The Slaughter Rule

[Mr.Fitnah]

No no. "He did it first" doesn't cut it anymore. And the GOP never used reconciliation for major legislation. That is a Democratic talking point and wrong.
And didnt Nancy Pelosi say "you have to pass the bill first to see what's in it"?
The Republicans cannot stop health care reform. Only Democrats can do that.

I never said "he did it first"...so you need to stop misquoting me.

Second, dude, hate to tell you but it HAS been used for major legislation. If you can't concede that...then either you're lying to us or you're lying to yourself. Either way, that dog dont hunt.

See, this is me, trying to find middle ground...in the broadest sense...both parties complain about the other party doing shit that they've done themselves. If you can't admit that basic fact then there's no use talking to you.

But let's get back on the real topic...can they/should they ram it through. It's not like Republicans have given Dems much of an option now have they? They tried to be bi-partisan and got stonewalled.

So ...you get what you pay for.

You deny what you then go on to say. You say "both sides ahve used it for major legislation" and then fail to prove that.
It isnt like Republicans have given Dems much of an option? How about scrapping this piece of shit and working out a bill both sides can support? Ever think of that one? Radical I know. But that's what bipartisan means. Not, I'll propose what I want and you go along with it.

Dont question him, he's been to lots of schools.

 

[Vanquish]

I never said "he did it first"...so you need to stop misquoting me.

Second, dude, hate to tell you but it HAS been used for major legislation. If you can't concede that...then either you're lying to us or you're lying to yourself. Either way, that dog dont hunt.

See, this is me, trying to find middle ground...in the broadest sense...both parties complain about the other party doing shit that they've done themselves. If you can't admit that basic fact then there's no use talking to you.

But let's get back on the real topic...can they/should they ram it through. It's not like Republicans have given Dems much of an option now have they? They tried to be bi-partisan and got stonewalled.

So ...you get what you pay for.

You deny what you then go on to say. You say "both sides have used it for major legislation" and then fail to prove that.
It isnt like Republicans have given Dems much of an option? How about scrapping this piece of shit and working out a bill both sides can support? Ever think of that one? Radical I know. But that's what bipartisan means. Not, I'll propose what I want and you go along with it.

Dont question him, he's been to lots of schools.

LOL. Nice dig.

The funny thing is...you're quoting Obama with the "I'll propose what I want and you go along with it." When he did Question Time with the Repubs he characterized that as the Republican method. There's an easily google-able discussion of the points in the Obama plan that were at one time or another Republican ideas. And in other threads I've already discussed how the Baucus committee was an attempt at bi-partisanship.

Face it. Republicans thought they could stop the whole thing...so you said you weren't going to work on it. When Obama shamed you into admitting reform was necessary...THEEEEEEN you started asking to be at the table....and now you want to start over as a way of killing Obama's plan. At least admit that to yourselves. There are still Republicans saying "we're in a financial crisis...now is not the time." That's an attempt to kill the whole thing.

There's NO offer of proof/good faith that if Obama started over that you'd ever agree to anything. Repubs have proven that the more they dont listen and the more they dig in their heels...the better they do. Great work. But don't blame others when they do the same thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

You deny what you then go on to say. You say "both sides have used it for major legislation" and then fail to prove that.
It isnt like Republicans have given Dems much of an option? How about scrapping this piece of shit and working out a bill both sides can support? Ever think of that one? Radical I know. But that's what bipartisan means. Not, I'll propose what I want and you go along with it.

Dont question him, he's been to lots of schools.

LOL. Nice dig.

The funny thing is...you're quoting Obama with the "I'll propose what I want and you go along with it." When he did Question Time with the Repubs he characterized that as the Republican method. There's an easily google-able discussion of the points in the Obama plan that were at one time or another Republican ideas. And in other threads I've already discussed how the Baucus committee was an attempt at bi-partisanship.

Face it. Republicans thought they could stop the whole thing...so you said you weren't going to work on it. When Obama shamed you into admitting reform was necessary...THEEEEEEN you started asking to be at the table....and now you want to start over as a way of killing Obama's plan. At least admit that to yourselves. There are still Republicans saying "we're in a financial crisis...now is not the time." That's an attempt to kill the whole thing.

There's NO offer of proof/good faith that if Obama started over that you'd ever agree to anything. Repubs have proven that the more they dont listen and the more they dig in their heels...the better they do. Great work. But don't blame others when they do the same thing.

Of course he characterized that as the Republican method. Goering would be proud. Obama never asked me personally what I thought about health care. He never asked anyone in the American public what they thought. He doesn't because the American public is firmly against this bill he and his allies in Congress have produced.
There are areas where the GOP and the Dems do agree. They should go back and craft a smaller bill that addresses these areas and agree the other stuff is not doable right now. And probably never, but we won't say that.

 

[Vanquish]

Yeah, because you know what Obama's interaction with his constituency has been. You're his bodyman.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, because you know what Obama's interaction with his constituency has been. You're his bodyman.

Yeah. Here he is with his constituency. That's Andy Stern, head of SEIU on the right.

 

[FA_Q2]

The funny thing is...you're quoting Obama with the "I'll propose what I want and you go along with it." When he did Question Time with the Repubs he characterized that as the Republican method. There's an easily google-able discussion of the points in the Obama plan that were at one time or another Republican ideas. And in other threads I've already discussed how the Baucus committee was an attempt at bi-partisanship.

Sure there are republican ideas in this bill but they are attached to an insane amount of crap that is unacceptable. Why is it so hard to understand that a series of small bills that reform each component of the medical system would be worlds better than this crap. In that manner you are able to actually read and understand what is being proposed and backroom deals/pet projects are far harder to hide. The breaks given to the unions are enough of a debacle to deny this bill alone not to mention the rest of it. Bi-partisan is not pasting republican ideas on the democrat’s bill. Bi-partisanship is coming together and meeting in the middle. Gluing ideas from both sides together instead of a real compromise will just give us the worst of both parties instead of the best of both.

 

[Vanquish]

At least you're admitting that there are Republican ideas in the bill. Most on your side wont even admit that.

" Bi-partisanship is coming together and meeting in the middle." Uhm yeah. It is. Which is what BO said he wanted to do during the televised debacle. But Cantor's little whiny ass pulled out his prop...and said we're too far apart to do anything. A sentiment echoed many times on this board by the way.

BO tried to work together. He had meetings with various Republican congressionmen and women on the issues. The Baucus committee was bi-partisan...to the point where the public option was thrown out!!!! One of the main things that BO wanted from the beginning ...and he conceded it. (Oh and dont pull that crap where you say it was Dems who forced it out. It was still a concession to opponents.)

This was all while Republicans tried to kill this issue altogether. They're still trying to. "We dont have the money right now." "The economy's too bad."

Well when you suckers DONT want to work together and dig in your heels...don't be surprised when the other side does the same. It's frickin' ridiculous.

What's so hard to believe about a bunch of smaller reform bills working is that Republicans want to kill everything that BO wants to do at all. Why is it so hard to understand that if Republicans are going to force kill the issue of healthcare...that BO's got to get it done as quickly as possible.

YOU PEOPLE are the reason why it's being rammed through faster. You're the catalyst. If you'd just have played ball and compromised even some...this would have been a much different process.

 

[SFC Ollie]

At least you're admitting that there are Republican ideas in the bill. Most on your side wont even admit that.

" Bi-partisanship is coming together and meeting in the middle." Uhm yeah. It is. Which is what BO said he wanted to do during the televised debacle. But Cantor's little whiny ass pulled out his prop...and said we're too far apart to do anything. A sentiment echoed many times on this board by the way.

BO tried to work together. He had meetings with various Republican congressionmen and women on the issues. The Baucus committee was bi-partisan...to the point where the public option was thrown out!!!! One of the main things that BO wanted from the beginning ...and he conceded it. (Oh and dont pull that crap where you say it was Dems who forced it out. It was still a concession to opponents.)

This was all while Republicans tried to kill this issue altogether. They're still trying to. "We dont have the money right now." "The economy's too bad."

Well when you suckers DONT want to work together and dig in your heels...don't be surprised when the other side does the same. It's frickin' ridiculous.

What's so hard to believe about a bunch of smaller reform bills working is that Republicans want to kill everything that BO wants to do at all. Why is it so hard to understand that if Republicans are going to force kill the issue of healthcare...that BO's got to get it done as quickly as possible.

YOU PEOPLE are the reason why it's being rammed through faster. You're the catalyst. If you'd just have played ball and compromised even some...this would have been a much different process.

Why compromise on a bad bill?
Why spend more money we don't have during a recession?
Why pay taxes for something 4 years before it takes effect?
Why is it that if it doesn't take effect for 4 years is it such an emergency?

"You people" need to answer for this.

 

[Vanquish]

Why compromise on a bad bill?
Why spend more money we don't have during a recession?
Why pay taxes for something 4 years before it takes effect?
Why is it that if it doesn't take effect for 4 years is it such an emergency?

"You people" need to answer for this.

Why compromise on a bad bill? - Because hardly any bill is ever 100% the way you want it. And the more "you people" fight it...and threaten that you'll stop anything from passing...the more the healthcare reformers figure they have to pass what they can while they can. Again, you're the catalyst for this. Look in the mirror.

Why spend more money we don't have during a recession? Because there are people being hurt and the problem exists now. If we waited until we were in a state of economic perfection, nothing would ever get done. This is a delaying tactic. No more, no less.

Why pay taxes for something 4 years before it takes effect? Because it takes those taxes to enact the reform. What's so hard to understand. Just because there's a delay in the implementation doesnt mean the money is being wasted. That's like saying...yeah it'll take us 5 years before we can finish this rocket...I guess we shouldn't go to the moon. Holy crap?!! You mean it's not instant!!??

Why is it that if it doesn't take effect for 4 years is it such an emergency? See the answer above. Please tell me you're not denying that healthcare reform is needed? That insurance companies aren't screwing people over and using their humongous leverage to pervert the system?

Profit isn't bad...but you'd be pretty naive to think that insurance companies can police themselves and try to help the little guy. If you do, you should spend a day at work with me.

 

[xotoxi]

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why compromise on a bad bill?
Why spend more money we don't have during a recession?
Why pay taxes for something 4 years before it takes effect?
Why is it that if it doesn't take effect for 4 years is it such an emergency?

"You people" need to answer for this.

Why compromise on a bad bill? - Because hardly any bill is ever 100% the way you want it. And the more "you people" fight it...and threaten that you'll stop anything from passing...the more the healthcare reformers figure they have to pass what they can while they can. Again, you're the catalyst for this. Look in the mirror.

Why spend more money we don't have during a recession? Because there are people being hurt and the problem exists now. If we waited until we were in a state of economic perfection, nothing would ever get done. This is a delaying tactic. No more, no less.

Why pay taxes for something 4 years before it takes effect? Because it takes those taxes to enact the reform. What's so hard to understand. Just because there's a delay in the implementation doesnt mean the money is being wasted. That's like saying...yeah it'll take us 5 years before we can finish this rocket...I guess we shouldn't go to the moon. Holy crap?!! You mean it's not instant!!??

Why is it that if it doesn't take effect for 4 years is it such an emergency? See the answer above. Please tell me you're not denying that healthcare reform is needed? That insurance companies aren't screwing people over and using their humongous leverage to pervert the system?

Profit isn't bad...but you'd be pretty naive to think that insurance companies can police themselves and try to help the little guy. If you do, you should spend a day at work with me.

So it takes 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of entitlements? How do you pay for the next 10 years? And from what we've seen and been told the insurance companies make about 2 cents on the dollar as pure profit. (I'm certain that is after the bonuses)

Yes we need health care reform. We need to fix the problems where there are problems, not tear down the system that does work for 85% of us.

 

[Vanquish]

"not tear down the system that does work for 85% of us."

Typical "i'm ok so everything across the country is ok" rhetoric. Even if I DID believe your 85/15 statistic (citation?), why would 85% be acceptable...when the 15% is people going homeless and causing your own personal medical bills to go up?

The whole insurance industry is one big con game that's reached it's tipping point and needs to be fundamentally re-worked.

"So it takes 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of entitlements?" No. That's not been what was said. The build up isn't a 1-for-1 ratio in terms of tax years to years of entitlements. You dont just start something like this on day one and say "boom" it's in place.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Was thinking of an intelligent reply until I saw Xotxoi's picture of the 'babe' in the "t" Shirt
entitled "FART now Loading". That 'blew me away'

 

[SFC Ollie]

"not tear down the system that does work for 85% of us."

Typical "i'm ok so everything across the country is ok" rhetoric. Even if I DID believe your 85/15 statistic (citation?), why would 85% be acceptable...when the 15% is people going homeless and causing your own personal medical bills to go up?

The whole insurance industry is one big con game that's reached it's tipping point and needs to be fundamentally re-worked.

"So it takes 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of entitlements?" No. That's not been what was said. The build up isn't a 1-for-1 ratio in terms of tax years to years of entitlements. You dont just start something like this on day one and say "boom" it's in place.

The point is that you do not tear down the whole house to fix a leaking faucet. And I still don't buy paying for it for 4 years before you see it. This is not about lowering costs anymore but more about control.

 

[The Rabbi]

"not tear down the system that does work for 85% of us."

Typical "i'm ok so everything across the country is ok" rhetoric. Even if I DID believe your 85/15 statistic (citation?), why would 85% be acceptable...when the 15% is people going homeless and causing your own personal medical bills to go up?

The whole insurance industry is one big con game that's reached it's tipping point and needs to be fundamentally re-worked.

"So it takes 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of entitlements?" No. That's not been what was said. The build up isn't a 1-for-1 ratio in terms of tax years to years of entitlements. You dont just start something like this on day one and say "boom" it's in place.

Why would you want to punish 85% of the people so that you can make an incremental benefit for 15%? This is typical socialist thinking. It is especially egregious considering there are plenty of things that can be done short of punishing 85% of the people. And Obama won't cover everybody anyway.

The insurance industry is not a con. Government regulation of it is the con.

Your third paragraph is incomprehensible. Taxes start immediately but the benefits won't start for 4 years. That is how the thing gets scored as reducing the deficit in the first 10 years: 10 years of payments for 6 years of benefits. It will be the first government program of its type to do that.

 

[Vanquish]

It's funny that you say that...because that's exactly what Cantor wanted to do at the televised event..and that the Repubs keep trying to do with the healthcare bill.

The difference you'll say is that there's more than a leaky faucet to fix with the bill. I disagree but either way the principle still stands. BO said it himself "Id like to start where we're in agreement...then move to the points where we're not in agreement."

It's a shame you dont understand that sometimes things have a lead time. Don't know how to explain that one further.

How much more clear can you get?

 

[hboats]

"not tear down the system that does work for 85% of us."

Typical "i'm ok so everything across the country is ok" rhetoric. Even if I DID believe your 85/15 statistic (citation?), why would 85% be acceptable...when the 15% is people going homeless and causing your own personal medical bills to go up?

The whole insurance industry is one big con game that's reached it's tipping point and needs to be fundamentally re-worked.

"So it takes 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of entitlements?" No. That's not been what was said. The build up isn't a 1-for-1 ratio in terms of tax years to years of entitlements. You dont just start something like this on day one and say "boom" it's in place.

Why would you want to punish 85% of the people so that you can make an incremental benefit for 15%? This is typical socialist thinking. It is especially egregious considering there are plenty of things that can be done short of punishing 85% of the people. And Obama won't cover everybody anyway.

The insurance industry is not a con. Government regulation of it is the con.

Your third paragraph is incomprehensible. Taxes start immediately but the benefits won't start for 4 years. That is how the thing gets scored as reducing the deficit in the first 10 years: 10 years of payments for 6 years of benefits. It will be the first government program of its type to do that.

Oh, and this just in, and soon to be released, the CBO has now scored the bill that Obama wants passed and it ADDS over #1trillion to the deficit. I'll post a link when it is released.

Rick

 

[Vanquish]

The insurance industry is absolutely a con the way it's executed. It's a completely stupid way of spreading risk. The fact that it's out of control and that people get screwed by it daily is proof of that.

Government regulation isn't the con. I bet you think that insurance companies really want to help people. I bet you think that no one ever gets dropped for a bad reason. Ohhhh to live in that fantasy world. Regulation of insurance is necessary, dare I say it, for the government to protect people. I'm sure in your world all government protections overstep the boundaries of the constitution...but that's not the case.

 

[The Rabbi]

The insurance industry is absolutely a con the way it's executed. It's a completely stupid way of spreading risk. The fact that it's out of control and that people get screwed by it daily is proof of that.

Government regulation isn't the con. I bet you think that insurance companies really want to help people. I bet you think that no one ever gets dropped for a bad reason. Ohhhh to live in that fantasy world. Regulation of insurance is necessary, dare I say it, for the government to protect people. I'm sure in your world all government protections overstep the boundaries of the constitution...but that's not the case.

Could you verbalize why you think it's a con?

Insurance companies want to make money. They make money by making accurate assesments of risk and charging premiums accordingly. They also make money by investing those premiums.
Companies get money from customers. Satisfied customer continue to do business with them. Unsatisfied customers shop elsewhere.
In the internet age it is not necessary for gov't to do anymore than provide venues for people to sue for breach of contract. Every government licensing scheme is put in to "protect the public." In fact it is chiefly to protect the industry and to provide jobs for bureaucrats and expand the bureaucracy.
And yes, the regulations frequently over step Constitutional mandate.

 

[Vanquish]

I think it's a con that people pay into a system where breach of contract occurs on a daily basis in the name of profit over people. Again, I'm not anti-profit...I'm anti-corruption.

I think it's a con that in years with record profits that companies use their leverage to drop people from coverage when it's very clear that's the risk that the insurance company undertook.

I could go on and on but that's a good start.