Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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%?
Any government program which does not realize its full benefit within 60 seconds of its passage is just wasteful and stupid.
Like you.
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!
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?
)!
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...
What are your thoughts on endless, unpaid for wars in foreign countries?
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!
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.
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?
How exactly is hand-delivering millions of new customers to the insurance companies making them turn less profit, exactly?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...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.
How exactly is hand-delivering millions of new customers to the insurance companies making them turn less profit, exactly?
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.
