Seeing republicans argue against medicare cuts is funny.

bulldg4life: Seeing republicans argue against medicare cuts is funny.

These same people are pro-rape.

bulldg4life: Seeing republicans argue against medicare cuts is funny.

I'd like to see someone actually get up there after someone rails about socialism and against Medicare cuts and ask them to explain why if they are against socialism why are they not for cutting Medicare all together?

It's interesting that they would say that, since most of what was going to be in this bill has been pretty widely known for, oh, six months or so now.

Racht: It's interesting that they would say that, since most of what was going to be in this bill has been pretty widely known for, oh, six months or so now.

Well, they've got to come up with some new point to whine about.

FTFA: Reid included a payroll tax increase of .5 percentage point on income greater for $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples

Why not $125k for individuals? or $400k for couples?

Democrats included a new tax on high-value insurance policies

This doesn't make sense to me - can someone explain why they would do this?

Medical device manufacturers, insurance companies, drug makers and recipients of elective cosmetic surgery would also face new or higher taxes.

Ok, I get the cosmetic surgery stuff, but wouldn't raising taxes on device manufacturers, insurance companies, and drug makers induce them to raise their (already very high) prices?

...expanding coverage to 31 million who now lack insurance...

Why are we not expanding it to anyone who lacks coverage?

Senate Republicans blast Democrat's healthcare bill as a "bait and switch", reportedly furious that what was supposed to be a big give-away to insurance companies, now looks like it may actually help the poor and uninsured

Must be Friday.

/Or Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday...
/FIX OLD NO NEW

Funny, I was under the impression that the bait and switch went the other direction.

cmunic8r99: This doesn't make sense to me - can someone explain why they would do this?

Usage tax. As in, those with those high-value policies are pushing up the cost for others.

cmunic8r99: Ok, I get the cosmetic surgery stuff, but wouldn't raising taxes on device manufacturers, insurance companies, and drug makers induce them to raise their (already very high) prices?

No. Things are sold at the price point the market can bear. The cost of it is irrelevant except to its existence. The recent jack in prices is an attempt to push what the market can bear higher, and it's a semi-risky strategy, especially with the political climate where it is.

cmunic8r99: Why are we not expanding it to anyone who lacks coverage?

Because the Democrats totally failed at arguing for single-payer or even a strong public option. I know the Republicans wharglbed against it, but the only reason their bizarre lies found any traction was that the Democrats had totally failed to make the case in any good terms.

When a Republican asks for the bill to be read prior to a vote on it, as the rules stipulate, it will take about 40 hours at a minute per page. The rules also state that this may be done on three different occasions. This isn't a filibuster, it is an option in the rules. I can't help but think that this will be the first time many members will hear it or have read it in it's entirety.

Tyee: I can't help but think that this will be the first time many members will hear it or have read it in it's entirety.

What good do you think that will do? Seriously.

Senate Republicans blast Democrat's healthcare bill

which democrat?

Subby, it is a big giveaway to the insurance companies. Forcing everyone to buy insurance is their dream. Even Michael Moore knows it is a giveaway, and I don't think he's a Republican.

Racht: It's interesting that they would say that, since most of what was going to be in this bill has been pretty widely known for, oh, six months or so now.

Well, their lies about what was in the bill 6 months ago have been debunked, so they need to claim something else in order to fuel doubt: "Sure, what we said wasn't true, but what was true isn't true anymore, so maybe we were right all along."

bulldg4life: Seeing republicans argue against medicare cuts is funny.

It's excellent politics, even if contemtiple hypocrisy and stunningly inconsistent with their supposed poltical philosophy. Older people are the most reliably voting demographic in the country and most fo them, thanks to our lack ofa coherent health care system in this coutnry, are utterly dependant on medicare to help them with their increasingly severe health problems. Therefore they are extremely vulnerable to scare tactics concerning medicare.

Obdicut: Because the Democrats totally failed at arguing for single-payer or even a strong public option. I know the Republicans wharglbed against it, but the only reason their bizarre lies found any traction was that the Democrats had totally failed to make the case in any good terms.

That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

Cool. Another health thread. I wonder what new things will come to light.

that is 3158.06 per uninsured per year.

8.65 a day.

not too bad.

if it works.

cmunic8r99: This doesn't make sense to me - can someone explain why they would do this?

The other thing is that as it currently stands, health care insurance is not taxed by the government. Implicitly, this is a government subsidy. This is done primarily to make it so that companies have an incentive to provide health care. What we're seeing in some cases is that companies are providing incredibly valuable healthcare. The idea is that clearly the people receiving health care benefits that are worth that much are in no danger of losing health care, so it doesn't make sense for them to get a subsidy in the form of a tax exemption.

Ideally health care benefits would be taxed at the same rate as income, but Unions and teabaggers don't like this.

Obdicut: Because the Democrats totally failed at arguing for single-payer or even a strong public option. I know the Republicans wharglbed against it, but the only reason their bizarre lies found any traction was that the Democrats had totally failed to make the case in any good terms.

Personally, I'm fine with doing this half-measure first, then in 5 years revisiting it and bringing up Single Payer. Remember, this is not zero-sum... we can easily go back and do this again if we want. Especially if people end up liking this, which I think they will.

GaryPDX: That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

How so?

Oh wow, I can't believe they're applying new yet somehow tired already rhetoric to a bill they know they can't stop.

"Bait and switch" implies they were actually going to be baited in any way. The fact of the matter is that they were going to be against the bill regardless of the contents.

GaryPDX: That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

Yes Gary, and as we know, republicans are all for personal freedom.

Except about whom I can marry. Or if he could get spousal benefits. Or if he can be there if my family didn't adore him as much as I would.

Or if I my friend could have an abortion.

Or if my friends who are making less have health care...

Ya know, you need to shut the hell up now and then and don't pick fights you can't win.

GaryPDX: Obdicut: Because the Democrats totally failed at arguing for single-payer or even a strong public option. I know the Republicans wharglbed against it, but the only reason their bizarre lies found any traction was that the Democrats had totally failed to make the case in any good terms.

That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

What do you care? You don't have a life worth controlling. I mean, you spend most your failure of a life poorly trolling Fark threads.

bulldg4life: Seeing republicans argue against medicare cuts is funny.

Well they attacked the stimulus which had the biggest tax cuts ever.

They are against anything Obama is for.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Senate Republicans blast Democrat's healthcare bill as a "bait and switch", reportedly furious that what was supposed to be a big give-away to insurance companies, now looks like it may actually help the poor and uninsured

Must be Friday.

/Or Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday...
/FIX OLD NO NEW

So it's not the bill they were against?

Doak 2009-11-20 11:38:38 AM
GaryPDX: That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

"How so?"

Oh you already know what he's going to say.
He's going to say it takes away your right to choose your insurance provider (which it doesn't).
He's going to say it will kill your granny (which it won't).
He's going to say that it will be forcing abortions on women (which it can't).

Basically he's going to spew his usual brand of blatantly false disinformation with a healthy side help of "statisticals".

Doak: GaryPDX: That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

How so?

It removes peoples freedom to choose. It forces government rules on everyone. And making a choice between one plan or a government plan is not a choice at all. That's like saying we're going cut off one of your hands but you get to choose which one.

Do you really believe dietary and behavioral rules aren't next? Rationing?..Rationing is a form of control. Look at the H1N1 dealio, the Fed can't get this shiat right on anything, that's why we limit their powers.

saintstryfe: Personally, I'm fine with doing this half-measure first, then in 5 years revisiting it and bringing up Single Payer. Remember, this is not zero-sum... we can easily go back and do this again if we want. Especially if people end up liking this, which I think they will.

The Senate's plan doesn't even really kick off until 2014, making your 5 year trial run last until 2019. Ten years from now. In the last ten years, health insurance premiums have risen 131%. Assuming this bill slows the growth rate, we're still up shiat's creek by then. Unacceptable.

Arnold T Pants: Subby, it is a big giveaway to the insurance companies. Forcing everyone to buy insurance is their dream. Even Michael Moore knows it is a giveaway, and I don't think he's a Republican.

That's what it sounds like to me, too, and I'm relatively unfamiliar with the bill's specifics. Say it with me: SINGLE PAYER.

cmunic8r99: FTFA: Reid included a payroll tax increase of .5 percentage point on income greater for $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples

Why not $125k for individuals? or $400k for couples?


It's a return to the old "marriage penalty" that's built into the IRS tax code.

Tyee: When a Republican asks for the bill to be read prior to a vote on it, as the rules stipulate, it will take about 40 hours at a minute per page. The rules also state that this may be done on three different occasions. This isn't a filibuster, it is an option in the rules. I can't help but think that this will be the first time many members will hear it or have read it in it's entirety.

which, given that it's written in the final legislative langauge , will make about as much sense to the listeners as listening to someone read the source code for Windows 7 out loud in its uncompiled form. There's a REASON the reading of bill is always waived by unanimous consent. Memebers have already read the "conceptual language" bill which basically explains what the bill si for and how much it will cost. The bill is then translated into what amounts to a highly tecnical code by specialists who make sure that the whole intent of the thing isn't changed by an inadvertant dangling participle.

Thus, if you look the ACTUAL Public law up, rather than its entry into the Annotated Code, it will say things like "Change the fourth word of subparagraph (e) of paragraph 4 of subsection ii of section 1912 of title 9 of the United states code from "and" to "or"

Corvus: bulldg4life: Seeing republicans argue against medicare cuts is funny.

Well they attacked the stimulus which had the biggest tax cuts ever.

Full of pork

BergZ
He's going to say it takes away your right to choose your insurance provider
GaryPDX
It removes peoples freedom to choose.

Nailed It!
/lol

You spit so much FUD I don't know how you leave the house GaryPDX.

Doak: cmunic8r99: This doesn't make sense to me - can someone explain why they would do this?

The other thing is that as it currently stands, health care insurance is not taxed by the government. Implicitly, this is a government subsidy. This is done primarily to make it so that companies have an incentive to provide health care. What we're seeing in some cases is that companies are providing incredibly valuable healthcare. The idea is that clearly the people receiving health care benefits that are worth that much are in no danger of losing health care, so it doesn't make sense for them to get a subsidy in the form of a tax exemption.

Ideally health care benefits would be taxed at the same rate as income, but Unions and teabaggers don't like this.

Why is it a tax "exemption?" Because some group of people chose a profession for the health benefits? Or because certain jobs have a benefit of good health insurance?

How do you know that they are not being taxed more in other ways? Just because a group of people (let's say TEACHERS) have a great healthcare plan, why should they be taxed for it? Since congress has a great healthcare plan, they should also be taxed for it, same with the president, and scotus.

What's your solution? Take away EVERYONE's health care plan, and give them the great government healthcare plan? Tell ya what, I'll be the first to sign up....if I can get bam's healthcare plan.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Senate Republicans blast Democrat's healthcare bill as a "bait and switch", reportedly furious that what was supposed to be a big give-away to insurance companies, now looks like it may actually help the poor and uninsured

Must be Friday.

/Or Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday...
/FIX OLD NO NEWSMALLER GOVERNMENT, NOT BIGGER GOVERNMENT.

Fixed this for ya.

/doesn't give a shiat about the non-working welfare cases sucking those that work dry
//get a damned job, or join the military if you want health care
///WORK for it.

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Senate Republicans blast Democrat's healthcare bill as a "bait and switch", reportedly furious that what was supposed to be a big give-away to insurance companies, now looks like it may actually help the poor and uninsured

Must be Friday.

/Or Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday...
/FIX OLD NO NEW

Do you have a blank of that? Because ... damn that's awesome.

Obdicut: Usage tax. As in, those with those high-value policies are pushing up the cost for others.

is the high-value not offset by high-premiums?

Doak: The idea is that clearly the people receiving health care benefits that are worth that much are in no danger of losing health care, so it doesn't make sense for them to get a subsidy in the form of a tax exemption.

I guess I'd have to find an example of a high-value insurance plan, because if this is something that can be purchased like most people do - through work - it is certainly possible they can lose that coverage.

Obdicut: No. Things are sold at the price point the market can bear.

But a cut in margin on these devices/services will be made up somewhere. I understand that there are many places expenses can be cut to increase profit, but increasing revenue through price increases certainly has to be an option. No?

saintstryfe: Personally, I'm fine with doing this half-measure first, then in 5 years revisiting it and bringing up Single Payer. Remember, this is not zero-sum... we can easily go back and do this again if we want. Especially if people end up liking this, which I think they will.

They still completely farked up the message from the first day, and have never actually gotten coherent.

Shaggy_C: "Bait and switch" implies they were actually going to be baited in any way. The fact of the matter is that they were going to be against the bill regardless of the contents.

How about:

1. reduce the size of the bill
2. allow someone to READ the bill (32 hours isn't enough time btw)
3. actually FIX the PROBLEM not introduce new and creative government bullshiat.

/had the government taking care of his healthcare
//was NOT impressed.

PanicMan: Hung Like A Tic-Tac: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Senate Republicans blast Democrat's healthcare bill as a "bait and switch", reportedly furious that what was supposed to be a big give-away to insurance companies, now looks like it may actually help the poor and uninsured

Must be Friday.

/Or Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday...
/FIX OLD NO NEW

Do you have a blank of that? Because ... damn that's awesome.

sorry, no. I snagged it from someone here. I think it's funny as hell.

GaryPDX: Doak: GaryPDX: That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

How so?

It removes peoples freedom to choose. It forces government rules on everyone. And making a choice between one plan or a government plan is not a choice at all. That's like saying we're going cut off one of your hands but you get to choose which one.

Do you really believe dietary and behavioral rules aren't next? Rationing?..Rationing is a form of control. Look at the H1N1 dealio, the Fed can't get this shiat right on anything, that's why we limit their powers.

Step away from the computer and turn off Paranoia Radio. Go outside and breathe the fresh fall air, even if it is a little bit rainy.

SteelPeart: //get a damned job, or join the military if you want health care

YEAH MOTHERF*CKERS! 300M+ IN THE USA AND FOR EVERY ONE OF THEM IT COMES DOWN TO THIS! THERE ARE NO OTHER POSSIBLE SCENARIOS. IT'S REALLY AS SIMPLE AS THIS.

clown

SteelPeart: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Senate Republicans blast Democrat's healthcare bill as a "bait and switch", reportedly furious that what was supposed to be a big give-away to insurance companies, now looks like it may actually help the poor and uninsured

Must be Friday.

/Or Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday...
/FIX OLD NO NEWSMALLER GOVERNMENT, NOT BIGGER GOVERNMENT.

Fixed this for ya.

/doesn't give a shiat about the non-working welfare cases sucking those that work dry
//get a damned job, or join the military if you want health care
///WORK for it.

"Small government" is a laughable campaign gimmick.

BergZ: Doak 2009-11-20 11:38:38 AM
GaryPDX: That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

"How so?"

Oh you already know what he's going to say.
He's going to say it takes away your right to choose your insurance provider (which it doesn't).
He's going to say it will kill your granny (which it won't).
He's going to say that it will be forcing abortions on women (which it can't).

Basically he's going to spew his usual brand of blatantly false disinformation with a healthy side help of "statisticals".

so says the douchebag who has NEVER had "government healthcare" in any form.

you don't know what the fark you're even talking about
and no. Obama doesn't have the solution either.

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: BergZ
He's going to say it takes away your right to choose your insurance provider
GaryPDX
It removes peoples freedom to choose.

Nailed It!
/lol

Well? It does. It forces people to buy health insurance or face fines, penalties or prison through the tax code. Like I said, the freedom to choose not to buy it is removed. That's forced, no matter you cut it.

GaryPDX:

That's because it's a piece of shiat legislation that's not about healthcare at all, it's about controlling peoples lives.

So, where do you stand on the Patriot Act?

Please share with the rest of us.