What do you think about Obama care?

[SFC Ollie]

Even the funding is a lie. Everyone knew it wouldn't be deficit natural, from the get go.

 

[Greenbeard]

Again, where's the lie?

How about 12 lies?

This seems to based on a line from a speech two years ago:

And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.​

And that was true of his plan. But the difference between a candidate and a president is that a candidate isn't subject to a filibuster pivot. On the campaign trail, a candidate's preferences are all that matter. But a president's preferences have to be run by 535 other people.

The funding mechanism behind Obama's campaign proposal was very similar to that of the House bill: higher income taxes on households above the income thresholds mentioned there and a phasing out of itemized deductions for those high-income households. However, when it comes to figuring out how to finance things, Max Baucus (i.e. the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee) is a more important figure than the president. The Senate bill was financed with things like the excise tax on high-cost insurance plans and the tanning tax. And as I'm sure you remember, the election of Scott Brown definitely shifted the balance of power in the House-Senate health care debate to the Senate. Up to that point, the funding mechanism was an active topic of debate between negotiators from both chambers. After that, it became clear that House proposals wouldn't get through the Senate.

If that's your definition of a lie--a proposal offered by a presidential candidate on the campaign being modified during the legislative process--our form of government must drive you crazy. Every committee markup makes a liar out of somebody.

 

[Oddball]

Boy.....You can move them goalposts pretty quick.

You on Cass Sunstein's payroll?

 

[hortysir]

Boy.....You can move them goalposts pretty quick.

You on Cass Sunstein's payroll?

I was just gonna say that this guy must be a partisan plant.
That was too eloquent to be believable.
The damned reply read just like it came straight from Sen. Bill Nelson(D)'s e-mail response.

If I promise you, before taking over as GM, that you will not be fired and then, 18 months later, I lay you off, I didn't lie.

 

[Immanuel]

Boy.....You can move them goalposts pretty quick.

You on Cass Sunstein's payroll?

I was just gonna say that this guy must be a partisan plant.
That was too eloquent to be believable.
The damned reply read just like it came straight from Sen. Bill Nelson(D)'s e-mail response.

If I promise you, before taking over as GM, that you will not be fired and then, 18 months later, I lay you off, I didn't lie.

Don't tell me you bother to read those!

Immie

 

[Greenbeard]

That was too eloquent to be believable.

Thanks.

If I promise you, before taking over as GM, that you will not be fired and then, 18 months later, I lay you off, I didn't lie.

You're missing the point. Saying "my plan is..." on the campaign trail and then watching that plan get modified in Congress is not the same thing as lying. His environmental policy ("plan") on the campaign trail also called for a cap and trade bill. Such a bill passed in the House last year but the Senate is unlikely to pass one, meaning he's not likely to see such a bill coming across his desk. Does the fact that his environmental plan didn't make it through Congress make him a liar?

 

[hortysir]

Boy.....You can move them goalposts pretty quick.

You on Cass Sunstein's payroll?

I was just gonna say that this guy must be a partisan plant.
That was too eloquent to be believable.
The damned reply read just like it came straight from Sen. Bill Nelson(D)'s e-mail response.

If I promise you, before taking over as GM, that you will not be fired and then, 18 months later, I lay you off, I didn't lie.

Don't tell me you bother to read those!

Immie

Generally takes less time than it did to read the bullshit I just did.....
At least, with Bill, I KNOW he's a dumbass.
I'm still learning about Greenbeard.

 

[SFC Ollie]

That was too eloquent to be believable.

Thanks.

If I promise you, before taking over as GM, that you will not be fired and then, 18 months later, I lay you off, I didn't lie.

You're missing the point. Saying "my plan is..." on the campaign trail and then watching that plan get modified in Congress is not the same thing as lying. His environmental policy ("plan") on the campaign trail also called for a cap and trade bill. Such a bill passed in the House last year but the Senate is unlikely to pass one, meaning he's not likely to see such a bill coming across his desk. Does the fact that his environmental plan didn't make it through Congress make him a liar?

He always could have Vetoed the damned thing. Instead; he lied.

 

[Immanuel]

That was too eloquent to be believable.

Thanks.

If I promise you, before taking over as GM, that you will not be fired and then, 18 months later, I lay you off, I didn't lie.

You're missing the point. Saying "my plan is..." on the campaign trail and then watching that plan get modified in Congress is not the same thing as lying. His environmental policy ("plan") on the campaign trail also called for a cap and trade bill. Such a bill passed in the House last year but the Senate is unlikely to pass one, meaning he's not likely to see such a bill coming across his desk. Does the fact that his environmental plan didn't make it through Congress make him a liar?

Except that if I remember the statement correctly, it was issued as a promise not a plan. Meaning that any increase should have been vetoed by him. Instead the first thing he did was raise cigarette taxes and there is no way in hell you can convince that was not a tax increase on people making less than $250k.

Immie

 

[hortysir]

That was too eloquent to be believable.

Thanks.

If I promise you, before taking over as GM, that you will not be fired and then, 18 months later, I lay you off, I didn't lie.

You're missing the point. Saying "my plan is..." on the campaign trail and then watching that plan get modified in Congress is not the same thing as lying. His environmental policy ("plan") on the campaign trail also called for a cap and trade bill. Such a bill passed in the House last year but the Senate is unlikely to pass one, meaning he's not likely to see such a bill coming across his desk. Does the fact that his environmental plan didn't make it through Congress make him a liar?

What is the definition of "is", Slick?

 

[Immanuel]

That was too eloquent to be believable.

Thanks.

If I promise you, before taking over as GM, that you will not be fired and then, 18 months later, I lay you off, I didn't lie.

You're missing the point. Saying "my plan is..." on the campaign trail and then watching that plan get modified in Congress is not the same thing as lying. His environmental policy ("plan") on the campaign trail also called for a cap and trade bill. Such a bill passed in the House last year but the Senate is unlikely to pass one, meaning he's not likely to see such a bill coming across his desk. Does the fact that his environmental plan didn't make it through Congress make him a liar?

He always could have Vetoed the damned thing. Instead; he lied.

You would not have beaten me to that if you were not a man of few words.

Immie

 

[Greenbeard]

He always could have Vetoed the damned thing. Instead; he lied.

A veto over a two dollar tanning booth tax and a cap on FSA contributions? That would be almost criminally stupid, given what was at stake with this law. Besides, the primary long-term funding mechanism--the excise tax--is a potential cost control. The dirty little secret is that while the House's income tax was more popular, the Senate's excise tax was the better policy idea. Even if it did rile up the unions.

Except that if I remember the statement correctly, it was issued as a promise not a plan.

If you remember the statement correctly? You mean the statement I quoted verbatim above?

 

[Immanuel]

He always could have Vetoed the damned thing. Instead; he lied.

A veto over a two dollar tanning booth tax and a cap on FSA contributions? That would be almost criminally stupid, given what was at stake with this law. Besides, the primary long-term funding mechanism--the excise tax--is a potential cost control. The dirty little secret is that while the House's income tax was more popular, the Senate's excise tax was the better policy idea. Even if it did rile up the unions.

Except that if I remember the statement correctly, it was issued as a promise not a plan.

If you remember the statement correctly? You mean the statement I quoted verbatim above?

That is right... "A firm pledge:" makes it a promise. Of course, dishonest liberal politicians like to hedge promises so that when they renege they can go... "it is not my plan". It was a flat out lie.

All he did was lie and the idiots that voted for him, believed him.

Immie

 

[SFC Ollie]

What it boils down to is the people of the US did not and do not want this legislation. We will work toward it's repeal.

 

[RDD_1210]

What it boils down to is the people of the US did not and do not want this legislation. We will work toward it's repeal.

Actually....Plenty of people wanted this legislation. The main problem with this legislation for MANY people is that it didn't go far enough.

 

[hortysir]

What it boils down to is the people of the US did not and do not want this legislation. We will work toward it's repeal.

Actually....Plenty of PROGRESSIVES wanted this legislation. The main problem with this legislation for MANY PROGRESSIVES is that it didn't go far enough.

Fixed that for ya

 

[Greenbeard]

This week's Kaiser poll shows fairly wide support for the main provisions of the law:

And on a bipartisan basis, no less:

 

[Oddball]

Niiiice.

How long did it take for the Cass Sunstein boiler room boys to dig up that one?

 

[hortysir]

Niiiice.

How long did it take for the Cass Sunstein boiler room boys to dig up that one?

It came pre-installed in his Kerry aide computer

 

[Charles_Main]

I think the better question is, for those opposed to "Obamacare".

Was there anything wrong with the healthcare system in this country before "Obamacare" and if so, what?

Hell yes there was. Most importantly would be the costs of coverage. Unfortunately, HRC won't solve that problem and will in all likelihood only make things worse.

I simply do not believe that adding more bureaucracy to the equation brings down the costs or improves the service of anything including Health Insurance.

Malpractice and tort reform were and are issues as well. There were other issues as well, I just don't remember them all at the moment.

Reform of the system was absolutely necessary, but in my humble opinion giving control of the system to politicians is not the answer.

Immie

Tort Reform and Portability(being able to change jobs and or move and keep your current plan), and access to Companies out of state are 3 things that Obama care fails to address, and they just so happen to be the 3 Best ways to lower the cost of Health Insurance.

It makes no sense that Most people only have access to less than a dozen or even less companies to shop from when we have 1500 companies in the nation. Opening up that market alone would cause massive competition and drive down premiums. That is part of the big lie. The left says the private sector has had it's chance and failed, but in reality we have never had a free open insurance market ran by the private sector. We have had employer based coverage and restrictions on who you can shop from. SO part of the problem all along has been government control and laws, and now they want even more.

Obama care is flawed and the lies we were told about it are already unraveling. The Dems just postponed a 21% decrease in Medicare payments to doctors because the doctors would have raised hell. The problem is it was that cut that allowed them to claim this bill was actually going to create a 100 Billion dollar surplus. By postponing the cut, they have now showed that this bill will add at least 250 Billion to the deficit over 10 years instead of cutting 100 Billion over the same time, and we all know the cost estimates will just continue to rise.

This bill is some of the worst legislation ever passed in this country, and I fear there is nothing we can do about it now. We will continue to slid down this road and drown in the debt it creates.

Hooray for Hope and change.