Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, just like The Right ≠ Republicans. Although you wouldn't know that by all the hate that spews from this board towards anyone with the slightest bit of conservative leaning.[/quote]
More strawmen. Wonderful!

It's almost as if I didn't specifically say "the left" and "Republicans." Oh wait, I did!

I personally get more hate on this forum than all of the "slightly conservative leaning" members combined and the only times I say anything about it is when one of you chucklefucks try to lecture me on punching below the belt or play the victim.

Sounds about right. A dog leaves a turd on the sidewalk, you pick it up and eat it, then blame the dog for leaving it there in the first place.
Click to expand...
el-oh-el

If writing shitty analogies was a profession, you'd make a killing. Here's a better one:
Me and you are teammates on Hell's Kitchen and have to make multiple servings of a dish. We decide to make a bbq dish with me wanting to St Louis style and you wanting to go with a dry rub. We spend most of the time arguing and eventually we compromise with a dry-rub and an ounce of sauce on the side, otherwise, you'd refuse to help. Gordon Ramsey tries it, throws it across the kitchen, calls us a bunch of fucking donkeys, and wonders why we decided to serve him a dried out piece of meat on a bone with only a smidgen of sauce. Your answer is to him is blame me for making that compromise.

It's a horrible monstrosity of a bill. Voted for - and thus enacted by - the Democrats.I don't care who wrote the thing... Millions of crap bills, ordinances, laws, etc... have been written. I don't care. It's when they pass that we should be concerned.
Click to expand...
Everyone already knows that you don't care when it hurts your argument.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...it's hilarious how Pliskin tends to try and alienate everyone in the forum. Especially the ones that he shares similar political leanings with and is totally oblivious to it.[/QUOTE]

Ya, I can't help but laugh when I read his stuff :lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']
If writing shitty analogies was a profession, you'd make a killing. Here's a better one:
[/QUOTE]

You're correct. That was a better shitty analogy. Good job.

Let me make it less shitty for you.

You and I are teammates on Hell's Kitchen and have to make multiple servings of a dish. We decide to make a bbq dish with me wanting to St Louis style and you wanting to go with a dry rub. We spend most of the time arguing and eventually we compromise with a dry-rub and an ounce of sauce on the side, otherwise, I'd refuse to help. After seeing the final dish, I decide to back out, saying the dish is crap and isn't worth serving - knowing the cardinal rule of executive food service is that you NEVER knowingly serve bad food. Ramsey looks at the dish and expresses reluctance at the thought of consuming it. When he asks what's in it, You say "**** you, you have to eat it to find out what's in it.", and shove it down his throat anyway. Ramsey says "What the hell is this ****" and your defense is "Oh, I knew it was ****, but what else was I supposed to do? It's all his fault.
Click to expand...

On another note:
https://twitter.com/patrickgaspard/status/218347872163344386

Stay classy, Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee.
 
Recieved an email from the CEO of our hospital system about the healthcare law yesterday.

Basically
TL;DR:

More patients coming in. Less federal reimbursment to pay for them.
(More patients. Less Money)
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Ya, I can't help but laugh when I read his stuff :lol:[/QUOTE]

Right back at you. I was actually very nice about your ridiculous 2 day comment. I wont make that mistake again.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Recieved an email from the CEO of our hospital system about the healthcare law yesterday.

Basically
TL;DR:

More patients coming in. Less federal money to pay for them.
(More patients. Less Money)[/QUOTE]

which will lead to less and less healthcare workers which all will lead to less quality and on and on and on...

I am just wondering what happened to one of Obama's many LIES about everyone having the same healthcare congress and he does. I want a personal physician following me around too. Are all these new TAXES going to get me that?

Oh wait nope just worse service and I have to pay higher prices and taxes to get that so someone else who doesn't do shit can have shitty care too. While the elites will STILL have quality care and MONEY. Sounds good sign me up to be screwed. Oh wait I don't get to sign up I am FORCED against my will to do it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You forgot to mention how you sabotaged it at every step and didn't want us to win to begin with. [/quote]

So, It's a bad bill, it was sabotaged, full of ****ty compromises, half-measures and gifts to all the wrong folks... and yet, it's still worth voting for?

Congrats. You not only support ****, but you acknowledge that it's **** you support. You're not a hypocrite, you're just an idiot.

It is, bitches. Suck it.
Click to expand...

If any GOP member had came out with such a message had it not been upheld, that post would have been in the "Stay Classy" thread in seconds.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Recieved an email from the CEO of our hospital system about the healthcare law yesterday.

Basically
TL;DR:

More patients coming in. Less federal reimbursment to pay for them.
(More patients. Less Money)[/QUOTE]

Did the CEO say how they plan to deal with this? Maybe look into ways to make patient care more efficient?

Also, did the CEO mention that the percentage of uninsured patients would most likely decrease? My understanding is that uninsured patients are somewhat of a problem for hospitals.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, It's a bad bill, it was sabotaged, full of ****ty compromises, half-measures and gifts to all the wrong folks... and yet, it's still worth voting for?

Congrats. You not only support ****, but you acknowledge that it's **** you support. You're not a hypocrite, you're just an idiot.[/quote]
It's not ALL bad or ALL good. The fact that you describe it as such is ideological. The law has good stuff despite the shit your ideological representatives shoved in it and that good was worth voting for. Your expectations of perfection is unrealistic and with that metric, nothing would ever be accomplished. I might be idiotic about a lot of things, but I'm not the idiot that doesn't recognize nuance; you are.

If you have a problem typing "shit," using asterisks only makes you look like a tightwad pretending to be edgy. Maybe you should just use a word you don't feel you need to self-censor. It's pathetic.


If any GOP member had came out with such a message had it not been upheld, that post would have been in the "Stay Classy" thread in seconds.
Click to expand...
Start a "Stay Classy Democrat" thread about it then. Don't forget to leave the "s" out of Democrats for extra points. You get more if you make it DemonRATS, DemocRAT, or any variation on stressing the "rat" part.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Did the CEO say how they plan to deal with this? Maybe look into ways to make patient care more efficient?

Also, did the CEO mention that the percentage of uninsured patients would most likely decrease? My understanding is that uninsured patients are somewhat of a problem for hospitals.[/QUOTE]

vague wordings of more 'managed care' and collaborative care.

Also the expectation is that the new patients coming in will need more treatment since they've delayed care longer.

These patients will have federal insurance, so they won't be a total write off. But the problem is the federal reimbursement for medicare/medicaid is decreasing next year (and likely to continue to decrease) so all these new patients with "government insurance" won't help matters.

Our system (of 5 hopsitals) had to let 500 pepole go last year due to budgetary problems. I can't see how having more people come in, and getting less money for them is going to help that factor.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It's not ALL bad or ALL good. The fact that you describe it as such is ideological. The law has good stuff despite the shit your ideological representatives shoved in it and that good was worth voting for. Your expectations of perfection is unrealistic and with that metric, nothing would ever be accomplished.[/quote]

The majority of the "good" parts are rubbish as well. That's the problem with it. While you may believe there's more good than bad in this piece of trash, I don't. It's that simple.

I might be idiotic about a lot of things,
Click to expand...

Let me be clear - might is not the word to use here. There is no doubt.

If you have a problem typing "shit,"
Click to expand...

I don't, but thanks for the useless advice.

Start a "Stay Classy Democrat" thread about it then. Don't forget to leave the "s" out of Democrats for extra points. You get more if you make it DemonRATS, DemocRAT, or any variation on stressing the "rat" part.
Click to expand...

That's almost as great as the folks who use "Republi****s". and such.

I've said before, I have no interest in starting such a thread.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']vague wordings of more 'managed care' and collaborative care.

Also the expectation is that the new patients coming in will need more treatment since they've delayed care longer.

These patients will have federal insurance, so they won't be a total write off. But the problem is the federal reimbursement for medicare/medicaid is decreasing next year (and likely to continue to decrease) so all these new patients with "government insurance" won't help matters.

Our system (of 5 hopsitals) had to let 500 pepole go last year due to budgetary problems. I can't see how having more people come in, and getting less money for them is going to help that factor.[/QUOTE]

Medicaid is expanding to include more low income people, but some of the newly insured will be insured by the health insurance companies. For instance, people who wanted to be insured, but were previously denied coverage, and people who chose not buy insurance would mostly be getting coverage from companies, not the federal or state government.
 
I don't know how anyone can be alive and/or politically aware this long and never heard even an allusion to "politics and sausage making".
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/
[/QUOTE]
From cradle-to-grave, Julia is involved with the federal government, and is thus a lifelong Democrat. Unfortunately, what Julia doesn't know is how their brown counterparts are being treated by our benevolent benefactors.

mIr73.jpg
 
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?):

[quote name='Article 1, 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.[/quote]

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.com/sites/kellyph...s-really-a-tax-law-is-it-doomed-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
 
The senate in essence crafted it's own Bill as it did not like the one from the House (or more likely and in reality planned to replace it the entire time and from the get go as part of the overall game plan)...but of course they knew it would not hold that way so when the house bill came in they replaced the CONTENT of the bill and called it an ammendment. Same bill different content. That gutted and replaced bill went back to the house and the rest is history.

The forbes thing is simple but sums up why it is a house bill..technically

If The Health Care Law Is Really A Tax Law, Is It Doomed on Procedure?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...s-really-a-tax-law-is-it-doomed-on-procedure/

edit: it was obvious that the R's understood the trickery (but too late) and did not like the bill's totally new and replaced content at which time they voted against it but it didn't matter they were outnumbered and outplayed by this bit of slickness by the D's in the house and senate. Pretty damn slick on the D's part and pretty damn dirty too. Politics as usual and we get stuck with the problems.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='UncleBob']

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.
[/QUOTE]

Just wanted to clarify something for you. The executive almost always appoints lawyers to fight for laws being challenged in court, hence the reason it was such a big deal last year when the Obama administration stated that they would no longer be defending DOMA.

[quote name='UncleBob']Don't worry Myke. I know it's all a little hard to follow. You'll get there, just keep breathing.[/QUOTE]

Just wanted to clarify something for you. Myke doesn't strike me as a terribly unintelligent fellow so I believe the sigh should be interpreted more as a sigh of futility in the pettiness of where the argument against the law is going rather than a sigh of confusion.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Just wanted to clarify something for you. The executive almost always appoints lawyers to fight for laws being challenged in court, hence the reason it was such a big deal last year when the Obama administration stated that they would no longer be defending DOMA.[/QUOTE]

Oh, no doubt - but the fact that the argument that the Federal Government used in court was that it was a tax the entire time means that it wasn't just Roberts who decided it was a tax.

It was clearly intended to be a tax from the beginning.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Just wanted to clarify something for you. The executive almost always appoints lawyers to fight for laws being challenged in court, hence the reason it was such a big deal last year when the Obama administration stated that they would no longer be defending DOMA.



Just wanted to clarify something for you. Myke doesn't strike me as a terribly unintelligent fellow so I believe the sigh should be interpreted more as a sigh of futility in the pettiness of where the argument against the law is going rather than a sigh of confusion.[/QUOTE]

What makes it irksome that if it was an outright tax it wouldn't change their opposition, it would just move to a different varietal of whine.
 
BOB...It was always the plan to bait and switch the repubs and the public. People warned of the tax and the real plan but in essence nothing could be done and the D's were going to do what they wanted no matter what anyway and could. Obama then kept his poker face the entire time and lied about it and knew he was lying. They abused their power and political majority and lied to the general public about it...Obama flat out lied.

It didn't matter if you knew it was a lie and didn't support it they were going to have their way no matter what. Almost half the country was against it (once they realized) because they knew the sick dirty game that the D's did and were doing...and what the replaced bill really was. Thus the major vote of getting rid of that majority a few years ago but it was too little to late.

We can only hope that people will come out in record numbers like then this election and give the power needed to undue this travesty perpetuated by the D's.

Here are some links an old one from 2010 that warned of what was happening...http://www.redstate.com/susananne/2...s-the-final-vote-obama-will-sign-it-into-law/

and then this..http://www.redstate.com/conservativ...-a-tax-then-it-originated-in-the-wrong-house/

It was a house bill though technically and the only way to change it is in the upcoming election. Good luck

edit: BTW if anyone wants to say Obama is and was not a LIAR then the only other alternative is he is a complete idiot and did not understand the bill himself or what he was signing and didn't understand it up until the ruling and probably still doesn't. That is if anyone wants to try to say he is not a liar. Either way he is a liar or complete idiot president and it is not acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Who cares if Obama and the bill called it a tax, a fee, or a penalty?

This isn't a "bait and switch.". Everyone who paid any attention to this bill knew that there would be a penalty for not buying health insurance. Calling that payment a tax instead of a penalty doesn't change anything.
 
Again... why does the terminology matter? Just renaming into what it techincally is (a tax), just triggers a knee-jerk reaction from consevatives? And yes, I don't mind knowing I have to pay if it provides more accessible care/facilities/awareness. (Cue strawman argument of "TEH GUMMEMENT ELL EFF IT UP!")
 
[quote name='chiwii']Who cares if Obama and the bill called it a tax, a fee, or a penalty?

This isn't a "bait and switch.". Everyone who paid any attention to this bill knew that there would be a penalty for not buying health insurance. Calling that payment a tax instead of a penalty doesn't change anything.[/QUOTE]

If you don't care then why are you posting about it?

You don't have to acknowledge it is a bait and switch but what do you call it when one bill is introduced and represented one way with the plan to switch the plan and bill with a totally different one in the senate the whole damn time? They had support for the non mandatory one and very little for the TAX mandate one so they switched it for a damn reason. That isn't what people wanted and supported. But hey that would interfere with their evil effin scheme...so there would be none of that.

This was FORCED on the public and ram rodded through the process and skirted by way of being dirty any possible opposition that could stop it or delay it.

You can be fine with liars and usurpers and Obama being the chief damn liar (or total idiot if you want) but make no mistake it is disgusting what they did and how they did it. Be fine with Obama being incompetent or a bald face liar. I will have and had no part in that BS.

BTW is does change EVERYTHING as it was A DAMN TAX (or have you not read the news) and as I said not the plan that was supported and introduced. Get it yet?

You think the last election/vote that happened was a wave of resentment towards what they did wait until this time. All the sandbags in the world aren't going to save those aholes from their day of reckoning for their behaviour and SWITCHING and lying this election.

This act will never stand. It can't and it wont.
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Again... why does the terminology matter? Just renaming into what it techincally is (a tax), just triggers a knee-jerk reaction from consevatives? And yes, I don't mind knowing I have to pay if it provides more accessible care/facilities/awareness. (Cue strawman argument of "TEH GUMMEMENT ELL EFF IT UP!")[/QUOTE]

They will eff it up. Actually they already did. It could have been something great instead it is a steaming pile of shit with a few chocolate chips in it. Yum...eat up. (me I'd rather have the chocolate chips without having to eat the shit)

I bet you think and believe it is raining quite often. The truth is you are used to getting pissed on and being told it is raining and of course you believe it. Now you have some snacks for all those rainy days. Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='RealDeals']Again... why does the terminology matter? Just renaming into what it techincally is (a tax), just triggers a knee-jerk reaction from consevatives? And yes, I don't mind knowing I have to pay if it provides more accessible care/facilities/awareness. (Cue strawman argument of "TEH GUMMEMENT ELL EFF IT UP!")[/QUOTE]

Really, as far as the bill itself goes, doesn't matter too much. The bill is crap - period. "Tax" or no tax.

However, it's significant for a couple of reasons unrelated to the bill. First, Obama claimed that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. As the poor will get plenty of subsidies and the rich already have health insurance, the middle class (in particular, the lower middle class) are the ones going to get hit by this.

Second, the way it was passed. The trickery in Congress combined with Obama claiming it wasn't a tax. This goes 100% against Obama's claims that he was going to lead an open and honest administration. I'll completely admit, I did not have high expectations for that to happen, but I did *hope* for it. This is yet another example of him going back on that promise.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really, as far as the bill itself goes, doesn't matter too much. The bill is crap - period. "Tax" or no tax.

However, it's significant for a couple of reasons unrelated to the bill. First, Obama claimed that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. As the poor will get plenty of subsidies and the rich already have health insurance, the middle class (in particular, the lower middle class) are the ones going to get hit by this.

Second, the way it was passed. The trickery in Congress combined with Obama claiming it wasn't a tax. This goes 100% against Obama's claims that he was going to lead an open and honest administration. I'll completely admit, I did not have high expectations for that to happen, but I did *hope* for it. This is yet another example of him going back on that promise.[/QUOTE]

How much is 'hit' by this? 2% tops? I think that's an even trade off for better medical care for ME as ERs and hospitals won't be overflowed with desperate uninsured poor. And you act like the middle class has nothing to gain, and assume that all employed middle class are insured by private corporations as part of their job, which I guarantee is false.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']They will eff it up. Actually they already did. It could have been something great instead it is a steaming pile of shit with a few chocolate chips in it. Yum...eat up. (me I'd rather have the chocolate chips without having to eat the shit)

I bet you think and believe it is raining quite often. The truth is you are used to getting pissed on and being told it is raining and of course you believe it. Now you have some snacks for all those rainy days. Enjoy.[/QUOTE]

Ok prof, some actual analysis or even anecdotal advice would be nice beyond your shitty-cookie analogy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']So... did Obama say he was only going to raise taxes for 2% of the middle class?[/QUOTE]

So... did Obama say he was only going to tax you until you had to cannabilize one of your young to eat? How much do you HONESTLY think this tax will be on your income as a percentage?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really, as far as the bill itself goes, doesn't matter too much. The bill is crap - period. "Tax" or no tax.

However, it's significant for a couple of reasons unrelated to the bill. First, Obama claimed that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. As the poor will get plenty of subsidies and the rich already have health insurance, the middle class (in particular, the lower middle class) are the ones going to get hit by this.

Second, the way it was passed. The trickery in Congress combined with Obama claiming it wasn't a tax. This goes 100% against Obama's claims that he was going to lead an open and honest administration. I'll completely admit, I did not have high expectations for that to happen, but I did *hope* for it. This is yet another example of him going back on that promise.[/QUOTE]

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. Now they have egg on their face and the law will NEVER be repealed. The Senate will always have the filibuster destroying any hope of pulling it back. The best the Republicans can do is work with democrats to modify the law with some of their ideas. Rather than doing that, they are pulling the same partisan bullshit they did when it was passed. Instead of being statesmen, they are grandstanding in hopes that it will get them a majority in the Senate, I have a feeling that they are under estimating this law and I believe the republicans lose the house this November.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']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. Now they have egg on their face and the law will NEVER be repealed. The Senate will always have the filibuster destroying any hope of pulling it back. The best the Republicans can do is work with democrats to modify the law with some of their ideas. Rather than doing that, they are pulling the same partisan bullshit they did when it was passed. Instead of being statesmen, they are grandstanding in hopes that it will get them a majority in the Senate, I have a feeling that they are under estimating this law and I believe the republicans lose the house this November.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='RealDeals']So... did Obama say he was only going to tax you until you had to cannabilize one of your young to eat? How much do you HONESTLY think this tax will be on your income as a percentage?[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='Blaster man']There was no trickery in Congress.[/QUOTE]

Here's someone who wasn't paying attention.
 
I agree with UncleBob. Calling it anything other then a tax is playing semantics.

I've said I wouldn't have a problem with this thing except it's not single payer. It's telling you, by your continued existence as a human being, that you have to pay money to a bunch of select corporations who will likely have put your money towards their kid's private schooling when the time comes and you need to use it. Yes I believe the head of United Heathcare is a giant scumbag as well as the rest of them.
Given my stand if I wasn't exempt due to income I would sign up for being a Christian Scientist.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']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.com/sites/kellyph...s-really-a-tax-law-is-it-doomed-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[/QUOTE]

Wrong again:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/...-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/2...-news-interview-health-care-law-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"
 
Last edited:
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.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Pliskin, I'm not going to quote your post because most of it is irrelevant insults.[/QUOTE]

You really should. He has a nasty habit of editing and/or deleting his posts during and after getting into arguments with people.
 
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.com/sites/aroy/20...can-plan-for-universal-coverage-out-of-spite/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top