• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin says Obama's health care plan is 'evil'

Councilman said:
I find this post offensive, and grossly vulgar even for a Liberal and I can not understand why it is allowed to remain up.

If it is removed, please remove this post with it.
Click to expand...

Caine is a liberal? I am sure he will be interested to know that.
 
apdst said:
I disagree with the bill because of the money that it's going to cost me.
Click to expand...

Now THAT's an honest attack, and I agree with you 100 %.
 
sam_w said:
Of course he is "not familiar with the provision" he was talking about, because it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Right, because he doesn't actually know what's in the bill because it's over a thousand pages long. No need to repeat what I already said.

The question was the bill would make "private medical insurance illegal..." which in fact does not exist...do you see that provision?

Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not in there...never said it was. You'd think Obama would know that it wasn't in there.
 
RightinNYC said:
Obama has a knack for not saying as many retarded things.
Click to expand...

Mmmkay.....the REALITY suggests that he IS just as retarded or perhaps even more considering the FACT that Palin is merely a former Governor and candidate for VP and Obama is the man that sits in the Oval Office; want some kool-aid to go along with your denial? :cool:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjS7JuOcm6g"]YouTube - Obama Campaigns in 57 of 59 states[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMSB4A1iJD4"]YouTube - Very Best of Barack Hussein Obama: The President Is On Dope[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQK4sBVzg54&feature=related"]YouTube - Obama Cracking Jokes And Laughing About Serious Issues On 60 Minutes![/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vb0-FjPHvE&feature=related"]YouTube - The difference between Obama and Clinton[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA&feature=related"]YouTube - Barack Obama on Marijuana Decriminalization (2004)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c&feature=related"]YouTube - Barack Obama thinks Austrian is a language[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6kooz9eBgQ&feature=related"]YouTube - An Akward Moment With Obama and Hilary[/ame]

But here is the defining moment of Obama's Presidency:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRPcJ0QIh5o&feature=related"]YouTube - Barack Obama's Teleprompter Malfunction[/ame]
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Perhaps you might want to re-think your wording when you post. Just saying.
Click to expand...

But of course you again want to make the thread topic about me personally, which is essentially trolling, rather than stay on topic.

Fascinating that someone of your stature on this forum must resort to such behavior don't you think?
 
Councilman said:
I find this post offensive, and grossly vulgar even for a Liberal and I can not understand why it is allowed to remain up.

If it is removed, please remove this post with it.
Click to expand...

Im not a libereral.


I just can't ****ing stand Palin opening her mouth and making conservatives look like backwoods hillbillies.
 
Caine said:
Im not a libereral.


I just can't ****ing stand Palin opening her mouth and making conservatives look like backwoods hillbillies.
Click to expand...

Only poor conservatives look like backwoods hillbillies.;):lol:
 
PeteEU said:
The Swiss system is plagued by some of the same problems as the US system. Private insurance companies have way higher administrative costs and costs in general, pushing up prices.
Click to expand...

I am amused whenever I see an argument that attempts to claim that Governments don't have much higher administrative costs than Private companies of any type or that Governments don't push up the costs of everything in general.

Please provide us with some credible evidence where this is the case.
 
Truth Detector said:
I am amused whenever I see an argument that attempts to claim that Governments don't have much higher administrative costs than Private companies of any type or that Governments don't push up the costs of everything in general.

Please provide us with some credible evidence where this is the case.
Click to expand...

Compare International Medical Bills : NPR

Look at the comparisons, the US is already spending more per person on healthcare than anyother industrialized nation.
 
apdst said:
Do you even know what happened in the Ukraine in the 30's?
Click to expand...

Yeah I do and your comparison is idiotic. The fact that you are even trying to further your assertion into a discussion like it's a legitimate debate topic makes it even more idiotic.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Got source?
Click to expand...

You mean that you aren't familiar with what's in the bill and you support it's passing? What do you do for a living? Do you work for, or even operate a small company that my not be able to afford any of this, in this economy?

Businesses have a choice, alright. The choice in to either elect to purchase health insurance that is suitable--by the government's standard--or they can just pay the taxes. It's a bum steer, either way and will result in businesses folding and people being put out of work.

I have 10 employees that average a combined salary of about 350 grand a year. $350,000 x 4% = $14,000 I did it with a calculater, so I know it's not ****ed up. I can opt to be a non-elected employer, or I could go the elected employer option in section 411 and pay somewhere around 30 grand a year for insurance plans, or more.

So, are there any good things in the bill; that you can actually point to, that is?


SEC. 411. ELECTION TO SATISFY HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`SEC. 4980H. ELECTION WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
`(a) Election of Employer Responsibility To Provide Health Coverage-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) shall apply to any employer with respect to whom an election under paragraph (2) is in effect.
`(2) TIME AND MANNER- An employer may make an election under this paragraph at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe.
`(3) AFFILIATED GROUPS- In the case of any employer which is part of a group of employers who are treated as a single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414, the election under paragraph (2) shall be made by such person as the Secretary may provide. Any such election, once made, shall apply to all members of such group.
`(4) SEPARATE ELECTIONS- Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, separate elections may be made under paragraph (2) with respect to–
`(A) separate lines of business, and
`(B) full-time employees and employees who are not full-time employees.
`(5) TERMINATION OF ELECTION IN CASES OF SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE- The Secretary may terminate the election of any employer under paragraph (2) if the Secretary (in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) determines that such employer is in substantial noncompliance with the health coverage participation requirements.
`(b) Excise Tax With Respect to Failure To Meet Health Coverage Participation Requirements-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any employer who fails (during any period with respect to which the election under subsection (a) is in effect) to satisfy the health coverage participation requirements with respect to any employee to whom such election applies, there is hereby imposed on each such failure with respect to each such employee a tax of $100 for each day in the period beginning on the date such failure first occurs and ending on the date such failure is corrected.
`(2) LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF TAX-
`(A) TAX NOT TO APPLY WHERE FAILURE NOT DISCOVERED EXERCISING REASONABLE DILIGENCE- No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) on any failure during any period for which it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the employer neither knew, nor exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that such failure existed.
`(B) TAX NOT TO APPLY TO FAILURES CORRECTED WITHIN 30 DAYS- No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) on any failure if–
`(i) such failure was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, and
`(ii) such failure is corrected during the 30-day period beginning on the 1st date that the employer knew, or exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that such failure existed.
`(C) OVERALL LIMITATION FOR UNINTENTIONAL FAILURES- In the case of failures which are due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the tax imposed by subsection (a) for failures during the taxable year of the employer shall not exceed the amount equal to the lesser of–
`(i) 10 percent of the aggregate amount paid or incurred by the employer (or predecessor employer) during the preceding taxable year for employment-based health plans, or
`(ii) $500,000.
SEC. 412. RESPONSIBILITIES OF NONELECTING EMPLOYERS.
(a) In General- Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
`(c) Employers Electing to Not Provide Health Benefits-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every nonelecting employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 8 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).
`(2) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of any employer who is small employer for any calendar year, paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for `8 percent’:
———————————————————————————————————————
———————————————————————————————————————
`If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year: The applicable percentage is:
Does not exceed $250,000 0 percent
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent
———————————————————————————————————————
`(B) SMALL EMPLOYER- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `small employer’ means any employer for any calendar year if the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year does not exceed $400,000.
`(C) ANNUAL PAYROLL- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `annual payroll’ means, with respect to any employer for any calendar year, the aggregate wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) during such calendar year.
`(3) NONELECTING EMPLOYER- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `nonelecting employer’ means any employer for any period with respect to which such employer does not have an election under section 4980H(a) in effect.
`(4) SPECIAL RULE FOR SEPARATE ELECTIONS- In the case of an employer who makes a separate election described in section 4980H(a)(4) for any period, paragraph (1) shall be applied for such period by taking into account only the wages paid to employees who are not subject to such election.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
You mean that you aren't familiar with what's in the bill and you support it's passing? What do you do for a living? Do you work for, or even operate a small company that my not be able to afford any of this, in this economy?

Businesses have a choice, alright. The choice in to either elect to purchase health insurance that is suitable--by the government's standard--or they can just pay the taxes. It's a bum steer, either way and will result in businesses folding and people being put out of work.

I have 10 employees that average a combined salary of about 350 grand a year. $350,000 x 4% = $14,000 I did it with a calculater, so I know it's not ****ed up. I can opt to be a non-elected employer, or I could go the elected employer option in section 411 and pay somewhere around 30 grand a year for insurance plans, or more.

So, are there any good things in the bill; that you can actually point to, that is?
Click to expand...

If all of your competitors have to pay this too then the increase will be passed on to the consumer.
 
Palin is being stupid, she must think that being stupid got GWB elected, and that it should work for her as well....
Reality of it is, if the DEMS screw up as the GOP did in its 8 years in office, it can happen. We can have a ditzy president all over again....

ain't politics wonderful?
 
talloulou said:
Folks are freaking out. I saw a story on tv the other night where the state of Oregon denied payment for a woman's chemo drugs but sent her a letter offering to pay for assisted suicide instead. :shock: Let me see if I can find it online.....

Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Oregon says no to chemotherapy, offers assisted suicide instead

Apparently it's an older story but I just saw it on tv the other night so it's obviously being hauled out and retold to get folks all worked up.

There are lots of folks who fear they might get similar letters under an Obama plan.

As for me I'd just like to hear some actual details which are quite lacking. It's surprising how for and against Obama's plan folks are when I know next to nothing about it and apparently neither does anyone else.
Click to expand...

I didn't think that a 'BLOG' can be substituted for a real news story.
 
WI Crippler said:
Maybe not now, but when John "One heart attack away" McCain was running for president, you guys were scared. You can't deny that.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that the ANTI-PALIN people were afraid of the Igloo but I am sure that they were afraid for the country if John bit the dust and the woman who thought that a comedian was the prsident of France was one heart beat away.
 
Caine said:
Im not a libereral.
Click to expand...

Awww, come over to the darkside, you will like it. We would take you, you would be more useful than a certain Senator who is only a democrat to win his election.
 
Truth Detector said:
All one needs to know is that the Government wants to involve itself in our healthcare decisions, thinks it can insure 45 million currently uninsured Americans and illegal immigrants without increasing taxes and that currently this Government is close to bankrupt and doesn’t have the money to pay for such a plan.

The notion that more information is required to comprehend how this will be a disaster is funny.

Of course if you wish to argue and provide evidence how Government managed plans are fiscally responsible, incorruptible and well managed, I am all eyes and ears.
Click to expand...
Government wants to involve itself in our healthcare decisions
Were does it say that the " ?? You cannot show us can you.

Do you people who are so against the possibility of some financing of health insurance realize who has been has been involved in our healthcare decisions ? I will tell it was us. We tell you that some docs you want to go to are "out of network".

We tell you that we will not pay for the statin drug that your doc wanst you on but we will pay for another one that we like.

We let you see a specialist if he is on our list. We make your doc justify why he wants you on a certain drug. We make your doc jump through hoops when we want to.

Do you know who "WE" are ??

We are your friendly insurance company and "WE" know better what is good for you than your doc and if you don't like that you can just go and ............ yourself ha ha ha
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
If all of your competitors have to pay this too then the increase will be passed on to the consumer.
Click to expand...

i.e. bad for the economy. Do we really want to pass it on to the consumer, in this economy? Is that your solution? I can just imagine what folks are going to say when they see, "health tax", on their receipt.

Not all businesses deal directly with consumers, so what about them? Who are they going to pass the tax on to? What about people who deal in commodities? They get paid what that commodity is worth, at that time.

This is just another ploy to control the wealth of this nation and give it to the welfare class.
 
apdst said:
I disagree with the bill because of the money that it's going to cost me.
Click to expand...

Now that would be an honest opinion and fear. If your friends who are throwing stupidities around such as calling the health care financing "socialist" and having "death panels" could actually speak up and dicuss the pros and cons of this bill or bill in an intelligent manner we may be able to get somewhere.

Nut cases who call the health care reform "unconstitutional" apparently either never read the constitution or do not understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom