219-212... Health Care Bill Passes..

apple0154 said:
You have to remember it's a start. Some things kick in now. Well, in a few months like covering "kids" up to 26 years old. When the majority of things are covered four years from now the government will see what needs to be tweaked.

The fifth and sixth years will require the government to make appropriate adjustments. The idea is both political parties will be working on the same problem.

Look at it this way. Let's say it's found sprained/broken ankles/legs are an expense the government wants to cut back on. Rather than one political party saying we shouldn't cover injured ankles/legs due to skiing accidents that won't be an option. The options will be finding cheaper cast material or cheaper splints or some other cost savings method/device.

That's what was missing from the talks. One political party was trying to come up with a workable plan while the other party didn't want any plan at all and we see the result. As the citizens realize the benefits future governments that come into power will have no choice but to come up with ideas while maintaining the basic concept of the plan which is everyone is entitled to health care.
Click to expand...

LOL... yeah, it's a start. Money just grows on trees. It's awesome!
 
Originally Posted by apple0154
You have to remember it's a start. Some things kick in now. Well, in a few months like covering "kids" up to 26 years old. When the majority of things are covered four years from now the government will see what needs to be tweaked.

The fifth and sixth years will require the government to make appropriate adjustments. The idea is both political parties will be working on the same problem.

Look at it this way. Let's say it's found sprained/broken ankles/legs are an expense the government wants to cut back on. Rather than one political party saying we shouldn't cover injured ankles/legs due to skiing accidents that won't be an option. The options will be finding cheaper cast material or cheaper splints or some other cost savings method/device.

That's what was missing from the talks. One political party was trying to come up with a workable plan while the other party didn't want any plan at all and we see the result. As the citizens realize the benefits future governments that come into power will have no choice but to come up with ideas while maintaining the basic concept of the plan which is everyone is entitled to health care.
Click to expand...

cawacko said:
LOL... yeah, it's a start. Money just grows on trees. It's awesome!
Click to expand...


Wack, this country has been running on monopoly money for years! So to suddenly scream bloody murder about the projected spendings of this latest Healthcare reform is essentially a day late and a dollar short.

Remember, you supposedly had an economic surplus when Slick Willy left office...the Shrub blew that on an illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq...and then kept the true cost of that out of the national budget! Between the S&L scandal, Enron, and the Wall St./investor bank bail out, it's all monopoly money. Let's not even take into account how we're up to our butts in debt to China!

What's really the point of contention here is that the insurance companies do NOT like to be told to straighten up and fly right on any level because it affects their PROJECTED profits...and the GOP just got a reverse Waterloo. Those boys don't like to lose...and they hold grudges!
 
leaningright said:
This quote can apply to either side of the political spectrum but I found it interesting. Of course it comes from someone with grave concerns about President Obama and the direction this country is heading right now. I have concerns but not so deep as to holler, "the sky is falling."

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
Click to expand...

What a crock! Where was all this philosophic blathering when the Shrub & company were pissing on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and shrugging off sending kids into combat without proper equipment? Where was all this mental mudsling when our tax dollars were being used to bail out Wall St. and private investor bank shennanigans?

Obama has essentially bent over backwards to accomodate his enemies....continuing Shrub policies regarding the Patriot Act, compromising single payer and public option, etc., and he's lost support because of it. The dupe who penned this tripe must have thought that Shrub's 2 terms were paradise, and all that fell from that magically disappeared in 2009!

Bottom line: what little this swiss cheese healthcare reform does is being bitched about by insurance companies that will STILL make a shitload of money, they just don't like adjusting their PROJECTED profits. And the neocon driven GOP just don't like to lose...despite the core foreign policy points of the PNAC agenda still being carried out.

THIRD PARTY, ANYONE?
 
cawacko said:
LOL... yeah, it's a start. Money just grows on trees. It's awesome!
Click to expand...

There is plenty of money. The problem is how the money is spent.

It's time medical care became a priority. A law. Mandatory. When budgets are drawn up medical expenses will now go at the top of the budget sheet.

It's like a household budget. It's like the times many parents told their teenager they can't afford something. "No, we can't afford to spend $100.00 on a pair of designer jeans."

In most cases the parent can afford to spend $100.00 on designer jeans. Or $200.00, for that matter but they're saving that money for a vacation or a big screen TV.

The money is there. It's all about priorities and if health care isn't a priority it should be.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Wack, this country has been running on monopoly money for years! So to suddenly scream bloody murder about the projected spendings of this latest Healthcare reform is essentially a day late and a dollar short.

Remember, you supposedly had an economic surplus when Slick Willy left office...the Shrub blew that on an illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq...and then kept the true cost of that out of the national budget! Between the S&L scandal, Enron, and the Wall St./investor bank bail out, it's all monopoly money. Let's not even take into account how we're up to our butts in debt to China!

What's really the point of contention here is that the insurance companies do NOT like to be told to straighten up and fly right on any level because it affects their PROJECTED profits...and the GOP just got a reverse Waterloo. Those boys don't like to lose...and they hold grudges!
Click to expand...

I have complained and will continue to complain. One of my best friends mom worked 8 years in the Bush Administration. I was drinking at his wedding and started talking/yelling his mom's ear off for about 20 minutes before I got pulled away about how bad the Republicans in Congress were and President Bush on spending. She was pissed at me and my friend whose wedding it was didn't talk to me for about three months after because of my behavior. I had to write her an apology letter and fly out to D.C. to visit her. Her name has been mentioned as a possible challenger to Harry Reid in Nevada.

I know you are not calling me out personally but I have been pissed about this shit for years so I don't give a fuck who is doing it. The best thing I heard all year was people calling the Republicans the party of no. It's about fucking time someone in Congress stands up and tells people the government cannot give you everything and have it cost you nothing. It don't work that way. Now I in no way expect the Republicans to continue because they'll give in and try to outpromise and outspend the Democrats as they usually do.
 
apple0154 said:
You have to remember it's a start. Some things kick in now. Well, in a few months like covering "kids" up to 26 years old. When the majority of things are covered four years from now the government will see what needs to be tweaked.

The fifth and sixth years will require the government to make appropriate adjustments. The idea is both political parties will be working on the same problem.

Look at it this way. Let's say it's found sprained/broken ankles/legs are an expense the government wants to cut back on. Rather than one political party saying we shouldn't cover injured ankles/legs due to skiing accidents that won't be an option. The options will be finding cheaper cast material or cheaper splints or some other cost savings method/device.

That's what was missing from the talks. One political party was trying to come up with a workable plan while the other party didn't want any plan at all and we see the result. As the citizens realize the benefits future governments that come into power will have no choice but to come up with ideas while maintaining the basic concept of the plan which is everyone is entitled to health care.
Click to expand...

it's a start?......I took the time to start reading the text of the bill......so far I am up to page 900 and I haven't found one thing yet that wasn't on the Republican's list back in January of 09......we could have had the first nine hundred pages in place a year ago.....obviously, what we've been waiting for is in the remaining 1100 pages.....interesting that I haven't found a thing so far that was in the House bill.....
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Not so much.....unless that plan involves downsizing the military significantly.
Click to expand...
Now there's a thought. I always have been uncomfortable with a large standing army for the reasons that Washington and Eisenhower stated. Maybe our military is to large and has over reached it's limit of power. Maybe it is time to down size it.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Which will end up costing more. Not that it matters though, since the government currently isn't paying a damned thing. If anything they'll MAKE money of this deal, since it penalizes those who can't afford insurance, by fining them or criminalizing them. Damnedest thing eh?
Click to expand...
Oh what non-sense. Those who can't afford health insurance will have federally subsidized insurance available to them. Spare me the sob song.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Am I? How much have we spent on the Iraq war in the last 7 years? The Bush tax cuts for the rich cost the government 1.2 trillion dollars in revenue. You must not be good at math cause the facts are squarely on my side.
Click to expand...

tax cuts "costing" the government just doesn't really garner much sympathy. The idea that the government knows how to spend that money better than the one's who made it is foreign language speak to me. I also don't have much sympathy for the politicians who want that money to try and spend to win themselves re-election.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Now there's a thought. I always have been uncomfortable with a large standing army for the reasons that Washington and Eisenhower stated. Maybe our military is to large and has over reached it's limit of power. Maybe it is time to down size it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lets disband all of the military. Our military is the reason you are able to type on this board. Sheesh
 
leaningright said:
This quote can apply to either side of the political spectrum but I found it interesting. Of course it comes from someone with grave concerns about President Obama and the direction this country is heading right now. I have concerns but not so deep as to holler, "the sky is falling."

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
Click to expand...
You know after suffering through 8 years of the Bush buffoonery I really don't want to hear this kind of complete non sense about a guy who's served only one year and inherited one of the biggest messes any President has ever inherited.

In his first year their have been some gliches and mistakes but some positive accomplishments. Is Obama the second coming of Lincoln? Not hardly but he's certainly hasn't dropped to the level of ineptitude and inadequacy of George W. Bush.

He's also just accomplished in the last year what all our Presidents, except two, have tried to accomplish for the last 60 years but failed. This has been a significant accomplishment and it bodes well for the nation.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Yeah, lets disband all of the military. Our military is the reason you are able to type on this board. Sheesh
Click to expand...
How comes you can tell the presence of a wingnut by the smell of burning strawmen? That's not what I said.

I'd like to think that Washington and Eisenhower just might possibly, and I know this is a great big stretch, but it just could be possible that they knew just an itsy, bitsy, teeny, weenie bit more about military matters then you do?

Naaaaw, phlllllbtt, what would the know!
 
apple0154 said:
There is plenty of money. The problem is how the money is spent.

It's time medical care became a priority. A law. Mandatory. When budgets are drawn up medical expenses will now go at the top of the budget sheet.

It's like a household budget. It's like the times many parents told their teenager they can't afford something. "No, we can't afford to spend $100.00 on a pair of designer jeans."

In most cases the parent can afford to spend $100.00 on designer jeans. Or $200.00, for that matter but they're saving that money for a vacation or a big screen TV.

The money is there. It's all about priorities and if health care isn't a priority it should be.
Click to expand...

Come on, you tell all these people apple. It works everywhere. Every other country has plenty of money and better economies than the U.S. Why can't these people understand what you do?

States Sue Over Overhaul That Will Bust State Budgets

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajwSWE6H1kHM
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How comes you can tell the presence of a wingnut by the smell of burning strawmen? That's not what I said.

I'd like to think that Washington and Eisenhower just might possibly, and I know this is a great big stretch, but it just could be possible that they knew just an itsy, bitsy, teeny, weenie bit more about military matters then you do?

Naaaaw, phlllllbtt, what would the know!
Click to expand...

If I had my way, most of our overseas bases would be closed, and the DoD would be tasked with eliminating all R&D that it reports non-essential. I might even cut the Branch Intel Services and just leave that up to the CIA and Homeland Security. The Defense Budget would be lowered under a Threedee Administration, but that would still leave a huge chunk of spending to maintain our forces and see that they are equipped such as they are.

It wouldn't do much considering all of the spending that continues to go on elsewhere. Even considering that I would terminate the DEA, end the War on Drugs, and jack up sin taxes accordingly.
 
T&A said:
If I had my way, most of our overseas bases would be closed, and the DoD would be tasked with eliminating all R&D that it reports non-essential. I might even cut the Branch Intel Services and just leave that up to the CIA and Homeland Security. The Defense Budget would be lowered under a Threedee Administration, but that would still leave a huge chunk of spending to maintain our forces and see that they are equipped such as they are.

It wouldn't do much considering all of the spending that continues to go on elsewhere. Even considering that I would terminate the DEA, end the War on Drugs, and jack up sin taxes accordingly.
Click to expand...
Former CIA agent Bob Baer was on Colbert on the 19th and he says the last 9 years have so drained the CIA that it functions horribly, and no, not just in the last year, but for several years now. He has a article in GQ. I am getting it tomorrow and shall report in a few days.
 
From Bob Baer's online forward to Hoodwinked by John Perkins:

"I wasn’t twenty pages into Hoodwinked when I realized Perkins nailed it. What got us into the mess we’re in today, the worst recession since the Great Depression, is the same grotesque capitalism cum corruption we shoved down the throat of the Third World since the end of World War II. (Yes, the Third World’s elites were cheerfully corrupted.) We, and the rest of the West, learned the trick of selling unneeded infrastructure, services, over-sophisticated weapons--stuff that could never benefit anyone other than the people who lined their pockets. And yes, Perkins is right, the international economists and press were handmaidens to the thievery. It was all fairly routine until 9/11, when the real gorging started. Tell the people their roof is on fire and they’ll give you whatever you ask for. Between 2001 and 2009 the Department of Defense budget increased 74 percent, and that is not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars in related contracts. Nigeria on the Potomac. Perkins is quick to state he doesn’t believe in a grand conspiracy theory. Few of the people who call the shots have ever met each other. They don’t have a playbook other than a couple of fraudulent economists like Milton Friedman and the others who worship at the altar of deregulation. No, what they have in common is an obsession with the winner takes all. Perkins's message isn’t going to be popular. We’re a country invested in a system in which five percent of the world’s population consumes 25 percent of the world’s resources. It's a system we’re trying to sell to the world, only we don’t mention that we’ll need five planets to sustain it. Perkins isn’t the pessimist I am. He says we can save the world if we green it--and, of course, start telling the truth to each other. Otherwise we end up a banana republic like the ones we know so well how to despoil."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top