BCSbunk wrote:

tk421 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63181

“The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform…”


Note the word, "ENFORCER".

More ............................... change we can believe in ..................

More competition is good for the people. Insurance companies had effective monopolies on state markets and now we will have more choice and more competition.

The government can now effectively mandate that you purchase anything they want in the interests of interstate commerce. It's for the good of this country that every American is now required to purchase a GM vehicle. Also, it would lower life insurance policies if everyone purchased a plan. See what's happening here? Get your pocketbooks handy. Don't give me the crap about a slippery slope being bullshit, because that is the very precedent that is now set. Congress can MAKE citizens buy a product.

Umm no they can't. You can choose to kill yourself. There and I did not even invoke the fallacy of the slippery slope.

Will you go first?

Yep I said it.

BCSbunk wrote: THey are not competing with the federal government. THey are breaking effective monopolies that is stifling competition.

As an example Blue Cross blue shield has about 85% of the market in Alabama. That is no competition and no competition equals higher prices and a poorer product.

Which is why republicans said to allow competition across state lines, but your side didn't want to do it; then they have the audacity to say its a problem.............. f------ing unbelievable; I don't know you associate yourself with those lying hypocrites.

Some interesting audio from Johnny Dingell. Could just be a gaffe I suppose....but possibly a Freudian slip as well? You be the judge.

http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people/

QuakerOats wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: THey are not competing with the federal government. THey are breaking effective monopolies that is stifling competition.

As an example Blue Cross blue shield has about 85% of the market in Alabama. That is no competition and no competition equals higher prices and a poorer product.

Which is why republicans said to allow competition across state lines, but your side didn't want to do it; then they have the audacity to say its a problem.............. f------ing unbelievable; I don't know you associate yourself with those lying hypocrites.

You really wanna start that discussion Quaker

I agree with gibby here, this problem lies with both republicans and democrats. We at least had a legitimate discussion about healthcare. We NEVER talk about scaling back the military. This healthcare bill costs $2.4 trillion over 20 years. Over the same time, assuming no cuts or additional funding, our overseas military will cost us $20 trillion. I hate the spending on both, but let's call a spade a spade here. It's time to talk about serious military cuts. We can't afford any of this.

bigmanbt wrote: I agree with gibby here, this problem lies with both republicans and democrats. We at least had a legitimate discussion about healthcare. We NEVER talk about scaling back the military. This healthcare bill costs $2.4 trillion over 20 years. Over the same time, assuming no cuts or additional funding, our overseas military will cost us $20 trillion. I hate the spending on both, but let's call a spade a spade here. It's time to talk about serious military cuts. We can't afford any of this.

Agreed both sides are at fault and spending in all areas needs looked at, but $20 trillion? Where is that from?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I agree with gibby here, this problem lies with both republicans and democrats. We at least had a legitimate discussion about healthcare. We NEVER talk about scaling back the military. This healthcare bill costs $2.4 trillion over 20 years. Over the same time, assuming no cuts or additional funding, our overseas military will cost us $20 trillion. I hate the spending on both, but let's call a spade a spade here. It's time to talk about serious military cuts. We can't afford any of this.

Agreed both sides are at fault and spending in all areas needs looked at, but $20 trillion? Where is that from?

Looks like between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010 to me. Still a lot, and needs to be reduced. Unfortunately, anybody who tries will be painted as weak on national security and would be political disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-Higgs-5

Bigdogg wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I agree with gibby here, this problem lies with both republicans and democrats. We at least had a legitimate discussion about healthcare. We NEVER talk about scaling back the military. This healthcare bill costs $2.4 trillion over 20 years. Over the same time, assuming no cuts or additional funding, our overseas military will cost us $20 trillion. I hate the spending on both, but let's call a spade a spade here. It's time to talk about serious military cuts. We can't afford any of this.

Agreed both sides are at fault and spending in all areas needs looked at, but $20 trillion? Where is that from?

Looks like between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010 to me. Still a lot, and needs to be reduced. Unfortunately, anybody who tries will be painted as weak on national security and would be political disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-Higgs-5

That is still, even with rounding, $2 trillion, not $20 trillion.

Although, I agree the numbers need reduced and contract and acquisition reform is needed.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I agree with gibby here, this problem lies with both republicans and democrats. We at least had a legitimate discussion about healthcare. We NEVER talk about scaling back the military. This healthcare bill costs $2.4 trillion over 20 years. Over the same time, assuming no cuts or additional funding, our overseas military will cost us $20 trillion. I hate the spending on both, but let's call a spade a spade here. It's time to talk about serious military cuts. We can't afford any of this.

Agreed both sides are at fault and spending in all areas needs looked at, but $20 trillion? Where is that from?

http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html

Ok, found the figures that the DoD uses. I think they spend more, but this is their budget so we'll use it. FY2010 shows $693 billion and requested FY2011 is $708 billion. That's 2.2% more spent next year on military than will be this year, which was 3.9% bigger than FY 2009 (so much for Obama reducing the military). But let's forget this and say they'll only spend $708 billion/year over the next 20 years, it equals $14.1 trillion over 20 years, assuming no cuts or increases past 2011. That's MUCH more than this healthcare bill will cost over 20 years (projected $2.4 trillion).

Moral of the story: both are way too much and unsustainable along with the other current entitlements we have.

bigmanbt wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I agree with gibby here, this problem lies with both republicans and democrats. We at least had a legitimate discussion about healthcare. We NEVER talk about scaling back the military. This healthcare bill costs $2.4 trillion over 20 years. Over the same time, assuming no cuts or additional funding, our overseas military will cost us $20 trillion. I hate the spending on both, but let's call a spade a spade here. It's time to talk about serious military cuts. We can't afford any of this.

Agreed both sides are at fault and spending in all areas needs looked at, but $20 trillion? Where is that from?

http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html

Ok, found the figures that the DoD uses. I think they spend more, but this is their budget so we'll use it. FY2010 shows $693 billion and requested FY2011 is $708 billion. That's 2.2% more spent next year on military than will be this year, which was 3.9% bigger than FY 2009 (so much for Obama reducing the military). But let's forget this and say they'll only spend $708 billion/year over the next 20 years, it equals $14.1 trillion over 20 years, assuming no cuts or increases past 2011. That's MUCH more than this healthcare bill will cost over 20 years (projected $2.4 trillion).

Moral of the story: both are way too much and unsustainable along with the other current entitlements we have.

Ahh, I can't read, the 20 was a 10 year projection. Now. I'm with ya.

I'd agree with that.

Radical leftist: "we have to control the people"



http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people

is there any truth to the rumor that the writers of this bill accidentally ommited the language including pre-existing conditions in children into this bill and that it won't go into affect until 2014?

Did anyone else pick up on the "tanning tax"? Tanning salon customers will be taxed an additional 10%. Of course, this will cause the price of these services to go up and a lot of people will choice not to get a tan. Employers will likely look to cut costs (meaning lost jobs and benefits), perhaps many more will close and a bunch of hot chicks will be pigmentally challenged.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2010%2F03%2F24%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Ftanning_tax%2Findex.htm&rct=j&q=Tanning+Tax+in+health+care+bill&ei=zn-qS5LNK4_etgP0_bDLBQ&usg=AFQjCNED978rILrJ9eBths0wCUtjYInFUQ

As we go along, there are going to be lots of unpleasant discoveries and side effects of this legislation that come to light.

j_crazy wrote: is there any truth to the rumor that the writers of this bill accidentally ommited the language including pre-existing conditions in children into this bill and that it won't go into affect until 2014?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-health-care-laws-apf-4272209396.html?x=0&.v=1

No ambiguity in the tanning tax though.

Little Danny wrote: Did anyone else pick up on the "tanning tax"? Tanning salon customers will be taxed an additional 10%. Of course, this will cause the price of these services to go up and a lot of people will choice not to get a tan. Employers will likely look to cut costs (meaning lost jobs and benefits), perhaps many more will close and a bunch of hot chicks will be pigmentally challenged.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2010%2F03%2F24%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Ftanning_tax%2Findex.htm&rct=j&q=Tanning+Tax+in+health+care+bill&ei=zn-qS5LNK4_etgP0_bDLBQ&usg=AFQjCNED978rILrJ9eBths0wCUtjYInFUQ

Execpt in the South. At least until they add the beach tax.

I think we all know what the real problem is, here...



....a little comedy relief never hurt anyone.

RedBlackAttack wrote: I think we all know what the real problem is, here...



....a little comedy relief never hurt anyone.

LOL...I saw that a couple of days ago. Good stuff!

fish82 wrote: Some interesting audio from Johnny Dingell. Could just be a gaffe I suppose....but possibly a Freudian slip as well? You be the judge.

http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people/

Very interesting...

I like what one of the commenters wrote below that:

"This-coming, from a man that I’d bet can’t control his own bowels."

LMAO!!!

Source Page http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html?tag=stack

Little Danny wrote: Did anyone else pick up on the "tanning tax"? Tanning salon customers will be taxed an additional 10%. Of course, this will cause the price of these services to go up and a lot of people will choice not to get a tan. Employers will likely look to cut costs (meaning lost jobs and benefits), perhaps many more will close and a bunch of hot chicks will be pigmentally challenged.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2010%2F03%2F24%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Ftanning_tax%2Findex.htm&rct=j&q=Tanning+Tax+in+health+care+bill&ei=zn-qS5LNK4_etgP0_bDLBQ&usg=AFQjCNED978rILrJ9eBths0wCUtjYInFUQ

See, there's racism in this bill too! Only white people go to tanning salons, so this is Obama's way of discriminating against white Americans.

(Joking, of course)

jhay78 wrote:

Little Danny wrote: Did anyone else pick up on the "tanning tax"? Tanning salon customers will be taxed an additional 10%. Of course, this will cause the price of these services to go up and a lot of people will choice not to get a tan. Employers will likely look to cut costs (meaning lost jobs and benefits), perhaps many more will close and a bunch of hot chicks will be pigmentally challenged.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2010%2F03%2F24%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Ftanning_tax%2Findex.htm&rct=j&q=Tanning+Tax+in+health+care+bill&ei=zn-qS5LNK4_etgP0_bDLBQ&usg=AFQjCNED978rILrJ9eBths0wCUtjYInFUQ

See, there's racism in this bill too! Only white people go to tanning salons, so this is Obama's way of discriminating against white Americans.

(Joking, of course)

But Obama promised to not raise taxes on people making less than 250,000 a year. I know, only rich people go to the tanning bed. That's it. It's obviously racist also, I agree. Don't see too many black people going to the tanning bed. I wonder what would have happened if Bush had put a 10% tax on chicken?

I Wear Pants wrote: We also have the most expensive health care system in the world.

Generally if something is the best, it costs more. Best cars cost more. Best homes cost more. Best food costs more. Best healthcare costs more.

I Wear Pants wrote:
I think the 26 year thing is hinged upon the fact that you are enrolled in college. Probably was added because of how long it takes to get a degree these days with all of the vitally important "core curriculum" classes that we have to take anymore.

At 26, assuming someone goes directly from high school to college, one would have been in college for 8 years. They don't need health insurance they could be a doctor themselves by then!

dwccrew wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: We also have the most expensive health care system in the world.

Generally if something is the best, it costs more. Best cars cost more. Best homes cost more. Best food costs more. Best healthcare costs more.

I Wear Pants wrote:
I think the 26 year thing is hinged upon the fact that you are enrolled in college. Probably was added because of how long it takes to get a degree these days with all of the vitally important "core curriculum" classes that we have to take anymore.

At 26, assuming someone goes directly from high school to college, one would have been in college for 8 years. They don't need health insurance they could be a doctor themselves by then!

Is a Porsche the right car for everyone?

Also, why is it so hard to realize that the traditional college student going straight from high school, 4 years in college and coming out with a degree doesn't happen nearly as often anymore.

There are many more people now who are in their mid-twenties and still in school. This doesn't make them a failure or lazy or incapable of living on their own. They are just doing it differently. Chill out. If you're enrolled full time in college you shouldn't have to worry that you couldn't afford to get sick because you couldn't afford medication or the doctor. Maybe you can worry that you can't afford to get sick because you can't miss class but you shouldn't have to choose between buying your books/paying tuition and buying medicine or a doctor's visit.

^^^ Ugh.



We were obviously doing something wrong.