blzrul Posted December 25, 2009 Posted December 25, 2009 You wingnuts got the war and all the debt it drove; we get healthcare and its debt. You think killing people is a sound investment; I think healing them is more advantageous. No matter how you look at it the national debt is ours collectively. So you enjoy your war and we'll enjoy whatever heathcare reform brings.
DC Tom Posted December 25, 2009 Posted December 25, 2009 You wingnuts got the war and all the debt it drove; we get healthcare and its debt. You think killing people is a sound investment; I think healing them is more advantageous. No matter how you look at it the national debt is ours collectively. So you enjoy your war and we'll enjoy whatever heathcare reform brings. These bills aren't going to "heal" anyone; they're pretty much designed to make it easier for people to get insurance, but harder to get care. The "Our guys passed it, so it'll work" mindset among the far left with respect to this bill is phenomenal, doubly so since it duplicates the same mindset w/r/t the PATRIOT Act the same far left bitched about when the far right had it eight years ago. You're all nucking futs, you know...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 You wingnuts got the war and all the debt it drove; we get healthcare and its debt. You think killing people is a sound investment; I think healing them is more advantageous. No matter how you look at it the national debt is ours collectively. So you enjoy your war and we'll enjoy whatever heathcare reform brings. You do your best work when you shutup-What do affairs internationally have to do with domestic heath care?
Magox Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Yup because the radical right are the only ones complaining. And it's just as easy to say the more the radical left rejoices the more convinced I am they've made a terrible decision. Pasta likes to make these wild statements with nothing to back it up. I guess when he means Radical Right, he is referring to the independent voters that are against this reform by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Ya, those independents sure are Radical
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 26, 2009 Author Posted December 26, 2009 The more the radical right complains, the more confident I am that we made the right decision. I wasn't talking to YOU. You're a sheep. I was talking to the spineless, stand-for-nothing, lukewarm "moderate independents" that change direction like weathervanes. They're the fools that elected this bunch of criminals. Now that they see that all these people MEANT what they SAID, they're scared...Should have been afraid when they were telling the American people what it was they had planned PRIOR to being elected. But no...they were too angry at W and just HAD to have "change." They'll have change...left in their paycheck once these bills pass.
PastaJoe Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Pasta likes to make these wild statements with nothing to back it up. I guess when he means Radical Right, he is referring to the independent voters that are against this reform by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Ya, those independents sure are Radical Yeah, it's "wild" to say the radical right's complaining means moderation is winning the day. I love how all the righties keep pointing to independents, when over the past year the number of people who identify themselves as independents has risen because they're former Republicans who think the party is too moderate for them. Independent no longer means "willing to consider either party". These Republipendents might vote for a Republican, but would rarely consider a Democrat.
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Yeah, it's "wild" to say the radical right's complaining means moderation is winning the day. I love how all the righties keep pointing to independents, when over the past year the number of people who identify themselves as independents has risen because they're former RepublicansDemocrats who think the party is too moderate radical for them. Independent no longer means "willing to consider either party". These Republipendents might vote for a Republican, but would rarely consider a Democrat. Get a grip. The man behind the curtain has been exposed. You "lefties" are the one's stuck with BO.
Magox Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Yeah, it's "wild" to say the radical right's complaining means moderation is winning the day. I love how all the righties keep pointing to independents, when over the past year the number of people who identify themselves as independents has risen because they're former Republicans who think the party is too moderate for them. Independent no longer means "willing to consider either party". These Republipendents might vote for a Republican, but would rarely consider a Democrat. You keep saying this, but how do you explain these "republipendents" voting for BO by a 3 to 2 margin? The point being Pasta, that they are not "radical" as you claim. Sure there are the lefties and righties who will blindly support whatever their partisan leaders say. Then there are people who look at this for what it is, which is a bill that WILL ADD to the Deficit when you add the Doc Fix and take out the accounting gimmickry, will raise premiums for those who don't qualify for government subsidies, will put further strain on state Medicaid/Medicare budgets and will further burden small businesses. When people look at this from a logical point of view, people don't like this bill.
BillsFanNC Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 So you enjoy your war and we'll enjoy whatever heathcare reform brings. In other words, one giant cluster!@#$ justifies another. Hooray for America indeed.
Simon Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 The "Our guys passed it, so it'll work" mindset among the far left with respect to this bill is phenomenal, doubly so since it duplicates the same mindset w/r/t the PATRIOT Act the same far left bitched about when the far right had it eight years ago. You're all nucking futs, you know... I used to think they were funny. The timbre of my laughter is no longer what it once was.
Alaska Darin Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 I used to think they were funny.The timbre of my laughter is no longer what it once was. The pricetag of your ticket just keeps going up.
Magox Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Senator Lieberman and the effect he had on the Senate bill? TRUDY LIEBERMAN: He was very influential. In fact, he was really the pivotal person to kill the public plan in the Senate. In my post on cjr.org, I said he was probably the best lobbyist the insurance industry—and the doctors and the hospitals—could have had, because neither of those two groups of stakeholders were keen on a public plan. And I think that point has been forgotten. In the end, Lieberman held all the cards, and he said that he would not provide the sixtieth vote if a public plan were part of it. Obviously, he is from Connecticut. Connecticut is the insurance capital of the world—or of America. And I’m sure he was listening to his constituents in the insurance industry that did not want a public plan. To add to what I was saying the other day http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73607-c...se-health-talks Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have made clear there is little room to deviate from the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. They are the most vocal of nearly two-dozen senators who have indicated they see little wiggle room in the conference talks. Centrists have said they will not vote for a healthcare reform bill that imposes a tax surcharge on the nation’s highest income earners or reduces the tax burden on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans, which are held by many unionized workers. They have also threatened to vote against the bill if it includes a government-run health insurance program, a proposal that liberal Democrats in Congress acknowledge has little chance of winning inclusion in the final bill. “There’s very little room for this bill to change,” said Landrieu. “The framework really has to stay basically in place. “It’s not just me,” Landrieu added. “There are probably two-dozen Democratic senators who feel very strongly about the framework.” So basically this Trudy Lieberman is full of ****. I also found this next part to be interesting. Landrieu said she would prefer the implementation date for health insurance exchanges set by the House. The exchanges would offer people a variety of plans to choose among. The House bill sets up these insurance marketplaces by 2013; the Senate bill does it by 2014. Advancing the implementation of the insurance exchanges by a year would add an estimated $100 billion to the cost of the Senate bill. $100 Billion to advance it by 1 year. Just imagine if the subsidies started in 2010, the total cost would be expanded anywhere from $300-$400 Billion for the 10 year projection, add in the Doc Fix provision, now you are talking about another $225 Billion. This doesn't even include the accounting gimmickry from the CLASS ACT portion of the legislation and the assumption that there will NO Wasted funds with no fraudulent activity. In all reality, if the legislation were to begin in 2014-2024 you are talking about close to adding anywhere between $700B-$1Trillion.
Adam Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 You keep saying this, but how do you explain these "republipendents" voting for BO by a 3 to 2 margin? The point being Pasta, that they are not "radical" as you claim. Sure there are the lefties and righties who will blindly support whatever their partisan leaders say. Then there are people who look at this for what it is, which is a bill that WILL ADD to the Deficit when you add the Doc Fix and take out the accounting gimmickry, will raise premiums for those who don't qualify for government subsidies, will put further strain on state Medicaid/Medicare budgets and will further burden small businesses. When people look at this from a logical point of view, people don't like this bill. As usual, a lot of insight in your post. While I do like the idea of not allowing the health care industry view its customers as expenses, I do agree that this bill is costly. While I was for the public option in healthcare for this reason, I agree with Bush that social security should have been privatized. My logic behind this is that I think keeping our population healthy is enough of a benefit for it to be a social service, but if we want to live work-free at an older age, we should take care of that ourselves. Pretty much trading one entitlement for another, opposed to creating another one and hurting the economy more. Also, I think this could reduce medicare/medicaid, and eventually replace them. The irritating thing for me is how the liberals are demonizing the conservatives and how the conservatives continue the stereotyping of socialism. Socialism, capitalism, communism, whateverism.....I don't care as long as things run as smoothly as possible- I neither demand nor expect a utopia.
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 Yes, ok. I shall learn how to cure my own cancer in the case that I should contract it. And as soon as you show me legislation crafted that cures cancer, you might start to have a point.
Adam Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 And as soon as you show me legislation crafted that cures cancer, you might start to have a point. Government grants to research can help lead to numerous cures and treatments. But that is another topic!
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 But that is another topic! My point, really.
PastaJoe Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 You keep saying this, but how do you explain these "republipendents" voting for BO by a 3 to 2 margin? There are more people now than during the election who identify themselves as independents. The majority of the increase is from Republicans who since the election now identify themselves as independents because they think the Republican party is too moderate. The percentage of people who now identify themselves as Republicans in polls is in the 20s. These new post-election independents would never have voted for Obama. Independent no longer means they're all moderate. How hard is that to understand?
Magox Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 There are more people now than during the election who identify themselves as independents. The majority of the increase is from Republicans who since the election now identify themselves as independents because they think the Republican party is too moderate. The percentage of people who now identify themselves as Republicans in polls is in the 20s. These new post-election independents would never have voted for Obama. Independent no longer means they're all moderate. How hard is that to understand? Link? back up your claim. More people identified themselves as Democrats and Independents over Republicans before the election. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-vote...-as-republicans In this poll which was done back in March of 2008 only 27% considered themself to be a Republican which is comparable to today. In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way. According to this poll, your claim appears to smell like big stinky bull ****, in other words you just pulled it out of your ass. The reality Pasta, is that many of those undecided independents are running away from the liberals big government policies. If this poll would of concluded that 35% considered themselves to be republicans back in March of 2008 and now the number were to be somewhere around 25% with many of those moving to the Independent category, then you would have a strong argument. Considering that almost 2 years ago the number of people who consider themselves to be Repubs are basically the same as today pretty much makes your argument well.... bull ****
Recommended Posts