# 11 Facts About Obamacare That No Conservative Knows About, Cares About, Or Will Read



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

11 facts about the Affordable Care Act

I love Ezra Klein (insert shouts of "hater," "hack" and "liar). 

This list is brilliant and carries some very important facts with it. Some of which dispels the "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA GET TAXED OUT OF EXISTENCE!" hysteria that the Right Wing Media and posters here are all falling victim to. 

This bill is far from perfect, but the benefits far outstrip the negatives. In 10 years, all you crusty old fucks will be standing out on the steps of City Hall with signs that read, "DON'T TAKE MAH OBAMMACURE!"

*"How will this help me afford health care, if I'm so broke already? I'll get taxed for not being to afford it in the first place!!"*


> 2. Families making less than 133 percent of the poverty line  thats about $29,000 for a family of four  will be covered through Medicaid. Between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line   $88,000 for a family of four  families will get tax credits on a sliding scale to help pay for private insurance.
> 
> 3.For families making less than 400 percent of the poverty line, premiums are capped. So, between 150% and 200% of the poverty line, for instance, families wont have to pay more than 6.3 percent of their income in premiums. Between 300 percent and 400 percent, they wont have to pay more than 9.5 percent. This calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation will let you see the subsidies and the caps for different families at different income levels.



*"It's massive tax increase on the Middle Class!*"


> 4. When the individual mandate is fully phased-in, those who can afford coverage  which is defined as insurance costing less than 8 percent of their annual income  but choose to forgo it will have to pay either $695 or 2.5 percent of the annual income, whichever is greater.



*"It'll cripple small businesses!"*


> Small businesses that have fewer than 10 employees, average wages beneath $25,000, and that provide insurance for their workers will get a 50 percent tax credit on their contribution. The tax credit reaches up to small businesses with up to 50 employees and average wages of $50,000, though it gets smaller as the business get bigger and richer. The credit lasts for two years, though many think Congress will be pressured to extend it, which would raise the long-term cost of the legislation.



*"All my money is going to get taken away from some medical insurance company's CEO bonus!"*


> 8. The law requires insurers to spend between 80 and 85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care (as opposed to administration, advertising, etc). If insurers exceed this threshold, they have to rebate the excess to their customers. This policy is already in effect, and insurers are expected to rebate $1.1 billion this year.



*"It'll bankrupt the country!!!"*


> The law is expected to spend a bit over $1 trillion in the next 10 years. The laws spending cuts  many of which fall on Medicare  and tax increases are expected to either save or raise a bit more than that, which is why the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will slightly reduce the deficit. (Theres been some confusion on this point lately, but no, the CBO has not changed its mind about this.) As time goes on, the savings are projected to grow more quickly than the spending, and CBO expects that the law will cut the deficit by around a trillion dollars in its second decade. Heres its graph, which covers the period between 2012 and 2021:



*"Health care costs are spiraling out of control and this law does NOTHING to prevent that!"*


> 10. In recent years, health-care costs have slowed dramatically. Much of this is likely due to the recession. Some of it may just be chance. But theres also evidence that the law has accelerated changes in the way the medical system delivers care, as providers prepare for the laws efforts to move from fee-for-service to quality-based payments.



Hate site!
Haters!
Liars!
Hacks!
Kenya!
Socialism!


Those will be the responses. But now at least there's a CHANCE you ignorant fucks will educate yourself.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 1, 2012)

So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.

So tell me how Obama Care is going to help me come up with 6.3% of my income to pay for Insurance please.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> 
> So tell me how Obama Care is going to help me come up with 6.3% of my income to pay for Insurance please.



Did you not read about the $4000 in tax credits to help you afford health care coverage?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

> Between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line &#8212;  $88,000 for a family of four &#8211; *families will get tax credits on a sliding scale to help pay for private insurance*.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 1, 2012)

I honestly don't care because Obamacare like Medicare and SS will simply cost more and more until we are spending our entire GDP just on welfare programs (we're actually getting close).

So sit back, sell Obamacare all you like, time will prove me right and you will blame small Government for why Obamacare failed.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 1, 2012)

And yes, we are getting close. File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2011.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> *I honestly don't care* because Obamacare like Medicare and SS will simply cost more and more until we are spending our entire GDP just on welfare programs (we're actually getting close).
> 
> So sit back, sell Obamacare all you like, time will prove me right and you will blame small Government for why Obamacare failed.



You should have stopped right there. But we all already knew that anyway. It's...sort of the point.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Oh, Social Security isn't an entitlement program. It's insurance, and all those lies about it going bankrupt? Yeah, they're lies.

Anyway...enough of the people who don't care, and yet call me haters when they neg-rep my posts simply because they can't neg-rep facts.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> ...



All tax credits mean is someone else is going to foot your bills which is what I thought you liberals were against?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



You're an idiot. Those tax credits will reduce people's tax burdens to offset the costs of health insurance. Goddamn. It's no wonder all you idiots are against it, you don't fucking UNDERSTAND IT. It's YOUR OWN MONEY. That you're keeping more of. And the idea is they can afford to do it because you'll be in the system and keeping the overall costs of health care down.

Goddamn. Old people don't understand new shit, do they?


----------



## Liability (Jul 1, 2012)

Labeling something as a "fact" requires more than spouting and regurgitating what others claim that hideous monstrosity of a bill allegedly says and accomplishes.

Who, by the way, pays for those $4,000 tax credits you speak of, libderrp?

What will be the effects on the businesses who are obliged to provide coverage to their employees?

Have any of you derpy motherfucking libs ever once in your vacant lives given any thought whatsofucking ever to "unintended consequences?"

Some of the consequences are actually kind of foreseeable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> 11 facts about the Affordable Care Act
> 
> I love Ezra Klein (insert shouts of "hater," "hack" and "liar).
> 
> ...



Let me take these one at a time.



The issue here is driving down the cost of health care, not forcing people that elect not to buy insurance to do so. Once you realize that, all I can say to the fact that the CBO thinks this will expand the ownership of insurances is, so fracking what?
Nice, but, once again, how will this make health care more affordable.
Capping premiums will reduce the price of insurance for some people, but it won't help with the main issue, which is reducing the price of health care.
I guess he missed the news, it is a tax, not a penalty.
How does the fact that a company pays its employees more make it richer? Wouldn't paying them less actually help make the company richer by giving it more money? Once again, how will this reduce the price of health care?
I love the idiocy that says an insurance company cannot discriminate by practicing common sense. It is not discrimination to charge a person with MS, diabetes, and high blood pressure more for insurance than you charge an athlete.
Any money on how long a tax on insurance is going to last once the unions get involved in lobbying for a tax cut?
Preventing insurance companies from spending money on preventing fraud, what a wonderful idea. Once again, how is this going to reduce costs for health care?
I guess that depends on which CBO estimate you look at. If you look at the one that assumes that the Medicare cuts apply only to Obamacare he has a point, If you look at the one that says you can't count the Medicare cuts as paying for Obamacare and count as savings to Medicare at the same time it gets a bit more complicated.
Admitting that the current reduction of costs has nothing to do Obamacare and then claiming it does at the same time, amazing.
Finally he gets around to talking about the only issue that matters, attempts to reduce the cost of medical care. Why did it take so long, and why doesn't he point out anything that will work? Is it because he is trying to deflect from the fact that nobody actually thinks most of this crap will work?
Tell me something, since all of this has been discussed ad infinitum on this board, and all over the internet, over the last 3 years, what makes you think no one knows about it buy progressives? How come all you presented was opinion when you claimed you have facts that were previously unknown?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> ...



Did you not read that he has a family of 4? Do you have any idea what the insurance premiums are for 4 people?


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 1, 2012)

Neg reps are for pussies. Especially when all someone did was express their opinion.

But that would be typical of someone like T. The guy that plays harp(harmonica) in my blues trio is just like good 'ol T here. He walks around with a portable radio 24/7 and listens to dickheads like Slimbaugh, Savage, Beck and Hannity all the time. His idea of debating is to outshout people and his propagandists are telling the honest to God's truth about everything and any other opinion is wrong and evil. Great blues harp player, great friend...but we cannot talk politics.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> ...



Guess I don't understand how they can say I wont pay more than 6.3% of my income. Is that with or with out the Credit? How much out of Pocket will it cost me, remember I have basically 0 Extra money right now. The last time I Tried to Get insurance for my family on my own, they wanted nearly 12,000 dollars a year for it. 

Forgive me if I don't see how I am going to end up with Free insurance, and free is what I need, Because I could not possibly afford another dime out of Pocket. Not with the Current Economic Climate anyways.


----------



## tinydancer (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?



I'd love to have an honest discussion over health care. Last great one I had was with Vaard over at Hannity. 
Two awesome, your bang for your buck systems out there are the French and the Swiss.

No one wants to talk on your side. It's your side or the highway. And the Obamacare bill is a dogs breakfast and completely unwieldy.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 1, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Well... I guess if we are footing the bills for a douche canoe like you, we should for everyone. Oh, I forgot, you don't give a shit if other people are footing YOUR bills, it's everyone else you hats.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 1, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?
> ...



Exactly, they just want to pretend the other side has no ideas, and have everything there way, even though they know their bill is flawed.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 1, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?
> ...



Why do you think that is?

There's two main reasons that I can think of...let's see how close we are.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Actually it bothers me very much that I can not afford to Provide Insurance for my kids, and would pain me to get help. 

Still nobody has explained to me how I am going to end up with insurance for only 6.3% of my Income when currently they want about 15% for a good Policy. Who is going to pay for the Difference? How can I expect that to be sustainable.

Costs need to go down, that is the only real Solution.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oh, Social Security isn't an entitlement program. It's insurance, and all those lies about it going bankrupt? Yeah, they're lies.
> 
> Anyway...enough of the people who don't care, and yet call me haters when they neg-rep my posts simply because they can't neg-rep facts.





Now that's Horse Shit. SS was started as a pay as you go Plan, but well over Half of the money going out now, Goes to SSDI which in most cases is money going out, that was not first paid in. 

And yes, with out Reforms it is indeed going bankrupt.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



I don't think he hats anyone.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 1, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, Social Security isn't an entitlement program. It's insurance, and all those lies about it going bankrupt? Yeah, they're lies.
> ...



I just said this on another thread, but I think it fits here too.

One of the questions lost in the dynamics of most discussions is really was this the time for such a law? We are in a fiscal crisis and spending is out of control with insurmountable debt climbing to before unseen heights.

The streets were not littered with dead bodies before ACA. Medicaid was insuring the most needy of the population and many still ignore the fact that our penetrable borders are causing most of our problems. 

For years, Congress has ignored the elephant in the room by allowing amnesty to criminals who came across these borders illegally, usurped our medical services beyond their bounds.

If all administrations and Congresses had taken this issue seriously, we wouldn't be facing the medical crisis we have now. Instead the present administration lends a helping hand to illegals, refuses to help states with ICE commitments and leads us down the path of even more unsustainable medical demands than we currently have.

JMO.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Let me take these one at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 1, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



The only thing I heard from the GOP when this was being worked on in Congress was:

A. Tort Reform(which was implemented in the plan)
B. Exchanges(which was also implemented)
C. Buying across state lines(which I don't think was)

So...the GOP got two out of three items that they wanted...seems like compromise to me....Dems wanted a strong public option(which would have gave you your "free"), but the GOP and the blue dogs screamed bloody murderer....so, they acquiesced.....once again.....COMPROMISE. This ridiculous fallacy of the no compromise Dems is bullshit.

Btw....France has single payer and Switzerland was the template fir the AHCA.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I'm not your accountant, so I have no idea what your income situation is. It sounds to me though that you need to maybe read up on Obamacare, because from everything you've said, you're in the exact PERFECT situation to benefit greatly from it.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 1, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Willow is a retired she on Medicare...and yeah...she's hateful as hell.


----------



## blackhawk (Jul 1, 2012)

How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



The point, my dear Conservative friend, is that they won't be able to charge you more than 6.3% of your income for insurance. You'll either be covered under medicaid, or you'll make enough that with the tax credits you will be able to afford it.

You guys do know what the first "A" in "ACA" means right? Maybe you should stop calling it "Obamacare" and just focus on the abbreviation's meaning.


----------



## CMike (Jul 1, 2012)

Sounds like a shortage of medical care is coming.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

blackhawk said:


> How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?



The Post Office. That's right, the one government run program that everyone shits on. But I dare you to walk into a law firm and tell them they have to use FedEx, UPS or a courier for EVERYTHING they mail. They'll tell you to fuck yourself. Why?

Because you can still send a letter buttfuck cheap and rely on it getting to where it needs to go as quickly or slowly as you need it to. I love the Post Office, and the Conservatives in this country that shit all over it perfectly epitomizes what's wrong with your side right now.

Short.fucking.sighted.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

CMike said:


> Sounds like a shortage of medical care is coming.



Oh yeah? How do you figure that, when by 2014 95% of Americans will be covered by one form of insurance or another?


----------



## CMike (Jul 1, 2012)

When the government holds a service or product below market value it creates a shortage.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

CMike said:


> When the government holds a service or product below market value it creates a shortage.



Hmm. Like what else?


----------



## CMike (Jul 1, 2012)

Gasoline under Carter.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

CMike said:


> Gasoline under Carter.



Yeah except gas is a commodity; health care isn't. As long as there are sick people, they'll need doctors. But nice try.


----------



## Conservative (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Hey The T, instead of *neg-repping me* with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?



negged for whining about being negged, bitch.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 1, 2012)

Tough crowd, but certainly not unexpected.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?
> ...



The Post Office tries to do well, But now they are facing massive Deficits precisely because Government Refuses to let them Operate like a Business. Forcing them to keep 6 Day a week delivery, And not allowing them to lay people off, or Close Post offices. Which of course means they  lose money.

Besides the Post office is a very poor Comparison. You would be better served comparing Obama Care to MC, or SS, Or Medicare Part B. All of which have proven to Cost Exponentially more than we were told they were, with ever shrinking Benefits for people Collecting.


----------



## blackhawk (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?
> ...


I didn't say one word about the post office I asked how many government programs work as they are advertised to and are cost effective and why would Obamacare be different. You were the one who brought the post office into the conversation and fyi nowhere in your little rant did you name any government program that works as advertised or is cost effective now maybe you and your side should take a deep breath and think about that before telling us how great and wonderful Obamacare will be.Who knows there is always a chance it will work as advertised and be cost effective but history is not on it's side.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 1, 2012)

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom. 

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This &#8220;three-legged stool&#8221;&#8212;banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase&#8212;became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the &#8220;death spiral&#8221; of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can&#8217;t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero 
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?



Oh, hey, Conservative: the above isn't whining. It's calling The T out for being a massive pussy and neg-repping me without actually debating the points of the post/linked article...kind of like what you did, you big fucking bitch of a puss.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Well, I kind of figured that any argument that included me telling you that medicare and social security were two examples of a government program working BETTER than expected, but hey, for some crazy reason I thought none of you Conservatives would believe me. Now where would I get that idea? I mean, besides every interaction with every Conservative here, I mean.

The Post Office kicks fucking ass. If we weren't giving them a shoestring budget every year (i.e. "keeping government small"), they'd be doing a lot better. But it's definitely more important to subsidize oil companies and not vital parts of your interstate communication infrastructure, right?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Conservative said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Hey The T, instead of *neg-repping me* with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?
> ...


----------



## SuMar (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> 11 facts about the Affordable Care Act
> 
> I love Ezra Klein (insert shouts of "hater," "hack" and "liar).
> 
> ...



So...who is paying for Obamacare?


----------



## Conservative (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > H*ow many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner* and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?
> ...



dumb ass... he said cost effective.

Post office loses even more: $3.2 billion - Chicago Tribune


> The U.S. Postal Service said its loss widened to $3.2 billion in the first three months of 2012 and repeated on Thursday its warning that it will likely default on payments to the federal government unless Congress passes legislation offering some relief.
> 
> The agency, which does not receive taxpayer funds and has been losing billions each year as Americans communicate online, said it lost $2.2 billion in the same period in 2011.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> By forcing people that elect not to buy it to actually buy it, it drives down the cost of health insurance. That's sort of the whole point.



You don't understand the first thing about economics, do you? If the idea is to reduce the cost of health care the last thing you want to do is give people a way to avoid paying for health care. Buying insurance is a way to avoid paying for health by passing the cost of said care onto another party. This will increase the demand for health care, but not increase the supply of health care providers. That will drive costs up, not down.



ConservaDerrps said:


> Again, the more people there are paying into the system, the more costs are kept down. Duh.



Actually, it doesn't. What this will do is reduce the costs for the small group of people that use a high amount of health care. Insurance companies compensate for this by raising the price for everyone else. Most people actually end up paying more. I actually explained all of this a couple of years ago right here on this board, you should take the time to look it up and see where you are making your mistakes.



ConservaDerrps said:


> I'd really like to hear what your ideas to actually lower the cost of health care would be, exactly. Because I can think of one way to do it: single payer option, but we all know your asshole just puckered, so we can forget about that.



How would a single payer system reduce the cost of health care? Did a single payer system reduce the costs of wars at some point and I missed the memo?

The problem here is not that my asshole puckers when you mention stupid ideas, it doesn't. The problem is that the idea is stupid.



ConservaDerrps said:


> It's a penalty, assessed under the tax code, where government derives its power to penalize on things like this. Call it a tax, call it a penalty. The bottom line is that by the time it's fully implemented, it won't be the MASSIVE FUCKING TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES!!! But if you get your "facts" from Fox, well, that would explain you not getting this concept.



It is a tax, I have a Supreme Court decision that backs me up, all you have is capital letters and the claim that the Supreme  Court is run by Fox.



ConservaDerrps said:


> Dude. Really? Small businesses can get up to a fifty percent tax credit. You don't see how that doesn't make them richer? And it's not about what you pay them as much as it is the number of employees you have and the money you pay them.



No, because it doesn't, it just means they pay a little but less money to the government.



ConservaDerrps said:


> Again, for the fourth time I think, the more people in the system, the lower the cost. It's why YOUR FUCKING SIDE came up with the mandate in the first place, genius.



I don't have a side, this is just me. That said, my fracking side opposed the mandate in the first place because we realized way back then that the mandate is not a way to reduce health care costs.

By the way, what the Heritage Foundation proposed was coverage for catastrophic illness or injury, not a requirement that everyone buy insurance that covers routine medical care. They also proposed that everyone would get a credit to purchase health insurance of some type, and that refusal to purchase said insurance would mean a loss of that credit. That is about as far from the mandate we have today as it is possible to get.

Not to mention that the mandate was not actually original to them, they just stole the idea.



ConservaDerrps said:


> It is discrimination, asshole. And you are HEAVILY in the minority on this one. It's a human decency component that apparently you've managed to outlive. Again, Mensa Man, the more people we have in the system, the less insurance companies have to charge, therefore no NEED to exclude coverage based on prior condition.



Is it discrimination to charge a person who has an accident every week more for his car insurance?

Of course not, it is common sense.

Having a bunch of people on your side doesn't make you right, it just makes them wrong.



ConservaDerrps said:


> You're all sorts of fail on this.



Not me.



ConservaDerrps said:


> I thought your side was going to kill unions anyway, yeah?



I generally ignore them, unlike your side.



ConservaDerrps said:


> The point, dipshit, is that they are supposed to spend it on YOU, the person they are covering. If they can't figure out how to use that remaining 15% to cover CEO bonuses and fraud protection, guess they'll have to make a sacrifice. I just love that you're such a Conservative that you think making a company that you pay SHITLOADS of money to actually gives you what you're paying them for.



The point, moonbat, is they have to make a profit to stay in business. If they can't do that by cutting fraud because the government doesn't let them spend money on cutting fraud they are going to do it by making money off the fraud.



ConservaDerrps said:


> How will it drive down the costs of health care? Well, considering that before Obamacare, companies could spend as much as they wanted on those extra administrative fees, executive bonuses and advertising, guess what, asshole? That's why over a billion dollars in rebates are going back to the consumers.



Wann bet?



ConservaDerrps said:


> IN LAYTARDS TERMS: It means they were over-fucking-charging! YAY! I Spelled it out like I was talking to a shoe!



It sounded like you were talking with a shoe in your mouth.



ConservaDerrps said:


> Hmm. Guess we have ourselves a "Who gives a fuck" stand off. I say my shit's legit. So, yeah.



Of course you do. 



ConservaDerrps said:


> It's just called having integrity and conceding that it's not ALL DUE to Obamacare, but ask any health care professional and they will tell you that a lot of companies have been changing the way they do business in anticipation of it coming into effect.



Strange thing, since insurance companies are all evil, and for profit hospitals are all evil, and all either of them care about is making money, if these things actually worked in the real world companies would be using them to help make more of their evil profits. The government would not have to come in and tell evil companies that are only interested in cutting costs and overcharging people to cut costs in order to save money, would they?

Wanna think your position through again, or are you one of those people that is always right?



ConservaDerrps said:


> Again,you lose so fucking hard because you butt up against FACTS.



You haven't had a fact in your post yet.



ConservaDerrps said:


> Again, everything he talked about does actually pertain to keeping health care costs down, but you have to actually be perceptive enough to understand why having so many more people insured is so important to how well it works...Just ask Mitt Romney.



I have to be perceptive? 

You mentioned Romney, I am glad you brought him up.

Here are a few facts, Massachusetts spends more of its budget on Medicare than any other state, they also have the fastest growing per capita health care cost in the country. I think that makes Romneycare a complete failure, but feel free to point ot it as an example of how Obamacare is going to cut costs.



ConservaDerrps said:


> You wrote what you wrote and you have no idea why anyone would think you're either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant to the facts? Really? You don't understand why getting the most amount of people covered is so vital to this thing but you don't know why we'd think you're ignoring the facts?



More facts for you, Ezra Klein has a BA in political science from UCLA. He doesn't have the education to understand complex subjects, and probably struggles with Algebra. Despite that, I would have a better chance of explaining what he got wrong to him than I have with you.

The idea behind expanding health insurance to more people is not to reduce the cost, everyone, including Klein, knows that. The mandate was a bone thrown to insurance companies so they wouldn't fight the requirement to cover pre existing conditions. The sole intent was for them to make money. That is reality, and denying that means you are the one ignoring facts.



ConservaDerrps said:


> It's not a massive tax hike; nor will it balloon health care costs. It's far from perfect, but until we get single payer, it's a great fucking start.



It is a tax, and a new one. How big it is is open to debate, but arguing that a new tax is not a tax hike is really stupid. 

Romneycare ballooned costs, and still is almost a decade later. Yet, somehow, Obamacare is magically going to have the opposite effect. Believing that is not just a denial of facts, it is flat out delusional and should require an automatic psychiatric examination. 

If this is your idea of a great start I would hate to be around anything you call an unmitigated failure.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > By forcing people that elect not to buy it to actually buy it, it drives down the cost of health insurance. That's sort of the whole point.
> ...



Oh. I see. So we don't agree with facts. Okay. No need to continue, broseph.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 2, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?
> ...



Excuse me?  Those are two Liberal countries, and every time Liberals talk about wanting exactly that type of system, Rightwingers cry "Socialism"!!1!1!

You have a lot of nerve posting that.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. *We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.*
> 
> So tell me how Obama Care is going to help me come up with 6.3% of my income to pay for Insurance please.



This is where Conservatives would usually post a reply like:

.
"You're struggling to pay bills and have no insurance for your family, but you can afford an internet connection to post on message boards?  I bet you have a flat-screen TV, too.  And you probably drive a gas-guzzler"​.


I know, because I've seen them do that countless times.

Funny how they are quiet when it's someone on their side.  If TruthMatters had posted that, wingnuts would be lining up to tell her how irresponsible she is.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jul 2, 2012)

No doubt


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...


Oh, so your idea is the European model for healthcare?  

Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


The ACA is going to help you tremendously if you actually open your mind and look at what it offers.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 2, 2012)

blackhawk said:


> How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?


You live in Texas, which has the largest number of uninsured citizens in the country, per capita.

So leaving this up to the states is not an option.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 2, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?
> ...


He's constantly butthurt because he never wins an argument around here.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 2, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Who, Conservative or The T? They both seem to be suffering from the same hyper-inflated ego coupled with complete intellectual vacancy.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 2, 2012)

Good thread  I agree, those haters screaming the loudest seem to know the least.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 2, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> Good thread  I agree, those haters screaming the loudest seem to know the least.



I honestly just wish they'd fucking READ the ACA before they listened to Right Wing media about it. They should be creaming their jeans since it was mostly a massive shot in the arm for the PRIVATE health care industry. Yes, there are great, great Progressive reforms in it, but it's not like it's single payer...yet.


----------



## Zander (Jul 2, 2012)




----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



neg rep for you being a douche. all she did was express her opinion
anyone care to join?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 2, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...


I was talking about Conservative.

The T makes no attempt to win arguments because he makes no attempt to debate.  He just inserts the word 'statist' in each post and thinks it makes him look like he isn't a retard.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 2, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Ha ha! You just described nearly every single Conservative on this board.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?
> ...



well too bad for you Obama hasn't got his own personal army to FORCE people or states to bow down to his "visions"


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 2, 2012)

Lighten up Steph. Time to move on. The "conservative" Supreme Court has spoken. It was and still is the law. You wanna be a law breaker


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 2, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Hey Dummy, if the states don't set up the insurance exchanges, the Feds will just do it for them.

You all really do need to do some research on this. Tea Baggers are really not very smart, as it turns out. Or at least not very informed.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> Lighten up Steph. Time to move on. The "conservative" Supreme Court has spoken. It was and still is the law. You wanna be a law breaker



Listen miss Dottie, this ain't over till the fat lady sings. call you Rep and ask they work on REPEALING this ugly over reach by your Federal Guberment...K


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Jul 2, 2012)

I love the GOP alternative: NOTHING.


LMAO!!!


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 2, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Blame the NyQuil.


----------



## Staidhup (Jul 2, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Funny how one's interpretation and opinion of reality and fact is disputed so vehemently by those on the left when it disagrees from their sacred opinion. But then again those on the left still don't understand the economic and financial repercussions resulting from uncontrolled government spending. So hot shot, when the dollar bubble pops what will you say then, or are you so filthy rich it won't effect you?

As you are aware those in small business, after 2014, will be subject to premium adjustments (increases) resulting from the number of claims submitted within the pool they are participants in, furthermore, small business and individual coverage are classified within the same pool and forecasted rate increases will increase dramatically as a result. But then again some are so filthy rich it doesn't apply. Am I to assume it will be Bush's fault when the house of cards comes a tumbling down?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 2, 2012)

Staidhup said:


> Funny how one's interpretation and opinion of reality and fact is disputed so vehemently by those on the left when it disagrees from their sacred opinion. But then again those on the left still don't understand the economic and financial repercussions resulting from uncontrolled government spending. So hot shot, when the dollar bubble pops what will you say then, or are you so filthy rich it won't effect you?



LOL. Facts are facts. The article I linked to is dealing in facts, though it does go into some speculation, but very, very little. This isn't government spending out of control. You're thinking of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were put on a credit card, costs hidden from Americans and all while tax rates remained slashed. That's spending out of control. See also: creating a whole new governmental agency

The dollar bubble popping? Oh, you're a Ron Paul Robot, huh? Sorry dude, I don't no, nor will I ever buy into "HOLY FUCK THE SKY IS FALLING" doomsday predictions as ways to govern or legislate. If the "dollar bubble" pops, we're all going to be looking at a lot more than the ACA...well, us non-dummies will be.



> As you are aware those in small business, after 2014, will be subject to premium adjustments (increases) resulting from the number of claims submitted within the pool they are participants in, furthermore, small business and individual coverage are classified within the same pool and forecasted rate increases will increase dramatically as a result.



Sorry, I don't buy that at all. When you take into account the drastically reduced overhead that will come from forcing insurance companies to actually spend at least 85% of their premiums on actual health care, coupled with the effect that having 95% of the public insured will do to premiums in general, your theory just doesn't float. I'm not saying the ACA doesn't have some holes to fill, or some things to keep a close eye on, but this is not the ticking time bomb you guys on the right DESPERATELY want it to be.  



> But then again some are so filthy rich it doesn't apply. Am I to assume it will be Bush's fault when the house of cards comes a tumbling down?



I don't respond to hyperbole of that magnitude.


----------



## Liability (Jul 2, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Neg reps are for pussies. Especially when all someone did was express their opinion.
> 
> But that would be typical of someone like T. The guy that plays harp(harmonica) in my blues trio is just like good 'ol T here. He walks around with a portable radio 24/7 and listens to dickheads like Slimbaugh, Savage, Beck and Hannity all the time. His idea of debating is to outshout people and his propagandists are telling the honest to God's truth about everything and any other opinion is wrong and evil. Great blues harp player, great friend...but we cannot talk politics.



^ whining ninny brays like the jackass he is.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> 
> So tell me how Obama Care is going to help me come up with 6.3% of my income to pay for Insurance please.



Actually it would be cheaper for you to take the tax penalty and then get health care only when you need it.

6.3% of $29,000 is $1827. So the $750 is a much better deal. I figure most smart people will drop their health care, pay the $750 every year and just buy the insurance when it is needed. This should help all Americans out. $62.50 a month is a preety good deal for health care. This is going to work out well for the American people.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 2, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. *We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.*
> ...


*bump* for the cowardly wingnuts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 2, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Don't you mean everyone with conserva in their name?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



lol,


----------



## tererun (Jul 3, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> 
> So tell me how Obama Care is going to help me come up with 6.3% of my income to pay for Insurance please.



Stop charging so much? give up the giant SUV with the shitty gas mileage and get something more affordable. refinance or get a house you can afford. Stop having so many damned kids if you cannot afford them. 

Do you need more suggestions because i bet you have some video games or other technology you don't need.


----------



## tererun (Jul 3, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Well let us see, if we make Romney pay for his wife's ballarina horse we could get another 77k. That would cover 9 people who need tax credits, and I bet we can cover a lot more if romney had the balls to release his tax information so we can see all the taxes he doesn't pay. I bet we could find some other rich people getting tax breaks of pointless things that we can start making pay so people can have health care.


----------



## tererun (Jul 3, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Well, that is his problem now isn't it? I did not decide for him to have a family he cannot pay for. I did not decide for him to have so many bills he cannot pay them. I did not make his mistakes nor do I care to fuck everyone else because he could not keep his dick in his pants and his wife drops crotch droppings like a crack whore. Fuck you, they make Birth Control for a reason, use it. Don't whine to me because you cannot figure out how to put on a condom or get your bitch to the abortion clinic.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 3, 2012)

Well, that's a little harsh.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

tererun said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



BRAVO!

Game.Set.Match.

The above post is best represented in animated gif form, thusly:


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> 
> So tell me how Obama Care is going to help me come up with 6.3% of my income to pay for Insurance please.



If you make under 88k you'll get a tax credit.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> I honestly don't care because Obamacare like Medicare and SS will simply cost more and more until we are spending our entire GDP just on welfare programs (we're actually getting close).



We're spending our entire GDP on social security and medicare?

Had no idea.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



They won't be allowed to charge you that much if you are under 400% of poverty. Did you read the OP?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> Still nobody has explained to me how I am going to end up with insurance for only 6.3% of my Income when currently they want about 15% for a good Policy.


Uhh - the LAW?



> Who is going to pay for the Difference? How can I expect that to be sustainable.


So you want to deny your children health coverage at all because you're afraid it won't be 'sustainable' ?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, Social Security isn't an entitlement program. It's insurance, and all those lies about it going bankrupt? Yeah, they're lies.
> ...



You're far closer to bankruptcy that Social Security is.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...


*
Charles_Man doesn't want his children to have health insurance if it means a rich person has to pay a tiny bit more in taxes. Charles_Man is a man of PRINCIPLES, got it?* Those anonymous rich people who "create jobs"  and the principle of "taxing the rich is evil" are far more important to Charles_Man than his children will every be.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> ...




You're not including the TAX CREDIT he'll get. MORON.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

blackhawk said:


> How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?



Medicare is more cost effective than private insurance.

The EPA has greatly reduced the more deadly forms of pollution.

The FDA helps insure we have the safest food and drugs in the world


You want me to go on? I won't bother, as I already know what your response is to everything I'll say.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Your kids aren't eligible for MEDICAID?
How can someone in your position support the party that CUTS MEDICAID TO CHILDREN?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 3, 2012)

tererun said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Actually, if Romney paid for his wife's horse you would get $50. If that actually covers 9 people who need tax credits they don't need them as bad as Obama claims.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 3, 2012)

tererun said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



You made it your problem when you voted for the idiots that support Obama's tax on the middle class.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

tererun said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



More of that liberal tolerance and love, what a great person you are. 

You realize that people that are hard working that had a good job have lost their jobs. You do realize that life happens and you can't control circumstances such as income, job availability and so on, you do realize the economy is in the crapper, 

You do realize the intent of this Obamacare. It is called the *AFFORDABLE* HEALTHCARE ACT. The reason was to give people that could not afford health care, health care. The reason it was created was for the purpose of giving everyone access, yet you want to judge those that can't afford it?

What a sanctimonious little dick you are.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

tererun said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Tell you what, why not cut all the traveling the first family does on vacations no average American one can afford. Sending his daughter to Mexico for spring break, with 12 of her buds 25 secret service agents, in an exclusive hotel in a city Americans aren't supposed to travel to because it is to dangerous. How much did that 1% trip cost all of us? Other any of the other dozen plus trips they take? How many people would that help out? How many taxpayer, not personal money was wasted? How many tax credits would that provide, or what about Pelosi's drunken air flights and the liquor she supplied? Do you think that would help? Let's look a Amtrak, $2 billion plus in subsidies. That alone would provide half a million people with subsidies.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Wow, right to the name calling, tells us a lot about you. How much is the average cost Per month of a healthcare plan? About $600 a month or $7200 a year, so the tax credit brings it down to $3200, he doesn't need to pay that much because of the cap, so he is only paying $1827, which is his cap. Hmmmm....  $750 still looks cheaper.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 3, 2012)

If you sell your home you are taxed 3.8% to pay for the ACA.. so don't sell your house cause that could add up and that's in addition to all your other closing costs. 


OBAMATAX


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> If you sell your home you are taxed 3.8% to pay for the ACA.. so don't sell your house cause that could add up and that's in addition to all your other closing costs.
> 
> 
> OBAMATAX



Oh, Fuckstain. You're going to have to do something different if you want to horrify we Liberals about the ACA. Calling it a tax doesn't really effect us. Because you know, we don't have the mentality of a 12 year old when it comes to taxes.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 3, 2012)

tererun said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> ...



This? HYSTERICAL!!! 

Dear Charles;

Get a second job. Sell plasma. Spend less money.

Or ask Obama. Y'all expect him to honor past debts with not enough money coming in (i.e., no taxing the rich, dammit!!)


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Cheaper not to pay for the healthcare and pay the tax, then get insurance the day someone gets sick, probably cost $600 but you,get the tax credit to offset it.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > tererun said:
> ...



Cheaper for whom, exactly? You'd just be saddling tax payers with YOUR debt. Isn't that what you Conservatives consider a mortal sin?

Jesus, this ACA thing has you guys all ass-backwards. It's fun to watch.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > If you sell your home you are taxed 3.8% to pay for the ACA.. so don't sell your house cause that could add up and that's in addition to all your other closing costs.
> ...



The liberals aren't the ones that Would change their vote, it would be moderates.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...




$750 is cheaper? Brilliant in depth analysis, except you forget one thing. YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING FOR IT, SHIT FOR BRAINS. 
*
Which is cheaper? Paying $900 for a brand new laptop - or paying $400 for nothing?  *When you go to get a lap-top next time you'll just hand the salesman $400 for nothing in return, and walk out thinking you got the better deal because its cheaper?


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Just pointing out the flaws system. You really think there is a big difference to the government between $1827 and $750? Would it be a big difference to a family of 4, who only makes $29,000? Do you not think the taxpayer is going to pick up the cost either way?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> If you sell your home you are taxed 3.8% to pay for the ACA.. so don't sell your house cause that could add up and that's in addition to all your other closing costs.
> 
> 
> OBAMATAX


*
Only on profit in excess of $250k/$500k, MORON*

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your hatred! Obama bad!


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



You can go to a private carrier pick up the insurance only when you need it, it isn't rocket science, if the cover pre existing conditions, you get it when you need it. 

Enjoy your laptop, I was always told that people,with limited people skills and intelligence usually resorted to your type of name calling.


----------



## regent (Jul 3, 2012)

The health bill, if it survives, will not be same in a few years. These politically contested bills, if passed at all, are compromises and as such are far from perfect. As time goes by Obama-care will be changed, improved, made to fit the health care needs and soon will become indispensible. One only need to look at the history of Social Security to see the pattern. 
As a nation, in many respects, America seems usually late in programs that are for its citizens. Germany passed a health care program in the 1890's and other nations soon followed. And even a hundred years later the fight in America is still somewhat bitter. Are we a nation that greedy?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 3, 2012)

regent said:


> The health bill, if it survives, will not be same in a few years. These politically contested bills, if passed at all, are compromises and as such are far from perfect. As time goes by Obama-care will be changed, improved, made to fit the health care needs and soon will become indispensible. One only need to look at the history of Social Security to see the pattern.
> As a nation, in many respects, America seems usually late in programs that are for its citizens. Germany passed a health care program in the 1890's and other nations soon followed. And even a hundred years later the fight in America is still somewhat bitter. Are we a nation that greedy?



we are a nation who people fought and died for, FREEDOM.
how dare you call that greedy, you like Germany's health care, move there


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The health bill, if it survives, will not be same in a few years. These politically contested bills, if passed at all, are compromises and as such are far from perfect. As time goes by Obama-care will be changed, improved, made to fit the health care needs and soon will become indispensible. One only need to look at the history of Social Security to see the pattern.
> ...



*appeal to emotion*

_You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument._

Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to emotion


----------



## BillyV (Jul 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



The tax credit is how the premium _*gets*_ to $1,827; it doesn't go down from there. The premium caps are accomplished through advanceable tax credits.

Per the Congressional Research Service: 


> The premium credits will be provided as advanceable, refundable federal tax credits ultimately calculated through individual tax returns (although the credit payments will go directly to insurers). The credits can only be obtained by qualifying individuals who file tax returns.
> 
> http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/HlthInsPremCredits.pdf


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



The answer is no.

Gallup: Only 6 Percent of Americans Say Health Care is the Top U.S. Problem | CNSNews.com


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



I'd tell you to quit while you're ahead.....but you aren't ahead.  Just quit.  You're getting royally pwned.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure Obamacare doesn't require insurers to issue policies that only last as long as a doctor visit. But maybe you know better.



> Enjoy your laptop, I was always told that people,with limited people skills and intelligence usually resorted to your type of name calling.



Bwahh.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

BillyV said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



Fair enough. 

What I don't get is why Charles_man's kids aren't covered by Medicaid.


----------



## BillyV (Jul 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Because $29,000 of income is 200% of the poverty level; in most states you aren't eligible for Medicaid unless you are only at 100% of poverty level (which the ACA increases to 133%, for those states that elect to participate). However, your point is well taken; I would look into plans that would at least cover my kids unless I had absolutely no way to survive otherwise. But in America, that's a personal decision (or at least it used to be).


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

BillyV said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > BillyV said:
> ...



If someone makes the personal decision to not get their kids covered, do you think they'll change their mind when their kid needs life saving emergency room treatment? Funny how that "personal decision" then becomes a decision that costs the taxpayer and private business money.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 3, 2012)

> 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.


LOL, so in 10 years the plan will be a success! LOL, why wouldn't it be right away. These projects and the charge mean nothing they are bullshit. If they are off in even 2013 no one will remember or give a fuck. Project my ass! 




> 2. Families making less than 133 percent of the poverty line  thats about $29,000 for a family of four  will be covered through Medicaid. Between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line   $88,000 for a family of four  families will get tax credits on a sliding scale to help pay for private insurance.


The middle class already gets a tax credit for medical. I max it for my family of 6 each year. However, what the fuck is a tax credit going to do when my premiums, deductibles (which have already skyrocket 2 years before this Obamination goes into place) skyrocket and all my benefits get cut. THAT WILL BE THE INEVITABLE SIDE-EFFECT OF ALL TENS OF MILLIONS OF UNINSURABLE AND NO HEALTHY PEOPLE (WHO WILL OPT OUT PAY $95 TAX IN 2012 AND $695 IN 2016 AND BEYOND AND BECOME FREE-RIDERS GETTING INSURANCE WHEN THEY GET SICK OR INJURED!!!)!!!




> 3. For families making less than 400 percent of the poverty line, premiums are capped. So, between 150% and 200% of the poverty line, for instance, families wont have to pay more than 6.3 percent of their income in premiums. Between 300 percent and 400 percent, they wont have to pay more than 9.5 percent. This calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation will let you see the subsidies and the caps for different families at different income levels.


Good job Big O you buy votes again, but sell out the middle class! 




> 4. When the individual mandate is fully phased-in, those who can afford coverage  which is defined as insurance costing less than 8 percent of their annual income  but choose to forgo it will have to pay either $695 or 2.5 percent of the annual income, whichever is greater.



NOT TRUE!!! In 2014 it's $95. In 2016 it's 2.5% or $695, whichever is LESS!!! Look it up



> 5. Small businesses that have fewer than 10 employees, average wages beneath $25,000, and that provide insurance for their workers will get a 50 percent tax credit on their contribution. The tax credit reaches up to small businesses with up to 50 employees and average wages of $50,000, though it gets smaller as the business get bigger and richer. The credit lasts for two years, though many think Congress will be pressured to extend it, which would raise the long-term cost of the legislation.


Yep this will help small businesses hire people! 




> 6. Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminated based on preexisting conditions. They are allowed to discriminate based on age (limited to 3 to 1 ratio), premium rating area, family composition, and tobacco use (limited to 1.5. to 1 ratio).



This is great and EVERYONE KNOWS about it, but not sure how only adding these people to the payrolls will (since the health people will be free loaders) will NOT bankrupt the insurance industry?



> 7. Starting in 2018, the law imposes a 35 percent tax on employer-provided health plans that exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. The idea is a kind of roundabout second-best to capping the tax codes (currently unlimited) deduction for employer-provided heath insurance. The policy idea is to give employers that much more reason to avoid expensive insurance policies and thus give insurers that much more reason to hold costs down.


Leftist media bullshit speak for I don't want to call it another tax on business, but that's what it is and it won't help businesses hire people!




> 8. The law requires insurers to spend between 80 and 85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care (as opposed to administration, advertising, etc). If insurers exceed this threshold, they have to rebate the excess to their customers. This policy is already in effect, and insurers are expected to rebate $1.1 billion this year.


Again, how does that not contribute to the insurers going bankrupt?




> 9. The law is expected to spend a bit over $1 trillion in the next 10 years. The laws spending cuts  many of which fall on Medicare  and tax increases are expected to either save or raise a bit more than that, which is why the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will slightly reduce the deficit. (Theres been some confusion on this point lately, but no, the CBO has not changed its mind about this.) As time goes on, the savings are projected to grow more quickly than the spending, and CBO expects that the law will cut the deficit by around a trillion dollars in its second decade. Heres its graph, which covers the period between 2012 and 2021:
> 
> 
> The ACA's taxes and spending cuts make it a slight deficit reduce in its first decade. (CBO)


I love how people can through out a project and say SEE SEE IT WORKS! Not FUCKING WAY THIS OBAMINATION saves money! ZERO CHANCE!!!



> 10. In recent years, health-care costs have slowed dramatically. Much of this is likely due to the recession. Some of it may just be chance. But theres also evidence that the law has accelerated changes in the way the medical system delivers care, as providers prepare for the laws efforts to move from fee-for-service to quality-based payments.


Has this also been to the doctor lately. In the last two consecutive years I had two of my childrens tonsiles removed. Same doctor, same facility, same procedure, in any out in a day and nothing exotic. Told cost in 2011 was roughly $600 more (total cost of the procedure not my part). This is a lie and he knows it!

Health insurance is going down it's going up and healthcare will ALSO skyrocket. Much like when the government got into the student loan business. College went from expense, but affordable. With the Clinton moving the Fed into the student loan business it's not INSULTINGLY EXPENSIVE and UNAFFORDABLE!!!




> 11. The laws long-term success at controlling costs will likely hinge on its efforts to change the way health care is delivered, most of which have gotten very little attention. They include everything from encouraging Accountable Care Organizations to spreading medical homes to penalizing hospitals with high rates of preventable infections to creating an independent board able to quickly implement new reforms through the Medicare system. A partial list of these efforts can be found here.


Yep that will be their excuse when it FAILS!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> > 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.
> 
> 
> LOL, so in 10 years the plan will be a success! LOL, why wouldn't it be right away.



Any government program which does not realize its full benefit within 60 seconds of its passage is just wasteful and stupid.


Like you.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 3, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Which tax is that, Quantum Scumbag?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Oh cool. A Right-Wing news organization cherry-picked data? Sweet. That totally shows that Americans don't care about our busted-ass health care system.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> > 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.
> 
> 
> LOL, so in 10 years the plan will be a success! LOL, why wouldn't it be right away. These projects and the charge mean nothing they are bullshit. If they are off in even 2013 no one will remember or give a fuck. Project my ass!



What are your thoughts on endless, unpaid for wars in foreign countries?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 3, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


That's because Obama solved it.  It's off their worry list!


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 3, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> > 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.
> 
> 
> LOL, so in 10 years the plan will be a success!



Don't wingnuts say that if we start drilling in ANWR we can have a new source of gas in 10 years?

Hypocrite.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



What tax is that?


----------



## Dante (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> 11 facts about the Affordable Care Act
> 
> I love Ezra Klein (insert shouts of "hater," "hack" and "liar).
> 
> ...



but, but, but, but, Obama is a Secret Muslim!!!!


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

It's not a secret anymore DANTE! WE KNOW EVERYTHING!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 3, 2012)

charles_main said:


> so what if i can't afford 6.3% of my income? I make over 29,000 and have a family of 4. We currently have no coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> 
> So tell me how obama care is going to help me come up with 6.3% of my income to pay for insurance please.



tax credits


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 3, 2012)

Windbag 





> You made it your problem when you voted for the idiots that support Obama's tax on the middle class.



Where do you rw's get this crap?

In point of FACT, President Obama lowered taxes for the middle class. 

Did you miss that?


----------



## CMike (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > Gasoline under Carter.
> ...



It doesn't matter. 

That's like saying as long as people need gasoline, they'll be people who sell them. It doesn't work that way. Carter tried to control prices. He kept the price under the market value. The result-- a shortage.

Companies sell stuff to make money. If they are losing money they won't sell it. If the government is artifically setting prices, it will create shortages.

Insurance companies aren't going to provide insurance if they are losing money.

Doctors aren't going to provide medical care if they are losing money.

Drug makers aren't going to sell drugs if they are losing money on them.

That's why we have a free market. The government will fuck it up.

They may be able to force the setting of rates, but they can't force companies and doctors to provide the services.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

If you think for two seconds people are going to stop being doctors, or that we won't have enough doctors to meet demand, you're crazy sauce. There's actually a section in the ACA setting aside slots for training primary care doctors. 

Ya'all need to educate before you masturbate.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> 11 facts about the Affordable Care Act
> 
> I love Ezra Klein (insert shouts of "hater," "hack" and "liar).
> 
> ...



I'm curious, Conserva...who do you think it is that's going to end up paying for the State's added Medicaid costs...the "tax fairy"?  If you're a middle class American then ObamaCare is about to hit you with some SERIOUS tax increases.  It's simple common sense.  You can't pay for all of this coverage for all of these additional people without it coming from someone.  The Federal Government is making the States pick up the tab for Medicaid...just where is it you think those States are going to make THAT money appear from?  Ignorant fuck?  At least I can do the eight grade math necessary to figure out that Middle Class taxes HAVE to go up.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

CMike said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



Quit raining on their glitter and rainbow parade!


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > 11 facts about the Affordable Care Act
> ...



Silly, everyone knows taxes grow from unicorn droppings and sunshine.  Quit being a fuddy duddy.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



For the less intelligent in the room, if you click on the link to Gallup inside the story, it takes you to Gallup where horror of horrors it says the same thing!  Have you given any thought to hanging out in the Romper Room?

U.S. Satisfaction Slips Slightly to 20%


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > > 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.
> ...



Oh shit.......QUICK, change the subject!


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

Dante said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > 11 facts about the Affordable Care Act
> ...



Did you know that's because it's Bush's fault?  True story!


----------



## Dante (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> It's not a secret anymore DANTE! WE KNOW EVERYTHING!!


----------



## Dante (Jul 3, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Windbag
> 
> 
> 
> ...



poor Quantumdooshy. 



Quantumdooshbagh has been exposed...


----------



## Dante (Jul 3, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



  too bad Dante never went looney over Bush like you have over Obama. 

so your best response is 'look what lefties did to Bush...makes it fair to do same to Obama' and you imagine Dante to be a leftie because he now supports Obama...whom he did not support in 2008?

poor hateful wingnut, suicide is a viable...


----------



## regent (Jul 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The health bill, if it survives, will not be same in a few years. These politically contested bills, if passed at all, are compromises and as such are far from perfect. As time goes by Obama-care will be changed, improved, made to fit the health care needs and soon will become indispensible. One only need to look at the history of Social Security to see the pattern.
> ...



I can see it now, flags flying, band music playing patriotic music in the background and an image of General MacArthur appears on the screen. 
I don't know if I like Germany's health care or not but they sure were ahead of us, well the world was ahead of us. But the interesting thing about Germany's health care is that in the 1890's people were making funny communist noises and so Otto, Von Bismarck instead of asking Limbaugh to make a speech, put in a medical care program to quiet the people.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



What I am saying is why can't you buy it when someone gets an hospitalized, go get insure and when the medical issue is over in a couple months drop the insurance? Is that difficult to understand?


I don't carry insurance for doctor visits, my policy is major medical only. If I pay cash to doctors, I get some good discounts and no one hassles with insurance companies.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> It's not a secret anymore DANTE! WE KNOW EVERYTHING!!


That's an awesome gif!


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> charles_main said:
> 
> 
> > so what if i can't afford 6.3% of my income? I make over 29,000 and have a family of 4. We currently have no coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> ...



If a family insurance plan costs $1,256.00 a month, it would be $15,072 a year, paid out of pocket every month. Then at the end of a tax year the government would issue a $4,000.00 credit. There still is a balance of $11,072.00. How is this plan going to cap his out of pocket expense at $1,827.00 or does it need to be applied for? If it is applied for, how long would it take to get the $9,245.00 back? That is a 50% chunk of a paycheck. 

Just curious on how this will work.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a secret anymore DANTE! WE KNOW EVERYTHING!!
> ...



It's pretty much how I envision every single Conservative on this board reacting when hit in the face with facts and truth.


----------



## BillyV (Jul 3, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > charles_main said:
> ...




As I understand it, the premium (tax) credits go directly to the insurance company. The credit isn't "capped" at $4,000; the premium is capped at a percentage of income and the credit should be whatever the difference is between that and the policy. This will be reflected on your tax return as a credit even though you won't see the money. The interesting problem will arise when you claim an income that falls into the 3% of income credit bracket and then you actually earn more than that. Could be a lot of post-year tax return surprises in store....




> The premium credits will be provided as advanceable, refundable federal tax credits ultimately calculated through individual tax returns (although the credit payments will go directly to insurers). The credits can only be obtained by qualifying individuals who file tax returns.
> http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/HlthInsPremCredits.pdf


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



I reacted by simply asking you who is going to pay for the increased Medicaid costs that the Federal Government has now imposed on State governments?  You ignored that question.  So who has a problem with "facts and truth", Conserva?

I'll ask again...how do States pay for the additional Medicaid they will be expected to provide?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Oh, you want to know how they'll do that? 

They won't have to. The Federal government is going to start picking up 100% of the extra medicaid expenses, and by the time it's fully funded I believe it's like 85-95% of the costs. Let me go and check that and bring you a link that you won't believe and/or read.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

Tried to clip it out using their tool and couldn't get it to embed into the forum right. Pretty much though, just watch the clip. Skip to about 3:35, and you'll see that when fully phased in, the Feds are going to pay for 90% of the Medicare costs.

So what's your answer going to be now?

Rachel Maddow Show


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Here's a fact and truth they haven't discovered yet.

View attachment 19835


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Tried to clip it out using their tool and couldn't get it to embed into the forum right. Pretty much though, just watch the clip. Skip to about 3:35, and you'll see that when fully phased in, the Feds are going to pay for 90% of the Medicare costs.
> 
> So what's your answer going to be now?
> 
> Rachel Maddow Show



Are they going to pay with money that unicorns shit out of their asses?  The fed won't pay anything.  The poor and middle class will pay for it in taxes to the fed.  Nice try though.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Tried to clip it out using their tool and couldn't get it to embed into the forum right. Pretty much though, just watch the clip. Skip to about 3:35, and you'll see that when fully phased in, the Feds are going to pay for 90% of the Medicare costs.
> ...



You're a fucking idiot. The entire bill is fully funded for at least the first 10 years. Do you understand what fully funded means? Go away Grandma, the relevant people are having a discussion.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Yes, we all thought it was free. 

Goddamn, shut the fuck up.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Why yes, yes I do.  It means the government will be taking even more in taxes to fund these programs.  Well, it will cost conservatives more in taxes since we don't have money shitting unicorns in ourt backyard like liberals do.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Isn't it your nap time pee wee?  Have your mom change your diaper, you're far to cranky.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Oh, so we're back to square one about you not understanding how the bill works then. Gotcha.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)




----------



## kwc57 (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



No Mr. Obama Apologist, I know exactly how this new social program works.......but keep carrying that water and selling that soap.  You're a damn fine sheeple.


----------



## BillyV (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Texas estimates their share of the expansion of Medicare under ACA will cost close to $10 billion over 10 years, despite the ultimate 90% federal funding. That money will have to come from somewhere. The majority of their state revenue comes from sales taxes, a very regressive tax that falls most heavily on the poor and middle classes. I don't know if there are enough rich people to tax in Texas to fund a $10 billion mandate.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

BillyV said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Then maybe Texas should have thought about that before they set up their infrastructure to have just 23% of its people covered by medical insurance, huh? I wonder, also, how many oil subsidies poor into that state? 

Just saying, there are ways to get around a massive boom in Medicare expenses, and for the first THREE years, it's 100% covered by the Feds. So are you telling me in three years Texas law makers are too fucking stupid to-

Oh I get it now.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Who's apologizing, Leatherface? Not me. I fucking LOVE the ACA, and can't wait until it's tweaked and added to so we have actual single-payer as an option too. I'm a proud Liberal, motherfucker, no need to 'pologize. Shiiiiiiiiiit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> 11 facts about the Affordable Care Act
> 
> I love Ezra Klein (insert shouts of "hater," "hack" and "liar).
> 
> ...



Fact 12: the _Healthcare Cases_ ruling will drive Krazycons even more crazy, however difficult that may be to believe.


----------



## BillyV (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Actually, they have 75% of their total population insured; granted, the worst in the country, but followed closely in percentage of uninsured adults by California (#48) and New York (#47), those bastions of conservatism. I don't know what bearing the "oil subsidies" have on the discussion. And if it's 100% covered by the Feds over the first three years and their 10 year estimate is still $10 billion, you can expect the following 10 years to be $20 billion. Bottomline - someone in all the states will be picking up the unfunded portion of the Medicaid mandate (I've read an estimated $123 billion over the first 10 years); I don't know how anyone can say that the poor and/or middle class will not share that additional burden.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

BillyV said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > BillyV said:
> ...



Shit. I think you're right, and I dyslexia'd that figure. I meant to say that they have 25% of their populace uninsured. Thanks for fact-checking me on that. 

What do oil subsidies have to do with it? I'll admit I'm totally taking a stab in the dark, but I would imagine the state of Texas gives crazy good kick-backs and tax incentives to oil companies yeah? Maybe it's time to scale that back by about $10 billion a year. Just sayin'.


----------



## dblack (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> What do oil subsidies have to do with it? I'll admit I'm totally taking a stab in the dark, but I would imagine the state of Texas gives crazy good kick-backs and tax incentives to oil companies yeah? Maybe it's time to scale that back by about $10 billion a year. Just sayin'.



It's time to ban tax incentives entirely. The practice is the most pernicious of loopholes in constitutionally limited government and at the heart of most illicit corporate power.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 3, 2012)

The court struck down the provision that forced states to expand their medicaid roles. So the notion that everyone who cannot afford to buy insurance will just be put on medicaid is not entirely accurate. However good the intentions, Obamacare is simply another perfect example of more regulations attempting to fix problems caused by previous regulations, which attempting to fix problems caused by even earlier regulations, etc.


----------



## dblack (Jul 3, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> The court struck down the provision that forced states to expand their medicaid roles. So the notion that everyone who cannot afford to buy insurance will just be put on medicaid is not entirely accurate. However good the intentions, Obamacare is simply another perfect example of more regulations attempting to fix problems caused by previous regulations, which attempting to fix problems caused by even earlier regulations, etc.



And another example of how well-meaning reform efforts are converted into corporate welfare.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 3, 2012)

dblack said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > The court struck down the provision that forced states to expand their medicaid roles. So the notion that everyone who cannot afford to buy insurance will just be put on medicaid is not entirely accurate. However good the intentions, Obamacare is simply another perfect example of more regulations attempting to fix problems caused by previous regulations, which attempting to fix problems caused by even earlier regulations, etc.
> ...


When will people learn.


----------



## CMike (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> If you think for two seconds people are going to stop being doctors, or that we won't have enough doctors to meet demand, you're crazy sauce. There's actually a section in the ACA setting aside slots for training primary care doctors.
> 
> Ya'all need to educate before you masturbate.



Why is this so difficult for liberals to understand.

If Obama forces health care insurance companies, drug makers, and medical providers to lose money, they will stop providing the service and products.

Unless they work for the government no company can consistently keep operating at a loss.

That is the point of the free market system. 

Heavy handed government interference will create disaster to Americans' health care.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 3, 2012)

CMike said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > If you think for two seconds people are going to stop being doctors, or that we won't have enough doctors to meet demand, you're crazy sauce. There's actually a section in the ACA setting aside slots for training primary care doctors.
> ...



How exactly is hand-delivering millions of new customers to the insurance companies making them turn less profit, exactly?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Tried to clip it out using their tool and couldn't get it to embed into the forum right. Pretty much though, just watch the clip. Skip to about 3:35, and you'll see that when fully phased in, the Feds are going to pay for 90% of the Medicare costs.
> 
> So what's your answer going to be now?
> 
> Rachel Maddow Show



Tell me you didn't just give me something from MSNBC to "prove" your point, Conserva...


----------



## hortysir (Jul 3, 2012)

I have the entire .pdf file of the bill saved here on my laptop.

Derpty-Derp hasn't broken any new ground.

It's hilariously scary how he left leaning Dembulbs think it's perfectly fine to have scores of new IRS agents determining how much money I can afford for health insurance that I may not want.
Whether it's cheaper, or not, to pay the penalty rather than for the coverage is irrelevant.
I shouldn't have to pay the federal government any-fucking-thing for being born.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



15%-20% operating expense, that will kill ya, that's to start. What are the risks associated with the pool, they would be poor and probably not as healthy as others. That there takes more money, they could always raise the rates, right?


----------



## frazzledgear (Jul 3, 2012)

Really?  You buy into that bullshit and it only proves you are a total moron.  This 2700 page monstrosity was written by Democrat special interest groups, RUSHED through, totally unvetted, no one there to put any brakes on the massive power grabs -and it didn't include the details of all the regulations that accompany it as a result.  Those are all to be published separately.  The first set of regulations was published and they apply ONLY to the first SIX pages of the bill -and it was 429 pages long.  Once all the regulations are published, this horror is expected to be well over 170,000 pages long.  

The tax code is a total confusing mess and is "just" 13000 pages long.  The Constitution is 16 pages -16 pages to create what at the time was an experimental system of government.  But laying claim to 1/6th of our entire economy in order to more firmly entrench the power hungry? 170000.

The useful idiots of the left (as their own side calls them) actually believe whatever title the left gives a bill -and believe that alone PROVES it will actually do what the title says!  The TITLE is the ONLY assurance they need.  That's why they don't give a shit that NO ONE read the fucking thing before ramming it down our throats against our will and without allowing us to see it either.  (It's also why the left believes the term "useful idiot" is so appropriate.) Bad news liberals but this bill was never intended to lower the cost of medical insurance. At all.  The CBO already said Obamacare will drive up health insurance premiums. So exactly when you expecting to see it DROP?  ROFL 

This bill was entirely about DESTROYING PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE.  That's it -doesn't matter what touchy-feely, smarmy title they gave to the bill because it has nothing to do with making anything AFFORDABLE.  It is about DESTROYING.  In spite of what the left lies about -Obamacare includes 21 new taxes -12 of which will hit the middle class.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



I dunno, how did Mitt Romney fix that loophole in Massachusetts? Romney said it should be the model for the nation, maybe we should ask him?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 4, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



Ha. In sheer volume alone that would see CRAZY increases in revenue, kid. Insane new levels of people coming in PAYING them no matter what.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 4, 2012)

frazzledgear said:


> Really?  You buy into that bullshit and it only proves you are a total moron.  This 2700 page monstrosity was written by Democrat special interest groups, RUSHED through, totally unvetted, no one there to put any brakes on the massive power grabs -and it didn't include the details of all the regulations that accompany it as a result.  Those are all to be published separately.  The first set of regulations was published and they apply ONLY to the first SIX pages of the bill -and it was 429 pages long.  Once all the regulations are published, this horror is expected to be well over 170,000 pages long.
> 
> The tax code is a total confusing mess and is "just" 13000 pages long.  The Constitution is 16 pages -16 pages to create what at the time was an experimental system of government.  But laying claim to 1/6th of our entire economy in order to more firmly entrench the power hungry? 170000.
> 
> ...



Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have to ask after reading that...thing you just posted.

Did you get a boner doing this? I kinda feel like you did.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 4, 2012)

hortysir said:


> I have the entire .pdf file of the bill saved here on my laptop.
> 
> Derpty-Derp hasn't broken any new ground.
> 
> ...


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 4, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



In business it isn't about how much you make, it is about how much you keep. 

And tons more people using it does not mean more profit, it depends on how much it skews a risk pool. If they are a group that goes to the emergency room, if they are a higher risk because of obesity, smoking, drinking, drugs, violence and so on, it could cost more to keep them on the plans and having to cover pre existing conditions will make them potential liabilities. Insurance companies won't have the option not to take you and your pre existing conditions.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 4, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > I have the entire .pdf file of the bill saved here on my laptop.
> ...



That's my point, exactly, Derp.

You just don't fucking get it that it's not my government's place to determine if I need/want health coverage.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 4, 2012)

hortysir said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



No, you don't seem to get it. It's our government's responsibility to make sure that you, as a free loader, not buying insurance and therefore driving up the cost of insurance on EVERYONE when you end up having to go the ER for something that if you'd insurance and gone to see a doctor much sooner would have been treatable and much less expense.

You're the one fucking EVERYONE else over by thinking you're either a) invincible and will live forever and will therefore never need to see a doctor b) above having to work within the system or c) are just an ignorant asshole who equates the ACA with Socialism and even Socialized Medicine, which it really isn't at the end of the day.

That's what you don't seem to get.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 4, 2012)

Free market health insurance was destroyed long ago. The reason costs are so high is precisely for this reason. Obamacare is simply the next step. Insurance companies risk losing customers because of regulations making insurance too expensive, so they lobbied government to pass an individual mandate to force people to patronize them. This will only make matters worse and grant these companies more leeway to keep costs high.

If Obamacare was bad for these companies, they wouldn't have lobbied in favor of it. Obamacare is just another big government corporatist monstrosity. There is a difference between corporations competing for consumers on the free market and corporations competing for government handouts and benefits like we have so many of today.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 4, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> Free market health insurance was destroyed long ago. The reason costs are so high is precisely for this reason. Obamacare is simply the next step. Insurance companies risk losing customers because of regulations making insurance too expensive, so they lobbied government to pass an individual mandate to force people to patronize them. This will only make matters worse and grant these companies more leeway to keep costs high.
> 
> If Obamacare was bad for these companies, they wouldn't have lobbied in favor of it. Obamacare is just another big government corporatist monstrosity. There is a difference between corporations competing for consumers on the free market and corporations competing for government handouts and benefits like we have so many of today.



We definitely agree in principle on how it won't hurt insurance companies at all. And we do agree on a lot of your points about the REAL weaknesses of the ACA. I still think even with flaws and all it's a hell of a lot better of a step in the right direction than where we were going.


----------



## dblack (Jul 4, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> ...I still think even with flaws and all it's a hell of a lot better of a step in the right direction than where we were going.



This is the refrain that makes utterly no sense to me. What direction is it stepping toward, other than government corporate collusion that utterly ignores the underlying problems (health care inflation)?


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 4, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Free market health insurance was destroyed long ago. The reason costs are so high is precisely for this reason. Obamacare is simply the next step. Insurance companies risk losing customers because of regulations making insurance too expensive, so they lobbied government to pass an individual mandate to force people to patronize them. This will only make matters worse and grant these companies more leeway to keep costs high.
> ...


I'm glad we can find agreement. But what shocks me is that you can still say it is a step in the right direction. Before Obamacare we were heading toward less free market care and more corporate-government union and corruption. With Obamacare that same union and corruption is made even stronger. I don't even see a change in direction, only a change in pace.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jul 4, 2012)

20 ways Obamacare will take away freedoms.  My 20 very real losses of freedoms more than outweighs the 11 liberals think is a fair price for their freedoms. I value mine a hell of a lot more.  Were you liberals really expecting this to result in giving government complete access to all your bank account and financial activity?  Really? 

Do you liberals truly not understand none of this is about "love, care, touchy-feely" bullshit but the power hungry BRIBING you to voluntarily forfeit your rights and freedoms and the power that comes with them- and hand it over to government instead?  Be prepared for the next shiny bauble to be dangled promised to you for "free" in exchange for more of your rights.  Are you so atupid as to not realize YOU are paying for it no matter what, but because government inserts itself as middleman, it means you will pay far more for it- ALONG WITH YOUR RIGHTS? These are rights and freedoms that once handed over to government will never be peacefully regained.  The insertion of government only guarantees a massive layer of waste and fraud that did not exist prior - and we get stuck with that bill too.

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms : Fire Andrea Mitchell!


----------



## regent (Jul 4, 2012)

The one drawback of a democracy or repbublic is trying to draft a perfect law. It can't be done because both political sides have to be satisfied, one more than the other. The end results are a so-so bill. But in time the law will be smoothed out and in a hundred years or so and we might have a good health care law. But we have to remember that Social Security is still under fire by the Republicans, and they  still mumble of privatization. At least 100 years.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 4, 2012)

frazzledgear said:


> Were you liberals really expecting this to result in giving government complete access to all your bank account and financial activity?  Really?



Some bullshit claims never die. Feels like it's 2009 all over again!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 4, 2012)

Are you talking about obamatax?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 4, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > Were you liberals really expecting this to result in giving government complete access to all your bank account and financial activity?  Really?
> ...



In 2009 it was sold as not a tax do you expect any normal sane person to believes more lies about obamatax?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 4, 2012)

regent said:


> The one drawback of a democracy or repbublic is trying to draft a perfect law. It can't be done because both political sides have to be satisfied, one more than the other. The end results are a so-so bill. But in time the law will be smoothed out and in a hundred years or so and we might have a good health care law. But we have to remember that Social Security is still under fire by the Republicans, and they  still mumble of privatization. At least 100 years.



This. I agree with everything in here. That's why I think it's still a step in the right direction. Of course tweaks will need to be made, but it's something to START FROM. Which is better than what we've had before.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 4, 2012)

frazzledgear said:


> 20 ways obamacare will take away freedoms.  My 20 very real losses of freedoms more than outweighs the 11 liberals think is a fair price for their freedoms. I value mine a hell of a lot more.  Were you liberals really expecting this to result in giving government complete access to all your bank account and financial activity?  Really?
> 
> Do you liberals truly not understand none of this is about "love, care, touchy-feely" bullshit but the power hungry bribing you to voluntarily forfeit your rights and freedoms and the power that comes with them- and hand it over to government instead?  Be prepared for the next shiny bauble to be dangled promised to you for "free" in exchange for more of your rights.  Are you so atupid as to not realize you are paying for it no matter what, but because government inserts itself as middleman, it means you will pay far more for it- along with your rights? These are rights and freedoms that once handed over to government will never be peacefully regained.  The insertion of government only guarantees a massive layer of waste and fraud that did not exist prior - and we get stuck with that bill too.
> 
> 20 ways obamacare will take away our freedoms : Fire andrea mitchell!



lolcitingfireandreamitchell.comlol


----------



## dblack (Jul 4, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> This. I agree with everything in here. That's why I think it's still a step in the right direction. Of course tweaks will need to be made, but it's something to START FROM. Which is better than what we've had before.



Again, what direction is that? How is a lifetime of mandated indebtedness to the insurance corps, the very same sonsabitches who create this mess in the first place, a step in the right direction? How is corporate/government collusion to control something as personal and fundamental as our health care something to 'start from'??


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 4, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > This. I agree with everything in here. That's why I think it's still a step in the right direction. Of course tweaks will need to be made, but it's something to START FROM. Which is better than what we've had before.
> ...



The step towards a real public option. That's the step in the right direction. Look, the fact that they're actually going to force the insurance companies to spend at minimum 85% of their premiums on medical care alone is a big step forward. I got a letter from my insurance provider this week proudly proclaiming they EXCEEDED the mark set by the ACA. That makes me feel good. It makes me feel like my money isn't being wasted on CEO bonuses; that's it's actually being used on medicine and diagnostic testing.

Again, no piece of legislation is perfect, and they all need tweaking. But to say that the ACA isn't a step forward is bogus. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many popular components. The mandate was the only truly hotly contested piece of it among the general public. And there's so much misinformation out there about it. For instance, the fact that only about 3% of the people in the country will ever even see a tax from it unless they choose not to be insured. Everyone is SO SURE WE'RE ALL GOING TO TAXED OUT THE ASSHOLE, but it's just not true.

What's going to happen, honestly, is that this bill is going to stick. Republicans are going to push repeal, of course, but as more and more of the "perks" of the bill get acclimated to by the public, the harder it'll be to replace it. Ultimately, we will see Universal Health Care as an option and an add-on to this bill.

And all the hand-wringing, all the outright lies by the Right Wing on this issue will be exposed. The dude who brought up Social Security still being hounded by Republicans almost 100 years later is right; it'll never be embraced by Conservatives. And that's fine. They'll still use and benefit from it. And that will make all us Liberals very, very smugly pleased.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



You still haven't told me who's going to pay for the huge increase in Medicaid spending that the States are going to be responsible for, Conserva.  You know...the one that ObamaCare pays most of for the first year and then less the next and even less the next until suddenly it's the States that will have to pay for it all?  That's how drug dealers hook their clients.  It's the same theory with this...we give them a "taste" for free and then when we get them hooked we make them pay more and more.  Tell me that those Medicaid costs won't be getting paid for with increased taxes on the Middle Class.  I want to hear you say it NOW so I can remind you about what you said LATER.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 5, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Are you talking about obamatax?


Do you have insurance, Corky?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 5, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you talking about obamatax?
> ...



No I quit my job Monday.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The taxes on the Insurance companies and the $250k+.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



And there you are, Nancy!

Glad to see your true colors bleeding through!


Ya see, there, Derpty-Derp.... I DO have health insurance. Damned good coverage at that.
Assumptions suck, hunh?!


But you and your heroine would rather call the people that feel they need your Obamaturd coverage "freeloaders".
That doesn't go over too well with the sheeple and you can expect it to bite you in your collective asses this November.

Health insurance providers are private companies that make simple risk analyses to determine who to cover.
We purchase health insurance to maintain our bodies, just as we buy warranties to maintain our vehicles.

If a person doesn't want or need either of these things it should be their choice if they want the car or their body to break down.



And, to the bolded portion of your ASSumptive:
That's not for lack of trying or wishing on your part(s).


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 5, 2012)

hortysir said:


> We purchase health insurance to maintain our bodies, just as we buy warranties to maintain our vehicles.



And how many people die when they can't afford a vehicle warranty?


> If a person doesn't want or need either of these things it should be their choice if they want the car or their body to break down.


 Its not really conceivable to me that an auto-shop would be faced with the possibility of choosing to either fix a car without being sure whether or not the owner has insurance or a warranty that covers the repair - or allowing someone to die. On the other hand, emergency rooms are faced with this choice all the time. 

*
What do you think happens to you if you have your wallet stolen and are knocked unconscious by the assailant and you show up in the emergency room as a John Doe in need of immediate life saving treatment? As you say, you've got insurance, but the hospital won't know that. Its OK with you if they choose to let you die? *


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> You still haven't told me who's going to pay for the huge increase in Medicaid spending that the States are going to be responsible for, Conserva.  You know...the one that ObamaCare pays most of for the first year and then less the next and even less the next until suddenly it's the States that will have to pay for it all?



States never pay for more than 10 percent of those new costs. The federal share dials down from 100 percent at the beginning to 90 percent in perpetuity.



> ... the Federal medical assistance percentage for a State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, with respect to amounts expended by such State for medical assistance for newly eligible individuals ... shall be equal to
> (A) 100 percent for calendar quarters in 2014, 2015, and 2016;
> (B) 95 percent for calendar quarters in 2017;
> (C) 94 percent for calendar quarters in 2018;
> ...


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > > 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.
> ...



Red Herring response. If you are passing a bill to cover all Americans then they shouldn't make bullshit projects 10 years out? 

And yes if a program like this doesn't add all the people to the payroll within a year of kicking in it's a failure and it only takes 10 secs to figure out Obaminationcare is wasteful and a failure!


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > > 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.
> ...



Look at the wars we have been in and most have a Democrat leading the charge. My view on wars are some are worth fighting others are not. But since your a liberal by wars you mean Iraq and Afghanistan (you will ignore Libya). 

(1) Afghanistan: NOT a war of choice. They attacked us and we needed to respond. I would have faulted our government for doing nothing if they didn't attack. However, I don't like the way are fighting this war. We are trying to nation-build a country that never had any infrastructure whatsoever! Before we went in they were a country stuck in the middle ages, yet we think we could build a country from that? We needed to learn two lessons from Russia: (A) You can't nation build in Afghanistan, because there is no base to build on and (B) If a 3rd world country attacks, you go in hit they hard with everything, leave, let they clean up the mess and warn them never to do that again (aka Georgia isn't messing with the Russian Bear anytime soon).

(2) Iraq: Boneheaded invasion from the beginning. When we finally exit the country entirely it will be a 3 front secular civil war. Like  in Libya a worse Islamist will emerge. Sadam was a bad guy in every sense of the word, but at least he stabilized Iraq (the best anyone could) and he was a polarizing force in the ME to Iran. It was a failure in every sense of the word and should be used to taint W's legacy in the history books? Happy!

(3) Libya: The outcome isn't looking that good, since Islamist are replacing Gaddifi. But at least the method can be used as a blueprint to take out other dictators. Without the no fly NATO enforcement, the rebellion would have been brutally put down in a month. With it the revolution was a success. Gaddiffi is not ideal, but again he was better than what is seeming to emerge out of the ashes of the revolution!


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Oh, okay. So you're going to admit that the Iraq war was a failure too, right? And that Bush's part of the Afghan war was an abject failure too, yes?

Goddamn you're a sycophant, ain't ya?


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 5, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > > 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.
> ...



LOL, that was one of the weakest red herring argument I have ever heard! You wanted to compare PROVEN oil reservest that liberals won't let us touch to BULL SHIT projects that everyone know is bull shit except that libtrash!

anwr.org - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You still haven't told me who's going to pay for the huge increase in Medicaid spending that the States are going to be responsible for, Conserva.  You know...the one that ObamaCare pays most of for the first year and then less the next and even less the next until suddenly it's the States that will have to pay for it all?
> ...



That's going to add billions to the cost of each State, Green...if it isn't going to be paid for by tax increases then how WILL it be paid for?  We're talking massive amounts of money for States that are already strapped for cash.  How IS California and Illinois going to pay their share when they're already teetering on insolvency?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Oh, there will be tax increases, but 97% of those filing taxes will NOT see in an increase. The tax increase will be on those making $250k+ and on the Insurance companies.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Oh, we can count Libya if you want. But call me in about 25 years when we've spent the same amount of money in Libya as we did in Iraq. And what in the holy-living-fuck are you talking about when it comes to "Democrats leading the charge?" We're not talking about WW2 and Korea or even Vietnam. We're talking about the two completely unfunded wars that GW started and that we still HAVE NOT paid for.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Where is it that the STATES have promised THAT, Conserva?  First of all, we're talking amounts of money that couldn't be paid with just tax increases on the "wealthy".  Where is it that you're pulling that 97% figure from...the same people who estimated the costs of ObamaCare and missed by almost 50%?  This is the same tactic that Democrats used to get ObamaCare passed in the first place...namely lie and tell the Middle Class that "someone else" will be picking up the cost, not them.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You don't know ANY of that. Unless you're willing to present a degree that would make you eligible to be on the economic advisory team that has done the analysis of this, and has ALREADY FUNDED THE BILL THE FIRST 10 YEARS, you're just grasping at what you THINK is true. Where am I pulling the 97% figure from? 

CBO Estimates Only 1.2% of Americans Will Have to Pay Healthcare Penalty &lsaquo; I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists







Edit: Wait, that's jut the penalty tax, though that should tell you something. I'm still looking for the other article I saw on it too, but I think that CBO estimate kind of says it all. If you're not going to be hit by the penalty tax, that means you're either insured or you make too little money to be qualified to pay the tax. So again: A bunch of noise and hot air that is completely false and misleading.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No kidding, there is no way that raising taxes on just those making over $250k will cover this new spending. It won't even cover the current deficit. 
Where is the money going to come from?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Oh, you mean you want to reduce the deficit? Cool, end the Bush Tax Cuts.

And they're not JUST raising taxes on  top earners. They're also taxing the Insurance Companies. You keep skipping over that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Why did you even bother to waste my time with that?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

Simple stuff, Conserva...show me where it's written that the States portion of the increase in Medicaid spending will be paid for by people making over $250,000 a year.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

The truth is...HOW the States make up that additional cost has been left up to them.  So tell me how it is that California is going to pay the billions of dollars it's going to be responsible for?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Simple stuff, Conserva...show me where it's written that the States portion of the increase in Medicaid spending will be paid for by people making over $250,000 a year.



Look, buddy, I'm not going to digging into that massive piece of legislation to find that information. What I am going to do is repeat to you that this bill is FULLY FUNDED for the first ten years, at least. So you figure out in your own head what that means, okay? Remember: FULLY FUNDED.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Oh, you didn't read my edit that I made, right? It's important to note that if 97% of those filing taxes won't pay the penalty, that should tell you about what will happen to their other tax rates, dummy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm still waiting for you to show me the plan that States have in place to pay that additional cost, Conserva.  If you're quoting statistics on the percentage of people who will pay it I can only assume that you're doing so with access to that plan?  Because if you're NOT...then you're talking out of your ass and you know it.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



You really don't understand how businesses work do you.  Part of those millions of customers being handed to them include people with pre-existing conditions.  Add in no caps in payout and you have a money lending proposition.  Think of it this way.  If you run an all you eat buffet, it is limited to the time you come in and pay and when you leave or closing time, whichever comes first.  If the government said that you had to allow that person to return everyday and eat as much as they want, you're eventually going to go out of business when everyone in town learns they only have to pay you once for unlimited product.  Sure, the insurance company gets more customers......but they aren't necessarily customers that help the bottom line.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



You really don't understand how insurance works, do you? Yes, there will be millions of people with pre-existing conditions. However, when inserted into the pools with millions of totally healthy people, the rates will remain where they are, if not lower dramatically. This, my dear stupid, is the key to the entire deal. The more people in the pools, the lower they can keep the costs. 

Of course those customers help the bottom line. The insurance companies are STOKED about Obamacare. They helped lobby for it. It's actually, as this fucking BREITBART piece points out, something they really need to stick around because at the end of the day, Obamacare is like a Health Care industry stimulus package.

Health Insurance Companies Are Praying ObamaCare Will Stand

Man, did you guys even read up on this shit at ALL before you let Fox News tell you what to think of it?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm still waiting for you to show me the plan that States have in place to pay that additional cost, Conserva.  If you're quoting statistics on the percentage of people who will pay it I can only assume that you're doing so with access to that plan?  Because if you're NOT...then you're talking out of your ass and you know it.



The first three years, the Federal government is paying for ALL of the costs. That gives every state that participated three years to figure out how to do it. Maybe it will mean tax increases, but maybe it won't. Who knows? I'm not every state's accountant. But you're proving just how much of a Boogey Man Conservatives are trying to make this bill when you have zero actual knowledge of how it's going to work.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I'm all for ending the tax cuts, if we cut spending, dollar for dollar, but the won't happen and anyone with a brain knows that. It is not the intent of Congress to cut spending. 

Obama has had over three years to end the Bush tax cuts and has failed to do so, I really wonder why. 

Ending the Bush tax cuts will not reduce the deficit, because government keeps spending more and more. Tax the insurance companies, right that is the answer, they are already capped at earnings over health care, their profit margins are less than 3% as it is, but go on take more and watch premiums go up and health care go up.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



It's the number one driver of the deficit, so yes, ending it would drastically reduce the deficit. I'm very unhappy that Obama hasn't ended the BTC yet; it's my biggest criticism of his presidency actually. Would you support cutting Defense by 20%?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Simple stuff, Conserva...show me where it's written that the States portion of the increase in Medicaid spending will be paid for by people making over $250,000 a year.
> ...



What's "FULLY FUNDED"?  The CBO just gave us a new estimate on the cost of ObamaCare and increased the cost by almost 50%.  So tell me how those additional costs are going to be paid for?

You pulled that 97% figure out of your "nether regions" and now can't back it up.  It's what progressives have been doing with ObamaCare from the beginning.  Now you hide behind the SIZE of the legislation as the reason you can't find how it's going to be paid for?  That's too funny...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting for you to show me the plan that States have in place to pay that additional cost, Conserva.  If you're quoting statistics on the percentage of people who will pay it I can only assume that you're doing so with access to that plan?  Because if you're NOT...then you're talking out of your ass and you know it.
> ...



So what you're admitting is that you have ZERO idea how the States will pay for that increase in Medicaid spending that they will now be saddled with...yet you're accusing those who ask how that's going to be handled of making the cost into a "Boogey Man"?  A Boogey Man is something that is a figment of someone's imagination.  The looming cost to the States isn't a figment of my imagination...it's a fact....a fact which you don't have an answer for.


----------



## NO!bama08 (Jul 5, 2012)

Obamacare has very little to do with healthcare. You idiot liberals should realize it has more to do with CONTROLLING healthcare, increasing government bureaucracy, and adding democratic voters that depend solely on the government. 

Obama is hell bent on destroying America and converting it to a socialist nation. 

Are you liberals that work for a living really wanting a socialist nation, or are you just too stupid to realize what's going on? Please, I'd like to know.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > We purchase health insurance to maintain our bodies, just as we buy warranties to maintain our vehicles.
> ...



The difference is, you really can't buy an auto warranty that pays for oil changes, new tires, windshield wipers or the rip in the upholstery.  

There is really no guarantee that people with a runny nose will go to the doctor before the runny nose comes with a hacking cough too.   Then they will go to the ER just like they always did.

Why go to the ER?  Simple, they don't want to wait for a doctor's appointment.    When my husband was sick, we had to run to the ER all the time.  While we were waiting I had a good opportunity to listen to the complaints of those with medicaid waiting to see a doctor.   They had headaches, upset stomach, a herpes flare up, most of the complaints didn't even need a doctor at all.  Take an aspirin, some pepto, use a condom.   But, if they did that, they would have to buy the aspirin or pepto or condoms.   If they go to the ER, they can waste the time they would have wasted anyway and get it "FREEEEEEE".


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Simple stuff, Conserva...show me where it's written that the States portion of the increase in Medicaid spending will be paid for by people making over $250,000 a year.
> ...



It was fully funded by the first estimates but it wasn't after the CBO did the update and it was before the Supreme Court ruling. That is $500 billion less.

So you really have no clue.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



No, it has been shown it would not make a dent in the deficit. The 20% cut in defense? Yep, and I'd say a 25% across the board is a better idea. I have taken huge cuts in earnings and the government can afford to streamline, duplicate less and cut paperwork.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Your very much a mental midget, read my post right above. First, I love how mental midgets like you justify every wasteful spending with but but but we went to war! Iraq bad bad bad, yet they ignore Libya. 

But when you point out to them. (1) I wasn't a Bush support back then and I think he sucks now, (2) The Iraq war was a mistake, (3) Bush spend like a fool I think he sucks, (4) the Afghanistan was strategy now and esp during Bush's years was a failure and the (5) Answer to please putting a smiling Bush saying "Do you miss me yet" is absolutely not!

When you point this out to them, they don't like the answer, because it confuses them, so they so try to insult (even though I not sure what a sycophant is )!


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> What's "FULLY FUNDED"?  The CBO just gave us a new estimate on the cost of ObamaCare and increased the cost by almost 50%.  So tell me how those additional costs are going to be paid for?



You really don't know what Fully Funded means? It means that as of right now they have the funding completely figured out without any budget shortfalls for the first 10 years. That CBO report of cost increase is a misnomer. 

PolitiFact | Ted Cruz says health reform



> You pulled that 97% figure out of your "nether regions" and now can't back it up.  It's what progressives have been doing with ObamaCare from the beginning.  Now you hide behind the SIZE of the legislation as the reason you can't find how it's going to be paid for?  That's too funny...



Hold on. Hide behind the size of the legislation? It's the Conservatives that decided to call it the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE KNOWN WORLD, dummy. If you all hadn't opened your mouths up about that, we wouldn't have had to actually tell the truth, which is that it's nowhere NEAR the largest tax increase in our country's history, and actually ranks below THREE Reagan increases. 

I didn't pull the number out of my ass, I just need to track the link down. I read dozens of stories a day on this shit, and I just need to find the link. Settle down, Beavis.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Of course you don't want to talk about the Democratic Presidents at the helm in the US wars of the 1900s to the present in WWI (Wilson), WWII (FDR), Korean War (Truman) and Vietnam War (JFK/LBJ)!

And what the fuck do you mean have not paid for? It has been paid for completely. It's the Federal government BUDGET that has not been paid for! But I hope that lie you tell yourself helps you sleep better at night!

On Libya (which I RECOGNIZED as a good BLUEPRINT for any like occupation): So if you spend less money on an operation and the President is a Democrat, then it's not spending and nothing for a libtard like you to cry about?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> Of course you don't want to talk about the Democratic Presidents at the helm in the US wars of the 1900s to the present in WWI (Wilson), WWII (FDR), Korean War (Truman) and Vietnam War (JFK/LBJ)!



Well, since we were discussing the issues of the modern era, I didn't realize you wanted to go back into time and look at every war ever. But do you want to know what the difference between all those wars and the ones started by Bush Jr.? 

Those other wars didn't plunge us into deficit city. I don't think the Korean or Vietnam wars were good ideas, at all, but that's not really the point. Also, I notice you cherry-picking the Presidents that were in charge of Vietnam's operations and left out both Eisenhower (whose administration started operations there) and Nixon, who straight up lied about ending hostilities and then ramped them up. So nice try, Hoss.



> And what the fuck do you mean have not paid for? It has been paid for completely. It's the Federal government BUDGET that has not been paid for! But I hope that lie you tell yourself helps you sleep better at night!



Hey Dinkus, the wars weren't even on the BOOKS until President Obama put them there. No, they have not been paid for yet. Just what exactly do you think is causing the deficit to be so large, Genius?



> On Libya (which I RECOGNIZED as a good BLUEPRINT for any like occupation): So if you spend less money on an operation and the President is a Democrat, then it's not spending and nothing for a libtard like you to cry about?



Look Dummy, I hate drone strikes. I hate war altogether though. However, I'm also a realist and now it'll never go away. So yes, I'd prefer the cost in both lives and dollars be as low as possible. Werid, huh?


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



The only reason the insurance companies like it, is because they can raise rates to cover the costs associated with pre-existing conditions so they can maintain their profit margine.  The cost to the insurer will be passed on to the customer.....poor and middle class.  Please tell me you DO understand this?  Let me give you a real scenario.  May 3rd, 1999, the worst tornado in recorded history hits my home city of Oklahoma City.  Massive damage.  All of those folks with home insurance of course filed claims and had the damage repaired or in the case of a totally destroyed house, had a new house built.  Know what came next, astronomical rate increases from the insurance companies to EVERYONE regardless of whether they filed a claim or not.  The idea that taking in high risk customers who require expensive medical care is going to somehow lower rates, is a pipe dream that isn't based in reality.  Of course, you believed Obama when he said he wasn't going to cum in your mouth, so why would we expect you to get it.


----------



## Dante (Jul 5, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



More reason why you should support doing away with _for profit health insurance_ as the Swiss did: 
Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

you publicly allow your partisan political views and your ideology get in the way of your own reason.


----------



## Dante (Jul 5, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



ignorance of the highest order


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> The only reason the insurance companies like it, is because they can raise rates to cover the costs associated with pre-existing conditions so they can maintain their profit margine.



No, dummy, you obviously missed the point. The reason we need as many people as possible in the pools is to make sure the Insurance companies don't just raise rates for the pre-existing conditions. Jesus Christ you're stupid.

And what's "margine?" Is that a butter substitute for old Grandmas who don't understand how the ACA works? 



> The cost to the insurer will be passed on to the customer.....poor and middle class.  Please tell me you DO understand this?



If the insurance companies do raise rates significantly, they will have to, by law thanks to the ACA show that they are spending at least 85% of that money on direct medical care. So the consumer would be winning in that scenario anyway. But that won't happen specifically because there will be more people in the pool. Also, the insurance companies themselves are going to be taxed as well, so that will defray the cost.  



> Let me give you a real scenario.  May 3rd, 1999, the worst tornado in recorded history hits my home city of Oklahoma City.  Massive damage.  All of those folks with home insurance of course filed claims and had the damage repaired or in the case of a totally destroyed house, had a new house built.  Know what came next, astronomical rate increases from the insurance companies to EVERYONE regardless of whether they filed a claim or not.



Sounds like you just made a very excellent case to have some regulations put in place so that home insurance companies can't do that huh? You know, like the ACA does for medical insurance providers.



> The idea that taking in high risk customers who require expensive medical care is going to somehow lower rates, is a pipe dream that isn't based in reality.  Of course, you believed Obama when he said he wasn't going to cum in your mouth, so why would we expect you to get it



Obama's my family, you just attacked my family, I'm going to report you.

Also, it's not a pipe dream. It's the reality of how the bill works. You should educate yourself on the bill. Because right now, you're stupid. With a little education, you'd still be stupid, because I mean, c'mon, look at you. But at least you'd more informed.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 5, 2012)

Dante said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



That's rather rich coming from you dainty.

My partisan political views are liberty and free markets.  If you'll recall from the old Hansterland days, I was despised as a "liberal" because I didn't support Bush.  I considered Bush a bad president.  Still do, but he's aces compared to Obama these days.  So take your partisan political views and ideology claims and shove them up your liberty surrendering socialist ass.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason the insurance companies like it, is because they can raise rates to cover the costs associated with pre-existing conditions so they can maintain their profit margine.
> ...



What happens when you regulate the profit out of an industry?  How long will they keep their doors open.  Do you really want the government making all decisions for you from cradle to grave?  What am I saying, of course you do.  You're too weak to stand on your own, too weak to make something for yourself and want protection from life.  Enjoy hiding under the government's skirt.  Moron.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> What happens when you regulate the profit out of an industry?  How long will they keep their doors open.  Do you really want the government making all decisions for you from cradle to grave?  What am I saying, of course you do.  You're too weak to stand on your own, too weak to make something for yourself and want protection from life.  Enjoy hiding under the government's skirt.  Moron.



Well, for starters, the Government won't make all the decisions for you, cradle to the grave, and certainly that won't happen under the ACA. That's another scare-tactic bullshit meme that's completely false. Would you be opposed to the type of system they have in England where you can have the NHS AND private insurance if you choose? I know many Britons that go this route and they LOVE it. 

Educate before you pontificate, Mrs. SaggyTeets.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > What happens when you regulate the profit out of an industry?  How long will they keep their doors open.  Do you really want the government making all decisions for you from cradle to grave?  What am I saying, of course you do.  You're too weak to stand on your own, too weak to make something for yourself and want protection from life.  Enjoy hiding under the government's skirt.  Moron.
> ...



England? Hell they have long waiting list for services there. In fact the waiting limit for getting an abortion is nine months.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 5, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...


You are assuming the cost of insurance will stay the same. To meet the higher costing customers, insurance companies will just increase their prices. Because customers are guaranteed (mandated to patronize insurance companies by Obamacare) there is very little incentive to cut costs. Businesses cut costs to attract new customers. But when everyone is forced to be a customer...


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Oh, so you didn't read the part where I said that they have both private and public insurance right? Also, that's complete and total bullshit according to the dozen or so friends I have living in the UK right now.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



So you're not good at reading then either. Again, the whole reason we want a very large pool of insured is that the insurance companies won't be able to claim they've just taken on nothing but high-risk patients and therefore have to raise rates. And again, with minimum threshhold requirements, 85% of every single dollar they add to your premium, they have to add to actual medical care.

Reading is your friend.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


Reading lies does not make them truth.

No doubt they will be spending more on medical care. The core reasons for the massive healthcare costs in this country were not addressed at all. Health insurance is not even really insurance in this country...insurance is meant to cover uncertainty, yet mandates and regulations have it covering hair implants and routine doctor visits. In 2009, the average profit margins of insurance companies was around 3%. Even with the minimum threshold requirements they still have room to increase profits.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



What lies are you fucking talking about? I'm starting to think that Conservatives don't even know what lies are anymore. Are you saying the ACA is a giant lie? That Congress passed a lie?

Of course you are.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> What lies are you fucking talking about? I'm starting to think that Conservatives don't even know what lies are anymore. Are you saying the ACA is a giant lie? That Congress passed a lie?
> 
> Of course you are.



How is it anything but? 

Or, to put it another way - is it a tax, or isn't it


************

Also HINT: ShackledNation isn't conservative.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > What lies are you fucking talking about? I'm starting to think that Conservatives don't even know what lies are anymore. Are you saying the ACA is a giant lie? That Congress passed a lie?
> ...



Oops! If he's not, then that's my fault for assuming he was for using Right Wing talking points.

How is it anything but a lie? Well, there aren't any lies within it, right? It's not like the bill says anywhere in its language "P.S. THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A TAX!" right? It's okay, I hope the Right does try to use this as their wedge issue because the rising popularity of Obamacare will start to put them at odds with the American people.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



You have it backwards. The right wing pretends to care about libertarian values and limited government - until they are in power.



> How is it anything but a lie? Well, there aren't any lies within it, right?



It's a lie in that it pretends to address the fucked up health care market and doesn't. It's just another corporatist giveaway.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...


Oh the irony. You criticize my lack of reading comprehension, and then fail to read the word "Libertarian" below my username.

I'm not a conservative. On top of that, I reject the entire notion of left vs right, so your later comment calling my arguments "right-wing talking points" is equally absurd. But that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

As for the lies, just read the bill yourself. The first line of text in Title 1 is a lie. 

It reads: "This Act puts individuals, families and small business owners in control of their health care."

Now instead of resulting to fallacious ad hominem, would you like to respond to the actual arguments put forth in my previous posts or just continue your rambling?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Oh, you read the "title" underneath every single poster you respond to huh? Okay. I don't.

And just because you don't believe in left vs. right doesn't mean you're not using Right Wing talking points. It's not a lie, at all. It's a step in the right direction, maybe a small step, but a step nonetheless.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> It's not a lie, at all. It's a step in the right direction, maybe a small step, but a step nonetheless.



Ok, first of all, you're assuming that making our health care a government responsibility is 'the right direction'. The fact that that is NOT a widely held consensus is the one of the main reasons PPACA is such a load of crap. If single payer was popular, the Democrats - who had a clear majority - could have passed a bill to implement it. But it's not.

Second, PPACA isn't a step toward single payer. It's a stop-gap to preserve corporate insurance. The only way that makes _any_ sense as a transition to single payer, is the notion that is by enslaving us all to a corrupt collusion between government and the insurance industry we'd all become so angry and desperate for anything else that we'd accept dependency on government as an alternative. That's some sick twisted shit. It's blackmail essentially and it's disgusting that Democrats can so brazenly claim it as a 'step' in any direction other than fucking us all into submission.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a lie, at all. It's a step in the right direction, maybe a small step, but a step nonetheless.
> ...



The popularity of the ACA and single payer is higher than you're giving credit for. And yes, I am assuming that government subsidized health care is the way to go. I'm a Progressive; it's what I do. I'm not gong to apologize for it.

I think the ACA is a step towards single payer because it's the first step towards having any real government role in health care to begin with. You can disagree, that's fine. But I have every reason to think that over time the ACA will be the doorway to Universal Health Care. You don't have to agree; that's fine.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> The popularity of the ACA and single payer is higher than you're giving credit for.



Then why didn't Democrats pass a bill reflecting that?



> I think the ACA is a step towards single payer because it's the first step towards having any real government role in health care to begin with. You can disagree, that's fine. But I have every reason to think that over time the ACA will be the doorway to Universal Health Care. You don't have to agree; that's fine.



Don't equivocate. Do you mean government run health care, or corporate controlled health care? They're not the same thing.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> England? Hell they have long waiting list for services there. In fact *the waiting limit for getting an abortion is nine months.*





I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's "FULLY FUNDED"?  The CBO just gave us a new estimate on the cost of ObamaCare and increased the cost by almost 50%.  So tell me how those additional costs are going to be paid for?
> ...



How's that "search" for your link coming, Conserva?  It's ten hours later and still not a peep out of you.

Why don't you just admit that you made the number up...  I know you did...and you know you did...and anyone who's watched you shuck and jive since you got challenged on it knows you did.

Which brings us back to the same old question...which is...if ObamaCare really IS so wonderful...why do you Progressives have to keep lying about the numbers to sell it?

As for your definition of "fully funded"?  How is it they've got it totally paid for when they underestimated the cost by almost 50%?  Or did they build a 50% cost overage into their plans?  (Eye-roll)


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2012)

Is it a tax?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I didn't make up shit, mah-facka. I just have a life and a job and shit. The ACA is actually going to work out as a tax cut for the Middle Class. Indeed it will. 

I'll find the link to the 97% or I won't, and the awesome part is I won't give a fuck whether you like it or not. You're also grossly distorting the CBO's revision of the cost of the ACA. Read the politifact link I posted.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Is it a tax?



The tax/cake/mandate is a lie.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Either read this or shut the fuck up about the CBO estimate. You are the one distorting facts, fucko. 
PolitiFact | Ted Cruz says health reform


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Is it a tax?
> ...



I know that and you know that, but I would really like a REAL answer from a card-carrying Democrat.


Is it a tax, Derp?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

hortysir said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Is what a tax?


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Is this like when "pro-wrestlers" get caught cheating and feign innocence?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The principle noun in the title of your thread......is it a tax?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

hortysir said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



No then. The ACA is not a tax. The mandate is a tax if you don't buy insurance. But no, the act itself is not a tax.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



No, it's like when someone needs some clarification.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Uh... so the ACA includes a tax, but is not a tax? Equivocate much?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


 
Equivocate? Nah. Just calling it how I see it. It's a health care bill that has some taxes built into it to pay for it. What's the "Gotcha" you're gunning for here?


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Well, it's the "lie" part that we're pointing out. The Democrats were political cowards and went above and beyond to deny that they were raising taxes. If the bill had been perceived (correctly, according to justice Roberts) as a tax increase, it would have been voted down. The bill was passed as a direct result of a lie. It should have been struck down on that basis alone.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's a tax cut for the Middle Class.

And maybe the reason the word tax had to be avoided is because dumbfuck Tea Party assholes like Grover Norquist have poisoned half the population into thinking no one should have to pay any taxes a ever. Blame him for the need to not play up the taxes in the ACA all of which will be paid by the insurance companies and those making 250k+.

And again, it's a tax cut for the middle class.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

Hahaha. Struck down based on a lie. Lozzle.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Whatever. You're missing the point. The Democrats had the chance to make that case. But instead, they chose to lie their way out of it by calling their targeted tax increase a 'mandate'.

In my view, they did us all a favor by pointing out the corrupt nature of manipulating society through the tax code. It's fundamentally unfair and should be abolished with a constitutional amendment. We obviously can't count on the Court to protect us.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Then, as a law, it is null and void.

The only thing that got it past the SCOTUS is that it only stands as a tax.
It's enforcement rests with the IRS.


You should read your ThinkProgress e-mails more closely. 
Your party needs to get their story straight.

The ACA doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause.

It is only allowable because Congress has the right to levy taxes.

I know this word "Tax" scares you in an election year, but you really should PWN it if you're gonna own it.






Good luck with that in November.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Hahaha. Struck down based on a lie. Lozzle.



That's funny to you?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I LOL'd at your indignation.

So is it a tax or a penalty in Romneycare?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Hahaha. Struck down based on a lie. Lozzle.
> ...



Your insistence that it's a lie is funny to me.


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



How is it not a lie? You just acknowledged that the penalty for not buying insurance as ordered is a tax. Obama denied that vigorously. The reps who voted for the legislation denied that vigorously. Are you suggesting they're all idiots? Or are you suggesting justice Roberts is wrong in recognizing it as a tax and should have struck down the law after all?


----------



## dblack (Jul 5, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



You tell me. It's the same thing either way.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 5, 2012)

hortysir said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



No dummy, you need to learn what the actual opinion that SCOTUS came down with actually was. The rules the MANDATE was constitutional as a tax, not the entire bill. The entire bill is not the mandate. You get thr right? That there's much, much more to it then that?

And more to the point, the mandate is constitutional under the taxing powers of Congress. You really do need to educate yourself.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 5, 2012)

11 Facts? Where did the left come up with 11 facts in the law that runs as long as a novel? The former democrat speaker of the house couldn't name a single fact when she was asked about the 3,000 page mess. She actually said "we will have to pass it to find out what is in it" but we still don't know what is in the often contradictory bill that mentions the word "penalty" on every other page. The supremes complicated things even more when they eliminated some penalties that democrats depended on. Claiming to know "11 facts" about a 3,000 page law is laughable.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

whitehall said:


> 11 Facts? Where did the left come up with 11 facts in the law that runs as long as a novel? The former democrat speaker of the house couldn't name a single fact when she was asked about the 3,000 page mess. She actually said "we will have to pass it to find out what is in it" but we still don't know what is in the often contradictory bill that mentions the word "penalty" on every other page. The supremes complicated things even more when they eliminated some penalties that democrats depended on. Claiming to know "11 facts" about a 3,000 page law is laughable.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Hahaha. Struck down based on a lie. Lozzle.



Are you going to be able to write off your monthly premium, like we get to do now?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Ah, yes...the "I have a life" excuse for why you can't back up your claims...gotta love it!!!  This from the person who's posting on here CONSTANTLY.

Funny how your "life" interferes with your ability to find a link yet it DOESN'T interfere with your ability to post non-stop here about everything else under the sun.

Your credibility is on life support, my long winded friend.  If you REALLY think that the ACA is going to be a tax cut for the Middle Class it just shows how naive you progressives really are.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 6, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Then, as a law, it is null and void.



Wow. You think you have the power to strike down an entire act of Congress. You're one crazy dude.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Yeah, you don't have time to find credible backup for the bullshit numbers you quoted here...but you DO have time to post funny pictures of John McCain.

Why should anyone take you seriously?  You started a string that was total crap and when you got called on it you respond with nonsense.


----------



## tererun (Jul 6, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



One could argue that he might have been put off from posting a really concise long argument because it really would not do any good with the right. Basically when the right sees someone thinking they move on knowing there are easier targets out there. I don't know if this is what he is doing, but when I post support for my arguments i really consider it playing with myself as republicans will never admit to anything, as seen by how they are still waving the birther flag.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 6, 2012)

tererun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Except Conserva made bold statements and was asked for links, yet Conserva has failed to post the links and he says he has no time, yet the guy post consistently all day long and makes up crap, and when called on it, he ignores your post. 

Now, I could go on and make stupid generalization about the left at this point, but I find all types of persons with all sorts of opinions and to categorize them into black and white is really quite immature and narrow minded. 

Now, that you admitted that you masturbate, go play with yourself and quit making excuses for others.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 6, 2012)

tererun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



You really need to let someone else have a crack at the library computer for a while and make sure no one is rummaging thru your occupy tent down at the park.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

tererun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Pretty much. Why bother? It really, truly does not MATTER what I say. Or who I link to.

But then again, hey OldBalls, I found this:






Can you say "Middle class tax CUT?"

BOO YAH.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > tererun said:
> ...



Small businesses get INSANELY good tax incentives to provide the coverage to their employees. You haven't read the ACA, have you? Or have you read it and don't understand it, just as you clearly don't understand the infograph. There are literally going to be MILLIONS of Americans that get a FAT tax break. Like, the majority of Americans are. Also, within the ACA are provisions that cap how much a Family can be charged for medical insurance. That 15k figure you quoted will go down thanks to this law.

IT's certainly the case in Kanasas: http://www.khi.org/news/2011/mar/01/study-cap-out-pocket-medical-expenses-will-help-ma/

Oh, and you know that a family can't deduct ALL of that 15k you say they spend right? There are already limits on how much you can deduct. Damn son, you need to educate.

Do yourself a favor and READ shit before you try to come correct.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



No, there are small businesses that have only themselves as employees, they get no break.

According to your chart, 4.8% of Americans  will get the tax credit, the other 95.2% will not. It also means that most Americans will lose the Cafeteria Plans that saved them in tax expenses. It also means that most small businesses that have no employees and others will no longer be able to write off their health insurance costs any longer. That will increase many people's taxes, that would include the middle class.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Then, as a law, it is null and void.
> ...



You can't have it both ways, "dude".

Either fess up and admit that the mandate is a tax and suffer the consequences, come election day.....

OR insist that it is NOT a tax and repeal it yourselves before we do in November.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Pretty much. Why bother? It really, truly does not MATTER what I say. Or who I link to.
> 
> But then again, hey OldBalls, I found this:
> 
> ...




24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new  federally imposed *$2,500 annual cap*. 



And, to answer papa's question about claiming medical expenses:

Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form  to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one&#8217;s adjusted gross  income.   The new provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. 


And how about the new 2.3% manufacturing tax on small companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices???

I won't mention the Medicare payroll tax increase that takes effect, coincidentally(?), after the 2012 election




But, no, we "conservatives" know nothing about the upcoming train wreck.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

Tell you what guys, why don't you go find me some links to reputable data sources that shows what you're asserting is going to happen. Seriously, go rustle up some real, hard data that shows how everyone's taxes are going to skyrocket.

I'll wait here.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 6, 2012)

http://www.chi.org/uploadedFiles/In...ntEffectofTaxonMedicalDeviceIndustryFINAL.pdf


----------



## hortysir (Jul 6, 2012)

Americans for Tax Reform : New Obamacare Surtax Poised to Gobble Up Middle Class


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2012)

tererun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



One "could" argue that, Tererun...but only if they ignored the fact that Conserva DIDN'T post any support for his argument and instead resorted to name calling and stupid pictures of John McCain licking himself.

Provide credible support for your arguments and you'll be treated with respect.  Provide nonsense and you'll be treated with derision.  That's life.

Take Conserva's latest attempt to dig himself out of the hole he's dug for himself.  He's come here and posted "someone's" chart showing that millions of Americans are going to get a tax cut from ObamaCare, yet he doesn't attribute where it is he got that chart so we can judge for ourselves whether it's viable or simply another piece of propaganda put out to SELL a really badly conceived health care reform bill.  My guess is that after hours of searching, he was unable to locate anything that would be considered even remotely unbiased and resorted to using something from ThinkProgress or some other joke source...which in and of itself is an admission that you CAN'T provide credible support for your argument.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Tell you what guys, why don't you go find me some links to reputable data sources that shows what you're asserting is going to happen. Seriously, go rustle up some real, hard data that shows how everyone's taxes are going to skyrocket.
> 
> I'll wait here.



Your turn, Derpty-Derp.

Where are your links showing that the middle class WON'T see an increase?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2012)

I'm still waiting for Conserva to explain how the increases in State Medicaid are going to paid for if not by tax increases on the Middle Class.

He tried to go with saying it will be paid by taxes on the wealthy and on insurance companies but couldn't show where that was going to take place.   It's the same old progressive refrain that we've been hearing on who was going to pay for ObamaCare from it's inception...don't worry...it's going to be someone ELSE who's going to pick up the tab...not the Middle Class, even though someone with rudimentary math skills and a calculator knows that isn't the case.  We've established entitlement programs that will cost far more than ALL of the income of the wealthy to pay for.  So how exactly is it that we WON'T be seeing tax increases on the Middle Class to help pay for those?  You'd have to be borderline retarded to buy the notion that you can have all these entitlements but three quarters of the population isn't going to pay for them.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 6, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm still waiting for Conserva to explain how the increases in State Medicaid are going to paid for if not by tax increases on the Middle Class.
> 
> He tried to go with saying it will be paid by taxes on the wealthy and on insurance companies but couldn't show where that was going to take place.   It's the same old progressive refrain that we've been hearing on who was going to pay for ObamaCare from it's inception...don't worry...it's going to be someone ELSE who's going to pick up the tab...not the Middle Class, even though someone with rudimentary math skills and a calculator knows that isn't the case.  We've established entitlement programs that will cost far more than ALL of the income of the wealthy to pay for.  So how exactly is it that we WON'T be seeing tax increases on the Middle Class to help pay for those?  You'd have to be borderline retarded to buy the notion that you can have all these entitlements but three quarters of the population isn't going to pay for them.



Give him time.  He's over on Urban Dictionary looking up new names to call people.  That or his mom made him take a computer break and go outside to play.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

hortysir said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Tell you what guys, why don't you go find me some links to reputable data sources that shows what you're asserting is going to happen. Seriously, go rustle up some real, hard data that shows how everyone's taxes are going to skyrocket.
> ...



I already did. But since you got to post from a Right Wing site, you can read this:

Infographic: Obamacare Is a Tax Cut for Middle-Class Families

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/


----------



## The T (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> ...


 
Can YOU say Manipulation? What is it with you leftists and the pandering. Is control over citizens and thier liberty that important to you so the moochers that don't lift a fucking finger can continue stealing goodies at the expense of others?


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Tell you what guys, why don't you go find me some links to reputable data sources that shows what you're asserting is going to happen. Seriously, go rustle up some real, hard data that shows how everyone's taxes are going to skyrocket.
> 
> I'll wait here.



Tell you what, when you can respond to us with a logical answer on your flawed links, we'll talk.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Tell you what guys, why don't you go find me some links to reputable data sources that shows what you're asserting is going to happen. Seriously, go rustle up some real, hard data that shows how everyone's taxes are going to skyrocket.
> ...



Why the fuck do I need to explain to you what was already explained both in my analysis, and more importantly in the links themselves. All you Conservatives have done is shout "LIAR!" but without offering anything to show that what I posted wasn't the truth. 

I have shown you actual data that shows that taxes will not go up significantly. You all have offered conjecture based on your false supposition that Conservatives understand finance better than Liberals.

So again, go find some actual data to back up your claims that the ACA is going to raise everyone's taxes or shut the fuck up. It's that simple.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 6, 2012)

hortysir said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Its a tax penalty.


----------



## dblack (Jul 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



It's a deception designed to avoid political accountability and thwart the democratic will of the people. Thanks to Roberts, it "worked".


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 6, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



There's no deception. Its a public law you imbecile. Its only a deception to people who can't read and comprehend written English. My Lord you right wingers love to whine and bitch.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Teabaggers have to steep their tea in SOMETHING. Apparently it's tears.


----------



## dblack (Jul 6, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



No, Obama and Congress vigorously denied that the penalty was a tax. They deliberately left the "tax" terminology out of the bill. They did this to fool the electorate, because they knew they would piss off their constituents if it were widely believed that they were implementing new taxes. You can claim that this is because voters are stupid - but it's the way the system works. The Democrats didn't call it a tax because they new voters didn't want a tax.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


----------



## hortysir (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Okay, I clicked the Politifact link.
It was addressing a remark by Tub-o-Limbaw that the mandate was the largest tax increase in history.
No one here has made that ridiculous claim.
Only that it IS a tax increase.

And that is supported in your link:



> *While the health care law certainly is, on the whole, a tax increase,*  its not the largest in American history -- and as such -- cannot be the  largest in the history of the world. (Luckily, there's enough  U.S.-based research that we don't have to explore the tax increases of  the Roman Empire, adjusted for inflation.)


----------



## hortysir (Jul 6, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



I don't believe that it thwarted the democratic will of the people.

I feel that it has energized it.
(R) voter turn out is going to be HUGE


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

hortysir said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Okay, we can call it a tax increase. That's fine by me, actually. I realized that I really don't give a fuck about paying higher taxes if it's for the greater good. 

So...yeah.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2012)

Ah yes..."THE GREATER GOOD"!

Here's the thing, Conserva...I "DO" mind paying higher taxes when I pay those taxes to a bloated, inefficient entity that wastes most of the money that I give them...I actually mind that a whole bunch.  I'm one of those people that gets annoyed when people like you demand that we ALL pay more for "THE GREATER GOOD".  I already pay enough in taxes.  You want to have more money for "THE GREATER GOOD"?  Tell the idiots in Washington to stop wasting the money I "DO" send them.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 6, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Ah yes..."THE GREATER GOOD"!
> 
> Here's the thing, Conserva...I "DO" mind paying higher taxes when I pay those taxes to a bloated, inefficient entity that wastes most of the money that I give them...I actually mind that a whole bunch.  I'm one of those people that gets annoyed when people like you demand that we ALL pay more for "THE GREATER GOOD".  I already pay enough in taxes.  You want to have more money for "THE GREATER GOOD"?  Tell the idiots in Washington to stop wasting the money I "DO" send them.



That's fine, buddy. You're allowed to not want to help out your fellow man. You're allowed to think about life selfishly. You're allowed to think you pay enough. That's fine. This is a system where if your guy wins, he'll do the shit you want him to do. If my guy wins, he'll do that shit. 

I mean...are you mad, bro?


----------



## dblack (Jul 6, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> This is a system where if your guy wins, he'll do the shit you want him to do. If my guy wins, he'll do that shit.



But that system only works if there are dependable limits on the shit "your guy" and "my guy" can do. Otherwise democracy becomes untenable. If I can't trust that my life, liberty and property are safe - even if your guy wins - then I can't trust democracy, and I won't be willing to play nice when your guy wins.

That's really what's poisoning the well of today's politics. We've tossed aside so many constitutional limitations that seeing an opposition candidate elected is a terrifying prospect. They can do virtually anything, mandate our behavior in countless ways and micro-manage our lives toward values we might not agree with at all. Democracy can't last for long when government has that kind of power.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes..."THE GREATER GOOD"!
> ...



That post right there, Conserva...is why so many people really dislike progressives.  I tell you that I'm angry that my government wastes the tax dollars that I send them and you accuse me of being selfish and not wanting to help out my fellow man.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > This is a system where if your guy wins, he'll do the shit you want him to do. If my guy wins, he'll do that shit.
> ...



Very well articulated, Dblack...thank you.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



So you admit they will go up, so you agree with me, should have just said so. I know they will go up also, when you take away the Cafeteria Plan, when you raise the caps, when a small business owner who has one employee, which are mostly middle income people, can't write off their premiums anymore. When large corporations start paying less of medical premiums, because they can no longer write off the expense, when the insurance companys have to increase premiums to offset costs because the government is going to raise their taxes, this results in the middle class paying a higher tax, directly or indirectly. 

That isn't a liberal or conservative understanding, that is economics 101. 

Glad you at least agree the taxes will go up.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 7, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Very well put, I want to help my fellow man, I volunteer my time and donate goods and money every year. I also want my own government to act wisely when spending the people's money.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



It's a tax, not a penalty. If you don't have children, you pay a higher tax, than of you did, is that a penalty? 
If you don't have a mortgage and can't write off the interest, is that a penalty?

A penalty is only issued if you do not pay your taxes on time. If you have ever received a bill from the IRS, it includes the word penalty on their bill.


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



It's an abuse of the power to tax. Where and when did we decide it was ok to use the taxation power as a means of arbitrarily rewarding and punishing people?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



When we started using our tax dollars to pay for:

-War
-Oil subsidies
-Farm subsidies
-Corporate loopholes
-Small Business incentives

The list goes on and on. I love how indignant Conservatives get about where tax money goes to, but think Liberals shouldn't be allowed to demand a say in it.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You still don't get it, and you likely NEVER will. You still think in your dumb little Conservative brain that Liberals love to take people's money. That we LOVE when tax dollars get wasted. You are being selfish and unwilling to help your fellow man if you'd cut entitlements but not Defense. If you'd cut entitlements before raising the tax rates on the rich to levels they were paying not 20 years ago, you're being selfish.

Here's the thing, I'm not going to let Conservatives make ME feel about MY philosophy on taxation, and I encourage every other Progressive to the same thing. I'm tired of being told I'm the one with the mental disorder since I don't inherently and automatically distrust the government. That's paranoia. The kind of paranoia that when fostered and left to grow can lead to movements like the Tea Party, which has CRIPPLED our legislation.

I want MY tax dollars to stop paying for wars before it pays for medicine. I don't care how "hippie-dippy" that makes me sound. I don't care what idiotic insults you or the Right Propaganda Machine spins at my cause. I'm through negotiating with fiscal and legislative terrorists, and if Obama does win a second term, I think you'll see he's reached that point too.

And if you think the independent voter isn't going to start seeing the Tea Baggers for what they are and vote them out when they do, you're gravely mistaken.


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



With the exception war (but only when declared by Congress and actually in defense of the nation) all of those are examples of abuse of the taxation power. Do you have any interest in discussing the issue outside of partisan tit-for-tat?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Absolutely. So you're saying you'd be totally okay with closing all the corporate loopholes, ending oil and farm subsidies and closing all the small business loopholes as well, since they're abuses of taxation power?


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



I'd like to see a constitutional amendment banning the practice at all levels of government. It's a gross violation of equal protection.


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'd include in this all income tax deductions that aren't directly involved in calculating net income.


----------



## code1211 (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.
> ...





So, why are we jumping through all these hoops?  Half a billion redirected from from medicare, an extra trillion over ten years in taxes and everyone who is already paying premiums, continue to pay them.

What about this creates savings?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



And what IS the Tea Party?  Despite attempts by progressives like yourself to demonize them, the truth is the vast majority of the Tea Party is made up of ordinary Americans who are simply fed up with seeing their hard earned money wasted by a government that's broken.  How is it that THAT makes them into "fiscal and legislative terrorists"?  Because they won't rubber stamp more spending?  That's idiotic!

As for "my" selfishness?  First of all if you go back and read my responses to HOW cuts should be made to government you'll find that I've repeatedly advocated ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS INCLUDING THE MILITARY!  I don't think one part of the government is functional and others are not....I think that ALL of government is inherently wasteful and inefficient and the it ALL needs to be put on a revenue diet.

As for the tax rate on the wealthy?  I have zero problem with fixing the tax structure so that there are fewer loop holes through which wealthy people can escape paying taxes.  That being said however...I DO have a problem with the notion put forth by people like you that we can continue to cover the costs of layer upon layer of unfunded entitlement programs by simply taking more and more money from the wealthy.  My problem isn't based on whether or not that is "fair"...it's based on simple arithmetic.  You could raise the tax rate on the wealthy to 100% and it wouldn't come CLOSE to covering the cost of the entitlement programs we've put in place going forward so those programs will necessarily have to be paid for by the Middle Class as well.  But you won't admit THAT...will you, Conserva?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



And I wouldn't have a problem paying a little more in taxes if i thought it would go towards our debt/deficit and if it would save my grandkids from having to pay a LOT more.

But we both know that when our government draws more revenue, they only spend and borrow even more.


----------



## JagOnDaRoad (Jul 7, 2012)

Insurance is a gamble, usually a good bet. But to mandate that we buy it...it just makes no sense. Will they mandate that we play slots to earn our retirement? But I digress. We've had several "radio" conversations here lately, and among the most disturbing considerations is how Gov't- all of us-will decide how to manage costs. Will we restrict access, and allow less needed individuals to go ahead and pass on? Will we mandate behavior control, forcing the obese to diet, forcing everyone into daily exercise regiments, forcing people into the house on hot days, cold days? What other wild ideas will a group of overpaid bureaucrats come up with? Look, Obamacare is government run amock, period.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



So are you also in favor of getting rid of the mortgage deductions we all take too? I'm just trying to gauge what your idea of "fair" is, so we have a basis to jump off from. 

I know this sounds harsh, but for me, I am more and more becoming apathetic to the rich. Not because I wish them ill, or think they deserve to be punished. I don't view taxes as a punishment. I view them as our acknowledgment that we all need to do our part to keep our country running. And yes, that means taxing those that are better off a little more than we tax everyone else. I'm not suggesting we go back to 90% tax rates, that's insane. But I'll address that more in your post.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2012)

JagOnDaRoad said:


> Insurance is a gamble, usually a good bet. But to mandate that we buy it...it just makes no sense. Will they mandate that we play slots to earn our retirement? But I digress. We've had several "radio" conversations here lately, and among the most disturbing considerations is how Gov't- all of us-will decide how to manage costs. Will we restrict access, and allow less needed individuals to go ahead and pass on? Will we mandate behavior control, forcing the obese to diet, forcing everyone into daily exercise regiments, forcing people into the house on hot days, cold days? What other wild ideas will a group of overpaid bureaucrats come up with? Look, Obamacare is government run amock, period.



The Lottery is used to pay for education...should the government be able to mandate that I buy lottery tickets?  Should I be liable for a "penalty" if I choose not to do MY PART to help support education?

We've stepped out onto a very slippery slope with this Supreme Court ruling...all in the interest of protecting an awful piece of legislation that doesn't do what it was supposed to do in the first place...lower the costs of health care.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> And what IS the Tea Party?  Despite attempts by progressives like yourself to demonize them, the truth is the vast majority of the Tea Party is made up of ordinary Americans who are simply fed up with seeing their hard earned money wasted by a government that's broken.



You just described virtually EVERY American. Why do you think Congress' approval rating is in the low teens, if not single digits? We ALL see how broken things are, but I genuinely feel like the rise of the Tea Party has meant only a further division in American politics. You have a group of people who came in proclaiming that they would not EVER compromise, and the number one goal of their party was to ensure that Obama fails.

How do you ensure Obama fails? Obstructionism. That's how. And I'm sorry, friends, but if you openly and willingly engage in obstructionism, you're harming the COUNTRY too. The right wing can try and pretend like Harry Reid is sitting on all these Republican-written jobs bills, but it doesn't take a lot of research to find out that most of them are simply deregulation bills.

And this may sound crazy to you, but there are a lot of people like me who think creating more pollution for the CHANCE of creating jobs (there's almost no money earmarked in these "jobs" bills for actual jobs) is just plain counter-productive. I'm tired of Americans being so focused on the almighty dollar that they dismiss climate science, economic science and just plain ol' history to chase that buck. 



> How is it that THAT makes them into "fiscal and legislative terrorists"?  Because they won't rubber stamp more spending?  That's idiotic!



It makes them fiscal and legislative terrorists because they don't get the entire point of our Congressional bodies. It's not to have one political group with all the cards, ramming their policies down the American people's throats, which is precisely what the Tea Party Congressional members have been doing, and the GOP establishment seems content to let them do it. 

Again, you cannot call ANYTHING that they've done anything other than Obstructionism. And I know that you old guys will say, "Well, good cuz we don't want those crazy liberals spending all our money!" But that's bullshit and selfish and you KNOW if the Democrats were doing it you'd be flipping out. They've abused the filibuster to the point that bills that had an actual majority and should have passed the Senate to head to Obama's desk were killed.

NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that you have to have 60 votes to pass a bill to the President. Only a simple majority. This is why they are terrorists. They have held the legislative process hostage rather than do what has been done FOREVER which is let the majority pass the bill, and if it's a clunker you either work to repeal or you work to amend. 

Sorry dude, but this is what the Tea Party has done since coming into power. All this talk of the "divisive" nature of Obama really is just code for "The Tea Party doesn't like Liberals and Obama so they've admittedly slowed the recovery to make him look worse. It's disgusting and speaks VOLUMES of your party right now that you'd be proud of them for doing it.



> As for "my" selfishness?  First of all if you go back and read my responses to HOW cuts should be made to government you'll find that I've repeatedly advocated ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS INCLUDING THE MILITARY!



Then we agree. But how much do you think Defense should be cut? I advocate a full 20% reduction in funding for Defense. We've ignored the advice of a Republican President who was also a General when he warned of the expansion of the military industrial complex. There is no doubt in my mind that Cheney pushed Bush into Iraq so that Haliburton could get some FAT contracts out of it. That's war profiteering, and that's criminal, in my mind. So let's cut some of the shit out of Defense, because I'm sure even if we slash 20% out, we'll still have the biggest, most elite armed forces in the world.



> I don't think one part of the government is functional and others are not....I think that ALL of government is inherently wasteful and inefficient and the it ALL needs to be put on a revenue diet.



That's where you and I just fundamentally disagree as a Conservative and a Progressive. I look at Government as having a unique ability to fill in the gaps left by the private sector when it comes to charity, and such. The bottom line is that I feel we ALL have a responsibility to help our fellow man, because we'd want help if we were in that position ourselves, right? And it's just good karma, man. You might call it being a "Good Christian." So entitlement programs are ways for us all to give a little that goes a long way.

The bottom line is that private charity is unreliable. It's great, and should certainly be encouraged, but depending on it to feed and clothe everyone is fantasy. Sure, maybe government can't do that either, but it sure has the ability to reach a lot more people than private charity does...unless Buffet and Gates just write a blank check and tell us to "have at." 



> As for the tax rate on the wealthy?  I have zero problem with fixing the tax structure so that there are fewer loop holes through which wealthy people can escape paying taxes.



Another point we agree completely on. The reason that Tea Bagger people have no credibility on the tax thing is that they act as if rich people really do all pay taxes the way we do. Sure, they pay a big part of it, but they dodge and hide money EVERYWHERE. Look at Mitt. Dude has more money stashed away in one account in Europe than you or I will probably ever have. 



> That being said however...I DO have a problem with the notion put forth by people like you that we can continue to cover the costs of layer upon layer of unfunded entitlement programs by simply taking more and more money from the wealthy.
> My problem isn't based on whether or not that is "fair"...it's based on simple arithmetic.  You could raise the tax rate on the wealthy to 100% and it wouldn't come CLOSE to covering the cost of the entitlement programs we've put in place going forward so those programs will necessarily have to be paid for by the Middle Class as well.  But you won't admit THAT...will you, Conserva?



Not more and more. Just the same amount, consistently. I don't want them paying more than 45% or so. I think that's fair, because even on that tax rate, they can make up all that shit by dunking some money into some investment opportunities that let them make money with their money. Basically, I'm not really worried about the rich. THEY'LL BE FINE. The only way these people fall from grace is if they're caught stealing, or if they murder someone (maybe). Seriously, unless by their own hand they fuck up, they are almost bullet-proof. And you know that.

You know how I want to pay for the entitlement and social programs? Stop spending so much on bombs and guns, close some loopholes, and let's see where that leaves us. Is that such a bad thing?


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yep. All means all.


> I don't view taxes as a punishment.


That's not what taxes should be, but that is how we use them. Taxes should be used to finance government, not to reward or penalize people based on whether they do as they are told or not.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Freeloaders are bad though, right? that's why Conservatives hate welfare? Correct?


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



What?? Or, rather, what does this have to do with what we've been talking about?


----------



## JagOnDaRoad (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Rather than tax the rich more, how about writing tax code to incentivise them to pay those who make them rich more. The tax base would then expand, and the gov't would get its funding? Eh? I see the problem as not being the rich don't pay enough, but instead, there are not enough rich to pay. Why do hard working people not make more? Illegal immigration? Doing business with countries where the populace live below our standards of living. We really need to be working toward a higher standard of living here and throughout the world rather than trying to demoralize those who make it big.

That said, not every rich person earns his/her wealth at the expense of others. Why do these people need to be taxed harshly? Another example: If a person wins the lottery, takes home 160,000,000 AFTER millions in taxes, is this person's tax liability done? He/she has paid more than 99% will ever pay in their entire life....so do we tax him/her annually?


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

JagOnDaRoad said:


> Rather than tax the rich more, how about writing tax code to incentivise them to pay those who make them rich more. ...



No. We grant Congress the power to tax us so they can fund government, not so they can manage our lives for us. No more 'incentives' or 'mandates'.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And what IS the Tea Party?  Despite attempts by progressives like yourself to demonize them, the truth is the vast majority of the Tea Party is made up of ordinary Americans who are simply fed up with seeing their hard earned money wasted by a government that's broken.
> ...



You know what your problem is, Conserva?  You don't have the faintest idea what conservatives ARE in this country.  Everything that you post here is based on misconceptions.

Take the Tea Party.  Where did you come up with the notion that the number one priority of the Tea Party was ensuring that Barack Obama "fails"?  The number one priority of the Tea Party has always been shrinking the size of government and getting rid of the waste that is SO prevalent in our government.  Do the people in the Tea Party think Barack Obama is the man to do that?  Quite obviously NO.  Barack Obama is a progressive who believes that more government is the answer to all problems.  THAT is the Tea Party's problem with Obama.

Calling them "obstructionists" and "fiscal terrorists" because they don't believe that government IS the answer to all problems is quite frankly, a cheap shot.  These are people that care just as deeply about this country as you do...they simply don't believe as you do, that spending more and more money on a dis-functional Federal Government is a wise course of action.

You've repeatedly put forth the notion that Tea Party politicians have deliberately sabotaged economic recovery because they want to see Barack Obama "fail".  What you can't seem to grasp is that those politicians were ELECTED by an electorate that were unhappy with the policies of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, an electorate that wanted them reined in.  It's your fellow Americans that "sabotaged" Barack Obama's agenda, Conserva because they don't agree with it.  THAT is democracy.  Those Tea Party freshmen now in Congress and the Senate are not there to further the progressive agenda ...they are there at the behest of the electorate to STOP that agenda.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Oh, I'll tell you. The "Tax" in Obamacare, it's meant to curb freeloading. Because that's what it is if you eschew health insurance, get dramatically ill and have to use emergent care and can't afford it. That's freeloading where I come from. Look, I'd be all for Universal Health Care where we don't have to use taxes to curb shitty behavior, but we're not there yet, so I think the mandate at least helps get more people into the system which will help pay for this without having to further tax the middle class, which this bill DOES NOT do anyway.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> You know what your problem is, Conserva?  You don't have the faintest idea what conservatives ARE in this country.  Everything that you post here is based on misconceptions.



I have every idea. I consume Conservative media. I have two very staunchly conservative parents. I was brought up in the culture my friend. I speak from truth and experience, and that's what you don't like. So you deny what I say which is fine, but it doesn't make what I say any less true.



> Take the Tea Party.  Where did you come up with the notion that the number one priority of the Tea Party was ensuring that Barack Obama "fails"?



Out of their own mouths, dude. They've said it. Almost those exact words. Didn't McConnell say it? I'll go find the link, but I'm pretty sure he did. And before you say McConnell isn't a Tea Partier, save it. The Tea Party controls that party right now, so they're ALL up to it.



> The number one priority of the Tea Party has always been shrinking the size of government and getting rid of the waste that is SO prevalent in our government.



That's fine, and I heartily disagree with the need to drastically shrink the government, but here's the problem: they are not willing to COMPROMISE. That is what makes them so fucking toxic you see. It's not their ideologies. We all have them, for fuck's sake and we're all entitled to them. 

But they are not entitled as legislators to block the country from recovering. Which is what their obstructionism has done. 



> Do the people in the Tea Party think Barack Obama is the man to do that?  Quite obviously NO.  Barack Obama is a progressive who believes that more government is the answer to all problems.  THAT is the Tea Party's problem with Obama.



Except government hasn't exploded in size since he was President. You may blame that or actually in your case give credit for that to the Tea Party/GOP but you know that Bush 2 would've created ten more government agencies if he wanted to. He'd have told the Republicans and Democrats all to fuck themselves because Jesus told him to do it. So no, he's not a big government progressive. He's not even been that much of a Progressive, really. 

You think he has because he said two dudes should be able to get married and he said that we shouldn't send children of illegal aliens off if they aren't fucking our society up, but he's not a progressive. Obamacare isn't a fucking socialized medicine program. It's a stimulus program for the health insurance industry.



> Calling them "obstructionists" and "fiscal terrorists" because they don't believe that government IS the answer to all problems is quite frankly, a cheap shot.



If that's why I said it; sure. But it's not why I've said it. They are obstructionists. You may not like HEARING it, but they are. They have blocked ANYTHING getting through that they didn't ONE HUNDRED PERCENT agree with. That's not being a good legislator, and if you don't know that: fuck you. You should.



> These are people that care just as deeply about this country as you do...they simply don't believe as you do, that spending more and more money on a dis-functional Federal Government is a wise course of action.



If they care, they should stop being so obstinate. They're making things MORE fucked up.



> You've repeatedly put forth the notion that Tea Party politicians have deliberately sabotaged economic recovery because they want to see Barack Obama "fail".  What you can't seem to grasp is that those politicians were ELECTED by an electorate that were unhappy with the policies of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, an electorate that wanted them reined in.



They have deliberately sabotaged the President which has led to sabotaging the country. What you can't seem to grasp is that they aren't the only party politics, and they're constituents aren't the only constituents who matter. That's what I HATE about Conservatives. You're so fucking conceited and egomaniacal you truly think that you're the only people who have morals, and ethics and principles worth defending.

The party and the GOP is NOT the majority in the Senate, but they have blocked bill after bill by filibustering. That's playing the game, sure. But it's playing it unnecessarily dirty. And I thought in this country we had better standards than that, that's all. But fuck your indignation, and fuck the Tea Party's indignation. You don't get to hog the ball. You have to fucking SHARE it. 



> It's your fellow Americans that "sabotaged" Barack Obama's agenda, Conserva because they don't agree with it.  THAT is democracy.  Those Tea Party freshmen now in Congress and the Senate are not there to further the progressive agenda ...they are there at the behest of the electorate to STOP that agenda.



Fuck them. And fuck the Tea Party. You can ruin the Republican party all you want, but Progressives are going to fight you cocksuckers tooth and nail to keep you from fucking the country up. I respect Conservatives. Real, honest-to-God conservatives. I don't respect Tea Partiers. Obstructionists fuck EVERYTHING up for EVERYONE.


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oh, I'll tell you. The "Tax" in Obamacare, it's meant to curb freeloading.



The point I'm making is that that is an abuse of the taxation power. If you are that bent out of shape about freeloaders, make a law that directly addresses that issue and punishes the perpetrators. Don't monkey with the tax code in a half-assed attempt to manipulate how people in general pay for their health care.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'll tell you. The "Tax" in Obamacare, it's meant to curb freeloading.
> ...



Ah. So if we want to use the tax code to just gently nudge people in the right direction, that's abuse now?


----------



## dblack (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Exactly. That's not the purpose of taxation. Using it as such has evaded constitutional limits on government power and brought us to the place where corporations or other powerful lobbying groups can now use the law to coerce us into buying their products or otherwise bending to their will. Does that really seem right to you?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You know what your problem is, Conserva?  You don't have the faintest idea what conservatives ARE in this country.  Everything that you post here is based on misconceptions.
> ...



Fuck the electorate?  Sorry but you don't get to make that call.  Simply because someone doesn't agree with YOUR political philosophy doesn't mean that you can tell them to fuck off.  If you think that your way is the right way. then convince people with a logical argument...don't just tell them that YOU KNOW BEST!!! and if they don't like they can take a hike.  You want to know why the Democrats got their asses handed to them in the 2010 mid-terms?  Because they didn't listen to the people.  They were so convinced of their "rightness" on all these things that they basically told the people who sent them to Washington that THEIR opinions didn't count because the Progressive leadership was smarter than they were and would be calling the shots.  (Between you and me, Conserva?  Nancy Pelosi has the IQ of a potted plant...I don't want her deciding what happens with my life.)

You say you respect Conservatives?  Funny, I've never EVER seen you demonstrate that.  

Oh, and Conserva?  Talking about the GOP obstructing things with what's going on in the Senate right now is almost farce.  Since the Democrats lost control of the House THEY have become the Party of NO.  It's one thing to filibuster legislation...Harry Reid won't even let Republican bills onto the Senate floor for DISCUSSION!!!


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 7, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Fuck the electorate?  Sorry but you don't get to make that call.  Simply because someone doesn't agree with YOUR political philosophy doesn't mean that you can tell them to fuck off.  If you think that your way is the right way. then convince people with a logical argument...don't just tell them that YOU KNOW BEST!!! and if they don't like they can take a hike.  You want to know why the Democrats got their asses handed to them in the 2010 mid-terms?  Because they didn't listen to the people.  They were so convinced of their "rightness" on all these things that they basically told the people who sent them to Washington that THEIR opinions didn't count because the Progressive leadership was smarter than they were and would be calling the shots.  (Between you and me, Conserva?  Nancy Pelosi has the IQ of a potted plant...I don't want her deciding what happens with my life.)
> 
> You say you respect Conservatives?  Funny, I've never EVER seen you demonstrate that.
> 
> Oh, and Conserva?  Talking about the GOP obstructing things with what's going on in the Senate right now is almost farce.  Since the Democrats lost control of the House THEY have become the Party of NO.  It's one thing to filibuster legislation...Harry Reid won't even let Republican bills onto the Senate floor for DISCUSSION!!!



No, not fuck the electorate. Fuck the Tea Party. Fuck the Tea Party right in there obstinate, tri-corner hat wearing, science hating, homophobic, Birther-Believing, mouth-breathing faces. That's what I meant. Was I not clear?

I do respect Conservatives. I don't respect Teabaggers. Teabaggers have scared off real Conservatives from the Republican party. Fuck Teabaggers. Did I say that already? Fuck them. I just want to make sure I'm clear: fuck them.

Sorry buddy, but those "jobs" bills are just deregulation bills. And besides, I thought you were all for duly elected officials representing their constituents. So you should be okay with Henry looking out for his Progressive voters who elected him by making sure we don't rape the earth to give rich people more money.

Fuck the Tea Party.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck the electorate?  Sorry but you don't get to make that call.  Simply because someone doesn't agree with YOUR political philosophy doesn't mean that you can tell them to fuck off.  If you think that your way is the right way. then convince people with a logical argument...don't just tell them that YOU KNOW BEST!!! and if they don't like they can take a hike.  You want to know why the Democrats got their asses handed to them in the 2010 mid-terms?  Because they didn't listen to the people.  They were so convinced of their "rightness" on all these things that they basically told the people who sent them to Washington that THEIR opinions didn't count because the Progressive leadership was smarter than they were and would be calling the shots.  (Between you and me, Conserva?  Nancy Pelosi has the IQ of a potted plant...I don't want her deciding what happens with my life.)
> ...



There you go again, Conserva...

In your myopic view of the world, ALL Tea Party people are "science hating, homophobic, Birther believing, mouth breathing faces" and that's makes you look ignorant.  Are there SOME people who are part of the Tea Party who are all of those things?  Without a doubt!  But the fact is...most people who joined the movement known as the Tea Party were simply ordinary Americans who were fed up with how badly their government functioned and wanted something done about the wasteful and inefficient way that their tax dollars were being spent.

I'm part of the Tea Party movement.  But I'm an agnostic...have zero problem with gays or their having same sex rights...couldn't care LESS about where Barry was born...and I don't even know what the heck you're babbling about with the "mouth breather" thing.  The point I'm making is that the average Tea Party person is not the stereotype that's been put out there by the main stream media in an attempt to discredit the movement and when you try to put the stereotype out as fact it just makes you look silly.

As for what Harry Reid is doing?  He's got over 40 bills now that the GOP controlled House has sent over to the Senate that he won't even let come to the floor for discussion because he doesn't want Democrats to be on the record voting against them.  That isn't "representing" their constituents...that's hiding from them.  If progressives in the Senate REALLY feel that what the House has sent them are bad bills then have the BALLS to vote them down.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 8, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> There you go again, Conserva...
> 
> In your myopic view of the world, ALL Tea Party people are "science hating, homophobic, Birther believing, mouth breathing faces" and that's makes you look ignorant.  Are there SOME people who are part of the Tea Party who are all of those things?  Without a doubt!  But the fact is...most people who joined the movement known as the Tea Party were simply ordinary Americans who were fed up with how badly their government functioned and wanted something done about the wasteful and inefficient way that their tax dollars were being spent.



Then I would suggest you do a much, much better job of policing your own and controlling the message. Because right now they are controlling EVERYTHING that people think. I happen to think the larger majority of Teabaggers fit that description either in whole, or very, very closely anyway. And if they don't, then they're doing a SHITTY job in making that side of the Tea Party known.



> I'm part of the Tea Party movement.  But I'm an agnostic...have zero problem with gays or their having same sex rights...couldn't care LESS about where Barry was born...and I don't even know what the heck you're babbling about with the "mouth breather" thing.  The point I'm making is that the average Tea Party person is not the stereotype that's been put out there by the main stream media in an attempt to discredit the movement and when you try to put the stereotype out as fact it just makes you look silly.



Then again, you had better get out there in the protests, act normally, behave in a civilized way, and encourage your representatives to COMPROMISE. Until then you are part of the exact problem that is killing politics in America.



> As for what Harry Reid is doing?  He's got over 40 bills now that the GOP controlled House has sent over to the Senate that he won't even let come to the floor for discussion because he doesn't want Democrats to be on the record voting against them.



First, those aren't jobs bills. They are mostly deregulation bills, which do not promise new jobs AT ALL. You want to know what just created a shit load of jobs? The highway bill that Obama signed. It's total bullshit for Teabaggers to claim Reid is sitting on a bunch of jobs bills. They're pro-business deregulation bills. And Reid is likely sitting on them so that we don't sacrifice our planet for a couple extra bucks. 

If those bills had guaranteed money, earmarked for ACTUAL jobs, that'd be a different story. But the thing is, it doesn't take a lot of research on those bills to realize that Progressives/Liberals probably wouldn't want those bills passed anyway.



> That isn't "representing" their constituents...that's hiding from them.  If progressives in the Senate REALLY feel that what the House has sent them are bad bills then have the BALLS to vote them down.



Oh, I see. So when Tea Bagger Congressmen kill actual jobs bills, bills earmarked with money to create new jobs, they're representing THEIR constituents, but when Reid and the Democrats don't just rubber stamp pollution bills, they're hiding from them?

Fuck that dude. Neither side is blameless, but the fact that you'd castigate the Left but not the Right for doing the same exact thing show's where your politics really are.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > There you go again, Conserva...
> ...



Gee, I wasn't aware the Tea Party events NEEDED "policing".  Tea Party rallies have been peaceful events that obtained permits, hired police to maintain order and even cleaned up after themselves once the event was over.  Now lets contrast THAT with YOUR progressive Occupy Wall Street events!  You remember those don't you?  The illegal events that sent thousands to jail, shut down traffic and made regular Americans struggle to get to work, cost millions of dollars in added costs for police and sanitation?  You actually have the nerve to come on here and tell me that I need to "police" the Tea Party movement?  That's the epitome of gall, my friend.  Where were your cries for the OWS events to be "policed"?

You know what else is the epitome of gall?  People like you accusing the GOP of being "obstructionists" because they voted down bad legislation...while Harry Reid won't even let over 40 bills come to the floor of the Senate TO BE DISCUSSED!!!  You make the claim that ALL of those bills are deregulation that will cause massive pollution?  That's laughable.  Bad regulations are strangling the economy and the GOP tried to get rid of some of them.  You speak of "compromise"?  Where is the Democratic compromise when they won't even allow GOP bills on the floor for discussion?  Just how IS IT that you can compromise on something that you won't even allow discussion on?  

The fact is,  Harry Reid is protecting his fellow Democrats in an election year by not bringing those bills to the floor for a vote.  It's the very same cowardly approach to governing that he took when he refused to pass a budget.  What does it say about the Democrats that they feel the need to HIDE what they are trying to do from the American people?  If your budget is out of control then fix it!  If regulations don't work...fix them!  If ObamaCare is going to cost X then why cook the books and tell the public it's going to cost Y?  Why does "your side" lie so much about costs, Conserva?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 8, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No, you boob. Police your own means don't let racist idiots who want to obstruct progress be your mouth piece.


----------



## regent (Jul 8, 2012)

For a brief time in our history the conservative party was out of business. The time in history was called The Era of Good Feelings and its time was brief. But America needs a conservative party, the rich need representation just as the poor, and conservative money makes the battle maybe a little more than even.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Why is someone who doesn't buy into the whole progressive agenda a "racist"?  Because Barry is half black?  I frankly don't care if he's half purple, Conserva...his policies don't work and they're making the economy slide back towards another recession.

The truth is you people always accuse conservatives of "racism" when you fail at defending the merits of your position.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 8, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That seems to be the fallback position.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 8, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Do I really have to just go google image search "racist tea party signs," or can you do that for yourself?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Did I not state that there WERE some racists in the Tea Party movement?  There were also some anti-Semetics in the OWS movement...does that mean that the majority of the OWS crowd was anti-Semetic?

What I find amusing, Conserva is the lengths that people like you will go to to brand Americans who are simply fed up with a bloated and inefficient government as "racist" or "extreme" for having that viewpoint.

I notice that you have no come back for my comments about the OWS movement.  I take it you finally realized just how silly you looked accusing the right of not "policing" themselves when the group that YOU supported was running wild in the streets?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



It certainly is!


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Jul 8, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Say racist shit: get called a racist

Practice Obstructionism: get called an extremist

Not that hard to figure out.


----------



## dblack (Jul 8, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Especially when the sum total of all those "gentle nudges" adds up to billions of dollars in profits for the companies that successfully lobby for them. Worse yet, they let government radically expand its power beyond what the Constitution allows, dictating our behavior in a boundless range of contexts.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



What's not hard to figure out, Conserva...is that every time you get backed into a corner with the absurdity of your arguments you resort to labeling.  You call people "racist" whether they have said "racist shit" or not.  It's your "fall back position".

You still haven't explained how Harry Reid's not letting over 40 bills come to the Senate floor to be discussed ISN'T obstructionism yet the GOP taking part in the process and voting against bills they disagree with IS.

Why IS it that Harry Reid feels the need to protect his Democratic colleagues from having their votes on record?  Why is it that he feels the need to not pass a budget that he and his fellow Democrats can be judged on?


----------



## American_Jihad (Jul 31, 2012)

*Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped*

7/30/12  
Guy Benson

The Supreme Court's decision last month to uphold the Obamacare mandate tax did not vindicate the propriety or efficacy of the law itself, a point Chief Justice Roberts explicitly stated in his ruling.  "It is not [The Court's] job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices, he wrote.  As we learn more about Obamacare's practical consequences, the urgent need for repeal becomes increasingly apparent.  Consider the following news items from the past week alone:

---
(1) "Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen with Health Law":
---
(2) "One in 10 Employers Plans to Drop Health Benefits, Study Finds:"
---
(3) "CBO - Obamacare to Cost $1.93 Trillion, Leave 30 Million Uninsured:"
---
(4) "Surprise: Obamacare Medical Device Tax Killing Jobs in the Industry:"
---

Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped - Guy Benson


----------

