IDBillzFan Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Never heard that before. And if you're going to build a mansion, it's cheaper in the long run to skip the house and build the !@#$ing mansion to start with. The left talkies (the Alan Colmes, etc.) have been trotting this concept out over the past month in various news shows as it becomes more clear that the only hope for passing what they consider to be health care "reform" is to take the path of least resistance; which is the Senate bill. So their argument goes something like "Look, I want the public option or single payer, but getting something is better than nothing, so I'd rather build a house now and try to expand it later than try to get everyone to build a mansion." You already know this, but it's worth repeating. This is it. They're not in a position to try and go deep with the understanding that there is still time on the clock. They have to go for three because unless they somehow miraculously fix the eocnomy and get unemployment way down before the mid-terms, they're toast in November, and they know it, which is why Obama is pressing Pelosi and Reid to get this done as quickly as possible, in private. Being new to this political stuff, I have to admit; this is pretty surreal. I'm very curious to see how this all shakes out in November.
Adam Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 The left talkies (the Alan Colmes, etc.) have been trotting this concept out over the past month in various news shows as it becomes more clear that the only hope for passing what they consider to be health care "reform" is to take the path of least resistance; which is the Senate bill. So their argument goes something like "Look, I want the public option or single payer, but getting something is better than nothing, so I'd rather build a house now and try to expand it later than try to get everyone to build a mansion." You already know this, but it's worth repeating. This is it. They're not in a position to try and go deep with the understanding that there is still time on the clock. They have to go for three because unless they somehow miraculously fix the eocnomy and get unemployment way down before the mid-terms, they're toast in November, and they know it, which is why Obama is pressing Pelosi and Reid to get this done as quickly as possible, in private. Being new to this political stuff, I have to admit; this is pretty surreal. I'm very curious to see how this all shakes out in November. Neither the democrats nor republicans will be able to fix things.....they just will convince the voters that they can......yet again.....
IDBillzFan Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Neither the democrats nor republicans will be able to fix things.....they just will convince the voters that they can......yet again..... A good place to start would be to stop creating things that always need to be fixed.
VABills Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 A good place to start would be to stop creating things that always need to be fixed. Why? Then they wouldn't have any reason to go on TV 24x7 with their facelifts and plastic hair.
IDBillzFan Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Yes, they are hashing it out behind closed doors, but it's not as if they can come out and say "Hey guys, this is the bill" then send it to the president to sign off. The only way they can just do that is if the House Democrats sign off on the Senate's version of the bill without making any changes, then the bill can go straight to the president. If they change the bill, then it goes back to both chambers where they have to vote again, in which they would need all 60 votes again from the Senate to pass. Since Nelson and Lieberman, two of the most vocal democrats that have opposed the Public option, are sticking with their opposition, it is very unlikely that they will bring it out of Conference with any major changes. I have to admit that if it's true that many union workers have the "cadillac" plans, I'm very surprised to read this morning that Obama is pushing for those plans to be taxed to help pay for the Senate's health care bill. I can't help but wonder if there will be caveats in that part to protect SEIU, UAW, etc. They put him in office. I can't imagine he'd be stupid enough to tax the crap out of them. Very interesting.
Magox Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 I have to admit that if it's true that many union workers have the "cadillac" plans, I'm very surprised to read this morning that Obama is pushing for those plans to be taxed to help pay for the Senate's health care bill. I can't help but wonder if there will be caveats in that part to protect SEIU, UAW, etc. They put him in office. I can't imagine he'd be stupid enough to tax the crap out of them. Very interesting. If I were on board with trying to fund this Bill through taxes, than taxing the "cadillac" plans would make the most sense, it appears to be the best mechanism in the plan to reduce health insurance spending. What it would probably do is force companies to switch out of these "cadillac" plans to something just below the threshold of where the taxes begin. But as you said, it will demoralize the Union members for the 2010 elections and many of them won't forget in 2012 either. It is the worst political move he could make but it is the most logical and substantive one as well, sort of a Catch 22 situation. In this regard, I would have more respect for him if he followed through with this, meaning that he is at least doing what he believes is best for the country as opposed to what is best for him and his party politically.
keepthefaith Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 If I were on board with trying to fund this Bill through taxes, than taxing the "cadillac" plans would make the most sense, it appears to be the best mechanism in the plan to reduce health insurance spending. What it would probably do is force companies to switch out of these "cadillac" plans to something just below the threshold of where the taxes begin. But as you said, it will demoralize the Union members for the 2010 elections and many of them won't forget in 2012 either. It is the worst political move he could make but it is the most logical and substantive one as well, sort of a Catch 22 situation. In this regard, I would have more respect for him if he followed through with this, meaning that he is at least doing what he believes is best for the country as opposed to what is best for him and his party politically. What would be the point in taxing cadillac plans? Simply a source of revenue? A way to level the playing field so that some people don't get better coverage than others? I recall that union cadillac plans were exempted from the tax in either the house or senate versions. I know of a local company that is very profitable and provides a wonderful health care plan (including family coverage with dental) at no charge to their employees. My guess is that this wonderful health care reform will reward them for all their good hard work as follows: 1. Tax their plan unless they reduce the benfits to their employees 2. Raise Federal tax significantly on the owners 3. Provide them a dis-incentive to hire more people.
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 I have to admit that if it's true that many union workers have the "cadillac" plans, I'm very surprised to read this morning that Obama is pushing for those plans to be taxed to help pay for the Senate's health care bill. On another note...is anyone else amused by the administration demonizing as synonymous with useless luxury the "Cadillac" brand THAT THEY OWN AS THE LARGEST SHAREHOLDER OF GM?????
Adam Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Why? Then they wouldn't have any reason to go on TV 24x7 with their facelifts and plastic hair. And the Republicans don't create things that need to be fixed too? I have little use for either party. Both have outlived their usefulness
keepthefaith Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 On another note...is anyone else amused by the administration demonizing as synonymous with useless luxury the "Cadillac" brand THAT THEY OWN AS THE LARGEST SHAREHOLDER OF GM????? They've also demonized drunken sailors because drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money.
keepthefaith Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 And the Republicans don't create things that need to be fixed too? I have little use for either party. Both have outlived their usefulness It's a shame that we have to pick the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are quickly proving that they are the greater of the two.
Magox Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 What would be the point in taxing cadillac plans? Simply a source of revenue? A way to level the playing field so that some people don't get better coverage than others? I recall that union cadillac plans were exempted from the tax in either the house or senate versions. Well, I did say If. The reasoning behind it other than to collect revenues is that it would steer people and companies into lesser valued health plans therefore reducing the overall expenditures on health insurance premiums. I didn't say I was for it, but if there HAD to be a way to pay for this bill that would be the most logical one in my view. In regards to Unions being exempt of having to pay this, that is incorrect, which is why they are vehemently opposed to it. There has been talk of making concessions to certain states, but that is a while ago and I hadn't heard anything recently regarding that. That isn't to say that there won't but I havn't heard that in a while. Pelosi understands that this would be a poison pill for her house members to swallow if they keep the "cadillac" tax, which is why she isn't committing to a date for this to leave conference. It's obvious to me that there is friction right now between the House and the W.H, she even took a subtle swipe at him the other day. They are clearly frustrated with BO because of all the concessions he has made with the moderates in order to pass this bill, and my guess is that the last main sticking point is in how to pay for this bill.
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 It's a shame that we have to pick the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are quickly proving that they are the greater of the two. Only because they control the government. Give control back to the Republicans, and they'll soon be the greater.
Adam Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Only because they control the government. Give control back to the Republicans, and they'll soon be the greater. Nope, then the democrats will be the whiners instead of the republicans.....both parties are full of hot air
keepthefaith Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Only because they control the government. Give control back to the Republicans, and they'll soon be the greater. Right now it's worth the risk.
Alaska Darin Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Right now it's worth the risk. It really isn't because it doesn't solve a damn thing. It just continues the perpetual downward spiral. The idiots that identify with the Republicans make excuses when their gang of thieves is doing the very same things they hate the other side for. The road to ruin is still firmly in site and will be until something drastically changes.
Recommended Posts