Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
i stated what i thought and that was it.. and listening to the 40% is good and bad. now all of a sudden percentages matter when your against it. Politic is a big game of taking what you can and flipping it, and whenever the tables turn, flip it again.
Congress is supposed to represent the people, yet they are still going to force a bill through when only 38% of the country approves of the bill. How is that representing the people?
since when has the approval rating of the the people meant anything.. it hasnt before so why does it now..
Source on the 38%?
CNN Twitter polls
Yeah I guess so, it's good to know the sample of which they polled. I mean if you poll those who are in a certain demographic you'll get a much different outcome than another, also questions asked. (i.e push polling) Either way last time I checked 62% is greater than 38%.
Lol @ twitter polls. I'm not on active on twitter myself and I don't know many people who are. About the only thing I use twitter for is to get the daily specials from the place I usually eat lunch.
So anyway, I just read a rundown on the Senate healthcare bill and it seems decent to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009122400904
1.) Everyone under $29,326 per year is eligible for Medicaid.
2.) Everyone up from $29,326 to $88,200 a year is eligible for subsidized coverage through a state based insurance exchange.
3.) Employers with more than 50 employees would face fines for not providing coverage.
4.) Employees who can afford coverage but choose not to get it also face fines. - not sure how I feel about this yet but I am pretty sure I'm against it.
5.) 120 billion in cuts over to the next decade to Medicare Advantage, which is a form of medicare provided to seniors through private insurance companies. These cuts include extras like gym memberships, and other add-on benefits.
6.) Narrowing of the "doughnut hole" which forces some seniors to pay for their prescription drug coverage. Those who remain in the doughnut hole will receive a 50% discount on their prescription drugs.
7.) Changing the way treatments are billed. Certain treatments will get paid out as a bundle rather than an itemized list of individual services.
8.) This plan will be payed for by cuts within the system (see also: Medicare Advantage), deals with the hospital groups and drug companies, and also increased taxes on millionaires and increased taxes on the "Cadillac" insurance policies.
Doesn't seem quite so bad to me?
As far as what Obama has done within the past year... what about the things he hasn't done?
For one, we're not at war with Russia right now. I know a big part of McCheese/Palin foreign policy was to engage Russia over Georgia. Glad that situation blew over.
Also, we were saved from having to deal with Sarah Palin in a leadership capacity at the legislative level (having a vote in the Senate). She was free to continue serving her constituents in Alaska who voted for her to serve a full ter... oh right... she fucked them over anyway.
Equals increased taxes for everyone.
More jobs cut in order to pay these additional fines and taxes.
Freedom of choice is no longer a freedom we enjoy.
Rationing will result.
Why should anyone actually have to pay for their prescriptions right?
changing the way it is billed doesnt mean its going to cost less. It will probably cost more because it will be easier for those that are looking to defraud the system to hide it.
Those cuts are also called rationing. Then added taxes which means medical plans will become even more expensive.
Of course it doesnt, nothing a liberal ever does seems bad to you.
I guess you could say the same things for your messiah. He barely even started his term before he started campaigning.Also, we were saved from having to deal with Sarah Palin in a leadership capacity at the legislative level (having a vote in the Senate). She was free to continue serving her constituents in Alaska who voted for her to serve a full ter... oh right... she fucked them over anyway.
BTW, Palin was successful in reigning in costs at the state level while Obaam has spent so much money so quickly that even the chinese are telling us how to go about capitalism.
More dependants on an already abused and underfunded program, sounds like a good idea.
How do you not see that employers are going to cut jobs to A) get below 50 employees if they are small enough or B) cut non essential employees to use their salary to cover the fines. Companies can either raise prices or cut jobs to cover higher costs, in order to stay competitive in the market place raising prices can only go so far then the jobs start getting cut.
So you're going to penalize people if they choose not to have coverage, and at the same time penalize people who have coverage that is too good? Who are you or any bureaucrat for that matter to tell me that the coverage that I pay for with my own money that I earn or that my company provides me as part of my benefits package is too good? That sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
Treatments billed as a bundle will only lead to higher costs because it will be easier to hide fraud.
So I guess you have no desire to be wealthy at any point in your life? or does this part not apply to you once you reach that status?
Let's create more places for backdoor deals, kickbacks and pork in what will already be a bloated entitlement program.
I also have one simple point: I would like someone who is a proponent of this healthcare bill to tell me where in the Constitution of The United States it gives the federal government the power to force me to purchase ANYTHING.
I know you probably realize you are making an unfair oversimplification Jimmy, but not everyone does because I keep hearing these kind of arguments. Congress is not supposed to simply vote with whatever national polls say. Keep in mind:
1. Politicans represent a certain group of people, just because 60% of the US dislikes a bill doesn't mean that politician's constituents feel the same.
2. Politicans represent all of their constituents not just the majority. This is an important part of our government in general. Why do we even have a senate at all? Majority does not always rule.
3. Most average Joes don't have time to really investigate or understand many bills (especially 2000 page ones). A representative has a duty to do his/her best to make the best choice as they see the issue. Of course the people's feelings should be taken into account but that doesn't mean blindly voting with the majority regardless of the consequences.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
