3M to Change Health-Plan Options for Workers

[DBruleU]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859204575526953379583836.html

By JANET ADAMY

3M Co. confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor.

The changes won't start to phase in until 2013. But they show how companies are beginning to respond to the new law, which should make it easier for people in their 50s and early-60s to find affordable policies on their own. While thousands of employers are tapping new funds from the law to keep retiree plans, 3M illustrates that others may not opt to retain such plans over the next few years

The St. Paul, Minn., manufacturing conglomerate notified employees on Friday that it would change retiree benefits both for those who are too young to qualify for Medicare and for those who qualify for the Medicare program. Both groups will get an unspecified health reimbursement instead of having access to a company-sponsored health plan.

The maker of Post-it notes and Scotch tape said it made the announcement now to give retirees a chance to explore different options during this year's benefit-enrollment period, according to a 3M memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A 3M spokeswoman, Jacqueline Berry, confirmed the contents of the memo.

"As you know, the recently enacted health care reform law has fundamentally changed the health care insurance market," the memo said. "Health care options in the marketplace have improved, and readily available individual insurance plans in the Medicare marketplace provide benefits more tailored to retirees' personal needs often at lower costs than what they pay for retiree medical coverage through 3M.

"In addition, health care reform has made it more difficult for employers like 3M to provide a plan that will remain competitive," the memo said. The White House says retiree-only plans are largely exempt from new health insurance regulations under the law.

The company didn't specify how many workers would be impacted. It currently has 23,000 U.S. retirees.

Americans become eligible for the Medicare insurance program at age 65. Starting in 2015, 3M retirees too young to qualify for Medicare will receive financial support through what the company called a "health reimbursement arrangement" and won't be able to enroll in the company's group insurance plan. The company described that as an account retirees can use to purchase individual insurance through exchanges that the health law will create in 2014. 3M didn't provide details on the financial contributions.

Currently, these workers get credits they can use to buy the company's health plan offering medical, dental and prescription drug coverage, or they can elect to enroll in a health savings account. Such accounts typically provide employees with a contribution to help cover their health costs, and incentivize them to keep medical expenses low.

For those old enough to qualify for Medicare, 3M in 2013 will replace its current retiree medical program with a health reimbursement account, funded partly by the sponsor, that can be used to buy an individual Medicare plan. The federal government provides Medicare but enrollees pay a premium and can opt for privately run plans. Currently, these workers have had access to a reimbursement account that could be used to buy into the company's group health plan.

Democrats that crafted the legislation say they tried to incentivize companies to keep their retiree coverage intact, especially until 2014. The law creates a $5 billion fund for employers and unions to offset the cost of retiree health benefits. More than 2,000 entities, including many large public companies, have already been approved to submit claims for such reimbursement. 3M did not apply.

"We would certainly welcome their application," said Reid Cherlin, a spokesman for the White House. Ms. Berry, the 3M spokeswoman, said the company was monitoring the program and its requirements.

Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said that "for all the employees who were promised they'd be able to keep their current benefits after the health-care law passed, I'm worried that the recent changes we've heard about...are just the beginning."

[DBruleU]

http://quinnscommentary.com/2010/10/04/the-elimination-of-employer-based-health-care-coverage-begins-3m-leads-the-way-will-you-be-next-sorry-but-if-you-like-the-coverage-you-have-you-probably-will-not-be-able-to-keep-it/

The elimination of employer based health care coverage begins, 3M leads the way. Will you be next? Sorry, but if you like the coverage you have, you probably will not be able to keep it

4 Oct

Buried back in the “Marketplace” section of the October 4 issue of the Wall Street Journal, page B7 is an interesting article that all working Americans should note. The headline reads, “3M to Make Changes in Health Plans for Retirees, Workers”

Let me phrase that article differently, if you like the insurance you have you cannot keep it.

3M has opened the floodgates on the future elimination of health insurance coverage for millions of workers in direct response to the health care reform legislation. You can be sure that more employers will follow this lead.

In essence, 3M is doing away with its health plans for early retirees by 2015 and for retirees eligible for Medicare by 2013. The company plans are being replaced by a “health reimbursement arrangement”, or to put it another way, you get a fund from the company to spend on health insurance you buy on your own. In the case of early retirees, that means the new government sponsored exchanges, in the case of retirees eligible for Medicare it means go find your own Medicare supplement plan. When you hear the term defined contribution plan, start to worry.

Where the heck is that "exchange" anyway
The amount available for retirees in a health reimbursement arrangement is entirely up to the employer and unrelated to the actual cost of health care. In these arrangements the initial amount may be close to the company’s current cost for coverage, but as premiums rise the employer is more likely to either not increase its contribution, or to increase it at a far less rate than health care inflation. The other common method is simply to place a lump sum amount into the reimbursement account for the retiree and when it is gone, it is gone.

Employers who make this change not only are responding to the enactment of PPACA and its many uncertainties, but also taking advantage of it because it presents an opportunity for them to reduce or eliminate their retiree medical liability, a huge accounting expense on the books of any employer offering retiree medical benefits. With the passage of PPACA, CFOs see the possibility to reduce the expense for retiree coverage and bump up their earnings per share a few cents in the process. Do not underestimate the influence of this incentive.

Americans should ask; if employers will cut retiree coverage to cope with health care reform, will they do the same thing for active employees? You bet your sweet butt they will.

This incentive for employers to drop coverage may have been part of the grand design of health care reform, what better way to gradually move more and more Americans into a government-run program? All that needs to be done is to get the employer out-of-the-way. What better way to do that than increase the employers costs, increase administrative complexity, inundate them with regulations and provide as safety valve to make it easier for the employer to get out of the business of health benefits.

By gosh, there is joy in Mudville today!

Policymakers may not be as smart as they think. Along with the elimination of employer coverage comes millions more Americans eligible for the government a subsidy within the new health insurance exchanges. Golly, gee does that mean more government expense?

In addition, for those who say that employers are only in the business of health benefits because of a turn of events during WWII and should leave workers to choose their own coverage, consider this. There are 70 million Americans covered for health care through self-insured employer health benefits plans. These Americans were never subject to the “abuses” of health insurance, they have good coverage and they have someone in their corner when things go wrong and they need help. They have someone looking out for their costs and in many cases their health care. They receive accurate and complete communication about their benefits. They can call an employer representative to resolve problems, they can negotiate and trade wages for health benefits and so much more that goes with employer based coverage. This all goes away when employers drop their sponsorship of health benefits. Workers cut lose to join an exchange plan truly will be on their own.

You may be for or against health care reform as it exists today, but you cannot argue with two facts. Millions of Americans will see their current health benefits changed dramatically or eliminated. Moreover, health care costs regardless of the source of health care coverage are not being controlled and will continue to rise as rates far above general inflation.

[Pony Boy]

But wait, all you have to say is "no thank you" I like my current Doctor and my current health care plan and I want to keep it........... right? Obama said so.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1LRcLMScEqo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1LRcLMScEqo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[DBruleU]

Pretty silent around here.

Obama - My avatar stands correct.

[barryr]

But, but, but Obama said nothing would change for those that liked their healthcare. Idiots who believed that nonsense.

[That One Guy]

The article did a good job though on painting it as a decision because there were so many other good options out there and then slipping a 'Because of the bill, they can't stay competitive' in there.

[chadta]

you guys screwed up huge, now that healthcare is gonna be "free" youll have all the left wing loons going to the ER for a sneeze, just like weve got up here in canada, hello wait times.

they said on the radio the other day that wait times at a major toronto hospital have risen to an unacceptable high of 10.3 hours, apparently less than 10 hours in ok.

this is what you have in your future look up the RAND HIE

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

3M Co. confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees...



I would think you would be pleased as punch about this.

After all, this is the kind of thing that gives republicans a boner.

If the guy in the WH had an 'R' after his name and a lighter complexion, I'm sure you'd be giving him mad props for this.

[That One Guy]

you guys screwed up huge, now that healthcare is gonna be "free" youll have all the left wing loons going to the ER for a sneeze, just like weve got up here in canada, hello wait times.

they said on the radio the other day that wait times at a major toronto hospital have risen to an unacceptable high of 10.3 hours, apparently less than 10 hours in ok.

this is what you have in your future look up the RAND HIE

I've seen it through the military. There's also doctors who want to get you out the door faster than people are coming in, facilities where the workers treat you as another crybaby unless you have a bone showing through, etc. Also, if they do X-Rays or anything of the sort and an issue isn't immediately apparent, you're just another crybaby and you get tossed in the pile.

I really hope they find a way to differentiate on severity and issues like colds or the flu are seen at clinics and whatnot. Tying up actual hospitals with seasonal illnesses, essentially untreatable issues like arthritis, etc will be a huge issue when the time comes.

[That One Guy]

I would think you would be pleased as punch about this.

After all, this is the kind of thing that gives republicans a boner.

If the guy in the WH had an 'R' after his name and a lighter complexion, I'm sure you'd be giving him mad props for this.

The guy in the White House almost could have an R after his name if he'd just decided to join a different club.

You consistently trying to take shots at the Rs while everyone readily admits Obama has pretty much been more of the same is quite comical.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The guy in the White House almost could have an R after his name if he'd just decided to join a different club.

You consistently trying to take shots at the Rs while everyone readily admits Obama has pretty much been more of the same is quite comical.

What's "comical" is that you're oblivious to the fact that I'm one of the people you just described!

Have been since before the election, in fact. :wave:

[That One Guy]

What's "comical" is that you're oblivious to the fact that I'm one of the people you just described!

Have been since before the election, in fact. :wave:

No, I was aware of that. Just saying any shots you're taking at Rs then you're also taking at Ds. So, in essence, you're trying to attack the Rs for the same things both parties are doing.

Where's the sense in that?

[Smiling Assassin27]

Get used to it. More companies will be doing the same thing when they realize that the 'incentive' in Obamacare doesn't offset the additional cost of providing health insurance. The alternative is dumping them all into the government exchanges, which is, given Obamacare's current provisions, the more cost effective option. The net effect is that the promise by Obama that you'll be able to keep your current coverage will be proven as just another lie.

On health care, I can only laugh at those who rip the Republicans for opposing the Obamacare legislation because there was also a substantial number of Dems who opposed it as well. This was a bipartisan opposition but many here just choose to ignore that.

[ghwk]

This actually has little to do with Obamacare. Companies are looking for any excuse to improve their books and get out of 50's style pension plan and medical obligations. This is just an excuse to do it. Nobody is forcing 3M to change their plan, they could choose to allocate the funds if they wanted to but they don't and it's easy to blame someone else for it. You guys are fools if you don't think these companies think any differently.

[ghwk]

Get used to it. More companies will be doing the same thing when they realize that the 'incentive' in Obamacare doesn't offset the additional cost of providing health insurance. The alternative is dumping them all into the government exchanges, which is, given Obamacare's current provisions, the more cost effective option. The net effect is that the promise by Obama that you'll be able to keep your current coverage will be proven as just another lie.

On health care, I can only laugh at those who rip the Republicans for opposing the Obamacare legislation because there was also a substantial number of Dems who opposed it as well. This was a bipartisan opposition but many here just choose to ignore that.

Very few here would say this is a great bill that accomplished what most people wanted, lower health care costs, so please don't paint Democrats with that broad brush. To say the republicans brought anything worthwhile to the table is a joke as well. Don't forget it could have been fixed in the prior 8 years but it never even got a look from the republicans, instead we got a monumental money sucking drug plan.

[Spider]

This actually has little to do with Obamacare. Companies are looking for any excuse to improve their books and get out of 50's style pension plan and medical obligations. This is just an excuse to do it. Nobody is forcing 3M to change their plan, they could choose to allocate the funds if they wanted to but they don't and it's easy to blame someone else for it. You guys are fools if you don't think these companies think any differently.

LOL . got to admit though , the bedwetters were havin fun in this thread ......

[bronclvr]

This actually has little to do with Obamacare. Companies are looking for any excuse to improve their books and get out of 50's style pension plan and medical obligations. This is just an excuse to do it. Nobody is forcing 3M to change their plan, they could choose to allocate the funds if they wanted to but they don't and it's easy to blame someone else for it. You guys are fools if you don't think these companies think any differently.

You don't really believe this do you?

[ghwk]

You don't really believe this do you?

I've worked at executive levels in large companies my entire career and know the burden of health care and pensions they face. So yes I not only believe it I know it. Am I saying EVERY company would like to eliminate these costs? No. But if the pension/health care model of the 50's was so great why don't you see more companies offering them rather than eliminating them or transferring the cost to the employee? This started long before Obama was elected.

So I ask you , you don''t really believe it's not true do you?

[Smiling Assassin27]

This actually has little to do with Obamacare. Companies are looking for any excuse to improve their books and get out of 50's style pension plan and medical obligations. This is just an excuse to do it. Nobody is forcing 3M to change their plan, they could choose to allocate the funds if they wanted to but they don't and it's easy to blame someone else for it. You guys are fools if you don't think these companies think any differently.

If you're gonna make that assertion, maybe you can provide a shred of evidence. In business, it's a matter of profit for stockholders, which is often a function of lower cost to produce more. The reason they don't 'allocate funds' is because they are accountable to stockholders and because there is NOT an unlimited amount of 'funds' to allocate. It's an investment in the ability to produce more for less in the future, simple economics. When the government implemented this, it overstepped its bounds and did it in a poorly planned, corrupt, and excessive manner. The unintended consequences (though many believe this is EXACTLY what the government intended in its quest to get to single payer) is that businesses who employ people, insure people, and produce goods and services are resisting in the only way given to them. It's a reflection of the pi$$ poor plan the government implemented, not a reflection of business.

[bronclvr]

I've worked at executive levels in large companies my entire career and know the burden of health care and pensions they face. So yes I not only believe it I know it. Am I saying EVERY company would like to eliminate these costs? No. But if the pension/health care model of the 50's was so great why don't you see more companies offering them rather than eliminating them or transferring the cost to the employee? This started long before Obama was elected.

So I ask you , you don''t really believe it's not true do you?

I can believe that they would LOVE to drop them, yes-is this a reason to do so? Yes. Will they ultimately do it? I think if all of the Companies who are posturing actually band together and make this change it might, however Employee retention is also in the balance. Other than that I think your assertion is a great story.

Acceptable profit levels are driving all of this in my opinion, although your idea does make some sense-

[ghwk]

Again businesses were starting to do this before the plan. The plan provided additional incentive. In business it isn't just a matter of accountability to stockholders there is accountability to the employees and public at large as well.

[ghwk]

I can believe that they would LOVE to drop them, yes-is this a reason to do so? Yes. Will they ultimately do it? I think if all of the Companies who are posturing actually band together and make this change it might, however Employee retention is also in the balance. Other than that I think your assertion is a great story.

Acceptable profit levels are driving all of this in my opinion, although your idea does make some sense-

FWIW you are right about employee retention it is also a factor. I can say though that due to the stagnant economy, wage freezes or minimimal pay increases, (except for those at executive levels of course, it was announced today that the CEO of Clorox only got a 9.7% raise last year to make 8.5 million), that many mid level and front line employees will jump ship as soon as the economy comes back and people start hiring again. Retention will be an intereresting problem.

[Spider]

Back in 2006 , my company was looking into Healthcare , Boss said , Spider we need something to offer so we can get better drivers , I missed the 5 grand bonus by 2 k $$ ( trucks that cleared 55 k a month Drivers got a 5 k bonus for the month ) so we went looking for benefit packages , Dan said I need 4 more drivers like you to get over the hump and become big ..Well after months of looking we couldnt come up with anything ........ So I guess we can and should blame Obama , Griese , McD for Trading Hillis , and Dan Reeves for Drafting Maddox for that .....

[cutthemdown]

Dems!!! get ready for a beatdown. The repub/tea party resurgence is about to take place.

I know tons of dems in Long Beach ready to vote for Whitman, Star for congress, and Fiorna for senate. All because they hate Brown and Boxer.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, I was aware of that. Just saying any shots you're taking at Rs then you're also taking at Ds. So, in essence, you're trying to attack the Rs for the same things both parties are doing.

Where's the sense in that?

You obviously missed my point, i.e., that the ruthugs on this thread would be defending 3M's move instead of criticizing it if there was a repuke in the WH.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dems!!! get ready for a beatdown. The repub/tea party resurgence is about to take place.

I know tons of dems in Long Beach ready to vote for Whitman, Star for congress, and Fiorna for senate. All because they hate Brown and Boxer.

Ha!

Um, aren't all those candidates trailing in the polls?

[ghwk]

Dems!!! get ready for a beatdown. The repub/tea party resurgence is about to take place.

I know tons of dems in Long Beach ready to vote for Whitman, Star for congress, and Fiorna for senate. All because they hate Brown and Boxer.

Too bad the polls don't support that outcome at the moment. I literally like none of these options. Whitman is trying to buy an election and has proven over and over that unless you are in the billionaires club you are a little person worthy of contempt the minute you get in her way or piss her off somehow. Brown won't do enough to go after the union benefits and I trust neither of them to funnel more money into education which is what I'd like to see happen. I like Whitmans stance on immigration better. I am more optomistic that Brown may be able to actually navigate that crap pot of politicians known as Sacramento and get something done.

In the end though they will be just as stymied as every other governer has been due to lobbyists on both sides and having to pander to special interests to get elected regardless of who they are.

[cutthemdown]

It's true they may squeek out victories but for it to even be close in Calif means in other states they will get hammered. That's more my point.

No way Jerry Brown wins. That happens and Calif is screwed.

[cutthemdown]

I shudder to think of the state ran by Brown. Also another term of Boxer is frightening. Fienstien i can tolerate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No way Jerry Brown wins. That happens and right-wingers in Calif are screwed.

Fixed. :thumbs:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In reading the following, you can see why "save the billionaires" types like cutthemdown hate Brown...

Brown was elected Governor in 1974 and reelected in 1978, by over one million votes.
http://www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/jerrybrown_1974.jpg
During Governor Brown’s tenure, California significantly reduced taxes and built up the largest state surplus ever. His eight years in office are generally considered among the most innovative in California history. He established the first agricultural labor relations law in the country, enacted collective bargaining for teachers and other public employees, started the California Conservation Corp (CCC), signed into permanent law the California Coastal Protection Act, earned federal protection of Northern California wild and scenic rivers, brought about the country's first building and appliance energy efficiency standards and made California the leader in solar and alternative energy.
Brown appointed more women, Asians, Latinos and African-Americans to high government positions than any other chief executive.
http://www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/jerrybrown_1975.jpg
He also created the nation’s first Wellness Commission, the Office of Appropriate Technology, the Native American Heritage Preservation Commission and the California Commission on Industrial Innovation. As president of the University of California Regents, Brown successfully sponsored the establishment of the prestigious Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. Brown legalized the practice of Acupuncture and strongly supported the rights of chiropractors, osteopaths and lay midwives. He also significantly expanded apprenticeship programs and created the California Worksite Education and Training Act (CWETA). He mandated every high school district to establish clear graduation standards and successfully fought for increased math and science requirements for both the California State University and University of California systems.
http://www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/jerrybrown_1980.jpg
In the field of crime fighting, Brown enacted hundreds of tough anti-crime measures, including the “Use A Gun Go To Prison” Law and mandatory sentences for rape, sale of heroin, violent crimes against the elderly, child molestation and selling PCP. He established and funded the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, the Career Criminal Apprehension Program and the Crime Resistance Task Force. As a result, the percentage of convicted felons who were sent to state prison increased 100% during his governorship. Recidivism (parolees returning to prison) was a fraction of what it is today. Finally, Brown restructured the California Arts Commission so that it was composed of practicing artists and increased funding by 1300%.

[Taco John]

The free market solution to the problem of government run insurance is going to be doctors who simply refuse to take insurance as a method of payment, and go cash only. These doctors will have to be cheaper than what government run insurance would pay because they will be eliminating the middle man, but these clinics will become very popular. Eventually, the government or insurance companies will sue them for refusing their patients. Just like all social schemes, when people choose to opt out and go with the free market solution, the government loses control and has to bring them to their knees and comply.

[BroncoLifer]

He established the first agricultural labor relations law in the country, enacted collective bargaining for teachers and other public employees.

And how is that working out for California now?

[BroncoInferno]

The free market solution to the problem of government run insurance is going to be doctors who simply refuse to take insurance as a method of payment, and go cash only. These doctors will have to be cheaper than what government run insurance would pay because they will be eliminating the middle man, but these clinics will become very popular. Eventually, the government or insurance companies will sue them for refusing their patients. Just like all social schemes, when people choose to opt out and go with the free market solution, the government loses control and has to bring them to their knees and comply.

Got the Dolorian up to 88 mph again, I see Ha!

The "free market solution" we've gotten from health care has been exploding costs, denying folks coverage due to preexisting conditions, and dropping folks from coverage when they get seriously ill and need it. Yeah, let's have some more of that Uhh

[Mr.Meanie]

The free market solution to the problem of government run insurance is going to be doctors who simply refuse to take insurance as a method of payment, and go cash only. These doctors will have to be cheaper than what government run insurance would pay because they will be eliminating the middle man, but these clinics will become very popular. Eventually, the government or insurance companies will sue them for refusing their patients. Just like all social schemes, when people choose to opt out and go with the free market solution, the government loses control and has to bring them to their knees and comply.

Why would a doctor do that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And how is that working out for California now?

News flash: CA has elected a few more governors since Brown left office. :wave:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Got the Dolorian up to 88 mph again, I see Ha!

The "free market solution" we've gotten from health care has been exploding costs, denying folks coverage due to preexisting conditions, and dropping folks from coverage when they get seriously ill and need it. Yeah, let's have some more of that Uhh

Insane how people continue to be hoodwinked into voting against their own interests in this way, isn't it?

[elsid13]

The free market solution to the problem of government run insurance is going to be doctors who simply refuse to take insurance as a method of payment, and go cash only. These doctors will have to be cheaper than what government run insurance would pay because they will be eliminating the middle man, but these clinics will become very popular. Eventually, the government or insurance companies will sue them for refusing their patients. Just like all social schemes, when people choose to opt out and go with the free market solution, the government loses control and has to bring them to their knees and comply.

You do realize that no doctor is going to do that right? They will lose patient because the immediate out of pocket expense will be so high that they won't be able to pay and no doctor is going to want to be set up a payment plan that he/she would have to have overhead department for tracking and collection.

[Pony Boy]

Why would a doctor do that?

A lot of Doctors are already doing this, they will ask you to fill out a questionnaire and depending on the information they will tell you they are not taking any new patients at this time. This is due to the fact that insurance companies and Medicare are telling doctors how much they will pay for services preformed by the doctor. If you have the right type of insurance (cadillac coverage) or you pay cash, then a spot will suddenly open up for you. Yes this will get worse under Obama care...

[Pony Boy]

You do realize that no doctor is going to do that right? They will lose patient because the immediate out of pocket expense will be so high that they won't be able to pay and no doctor is going to want to be set up a payment plan that he/she would have to have overhead department for tracking and collection.

Local doctors' actions reflect nationwide trend

What primary care doctors are doing in the Prescott area reflects what primary care doctors are doing across the country.

They are:
• Retiring.
• Changing careers.
• Not taking new patients.
• Converting to cash-only practices.
• Refusing to accept new Medicare patients or dumping them when they reach a certain age or, in at least one case, opting out of the Medicare payment system altogether.

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=74&SubSectionID=669&ArticleID=54733

[barryr]

People complain about healthcare, but wait until Obamacare is fully operational. What a horrid, stupid plan it is and nobody in Congress can even tell you what all is in it either.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

People complain about healthcare, but wait until Obamacare is fully operational. What a horrid, stupid plan it is and nobody in Congress can even tell you what all is in it either.

By contrast, your party did SO much to address the problem during the eight years they were in power.

Oh, wait.... :spit:

[ghwk]

Local doctors' actions reflect nationwide trend

What primary care doctors are doing in the Prescott area reflects what primary care doctors are doing across the country.

They are:
• Retiring.
• Changing careers.
• Not taking new patients.
• Converting to cash-only practices.
• Refusing to accept new Medicare patients or dumping them when they reach a certain age or, in at least one case, opting out of the Medicare payment system altogether.

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=74&SubSectionID=669&ArticleID=54733

You realize absolutely none of this is related to Obamacare right? This has been a trend for a decade because the insurers are such a fcking pain in the a$$ for doctors to deal with. Their amount of paperwork has quadroupled, the billing errors are constant and the amount of admin time that is consumed just trying to get a claim right is incredible, insurers controlling patient pools and negotiating rates of care for doctors took the fun and profit out of it over a decade ago.

[JJJ]

In reading the following, you can see why "save the billionaires" types like cutthemdown hate Brown...

Brown was elected Governor in 1974 and reelected in 1978, by over one million votes.
http://www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/jerrybrown_1974.jpg
During Governor Brown’s tenure, California significantly reduced taxes and built up the largest state surplus ever. His eight years in office are generally considered among the most innovative in California history. He established the first agricultural labor relations law in the country, enacted collective bargaining for teachers and other public employees, started the California Conservation Corp (CCC), signed into permanent law the California Coastal Protection Act, earned federal protection of Northern California wild and scenic rivers, brought about the country's first building and appliance energy efficiency standards and made California the leader in solar and alternative energy.
Brown appointed more women, Asians, Latinos and African-Americans to high government positions than any other chief executive.
http://www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/jerrybrown_1975.jpg
He also created the nation’s first Wellness Commission, the Office of Appropriate Technology, the Native American Heritage Preservation Commission and the California Commission on Industrial Innovation. As president of the University of California Regents, Brown successfully sponsored the establishment of the prestigious Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. Brown legalized the practice of Acupuncture and strongly supported the rights of chiropractors, osteopaths and lay midwives. He also significantly expanded apprenticeship programs and created the California Worksite Education and Training Act (CWETA). He mandated every high school district to establish clear graduation standards and successfully fought for increased math and science requirements for both the California State University and University of California systems.
http://www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/jerrybrown_1980.jpg
In the field of crime fighting, Brown enacted hundreds of tough anti-crime measures, including the “Use A Gun Go To Prison” Law and mandatory sentences for rape, sale of heroin, violent crimes against the elderly, child molestation and selling PCP. He established and funded the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, the Career Criminal Apprehension Program and the Crime Resistance Task Force. As a result, the percentage of convicted felons who were sent to state prison increased 100% during his governorship. Recidivism (parolees returning to prison) was a fraction of what it is today. Finally, Brown restructured the California Arts Commission so that it was composed of practicing artists and increased funding by 1300%.

Aren't you the one who says this is impossible? You can't cut taxes and lower the deficit at the same time? Right, isn't that your endless tireless argument?

And by the way being the leader in solar technology 50 years before it becomes economically viable doesn't sound like something I would brag about.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Aren't you the one who says this is impossible? You can't cut taxes and lower the deficit at the same time? Right, isn't that your endless tireless argument?

Cut taxes on whom?

You might want to make that distinction before you spend more time setting up your straw man here.

And by the way being the leader in solar technology 50 years before it becomes economically viable doesn't sound like something I would brag about.

So a good idea isn't a good idea until it becomes economically viable (regardless of how long that might take?)

Brilliant! :mullet1:

[JJJ]

Cut taxes on whom?

You might want to make that distinction before you spend more time setting up your straw man here.

So a good idea isn't a good idea until it becomes economically viable (regardless of how long that might take?)

Brilliant! :mullet1:

Please do the entire board a favor and lose your affection for the words "straw man". You pull it out everytime you have no logical counterargument.

California primarily cut property taxes through proposition 13. This of course is cutting a tax that primarily aides the rich as you have to obviously own a home to have property taxes. This was basically a tax cut aiding only the upper 50% of wage earners as a result. That whoosing sound is your straw man claim catching fire.

Since this was a proposition voted on directly by the voters Brown actually had nothing to do with it and to say he cut taxes is a bit disingenuous in the first place. He actually opposed prop 13.

He was able to achieve the surplus by cutting spending, big time, and for that he gets tons of credit. If there were more democrats that fiscally conservative there would be very few arguments on this board.

Spending government money on inefficient technology to create a false marketplace though is indeed a dumb idea. The research univerisities could have better used the money.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Please do the entire board a favor and lose your affection for the words "straw man". You pull it out everytime(sic) you have no logical counterargument.

I'll make you a deal - when you and your fellow right-wing disinfo slingers stop using straw man arguments, I'll stop pointing them out.


California primarily cut property taxes through proposition 13. This of course is cutting a tax that primarily aides the rich as you have to obviously own a home to have property taxes. This was basically a tax cut aiding only the upper 50% of wage earners as a result. That whoosing(sic) sound is your straw man claim catching fire.

Ha!

Now you're trying to claim that only rich people own homes?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised - you regularly make the absurd claim that people who make $30K per year pay no taxes. Ha!


He was able to achieve the surplus by cutting spending, big time, and for that he gets tons of credit. If there were more democrats that fiscally conservative there would be very few arguments on this board.

Ah, but you didn't mention anything about spending cuts in your argument - you simply suggested a causal connection between cutting taxes and lowering deficits.

Spending government money on inefficient technology to create a false marketplace though is indeed a dumb idea. The research univerisities(sic) could have better used the money.

You're calling solar energy "inefficient technology?" ROFL!

In any event, it beats spending government money on subsidies and other giveaways to your oil company buddies.

[Taco John]

Got the Dolorian up to 88 mph again, I see Ha!

The "free market solution" we've gotten from health care has been exploding costs, denying folks coverage due to preexisting conditions, and dropping folks from coverage when they get seriously ill and need it. Yeah, let's have some more of that Uhh


We haven't really seen a free market solution in healthcare, so I'm not sure what you mean. HMO's are a government creation, passed in 1973. They're certainly not a free market solution. It was the same story then as it is now. The government promoted the idea that their intervention in the market would create "affordable healthcare for all." We all know what has happened to the price of healthcare since the introduction of HMOs.

It's amazing to me that you are programmed to blame the free market for this problem, when there's been no free market in this arena since before 1942 when government started discouraging individuals from buying health insurance by subsidizing employers who provided health care, but not individuals. They pushed everyone towards workplace insurance coverage, while removing the power of the individual in the process. It's been downhill ever since.

You should research the history of HMOs. You might learn something about how government intervention has led us where we are today, including the Savings and Loan scandal.

[TailgateNut]

A lot of Doctors are already doing this, they will ask you to fill out a questionnaire and depending on the information they will tell you they are not taking any new patients at this time. This is due to the fact that insurance companies and Medicare are telling doctors how much they will pay for services preformed by the doctor. If you have the right type of insurance (cadillac coverage) or you pay cash, then a spot will suddenly open up for you. Yes this will get worse under Obama care...

As if this wasn't protocol prior to "obamacare". What a ****ing tool!

[Pony Boy]

As if this wasn't protocol prior to "obamacare". What a ****ing tool!

What did you do get up early to relieve the pressure on your prostrate and not get all the sleep rubbed out your eyes.......read the post again moron, I said this will only get worse under Obama care.....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As if this wasn't protocol prior to "obamacare". What a ****ing tool!

He has no choice but to trade in half-truths and outright lies: After all, he knows he can't fall back on his own party's record on health care.

[Garcia Bronco]

You realize absolutely none of this is related to Obamacare right? This has been a trend for a decade because the insurers are such a fcking pain in the a$$ for doctors to deal with.

Yeah and that insurers name is Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare and medicaid are the biggest insurers in the US and deny the most claims and pay what ever the hell they want.

[JJJ]

Now you're trying to claim that only rich people own homes?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised - you regularly make the absurd claim that people who make $30K per year pay no taxes. Ha!



Ah, but you didn't mention anything about spending cuts in your argument - you simply suggested a causal connection between cutting taxes and lowering deficits.

You're calling solar energy "inefficient technology?" ROFL!

In any event, it beats spending government money on subsidies and other giveaways to your oil company buddies.

Wow, just wow.

Did I say only rich people? It is pretty obvious to everyone except you that homes are predominately owned by the rich versus the poor. Surely even a rube could understand this simple fact.

And guess what, if a poor guy did own a home he definitely would not be paying any taxes due to the interest deduction.

27301

Inefficient enough for you? Without government subsidies there would be no solar panel industry.

http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow, just wow.

Did I say only rich people? It is pretty obvious to everyone except you that homes are predominately owned by the rich versus the poor. Surely even a rube could understand this simple fact.


Yet you can't even understand the simple fact that you're leaving spending cuts out of your equation (as I already mentioned.)

You conveniently ignored those in your attempt to sell your usual "see? we can cut taxes and lower deficits at the same time" snake oil.


Without government subsidies there would be no solar panel industry.


Yet you have no problem with enormous government subsidies and corporate welfare bestowed upon your oil industry pals.

Double standard much?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The top 400: Income way up and taxes way, way down. (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/02/17/top400/index.html)

A new IRS report on the richest 400 taxpayers shows their income rose an average of $81 million -- in a single year (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/02/17/top400/index.html)

[JJJ]

Yet you can't even understand the simple fact that you're leaving spending cuts out of your equation (as I already mentioned.)

You conveniently ignored those in your attempt to sell your usual "see? we can cut taxes and lower deficits at the same time" snake oil.

Yet you have no problem with enormous government subsidies and corporate welfare bestowed upon your oil industry pals.

Double standard much?

I didn't leave out anything. I simply pointed out the fact, as evidenced during the Brown governship, that you can lower taxes and lower the deficits at the same time. Cutting taxes will stimulate private spending growth and cutting spending will reduce the outflows. Exactly what I think we should be doing now.

I was actually the one who brought up the fact Brown cut spending, not you, so I left out nothing.

In regards to solar a simple "yes JJJ you are correct solar is an inefficient energy source" would be preferred.

As to your mud flinging regarding the oil companies:

May 2, 2008

Record Taxes Paid before Record Oil Profits
by Scott A. Hodge

ExxonMobil's recent announcement of first quarter profits of $10.9 billion has prompted the predictable political demagoguery about "obscene" profits and the need for a new windfall profits tax. Exxon does not need our help to defend itself against such charges but I remain amazed that none of the major news outlets have highlighted the fact that these are net profits, meaning profits after taxes.

If reporters were to dig just a bit deeper into the company's earnings statement they would find that Exxon—like all the major domestic oil companies—directly pays or remits a staggering amount of taxes to governments both here and abroad. Before taxes, Exxon had income of $20 billion on total world-wide revenue of $116 billion. Its earnings statement shows that the company paid $9.3 billion in income taxes to governments here and abroad. This amounts to an effective tax rate of more than 46 percent, 10 percentage points higher than the U.S. statutory rate of 35 percent.

In addition to income taxes, the table below shows that Exxon paid or remitted $20 billion in various sales taxes, excise taxes, severance taxes, and property taxes. This brings the total amount of taxes the company paid or remitted to $29.3 billion, nearly three times the net profits it earned for shareholders.
The financial statements of two other large U.S.-based oil companies, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco, show similar large tax payments. Indeed, these three companies paid or remitted a combined $47.8 billion in taxes in the first quarter of 2008, nearly $28 billion more than they earned in net profits.

Of course, these firms are multinational so many of these taxes are paid to foreign governments not just to Uncle Sam. But the point critics and the media need to recognize is that governments in general are bigger beneficiaries of oil industry sales than are shareholders.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23178.html

There is an error in their table, Exxon paid and effective rate of 46% as mentioned in the article not 6%.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I didn't leave out anything. I simply pointed out the fact, as evidenced during the Brown governship, that you can lower taxes and lower the deficits at the same time.

Yes, you did - you left out the spending cuts and didn't factor those into your argument re: lower deficits.


Cutting taxes will stimulate private spending growth and cutting spending will reduce the outflows. Exactly what I think we should be doing now.


Are you kidding me?

How many times do you have to watch that theory get shot down in flames by reality before you wake up?

If you are talking about cutting taxes on people who are going to spend money, then you're right - but not if you're talking about cutting taxes on people who sit by the pool all day waiting for that capital gains check.

[JJJ]

Yes, you did - you left out the spending cuts and didn't factor those into your argument re: lower deficits.

Are you kidding me?

How many times do you have to watch that theory get shot down in flames by reality before you wake up?

If you are talking about cutting taxes on people who are going to spend money, then you're right - but not if you're talking about cutting taxes on people who sit by the pool all day waiting for that capital gains check.

You only need to go back one page to see that you are a total liar.

At least you have swallowed the fact the oil companies pay an enormous amount of taxes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You only need to go back one page to see that you are a total liar.

So you said Brown lowered deficits by cutting taxes and spending?

Where?

At least you have swallowed the fact the oil companies pay an enormous amount of taxes.

I have?

When did this happen?

[JJJ]

So you said Brown lowered deficits by cutting taxes and spending?

Where?

Here is my post nimrod

Please do the entire board a favor and lose your affection for the words "straw man". You pull it out everytime you have no logical counterargument.

California primarily cut property taxes through proposition 13. This of course is cutting a tax that primarily aides the rich as you have to obviously own a home to have property taxes. This was basically a tax cut aiding only the upper 50% of wage earners as a result. That whoosing sound is your straw man claim catching fire.

Since this was a proposition voted on directly by the voters Brown actually had nothing to do with it and to say he cut taxes is a bit disingenuous in the first place. He actually opposed prop 13.

He was able to achieve the surplus by cutting spending, big time, and for that he gets tons of credit. If there were more democrats that fiscally conservative there would be very few arguments on this board.

Spending government money on inefficient technology to create a false marketplace though is indeed a dumb idea. The research univerisities could have better used the money.
I have?

When did this happen?

Your nonanswer when presented the fact the oil companies are paying about 46% tax rates was all I needed to hear.

[DenverBrit]

A lot of Doctors are already doing this, they will ask you to fill out a questionnaire and depending on the information they will tell you they are not taking any new patients at this time. This is due to the fact that insurance companies and Medicare are telling doctors how much they will pay for services preformed by the doctor. If you have the right type of insurance (cadillac coverage) or you pay cash, then a spot will suddenly open up for you. Yes this will get worse under Obama care...

A specialist that I use stopped taking insurance when Bush was in office.

He went from an office of five support staff to one.
Why? Because he was tired of dealing with the multiple insurance companies who drag their feet paying his invoices and discount the value of his services.
He saved his practice and is far more efficient as a result of not having to deal with the insurance industry.
I pay $140 per visit and have the option to get reimbursed by my insurance if I want to go through the the paperwork maze.

[cutthemdown]

A specialist that I use stopped taking insurance when Bush was in office.

He went from an office of five support staff to one.
Why? Because he was tired of dealing with the multiple insurance companies who drag their feet paying his invoices and discount the value of his services.
He saved his practice and is far more efficient as a result of not having to deal with the insurance industry.
I pay $140 per visit and have the option to get reimbursed by my insurance if I want to go through the the paperwork maze.

Uh can you say pain in the ass.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your nonanswer when presented the fact the oil companies are paying about 46% tax rates was all I needed to hear.

I didn't answer because my jaw was on the floor after reading something so delusional and patently false.

Even if your numbers were correct, those same oil companies posted record profits while their guys were in the WH. One record for one quarter (Exxon-Mobil, I believe) was the greatest profit recorded by any company in the history of the world.

These companies, by their own CEOs admissions in some cases, are swimming in more surplus cash than they could possibly spend in two lifetimes.

Dim Son claimed that giving these companies tax cuts would create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Just the opposite happened.

The really nutty part was people like you saying "thank you sir - may I have another?" while Bush's Big Oil donors and their shareholders were siphoning the cash out of your wallets.

[JJJ]

I didn't answer because my jaw was on the floor after reading something so delusional and patently false.

Even if your numbers were correct, those same oil companies posted record profits while their guys were in the WH. One record for one quarter (Exxon-Mobil, I believe) was the greatest profit recorded by any company in the history of the world.

These companies, by their own CEOs admissions in some cases, are swimming in more surplus cash than they could possibly spend in two lifetimes.

Dim Son claimed that giving these companies tax cuts would create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Just the opposite happened.

The really nutty part was people like you saying "thank you sir - may I have another?" while Bush's Big Oil donors and their shareholders were siphoning the cash out of your wallets.

I understand. Cold hard facts do seem to have that affect on you.

At least we won't have to hear you railing against the oil companies not paying taxes anymore around here.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I understand. Cold hard facts do seem to have that affect on you.

Apparently, you wouldn't know a cold hard fact if it jumped in your lap and called you "daddy."

At least we won't have to hear you railing against the oil companies not paying taxes anymore around here.

I know we can count on hearing you rail against facts, truth, logic, reality, and plain old common sense for the foreseeable future, unfortunately...

ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.


http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exxon Mobil paid no federal income tax in 2009 (http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-mobil-paid-no-federal-income-tax-in-2009/)

Steve Martin lives!

April 6, 2010 http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/exxon-mobil.jpg

The joke goes, The economy is so bad Exxon Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen. If only.
Turns out the economy is never really bad for the oil giant, and the last thing they would want to do is cut off support to members of Congress who allow them to pull off the remarkable trick of making $45 billion in profits last year but paying no federal income tax. Think Progress reports (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/) the stunning news, which, sadly, is not a Steve Martin routine:
Last week, Forbes magazine published (http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.html) what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/30/exxon-mobil-reports-recor_n_162468.html), paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS (http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.html):Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.
Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/exxon-mobil-paid-zero-income-tax-offshore%20shelter-wal-mart-general-electric-forbes?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Motherjones%2Fmojoblog+%28Mot herJones.com+%7C+MoJoBlog%29) that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/22/corporate-tax-offshore/) that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html?_r=1) United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
Media Matters adds (http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/201004060001):Even though Exxon doesn’t contribute anything to the federal government, it spends millions of dollars trying to control it. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Exxon Mobil spent a whopping $27,430,000 (http://mediamattersaction.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opensecrets.org%2Flobby%2Fc lientsum.php%3Flname%3DExxon%2BMobil%26year%3D2009 ) on lobbying in 2009 alone.
Oh, and you’ll be delighted to know that, as the Financial Times reports (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45b62a24-410c-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html) today “ExxonMobil, the world’s largest international oil company, has agreed to pay the US government $32.2m in a settlement to resolve claims that it knowingly underpaid royalties owed on natural gas produced from federal and native American leases, the justice department said on Monday.”
Someday, ExxonMobilShellChevronConocoPhilips will be one big company making tens of billions of dollars in profit, while paying no federal income taxes and spending millions spreading disinformation aimed at keeping us addicted to their toxic product.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/pics/77imono4.jpgAnd if this reminds you of an old Steve Martin joke — then you are right. From SNL (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77imono.phtml) in 1978:You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes!
You say.. “Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?”
First.. get a million dollars. Now.. you say, “Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, ‘You.. have never paid taxes’?”
Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: “I forgot!” How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don’t say “I forgot”?
Let’s say you’re on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, “I forgot armed robbery was illegal.” Let’s suppose he says back to you, “You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, ‘I forgot’?” Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!“

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

After virtually eight years of Republican control of government, here's what we know about their tax cuts for the wealthy (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104005/americas-fiscal-choices-we-still-have-them-now):


The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy only benefited the very wealthy (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html).
The average tax rate for the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in eight years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html).
From 2000 to 2007, two thirds of income growth went to the top-earning 1% (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/%7Esaez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf) (pdf), whose income grew 10.1% annually compared to 2.7% for the rest of us.
Two thirds of U.S. corporations avoided paying taxes from 1998 to 2005 (http://web.archive.org%e2%80%940,8599,1831790,00.html%20w eb.archive.org%e2%80%940,8599,1831790,00.html%20/), placing a greater burden on working families.
The wealthy don't spend their tax cuts. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html)
Tax cuts for the wealthy, thus, don't stimulate the economy (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104005/americas-fiscal-choices-we-still-have-them-now).
By the end of the decade, the jobless rate was at at 26-year high (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8238358.stm).
By the end of the decade, there were 6.5 job seekers for every job (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/jolts_20091208/).
Republican rule and Republican-backed tax cuts for the wealthy resulted in 10 years of zero job creation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html?wprss=rss_business).


Not only are Republicans fighting to extend the same tax cuts for the wealthy that proved disastrous for America's economy, its middle class and working class, but they are holding hostage tax cuts for middle and working class Americans (http://www.kansas.com/2010/09/14/1492466/heels-over-bush-tax-cuts.html) in order to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

For eight years, the Republican answer to every problem was "tax cut," to the point that it was almost comical. Then, at least. It's a lot less funny now, given the seriousness of the challenges facing America, and the GOP's "pledge" doesn't begin to offer real solutions to the problems fueling the joblessness crisis. In fact, those issues barely get a mention.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Rich getting much richer
So, of course, they need tax relief<big>

http://www.bartcop.com/rip-middle-class-1010.jpg
</big> <big style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100505535.html?hpid=topnews)</big>