Obama Care

[JoeRedskin]

Pelosi is many things. Incompetent is not one of them. Tax & spend liberal on the other hand ...

[budw38]

CNSNews.com - Massive Tax Increases Loom as Democrats Begin to Talk Fiscal Responsibility looks like we might have tax increase's ...

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by budw38

CNSNews.com - Massive Tax Increases Loom as Democrats Begin to Talk Fiscal Responsibility looks like we might have tax increase's ...

Tax increases without massive spending decreases won't help one bit with being fiscally responsible since the spending will of course more than likely still outstrip revenue. Lower taxes and lower spending is the only way to go to get our house in order.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

Tax increases without massive spending decreases won't help one bit with being fiscally responsible since the spending will of course more than likely still outstrip revenue. Lower taxes and lower spending is the only way to go to get our house in order.

Trust me , I'm for lower taxes / flat tax .... and much less Gov't spending . Until Our gov't < R's and D's > stop spending and printing our money to buy thier seats .... we are gonna get screwed , again sadly .

[GusFrerotte]

We are plain screwed. Both sides are now in the back pocket of the corporatists. It is nothing more than a good cop/bad cop scenario, where one party screws you over while the other pretends to care. The Dems always caved into Bush over the wars, and the GOP seems toothless against Obama's building on Bush's crap. THe fact is that conservatives are now neutered and totally discredited by backing Bush for 8 years, so any opposition to Obama's crap by them is seen as sour grapes. THe only folks that are not hypocrites in all of this were the Ron Paul folks on the right and the true progressives on the left that had finally started to see the sham of all this BS under Bush. Too bad these two groups are seen as lunatic fringe by the mass media.

[GusFrerotte]

Huge govt projects like this historically always are way over budget, just is the way of the beast. When Canada enacted theirs in 1948 it was like $52 million after the first year.

[Bushead]

Something needed to get done and i'm glad it happened.

[Beemnseven]

In a way, the Republicans share much of the blame here. Certainly not on this particular vote, as they all voted against it. But think back to when the GOP had control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. How hard did they fight for Tort Reform? For allowing the purchase of health insurance plans across state lines? For dismantling some of the insane mandates that do nothing but hike the costs?

Nope. The Republicans didn't do any of that -- in fact, they did much worse. They added an unconstitutional, outrageously expensive entitlement of their very own! I'm speaking of the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization and Improvement Act of 2003.

You have to hand it to the Democrats. When it comes to advancing their agenda, they are much more tenacious than the GOP has ever been. When was the last time the Republicans enacted major legislation that empowers the free market, the individual, that advances capitalism? Apart from some tax cuts here and there, I can't think of any.

As the saying goes, no matter who you vote for, government always gets elected.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

In a way, the Republicans share much of the blame here. Certainly not on this particular vote, as they all voted against it. But think back to when the GOP had control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. How hard did they fight for Tort Reform? For allowing the purchase of health insurance plans across state lines? For dismantling some of the insane mandates that do nothing but hike the costs?

Nope. The Republicans didn't do any of that -- in fact, they did much worse. They added an unconstitutional, outrageously expensive entitlement of their very own! I'm speaking of the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization and Improvement Act of 2003.

You have to hand it to the Democrats. When it comes to advancing their agenda, they are much more tenacious than the GOP has ever been. When was the last time the Republicans enacted major legislation that empowers the free market, the individual, that advances capitalism? Apart from some tax cuts here and there, I can't think of any.

As the saying goes, no matter who you vote for, government always gets elected.

Yup. Rather than attack the flawed structure to limit costs, the Republicans just opted for a strategy of obstructionism. With no real alternative presented, and with a feeling of pervasive feeling that "something needed to be done", we got this horrible bill that merely perpetuates and expands the pre-existing flaws.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

In a way, the Republicans share much of the blame here. Certainly not on this particular vote, as they all voted against it. But think back to when the GOP had control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. How hard did they fight for Tort Reform? For allowing the purchase of health insurance plans across state lines? For dismantling some of the insane mandates that do nothing but hike the costs?

Nope. The Republicans didn't do any of that -- in fact, they did much worse. They added an unconstitutional, outrageously expensive entitlement of their very own! I'm speaking of the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization and Improvement Act of 2003.

You have to hand it to the Democrats. When it comes to advancing their agenda, they are much more tenacious than the GOP has ever been. When was the last time the Republicans enacted major legislation that empowers the free market, the individual, that advances capitalism? Apart from some tax cuts here and there, I can't think of any.

As the saying goes, no matter who you vote for, government always gets elected.

Nice post . Two parties ... 2 F's ... maybe D* ? As far as capitalism , they have lowered tax rates , income > from 70% to 28 % , cap gains taxes cut in half as well as dividend Taxation .History of the Income Tax in the United States &mdash; Infoplease.com Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The death Tax ,,,, could hurt millions of small business owners again ....What is the Future of the Estate Tax?. That is the type legilation that screws hard working Americans , so while you made some very good points , some of the Dems agenda costs hard working Americans .... millions .

[SBXVII]

Maybe the arguement has already been made and I have not seen it but "Socialized Health Care" is crap.

I was informed that medical costs will be different for each class of people meaning that if some one needed an x-ray ... one persons cost might be $50.00 and another persons might be $400.00 depending on what you earn. Some people might not have to pay a dime cause they don't make any money. Basically put those paying $400 are covering for those who can't pay for their x-rays.

Secondly, before anyone goes off taling about how this is awsome and will help people please go and talk to the Canadians about their "Socialized Health Care" before you go and praise this move. Almost everyone in health care now knows this is bad. I've heard of Canadians having to come to the U.S. to get treatment cause they can't get it up in Canada. I've heard that their specialized doctors only work 3-4 months out of the year and take the rest of the year off. If you can't get in to the a heart specialist with in his 3-4 months your screwed. You either wait the rest of the year out or find another doctor.

Third, I've heard from several people in the medical field and if the Gov. is going socialized that means there will be a cap on cost. Yes that's good but if your a student doctor looking at thousands of dollars in student loans and don't make the money to pay off your loans each year due to the cap cost your screwed. As well as the public who will see less and less doctors coming out of college each year because they are not making enough money to pay their college expenses.

Fourth, Supposedly there's a rule packaged into this health package that states you can only visit your doctor so many times a year.

I agree medical costs have gotten out of hand but their has to be another way to fix this mess vs. "Socialized Health Care." I think the only people who see this as a plus are those who's jobs don't provide health care or the jobless people. They should have provided something through the Social Services Department that would suppliment peoples medical insurance costs or outright pay for it. Now people won't have a reason to work.... free food stamps, free health care, free housing. Hell I might quit work.

EDIT: I hope this issue gets canned by the Senate. If you guys want to talk "Flat tax" I'm all for it but Gov. getting involved in our health care is bad.

[SBXVII]

Instead of socializing medicine how about we socialize law? I'd much rather see a cap on how much lawyer's can earn or that lawyers couldn't refuse to defend a client and if you don't make any money you don't pay. If you make a ton of money then you pay a ton of money to make up for the rest of us.

[Trample the Elderly]

Let the games begin.

[joethiesmanfan]

Terrific the law passed another milestone. It's great to see intimidation does not work. All that barking and no bite!!!!

[saden1]

David Frum said it best:

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.