[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The polarization of the US has nothing to do with policies or ideologies and everything to do with presentation, marketing, and political tribalism: Less Wrong: The Two-Party Swindle.

Great article, and agree this has really lowered the level of discourse in this country. All the two parties have to do is convince people they're 'better' than the 'other team', and predictably, public sentiment sways slightly back and forth.

I, for one, would really love to see, say, the Tea and Green parties gain a lot more traction (parties just examples...take your pick). I think it would mean everyone would have to raise their game and sell people on what their team has to offer (because that would be a lot easier than fighting 3 or more other 'bad guys').

Maybe someday.

[ebuddy]

The government can turn you away for any condition, pre-existing or otherwise. Absolutely no one can guarantee access to healthcare. There are over 3 million people eligible for Medicare yet remain un-enrolled.

Any argument reiterating the point that this bill doesn't have a public option or a "single-payer system" in it is lame; a claim that requires you to forget what you know about the well-documented, clearly-stated long term goals of the most noteworthy of authors and supporters of this legislation. When Rahm tells you you're reaching too far, you're reaching too far- you'd better listen... and they did. This doesn't mean a public option is not in the bill. It's all over the friggin' bill. It was the original intent of the bill. "Because they couldn't" is not really a sound defense here IMO.

You really believe we're not picking winners and losers with this BS? Really? You think the smaller players who often drive innovation, competitive pricing, a handshake, and the model of integrity can afford to take on all pre-existing conditions and a battery of government-approved "preventive" care mandates, not to mention the promise of paying up or penalty? This bill has essentially commandeered a few large corporations as an extension of government through agents working almost exclusively on its behalf. The rest it puts out of business. This relationship between Washington and the largest of offenders renders Haliburton laughable.

I agree that the cries of socialism and/or communism are tired. We should pick one and go with it.
A. It is Socialist
B. It is Communist
C. It is a socialist means to a communist end.

A 3.3% profit margin is not evil. There are horror stories on both sides of this issue. Sickness and disease sucks can I get an amen? The promise of solvency through 10 years is as meaningful as an executive order clarifying abortion language in a bill from the Senate. This is not encouraging IMO, knowing that 6 years of benefit requires 10 years of funding.

The fear mongering is old because it has been abused by every anecdote of "gramma" force-fed us by politicians pushing for universal healthcare... I mean a Senate bill that helps college students get loans through the government.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Please share an opposing "horror story"...

Possibly being an oncologist and having to pay for your patients' drugs out of your own pocket.

[stumblinmike]

Model of integrity?????

[DrTacoMD]

None of this would have happened if we had all just voted for Perot back in the 90s...

[sek929]

I think it's been downhill since Washington.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Haha your just upset a Democrat is doing what Republicans couldn't do. Please move to Costa Rica with Rush, since Costa Rica is almost the last country in the world without government health care I'm sure you will be glad to pay whatever the insurance companies want to charge you and deny you a Tylenol unless you get a referral. And you can call me whatever you want. You and your Republican friends calling Senators 'NI@@er', and 'Fag@t' is all the clarification of your mentality we need. You just can't stand that the 'Ni@@er' is president. Typical Republican bigot.

Seriously, what the **** is wrong with you?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, is President Obama a statist or not? BTW all of the above are forms of statism.

Why are you obsessed with assigning labels to things?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This is a big step towards the complete polarization and paralysis of the US.

Good. It's about time we split up into several smaller nations where like-minded individuals can live with other like-minded individuals.All those folks opposed to government-structured health-care can live together in the "land of liberty and low taxes". I just hope none of them ever get sick.

[Lint Police]

I can't wait to get a 1099 form from my health care provider so that the IRS can check to make sure I am a law abiding citizen.

Oh wait, I'll just pay the fine, and buy coverage after I need it. Yeah, that shouldn't cause any problems at all.....

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Good. It's about time we split up into several smaller nations where like-minded individuals can live with other like-minded individuals.All those folks opposed to government-structured health-care can live together in the "land of liberty and low taxes". I just hope none of them ever get sick.

Gladly. We might die young, but it will be from hard work, not sitting on our knees with our hands out.

[Kerrigan]

The US is edging towards another secession crisis. Just wait until Obama starts pushing for 'climate' taxes. Then things will get really bad when the Democrats try to make 20million+ Mexicans into US citizens. It'll be interesting to watch.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Gladly. We might die young, but it will be from hard work, not sitting on our knees with our hands out.

True, except that it's hard work that got us good health insurance in the first place. Now the folks looking for handouts reap the rewards...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The US is edging towards another secession crisis. Just wait until Obama starts pushing for 'climate' taxes. Then things will get really bad when the Democrats try to make 20million+ Mexicans into US citizens. It'll be interesting to watch.

Oh yes, that is exactly what will happen!

I think we should segregate the country into sensible people and non-sensible people.

[Kerrigan]

And into which of those two countries would you fit, Besson? Take a moment to be introspective.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Please share an opposing "horror story"...

Why? You don't read. You just write.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

You may have missed it when he said she had to take out a mortgage in order to pay for the therapy.

In light of the fact that she's being denied necessary chemo treatments, I'm not sure how it matters. The point is, she may be failing herself and worse, she's already been failed by the government that makes promises it cannot possibly keep. You don't know her and neither do I. Instead of fundraising on her behalf and doing something about it himself, he's lobbying for everyone else to. Nice.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Though, I would ask, what does it marginalize? And who is being marginalized? Do you feel marginalized because of an article that is primarily about group dynamics? The article doesn't take a 'side' per se, rather points out what constitutes a side—which is not much (see many examples in the article).

People will always botch a good argument, this doesn't mean a good argument is not behind the sentiment. I've seen a lot of mention lately about folks just saying "no", obstructionism, etc... the fact of the matter is that many have a negative perception of our current momentum. They have a right to speak it regardless of what you think of their delivery. It marginalizes free speech.

There are reasons for dissent and disagreement in society today, though in the grand scheme of things, it rarely deserves the rhetoric being thrown about like it currently is in the US political spectrum. The conflict between the two parties is good for those parties (mainly going into elections), but if you look to that system to actually accomplish something reasonable, tangible and thought out, you will quickly become disillusioned.

Hence the disagreeable notion of the most hamstrung of entities doing the lion's share of growing and hiring these days.

You can carry on with the way things are, or you can approach it from another angle. I'm leaning towards the latter.

A. No one is asking for things the way they were. Folks were trying to push HSAs and compatible plans from the Bush Administration. This would've been another angle, but the party of "no" (because they were opposed to the proposal) blocked him.
B. The Senate bill is not "another angle", it is business as usual and seeks to model the insolvent systems of yesteryear.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Possibly being an oncologist and having to pay for your patients' drugs out of your own pocket.

If the oncologist were mired in debt like our country is right now, he likely wouldn't provide the service. How some feel our nation, mired in debt, can is beyond me. This is just the status quo of handing another responsibility to an already broken government.

Not long ago it was waste, fraud, rampant spending, blood for oil, Haliburton, unprecedented civil rights abuses, and cronyism... now it's "give 'em our healthcare" as if the Preferred Ideology® will always hold the majority in office.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Seriously, what the **** is wrong with you?

The inevitable result of trying to defend the indefensible.

[Doofy]

10% tax on tanning salon services?
Isn't that a bit racist?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And of course we have certain members of the Tea Party crowd revealing their true colors in the wake of all this:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Protesters hurl slurs and spit at Democrats � - Blogs from CNN.com

And then we have self-described conservative bloggers openly calling for President Obama's assassination on Twitter:





TCOT? The "Top Conservatives on Twitter" tag. And then after this idiot's tweets go viral and it dawns upon him that he's broken the law ... TWICE ... then all of a sudden he wants to backtrack and claim to be a "good American".



I suppose a Secret Service investigation will do that to you huh?

OAW

Let's have the audio/visual proof these things were said, not some hearsay from some CNN producer. OAW, you can watch this short clip from YouTube YouTube - Clip from Bush Assassination Film Compare how relatively benign the current protests are. More interestingly, the current president is continuing the same policies for which the assassination of George Bush made into a movie. I can imagine a movie about the the lynching of BHO would fit nicely in your playbook.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Let's have the audio/visual proof these things were said, not some hearsay from some CNN producer. OAW, you can watch this short clip from YouTube YouTube - Clip from Bush Assassination Film Compare how relatively benign the current protests are. More interestingly, the current president is continuing the same policies for which the assassination of George Bush made into a movie. I can imagine a movie about the the lynching of BHO would fit nicely in your playbook.

Have you *looked* at this guy's tweets? He's apparently removed the tweet in question, but it's not much of an escalation from what he regularly posts.

Originally Posted by Solly Forell

AMERICA! OVERTHROW @BARACKOBAMA NOW! 4get his race. Destroy #BarackObama RIGHT NOW! Any means necessary. Obama was a terrible mistake. #tcot

And, the Secret Service is apparently investigating.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/th...-oba/19408303/

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Have you *looked* at this guy's tweets? He's apparently removed the tweet in question, but it's not much of an escalation from what he regularly posts.
And, the Secret Service is apparently investigating.
Conservative Blogger Urges Obama Assassination on Twitter - DailyFinance

The guy is obviously realizing the error of his ways. Can we take down the Youtube Video?
Given all the cell phone video, record capabilities, media just looking for chance to record such actions why none? Just scurrilous accusation and innuendo. Par for the course.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The guy is obviously realizing the error of his ways. Can we take down the Youtube Video?
Given all the cell phone video, record capabilities, media just looking for chance to record such actions why none? Just scurrilous accusation and innuendo. Par for the course.

So, you don't think calls to assassinate the President should be taken seriously?

[smacintush]

Here's my "horror" story, I've told it before:

My son was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor (medulloblastoma to those who want to know) when he was 9 months old (1995). I had a mediocre 80/20 health plan with United Healthcare. He was denied nothing and to my knowledge to treatment wasn't even in question, which is interesting since his prognosis wasn't great and his treatment was an experimental chemo protocol.

After about 6 months, his treatments ended and my portion of the total bill was about $100,000. Charities picked up every bit of the bill as well as covering every long term effect that the chemo had on him, including his hearing aids from the nerve damage and dental work. (yes, the treatment ruined his teeth)

3 years later he had another surgery due to a false positive on his biannual MRI and I paid ZERO on that bill as well.

About 2 years after that I switched jobs and have a different provider. I have had no trouble with payment of his annual checkups or anything else he has had. To this day I think I have paid about $500 out of pocket toward his cancer related healthcare costs.

He is 15 now and I might add, pretty normal. He does have a hearing impairment and he is sterile, but they saved his life and they did it without the crippling effects that radiation would have had on his brain and spinal cord. All for the low low price of $500.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

After about 6 months, his treatments ended and my portion of the total bill was about $100,000. Charities picked up every bit of the bill as well as covering every long term effect that the chemo had on him, including his hearing aids from the nerve damage and dental work. (yes, the treatment ruined his teeth)

How did you get access to the charities?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Hence the disagreeable notion of the most hamstrung of entities doing the lion's share of growing and hiring these days.

Political parties?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you don't think calls to assassinate the President should be taken seriously?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just a reminder. Even if it is too late for Woodrow Wilson to hear it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How did you get access to the charities?

Through the hospital, they set the whole thing up. My wife had like, one interview with a hospital worker and they did the rest.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just a reminder. Even if it is too late for Woodrow Wilson to hear it.

And since threats infringe on the basic rights of others, they are not considered "speech" protected under the First Amendment. And again, to actually be a crime in the United States, my understanding is that the threat has to demonstrate credible intent.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just a reminder. Even if it is too late for Woodrow Wilson to hear it.

Yeah but they'll just bring up the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theater" defense. You know, the one from Oliver Wendall Holmes where they stupidly ruled that it wasn't ok to distribute anti-draft flyers during WWI.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just a reminder. Even if it is too late for Woodrow Wilson to hear it.

'Congress shall make no law'

not

'The Secret Service shall not investigate'

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Dunno, I would think so, I haven't talked to her in a few weeks. This bill just may of saved her life!!! How novel

Only if she actually manages to survive on her own until 2014, when the "benefits" actually kick in, after all the immediate taxes to pay for it are collected.

So, yes, OAW, repeal is definitely still on the table. For 4 years. That's 3 Congressional election cycles and one presidential - don't crow so loudly.

BTW, that should be a HUGE hint to you that this has NOTHING to do with "healthcare reform." If it did, the benefits would kick in immediately. What it IS, is the Federal government's eventual takeover of the private insurance industry. And before you deny it, your own president has stated so - in so many words.

Also, the $948 billion figure being tossed around was already "asterisked" by the CBO upon issuance. It does NOT include the "doctor fix" to repair the medicare damage - the true cost is north of $1.4 trillion - in the CBO's best guesstimates. The "key" in getting it rammed through was to keep the apparent cost below $1 trillion - by lying about it. What a shock.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-of-obamacare/

Not to mention, 30% of current physicians have stated they will now leave the profession. 8% currently at an age able to retire and a furtehr 22% upon implementation. So - more patients, fewer doctors, healthcare managed by an entity that denied more claims than any private insurer for the past 10 years - keep celebrating.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

'Congress shall make no law'

not

'The Secret Service shall not investigate'

Ok, but why does the Department of the Treasury have jurisdiction here?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ok, but why does the Department of the Treasury have jurisdiction here?

It's actually part of the Department of Homeland Security now.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ok, but why does the Department of the Treasury have jurisdiction here?

Probably because the Secret Service is part of the DoT - you know, conterfieting money coming under their jurisdiction and all.

[jokell82]

While I'm not a fan of this piece of legislation by any means, I've decided not to get all worked up about it. Why? Because I can't see all of it making it through scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

This bill makes it a federal requirement for citizens to enter into a contract with and purchase services from private industries. That has never happened before, and there is absolutely NOTHING in our constitution that allows it. Even the "necessary and proper" clause cannot be stretched to fit into an argument for this. If it were to pass, and if it were to be upheld by the courts, it would mean the federal government could force you to spend your own money on whatever they wanted (they would give valid reasons, of course). That's downright scary. I can't imagine anyone, liberal or conservative, would be happy with this.

Some of the new regulations, however, will probably stick around. I'm not real happy about all of them, but whatever.

But my biggest problem with this entire situation is how people are treating it like it's a game. That their side won and they need to gloat, or their side lost and they need to piss and moan about it. This is the future of our country, not a ****ing NCAA tournament bracket.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

While I'm not a fan of this piece of legislation by any means, I've decided not to get all worked up about it. Why? Because I can't see all of it making it through scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

This bill makes it a federal requirement for citizens to enter into a contract with and purchase services from private industries. That has never happened before, and there is absolutely NOTHING in our constitution that allows it. Even the "necessary and proper" clause cannot be stretched to fit into an argument for this. If it were to pass, and if it were to be upheld by the courts, it would mean the federal government could force you to spend your own money on whatever they wanted (they would give valid reasons, of course). That's downright scary. I can't imagine anyone, liberal or conservative, would be happy with this.

Some of the new regulations, however, will probably stick around. I'm not real happy about all of them, but whatever.

But my biggest problem with this entire situation is how people are treating it like it's a game. That their side won and they need to gloat, or their side lost and they need to piss and moan about it. This is the future of our country, not a ****ing NCAA tournament bracket.

On the plus side, we could now have a federal law requiring all US citizens to purchase and carry guns.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And since threats infringe on the basic rights of others

Unless those threats are from the government, of course.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

they are not considered "speech" protected under the First Amendment. And again, to actually be a crime in the United States, my understanding is that the threat has to demonstrate credible intent.

Under what law did your lawmakers decide what was and wasn't "protected speech"? Wouldn't they, at that particular point in time, have breached the constitution?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's actually part of the Department of Homeland Security now.

Ah, that makes much more sense.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

This bill makes it a federal requirement for citizens to enter into a contract with and purchase services from private industries.

Under threat of fine. Unless it's against your religious beliefs. Which it is, isn't it?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

This bill makes it a federal requirement for citizens to enter into a contract with and purchase services from private industries. That has never happened before, and there is absolutely NOTHING in our constitution that allows it. Even the "necessary and proper" clause cannot be stretched to fit into an argument for this. If it were to pass, and if it were to be upheld by the courts, it would mean the federal government could force you to spend your own money on whatever they wanted (they would give valid reasons, of course). That's downright scary. I can't imagine anyone, liberal or conservative, would be happy with this.

I don't even understand it. It's not like people don't get health insurance to be dicks or something (and even if they did, still). I can't imagine insurance companies think this will suddenly get people running to them.

Originally Posted by jokell82 

But my biggest problem with this entire situation is how people are treating it like it's a game. That their side won and they need to gloat, or their side lost and they need to piss and moan about it. This is the future of our country, not a ****ing NCAA tournament bracket.

Careful besson may fellate you after reading this.

[Big Mac]

Regarding the federal requirement, the Administration will just defend the fine for those who don't get coverage as a tax, and given the broad taxation powers of government that will pass Constitutional scrutiny. It's just going to be another tax.

[nonhuman]

If the fine for not having health insurance is less than the cost of health insurance, and you can't be denied for having a pre-existing condition, why not just go without insurance and pay the fine and only buy insurance once you actually get sick?

[Doofy]

^

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you don't think calls to assassinate the President should be taken seriously?

I understand completely why you would think that from my posts

[Macrobat]

It also has a provision that affects Social Security - a direct violation of the Senate's "Byrd Rule" and will probably get shot down by their Parliamentarian.

Unless Joey Biden overrules the Parliamentarian. You know - being in charge of the Senate and all - the thing he made fun of Palin for saying in their debate.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Not to mention, 30% of current physicians have stated they will now leave the profession.

1/3 of the physicians are leaving? Where in the name of hell did you find that outrageous number?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by sek929 

1/3 of the physicians are leaving? Where in the name of hell did you find that outrageous number?

Simply Google it.

Here's one article:

Will Obama-care drive doctors out? (article) by Robert Amoroso on AuthorsDen

The number came original from the New England Journal of Medicine, which conducted a survey of its own.

To put that in perspective for you, less than 30% of physicians are members of the AMA.

Shouldn't come as a particular shock to you. Every country with single=payer or any variant have doctor shortages. See, if you make it impossible for them to earn enough income to offset the outrageoous cost of their educations, they will NOT become doctors. First to go will be primary care physicians, as they make a lower percentage than specialists.