Healthcare Passes 219-212

• I Wear Pants

  tk421 wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: I want reform just as much as the next person, but this isn't even a good bill even if he was trying to go the "socialist" route. He would need to tweak it to be more in line with the complexities of America. But, he has failed to take that into account, has not compromised, and as a result those who actually do need some help, as far as health care is concerned, will not get it.
  
  I mean, it is sad that, as even most Republicans on here agree, health care reform is needed, but it is not going to happen because of Obama's stubborness. A more bi-partisan effort, with a combination of Republican and Democrat ideas, would have been perfect. Lots of great ideas out there, and i think Republicans have it correct in that, probably, given the situation in America, massive government health care isn't the way to go. Reform should probably take part in the private sector, and that would help to get government costs under control as well.
  
  I really hoped that the government could make it happen, here in the States, as i've had good experiences elsewhere, and know that, in some places, government run health-care is truly a good thing. However, have realized that reform needs to come from the private sector here in the USA, as the costs to the government just can't be justified.
  
  I'm worried as much as the next person at the debt we're taking on and the like.
  
  I want to see true reform in Washington, with people who can manage to place the government in it's proper balance with the private sector.
  
  I'm not an outright free-enterprise capitalist, but think that, in the situation of the United States, the private sector needs to take "precedence" over the governmental sphere. Of course, i would like to see shady private sector shit dissapear as well, but "lasting" change and reform would come from that sector, not the government.
  
  I still consider myself a sort of Democratic-Socialist, but if i truly care about the future of the United States, i'm coming to realize that it is wrong of me to advocate those types of policies at the current time, as we need to get spending under control. "Worthless" spending is at an all-time high, and it is keeping the government from doing things that would truly benefit the American people.

  Then why doesn't anyone propose a bill that does that?
  
  The people who disagree with the bill keep saying that they realize that health care needs addressed and that they have ideas but what has actually been proposed?

  Because you know and everyone else knows the Democrats aren't going to pass any bill from Republican ideas.

  If there was a bill that had as much support from the American people as the Republicans say they have for their ideas on health care and it was still ignored by the Democrat majority then it would definitely spell ruin for that majority come election time.
  
  If they have good ideas they should put them in a bill and propose them, if they get shot down it makes the Democrats look like assholes (assuming they were actually good ideas).
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  tk421 wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: I want reform just as much as the next person, but this isn't even a good bill even if he was trying to go the "socialist" route. He would need to tweak it to be more in line with the complexities of America. But, he has failed to take that into account, has not compromised, and as a result those who actually do need some help, as far as health care is concerned, will not get it.
  
  I mean, it is sad that, as even most Republicans on here agree, health care reform is needed, but it is not going to happen because of Obama's stubborness. A more bi-partisan effort, with a combination of Republican and Democrat ideas, would have been perfect. Lots of great ideas out there, and i think Republicans have it correct in that, probably, given the situation in America, massive government health care isn't the way to go. Reform should probably take part in the private sector, and that would help to get government costs under control as well.
  
  I really hoped that the government could make it happen, here in the States, as i've had good experiences elsewhere, and know that, in some places, government run health-care is truly a good thing. However, have realized that reform needs to come from the private sector here in the USA, as the costs to the government just can't be justified.
  
  I'm worried as much as the next person at the debt we're taking on and the like.
  
  I want to see true reform in Washington, with people who can manage to place the government in it's proper balance with the private sector.
  
  I'm not an outright free-enterprise capitalist, but think that, in the situation of the United States, the private sector needs to take "precedence" over the governmental sphere. Of course, i would like to see shady private sector shit dissapear as well, but "lasting" change and reform would come from that sector, not the government.
  
  I still consider myself a sort of Democratic-Socialist, but if i truly care about the future of the United States, i'm coming to realize that it is wrong of me to advocate those types of policies at the current time, as we need to get spending under control. "Worthless" spending is at an all-time high, and it is keeping the government from doing things that would truly benefit the American people.

  Then why doesn't anyone propose a bill that does that?
  
  The people who disagree with the bill keep saying that they realize that health care needs addressed and that they have ideas but what has actually been proposed?

  Because you know and everyone else knows the Democrats aren't going to pass any bill from Republican ideas.

  If there was a bill that had as much support from the American people as the Republicans say they have for their ideas on health care and it was still ignored by the Democrat majority then it would definitely spell ruin for that majority come election time.
  
  If they have good ideas they should put them in a bill and propose them, if they get shot down it makes the Democrats look like assholes (assuming they were actually good ideas).

  They have. Several times....they all went to the circular file upon receipt. Why do you people keep ignoring this fact?
• QuakerOats

  Obama doesn't care whether he/they follow the constitution; he just wants to win.
  
  If they have the votes to pass the bill, it passes.
  If they don't have the votes to pass the bill, it passes.
  Insanity.
  
  If he/they can take over 1/6th of the economy without a vote; they can take anything they want from you. This is tantamount to an overthrow of the Republic.
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/17/obama-tells-fox-news-procedural-spat-health-vote-doesnt-worry/
• Belly35

  

  I have marching boots ready .... Congressman be parpared to meet Belly ...in your face....
  
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare/health-care-steny-hoyer-eric-cantor-spar-vote/story?id=10122227
• cbus4life

  If you march on Pelosi, the look on her face when she noticed you coming will make her look creepier than she ever has before...if that is possible.
• QuakerOats

  "So this is just like Prague under communist rule?" the Huffington Post asked.
  
  "Oh yeah, it is very, very close," King replied. "It is the nationalization of our liberty and the federal government taking our liberty over. So there are a lot of similarities there."
  
  Rep. Steve King, Iowa on Tuesday
  
  When will the sheeple realize that we have elected the enemy?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats wrote: "So this is just like Prague under communist rule?" the Huffington Post asked.
  
  "Oh yeah, it is very, very close," King replied. "It is the nationalization of our liberty and the federal government taking our liberty over. So there are a lot of similarities there."
  
  Rep. Steve King, Iowa on Tuesday
  
  When will the sheeple realize that we have elected the enemy?

  You do realize, as (I know I know) Jon Stewart said last night that the post communist government instituted universal healthcare to all? Not saying we need universal healthcare, just that it was a bad analogy.
• QuakerOats

  Yes. But then again that was not the point of the post.
  
  Continous deflection in order hide the reality of the extraordinary course we are on (toward socialism or perhaps worse) is not helping anyone.
• cbus4life

  I understand the point of comparing our current situation to communist situations from the past, but i think it is an insult to all those who suffered and died under communist rule to so directly compare situations.
  
  Yes, the government is getting bigger under Obama's watch, but isn't even comparable to the plight of citizens under communist rule, by and large.
  
  I know that it is used to draw attention to the idea that Obama is leading the United States towards becoming a democratic socialist state, but i can't but feel that it is incredibly distasteful to bring up Soviet-era communist comparisons, as we've still got it 100x better than those people did. And, we'll never get to that point, either.
• gibby08

  

  CBO Estimate Starts the Clock for Health Care Vote
  
  The CBO projects President Obama's health care bill will cost $940 billion and cut the deficit by $130 billion over the next decade, The Hill reports.
  
  The bill is more expensive than the House or Senate bills, "though the CBO said that the current bill, which builds off the Senate's bill with changes to it, would make larger reductions in the deficit."
  
  "The release of the CBO score sets into motion a 72-hour endgame on health care that could mean a vote in the House on the package as early as Sunday morning."
  
  Ezra Klein: "It moves the story from process to substance. How Congress will vote is not a good story for the Democrats. What they will be voting on is rather better, and they're much more comfortable talking about it."
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/18/cbo_estimate_starts_the_clock_for_health_care_vote.html
• majorspark

  

  The CBO has little credibilty. Only a fool would believe their numbers. We know how accruate their long term predictions are. Only a fool would believe these numbers.
• gibby08

  

  Why is that major....because you don't like what they have to say??
• majorspark

  

  I see they are cutting 500 million from Medicare to pay for this new program. With Medicare destined for insolvency you would think it wise to use the predicted savings an apply to Medicare's solvency. What a joke.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/03/18/ST2010031801317.html
• gibby08

  

  Thanks for answering my question
• tk421

  

  Yeah, I don't believe for a second the deficit will go down from this bill. The CBO numbers are a joke. It's too bad some people have so much blind faith in their party that they don't realize that.
• majorspark

  

  gibby08 wrote: Why is that major....because you don't like what they have to say??

  Because they have a history of grossly under estimating these things. Here is your answer.
  

  In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
  
  In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.
  
  The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.

  In light of these past facts do you know how foolish these politicians look with their cost projections. Almost as foolish as those that believe them.
  
  This article was written when the congressional republicans were fixing to pass an expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug coverage.
  
  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JlMmU5ZTg5MjI=
• gibby08

  

  This is fucking incredible
• majorspark

  

  gibby08 wrote: This is fucking incredible

  The facts can be sometimes. These cost projections are unreliable.
• gibby08

  

  I'm not talking about that..
  
  I'm talking about how when the CBO agrees with you people...you love them
  
  When they don't...they suck and are unreliable
• tk421

  

  This bill will cost at least 3X as much as "estimated". I will remember this thread and years from now, I'll be sure to remind the people who believed the CBO.
• QuakerOats

  Medicare-- a system designed and paid for by an employee's tax withholding and an employer matching amount so that that person would have a 'trust' to pay for their medical care after retirement. To now have that fund (and their trust money) raided by Obama/Pelosi/Reid in order to pay to 'insure' illegals, deadbeats, those who do not want coverage etc..etc... is THEFT!
  
  Change we can believe in .................................
• tk421

  

  gibby08 wrote: I'm not talking about that..
  
  I'm talking about how when the CBO agrees with you people...you love them
  
  When they don't...they suck and are unreliable

  Where does all your blind faith in the government come from? Is it just because it's a Democratic bill? Why do you believe the government? When have they ever passed a bill that cost the same or less than they said?
• majorspark

  

  gibby08 wrote: I'm not talking about that..
  
  I'm talking about how when the CBO agrees with you people...you love them
  
  When they don't...they suck and are unreliable

  I don't ever trust them. Especially with a ten year projection.
  
  Gibby you try writing a budget for yourself for the next 10yrs. There is no way your cost and income projects can be reliable. So many things can and will change. So much more so for the CBO.
• majorspark

  

  QuakerOats wrote: Medicare-- a system designed and paid for by an employee's tax withholding and an employer matching amount so that that person would have a 'trust' to pay for their medical care after retirement. To now have that fund (and their trust money) raided by Obama/Pelosi/Reid in order to pay to 'insure' illegals, deadbeats, those who do not want coverage etc..etc... is THEFT!
  
  Change we can believe in .................................

  Theft it is. Medicare recipients should be outraged at this. Instead of taking the savings from the cut in a program they invested in to help keep it from impending insolventcy, they rob it and use for their own new federal program. They robbed the Social Security trust, no this. What a joke.
• IggyPride00

  

  Obamacare will be the official transition into a single payer system. An interview surfaced recently with him stating the need for a transition program of sorts because it couldn't just happen over night because of the complexity of changing the system.
  
  Fundamental transformation of America begins now.
  
  When will the death panel sign up sheets be administered?