Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
House To Pass Health Care Without Voting  
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4201 times:

They know that the people hate the bill and they no longer have the votes to pass it. The solution: After the nuclear option, we now have the Slaughter Option.

http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/C...oid_Direct_Vote_On_Senate_Bill.pdf




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
211 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4182 times:

Yes, you will all die when more americans can get healthcare.

This is definitely comparable to a nuclear holocaust.

It is absolutely not a massive overreaction by a frustrated opposition and insurance corporations fearing for their future profits.

Yep.   


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6576 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4174 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
They know that the people hate the bill and they no longer have the votes to pass it.n,

How do you explain that while people are against the bill, once its broken up onto its parts, the majority favors these ideas?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5241 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
How do you explain that while people are against the bill, once its broken up onto its parts, the majority favors these ideas?

Good question. I'd love to see the answer to that as I've often wondered the same thing myself.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
It is absolutely not a massive overreaction by a frustrated opposition and insurance corporations fearing for their future profits.

Come now. How could you ever make such a suggestion? We all know that healthcare reform is evil, communist, socialist, and will lead us one step closer to being a carbon copy of the former Soviet Union. I'm already calling everyone I know comrade.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineAirStairs From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4153 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
How do you explain that while people are against the bill, once its broken up onto its parts, the majority favors these ideas?

Doesn't it make more sense to enact each component separately so that substantive evaluation and debate can take place for each issue rather than this kind of cacophony of debate that never seems to nail down on one single point? And doesn't it make sense to enact measures incrementally so that we can tell what works and what doesn't? If we do it all at once, it will be much more difficult to a) separate what works and what doesn't in the future and b) make adjustments according to those realities. I think more people favor the individual measures because it makes more sense to enact them that way.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4154 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):

This is definitely comparable to a nuclear holocaust.

The holocaust is political. This might help you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
How do you explain that while people are against the bill, once its broken up onto its parts, the majority favors these ideas?

Because people are only asked about the good parts. As I've talked about at length here before, I favor many of the things that are in the bill as well. But what I and most other people are not willing to accept is all the bad parts of the bill, such as:

- The huge cost, at a time when our budget is already stretched beyond the breaking point with unfunded liabilities. Even with 10 years of revenue and 6 of spending, it's still upside-down.
- Favorable treatment of politically connected groups
- The lack of regard for Constitutional limitations
- The massive complexity of the bill - too much too fast, when we have no idea how well step 1 will work.
- Lack of initiatives to reduce costs.

Just for starters.

[Edited 2010-03-11 11:54:45]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5241 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
The holocaust is political. This might help you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...egory

We all know what allegory is. I still contend that this does not rise to the level of "holocaust".



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4137 times:

How will the House of Reps pass the Health Care bill without voting? Is this legit?
Please explain. I am not familiar enough with how the U.S. system works.
Is this going to be by a Presidential decree?    



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
How will the House of Reps pass the Health Care bill without voting? Is this legit?

No, it's not Constitutional. I'd like to see how Speaker Pelosi is going to try and pull this off. I guess she's not comfortable enough to put it to a vote. I wonder why? I thought the American people were behind the Triumvirate on this?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
Is this going to be by a Presidential decree?

If he tried that, it would effectively end his presidency. I can easily see The Supreme Court stepping in and vacating such an order before the ink is dry.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 6):
We all know what allegory is. I still contend that this does not rise to the level of "holocaust".

Actually, for the Democrats and the Democratic Party, it will certainly be a "holocaust". They will wear their vote around their collective necks like an albatross.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4084 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
How will the House of Reps pass the Health Care bill without voting?

Whenever I try to read it, I still don't get how they'll do that.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
Is this going to be by a Presidential decree?

This is also what I don't get. Why do certain democracies (e.g. the US, Costa Rica) allow the issuing of presidential decrees (for passing certain regulations that directly affect the public)? That isn't very democratic to me.

Anyway, as far as my impressions on this, if the US was to introduce a system similar to e.g. the one in Germany (where you are required to have public health insurance, but retain the option for taking private healthcare starting with an average monthly salary of 4500 Euros and higher), I guess the outrage would only be on certain formalities within the public (e.g. like the current requirement in Germany to have to pay 10 Euros per quarter as "Praxisgebühr (practice fee)", or the additional fees that other insurers ask for, reduction of payments for certain treatments by the public insurance companies), but not so much on the system itself.

However, the way I gather, the problem is that the Dems are trying to impose a single state run health insurance, where everyone has no choice BUT to join. Sure, it may benefit those who can't afford private health care, but it may not benefit the others. The bill may be unbalanced, and that's what concerns the citizens. What gets me thinking is that this new system could potentially create a bureaucratic monster that will be heavily subject to abuse.

I've seen it with the Costa Rican state run health care system, which they call Social Security (people call it Caja, because its full name is "Caja Costariccense de Seguro Social"). The system of the Caja gets often abused of by illegal aliens, which is something that my former private doctor, who practiced once in a clinic run by the Caja, has mentioned. Let me just put it this way, illegal aliens, who do not pay ANYTHING into the Social Security system (because as illegal aliens, their employers don't pay the usual 9% to the Caja), get treatment at any point in time, while honest tax paying citizens and residents sometimes get screwed by the Caja. Even now there have been reports, where waiting times for appointments with the Caja for a certain speciality can be up to 2 years (!!!), while the state claims it's around 2 months or so, and invests money on a compulsory swine flu vaccination campaign (probably thanks to the lobby of the pharmaceutical companies), an accounting system for staff salaries that after 10 years, has not worked at all, x-ray equipment that has been responsible for certain cases of cancer, etc. And people in the middle class can't afford to go to private hospitals or private doctos; and even if they do and e.g. get a sick note, they still have to go to the Caja to convalidate the sick note (or else, it will count as an unjustified absence by the employer).

The system is collapsed, it needs reform, especially if the monopoly isn't dropped, but nothing has been done, and it's a pity because Costa Rica was one of the first countries in Latin America to introduce such a comprehensive healthcare system. That being said, the system in Germany, with public health insurance companies (who only charge a certain percentage from the salary, which is right now 14.9%, but you can still choose the public insurer of your chose, as some don't require certain extra fees or offer better coverage) and private health insurance companies (starting at a salary 4500 Euros a month or more, and who charge based on health risks such as age, current health, gender, job, etc.) would be a better alternative than the introduction of a completely state run and controlled system, which appears to be what Obama wants to have. Healthcare for all can't come at any costs.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4077 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 8):
No, it's not Constitutional. I'd like to see how Speaker Pelosi is going to try and pull this off. I guess she's not comfortable enough to put it to a vote. I wonder why? I thought the American people were behind the Triumvirate on this?
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
They know that the people hate the bill and they no longer have the votes to pass it. The solution: After the nuclear option, we now have the Slaughter Option.

Maybe it would help if you actually read what the plan is, rather than relying on the Fox News version. First of all, the House already voted on and passed the health care bill, back in November as a matter of fact. Second, the proposed rule change (which, by the way, would have to be approved by a vote of the House) would not mean that the House would not vote on the Senate bill. It would merely mean that, rather than taking one vote on the Senate bill as it currently stands and a separate vote on the corrections bill, the House would take one vote on the corrected version of the bill.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201003110037



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 3):
Come now. How could you ever make such a suggestion? We all know that healthcare reform is evil, communist, socialist, and will lead us one step closer to being a carbon copy of the former Soviet Union. I'm already calling everyone I know comrade.

That's the spirit!   

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
The holocaust is political.

Not in 100% of the cases getting your way is called being the opposition, an unloved but arch-democratic role. Simply learn to deal with it and stop acting like a sore loser.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4060 times:

The title is completely misleading. The bill has passed both House and Senate. It's a question of hammering out the differences in 'conference'.

A majority of Americans like the Bill but are afraid of the cost (deficit) impact. Also a lot of money has been spent on misinformation by interest groups. Whether the Bill will actually save money or cause a deficit is anybody's guess, as we are not equipped by nature to look ten years into the future, much less ten days.

Health Care is not going to be an albatross, the only thing that matters to Americans now is Jobs. If the economy picks up, it'll be a moot point.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 8):
No, it's not Constitutional. I'd like to see how Speaker Pelosi is going to try and pull this off. I guess she's not comfortable enough to put it to a vote. I wonder why? I thought the American people were behind the Triumvirate on this?

She is truly the most evil person I have ever seen. Keep it up Nancy. Your just digging a deeper hole.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
The title is completely misleading. The bill has passed both House and Senate. It's a question of hammering out the differences in 'conference'.

Which then it has to go to a vote again. Which she doesn't have the votes.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4021 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 13):
Which then it has to go to a vote again. Which she doesn't have the votes.

And if that's the case, the vote will fail, whether it's separated into two votes (one on the original bill, and a separate vote on the corrections bill) or combined into one vote on the corrected version of the bill. This just isn't a story, sorry.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineGatorFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4012 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
The title is completely misleading. The bill has passed both House and Senate.

That's not correct - the same bill has not passed both the House and the Senate. Let's at least be honest in our debate about facts.

The versions are COMPLETELY different. The House passed HR 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act). The Senate passed a version of HR 3590 (and amended it in its entirety. Note that HR 3590 was introduced and passed in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009". Because the Constitution also requires that revenue bills start in the House, the Senate took a prior House bill HR 3590 and amended it giving it the name - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). HR3590 as passed in the House has no semblance to what was passed in the Senate.

The US Constitution is quite clear in the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) about how bills have to pass. By both houses and then to the President. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the identical bill must be passed.

There is no ability for the Congress, the President or both acting together to modify the Presentment Clause. Justice Stevens in his decision in Clinton v. NY (striking down the line-item veto act) said:

Quote:
If there is to be a new procedure in which the President (as authorized by Congress in the line-item veto act) will play a different role in determining the final text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution.
Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
It's a question of hammering out the differences in 'conference'.

Since two different versions of a bill have passed the House and Senate meet in conference to work out the text of single piece of legislation. Each body then has to approve that exact language and once that is done, it is sent to the President for approval or veto.

For all the lefties who ranted about the extraconstitutional actions of the Bush Administration (though few if any federal courts have ever agreed with you) where are you now when the Democratic Congress seeks to simply ignore our Constitution and railroad through legislation in a manner that is completely unconstitutional?


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3990 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
. Whether the Bill will actually save money or cause a deficit is anybody's guess, as we are not equipped by nature to look ten years into the future, much less ten days.

Oh that makes a lot of sense...  Sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi's bull$hit statement that "we should pass health care so the people can know what's in the bill after the fact...through the 'fog'.." What a arrogant, ignorant statement. I expect nothing less from a woman who's not much more intelligent than my parents' pet fish. In fact, their fish makes more sense than the shit flying out of her and Reid's mouths.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3990 times:

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 15):
For all the lefties who ranted about the extraconstitutional actions of the Bush Administration (though few if any federal courts have ever agreed with you) where are you now when the Democratic Congress seeks to simply ignore our Constitution and railroad through legislation in a manner that is completely unconstitutional?

Let's see... the House would be voting on the corrected Senate bill, and the Senate would also be voting on the corrected Senate bill. That's unconstitutional... why, exactly?



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3972 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):

First off, I hope you are feeling better.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 8):
No, it's not Constitutional.

No it's not, especially the way they are contemplating going about it. There are now several Constitutional challenges that this bill will face before it can finally become law, even if the President does get a chance to sign it.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
Maybe it would help if you actually read what the plan is, rather than relying on the Fox News version.

Interesting, you assail the Fox version of probable events (intoning that Fox is wrong because obstensibly it is a conservative outlet) and use a mediamatters description to try an prove your point.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
First of all, the House already voted on and passed the health care bill, back in November as a matter of fact. Second, the proposed rule change (which, by the way, would have to be approved by a vote of the House) would not mean that the House would not vote on the Senate bill. It would merely mean that, rather than taking one vote on the Senate bill as it currently stands and a separate vote on the corrections bill, the House would take one vote on the corrected version of the bill.

First of all the Constitution clearly states:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2

Section 7.
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.


It's pretty simple, the Senate bill did not originate in the House so the House must take a vote on the Senate bill as is. If they make changes to it then the Senate must vote on it again since it is not then the same bill that the members passed. But I say let the House go ahead, that way when the Supreme Court rules that the law of the land, the Constitution, was not followed in the bills passage, it will once and for all be truly dead. Then perhaps the Democrats will seriously sit down and begin to discuss a law that works. Much of what is in the bills is agreeable to both sides, it is the approach taken that is not.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
The title is completely misleading. The bill has passed both House and Senate. It's a question of hammering out the differences in 'conference'.

The election of Scott Brown eliminated that option.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
Health Care is not going to be an albatross, the only thing that matters to Americans now is Jobs. If the economy picks up, it'll be a moot point.

I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon. Business leaders have made it plain that they are not willing to go out on a limb and start hiring until the political direction in Washington becomes more clear. Since the democratic leadership insists on spendng virtually every minute of the day on passing this insane bill on health care instead of spending their time working on the economy, which poll after poll says the general public wishes they would do, business leaders have frozen their position and are using temps and OT to fill the gaps for the time being,

Not only does the democratic leadership face serious Constitutional problems in passing this bill the way they are now evidently planning on doing, the mandate faces its own Constitutional challenge. The national democratic leadership also faces Constitutional challenges from the States as at last count 35 of them were moving to pass legislation outlawing mandated purchases of health insurance.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3961 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 9):
This is also what I don't get. Why do certain democracies (e.g. the US, Costa Rica) allow the issuing of presidential decrees (for passing certain regulations that directly affect the public)? That isn't very democratic to me.

By "decree," I assume you mean executive order.

The U.S. federal government is divided into three branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

The legislative branch (Congress) passes laws which are then signed into law by the President (the head of the executive branch). It is the responsibility of the executive branch and all of its departments (defense, treasury, justice, HHS, etc) to implement the policy objective of a law. Often, a law does not completely define how a policy is to be implemented. The President then issues an executive order declaring what is to be done and how. It’s not undemocratic. We elect an executive to do exactly that.

Sometimes an executive order will exceed the scope of powers outlined by Congress or the Constitution and it is the purpose of the judiciary to knock them back.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
Yes, you will all die when more americans can get healthcare.

So healthcare in Canada, UK, etc is just swell? Go ahead and smugly laugh at those who have legitimate objections to the proposed healthcare reform. The countries we should supposedly emulate have done no better job balancing treatment, research, and costs.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
It is absolutely not a massive overreaction by a frustrated opposition and insurance corporations fearing for their future profits.


The individual mandate that would make it illegal to not own health insurance - a legal concept which is totally incongruent with the notion of limited government - would be an enormous windfall to the profits of health insurance providers. It is no wonder why health insurance providers have donated to Democratic Congressional campaigns so heavily. This healthcare reform - supposedly for the little guy - is essentially a bailout for the health insurance providers, forever guaranteeing them profits.

What the insurance companies will fight tooth-and-nail is the conservative proposal submitted by Republicans to remove the barriers of selling insurance plans across state lines. This would actually make them compete outside of narrow geographic niches and thus provide better rates/coverage. But gee, we can't have that. We all know that the best products and services are offered by the government or a monopoly.  

[Edited 2010-03-11 14:40:51]

User currently offlineGatorFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3935 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 17):

Let's see... the House would be voting on the corrected Senate bill, and the Senate would also be voting on the corrected Senate bill. That's unconstitutional... why, exactly?

Did you read the link on the original post? The House would NOT vote on the corrected Senate Bill.

Quote:
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul
through the House and potentially AVOID A DIRECT VOTE [emphasis added] on the Senate overhaul bill, the
chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the
House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3911 times:

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 20):
Did you read the link on the original post? The House would NOT vote on the corrected Senate Bill.

The link states that the Senate bill would be considered "passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version." The House would clearly be voting on the corrected Senate bill. If they reject the corrections, they reject the entire bill as well.

Here's the non-sensationalized version of what's going on. To get around having lost the 60th vote in the Senate, which would be needed to pass a revised version of the HCR bill coming out of conference, the Dems plan to have the House vote to approve the current Senate bill. Of course, there are a number of elements of the Senate plan which House Dems dislike - these points would have been hammered out in conference, but with that option taken away, the new plan is to institute the necessary changes through reconciliation. There's one problem with this plan, which is that it requires House Dems to vote in favor of the Senate plan without knowing for sure that the Senate will approve the necessary edits. Hence this proposed idea - have the House vote only on the corrections, and state that a yes vote on the corrections will implicitly assume approval of the underlying bill as well. That way, if the Senate doesn't pass the corrections, the House can say that it never voted for the uncorrected bill.

It's not clear to me, though, what would happen if the House passed the corrections bill but the Senate did not. Either the two bodies have now not voted on the same law, so it doesn't take effect, or (because the vote on the corrections bill presumes a vote on the uncorrected bill), the uncorrected version would take effect, having been approved explicitly by the Senate and implicitly by the House.

http://www.slate.com/id/2247472/

This is actually already done in the House - it's how they "vote" to approve increases in the federal debt limit. Under the "Gephardt Rule," voting aye on a budget invoking an increased debt limit is also taken as a vote in favor of a resolution explicitly increasing the limit.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
passed the health care bill

Passed a health care bill, not this one.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
The bill has passed both House and Senate.

See above. A seperate bill passed each chamber. The bills (plural) have yet to go to conference. This is the step the Triumvirate wishes to avoid.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
It would merely mean that, rather than taking one vote on the Senate bill as it currently stands and a separate vote on the corrections bill, the House would take one vote on the corrected version of the bill.

The House MUST vote on the Senate bill, as-is, no changes, no corrections or enhancements. If it passes in this state, then the bill would go to The President to sign. Then, and only then, can The Senate work it out through reconcilliation. There can be no bill of reconcilliation until The President signs this thing. The House will not get a second vote. So, Speaker Pelosi has to trust that Leader Reid will put all the things that she is promising to her minions.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
Health Care is not going to be an albatross, the only thing that matters to Americans now is Jobs. If the economy picks up, it'll be a moot point.

Really? If this thing passes, every encumbant will have to face it in November. Especially, if unemployment climbs into the teens (wait, we're already in the teens, aren't we? Wasn't Stimulus supoosed to deal with that?, but I digress). This bill spends too much money at a time when the government can not afford it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22):
The House MUST vote on the Senate bill, as-is, no changes, no corrections or enhancements. If it passes in this state, then the bill would go to The President to sign. Then, and only then, can The Senate work it out through reconcilliation. There can be no bill of reconcilliation until The President signs this thing. The House will not get a second vote.

You're almost certainly correct. It seems to me that this is more of a political CYA move than anything else. For quite a lot of Democratic representatives in potential swing districts, the politically optimal outcome is that they individually vote against the reform plan, but that the House as a whole passes the plan. That way, their vote isn't held against them by conservatives and right-leaning moderates, but the Dems get their base-energizing major legislative accomplishment for the term. If the House votes to adopt a rule stating that approval of the corrections bill also constitutes approval of the baseline bill, then nervous representatives can move the bill towards passage while still telling their constituents that they didn't vote in favor of the icky Senate bill with its Cornhusker Kickbacks and weaker defunding of abortion. Of course, that claim would only be true in a technical sense, but those distinctions tend to be easy to gloss over in the current media climate.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3843 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 6):
We all know what allegory is. I still contend that this does not rise to the level of "holocaust".

Just wait until November, if this thing passes.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
Maybe it would help if you actually read what the plan is, rather than relying on the Fox News version.

Ummm... the report was not from Fox

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
First of all, the House already voted on and passed the health care bill, back in November as a matter of fact.

Different bill, different vote.

It looks like this attempt to circumvent the Constitution has been killed.

Quote:
The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 GatorFan : Sorry son but the Constitution doesn't allow this. Never has. Never will. Even the Democratic Senate Parliamentarian agrees that it's unconstitutiona
26 OA412 : Whoopee. And we'll get a Republican majority (i.e. more of the same). You know what I'd like to see in this country? Real change, not the same stale
27 DocLightning : You keep talking about cost except the GAO and several independent sources have all said that it will reduce the deficit.
28 DXing : Again, that bill did not originate in the House, it clearly contains revenue raising features, and so is unconstitutional unless the House takes the
29 Post contains links Yellowstone : The misinterpretation and/or distortion of the report was, however. I think you two are still missing the point of what's going on here. The chain of
30 fr8mech : And in order for Speaker Pelosi to get the votes she needs, she will have to trust that Leader Reid can cajole or strong-arm his minions to make the
31 Dreadnought : By increasing taxes by a 950 billion dollars and increasing spending by (if you believe them, which I do not) by about 100 billion less than that. Th
32 Ken777 : No, not really. The Republicans are going to stall any bill, be it a full bill or a baby step. And the issue of debate doesn't fly any more. There ha
33 Dreadnought : Compared to what - Medicare/Medicaid? Could it have anything to do with the fact that government programs severely underpay the medical providers, to
34 Klaus : Providing decent general health care instead of letting poorer people fall through all the way until they hit emergency care rock bottom is a matter
35 TCrew : It seems that in the 14 months since health care reform has been re-introduced the basic tenets of what is actually occuring has been lost in the clou
36 fr8mech : It wouldn't take a Conservative to push, just a citizen who has suddenly been required by his government to pay for health insurance that he doesn't
37 Post contains images CaliAtenza : In the whole time we've debated this topic on this forum, finally one rational, well thought out post comes out
38 GatorFan : I understand exactly what the point is. I've actually worked on the Hill so I have a pretty good understanding of the process. THIS WOULD BE UNCONSTI
39 NIKV69 : The Republicans can't stop anything. Why do you insist on blaming the GOP for all your failings? The DNC does not need anyone to pass anything they w
40 Yellowstone : I'm still not understanding why you think this is the case. I gave you the example of the Gephardt Rule, by which the House never takes direct votes
41 GatorFan : Read the scholarly work in the Gephardt rule and you'll see that most Constitutional scholars question its validity. The problem is finding someone w
42 Post contains images Dreadnought : Most Republicans recognize the need for reform, but 1) Respect a bit more the concept of Constitutional limits, and 2) want to take a more incrementa
43 mt99 : I definitely appreciate the merits of this approach, but from a practical standpoint - if you go one step at a time, how long will it take? Will Wash
44 Post contains links GatorFan : You might be interested to see what Sen. Byrd (D-WV) had to say about the Gephardt Rule: From the March 21, 1995 Congressional Record: Starting on th
45 DXing : That much is true. The rest of that paragraph totally omitts the reforms that the GOP was pushing for years when it was in the majority. At that time
46 Dreadnought : Obamacare isn't due to be implemented for another 4 years. My way is faster. Smaller changes, implemented within 6-12 months. And let's not forget th
47 Post contains links Ken777 : Look at some of the providers' bills and see how high they are jacked up. CNN had a great story on the $1,000 toothbrush: http://www.cnn.com/video/da
48 Dreadnought : Exactly what I pointed out above. In all the attempts to demonize those evil insurance companies, which only makes roughly 3.5% profit margin on aver
49 mt99 : Do you really think that the system is just itsy-bit broken?
50 FlyPNS1 : Then why didn't they try to reform it when they were in power. There was ZERO attempt to do so. I don't want to hear about not having 60 votes. The R
51 mt99 : So.. why do they exist then? 3.5% return is nothing - I am getting more in 5 year CD makes more sense to liquidate and invest in popcorn. Talk about
52 Post contains links seb146 : I seriously considered this as a good piece of the health care puzzle. But, then, I listened to "liberal" talk radio and went on the internet and fou
53 CaliAtenza : Again, this thread degenerates into name calling, talking ponts, etc. etc, just like the last 11tybillion threads we have had on this.
54 Post contains images AirframeAS : They can't, it would be illegal to do so and against the U.S. Constitution. If they did that, they won't be in their current position when mid-term e
55 GatorFan : I'm not sure about the conclusion. Ask everyone you come across (not on this forum but on the street) what the Presentment Clause means and 98% of th
56 AirframeAS : Then the only way to get rid of the current Congress we have now is to vote them out in the midterm elections that is coming up. Unfortunately, that
57 mt99 : Speaks volumes for Democracy.. doesn't it?
58 Dreadnought : Winston Churchill:
59 mt99 : Should console GatorFan...
60 GatorFan : I don't know why you would think so. The United States is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. As I said, there's a lot of ignorance out there.
61 NIKV69 : You haven't been paying attention to polls or recent elections have you? Scott Brown? Reid losing badly to Lowden. Change is in the air and it will h
62 CaliAtenza : We still got a lot of time left, anything can happen then. I still think the Dems will retain control of both houses, but with lesser majorities. I s
63 Ken777 : I don't see moderates or liberals filing suit. I do see Conservative groups spending millions on legal fees to get it to the SC ASAP. It's called a t
64 NIKV69 : ??? Your insistence to ignore the fact that Teddy's seat went to a Republican because the state tried socialized medicine and it didn't work in addit
65 LTU932 : Yes. I just used "decree" as a global term, I am aware that in the US it's called "Executive Order". While Executive Orders may fulfill certain impor
66 DXing : Explain Southwest Airlines, AirTran, Frontier, Jet Blue, Allegiant, etc. etc., because by using your definition none of them should exist. If a claim
67 NIKV69 : Thanks for dodging the question. You got that backwards don't you? You see the latest polling on this bill? We are going around in circles at this po
68 OA412 : I'm going to assume that you're being facetious and using hyperbole here, because if you're not, well let's just say that this would count as one of
69 Post contains images Ken777 : Scott Brown can get re-elected IF he satisfies the voters in MA. He hit the right spot in his election victory, but didn't have to defend a voting re
70 Post contains images EA772LR : That's not the only way... And a fluke in New Jersey, and a fluke in Nevada where Reid is losing badly. Not likely. The writing is on the wall for De
71 Post contains images NIKV69 : Oh yes I am so much more frightening than Nancy Pelosi. I give him a good shot. He is pretty moderate and would be fine in that state. No they don't,
72 OA412 : No need to roll your eyes. Since you're not confirming that you were being facetious and speaking hyperbolically, I'm going to assume that you were s
73 DocLightning : Herein lies the fallacy that you keep on repeating. VERY FEW CONSUMERS OF HEALTHCARE GET MUCH CHOICE IN THEIR INSURANCE CARRIERS. At best, you might
74 OA412 : And therein lies the argument that I have been making over and over again in this healthcare debate. Some people will tell you that they have free ch
75 Dreadnought : Exactly what Obamacare does not address. It increases dependence on employer-provided health care plans instead of severing that relationship and lea
76 DfwRevolution : So you're response is basically: "Nuh uhh!" I don't consider it an embrace of human dignity that my pet could get an MRI faster than I could if I liv
77 GatorFan : Pre-existing conditions DO NOT AFFECT anyone who maintains continuity of coverage. Without a limitation on pre-existing conditions NOBODY would ever
78 AirframeAS : The only poll I pay attention to is the actual election, nothing else.
79 Ken777 : Moderate? Let's watch how he votes when health care is on the table. The Republican leaders are giong to be leading him around by the nose. "Duped"?
80 Yellowstone : And not everyone can maintain continuity of coverage - people move, they change jobs, they go from their parents' plan to their own plan, etc. That's
81 DXing : No company is going to want to sign on with a carrier that has a bad reputation for denying simple claims. Any company that does will be looking for
82 Post contains links Lufthansa411 : If reconciliation is illegal, perhaps you should have mentioned that to every president since the conservative "hero" Ronald Regan was in office, as
83 Ken777 : Look at auto insurance. Cn you get a policy from AllState or Farmers or State Farm in your state? Probably. Are the sales in your state covered by la
84 NIKV69 : Ahhh more MSNBC sound bytes, please post my actual reply, I didn't mention any of those people. Pelosi is a terrible politician who not only doesn't
85 Post contains links and images DXing : That is simply untrue. State standards would still apply and could not be lower than any federal standards imposed. The difference is that states lic
86 GatorFan : Again your statement is wrong. As long as you show coverage from whatever source, pre-existing conditions are a non-issue. When you go from your pare
87 Ken777 : Depends on your point of view. If you're a moderate or liberal you'll consider Bush & Cheney as terrible politicians who did more to destroy this
88 Ken777 : Oklahoma has a Insurance Commission, not a Health Insurance Commission. It's this commission's duty to regulate the companies selling in the state. D
89 Post contains images OA412 : Suggesting that independents were duped, indicates that they were too stupid to make up their own minds in the first place. Somehow, I don't believe
90 evomutant : American politics is hilarious. It's like a grade school playground, name calling, slandering, hyperbole. The obsession with huge overarching terms li
91 Post contains links Dreadnought : You should read this out of the Washington Post. These are Democrats talking... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10031102904.html?hpid=opinions
92 Post contains links and images Ken777 : But there is the counter balance: [quote}Health Reform Myths Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral p
93 Dreadnought : Repeating myself again: Virtually nobody says we don't need reform. But you don't cure a headache by shooting yourself in the head. The current bill
94 Ken777 : Addressing the pre-existing conditions discrimination in this country is a major step in reducing costs. Providing a means of buying health care for
95 Dreadnought : Those two actually would increase costs. I actually agree with them, but to say that they will result in cost reductions is asinine. What do you thin
96 Post contains links and images NIKV69 :
97 DocLightning : Have you lived in Canada? Do you have numbers about wait times for procedures and studies there? Oh, you don't? Yes, I know you don't because what yo
98 Ken777 : People without insurance because of pre-existing conditions or costs still get care. They go to the ER when a trip to a local doc or clinic could hav
99 Post contains links DXing : There is a department of insurance, the link is below. http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/insurance/index.html And guess what, we actually have a pool for pr
100 iairallie : The nuclear option does not refer so much to the result as the fact that is an extreme action just as using a nuclear bomb is an extreme action.
101 Post contains images Ken777 : At what cost? Can the Texan working at Wal-Mart level wages afford it? That's brought up every time OU beats Texas in the fall. Sounds good until you
102 iairallie : [quote=Ken777,reply=101]Reconciliation isn't a nuclear option - Republicans used it without hesitation. And the Health Reform Bill will be no more of
103 Post contains links DXing : Everything is there in the link. Do your own work. What part of "to ensure that the company spends at least 70% of the premiums on medical care, as r
104 windy95 : As if the Governemnt will also not deny claims or treatment. They already do.
105 Ken777 : When you talk about raising as normal I assume you include the 39% increase in California and the 56% increase in MI. Plus 1 to 3%? How big a dollar
106 DXing : When you talk of the 39% increase you are talking about a very select segment of the insurance pool. The premium increases also have to be justified
107 Post contains links racko : http://www.amazon.com/Help-Mom-There-Liberals-Under/dp/0976726904
108 Yellowstone : When that 15 percent evaluates to tens of millions of people. It's not "most," to be sure, but it's still "many."
109 Ken777 : And how long until your time comes? As that individual sector shrinks (which it will with rip-off price increases) the insurance companies are giong
110 mrocktor : Thats what happens when you leave out the "paying for it" part.
111 seb146 : It didn't seem to bother anyone on the right when Bush poured hundreds of billions of dollars into wars. Oh, but he did get two checks out to the Ame
112 Post contains images AirframeAS : Keep what up?
113 EA772LR : Please lay the 'Blame Bush' game to rest. You're party has been totally in control since 1/20/09, and we're no better off. Unemployment has continued
114 Ken777 : When we're still living in the Great Recession courtesy of Bush & Cheney, when government revenues are needed on fix up the mountain range of pro
115 Post contains links DXing : Not long as my taxes will go up and my service down as soon as this bad bill becomes law. With this health reform I'll be at higher risk since there
116 seb146 : I am simply pointing out the "do as I say not as I do" and "It was good enough to live with from 2000-2006/8" mentality. I don't understand: if it is
117 Ken777 : I doubt that very much - more FUD from the right and insurance companies. WHy do you think your doctors will give you less service? Especially if the
118 Post contains images Lufthansa411 : Well, according to this Washington Post article from Feb 10, nearly 2/3 of Americans want COMPREHENSIVE health care reform, and not just malpractice
119 Post contains links DXing : Doubt all you want. Lets see the math that allows 15-30 million people full access to the system without increasing either the supply of doctors, med
120 Post contains links windy95 : What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says By BETSY MCCAUGHEY What the government will require you to do: • Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requir
121 Post contains images Lufthansa411 : The amount of "selective quotation" is amazing... As the next section of your quote highlights, the bill will take at least 18 months to come into for
122 Post contains images Ken777 : I had to laugh at that one. I slipped on some stairs while on a business trip in Australia and broke my toe (The Little Piggy That Had None) an hour
123 Post contains links and images AirStairs : As I have said before I would make health insurers operate in a competitive market. I don't see why they should have ATI now and I don't see why they
124 Post contains links DXing : But not GP's. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...-doctors-get-paid/?test=latestnews I'm not afraid, I'm absolutely certain my access will be impa
125 mt99 : But this is exactly what i don't get. One one hand you have people complain about cost, and on the other they complain about the possible "rationing"
126 EA772LR : That's the liberal way. Liberal minded people don't believe accountability or incentive. They believe in order to get something done, you first punis
127 seb146 : So, instead of giving people nothing for something, you think giving something for something is bad? Teaching morals (accountability for all) is bad?
128 Dreadnought : This bill does nothing to reduce costs, but actually increases costs through taxes that will get passed on to the consumer. The only people this bene
129 GatorFan : ROTFLMAO. And here the liberal hypocrisy shows its head. I guess liberals really aren't opposed to conservative teaching morals as long as those mora
130 Post contains images Ken777 : I'll go for that. But besides dumping ATI there is also a need to have the insurance companies disclose the ATI protected communications, discussions
131 EA772LR : Really? Just how much will the 'Idiot-in-Chief's health care cost? Hell, the amount of jobs lost because the expense of employing someone alone will
132 DXing : None of which is addressed in the current legislation. On top of that you force anyone to become a GP, yet. Add up all the individual cases and they
133 seb146 : No. I ment what I said. Just what the right does. How? Accountability? Pointing out that the exact same thing was guarded and paraded around proudly
134 Ken777 : Well, last year I read that the Iraq War, started by the Idiot-In-Chief & Dr. Strangelove will have a long term cost of $3+ Trillion. And that is
135 AirStairs : Uhh...retroactive laws are questionable at best and unconstitutional at worst. Regulate them the same way they have always been and enforce antitrust
136 AirframeAS : This is pretty screwed up beyond reality. This needs to be omitted pronto! This is the fastest way to force one into bankruptcy in these economic tim
137 SpeedyGonzales : I've got a task for the american radical right (I won't dignify them by calling them conservatives, as they don't seem intent on conserving anyhing at
138 DXing : Won't happen for two reasons. The GOP won't have 60 votes to reach cloture in the Senate. Secondly even if they were able to attain that they won't h
139 Post contains images Longhornmaniac : You're starting to sound like a conservative, Ken, twisting things and distorting truths. Tell the people how much LESS frequently that has happened
140 Post contains images EA772LR : Are you talking?? You mean like Obama's broken promised pork filled Stimulus, Omnibus bills?? His only solution is more government expansion and more
141 Post contains images Ken777 : I'm not saying that it is retroactive. I'm saying that the companies should declare the LEGAL discussions that they had. That brings public knowledge
142 EA772LR : That is so intellectually dishonest. Much as you try to blame EVERYTHING on Bush, it's ignorant to assume that Bush/Cheney caused the collapse. Anyon
143 Post contains links Dreadnought : Neither has anyone else. The Good news: Obama and Pelosi don’t have the votes. The Bad news: They will stop at nothing to get them. The Chicago Mac
144 seb146 : Actually, it is not illegal, the way they are trying to pass it. If you look at all the rules the Parliamentarian has to understand, s/he can actuall
145 DXing : Any attempt to change it will be filibustered and stopped in the Senate plain and simple.
146 AirStairs : Yes, but THIS brand of health care reform was definitely not. That is the difference. The point doesn't change. You say it is reckless not to act but
147 Post contains images Ken777 : Sorry, but I was operating a small business during the Bush years and saw my health insurance double under their "guidance" - with not a bloody littl
148 mrocktor : Deregulate. Remove cross state barriers. Limit the absurd tort damages awards. Prices will go down and all services will be widely available. Problem
149 Boeing1970 : Simplest and lowest cost course of action that could be taken to lower the cost of medical insurance coverage - which is what this is about. This isn
150 Post contains images EA772LR : The current crop of Liberals, especially those still in support of Obama, wouldn't know a damn thing about that. At least judging by their actions la
151 Ken777 : IIFC Old Sarah also got knocked up before she was married. Maybe it runs in the family. If the new House bill stays at the budget level it will be vo
152 Post contains links Starbuk7 : Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan, and 37 other states plan to join them. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...SHNfmnWDnZ_JylqiFxeT5
153 Okie : NO the bill removes 500 billion from Medicare the Obamacare will take care of that. The bill creates over 150 new agencies between you and your docto
154 Ken777 : The cuts come from the 15% UNNECESSARY excess in Medicare Advantage. Money saved from that unnecessary cost might be used to take care of a baby with
155 Lufthansa411 : Where on earth do you get a 940 Billion dollar tax increase? The total cost of the bill is 940 billion, with an overall reduction of 130 billion doll
156 Dreadnought : You are right in that he misread the report. But the CBO also says that the study assumes that all the planned "savings" actually happen requiring fu
157 Boeing1970 : That assumes its run as efficiently as possible and they haven't overlooked anything. You want to take that leap of faith with a government program,
158 Ken777 : After living in Australia with their "horrid socialist medical system" I have no worries about the quality of care that we will get after this bill p
159 Lufthansa411 : But that is not the argument that Okie was making. Okie was making an argument about every American being forced to pay $8000 more in taxes plus heal
160 Post contains links Boeing1970 : No, I drive a Volvo; the government is offering a Toyota. Maybe the accelerator works, maybe it doesn't. I know my Volvo works, never mind the safety
161 Lufthansa411 : No. The health plan as it is written stipulates that in our example, if you are happy with your Volvo, you can keep it and not trade it in for someth
162 Baroque : Oh my goodness, I knew I needed my eyes tested. Hearing as well apparently. Must remind you of that when you demur from the greatness of friend Ahmad
163 Ken777 : But has't Volvo been sold to a company in China? If so you might be looking to what was delivered in the past by Volvo to what will be happening in t
164 Post contains links Dreadnought : Stop stop stop with the car analogies. I'm politically and economically well-informed, and I'm something of a car nut as well, and you've even got my
165 Boeing1970 : Like I said, right until the Government makes it imposible to operate by putting the part manufacturers out of business. Thats the part you're missin
166 Okie : Do you realize that if the bill is "Deemed as Passed" that since the House never voted on the bill that all you have to do is sometime in the future i
167 DXing : No it won't. Even Senator Conrad admits the amendments the House is voting on will not stand muster under the Byrd rule. True but my comment was to y
168 Post contains images Ken777 : Any state can pass a law to make the federal law illegal. Texas can even pass a law that required Texas to beat Oklahoma whenever the game is played
169 Dreadnought : They didn't "make the federal law illegal", they just declared that they weren't going to follow it, because the federal bill is null and void due to
170 Okie : Nope the way I understand it if the bill is passed by the parlimentary proceedure ie "deemed" and the bill is not actually voted on reguarless if sig
171 Post contains links Boeing1970 : So much for all the savings predicted. How many jobs will this cost? I'm guessing about 1,000. http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.c...-care-bill-would
172 Post contains links mt99 : Well with $32 Billion in revenue... http://www.cat.com/cda/files/2058472...Q%202009%20Cat%20Inc%20Release.pdf
173 Post contains images PHLBOS : That actually, to some extent but not totally, was done last year. Can we say Cash For Clunkers? [Edited 2010-03-19 08:31:40]
174 Ken777 : Does that mean that Democrats can indirectly un-deem all the Republican's bills from the past? Then when the Republicans return to the majority they
175 Boeing1970 : Oh I see, so this really is about wealth distribution not health care. Annual revenue isn't the issue either, its the new taxes. CAT provides great b
176 mt99 : No no no.. its not. It just put into perspective. $100,000,000/$32,000,000,000 = 0.0003% of revenue.
177 Boeing1970 : The airlines combined brought in about the same amount of revenue and didn't make a cobined dime in profit last year. What's your point?
178 mt99 : Long live de-regulation! And someone here was saying that allowing insurance companies to sell across state line would yield the same low rates as th
179 Starbuk7 : Sure, its not YOUR profits form YOUR company so lets take it and distrubute it to everyone else. That company really doesn't need to be making that m
180 mt99 : oops.. bad math.. make that 0.312%
181 mt99 : I understand that - my point is that its $100M to CAT should be peanuts. Why pay for insurance as currently then? Why pay for a safe work environment
182 AGM100 : This all seems to be right in line with our friend Alinsky's ideals.... really scary stuff. If you read rules for radicals Saul lays out the ground wo
183 Ken777 : Interesting that the "news release" hits the media with such perfect timing, and is such an easy to see and remember plump number. But the company is
184 Starbuk7 : So we or the governmemt can tell corporations how much profit they are allowed to make and if you make to much we will take it and put it to some oth
185 Ken777 : We have had taxes on companies (big and small) for years. Big companies like Cat have the money to lobby for special treatments in a lot of areas. Ev
186 Post contains links and images fxramper : Some great discussion on here thus far. I emailed it to my Congressman! Good one today in Washington Post by Kuhner. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2
187 mt99 : Right - so figure in these $100M.. there.. Isn't that what a Taxing does? There is different Tax levels for different incomes (ie redistribution) and
188 mrocktor : In the long term me and evey member of my family and every member that may be added to my family will certainly be harmed by: 1. The products of our
189 Post contains images EA772LR : An unbelievably well written post. I can't tell you how much I'm on the same page, and have conversations much like this regularly with my wife, my f
190 Post contains images CaliAtenza : I think my dad (an MD of almost 40 years) said it best today when i asked: "Why are the Republicans saying America doesnt want this bill over and over
191 AGM100 : Good post ... very good. Thanks . "Forced charity" .... just to hard to believe that 50% + of Americans fall for the same old shell game .
192 Boeing1970 : Why? Their employees already have good insurance.
193 Ken777 : Get real. How many people paid taxes so you and your kids (if any) get a "free education" in public school. How much money goes into public health th
194 Post contains images EA772LR : Yeah like picking up an unimaginable amount of seats come November. You have no clue how bad the backlash is going to be if this bill passes. I don't
195 Dreadnought : Depends on the elasticity of the market involved. If you put taxes across an entire industry, especially a service industry where no low-tax alternat
196 DXing : And depending on where you live that education may or may not be worth it. Also, the free runs out when the money does, take a look at Detroit. No on
197 Post contains images Boeing1970 : That was awesome. Just awesome.
198 Ken777 : As opposed to the oh-so-responsible Bush/Cheney team that invaded Iraq on the fiction of WMD, has generated a $3+ Trillion long term cost for this FU
199 Boeing1970 : Kind of like this bill and its forecast costs which we know are a joke. I pay taxes which go to inferior public schools and I send my kid to a privat
200 Okie : They will start, watch Caterpiller and John Deere. Two very large corporations that only 25% of their production goes to the US. Why would they want
201 Post contains links Dreadnought : Getting back to the point - here is another couple of reasons why this bill must be defeated. 1) The bill, with supposedly a $940 billion pricetag, do
202 DXing : Throwing good money in after bad must be a liberals way of thinking. I've been screwed by the government. We only have one of those so I'd rather hav
203 Boeing1970 : Easy. He stops spending their money. So please, stop spending my kids money on what you want.
204 EA CO AS : Annual revenue is irrelevant - it's the PROFIT that matters. For 2009, Caterpillar made a profit of $895M. By their estimates, had the health care be
205 Dreadnought : It's an interesting point. It's as if the statist solution to a to a household which is spending more than it brings in is to increase spending and d
206 mt99 : So for a $32B in revenue... they only made $895M. Thats a 2.8% Profit Margin. Man that is one badly run company. I get more return on a 5 year CD. Se
207 AGM100 : Its hard to believe that they dont get it .... it also spurs the idea that they get it and dont care. Like Rep. Gutierez ... he does not think about
208 Dreadnought : How about the US government? 2010 projected revenue of $2.381 trillion, expenditures of $3.552 trillion, deficit of $1.171 trillion and already in th
209 Post contains images fxramper :
210 mt99 : Yup.. sux to have a $ 3trillion (and counting) war - Terrible management indeed..
211 rightrudder : Ideally, the three branches serve their own separate roles which creates a system of checks and balances. It seems however, that instead of each keep
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Say No To Universal Health Care posted Mon Dec 1 2003 18:01:52 by Matt D
Senate Debate On Health Care To End Soon posted Sun Dec 20 2009 14:56:35 by Propilot83
House Passes Health Care posted Sat Nov 7 2009 20:08:51 by Ken777
Obama To Be On TV More - Health Care Reform posted Thu Sep 17 2009 12:48:00 by Homer71
Whatever Happened To The Bush Health Care Plan? posted Sun Feb 11 2007 22:23:04 by N1120A
The Health Care Summit posted Thu Feb 25 2010 08:22:38 by dxing
Pelosi..Current Health Care Reform Dead! posted Thu Jan 21 2010 12:17:35 by DXing
The Health Care Legisation Lie Continues posted Sun Jan 10 2010 07:55:40 by DXing
Dems Have Fillabuster-Proof 60 For Health Care posted Sat Dec 19 2009 13:04:01 by Falcon84
Howard Dean Urges Defeat Of Health Care Bill posted Wed Dec 16 2009 16:40:39 by DXing