Gawdzilla wrote: And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
They're partial to the "faith-based" style of health care reform, which goes something like this:
Get sick? Not insured? Start praying.
Gawdzilla wrote: And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
That's the Repugnican solution for everything. "Pray it doesn't happen to you."Jörmungandr wrote:Gawdzilla wrote: And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
They're partial to the "faith-based" style of health care reform, which goes something like this:
Get sick? Not insured? Start praying.
In the UK health spend on the NHS is ~8% of gross national income (up from ~4% in 2000). Obviously that is not spread evenly across everyone and a large percentage is taxed to the employer rather than being directly payed by the employee (though it pretty much amounts to the same in the end, you just feel better about it when it's not printed on your wage slip).Clinton Huxley wrote:I'm curious about these numbers (15% of gross income etc). They sound a tad high. How is that worked out?
With all it's flaws, the bill is a step in the right direction.Gawdzilla wrote:I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass.
And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
The Repugnicans' owners aren't happy about it, but they get wobbly every time a cash cow is threatened.maiforpeace wrote:With all it's flaws, the bill is a step in the right direction.Gawdzilla wrote:I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass.
And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
Look - the $43,000 and over number is straight from the bill. It's not wild speculation. It's not anything from the Republicans. It's 400% of the poverty level. Nobody gets government assistance who makes over 400% of the poverty level.Gawdzilla wrote:I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass.
And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
What flaws?maiforpeace wrote:With all it's flaws, the bill is a step in the right direction.Gawdzilla wrote:I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass.
And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
Did I say that specific number came from thin air? Please read my posts, then comment on them, not the other way around.Coito ergo sum wrote:Look - the $43,000 and over number is straight from the bill. It's not wild speculation. It's not anything from the Republicans. It's 400% of the poverty level. Nobody gets government assistance who makes over 400% of the poverty level.Gawdzilla wrote:I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass.
And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
That would seem to be something very basic about this bill that anyone who says they "support" it would be familiar with. Criminy....
Err...ummm... you said, "I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass."Gawdzilla wrote:Did I say that specific number came from thin air? Please read my posts, then comment on them, not the other way around.Coito ergo sum wrote:Look - the $43,000 and over number is straight from the bill. It's not wild speculation. It's not anything from the Republicans. It's 400% of the poverty level. Nobody gets government assistance who makes over 400% of the poverty level.Gawdzilla wrote:I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass.
And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.
That would seem to be something very basic about this bill that anyone who says they "support" it would be familiar with. Criminy....
what ISN'T working for the US populace is your fucked up elite medical, legal and insurance pirates all community'll give it a chance to work. We can see what isn't working and fix those parts.
I don't sue.Coito ergo sum wrote:Err...ummm... you said, "I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass."
Sue me for not guessing correctly which numbers you thought were lies and which weren't....
Never said it would...but, you will be forced to spend a lot more money on health insurance than you do now, which is the opposite of one of the things that Obama said he was trying to do here.FBM wrote:If you make USD35k~43k/yr, you're not going to the soup line over this.
Bull - fucking - shit. Children are already fucking covered 100% without any issue -- Medicaid - SCHIP - etc. The current health care bill (soon to be law) has nothing whatsoever to do with "saving the chill-run."FBM wrote:
This bill will help a lot of people, including millions of children whose only sin is being born into a poor family.
No. However, Obama said health insurance would be more affordable. It ain't going to be. It's going to be more expensive. Obama said it would not be signed into law if it would raise the deficit. It will raise the deficit.FBM wrote:
Is a little compassion for the poor out of the question?
Giant red herring, that. How about, a single guy making $44,000 being able to buy insurance for $2400 a year (no problem) now, and instead being asked to shell out $5300 (average per CBO estimate) once the law takes effect, plus shell out an additional $2300 in "cost sharing?" I guess that guy has to give up his country club, cars and boats, right?FBM wrote: Or is your third car and country-club membership more important?
You have a suggestion for stopping people from ripping other people off?macdoc wrote:what ISN'T working for the US populace is your fucked up elite medical, legal and insurance pirates all community'll give it a chance to work. We can see what isn't working and fix those parts.
nail the lot....![]()
until you deal with those rip off artists - you have no solutions to many of your national problems....
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 19 guests