Can the gulags and fire squads be far behind?
There has never been a government program in our history that has come in at or under budget. This will bankrupt our nation and you will have to use a wheelbarrow to cart your bails of money to the grocery store to buy groceries. We are on the cusp of repeating the Weimer Republic with our worthless currency. There is no way in hell to pay for this insanity.
Welcome to American communism under Chairman Obama. I hope you enjoy this bitter fruit. You are the one who will pay the price for this political treachery by this band of gangsters in Washington, D.C. Eventually the commissars and their jack booted thugs will come for you. That is the way of all modern revolutions. Study your history.
And BTW, they only need 51 votes to pass this legislation. 60 was needed for cloture. Otherwise it would have been filibustered to death. That is no longer necessary.
Last edited by Missouri Mule; 11-21-09 at 11:54 PM.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
From the articles I am reading they still need another 60 votes to close the debate, so it seems it is far from over and we may yet see that filibuster threat carried out.
Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude.
the reid bill, in my opinion, contains some plusses:
1. pre existing conditions
3. coverage for 25 mil
4. rewards for quality over quantity, preventive care
5. end yearly caps
6. end lifetime caps
7. relieve emergency rooms, uncompensated care
8. end recision, the dumping of a patient once he or she develops a tumor, for example
the negatives held herein, however, are innumerable
25 bil in mandates on already bankrupt states
half a tril cuts to m and m
taxes---on benefits, on employers, on employees, on device makers, on drug makers, on the insured, on the uninsured, on payroll, on personal savings accounts over $2500, limiting the deduction for catastrophic costs, more
mandates on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford
fines if they don't, with criminalization and threats of jail time down the road
20 mil still uncovered
premiums up---says cbo
higher gdp devoted to health care---says cbo---up to 21.something percent
10 years of revenue vs 6 years of benefits
shell game, ponzie scheme
cbo---savings likely never to occur
doc fix, off budget, a quarter tril, passed in the house on thursday, under media blackout
jobs killer---taxes, fines, mandates, fees
taxes on upper, middle and lower classes
the real cost, 10 years of revenue vs 10 years of outlays---2014 to 2024---2.5 tril
the cost curve steepened up---cbo
rationing of services---mammograms, cervical screenings
taxpayer money for abortion
weak enforcement against illegals
no tort reform, defensive medical costs not addressed
no purchase across state lines
medicaid expanded to cover 15 mil more people, unfunded
obama says---my budget's balanced, you guys in CA and NV can pick up the tab
medicaid death rates---250% higher for cancer patients, 50% higher for cardio
medicaid is the ghetto of insurance plans
medicare advantage, home to 11 mil---zeroed out
reid has a one year doc fix, after which reimbursements drop 23%
medicare doctors already refuse to treat medicare patients
reid morphs medicare into medicaid
kills innovation by punishing pharmaceuticals, device makers and vaccine growers
medicare costs have skyrocketed 55% in 10 years, will reach 1 tril by 2020---a solid case against govt options
kills rural care---medicare reimbursement rates are so paltry
mayo, everyone's model, announced recently it will no longer accept medicare or medicaid
harvard (obama's alma mater) medical school eviscerates reid---those who support it are "in denial:" costs, curves, crummy care
david broder, dean of journalists, published a piece today, titled, "budget buster"
catholic bishops call reid the worst yet, we saw what their eminences did to ms pelosi at 2am
states can opt out only after paying in
disincentives for primary care
40% of primary care doctors will not treat medicare patients
60% of specialists won't either
cuts to education and other state run services as CA and NV are suddenly saddled with bil's in liabilities
states will have to raise taxes
aarp and ama endorse---in today's times, a political minus
the CLASS ACT---young folks will have to pay premiums close to grampa's, resulting in healthy folks running away while the ill and aged are eager to join
louisiana purchase---300 mil bribe for ms landrieu
worst of both worlds
dems are signed on the bottom line under all of the above, with very little chance of passage
no one around here, for example, will deny or defend any of the poisons detailed above
this thing is gonna go on for weeks, even months
every day it's debated is death to the dems
this bill is a monstrosity, even your liberal acquaintances know it
reid, baucus, durbin, levin, rockefeller, wyden---they're stuck with it
pelosi and obama, too
senate leadership is beginning to realize they're gonna have to take out the PO
cuzza jiltin joe and stiff neck nelson, amongst others
yet changes upstairs are very, very difficult
and pelosi downstairs is gonna be hella pissed
abortion alone will kill it for her bluedogs
stupak said---hell to pay
the bishops back him up
having to work so hard just to start debate is very telling
dems are doomed, this bill is the ugliest things america has ever seen
reaction against it is gonna be huge
it's already much bigger than/since virginia
just look at these pages, libs are throwing in the towel
hang in, friends
from politico, tonite, after the vote
Democrats hold line, but cracks show - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com
Reid has promised a “free-wheeling, wide-open amendment process,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who added that Republicans are likely to attempt to filibuster each amendment, meaning Reid would have to hold together his 60 votes time and again.
"The battle has just begun," McConnell added. "The American people are asking us to stop this bill, and we are going to do anything and everything we can to prevent this measure from becoming law."
But as it has for months, the public option remained the greatest obstacle to passing a bill.
Two of those who voted yes on Saturday – Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- have already said they’d join a filibuster of the current bill and both have raised objections to the public option.
broder's "budget buster:"
David S. Broder - David Broder: Fears of health-reform cost are justifiable
It's simply not true that America is ambivalent about everything when it comes to the Obama health plan.
The day after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave its qualified blessing to the version of health reform produced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Quinnipiac University poll of a national cross section of voters reported its latest results.
This poll may not be as famous as some others, but I know the care and professionalism of the people who run it, and one question was particularly interesting to me.
It read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?"
The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters -- 19 percent of the sample -- think he will keep his word. Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink. By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely.
That fear contributed directly to the fact that, by a 16-point margin, the majority in this poll said they oppose the legislation moving through Congress.
I have been writing for months that the acid test for this effort lies less in the publicized fight over the public option or the issue of abortion coverage than in the plausibility of its claim to be fiscally responsible.
This is obviously turning out to be the case. While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.
Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: "The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there's not much reform in this bill. As of now, it's basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases."
Here's another expert, Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: "While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn't do enough. Given the political system's aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like."
These are nonpartisan sources, but Republican budget experts such as former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin amplify the point with specific examples and biting language. Holtz-Eakin cites a long list of Democratic-sponsored "budget gimmicks" that made it possible for the CBO to estimate that Reid's bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by 2019.
Perhaps the biggest of those maneuvers was Reid's decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014 -- long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun.
Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, "federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period" -- not decline. The gross increase would be almost $1 trillion -- $848 billion, to be exact, mainly to subsidize the uninsured. The net increase would be $160 billion.
But this depends on two big gambles. Will future Congresses actually impose the assumed $420 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs? They never have.
And will this Congress enact the excise tax on high-premium insurance policies (the so-called Cadillac plans) in Reid's bill? Obama has never endorsed them, and House Democrats -- reacting to union pressure -- turned them down in favor of a surtax on millionaires' income.
The challenge to Congress -- and to Obama -- remains the same: Make the promised savings real, and don't pass along unfunded programs to our children and grandchildren.
Last edited by Catawba; 11-22-09 at 02:30 AM.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
you are for all ounce and purposes, lost the war! The real hurdle is to close debate. You didn't get one single republican vote and Joe Lieberman is going to kill the public option. This health bill will become nothing more than an allocation of money, and a large amount of money at that.
Or, debate could last to next november and then, kill the bill.
If you got 61, 62, or 63 votes, you would actually have a chance. the only time you could get 60 was to open debate.
Reality bites, doesn't it?
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
another obamacare apologist who has no clue what's going on, what a surprise
to believe that 60 votes are not needed to end debate and get to a vote requires an almost stunning absence of...
a tv, for one thing
a rudimentary understanding of high school civics is another