb 1 year ago

Your post covers a lot of ground, somewhat incorrectly. All governments throughout history have either stimulated their economy during severe downturns, or they have disappeared. It's universal. If an economy at any one time cannot pay for such stimulus, then either money is just printed (don't go there) or managed debt is incurred. That debt is a bet on future growth, and is paid for through revenue until it's paid down to tolerable levels. All governments have debt, all debt must be serviced. The Teajparty's refusal to bet on the future, or to raise debt service revenue through tax increases is why our debt is becoming a real issue. Unregulated financial greed is how our economy was ravaged, and we all need to cover the needed debt. The US has managed its debt quite well for over 200 years and will continue to do so, as long as we pay for it with responsible management. Governments that don't grow with their economies, die. The absolute personal responsibility you promote is great for herrmits, but fails a true society. When it becomes "you against the world" there's no future, because somebody always gets control of everything and the rest of us, including you, are in the cold. The only people talking about cradle to grave government are the extremists who would dismantle all social programs. The rest of us know that we are part of government, and that government does have many roles in our society. Welfare culture can be a negative, and needs constant countermeasures, but only the extreme right sees a utopia threat and a need to go everyone for theselves. There is no collapse to be saved from this fall, the collapse was averted through bi-partisan stimulus, which could've been done better in both administrations. Race baiting? I didn't notice, until you, um, brought it up.

spelchek 1 year ago

google.com

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

That's a pretty well-circulated and widely accepted number from an old federal Inspector General's report. Other estimates go twice as high. Doing something about it is a problem because there is almost no control over access to money for providers. Buy a closed pharmacy, start up their computers, access the patient data files, and begin billing Medicare for nonexistent prescriptions.

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

Spelck, I struggle to stay insured! I am not a small business owner, I am a construction worker heading off to work this raiy morning, to try to keep my health care for another quarter. Rob

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

Yep just like ROMNEYCARE has Bankrupted MASSACHUSSETS!!!! LMAO they are doing very well! But let me guess that is a state and can't be used nationwide. Every idea and policy that OBAMA has put forward was first suggested by a republican and then was rejected by republicans when OBAMA put there own ideas back to them.! Republicans should be tried for treason. Every since they took control they will not do anything because the only goal they have had for almost two years is to make the BIG BAD BLACK OBAMA fail no matter what the cost to the country, the people, and the economy. Vote all of the treasonous snakes out of office!!!!

spelchek 1 year ago

We all struggle but where we differ in ideologies is how to reduce costs and make it affordable for everyone. I'd like to see more competition and more incentive for others to get their skin in the game. I don't need an ivy leagued politician making rules they don't have to follow. Gov't needs to get out of the way and let markets flourish.

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

Grace, I struggle because everyone, both parties have failed us! George Bushs the most. Rob

spelchek 1 year ago

I've admitted several times that Bush was an average president and spent like a democrat. In regards to Bush failing us "the most"; that's just disingenuous. Our sitting president is worse than Carter which just makes that statement completely untrue and blindly partisan.

dokeus6 1 year ago

The past President's and the Congress are the ones who failed us.

How is our sitting President worse than Carter? At least back up your argument with some facts?

I don't remember how bad Carter left us but I do know how bad W. left us.

He left us broke by spending 80 - 100 billion dollars a month to oust a dictator that supposed had weapons of mass destruction. He put forward the bailout for all the banks that were going under. He left all this for our sitting president.

Most of the blame falls on W. but no one wants to admit it.

spelchek 1 year ago

Yes, nothing has happened in the past four years, nothing at all. All our problems are from 12 years ago = lack of intellectual honesty. Facts? Really? Here's a fact: 8.2% unemployment
Here's another: Bush spent $1.66 billion a day, Obama....wait for it.......$5 billion a day.

dokeus6 1 year ago

I guess your opinion might be skewed from the right thinking and mine might be skewed from the left thinking.

Don't worry I put a link to where you got your information as well as where I got mine.

tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health

startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/who-spent-more-average-bush-vs-average-obama-spending-per-day-proves-obama-most-reckless-and-irresponsible-ever/

dokeus6 1 year ago

Like I said before, most of our problems lie in the fact that we spent how many billions of dollars fighting a war in iraq that W. got us into.

I never said that Obama is a saint but you seem to think all of our problems as a nation lay in what Obama has been trying to do to get us out of the bind that W. put us into.

Localroofer 1 year ago

Good to see that someone is still blaming Bush. And when you speak of past Congress's I hope that you realize that democrats controlled the congress in 2007 and 2008, when all the stuff hit the fan. And it was their plan that helped bale out the banks. The majority of the democrats in both the house and senate voted for the TARP program including Obama. The majority of the people who didn't vote for tarp were republicans. So tell me how this is all bushes fault? Because he was the last o e to put his name on the paper? What about the other 337 people who also voted for it the majority of those democrats? Also your numbers are a bit off since the war in Iraq was at a cost of around 800 billion and lasted 8 years. Please keep in mind that most of the democrats agreed that there were WMD in Iraq at the time. How about a little intellectual honesty.

dokeus6 1 year ago

huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/studies-iraq-costs-us-12b_n_90694.html

costofwar.com/en/

articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-16/news/30078831_1_iraq-and-afghanistan-air-conditioning-defense-budget

Here is a little intellectual honesty for you. Mr Roofer. Do you want me to post more links. Please get your facts straight before you start lecturing someone else.

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

President Obama, and the Democrats will help my struggle. S.S.,Medicare, and Healthcare. Within 6 years or so I hope to retire, Bush 1, or 2 helped me in the least bit. The Tea party can say all they want, but they have no solution. When they have something relevant I will listen, but all I hear is They do not want to pay their fair share,I feel I have at 250,000 in social security, 40,000 in Medicare, and I pay the Goverment what they ask for. Rob

Localroofer 1 year ago

Talk about utter selfishness. As longs as you get yours it doesn't matter what happens to anyone else. Isnt this exactly what most democrats complain the republicans are doing? Finally glad that someone is honest. You will sell your vote to Obama and the democrats for guaranteed retirement benefits. The sad thing is others will sell their votes to Obama for welfare, food stamps, healthcare, and other socialist programs. It is amazing to me that someone would sell their freedoms so cheaply for a government guarantee. Ask the Indians what they think about government guarantees. Good luck with that one look iat what is happening in Greece to their government guarantees.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Localroofer, can you explain what "freedoms" you are suggesting people are choosing to sell?

I hear a lot about freedoms that people are losing, but what freedoms exactly? PLEASE NAME ONE FREEDOM YOU HAVE LOST UNDER OBAMA.

Anyone can respond. Anyone?

Localroofer 1 year ago

You wouldn't understand, it and American thing.

Sequoia 1 year ago

You mean like the 53% of Americans who voted for Obama? It IS an American thing, you're right.

Your main argument against Obama is that he threatens freedom, and you can't name a single thing you used to be able to do, but now can't under his socialist regime? Seriously, that's the best answer you got?

Next.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Well, OK. The most radical leftist socialist president ever, and nobody can name a single freedom that they have lost under this tyrant. Not one thing you used to be able to do under GWB but now cannot do under BHO.

Not one thing. Are you guys really all bluff and no stuff? Is there any "there" there? Where's the beef? You accuse people of selling out freedom, and you can't name a single one.

I'm begging anyone to give me one reason to take movement conservatism seriously. Just one reason. Not name calling, not abstract doomsday predictions. One legit reason.

Or is impugning my patriotism REALLY all that you've got?

Localroofer can't be taken seriously. He's already punked out. Who's going to help him out?

Do I hear crickets chirping?

John 1 year ago

Some of you all (HKCHAS) surely do edit comments and ideas that you have "supposedly" heard. He wants to do more than take away machine guns and you know it. In fact, machine guns were not even in the warning by the NRA. Most of you writers are as bad as the press, picking and choosing select little tidbits you want to include in your "arguements" simply to appear as though you know what you're talking about.

Sequoia 1 year ago

What products? No, YOU name it.

Freedom to not pay for health care, but get it "free" at ERs? You're bemoaning loss of the freedom to FREELOAD? Now that's irony.

Ha. I don't mind if people lose that "freedom."

asb 1 year ago

Really? Welfare is socialist? How do monarchies, tyranies, oligigarchies and general bad-boy governments now and for the past thousand years justify caring for and feeding the poor? Personally I expect to get what I pay for (and I expect some of what I pay to go to welfare and armies), but if you want to call that being bought by government, fine.

Localroofer 1 year ago

Most of the truly poor are taken care of by charities here in the US. Only in a world as twisted as the one we live in can someone be considered poor and have 2 tvs and video game consoles and govt subsidized housing. These people aren't poor financially but poor spiritually. They have been robbed of their will to take care of themselves by the system that is in plave to help them. Welfare was initially a way to help people up when they had fallen, now it is a way of life for too many people. But that is the way the liberals want it, a large portion of the populace whose very existance relies on Democrats being re-elected. I thought the emancipation proclamation ended slavery years ago. Now millions are shackled and they don't even know it.

John 1 year ago

Actually, yes, freedom of speech. This is especially apparent in the proclamation that protestors or simply those who disagree with POTUS is allowed within a certain range of him. . . . or, how about gassing protestors (tea party folk, among others) who are peacefully protesting various government decisions. Interestingly enough, those who protest IN FAVOR of certain things, such as abortion clinics, are unscathed.

asb 1 year ago

You have a skewed view of poor, and of charities' role in dealing with the poorest. The poorest are called destitute, and live on the street, and in boxes, and die of exposure, hunger and violence. Most "poor" are either working or looking for work. They need school, food, shelter and a stake in their future. Electronics are essentially free compared to the cost of food and housing, your complaint is a moral rant against access to dust. Come out from that pulpit and realize that a lower middle-class family of four can easily have, and use, a TV, computer and phone, for each member. In a culture of wealth beyond description for a few, consumption as a dogma, and ignorance as a ruling-class tool applied to public and even private education, you have a lot more to whine about than a kid with no job, no control over ther future, and no stake in the politics dominated by money, and a, gasp, TV.

sickandtired 1 year ago

asb wouldn't it be smart to spend the money on food and housing instead of as you put it "a lower middle class family of four can easily have, and use, a TV,computer, and phone, for each member". That sure does seem like a lot of money to spend on non non nessessities. Yes I agree a family of 4 does need a single phone-not a phone for each member. THey might need a computer but then again they can go to the local library and use one of theirs. So lets add up what you say a family of 4 easily could buy. 4 TV's at approx $200.00 each= $800.00 4 computers at $400.00 each+$1600.00 3Phones(I-Phones) at $100.00 each= $300.00 plus the monthly charge of $100.00 for the service. That equals $2800.00 that could be used on food and shelter. that is a lot of money that according to you a family of 4 could spend on each member. please explain how take that could easily be spent but you have to have the government give you your money for food and shelter? If you need help for food and shelter you don't need to have everything listed above. maybe one of each but not one for each member as you put it.

asb 1 year ago

My example was lower-middle class, not welfare poor. A poor family may have one or two $100 or used or hand-me-down TVs. Phones are free with a low-cost monthly plan that includes internet. Used computers, and even some new ones, cost $300. So, let's just make your bill $1200, which is a couple of months rent and food and utilities.

sickandtired 1 year ago

but under your earlier example you stated that all members of a 4 person family would have one. so rite there your computer bill would be $1200.00. the average monthly bill of a land line with internet access is $70.00. Now if you are talking about a cell phone the average price of 4 people having cell phone service with internet is over $100;.00/month- approaching $150.00/month. you are rite they may have old tv's but today in society most have the new flat screens and Hidef TV's. plus the $40-$50.00/month for Sat. or cable service. That monthly bill rite there is equal to $200-$300. So lets see. Food vs cable. I would choose food. Food verses cell service- again i would pick food.everything you mention is a luxury even for lower middle class. I lived in the lower middle class for several years. I went without until I could afford to get everything you listed and I am part of a family of 4 and was then also. People have their priorities messed up if they are choosing luxury over neccessity. Not saying life is pretty when presented with the choices but that is what it is. Remember the american dream is to work hard( hard being the key word) and earn what you get not have it given to you. Now if you are one of the people that got messed up with the collapse in 2007 well 1) there are plenty of community organizations that have helped them, the govt has helped them. But in the same breath people need to be looking for jobs. They are out there. They may not be the job you like but it is a paycheck and you can still look for the job you like while doing the one you don't like.

asb 1 year ago

Once more - the welfare poor do NOT have the things you describe. I am lower middle-class and have made the same hard choices you describe to have the lower cost versions of those things, and am not on welfare. There is always room for incentives and countermeasure against the torpur of welfare, but saying they're their own problem and that all they have to do is get a job and get 'er done is simplistic. Blaming the poor for being poor is an old fat cat's saw. If we give too much to the poor, then maybe we should take away their vote so they won't be so comfortable. Let's see, Poll Taxes, literacy tests, loyalty oaths, Extreme voter ID requirements and hinderances, drug tests except alcohol . . . then we could make them all wear sack cloth and bark sandels instead of designer jeans and sparkle shoes when they get their daily bowls of mush and bottles of water. Then maybe the lazy thugs and bums would work 14 hours a day for $3.00 an hour and run the mexicans out . . . you just might be on to something here . . . welcome to the American Tea Party platform committee, and good luck with that Buddy.

sickandtired 1 year ago

Hey ASB i think your rite on something their. Lets not get jobs, buy our $200 I phones that everybody just has to have( along with the $100.00/month usage/data charges), wear our designer jeans and $100.00 pair of tennis shoes that again everybody has to have. We can then run down the streets get our bag of weed, free base some crack and run by the health department and get the free syringes( because we don't want to share syringes). After all of that run to 4 different booths to vote. But dont' forget to grab your EBT card before you leave because you might want to stop and get a steak at your local restuarant on the tax payers dime.

viktorkowski 1 year ago

I'm still trying to get the hospital to account for the $50 Tylenol my wife got on a trip there. maybe we should first start with the cost of medical care in this country. why is it much higher than any other developed nation? I really don't think I get that much better care here than say Germany et al (you could insert 50 developed nations here).

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

I would like to hear from these Tea party people, and I feel they tend to have cramps in their fingers when the heat gets turned up! They do not have the solution or they would tell us what they want to do with Health Care, Social Security, Medicare, and just throw the Post Office in the mix too. Vickie Hartzler has the answers! She and the other 89 need to be fired for signing the pledge to Norquist. Rob

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Notice that the Tea Party people don't have anything to say since the big leased buses quit coming around handing out "hand-printed" placards with their very own exact thoughts on them. The saddest part of the so-called Tea Party activism is the pathetic people who took themselves seriously as a political movement. No one else did.

Localroofer 1 year ago

Are you referring to the leased busses that hauled all the union members, who were paid, to attend the 1% rallies. Or the ones in Michigan that hauled the union members from neighboring states to destroy public property while protesting the passing of laws by dully elected state representatives? Or perhaps you are talking about the buses that hauled college student from state to state to register and then vote for Obama. A little clarity would be helpful when talking about leased buses. @Rob, there are plenty of things that can be done with all the things you brought up short of a government take over. You point at the postal service, what would you have us do ther? Prop that up with more tax dollars? The reason that it is in such rough state is because the business model doesn't work. You have people who are paid $20 per hour to sit and watch a machine. Or postal carriers who can do what ever they want with impunity. The real problem is the Union backing the postal workers and teachers and gov employees. Unions were once a great service to employees, they implemented many of the current workplace rules that we now take for granted. But now they are hurting this country, and are just another Rm of the democratic party.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

I am referring to the big leased buses from Americans for Prosperity.

Localroofer 1 year ago

So are we going to act like these are the only buses that are being leased for political reasons? Or can we show a bit of integrity and see that the liberals do alot more bus leasing then the republicans ever thought about. Can we also adress the fact that the union was paying people to protest in the 99 rallies?

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

We started out talking about the Tea Party and you're trying to go somewhere else. That is not what integrity means.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Watch what you say about the Tea Party! It was the greatest scam to separate suckers from their money in a long time. They stuck a tri-corner hat on the same ol Republican, and look at the suckers get in line!

The Tea Party was just a circus, and you suckers got taken. If you have any doubt, just look at all the presidential candidates they put up... all of whom were dopes, and all of whom washed out to Mitt Romney. So, by their fruit you shall know them.

Unless you're a sucker. Can't wait for that Herman Cain "book"!

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

The coronation of Mitt Romney as the GOP presidential candidate shows us that the Tea Party has been discarded by the GOP big shots.

One of Herman Cain's big problems, other than the womanizing and the complete lack of a coherent platform. was that he is literate and articulate - an elite, a snob, with nice suits and good grooming. He is probably capable of writing a book himself, rather than having a ghostwriter string some stories together.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

How pathetic...while you Tea Party types hide in the shrubbery hugging your guns and waiting to ambush an imaginary leftie, the adults in the GOP have moved on. No one bothered to defeat the Tea Party because the Tea Party was never real. It served as a nice bunch of puppets for certain corporatist groups within the GOP. Now that the puppets have served their purpose, they have been discarded by those corporatists and will be either ignored or outvoted by the real GOP.

Sequoia 1 year ago

"Batten" down the hatches.

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

A few on this page have refers to a bus, that must take folks all over Missouri to vote. That is the only bus I have ever heard on this site, and once again can someone from the Tea Party list an example. Rob

JCLifer 1 year ago

Don't forget the $150/mont cable tv bill, and the $300/month gas for the Escalade.

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

Local Roofer, it will be warm today, lots of sun screen and water. I suppose you want Fed Ex, and UPS to quit taking the cream and start delivering the mail on an everday basis? somebody will get rich, and we will lose. The congress is in charge of the mail, section 8 US Constitution. I think maybe they should look into it, I do not pay my bills by e mail, I pay them with the US mail. You have landed back on the Tea Party, far right mantra that Unions have caused all the problems, you are so mistaken. Unions have made your world go around long before you and I were even here. If you think $20.00 an hour is to much to run a machine where you have to read numbers upside down, in seconds all day long. Then I have to ask what do you pay yourself and your roofers? Rob

Localroofer 1 year ago

Those people don't read the numbers, there are machines to do that work. What they do is press a button if the machine gets jammed. Look I have no problem with people making a decent wage. However when you can do whatever you want on the job including drinking and doing drugs, and not have to worry about being fired because of union protection then there is a problem. I agree that almost all of the "perks" that we enjoy were brought about by unions. But now the unions have become part of the problem and are no longer part of the solution. I am not saying that the unions have caused all the problems but a fair amount of the problems can be put on the unions. When the unions use the retirement contributions of the members to help get one of their buddies elected. It is a problem. When democratic representatives then say that we need to bail out the pension plans of the unions because they are under funded. It is a problem. I pay my employees as much as I possibly can and still stay in business and do right by my family.

asb 1 year ago

No union can save a drunk or druggie from being fired for being found high at work. Unions can protect workers from undue harrasment, unreasonable searchs, etc, but not workplace endangerment. In this world, unions cannot protect you from breaking the law. Yes, unions made great strides for the working class and saved most of the west from extreme social revolution, and then our economy grew so fast after WWII that there was enough money to go around and unions became less relevant, and weren't watched and some still stink. Well that phase is past, and unions once again are often the ONLY means workers will have to negotiate decent wages and working conditions. And how exactly would you have a union lobby, or afford competent lawyers, or to pay for national or regional administrators if not with their workers' money. Yes, they tend to corruption and self serving actions, they are people. They need regulation and careful attention, just like churches, corporations, militias and garden clubs (the really big ones). Union pensions are no less important financially than other large pools of money, and need goverrnment support as much as any bank or insurance pool during economic turmoil. You pay your employees as much as you can? You will be out of business soon. To make it in business, you pay them as little as they'll tolerate, or your competitors will eat your lunch. That's why wage negotiation is so important.

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

Local Roofer, Postman do not read numbers? Erisa laws do not allow pension funds to be used for that, please elaborate to when this happened. Please explain to me how the Koch Brothers and American Cross Roads are able to operate? Rob

RobHunterJohnson 1 year ago

Local roofer, I am not selling my soul to no one including President Obama, I guess I should just sit here and let the right tear down what WE have paid into all our working lives. Well I feel sorry for you and the roofing crew you are directing. It makes me wonder how well you treat your employees? Do have health care for them, and workmans comp. Do you pay them a fair wage, or do you call them contractors and have them take care of their own? The problem with the Right and the Tea party is they do not get it, when it comes to workers rights, they would rather have them hungry at the breakfast table! It is ashame your employees cannot get a chance to read these post from you, and get the real picture of your thoughts. Rob

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID