Spokane7
65°
August 1, 2011 in Nation/World
Insurers must cover birth control with no copays
WASHINGTON — Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said today in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.
The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women’s preventive care under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.
“These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
The new requirements will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Over time, they are expected to apply to most employer-based insurance plans, as well as coverage purchased individually. Plans that are considered “grandfathered” under the law will not be affected, at least initially. Consumers should check with their health insurance plan administrator.
Sebelius acted after a near-unanimous recommendation last month from a panel of experts convened by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, which advises the government. Panel chairwoman Linda Rosenstock, dean of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that prevention of unintended pregnancies is essential for the psychological, emotional and physical health of women.
Birth control use is virtually universal in the United States, according to a government study issued last summer. Generic versions of the pill are available for as little as $9 a month. Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Many are among women using some form of contraception, and forgetting to take the pill is a major reason.
Contraception is about more than simply preventing pregnancy — it can help make a woman’s next pregnancy healthier by spacing births far enough apart, generally 18 months to two years. Research links closely spaced births to a risk of such problems as prematurity, low birth weight, even autism. Research has shown that even modest copays for medical care can discourage use.
In a nod to social and religious conservatives, the rules issued Monday by Sebelius include a provision that would allow religious institutions to opt out of offering birth control coverage. However, many conservatives are supporting legislation by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., that would codify a range of exceptions to the new health care law on religious and conscience grounds.
Although the new women’s preventive services will be free of any additional charge to patients, somebody will have to pay. The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums. That may be offset to some degree with savings from diseases prevented, or pregnancies that are planned to minimize any potential ill effects to the mother and baby.
The administration did allow insurers some leeway in determining what they will cover. For example, health plans will be able to charge copays for branded drugs in cases where a generic version is just as effective and safe for the patient.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
RedCedar on August 01 at 8:21 a.m.
…President Barack Obama’s health care law…
What is this, a campaign advertisement? As anyone who took civics knows, in the US, congress passes laws, based on a majority vote of its members, and such laws must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In this country, despite the fondness recent presidents have for the concept of a “unitary presidency” (known elsewhere as “dictatorship”), presidents are still not allowed to issue laws by decree..
SpokaneLiberal on August 01 at 8:45 a.m.
So it is Obamacare when it does something that can be criticized but an act of Congress not Obama when it does something popular.
Cougardave on August 01 at 9:07 a.m.
Does anyone care that we’re BROKE?
SpokaneLiberal on August 01 at 9:15 a.m.
We are broke because of a 1.4 trillion dollar decrease in revenues when 9 million jobs were lost. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2007_2011&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
We don’t just have a spending problem we have a revenue problem.
de3 on August 01 at 9:33 a.m.
The headline is wrong. The headline should say, “White House orders other people to provide free ob/gyn services and products for all women in the U.S. starting 2013”.
For those of us who responsibly purchase our own health insurance and cover all medical costs ourselves, this means our costs just went up - again. . Those of us who have been responsible are getting screwed. Even the CBO said our rates will increase by 2 to 2 1/2 times by the time its all implemented.
Obama lied about lowering costs for health care. All Obama did was shift the costs on to someone else.
johnclarke on August 01 at 9:42 a.m.
This is such a common sense thing to do, I can’t understand what sort of idiot would be against it. I think it’s pretty much common sense that people will be more likely to use birth control if it is free. Less unwanted pregnancies and the cost of childbirth. Less unwanted or accidental children. Less cost to everyone. Duh. Insurance companies should be happy about this. Everyone should be happy about this, unless of course you are just too dumb.
RedCedar on August 01 at 9:48 a.m.
Like most of “Obamacare” (if you will), this rule mandates what insurance companies and employers must do, but does not directly raise taxes. Washington State has been doing this kind of thing for decades — mandating that insurance companies must cover certain expensive things that they’d rather not cover. The result is, unsurprisingly, better coverage at higher prices.
Personally, if I was the dictator, aka unitary president, I would push congress to fund, out of tax revenues, free birth control for everyone. Forget the rest of health care for now, but free birth control is one program that is sure to show a very favorable return on investment. In terms of medical expenses, birth control is cheap, be it rubbers, diaphragms, pills, vasectomies, or whatever. Unwanted babies, however, are very expensive to society, starting with welfare programs like WIC and AFDC, and often ending with expensive and dangerous crime sprees and long prison sentences.
The_Seer on August 01 at 10:16 a.m.
Why haven’t Hawken and Dazzee checked in with their normal “keep your knees together” brand of misogyny?
de3: Your claim that the CBO predicted The Health Care Reform Act would increase health care costs by 2 to 2 1/2 times is nonsense. Care to back that up with a credible source? Also provide a link to show what has happened to the cost of health insurance with very little government involvement.
Gawd I wish most of you would move to Uganda or The Sudan where you can live out your dreams of small government and leave the remainder of us who wish to live in a modern culture (and willing to pay for it) alone.
The biggest problem in the world is overpopulation. Promoting policies that seek to prevent more births of the most voracious consumer ever (U.S. citizens) is not only good policy, it’s essential to the continued existence of humanity.
jddavis on August 01 at 10:22 a.m.
@Seer—you must like the plan China has in place for population control, huh?
idahocity on August 01 at 10:37 a.m.
industrialized, modern economies have lower birthrates than third world countries and most are negative rates. is this a sign we are a postindustrial second world nation? good luck trying to provide free anything with no revenue.
Scoutster on August 01 at 11:09 a.m.
One reason European struggles are what they are is the declining birth rate, which leads to an aging population. Fewer workers, less revenue. Also leads to immigration, largely from developing countries (and, subsequent, white backlash).
This will also be a HUGE issue for China in about 20 years. Their one child policy will come back to haunt them.
Those who hate having undocumented workers need to figure out just who’s going to clean the toilets, pick the lettuce, feed gramma, and write the software in the future. They won’t be named John Smith.
One reason, according to some research, for our reduced crime rate has been freely available abortion for the last two generations, also. The right hates that.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on August 01 at 11:16 a.m.
actually jddavis, I would LOVE to have a plan like China. Then we would have no more “Octomoms” or stupid fame seekers like Jon and Kate plus 8. No more parents with 5 kids who can barely afford even one. If we had a plan like this in place, you would be shocked at how much this country would save in money.
Anyone dumb idiot can have a kid, but we need a license to drive a car, hunt, fish and many other things.
Dazzeetrader11 on August 01 at 11:28 a.m.
Does anyone want to pay for the Birth Control etc for the 17 yr old in South Central who cannot and will not behave? SHould you be required to pay for her “night work”? How about her friends? Want to pay for their bad parenting? Pay for their lack of self control?….like that idea do you?
No offense intended but SEER you come up with these outradeous ideas with none whatsoever reference or links or logic. It seems like you make things up to suit yourself……….when there is no hope you’re correct. You either halluciante very well or your just plain no quite honest……or goofed.
Over the 10 years, Obamacare has a new burden of $25 trillion.There is no escaping it. Minimum $1.5 trillion per year with a setup cost of $500 billion. ALL unions wages…..all things bought must be union developed and purchased from union vendors. Reps lost this battle because of middle of the night tactics from the Dem side……and had zero input into the bill……ZERO. Nobody knew what was in it!. This is what Obama and his liberals have done to America. Paying for some little street urchin’s birth control……
Vote NO to Obama and friends in November 2012. Do not forget this. This is just an example of what he’s forced America into by his deceit.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on August 01 at 11:34 a.m.
I’d rather pay for her birth control than for her baby.
johnclarke on August 01 at 11:45 a.m.
China is already paying the price. There are too many men, and not enough women.
Listen, Health Insurance reform, while not perfect is waaaay better than nothing.
jddavis on August 01 at 11:47 a.m.
I like your line of thought on this Liberal! Unfortunately, you can’t keep irresponsible people from having kids. I don’t understand why some people are facinated by the freaks who have an insane amount of kids, enough so to give them enough attention to make money from it.
mikeln on August 01 at 11:59 a.m.
A one payer health care system is needed in this country. It would bring down the cost of health care for everyone and everyone would be insured. People who think the crimminals that run private health care give a damn about anything but profit are not only wrong, they are dead wrong. But what can you do with people that have been brainwashed to believe what the right wing tells them even when the circumstances show otherwise…like the amount of your policy going up while what it provides goes down at the will of the thieves that now own your health.
Rand on August 01 at 12:01 p.m.
Are you serious???? You can’t afford $9 per month for birth control??? Cost is not what is keeping people from having “unwanted” children, lack of responsibility is. Try as you might, making birth control free will not make this problem better.
Also for all you libs out there who call this a no brainer and love to dictate how business should be run how about you start an insurance company, offer “free” birth control and steal every customer that is dying for “free” birth control. If it makes so much sense with another person’s money how about it makes sense with your money. All these “great deals” that seem to be so obvious to liberals should be great business opportunities. How about you put your money where your mouth is and just test out your business fantasies. I doubt this will ever happen as it is too easy to just demand things from others.
jddavis on August 01 at 12:06 p.m.
Come on Rand! Tax payers aren’t paying for it, Obama is!
detroitdude on August 01 at 12:17 p.m.
OK so the $10 birth control pills are just a part of it.
“Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services. ”
I’d say these are all good things, of course the article says “birth control” so that is what everyone keys on.
Dazzeetrader11 on August 01 at 12:20 p.m.
Obama and the Decepticons……they keep fooling their legions.
One says the only reason….paying for some urchin’s BC far outweighs paying for generations of offspring…. He’s correct.
Back to Obamacare though..I still find it shocking that not one of the Dem leaders ( Obama, Pelosi, Reid..nobody) read the bill they forced on the US in a panic. This alone should get them expunged from America. Even funnier is that the insurance industry wrote it. The very people Obama and the libs railed against…..yes..they turned everything over to them and let them have at it. Decepticons did what “decepticons” do…..they deceived you. It’s a failure of honesty…and the style of governing is continuing daily. Do whatever or say whatever to fool you so they can forward their program.They want what THEY want to reshape America. They find seams in cracks in our system and explore them.
We seriously need to look around and see what they’re up to…..little by litte….media says nothing or spins “good” for them.
We’re broke for a reason. Never forget it,. Bush didn’t break the country……..but Obama’s trying to. Vote these socialists out. Parenthetically, free BC is a socialist hallmark. Adding $3 trillion in debt ceiling…why? It leads to Greece…..and they know that. It’s the plan. A very BAD plan. Nice to know that you will be working for the government instead of them working for you. It’s the plan.
The_Seer on August 01 at 12:46 p.m.
Ahhhh, Delusional Dazzee checks in and managed (barely) to hide her self hatred and loathing of womanhood.
@JD: Do you think an extra billion Chinese would have been a good thing for the planet? Sometimes less is more. When China enacted that policy they were feeding 90% of their population with hand labor. Tens of thousands of Chinese used to die annually of starvation and malnutrition. I agree with the analysis that Western nations have suffered from declining birth rates but that’s how it goes when you have more educated and higher earning people: They don’t have as many kids. Why? I’ll let you ponder that one.
The_Seer on August 01 at 12:48 p.m.
The real reason why there was clamor in the U.S. about China’s one child policy is that it would reduce the number of drones who’d labor for offshore U.S. corporations for a bowl of rice a day.
johnclarke on August 01 at 1:23 p.m.
Ahem “Rand”
“Also for all you libs out there who call this a no brainer and love to dictate how business should be run how about you start an insurance company, offer “free” birth control and steal every customer that is dying for “free” birth control”
I don’t think you have to be a “lib” to realize that yes, $9.00 might make a difference to the food people can put on the table in this economic climate. Also, if your IQ is above room temp - surely you must understand that EVERYONE pays for unwanted children. From the cost of birth, to education, prison whatever. You are paying, not just the “libs.” You might want to cover this issue with the “religions” that do not allow birth control, you know when you get a free moment. Ok, thanks.
Rand on August 01 at 1:50 p.m.
Ahem “johnclarke”,
Who out there is being denied $9 birth control by the “religions.” If your IQ is anywhere near par golf you would admit that the people out there having children they cannot afford are not failing to use birth control because of religious reasons.
If you can’t come up with $9 for birth control you are such a failure then there is nothing government can do to help you. I think you are confusing not being able to afford something with not being able to budget. The problem we have is lack of responsibility and less accountability will never solve this. Also when you can go to Winco and buy pancake mix for 75 cents a pound I wont buy the whole $9 making the difference between eating and not eating argument.
Rand on August 01 at 2:37 p.m.
I agree those are all good things. If there are no plans offering those services then that is a huge hole in the market, or maybe those are those “Cadillac plans” the president wanted to tax. I would suspect that people are not willing to pay the increase in premium that providing those services would force though I could be wrong. If I am wrong then someone is going to do very well offering those services in a plan. If people aren’t willing to pay for it in increased premium they have voted with their pocketbooks that they do not want it. Nothing is free.
Rand on August 01 at 2:42 p.m.
I also find it hilarious that there are a few people that have posted defending China’s one child policy. The same people who will “defend a woman’s right to chose” are advocating for taking that choice away. The hypocrisy is laughable. The only thing that makes this somewhat palatable is that they are the lunatic fringe. To think otherwise would be very depressing.
johnclarke on August 01 at 4:24 p.m.
Well Rand, please read closer. I said religions block birth control, no relationship with $9.00 co-pays. Yes in fact, I do believe poor people are bound by religion.You see, poor people do make bad decisions, but one thing you can pretty much count on is them making more poor people. I suggest we try to help them break that cycle. For the record my IQ is 165.
The general idea, Mr. Rand - is the wellness items help not only the mother and the child, but ultimately all of society. This is a concept that clearly escapes the heartless uneducated folk on the right, the concept of wellness. It’s clear that a wellness and preventative approach will benefit an entire society. This is a stone cold fact and why US health care, overall health and infant mortality rate is pathetic compared to many industrial countries. Insurance companies clearly understand this concept. One more thing to mention Rand, those countries spend way less to create a healthier population. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a segment of the population that simply is too stupid to accept these facts. This is why we have a sort of crappy health care reform act, and not a good one with a single payer system. Yes, I mean people like you.
jddavis on August 01 at 5:06 p.m.
Seer—I think the Chinese need to do what they need to do. Americans live under vastly different standards and freedoms, and in no way want the Chinese model to become ours.
That being said, I would like greater responsibility in our society regarding family “planning”. I am not in favor of the government supplying the means of birth control—I believe that is a personal responsibility and irresponsible people won’t change their ways with gov’t intervention.
gmorton on August 01 at 5:21 p.m.
SpokaneLiberal wrote,
“We are broke because of a 1.4 trillion dollar decrease in revenues when 9 million jobs were lost.”
Er, no. Federal revenues in 2011 will be about $400 billion less than 2007. That would still leave a $1 trillion deficit.
Be sure you have the calculator you linked set for “Fed,” not “Total.” The latter includes state and local budget data also.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2007_2011&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
I noticed you posted the same erroneous info in other threads. You might want to post corrections.
gmorton on August 01 at 5:30 p.m.
BTW, Liberal, you don’t raise taxes to make up for revenue shortfalls during an economic slowdown. That delays recovery from the slowdown and ratchets up the government’s permanent burden on the economy. When the economy finally recovers the government receives a windfall, which it will promptly blow on new boondoggles and free lunches, and then resume borrowing.
Government revenues do indeed decline during a slowdown. If it is fiscally responsible it reduces spending accordingly, just as the States do and just as families do. It does not raise taxes or borrow more money.
gmorton on August 01 at 5:42 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“This is such a common sense thing to do, I can’t understand what sort of idiot would be against it.”
Well, perhaps those “idiots” who think each person should be held responsible for his or her own sex life, and for any costs incurred therefrom.
I realize that is a difficult concept for free lunchers to grasp.
“Less unwanted pregnancies and the cost of childbirth. Less unwanted or accidental children. Less cost to everyone.”
Er, John, the only reason there are costs to anyone except the parents of the “accidental” children is because the gummint has relieved those parents of that burden and thrust it onto taxpayers.
Your argument is a lefty classic – justify a new free lunch, or a new infringement of liberty, to reduce the cost burdens of previous free lunches. Same type of argument trotted forth to justify Food Police and tobacco taxes.
gmorton on August 01 at 5:44 p.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“Also provide a link to show what has happened to the cost of health insurance with very little government involvement.”
Very little government involvement? You’re kidding. Right?
gmorton on August 01 at 5:55 p.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“The biggest problem in the world is overpopulation. Promoting policies that seek to prevent more births of the most voracious consumer ever (U.S. citizens) is not only good policy, it’s essential to the continued existence of humanity.”
Egads. That must be why the most prosperous countries have the lowest birthrates, and why populations grow as their economies grow.
Here’s a hint: the most voracious consumers are also the most efficient producers. Humans (in general) are net *producers* of wealth, not net consumers.
You must be a Paul Ehrlich victim from the ‘70s, when you were young and gullible. Right?
gmorton on August 01 at 5:59 p.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“When China enacted that policy they were feeding 90% of their population with hand labor. Tens of thousands of Chinese used to die annually of starvation and malnutrition.”
Yes. That was during their Marxist phase.
gmorton on August 01 at 6:06 p.m.
Rand wrote,
“I agree those are all good things.”
You’ll find, Rand, that for johnclarke and detroitdude, and several others, that if something is considered to be a “good thing” then it should be a free lunch provided by gummint, for which someone else, who receives no benefit from this “good thing,” should be forced to pay.
johnclarke on August 01 at 6:47 p.m.
Well gmorton, I don’t want to call you an idiot but you have thankfully done it for me.
johnclarke on August 01 at 8:17 p.m.
and err, gmorton, err - preventative medicine and/or birth control will save money in the short and long term. Apparently, there is no saving you err, people from yourselves. Errr.
gmorton, I’m betting you collect social security and medicare.
johnclarke on August 01 at 8:20 p.m.
“I noticed you posted the same erroneous info in other threads. You might want to post corrections.”
Speaking of errr, wrong errr again gmorton; you might want to check your facts and figures. It’s not like tax collection is an exact science but it’s exact enough to know that if we end the welfare for big business and the uber wealthy then this issue with revenue would be ok in about 5 years.
errr.
johnclarke on August 01 at 8:25 p.m.
BTW, Liberal, you don’t raise taxes to make up for revenue shortfalls during an economic slowdown. That delays recovery from the slowdown and ratchets up the government’s permanent burden on the economy.
omg, I need to read farther up ! Unfortunately, errr wrong again gmorton. Your statement, like pretty much everything Hawken has ever said - is unsupported by facts. Do a little reading my arrogant friend, and you will find the exact OPPOSITE of what you posted is true. When your meal ticket, gubmint raises taxes on certain segments, guess what happens? Revenue increases ! Ding Ding !
Otherwise, please explain the last decade. Taxes ? Record lows. You have no clothes, emperor.
gmorton on August 01 at 9:32 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
” …preventative medicine and/or birth control will save money in the short and long term.”
Save money for whom? The person receiving those benefits, or some other poor chump presently forced to pay for them?
If it’s the latter, then the way you save him money is keep your hand out of his pocket altogether, and make sure all the costs of pregnancies are borne by the parents, and not foisted off onto third parties who had nothing to do with the pregnancy.
gmorton on August 01 at 9:38 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
” … you might want to check your facts and figures.”
Er, John, the link is there. You should check them yourself before spouting off.
“Your statement, like pretty much everything Hawken has ever said - is unsupported by facts. Do a little reading my arrogant friend . . .”
Sorry, John, but “do a little reading” is not a rebuttal. Do you have some specific information that refutes my specific claim?
johnclarke on August 02 at 1:37 a.m.
“Liberal, you don’t raise taxes to make up for revenue shortfalls during an economic slowdown. That delays recovery from the slowdown and ratchets up the government’s permanent burden on the economy.”
“Sorry, John, but “do a little reading” is not a rebuttal. Do you have some specific information that refutes my specific claim?”
Yes in fact, I do have specific information. Since you ask.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/25/278100/reagan-raised-taxes-recession/
http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/
http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=50
If fact, the greatest growth in GDP is during highest tax rates.
“The post shows that from 1929 (that’s as far back as GDP goes) to 2009, growth in real GDP per capita was faster when the president was a Democrat than when the President was a Republican. Furthermore, growth was faster for Democratic Presidents who faced a Democrat-majority Congress during their entire term than for those who did not face a Democrat-majority Congress for at least part of their administration. ”
I am not going to do any more research for you, because I know no matter how much I provide, your response is “free lunch.” Dealing with hyperbole and people that just will not refuse to learn and accept truth/history frustrates and angers me.
drywitt99 on August 02 at 2:12 a.m.
WHO WOULD RAISE TAXES IN A RECESSION??
RONALD REAGAN….THAT’S WHO!
“Republicans might want to check the record of the conservative icon, former President Ronald Reagan. As Reagan’s first budget director, David Stockman, told Bloomberg News that Reagan did exactly what the Republicans are campaigning against:
“That put the lie to the current arguments of Republicans that the economy is too weak to bear a tax increase” because “the next year 3.5 million jobs were created,” said Stockman, who says tax increases are now needed to help reduce the deficit. “When the Republicans rhetorically say now, ‘Who would raise taxes in a recession?’ the answer is Ronald Reagan.”
Reagan signed his 1982 tax increase into law in September 1982, even though the early 1980s recession didn’t end until November 1982. Following that tax increase, as former Reagan economic official Bruce Bartlett has pointed out, gross domestic product “grew 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984 – an exceptionally strong performance. The stock market had one of its best years ever in 1983…The unemployment rate fell from 10.6 percent in December 1982 to 8.1 percent by December 1983 and 7.1 percent in December 1984.”
According to the Treasury Department, “Reagan’s tax increases now would bring in about $300 billion a year, if the increases were measured against today’s economy.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/25/278100/reagan-raised-taxes-recession/
Ronald Reagan……whisper in President Obama’s ear if you get a chance!!
gmorton on August 02 at 9:06 a.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“If fact, the greatest growth in GDP is during highest tax rates.
“The post shows that from 1929 (that’s as far back as GDP goes) to 2009, growth in real GDP per capita was faster when the president was a Democrat than when the President was a Republican.”
Well, two probs there, John,
First, you’re conflating two different claims. The first was my response to SpokaneLiberal who claimed that “We are broke because of a 1.4 trillion dollar decrease in revenues when 9 million jobs were lost.”
That is false; federal revenues in 2011 are only $400 billion less than 2007.
The second claim was that raising taxes during a recession tends to slow recovery from the recession. That appears to be Obama’s belief also, which is why he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts and reduced the payroll tax 2%.
Your quotes comparing GDP growth during the reigns of Dems v. Repubs has no bearing on that claim. It is irrelevant (as well as meaningless, but that’s another issue).
Before you can rebut a claim you have to understand what the claim stated.
gmorton on August 02 at 9:21 a.m.
drywitt99 wrote,
“Reagan signed his 1982 tax increase into law in September 1982, even though the early 1980s recession didn’t end until November 1982. Following that tax increase, as former Reagan economic official Bruce Bartlett has pointed out, gross domestic product ‘grew 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984 – an exceptionally strong performance.’”
Er, dry, you need to tell the whole story. Reagan raised some taxes (mainly the SS payroll tax, to keep it solvent) and closed some loopholes, which increased revenues. But he also cut taxes substantially. In net, the tax cuts exceeded the increases 2 to 1. The total tax burden on the economy was *reduced* during Reagan’s terms.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/reagans-tax-increases/
johnclarke on August 02 at 9:33 a.m.
OMG, are you really going to lecture me again gmorton? Your claim that raising taxes in a recession is clearly incorrect. Your response? Oh, Obama must agree with me. No, Obama does not agree with you. He signed the tax cut extension in order to secure the votes needed for health care reform.
What you should do now is man up, and admit you are (as you are on a regular basis) just plain wrong. You can’t. You are infected with a right wing disease known as a lack of humility. This is a problem, because it shows you simply can’t be a part of a normal governing process, just like the Tea Party. If you and your group of merry men could produce a “conservative” candidate, I’d vote for him or her. You can’t, because you are all frauds. There are no conservatives, and conservative economics are a proven failure. Go ahead gmorton, man up. It’s never too late.
gmorton on August 02 at 11:43 a.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“What you should do now is man up, and admit you are (as you are on a regular basis) just plain wrong.”
I’ll be happy to do that, as soon as you present some evidence so showing, rather than links to information irrelevant to the issue.
I suspect you’re skeptical that tax increases during a recession tend to inhibit recovery because you don’t believe that (most) taxes are a burden on the economy. You believe that government can siphon money out of the economy to its heart’s content, and that it will have no economic consequences. That is like believing that a thief siphoning a few gallons of gas from your car every night will have no effect on your fuel economy.
Perhaps you’ll reconsider that belief when your car stalls in the middle of nowhere.
Rand on August 02 at 1:23 p.m.
I don’t know how you can pretend to be on high ground John when you contend that religious views are a large factor in the unwanted pregnancies in the US. With that conclusion you are either embellishing with your IQ claim or are not being honest.
It seems as though you have a problem with religions but seem to worship a God of your own. John, one big difference between my church and yours is that if you stop tithing to my church they don’t put you in jail.