Obama Care

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

Nice try SS, I call balls and strikes is all but I didn't expect you to notice that give your limitations and all. Give him a round of applause folks for the his wonderful effort.



p.s. Next time we'll have to compare penis sizes, you know, to gauge the biggest dick on the site.

You having trouble writing today? Your grammar is all over the place today. Anyhow, I actually you are pretty educated, smart, know what you're talking about, etc. I just happened to think your style tends to be somewhat belittling at times. Have I been that way in the past? Sure. Can I still be that way sometimes. Most likely. But I would hope that I don't do it with the frequency you do it (or at least as often as I and others perceive you do).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You having trouble writing today? Your grammar is all over the place today. Anyhow, I actually you are pretty educated, smart, know what you're talking about, etc. I just happened to think your style tends to be somewhat belittling at times. Have I been that way in the past? Sure. Can I still be that way sometimes. Most likely. But I would hope that I don't do it with the frequency you do it (or at least as often as I and others perceive you do).

He has me proff reading his post.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

He has me proff reading his post.

That just made this whole thread. LOL!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GMScud

That just made this whole thread. LOL!

You know I did that on purpose.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

he has me proff reading his post.

lol!!!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You having trouble writing today? Your grammar is all over the place today. Anyhow, I actually [think] you are pretty educated, smart, know what you're talking about, etc. I just happened to think your style tends to be somewhat belittling at times. Have I been that way in the past? Sure. Can I still be that way sometimes. Most likely. But I would hope that I don't do it with the frequency you do it (or at least as often as I and others perceive you do).

OK, I admit it, I'm not good at multi-tasking and often my grammar tends to be the first suffer. It's a limitation I struggle with every day but I soldier on.

This is all lighthearted stuff, certainly nothing to be offended by. I try not to talk down to people but sometimes the frustration gets the best of me. People need to brush it off, jab back and move on.

[saden1]

New House GOP scare chart on universal healthcare is out. Damn, even to me it looks scary:

[saden1]

Just to be fair and balanced, here's the new House Democrats' response:

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by saden1

Just to be fair and balanced, here's the new House Democrats' response:

haha, now that is funny.

[firstdown]

Do you think that chart is real?

[dmek25]

yeah, ok

[Slingin Sammy 33]

The latest on Obama Care:

Congressional Budget Director Warns Health Care Bills Will Raise Costs - Political News - FOXNews.com

When Harry Reid is accussing the CBO of playing partisan politics considering the balance of power in DC you have to find that incredibly laughable. This should be a very clear, very loud signal to all those that aren't wearing their partisan hats 24x7. The left wing of the Dem party and the White House should take a major step back and truly evaluate different solutions to health care reform rather than the piss-poor current Health Care legislation.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option

From the article: "It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So the lefties who railed against Bush and the Patriot Act have no problem with this Administration and Congress trampling on individual freedom.....

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The latest on Obama Care:

Congressional Budget Director Warns Health Care Bills Will Raise Costs - Political News - FOXNews.com

When Harry Reid is accussing the CBO of playing partisan politics considering the balance of power in DC you have to find that incredibly laughable. This should be a very clear, very loud signal to all those that aren't wearing their partisan hats 24x7. The left wing of the Dem party and the White House should take a major step back and truly evaluate different solutions to health care reform rather than the piss-poor current Health Care legislation.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option

From the article: "It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So the lefties who railed against Bush and the Patriot Act have no problem with this Administration and Congress trampling on individual freedom.....

LOL @ Orwellian. I'm very impressed IBD, not so very slick stuff but scary nonetheless. Word of caution though IBD, if you're going to go after mainstream Americans to share your views avoid using righting rhetoric. The right wing is already with you and you really don't want to be seen as impartial. Did you see the wingnut vocabulary that I saw? I'm starting to suspect there's a wingnut grammar book out there, one that's due for a major tuneup.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL @ Orwellian. I'm very impressed IBD, not so very slick stuff but scary nonetheless. Word of caution though IBD, if you're going to go after mainstream Americans to share your views avoid using righting rhetoric. The right wing is already with you and you really don't want to be seen as impartial. Did you see the wingnut vocabulary that I saw? I'm starting to suspect there's a wingnut grammar book out there, one that's due for a major tuneup.

Orwellian is pretty over the top, but outside of trying to discredit the source.....one should focus on the actual impact of the current legislation, confirmed by the House Ways and Means Committee, that this bill will outlaw private individual health insurance.

Certainly one on the left who is for personal freedom to the point of justifying a woman's right to a late-term abortion for mental health reasons would have a problem with the government disallowing a private citizen to pay for his/her own health insurance through a private insurance company with his/her own money? You do still believe that the money U.S. citizens earn is their money and not Premier Obama's and the Politburo's, right?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Orwellian is pretty over the top, but outside of trying to discredit the source.....one should focus on the actual impact of the current legislation, confirmed by the House Ways and Means Committee, that this bill will outlaw private individual health insurance.

Certainly one on the left who is for personal freedom to the point of justifying a woman's right to a late-term abortion for mental health reasons would have a problem with the government disallowing a private citizen to pay for his/her own health insurance through a private insurance company with his/her own money? You do still believe that the money U.S. citizens earn is their money and not Premier Obama's and the Politburo's, right?

See, I'm smart enough to doubt IBD's claim because a) a law preventing private commerce would not stand up to a constitutional challenge, b) democrats aren't stupid enough to expose themselves like that politically, and c) I know IBD is no friend of mine, they're like Jim Cramer in paper form. I wonder who in the House Ways and Means Committee confirmed their suspicion?

Anywho, we're both men capable of reading the bill for themselves. The subsection IBD referenced is part of a broader section that insures going forward that any government Qualified Health Benefits Plan meets certain requirements (affordable coverage, essential benefits, and consumer protection). That is to say private sector enterprises that want universal healthcare $$$ have to adhere to these set of rules. Now you're wondering what does this have to do with any of the scary stuff put forth by IBD? Well, the government has a grandfather clause in the bill which says private enterprises don't have to adhere to these rules with respect to individuals they currently have signed up.

Furthermore, both you and private enterprises are free to conduct business as usual (individually or through employer/group) but if the private enterprise want to sign you up under universal healthcare they must adhere to government requirements. Seems pretty reasonable and not so scary. If you didn't have such provisions private enterprises would sign-up their healthy clients through their own private plan and the not so healthy clients under universal healthcare.

I don't believe the hype and the snipes from IBD types.