How do you figure Healthcare is affordable to the average citizen?

Helthcare ranges from $13,375 to $20,000 for the average family
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/29/pf/healthcare-costs/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

Even at $50,000 income per year,(which is peanuts these days by the way,) the average family cannot afford this.
And then, if they did sacrifice all other basic amenities to pay the health care costs, The insurance companies do whatever they can to deny claims and the basic care they deserve. The first thing that's asked is, "Does your policy cover this?" and if not, guess what, you still don't get treatment and someone can and has died.

That's Fact!
Health Care on any level is a human right not a present to be given to the select few who hold all the cash.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.

"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.
"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.
About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.
Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.
Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.
Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.
The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."
--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny

Sorry I had the wrong year and have been busy in responding.

In 2007, the Democratic majority in Congress enacted legislation to double interest rates on new federal student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in 2012.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act was signed into law. In 2006, as part of their “6 for ‘06” campaign agenda, Democrats promised to cut student loan interest rates in half.


However, once gaining control of Congress in 2007, Democrats realized it was too costly to cut all student loan interest rates in half. Instead, Education & Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proposed temporarily reducing interest rates for undergraduate students receiving subsidized Stafford loans.



The College Cost Reduction and Access Act incrementally phased down interest rates for subsidized Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students over four academic years from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Per the law, interest rates are scheduled to return to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2012.


As the expiration date crept closer, Democrats did nothing to address the impending interest rate increase during the 111th Congress, despite taking action to terminate the private sector federal loan program to help pay for the president’s government takeover of healthcare law.
.>> ^NetRunner:

7 years ago, Bush was in the White House, and Republicans had the majority in the Senate and the House.
And regardless of who you think set this up to happen, you still have Republicans voting solidly against extending the low rates now.
>> ^bobknight33:
The Democrats passed the law that set the doubling increase 7 years ago.

Sadly who ever wins, things will get worse in the next 2 years. The devaluation of the dollar is starting to come to roost. Gas prices will go higher and everything else with it. To make things worse next year massive tax savings will end and everyone will pay more in taxes.

Its a ticking time bomb only with Obama putting the final nails in the coffin.

The economy is not getting better. Don't listen to the TV look around. Every month another store or 2 around you shuts its doors.

WE borrow 4 Billion dollars a day and have done this for at least a decade.
Another way to put it that the government borrows 0.43 cents every dollar. How long can that go on? It can't go past 50 cents.


Ron Paul, like him or not is the only one willing to cut now and deep government spending. All others only desire to limit the growth rate a little. He is like the only chance America has as long as we vote out long standing career politicians like John McCain and Nancy Pelosi

Sure he would. This whole video is him speculating that Carolyn Maloney will be the Democratic Party's ranking member in the finance committee, because that's who the banksters want.

And then he spends 5 minutes crowing about how right he is because an article got published in a newspaper that pretty clearly indicated banksters like her. So what? Only crazy Republicans think the newspapers work for the Democratic party.

Plus, every quote he took from the article was sourced to someone on Wall Street's side. Where's a source from, say, someone in the Democratic party who's part of the decision-making process? Nowhere to be found in Cenk's piece. But, in the article he's sourcing all this from, there's this:

“For Nancy Pelosi, Maxine is a three-fer,” said one congressional staffer, noting that it will be Ms. Pelosi who ultimately makes the determination if Democrats retake control. “She is a fellow Californian, she is an African-American woman, and it is her turn.”

And this:

“A lot of folks in the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] would not look too kindly on an outside challenge,” said one Capitol Hill lobbyist. “They want to go back to the seniority system.”

And this:

For her part, Ms. Waters seems confident her long service will carry her through. “Let me let you in on a secret: I am the senior-most person serving on the Financial Services Committee,” she told the 2012 California State Democratic Convention last month. “Barney Frank is about to retire, and guess who’s shaking in their boots? The too-big-to-fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street because Maxine Waters is going to be the next chair of the Financial Services Committee.”

Oh, so Nancy Pelosi, the CBC, and Maxine herself all think she's a lock? Well, that would kinda undercut Cenk's anti-Democratic spin, so he doesn't mention any of that.

Cenk's whole show seemed to just be a vehicle for bashing Democrats, often for things they aren't actually guilty of doing. Like...this whole thing about Carolyn Maloney, which is 100% speculation!

At this point he honestly seems to me like some sort of Karl Rove creation designed to depress Democratic turnout and liberal activism.

>> ^messenger:

Cenk would only say that Waters had sold out to the banks if it were demonstrably true. He's big on backing up his statements with facts. He would never just speculate that she "must have" sold out.

Cenk would only say that Waters had sold out to the banks if it were demonstrably true. He's big on backing up his statements with facts. He would never just speculate that she "must have" sold out. On the contrary, if she gets the position, he'll be happy, admit his mistake (now that he's doubled down, he's going to have to bring it up), and probably comment on how good it is that the powers that be didn't get their way.

As for his spin, yeah, that's his show. He's not an organizer. He just provides stories and commentary. And if you watch his show and understand what he's talking about, he's providing all the information you need to form your own opinion on what to do. The last thing he would ever do is tell someone the appropriate reaction to a story.

Also, Cenk might not do that because a few letters aren't going to counterbalance the millions in campaign contributions, and that problem is one of his favourite points to make, so it would be pretty weak for him to turn around and tell people to write in.>> ^NetRunner:

These days, I have no idea. I could easily see Cenk responding to Maxine Waters getting the spot by saying she only got it because she sold out to the banks herself.
The problem I have with Cenk is that he always presents this sort of thing with highly cynical spin. Like, why make the theme of the rant "Democrats are gonna sell us out", instead of "Maxine Waters would be awesome, and she's going to face a lot of opposition, so let's get her back, write to Nancy Pelosi and tell her you want Maxine representing the Democrats in the Finance Committee..."
You're communicating the same facts, but instead of making it into some slam against Democrats in general, you make it into a rallying cry to progressives to support one of their champions.

These days, I have no idea. I could easily see Cenk responding to Maxine Waters getting the spot by saying she only got it because she sold out to the banks herself.

The problem I have with Cenk is that he always presents this sort of thing with highly cynical spin. Like, why make the theme of the rant "Democrats are gonna sell us out", instead of "Maxine Waters would be awesome, and she's going to face a lot of opposition, so let's get her back, write to Nancy Pelosi and tell her you want Maxine representing the Democrats in the Finance Committee..."

You're communicating the same facts, but instead of making it into some slam against Democrats in general, you make it into a rallying cry to progressives to support one of their champions.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@NetRunner do you think Cenk would rather be right on this--or have Maxine Waters as the Chairperson of the Finance Committee?
It hasn't happened yet, but Cenk can see the wholly owned media positioning for it to happen--and he's showing us. Do you think that the article proposing exactly what Cenk predicted is a coincidence?

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.


"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.

"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.

About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.

Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.

Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.

Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.

The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."

--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny

I followed the Obama campaign pretty closely, and I gotta say that I entirely missed him saying anything about transforming our minimum wage into a living wage indexed to inflation.

I also remember that raising the minimum wage to $7.25 was something that Nancy Pelosi pushed through in the 2007-2008 congress, with the help of one Senator Obama.

And not to beat a dead horse, but this is something Congress needs to pass, not something Obama can do by fiat, and I suspect in this crazy 60-votes-for-everything world we've suddenly entered into, there weren't 60 votes for raising minimum wage even when we had 60 Democrats in the Senate (but I bet there were 55!).

Oh, and on the economics of the matter, I think Cenk is doing a massive disservice to his viewers by telling people that the idea that minimum wage increases lead to increased unemployment is flatly false. Studies have actually shown that to be true, but the right exaggerates the effect far out of proportion with reality. The real left-wing answer isn't to lie and tell people it's not true, it's to then rejoin with "this is why providing unemployment benefits is important, because capitalism can't provide everyone a job that allows them to make a decent living."

You're defending Nancy Pelosi? wow

This crowd does not love executions. It probably does love the idea of justice, like the death penalty for people who rape women, then set them on fire.

Also this crowd does not hate gay soldiers. It only hates stupid questions posed by gay soldiers.

I'm beginning to think you have an agenda.

But she's a glittering jewel compared to Joe Biden or Harry Reid.


You'd really prefer to listen to Nancy Pelosi or Janet Napolitano?


wow

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I need a million dollars. Can I just show my penis for a cool million?


Try Nancy Pelosi?

LOL. No, you're a racist if you actually intend to put one race over another, etc. If I joke about a friend of mine who can't dance and call him 'white', that's not racist. I don't believe that all white people suck at dancing. I'm sorry that's hard for you to understand. Plus, you also just contradicted yourself. Since he makes jokes about men, women, blacks, whites, I like him because he makes fun of people that I dislike? I have nothing against men, women, blacks, whites, etc. He's funny, and he's often insightful, even though I fundamentally disagree with him frequently. Did you not catch that I criticized him for characterizing all religious people as sexist?

BTW, I've laughed my butt off at Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi jokes. It's what grown ups are capable of doing - cognitive dissonance. I can fundamentally disagree with the point of the joke and still find the humor in it.

About Christians treating women with respect, it's sexist if you believe that women are delicate little flowers who must be treated with respect at all times, because their dainty little ears can't take but so much. Even if you don't beat them, cuss at them, etc., that's still sexist! If a women is supposed to always do as the husband says, that's sexist. Period. End of story. If you expect the wife to clean the house, cook the meals, etc. simply because she's the female of the couple, that's sexist.

Finally, Maher only takes shots at those least likely to fire back?! So taking shots at organized religion doesn't get immediate responses?! Taking shots at Palin doesn't get immediate responses?! Do you not pay attention at all?! I fundamentally disagree with Maher about organized religion, but I definitely would not call him a coward. He speaks his mind even when he knows he's gonna get blasted for saying it.

Your post, sir, is an example of what ideologues of your ilk do - fundamentally alter reality to fit your beliefs.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

If you actually think he's a a sexist, you need your head examined. Does he make stereotypical jokes about women? Yes. Blacks? Yes. Men? Yes. Whites? Yes. He's not a racist, and he's not a sexist.
I see - so people who makes jokes about other races aren't racists. Unless - of course - you disagree with them politically. Then everything they say is racist, right? Maher is a racist. He is a sexist. He is a bigot. He openly mocks the disabled. He insults children. But since he confines his bigotry to people YOU dislike (such a Palin) then that cleanses him of his sin, doesn't it? What a bunch of typical liberal hypocrisy. If someone on the right 'joked' about Hillary Clinton deserving to be raped would that be funny? How about if they said that Nancy Pelosi's kids were a bunch of inbred retards?
The reason he's going after Palin and Bachmann is because they're up in the GOP polls, and they have TERRIBLE ideas.
You're half right. Up in polls, but not terrible ideas. That is a matter of personal opinion. I say Obama and the Democrats have terrible ideas, but I don't go around joking about how their children are inbred retards, or how they should be gay-raped like Maher and his supposedly 'progressive' guests do.
And I'm sorry, but those who take the bible that literally are sexists. "Make me a sandwich" is just as sexist as "Make me a sandwich, because god said so". Get mad all you want, but he's right on that.
I have never met this particular breed of mysoginist Christian cat that Maher and his ilk serve up as a strawman to represent all the religious world. Such a person may exist somewhere, but they are such an infinitesimally tiny fraction of Christianity that they really may as well not exist in the context that is being used here. The vast majority of the Christian world treats women with respect, and even reverance. There are other religions that are far more likely to treat women like dirt. And yet - strangely - Maher gives those kinds of religions a pass and continually harps on the one religion that is LEAST likely to manifest the behavior he supposedly purports to condemn.
But of course - he doesn't REALLY condemn that sort of mysoginy as long as it is applied to people he hates like Palin or Bachman. What a total wart of a man.
Nevermind historically what they did. They're doing it now. Period.
No they're not. Not so much in the Christian world anyway. The type of mysoginy you speak of is confined to a tiny minority of out there cults and branches on the fringe end of Judeo-Christianity. As I said - the real culprits are elsewhither. And yet I find it telling that Maher, his fans, and most other neolib don't care jack that women are mistreated all over the planet in non-Christian nations.
No - like most neolibs, Maher and his ilk dare not raise a critical voice where it is REALLY needed. Instead they will only take shots at the least offensive targets that they know are unlikely to shoot back. Hypocrites AND cowards. Typical of liberalism and leftism as a whole, really.

If you actually think he's a a sexist, you need your head examined. Does he make stereotypical jokes about women? Yes. Blacks? Yes. Men? Yes. Whites? Yes. He's not a racist, and he's not a sexist.

I see - so people who makes jokes about other races aren't racists. Unless - of course - you disagree with them politically. Then everything they say is racist, right? Maher is a racist. He is a sexist. He is a bigot. He openly mocks the disabled. He insults children. But since he confines his bigotry to people YOU dislike (such a Palin) then that cleanses him of his sin, doesn't it? What a bunch of typical liberal hypocrisy. If someone on the right 'joked' about Hillary Clinton deserving to be raped would that be funny? How about if they said that Nancy Pelosi's kids were a bunch of inbred retards?

The reason he's going after Palin and Bachmann is because they're up in the GOP polls, and they have TERRIBLE ideas.

You're half right. Up in polls, but not terrible ideas. That is a matter of personal opinion. I say Obama and the Democrats have terrible ideas, but I don't go around joking about how their children are inbred retards, or how they should be gay-raped like Maher and his supposedly 'progressive' guests do.

And I'm sorry, but those who take the bible that literally are sexists. "Make me a sandwich" is just as sexist as "Make me a sandwich, because god said so". Get mad all you want, but he's right on that.

I have never met this particular breed of mysoginist Christian cat that Maher and his ilk serve up as a strawman to represent all the religious world. Such a person may exist somewhere, but they are such an infinitesimally tiny fraction of Christianity that they really may as well not exist in the context that is being used here. The vast majority of the Christian world treats women with respect, and even reverance. There are other religions that are far more likely to treat women like dirt. And yet - strangely - Maher gives those kinds of religions a pass and continually harps on the one religion that is LEAST likely to manifest the behavior he supposedly purports to condemn.

But of course - he doesn't REALLY condemn that sort of mysoginy as long as it is applied to people he hates like Palin or Bachman. What a total wart of a man.

Nevermind historically what they did. They're doing it now. Period.

No they're not. Not so much in the Christian world anyway. The type of mysoginy you speak of is confined to a tiny minority of out there cults and branches on the fringe end of Judeo-Christianity. As I said - the real culprits are elsewhither. And yet I find it telling that Maher, his fans, and most other neolib don't care jack that women are mistreated all over the planet in non-Christian nations.

No - like most neolibs, Maher and his ilk dare not raise a critical voice where it is REALLY needed. Instead they will only take shots at the least offensive targets that they know are unlikely to shoot back. Hypocrites AND cowards. Typical of liberalism and leftism as a whole, really.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You know even those numbers are lies, NR. For chrissakes, the liars switched from "jobs created" to "lives touched" late last year.

Hey, you're the one that put that article forward, not me.

I think it's impossible to actually track specific jobs created by the stimulus. You can make estimates based on theory, but that's not really evidence, either for or against.

What's a bit easier to measure is the overall employment trend. You'll love that these are Nancy Pelosi's charts, but they're based on BLS statistics (what the whole economic world uses as the source for data on employment, BTW).

Here's the chart of the recession through to May's jobs report (June's report will probably come out this week). The stimulus bill was passed in February of 2009. The trend changed immediately, with the job losses slowing, and then turning into gains.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Government jobs are not real jobs as they do not reflect market needs.

That's my point, the stimulus wasn't about creating "government" jobs, it was an attempt to reverse the unemployment trend in the private sector. Right now the biggest drag on the jobs reports coming out is job losses in the public sector.

Here's a chart showing the last year in the ongoing march of Obama's supposed socialist revival. Private sector jobs up, public sector jobs down.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Here's a RADICAL idea: let people keep more of their own money, across the board.

I know it was another thread, but that idea's been tried. Hell, it's still being done to a greater degree than it's been done since well before I was born. That idea has clearly and unambiguously been tried, and has utterly failed to produce anything like what Republicans from Reagan forward have claimed it would.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And lay off Herb Hoover, moonbats, he was an unwilling or ignorant ally of yours.
wiki:
<long quote about things FDR said on the campaign trail>

A couple paragraphs above that, you find a description of Hoover's actual policies:

Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. He was also a firm believer in balanced budgets, and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs.[45] However, Hoover did pursue many policies in an attempt to pull the country out of depression. In 1929, Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program to combat rampant unemployment, reduce the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs. The program was largely a forced migration of approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico, and continued until 1937. In June 1930, over the objection of many economists, Congress approved and Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The legislation raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.[46]

In 1931, Hoover issued the Hoover Moratorium, calling for a one-year halt in reparation payments by Germany to France and in the payment of Allied war debts to the United States. The plan was met with much opposition, especially from France, who saw significant losses to Germany during World War I. The Moratorium did little to ease economic declines. As the moratorium neared its expiration the following year, an attempt to find a permanent solution was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. A working compromise was never established, and by the start of World War II, reparations payments had stopped completely.[47][48] Hoover in 1931 urged the major banks in the country to form a consortium known as the National Credit Corporation (NCC).[49] The NCC was an example of Hoover's belief in volunteerism as a mechanism in aiding the economy. Hoover encouraged NCC member banks to provide loans to smaller banks to prevent them from collapsing. The banks within the NCC were often reluctant to provide loans, usually requiring banks to provide their largest assets as collateral. It quickly became apparent that the NCC would be incapable of fixing the problems it was designed to solve, and it was replaced by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

That all sounds very familiar to me as modern-day Republican policy proposals -- eschew direct assistance to the unemployed, try to boost employment by deporting Mexicans, attempt to defer interest payments on foreign debts, and ask banks to put in place their own policies to fix their own shortcomings rather than resort to regulation, and stick to preserving the gold standard at all costs. The only thing out of place is tariffs, but I've seen those mentioned from the conservative rank and file in discussions about what our response to China's ascendance should be.

In the election year of 1932, with unemployment at 25% and with people throwing things at his motorcade everywhere he went, he did start engaging in a little attempt at mortgage loan stabilization and fiscal stimulus, and they did seem to make a positive impact, but were too little too late, but they weren't policies that were the centerpiece of his administration, they were things he tried to do out of desperation.

It's also quite true that FDR in 1932 ran on a platform that included promises to balance the budget, but that's because it'd been the Democratic that had always been scolds on that topic up to that point. Besides, FDR was no student of Keynes; General Theory wasn't even published until 1936. I don't really know where the ideas for FDR's New Deal came from. I'm guessing just simple populism, and maybe some Keynesian influence amongst his economic advisers.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'radical homosexual agenda, barney frank, pelosi' to 'radical homosexual agenda, barney frank, nancy pelosi' - edited by xxovercastxx