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.
excuse me but you said:
Free speech is fine, but when the rightwing freakies practice political sharia in trying to unlawfully disrupt town hall meetings, they have crossed the line, they should be arrested, and they should pay fat fines. They best way always to correct bad rightist behavior is to hit them in the pocket book.
Social civility is the way in which the affairs of a democratic republic can be debated and decided.
all any protesters have done is to shout down a speaker and you call that political sharia
so anyone who shouts down a speaker is committing a crime and should be arrested.
Now you are deliberately falsifying, skull. I said "unlawfully disrupt." Do not place words in my mouth.
Unlawful disturbance is criminal, skull. If a protestor unlawfully disturbs (if they are shouting that loudly), then, yes, the police are going to place that person in 'time out'.
Why does that bother you? I take it disrupting the public's business is lawful to you.
Go try it.
Unlawful disturbance is criminal, skull. If a protestor unlawfully disturbs (if they are shouting that loudly), then, yes, the police are going to place that person in 'time out'.
Why does that bother you? I take it disrupting the public's business is lawful to you.
Go try it.
So as I said you are in favor of arresting people for shouting down a speaker
excuse me but you said:
all any protesters have done is to shout down a speaker and you call that political sharia
so anyone who shouts down a speaker is committing a crime and should be arrested.
Now you are deliberately falsifying, skull. I said "unlawfully disrupt." Do not place words in my mouth.
But all any protesters have done is to shout down a speaker. You certainly imply that this mere exercise of free speech is political sharia and those doing the shouting should be arrested.
Now how would you deal with the union thugs who physically assault protesters that do nothing but shout down a speaker?
YouTube - Rachel Maddow Exposes "Fake" Protesters At Health Care Town Halls
And Republicans still don't believe they are being directed and told what to think?
Look, on the left they have begun groups like this over the past 10 years to model what Repubs have been doing for quite some time. This strategy is just bad for America period. The only difference that I see between the two groups is that on the left they are not largely funded by corporate interest (some are), and not seeing blatant lies being told to them. But regardless, it's not right.
So if you can watch that video, and still say you're not being lied to, and there is not an orchestrated effort to mis-inform and shut down legitimate conversation... you will forever be blind.
Unlawful disturbance is criminal, skull. If a protestor unlawfully disturbs (if they are shouting that loudly), then, yes, the police are going to place that person in 'time out'.
Why does that bother you? I take it disrupting the public's business is lawful to you.
Go try it.
So as I said you are in favor of arresting people for shouting down a speaker
So you are in favor of disrupting the public's business. Typical statement of political rightwing sharia activist.
Health Care for America Now, one of those "grassroots" organizations Dems usually love, just got a lotta love - five million dollars worth - from the MoveOn.org financier. Greg Sargent's The Plum Line reports HCAN's effectiveness has been questioned, although HCAN is highly organized. Soros funds grassroots organizing for progressive causes and candidates.
MoveOn.org is a Soros favorite. Five million members financed Barack Obama's Presidential campaign. They've also been willing to donate on a dime, responding instantly to urgent appeals for money to support a variety of progressive causes.
MoveOn.org is a mouthpiece for progressive propagandizing, according to Capital Research Center.
Apparently there are good grassroots and bad grassroots, according to everyone on the left. Progressives attacked spontaneous disruptions of their thoughtful, intelligent town hall health care discussions, aka indoctrination. The attackers are the bad seeds of the grassroots movements, aka old people, not obedient to the health care manifesto.
President Obama and everyone on the left are fighting back against the bad seeds. The mantra is the old people are financed by the insurance companies, lobbyists and big money interests, like George Soros.
Give me an example of a moveon.org campaign that functioned like what the Republicans are doing.
And when you figure that out, I'm going to ask you something very serious, like what is the mis-information that the movement was given and how was it used.
Because there's a HUGE difference between funded movements that are protesting illegal wars/occupations, and a funded movement by the directly effected market involved that is spreading lies, and purposely trying to orchestrate chaos.
thanks for showing you are just another fucking moron from PMSNBCi watched the videoAre you purposely ignoring the facts?
It has been proven many times over and over. Some of it is in that video. Type it in google and you'll find plenty more.
they point out ONE person, thats it
What in the world are you talking about? You almost never make any sense on this board.
hes just another fucking moron from PMSNBCHealth Care for America Now, one of those "grassroots" organizations Dems usually love, just got a lotta love - five million dollars worth - from the MoveOn.org financier. Greg Sargent's The Plum Line reports HCAN's effectiveness has been questioned, although HCAN is highly organized. Soros funds grassroots organizing for progressive causes and candidates.
MoveOn.org is a Soros favorite. Five million members financed Barack Obama's Presidential campaign. They've also been willing to donate on a dime, responding instantly to urgent appeals for money to support a variety of progressive causes.
MoveOn.org is a mouthpiece for progressive propagandizing, according to Capital Research Center.
Apparently there are good grassroots and bad grassroots, according to everyone on the left. Progressives attacked spontaneous disruptions of their thoughtful, intelligent town hall health care discussions, aka indoctrination. The attackers are the bad seeds of the grassroots movements, aka old people, not obedient to the health care manifesto.
President Obama and everyone on the left are fighting back against the bad seeds. The mantra is the old people are financed by the insurance companies, lobbyists and big money interests, like George Soros.
Give me an example of a moveon.org campaign that functioned like what the Republicans are doing.
And when you figure that out, I'm going to ask you something very serious, like what is the mis-information that the movement was given and how was it used.
Because there's a HUGE difference between funded movements that are protesting illegal wars/occupations, and a funded movement by the directly effected market involved that is spreading lies, and purposely trying to orchestrate chaos.
illegal war.....nah you are a free thinker....i can trust you.....
deflectionSome of us have been informed about the connection-between these outburts and people who have something to lose if this legislation passes (private healthcare facilities, private insurance companies, etc...). It may have been from the news that is considered liberal. But after the ranting was over, we decided to do our own research. Here are some examples:
1. If you go to the Conservatives for Patients' Rights and scroll to the very bottom, you find the fine print. "About Us"- When you click on it, you discover that Richard Scott is the founder of this movement. And he has a shady past in connection to Columbia, HCA, Tri-Star, or whatever they're calling it this year....dealing with Medicare Billing. He has a lot to lose.
2. Dick Armey of Freedomworks-economist and former U.S. HOR republican. He now works for DLA Piper, who received $830,000 from Medicines Co. this year, to lobby against healthcare reform. He and they have a lot to lose.
(Lobbying Spending Database-Medicines Co, 2009 | OpenSecrets
3. Americans for Prosperity-has launched Patients United Now. It is partially funded by Koch Industries. Oil, gas......energy. Need I say more about that?
Now this is barely scratching the surface. There is so much more, if you're willing to do some research. These people are good at what they do. They know America. They know which buttons to push, in order to keep things the way that they are. They have a lot to lose, if there is reform.
But the point that I'm trying to make, is that these are people who are worth billions of dollars. And while most of us believe that the government couldn't care less about us....I can tell you that these people (lobbyists) sure the hell don't care about you.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. But you should know both sides of the story.
excuse me but you said:
Free speech is fine, but when the rightwing freakies practice political sharia in trying to unlawfully disrupt town hall meetings, they have crossed the line, they should be arrested, and they should pay fat fines. They best way always to correct bad rightist behavior is to hit them in the pocket book.
Social civility is the way in which the affairs of a democratic republic can be debated and decided.
all any protesters have done is to shout down a speaker and you call that political sharia
so anyone who shouts down a speaker is committing a crime and should be arrested.
deflectionSome of us have been informed about the connection-between these outburts and people who have something to lose if this legislation passes (private healthcare facilities, private insurance companies, etc...). It may have been from the news that is considered liberal. But after the ranting was over, we decided to do our own research. Here are some examples:
1. If you go to the Conservatives for Patients' Rights and scroll to the very bottom, you find the fine print. "About Us"- When you click on it, you discover that Richard Scott is the founder of this movement. And he has a shady past in connection to Columbia, HCA, Tri-Star, or whatever they're calling it this year....dealing with Medicare Billing. He has a lot to lose.
2. Dick Armey of Freedomworks-economist and former U.S. HOR republican. He now works for DLA Piper, who received $830,000 from Medicines Co. this year, to lobby against healthcare reform. He and they have a lot to lose.
(Lobbying Spending Database-Medicines Co, 2009 | OpenSecrets
3. Americans for Prosperity-has launched Patients United Now. It is partially funded by Koch Industries. Oil, gas......energy. Need I say more about that?
Now this is barely scratching the surface. There is so much more, if you're willing to do some research. These people are good at what they do. They know America. They know which buttons to push, in order to keep things the way that they are. They have a lot to lose, if there is reform.
But the point that I'm trying to make, is that these are people who are worth billions of dollars. And while most of us believe that the government couldn't care less about us....I can tell you that these people (lobbyists) sure the hell don't care about you.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. But you should know both sides of the story.
you havent proven anything
excuse me but you said:
Free speech is fine, but when the rightwing freakies practice political sharia in trying to unlawfully disrupt town hall meetings, they have crossed the line, they should be arrested, and they should pay fat fines. They best way always to correct bad rightist behavior is to hit them in the pocket book.
Social civility is the way in which the affairs of a democratic republic can be debated and decided.
all any protesters have done is to shout down a speaker and you call that political sharia
so anyone who shouts down a speaker is committing a crime and should be arrested.
[qoute]If we switched the group names, and said it was Democrats doing this, then you'd be able to see it.
Unfortunately when people are blindly partisan, they've given themselves their own lobotomy.
What the protestors are doing is not just yelling at congress leaders / senators. If that's all it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You don't want to see what's really going on, and you don't care.
I see exactly what's going on. Our so called representatives are not being forthcoming about this bill.
I see exactly what's going on. Our so called representatives are not being forthcoming about this bill.
Which bill? There are several. All are online as far as I know. HR 3200 is the one most often quoted. If we get bogged down on "Death Panels" and "Forced Abortions" and other retarded nonsense from people who obviously haven't read the bill, or they read it and don't understand it, we aren't advancing the debate in an honest manner.
GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1
arTAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
11 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
14 the end the following new part:
15 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE.
16 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
17 Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
18 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
5 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—
6 ‘‘(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—
7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed
8 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax9
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
10 applicable national average premium for such
11 taxable ye
I see exactly what's going on. Our so called representatives are not being forthcoming about this bill.
Which bill? There are several. All are online as far as I know. HR 3200 is the one most often quoted. If we get bogged down on "Death Panels" and "Forced Abortions" and other retarded nonsense from people who obviously haven't read the bill, or they read it and don't understand it, we aren't advancing the debate in an honest manner.
that's the one for which I've been constantly posting links
and i have never mentioned either of those red herrings.
I've asked very simple questions and no one has answered me.
Do you want to answer?
How can the supporters of the bill say we get to keep what we have if we like it when the language of the bill makes it impossible to keep what we have?
GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.
11 (A) IN GENERAL.Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1
So again, I can't keep what I have if it changes at all even if i am OK with those changes.
And did you notice how the bill is retroactive allowing no changes in policies 26 days before it goes into effect?
And what about people with insurance covered under ERISA guidelines?
Their insurance will be eliminated 5 years in and they'll have to find something else.
And here's my favorite part
arTAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
11 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
14 the end the following new part:
15 PART VIIIHEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE.
16 Subpart ATax on Individuals Without Acceptable
17 Health Care Coverage
Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
18 SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 (a) TAX IMPOSED.In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of
1 (1) the taxpayers modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
3 (2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
5 (b) LIMITATIONS.
6 (1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.
7 (A) IN GENERAL.The tax imposed
8 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax9
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
10 applicable national average premium for such
11 taxable ye
OK so not only can you not really keep what you have, if you do not buy a government approved "acceptable" policy you will be penalized with an additional tax.
So tell me how does this bill give me more choice as the president and his sycophants are saying?
