Can someone please tell me......

[Total_Blender]

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.

[BanginJimmy]

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.

Equals increased taxes for everyone.

3.) Employers with more than 50 employees would face fines for not providing coverage.

More jobs cut in order to pay these additional fines and taxes.

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.

Freedom of choice is no longer a freedom we enjoy.

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.

Rationing will result.

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.

Why should anyone actually have to pay for their prescriptions right?

7.) Changing the way treatments are billed. Certain treatments will get paid out as a bundle rather than an itemized list of individual services.

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.

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.

Those cuts are also called rationing. Then added taxes which means medical plans will become even more expensive.

Doesn't seem quite so bad to me?

Of course it doesnt, nothing a liberal ever does seems bad to you.

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.

I guess you could say the same things for your messiah. He barely even started his term before he started campaigning.

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.

[tony]

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.

What are you talking about? Alaska runs on a fiscal surplus which is why they pay their citizens, I guess thats why Palin felt it was okay to bill the state for nights she was at home.

[BanginJimmy]

What are you talking about? Alaska runs on a fiscal surplus which is why they pay their citizens, I guess thats why Palin felt it was okay to bill the state for nights she was at home.

The reason Alaska runs at a fiscal surplus is because she made so many cuts in useless programs and streamlined many others. That was why she upset so many republicans in Alaska.

You act like that is uncommon. I know you arent going to sit there and say that every other politician at that level doesnt do the exact same things.

[tony]

The reason Alaska runs at a fiscal surplus is because she made so many cuts in useless programs and streamlined many others. That was why she upset so many republicans in Alaska.

You act like that is uncommon. I know you arent going to sit there and say that every other politician at that level doesnt do the exact same things.

lmaaooooooooooo WTF Jimmy, you're not this dumb are you? I was getting an Alaskan dividend from the age of 1 up to 18 years old.. I was born in 1980 so please explain to me how Palin's cuts somehow retroactively paid my family 26 years before her term.

Obviously there is a very abundant resource in Alaska called oil. They have something else that is lucrative that swims in the water, it's real easy to balance the budget when state revenues are in the multi BILLIONS and there are maybe 700k citizens.

[BanginJimmy]

lmaaooooooooooo WTF Jimmy, you're not this dumb are you? I was getting an Alaskan dividend from the age of 1 up to 18 years old.. I was born in 1980 so please explain to me how Palin's cuts somehow retroactively paid my family 26 years before her term.

So correct me if I am wrong as I'm not going to do the research again, but didnt the dividend enarly double shortly after Palin got into office?

Obviously there is a very abundant resource in Alaska called oil. They have something else that is lucrative that swims in the water, it's real easy to balance the budget when state revenues are in the multi BILLIONS and there are maybe 700k citizens.

Only 700K citizens to pay taxes also. I would imagine the costs to run the state are a lot higher than you think also. I would put any money you would like to throw on it that Alaska pays 5x the amount for infrastructure maintenance than any other state in the Union.

[tony]

So correct me if I am wrong as I'm not going to do the research again, but didnt the dividend enarly double shortly after Palin got into office?



Only 700K citizens to pay taxes also. I would imagine the costs to run the state are a lot higher than you think also. I would put any money you would like to throw on it that Alaska pays 5x the amount for infrastructure maintenance than any other state in the Union.

700k citizens don't pay taxes, there aren't any state income taxes in Alaska. The dividend didn't double under Palin, its stayed in the $1500 to low $2000 range where it has always been.

[Total_Blender]

What are you talking about? Alaska runs on a fiscal surplus which is why they pay their citizens, I guess thats why Palin felt it was okay to bill the state for nights she was at home.

To be fair, she did save the Alaskan taxpayers half her salary.

Jimmy, your responses are typical Republican talking points.

1.) Higher taxes? Only on the filthy rich... fuck 'em they can afford it.

2.) Job cuts? I don't see it, given that the gov't will also be paying subsidies to small businesses to help them cover their employees. Employees under a certain amount will also be covered by medicaid, so that coverage won't necessarily be on the employers.

3.) Rationing... the proposed cuts are add-on benefits like gym memberships and such.

4.) I don't know what exactly you mean by "He barely even started his term before he started campaigning." Most candidates start campaigning before they are elected, not after they start their terms.

obama=One Big Ass Mistake America

I'm sure you came up with that acronym all by yourself. How creative and original.

[ahabion]

1.) Higher taxes? Only on the filthy rich... fuck 'em they can afford it.

You know what amazes me is that everyone strives to become millionaires and yet there is a resentment to somehow "punish" them with taxes because they have more money. Why?! Seriously, I want to be a millionaire one day and I can stand to be in a higher tax bracket, but why tax for the sake to pay for so many other's "benefits" against your own will or choice. That my friend is stealing and tyranny. But tax those rich people, darn them... how dare they make more money and be successful. They are evil rich people, we must punish them with taxes. (but deep under my breath... i want to be like them *giggle*)

[Total_Blender]

You know what amazes me is that everyone strives to become millionaires and yet there is a resentment to somehow "punish" them with taxes because they have more money. )

Its not to "punish" them, its to have a more equal sharing of the tax burden. Right now the lower brackets are stiffed with a disproportionate share.

[BanginJimmy]

Its not to "punish" them, its to have a more equal sharing of the tax burden. Right now the lower brackets are stiffed with a disproportionate share.

You might want to look at who is getting stiffed again.

The top 10% of income tax payers make something like 60% of the money and pay about 75% of the taxes. The bottom 50% make something like 30% of the money and pay like 2% of the income taxes.

[quickdodge®]

I'm sure you came up with that acronym all by yourself. How creative and original.

I hate when people do shit like this. If you don't know shit, don't post. Especially something like that. The reason you rarely see my name in here is because I don't know shit about politics. And I don't like to talk about something that I don't know about. And I won't go to Wikipedia for my points. If I don't know it, then i won't post it.

I admit it, too, I don't know shit about politics. I honestly wish I did, but I never paid any attention to it. Later, QD.

[BanginJimmy]

Jimmy, your responses are typical Republican talking points.

Everything you say is nothing but a talking point. You NEVER have anything to back up your responses.

1.) Higher taxes? Only on the filthy rich... fuck 'em they can afford it.

Envy is such a terrible thing. Maybe we should be doing more to punish those that make no effort to succeed in life and just live off the system and quit punishing those that do work hard to succeed.

2.) Job cuts? I don't see it, given that the gov't will also be paying subsidies to small businesses to help them cover their employees. Employees under a certain amount will also be covered by medicaid, so that coverage won't necessarily be on the employers.

If you force a business to add additional costs, and they cannot make up those additional costs by raising prics, they have to save the money somewhere. That means either the business doesnt grow as the owner hopes, or the business shrinks. When a business shrinks, that means jobs are cut. About 80% of the people employed in the US are employed by small businesses. Those are the people that are going to be affected by this.

3.) Rationing... the proposed cuts are add-on benefits like gym memberships and such.

Those cuts will go FAR deeper than that. Adding up all of the proposed cuts wont even cover the added amount of fraud.

4.) I don't know what exactly you mean by "He barely even started his term before he started campaigning." Most candidates start campaigning before they are elected, not after they start their terms.

Are you really this stupid or are you just acting like this to avoid the truth? Obama was elected into the Senate and served in that capacity for about a year before he was campaigning for President full time. Does your job allow you to take paid time off to look for a better job?


BTW, this should apply to ANYONE running for a seat that they do not already hold. If a Congressman is going to run for a seat in the Senate, they should be forced to give up their seat first.

[Total_Blender]

Does your job allow you to take paid time off to look for a better job?


BTW, this should apply to ANYONE running for a seat that they do not already hold. If a Congressman is going to run for a seat in the Senate, they should be forced to give up their seat first.

Actually, my job does allow me to take paid time off to look for another job. I can use my paid vacation days to go to interviews and the like.

I sort of agree with you that those in Congress should vacate their seats before they run for other offices though... if they are in Congress they should be devoting their full attention to their offices there. Thats not a left or a right issue, both parties are guilty of this and have been in pretty much every single election in this country ever.

But this past election both candidates did suspend their campaigning for a week to "fix the economy". Not that that worked out very well...

[tony]

But this past election both candidates did suspend their campaigning for a week to "fix the economy". Not that that worked out very well...

Rhetoric from both sides, I thought that whole thing was bullshit.

[Browning151]

1.) Everyone under $29,326 per year is eligible for Medicaid.

More dependants on an already abused and underfunded program, sounds like a good idea.

3.) Employers with more than 50 employees would face fines for not providing coverage.

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.

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.

8.)increased taxes on the "Cadillac" insurance policies.

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.

7.) Changing the way treatments are billed. Certain treatments will get paid out as a bundle rather than an itemized list of individual services.

Treatments billed as a bundle will only lead to higher costs because it will be easier to hide fraud.

8.) also increased taxes on millionaires

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?

8.) deals with the hospital groups and drug companies

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.