RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Why won't honest and straight-forward attack ads work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 If Republicans were honest, they would be Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 If Republicans were honest, they would be Democrats. That's awesome, Conner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Why won't honest and straight-forward attack ads work? I find that ad to be mostly factual. They may have missed on the wheelchair tax but there have been so many revisions to both the house and senate bills that a wheelchair tax may have been in there at some point. I can tell you this, I am a small business owner and we provide health insurance for all of our employees at ZERO cost to them. If this bill passes, the additional tax we will pay each year will exceed what we spend now to cover all of the employees. What a deal! I've already had a meeting with them to explain that if this bill goes through, they will likely have to pay a large portion of their premium. What these stupid politicians don't realize is that taxes are a real business expense and if we spend more on taxes, we have to spend less on other things including employees. What this bill does is more than double what we pay for health insurance. You see, it isn't enough that we fund coverage for all of our employees now. We also have to pay for a bunch of people that don't work with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 I find that ad to be mostly factual. They may have missed on the wheelchair tax but there have been so many revisions to both the house and senate bills that a wheelchair tax may have been in there at some point. I can tell you this, I am a small business owner and we provide health insurance for all of our employees at ZERO cost to them. If this bill passes, the additional tax we will pay each year will exceed what we spend now to cover all of the employees. What a deal! I've already had a meeting with them to explain that if this bill goes through, they will likely have to pay a large portion of their premium. What these stupid politicians don't realize is that taxes are a real business expense and if we spend more on taxes, we have to spend less on other things including employees. What this bill does is more than double what we pay for health insurance. You see, it isn't enough that we fund coverage for all of our employees now. We also have to pay for a bunch of people that don't work with us. You obviously didn't read far enough down in the article I linked... "Insurance costs will skyrocket" The Web ad claims that because of these taxes, "your health insurance costs will skyrocket." But the RNC’s list of taxes doesn’t back that up. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that several of the taxes mentioned in the ad – on tests, scans, X-rays and medical devices – would be passed along to consumers but would only add "about 1 percent" to the cost of premiums. Other taxes mentioned in the ad – the misleading references to taxes on “charities” and “small businesses” – are actually changes in income tax rates for those in the top tax brackets. That won’t cause anyone’s “health insurance costs” to “skyrocket.” The excise tax on high-cost health plans might raise premium costs (or reduce benefits) for the relative few who are covered by them, but the CBO didn’t estimate how much. Both the CBO and JCT directors told the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 22 that the tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans would cause some employees to choose less-expensive plans, which, in turn, would cause their compensation to increase. The JCT estimates on revenue the government would receive from the tax include “additional income tax and payroll tax receipts” that would be received under such a scenario, said JCT Chief of Staff Thomas Barthold. And overall, the agencies see the tax as decreasing health spending. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said in his testimony: “mposing this tax would, in our judgment together with the Joint Tax Committee staff, reduce health spending over time by make – by removing what is essentially a subsidy in the current tax code to buy more health insurance relative to buying things that you have to purchase with after-tax income.” The RNC also fails to note that all of the bills being debated in Congress propose subsidies for low- and moderate-income individuals to help them buy insurance. Whether “your” premium goes up or down, depends on your income, as well as health status and current health care costs – and on the legislation, as we’ve noted before. For instance, according to an analysis by the Lewin Group, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group that operates independently of the company, the House bill as introduced would decrease families’ health care spending on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 You obviously didn't read far enough down in the article I linked... No I read it. An income tax increase is an increase in business expenses and since they are raising tax rates to fund this health care bill, it is directly related. Everything in my previous post is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 The fact of the matter is honesty is a rare commodity in Washington, regardless of aisle side. None of them has any idea what the unintended consequences will be but one thing is certain - they'll be far more expensive than anyone is projecting now. Mr. Murphy loves government programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 No I read it. An income tax increase is an increase in business expenses and since they are raising tax rates to fund this health care bill, it is directly related. Everything in my previous post is a fact. Umm... Okay, if you say so... But maybe you should check this out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Why won't honest and straight-forward attack ads work? Good point on R.I, which leads me to this question If the Health Care proposals are so good, why was Nancy Pelosi dishonest about allowing the Bill to be posted online 72 hours before the vote http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF...e_to_put_he.asp Or If the Health Care proposals were so good, why was President Obama dishonest about this being a transparent process when the all the meetings were behind closed doors/ Or Why were the Liberals dishonest when they said that NO illegal immigrants would be covered under the Health Reform Bill? But more importantly, If the Health Care proposals are so good, why did BO and Congress mislead the public when they said that this bill would bring down skyrocketing premiums when in actuality the CBO said not only would it not stop premiums from rising but would actually be even more expensive than Private insurance plans? Also if the Health Care propsals are so good, why did President Obama and Nancy Pelosi both say that this bill wouldn't add to the deficit, and why did they mislead the American Public by cutting $500 Billion oot of Medicaid, just so that the Bill would fall under the presidents criteria of being "deficit neutral" to then plan on creating another bill "Doc Fix" and add back in $220 Billion for Medicare funding? ANother point, If the health care proposals are so good, why did the W.H and Congress both mislead the public when they said that this bill would be good for small business, when in fact, according to the CBO, this bill would tax small businesses well over $200 Billion, and would make their insurance premiums rise? BTW R.I, the bill that you are referencing through FACTCHECK is the Senate Finance Committee Bill, which basically is pointless to bring up, now there are two more bills that have been written since that bill was finished, which virtually makes that whole article irrelevant, because that Bill will never be inacted. So you're whole point is mute other than the RNC being dishonest about a couple points. WHich of course the other side has been equally if not more dishonest. Funny how FACTCHECK never brought up the Deficit concern that I did, or the misrepresentation of the "public option" premiums going lower when in really they would be higher. I wonder why that is? Anyhow, R.I, I'm glad you brought this to light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 If Republicans were honest, they would be Democrats. Ok timeout for conner. Into the corner with you and no dessert until you wise up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 As usual Magoo, you either completely miss the point, or you reply with weak partisan and easily disprovable arguments. Good point on R.I, which leads me to this question If the Health Care proposals are so good, why was Nancy Pelosi dishonest about allowing the Bill to be posted online 72 hours before the vote http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF...e_to_put_he.asp If this is true, why do you need to quote a partisan source? Or If the Health Care proposals were so good, why was President Obama dishonest about this being a transparent process when the all the meetings were behind closed doors/ Maybe so that the discussions could be held without town hall style “Spontaneous” protests constantly interrupting the process? Define behind closed doors for me please. Which details of the meetings haven't been released to the public? Or Why were the Liberals dishonest when they said that NO illegal immigrants would be covered under the Health Reform Bill? They weren't maybe you should check this out... But more importantly, If the Health Care proposals are so good, why did BO and Congress mislead the public when they said that this bill would bring down skyrocketing premiums when in actuality the CBO said not only would it not stop premiums from rising but would actually be even more expensive than Private insurance plans? First provide the links to the statements about bringing down skyrocketing premiums and the CBO statement you're misquoting. This might help. Also if the Health Care propsals are so good, why did President Obama and Nancy Pelosi both say that this bill wouldn't add to the deficit, and why did they mislead the American Public by cutting $500 Billion out of Medicaid, just so that the Bill would fall under the presidents criteria of being "deficit neutral" to then plan on creating another bill "Doc Fix" and add back in $220 Billion for Medicare funding? Can you provide a non partisan link to the actions you claim happened here? When was 500 Billion cut out of Medicaid? When will the “Doc Fix” bill come up for a vote? How did all this happen without AARP Rioting? What drugs are you on? (When you figure out the difference between a one year, two year, and ten year projection, I'll explain the budget neutral part.) Another point, If the health care proposals are so good, why did the W.H and Congress both mislead the public when they said that this bill would be good for small business, when in fact, according to the CBO, this bill would tax small businesses well over $200 Billion, and would make their insurance premiums rise? Good point, except for the fact that, that isn't what the CBO said. Maybe you should check this out... BTW R.I, the bill that you are referencing through FACTCHECK is the Senate Finance Committee Bill, which basically is pointless to bring up, now there are two more bills that have been written since that bill was finished, which virtually makes that whole article irrelevant, because that Bill will never be inacted. So you're whole point is mute other than the RNC being dishonest about a couple points. Which of course the other side has been equally if not more dishonest. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it Magoo? The article I cited deals with the RNC's criticism of the Health Care Proposal and clearly states that it is the RNC which is [apparently deliberately] blurring the lines between the different bills and provisions which have been discussed but aren't [currently] included in any version of the bills. And since my purpose in posting today is to prod right wing partisan hacks such as yourself, what good would pointing out the other side's hypocrisy do? Funny how FACTCHECK never brought up the Deficit concern that I did, or the misrepresentation of the "public option" premiums going lower when in really they would be higher. I wonder why that is? Anyhow, R.I, I'm glad you brought this to light Maybe because both are misrepresentations of what was actually said? And that is what the article talks about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 As usual Magoo, you either completely miss the point, or you reply with weak partisan and easily disprovable arguments. If this is true, why do you need to quote a partisan source? On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes: TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end? PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question. But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that." Point 1 of yours DEBUNKED Those are actual quotes Maybe so that the discussions could be held without town hall style “Spontaneous” protests constantly interrupting the process? Define behind closed doors for me please. Which details of the meetings haven't been released to the public? The meetings have been behind closed doors, what more is there to say. They weren't maybe you should check this out... You still bringing up the FACTCHECK from the HR 3200 ? Dumbass First provide the links to the statements about bringing down skyrocketing premiums and the CBO statement you're misquoting. This might help. Gladly http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/CBO...vate_plans.html Public option premiums higher than private plans Main Content plansOctober 29, 2009 CBO: Public option premiums higher than private plans The public insurance option would typically charge higher premiums than private plans available in the exchange, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House bill. That surprising conclusion raises doubts about Democratic promises that a government-run insurance plan would provide a lower-cost alternative to consumers. At the same time, it calls into question Republican charges that the plan amounts to government takeover of health insurance -- because only 6 million people would enroll in the plan, according to the CBO. Here's the key passage from page 6: Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million. That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.) How do you like Dem apples? But I didn't need their analysis to tell me this, I've been making that same exact point and a few others for months now. Can you provide a non partisan link to the actions you claim happened here? When was 500 Billion cut out of Medicaid? When will the “Doc Fix” bill come up for a vote? How did all this happen without AARP Rioting? What drugs are you on? (When you figure out the difference between a one year, two year, and ten year projection, I'll explain the budget neutral part.) No need for your explanations, my fear is that I will come away dumber for reading them. The Cut to medicaid comes out to $396 Billion in the first ten years http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/...ment_update.pdf check it out, page 6. CBO, how about that for a link? The only reason why it isn't $500 Billion in the first 10 years is because the cuts start coming in much more substantially the further you go out, if you were to go out from year 4 to 14 it would come out to over $650 Billion. Check out the years and the payment reductions. Damn this is fun! You see, you get fooled because you believe everything you hear from the liberal talking points, if you would of been paying attention you would see that there is a lot of budget trickery in this bill. I suggest you read page 6, and you will see that everything is backloaded. I also suggest that you read page 8 to help you understand what you read. I have a feeling you won't understand it. I will give you the recap, the first four years, pretty much nothing goes on. The real cost of the bill starts about from year 5. UP to year 5 we will have only cut $13 Billion from Medicaid. From year 5 to year 10 there will be $386 BILLION CUT. so in 6 years $386. But of course you don't see that, and why? Because you're a lemming Let me explain something else to you, in the first four years there is only $75 Billion in expenditures. However, in the next 6 years there will be $914 Billion in subsidies and administrative costs. ALso look on page 11, and look at the rate of how much the government is going to have to pay for each enrollee starting in year 6. Look at that number explode $5,500 $5,800 $6,100 $6,500 $6,800 That is an increase of government dependency in rates of approximately %6 a year. This bill is very misleading, you see the CBO's job is to only score what Congress gives them and not factor in additional data that would likely affect the outcome. In regards to The "Doc Fix", that has already come up for vote, and was voted down just a couple weeks ago. It will be coming back up for a vote again sometime soon. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/200...th-republicans/ You didn't know that? Also, the AARP not rioting??? I used to think that you were just a lemming, now I'm convinced that your a lemming and a dumbass. The AARP is set to gain a tremendous amount of new clients because of this plan, if you had noticed, the AARP has been lobbying for this bill for quite some time and even has paid for ads on television for months now supporting Health reform. Good point, except for the fact that, that isn't what the CBO said. Maybe you should check this out... Are you still FACTCHECKING the HR 3200? Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it Magoo? The article I cited deals with the RNC's criticism of the Health Care Proposal and clearly states that it is the RNC which is [apparently deliberately] blurring the lines between the different bills and provisions which have been discussed but aren't [currently] included in any version of the bills. And since my purpose in posting today is to prod right wing partisan hacks such as yourself, what good would pointing out the other side's hypocrisy do? So in other words, ya got nuthin. :lol: Maybe because both are misrepresentations of what was actually said? And that is what the article talks about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Umm... Okay, if you say so... But maybe you should check this out... Some of their interpretations of true vs false are not accurate. For example, the claim that illegals are not eligible. An amendment to require proof of citizenship in order to get coverage was requested, but the dems said no to that. In other words, they can get coverage since verification is not required and they will still be admitted to emergency rooms. The Presdent, also will not rule out "reforms to the immigration system" which could instantly include 10 million people into the plan. Even if fact check is correct in all of their interpretations, it doesn't change that this bill is a complicated, expensive, poorly designed government controlled social money grabbing entitlment plan that is not wanted by the majory of Americans. AND I don't believe any rational person that is imformed on the issue would look at this plan and honestly say that this is the best plan that is possible. That includes the proud authors and all in Congress that will vote for it. If you or anyone else thinks that what is proposed is a good plan. Put it here and tell us why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Some of their interpretations of true vs false are not accurate. For example, the claim that illegals are not eligible. An amendment to require proof of citizenship in order to get coverage was requested, but the dems said no to that. In other words, they can get coverage since verification is not required and they will still be admitted to emergency rooms. The Presdent, also will not rule out "reforms to the immigration system" which could instantly include 10 million people into the plan. Even if fact check is correct in all of their interpretations, it doesn't change that this bill is a complicated, expensive, poorly designed government controlled social money grabbing entitlment plan that is not wanted by the majory of Americans. AND I don't believe any rational person that is imformed on the issue would look at this plan and honestly say that this is the best plan that is possible. That includes the proud authors and all in Congress that will vote for it. If you or anyone else thinks that what is proposed is a good plan. Put it here and tell us why. KeeptheFaith, why are you even arguing that FACTCHECK? That is the HR3200, that Bill is as relevant as the tissue I just wiped my ass with. His FACTCHECK is a moot point. Let him keep linking it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 KeeptheFaith, why are you even arguing that FACTCHECK? That is the HR3200, that Bill is as relevant as the tissue I just wiped my ass with. His FACTCHECK is a moot point. Let him keep linking it I want him to explain what's good about the proposed reform. Come on RI, give us an education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 I want him to explain what's good about the proposed reform. Come on RI, give us an education. You're going to be waiting a long time. I never gave any opinion, positive or negative about the issue. No, the point I'm making is simply that if the proposed health care legislation all the right wing loonies are so up in arms over is anywhere near as bad as what is being claimed on this board then why isn't the plain and simple truth about it good enough to debunk it with? Why does the opposition party feel the need to exagerate, falsify, distort, bend, fold, and mutilate the truth in their efforts to discredit the proposals in the court of public opinion? Most of you guys will jump thru hoops to prove that having an R, L, or I appended to your name makes you a better person than anyone with a D, so forget the "They do it too" arguments. And forget attacking me, your opinion of me has about the same relevance to the question as an apple does to the dark side of the moon. What in your eyes makes those tactics acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 You're going to be waiting a long time. I never gave any opinion, positive or negative about the issue. No, the point I'm making is simply that if the proposed health care legislation all the right wing loonies are so up in arms over is anywhere near as bad as what is being claimed on this board then why isn't the plain and simple truth about it good enough to debunk it with? Why does the opposition party feel the need to exagerate, falsify, distort, bend, fold, and mutilate the truth in their efforts to discredit the proposals in the court of public opinion? Most of you guys will jump thru hoops to prove that having an R, L, or I appended to your name makes you a better person than anyone with a D, so forget the "They do it too" arguments. And forget attacking me, your opinion of me has about the same relevance to the question as an apple does to the dark side of the moon. What in your eyes makes those tactics acceptable? I take you're new to this thing called politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 I take you're new to this thing called politics. And I take it that you have no answer to the question. Why (In your mind) is it acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 And I take it that you have no answer to the question. Why (In your mind) is it acceptable? It's not acceptable but that's been the way the game of politics has been played since day one. I just find myself leaning towards the side that favors smaller government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 It's not acceptable but that's been the way the game of politics has been played since day one. I just find myself leaning towards the side that favors smaller government. So in your mind it's acceptable because that's the way it's always been and they're on the side you favor? And this makes it acceptable for the other side also, I presume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts