DescentBB

Well, as much as slick would like to think 2014 is in the bag for the Dems, based on this little tidbit the Republicans may sweep up all the slots:

Associated Press
WASHINGTON
"Some labor unions that enthusiastically backed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul are now frustrated and angry, fearful that it will jeopardize benefits for millions of their members.

Union leaders warn that unless the problem is fixed, there could be consequences for Democrats facing re-election next year.

"It makes an untruth out of what the president said _ that if you like your insurance, you could keep it," said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. "That is not going to be true for millions of workers now."

The threat of the unions working against Democrats seeking election is akin to hell freezing over but it looks like all those Dems who wake up and find their cherished supporters now voting for the other side can thank Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid for tricking them into voting for a package that no one understood. Now that reality has set in, look for a even stronger upsurge in Republican positions in both the house and the senate. Then lets hope the "ACA" is put to a well deserved death.

My hubby and I have been pouring over the rates we'll be stuck with here in Oregon when Obamacare finally kicks in. I, and most of the middle class, are going to get royally shafted, especially individuals and retirees that have NOT reached Medicare age. Rates are going up, A LOT. I'm too rich for those little helpful subsidies that low income people can get, and yet not rich enough to really afford the going rates through those "exchanges". And one can't chose a cheaper high deductible plan either. I've never been a fan of Obamacare, but as more information starts coming out about what's to come, I hate it even more.

After reading the Portland paper this morning, I found out that if became too infirm to live on my own and had to go into in a nursing home, it would cost me $7700....A MONTH! That would bankrupt me in just a few years! That's today's figures too! The future heralds far more expensive care! And I don't have the option of living with family either.

I dunno what you folks are looking at, but in California they released the rates, and Forbe's writer found them shockingly low!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ium-rates/

I am similarly pleasantly surprised by preliminary info here in Delaware. Are you, TC, basing your view on actual rates or reportage about POSSIBLE rate schedules?

Not enough info in that article, can’t base the longer term rates on some introductory price.

Rick Ungar, Contributor
"I write from the left on politics and policy."

and americas' left is usually the worlds' right.

callmeslick wrote:I dunno what you folks are looking at, but in California they released the rates, and Forbe's writer found them shockingly low!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ium-rates/

I am similarly pleasantly surprised by preliminary info here in Delaware. Are you, TC, basing your view on actual rates or reportage about POSSIBLE rate schedules?

I was just talking about nursing home care, NOT health insurance. Nursing home care is going to cost an arm and a leg, not that I even WANT to live in one of those depressing places (believe me, they're DEPRESSING).

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/09/retirem ... index.html

Oregon has some preliminary rates posted right now (it's a PDF). Take a gander at the rates for my area. My new rates will be about a $100 MORE than I pay now with my present carrier, Lifewise, especially since I'm only 2 years away from 60. Once I hit 60, it's going way up. I'm not even a smoker or alcohol drinker, just an old fart. This is going to take a big chunk out of my relatively fixed income. I don't even see young people wanting to pay those rates every month. It's going to be a shock.

http://www.oregonhealthrates.org/files/ ... vidual.pdf

Here's Portland's preliminary rates. They're only a few dollars lower.

http://www.oregonhealthrates.org/files/ ... vidual.pdf

Wow TC, I looked at those single plans and I suggest you get your state to look at Blue Cross Blue Shield. I'm over 60 and only pay 270.00 a month here in Michigan.

TC, you are not accounting for rebates from ACA for your income level. Also, on the subject of nursing home care, nothing really addresses that. Medicare and Medicaid don't really cover decent care. Now, I think your assessment might be a bit high(7k per month?), as that is what my parents pay, for two people in a facility that serves filet mignon and lobster sometimes and is first-rate in all respects. It was around $50k initial fee and $65K per annum after that for a 4 room apartment and full services and two meals per day(they have a 3 meal plan, but my folks like to do breakfast by themselves). Thus, I have questions about your numbers for lousy care and conditions out your way. I'm with you (as were my folks) in wanting to avoid that sort of living arrangement until the last possible moment in life.

TC, looked at that rate sheet and found very little shocking about it. The same range for our age group($450-850) per month. Hell, my present plan for my wife and I, through my former employer's group(a perk of the early retirement thing), costs a total of $1300 per month between me and the company for my wife and I. Plus, with Obamacare, I might not get much, if anything, by way of a rebate, but if your income is fixed and limited, you will get a lot back. I think you are fretting over very little.

Firstly callesmeslick, my income is high enough that I do not qualify for any assistance or rebates. On the flip side, it's NOT high enough to NOT feel the pain of shelling out $400 dollars a month, because my income is not fixed, nor stable and relies on my investments, and you know how variable that can be. I'm in the middle class retiree dead zone, where I'm not of Medicare age and I'm one major health hiccup away from bankruptcy, even with insurance.

Why aren't you blinking at what you're paying right now? Your shelling out $1300 a month for the 2 of you. And you're on a company plan, so wait until you have to go on individual plans. Also, how much care do you get before you reach your deductible limit and have to shell out even more money? That limit will go up once Obamacare kicks in too. The higher deductibles are required as an "incentive" for people to manage their health care costs. Uh huh. Are you going to think about that once you get sick? And young individuals aren't going to be happy either because they'll have to cough up $150 to $200 a month once this kicks in. Most young people don't have that kind of cash on hand to blow every month either.

As for the nursing home prices, you should care. My stepfather's girlfriend is now in a nursing home, full time. Probably around $80,000 to $90,000 a year too. Guess where the money's coming from the pay for it? Why Medicare and PERS of course, since she was an Oregon school teacher and thus now gets her PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) benefits, very generous PERS benefits with very generous health care that most of us don't have, nor will even hope to ever receive, but are now paying for through all our taxes. My stepfather is a hypocrite, because he a vapid right winger who extols his hatred of our high Oregon taxes and our PERS problems, and yet his girlfriend is now benefiting from those same said taxes, all to stay alive as a bedridden nursing home resident until she passes away.

woody, I pay around $270 per month right now. Even that's painful. Don't you think your rates will skyrocket once Obamacare kicks in? I'm not so sure at the moment what the final amounts will be, things are still in flux. Many of these insurance companies won't even be offering "Gold" plans either. The age of the Cadillac Insurance Plan may be dead because costs simply cannot be controlled in the present system, so they won't be offered. So we'll all be stuck with "Bronze" plans, were the individual has to shoulder 60% of his or her health care costs. Why bother to have insurance at all if all it covers is only 40% of the total bill?

Personally, I think health insurance should only be for catastrophic health issues, just like car and house insurance works for fire and natural disasters. Everyday maintenance and easy to fix health issues should be provided open market, have transparent costs so that the consumer can shop around, and can have most of the usual-run-of the mill health issues come out of pocket, just like having to regularly paint your house or fix your car. Those are things are normally out of pocket, not insured items. So if you DESIRE to pay for insurance to protect you from cancer or major illnesses, injuries, or hospitalization, you have that choice. It wouldn't be a requirement though. If you choose to not get that insurance, you either get family assistance, don't get the care at all or get charity. Because the only other choice is single payer where everyone pays into a system that bypasses the for profit insurance system. Even single payer has that nasty bureaucratic problem of what to do with those who want to live, no matter what the costs or what it takes, and the total costs society is willing to pay for that desire. You're back to who decides what to pay for and how much, death panels as the right wingers like to call them.

TC, let me preface these comments with my long-stated opinion that for the VAST bulk of the population, cradle to grave Medicare gives by far the best bang for buck medical coverage.
That said, to address a few of your points......No, I don't find $1100 per month painful, for a lot of reasons, mainly because I have a topnotch plan, with a 3000 out of pocket max, annually, and pretty low copays and dirt-cheap pharmacy copays. I will likely shell out a wee bit more, as I look at plan proposals, but not very much at all for similar coverage in 2014. Actually, the price jump will be analagous to the price rises I've seen over the past 10 years, before Obamacare. Theoretically, if all participants buy into coverage at all ages, prices will drop a wee bit over the next 3 years or so. California's rates dropped immediately, it would seem. Note, political wonks, that the GOP is fighting any and all funding for the purpose of encouraging and enabling full enrollment, a choice that, if the campaigns are honest, ought to be brought up in 2014, as it costs every citizen money.
Finally, given your self-description, TC, I suspect you ought to be eligible for some tax credits. If you make less than 65K per annum,you get something. And, if you make more than that, I cannot fathom why you 'feel' the pain of 400 bucks per month for health insurance. Sure, that's real money, but we're talking about coverage that ought to prevent potential economic catastrophe, and if you have to shell out $700 per month, it should be seen as a bargain at our age. In my case, I spend more than $400 a month on sheer frivolity(racetracks, dinners out, fishing tackle, bait, other assorted splurges), so in terms of relative importance to my ongoing financial and physical health, the decision to purchase health insurance is a no-brainer. Like I say, I really don't get your perspective on this one......

Slick, let me put it this way. I'd feel more comfortable paying for medical care if it gave me any benefits in return. My hit rate with our medical system in getting any good medical care had been pretty dismal so far in my life. I see my money going out, but very little good care in return. I really don't want to avail myself of the system anymore than I have to. It sucks. I can think of better uses for my $400 bucks a month than paying some greedy insurance company or to doctors that are overworked, don't have the time to really treat me effectively and really don't care one way or another other than getting paid. I'd also be more amenable to using the system if it was more cost transparent. Right now, I feel more like I'm being fleeced by gypsies and rovers.

callmeslick wrote:TC, let me preface these comments with my long-stated opinion that for the VAST bulk of the population, cradle to grave Medicare gives by far the best bang for buck medical coverage.

Medicare relies on having providers that are willing to take it.

You can’t just institute universal health care based on Medicare without wholesale changes to what providers are required to take as insurance.

If you are going to continue to advocate “cradle to grave Medicare” please tell us the rest of the story.

tunnelcat wrote:Slick, let me put it this way. I'd feel more comfortable paying for medical care if it gave me any benefits in return. My hit rate with our medical system in getting any good medical care had been pretty dismal so far in my life. I see my money going out, but very little good care in return. I really don't want to avail myself of the system anymore than I have to. It sucks. I can think of better uses for my $400 bucks a month than paying some greedy insurance company or to doctors that are overworked, don't have the time to really treat me effectively and really don't care one way or another other than getting paid. I'd also be more amenable to using the system if it was more cost transparent. Right now, I feel more like I'm being fleeced by gypsies and rovers.

wow! My experience is exactly the opposite, and while I'm seldom jingoistic, IMHO, the US quality of healthcare is superb, likely close to state of the art. The problem, of course is availablity in some areas(notably rural) and affordability in all areas.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:TC, let me preface these comments with my long-stated opinion that for the VAST bulk of the population, cradle to grave Medicare gives by far the best bang for buck medical coverage.

Medicare relies on having providers that are willing to take it.

yeah......and when it's the only game in town, do you really think you will lose many providers? Seriously? Hasn't happened in any other nation with universal healthcare.

You can’t just institute universal health care based on Medicare without wholesale changes to what providers are required to take as insurance.

you base this assertion upon, what? French compensation is less than Medicare, as are the rates in many other countries.

If you are going to continue to advocate “cradle to grave Medicare” please tell us the rest of the story.

I kind of thought I'd beaten it to death in many prior threads.

Well, providers in this country won’t spend millions on medical school, followed by millions in malpractice insurance to live like paupers…like in Japan.

My point is…you are not telling the entire story, that goes along with single payer, you are just putting part of the story out there. (the benefits)

The fact is…the entire structure of care giving and purchasing would have to go through a complete overhaul, because you can’t simply change to a single payer system, without them.

If you look at Japan as an example…providers there are in the game to provide people with care…players here are in it for the money…that’s number one problem you will have to contend with…but I never hear how this will be done.

We have an elitist system here…so until I hear how to solve this most basic of problem…single payer is a dead issue.

callmeslick wrote:I dunno what you folks are looking at, but in California they released the rates, and Forbe's writer found them shockingly low!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ium-rates/

I am similarly pleasantly surprised by preliminary info here in Delaware. Are you, TC, basing your view on actual rates or reportage about POSSIBLE rate schedules?

Slick, it looks like the Forbes writer who found the rates "shockingly low" didnt do the math or look at the big picture well enough:
Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

callmeslick wrote:wow! My experience is exactly the opposite, and while I'm seldom jingoistic, IMHO, the US quality of healthcare is superb, likely close to state of the art. The problem, of course is availablity in some areas(notably rural) and affordability in all areas.

Well, just wait until you get something that they can't figure out, cure or fix. Believe me, the system sucks in that department. The pay-for-service system we have just doesn't solve that issue, it exacerbates it. If they can't figure out what's wrong with you, you have 2 options. Keep paying and paying while they try to figure what ails you, all the time plying you with expensive tests and drugs they think might help you (but usually f**k you up instead) because it makes the system oodles of money, or give up and save your dough and live with your condition until it kills you or becomes bad enough they can find the solution. Actually, there's a third option. You're a hypochondriac. They label you a faker or somaticizer because they aren't smart enough to figure out what's making you sick and yet they want SOME diagnosis that will allow them to save face and still make money. I say, make the system a pay-for-results based. They no fixie, they no get paidie.

But seriously, the best change the system could have is to make COSTS TRANSPARENT AND PUBLIC to the patient, for every procedure or hospital rate and charge. You can bet that the American consumer would sure as hell make far better choices as to their medical care. Obamacare DID NOT FIX THIS.

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, it looks like the Forbes writer who found the rates "shockingly low" didnt do the math or look at the big picture well enough:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... by-64-146/

Sounds more like the new reality to me.

Just for ho hoes, since slick is unwilling to give the rest of the story…let me put this out there to ponder…

In this country, we have a primarily employer/taxpayer based insurance system (with some exceptions)

Employers are paying the lion’s share of a lot of people’s insurance, introduce single payer into this magic world where Medicare “is the only game in town” and where do you think the bill for insurance is going to go.

Yup, you guessed it…you the taxpayer.

And if the government simply introduces a business tax to cover the additional costs born by Medicare…then the advantages pointed out for business…will be nothing but imaginary.

Spidey wrote:Well, providers in this country won’t spend millions on medical school, followed by millions in malpractice insurance to live like paupers…like in Japan.

depending on how you write the law, malpractice limits can(and should) be included. We should have some sensible tort policy refore there, no matter what. The cost of Med school might end up something society wishes to address, but the only way around that one is subsidies for tuition.

My point is…you are not telling the entire story, that goes along with single payer, you are just putting part of the story out there. (the benefits)

sorry, but under the worst case scenarios, there is WAY too much evidence that the cost/citizen for healthcare plummets.

The fact is…the entire structure of care giving and purchasing would have to go through a complete overhaul, because you can’t simply change to a single payer system, without them.

If you look at Japan as an example…providers there are in the game to provide people with care…players here are in it for the money…that’s number one problem you will have to contend with…but I never hear how this will be done.

very good, you touch on the single core issue. The rest of the world regards healthcare at a decent level to be a right of citizenship. The US views it as a for-profit industry. Yes, that will have to change, and another cost I have always mentioned, that you even fail to cite, is the cost of reimbursing insurers and their stockholders for massive income loss at the outset. That is easily covered by the tax code(cap losses), but has to be factored in.

We have an elitist system here…so until I hear how to solve this most basic of problem…single payer is a dead issue.[/quote]

Now I see that Obamacare had to cut pre-existing condition coverage.
Rationing the healthcare coverage already? I thought, I mean, we were told, that was just crazy Sarah Palin kind of talk yet here they go already! And in year one of the program no less?!? Say it ain't so!!

“Finally, due to growing concerns about the rate of PCIP [Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program] spending, in February 2013, CCIIO [under HHS] suspended PCIP enrollment to ensure the appropriated funding would be sufficient to cover claims for current enrollees through the end of the program,” states the GAO report, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Enrollment and Spending in the Early Retiree Reinsurance and Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan Programs.

Hey slick, just how quickly will those you think were subverted find their faith again I wonder?

What’s the problem…I thought everyone without insurance was young and healthy, or at least enough of them to cover the pathetically small number of us sickly types.

Will Robinson wrote:Now I see that Obamacare had to cut pre-existing condition coverage.
Rationing the healthcare coverage already? I thought, I mean, we were told, that was just crazy Sarah Palin kind of talk yet here they go already! And in year one of the program no less?!? Say it ain't so!!

“Finally, due to growing concerns about the rate of PCIP [Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program] spending, in February 2013, CCIIO [under HHS] suspended PCIP enrollment to ensure the appropriated funding would be sufficient to cover claims for current enrollees through the end of the program,” states the GAO report, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Enrollment and Spending in the Early Retiree Reinsurance and Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan Programs.

Hey slick, just how quickly will those you think were subverted find their faith again I wonder?

ummm, if you read the words you quoted, you would see they suspended enrollment to allow the funding to catch up. Therein lies the problem which will likely carry over to the next election. The GOP house is trying to starve the funding necessary to initiate the full program, and that hurts everyone.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Now I see that Obamacare had to cut pre-existing condition coverage.
Rationing the healthcare coverage already? I thought, I mean, we were told, that was just crazy Sarah Palin kind of talk yet here they go already! And in year one of the program no less?!? Say it ain't so!!

“Finally, due to growing concerns about the rate of PCIP [Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program] spending, in February 2013, CCIIO [under HHS] suspended PCIP enrollment to ensure the appropriated funding would be sufficient to cover claims for current enrollees through the end of the program,” states the GAO report, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Enrollment and Spending in the Early Retiree Reinsurance and Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan Programs.

Hey slick, just how quickly will those you think were subverted find their faith again I wonder?

ummm, if you read the words you quoted, you would see they suspended enrollment to allow the funding to catch up. Therein lies the problem which will likely carry over to the next election. The GOP house is trying to starve the funding necessary to initiate the full program, and that hurts everyone.

I did read the words and no where does it say to blame the republicans for what some of them might try to do in the future for what is happening right now in the real world!,

Obama's phony projections are falling apart under the application of real math!
The GOP might be talking about unfunding Obamacare but that hasn't happened and probably won't. And, more to the point, regardless of what they may do, it isn't the reason Obama is rationing health care already!! That is just really weak spin on your part.

This rationing of healthcare has happened immediately after starting the program is because Obama lied about the cost and about the projected pricing that is going up instead of down! And because the media let him get away with lying about it because they would rather have a fraud of a democrat than any kind of a republican.

Why do you think Kathleen Sebelius is illegally trying to strong arm insurance carriers into giving her private funds to put into Obamacare? It isn't because the numbers were accurate that for sure!

And Vegas just called, they said that after you add in all the illegal immigrants the democrats amnesty is going to add to the expense the odds of funding catching up to the real projected outlays are so out of whack that they can't even be calculated. they said just send them all your money if you were going to bet on that.

Funding! I was under the impression this thing was going to pay for itself and more. LOLOL

Judging from that text…it would seem they underestimated the amount of people with pre-existing conditions…I do believe I get a gold star on that one.

Of course its the GOP's fault. That's their fall back for a shitty law that they freely admit they didn't read before passing. They dont know whats in it, they alone passed it, they cant defend it. Blame someone else

CUDA wrote:Of course its the GOP's fault. That's their fall back for a **** law that they freely admit they didn't read before passing. They dont know whats in it, they alone passed it, they cant defend it. Blame someone else

It is actually worse than that! They not only don't read it they knowingly vote for it when there is little to no detail contained in the Bill they vote for!! They have place holders in the body of the Bill that say things like 'The rules, expenses and source of funding for this section to be determined at a later date...'!!

The mainstream media in this country has abandoned their responsibility so blatantly and wilfully that any harm to the public's general welfare caused by either political party's selfish machinations is as much the media's fault as it is the politicians who perpetrate the act!!

CUDA wrote:Of course its the GOP's fault. That's their fall back for a shitty law that they freely admit they didn't read before passing. They dont know whats in it, they alone passed it, they cant defend it. Blame someone else

That’s a damn good point, but the Dem’s will say “but it’s now a law” so if it’s a law…then fund it the same way you passed it.

CUDA wrote:Of course its the GOP's fault. That's their fall back for a **** law that they freely admit they didn't read before passing. They dont know whats in it, they alone passed it, they cant defend it. Blame someone else

Partially. Both parties are to blame. The whole thing is nothing but a hairball of an idea designed by committees with diverging agendas. Congress put in what they, or their lobbyists, wanted in this bill, but not what was really needed for the people who have to use it. It's not going to work. It will ultimately fail.

Spidey wrote:Funding! I was under the impression this thing was going to pay for itself and more. LOLOL

Judging from that text…it would seem they underestimated the amount of people with pre-existing conditions…I do believe I get a gold star on that one.

I don't know where you got that idea, the concept was that the savings would offset the funding over the 10 year CBO study period. However, if you don't put in the startup funding to get enrollment done(and that is the issue, not the number of people, it's the speed with which those people chose to sign up before 2014), then society will suffer.

Duh, of course I knew it was going to have to be “funded” I’m not that naive…I never once believed there were not going to be any tax increases…lol.

But, it’s going to have to be funded on the fed’s credit card because of the no new tax lie…errr pledge.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Funding! I was under the impression this thing was going to pay for itself and more. LOLOL

Judging from that text…it would seem they underestimated the amount of people with pre-existing conditions…I do believe I get a gold star on that one.

I don't know where you got that idea, the concept was that the savings would offset the funding over the 10 year CBO study period. However, if you don't put in the startup funding to get enrollment done(and that is the issue, not the number of people, it's the speed with which those people chose to sign up before 2014), then society will suffer.

Would that be the same initial 10 year period that required the tax revenue collections begin four or five years prior to the plan actually paying out anything just to reach the projected budget? And even with the extra revenue included the plan still doesn't come close to covering the expenses according to Obama's own budget office?!?

So in years 11 and onward is Obama going to do some kind of deal like Superman where he flies around the earth so fast that we spin backwards every 10 years to give us some extra tax revenue years?

As to not enough people signing up....duh! The price was already more than they thought was worth paying relative to the risk and now it is even higher! Of course they arent going to sign up!!

um, Will, most of the signup delay was due to the fact that the insurance provision doesn't go into effect until 2014........

callmeslick wrote:um, Will, most of the signup delay was due to the fact that the insurance provision doesn't go into effect until 2014........

You are dodging the point. The projections included tax revenue coming in for a number of years without paying anything out and even with that one time trick they came up short once the real numbers were used. Now they are seeing costs go up instead of down AND fewer people buying into it than their projections called for.

So to suggest they have started rationing coverage because the republicans are possibly going to do something to defund it that hasn't happened yet....is pathetic denial or shameless spin!

My take is if you have to hire 100,000 people to explain how Obamacare works, then something is wrong.

woodchip wrote:My take is if you have to hire 100,000 people to explain how Obamacare works, then something is wrong.

it's like any new program(one recent one that jumps to mind was the conversion to all-digital TV) that requires citizen participation: you have to advertise to reach those who will be needed to participate. Most citizens have lots to deal with in everyday life, just paying the bills, going to work, etc. Of course, if one wishes a program to fail, a great way to help that along is to deny funds to advertise the program.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:um, Will, most of the signup delay was due to the fact that the insurance provision doesn't go into effect until 2014........

You are dodging the point. The projections included tax revenue coming in for a number of years without paying anything out and even with that one time trick they came up short once the real numbers were used. Now they are seeing costs go up instead of down AND fewer people buying into it than their projections called for.

So to suggest they have started rationing coverage because the republicans are possibly going to do something to defund it that hasn't happened yet....is pathetic denial or shameless spin!

at no time did I suggest that care would ever BE rationed. It won't. It will just create a bureaucratic slowdown until such time as they can get everyone enrolled. In fact, that was one of the points I tried to make at the beginning of the thread.....no one is cutting back the program, nor changing the rolls, they merely suspended enrollment to allow them to catch up on the paperwork.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:My take is if you have to hire 100,000 people to explain how Obamacare works, then something is wrong.

it's like any new program(one recent one that jumps to mind was the conversion to all-digital TV) that requires citizen participation: you have to advertise to reach those who will be needed to participate. Most citizens have lots to deal with in everyday life, just paying the bills, going to work, etc. Of course, if one wishes a program to fail, a great way to help that along is to deny funds to advertise the program.

Hiring 100k employees is not about advertising. This is about untangling a quagmire of rules and regulations nobody understands.

where do you come up with the 100,000 employee figure, and what is the breakdown on their roles in those jobs?