Jump to content



Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Obama Care Could Be Deadly


  • Please log in to reply
5467 replies to this topic

#4951 RealDeals

RealDeals

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 July 2012 - 05:52 AM

More than "no tax increase"... which is what Obama promised. So, as long as you're okay with Obama flat out lying (over and over), then vote for him again.



Here's someone who wasn't paying attention.


From the beginning of time to the destruction of this Earth, there will NEVER be a politician that never lies. It's part of the job description, you have to 'play the game.' If he was upfront about it, never woulda got through. I'd rather he "lie" (if you knew anything and read between the lines you'd know it'd be tax-funded) and get good done. For fucks sake we've waged wars over the last half-century on lies.
http://t3.gstatic.co...4wtuy3FpqqoZSRA

Originally Posted by the4thnobleman Posted Image
I need power to come back on! I still need to spend $10 or so to get my $20. Stupid hurricane Sandy Vagina!

Posted Image

#4952 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 01 July 2012 - 07:24 AM

Again - you and I differ with regards to this bill "getting good done".

You know, in the recent past, our city council proposed a tax increase on the local sales tax. After hearing the arguments for/against it, not only did I support it, but I actually did some work getting the word out in favor of it.

The increase passed.

Weird - our local politicians were honest and upfront and able to get a tax increase passed.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#4953 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 01 July 2012 - 12:48 PM

lol... Loving this new hub-bub.

Because the Health Care Act was ruled to be a tax, there's a new argument that the entire bill is invalid.

Now, before anyone gets their panties in a wad and continues the "It's not a tax just because Roberts said it was", remember, lawyers for the Federal Government argued that it was a tax... so it's not just Roberts, but the Federal Government.

Okay, so, for those with short-term memories (which would seem to be just about anyone ready to vote for Obama again) - The House had a version of the health care act. It stalled and died. Meanwhile, the Senate had a version that passed through the Senate. Then, the House used the various rules to "Deem and Pass" the Senate Bill.

These steps are important.

According to the Constitution (which is still valid, right?):



So... the bill that passed actually originated in the Senate. If it's a tax (which is easily defined as a tool by the government to raise revenue), the fact that it didn't originate in the House would seem to invalidate the entire thing... heh.

I do wonder if anyone in any kind of official capacity will try that argument.

Forbes has it a little different though:

http://www.forbes.co...d-on-procedure/

They're saying that the House didn't pass the Senate bill - the House passed amendments to its own bill to line it up with the Senate's version, then the Senate (re-passed) the House bill.

This is interesting to me, as it shows those in power knew it to be a tax virtually the entire time, even when they were arguing that it wasn't a tax.

So, congrats, middle class. You just got a tax increase. :D


Wrong again:

http://hotair.com/ar...e-in-the-house/
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#4954 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 July 2012 - 01:28 PM

If it was the senate's bill then it would NOT be legal TAX. The republicans did participate in the original in the house just look at the vote as an example. Then the switch happened and the bill replaced with a different one in senate under the same bill to keep it LEGAL even though it was not the same bill. This was done to stop any opposition and the new vote at the house level ALL republicans were against it but this time it didn't matter the d's accepted it and they passed the switch... then it was able to skip the senate and go to the pres. It was an underhanded plan plain and simple.

It was a partisan bill because of the super majority of the D's in house senate and pres. and because the switch that occurred. For you not to understand that amazes me. How in the hell is this anything but the D's lies BS and switch and PARTISAN crap? It isn't.

edit: instead of democrats being classy individuals they had to pull this crap over on the people and on the system. You might want to start asking our democrats to be fucking statemen instead of underhanded pussies.
If grandstanding is running for election and trying to repeal this crap then I hope they keep grandstanding and the dems and obama will be out this year and this shit can be done away with and replaced.

edit2: LMAO at the tea party crap. Last I checked the democrats had ALL the power in the house, senate and pres at the time. Why don't you just quit trying to blame someone else besides your beloved super majority that did this crap and just admit it or just go all the damn way and say those damn martians were to blame...it is just as fucking ridiculous.


There are just so many inaccurate statements here. Because you make partisan statements and want to believe something is true, that doesn't make it true. The Senate passed this bill. The House simply passed the Senate bill because Kennedy died and the Democrats didn't have 60 votes to get through the Republican veto. The Senate bill passed both the Senate and the House without a single Republican vote. The tea bangers are the reason Snowe and a few other Republicans wouldn't work the Democrats. Yes, the tea party had a huge influence in what happened and now the Republicans have sour grapes and will be stuck with this. If the tea party really cared about politics instead of pure ideology, they would have encouraged Republicans to work with the Democrats. If they thought the bill would be thrown out by the court then it wouldn't matter but if it was upheld (as it was) then they could have had their ideas there too. But again, they were more concerned with partisan grandstanding and now they're acting like a bunch of giant babies.

Republicans need to grows pair, act like adults, and be goddamn politicians.

#4955 Guest_Pliskin101_*

Guest_Pliskin101_*

Posted 01 July 2012 - 03:35 PM

Yep it was a house bill went to the senate and then a new bill but same bill sent back from the senate to the house and the rest is history. As I said completely partisan bill when it was replaced...even you said it after the original bill not ONE republican voted for it. Why because it was a steaming partisan pileof crap. You even said why it was done that way as well to get around what?

Again Mr. Brain Scientist it was little green aliens that didn't work with the democrats and there was a democrat majority up and down the ladder. Scream Tea Party all you want and I will scream back little green aliens ...

The mandate did NOT have to be in the bill. The chocolate chips I mentioned in this shit sandwich could have been had with out the shit the DEMOCRATS added.

And AGAIN if the DEMOCRATS really wanted to even with ALL THE POWER they could have worked out a bill with the republicans and the people instead of ram rodding forcing through this giant pile of shit.

This is a good lesson in why no political party should ever be left unchecked and have all the power.

By the way if the green party had worked with "the rent is to damn high party" maybe all this would have been avoided. So there you go little green men, the tea party, the green party, the rent is to high party, and the republicans are all to blame except THE DEMOCRATS THE DEMOCRAT POWER PARTISAN SHIT PILE THAT WAS FORCED ON EVERYONE BY THE DEMOCRATS.

Edited by Pliskin101, 01 July 2012 - 04:50 PM.


#4956 Strell

Strell

    LOBSTERS!....IN MY PANTS!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 July 2012 - 03:56 PM

Hey guys, does the sun revolve around the Earth?


Posted Image
Aminal Crossing: Strell@Tazmily, 2836-3590- 0819

"One of the more...amusing screwballs around here..." - shrike4242
Join the El Hoardo Fan Club!
Threadless.com puts the fun back in laundry!...lafundry! HOORAY! (Referral link)
Wii Obscure FAQ and Facts Thread [Version 2.0] ::: Wii Shop Thread ::: DSi Shop Thread


#4957 Guest_Pliskin101_*

Guest_Pliskin101_*

Posted 01 July 2012 - 04:02 PM

http://foxnewsinside...w-is-not-a-tax/

"
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion."

READ: Obama’s 2009 ABC News Interview – ‘Mandate Is Not a Tax’




....................................................


I love this part by Obama..."What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you"


Hello that is exactly what this is doing. Who is carrying the burden for the free insurance coverage? Those who will be forced to pay dearly for it or be taxed for not paying dearly for it.

The insurance companies are not paying for it they are just making more money.

This does nothing either for the cost that the non-free riders pay. NOTHING.

MAke your choice folks plenty of statements by Obama to choose from and make your choice either he is a complete IDIOT or a bald face LIAR. That is what a great example of a president should be right folks? It is completely acceptable and a good thing to have in a president.

edit: LOL at the white house still saying it is NOT a TAX. Then they should be on board with the repeal since the supreme court upheld it on it being a TAX. Otherwise it would have been unconstitutional and shut down. Democrats: "Gee golly guys the way our shit pile got upheld was by it being a TAX so lets argue it's not a tax" "Yep Yep otherwise we are liars if we side with the supreme court and agree it is a tax"

Edited by Pliskin101, 01 July 2012 - 05:04 PM.


#4958 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:19 PM

Pliskin, I'm not going to quote your post because most of it is irrelevant insults. Instead I will say this, the Democrats tried working with Republicans but you don't seem to want to accept this. The fact is, the Republicans didn't have anything to contribute other than cuts and rolling back Medicare. Note that the Medicare rollback comes with tax cuts which means that it wouldn't even save money which is supposedly what they care about.

#4959 cochesecochese

cochesecochese

    corrompido e imoral

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:26 PM

Pliskin, I'm not going to quote your post because most of it is irrelevant insults.


You really should. He has a nasty habit of editing and/or deleting his posts during and after getting into arguments with people.

this signature is an illusion and is a trap devised by satan. go ahead dauntlessly! make rapid progress!


#4960 Guest_Pliskin101_*

Guest_Pliskin101_*

Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:52 PM

Here is some light reading for you..from april of this year... link to full article at the bottom

"They got what they wanted. But blaming Republican intransigence for this outcome is myth-making, pure and simple. The blame goes to left-wing Democrats, who refused to entertain a more balanced approach to health reform."

..............................................................................................

There was a path to bipartisan reform, but Democrats rejected it
Hence, a bipartisan health-care agenda at the federal level will necessarily look quite different than one at the state level. If liberals had bothered to ask, they could easily have elicited bipartisan support for a proposal that did the following: (1) set up the Obamacare exchanges for those under 400% of FPL; (2) applied the Ryan reforms to Medicare and Medicaid (or, alternatively, folded in Medicare and Medicaid acute-care into the PPACA exchanges); (3) equalized the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased insurance; and (4) not increase taxes or the deficit.
But they didn’t. The Democratically-controlled House passed its plan in 2009 with nearly zero Republican input. In the Senate, the Gang of Six—Democratic Sens. Baucus (Mont.), Conrad (N.D.), and Bingaman (N.M.), and Republican Sens. Grassley (Iowa), Snowe (Maine), and Enzi (Wyo.)—failed to come to an agreement because the Republicans were concerned about the bill’s dramatic increase in taxes and spending.
Indeed, Democrats wouldn’t even have needed to do everything I listed above. Simply expanding coverage without raising taxes would have been enough, as contemporaneous reporting makes clear. But the Democratic leadership had no interest in a bipartisan deal.
Universal-coverage activist John McDonough, in his book Inside National Health Reform, recounts that Max Baucus’ original November 2008 blueprint for health reform “had made known [Baucus’] intention to use changes in the tax treatment of health insurance as his major financing source to pay for reform.” As Baucus put it in his blueprint, “It is time to explore ways in which tax incentives can be modified to distribute benefits more fairly and effectively…This could be done by limiting or capping the tax exclusion based on the value of health benefits, or as an alternative, based on a person’s income—or both.” A salutary idea.
But the President, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) were having none of that. As Roll Call reported at the time, “According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing [Republican] support.” McDonough, who was on the inside during these discussions, notes that Democratic leaders felt that it was unnecessary to solicit Republican support because Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate. “Reid’s directive, backed by the White House and supported by the House, was motivated in part by the seating of Minnesota’s Al Franken, the Democrats’ elusive sixtieth vote, meaning that Republicans were no longer needed to pass a bill. This directive, though, left Baucus’s plan with a gaping financial hole.”


Democrats, unwilling to budge on broader reform, then tried to ram through a partisan expansion of coverage, with substantial tax increases and an individual mandate, and zero structural reform to Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer tax exclusion. They got what they wanted. But blaming Republican intransigence for this outcome is myth-making, pure and simple. The blame goes to left-wing Democrats, who refused to entertain a more balanced approach to health reform.
Put simply, liberals’ principal goal was and is universal coverage, and conservatives’ principal goal was and is entitlement reform. These two goals could have been simultaneously accomplished in a bipartisan bill, but liberals had no desire to reform entitlements.


Would Democrats Block a Republican Plan for Universal Coverage, Out of Spite?

http://www.forbes.co...e-out-of-spite/

#4961 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:57 PM

:rofl:
Posted Image

#4962 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 July 2012 - 07:50 PM

(2) applied the Ryan reforms to Medicare and Medicaid (or, alternatively, folded in Medicare and Medicaid acute-care into the PPACA exchanges); (3) equalized the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased insurance; and (4) not increase taxes or the deficit.

That's the problem right there and exactly what I was referring to. There can be no bipartisan bill when one person wants fire and the other person wants water.

#4963 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:17 PM

That seems like a pretty big compromise. Universal coverage + privatizing Medicare.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#4964 Guest_Pliskin101_*

Guest_Pliskin101_*

Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:22 PM

(2) applied the Ryan reforms to Medicare and Medicaid (or, alternatively, folded in Medicare and Medicaid acute-care into the PPACA exchanges); (3) equalized the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased insurance; and (4) not increase taxes or the deficit.

That's the problem right there and exactly what I was referring to. There can be no bipartisan bill when one person wants fire and the other person wants water.


Your original point was that republicans refused to participate and I argued that was not true. You put blame on the republicans and I disproved that. Again this was a partisan bill with no compromise by the democrats that had all the power. It was a democrat act ram rodded through. I posted the article because it again disproves your original point. Now if you want to change it and say they did try to participate but you just didn't LIKE a comprised bill and the shit pile democrat bill was better than a compromised bill that accomplishes much more and isn't mostlyl shit like the democrats one...that is another story altogether.

I for one like parts of the democrat and the republican plans and believe a better non-partisan act could have been passed. But since the democrats had the power and wanted it ALL their way that didn't happen.

And your argument that somehow those that had all the power are not to blame boggles the mind. How do you compromise with the democrats who have all the power know it and think that only their plan is the shiznet and refuse to represent all the people and do a bi-partisan bill? The democrats used their power and in a bad way and forced their self-righteous plan on everyone else...why becasue they could.

You lost on your point as it was not true.

edit: again they could not and were not allowed to partcipate.

#4965 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 July 2012 - 09:10 PM

Your original point was that republicans refused to participate and I argued that was not true. You put blame on the republicans and I disproved that. Again this was a partisan bill with no compromise by the democrats that had all the power. It was a democrat act ram rodded through. I posted the article because it again disproves your original point. Now if you want to change it and say they did try to participate but you just didn't LIKE a comprised bill and the shit pile democrat bill was better than a compromised bill that accomplishes much more and isn't mostlyl shit like the democrats one...that is another story altogether.

I for one like parts of the democrat and the republican plans and believe a better non-partisan act could have been passed. But since the democrats had the power and wanted it ALL their way that didn't happen.

And your argument that somehow those that had all the power are not to blame boggles the mind. How do you compromise with the democrats who have all the power know it and think that only their plan is the shiznet and refuse to represent all the people and do a bi-partisan bill? The democrats used their power and in a bad way and forced their self-righteous plan on everyone else...why becasue they could.

You lost on your point as it was not true.

edit: again they could not and were not allowed to partcipate.




Pliskin, I'm not going to quote your post because most of it is irrelevant insults. Instead I will say this, the Democrats tried working with Republicans but you don't seem to want to accept this. The fact is, the Republicans didn't have anything to contribute other than cuts and rolling back Medicare. Note that the Medicare rollback comes with tax cuts which means that it wouldn't even save money which is supposedly what they care about.

Really? Exactly as I said. The Republican's won't participate in a bipartisan manner. All they will do is make unrealistic demands to disband government. You can argue all you want about this nonsense but most people don't think medicare should be gone and the democrats will never allow it to happen. In fact, the republican's won't either but they pushed this plan because they thought it would get them votes.

Anyway, arguing with you is pointless. You don't want to admit that the Republican's chose to push plans that they knew were unacceptable to Democrats. Maybe the Republican house has a plan to increase military spending and the Democrats put out a plan to completely eliminate the military. Well gee, why the hell won't the Republican's work in a bipartisan manner? You really don't seem to get it so I'm not going to bother discussing this issue anymore.

Moving on, it's Constitutional and I love it. Now it will be around forever. :)

#4966 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 July 2012 - 09:49 PM

Hey guys, does the sun revolve around the Earth?


You betcha! Just like the world is flat and people used to ride dinosaurs.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#4967 Guest_Pliskin101_*

Guest_Pliskin101_*

Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:26 PM

There was no trickery in Congress. It was the Senate's bill, not Obama's bill. The republicans had a chance to participate but chose to be as partisan as possible. They KNEW this outcome was possible yet still refused to participate because of extremist tea bangers.


As I said, you said: refused to work with and that it was the republicans fault. When I addressed that then you said in the next post a "few republicans" and then you changed it after that to well I didn't like what they were offering.

Guess what you were wrong pal. I addressed you and disproved your claim and then you change it to.... well I didn't like what they offered ... that isn't the same as well they offered nothing now is it?

So bottom line again is the democrats had a super majority REFUSED to have the bill any other way or bi-partisan. They wanted it all their way and because they could have it all their way THEY DID. Well their bill ALL THEIR WAY is a pile of shit with a few chocolate chips in it and there in no one else to blame for this CRAP then the idiot democrats who think that they know everything and what is best for EVERYONE regardless of what other people say or want.

As I said this is a great lesson why one political party should never have all legislative and executive power. No one special interest should ever have so much power. They did and they used it in a destructive selfish self-righteous manner.

#4968 Guest_Pliskin101_*

Guest_Pliskin101_*

Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:43 PM

Moving on, it's Constitutional and I love it. Now it will be around forever. :)


What makes you think or even want the whole thing in all it's crapness to be around forever? You are happy with ALL of it?

"FOREVER" LMAO :roll:

Get another thing....it is upheld by the consitution the same consitution that allows this to be repealed and changed. So the ruling does not make it set in stone forever. Thank goodness.

It should and will be changed. Have no doubt that it will be changed for the better. Not left in it's entirty of crapness that the democrats forced on everyone.

#4969 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:44 PM

As I said, you said: refused to work with and that it was the republicans fault. When I addressed that then you said in the next post a "few republicans" and then you changed it after that to well I didn't like what they were offering.

Guess what you were wrong pal. I addressed you and disproved your claim and then you change it to.... well I didn't like what they offered ... that isn't the same as well they offered nothing now is it?

So bottom line again is the democrats had a super majority REFUSED to have the bill any other way or bi-partisan. They wanted it all their way and because they could have it all their way THEY DID. Well their bill ALL THEIR WAY is a pile of shit with a few chocolate chips in it and there in no one else to blame for this CRAP then the idiot democrats who think that they know everything and what is best for EVERYONE regardless of what other people say or want.

As I said this is a great lesson why one political party should never have all legislative and executive power. No one special interest should ever have so much power. They did and they used it in a destructive selfish self-righteous manner.


I have no idea what you're going on about. You seem to be self-righteous here. I don't give a shit what my first post said. You can go back to the first post after the discussion progresses if you chose to do so but I'm not an English professor and I have no intention of arguing plurals or tenses with you. You can feel like you "won" the internet argument if you wish but everyone knows that the republican's did not put forth a plan, they put forth a joke equivalent to the democrats putting out a military budget of zero and asking why the republican's won't work with them. So yes, you WIN, they put out a bill if you consider that a bipartisan attempt. In the real world, such an attempt is all grand-standing when they know it has issues that make it 100% unacceptable. They created that bill in order to say they put something out there knowing that the Democrats wouldn't accept it.

If the Democrats put out a plan to zero out the military budget, does that make their bill a bipartisan attempt? Give me a fucking break. Go act all high and mighty with someone else because I don't fall for that bullshit like you do.

It's goddamn pathetic when you're arguing politics and you don't know jack shit about it. Claiming this bill that the Republican's put out there was a bipartisan effort is either completely disingenuous (probably the case) or you need to go actually learn about politics and stop believing whatever shit you heard in the media. This is what's wrong with this country. There's too many people that believe lip service is real bipartisanship. There is no bipartisanship in this country anymore. The Democrats would have bent over backwards to get just ONE republican sign on.

#4970 Guest_Pliskin101_*

Guest_Pliskin101_*

Posted 01 July 2012 - 11:04 PM

You are a idiot... you don't understand bipartisan at all that is painfully obvious.
The democrats did not bend over backwards not even close and in fact it was just the opposite and that has been proved....and is a well known FACT.

You are just making up shit now and were then.

You are just rambling off BS to ramble off BS.

I am just amazed how stupid you are. Take your own advice and go learn something about politics you might want to start with the word bipartisan...here I will help you..


"representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy."

#4971 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 July 2012 - 11:13 PM

There you go using definitions to claim that proves your point instead of using common sense. Next time the military budget is up, if the Democrats propose to zero it out and shut it down completely, that's a bipartisan effort. Got it.

I'm done hitting my head against a wall trying to explain common sense to someone that only reads the dictionary for fun. Okay you WIN, the republicans are completely bipartisan. They try to work with the democrats on EVERYTHING. In fact, they're as centrist as you can come. Hell, when you look up "centrist" I bet boners's picture is right there (beside yours). Good job on your victory. You've proven to everyone on CAG that the republicans were trying to legitimately work with the democrats. I congratulate you on your victory.

#4972 Guest_Pliskin101_*

Guest_Pliskin101_*

Posted 01 July 2012 - 11:19 PM

There you go using definitions to claim that proves your point instead of using common sense. Next time the military budget is up, if the Democrats propose to zero it out and shut it down completely, that's a bipartisan effort. Got it.

I'm done hitting my head against a wall trying to explain common sense to someone that only reads the dictionary for fun. Okay you WIN, the republicans are completely bipartisan. They try to work with the democrats on EVERYTHING. In fact, they're as centrist as you can come. Hell, when you look up "centrist" I bet boners's picture is right there (beside yours). Good job on your victory. You've proven to everyone on CAG that the republicans were trying to legitimately work with the democrats. I congratulate you on your victory.


I never said the republicans are completely bipartisan NEVER. There you go making up shit again.

#4973 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:13 AM

You are a idiot...


God, these are always my favorites...

#4974 fullmetalfan720

fullmetalfan720

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 July 2012 - 06:17 PM

The argument over whether the debate was bipartisan is largely irreverent. Its something that might have mattered when the bill was still being debated. The whole problem now is that so many people have bought into a bill that is essentially a bailout to the health insurance industry. It forces the poor and middle-class to buy health care they cannot necessarily afford. These people receive a subsidy, yes, but they still end up paying a significant amount for health care. There's no negotiation of drug prices. And of course, the Supreme Court ruling shows that the federal government has unlimited taxing power. (Other bad Supreme Court rulings: Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Plessy v. Ferguson.) Considering that the president now has nearly unlimited power to wage wars, surveil and kill people without due process, I'm starting to wonder if anyone cares about limitation of powers or the Constitution anymore.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
-Ben Franklin
The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. - William Jennings Bryan

#4975 Soodmeg

Soodmeg

Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:02 PM

So seriously, can someone explain this to me in a non crazy way.

I thought that, like everyone other product or service on the planet, if everyone has access to it the price come down overall. If everyone has health insurance then there is less need to charge 2 times the actually amount because you are more likely to receive payment correct?

I am not getting this at all.

Also, repubs seem to bank on the fact that big business has a heart when it has been proven time and time again that they dont. I actually do not like big government I would rather have the market work itself out...but that only works when humans stop acting like human and actually care about one another which is almost impossible.


If business really cared about health care they would have naturally done something about it themselves a long time ago.

#4976 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:33 PM

So seriously, can someone explain this to me in a non crazy way.

I thought that, like everyone other product or service on the planet, if everyone has access to it the price come down overall. If everyone has health insurance then there is less need to charge 2 times the actually amount because you are more likely to receive payment correct?

I am not getting this at all.

Also, repubs seem to bank on the fact that big business has a heart when it has been proven time and time again that they dont. I actually do not like big government I would rather have the market work itself out...but that only works when humans stop acting like human and actually care about one another which is almost impossible.


If business really cared about health care they would have naturally done something about it themselves a long time ago.


Sounds to me like you understand it fine.

#4977 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:35 PM

I dont see how people can say this is a good thing

SAY your making 25,000 a year working for a company that offers heath care

When this goes into effect the choice for the place you work at is

PAY heath care for 8,000 per person
or
PAY the fine for 2,000 per person and the job picks the fine

Now you have to go out and BUY Heath care

You either buy it at 3,000 bucks or Pay the fine at 1500


So now instead of having a job that paid 25,000 you have a job that pays 22,000 since you have to pay 3,000 for your own heath care
WOOOO I STINK

#4978 RealDeals

RealDeals

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 July 2012 - 10:10 PM

More on this 'crappy' bill....



Highlights from this... The PENALTY (not tax) will affect 2-3% of Americans... and at worst, cost you 1-2.5% of your income. Granted, it's my favorite liberal Cenk Uygur, but he's always atleast accurate and is actually firing back at Conservative Jabba the Hut Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous partisanship.

LOL at all the conservative "Middle class got FUUUUUU' in this thread :lol:

Edited by RealDeals, 02 July 2012 - 11:23 PM.

http://t3.gstatic.co...4wtuy3FpqqoZSRA

Originally Posted by the4thnobleman Posted Image
I need power to come back on! I still need to spend $10 or so to get my $20. Stupid hurricane Sandy Vagina!

Posted Image

#4979 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 July 2012 - 10:31 PM

It's incredibly disingenuous for republicans to act like they give a damn about the middle class.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#4980 Soodmeg

Soodmeg

Posted 02 July 2012 - 11:24 PM

.