Another set of lies by Obama

[DiveCon]

Except you're the fool who thinks we get a refund on tax day from SS and FICA taxes. Haven't you ever earned a paycheck in your entire life???

no, asshole, i never said that

Originally Posted by DiveCon
btw, Obama has already cut payroll tax rates, and those people will feel it big time next april when they get back a lower refund

you don't understand that if your payroll deductions don't cover the amount you are supposed to pay into those items, its taken out of any refund you would have or added to any amount you OWE
you are too ******* stupid to even have a rational discussion of the topic

You keep pretending not to know the difference between Income tax withholding and SS and FICA tax withholding. If SS and FICA taxes are withheld from your pay check they are the EXACT amount you owe, you pay no more nor get a refund on tax day for SS or FICA taxes.

If you're not pretending to be stupid then you have never earned a paycheck in your entire life, which is probably the case since you always neg rep me when I get it right. Thank you for the neg rep.

WOW, way to take it out of context
'asshole

it is a waste of time to even bother with a ******* liar like you
you took what i said about Obama cutting the withholding rates and applied it to FICA and Medicare

 

[edthecynic]

Only problem is, by the law they are writing now, once you chose public option, you wont be ablee to enroll back to private insurance after some date.

Link please.

Arawyn was talking about it in this thread.

If that doesnt help, check here.

Section 102 does not say you can't enroll back in private insurance after you switched to the public option. It says any private option you switch to must meet the minimum standard adopted in section 124. So it only prevents you from enrolling in a SUBSTANDARD private plan in place of the public option.

 

[edthecynic]

no, asshole, i never said that

you don't understand that if your payroll deductions don't cover the amount you are supposed to pay into those items, its taken out of any refund you would have or added to any amount you OWE
you are too ******* stupid to even have a rational discussion of the topic

You keep pretending not to know the difference between Income tax withholding and SS and FICA tax withholding. If SS and FICA taxes are withheld from your pay check they are the EXACT amount you owe, you pay no more nor get a refund on tax day for SS or FICA taxes.

If you're not pretending to be stupid then you have never earned a paycheck in your entire life, which is probably the case since you always neg rep me when I get it right. Thank you for the neg rep.

WOW, way to take it out of context
'asshole

it is a waste of time to even bother with a ******* liar like you
you took what i said about Obama cutting the withholding rates and applied it to FICA and Medicare

Like I said, when I get it right you neg rep me.

Originally Posted by DiveCon
btw, Obama has already cut payroll tax rates, and those people will feel it big time next april when they get back a lower refund

 

[DiveCon]

You keep pretending not to know the difference between Income tax withholding and SS and FICA tax withholding. If SS and FICA taxes are withheld from your pay check they are the EXACT amount you owe, you pay no more nor get a refund on tax day for SS or FICA taxes.

If you're not pretending to be stupid then you have never earned a paycheck in your entire life, which is probably the case since you always neg rep me when I get it right. Thank you for the neg rep.

WOW, way to take it out of context
'asshole

it is a waste of time to even bother with a ******* liar like you
you took what i said about Obama cutting the withholding rates and applied it to FICA and Medicare

Like I said, when I get it right you neg rep me.

Originally Posted by DiveCon
btw, Obama has already cut payroll tax rates, and those people will feel it big time next april when they get back a lower refund

you didnt get it right, thats why you got a neg rep you *****

 

[edthecynic]

WOW, way to take it out of context
'asshole

it is a waste of time to even bother with a ******* liar like you
you took what i said about Obama cutting the withholding rates and applied it to FICA and Medicare

Like I said, when I get it right you neg rep me.

Originally Posted by DiveCon
btw, Obama has already cut payroll tax rates, and those people will feel it big time next april when they get back a lower refund

you didnt get it right, thats why you got a neg rep you *****

Your own words prove I got it quite right and you have been reduced to nothing but SPITE. You fool no one.

 

[bodecea]

Obama wants honest health care debate - Yahoo! News

I just love when the president lies through his teeth cause he thinks we are to stupid to know it.

Remind us again Mr. President how you agreed with the Democrats in Congress on a "tax"/ Fine for anyone that does not get Health Insurance. Remind us again how you would force parents to have health insurance at YOUR levels and covering what YOU think is needed. Remind us again how the Government can run medicare so well it is going broke, but will somehow run health care for everyone better, cheaper and within a none growning budget that sucks the life out of this country.

Lies indeed.

Couple of things that caught my attention:

He doesn't "intend" for it to happen, but he doesn't say that it won't happen like he did for covering illegal aliens or paying for abortions.

"We all know that when the government is setting the rules and is backed by tax dollars, it will destroy, not compete with, the private sector," said [Rep. Tom] Price [R-GA], a doctor. "The reality is, whether or not you get to keep your plan, or your doctor, is very much in question under the president's proposal."

Liberals don't believe that... the more government control the happier they are.

Immie

I always love when CON$ argue both sides of an issue.

First they argue the public option will be more expensive because the gov does everything more expensive than the private sector.

But then they argue the public option will be so inexpensive the private sector insurance will disappear because it will not be able to compete because the gov does not have to make a profit.

So we have the CON$ arguing that gov run health care will be both cheaper and more expensive at the same time.

indeed.

 

[DiveCon]

Like I said, when I get it right you neg rep me.

you didnt get it right, thats why you got a neg rep you *****

Your own words prove I got it quite right and you have been reduced to nothing but SPITE. You fool no one.

no, you have it wrong once again
moron

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come on, dive, you are the king and queen of out-of-context.

 

[DiveCon]

Come on, dive, you are the king and queen of out-of-context.

no, that would be ed the moron

 

[rdean]

I keep hearing that Obama's lies, then the only ones I hear are from the right. I thought that was against their religion. Maybe if it's against a black guy, it's different? It's OK?

Death panels
unplug grandma
end Medicare

 

[Ame®icano]

Section 102 does not say you can't enroll back in private insurance after you switched to the public option. It says any private option you switch to must meet the minimum standard adopted in section 124. So it only prevents you from enrolling in a SUBSTANDARD private plan in place of the public option.

If government is preventing, forbidding, outlawing, name it any way you want... to enroll wherever and whenever I want, or dictating me where I have to enroll and put my money into, you can flip and arrange words any way you want, the key word PREVENT is still there.

 

[edthecynic]

Section 102 does not say you can't enroll back in private insurance after you switched to the public option. It says any private option you switch to must meet the minimum standard adopted in section 124. So it only prevents you from enrolling in a SUBSTANDARD private plan in place of the public option.

If government is preventing, forbidding, outlawing, name it any way you want... to enroll wherever and whenever I want, or dictating me where I have to enroll and put my money into, you can flip and arrange words any way you want, the key word PREVENT is still there.

But they are NOT preventing you from enrolling in a SUBSTANDARD private insurance plan, just from using a substandard plan as a SUBSTITUTE for a standard plan. You are perfectly free to SUPPLEMENT your plan that meets at least the minimum gov standard, WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, with any substandard plan you choose.

 

[Ame®icano]

Section 102 does not say you can't enroll back in private insurance after you switched to the public option. It says any private option you switch to must meet the minimum standard adopted in section 124. So it only prevents you from enrolling in a SUBSTANDARD private plan in place of the public option.

If government is preventing, forbidding, outlawing, name it any way you want... to enroll wherever and whenever I want, or dictating me where I have to enroll and put my money into, you can flip and arrange words any way you want, the key word PREVENT is still there.

But they are NOT preventing you from enrolling in a SUBSTANDARD private insurance plan, just from using a substandard plan as a SUBSTITUTE for a standard plan. You are perfectly free to SUPPLEMENT your plan that meets at least the minimum gov standard, WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, with any substandard plan you choose.

What if I CHOSE not to have insurance? Is government gonna FORCE me have it?

 

[Zoom-boing]

If government is preventing, forbidding, outlawing, name it any way you want... to enroll wherever and whenever I want, or dictating me where I have to enroll and put my money into, you can flip and arrange words any way you want, the key word PREVENT is still there.

But they are NOT preventing you from enrolling in a SUBSTANDARD private insurance plan, just from using a substandard plan as a SUBSTITUTE for a standard plan. You are perfectly free to SUPPLEMENT your plan that meets at least the minimum gov standard, WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, with any substandard plan you choose.

What if I CHOSE not to have insurance? Is government gonna FORCE me have it?

They would never force you; that's not PC. They will mandate you. Isn't that special?

 

[Immanuel]

I always love when CON$ argue both sides of an issue.

First they argue the public option will be more expensive because the gov does everything more expensive than the private sector.

But then they argue the public option will be so inexpensive the private sector insurance will disappear because it will not be able to compete because the gov does not have to make a profit.

So we have the CON$ arguing that gov run health care will be both cheaper and more expensive at the same time.

Ed, my friend, I think you blew that one.

First RGS was stating that liberals tell us that the government can run everything so well, but then he pointed out that they run Medicare so well that they have driven it to bankruptcy. He never said they ran it cheaper than private industry. In fact, he was stating quite the opposite. He stated that you guys are making the claim it would be run cheaper.

And Rep Price didn't say anything at all about it being run cheaper or more expensive. He was talking about government control putting the private sector out of business.

Could you read that again and maybe tell me if you see something different?

Immie

Well that was exactly the point I was making, RGS was saying it would be more expensive if the gov ran it.

And while Price didn't say it outright in that quote, the logic always given by the GOP for the public option forcing private insurance to go out of business was that the gov does NOT have to make a profit so they can always undercut the private sector which does, for the same provisions.

So RGS was my example of the gov option being MORE expensive, and Price was my example of the gov option being LESS expensive.

I have not tried to catch up on this thread so maybe this has already been replied to, but that was not exactly what RGS was saying. He was saying that the government has run every social program it has operated into what in the private sector would be bankruptcy. It doesn't matter whether or not it is more expensive to the user, but whether or not the program is run efficiently.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Obama wants honest health care debate - Yahoo! News

I just love when the president lies through his teeth cause he thinks we are to stupid to know it.

Remind us again Mr. President how you agreed with the Democrats in Congress on a "tax"/ Fine for anyone that does not get Health Insurance. Remind us again how you would force parents to have health insurance at YOUR levels and covering what YOU think is needed. Remind us again how the Government can run medicare so well it is going broke, but will somehow run health care for everyone better, cheaper and within a none growning budget that sucks the life out of this country.

Lies indeed.

We have the Unisured tax here already in MA, its several hundred dollars a year if you CHOOSE not to have health insurance. They are also taxing my payment to my health insurance, raised our state sales tax by 25%, raised the fees/tolls in relation to cars, and are proposing an entirely new tax to try and pay for our "universal health coverage" system.

Ours is a little different than HR3200 as ours has the state pay private insurance companies for those who get on the system, we have no state run health insurance like HR3200 is proposing to do.

 

[logical4u]

Obama wants honest health care debate - Yahoo! News



Immie

I always love when CON$ argue both sides of an issue.

First they argue the public option will be more expensive because the gov does everything more expensive than the private sector.

But then they argue the public option will be so inexpensive the private sector insurance will disappear because it will not be able to compete because the gov does not have to make a profit.

So we have the CON$ arguing that gov run health care will be both cheaper and more expensive at the same time.

The gov can use taxpayer money to eliminate the competition (make it less than private sector insurance, CHEAPER). Once the competition is eliminated, raise the fees (taxes, MORE EXPENSIVE) to whatever 'the gov' claims it needs to cover the 'costs' (that includes all the administrative costs for departments added for all the paybacks owed to supporters that are not in the medical field).

This man is now telling the religious community that they have a 'moral obligation' to support 'his' plan; this is the same man that said it was above his pay grade to determine when life begins. The same man that said it is acceptable to perform human experimentation, that people should be made for human experimentation only, and if not used for experimentation, they should be killed (embryonic stem cell research). This is the same man that voted against giving a child that survived an abortion any form of assistance(leave the child alone, uncovered, without any form of nourishment until he dies (on his own) Now, he wants to be able to say when life should stop (at least for those that need medical assistance).

There is no addressing encouraging competition in the medical insurance areas (across state lines) in this bill.

There is no addressing of tort reform to reduce the lawsuits on the medical profession.

There is no addressing of medical savings accounts (tax-free).

There is no addressing of no ongoing treatment for illegal aliens.

There is no addressing that this plan will create a national identification system (using a medical identification #) that will give all your personal information (description, blood type, DNA, bank account # required by one bill) to the gov and anyone that has access to this national database (freedome of information act).

It does not address taxpayer's monies will not be used to perform abortions (against many religions).

It does address giving power to gov to select the schools that will teach medicine and who (their version of diversity) will be able to become medical professionals.

It does address that if or when a person's insurance changes that, at that point, that person will be forced onto the gov insurance.

It does address the gov having the power to 'advise' 'customers' on their living choices (weight, smoking, children).

In my humble opinion, this 'plan' is to change this country from a republic to a tyranny run by people that THINK they know more than the rest of us. It will hurt the medical industry (along with the entire country), not help it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Obama wants honest health care debate - Yahoo! News



Immie

I always love when CON$ argue both sides of an issue.

First they argue the public option will be more expensive because the gov does everything more expensive than the private sector.

But then they argue the public option will be so inexpensive the private sector insurance will disappear because it will not be able to compete because the gov does not have to make a profit.

So we have the CON$ arguing that gov run health care will be both cheaper and more expensive at the same time.

The gov can use taxpayer money to eliminate the competition (make it less than private sector insurance, CHEAPER). Once the competition is eliminated, raise the fees (taxes, MORE EXPENSIVE) to whatever 'the gov' claims it needs to cover the 'costs' (that includes all the administrative costs for departments added for all the paybacks owed to supporters that are not in the medical field).

This man is now telling the religious community that they have a 'moral obligation' to support 'his' plan; this is the same man that said it was above his pay grade to determine when life begins. The same man that said it is acceptable to perform human experimentation, that people should be made for human experimentation only, and if not used for experimentation, they should be killed (embryonic stem cell research). This is the same man that voted against giving a child that survived an abortion any form of assistance(leave the child alone, uncovered, without any form of nourishment until he dies (on his own) Now, he wants to be able to say when life should stop (at least for those that need medical assistance).

There is no addressing encouraging competition in the medical insurance areas (across state lines) in this bill.

There is no addressing of tort reform to reduce the lawsuits on the medical profession.

There is no addressing of medical savings accounts (tax-free).

There is no addressing of no ongoing treatment for illegal aliens.

There is no addressing that this plan will create a national identification system (using a medical identification #) that will give all your personal information (description, blood type, DNA, bank account # required by one bill) to the gov and anyone that has access to this national database (freedome of information act).

It does not address taxpayer's monies will not be used to perform abortions (against many religions).

It does address giving power to gov to select the schools that will teach medicine and who (their version of diversity) will be able to become medical professionals.

It does address that if or when a person's insurance changes that, at that point, that person will be forced onto the gov insurance.

It does address the gov having the power to 'advise' 'customers' on their living choices (weight, smoking, children).

In my humble opinion, this 'plan' is to change this country from a republic to a tyranny run by people that THINK they know more than the rest of us. It will hurt the medical industry (along with the entire country), not help it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In my humble opinion, this 'plan' is to change this country from a republic to a tyranny run by people that THINK they know more than the rest of us. It will hurt the medical industry (along with the entire country), not help it.

And this very last part of your post is what I think too.

The same govt that has screwed up every other major entilement program wont be able to run this, way more complex, one.

Social Security has been ponzie schemed into bankrupcy
Cash For clunkers was underfunded and dealers have not been paid yet (although they will be just a few months late)
There were no WMD (ok not an entilement just a govt failure)
They took over amtrack, then amtrack went bad
VA hospitals have had a real bad history of poor care and poor facilities.

Shall I go on?


I am against HR3200 because I support effective health care reform.

 

[Immanuel]

In my humble opinion, this 'plan' is to change this country from a republic to a tyranny run by people that THINK they know more than the rest of us. It will hurt the medical industry (along with the entire country), not help it.

And this very last part of your post is what I think too.

The same govt that has screwed up every other major entilement program wont be able to run this, way more complex, one.

Social Security has been ponzie schemed into bankrupcy
Cash For clunkers was underfunded and dealers have not been paid yet (although they will be just a few months late)
There were no WMD (ok not an entilement just a govt failure)
They took over amtrack, then amtrack went bad
VA hospitals have had a real bad history of poor care and poor facilities.

Shall I go on?


I am against HR3200 because I support effective health care reform.

Amen!

Cash for Clunkers? Do you think that the auto industry might get screwed on that one i.e. not paid at all? What do you think will happen if that is the case? Was there anything in the contracts that protected the dealers i.e. they get to repo the cars if the government doesn't pay up. In other words, the consumer is liable for the C for C payment until it is received by the dealer?

HR3200 <> effective health care reform. Scrap it and start over boys!

Immie