• 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!

Health Care Bill has passed

upsideguy said:
Those 219 "individuals" were not random guys off the street as the use of "individuals" implies, but Representatives, whose job it is in a republic is to represent us.
Click to expand...

they didn't do their jobs, they represented their party at its narrowest and most extreme, openly DEFYING the clearly expressed will of the people

We elected democrats in 2008. One of the principle planks of their platform was healthcare reform.
Click to expand...

health reform, yes

the taxing of benefits, no

the mandate on individuals to buy a product, no

the cutting of m and m by half a T, no

the mandates on bankrupt states, no

the taxes on small biz, large biz, middle and lower classes, PAYROLL, targeted industries...

the special exemptions and backroom deals for democrat hardheads...

health reform, yes

THIS reform, no, not even close

he had to MORTGAGE his entire presidency to get THIS pig past the super majorities he holds in both HIS houses

They did their job. If their constituents feel they over-reached in the performance of those duties, they will be replaced.
Click to expand...

yup, just like governor corzine

Yes, the health care bill was a loser in the polls.
Click to expand...

sure was

sure is

However, if you dissected those numbers, you would find about 35% that did not want health care reform by the Democrats. The middle of the road and independent voters were upset that 1) the bill lacked bi-partisan support (which was not going to happen since the Repub strategy was to say "no" and not seriously participate), 2) had all of these "deals" (which we can blame some of Repubs for painting the Democrats into the corner on this in the first place, and 3) this just went on and on and on and on. The left hated the bill because it was so watered down. All said, most of the country wanted health care reform.
Click to expand...

too much explaining, this is a sound bite society, like it or not, politics is in the gut, your sentences are way too long

Of course, the opposition was never very interested in what the people wanted in the first place, otherwise the public option (60% support just prior to 1st passage) would be the law of the land today.
Click to expand...

the PO was killed by dems

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Democratic senator: Public health insurance option dead - Blogs from CNN.com

I know the Republicans were looking for a pony in the barn after 2008 and saw that pony in New Jersey and Virginia. Sorry, but electing governors in a state are not indicative of how people feel about the President.
Click to expand...

not when obama goes to trenton and expends all his capital there

A governor of a state is provincial, not national. Of course, you fail to talk about the one national race where a Democrat one in a district that had not be Democrat in 100 years.
Click to expand...

jersey's a no but ny23's a yes?

LOL!

Scott Brown, OTH, is a legitimate expression of discontent. But he is the only one.
Click to expand...

the scott brown phenomenon is nation wide, you'd have to be as tone deaf as our bigeared prez not to hear

virginia, the most bellwether state in the nation, swung 25 points in 09, the year of obama

mcdonnell ran on health care, taxes, cap and trade, card check...

the only local issue in the commonwealth gub was traffic upstate

jersey, as well, one of our most reliable blue enclaves---25 points gained by REDS in 09

the scott brown phenom is national

harry reid, THE LEADER, trails tinhorns by double digits

the ILLINOIS race is tied, that's OBAMA's seat

CALIFORNIA---barbara boxer is in a dead heat with carly fiorina (LOL!) and tom campbell (LOLOL!)

colorado---the governorship and the senate

russ feingold trails tommy thompson in wisconsin

BIDEN's SEAT---red, in the bag

i could go on (and on)

if you think the revolt is confined to the bay state (LOL!), you're as closed in as the 219

RealClearPolitics - 2010 Election Maps - Senate No Toss Ups

I for one think the electorate will reward rather than punish the Dems in November. First, its going to be hard to make too much of an issue of success. The Repubs offered nothing
Click to expand...

not true, but even if it were it wouldn't matter

all we have to do to win back everything is be NOT OBAMA

why, we could beat him with some unknown COMMUNITY ORGANIZER from utah, or some such

that's how politics is when the electorate is disgusted and demands change

ask mccain

Moreover, the people are tired of hearing about healthcare.
Click to expand...

and yet that's all obama's gonna be talking about in the coming weeks

Though I expect the Repubs to make electoral gains in 2010, as is custom in an off Presidential election year, the chance of the houses flipping, particularly the Senate are quite remote.
Click to expand...

that's a good point about off year elections, and you're right that picking up 10 senate seats is a tall order

but if massachusetts can go, any place can

and that's BEFORE the DEEM and the NUKE and the KICKBACK and the MANDATES and the rude DEFIANCE of mom's carefully scripted instructions...

barbara boxer is bye bye

if massachusetts and california can go red, anyone, everyone can
 
USA-1 said:
Read the bill? Why? If they did that they wouldn't have anything to beotch about.
Click to expand...

I am currently reading the bill and I find mister man's analysis to be lacking depth. The government will subsidize your insurance if you are within 133% of the poverty level. That says nothing of the people above that that still can't afford plans due to other factors.
 
Look at your own numbers. 13% of people who oppose it oppose it because it wasn't liberal enough. You add that to the 39% who approve it and you have 52% of the country wanting either this bill or something that goes further.....certainly not what you are trying to spin this into. :doh
 
misterman said:
Uh, if you can't afford it, the government will buy some or all of it for you. Read the bill.
Click to expand...

Which means....................

Drum roll please.....................

Socialized medicine. It was just disguised as something else, wasn't it?
 
jallman said:
I am currently reading the bill and I find mister man's analysis to be lacking depth. The government will subsidize your insurance if you are within 133% of the poverty level. That says nothing of the people above that that still can't afford plans due to other factors.
Click to expand...

You mean the ones that won't buy insurance so the rest of us pay for their healthcare?
 
USA-1 said:
You mean the ones that won't buy insurance so the rest of us pay for their healthcare?
Click to expand...

I mean the ones who fall a percent above the 133%, the ones already being responsible for their medical care by paying medical bills, the ones with mortgages and putting their kids through school. I mean anyone who doesn't fall within the 133% but still can't afford coverage.

How about you actually read the bill instead of tossing out hyperemotional talking points like "ZOMGWTF, theymakemepaytheirhealthinsuranceletsgetem!!!!!"
 
disneydude said:
Look at your own numbers. 13% of people who oppose it oppose it because it wasn't liberal enough. You add that to the 39% who approve it and you have 52% of the country wanting either this bill or something that goes further.....certainly not what you are trying to spin this into. :doh
Click to expand...

It's funny how they lump those that oppose it because it doesn't go far enough with the rest of the opposition.
 
jallman said:
I mean the ones who fall a percent above the 133%, the ones already being responsible for their medical care by paying medical bills, the ones with mortgages and putting their kids through school. I mean anyone who doesn't fall within the 133% but still can't afford coverage.

How about you actually read the bill instead of tossing out hyperemotional talking points like "ZOMGWTF, theymakemepaytheirhealthinsuranceletsgetem!!!!!"
Click to expand...

I believe the cap is somewhere around 90k.
It may be deeper in the bill.
 
USA-1 said:
It's funny how they lump those that oppose it because it doesn't go far enough with the rest of the opposition.
Click to expand...

Well...it makes sense on one level: Do you favor or oppose the bill.

However, to try to spin it and say that it says something other than what the actual numbers say is nothing but dishonest spin.
 
it's because NO ONE likes the replacement of the public option with the mandate on individuals to pony up---IN TIMES LIKE THESE---five hundred or so dollars a month for blue cross

no spin

THIS BILL is a PIG

live it, love it

it's YOURS!
 
No one is running from it.

There is a clear distinction between the two parties. One party has been trying for 50+ years to bring healthcare to the American people.

One party has fought against it for 50 years.

Let the chips fall where they may. I'm perfectly comfortable with allowing that.
 
if you do not buy PRIVATE insurance for yourself you are now BREAKING THE LAW

jct (joint committe on taxation) says only SEVEN PERCENT will qualify for subsidies from our BANKRUPT govt

live it, love it, own it

congrats!
 
disneydude said:
No one is running from it.

There is a clear distinction between the two parties. One party has been trying for 50+ years to bring healthcare to the American people.

One party has fought against it for 50 years.

Let the chips fall where they may. I'm perfectly comfortable with allowing that.
Click to expand...

One party has been trying for 50+ years to make the American people dependent on the federal government, thus exerting further control over their private lives and liberties.

One party has fought against it for 50 years.

Yay, amazingly simplistic, amazingly emotional, hyperbole filled generalization are fun!
 
Zyphlin said:
One party has been trying for 50+ years to make the American people dependent on the federal government, thus exerting further control over their private lives and liberties.

One party has fought against it for 50 years.

Yay, amazingly simplistic, amazingly emotional, hyperbole filled generalization are fun!
Click to expand...

Which Republican President in the last 50 years brought a healthcare agenda to Congress?
 
Zyphlin said:
One party has been trying for 50+ years to make the American people dependent on the federal government, thus exerting further control over their private lives and liberties.

One party has fought against it for 50 years.

Yay, amazingly simplistic, amazingly emotional, hyperbole filled generalization are fun!
Click to expand...

I just started a nasty reply to this, then I read the last sentence. Even though the post did not make it, sorry for thinking bad at you incorrectly.

If we could lock the over the top people away, we might be able to have a decent discussion. Right now it's not worth bothering.
 
The Prof said:
it's because NO ONE likes the replacement of the public option with the mandate on individuals to pony up---IN TIMES LIKE THESE---five hundred or so dollars a month for blue cross

no spin

THIS BILL is a PIG

live it, love it

it's YOURS!
Click to expand...

So, since you told us dozens of times it was dead, and now it's a pig, is it a dead pig? Or should we just consider your predictive powers and assume that since you hate it, it must be the bestest thing ever?
 
jallman said:
Dude, that's a play straight out of my book. Royalties, please. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.

By the way, thank you for at least trying to have a reasoned discussion here on the bill. You are all right for a conservative and being wrong about everything.
 
how do you massively expand m and m while simultaneously cutting funds half a T?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
George Bush II.
Click to expand...

You mean when he said that people can go to the emergency room for healthcare?

;)

Just joking....in all seriousness, I don't remember Bush bringing a heathcare reform bill to congress. It could be my memory, but I honestly don't recall it.

I remember him talking a lot about it during the campaign against Kerry, but I don't remember him putting forth any plan to address the healthcare problem.

If I'm wrong...I'm wrong...like I said, I don't recall any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom