Healthcare passes Senate...no surprise.

[Capitol Shock]

Here's to Socialism. I hope the democrats pay more than a huge price at the polls for what is sure to be another unsustainable burden on the last beacon of freedom for the world.

This was kamakazi legislation from the start and those who voted it in won't be around to be punished by it in the future.

These politicians should be taken out behind the woodshed and beaten severely. I hope that I'm wrong about what this is going to do to our country and I hope that I'm not the only one who is significantly worried about the direction we are headed in terms of our freedom, welfare and opportunity.

[ISASO]

You are not the only one worried about its impact.

The majority of American voters are opposed to this.
The Chinese are opposed to this.

Democrats are ignoring all the warning signs.

Saul Alinksy, George Soros, Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers have replaced Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison.

Obama is their puppet, their frontman, their Pied Piper.

[SubGod22]

[Ixiah]

Lets just print more money. :whistle:

[BOBB]

Wherever you come down on the health care debate. A health care package did not pass the Senate. Merely passed a procedural hurdle to come to a debate on the floor. The bill in its current form will not pass the Senate as Lieberman has stated he will join the Republicans to filibuster any public option. After whatever bill passes the Senate, it will have to be reconciled with the House bill, then both houses will have to vote on the same bill and submit it to the President. You might get your facts straight before you sound the death knell of life as we know it.

We're still a far cry from Socialism. If anything we're closer to a feudal society, where the corporate barony provides enough protection and subsistence to keep the serfs (us) just pacified enough to not upset the existing power structure. I'm no fan of Socialism, but the system we have isn't capitalism and isn't egalitarian. Why should I care if my fate's decided by a bunch of men in a board room not responding to the will of their shareholders (Goldman) in New York, or a bunch of men in a chamber in Washington not responding to the will of the voters?

If the Republicans truly represented limited government and personal freedom, they'd still be in office. Most Americans felt that they represnted the monied corporate interests-whose interests are important and do need to be represented-at the expense of the white and blue collar worker.

As someone that has read Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Jay and Franklin, I can assure you they'd be no happier with either party. Hamilton might fit with the current Repbulican crop.

[1979Shocker]

You are not the only one worried about its impact.

The majority of American voters are opposed to this.
The Chinese are opposed to this.

Democrats are ignoring all the warning signs.

Saul Alinksy, George Soros, Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers have replaced Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison.

Obama is their puppet, their frontman, their Pied Piper.

Worrying too much can cause health problems.

[ISASO]

I suppose the sponsors of the Declaration of Independence never worried. Never a care in the world.

[ISASO]

Monday Musings

The Senate bill on the floor has 70 new government programs and allows the HHS Secretary, our former governor, to make 1,700 decisions on her own (with the help of Ezekiel Emanuel and George Soros, or course).

Is there such a thing as a Blue Dog Democrat or is that a marketing term? What is their voting record?

What happened to the Post-Partisan President? Has his magic wand gone limp?

[wu_shizzle]

Pearls Before Swine - 11-22-09


Almost too true to be funny...

[WuDrWu]

What of this 3 year lag in the collection of funds versus the actual benefit?


Can someone that supports this bill let me know how that works?


Thank you

[Maggie]

What of this 3 year lag in the collection of funds versus the actual benefit?


Can someone that supports this bill let me know how that works?


Thank you

I am not the person you wanted to answer this question but this is a “bait and switch” move by Congress.

I have read and heard this addressed in many different places, but one of the disingenuous things about the health-care legislation is the way that it takes advantage of the fact that the CBO scores bills over a ten year horizon. By starting to collect fees immediately and not having the bill's major spending provisions kick in until I think around 2013 or 2014, they are attempting to hide the true cost of the legislation.

Sending collections agents out four years before benefits begin is one of the budget gimmicks used so that the bills proponents can attempt to claim that the cost of health-care is under $900 billion, as President Obama has demanded.

But you have probably figured this out.

[WuDrWu]

I really wasn't trying to be a smart ass. As always, you confirm what I thought but I really was (still am) trying to see if there is something that I am missing....some reason (legitimate hopefully) that they wrote it this way.

Something I haven't heard yet, but am curious about......if this were to pass, would the next ten year period be 3 years underwater, assuming there was no other unforeseen growth or spending issues?

In other words, using rough numbers:

2010-2020 cost $1,000,000,000,000 Income $1,000,000,000,000

2020-2030 cost $1,429,000,000,000 Income $1,000,000,000,000


(cost equal to $1 trillion divided by 7 years of expense times 10 years)

or a deficit of $429 Billion, again assuming that costs are under control and no extra waste or fraud and income stays at a consistent level (none of which I think is possible or has ever happened in our federal government).



Am I understanding this correctly?

[Maggie]

I’m not sure I follow you and I don’t have a lot of time (I have been on a conference call for almost five hours, which should be ending soon – I hope, after which I am going to be very busy). Besides, the numbers game when it comes to health-care legislation is mystifying. I went to law school with the understanding there would be no math -- just kidding.

Look, in my judgment, based upon what I have read there is only one “legitimate” reason for the way the Senate Bill (which I believe you are referring to) is set up: Politics. Reid needs to get 60 votes to pass the legislation and to do that he has to appear to be fiscally prudent. But the supposed fiscal prudence of the Reid plan is a complete mirage, for a number of reasons – other than what I already pointed out.

For starters, I believe Reid’s plan assumes that Medicare physician fees will get cut beginning next year and then remain very restrained indefinitely. This is a fantasy. If you recall, Reid himself tried to overturn the planned cuts in physician fees, just a few weeks ago – the so-called “doc-fix”.

Then there are the tax increases. However, the thresholds separating the various income-tax brackets don’t appear to be indexed for inflation, which means that every year many people will pay taxes at a higher rate simply because inflation had boosted their wages - “bracket creep” you may remember this from the 1970s. Of course, many in Congress like it that way because it means a tax increase without the nuisance of a politically unpopular vote. This will also hit the middle class hard over time. And I don’t think it will cover the cost of coverage. I believe that read that the CBO estimated that the cost of coverage would grow about eight percent a year – this dovetails into why there is a delay in benefits but they start collecting the taxes straight away. It stands to reason that as time goes on the cost would therefore explode. In short, the true cost is massive -- much higher than you give credit for and I am unclear how the “income” will cover those costs – even with the tax increases.

Finally, there are the Medicare cuts. Just like physician fees, virtually no one believes Congress will sustain these cuts. Not to mention the fact that I don’t believe Reids bill does anything significant to curb the actual (rising) cost of health-care.

This legislation is a monstrosity. And I fear that the Democrats in Congress have convinced themselves that they need to pass something – regardless – which is very scary.

[wu_shizzle]

And I fear that the Democrats in Congress have convinced themselves that they need to pass something – regardless – which is very scary.

How much money is too much money when it's not your money?

Would they bankrupt this country a la California, if they thought it would get them reelected?

In a heartbeat.

[SubGod22]

And I fear that the Democrats in Congress have convinced themselves that they need to pass something – regardless – which is very scary.

How much money is too much money when it's not your money?

Would they bankrupt this country a la California, if they thought it would get them reelected?

In a heartbeat.

There are Republicans that would do the same thing if they were in power. I just think they'd do it at a slower rate.