The new healthcare bill doesnt sound so bad (video)
 

http://www.comcast.net/video/health-...nNews/popular/

It looks like only the super super rich's taxes will go up, but regular people and small businesses with under 50 employees wont see any change

If you believe that, then you must either have no knowledge of history from 1920 onwards, or you just don't bother to pay attention at all...


No offense meant here, but that statement was a bit naive.




.

Edit: Removed till I have something to cite :P

I am awaiting the Armageddon that Boehner promised would happen if this bill passed. I better start stocking up on food, water and munitions.

Yup and the income tax was for the rich and would never go above 1% LMAO.


And the phone tax was only for the rich people with phones and would be ended after the Spanish American war ended. :1orglaugh

As well as our government mishandles everything else, I'm certainly happy that they are now mandating health. Oh boy!

LOL, isn't that awesome... what people don't realize is when the government gets more money and more control they NEVER go back. They always go forwards... anything backwards (say tax breaks) are always temporary.

This system only works one way folks and in X number of years everything will be mandated, controlled, and regulated to a point where you can't really DO anything. You are no longer free. It's not an opinion it's a fact. Keep adding restrictions upon restrictions without ever removing them and 100% of the time you'll end up in a dystopia...

You may like the healthcare reform, you may not like flavored tobacco, you may agree with the cap & trade tax of near 100% on all energy... however, you aren't going to like all of the regulation/legislation passed and over time any given person won't agree with the majority of it. They'll only agree with fragments of the system.

This is EXACTLY what this country was founded AGAINST.

Wake up before all our liberties are gone, already I run into people that think RIGHTS are given to you by the government... that's fucking sad.

a good thing? are you on crack?

take my situation, I'm over 50, I have type 2 diabetes, my blood pressure is kind of "iffy"
I could always buy insurance but it was far too expensive because of my conditions so I pay cash for my treatment, cost me far less each year than the insurance premiums would.
And unlike almost everybody on GFY I only make a modest living, insurance premiums that are higher than my rent are just not sustainable.

But with this idiotic legislation I'm required by law to buy the insurance that I couldn't afford before, or pay a fine to the government.

Now if the insurance the government says I must buy was out of my reach before, what happens when the premiums go up 10% to 20% like the CBO says will happen for people who buy their own insurance? Yet I'll still be required to buy it.

So there goes my retirement.

I suppose I could hide some of my income and try to qualify for the subsidies that come out of my tax money anyway, but I really don't feel like going to prison today.

So my plan is to pay the fine and make the local Emergency Room my Primary Caregiver, at least that way I get something for my money.

I'm all for fixing what's wrong with our system but congress couldn't have found a more wrong way to do it.

And if you flaming fucking liberals with your tongue up Obama's ass would just stop sucking Pelosi's dick long enough to take a good look at what this law will really do to people maybe you would adopt a more realistic view of it.

And that's the end of my Rant

Damn, two consecutive posts that make complete sense, this is a first. Good luck arguing with that, liberal morons.

Democrats think everyone is owed something, that's the funny part. They are against any kind of personal responsibility. "Oh you're poor, the government will take care of it it's not your fault!" Morons rofl

Elections have consequences.

Possibly, if we weren't handed nothing more than a new set of corporate, career politician shills to replace the old ones. Same shit with a 'new and improved' sticker on it. Which, come to think of it is pretty much how we got in this situation.

Hell my health stocks are up. Sorry you guys are going under the bus but at least i am making money from this rather comical situation :) Liberals are great for my bottom line, vote more of them into power please :)

thats how i read that too: they say "you want health reform? - fine, here's the solution: mandatory insurance for everyone and a bit more taxes on 200-250k incomes"

Yea! Let's blame the rich for being rich!

Neither situation sounds good. Your current situation leaves you totally vunerable should something big happen like a heart attack or stroke. Health care should be affordable for everyone. This bill that passed is not like the universal health care that other countries have at all. the only good side i see is making it illegal for insurance companies to drop or deny people.

would people like yourself prefer zero government assistance? no welfare, no foodstamps, no social programs, nothing? this is how many third world countries treat their citizens. while in a perfect world everyone would step up and do their share its just not reality. there are many people who simply can't and others who do take advantage of the fact that there is a system in place for those who can't provide for themselves, doesn't make the entire system wrong. i guess you would prefer sections of cities that are wood huts and shacks made of garbage.

In theory if you make a modest living you will get financial help to pay for the insurance and if you are sick and not able to afford the insurance even with the financial help you might be able to switch and get on medicare. This is, however, just a theory. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Yes I would... listen how much of your income do you donate? What percentage? Handouts should be voluntary NOT forced. The have a term for forced labor for someone else's benefit... it's called slavery.

The systems in place do not have incentives to get OFF of the system yet there are plenty to stay ON the system. Not to mention it's you who's footing the bill.

If I had 40% of my income back I'd definitely be donating to more charities and organizations that responsibly, transparently distribute funds to programs which will help citizens get back on their feet. I would shop around and find programs I thought were deserving of the money and who had lower salaried execs with the bulk of their donations going towards helping people... I think a lot of people would... many wouldn't but that's their prerogative... combine that with no minimum wage and you're well on your way to a prosperous country where the people who work hard for their money are rewarded, not taxed extra. On min wage... If employer A and worker B agree that a fair wage for them is $4 / hr the government should not step in and say no... Driving up min wage only increases unemployment rates. Sure some people would work for cheaper than minimum wage but that keeps more people employed and the cost of goods down. This stuff is really basic economics it's a shame more people don't realize it.

Instead they're too busy (and if you've read my posts you know I've said this a hundred times)... placing emotions and feelings above logic and reason.

It gives you a warm and fuzzy to know that people who don't work still make money so they don't "live in shacks" or "have to get a real job"... but it's not logical. There is no logical reason for taking the sweat of one man's brow and distributing it to someone else.

Why would you go from one side of the spectrum to the other? It makes absolutely no sense.

Again, Democrats don't deal with the logical, only the emotional.

i think it'll be good for poor people, usa's health care is a shame

so you're gonna make a guy paralyzed from the neck down work at walmart? it doesn't give me a 'fuzzy' feeling, its just the right thing to do. yes, many people abuse the system but there are many who truely need it and as much as you want them to "Just get a job" (laughable) tell that to guy the hears voices in his head or the guy with no arms...your senario would create an even larger divide in classes and the homeless populaton would skyrocket.

Nope, it doesn't make sense but then why do you always bring up the topic of assuming everyone who is on welfare (or whatever) wants to be and actually has a choice, that they are just too 'lazy' to get a job? Look at this bestxxx guy, he wants to take us back to the 1880s when people were forced to work 16 hour days for pennies because it was either that or nothing...

Nope, I'm going to do what was done for hundreds of years before now. I'm going to support local community programs to help the disabled, the unemployed, and the down on their luck ones.

I've never done anything of the sort. I'm just bringing up the completely different spectrum as a rebuttal to those that claim "the wealthy are just greedy and corrupt." It's another way of using skewed logic.

Right, and tens of thousands of children didn't starve to death or die needlessly of disease back then. It was peachy-keen times! While you will be donating, others will be buying even bigger big screen televisions that they don't need.

Not everyone, but a large percentage...

1880s we barely had electricity and pennies went a long way... We didn't see a massive class divide, we didn't see tons of homeless people, we had a MUCH lower unemployment rate, oh and guess what! We grew to be the world's largest fucking economy in 1880.

What you also need to realize is that the STATE would still have the power to create welfare programs, handouts, whatever they wanted...

It's the federal government who does NOT have this power or authority.

I make a little bit too much to qualify for the subsidies, but not enough to comfortably afford the coverage (unless they let me skip paying my taxes, :winkwink:)
I'm not sick on a day-to-day basis, as long as I take my meds and watch what I eat I'm actually pretty normal :upsidedow

But all you have to do is mention "diabetes" when shopping for health insurance and you can watch the rates triple.

Just the fact that they have to give subsidies to people making less that $44k tells you how overpriced insurance is in this country, and now we're being coerced into buying it against our will, sad day for the USA.

Kane I've always considered you to be one of the more rational, intelligent posters on this board, and by your posts I can see that you have reservations about this bill that was passed.
But tell me, did you see what I saw when this bill passed with 60% of the American people opposing it?
Did you see the transformation of congress and the president from "Servants of the People" into "The Ruling Class" who know what's best for us?

That's what I saw, and it worries me more than anything else :(

1880s...
"About 45 percent of the industrial workers barely held on above the $500-per-year poverty line; about 40 percent lived below the line of tolerable existence.... About a fourth of those below the poverty line lived in actual destitution".

more...
"For millions, living and working conditions were poor, and the hope of escaping from a lifetime of poverty slight. As late as the year 1900, the United States had the highest job-related fatality rate of any industrialized nation in the world. Most industrial workers still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life. The situation was only worse for children, whose numbers in the work force doubled between 1870 and 1900."

You're relying on a slanted POLL you know. 60% of people would think Jesus Christ was a bad person if you word the poll correctly.

When polled on specifics in the bill, the majority like ALL of them.

It's a draw if forced to be tit for tat on polls. Elections have consequences. He ran partly on health care reform, he was elected, it's not a surprise that the majority will be just fine with it.

And we all know that scare tactics work. So dont forget to account for whatever percentage of that poll being a direct result of being afraid with NO real information.

Anyway, the time to debate if it should be a law or not is really over. It's signed, it'll be reconciled and maybe we'll find no monster under the bed. Wouldnt that be a good thing?

How about NOT taking that out of context... this was due to the new tech coming in (industrialization)... factory workers were no longer needed...

Bullshit lol, it's not tit for tat, it's an overwhelming majority against the comprehensive bill.

Oh right, so when a poll favors the left, it's real. When a poll favors the right, it's scare tactics. Rofl

So everyone else had it easy? It doesn't sound to me like its a period in time to look up to. Although it was the start of heading in the right direction (the first child labor laws were passed in 1874) wanting to go in reverse would be terrible.

No it isn't.

No.

Way to prove my point. Please continue being biased and trying to rationalize everything that isn't going your way:)

I don't look up to the entire situation, all encompassing, but I do look up to the freedom. I agree with child labor laws of course... My point is that we grew to be the largest economic force in the world, the dollar was sound and gaining momentum, unemployment was low, there were ZERO federal taxes, big businesses weren't using legislation as clubs against the competition (because it didn't exist), people respected the liberties and freedoms of others, the government was minimal, etc...

Yes, working conditions were much, much harder back then but that's not about policy that's about technology. Many of us work 10 hours a day, shit I put in at least 14 a day... Nobody complains about the 12 hour days, the 14 hour days, etc... that shit didn't go away! Never has, people need to get ahead so they work odd jobs or whatever it may be. The main thing is that the working CONDITIONS are better. Compare working a steel or coal mine now to back then, lol...

Actually it was a CNN poll, and while people liked parts of the bill, as a whole they didn't like it, there are parts of it I even agree with, but there are parts I strongly disagree with.

And why do people keep saying "elections have consequences"? are you saying just because Obama campaigned on "healthcare reform" that he can now shove whatever he wants down my throat and I'm supposed to like it? I'm supposed to be happy because he's taking from me to give to somebody else?

Decisions have consequences too, as I hope we'll see in November and again in 2012.

And it will never be a good thing as long as I'm forced by law to either buy overpriced insurance at the governments direction or pay a portion on my income to something that does not benefit me in any way.

The last time someone told me that something was "for my own good" was my mother,




And she only said it once :winkwink:

To some extent you are right, technology changes things for sure. However, get rid of all labor, environmental and wage policy and you open up a whole can of worms. To think that any industry will self regulate is fantasy. No federal taxes is pretty much an impossibility, sure the state can take more responsiblity but in the 1880s there was no infrastructure, running water was rare, etc, etc. Technology has changed that as well, all of which costs money. As out of touch as unions seem today, they were a godsend for people back then.