T1B

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Start work on new bill 48%
Stop working on health care 25%

So, 73% of those polled are opposed to this bill...

yet it got ramrodded through anyway.


Who are these criminals working for, anyway? It sure the hell ain't the People. Maybe we should figure out exactly who it is they're working for, so we can put those folks on the gallows, as well.

Let the Revolution begin.

FYI . . .

The DOW is up both days post-apocalypse.

_____________________

It's a comedic tragedy when Barry and Nutsy Pelosi chirp on about "Doing this for the American people."

ummm ...

By a substantial margin, the American people want this bill shoved up your @ss.

Barry and Nutsy did it for their agenda.

Period.


As I mentioned to Scott, a BIG red flag should be raised when a huge bill like this goes through without ANY support from one party.



RACK Dinsy, btw.

Dinsdale wrote:So, 73% of those polled are opposed to this bill...

Yea, some of them don't think it went far enough. But they will get over it.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:FYI . . .

The DOW is up both days post-apocalypse.

lol

poptart wrote:

Q, West Coast Style wrote:FYI . . .

The DOW is up both days post-apocalypse.

lol

You're right, it is funny. It's funny because to here the opposition before the vote, you would've expected the whole thing to tank given that this bill is gonna "ruin our country."

Q, West Coast Style wrote:FYI . . .

The DOW is up both days post-apocalypse.

Yup... HMO companies are going off right now.


What the fuck does that tell you?


You just got WORKED.

A federal mandate FORCING people to buy shit from them (a large percentage of their income, in fact)...

and people wanna get 'em some of that?

Color me :shocked:

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:the point is that the Feds took money from me to pay for something I DON'T WANT. And you were good with that. Yet now when the coin lands on the other head, you cry Socialism.

Apples and oranges, BSmack. Is that the best you can do?

The Congress can only exercise the specific power granted to it by the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment makes this clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section Eight) delegates to Congress the power to collect taxes to pay for the common defense of the United States, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy etc.

But the U.S. Constitution does not delegate to Congress the power to collect taxes to pay for welfare programs such as Obamacare. If you disagree, please quote the provision of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to do such a thing.

So you're saying that socialism is only OK if a bunch of slaveholders, lawyers and merchants were OK with it 220 years ago.

Gotcha.

Dinsdale wrote:

You just got WORKED.

Nope. I'm making money, capitalist that I am :D

(My accounts are way up from where they were when W left office)

BSmack wrote:So you're saying that socialism is only OK if a bunch of slaveholders, lawyers and merchants were OK with it 220 years ago.

Iraq had nothing to do with "national defense." It was national offense.

If the Iraqi Navy had started mobilizing across the Atlantic, I would have been the first to enlist. If they had launched a missile at the USA, I would have done the same. But, Iraq didn't have any missiles, nor did they have a navy.

National Offense is a liberal concept. Unfortunately, the Republican Liberals couldn't be dissuaded.

Apples and hand grenades.

mvscal wrote: Yeah, I'm sure they must be lying about their own poll.

So you HAVE NOT actually read it.

Gotcha. Now STFU you lazy racist fuckhole.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

You just got WORKED.

Nope. I'm making money, capitalist that I am :D

(My accounts are way up from where they were when W left office)

Same here. Dubya fucked things up so bad that a retarded chimp on crack could get a 10% return in the market these days. Me, I'm more like 35% since El Chimpo left town.

I hope nobody here gets their investment advice from Jim Cramer.

(How does this guy continue to have his own show?)

http://www.businessandmedia.org/article ... 55725.aspx

88 wrote: With that response, you've admitted that as far as you are concerned the U.S. Constitution is meaningless.

You're outrage is about 68 years too late you stupid partisan asswipe.

Sin,
Wickard

Moving Sale wrote:You're outrage is about 68 years too late you stupid partisan asswipe.

I don't think the word "partisan" means what you think it means.

Sin,
Just about every political post made by 88

Dinsdale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You're outrage is about 68 years too late you stupid partisan asswipe.

I don't think the word "partisan" means what you think it means.

Sin,
Just about every political post made by 88

Actually it does you vapid fuckhole.

Moving Sale wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You're outrage is about 68 years too late you stupid partisan asswipe.

I don't think the word "partisan" means what you think it means.

Sin,
Just about every political post made by 88

Actually it does you vapid fuckhole.

I think not.

Unless you care to point out where 88 has EVER endorsed a political party? (Yeah, dumbfuck -- the root word of "prtisan" is "party," and not the kind of party your mouth routinely hosts).


Last I checked, 88 has utter contempt for the current two-party system... RACK him.

88 wrote: Wickard v. Filmore is just one of the fuck-ups by the SCOTUS. Wickard should have been overruled long ago.

Filburn you fucking dumbass Filburn.

But is nice to see that you think 90% of what the DEA, FBI and ATF et al do is utter bullshit.

Dinsdale wrote: Last I checked, 88 has utter contempt for the current two-party system... RACK him.

Then why is he almost always stroking GOP cock?

Moving Sale wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: Last I checked, 88 has utter contempt for the current two-party system... RACK him.

Then why is he almost always stroking GOP cock?

Link?

88 wrote:This is what I'm talking about. With that response, you've admitted that as far as you are concerned the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. Just some words written 220 years ago by slaveholders, lawyers and merchants. Sadly, many elected officials and federal judges agree with you.

Well then get the fuck out. Follow Rush Limbaugh to Costa Rica. Because your side is fighting against history, not with it. Honestly I could give a fuck about the tortured logic you employ to presume that the 10th Amendment means the Federal government cannot ever act unless James Madison said so. The reality as we live it every day says you're full of shit.

BSmack wrote:

Q, West Coast Style wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

You just got WORKED.

Nope. I'm making money, capitalist that I am :D

(My accounts are way up from where they were when W left office)

Same here. Dubya fucked things up so bad that a retarded chimp on crack could get a 10% return in the market these days. Me, I'm more like 35% since El Chimpo left town.

Yeah..now that the Chimp of Change is in power, that 35% rate should be a REAL sustainable rate of return....smoking the crack today ?

10% over time or 35% in 30 to 60 days, and then nothing ??

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:Well then get the fuck out. Follow Rush Limbaugh to Costa Rica. Because your side is fighting against history, not with it. Honestly I could give a fuck about the tortured logic you employ to presume that the 10th Amendment means the Federal government cannot ever act unless James Madison said so. The reality as we live it every day says you're full of shit.

Just for shits and giggles, what does the 10th Amendment mean to you?

Christ, 88, don't confuse him! I've been waiting six years for him to define the 12th!

RACK 88!

88 wrote:When will this erosion of liberty end?

If you don't love your country, then leave, you traitor.

That's funny, smurf! American exceptionalism partly rests on a first principle like liberty and when a citizen bemoans the erosion of that first principle you claim he's a traitor...

JMak wrote:That's funny, smurf! American exceptionalism partly rests on a first principle like liberty and when a citizen bemoans the erosion of that first principle you claim he's a traitor...

You soil yourselves over Obama's "socialist" health care schemes.

I can't wait 'till his goons waterboard you in his rape rooms. It's what you deserve.

I see the chickenshits won't have most of the provisions hit until after the next election and didn't have the guts to impose the new excise tax until well after Obama is gone from office...

But this is the very best the Dems could do, eh??

88 wrote:

H4ever wrote:What about a working American say, making 10 bucks an hour, and the father of a young daughter who came down with RSV or pneumonia and while not castastrophic at first, could eventually take the life of this young American daughter of a working American father who cannot afford 350 bucks a month for a policy at work with a 2500 dollar deductible and a 20% copay?

Why should his child almost DIE before healthcare can be obtained at an ER? Now you know why the steady march to socialism continues. It SOUNDS better to millions of Americans in similar predicaments. Did you expect them to NOT vote for buffoons? Just let the greedy-fucks in the insurance industry continue golfing in Cabo while his daughter hacks her lungs up and writhes around in pain, screaming and crying wanting Daddy to do something about her pain?

The working American I mentioned happened to be a relative of mine. He chose rent and grocery money over a policy of little benefit he could not afford and sure as shit...his child became deathly ill.

P.S. He did not qualify for medicaid because he works and was too pround to quit his job. Should have bettered himself? He had a motorcycle accident ten years ago and is doing the best he can. Not enough brain damage to qualify for SSI. What of him or the countless others out there?

H4ever-

Your story would be compelling "but for" the existence of laws already in place to deal with this situation. First, medical providers were required by existing law to treat Daddy's young daughter with RSV whether Daddy had insurance or not. She would get the exact same treatment as someone with insurance. The physicians and nurses in the room providing the treatment would have no idea whether Daddy had insurance or not unless Daddy volunteered that information. Second, in the event that Daddy did not have health insurance to pay the cost of young daughter's medical treatment (and I'll take your word that Daddy did not qualify for any of the myriad of welfare programs that would pay a child's health care expenses in that situation), we already have very liberal bankruptcy laws in this country. Daddy wouldn't go to jail for non-payment of the medical services his daughter received and he didn't pay for. He would very likely be discharged from ever having to pay those debts.

Bankruptcy is filed all the time in this country. Many times it is filed because the debtor did not have insurance to cover medical treatment the debtor received. That is what bankruptcy laws are for. The debtor gets a new start and the debtor's creditors get fucked in the ass. Since we've now apparently eliminated catastrophic medical expenses as an excuse for declaring bankruptcy, do we now amend those laws to make it tougher to get a discharge from debts? Or is bankruptcy just for the those who voluntarily incur enormous debts that they cannot pay?

And by the way, those who declare bankruptcy often do not lose their home. They do not lose their possessions and get tossed into the street. They just lose their debts. Its quite a nice thing to do, if your conscience allows you to sleep well at night knowing that your debts are being paid by your neighbors.

So you think I made this up? What is THAT uncomfortable to read? Was it so uncomfortable it tempted one to search for reasons to discredit it?

If you do the math here...put a little thought into it...you would see that he was unable to take his daughter to a clinic (like all parents who love their kids do) because of a prior bankruptcy that included medical debts incurred from follow-up care and rehab years after his accident. He didn't get any future medical consideration in his settlement and his attorney advised him to settle. He got a pretty low settlement because the extent of his injuries and future issues wasn't known at the time. He also had a judgement or two since where they garnish his wages to this day at the maximum legal rate. I don't know all the details because he is pretty embarrassed about how his finances are and refuses any help from relatives. We have to send the girl birthday and he then buys her the extra things he would love to give her. Never accepts money for himself. He's not bad with his money, he has just had shitty luck all the way around.

Anyhow...due to him not being able to take her to a clinic early on,he treated her with OTC meds for what he suspected was a bad cold. Shit progressed and when she was later in crisis and taken to the ER....she was THEN diagnosed with RSV and pneumonia. He didn't know up front, therefore your contention that he could have sought treatment earlier and there are laws that guarantee this is horseshit. They would have refused him at the front fucking counter and you know it.

Jmak- I agree that this legislation isn't the proper way to fix shit like this but just consider it fallout from the suffering of WORKING Americans who get 78% increases in premiums since 2001 with reduced benefits, higher co-pays and deductibles and the Insurance industries enjoy record profits as a result of this.

I agree that a free market type of insurance with no HMO's would have been better but it seems no one cared until it was too late/they realized they fucked up.

hang the looters

H, this legislation does nothing to prevent such future premium increases. In fact, the legislation most likely will lead to greater premium increases as insurers will be compelled to cover pre-existing conditions and, more generally, the expansion of such coverage will lead to greater use of medical services.

That's been the central problem all along and doesn't get addressed. Consumers pay very little of the cost of health care. Hence, we overconsume because we don't have to pay. Now, we expand coverages, subsidize even futher the cost of insurance, and the Dems believe this will lower costs? More people using more health care leads to less money spent??? WTF??

As we're seeing now, this bill is full of kickbacks...errr...bribes to start the process toward full nationalization. Just listen to Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi...this is only the beginning.

JMak wrote:Now, we expand coverages, subsidize even futher the cost of insurance...

Eliminate the insurance companies and jail their CEO's for years of malfeasance.

Martyred wrote:...jail...

Notice I said "jail" and not "execute"?

^^^^^^^^^
compassionate communism

What did those CEOs do to warrant jail?

poptart wrote:

Q, West Coast Style wrote:FYI . . .

The DOW is up both days post-apocalypse.

lol

Any new predictions on when the economy will collapse?

April is almost upon us.

JMak wrote:What did those CEOs do to warrant jail?

Maybe something. Maybe nothing.

We won't be sure until they are tortured, stripped naked, humiliated and electrocuted.

Would you risk the chance that the guilty escape justice?

Mikey wrote:
Any new predictions on when the economy will collapse?

April is almost upon us.

'tart is PM'ing his financial ruin newsletter and has been for weeks now.

I guess he hates you.

Goober McTuber wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:

What is that thing on the right?

Looks like Keith Richards on a bad hair day.

More like Ronnie Wood...