Just to be clear, I rarely if ever post in politics because quite frankly I don't give a fuc|<. 99% of the time a new legislation occurs, it has little to no impact on my life. Starting flame wars about things out of your control just raises the blood pressure level unnecessarily. This bill, however, has a chance to impact me positively and clearly has been misunderstood which is why I felt compelled to reply.

What don't you like about the bill? Everything.

Ok, but what specifically don't you like? The government.

Ok, so what about the bill do you not like? I don't know, Obama likes it so it must be bad and it must be socialism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448

But in all seriousness, I'm pissed because the LGBT provisions in the House version weren't passed along with this -- meaning that the premiums and employer pays for domestic partner insurance are considered income for the providing partner, leaving, depending on the plan, an income tax hit of several thousand dollars for the pair of them for the same exact coverage that a heterosexual spouse wouldn't have to pay on those premiums...it would just be the premiums. So they're *still* looking at a husband/wife duo paying additional premiums of, say, $100/mo vs. domestic partners paying a premium of $100/mo PLUS income tax on some $400 or so/mo. Nobody in the regular middle class can afford an extra $2K tax hit at the end of the year.

So backwards...and seems like it shouldn't be tough to fix, really, but it still is, leaving people to pay higher premiums for insurance plans that cover less, don't cover regular preventative check-ups, and really only function as catastrophic insurance if you're lucky, for somewhere around double the premium a partner could offer if the differential weren't taxed as income.

They are still gunna be going to E.R. We need to faze this illegal immigrant sht out. Bunch of fkn bullsht. We've done our part. 25% of people in Cali don't have health care. We don't need anymore poor people that are addicted to having big families. We've tried it. It's a definite negative. Don't have to study up on it anymore. Results are in, and it's a loser.

My bust on the grammer error. Not all of us have a Master's Degree like you. I hope this bill gets blown to pieces some how. Im betting because O'Dumbass has the numbers on his side he will get his wish on this bill and he can sleep better knowing he is going to ruin this country's economy even more. I feel for your friend with the diabetes im going through the same thing. Novolog three times a day and Lantus twice a day and Metformim twice a day. I am thankful that my insurance is awesome to have. Twenty years in the military actually paid off for something. Just curious what is your view on the abortion clause? My belief is that the taxpayer's money shouldn't be used for abortions. The only exception should be if the woman was raped or medically neccesary to have it done. If this clause does stay in this health care bill O'Dumbass has LIED AGAIN. Now thats a big suprise. I hope the Democrats enjoy the numbers while they have them hopefully when November arrives the wrath of the American public will be taken out on the Democrats. Hopefully Pelosi and Reid and Stupak are the first one's out of the door. I will also want to laugh in Stupak's face if O'Dumbass doesn't put the abortion clause in the bill.

Nascar-

I trust that with the keen comprehension skills that you have shown in this thread, you have a thorough grasp as to exactly what that health insurance bill contains.

i'm sure every senator and congress person does as well , i'm sure they can recite all 2,400 pages:D :D

Many people who oppose this bill arent opposed to health care reform in general, just many facets of the bill and the pie in the sky scheme to pay for it.

amen chuck

The person I was referring to was me. And trust me, I feel for you on the diabetes meds because I'm on a similar program.

Since you already have great coverage (which you should for your service to the country), this bill doesn't affect you at all which is why I don't understand the vitriol if you read through the points on the no-spin website (Reuters) that I posted.

I do not agree with the abortion clause. I'm certainly pro-choice but if you want to do it for non-medical reasons, I agree with you- it should be paid in cash.

It remains to be seen whether the proposed funding approach works. I don't believe it will, which is why I said before I don't think this bill is necessarily the right one, but clearly something needs to be done- and our elected officials have decided they don't want to play nice with each other to the detriment of the American public, as usual.

http://www.redstate.com/martin_a_kni...on-and-a-liar/

Nascar:

Hyde Amendment

Hyde Amendment

Hyde Amendment ;)

Please go read posts 118 & 119. Your worries about abortion and federal funding of any sort, including this health reform bill, are completely misplaced. The law of the land is that zero federal funding can be used for abortion. That remains the law of the land.

That said, I can't wait to purchase insurance via the high risk pool - thank you, President Obama and the Dems!

What was passed (Senate version) really isn't much "reform", and everyone really knows that. However, like Medicare, like Civil Rights, now that there is a base law, specific amendments will be easy to get. Hang in there, maybe this gave the Dems some guts :tro:

You had 8 years, and all that was suggested is health care savings accounts, and tort reform. Now you've added buying insurance across state lines. It isn't enough.

Thank you for relaying my thoughts on this bill. At least someone agrees with my view on this bill.


:)

I commend you on expressing your opinion.

NASCAR, I'm a bit confused as to what, exactly your health coverage is- are you saying that, because of your military service, you are getting veteran's benefits? If you are, great; as it's generally considered some of the best health care in the country. And it's a government program.

This is what I don't understand about this debate- so many of the people who are so angry about the reform, and making comments about government takeovers, government interference, etc., have spent a large portion of their working life as government employees or are currently on government programs. And I'm truly not trying to pick on NASCAR; my uncle, who is a big proponent of whatever Rush tells him to think, was Navy and then a state trooper- he was a government employee his entire working career. And he lives on his government pension and government-provided health care. Of all the calls I heard during the 10 hours I watched C-SPAN on Sunday, the one that most stuck out to me was a guy yelling about how the government can't run anything- not the post office, not Social Security, not anything. His health plan? Medicare, as is his wife's. A friend's brother, screaming about "Obamacare," is married to a woman on permanent disability, paid for by the government, and their kids are on Medicaid with her. For that matter, so many right-wing people live in states that get more in federal money than they pay in. Most of the "red" states are living off the largess of the blue ones. (Texas being an exception, but Texas is geographically lucky in oil)

And I'm not resentful about any of these things- I think military should be taken care of when their service is over; I think the elderly should have a safety net and I think good governing means looking out for those of us in areas that aren't doing as well as others. But I don't understand why so many of those who have already received or are receiving money or services from government programs get so up in arms when it's suggested that maybe others who are struggling should have an opportunity to benefit, too. I really just don't understand it. It seems like the ultimate in "I got mine; **** the rest of you all."

As a screaming liberal, I think this is not a good bill. But it's much better than the status quo, and it's a baby step in the right direction.

If i had 8 years i would invade turkey and make you PM.

This is what I hope. Though something like a tax penalty like that could be done at any time without a healthcare bill as a basic matter of fairness, because it isn't even exactly a healthcare issue...it's a tax issue that only levies taxes on certain people for the exact same product that their coworkers don't get taxed on.

What do you think about Virginia repealing equality for gays wherever they could?

Un - freekin' - believable. I thought this was America.

My management style:


"No behave= no smokes, all fake software copies will be confiscated.....If behave= free smokes."

Unfortunately, the level of disdain, discrimination, and unabashed fear and hatred directed toward the LGBT community doesn't even surprise me anymore.

It's a sad, sad state of affairs.

Like the people who make more than 200k a year?

So taxes based on how much money people make are exactly the same as taxes on people based on who they are?

Riiiiiiiiight. Good try, Chuck.

Perhaps those people who have been entrenched in the "govt" system arent happy about further govt expansion because of their experience with that same govt? Instead of ridiculing them perhaps you should heed thier advise being that they have dealt with the system that you are blindly praising?

The idea that red states live off the largess of blue states like NY (broke), NJ(broke) and CA (broke) is an interesting theory.

And this blanket statement that covers all govt jobs simply misses the point. A local police dept and an entitlement program are completely different animals.

Medicare by the way is a massive moneyburner that was just made much larger and we are supposed to believe that because we standardize forms that it suddenly will become efficent and burn less money?

That being said there are some positive and much needed steps included in the bill. The problem is that the way they are paying or attempting to pay for them absolutely has no shot of succeeding. Remember that Social Security and Medicare were all supposedly self sustaining programs when they were proposed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well the people who make more than 200k now get taxed at a higher rate yet will mostly get worse coverage. They are paying for the rest of us with no benefit. Kind of sucks to pay more with no benefit, no?

And gays who make more than $200K pay those same taxes as well, because those don't discriminate based on WHO someone is, but how much money they make...like nearly all taxes.

Yay, great that you're upset about taxes....but it doesn't address the meat of what I was saying, though I'm not even sure if you think it does...

Let's just tax blacks at 5% higher than everyone else while we're at it and just pretend it's a matter of "oh tough luck, those are taxes...sucks to get taxed with no benefit, right?"

LOL, I understand they arent the same issue, just wanted to point out that some Americans are getting screwed by this bill, straight and gay...

Well if that's your stance, then that's completely true -- but they're getting screwed, in your terms, en masse, without regard to WHO they are.

Whereas, this bill does nothing to change the status quo for the LGBT community, and it had every chance to, the bill didn't actually make them worse off...it just made for a pathetic display that they chose to forgo a very obvious, easy way to fix a discriminatory tax inequity, and elected not to.

They had to bribe, arm twist, make backroom deals, pressure, beg, etc to get this bill passed by 5 votes. That is seemingly forgotten during the victory celebration. There are enough homophobic constitutes that this wouldnt have passed with that language in it. You are right, it is wrong but lets face it, gays are voting Dem no matter what they do and Obama/Pelosi werent going to risk not passing this thing because of them. I will bet you this though, they will try to change it.

[quote=Cannon Shell]

The idea that red states live off the largess of blue states like NY (broke), NJ(broke) and CA (broke) is an interesting theory.

QUOTE]

I'm not going to get into the rest of your post but I couldn't let this portion of the response go. Perhaps I'm not understanding here. Are you really trying to dispute what Genuine Risk is saying about the Red states living off of the Blue states? The VAST majority of tax dollars come from where? Blue states. The red states (texas being the exception as GR noted because of oil) receive more fed dollars than they put in. This is an indisputable fact.

LGBT community is becoming quite a bit like the "pro-life" community on the other side. Lots of lip service, no meaningful change, as long as the money and votes keep coming because there is nowhere else to go that isn't exponentially worse that has any chance of having any power. Take the Dems who kind of don't mind you, and will maybe throw a good thing or two your way every now and then, or take the Repubs, a very good deal of whom are afraid of you, hate you, don't care if they treat you unfairly, or just plain old hope you burn in hell...and it's sort of a no-win situation, taking scraps because scraps are better than undoing decades worth of progress.

[quote=dalakhani]They receive more dollars than they put in because they are more sparsely populated. That is not living off the largess of the other states.

Maybe it's late and I'm not understanding, but legit question -- isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Yep. I just got the popcorn out. Its fun watching Chuck spin.

Hey, I wasn't even trying to be antagonistic, which is why I prefaced it the way I did (saying "legit question," because I fear that it's always assumed I'm antagonizing him when I respond), because I wasn't sure if there was something behind the dispersal of funds that I didn't know about.

The states that received the most federal tax dollars were CA, NY, TX, and FL. Followed by NJ, MA, MD, OH, IL, IL, MN, WA, NC, VA and GA. If you do it per capita obviously the states with smaller populations will get a greater proportion,

Okay, I'm not sure that the idea of that sways me as to whether or not Red states are living off Blue states, but I didn't get what you were getting at. Thanks.

The entire concept of getting federal tax dollars = living off of them is stupid anyway. Federal tax dollars are used for highways, bridges, maintaining federal land and military bases, federal prisons, etc. How these things add up to people living off of another state is beyond me.

Well I've already got roads where I need them, and people in Texas having roads doesn't help me, so f*ck 'em, what about more for me?

xo
Nascar