Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Health Care Reform: Now With PR Gimmicks! We're Doomed.

1192022242563

Posts

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So that dem dude was trying to move the vote up twice, was objected to by the pubs for moving the passage of the bill up to this evening, said "Just wanted it to be clear who's keeping us here"

    So to strike back the minority leader says "WELL I WANT TO MOVE IT TO JANUARY 20TH WHY DON'T WE VOTE ON THAT". Of course every dem objects.

    One of those requests is reasonable and there's no reason to object other than to be an ass.


    Motion to move to Jan 20 just to be a little bitch though? Fucking really?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    When does conference happen?

    Kwanzaa-eve.

    tea-1.jpg
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Bullio wrote: »
    Wtf is Vitter rambling on about? Is he going to make the point that the HCR is a bailout or something? Are these dots red socialist dots?

    I guess they're also voting to raise the debt ceiling tomorrow too? And so he has to talk about how "The American People" who voted his party into the superminority are saying that they should something something real america socialist plans stealing the country. I think there's some point to it.





    Now Coburn on the other hand, what the hell

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Vitters probably just mad all the hookers are off for the holidays

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So now they're all just whining about the National debt.

    Which apparently was totally the democrats fault.

    My favorite part is how he keeps on talking only about the non-defense discretionary funding as though it's all evil. "HOW DARE THOSE DEMOCRATS SPEND SO MUCH MONEY! EXCEPT LET'S SPEND LIKE, INFINITY MONEY ON THE MILITARY ALWAYS"

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ahem.

    Most joy!

    And now worry!

    They get to eat turkey tomorrow night.

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Is.... is Thunes point here that healthcare only has a total of $132 billion, and there is nothing in the plan or anything ever in democrats thinking that accounts for any sort of cost?


    Does he.... does he not understand what people are saying when they say "This plan will reduce the deficit by x amount"? I'm pretty sure that you only subtract expenses from income, not profit.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I think at this point the Republicans are opposed to the idea of governmental revenues.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    What's unfortunate is that the Republicans have said things that could be plausible if they weren't coming from a party known for lying. If they started being honest right now, who would bother checking?

    It's the party who cried wolf.

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    You mean you wouldn't go fact check them, MKR?

    I think at this point the Republicans are opposed to everything. Hell, they might even be opposed to Christmas.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    You mean you wouldn't go fact check them, MKR?

    I think at this point the Republicans are opposed to everything. Hell, they might even be opposed to Christmas.

    Which is funny because blanket opposition actually removes their leverage and puts it in Lieberman's lap.

    tea-1.jpg
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2009
    You mean you wouldn't go fact check them, MKR?

    I think at this point the Republicans are opposed to everything. Hell, they might even be opposed to Christmas.

    Here they go again, trying to destroy the word Godmas and replacing it with their wishy-washy PC "Christmas" doohickery.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • goatboygoatboy Registered User
    edited December 2009
    So... question. What's to stop the dems from using reconciliation after this bill passes to bring back the public option? Like, as a separate bill.

    Is it just because that isn't very nice?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    goatboy wrote: »
    So... question. What's to stop the dems from using reconciliation after this bill passes to bring back the public option? Like, as a separate bill.

    Is it just because that isn't very nice?

    Climate/financial reform legislation you don't want to piss off Ben Nelson for, probably.

    Also, the public option became symbolic a while ago. As a policy it's not great unless a decent number of people can enroll in it.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Because Health Reform will be 'done' and so you don't revisit it again until later.

    Though I never really understood that. Medicare wasn't passed the first time through and they took it up again one year later. Then they campaigned on it and took it up again the next election when it finally passed. Anymore you have one shot per Presidency/decade to attempt to reform anything period. If it fails oh well maybe things'll be better under Kodos. If it 'succeeds' then you pretend that the victory was complete rather than succumbing to politics. That's just stupid.

    tea-1.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Because Health Reform will be 'done' and so you don't revisit it again until later.

    Though I never really understood that. Medicare wasn't passed the first time through and they took it up again one year later. Then they campaigned on it and took it up again the next election when it finally passed. Anymore you have one shot per Presidency/decade to attempt to reform anything period. If it fails oh well maybe things'll be better under Kodos. If it 'succeeds' then you pretend that the victory was complete rather than succumbing to politics. That's just stupid.

    The press is easily bored. That's basically the real reason.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I could see a public option added to the exchanges through reconciliation down the road, but I seriously doubt it will happen right away. I think at the earliest it would come after the 2010 midterm elections are over and done with.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    I could see a public option added to the exchanges through reconciliation down the road, but I seriously doubt it will happen right away. I think at the earliest it would come after the 2010 midterm elections are over and done with.

    The soonest any major tweak to what is being proposed now will occur is after 2014 since that's the earliest that the current reform actually happens. Unless we get super duper ultra majorities or something, then they might tack some stuff onto it and pretend that it was there all along.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2009
    goatboy wrote: »
    So... question. What's to stop the dems from using reconciliation after this bill passes to bring back the public option? Like, as a separate bill.

    Is it just because that isn't very nice?

    Climate/financial reform legislation you don't want to piss off Ben Nelson for, probably.

    Also, the public option became symbolic a while ago. As a policy it's not great unless a decent number of people can enroll in it.

    The Public Option was basically whittled down to the scaffolding necessary to build an actual government-managed health care structure. All it did was make it comparatively easy to make a really good system down the road.

    Since it was scuttled, we're now no closer to the Holy Grail of a government-funded plan avail to everyone, which is a shame. But as to what tangible benefit we're actually losing, it's close to nil.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    We'll get a public option in another 36 years. Of course, by then, the rest of the world will be enjoying immortality that would be outlawed in the USA because it's 'Immoral' and 'playing god'.

    steam_sig.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    So wait, your argument is that the future Senate won't take away benefits once they kick in because people are super pissed in the present? This doesn't make sense. The Senate will do what it damn well pleases, which is usually to kill brown people, cut taxes for their friends, and fuck the poor.

    I will be happily surprised if they don't dismantle the New Deal next year as some kind of grand retirement present for David Broder.

    This argument would be more convincing if you had some proof. I mean, can you give examples of the Congress (obviously can't be just the Senate, since the future Senate alone can't remove benefits) drastically slashing established programs providing massive subsidies to the American people? I think you are kind of blowing things out of proportion here and exaggerating the evilness and power of the future Senate.

    Maybe. They really only do the first two thus far. Haven't managed to go after the key social insurance programs successfully yet. I suspect they will use the deficit to do so next year. Or at least, the White House and the leadership have been making suspicious sounds about such a thing.

    Clinton balanced the budget and gave us a surplus without gutting entitlement programs, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "THEY'RE GOING TO REPEAL NEW DEAL PROGRAMS NEXT YEAR HOLY FUCK" from.

    Clinton had the boomers at near their most productive point in their life cycle and used those entitlement funds to balance the budget. (As everyone has done for 30 years.) We're not getting into the stage where the boomers are going to be retiring and that does horrible things to our demographics.

    Yeah, Clinton balancing the budget and giving us surpluses was roughly as impressive as some dude managing to pay his credit card bills on time and having money left over the week after he wins the lottery. Except then the dude develops a super-expensive standard of living, spends every penny he has the second he gets it, manages to wind up with no savings after the twenty years of lottery payments run out, and goes into massive debt thereafter to avoid having to curtail his lavish lifestyle. Ultimately he contracts a particularly virulent strain of syphilis, his cock rots off, and he dies in a ditch somewhere outside Las Vegas clutching a sign that reads "Will suck dick for food."

    Certain elements of that metaphor may not really apply.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2009
    We'll get a public option in another 36 years. Of course, by then, the rest of the world will be enjoying immortality that would be outlawed in the USA because it's 'Immoral' and 'playing god'.

    Also, people have the God-given right to die of easily-preventable diseases.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    So wait, your argument is that the future Senate won't take away benefits once they kick in because people are super pissed in the present? This doesn't make sense. The Senate will do what it damn well pleases, which is usually to kill brown people, cut taxes for their friends, and fuck the poor.

    I will be happily surprised if they don't dismantle the New Deal next year as some kind of grand retirement present for David Broder.

    This argument would be more convincing if you had some proof. I mean, can you give examples of the Congress (obviously can't be just the Senate, since the future Senate alone can't remove benefits) drastically slashing established programs providing massive subsidies to the American people? I think you are kind of blowing things out of proportion here and exaggerating the evilness and power of the future Senate.

    Maybe. They really only do the first two thus far. Haven't managed to go after the key social insurance programs successfully yet. I suspect they will use the deficit to do so next year. Or at least, the White House and the leadership have been making suspicious sounds about such a thing.

    Clinton balanced the budget and gave us a surplus without gutting entitlement programs, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "THEY'RE GOING TO REPEAL NEW DEAL PROGRAMS NEXT YEAR HOLY FUCK" from.

    Clinton had the boomers at near their most productive point in their life cycle and used those entitlement funds to balance the budget. (As everyone has done for 30 years.) We're not getting into the stage where the boomers are going to be retiring and that does horrible things to our demographics.

    Yeah, Clinton balancing the budget and giving us surpluses was roughly as impressive as some dude managing to pay his credit card bills on time and having money left over the week after he wins the lottery. Except then the dude develops a super-expensive standard of living, spends every penny he has the second he gets it, manages to wind up with no savings after the twenty years of lottery payments run out, and goes into massive debt thereafter to avoid having to curtail his lavish lifestyle. Ultimately he contracts a particularly virulent strain of syphilis, his cock rots off, and he dies in a ditch somewhere outside Las Vegas clutching a sign that reads "Will suck dick for food."

    Certain elements of that metaphor may not really apply.

    That metaphor kind of got away from you, didn't it?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Death Groupie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So with this new bill, everyone HAS to get health insurance?

    What if you can't afford it?

    steam_sig.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So with this new bill, everyone HAS to get health insurance?

    What if you can't afford it?

    Subsidies.

    And actually you're exempt if it would cost you n% of your total income, but I forget what n was.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    My biggest problem is that the subsidies suck.

    They should flat out pay for up to the poverty line, because Medicaid is a joke.

    Did you know they keep the Medicaid registration fee even if they deny you?

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    My biggest problem is that the subsidies suck.

    They should flat out pay for up to the poverty line, because Medicaid is a joke.

    Did you know they keep the Medicaid registration fee even if they deny you?

    They extend up to 350% of the poverty line, though obviously less generous as they close in. The House's extends to 400% and are more generous generally.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I think at this point the Republicans are opposed to the idea of governmental revenues.

    Since government revenues are taxes duh

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    I think at this point the Republicans are opposed to the idea of governmental revenues.

    Since government revenues are taxes duh

    Sadly a lot of them aren't. If they were we might have a sane and efficient tax code.

    tea-1.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    David Broder, still a fucking moron:
    There's blame enough to go around. Start with the 40 Republicans, not one of whom was willing to break out of the mold of negative conformity and offer a sustained working partnership in serious legislative effort.

    But even those Republicans who were initially inclined to do that -- and there were at least a handful of them -- were turned away by the White House and the Senate Democratic leaders, who never lifted their sights much beyond the Democratic ranks.

    Forced to bargain for every vote among the 60 in his caucus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did what he usually does: He reduced the negotiations to his own level of transactional morality. Incapable of summoning his colleagues to statesmanship, he made the deals look as crass and parochial as many of them were -- encasing a historic achievement in a wrapping of payoff and patronage.

    The taint has rubbed off on the bill. This week's Quinnipiac University poll found a majority of Americans disapproving of the legislation by 53 to 36 percent and an overwhelming number -- 73 to 18 percent -- saying they do not believe it will, as promised, reduce future budget deficits. It now becomes President Obama's responsibility to strengthen the bill's cost-saving features and present them in a better way. Two of them are vulnerable to attack when the bill goes back to conference with the House in January. Liberal Democrats do not like the independent commission in the Senate bill having power to enforce savings in Medicare and the private health system. And labor does not accept the Senate plan to tax high-end insurance plans.

    Obama has not intervened with a heavy hand as the bill has moved through the House and Senate, but now it is time for him to act.

    It would help a lot if he reached out personally to those few Republicans who might still want to improve the bill rather than sink it. And it would help even more if he shamed the Democrats into rescinding some of the crasser bargains they made to buy votes along the way.

    The country would welcome even a few signs that this legislation has bipartisan support.

    Then we could applaud its final passage and take our thumbs from our noses.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    What world is he writing that column for? Because it certainly does not apply to this one.

    tea-1.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    What world is he writing that column for? Because it certainly does not apply to this one.

    The Village. It's a pocket universe.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • matisyahumatisyahu Registered User
    edited December 2009
    So with this new bill, everyone HAS to get health insurance?

    What if you can't afford it?

    Subsidies.

    And actually you're exempt if it would cost you n% of your total income, but I forget what n was.

    Sanjay Gupta told me that if you can't find insurance for 8% or less of your annual income, then you can apply for a hardship exemption.

    The mandate starts in 2014 with a $95 fine, which will escalate to $750 by 2016.

    i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So.... Broder would like to just completely take a sledgehammer to any chance of a passed bill, then. Because at this point, someone coming in and trying to ram through a totally overhauled bill might as well feed their nutsack to a paper shredder because the level of pain would be roughly equivalent.

    Not that I am proposing David Broder feed his nutsack to a paper shredder.

    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    David Broder has the approximate cognitive function of a retarded Stegosaurus. Though that's probably unfair to the poor Stegosaurus.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Not specifically about healthcare, but something some of the more vocal critics of this bill should take into consideration.

    As usual, Jay Smooth is right

    sig.png
  • BullioBullio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Passed 60-39. Next up, conference!

    EDIT: Bunning didn't vote.

    steam_sig.png
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Not specifically about healthcare, but something some of the more vocal critics of this bill should take into consideration.

    As usual, Jay Smooth is right

    I love this man.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Bullio wrote: »
    Passed 60-39. Next up, conference!

    EDIT: Bunning didn't vote.

    W00t!

    I think that's the right reaction.

    Dinner at my conservative in-laws will be fun tonight!

    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I'm at my dads, they watch Fox News here.
    He's pissed that his premiums are sure as shit going to go up. What's making him think this? Is it valid?

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
This discussion has been closed.