ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

May I interject a conspiracy/complete and obvious fucking reality???

Has anyone else heard or considered the possibility that the take-over of health care is in line with matching that of Mexico and Canada as a necessary transition to the North American Union?

[Nobunaga]

May I interject a conspiracy/complete and obvious fucking reality???

Has anyone else heard or considered the possibility that the take-over of health care is in line with matching that of Mexico and Canada as a necessary transition to the North American Union?

... Now I'm getting a headache.

...

[jbrettlip]

From the Post:

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

... Isn't it sweet?

...

But it will SAVE us so much money........

[Phatscotty]

From the Post:

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

... Isn't it sweet?

...

But it will SAVE us so much money........

I am glad so many people are on record, putting their entire monkey biz reputation on the line to vouch tooth and nail based on what a Harvard lawyer Chicago Senator said

[PLAYER57832]

I wrote this a few hours ago but lost internet connection. Oh well.

Obama is an advcate for single payer. He has spoken about how these policies will lead us to a single payer system. He is trying to bankrupt the insurance companies, or at least make them stop wanting to sell policies.

I think there are penalties, including jail time and fines.

The major insurance companies LIKE this law.

Because they're going to get tons of new money from people being mandated to get coverage. It's not the Republicans that support the insurance companies, it's the liberals.

I think the following scenario is entirely plausible: the insurance companies supported this law so that they could make a bunch of money off the people forced to be on their rolls. The CEOs then write themselves large contracts and payouts because of the increase in their profits. They will then cash out of the business before the heavy regulation and ban on preexisting conditions comes into full force and the government's fist crashes down on them. The private insurance system will then be crushed by having to pay out way more than it's bringing in because of the heavy regulations. Once they crash, the government is conveniently in place to bailout the system and take it over, which is exactly what the liberals want.

I see, Democrats bend over backwards to get Republican support, mangle the bill in the process because something is better than nothing at all.. and suddenly they are "catering to the insurance companies" because they dropped the public option?

Typical right wing logic, of late.

[Night Strike]

I see, Democrats bend over backwards to get Republican support, mangle the bill in the process because something is better than nothing at all.. and suddenly they are "catering to the insurance companies" because they dropped the public option?

Typical right wing logic, of late.

Where did they go out of their way to get Republican support? They did not include TORT reform, they did not allow insurance purchases across state lines, they cut benefits of HSA accounts. They never needed Republican support until Brown won in Massachusetts, and even then they avoided it by doing reconciliation. The only reason they even said they wanted Republican support was to cover their own asses when the law fails.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, Democrats bend over backwards to get Republican support, mangle the bill in the process because something is better than nothing at all.. and suddenly they are "catering to the insurance companies" because they dropped the public option?

Typical right wing logic, of late.

Where did they go out of their way to get Republican support? They did not include TORT reform, they did not allow insurance purchases across state lines, they cut benefits of HSA accounts. They never needed Republican support until Brown won in Massachusetts, and even then they avoided it by doing reconciliation. The only reason they even said they wanted Republican support was to cover their own asses when the law fails.

Compromise doesn't mean conceding. To go from public option to no public option was a compromise position, and one that brought a lot of liberal ire. Also, those things you mentioned were only brought up as Republican positions pretty late in the game and not as universal Republican positions, even then. In fact, a lot of what the Democrats put forward was borrowed from the Republican proposal put forth the last time this was attempted.

[Mr_Adams]

The point is that if the bill was "mangled" it is by the democrats themselves, as there was no republican support, and so there was no need for republican influence. As Nightstrike said,

The only reason they even said they wanted Republican support was to cover their own asses when the law fails.

[PLAYER57832]

It really seems that the same people keep saying the same things. Either you agree or disagree, there is no longer any debate, just people saying what they each believe and citing their disagreeing sources.

[GabonX]

It really seems that the same people keep saying the same things. Either you agree or disagree, there is no longer any debate, just people saying what they each believe and citing their disagreeing sources.

Hence the reason I stepped out of this debate 2 to 3 months ago...

[Night Strike]

I thought the liberals said this plan wasn't socialism?? I guess their tune changed since it passed.

As Democrats tout the moral underpinnings of the federal health care system overhaul -- ensuring health care coverage for nearly all Americans -- one senator appeared to go off message when he said the legislation would address the "mal-distribution of income in America."

After the Senate passed a "fix-it" bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor.

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

That contrasted with the arguments Democrats have been making in the past year for reinventing the health care system: to expand health care coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans and tighten regulations on insurance companies while reducing the federal deficit.

But some Republican critics have suggested the overhaul is taking the country down the path to socialism. The nearly $1 trillion legislation pays for itself in large part through new taxes on the wealthy -- Americans who make $250,000 and more.

A spokeswoman for Baucus did not respond to an e-mail seeking more information on the statement.

Baucus' statement could give Republicans ammunition as they seek to repeal the law and regain control of Congress in the November elections.

Democrats have rejected Republican charges that they are trying to take over the health care system.

In Iowa this week to trumpet the benefits of the legislation, President Obama said, "We made a promise. That promise has been kept."

"From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers -- they're going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn't," the president said. "They'll have to finally acknowledge this isn't a government takeover of our health care system."

GOP strategist Matt Schlapp, the White House director to former President George. W. Bush, told FoxNews.com that Baucus' statement reflected the "duality" of a responsible Democrat who understands the ramifications of tax policy on Americans but has a "foot in the camp of the most radical and rabid big government activists that are advocating for some breathtaking policies."

"It's interesting," he said. "He's not the senator I would use as the poster boy for radical and misunderstanding of market dynamics."

But Schlapp said he's not surprised by anything said by a member of a political party that, he said, seeks "to take money away from people who are achieving and give it those who aren’t."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/democratic-senator-health-care-law-address-mal-distribution-income/

[PLAYER57832]

I thought the liberals said this plan wasn't socialism?? I guess their tune changed since it passed.

It wasn't socialized medicine and the bill was not for government controlled medicine. You folks are the ones so hyped on "everything is socialism" and a "government grab".

[Night Strike]

I thought the liberals said this plan wasn't socialism?? I guess their tune changed since it passed.

It wasn't socialized medicine and the bill was not for government controlled medicine. You folks are the ones so hyped on "everything is socialism" and a "government grab".

So fixing a mal-distribution of income is no longer socialism?? That's news to me.

[PLAYER57832]

I thought the liberals said this plan wasn't socialism?? I guess their tune changed since it passed.

It wasn't socialized medicine and the bill was not for government controlled medicine. You folks are the ones so hyped on "everything is socialism" and a "government grab".

So fixing a mal-distribution of income is no longer socialism?? That's news to me.

OH please... this law is not turning our healthcare system into socialized medicine. THAT is what you have tried to claim over and over, and THAT is just wrong.

Now you are just trolling.

As to whether our government is partially socialistic.. well, duh. Pure captilalism is the worst idea ever. Sorry, but I don't think allowing companies to poison us, to hire children in abusive conditions or any of the things that really did happen when companies were given a more free reign (still not complete capitalism, but anyway).

We also have government education, roads and military. So, yes, there has always been some socialism in our government.

[Night Strike]

I thought the liberals said this plan wasn't socialism?? I guess their tune changed since it passed.

It wasn't socialized medicine and the bill was not for government controlled medicine. You folks are the ones so hyped on "everything is socialism" and a "government grab".

So fixing a mal-distribution of income is no longer socialism?? That's news to me.

OH please... this law is not turning our healthcare system into socialized medicine. THAT is what you have tried to claim over and over, and THAT is just wrong.

Now you are just trolling.

Geez, read the quote I posted!!!! A Democratic Chairman who wrote the bill said it would correct a mal-distribution of income in our nation. He's an author of the bill and admitted it was socialism!!! It's not me making things up and trolling.

[PLAYER57832]

Geez, read the quote I posted!!!! A Democratic Chairman who wrote the bill said it would correct a mal-distribution of income in our nation. He's an author of the bill and admitted it was socialism!!! It's not me making things up and trolling.

Read above, I added to it apparently when you were posting this.

This thread is about socialized health care. You want to spin EVERYTHING into this supposed "threat" socialism represents. The truth is we already ARE socialistic and even folks like you, when pressed, have fully admitted that you don't want to let companies lie, sell dangerous products without penalty, etc. Sorry, but that is socialism, not pure capitalism.

THAT is the point! And no, this law is not turning our healthcare system into "socialized medicine", except that we already have Medicare and Medicaid.

[Night Strike]

Geez, read the quote I posted!!!! A Democratic Chairman who wrote the bill said it would correct a mal-distribution of income in our nation. He's an author of the bill and admitted it was socialism!!! It's not me making things up and trolling.

Read above.

This thread is about socialized health care. You want to spin EVERYTHING into this supposed "threat" socialism represents. The truth is we already ARE socialistic and even folks like you, when pressed, have fully admitted that you don't want to let companies lie, sell dangerous products without penalty, etc. Sorry, but that is socialism, not pure capitalism.

THAT is the point!

You edited your post before I posted, but it's still irrelevant. Safety regulations are NOT socialism. Redistributing wealth and controlling industries IS socialism. This bill is the latter (as admitted by Baucus).

[PLAYER57832]

You edited your post before I posted, but it's still irrelevant. Safety regulations are NOT socialism. Redistributing wealth and controlling industries IS socialism. This bill is the latter (as admitted by Baucus).

Funny thing is we have had an income tax for some time, too. Again, you keep trying to spin everything off into this "new" threat of everything turning socialistic. Sounds a whole LOT like what Macarthy cried in the 50's. And look where that took us.. Nixon elected, folks like Lucille Ball ousted from TV and films.

I prefer freedom. That means not throwing out ridiculous assertions every time someone proposes something you don't like ..and it means real debate, not just digging up anything that might possibly be framed as an attack and calling that a "debate".

The bill was passed, this country has pretty much always been socialistic and it has survived. Countries that had completely free markets... have never truly existed, except perhaps in war or in criminality.

[Night Strike]

The bill was passed, this country has pretty much always been socialistic and it has survived. Countries that had completely free markets... have never truly existed, except perhaps in war or in criminality.

Completely wrong. We've always been much closer to capitalism than socialism. And now the liberals are moving us past the median point toward socialism, and it's not for the betterment of our society.

[Phatscotty]

I see, Democrats bend over backwards to get Republican support, mangle the bill in the process because something is better than nothing at all.. and suddenly they are "catering to the insurance companies" because they dropped the public option?

Typical right wing logic, of late.

WE kind of Agree on something player. I LOATHED the way Bush and the republicans bent over backwards for democrats to compromise bills...It;s what made me decide, in 2002, that I was not a repubican

[PLAYER57832]

The bill was passed, this country has pretty much always been socialistic and it has survived. Countries that had completely free markets... have never truly existed, except perhaps in war or in criminality.

Completely wrong. We've always been much closer to capitalism than socialism. And now the liberals are moving us past the median point toward socialism, and it's not for the betterment of our society.

I am wrong?
Fine, name a country where true capitolism existed. And name a point at which we had no socialism in our government.

See, you change the terms. When you make your accusations, you are absolute.. we are moving toward socialism. Now, you are saying "closer to capitolism". You cannot have it both ways. Either these new moves represent a dangerous slide toward socialism or we have had socialism all along.

And how much socialism is good is just a different question, which is also what I said.

[Phatscotty]

The bill was passed, this country has pretty much always been socialistic and it has survived. Countries that had completely free markets... have never truly existed, except perhaps in war or in criminality.

Completely wrong. We've always been much closer to capitalism than socialism. And now the liberals are moving us past the median point toward socialism, and it's not for the betterment of our society.

I am wrong?
Fine, name a country where true capitolism existed. And name a point at which we had no socialism in our government.

See, you change the terms. When you make your accusations, you are absolute.. we are moving toward socialism. Now, you are saying "closer to capitolism". You cannot have it both ways. Either these new moves represent a dangerous slide toward socialism or we have had socialism all along.

And how much socialism is good is just a different question, which is also what I said.

NO! STOP RIGHT THERE! NAMING A COUNTRY WHERE TRUE CAPITALISM EXISTED IS MY OPEN CHALLENGE TO YOU, AND I CREATED A THREAD JUST FOR IT, WITH YOUR NAME IN IT! DONT YOU DARE!

[PLAYER57832]

The bill was passed, this country has pretty much always been socialistic and it has survived. Countries that had completely free markets... have never truly existed, except perhaps in war or in criminality.

Completely wrong. We've always been much closer to capitalism than socialism. And now the liberals are moving us past the median point toward socialism, and it's not for the betterment of our society.

I am wrong?
Fine, name a country where true capitolism existed. And name a point at which we had no socialism in our government.

See, you change the terms. When you make your accusations, you are absolute.. we are moving toward socialism. Now, you are saying "closer to capitolism". You cannot have it both ways. Either these new moves represent a dangerous slide toward socialism or we have had socialism all along.

And how much socialism is good is just a different question, which is also what I said.

NO! STOP RIGHT THERE! NAMING A COUNTRY WHERE TRUE CAPITALISM EXISTED IS MY OPEN CHALLENGE TO YOU, AND I CREATED A THREAD JUST FOR IT, WITH YOUR NAME IN IT! DONT YOU DARE!

I never said one existed. That was the point, it always failed. Try reading what other people stay, instead of just what you have been trained to think everybody else who disagrees with you will say.

Your supposed "challenge" thread had nothing at all to do with anything I really said. You are about the only one who thinks it did.

[anthroguy]

It seems like the word "socialism" is thrown around a lot these days as a mere buzzword for "bad." As Player has said many times (and I fully agree), we have and have had many socialist aspects of our system for years. Socialism of this sort is essentially anything that receives tax payer money to sets guidelines that reign in reckless capitalism. But now, "socialism" is thrown about as a meaningless buzzword meant to induce that knee-jerk ideological reaction ("socialism is BAD!"). For those of you who sing the praises of capitalism, consider Brazil where the wealthiest citizens "earn" somewhere about 800 times that the poorest and workers live in terrible conditions in the factories to cut down on cost. If I recall correctly, the wealthiest U.S. citizens "earn" a little over 200 times that of the poorest. That ratio has grown and continues to grow steadily. Does anyone honestly believe that some people earn that much money while others deserve their below poverty lifestyles? The only situation in which that could be true is where all of us start off on equal economic footing, but we all know many of us are born into privileged situations while others must fight a losing game.

[Phatscotty]

It seems like the word "socialism" is thrown around a lot these days as a mere buzzword for "bad." As Player has said many times (and I fully agree), we have and have had many socialist aspects of our system for years. Socialism of this sort is essentially anything that receives tax payer money to sets guidelines that reign in reckless capitalism. But now, "socialism" is thrown about as a meaningless buzzword meant to induce that knee-jerk ideological reaction ("socialism is BAD!"). For those of you who sing the praises of capitalism, consider Brazil where the wealthiest citizens "earn" somewhere about 800 times that the poorest and workers live in terrible conditions in the factories to cut down on cost. If I recall correctly, the wealthiest U.S. citizens "earn" a little over 200 times that of the poorest. That ratio has grown and continues to grow steadily. Does anyone honestly believe that some people earn that much money while others deserve their below poverty lifestyles? The only situation in which that could be true is where all of us start off on equal economic footing, but we all know many of us are born into privileged situations while others must fight a losing game.

I disagree. I do not count the city plow coming through to clear the streets in winter time a socialist program. It's a city service. If you are going to make the argument that anything that is tax-payer funded is a socialist program, then, by your own argument, you must also admit then that it is only possible to not be socialist by either a) having no government or b) having no taxes.

Overall, its the reality that everyone DOES have a fighting chance, some just have to fight harder than others. Of course some people are born into priviledge. The only way you can stop that is to take away the right of the parents to try to make life for their children the best as possible. much more deep a word when you think about it