list of whats in the HC Bill

[IndyColtsFan]

Hmm, do you know how congress works? Have you watched the process?

As a matter-of-fact, I do know how Congress works. Do you? I seem to remember a certain party having a supermajority and vows of "we're going to ram our agenda down your throat now!" coming from the usual lefties in here on election night. How did that work out for you?

 

[StageLeft]

Seems like a lot of magic math. I can't wait to see how it's actually going to pan out.

 

[zsdersw]

That's what scares me.

Correct me if my math is wrong but that means someone making 88,000 per year can pay as high as 8,360 per year in insurance premiums.

So I'm making 185,000 per year right now. If the most they can charge me for insurance is 9.5% of my income then that means the most I can be legally charged is 17,575 dollars in premiums annually.

FUUUUUUCK YOU!

This seems to be the penalty if you don't have health insurance, not what you'd pay in premiums.. IIRC.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The democrats didn't have a supermajority.

They didn't? Hmm, that's funny, because everyone else seems to think so.

Additionally, you still have "democrats" that fillibustered civil rights as part of the party. Then you have the hick state 'democrats."

They're still Democrats.

And of course you have Lieberman, in a state full of insurance interests, backtracking on his claims just a few years ago that medicare should be expanded to include everyone.

Liebermann, IIRC, was a member of the Democratic Caucus, was he not?

Obviously the Republicans voted against it but the Democrats and their Blue Dog contingent were every bit as responsible for it being "watered down" as you would say.

 

[shadow9d9]

As a matter-of-fact, I do know how Congress works. Do you? I seem to remember a certain party having a supermajority and vows of "we're going to ram our agenda down your throat now!" coming from the usual lefties in here on election night. How did that work out for you?

I already explained this to you twice.

I can tell you aren't even interested in real discussion. There is no "left" in this country. Only right and slightly right center.

Please send me a link that accounts for all 60 DEMOCRATS.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I already explained this to you twice.

I can tell you aren't even interested in real discussion. There is no "left" in this country. Only right and slightly right center.

Where did I mention "left" other than applying it to people here? I did not. I mentioned "Democrats." Where they fall in the political spectrum (left, left of center, slightly right of center) does not matter.

It is hard to have a discussion with someone who constantly over-emotionalizes (yes, I made that word up) things and touts the "people are dying in the streets" viewpoint constantly.

Please send me a link that accounts for all 60 DEMOCRATS.

They obviously don't have 60 "Democrats" now. Mr. Brown made certain of that.

Your contention is that Liebermann wasn't a Democrat. OK, fair enough. Was he a member of the Democrat Caucus or not?

Look, here is what I am getting at -- it is very, very simple. The fact of the matter is that you and your ilk continually point fingers at the Republicans and blame them for the failure of your ultimate vision. Fine, I get that. Here is the truth, however -- the Blue Dogs were equally culpable and probably more so. You can sit there and call them names like "hick" Democrats or whatever you want, but they are a member of your party. Period.

EDIT: Liebermann is a member of their Caucus (http://democrats.senate.gov/members/). Sounds like the Democratic leadership needs to get a backbone and boot him. This constant sucking up they do to him obviously provides no benefits to them. It is pretty pathetic.

 

[shadow9d9]

They didn't? Hmm, that's funny, because everyone else seems to think so.



They're still Democrats.



Liebermann, IIRC, was a member of the Democratic Caucus, was he not?

Obviously the Republicans voted against it but the Democrats and their Blue Dog contingent were every bit as responsible for it being "watered down" as you would say.

You are playing games with semantics instead of dealing with reality.

Then you feign interest in trying to understand what "really" happened...

Being a "democrat" doesn't make you liberal and doesn't make you a unified force. it also doesn't help that the senators are being bribed from all ends and are more interest in being a career member of congress than representing the best interests of the people. Did Bush pass immigration reform? Social security reform? Even watered down versions of them? Hmm, strange, right?

Here is what you are saying: "Hey, there are democrats that are in congress that fillibustered civil rights, but why isn't the super lefty "supermajority" passing healthcare!"

 

[nick1985]

shadow, most Americans do not want a big federal government that spends like a drunken sailor. Thats why most Americans were against this bill.

How do you respond?

 

[shadow9d9]

Where did I mention "left"? I did not. I mentioned "Democrats." Where they fall in the political spectrum (left, left of center, slightly right of center) does not matter.

It is hard to have a discussion with someone who constantly over-emotionalizes (yes, I made that word up) things and touts the "people are dying in the streets" viewpoint constantly.



They obviously don't have 60 "Democrats" now. Mr. Brown made certain of that.

Your contention is that Liebermann wasn't a Democrat. OK, fair enough. Was he a member of the Democrat Caucus or not?

I want you to send me a link of the 60 democrats that were in congress last year. You keep making the claim, so back it up. Trying to twist what you think technically qualifies, according to you, doesn't count of course.

You can't, because it didn't exist.

Feigning outrage. I guess it works enough times that the internet is full of concern trolls.

 

[zsdersw]

shadow, most Americans do not want a big federal government that spends like a drunken sailor. Thats why most Americans were against this bill.

How do you respond?

Yet many provisions of it are highly popular.

 

[nick1985]

Yet many provisions of it are highly popular.

I agree. So why was the solution to put a few good ideas into 2700+ pages of giant bearucratic shit, full of special deals and expansion of federal government?

Thats why there is outrage from most Americans.

 

[shadow9d9]

shadow, most Americans do not want a big federal government that spends like a drunken sailor. Thats why most Americans were against this bill.

How do you respond?

Do you want me to deal with reality or pretend?

Most americans were fine with 2 endless occupations, torture, warrantless wiretapping, doubling the deficit in a good economy, and the patriot act enough to vote in Bush for a second time.

"Most" americans were FOR Iraq/afghanistan, against civil rights, against inter-racial marriage, against women's right to vote, and FOR slavery.

So, do you still want me to answer the question? Just give me the go ahead and I will continue,

 

[zsdersw]

I agree. So why was the solution to put a few good ideas into 2700+ pages of giant bearucratic shit, full of special deals and expansion of federal government?

I don't know, but "a few good ideas" alone doesn't seem to me to be terribly effective at lowering costs and expanding access to coverage, either.

 

[nick1985]

Going with the "Americans are dumb, they dont know whats good for them." liberal point of view?

Gotcha.

 

[nick1985]

I don't know, but "a few good ideas" alone doesn't seem to me to be terribly effective at lowering costs and expanding access to coverage, either.

How do certain states getting special deals "lower costs" for me? How does gutting Medicare expand access to coverage? Care to explain, I'm too dumb to understand.

 

[zsdersw]

How do certain states getting special deals "lower costs" for me? How does gutting Medicare expand access to coverage? Care to explain, I'm too dumb to understand.

I'm not saying it does or that this current bill does, but I also don't think the solution is to just pass "a few good ideas" and expect costs and the number of involuntarily uninsured to go down.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I want you to send me a link of the 60 democrats that were in congress last year. You keep making the claim, so back it up. Trying to twist what you think technically qualifies, according to you, doesn't count of course.

You can't, because it didn't exist.

Feigning outrage. I guess it works enough times that the internet is full of concern trolls.

58 Democrat Senators and 2 "independent" Senators who, coincidentally, were in the Democratic caucus and typically voted with the Democrats. Hmmmm.....now can you see why people said it was an effective supermajority? You wonder why the Democrats didn't boot Liebermann and Sanders from their Caucus if they were so "unreliable," don't you? Because I sure do!

And regardless, you still haven't answered why the Republicans are more to blame than the Blue Dogs. Still waiting.

 

[nageov3t]

The democrats didn't have a supermajority. Additionally, you still have "democrats" that fillibustered civil rights as part of the party. Then you have the hick state 'democrats." And of course you have Lieberman, in a state full of insurance interests, backtracking on his claims just a few years ago that medicare should be expanded to include everyone. And you have the Republicans that wanted healthcare to be the end of Obama or his 'waterloo" as they put it and refused to participate in the process in any sort of good faith."

It is like you people weren't here for the last year.

I hate saying anything nice about Bush, but he'd probably have been able to get his own party to actually do what he wanted.

 

[nick1985]

I'm not saying it does or that this current bill does, but I also don't think the solution is to just pass "a few good ideas" and expect costs and the number of involuntarily uninsured to go down.

Passing things 1 at a time would have been a lot better IMO. It would have, at the very least, produced better results than this giant pile of special dead ridden shit called a healthcare bill.

 

[zsdersw]

Passing things 1 at a time would have been a lot better IMO. It would have, at the very least, produced better results than this giant pile of special dead ridden shit called a healthcare bill.

Not if the "1 at a time" things don't lower costs or the number of involuntarily uninsured. As it stands, I don't think anything can patch the holes in the health care ship.. at least nothing that's been mentioned so far.

 

[Descartes]

Holy hyperbole batman, this thread is full of emotion.

 

[nick1985]

Not if the "1 at a time" things don't lower costs or the number of involuntarily uninsured.

And this giant expansion of government and debt lowers costs? Come on, you dont really believe that do you? Especially with all of the new taxes...


You cant honestly believe, deep down, that this bill was the best thing possible.

 

[zsdersw]

And this giant expansion of government and debt lowers costs? Come on, you dont really believe that do you? Especially with all of the new taxes...


You cant honestly believe, deep down, that this bill was the best thing possible.

Show me where I said that.

 

[nageov3t]

Not if the "1 at a time" things don't lower costs or the number of involuntarily uninsured. As it stands, I don't think anything can patch the holes in the health care ship.. at least nothing that's been mentioned so far.

maybe I don't understand the bill correctly, but let's say I'm an uninsured healthy person who makes too much to qualify for medicaid but not enough to pay for insurance out of pocket without it being a financial burden. like many people, I work for a small business.

what's the difference between today, when I chose not to buy insurance due to the costs, versus 2014 when I'm going to be forced to buy it regardless or pay a fine?

 

[nick1985]

Show me where I said that.

Certainly implied this bill lowers costs.