Health Bill dead on arrival at the Senate

[California Girl]

I refuse to dumb down my posts to be understood by the least-common denominator. Either you were able to follow the thread, or you were not.

You have to post something intelligent first, before you can actually dumb down. Do drop me a PM and let me know on that aspicious day.

Why do you treat everybody like you are some superior intellectual that is too good to be here?? Your sarcasim and nastiness shows you are a person of little quality. So get over yourself and try to show some politeness. You're no big deal, honey.

I think you will find that we still have freedom of speech in the US. Until your Obamanation takes that from us, I shall continue to post whatever I feel inclined to. Honey.

 

[KittenKoder]

You have to post something intelligent first, before you can actually dumb down. Do drop me a PM and let me know on that aspicious day.

Why do you treat everybody like you are some superior intellectual that is too good to be here?? Your sarcasim and nastiness shows you are a person of little quality. So get over yourself and try to show some politeness. You're no big deal, honey.

I think you will find that we still have freedom of speech in the US. Until your Obamanation takes that from us, I shall continue to post whatever I feel inclined to. Honey.

Careful ... he's already trying to convince the others that they need a committee to watch the net for shit like that.

 

[ayiakri]

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Nope - do you? On another thread, you just responded to a post by rightwinger, where he said that Republican officials should "show some decorum" at events where protesters are waving around Nazi signs, by claiming that this would mean liberal protesters who said Bush should be assassinated should be locked up for treason. (and actually - that's NOT treason - although threatening the President is illegal).

Meh ... so I got the "official" charge wrong ... sue me

Is everything a personal attack to you? Geesh.

You missed the point, not only of my post but Pateks as well. Either you didn't read them or you have reading comprehension problems. Patek was actually quite inane in his post, yet you said: I'm not even bothering to read your posts until you learn how to be as civil ....

So ... logic dictates you didn't even read it.

DING DING DING! We have a winner! I read YOUR post, but not HIS post. His posts have been almost all direct, personal insults and attacks. His only M.O. is the ad hominem attack, and to be honest, I have not seen him post anything other than insults, so far.

So you're right - I didn't read his last post, and I'm not going to bother reading any more from him. It's a waste of my time.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how RightWinger's comments that Republican officials attending events where protesters are waving around photos of holocaust victims should show some decorum - for the good of the image of the party, if nothing else - somehow logically leads to your statement that liberal protesters waving around "Kill George" posters (or whatever) should be locked up for treason.

It doesn't follow. What a logical analogy would be is that Democratic officials should show some decorum at events where left-wing protesters are waving around Nazi signs (or whatever), for the good of the image of their party.

Capiche? That is what he was saying.

 

[KittenKoder]

Nope - do you? On another thread, you just responded to a post by rightwinger, where he said that Republican officials should "show some decorum" at events where protesters are waving around Nazi signs, by claiming that this would mean liberal protesters who said Bush should be assassinated should be locked up for treason. (and actually - that's NOT treason - although threatening the President is illegal).

Meh ... so I got the "official" charge wrong ... sue me

Is everything a personal attack to you? Geesh.

You missed the point, not only of my post but Pateks as well. Either you didn't read them or you have reading comprehension problems. Patek was actually quite inane in his post, yet you said: I'm not even bothering to read your posts until you learn how to be as civil ....

So ... logic dictates you didn't even read it.

DING DING DING! We have a winner! I read YOUR post, but not HIS post. His posts have been almost all direct, personal insults and attacks. His only M.O. is the ad hominem attack, and to be honest, I have not seen him post anything other than insults, so far.

So you're right - I didn't read his last post, and I'm not going to bother reading any more from him. It's a waste of my time.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how RightWinger's comments that Republican officials attending events where protesters are waving around photos of holocaust victims should show some decorum - for the good of the image of the party, if nothing else - somehow logically leads to your statement that liberal protesters waving around "Kill George" posters (or whatever) should be locked up for treason.

It doesn't follow. What a logical analogy would be is that Democratic officials should show some decorum at events where left-wing protesters are waving around Nazi signs (or whatever), for the good of the image of their party.

Capiche? That is what he was saying.

I'm not the one whining about "personal attacks" ...

 

[ayiakri]

So, you post another non sequiter rather than read or respond to what I actually said.

I'm so shocked!

 

[KittenKoder]

So, you post another non sequiter rather than read or respond to what I actually said.

I'm so shocked!

Oh, I read it, you assume that I actually respond to partisan hackery though.

 

[ayiakri]

So, you post another non sequiter rather than read or respond to what I actually said.

I'm so shocked!

Oh, I read it, you assume that I actually respond to partisan hackery though.

Nope - I just see that you write a lot of partisan hackery.
It's what the right-wingers seem best at here. There's maybe three or four conservatives I've seen post anything more than sophomoric insults, and stupid non sequiters.

Thanks confirming that you're one of the "pack", lol

 

[KittenKoder]

So, you post another non sequiter rather than read or respond to what I actually said.

I'm so shocked!

Oh, I read it, you assume that I actually respond to partisan hackery though.

Nope - I just see that you write a lot of partisan hackery.
It's what the right-wingers seem best at here. There's maybe three or four conservatives I've seen post anything more than sophomoric insults, and stupid non sequiters.

Thanks confirming that you're one of the "pack", lol

Please remain blind and ignorant, it's kinda cute.

 

[ayiakri]

Oh, I read it, you assume that I actually respond to partisan hackery though.

Nope - I just see that you write a lot of partisan hackery.
It's what the right-wingers seem best at here. There's maybe three or four conservatives I've seen post anything more than sophomoric insults, and stupid non sequiters.

Thanks confirming that you're one of the "pack", lol

Please remain blind and ignorant, it's kinda cute.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Really! OMG, I really am so sorry for you. There's plenty of jobs open to people with your.. um... impairment, though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nope - I just see that you write a lot of partisan hackery.
It's what the right-wingers seem best at here. There's maybe three or four conservatives I've seen post anything more than sophomoric insults, and stupid non sequiters.

Thanks confirming that you're one of the "pack", lol

Please remain blind and ignorant, it's kinda cute.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Really! OMG, I really am so sorry for you. There's plenty of jobs open to people with your.. um... impairment, though.

I notice you have failed to respond to my thread on rationing. Yet you claimed you would do so if only someone would start one.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope - I just see that you write a lot of partisan hackery.
It's what the right-wingers seem best at here. There's maybe three or four conservatives I've seen post anything more than sophomoric insults, and stupid non sequiters.

Thanks confirming that you're one of the "pack", lol

Please remain blind and ignorant, it's kinda cute.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Really! OMG, I really am so sorry for you. There's plenty of jobs open to people with your.. um... impairment, though.

I think you're the one who is impaired.
Regardless of the carping, the points raised against your view are valid and cogent and you have not answered any of them.
The bill is a major restructuring of health care. Even though the language of the bill doesn't appear to say that, the actual effects will be dramatic, and disasterous. We will see high taxes. We will probably see people jailed for not having health care--a first! We will see employers making calculations of their present insurance premiums vs their penalty under the law and chucking their plans, leaving employees to fend for themselves.
This is clear to anyone who can think beyond Stage One.

 

[Varth Dader]

We will see employers making calculations of their present insurance premiums vs their penalty under the law and chucking their plans, leaving employees to fend for themselves.

As opposed to right now, where employers such as Walmart en up having so much of their workforce on public healthcare (or without healthcare)

Healthcare | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

I love how the current situation is worse than what you are describing, yet you make it sound like it will be worse in the future.

Employers are already making the type of decision you are describing, except that there is no penalty for them.

 

[ayiakri]

I think you're the one who is impaired.

Regardless of the carping, the points raised against your view are valid and cogent and you have not answered any of them.

So far, I have not seen anyone actually post any portion of the actual bill passed by the House in support of their claims that it's going to involve "death panels", or somehow ruin the U.S. economy.

In fact, much of what I see posted is outright falsehoods: some people initially posted in CBO estimates on the cost of health-insurance plans for a typical family (I think it was for a typical family of four earning 75k or so - I don't remember), and the estimate was that such a family would spend 20% of health-care. The quote was pasted in without context, so we don't even know what year the CBO's estimate was for. And yet, that same poster then claimed that the House bill mandates that a family earning that amount *must* pay 20%, and implied that it would be in the form of a tax, or some 20% out of your paycheck.

Arguments like that are not valid, no matter how cogently they're presented, because they're based on a falsehood.

The bill is a major restructuring of health care. Even though the language of the bill doesn't appear to say that, the actual effects will be dramatic, and disasterous.

That is YOUR opinion, with which I respectfully disagree. If you can point out, logically, how and why it will be "disastrous", then please, explain it. You can't just claim something will be "disastrous", with zero evidence to back it up - or I guess I should say, you can claim that, but it's just your opinion.

We will see high taxes. We will probably see people jailed for not having health care--a first! We will see employers making calculations of their present insurance premiums vs their penalty under the law and chucking their plans, leaving employees to fend for themselves.
This is clear to anyone who can think beyond Stage One.

First off - we're gonna see higher taxes whether this bill passes or not, and that's a simple fact. Our government has spent more money than it took in every single year since the year 2000. The total federally-owed debt is in the trillions, and only going up, and to be perfectly honest, I don't think this health-reform bill is going to make much of a difference either way. Even if it were to add, say, a TRILLION fracking dollars over the next ten years, that's about 1/5th of the total new debt that the last President added to pile during his 8-year term.

We're $10 Trillion in the hole. And from an economic point of view, having nearly universal coverage might actually *increase* tax revenues without raising taxes, since people without health-insurance are less likely to be treated for simple infections, leading them to be fired, or miss work more than healthier people who get treatment. That lost productivity might be more than any cost to the government of the plan - I don't know either way, but then, I'm not pretending to know exactly what's going to happen, unlike some of the people arguing on this forum.

As for employers cutting health-insurance - they're already doing that in droves, as somebody else just pointed out. At least now there will be a penalty for dropping the insurance.

And finally, insurance companies can't just refuse to cover people for a pre-existing condition, which I think is sort of barbaric. I'm lucky - I've never spent a night in a hospital in my life (except the day I was born), never been really sick, and never been badly injured. But there's a lot of people who can't get insurance for something because of the pre-existing condition crap.

So - you might think I'm mentally impaired - that's your prerogative. But to say that people have posted valid and cogent arguments against the health-care bill? I don't think any of them has fracking read any of it, or has a clue what's in it. And honestly - there are problems with the bill, I know that.

It's not a particularly "great" piece of legislation, and I have no doubt it's got a ton of loop-holes, legalistic double-speak and useless crap in it. But - given the option between finally insuring millions of the poor, covering people with pre-existing conditions, and setting up a plan of last resort for people that no private insurer will help, because they're too sick - I'll take the bill, given what I know of it.