How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[erfalf]

Squirrel!

[Conan71]

Scott Gottlieb WSJ:  1st eight on 1st page.

No ridicule.  I'm not that mean.  It only takes a minute to make sure you're not posting from a far leaning source, one way or the other.

edit - MAW:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577220950656734864.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577558992030043820.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203716204577015702644712634.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576597200095602270.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704758904576188280858303612.html

He's a physician.  I'd guess he's got a better idea from his view what Obamacare means to medicine and the medical profession than you and I do.  Sadly, he echoes the opinions of many other physicians I know.  He also seems pretty well researched on the data in his pieces.

I'd trust his commentary on the issue before I would a Matthews or Hannity.

[erfalf]

Scott Gottlieb WSJ:  1st eight on 1st page.

No ridicule.  I'm not that mean.  It only takes a minute to make sure you're not posting from a far leaning source, one way or the other.

edit - MAW:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577220950656734864.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577558992030043820.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203716204577015702644712634.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576597200095602270.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704758904576188280858303612.html

I know the Journal is a tad right leaning, but if the guy is credible enough to get his opinion in their at least five times over the last two years, I figure the guy has earned at least some credibility.

[erfalf]

Alright, back on topic.

It is looking more and more like that whole "it's not true that businesses aren't hiring because they are worried about healthcare regulations" seems to be a party line more than ever. How could they not be hesitant when the people that wrote the legislation have already been so incredibly wrong on what they thought would happen. That paired with my earlier post about the lack of startup jobs ought to be indications enough that the business community is a tad on the worried side.

Think about this, congress has been pretty well gridlocked, that is about the only thing that seems certain now-a-days. So what are businesses worried about? Democrat or Republican policies?

[nathanm]

They're worried about the lack of demand. Surveys show it and average weekly hours confirm.

Not that I blame them for being worried about ObamaCare and regulations and so on. The Republicans have been shouting from the rooftops about what horrible things are sure to be coming down the pike any day now.

[shadows]

Why does one want to protect themselves from Obamacare when the health of the nation is in distress as ill children hobble to an early grave because of the runway inflation has robbed them of the promised “quality of life?”  Many families, jobless, in poverty as the working poor, making the minimum wage has been caught in the down spiral of the economy which has left them in doubt because of the double inflation of the medical profession has been extended beyond their incomes.  The billions of dollars we have spent to reorganize world governments at the cost of the helpless children stand with a scepter over the helpless in this land of proclaimed opportunity. 
The first signs of our greed are self-evident as we become the world debtor and officials have designated the question of our ability to pay our debts. 
The president, recognizing the facts that prevailed in great depression without cooperation, is trying to step over the suffering that the pending depression will bring is trying to establish Obamacare as a way reclaiming our once way of life to the benefit of the children.
Lets give him a chance.
     

[heironymouspasparagus]

I know the Journal is a tad right leaning,

True enough.  In much the same way the Pope is Catholic....

Pop quiz time:  who owns the WSJ??

[erfalf]

True enough.  In much the same way the Pope is Catholic....

Pop quiz time:  who owns the WSJ??

I believe Murdoch, however it is still regarded as a pretty middle of the road publication that mainly sticks to publishing hard news (unless you consider the New York Times middle of the road then the Journal is just another Right Wing Rag).

[heironymouspasparagus]

I believe Murdoch, however it is still regarded as a pretty middle of the road publication that mainly sticks to publishing hard news (unless you consider the New York Times middle of the road then the Journal is just another Right Wing Rag).

Yes.  Murdoch.  Regarded as middle of the road by Murdoch and his minions...anyone who has an extended view of the real world, though...not much.  And while the "hard news" reporting is still done, the opinion content to that news has increased dramatically.

New York Times has never been 'middle of the road' - at least in recent decades - since Eisenhower maybe?  But it has never been a far right rag either - nothing like "The Daily Worker", even though Murdoch might want you to believe that.

[erfalf]

Seriously, the Journal has got to be the most middle of the road daily out there. Name one that does it better than they do.

[Conan71]

Seriously, the Journal has got to be the most middle of the road daily out there. Name one that does it better than they do.

You still haven't figured out when you are wasting your breath around here, have you? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Seriously, the Journal has got to be the most middle of the road daily out there. Name one that does it better than they do.

Just shows where you are all the more.  But it provides a good counterpoint to the New York Times - between the two, they balance out to Neutral...

[erfalf]

Just shows where you are all the more.  But it provides a good counterpoint to the New York Times - between the two, they balance out to Neutral...

I think it just goes to show that the "if you are not one of us, you are one of them" mentality is alive and well.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think it just goes to show that the "if you are not one of us, you are one of them" mentality is alive and well.

Absolutely!!  You are finally starting to get it...it is alive and well at ALL the Murdoch outlets.  Hannity, Limbaugh, WSJ, Drudge (you subscribe to Drudge?), Savage,....  Rightist extremists.

Check out NPR sometime.  You will find a bias that is "visible" behind the curtain - and it is somewhat liberal (again, nowhere near the leftist extremists), but you will also find a truly 'fair and balanced' approach to reporting - even though they have their opinions and you know what they are, the other side is also given equal time and space to present it's view WITHOUT the "rolling of eyes in disdain" approach seen on ALL the Murdochians.  Plus it is much more in depth.

One of the complaints I see lately by commenters has to do with just how much time the NRA is getting to present the correct side of the gun control discussions.  Many NPR listeners don't like it, but hey, that's the price that must be paid to actually BE fair and balanced.

It is kind of like what would happen in newspaper publishing if you took the New York Times (editorial) staff, combined it with the WSJ staff, and published the resulting output.

[Red Arrow]

Absolutely!!  You are finally starting to get it...it is alive and well at MSNBC...

It is kind of like what would happen in newspaper publishing if you took the New York Times (editorial) staff, combined it with the WSJ staff, and published the resulting output.

The ex-NYT staff would call the ex-WSJ staff obstructionists.