First call to impeach Obama, depending on what he does...

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

2. If a person is able to work but doesnt want to get up off thier worthless ass to look for a job why should they get a free ride.

3. Are the people who are illegally here going to get this insurance. They dont pay taxes they dont deserve it. The only thing the deserve is a one way ticket out of this country. Im sure they would try to illegally enter the country again. If they do that put them in a jail cell.

Not every politician is perfect, this appleis to Republicans, Independent, and Democrats. When was the last time a political party went against the will of the American public?

-Do you really think the only people who are without health care are the worthless people you're describing? Be great if that were true. Tons of self employed people can't afford it. Many people with multiple jobs aren't offered it, and can't afford it.

-You're 100% correct on the illegals (it's one of the few things Conservatives get correct.)

-The American people voted about 53.4% for a guy who said he was going to do even more than this on health care. The will of the people was measured. We had the official poll. Health care was the #1 issue for many people in that election. It was for me. I want a civilized country where people get treated for major diseases before it's too late (even poor people.) Maybe you're right, and people didn't realize what they were voting on. That's called ignorant. What you don't understand is (to most of his voters) this issue was prime. If he loses control of the Congress (in November,) and just holds the ball for 2 years, then it's fine with me. At least he didn't lie about getting this done. Even though he's a liar, brotha actually earned the fiddy I gave him. Bush got his tax break for the rich done. Then, he got into expensive wars. He should of put the money into actually keeping bad people the hell out of here, but he wanted to play cowboys n' indians (that didn't improve most Americans' standard of living.)

[Antitrust32]

^^ I like that writing method SCUDS, its almost like Paragraphs.. keep it up!

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

^^ I like that writing method SCUDS, its almost like Paragraphs.. keep it up!

Again..form stuff.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Again..form stuff.

now that this bill has passed.. i'm trying to be hopeful that it will help the health care situation.. the thing is i've never seen any efficiency from the government no matter what party is in charge so it makes me very doubtful.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Again..form stuff.

more important though, are you ready for baseball season!!!???

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

-Do you really think the only people who are without health care are the worthless people you're describing? Be great if that were true. Tons of self employed people can't afford it. Many people with multiple jobs aren't offered it, and can't afford it.

-You're 100% correct on the illegals (it's one of the few things Conservatives get correct.)

-The American people voted about 53.4% for a guy who said he was going to do even more than this on health care. The will of the people was measured. We had the official poll. Health care was the #1 issue for many people in that election. It was for me. I want a civilized country where people get treated for major diseases before it's too late (even poor people.) Maybe you're right, and people didn't realize what they were voting on. That's called ignorant. What you don't understand is (to most of his voters) this issue was prime. If he loses control of the Congress (in November,) and just holds the ball for 2 years, then it's fine with me. At least he didn't lie about getting this done. Even though he's a liar, brotha actually earned the fiddy I gave him. Bush got his tax break for the rich done. Then, he got into expensive wars. He should of put the money into actually keeping bad people the hell out of here, but he wanted to play cowboys n' indians (that didn't improve most Americans' standard of living.)

i don't know if this is 100 % correct

mccain trailed obama until the republican convention in aug

after picking sarah and after the convention , mccain was ahead in the polls

she pushed him into the lead , a lead he kept until , the middle of sept whne the entir financial world almost melted down. after that they never got back in the lead in the polls , the people blamed the incumbent fot the financial disaster in sept and obama jogged into office from there

if the middle of sept didn't happen until after the election , there was no guarantee that obama would have made it

[Nascar1966]

[quote=SCUDSBROTHER]-Do you really think the only people who are without health care are the worthless people you're describing? Be great if that were true. Tons of self employed people can't afford it. Many people with multiple jobs aren't offered it, and can't afford it.

No I dont. Im sure thier are people who cant get insurance because of preexisting conditions. These people my heart goes out to them.

[Riot]

No I dont. Im sure thier are people who cant get insurance because of preexisting conditions. These people my heart goes out to them.

Not any more. Healthcare reform bill just passed that fixed that.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

No I dont. Im sure thier are people who cant get insurance because of preexisting conditions. These people my heart goes out to them.

It's "there" and "their", not "thier". Simple grammatical errors do not help when you are arguing for your side.

Let me tell you a little story about a guy. Had a great job, made good money, good health insurance. Unfortunately, said job was in a different city than his wife, so eventually he decides living with his spouse and making less money means more than the alternative. Additionally, new city doesn't have a whole lot of opportunity for employment in his field, but he does find work. Health insurance? Nope. OK, no big deal, he can pay a substantial premium to get on his wife's plan. Going without is NOT an option, as said individual has had diabetes since a child, which requires expensive prescriptions and occasional specialist visits. Obviously he knows how to handle his illness and avoids wasteful trips to the doctor or specialist. Wife's insurance carrier responds with their quote, and the price's a doozy... but most importantly, NO COVERAGE FOR PRE-EXISTING DIABETIC CONDITION FOR 36 MONTHS. So the precise reason the individual bit the bullet and paid an overpriced premium is swept out the door because the insurance company has the right to deny coverage of the very issue that NEEDS coverage. How, pray tell, is that fair practice by the insurance carrier? You do realize that by arguing so strongly against healthcare reform you support insurance companies with skyrocketing profits that will sweep you away like a piece of stinky poo if they feel like your situation has a negative impact to their bottom line?

I urge all of you, before jumping to extreme conclusions like proposing impeachment of the President for taking measures to push the bill through, to read the below unbiased, no spin timeline. I for one believe the bill could be much better and has been forced/rushed through but overall it does contain measures which benefit the American society as a whole. Middle class Americans will not be affected tax-wise. Those damn commie illegals you all are crying about will have not gained a cent of benefit from this... but I'm sure you already knew that in your strong fact finding missions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L2CT20100322

[philcski]

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.

[brianwspencer]

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

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by philcski

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.

I commend you on expressing your opinion.

[GenuineRisk]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

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.

[brianwspencer]

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But in all seriousness, I'm pissed because the LGBT provisions in the House version weren't passed along with this

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

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

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

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by philcski

Those damn commie illegals you all are crying about will have not gained a cent of benefit from this... but I'm sure you already knew that in your strong fact finding missions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L2CT20100322

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.