Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Really? Are you aware of the bill he refused to vote on today?Or, how about they spend that billion dollars passing bipartisan JOBS bills? Oh wait, because that would help Obama's economy and their number one goal is tanking the economy, er I mean, keeping Obama to a one term presidency.
Do you have the same level of faux-rage towards the Senate?
I don't have any faux-rage towards House Republicans. I just think they're a bunch of Obstructionist assholes. And I do think Reid should play fair and put the bills up to a vote. However, it's EXTREMELY misleading to call the bills he's sitting on Jobs Bills. They're not. They're dereg bills.
Hmmm. Well, it could be that they were duped. The election two years later showed most knew they were duped.Republicans only listen to the rich anyway. If all these polls show that people didn't want health care reform, then why did they vote for the people who ran on putting it in place?
And, now we have another election, two years after that. The SCOTUS ruling was almost optimally timed.
I don't think anybody was duped. Some, like me were disappointed that a public option was not part of the deal. But, I believe that there are lots of people out there with pre-existing conditions that are very happy that they can't be turned down for coverage now. I believe there are lots of people with kids over 21 in college that are happy they can keep them on their medical coverage plans.
The Republicans and Tea baggers did a good job in getting out the vote in a non-presidential year in 2010. Democrats can do a good job in getting out the votes in a Presidential election year, with fears that the Repug/Tea-baggers are out to get rid of our hard fought healthcare reform wins. I guess we will see in November if "THE PEOPLE" want healthcare or not.
Or, how about they spend that billion dollars passing bipartisan JOBS bills? Oh wait, because that would help Obama's economy and their number one goal is tanking the economy, er I mean, keeping Obama to a one term presidency.
Do you have the same level of faux-rage towards the Senate?
I don't have any faux-rage towards House Republicans. I just think they're a bunch of Obstructionist assholes. And I do think Reid should play fair and put the bills up to a vote. However, it's EXTREMELY misleading to call the bills he's sitting on Jobs Bills. They're not. They're dereg bills.
Do you have the same level of faux-rage towards the Senate?
I don't have any faux-rage towards House Republicans. I just think they're a bunch of Obstructionist assholes. And I do think Reid should play fair and put the bills up to a vote. However, it's EXTREMELY misleading to call the bills he's sitting on Jobs Bills. They're not. They're dereg bills.
I think Reid should put the Repug bills up for a vote right after the Repugs drop all their filibusters on Dem bills that should come up for a vote first.
Really? Are you aware of the bill he refused to vote on today?Do you have the same level of faux-rage towards the Senate?
I don't have any faux-rage towards House Republicans. I just think they're a bunch of Obstructionist assholes. And I do think Reid should play fair and put the bills up to a vote. However, it's EXTREMELY misleading to call the bills he's sitting on Jobs Bills. They're not. They're dereg bills.
Do you have the same level of faux-rage towards the Senate?
I don't have any faux-rage towards House Republicans. I just think they're a bunch of Obstructionist assholes. And I do think Reid should play fair and put the bills up to a vote. However, it's EXTREMELY misleading to call the bills he's sitting on Jobs Bills. They're not. They're dereg bills.
I think Reid should put the Repug bills up for a vote right after the Repugs drop all their filibusters on Dem bills that should come up for a vote first.
One major factor in all this.
People that don't know much about the law except what they hear politicians say are against it.
People that know what it actually does are for it.
This kind of sums it up...
We as citizens do little if any research on any issue. We hear a talking point and adopt it and then assume we know all there is to know....sad
I don't have any faux-rage towards House Republicans. I just think they're a bunch of Obstructionist assholes. And I do think Reid should play fair and put the bills up to a vote. However, it's EXTREMELY misleading to call the bills he's sitting on Jobs Bills. They're not. They're dereg bills.
I think Reid should put the Repug bills up for a vote right after the Repugs drop all their filibusters on Dem bills that should come up for a vote first.
Funny how it's always the "other guy" that should take the first step, hunh?
Some-fucking-body needs to get of their ass and I don;t care which party does it first
33 votes x 30 million dollars = 999 million dollars.
How come Conservatives don't call this wasteful spending? Do they really believe that any of these votes has a chance to make it to the President's desk and that he'd sign it. I'd understand if they'd won the Senate and the White House, but seriously, which Conservative here on this board is going to actually condemn the House Republicans for spending just about a BILLION dollars on Political Theater?
"We're too broke to pay for ANYTHING!*"
*Except political optics. For that we'll pay a billion.
One major factor in all this.
People that don't know much about the law except what they hear politicians say are against it.
People that know what it actually does are for it.
This kind of sums it up...
We as citizens do little if any research on any issue. We hear a talking point and adopt it and then assume we know all there is to know....sad
33 votes x 30 million dollars = 999 million dollars.
How come Conservatives don't call this wasteful spending? Do they really believe that any of these votes has a chance to make it to the President's desk and that he'd sign it. I'd understand if they'd won the Senate and the White House, but seriously, which Conservative here on this board is going to actually condemn the House Republicans for spending just about a BILLION dollars on Political Theater?
"We're too broke to pay for ANYTHING!*"
*Except political optics. For that we'll pay a billion.
Holy crap, that twice as much as they are complaining was spent on Solyndra!
Hmmm. Well, it could be that they were duped. The election two years later showed most knew they were duped.
And, now we have another election, two years after that. The SCOTUS ruling was almost optimally timed.
I don't think anybody was duped. Some, like me were disappointed that a public option was not part of the deal. But, I believe that there are lots of people out there with pre-existing conditions that are very happy that they can't be turned down for coverage now. I believe there are lots of people with kids over 21 in college that are happy they can keep them on their medical coverage plans.
The Republicans and Tea baggers did a good job in getting out the vote in a non-presidential year in 2010. Democrats can do a good job in getting out the votes in a Presidential election year, with fears that the Repug/Tea-baggers are out to get rid of our hard fought healthcare reform wins. I guess we will see in November if "THE PEOPLE" want healthcare or not.
ah well, your true colors come out
congress gave you that special HSA tax write off, they certainly can take it away if they wish.... What if you never got it in the first place? you should be thanking them you still got half of it and they didn't take the whole thing back....!One major factor in all this.
People that don't know much about the law except what they hear politicians say are against it.
People that know what it actually does are for it.
This kind of sums it up...
We as citizens do little if any research on any issue. We hear a talking point and adopt it and then assume we know all there is to know....sad
I know my HSA limit was just reduced by several thousand dollars. That amounts to a tax increase if I didn't have room to move it into my 401 K.
Thanks for making health care more costly.
You bastards are as stupid as they come.
I have never hidden my position on issues. I refer to Republicans and Tea partiers as Repugs and Tea-baggers, because most on your side of the aisle refer to Democrats and liberals as "democraps", "demonrats", "communists", "socialists", and dozens of other epithets. Nothing personal, thought that was how everyone talks around here.
Not what the bill said. Before the SCOTUS told the constitutional scholar in office that he could not infringe so egregiously on the sovereignty of states - a constitutional thing - the feds were going to cut ALL Medicaid funding if states refused to EXPAND it and foot half the bill. Now, states have that option without the Feds cutting off already existing funding of Medicaid.
None of the fiscal projections had anyone losing any funding because no state would've withdrawn from Medicaid to avoid the expansion. The projections were about additional federal spending resulting from the Medicaid expansions.
If the expansions don't take place, that new Medicaid spending doesn't materialize. Which is why the CBO is working furiously right now to revise its projections.
The Supreme Court ruling on the health care law could have an unexpected effect -- saving the federal government money, say some budget experts. [...]
Here’s how the court’s decision may affect federal spending:
If a state declines the expansion, only about one-fifth of the people who would have qualified for Medicaid will be eligible instead for federal premium and cost-sharing subsidies, according to Genevieve Kenney, senior fellow at the Urban Institute. (The law makes people up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line eligible for Medicaid; those between 100 percent and 138 percent could alternatively receive subsidies.) The subsidies cost more, but the federal government would provide them to far fewer people, she said.
In 2016, for example, the per-person cost of providing Medicaid would be about $5,400, according to CBO data. The average cost of providing subsidies instead would be more, the data show. It’s about $5,210 for an average adult, but this low-income population is not average. These enrollees will get more in the way of subsidies, because they will qualify for the maximum amount of subsidies, raising the pricetag higher than what it would be if they got Medicaid.
In Florida, for example, 1.3 million people would be newly eligible for Medicaid if it expands its program, according to the institute. But, if the state declines, as Republican Gov. Rick Scott wants to do, the federal government would instead pay out subsidies for private insurance to about 300,000 of those people.
I know my HSA limit was just reduced by several thousand dollars.
None of the fiscal projections had anyone losing any funding because no state would've withdrawn from Medicaid to avoid the expansion. The projections were about additional federal spending resulting from the Medicaid expansions.
If the expansions don't take place, that new Medicaid spending doesn't materialize. Which is why the CBO is working furiously right now to revise its projections.
I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here, but apparently I'm not communicating my point well. But luckily there was a KHN article earlier making the same point, so perhaps this will get it across:
How The SCOTUS Medicaid Ruling Could Save Money - Kaiser Health News
The Supreme Court ruling on the health care law could have an unexpected effect -- saving the federal government money, say some budget experts. [...]
Heres how the courts decision may affect federal spending:
If a state declines the expansion, only about one-fifth of the people who would have qualified for Medicaid will be eligible instead for federal premium and cost-sharing subsidies, according to Genevieve Kenney, senior fellow at the Urban Institute. (The law makes people up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line eligible for Medicaid; those between 100 percent and 138 percent could alternatively receive subsidies.) The subsidies cost more, but the federal government would provide them to far fewer people, she said.
In 2016, for example, the per-person cost of providing Medicaid would be about $5,400, according to CBO data. The average cost of providing subsidies instead would be more, the data show. Its about $5,210 for an average adult, but this low-income population is not average. These enrollees will get more in the way of subsidies, because they will qualify for the maximum amount of subsidies, raising the pricetag higher than what it would be if they got Medicaid.
In Florida, for example, 1.3 million people would be newly eligible for Medicaid if it expands its program, according to the institute. But, if the state declines, as Republican Gov. Rick Scott wants to do, the federal government would instead pay out subsidies for private insurance to about 300,000 of those people.
I know my HSA limit was just reduced by several thousand dollars.
You might want to double check that.
I have never hidden my position on issues. I refer to Republicans and Tea partiers as Repugs and Tea-baggers, because most on your side of the aisle refer to Democrats and liberals as "democraps", "demonrats", "communists", "socialists", and dozens of other epithets. Nothing personal, thought that was how everyone talks around here.
For many, that is true.
Personally I don't call anyone by those kinds of labels...
Though I will occasionally call someone an "asshole" when they deserve it.
Wasteful Republicans charge taxpayers $50 million on meaningless ACA vote.
Health Care Law Repeal Efforts By House GOP Cost Nearly $50 Million: CBS Report
07/12/2012
While Republicans lambast the cost of implementing health care reform, a new report shows that their efforts to repeal the law have come at a major cost to taxpayers -- to the tune of nearly $50 million.
The House of Representatives again voted to repeal President Obama's signature health care law on Wednesday, marking the 33rd time Republicans have attempted to take down the legislation. The 32 previous repeal efforts faltered at the hands of the Democrat-controlled Senate; the latest attempt is unlikely to break that pattern.
According to a report by CBS News, these efforts, widely viewed as symbolic political maneuvers, come with a high price tag.
CBS' Nancy Cordes reported Wednesday that Republicans' many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million.
The AP relays background on the GOP's repeal efforts:
There was never any doubt that Republicans had the votes to pass the repeal in the House on Wednesday or that it would die in the Senate, where Democrats possessed more than enough strength to block it. That's what happened in January 2011, when the newly installed Republican majority first voted to repeal the law a few days after taking office.Although Republicans have remained vocal on repeal since the Supreme Court upheld the law, party leaders have yet to agree upon and propose a concrete alternative to the Affordable Care Act.
In the months since, the GOP has taken repeated further swipes at the law, including votes to deny salaries to any government officials who enforce it, to abolish a board of officials charged with holding down Medicare costs in the future and to repeal a tax on medical devices.
With the exception of a few relatively modest changes accepted by the White House, all the rest have died in the Senate.
✄snip>
33 votes x 30 million dollars = 999 million dollars.
