Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 15, 2009, 11:37:35 AM
-
Courtesy of James. Why isn't this on the front page of CNN? Here is Beck's take:
&feature=related
Obama camp plants fake doctor, Che fan at Jackson Lee forum
(http://lonestartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/sjl_fishy_dsc_50701-500x564.jpg)
Obama camp plants fake doctor, Che fan at Jackson Lee forum
by Matt Bramanti · 08/13/2009 8:05 am
I was reading the Chron’s piece about Sheila Jackson Lee’s town hall, when something caught my eye:
One supporter, Dr. Roxana Mayer, a physician who does not live in Jackson Lee’s district, praised the reform plan for overhauling a broken system.
“I don’t know what there is in the bill that creates such panic,” she said.
In this video, Mayer claims to be a general practitioner, eliciting applause and even a hug from Queen Sheila:
I’m not sure why, but something didn’t smell right. So my colleagues and I did a little digging, and wouldn’t you know it? Roxana Mayer is, like, totally not a doctor.
But she is an Obama campaign volunteer.
Our own David Jennings secured a phone interview, in which Mayer admitted to impersonating a physician, saying — get this — she thought it would help her credibility. (It didn’t.)
Now here’s where it spins off into a whole new dimension of weird. See the bug-eyed woman seated behind not-doctor Mayer?
(http://lonestartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/roxanamayer1.jpg)
Look familiar?
Yes, that little ray of sunshine, who accompanied Mayer to the meeting, is none other than Maria Isabel, the unhinged moonbat who ran a Barack Obama campaign office, complete with Che Guevara flag.
Hell, she’s even wearing the exact same outfit she wore the last time we mocked her!
(http://lonestartimes.com/images/2008/02/marisa-and-barack.JPG)
A word of advice to budding political operatives: when you need two plants, try to pick people smarter than actual plants.
This isn’t brain surgery.
Full article here
http://lonestartimes.com/2009/08/13/obama-camp-plants-fake-doc-che-fan-at-jackson-lee-forum/
/quote]
-
Maybe it's not on CNN because there is zero proof that the "Obama Camp" had anything to do with it
-
lol
-
Maybe it's not on CNN because there is zero proof that the "Obama Camp" had anything to do with it
I have to agree with Beach Bum. LOL, indeed. This is exactly like the McCain campaign volunteer who carved a b into her own face to help her candidate. Even though she admitted that it was all her own doing and there was no evidence to the contrary, everyone knew that it was all set up by John McCain.
-
I have to agree with Beach Bum. LOL, indeed. This is exactly like the McCain campaign volunteer who carved a b into her own face to help her candidate. Even though she admitted that it was all her own doing and there was no evidence to the contrary, everyone knew that it was all set up by John McCain.
Drudge had the story before the police report was filed hahahahahahaha
this looks like an obvious plant.
-
I have to agree with Beach Bum. LOL, indeed. This is exactly like the McCain campaign volunteer who carved a b into her own face to help her candidate. Even though she admitted that it was all her own doing and there was no evidence to the contrary, everyone knew that it was all set up by John McCain.
you're joking right?
-
you're joking right?
I don't really like using smilies, so I try to get away with heavy-handed sarcasm when I can.
-
Drudge had the story before the police report was filed hahahahahahaha
this looks like an obvious plant.
I think it looks more like overzealous volunteers badly attempting to support their cause. If the Obama camp was going to use a plant, they could have easily found a licensed physician.
-
"Obama camp" is perfectly appropriate. She obviously wasn't directed by someone in the White House, but she was an Obama delegate from Texas. Incredible how boldly she stood there and lied. The hug by the gentlelady from Texas was just comical.
So now we have a woman who was planted in a town hall meeting by a sinister Republican and a doctored video showing Lee not really talking on her cell while a member of the community is asking a question. lol. . . .
-
"Obama camp" is perfectly appropriate. She obviously wasn't directed by someone in the White House, but she was an Obama delegate from Texas. Incredible how boldly she stood there and lied. The hug by the gentlelady from Texas was just comical.
So now we have a woman who was planted in a town hall meeting by a sinister Republican and a doctored video showing Lee not really talking on her cell while a member of the community is asking a question. lol. . . .
Even if you buy that version of event, if you're definition of "obama camp" is that lax, then it's perfectly understandable why this isn't on the front page of CNN.
-
Even if you buy that version of event, if you're definition of "obama camp" is that lax, then it's perfectly understandable why this isn't on the front page of CNN.
Let's assume she wasn't part of the "Obama camp." It's still newsworthy, particularly in light of the attempt to paint protesters at these town hall meetings as un-American and part of some Republican conspiracy.
-
Let's assume she wasn't part of the "Obama camp." It's still newsworthy, particularly in light of the attempt to paint protesters at these town hall meetings as un-American and part of some Republican conspiracy.
If she's not part of the Obama camp, it's completely un-newsworthy. This is an incident, not a trend.
-
If she's not part of the Obama camp, it's completely un-newsworthy. This is an incident, not a trend.
Incidents are just as newsworthy as trends, especially when it involves a Congresswoman who was just getting roasted for being an imbecile. It certainly sounds like an organized attempt to combat the widespread dissatisfaction with healthcare reform.
-
Incidents are just as newsworthy as trends, especially when it involves a Congresswoman who was just getting roasted for being an imbecile. It certainly sounds like an organized attempt to combat the widespread dissatisfaction with healthcare reform.
As a counter-balance to a trend, an incident is not newsworthy.
This doesn't sound organized at all.
-
Beach get a hold of yourself. Its only newsworthy when staged people are implanted at townhall meetings that oppose Obama. When mindless Obama supporters do it, its not news. :-\
And Al- your right about one thing, its highly fucking unorganized. Obama cant even stage fake supporters correctly without being caught instantaneously. Bad job by Axelrod and the other dregs on team Obama.
-
Incidents are just as newsworthy as trends, especially when it involves a Congresswoman who was just getting roasted for being an imbecile. It certainly sounds like an organized attempt to combat the widespread dissatisfaction with healthcare reform.
you've written this a couple of times now
I don't believe for a second that there is WIDESPREAD dissatisfactin with the current legislation on healthcare reform
I do believe their is a tiny yet very vocal minority of not so smart people who were already angry and scared who are getting a lot of attention
-
Beach get a hold of yourself. Its only newsworthy when staged people are implanted at townhall meetings that oppose Obama. When mindless Obama supporters do it, its not news. :-\
And Al- your right about one thing, its highly fucking unorganized. Obama cant even stage fake supporters correctly without being caught instantaneously. Bad job by Axelrod and the other dregs on team Obama.
That's pretty much true, given the crickets about this at CNN et al.
-
you've written this a couple of times now
I don't believe for a second that there is WIDESPREAD dissatisfactin with the current legislation on healthcare reform
I do believe their is a tiny yet very vocal minority of not so smart people who were already angry and scared who are getting a lot of attention
You really are a delusional dickweed. Every single major poll reflects that the majority of Americans do not support Obamacare. A majority hardly constitutes a TINY minority.
-
You really are a delusional dickweed. Every single major poll reflects that the majority of Americans do not support Obamacare. A majority hardly constitutes a TINY minority.
well maybe you're part of the tiny minority that was already scared, angry and grossy misinformed. When I read the FreedomWorks memo it becomes pretty obvious that these are small groups of people are trying to present themselves as being much larger than they really are:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/
– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”
– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”
-
Are you retarded?
Look at the polls dumbass. Townhall meetings dont mean anything in the greater context and neither is what you posted above.
-
Are you retarded?
Look at the polls dumbass. Townhall meetings dont mean anything in the greater context and neither is what you posted above.
feel free to show me some polls rather than just telling me about them.
BTW - I've looked at many different polls and I've seen varying degrees of support and also a large degree of dissatisfaction with the current system.
I've also seen the profound ignorance of the people that are most vocal in their opposition.
Reform could be as simple as fostering more competition, stopping abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, etc..), setting up a reliable way for the consumer to have recourse against health insurance companies who reject legitimate claims for service, and having a public option.
The system is broken but it can be fixed
-
Beach get a hold of yourself. Its only newsworthy when staged people are implanted at townhall meetings that oppose Obama. When mindless Obama supporters do it, its not news. :-\
And Al- your right about one thing, its highly fucking unorganized. Obama cant even stage fake supporters correctly without being caught instantaneously. Bad job by Axelrod and the other dregs on team Obama.
Or, more appropriately, no job at all. As it's more likely than not that they weren't involved.
-
feel free to show me some polls rather than just telling me about them.
BTW - I've looked at many different polls and I've seen varying degrees of support and also a large degree of dissatisfaction with the current system.
I've also seen the profound ignorance of the people that are most vocal in their opposition.
Reform could be as simple as fostering more competition, stopping abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, etc..), setting up a reliable way for the consumer to have recourse against health insurance companies who reject legitimate claims for service, and having a public option.
The system is broken but it can be fixed
The majority of ppl agree that the healthcare system needs work, the majority of ppl also feel that obamas view is not the plan they want
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122255/Amid-Debate-Obama-Approval-Rating-Healthcare-Steady.aspx
that is unless those bad bad ppl who organize(i mean the right wing groups in this case b/c we all know the lefties do it too but they dont get called for it) didnt get to the gallup poll as well...
AGAIN STRAW acting simply for the sake of acting IS NOT THE ANSWER...I agree that healthcare needs to be reformed do we need to provide healthcare to everyone I think thats debatable. Do pre-existing conditions, denied coverage etc...need to be fixed yes but the 2 arent tied together and obama is trying to paint them as such to get HIS AGENDA passed.
-
I agree that healthcare needs to be reformed do we need to provide healthcare to everyone I think thats debatable. Do pre-existing conditions, denied coverage etc...need to be fixed yes but the 2 arent tied together and obama is trying to paint them as such to get HIS AGENDA passed.
I can agree with you here, but it's getting to the point of ridiculous with congressional republicans. I'm just going on memory, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any significant changes to the healthcare system that the republicans have aggressively brought to the forefront.
12 years of leadership under the Bushes and still nothing. All I ever seem to hear from these congressmen is whining, pissing, and moaning about the dems plan and that's really gotten old.
-
I can agree with you here, but it's getting to the point of ridiculous with congressional republicans. I'm just going on memory, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any significant changes to the healthcare system that the republicans have aggressively brought to the forefront.
12 years of leadership under the Bushes and still nothing. All I ever seem to hear from these congressmen is whining, pissing, and moaning about the dems plan and that's really gotten old.
In all honesty this isnt the time imho to be talking about a healthcare system overhaul, Im no party shill and I would agree with you about that and the reps. Although the alternative is just as crappy, obama seems to want shit passed for the sake of getting things passed and not with the intentions of really making a difference or intentionally making a difference.
Obama keeps saying that we will save money through implementing things that prevent fraud etc...why not implement those first and then AFTER WE HAVE THE MONEY proceed with the rest of the plan? I would still not be in favor of providing healthcare to everyone on others money but I would be alot more at ease with knowing at least for now its paid for and the tax payers wont be asked to come up with more money to pay for again OTHER ppls health insurance.
-
The majority of ppl agree that the healthcare system needs work, the majority of ppl also feel that obamas view is not the plan they want
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122255/Amid-Debate-Obama-Approval-Rating-Healthcare-Steady.aspx
that is unless those bad bad ppl who organize(i mean the right wing groups in this case b/c we all know the lefties do it too but they dont get called for it) didnt get to the gallup poll as well...
AGAIN STRAW acting simply for the sake of acting IS NOT THE ANSWER...I agree that healthcare needs to be reformed do we need to provide healthcare to everyone I think thats debatable. Do pre-existing conditions, denied coverage etc...need to be fixed yes but the 2 arent tied together and obama is trying to paint them as such to get HIS AGENDA passed.
I agree. I think Obama should get some stones and push for the plan he actually wants instead of acquiescing to the dumbest among us and winding up with a watered down plan that satisfies no one.
-
Won't it be nice when God replaces these govs. with His own?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I agree. I think Obama should get some stones and push for the plan he actually wants instead of acquiescing to the dumbest among us and winding up with a watered down plan that satisfies no one.
I tell you this as a fellow getbig member who has witnessed your slide into MSNBC ignorance bro...you sound just like olbeirman/matthews brosky and as a person who ive in the past had many great debates with and for the most part have all been civil youre walking down a bad path...This is exactly whats wrong with this country its not an us against them mentality that we need. We are all for the most part productive members of this society we contribute just the same as others and youre voice should be heard same as mine. You calling others ideas dumb is only going to further the divide watch MSNBC but take it as I take a FOX an opinionated spin.
I agree with your post other then the MSNBC like comment though.
I think if obama actually showed that this program will be self sustaining it would go along way in easing ppls fears about the debt and economy as a whole and then he could work on the everybody deserves healthcare angle he is trying to paint it as all one problem and I think thats his problem its not just one big problem its a bunch of problems AS WELL as a different idea of whats fair.
-
I tell you this as a fellow getbig member who has witnessed your slide into MSNBC ignorance bro...you sound just like olbeirman/matthews brosky and as a person who ive in the past had many great debates with and for the most part have all been civil youre walking down a bad path...This is exactly whats wrong with this country its not an us against them mentality that we need. We are all for the most part productive members of this society we contribute just the same as others and youre voice should be heard same as mine. You calling others ideas dumb is only going to further the divide watch MSNBC but take it as I take a FOX an opinionated spin.
I agree with your post other then the MSNBC like comment though.
I think if obama actually showed that this program will be self sustaining it would go along way in easing ppls fears about the debt and economy as a whole and then he could work on the everybody deserves healthcare angle he is trying to paint it as all one problem and I think thats his problem its not just one big problem its a bunch of problems AS WELL as a different idea of whats fair.
(http://forums.the-dispatch.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/3301032188/inlineimg/Y/missed_the_point.jpg)
i agree with straw he needs to grab a pair and take the same route as bush and bully his way through laws.
-
(http://forums.the-dispatch.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/3301032188/inlineimg/Y/missed_the_point.jpg)
i agree with straw he needs to grab a pair and take the same route as bush and bully his way through laws.
hahaha why you gotta pick on shaq man? he is boderline retarded
He already did that guys the stimulus bill ring a bell?
lets face it the dems are in real jeopardy of losing a good number of seats in congress in the upcoming elections passing a bill that the majority of ppl arent in favor of with little rep support will pretty much seal the deal. What obama needs to do to get rep support is get public support the only reason the reps are holding out so much right now is b/c they know the majority of ppl dont want this. If they did the reps would go along with it and obama would have his healthcare plan.
Obama needs to
address the problems seperatly instead of painting them as all interconnected...they are not he is trying to push his philosophy that everyone should be health insurance and paint it as the problem with healthcare, its not the problem. I dont know if you guys understand that or not his playing a cloak and dagger game with healthcare.
He also needs so show that his plan on getting the money to run this public option can come from the new regulations and processes within the current system before he goes full scale. The idea that this guy thinks he can just throw some shit out there and it will operate just as he believes it will is assinine. This is the same thing as a pharmacuetical company putting out a drug w/o any trial runs behind it.
-
the stimulus was pelosi's bill...and it wasn't exactly an agenda thing for obamer. I'm not gonna get in to a full fledged debate with you because its sunday night...and your grammar is giving me a headache
-
I tell you this as a fellow getbig member who has witnessed your slide into MSNBC ignorance bro...you sound just like olbeirman/matthews brosky and as a person who ive in the past had many great debates with and for the most part have all been civil youre walking down a bad path...This is exactly whats wrong with this country its not an us against them mentality that we need. We are all for the most part productive members of this society we contribute just the same as others and youre voice should be heard same as mine. You calling others ideas dumb is only going to further the divide watch MSNBC but take it as I take a FOX an opinionated spin.
I agree with your post other then the MSNBC like comment though.
I think if obama actually showed that this program will be self sustaining it would go along way in easing ppls fears about the debt and economy as a whole and then he could work on the everybody deserves healthcare angle he is trying to paint it as all one problem and I think thats his problem its not just one big problem its a bunch of problems AS WELL as a different idea of whats fair.
I haven't called an "others ideas" dumb
what "ideas" are you even referring to?
mere opposition, screaming/yelling about something that's completely false (death camps, people with disabilities are going to be killed, your grandma is going to be denied health care in order to give health to to an illegal alien etc...) is not an idea or a solution
Do you really think the guy screaming that his son in a wheel chair will be killed if health care reform passes is really concerned about the finances of the bill. This guy truly believes that Obama is out to kill his kid. That's the stupidity I'm talking about. The fucking Dems are changing the bill so to satisfy angry people who are too dumb to even understand the converstaion.
We've got 50 million people with zero health care and probably at least another 50 million with health care whe can't even afford to use it.
I've already weighed in on what I think should be done to fix our fucked up system:
Reform could be as simple as fostering more competition, stopping abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, etc..), setting up a reliable way for the consumer to have recourse against health insurance companies who reject legitimate claims for service, and having a public option.
-
I haven't called an "others ideas" dumb
what "ideas" are you even referring to?
mere opposition, screaming/yelling about something that's completely false (death camps, people with disabilities are going to be killed, your grandma is going to be denied health care in order to give health to to an illegal alien etc...) is not an idea or a solution
Do you really think the guy screaming that his son in a wheel chair will be killed if health care reform passes is really concerned about the finances of the bill. This guy truly believes that Obama is out to kill his kid. That's the stupidity I'm talking about. The fucking Dems are changing the bill so to satisfy angry people who are too dumb to even understand the converstaion.
We've got 50 million people with zero health care and probably at least another 50 million with health care whe can't even afford to use it.
I've already weighed in on what I think should be done to fix our fucked up system:
LOL is it out of the realm of possibilities that decisions that could be made on the program could lead to the death of ppl? no its not, is it probable? no its not
Those ideas arent dumb the are articulated in probably one of the most ignorant ways possible but they have legitimate worries about losing options, govt determining health care procedures etc...
OK now see you again are confusing two seperate problems, ppl without healthcare and problems within our current healthcare system are not tied together and SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED AS SUCH like obama is doing.
I think just about everybody is in agreement that our current healthcare system needs some work, that doesnt mean we want to give healthcare to everyone...2 seperate problems that obama is putting together to push his agenda, do you understand that?
Fix our current healthcare system would be number one, the only reason he is trying to push both at in the same bill is b/c he knows a bill to soley provide healthcare to those without it would not stand a chance of passing.
-
LOL is it out of the realm of possibilities that decisions that could be made on the program could lead to the death of ppl? no its not, is it probable? no its not
Those ideas arent dumb the are articulated in probably one of the most ignorant ways possible but they have legitimate worries about losing options, govt determining health care procedures etc...
OK now see you again are confusing two seperate problems, ppl without healthcare and problems within our current healthcare system are not tied together and SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED AS SUCH like obama is doing.
I think just about everybody is in agreement that our current healthcare system needs some work, that doesnt mean we want to give healthcare to everyone...2 seperate problems that obama is putting together to push his agenda, do you understand that?
Fix our current healthcare system would be number one, the only reason he is trying to push both at in the same bill is b/c he knows a bill to soley provide healthcare to those without it would not stand a chance of passing.
I think we as a country should be able to provide basic health care to everyone, especially children.
If other countries can do it then we certainly can do it too
-
I think we as a country should be able to provide basic health care to everyone, especially children.
If other countries can do it then we certainly can do it too
I agree and if they go to a hospital then they will not be turned away, its not my responsibility nor yours to subsidize someone elses healthcare sorry. I think everybody should be able to live comfortably as well that doesnt mean im going to pay for apartments or homes for everyone though. Sorry straw I understand where youre coming from but sorry we are taxed enough for BS reasons. This is a worthy cause but get rid of some of the bs first and then come talk to me paying for someone elses problems.
Again thats a difference in opinion and philosophy though and has nothing to do with our current healthcare system and its problem so lets leave them seperate and not try to put them together and piggy back one b/c you know the other wont pass.
-
I agree and if they go to a hospital then they will not be turned away, its not my responsibility nor yours to subsidize someone elses healthcare sorry. I think everybody should be able to live comfortably as well that doesnt mean im going to pay for apartments or homes for everyone though. Sorry straw I understand where youre coming from but sorry we are taxed enough for BS reasons. This is a worthy cause but get rid of some of the bs first and then come talk to me paying for someone elses problems.
Again thats a difference in opinion and philosophy though and has nothing to do with our current healthcare system and its problem so lets leave them seperate and not try to put them together and piggy back one b/c you know the other wont pass.
we already subsidize peoples health care
and guess what, we subsidize their apartments too
-
we already subsidize peoples health care
and guess what, we subsidize their apartments too
do we subsidize everyones?
straw: no
tony: my point exactly
I agree that programs need to be in place to assist ppl which is what we do...
Hows this add healthcare for children into property tax in each school district if you dont have children you dont pay the tax.
Sorry again straw its not my place to pay for others shit, Im not going around asking for handouts and Im especially hurting right now why should I be asked to pay for other ppls shit?
-
do we subsidize everyones?
straw: no
tony: my point exactly
I agree that programs need to be in place to assist ppl which is what we do...
Hows this add healthcare for children into property tax in each school district if you dont have children you dont pay the tax.
Sorry again straw its not my place to pay for others shit, Im not going around asking for handouts and Im especially hurting right now why should I be asked to pay for other ppls shit?
we don't have to subsidize everyone
the same would go for health care too
hence the word "option" in public option
-
we don't have to subsidize everyone
the same would go for health care too
hence the word "option" in public option
then why do we even need a public option?
why not simply fix the problems with our current healthcare system?
-
I'll repeat:
"Reform could be as simple as fostering more competition, stopping abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, etc..), setting up a reliable way for the consumer to have recourse against health insurance companies who reject legitimate claims for service, and having a public option"
the more we do of the first part of the list the less people there are who will need the public option
-
I'll repeat:
"Reform could be as simple as fostering more competition, stopping abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, etc..), setting up a reliable way for the consumer to have recourse against health insurance companies who reject legitimate claims for service, and having a public option"
the more we do of the first part of the list the less people there are who will need the public option
agreed so lets start there and save the rest of obamas plan for say plan E ;)
stop supporting a movement that you already agree is way overboard and not necessary at this moment. Lets scale it down and address problems and not ideals and deal with the issues at hand with our current system.
If obama really wanted to reform healthcare he would do that...
-
the stimulus was pelosi's bill...and it wasn't exactly an agenda thing for obamer. I'm not gonna get in to a full fledged debate with you because its sunday night...and your grammar is giving me a headache
LOL i always had to rely on the grammer/spell check in WORD to help my write my papers ;D and obamers pushed that bill more then anyone else, its fine if it wasnt "his" bill but he made it his own when he campaigned and pushed so hard for it...
-
agreed so lets start there and save the rest of obamas plan for say plan E ;)
stop supporting a movement that you already agree is way overboard and not necessary at this moment. Lets scale it down and address problems and not ideals and deal with the issues at hand with our current system.
If obama really wanted to reform healthcare he would do that...
I never said or agreed that healthcare legislation was way overboard or not necessary at this time
where did you get that idea?
-
I never said or agreed that healthcare legislation was way overboard or not necessary at this time
where did you get that idea?
I figured it from your stance that not providing a public option is ok and not necessary, sorry if i misinterpreted
on this topic
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090816/pl_politico/26158
looks like they MAY be looking to back away from the public option...
make it where insurance companies can cross state lines, implement his rules and regs that are supposed to cut healthcare costs, implement tort reform, get rid of the pre-existing conditions bull shit and the denied coverage bs...this should eliminate the need for a public option.
If doing these things was going to lower the cost of health insurance as it is why does he feel the need to create another govt program?
-
I figured it from your stance that not providing a public option is ok and not necessary, sorry if i misinterpreted
on this topic
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090816/pl_politico/26158
looks like they MAY be looking to back away from the public option...
make it where insurance companies can cross state lines, implement his rules and regs that are supposed to cut healthcare costs, implement tort reform, get rid of the pre-existing conditions bull shit and the denied coverage bs...this should eliminate the need for a public option.
If doing these things was going to lower the cost of health insurance as it is why does he feel the need to create another govt program?
no worries but I'm baffled how you arrived at the conclusion that my "stance" was that not providing a public option is OK and not necessary.
are you joking?
I posted at least 3 times that I was in favor of a public option and I also posted this:
I think we as a country should be able to provide basic health care to everyone, especially children.
If other countries can do it then we certainly can do it too
-
no worries but I'm baffled how you arrived at the conclusion that my "stance" was that not providing a public option is OK and not necessary.
are you joking?
I posted at least 3 times that I was in favor of a public option and I also posted this:
ok let me ask you this i may be a little confused as to what the public option entails...
The public option provides healthcare to all ppl, yes or no? I mean even if you dont pay for health insurance under obamas plan you go to the hospital for something and youre covered?
or is it something that you will still have to pay for and if you dont pay for it like you would a regular health insurance you dont get the benefits?
-
ok let me ask you this i may be a little confused as to what the public option entails...
The public option provides healthcare to all ppl, yes or no? I mean even if you dont pay for health insurance under obamas plan you go to the hospital for something and youre covered?
or is it something that you will still have to pay for and if you dont pay for it like you would a regular health insurance you dont get the benefits?
Tommy, haven't we already been over this.
We should have a public option for people who want to avail themselves of it. It would be a low cost or subsidized option similar to Medicare but it wouldn't have (again, speculating here) the same level of choices that say a PPO plan would have. If we did all the other stuff I mentioned: fostering more competition, stopping abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, etc..), setting up a reliable way for the consumer to have recourse against health insurance companies who reject legitimate claims for service, etc... then many people would still most likely choose a private option.
-
Tommy, haven't we already been over this.
We should have a public option for people who want to avail themselves of it. It would be a low cost or subsidized option similar to Medicare but it wouldn't have (again, speculating here) the same level of choices that say a PPO plan would have. If we did all the other stuff I mentioned: fostering more competition, stopping abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, etc..), setting up a reliable way for the consumer to have recourse against health insurance companies who reject legitimate claims for service, etc... then many people would still most likely choose a private option.
just curious theres alot of misinformation on both sides straw...
the way you put it, it sounds that you would still have to pay premiums etc. for the public option, the way some others on here including lefties you wouldnt, which one is it?
so it would be govt subsidized?
it seems to me that if obama implemented all the things that we agree on then a public option would not be needed at all, what would a public option provide over those actions?
-
just curious theres alot of misinformation on both sides straw...
the way you put it, it sounds that you would still have to pay premiums etc. for the public option, they way some others on here including lefties you wouldnt, which one is it?
so it would be govt subsidized?
it seems to me that if obama implemented all the things that we agree on then a public option would not be needed at all, what would a public option provide over those actions?
the public option has not been clearly defined but I expect it would be some combo of free (depending on income) or very low premiums. I doubt it would compare to a good PPO plan.
Frankly, if we just implemented the the items that I listed: foster competition, stop abuses, give insureds recourse against rejection of legitimate claims - then I think very few people would choose the public option.
-
the public option has not been clearly defined but I expect it would be some combo of free (depending on income) or very low premiums. I doubt it would compare to a good PPO plan.
Frankly, if we just implemented the the items that I listed: foster competition, stop abuses, give insureds recourse against rejection of legitimate claims - then I think very few people would choose the public option.
well then again sorry its not my place to pay for another persons ish, a difference in philosophy i guess
I agree perhaps making companies supply lower coverage health insurance to part time workers over say 20 hrs/wk as well would help the situation as well.
-
well then again sorry its not my place to pay for another persons ish, a difference in philosophy i guess
I agree perhaps making companies supply lower coverage health insurance to part time workers over say 20 hrs/wk as well would help the situation as well.
that seems to be the crux of your beef.
you think other people are going to get a benefit on your dime
-
that seems to be the crux of your beef.
you think other people are going to get a benefit on your dime
not at all, I agree the insurance companies screw us but as Ive stated im all for healthcare reform but that has nothing to do with obamas ideology that he is pushing as a solution to the problem...how is providing healthcare to all going to fix the problem with our current health care system? you see the two are not connected.
Understand that the two are not interconnected and can and should be addressed seperately.
As youve already stated implementing the things we agree on would overhaul the healthcare system and lower costs more then likely. Thats the problem with OUR healthcare system not that ppl dont have healthcare which is what obama is making it into...he is trying to use the problems with our current system to push his agenda and that my friend is BULLSHIT...
however yes i do have a problem with other ppl benefiting from my hard work, call my cooky i know its a crazy concept but i think i should be able to keep the money I earn...
-
not at all, I agree the insurance companies screw us but as Ive stated im all for healthcare reform but that has nothing to do with obamas ideology that he is pushing as a solution to the problem...how is providing healthcare to all going to fix the problem with our current health care system? you see the two are not connected.
Understand that the two are not interconnected and can and should be addressed seperately.
As youve already stated implementing the things we agree on would overhaul the healthcare system and lower costs more then likely. Thats the problem with OUR healthcare system not that ppl dont have healthcare which is what obama is making it into...he is trying to use the problems with our current system to push his agenda and that my friend is BULLSHIT...
however yes i do have a problem with other ppl benefiting from my hard work, call my cooky i know its a crazy concept but i think i should be able to keep the money I earn...
tony - the health care reform being proposed is a set of comprehensive solutions that include the items I've mentioned (I think 5 times now) and up until this weekend also included a public option of some sort.
I assume you're aware that people already "benefit" from your hard work: think medicare, food stamps, section 8 housing, CHIP, etc....
btw - unless you make over 250k then your taxes are not supposed to go up.
I'm tired.
I'm signing off for the night
-
tony - the health care reform being proposed is a set of comprehensive solutions that include the items I've mentioned (I think 5 times now) and up until this weekend also included a public option of some sort.
I assume you're aware that people already "benefit" from your hard work: think medicare, food stamps, section 8 housing, CHIP, etc....
btw - unless you make over 250k then your taxes are not supposed to go up.
I'm tired.
I'm signing off for the night
LOL simply b/c ppl already benefit from my hard work doesnt mean more should...Im not happy about a lot of govt programs using my money and this like i said is a worthy cause one that I would be inclined to support if the govt cut shit out FIRST to free up funds to pay for this. Dont tell me we will find money in the new system implement the system in the current system first free up the money and then implement the other portion of the plan. Doing it all at once simply sets us up for more taxes in the event and probably case that the program runs in the red.
If you really believe that straw I dont know what to tell you, like i said no matter who got in obama or mccain taxes are going up regardless he may wait for a while and put the tax raises off on some other reason but fact of the matter is taxes will go up. You cant spend and spend and spend and expect taxes not to be raised even if you cut programs etc...if you continue to spend you will need more money
-
tony - the health care reform being proposed is a set of comprehensive solutions that include the items I've mentioned (I think 5 times now) and up until this weekend also included a public option of some sort.
I assume you're aware that people already "benefit" from your hard work: think medicare, food stamps, section 8 housing, CHIP, etc....
btw - unless you make over 250k then your taxes are not supposed to go up.
I'm tired.
I'm signing off for the night
Straw - do me a favor - go read an economics book. Please.
By Obama printing up money to no end and all these bailouts etc, you are getting a tax hike since your dollars are worth less and less.
Additionally, he is proposing tax raises on those who make less than 250k by mandating a 2% tax on those who dont pay for health insurace. Cap & tax is another tax increase as well.
-
Straw - do me a favor - go read an economics book. Please.
By Obama printing up money to no end and all these bailouts etc, you are getting a tax hike since your dollars are worth less and less.
Additionally, he is proposing tax raises on those who make less than 250k by mandating a 2% tax on those who dont pay for health insurace. Cap & tax is another tax increase as well.
IS THIS TRUE ??? :o >:(
-
IS THIS TRUE ??? :o >:(
Yes it is. There is a clause mandating that if you dont have insurance coverage, you pay a 2% penalty on your income.
-
Straw - do me a favor - go read an economics book. Please.
By Obama printing up money to no end and all these bailouts etc, you are getting a tax hike since your dollars are worth less and less.
Additionally, he is proposing tax raises on those who make less than 250k by mandating a 2% tax on those who dont pay for health insurace. Cap & tax is another tax increase as well.
link ?
btw - would those people being forced to pay the 2% tax also be given health care in return?
-
House Democrats' Health Bill Would Tax Rich To Finance Insurance Expansion
Main Category: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Also Included In: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP
Article Date: 16 Jul 2009 - 5:00 PDT
email to a friend printer friendly view / write opinions rate article
Ads by Google
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Democratic leaders Tuesday unveiled their bill to reform America's health care system - and insure an additional 37 million Americans over the next 10 years - to the tune of more than $1 trillion, funded mostly through an up-to-5.4 percent surtax on income for the wealthiest Americans, The Washington Post reports.
The plan would cover "more people through Medicaid and (provide) subsidies to help others meet a new federal mandate to purchase insurance. Democratic aides said the proposal would cost more than $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, and would ensure that 97 percent of Americans were enrolled in a health plan by 2015. "About half of the cost would be covered by reducing spending on federal health programs, primarily Medicare, which serves the elderly and the disabled. But much of the rest of the money would come from a new tax on families earning more than $350,000 a year and individuals earning more than $280,000. The taxes, which would take effect in 2011, would affect about 2.1 million taxpayers, the nonprofit Tax Policy Center projected." The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on incomes over $1 million. The highest tax rate in 2011 (when the Bush tax cuts end) would rise to 45 percent (Montgomery and Connolly, 7/15).
The tax would raise $544 billion over 10 years, Democrats say, USA Today reports. Absent from the House bill is a tax on employer-provided health benefits. "A separate proposal to pay for health care by taxing some benefits offered by employers - currently exempt from federal taxes - lost steam this month in the Senate because Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said it would have been too great a burden on middle-class families" (Fritze, 7/14).
The New York Times: "Employers who do not provide health insurance to workers would generally have to pay a fee or penalty to the government. The fee would be equal to 8 percent of wages for an employer with an annual payroll of more than $400,000."
"A partial, preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office said it would cost slightly more than $1 trillion over 10 years to expand coverage as provided in the House bill. But Democrats said the cost would be fully offset by proposed savings in Medicare and other health programs and by revenue-raising changes in federal tax laws. Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the budget office, said that by 2019 the bill could reduce the number of people without health insurance by 37 million, leaving 17 million still uninsured. Nearly half of the uninsured would be illegal immigrants, Mr. Elmendorf said" (Pear and Herszenhorn, 7/14).
Los Angeles Times: "All poor Americans making up to 133% of the poverty level would become eligible for Medicaid, which in some states is now limited to families. … People making between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty line -- roughly $29,300 to $88,200 for a family of four -- would be eligible for credits to help them buy insurance" (Levey, 7/15)
Reuters: "Legal U.S. residents be would be required to enroll in health insurance or face an income tax penalty of 2.5 percent. The bill would allow some exemptions" (Frank, 7/14).
Issues remain, Politico reports: "For instance, (House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry) Waxman (D-Calif.) incorporated into the bill the drug industry's $30 billion deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee to help close a gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors. But he refused to strip a provision that reinstates price controls on drugs purchased by seniors who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, despite the pleas of more than 60 fellow Democrats. Those rebates will cost drug companies more than $50 billion, and they'll lobby fiercely against them" O'Connor, Brown and Frates, 7/15).
Some business and Republicans are speaking out against the bill, The Wall Street Journal reports: "Employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage. The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage. 'This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement,' said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. 'Small business doesn't want any of those things'" (Adamy and Meckler, 7/15).
The Associated Press: "Three House committees will begin voting on the bill Thursday. Changes in the legislation are likely to satisfy a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who are withholding support. The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as a job-killer" (Werner, 7/15).
This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.
© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
-
House Democrats' Health Bill Would Tax Rich To Finance Insurance Expansion
Main Category: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Also Included In: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP
Article Date: 16 Jul 2009 - 5:00 PDT
email to a friend printer friendly view / write opinions rate article
Ads by Google
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Democratic leaders Tuesday unveiled their bill to reform America's health care system - and insure an additional 37 million Americans over the next 10 years - to the tune of more than $1 trillion, funded mostly through an up-to-5.4 percent surtax on income for the wealthiest Americans, The Washington Post reports.
The plan would cover "more people through Medicaid and (provide) subsidies to help others meet a new federal mandate to purchase insurance. Democratic aides said the proposal would cost more than $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, and would ensure that 97 percent of Americans were enrolled in a health plan by 2015. "About half of the cost would be covered by reducing spending on federal health programs, primarily Medicare, which serves the elderly and the disabled. But much of the rest of the money would come from a new tax on families earning more than $350,000 a year and individuals earning more than $280,000. The taxes, which would take effect in 2011, would affect about 2.1 million taxpayers, the nonprofit Tax Policy Center projected." The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on incomes over $1 million. The highest tax rate in 2011 (when the Bush tax cuts end) would rise to 45 percent (Montgomery and Connolly, 7/15).
The tax would raise $544 billion over 10 years, Democrats say, USA Today reports. Absent from the House bill is a tax on employer-provided health benefits. "A separate proposal to pay for health care by taxing some benefits offered by employers - currently exempt from federal taxes - lost steam this month in the Senate because Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said it would have been too great a burden on middle-class families" (Fritze, 7/14).
The New York Times: "Employers who do not provide health insurance to workers would generally have to pay a fee or penalty to the government. The fee would be equal to 8 percent of wages for an employer with an annual payroll of more than $400,000."
"A partial, preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office said it would cost slightly more than $1 trillion over 10 years to expand coverage as provided in the House bill. But Democrats said the cost would be fully offset by proposed savings in Medicare and other health programs and by revenue-raising changes in federal tax laws. Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the budget office, said that by 2019 the bill could reduce the number of people without health insurance by 37 million, leaving 17 million still uninsured. Nearly half of the uninsured would be illegal immigrants, Mr. Elmendorf said" (Pear and Herszenhorn, 7/14).
Los Angeles Times: "All poor Americans making up to 133% of the poverty level would become eligible for Medicaid, which in some states is now limited to families. … People making between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty line -- roughly $29,300 to $88,200 for a family of four -- would be eligible for credits to help them buy insurance" (Levey, 7/15)
Reuters: "Legal U.S. residents be would be required to enroll in health insurance or face an income tax penalty of 2.5 percent. The bill would allow some exemptions" (Frank, 7/14).
Issues remain, Politico reports: "For instance, (House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry) Waxman (D-Calif.) incorporated into the bill the drug industry's $30 billion deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee to help close a gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors. But he refused to strip a provision that reinstates price controls on drugs purchased by seniors who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, despite the pleas of more than 60 fellow Democrats. Those rebates will cost drug companies more than $50 billion, and they'll lobby fiercely against them" O'Connor, Brown and Frates, 7/15).
Some business and Republicans are speaking out against the bill, The Wall Street Journal reports: "Employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage. The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage. 'This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement,' said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. 'Small business doesn't want any of those things'" (Adamy and Meckler, 7/15).
The Associated Press: "Three House committees will begin voting on the bill Thursday. Changes in the legislation are likely to satisfy a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who are withholding support. The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as a job-killer" (Werner, 7/15).
This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.
© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
next time include the actual link to the website where you found it
in response to the proposed tax of 2.5% I say BFD.
The plan would have 97% of the US insured so the tax would only effect 3% of Americans.
I wonder who those remaining 3% of Americans would even be? Seems to me that if you could do simple math you'd figure out that it's better to have insurance which would save you money in the long run than be taxed 2.5% and go without insurance.
You can see the math right?
-
How about self employed people who cant afford insurance abnd dont want it?
I did not have insurance for a few years because I was young healthy and did not need it. Why should I have a penalty of 2.5% to cover someone else?
-
How about self employed people who cant afford insurance abnd dont want it?
I did not have insurance for a few years because I was young healthy and did not need it. Why should I have a penalty of 2.5% to cover someone else?
I would say you were stupid
first of all insurance is cheap when you're young
second you can still get in a car wreck, break a leg, etc...
third, I've never met anyone who didn't "want" health insurance. Maybe they do exist but we shouldn't create a healthcare system to satisfy a minority of stupid people.
fourth, the self employed person who can't afford health insurance NOW will have a much better chance of being able to afford it under the new proposed plan. Remember that figure from the article you posted that said the plan would cover 97% of American?
Try to keep that concept in your skull.
The proposed plan would have 97% of Americans covered by the year 2015
-
I would say you were stupid
first of all insurance is cheap when you're young
second you can still get in a car wreck, break a leg, etc...
third, I've never met anyone who didn't "want" health insurance. Maybe they do exist but we shouldn't create a healthcare system to satisfy a minority of stupid people.
fourth, the self employed person who can't afford health insurance NOW will have a much better chance of being able to afford it under the new proposed plan. Remember that figure from the article you posted that said the plan would cover 97% of American?
Try to keep that concept in your skull.
The proposed plan would have 97% of Americans covered by the year 2015
No its not cheap in NY. NY mandates all sorts of shit on a basic plan and it is hard to get a sole proprietor policy.
Additionally, we have no fault auto insurance coverage of up to 50k on every policy.
I knows tons of people w.o. insurance and not one ever had one of these situations occur to them. BTW - during that time frame, i put away a ton of mobney and could self finance any expenses.
I dont need you or the govt mandating anbything for me. Stay out of my business bro.
-
No its not cheap in NY. NY mandates all sorts of shit on a basic plan and it is hard to get a sole proprietor policy.
Additionally, we have no fault auto insurance coverage of up to 50k on every policy.
I knows tons of people w.o. insurance and not one ever had one of these situations occur to them. BTW - during that time frame, i put away a ton of mobney and could self finance any expenses.
I dont need you or the govt mandating anbything for me. Stay out of my business bro.
So you're admitting that health insurance is not cheap and also hard to get
that sounds like a problem. Too bad there is not some cheap public option or single payer system available for you
Maybe you should do the math and support the current reform efforts.
Either way, why should the 97% who will benefit give a shit about the 3% who are too stupid to avail themselves of the benefit?
-
So you're admitting that health insurance is not cheap and also hard to get
that sounds like a problem. Too bad there is not some cheap public option or single payer system available for you
Maybe you should do the math and support the current reform efforts.
Either way, why should the 97% who will benefit give a shit about the 3% who are too stupid to avail themselves of the benefit?
I am not defending the current situation Straw. I have good savings and was looking for a high deductbile low premium policy to cover catastropihc stuff. In NY they dont have it, even though in other states they do.
I think that there are not enough options available and that lower cost optiions should be avialable.
We need to look at what drives the costs higher than inflation and where costs can be driven down, the same way computers and cell phones came down.
-
So you're admitting that health insurance is not cheap and also hard to get
that sounds like a problem. Too bad there is not some cheap public option or single payer system available for you
Maybe you should do the math and support the current reform efforts.
Either way, why should the 97% who will benefit give a shit about the 3% who are too stupid to avail themselves of the benefit?
fuck the public option straw get off the obama propaganda train...the 2 problems are connected and should not be portrayed as such. We can lower health care costs, do away with bad business practices etc...without doling out butt loads of money to insure everyone that is not needed and needs to be understood as a SEPERATE problem not associated with our current system
-
I am not defending the current situation Straw. I have good savings and was looking for a high deductbile low premium policy to cover catastropihc stuff. In NY they dont have it, even though in other states they do. I think that there are not enough options available and that lower cost optiions should be avialable.
We need to look at what drives the costs higher than inflation and where costs can be driven down, the same way computers and cell phones came down.
you're giving an example of a point I've made multiple times.
The first thing I've listed on potential reforms is making sure we have legitimate competition. I had a link last week that showed the virtual monopoly in many states where only a few companies control the entire market. If we opened up competition, stopped abusive practices, gave people with insurance some recourse against their own companies who reject legitimate claims for coverage it would go a long way to fixing the system. If we did all that and also had a public option then only a small group of people would even need the public option.
We are all in the same fight against the insurance companies
-
fuck the public option straw get off the obama propaganda train...the 2 problems are connected and should not be portrayed as such. We can lower health care costs, do away with bad business practices etc...without doling out butt loads of money to insure everyone that is not needed and needs to be understood as a SEPERATE problem not associated with our current system
tony - I don't mind discussing this but I can't keep making the same points over and over again. I've got other shit to do today.
One last time (I think this is the 6th time now):
Let's start with making sure we have fair and legitimate competition. Next, let's stop abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, rejecting legitimate claims for care, etc..), and finally some type of public option for people who need it.
Unless you can find some new objection I have nothing more to say on the topic
-
tony - I don't mind discussing this but I can't keep making the same points over and over again. I've got other shit to do today.
One last time (I think this is the 6th time now):
Let's start with making sure we have fair and legitimate competition. Next, let's stop abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing conditions, rejecting legitimate claims for care, etc..), and finally some type of public option for people who need it.
Unless you can find some new objection I have nothing more to say on the topic
And ive said this time and time again as well straw we can do the bold without a public option, so what do we need a public option for other then to give health insurance to those without health insurance with other ppls money?
You keep trying to throw the two in together just like obama but you can do the 2 seperate and they should be addressed seperate but you refuse to acknowledge that point and continue to push the public option. You say we can start with this and move to the public option, but if the first part works there will be no need for a public option other then another govt handout...
-
And ive said this time and time again as well straw we can do the bold without a public option, so what do we need a public option for other then to give health insurance to those without health insurance with other ppls money?
You keep trying to throw the two in together just like obama but you can do the 2 seperate and they should be addressed seperate but you refuse to acknowledge that point and continue to push the public option. You say we can start with this and move to the public option, but if the first part works there will be no need for a public option other then another govt handout...
The more the first part of the list works the less we'll need a public option but I also see the benefit (both monetarily and from a humanitarian point of view) to make sure that all citizens have access to some kind of health care.
-
The more the first part of the list works the less we'll need a public option but I also see the benefit (both monetarily and from a humanitarian point of view) to make sure that all citizens have access to some kind of health care.
not the less, it will eliminate the need for a public option other then for the purpose of universal health care for those uninsured. I agree that everyone should have health insurance but it should not be at the cost of others.
-
not the less, it will eliminate the need for a public option other then for the purpose of universal health care for those uninsured. I agree that everyone should have health insurance but it should not be at the cost of others.
okay then you must also be against Medicare and CHIP
If you had your way would you like to get rid of both of those today?
Fuck old people and poor kids.
It's not my problem if they can't afford insurance
-
okay then you must also be against Medicare and CHIP
If you had your way would you like to get rid of both of those today?
Fuck old people and poor kids.
It's not my problem if they can't afford insurance
correct me if im wrong but medicare is payed for by social security, payroll taxes etc...so these ppl who have worked have payed for this...
ok well if we have CHIP why do we need another program to fund health insurance?
Again like ive said this is a worthy cause, one that I would be inclined to be in favor of if the situation and the majority of the details in bill were different. As it is seeminly being proposed now no im not in favor of it what so ever.
In theory though yes I wouldnt be in favor of me paying for anybodys health insurance however that isnt really plausible as the govt deems what to use my tax money on. So use the tax money you already take for this dont try and sell us some bs about how it will be self sustaining while pointing to the post office(which isnt) as proof that it wont put competition out of business ::)
its obvious taxes will be raised in this country straw in one fashion or another we are going to pay out more out of pocket from this.
-
correct me if im wrong but medicare is payed for by social security, payroll taxes etc...so these ppl who have worked have payed for this...
ok well if we have CHIP why do we need another program to fund health insurance?
Again like ive said this is a worthy cause, one that I would be inclined to be in favor of if the situation and the majority of the details in bill were different. As it is seeminly being proposed now no im not in favor of it what so ever.
In theory though yes I wouldnt be in favor of me paying for anybodys health insurance however that isnt really plausible as the govt deems what to use my tax money on. So use the tax money you already take for this dont try and sell us some bs about how it will be self sustaining while pointing to the post office(which isnt) as proof that it wont put competition out of business ::)
its obvious taxes will be raised in this country straw in one fashion or another we are going to pay out more out of pocket from this.
you are correct
you're paying for it right now and you have no choice in the matter
too bad you can't get the benefit now too
-
you are correct
you're paying for it right now and you have no choice in the matter
too bad you can't get the benefit now too
Its because of basic math Straw. What you never understand, and even Obama reluctantly admitted it, is that govt run entities dont work. They suck!
Even Obama admitted that he post office is a mess, something you refused to do.
Medicare, medicaid, et al, are all on the verge of bankruptcy and your idea is to double down on failure - no thanks.
-
Its because of basic math Straw. What you never understand, and even Obama reluctantly admitted it, is that govt run entities dont work. They suck!
Even Obama admitted that he post office is a mess, something you refused to do.
Medicare, medicaid, et al, are all on the verge of bankruptcy and your idea is to double down on failure - no thanks.
no my idea is for comprehensive reform so that as few people as possible need the social safety net
haven't I already said that once or twice in this thread
-
no my idea is for comprehensive reform so that as few people as possible need the social safety net
haven't I already said that once or twice in this thread
The best way to do that is to make sure we have the best economy possible and make sure we have good jobs here in mfg, construction, etc. and opportunities for everyone.
The only way to do this is to ease regulations and encourage compamnies to make more stuff here, not tax the shit out of them, pass envrino regs, unions requirtements etc.
-
no my idea is for comprehensive reform so that as few people as possible need the social safety net
haven't I already said that once or twice in this thread
we already have social safety nets in place as youve already pointed out, with the reform in place why do we need more?
-
we already have social safety nets in place as youve already pointed out, with the reform in place why do we need more?
what reform in place are you referring to?
-
what reform in place are you referring to?
i meant with the reforms we have proposed in place.