You didn build that !

Riley wrote: What will they call it if you ever have to pay as much out of pocket as when it was private, but still have to pay your taxes for the government social program?

Obamacare.

Um, you guys do realize that other than the medicare expansion portion it is still all private health insurance right?

Combined public and private health spending per person ins the UK last year was 3433, in the US 8233. Can't exactly compare the service between them without comparing the cost. If we all paid on average an extra 6723 a year (1500 less than what we spend on healthcare now) and they in return provided us healthcare at the same cost as what they pay in the United kingdom that would not only put 1500 per person per year back in our pocket but also wipe out the deficit and start paying down the debt (run a surplus) by 200 billion a year.

America's inability to pay the same amount of money per person on healthcare as the rest of the developed world is the entire deficit problem and then some.


If I ended up with the same healthcare costs after Obamacare as I have from my employer provided health care, even by that poor measure the country would have a more effective free market because health insurance would no longer tie people to thier employers.

There is a lot of talk about how badly government is going to run healthcare.. but the evidence is that medicare and medicaid both pay less than private insurers for the same services and spend more money on health care and less on overhead/waste/profit than private insurers.

I read today that hidden in the new gun rules proposals is a mandate for your doctor to ask if you have guns in your home, as if this is some sort of health risk. With the required information sharing of medical records I assume this will be a new route to find unregistered guns. I would question if an answer one way or another would change my treatment. If not (small if), I would not answer the question. I would assume though that a refusal would be recognized as a likely yes in the system.

Obamacare + Gun control = Big Brother

Hey Dave, ever hear of Snopes?
Also, I don't know what you mean by " find unregistered guns". I believe Minnesota, like Illinois, does not register guns, so all guns are unregistered. If you or anyone else wants to know who owns guns just fill out a FOIA like the NY paper did. I don't understand what the big deal is about the paper doing it, it is a matter of public record., Anyone can do it.

john b wrote: Hey Dave, ever hear of Snopes? Also, I don't know what you mean by " find unregistered guns". I believe Minnesota, like Illinois, does not register guns, so all guns are unregistered. If you or anyone else wants to know who owns guns just fill out a FOIA like the NY paper did. I don't understand what the big deal is about the paper doing it, it is a matter of public record., Anyone can do it.

Yes I have heard of snopes, but who checks them out? Here is a review of snopes.

"Snopes.com is a Scam

For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.   But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.



David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the Website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticims - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have

the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.



A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.



I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!



Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.. Gee, what a shock?



So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www..snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing    more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not'

fully looking into things.

FROM: rremelin@gmail.com"

Just one guy who may have an axe to grinds research, but worth thinking about.

I am not concerned about current Minnesota law, I am concerned what future legislation will bring. we have a democratically controlled house and senate right now looking into gun control (don't let a good crisis go to waste).

As far as the New York paper, they sent out the names and addresses of cops, judges, district attorneys. They identified which homes have guns for those wanting to steal them, and which were likely unarmed for those wishing to rob them. Yes the info is available but a crook is much more likely to pick up a paper than get involved in a record search. One woman who had armed herself and uprooted her whole life to escape a stalker started receiving calls from him again days after the article came out. Replace gun owner with Married gays, or those who have had or provide abortions having their names and addresses printed in the paper. Still think it is not a big deal?

I certainly couldn't afford it on my government pension, especially if I want to pay my health insurance premiums. In case you don't know they don't provide health insurance to retires. I worked three jobs most of my career, saved, and invested. My government pension doesnt cover my insurance and property taxes.

Good night Dave. As far as Snopes, may I remind you that both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were college drop outs with no formal education in computer technology. Also like everyone else, Snopes couldnt put it on the Internet if it was t true.

Saw it. Bet you won't see that on the Obama News Network.

Did anyone catch Hillary s testimony on Benghazi? What difference does it make now". Besides who we got for a president, it seems like she is saying why are you still holding me responsible after I stalled all this time. Also does her denial of seeing the request for more security indicate she was not responsible, or that she is so busy traveling she has lost touch with those she is in charge of?

A few Obama quotes:

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 – "We will not rest until we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs"

NOVEMBER 23, 2009 – "I will not rest until business are investing again, and businesses are hiring again"

JANUARY 28, 2010 - "We will not rest until we build an economy that's ready for America's future"

MARCH 5 2010 – "I’m not gonna rest & my administration is not gonna rest in our efforts to help people who are looking to find a job"


JULY 8, 2010 – "My administration will not rest until every American who is able and ready and willing to work can find a job"

Of course this was several Hawaii vacations ago. I find it interesting that since his re-election we just don't hear about this anymore. The economy is contracting, consumer confidence is down, unemployment just went up, we have 8 million fewer people working than the day Obama took office, Obama just closed his job creation office and he is focused on gun control, raising taxes, and stopping the sequester plan that he insisted on having. Is it 2017 yet?

OverMyHead wrote: A few Obama quotes: NOVEMBER 2, 2009 – "We will not rest until we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs" NOVEMBER 23, 2009 – "I will not rest until business are investing again, and businesses are hiring again" JANUARY 28, 2010 - "We will not rest until we build an economy that's ready for America's future" MARCH 5 2010 – "I’m not gonna rest & my administration is not gonna rest in our efforts to help people who are looking to find a job" JULY 8, 2010 – "My administration will not rest until every American who is able and ready and willing to work can find a job" Of course this was several Hawaii vacations ago. I find it interesting that since his re-election we just don't hear about this anymore. The economy is contracting, consumer confidence is down, unemployment just went up, we have 8 million fewer people working than the day Obama took office, Obama just closed his job creation office and he is focused on gun control, raising taxes, and stopping the sequester plan that he insisted on having. Is it 2017 yet?

2014!! Re-gain the Senate. BTW Dave, love the pics of the boat.Beatiful...

john b wrote: skicat2001 wrote: Obama's 90 billion dollars on green energy is one example. AND THEY ALL WENT BANKRUPT.    This is the kind of bankrupt everyone wants! The Department of Energy invested $465,000,000 in Tesla in October 2011. At that time it would have bought 18,637,274 shares, since stock was trading at $24.96 Today that stock is worth $689,579,138 Department of Energy profit of $224,579,138. Solar City, another company the Department of Energy invested in with a loan of $275,000,000, went public in December 2012 at $11.00 Two months later the stock closed at $15.63, up 42% in 60 days, I'll take that. Department of Energy profit = $115,000,000. There are others as well, but these are the only ones I have positions in. There is always a great deal of risk in small cap new technology, but the rewards can be great as well. Everyone picks a big loser sometimes, and you don't have to pick more winners than losers either, just have a big winner come along once in a while. The risk was especially high with some of these given the time frame the purchase was made, with an election just on the horizon.. As a wise man on this site once said, "Do what you always do, get what you always got". Few people were ever exceptionally successful relying on an old business model. You have to think of the next thing.

John,
I do not have a answer for the profit earnings you are sharing. I do have a answer that all the green energy that where given this large amount of money (bail out) all filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.You canfind that here. Picking winners and loser is key.Business owners are always having to change there business model with changes in the product and consumer wants and needs. For example,the only bail out that worked was GM. That's it.Solyndra did not work,all the other green energy bail outs did not work etc... The only thing new in today's business,people have to heavily involved with technology to advance there business. Marketing,planning,and budgeting can remain the same. Researchful advertising works through the internet.

I propose that it is hard for the government to lose 845M on Solyndra since they only invested the 525M.

I believe we should get back to the good old days of government investments. Lets see, the United States will have spent a total of $3.7 trillion on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, costing 330,000 lives and creating 7.7 million refugees, by the time the conflicts end, according to a report released on Wednesday by Brown University.

The report, written by more than 20 economists, political scientists, lawyers, anthropologists and humanitarian personnel for Brown's Watson Institute for International Studies, gives staggering estimates for the cost of military action in those three countries. Nearly ten years since U.S. troops first entered Afghanistan, the report estimates the final cost of all three conflicts will be between $3.7 trillion and $4.4 trillion -- far higher than the $1 trillion price tag estimated at the start of the war. In addition, the U.S. government will spend at least a trillion more over the next fifty years.

Report on the cost of war
Now that's a remarkable ROI!

Kinda makes Solyndra look like a home run, and no one died at Solyndra, we are already ahead on that investment by 330,000 human lives!

BTW, Tesla (TSLA) is up 16% in the last 19 days since my last post, and Solar City (SCTY)is now up 61% in the past 90 days.

Now what was the return on that $3,700,000,000,000 we spent killing people?

You can never invest too much in the future!

Some don't seem to make the connection, but every tax dollar spent on war and killing is a dollar that is no longer available for other uses. If we had sustainable energy, call it green if you like, do you believe anyone would really care about any of the middle east waste land where we extract our oil? It's all about energy, green or otherwise. It has been since the 1930s and it will continue to be until we change it.