Need a liberal's help

[Bob78164]

People are just beginning to see what a train wreck it is and it will only get worse for all of us. And this is ALL on the dems. Not one repub voted for it, not one repub even had a say in it.

The Republicans opted out by not trying to participate in the process since none of them said they would support it under certain circumstances.

Socialism is a bad idea. They stood by their principles and refused to 'negotiate an acceptable socialist program'.


I'm amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people here who think everyone should all chip in and pay for everyone's health care.

We already are. I just want to pay less, and I think the Affordable Care Act will accomplish that goal by getting more people to get insured. --Bob

[Bob78164]

How do you think the Senate got Obamacare passed after Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to stop it? Reid changed the rules and tied it to a budget reconcilaition bill that couldn't be filibustered. Or don't you remember?

must have back home in Canada then

Your memory is wrong. The original bill passed the Senate before Senator Brown's election. The House passed the Senate version without change, and President Obama signed it.

The House then passed a bill with some corrections, using the reconciliation process to avoid Republicans who would rather see the bill fail than make any attempt to fix it. The corrections bill is the bill that couldn't be filibustered.

Not that I have much respect for the filibuster. The Constitution doesn't say anything about requiring 60 senators to get legislation through the Senate. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

How do you think the Senate got Obamacare passed after Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to stop it? Reid changed the rules and tied it to a budget reconcilaition bill that couldn't be filibustered. Or don't you remember?

must have back home in Canada then

Your memory is wrong.

Flock's memory is fine. He remembers whatever the right wing talking-point-of-the-day meme is. It's just that the Hannitys and Limbaughs of this world who supply him with these talking points conveniently omit or misstate facts to suit their purposes.

[BassPlayingSugarplum]

My body does not need coverage for pregnancy or child birth. Neither does my wife's or my mother-in-law.

Nor do they need coverage for abortions. Even if they did we'd refuse to use it, so why make us pay for it (along with everyone else's).

I don't (can't) eat wheat, but my tax dollars go to subsidize it. If we only paid for what we used, we'd have no bridges, no airports, etc. Paying for things you don't use -- and even things you don't agree with -- is called democracy.

What I really don't understand is why people on here can't disagree with each other's opinions without getting nasty. If people can't play be polite to each other on a game show message board, what chance does Congress have?

[DevilKitty100]

My body does not need coverage for pregnancy or child birth. Neither does my wife's or my mother-in-law.

Nor do they need coverage for abortions. Even if they did we'd refuse to use it, so why make us pay for it (along with everyone else's).

I don't (can't) eat wheat, but my tax dollars go to subsidize it. If we only paid for what we used, we'd have no bridges, no airports, etc. Paying for things you don't use -- and even things you don't agree with -- is called democracy.

What I really don't understand is why people on here can't disagree with each other's opinions without getting nasty. If people can't play be polite to each other on a game show message board, what chance does Congress have?

Oh, gosh! This discussion is downright civilized.......well, except for that rabble rousing LB.

Truly......you should have been around "back in the day." Bloodletting was a sport and no prisoners were taken. Actually, internal democracy is somewhat at work here as the core folks of this board have loosely agreed (over the years) on the rules of disagreement and functions somewhat reasonably.

[littlebeast13]

My body does not need coverage for pregnancy or child birth. Neither does my wife's or my mother-in-law.

Nor do they need coverage for abortions. Even if they did we'd refuse to use it, so why make us pay for it (along with everyone else's).

I don't (can't) eat wheat, but my tax dollars go to subsidize it. If we only paid for what we used, we'd have no bridges, no airports, etc. Paying for things you don't use -- and even things you don't agree with -- is called democracy.

What I really don't understand is why people on here can't disagree with each other's opinions without getting nasty. If people can't play be polite to each other on a game show message board, what chance does Congress have?

Oh, gosh! This discussion is downright civilized.......well, except for that rabble rousing LB.

Truly......you should have been around "back in the day." Bloodletting was a sport and no prisoners were taken. Actually, internal democracy is somewhat at work here as the core folks of this board have loosely agreed (over the years) on the rules of disagreement and functions somewhat reasonably.

I cuss a lot, it's in my nature....

lb13

[DevilKitty100]

I don't (can't) eat wheat, but my tax dollars go to subsidize it. If we only paid for what we used, we'd have no bridges, no airports, etc. Paying for things you don't use -- and even things you don't agree with -- is called democracy.

What I really don't understand is why people on here can't disagree with each other's opinions without getting nasty. If people can't play be polite to each other on a game show message board, what chance does Congress have?

Oh, gosh! This discussion is downright civilized.......well, except for that rabble rousing LB.

Truly......you should have been around "back in the day." Bloodletting was a sport and no prisoners were taken. Actually, internal democracy is somewhat at work here as the core folks of this board have loosely agreed (over the years) on the rules of disagreement and functions somewhat reasonably.

I cuss a lot, it's in my nature....

lb13

You are preaching to the choir, brother. My sister said someone told her once that people who cuss are happy people. She told them that her sister must be the happiest person in the world then.

[flockofseagulls104]

So how did Obamacare become a law? It’s actually pretty interesting. If you
recall, the Democrats in the House weren’t able to pass their version of a
Healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House of
Representatives, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a
military housing bill. They took out essentially all of the wording of it, and turned
it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. It gets better.

The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare. After
the bill passed the Senate tho, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place,
Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that, if the House
made any changes to the bill, the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of
votes to pass the corrected bill, since they knew no Republicans would vote for
Obamacare. So they made a deal with the Democrat‐controlled House of
Representatives: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes, IF
the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the
Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act
of 2010.

It made a bunch of detail changes, and added some things. So the
House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. So now
PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the
Reconciliation Act from the House. Confused yet?

Now, remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act
since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy. In order to pass
the Reconciliation Act, therefore, the Democrats in the Senate decided to change
the rules. They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule”—this is a
different “reconciliation” than the House bill now. This rule was only used for
budget item approval, so that budget items could be passed with only 51 votes in
the Senate, not the usual 60.

This rule was never intended to be used for
legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. Too bad… they used it anyway. So
then both of the “Acts” passed both houses of Congress and were then signed by
President Obama. All done by Democrats without a single Republican vote in
favor of it. To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee
during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along”. They
certainly couldn’t have made this law without it.

[littlebeast13]

Oh, gosh! This discussion is downright civilized.......well, except for that rabble rousing LB.

Truly......you should have been around "back in the day." Bloodletting was a sport and no prisoners were taken. Actually, internal democracy is somewhat at work here as the core folks of this board have loosely agreed (over the years) on the rules of disagreement and functions somewhat reasonably.

I cuss a lot, it's in my nature....

lb13

You are preaching to the choir, brother. My sister said someone told her once that people who cuss are happy people. She told them that her sister must be the happiest person in the world then.

Well, I do tend to be quite a happy little fella....

lb13

[jarnon]

Well, I do tend to be quite a happy little fella....

lb13

Found it!

[Bob Juch]

So how did Obamacare become a law? It’s actually pretty interesting. If you
recall, the Democrats in the House weren’t able to pass their version of a
Healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House of
Representatives, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a
military housing bill. They took out essentially all of the wording of it, and turned
it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. It gets better.

The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare. After
the bill passed the Senate tho, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place,
Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that, if the House
made any changes to the bill, the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of
votes to pass the corrected bill, since they knew no Republicans would vote for
Obamacare. So they made a deal with the Democrat‐controlled House of
Representatives: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes, IF
the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the
Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act
of 2010.

It made a bunch of detail changes, and added some things. So the
House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. So now
PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the
Reconciliation Act from the House. Confused yet?

Now, remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act
since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy. In order to pass
the Reconciliation Act, therefore, the Democrats in the Senate decided to change
the rules. They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule”—this is a
different “reconciliation” than the House bill now. This rule was only used for
budget item approval, so that budget items could be passed with only 51 votes in
the Senate, not the usual 60.

This rule was never intended to be used for
legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. Too bad… they used it anyway. So
then both of the “Acts” passed both houses of Congress and were then signed by
President Obama. All done by Democrats without a single Republican vote in
favor of it. To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee
during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along”. They
certainly couldn’t have made this law without it.

That's been quoted on web pages so many times I don't know where it originated. You might be interested in this discussion:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... nEvsHDbNAI

[Jessie]

I cuss a lot, it's in my nature....

lb13

Perhaps you should seek absolution for your dirty mouth.

[Jessie]

My body does not need coverage for pregnancy or child birth. Neither does my wife's or my mother-in-law.

Nor do they need coverage for abortions. Even if they did we'd refuse to use it, so why make us pay for it (along with everyone else's).

I don't (can't) eat wheat, but my tax dollars go to subsidize it. If we only paid for what we used, we'd have no bridges, no airports, etc. Paying for things you don't use -- and even things you don't agree with -- is called democracy.

What I really don't understand is why people on here can't disagree with each other's opinions without getting nasty. If people can't play be polite to each other on a game show message board, what chance does Congress have?

BPS, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you just said...how refreshing!!!

[littlebeast13]

I cuss a lot, it's in my nature....

lb13

Perhaps you should seek absolution for your dirty mouth.

I'll have to see if there's anyone out there who can help me with that....

lb13

[Jessie]

I cuss a lot, it's in my nature....

lb13

Perhaps you should seek absolution for your dirty mouth.

I'll have to see if there's anyone out there who can help me with that....

lb13

I'll be glad to assist you in your quest.

[a1mamacat]

I cuss a lot, it's in my nature....

lb13

Perhaps you should seek absolution for your dirty mouth.

I'll have to see if there's anyone out there who can help me with that....

lb13

This appears to be the true Found it!

[Bob Juch]

I cuss a lot, it's in my nature....

lb13

Perhaps you should seek absolution for your dirty mouth.

I'll have to see if there's anyone out there who can help me with that....

lb13

Gargle with holy water.

[BackInTex]

Do your children go to public school, BiT?

Yes they do. However I know they could get a much better education from a private institution which I could afford if I were given back all the taxes I pay to support public education. The private institution wouldn't waste the money public schools do coddling kids who will never amount to anything. They would whip them in shape or ship them out. Private schools are able to control the behavior of the students and parents.

For the people who don't have insurance you are paying anyway, for the people who do have insurance costs are spread out among large numbers of people. Under this plan you would save money for redistribution to other programs, no one gets tax dollars back. The uninsured would now get pre emptive care available, not go to emergency care for a minor condition and the benefit of insurance company negotiated rates.

I don't subscribe to that economic macro. 100 emergency visits at $1,000 is cheaper than 10,000 office visits at $100 by a factor of 10. I think that will be the trade-off.

Because everyone who didn't need his or her hip replaced paid for yours. A la carte pricing leads to higher overall prices due to adverse selection (when coverage is optional, people don't opt for it unless they think there's a good chance they'll need it).

Only if you take pre-existing conditions out of the equation, as Obamacare has done. There was a risk involved in not having certain coverage. Now there is not. Pay for bronze until you need something, switch to platinum, then when done, switch back to bronze.

Besides, my company paid for my hip replacements. We are self-insured up to $50,000.

And of course, if you and your wife and mother-in-law are allowed to opt out of maternity coverage, then whenever your daughters get around to buying their own insurance, they will pay a lot more for that coverage than they would if the total pool were larger.

And that's the way it should be. They shouldn't be having kids if they can't afford the cost. You shouldn't have to pay a dime for my kids to have kids. I shouldn't have to pay a dime for yours to have abortions.

Insurance is voluntary. Obamacare is not.

Do you have car insurance, BiT?

Yes I do. I have a car. But my son doesn't drive so I don't have him insured.

Insurance is not the best mechanism to deal with a problem like health care. That's no surprise considering that Obamacare was originally proposed by the Republicans 20 years ago.

No it wasn't. An Individual Mandate was proposed as an alternative to HillaryCare (single payer). ObamaCare goes well beyond just an Individual Mandate.

But I am curious what you think we should do for people who require expensive medical treatment but for whatever reason can't afford to pay for it. Keep in mind that could be your family someday too. Just let them die?

At some point, yes.

I just want to pay less, and I think the Affordable Care Act will accomplish that goal by getting more people to get insured. --Bob

I don't agree that in the end you or I will pay less for the same quality and choice of care. Those who will get subsidies (paid by you and I) may pay less, but we all will get less. You (assuming you are at least in the top 25% of earners) will pay more for the same level of coverage you have now. It may show up in your income tax rate rather than your insurance premium, but you will pay more. In my opinion.

I don't (can't) eat wheat, but my tax dollars go to subsidize it.

I eat a lot of wheat and don't want there to be subsidies.

If we only paid for what we used, we'd have no bridges, no airports, etc. Paying for things you don't use -- and even things you don't agree with -- is called democracy.

Democracy has nothing to do with public infrastructure. They have public infrastructure in pretty much every country. However, your healthcare is not public infrastructure, in a democracy or otherwise. Immunizations perhaps, but my hip replacements are pretty much mine and I and my family are about the only ones to benefit.

[silverscreenselect]

But I am curious what you think we should do for people who require expensive medical treatment but for whatever reason can't afford to pay for it. Keep in mind that could be your family someday too. Just let them die?

At some point, yes.

It's nice to have people with good Christian values on the Bored.

[macrae1234]

A Republican is someone who believes in the death penalty but not abortion.

[BackInTex]

A Republican is someone who believes in the death penalty but not abortion.

Exactly. We do believe in accountability.

Apparently you (I won't say Democrats) think it not O.K. to put a murdering rapist to death but have no problem putting to death a purely innocent one who's only 'crime' is being conceived.

[Bob Juch]

A Republican is someone who believes in the death penalty but not abortion.

And is against free birth control.

[BackInTex]

A Republican is someone who believes in the death penalty but not abortion.

And is against free birth control.

I'm not against free birth control. But the only free birth control is abstinance. And I'm all for that.

What other free birth control is there? Besides seeing you or me naked?

[tlynn78]

A Republican is someone who believes in the death penalty but not abortion.

For most "traditional" Republicans, you've got that absolutely right.

[macrae1234]

Apparently you (I won't say Democrats) think it not O.K. to put a murdering rapist to death but have no problem putting to death a purely innocent one who's only 'crime' is being conceived

I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with this blanket statement but it sounds like you do I was only adding some humour I am neither Republican or Democrat but like Ted Cruz I am a Canadian first and I do agree their are shades of Grey maybe even 50 of them