Part 1 - All that and it is still better than what we have today.

Part 2 - Great point. Health care claims a big part of the problem is all the uninsured they must treat. We'll see how this helps.

 

One of the biggest problems is lack of oversight on the hospitals providing care. I'm sure many of you have had unfortunate stays at hospitals, or you're loved ones may have. Ever look at that bill when it comes in? Acronyms all over, a plethora of tests you've never heard of and ridiculous charges for things like Tylenol.

 

The kicker is...they probably didn't run 40% of the tests listed on that bill, and unless you were a doctor, you'd never really know with how many people they have coming in and out all day long...it's one of the biggest scams in the industry...and this won't stop it.

Didn't messiah say he would not sign a bill over 900 billion?

 

 

Do we rally think they will cut 300 billion in committee?

 

Oh and this will create jobs and reduce the deficit...

 

 

If Obama signs this garbage, did he lie to the American people?

 

 

You know a great way to create jobs?....Tax small businesses for not offering healthcare. They will hire like crazy....GMAFB

 

 

Depression is coming....pucker up...

 

Well, first the senate bill must pass, then they go into committee to merge the two bills, then it gets voted on by the two houses again. Further, the cost is kind of a silly number considering the House bill, for one, they both project to cut the deficit. Although the senate does a much better job of cutting it for a 20 year projection than the house, which is better for the first 10.

 

But no, then he didn't lie to the American people. Because Congress makes bills. And considering it is projecting to reduce the deficit, that's probably more important than anything. And the taxing of small businesses for HC may or may not make the cut. A lot yet to be determined on this bill.

 

But, one thing is for sure, the dachau death camps.

House passes bill 220-215

:headbang

Well, first the senate bill must pass, then they go into committee to merge the two bills, then it gets voted on by the two houses again. Further, the cost is kind of a silly number considering the House bill, for one, they both project to cut the deficit. Although the senate does a much better job of cutting it for a 20 year projection than the house, which is better for the first 10.

 

But no, then he didn't lie to the American people. Because Congress makes bills. And considering it is projecting to reduce the deficit, that's probably more important than anything. And the taxing of small businesses for HC may or may not make the cut. A lot yet to be determined on this bill.

 

But, one thing is for sure, the dachau death camps.

 

The government says everything they do is going to reduce the deficit...and it never seems to reduce it. Are we supposed to just trust them *this time*?! Because, I know, *this time* they REALLY REALLY mean it! Let's all agree to wake up and small the roses here...this isn't going to reduce anything, and regardless of what some branch of the government says, it will end up costing WAY more than projected. Everything always does. Including this.

 

John Boehner sure was in asshat mode yesterday.

The government says everything they do is going to reduce the deficit...and it never seems to reduce it. Are we supposed to just trust them *this time*?! Because, I know, *this time* they REALLY REALLY mean it! Let's all agree to wake up and small the roses here...this isn't going to reduce anything, and regardless of what some branch of the government says, it will end up costing WAY more than projected. Everything always does. Including this.

 

But this is all they can go off of. The subsidies are limited. The P.O. is based on premiums, and really, with the Senate P.O. the evidence doesn't really show it'd be all that less expensive than current rates. Hence Medicare +5. Both are funded, the senate through taxing cadillac plans, the house through taxing top 5 or 3 % i forget. They've made cuts to medicare. The SS reform in the early 80s gave them the 30 years they were expecting, I don't see how this won't at least do the same.

Well, first the senate bill must pass, then they go into committee to merge the two bills, then it gets voted on by the two houses again. Further, the cost is kind of a silly number considering the House bill, for one, they both project to cut the deficit. Although the senate does a much better job of cutting it for a 20 year projection than the house, which is better for the first 10.

 

But no, then he didn't lie to the American people. Because Congress makes bills. And considering it is projecting to reduce the deficit, that's probably more important than anything. And the taxing of small businesses for HC may or may not make the cut. A lot yet to be determined on this bill.

 

But, one thing is for sure, the dachau death camps.

 

The funny part is that this is being sold as cost savings, and of course people are lapping it up. At the end of the day, it is a cost shift at best. They are adding taxes to businesses and people. History and common sense tell us that taxes get passed on to consumers. The dirty secret that no one can seem to either figure out or admit is that subsidizing something does not make it any cheaper. You want a great example, look at higher education. All subsidizing something does it push out the curves for pricing and make the price and market balance out much higher.

only a portion are getting subsidized, and if you are going to have a mandate, you can't fine people who can't afford it and not give them any help to.

 

But yes, to fix the health care debacle taxes were inevitable. But I highly doubt the cost passed to consumers will = the savings in premiums for the average person. This won't raise the praise of grains to an unattainable level for people.

only a portion are getting subsidized, and if you are going to have a mandate, you can't fine people who can't afford it and not give them any help to.

 

But yes, to fix the health care debacle taxes were inevitable. But I highly doubt the cost passed to consumers will = the savings in premiums for the average person. This won't raise the praise of grains to an unattainable level for people.

Who determins if they can afford it or not? And like all things government, even if they only subsidize a 'portion' right now, how long until some Democrat realizes if he increases that portion, he can perhaps win a few more votes in the next election? or until the people just below the cutoff for the subsidizing start to rally complaining that the demarcation line was set too high, and that they shoudl be included too? it will never end.

The funny part is that this is being sold as cost savings, and of course people are lapping it up.

 

Kind of like claiming if we cut taxes on indiciduals, more taxes will come into the treasury? Because "someone else" will start paying not only the cut amount, but even more. Sadly we can never seem to find who or where are those people are that will be paying all those taxes. So either someone did start paying more taxes, which I guess doesn't make it a cut for them, or after the cut we later paid more in taxes, which again, doesn't sound like a tax cut, or business wound up paying more taxes.

 

For all the great that Reagan did, the everyone gets what they want spending was the negative.

Who determins if they can afford it or not? And like all things government, even if they only subsidize a 'portion' right now, how long until some Democrat realizes if he increases that portion, he can perhaps win a few more votes in the next election? or until the people just below the cutoff for the subsidizing start to rally complaining that the demarcation line was set too high, and that they shoudl be included too? it will never end.

 

That would be bad and not nearly as effective as Republicans just giving you cash in the form of a tax cut to buy your vote.

Look at your 1-10 year old kids, think about them having kids, and apologize now, because these kids (and their kids) will never, ever see the opportunities we have had up until now. Ever. They will be working for the state to sustain this boondoggle we call government.

Truth be told this is a path that was started on about 30 or 40 years ago, and conservatives like to look back at the Reagan administration and say he was part of the solution, but if they're being honest and actually looked at the graphs and charts they'd see he, and his policies (uberhigh military spending + tax cuts = exploding deficits) they'd see that was actually part of the problem and isn't the answer they think they've found, either.

Edited November 8, 200916 yr by lostfan

For all the great that Reagan did, the everyone gets what they want spending was the negative.

Because Congress shot him down every time he actually tried to cut the budget.

Kind of like claiming if we cut taxes on indiciduals, more taxes will come into the treasury? Because "someone else" will start paying not only the cut amount, but even more. Sadly we can never seem to find who or where are those people are that will be paying all those taxes. So either someone did start paying more taxes, which I guess doesn't make it a cut for them, or after the cut we later paid more in taxes, which again, doesn't sound like a tax cut, or business wound up paying more taxes.

 

For all the great that Reagan did, the everyone gets what they want spending was the negative.

 

I think an underlying issue for a lot of people is that we are beginning to punish the successful in this country. I mean, they have enough money, they should be forced to share it. While that works short term, again we think short term only, the long term thinking isn't there. If we keep doing this, little by little add taxes here, a windfall tax there, we begin to foster an environment of, "be average" because if you get too successful, they're going to just take it away all in the name of good. That's when foreign countries (and this is beginning to happen now) begin offering these rich successful people tax havens...and the rich begin to disappear altogether.

 

I do not like this environment of entitlement this nation is building.

That would be bad and not nearly as effective as Republicans just giving you cash in the form of a tax cut to buy your vote.

I was actually going to say this, there is no limit to the amount of tax cuts you can propose, but proposing a tax increase (for any reason, even if it's to stop a necessary government program from choking to death) is political suicide these days.

I was actually going to say this, there is no limit to the amount of tax cuts you can propose, but proposing a tax increase (for any reason, even if it's to stop a necessary government program from choking to death) is political suicide these days.

Really? The Democrats are lining them up one after another, yet you all seem to think that this is the best thing to ever happen. Oh wait, it's because they are LYING THEIR ASS OFF about what's really happening. They can't tell the truth, or what you would say would happen.

Really? The Democrats are lining them up one after another, yet you all seem to think that this is the best thing to ever happen. Oh wait, it's because they are LYING THEIR ASS OFF about what's really happening. They can't tell the truth, or what you would say would happen.

I have no idea what you're saying here, what I said doesn't have anything to do with democrats or republicans. Democrats may lie or sugarcoat their tax increases but that's because the idea of a tax increase is politically toxic. But if you want to cut taxes just say "hey I'm cutting taxes guys!" And nobody will ask you if it'll affect the deficit.

I have no idea what you're saying here, what I said doesn't have anything to do with democrats or republicans. Democrats may lie or sugarcoat their tax increases but that's because the idea of a tax increase is politically toxic. But if you want to cut taxes just say "hey I'm cutting taxes guys!" And nobody will ask you if it'll affect the deficit.

Cutting taxes actually raised revenue over time, but they spent more. That's the problem.

I think an underlying issue for a lot of people is that we are beginning to punish the successful in this country. I mean, they have enough money, they should be forced to share it. While that works short term, again we think short term only, the long term thinking isn't there. If we keep doing this, little by little add taxes here, a windfall tax there, we begin to foster an environment of, "be average" because if you get too successful, they're going to just take it away all in the name of good. That's when foreign countries (and this is beginning to happen now) begin offering these rich successful people tax havens...and the rich begin to disappear altogether.

 

I do not like this environment of entitlement this nation is building.

 

An even bigger problem is getting to be that we are narrowing the pyramid of taxes to the point where such a significant portion of the population doesn't pay taxes. It is quickly approaching half of the nation. What this is doing is making a larger and larger portion literally dependant on a smaller and smaller portion of the population. We are seeing the dangers of that right now. When problems happen, tax shortfalls are multiplied because the group is getting to be so small. And of course the solution is to take more from them, to keep the pyramid from collapsing. And what this does is cause all of the other things this part of population is responsible for, such as employing people, to become impossible.

Because Congress shot him down every time he actually tried to cut the budget.

 

Really, I thought he destroyed the Soviet Union when they could not keep up with our defense spending.

Cutting taxes actually raised revenue over time, but they spent more. That's the problem.

 

Who paid the higher revenue?

Really, I thought he destroyed the Soviet Union when they could not keep up with our defense spending.

Come on, you're not this naive.

Who paid the higher revenue?

Economic growth - the private sector, individuals and corporations.

Come on, you're not this naive.

True, and you are not naive to think Reagan wasn't equally to blame.

 

Reagan wanted higher and higher spending on his pet projects (mostly military). To get that, he allowed spending on everyone's pet projects. (or at least almost everyone's). We were feeling good and invincible and wracked up huge debts. Reagan also sold the public on the "Peace Dividend", once the Soviet Union was neutered, we could reduce spending to levels well below the era prior to the build up. Of course we never could reduce the spending, there was no peace dividend.

 

The GOP became the spend and cut tax party and the DEMs became the spend and don't tax party.