99 replies to this topic

[way2lazy2care]

Haha. Good point.
The timing may not be perfect but i'd rather he get it done now then wait too long and not get shit done by the time Obamas out of office. It's just politics.

I'd rather be employed by the time Obama's out of office tbh...

[cadetduke]

I hate seeing that money help people with preventable diseases such as those caused by obesity and smoking. If you decide to eat yourself into oblivion, fuck you.

I'm self sufficient, thank you very much. Insurance has always been affordable for me though. If I couldn't afford the $140/month it costed me before I got a job with benefits then I should have just killed myself.

[way2lazy2care]

http://en.wikipedia.....282010-2011.29

here's a pretty good rundown of the bill.

Interesting bits...

tanning tax:

A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

success tax:

An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

random bass akwards tax:

A 2.9 percent excise tax is imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

Fines on top of increased taxes:

Most people required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

Taxes for employees with risky jobs (which usually pay poorly anyway):

An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.

[Dark.Matter]

Hell yea lets keep piling up taxes on the insurance and health care providers. Stick it to em, man. That is definitely the best way to lower the cost of care and make sure everyone can afford it. Those costs will never be passed on to the consumer.

[way2lazy2care]

Hell yea lets keep piling up taxes on the insurance and health care providers. Stick it to em, man. That is definitely the best way to lower the cost of care and make sure everyone can afford it. Those costs will never be passed on to the consumer.

of course they won't. All the smart health insurance companies will go out of business before they get deep into any of these taxes and fines.

I am half thinking they're making health insurance such an impossible industry to survive in that we have no choice but a single payer system.

[TheBlackOut]

The idea of socialized healthcare is nice and Europeans/others like to flaunt it but uhh... I know we, the Americans are the worst offenders, but aren't we all horribly fucking in debt? I don't think this helps.

I keep seeing Greece pop up in the news..

[Dohregard]

The worst part about this bill is that there isn't going to be much change to our system. This is pretty much a blowjob to the insurance companies without a pubic option.

[way2lazy2care]

The worst part about this bill is that there isn't going to be much change to our system. This is pretty much a blowjob to the insurance companies without a pubic option.

a blowjob where they bite your dick off maybe...

[Dohregard]

a blowjob where they bite your dick off maybe...

insurance companies will make a killing off this new bill.

[way2lazy2care]

insurance companies will make a killing off this new bill.

except for the enormous taxes and fines directly to them.

[Xanhorn]

I didnt read the whole topic, because well a lot of people here are kids, and most who aren't kids that are against the HCR need to change the channel from Fox News, and put Palin's book down.

1) We needed the HCR (I am from Boehner's district and we need it there as bad as anywhere...)

2) The majority of American's wanted HCR proven by the fact that it was one of Obama's strongest campaign points, and the dems hold a majority in house and senate.

3) To all of you thinking anyone could get insurance, are oblivious to things called pre-existing conditions that now insurance companies must insure

4) No longer can an insurance company raise your premium or drop you when you are sick. The reason that you buy insurance anyways...

[way2lazy2care]

2) The majority of American's wanted HCR proven by the fact that it was one of Obama's strongest campaign points, and the dems hold a majority in house and senate.

how does that prove anything? Most american's were against the war in Iraq, but Bush held office and the republicans held a majority in the house and senate. Most polls show that right around 50% of the american public are against it.

If a majority do want health care reform, it's only in that they want it reformed, not the bill that recently got signed into law.

Your points are the good things in the bill, but you can't ignore the large number of absolutely crap things that are in it to justify the few good things that come out of it.

[Xanhorn]

how does that prove anything? Most american's were against the war in Iraq, but Bush held office and the republicans held a majority in the house and senate. Most polls show that right around 50% of the american public are against it.

If a majority do want health care reform, it's only in that they want it reformed, not the bill that recently got signed into law.

Your points are the good things in the bill, but you can't ignore the large number of absolutely crap things that are in it to justify the few good things that come out of it.

Internet polls are pretty unreliable. More people will rally against something than for it period. And honestly more people would be in support of it, if they would turn off Fox News. The biggest piece of BS i saw was the being able to stay on your parents insurance till you're 26, but its not an issue I am not willing to budge on.

I know some people would call the 10% tax on tanning ridiculous, but when dealing with healthcare, I have no problem taxing something that causes skin cancer.

[way2lazy2care]

Internet polls are pretty unreliable. More people will rally against something than for it period. And honestly more people would be in support of it, if they would turn off Fox News. The biggest piece of BS i saw was the being able to stay on your parents insurance till you're 26, but its not an issue I am not willing to budge on.

I know some people would call the 10% tax on tanning ridiculous, but when dealing with healthcare, I have no problem taxing something that causes skin cancer.

CNN says hello... http://politicaltick...bid=_FR-O_b8cW4
quick summary of polls from CBS and Quinnipiac by the chicago tribune... http://blogs.chicago...poll-watch.html
Rasmussen... http://www.rasmussen...ealth_care_bill


Red meat causes heart disease. Sugar causes diabetes. Eggs can carry salmonella.

In fact, High cholesterol kills more people every year than all kinds of cancer.

care to go again?

[Xanhorn]

CNN says hello... http://politicaltick...bid=_FR-O_b8cW4
quick summary of polls from CBS and Quinnipiac by the chicago tribune... http://blogs.chicago...poll-watch.html
Rasmussen... http://www.rasmussen...ealth_care_bill


Red meat causes heart disease. Sugar causes diabetes. Eggs can carry salmonella.

In fact, High cholesterol kills more people every year than all kinds of cancer.

care to go again?

I would argue against taxing those primarily because I come from a rural area and wouldn't want to see he taxes be placed on farmers. But i would have no problem paying a tax on red meat, sugar or eggs. But to tax food is much different than taxing someone to lay on lightbulbs.

I still believe this bill was necessary. It took a lot of compromise and people don't like to compromise.

[way2lazy2care]

I would argue against taxing those primarily because I come from a rural area and wouldn't want to see he taxes be placed on farmers. But i would have no problem paying a tax on red meat, sugar or eggs. But to tax food is much different than taxing someone to lay on lightbulbs.

If people are that driven to tan, they will do so probably one way or another. Now they have to spend resources going somewhere decent to tan instead of being able to do it on their own time.

I still believe this bill was necessary. It took a lot of compromise and people don't like to compromise.

The difference is whether THIS bill was necessary or A bill was necessary.

Would you make the same argument if someone told you the only way you could have heart surgery was if they cut off both your legs?

[Xanhorn]

If people are that driven to tan, they will do so probably one way or another. Now they have to spend resources going somewhere decent to tan instead of being able to do it on their own time.


The difference is whether THIS bill was necessary or A bill was necessary.

Would you make the same argument if someone told you the only way you could have heart surgery was if they cut off both your legs?

a bill was necessary but this bill was passable and i am fine with it.

[(GA)Mansavage]

Being a conservative republican, I don't agree with placing taxes on the wealthy, medical equipment, taking the student loan industry, etc... to pay for HCR (thats just a conservative philosophy). However, I am not so indoctrinated to "Give me tax cuts or give me death" to know opportunity when I see it, and a valuable lesson that both Liberals and Conservatives have to learn is that higher taxes should result in better/more public services and tax cuts should result in a little bit more money in the currency flow. Tax hikes can actually be quite beneficial. During the Clinton Administration, President Clinton raised taxes during a period of economic prosperity and President Bush inherited over a $1 trillion budget surplus as a result. What I am saying is that if health care companies are set to make large profits from this new bill, and taxes are set on them, its simple math that the fed can ride the profit rocket to the stars and greatly reduce the deficit on the industry's dime.

However, this could also mean that people suffer as a result, which would have an enormous impact on political platforms. What could happen is that the Democrats are voted out, and that looks to be the case for most elections (including the Presidential election) between now and 2012, with Mass. voting in Scott Brown to the Senate and most states, including swing states like Florida taking the bill to court - and everyone who knows anything about the electoral college knows that you can't win without the swings, and Florida has decided the last 3 presidential elections. In short, if the Democrats want a chance in hell at the White House/a reasonable representation in either houses of congress, they will have to nominate one of their 20 or so members who voted against the bill, all the GOP has to do is not shoot itself in the foot by nominating an old man and a dumbass alaskan governor.

[The Colonel]

Republicans won't win the 2012 Presidential election. The closest thing to a candidate that non-conservatives would relate with is Romney, and he probably won't get the nod.

[Hellswarm]

In fact, High cholesterol kills more people every year than all kinds of cancer.

care to go again?

Fat People Tax!

Edited by Hellswarm, 01 April 2010 - 07:32 PM.