Isnt this just wonderfull. Senate Democracts clear health care hurdle - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

C280 Sport · #1 12-21-2009, 12:57 PM

Just wonderfull. Just what we need

need.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34498942/ns/politics-health_care_reform/?GT1=43001

#2 12-21-2009, 01:01 PM

About time they got off dead center. Either do it or not, don't spend half a year playing games. Time to get past this and do other things.

C280 Sport · #3 12-21-2009, 01:04 PM

All the damn issues in the world and they want to sit and screw around with this stupid bill. Much more important things to worry about.

#4 12-21-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C280 Sport

All the damn issues in the world and they want to sit and screw around with this stupid bill. Much more important things to worry about.

Well, it's finally done. I don't know what's next on the agenda?

SirNik84 · #5 12-21-2009, 01:09 PM

gloating

dynalow · #6 12-21-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirNik84

gloating

Over this smelly pile of dung?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html

.................The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run "exchanges" that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses.

As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation—whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits—very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system.

For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also "a new welfare and tax system" that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into "contractors" or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into "free" health care, taxpayer costs will explode.

• Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as "ideologues" by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn't be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration's own Medicare actuaries.

Others got hush money, namely Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare's unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that "will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees," as he put it in a letter to his state's junior Senator.

So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don't have a Senator who's the 60th vote for ObamaCare?......................

How does Mary Landreau feel now?

PaulC · #7 12-21-2009, 01:52 PM

About time that the fat cats out there start paying their fair share of taxes.

C280 Sport · #8 12-21-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

About time that the fat cats out there start paying their fair share of taxes.

If it wasn't for the fat cats NO ONE would ever have a job. I employ people in what I do. People come to me for jobs. I definatly pay my share. Who do you think pays the taxes in American? Its definatly not the poor people thats for sure. So I dont know why people say "The rich need to pay their fair share"- Obama is pissing away their money. They pay the most in taxes. So you tell me. Do they pay a fair share??

Gov. needs to cut back. Stop telling people to cut back. People spending money helps the economy. Gov spending money is a nightmare because its like handing then an open check book. Gov. needs to cut back if anything and give tax breaks to more companies to create jobs.

GermanStar · #9 12-21-2009, 02:13 PM

Skinny cats drive C280s.

MTI · #10 12-21-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C280 Sport

If it wasn't for the fat cats NO ONE would ever have a job. I employ people in what I do. People come to me for jobs. I definatly pay my share. Who do you think pays the taxes in American? Its definatly not the poor people thats for sure. So I dont know why people say "The rich need to pay their fair share"- Obama is pissing away their money. They pay the most in taxes. So you tell me. Do they pay a fair share??

Is the currrent president the only one "pissing away away" their money? It's not about Republicans spending like "drunken Democrats" or "drunken Democrats" . . . it's about who we put into the House and Senate, not their party.

Quote:

Gov. needs to cut back. Stop telling people to cut back. People spending money helps the economy. Gov spending money is a nightmare because its like handing then an open check book. Gov. needs to cut back if anything and give tax breaks to more companies to create jobs.

Unfortunately, an unrestrained "free market" provides little security in a global market. The only survivors in such an economic environment would be the big, not the many. So, the non-utopian view is that there has to be government involvment in the economy, even if it is to administer tax breaks and federal spending.

PaulC · #11 12-21-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Skinny cats drive C280s.

Skinny cats don't have a summer place in Florida...

PaulC · #12 12-21-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote Leona Helmsley: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

C280 Sport · #13 12-21-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Skinny cats drive C280s.

An irrelevant comment. How do you know I am the one driving it? How do you even know its mine? How do you even know I still own it? And what does driving a C Class have to do with my company or financial position?.......

C280 Sport · #14 12-21-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Is the currrent president the only one "pissing away away" their money? It's not about Republicans spending like "drunken Democrats" or "drunken Democrats" . . . it's about who we put into the House and Senate, not their party..

Belive me its not only Obama who is spending money. The Gov in general is spending too much money and not getting anywhere with it. He is just making it worse off.

C280 Sport · #15 12-21-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Unfortunately, an unrestrained "free market" provides little security in a global market. The only survivors in such an economic environment would be the big, not the many. So, the non-utopian view is that there has to be government involvment in the economy, even if it is to administer tax breaks and federal spending.

You need some sort of control yes. We dont need Gov. controling everything like they are trying to do right now.