what's that you said?

Hmm, this is what Pelosi has been waiting for to run the vote. I doubt she does it on a Friday though. Monday is my guess.

kmmontandon: Yes, but that means the CBO is back to being partisan and unreliable.

oh, i'd forgotten about that bit. good catch!

kmmontandon: Yes, but that means the CBO is back to being partisan and unreliable.

i'm adding it to my list of anti-GOP conspirators.

I Said: kmmontandon: Yes, but that means the CBO is back to being partisan and unreliable.

i'm adding it to my list of anti-GOP conspirators.

write it in pencil, in case they discover something tomorrow that makes them change their minds.

In before retards claiming it doesn't count because the benefits don't start til the program is fully funded which is bad

cameroncrazy1984: In before retards claiming it doesn't count because the benefits don't start til the program is fully funded which is bad

I heard the benefits don't start until 2042, and that "benefits" actually means "mandatory abortions".

I'm going to put my money on "It doesn't decrease the deficit enough".

Any takers?

Barbigazi: I'm going to put my money on "It doesn't decrease the deficit enough".

Any takers?

I'll take that in an exacta box with "It won't create enough new jobs in the health sector."

Wait, I want to change my answer! I'm going with this:

"Yeah through rationing and making doctors into modern day slaves it will."

jbc: I'll take that in an exacta box with "It won't create enough new jobs in the health sector."

And I'll go with the perfecta: "it still doesn't actually reduce healthcare costs, which are the real problem"

They kill off enough old people and yeah, there will be some savings.

if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

ne2d: Great, so now they'll just add another $118 billion in spending and claim it's "deficit-neutral," then find out too late that $118 billion was wildly off the mark.

How's that?

No, it's "partisan and unreliable". You missed the partisan part.

thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

I think you don't understand the meaning of "deficit"

ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

It's so risky that every other country that's tried it is ranked ahead of the US on affordability and availability of care.

cameroncrazy1984: thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

I think you don't understand the meaning of "deficit"

death panels?

thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

We're trying to reduce the deficit, not increase it. The bill is a net decrease to the deficit, why the fark would you try to change that.

ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

One word: bullshiat

GAT_00: thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

We're trying to reduce the deficit, not increase it. The bill is a net decrease to the deficit, why the fark would you try to change that

ha sorry i should have been more clear that i was submitting my predicted republican talking point. dead-pan doesn't come through very well in print.

cameroncrazy1984: ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

It's so risky that every other country that's tried it is ranked ahead of the US on affordability and availability of care.

I don't think it's the end result that's risky, it's the implementation that holds all the danger. Getting a working system in place in a country full of imbeciles with one block of the government doing everything they can to destroy it... I give us 1 chance in 3.

ne2d: thomps: GAT_00: thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

We're trying to reduce the deficit, not increase it. The bill is a net decrease to the deficit, why the fark would you try to change that

ha sorry i should have been more clear that i was submitting my predicted republican talking point. dead-pan doesn't come through very well in print.

I don't think it's you. I've noticed that Gat_00's sarcasm detector seems to be nonoperational [what's wrong with "inoperational," Firefox?] a lot of the time.

Yeah, I totally missed the sarcasm there.

Mordant: cameroncrazy1984: ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

It's so risky that every other country that's tried it is ranked ahead of the US on affordability and availability of care.

I don't think it's the end result that's risky, it's the implementation that holds all the danger. Getting a working system in place in a country full of imbeciles with one block of the government doing everything they can to destroy it... I give us 1 chance in 3.

Hm, that's a good point. There's always the Republicans taking credit for it once they realize the public loves it.

The Republicans don't want this passed at this point for 2 main reasons;

1. If it's more expensive than Obama's predictions, the public will by then be feeling the benefit of guaranteed health-care. The American public doesn't like to give up good benefits so, like Social Security, no Republican will touch it if they want to stay in office.

2. If, as the CBO predicts, it saves money, Republicans will be shown as the shills that they are and they'll pay for it at the ballot box in 2012. But the voters and their notoriously short memories will follow previous patterns and and listen to whatever BS the wing-nuts are selling within a year or two.

bulldg4life: I'm partial to the new "The democrats will just end up spending the surplus that the bill creates" as a way to negate the idea of passing the bill. Just enough stupid to make someone slap themselves.

interesting you say that because most of the cost savings come from the fact that the democratic plan is to replace traditional cancer screening with the "is your hand bigger than your face" test.

Barbigazi: I'm going to put my money on "It doesn't decrease the deficit enough".

Any takers?

No, I think they're beyond even reasoning from false premises, beyond ad hominem, beyond the random collection of irrelevant sound bites.

I think we're finally going to see the full Chewbacca defense.

Are free late term abortions included?

When, in the history of the U.S. has a bill of this size and scope ever been able to reduce the budget deficit? I am all in favor of health care reform, to the point of a single payer nationalized plan, but please, just be honest about it.
Can you say newspeak?

Two words: Risky Scheme.






/hot