This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Opera Begins: House Starts Debate On Healthcare Repeal Today

Tyler Durden's picture


Behold your Wall Street marionettes at work: instead of focusing on what is actually important for the survival of the middle class, what has a chance of actually reducing the now $14+ trillion in debt, and has a chance of actually passing, the Congressional pissing match is back, and while guaranteed to have absolutely no impact, will result in a lot of sound and fury signifying not only nothing, but just what a posse of jokers represent this country's wealthiest social strata, if nobody else. Because who cares that, as Ron Paul made all too clear, America is now beyond bankrupt: let's spend a few weeks debating a moot point, all the while Rome burns, the violins on the Titanic deck hit a crescendo, Wall Street accrues another record bonus year, and the politicos collect indulgences from their Fed subsidiary masters.

From the Associated Press:

The House opens a largely symbolic debate Friday on whether to repeal President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul, the culmination of the first week with Republicans back in charge.

A procedural vote around midday will set the rules for formal debate and final action next Wednesday.

House Republicans want to repeal Obama's plan to expand coverage to more than 30 million uninsured and start over again with a more modest, less costly approach. But Democratic leaders in the Senate say they'll block repeal.

Both sides are preparing for a standoff. They'll probably take the big issues in the health care debate back to the voters in 2012, when Obama is expected to run for re-election and the House and Senate are up for grabs again.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:41 | 855485 westboundnup
westboundnup's picture

Hey everybody!  We're all goin' get laid!

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:58 | 855497 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

House Republicans want to repeal Obama's plan to expand coverage to more than 30 million uninsured and start over again with a more modest, less costly approach. [...]


Do they not realize that the health care act actually reduces the deficit down the line, and rather significantly so, so "repealing" it would increase the deficit?

Do they realize that they had the chance to vote for an even more progressive versions of the health care act when it was being voted on, but they chose to vote "no" on every single issue?

Republicans, the party that knows two types of deficits: the good deficit, which gives benefits to the rich, and the bad deficit, which gives insurance to the middle class.

Republicans, the party of rich liars and hypocrats.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:26 | 855522 ConfederateH
ConfederateH's picture

Do they not realize that the health care act actually reduces the deficit down the line, and rather significantly so, so "repealing" it would increase the deficit?


A liberal who claims that Obama's propaganda is true is as obnoxious as a narccisist who revels in the odor of his own farts.

The fireworks start with battle over the raising of the budget ceiling.  This will be the litmus test to determine who are the real Republicans and who are the closet Democrats (Rinos).

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:49 | 855938 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Not sure I get your argument - did you make any?

Republicans used estimations of the Congressional Budget Office to argue against health care reform.

So since the CBO estimates that the health care act reduces the deficit significantly, how can the Grand Old Party now argue with a straight face that it should be repealed? Do they want the deficit to go up?

I.e. the Republican leadership are hypocrites to the core.

They should act like men and submit their version of health care reform, not this faux "repeal first, then fix it (maybe, sometime ...)" brouhaha. You know it, I know it that it wont be accepted by the Senate or the President, so all they want to do is a political grandstanding, without really risking of having to do something constructive for America.

Judging by their actions the GOP is the "party of no", they are skilled saboteurs and hypocrites, not much else.

Not to mention the fact that 'repealing' this law will put millions of americans at health risk again after the health care act goes into full effect in 2014.

Every other modern economy in the world provides health security to its citizens as a birthright: Canada, Germany, you name it.

It's a simple concept: every citizen gets universal coverage and you dont ever again have to worry about not getting proper care (doctors tell which treatment you will get, not health care insurance administrators), and health care costs wont bankrupt you ever again.

Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? Why should the USA not strive to provide essential personal security to its citizens, like it provides military protection, a working judiciary system, police protection, etc.?

Health is not some fancy, optional social benefit, it is a basic human right, and an attribute of basic, essential personal security. Experience in other countries is that people think of it as insurance, not as free benefits: freeloaders are emphatically not flocking to have extra heart transplants just because it's "free" ... :-)


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:01 | 856012 ConfederateH
ConfederateH's picture

every citizen gets universal...Health is not some fancy, optional social benefit, it is a basic human right, and an attribute of basic, essential personal security.

You liberals really are fucking idiots.  You think just because you don't want to work to earn enough to take care of yourselves someone else should. 

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:20 | 856083 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


So you want to take care of national security as well, and of the judicial system as well?

You anarchists are idiots :-)


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:07 | 857019 DosZap
DosZap's picture

So you want to take care of national security as well, and of the judicial system as well?.


Hell yes!, that way we know the REAL Law of the land will be followed,and we are more than capable of our own Natl Security.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:46 | 857203 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Like the private security men at bars who dont bother about people taking drugs, right? Fantastic vision of selective law enforcement :-)

Let those who can bribe best win, right?


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:23 | 857893 morph
morph's picture

Drugs, you mean alcohol right? I mean how can alcohol be legal but 10 other substances that do far less harm be illegal?

The objective of law is not to protect not criminalise. If people using drugs are causing no harm, why make a fuss?

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 08:58 | 858446 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


You fancy a wonderful world in which a car driver may legally pay a "private security" policeman to enter into a "private contract" with him that he may drive after having a 6-pack of beers? Do you really think that no harm is done to the rest of society?

Are you really so daft to want to see more of this:


Keith Bridges, 49, was twice over the alcohol limit when he lost control of his Jeep as he drove two families home from an evening out in the Dordogne.

The car hit two trees and rolled into woodland. It took fire crews six hours to cut the dead and injured from the wreckage.


Mr Bridges's daughter Bethany, ten, and 43-year-old wife Julianne died instantly.

Two members of another family, who had been visiting the Bridges at their home in the region, also lost their lives. Gabriella Dyer, ten, and her father Andrew, 41, were killed and Mr Dyer's wife Tracey, 38, was flown to hospital in Bordeaux, where she is in a coma.

Victim-less crime my ass ... There's strong observed correlation between the strength of DUI law enforcement and reduced deaths of innocent victims.
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:01 | 856270 Bearster
Bearster's picture

And they think that having the Post Office run a major chunk of the economy will make it more efficient, which is why they think that adding tens of millions of people to get a major new entitlement will reduce spending--all that "efficiency" that gov't brings to the equation.

While I agree with TD that this is theater because with a majority of Dems in the senate and Obama in the white house they cannot repeal Obamacare, I don't think trying to repeal a multitrillion dollar new entitlement program is fiddling while Rome burns.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:51 | 856369 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


So I take it you consistently stand behind the everyday consequences of your ideology? There should be no public roads, no public education, no police force, no military, no Coast Guard? All those are just inefficient 'benefits' in your view?

Also, how do you explain that the 'free market' health care system in the US is the most expensive one in the developed world and still manages to not cover tens of millions of citizens?

Not to mention the tens of thousands of recissions - I mean, the absolutely best moment to lose coverage is when you are really ill and when you need a really severe operation, right?

You need to answer all these issues for your opinion to be logically consistent. But when I ask such inconvenient questions it's usually just the cricket chirp ...


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:20 | 857520 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

We don't have anything that even vaguely resembles a free-market in health care.  What we do have is run by 3rd parties who effectively own CONgress, cumbersome rules and regulations, many of which are designed to keep out competition, the very thing that would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce health care costs.  Throw in the tort system for icing on the cake. 

I've discussed this with my doc extensively; she says, and I agree that we need to go back to more freedom and less controls.  She suggests an inexpensive catastrophic care policy and pay out of pocket for the rest; remove the 3rd party altogether.

In short, if we did have a free market, health care would be affordable. 



Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:24 | 857681 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Apparently you did not read my point.

The situation the health-care industry is now in is the natural consequence of unfettered, unregulated free markets. Monopolies are the end game of free markets: the big fish have eaten all the small fish and they have divided up the market geographically.

But I could mention other examples as well: big oil, big pharma, TBTF banks or energy companies?

If you have idiots like Ron Paul who does not want there to be any regulation over market participants, this is the end result.

It starts out as a free market, but then once the (naturally increasing) size of participants gets comparable to the size of the market, it breaks down and does not work anymore. You get Enron faking electricity shortages artificially, to get californians to pay for more expensive emergency sources of electricity.

Ideal free markets do not work over a certain size, they never did. Even historically a good number of governments/countries formed out of big corporation-alike merchant family structures in essence. Monopolies are the ultimate end game of free markets.

And the other thing is, insuring for a common good like personal safety and healthcare benefits is better done by a non-profit, by a nation-state financed insurance entity. It's rarely more expensive: while buerocrats certainly have overhead, greedy executives have even more overhead, as the sky-high per capital medical costs of the US are showing it.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:07 | 857797 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Monopolies are the ultimate end game of free markets

Absolutely, 100%, spot-on.

All these survival-of-the-fittest, anti-Fed, pseudo anarcho-capitalists have never reasoned their ideology to its natural conclusion.  It just sounds cool.  It sounds tough.  It sounds educated.  And all it really is is a smokescreen to hide their us verses them bigotry.  


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:08 | 857877 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

No, actually, I've watched carefully what's happened over my lifetime and I've been around a while.  The more the intervenes and gets in bed with Big Biz and either protects or subsidizes it, the bigger and more expensive it gets.  

Go look at the cost of a college education these days.  


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:06 | 858452 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


I always found it fantastically perverse why citizens of the USA accept such sky-high tuition fees.

Check out most of Europe, they have extremely strong public education systems. There's barely any private school in Finland or Germany, and they are producing very well-educated and innovative people.

Subsidized student loans that allow you to learn and live at the very best universities is the norm. In Europe a family does not have to 'save for the kid's college'. Why should a family have to do that?? It's a very basic interest of society to pick up smart people and educate them, regardless of background.

The US is sacrificing its future by allowing Ivvy League like constructs which basically are breeding mediocre students into the next elite, financed by the current elite.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:03 | 857866 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

Um, I read it; I thoroughly disagree.  Read up on the history of how we got where we are now.  Free markets?  LOL  Unfettered and unregulated?  Surely you jest!

Monopolies and the monopolies you mentioned are a result of legislation, regulations and controls passed by CONgress because these entities bought the congresscritters so they'd pass legislation, etc. that favors them, and gives them an advantage in the marketplace, thus stifling competition. It's protectionism for the select few at the expense of all others.  NONE, zip, zero, nada; no Big Oil, Big Agra, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big ______________, or the TBTF banks would exist were it not for their incestuous relationship with CONgress.  

These disgusting Bigs have nothing whatever to do with free markets.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:26 | 858458 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


If you've ever seen a single history book I encourage you to open it again and look up the archeotype of all monopolies that deregulated free markets will naturally turn into: Standard Oil.

There was barely any legislation (let alone regulation) when it grew to its massive size by brutally cornering the oil market and extending that monopoly power into other markets.

At its height Standard Oil was even engaged in assassinating or sabotaging smaller competitors. You must be out of your mind if that is the world you want to live in again ...


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:27 | 858464 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


the TBTF banks would exist were it not for their incestuous relationship with CONgress. [...]

Of course they would not exist.

There would only be a single "Standard Bank" - just like a good hundred years ago the oil business quickly concentrated into a single big fish (Standard Oil) that ate all the small fish.

That was back in the good old Gilded Age days when there was no pesky regulation that kept Standard Oil from blowing up the pumps of competitors or buying up all land around their fields and charging them sky-high 'transit fees' (!).

Standard Bank would certainly be more subtle: it would introduce dumping prices and special deals in every town that was so silly to attempt to try to open its own banking corporation.

Totally legal in a 'free' market. Free market extremists do not realize that the natural end game of naive free markets is Socialism: only a single provider in every major product category.

What a brilliant, idiotic idea.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:45 | 856686 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Bingo, Dude, SHOW me where in the Constitution where it says this.I so fuckin utterly despise libtards,they are nothing but socialistas,communists.

They love to spend OPM,as long as its not their own.

So far this Health Scam, is going to cost anyone who sells their homes a 4% sale tax(in a year or two).

Sell a $400k home, pay $16k in extra tax.( What the hell does this have to do with Health Care???)

Its cost ALL of us, at least a NET 10% out of pocket increase as of 2011,I was paying 15%, Corporation balance, now I am nailed with 25%.

Either way it matters not we are screwed.

The Bernank, has 2 choices, and both END it for us.

Hold interest rates artificially low and destroy the US dollar in a hyperinflation.

Allow the markets to achieve its natural interest rate and bankrupt the US Government, destroying the dollar.

Either one of the  Bernanks options end up in the destruction of the US dollar.



Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:55 | 856722 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Erm, so if it's not in the Constitution it does not exist?

I guess public roads go out the window then too, in your world, right?

You might want to check out the "absolutely zero taxes, sir!" land for free people one of these days (Somalia).


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:11 | 857035 DosZap
DosZap's picture

No,if you KNEW the Const you know the power to levy taxes, and provide for the common good clauses colud be used for that.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:50 | 857220 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Oh, so using the power to levy taxes, and to use them to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" does not cover general Welfare items like .. not dying due to a treatable but expensive to treat illness?

Had the founding fathers known how much medical sciences would advance in the 200 years to come, they'd have listed it explicitly as an essential and required item of personal safety I'm sure.

Anyway, I suspect you are not making the argument that because medical sciences were sub-par 200+ years ago we should never consider them in a modern society?


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:22 | 856086 Common_Cents22
Common_Cents22's picture

obummer care has nothing to do with efficient health care.


the "surplus" comes from collecting unconstitutional full mandatory taxes upfront for a few years before the real costs hit in 2014.    So DUH to reducing the deficit.  Nothing to do with efficient health care.

Tax increases in the bill.  DUH.   Nothing to do with efficent health care.


Cutting medicare $500b?  Where the fuck do you think they can cut $500 BILLION out of medicare?     If there is that much waste in medicare why aren't they doing it already?    nothing to do with efficient health care.

$200 billion doc fix was pulled OUT of the obummer care bill and put elsewhere.  nothing to do with efficient health care.


There is nothing in this bill that pursues cheaper more efficient health care delivery.  Nothing to drive out real costs.  


Our discussion should be how do we provide efficient health care to Americans, via private/public means.    Not a federal takeover of a huge chunk of our economy.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:34 | 856411 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


The fundamental question is, do you support what every other developed nation on the planet implements, that health is a basic human right, attached to free citizens by birthright?

Just like it's a birthright that citizens get protected by the military from other involuntary forms of bodily harm, like it's a birthright that citizens get protected by the police and that contracts get interpreted and enforced by the judicial system.

Do you support that view, or do you aim for an "absolutely no taxes" solution like Somalia?


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:19 | 857073 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Dude all that went out the window............we are targets now.

Where do you get Health is a right?,where do you get life is a right?, your next breath could be your last(who's fault would that fall on, after all, you had a right to Health!)

My problem with Obumma Care is 2000+ pages of TAKEOVERS,and exclusions for special groups,and taxation on shit, and control over us NEVER allowed under the Constitution.

Can the System be better?, yep.............But not at the expense of FASCISM.

70% of Americans said NO to this shitball.............we never got a chance to vett it, read it, neither did ANYONE who signed it.

Why is that?, we're finding out, and the best is yet to come(as in bend over baby!!!).

A bunch of fascists slammed down our throats, against our WILL,that's Tyranny,

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:57 | 857234 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

where do you get life is a right?

I've got some news for you: were you of the idea to take the life away from a US citizen there's a very well resourced law enforcement machinery in place that will do everything in its might to catch and punish you.

Just like there's a well resourced medical profession in place in various developed countries that does everything in their might to preserve the health of every citizen, should they fall ill and should they opt to see these professionals.

Every citizen - not just those able to pay.

It's a fundamental right almost everywhere - why not in the US? Seriously - have you really thought your arguments through?


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:55 | 857443 Common_Cents22
Common_Cents22's picture

Nice straw man. Support this BS obummer care or be like Somalia?   We are working on becoming somalia with ripoffs like obummercare.


Of course the goal is to provide health care either privately or via govt but in an efficient manner.   This bill did nothing to drive out cost of health care, but rather add cost and spread out the cost.  It will balloon to costs you've never imagined.   Look at all the past programs some began as temporary, but became eternal entitlements. 


how does obummer care drive out cost and provide efficient health care?


dailykos might be a better forum for you.  And i think Ed Schultz show is coming up on MSNBC.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:17 | 857495 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Per capita (and even GDP proportional) health care costs are noticeably lower in other, "as a citizen I have the right to not die due to a treatable illness" universal health care countries.

The US might get cheaper health care once the private company, rent-seeking health care parasites are replaced with a single general insurance agency.

So I'd expect that once US citizens see that it's actually ... really productive to have health care insurance that actually insures against the extreme case of falling chronically ill, more progressive changes will follow.

Seriously, were you personally ever worried about health care costs, and about the possibility of your policy being rescinded? Have you ever wondered whether an insurer will insure you fairly, no questions asked, even if things turn bad, very bad for you or for any member of your family?


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:00 | 857458 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

LOL that you think this is some benevolent "right" bestowed upon us by all those who care so very much about all us useless eaters.  While I thoroughly despise what we have, this is nothing but more control, more taxes, and less actual health care for all.  I am surprised you are unable to see the down-the-road (un)intended consequences of this.

By the way, LOL too that you think we are protected my the military, the police and the judicial system.  



Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:47 | 856204 divide_by_zero
divide_by_zero's picture

In addition to counting 10 years taxes for a 6 year window, the Democrats stripped out most of the high spending portions and passed those separately later so as not to reflect the true cost in CBO scoring (not to mention double counting on Medicare transfers which the partisan CBO went along with).

Like every other nationalized health care the cost will bankrupt itself and eventually lead to less health care. That's why they all still come to the US for serious medical care.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:23 | 856389 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Nice fantasy world you live in. The german and canadian health care systems are just fine and give the right to health to every citizen, thank you very much.

The right to be as healthy as modern science allows is just as important in a developed country as the right to not be inflicted other forms of bodily harms - this is self-evident. If you want some radical form of no-taxes, pay-as-you-go society you can certainly emigrate to Somalia.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:52 | 856704 DosZap
DosZap's picture

The german and canadian health care systems are just fine and give the right to health to every citizen, thank you very much.


Yep, and how long do you wait for serious treatment, and scans?

Women w/ Breast cancer stats are off the wall, as is all other cancer deaths.

The city of Philadelphia has more MRI/CT/Pet scan machines, than the entire nation of Canada.

Get in line, if you die....fuck you.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 14:03 | 856742 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Oh, you fell for the canadian health care myths propagated by the republican anti-healthcare propaganda machine, right?

Check this one:

That article answers these myths:

  • Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care
  • Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy
  • Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the US
  • Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it
  • Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care
  • Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the US
  • Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government
  • Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada

Also, as I mentioned it in another post, I have used four separate public health care systems in the past, and I was never rationed nor did I face excessive wait times. (And emergency care is always wait-free.)

In such a system the doctors prescribed the treatments and patients get it - no health insurance administrator has veto power over the doctor's decision.

The old US health care system is both the most expensive one in the developed world (due to 'free market' overhead), and is also the least human one (due to lack of guaranteed insurance). A special achievement I have to say ...


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:05 | 856998 DosZap
DosZap's picture

No, I watched interviews on the Boob Tube, of the victims, from their own mouths.

As for the old US system, WHY is it everyone in world(including Canada) with a serious,life threatening,or complicated disease comes here?.

Or a Hip replacement or knee thats debilitaing them to the point or suicide, or the inability to work, because they have to wait for 6mos to 2yrs?.

Cause we are the shitz?

Service wid a smile man.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:23 | 857524 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

All answered in the "Debunking canadian health care myths" link I gave. Such as:

Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

And yes, the rich will go to other countries where some procedure is done better or where it happens faster - they always keep freeloading and front-running the rest of society while cheating on their taxes. (What did you think that offshore LLC in Bermuda was for? "Business logistics" my ass :-)

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 14:15 | 856799 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Then there's this bit of Kos lunacy;

"So since the CBO estimates that the health care act reduces the deficit significantly,..."

The CBO is asked to grade out and make projections on what it is given by Congress.

If Congress says they expect five hundred quadrillion dollars to come via revenue vs. one dollar in outlay that is what it's judged on...assumptions.

And we know Congress cannot tell a lie right?...and we know the left are accomplished liars right?


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:49 | 855534 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

This may come as a surprise, but I'm not a fan of the Republicans either. They're hypocritical bastards.  But I've got a fairly big beef with Obama and this gutless, more-of-the-same health care bullshit that was marketed to the American people as a win against oppressive corporations, yet, in reality, it was drafted by them. 

What do you think of Liz Fowler, former VP bitch of Wellpoint, being cast as one of the chief architects of the healthcare reform? Isn't that a bit like having a former Goldman CEO as Treasury secretary, or Big Bird in charge of Federal Agency for Migratory Birds?

By the way, here's a link to the bird website. I figured if I suggested there was a government agency specific to bird watching, you'd think I was a liar.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:38 | 856425 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


I think that once americans experience what universal coverage really means, the health care insurance fat will be cut down.

The problem Obama had was that he had to fight either the idiot Republicans or the greedy health care industry - he could not realistically fight both. He choose to fight the idiots, and I really cannot blame him for that.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:27 | 857108 DosZap
DosZap's picture

I am discovering, and paying out the ass, and this shit is not over by a LONG SHOT.

Stealing 500 Billion from Medicare guarantees the early death of millions.That wont affect you, until your in that age group.

Remember the movie Trust No One Over 30?, well it was way cool, until the leaders got close and to 30.(Uh oh, its my ass now!!)

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:41 | 856443 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


LOL @ your birdwatcher agency.

Seriously, did you know that tracking migratory birds serves an important scientific role? For example IIRC the N1H1 virus was first detected by the equivalent agency in Europe, in migratory swans.

Those are important research programs that no greedy corporation sees fit to finance.

(If you believe in scientific progress and if you believe in not dying dumb, that is.)


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:15 | 857056 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

the N1H1 virus was first detected by the equivalent agency in Europe, in migratory swans.


Since you're quite familiar with Democrat policies and you bring up the N1H1 virus, please allow me a question:

Was swine flu caused by Democrats?

While the right side of Michele Bachmann's mouth says Obama didn't start swine flu, the left side of her mouth suggests he did. 

Furthermore, since John Boehner just assigned Bachmann as overseer of the CIA and National Security Agency, I would think that her opinion on these matters is important.



Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:28 | 857125 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Fantastic, this should be a HELL of a ride.............Michelle will make Pelosi look like a lightweight.

I can see assholes cutting O'Rings now.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:51 | 855541 Loan Gunman
Loan Gunman's picture


Well done Critical T.  But unnecessary.  We've all heard the liberal talking points many times before.  Judging from your avatar, you're spending too much time at the gym.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:10 | 855564 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

No. Actually, I think it is necessary to pick up the Republicans and body slam them.  

Republican hypocrisy runs so deep, thick and rich that when I look at miserable fucks like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Bachmann, Graham, Boehner, Bush et al, I feel like I'm living a menacing Kafkaesque nightmare where, one day, we all will turn on CSPAN and see nothing but cocoons hanging from the Senate.  

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:46 | 856460 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Too bad I can't remove any of those junks.  It's the crazies running the Republican Party.  If one, lone, sane person steps forward they might have a chance.  The RNC panel for prospective Chairman was the funniest goddam thing I've ever seen.  They should have been in grease paint, rainbow wigs, and rubber noses.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:31 | 857130 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Better than your corpse.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:02 | 857430 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Hey Dos...

I'm all ears....  

If you (or anyone else here) want to defend the Republican party, go for it. I'll listen. I've been listening for a fair defense since I finally woke up a few years back.  Please don't reference archaic Republican ideologies which only exist in front of microphones and on soapboxes - I want a real defense of the modern Republican party that we've seen over the past 10, 20, 30 years.

Anyone can say that a smaller, less intrusive government is better. Anyone can say that less taxes are better.  But rhetoric means nothing. The modern Republican party that we've witnessed for a decade or more is nothing but a plutocratic-controlled, bought-and-paid-for pathetic shadow of its former self.

Just look at the fucking idiots that represent your party. You've got John Boehner with a face full of tears and boogers.  You've got newly elected CIA overseer Michele Bachmann, who thinks the Democrats started swine flu and that Obama wants to replace the US dollar with a new world currency.  You've got Sarah Palin, a snarky moose-hunting dingbat, plucked out of the Alaskan wilderness who thinks Alaska's proximity to Russia is a notable qualification for foreign relations. And Bush.  Do I need to talk about Bush?  On, and on.. A true Republican should be ashamed and embarrasses with them.  

Any Republican that has the balls to actually defend their party with all the old ideologies that formerly defined them is perhaps only slightly less hypocritical than Ted Haggard in a male whorehouse.  

By the same token, I'm not defending Democrats. They're gutless against all the powers that surround them, and I have fundamental problems with their ideologies.  But, must stand in awe of the hypocrisy that regularly spews from the Republicans, especially when considering all the information that you gather from this site daily. 

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:39 | 857568 redrob25
redrob25's picture

The majority here are classic liberals, libertarians, or independents who do not subscribe to a 'party'. We do not need others to do our thinking for us.

The point is both ruling parties are corrupted by the bankers. If you subscribe to either you are lost.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:08 | 855563 Alex Kintner
Alex Kintner's picture

Ha ha ha. It's True. "Republicans, ARE the party of rich liars and hypocrats." And they pretty much admit it.

Also true that "Dems, ARE the party of rich liars and hypocrats." Although in the Dems case, they must maintain an elaborate illusion that they are on the side of the working class. Thus when they throw a bankquet for the rich, they leave the garbage dumpster unlocked so that the working class can forage.

This govt is probably THE most corrupt in the world. USA, USA, We're number one. We're number one.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:13 | 856534 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


I absolutely agree that the democrats arent much better.

But for the specific issue of health as a human right they did something that was a lot closer to the right thing than pretty much anything the Republican Party has done in the last 20 years.

With health care democrats showed they have a spine after all, for a few short months. Then the barrage of GOP zombie lies continued uncontested.

It was still a giveaway to the health care insurance ogilopoly.

But it's not like republicans or libertarians can complain about that, they should bloody well know that a natural, inevitable outcome of dergulated free markets are corporations that get bigger and bigger with time, which cluster/percolate into cartels and monopolies.

A 'well, duh' moment if you think through the statistical model of such a market.

Not that Ron Paul would ever notice that simple fact. Some people live dumb and die dumb.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:35 | 857155 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Do your homework bro, the DEMS that are filty ass rich are way ahead of the GOP.

I am an Independent now,but after living thru Obamas first couple of years, under 100% Dem control, I have to side with the GOP.

At least their ALL not fking nuts.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:49 | 855681 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Do they not realize that the health care act actually reduces the deficit down the line, and rather significantly so, so "repealing" it would increase the deficit? insurance to the middle class.

This is gonna be fun.  First, it was always my contention that the real purpose of the health care takeover act was to support the Treasury Market by gaining control over 8% of the economy, then doling out "benefits" while keeping some margin for fed dot gov.  This is the way modern bankster goverment operates: attach yourself like a vampire to a cash flow stream, sucking out as much as you can get away with without killing the host too quickly.  So it was to be with health care.  This is the essence of the tax/regulatory arm of the welfare/warfare state. 

Now for the really fun part.  How were the dems to provide health care for MORE people while SAVING money?  Only one way: reduce the quality and quantity of care.  Ask the Brits, Canadians, etc.  Rationed care, bitches. Or unavailable care.



"Government is not, as some people like to say, a necessary evil; it is not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful human coexistence possible. But it is the opposite of liberty. It is beating, imprisoning, hanging. Whatever a government does it is ultimately supported by the actions of armed constables. If the government operates a school or a hospital, the funds required are collected by taxes, i.e., by payments exacted from the citizens."


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:35 | 856624 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Rationed care, bitches. [...]

I have used public health care systems in four separate countries in the past.

I was not 'rationed' even once, ever. The law in those countries specifies that my doctor tells the rest of the system what type of medical treatment and care to give - and that care is given. I have relatives who had very expensive treatments for serious illnesses (some of them unrecoverable) - no 'rationing' was done for them either, ever.

There were waiting lists for some things, but only for treatments that could wait - emergency care and operations always jump the queue.

While in the USA I was surprised to learn that while the doctors generally suggest treatments, those decisions are conditional to various monetarily influenced policies and that an insurance administrator can veto it in any case.

It's a perverse and borderline inhuman system IMO.

Not to mention that chronical illness in your family, one that spans several decades, can easily bankrupt your family. What use is 'insurance' if extreme events can bankrupt you??

So I think you are simply talking about this with no particular personal experience.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:41 | 857406 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

No, I provided an example where someone could not get the care he needed because the system had simply chosen not to provide it.  We could waste a lot of time quibbling about whether or not that is "rationing."  Would you like a few more thousand such examples?  Do you doubt I could provide them given enough time to do so?

You have a right to health care, just like you have a right to eat, drink, be merry, and screw.  "Rights" are not things that are furnished by others.  You have a right to obtain health care, obtain food, drink and merriment, and the right to find someone to screw.  The state does not furnish you with these things, or at least it shouldn't.  Any material thing the state furnishes you with, it first robs from someone else.  Robbery, for you, is a vital government program.  You reduce my liberty to a bidding war between the rich banker dependency class who wants to steal my savings through inflation and my lifeblood through taxation to pay interest on the national debt, and the dependency class who just wants to steal everything I have ever produced or will produce because they feel they "deserve" it and haven't already stolen it.



Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:26 | 857541 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Erm, the rich and influential will always flock to special clinics, often in foreign countries, to get luxorious care and to front-run mere mortals.

Nothing's new about that.


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 00:32 | 858230 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Respond to what you can, ignore what you can't.  classic.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:39 | 858535 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Any material thing the state furnishes you with, it first robs from someone else.  Robbery, for you, is a vital government program.  You reduce my liberty to a bidding war between the rich banker dependency class who wants to steal my savings through inflation and my lifeblood through taxation to pay interest on the national debt, and the dependency class who just wants to steal everything I have ever produced or will produce because they feel they "deserve" it and haven't already stolen it.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:54 | 855711 chubbar
chubbar's picture

This is more of the same bullshit that gets shoveled out to the public via the MSM.

I just read an article saying how the repukes were now going to have a hard time repealing this garbage because it would add 231 Billion to the deficit by 2021.

Anyone want to guess WHY that is??? Anyone???

The fucking obamacare legislation has 11 tax increases that are unrelated to healthcare in the bill.

There is a capital gains tax increase for house sales  for instance.

I'm not 100% positive but I think the 1099's for doing more than $600 with anyone/business is in this bill as well (it may be another bill, I forget).

So because taxes won't be going up it will generate a deficit by killing it. Unfucking real. Just the kind of cover both parties need to keep this piece of shit legislation from being repealed.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:54 | 856486 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I can't really disagree with you.  It's the sop to the Tea Party (who should be pissed at the slight hand wave in their direction) and the monumental waste of time that bothers me.  Smoke and mirrors to obscure the real problems that the country has.  I'm not saying the health care crap is worth repealing or not -- it won't be and everyone knows it.  The issue is moot other than the headlines, sound bites, and soap box speeches it will generate.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:47 | 857201 DosZap
DosZap's picture

RR,I am for fixing health care, and covering all.

But, when you do a 2000+ page slam, and add things to it, that have ZERO to do with health care, you have a crew of lying sonsabitches, and thieves.

When you have most ALL the Unions not subject to it, and all of Congress,and anopther roughly 200+ left off the tally, this shit is not right.

Its PAYBACK, and reeks of a Caste system.

Everyone is in the system, my ass.And, its soley Health Care, its CONTROL centered.

More Fascist shit.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:37 | 855921 chunkylover42
chunkylover42's picture

Do they not realize that the health care act actually reduces the deficit down the line, and rather significantly so, so "repealing" it would increase the deficit?


LOL indeed.  The current bill does not raise the deficit because the CBO scoring considers 10 years worth of taxes but only 7 years worth of actual spending/coverage.  Looking beyond the inital 10 year CBO scoring period shows something like a $2 trillion increase to the deficit over the next 10 years.  Also, if you think the CBO scored this thing correctly (that is, didn't understimate the cost by 15%) if got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.  Your argument is weak.

I'm no fan of either party, but this bill is an absolute steaming piece of shit.  However, it won't be repealed since numbnuts has veto power and the GOP's little tantrum about this whole thing is a waste of time and effort.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:49 | 856224 divide_by_zero
divide_by_zero's picture

Not a complete waste as a way to get people on the record.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:19 | 856563 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Not a waste of time as it exposes republican hypocrisy once more.

Nor do I agree with the CBO score arguments. The biggest win in the CBO score was not out of taxes or time delays, it was increased efficiency due to a less fragmented market.

Efficiency could be increased even more: public health systems in Europe are significantly cheaper than the (incomplete!) one in the US, on absolute and on GDP relative terms as well.

Part of the reason is that a big, nation-wide health care system have much bigger bargaining powers with medicament makers and other suppliers, and they win various economy of scale benefits, etc.

But obviously achieving that would be like totally impossible with Boehner controlling the House. Remember he wants Obama to fail - the methods to achieve that are immaterial. So republicans will lie, spin, obstruct and sabotage everything they can. They are practicing an unprecedented level of sabotage in american politics.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:57 | 855498 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

I hope it isn't by that 'fat lady' that always attends operas....

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:44 | 855486 alexwest
alexwest's picture


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:54 | 855493 velobabe
velobabe's picture

+100 right on†

laid, beautiful word, wonder about the action.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:57 | 855495 Cash_is_Trash
Cash_is_Trash's picture

Sounds like a sensual middle-class raping.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:58 | 855494 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:56 | 855496 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"all the while Rome burns"

Let it's cold out.

If they're doing this they can't screw something else up.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:07 | 855509 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

they might even accidentally catch themselves on fire!  

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:03 | 856513 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

There's always that hope.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:56 | 855726 snowball777
snowball777's picture

So very wrong: if they're accomplishing nothing with this tilting at windmill act (and let's be honest, that is the case since they're one senate and one veto from doing squat), then they could fail in quite epic fashion at other vastly more important tasks like managing the debt ceiling.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 14:07 | 856769 nmewn
nmewn's picture

LOL...they've raised it at will since 1949(?) means nothing to them.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:51 | 857215 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Whats left for them to SCREW UP?.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:36 | 857835 nmewn
nmewn's picture


If they are in session anythings possible...we would come out ahead just to pay them to stay home.

Pelosi takes office 2006...debt nine trillion.

Pelosi leaves office 2010...debt 13 trillion.

Here's a good speaker takes office...two days later unemployment drops...ROTFLMAO!

Two can play at the spin game my friend ;-)

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:02 | 855504 Rhea
Rhea's picture

Sure I understand why the Bee_be birds' Arkasad died so specially

Hey howdy Cheers Yung sing Salud À votre santé Zum Wohl


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:04 | 855506 pauldia
pauldia's picture

The vote to repeal "Obamacare" is important for the following reasons;

1) Simple, it is fulfilling a major campaign promise.

2)Creates a record of votes for a 2012 campaign, it should be continually brought to the floor and submitted to Obama, make him eat and own this "spirit of ipecac"

3) Creates a template of Constitutional questioning & accountability  regarding the process and statements such as "Are you kidding me?". No,  Sen. Pelosi, the joke is on you. 

4) Makes Senator's hiding under their desks, Hmmm Sen Robert Casey, enter the sunshine and vote on the Law he pushed.

5) Brings phony CBO submissions & sandbagging numbers for funny accounting out in open. Fits into a broader theme of accounting shenanigans which will exposed by Ron Paul and Darrell Issa.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:38 | 855646 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

Repealing Obamacare is essential as the first shot at runaway entitlement spending, not to mention maintaining any semblance of the liberty we were guaranteed by the Constitution.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:58 | 857253 DosZap
DosZap's picture

No repealing it, is imperative so that a bunch of fascist burecrats do not get an itemized list of your health records, and  DNA samples.

Ultimately its MAIN task is to destroy the Private system PERIOD.

Ever taken an Anti depressant?,screw you, no 2nd Amendment rights for you.

Regardless if it was for a short time?.

Thats the end game.

Do you know NO one can build a NEW hospital, renovate, or add to any hospital, without prior approval?.

Yep,thats in the SOB too.

Why would that be?,hospitals are by and large privately funded.

Thats anti Capitalism.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:14 | 855514 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Healthcare will be free for all!!



define "sick" and "injured"

they could just keep it simple and bring it down to:


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:17 | 855517 gwar5
gwar5's picture

Let them hash it out, there will still be life after economic death and this is one step closer to hitting the restart button on better footing.

I'm gonna die when I'm ready to die so I can write a bunch of bad checks, and not when a beaurocrat says I've outlived my usefulness.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:03 | 855555 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

It unconstitutional to force people to buy insurance from for profit companies.   Obamacare should be nullified, then start from scratch.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:05 | 857285 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Bingo............BOTH sides sit down, and hash it out.

This passage was one of the most egrious and blatant power grabs in the US Congressional history.

And they call the GOP the party of NO?.

Well it paid off in the elections didn't it.This country is supposed to be run for and by the people, and their best interests.

The party of No, could not have changed ONE whit of any of it, they were asked (for MSM reasons only), and basically were told to sit down and shut up.So, why not vote NO.

We are in control, and we will do what we want........and the WORST part, is WE will know whats in it, after its passed!!!.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:05 | 855557 johnnymustardseed
johnnymustardseed's picture

Repeal will increase the deficit, but Republicans could care less they are responsible for 90% of it anyway. They also blocked attempts by Democrats to make them go on record for using "socialist" healthcare provided to congress.

 This is a very straightforward amendment that we offered, that, if you're going to take government-sponsored health care and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, simply disclose. Let your constituents know that you are taking that government health care. Every single Republican voted to hide their health care while many of them are pledging to repeal it for their constituents.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:00 | 855750 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Hypocritical indeed, but there are more important fish to fry at the moment.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:09 | 857300 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Huffpo?...good lord,join the Nationaist Socialist  Party today.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:32 | 855611 Common_Cents22
Common_Cents22's picture

Can anyone read beyond the headlines?


The nonsense about obamacare reducing deficit depends on the $500billion cut in medicare and the doc fix.    Plus the voodoo obamacare numbers depend on collecting premiums for the first few years before more costly programs kick in a couple years down the road.


It's smoke and mirrors.

Nothing to do with efficient health care at all.


KRAUTHAMMER: As a former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said today, "It's garbage in and garbage out." CBO is honest; it doesn't play with the numbers, but it's required to work into its numbers exactly what the Congress gives it. So --

BAIER: In other words, it's a calculator. You put in the stuff, it gives you the --

KRAUTHAMMER: And the Democrats are the ones who decided that the doc fix, which is over -- I think it's $200 billion -- would look bad in Obamacare. So what happened? They pulled it out, they put it in a separate bill, and of course there's no way to pay for it. And of course it reduces the liability in Obamacare. All of these gimmicks. The biggest gimmick of all is that the benefits don't kick in till 2014. The taxes start now, so you've got ten years of revenue in, six years of expenditures out. Of course you're going to end up with a surplus. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 1/6/11, emphasis added]


I wish CONgress would debate stuff endlessly anyway.  The more time they waste the less damage they can do to this country.  We should pay CONgress a 100% bonus to stay home and meet for 3 months a year.   DC is all about building a paper tiger, makework.  Taxpayer funded corrupt solutions in search of problems.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:53 | 856715 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

Karuthammer knows jack shit.  The day that guys leaves the business, the business improves.

But again, this isn't real healthcare, and it's not what democrats wanted.

We got what the fascist monetarist section of the democratic party wanted for healthcare.

Democrats want, deserve, and will get Single Payer under the hill-burton standard, and no amount of monetairst bullshit, usually from fascist->krauthammer should ever convince one american otherwise.

Only fucking idiots think like republicans fiscally.

It's not about the deficit dipshits.  It's about monetarism.

The answer isn't less gov't for bad gov't.  The answer is GOOD gov't.  But you have to understand what makes gov't good or bad.  Corporate influence? Monetarist influence?  Are these good or bad?

What do the republicans fascists foolishly believe?  Like Krauthammer

What do the democrat fascists foolishly believe? Like Nero.

It's two different ways, but both under the same banner, and both are just wrong and anti-american.

Most of the savings don't just come from fudgy numbers, they also include tons of people passing up care.  Because if you ask 100 people if they'd throw themselves off a cliff for 1000 dollars, somebody takes it. 

With 310 million americans, when that cliff jumper population, numbering in the millions decides to sign things (or coerced), or even worse sign it young...don't know what you are doing...forget about it for 40 years....suddenly you're dead, because you signed something at 20 years old about how you don't want to be on life support. with millions of people pushed into these fascist monetarists lines, guess what will happen.  In pure T-4 Hitler fashion (which is why Nero deserves the mustache), there will be savings on the blood of others.

We still haven't even talked about the actual death panels, but don't worry, you see them at every HMO.  (but you pay for that can change it)

But the gov't having it's own deathpanel, and you can't change it, well that is unconstitutional. 

We need to spend time on healthcare.  Single Payer, under hill-burton standard. 

But of course, we need to spend time on the economy.

As long as congress/executive doesn't pass Glass-Steagall, or NAWAPA, or any of the other rebuilding, retooling, reloading aspects of real physical economy and technological advancement, then we won't have changed anything, and will continue to spiral down.

Barack/centrist dems aren't going to do it.

Tea Party sure and the hell won't do it.

Republicans were never going to do it.

Again, we do all these things because the current propoganda has instilled that the most important thing is the deficit.

Nope. The most important thing is remembering, and putting into practice, your American ideals.  Glass-Steagall and all the things I've espoused do that.

Everything else is just jerking off.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:40 | 855649 johnnymustardseed
johnnymustardseed's picture

Here is your Republican Healthcare at work. They don't care they get it free from the government.

Health insurance costs for hundreds of thousands of individual policy holders with Blue Shield of California could go up as much 59 percent this year, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The California health insurer has announced it is seeking to raise rates an average of 30% to 35% for 193,000 policy holders due to rising health care costs, the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy, and other factors.

Roughly one in four of Blue Shield of California customers are expected to see increases of more than 50% over five months. Most of those who hold individual policies are self-employed, aren't covered by their employer or have been laid off

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:27 | 857362 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Not the Repubs bro, thank Obama for that.........

They see the writing on the wall.Plus, its Commiefornia, only a state with a 35 Billion shortfall could be so assine to pass 770+ more laws.

The state will be given back to Mexico voluntarily, or not.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:00 | 857460 Common_Cents22
Common_Cents22's picture

plenty of hypocrites to go around.


Dems want to raise taxes on the rich.   Why don't they lead by example and write a check to the treasury?    Nobody is FORCING them to pay the LEAST amount of taxes?   At least they would walk their talk and it would be voluntary.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:11 | 855803 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

Obamacare will decrease the deficit?  What a joke!  And why is it that the has anbusiness being involved in health care/insurance?

The (mostly CONgress), along with their partners in crime, the AMA and Big Insurance, created the mess we have today.  Wage controls began tying health insurance to employment (absurd!!), the HMO act perpetuated these ginormous insurance companies.  Stupid controls and regulations have done nothing more but make prices for J6P soar while care has deteriorated.   

Try getting a reasonably priced insurance policy if you're self-employed.  I have, and my mortgage is less expensive so I negotiate cash for care if I need it.  I doubt I'll be able to afford it when the individual mandate kicks in so I'll be fined or wind up in some form of subsidized insurance.  I seriously doubt anyone has accounted for those potential costs.

In case you're not paying attention, some businesses are already asking for exemptions from obamacare and insurance premiums are already going up, WAY up, in anticipation of the impending disaster.

How anyone thinks that health care is somehow exempt from economic law is beyond me.  The net result of obamacare will be rationing and costs going through the roof, not to mention all the other indirect effects.  

The best thing for all of us is to get the out of health care altogether, get rid of the 3rd parties (insurers) except for catastrophic care policies and turn the free market and competition loose in the health care field.  





Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:27 | 857373 DosZap
DosZap's picture

And why is it that the has anbusiness being involved in health care/insurance?


FASCISM,pure and simple.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:29 | 855891 Vergeltung
Vergeltung's picture

Obama's "healthcare" needs to be repealed in any scenario for recovery.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:41 | 856665 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

??? We're not talking about British Monetarism.

That won't ever recover, which is sadly the only scenario you're realizing.

Your way will never recover.

But that's ok, because your way, isn't American.

We need Single Payer healthcare, not Nero's deathcare.

But I won't lie to the American people like you, HMO's are ALSO deathcare, and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

There you go.  A little dose of reality.   Don't drink the whole bottle, just absorb this little piece now, we'll work on the rest later.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:37 | 855919 Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

TD, I like your prose.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:38 | 856634 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

Paul is right, we are broke.  But he's got the anti-solution.

That's what's so important.

To realize he's so right one one hand, and so completely wrong on the other.

He's right Keynes was wrong.

But so are the Austrian's Ron Paul follows.

Neither are American ideals, and what Ron Paul wants to do as soon as everyone realizes we're up shit creek, is to wade in it.

Of course REAL AMERICANS, not Ron/Rand Paul, realize the monetarist games we play, and wish to end them.  (not ron paul though)

So yes, just like Nero could of signed his name and ended Don't ask, Don't tell, while we have all these issues to deal with, he instead punted it to congress and let that clusterfuck we just witness, emerge.

So, signature by obama that takes five to ten seconds, or two months bickering and holding other legislation hostage?  Obama went with the latter.

Now it's the ever more clueless republicans and their 'we can't repeal it' but we're going to tie up gov't for a few months thing.

Oh yes, this is the part where the tea partiers didn't get your message, because they don't speak your message.  They're just clueless hacks who thought they knew what america was.  They don't.  They know what British Imperialism is, and sadly they mistake that for American patriotism.  Gee I wonder how they could get it wrong, they look SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO smart whenever you see them.

Enjoy them, I sure won't, and America will definitely suffer for having to endure the grand lie that is the British Tea Party.



Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:38 | 857164 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

Just got this email from my company:

Due to recent legislation, tied to the Health Care Reform Act, any monies paid to individuals or Company’s over $600 must receive a 1099 tax form at the end of the year.




In order to meet this directive the Accounting Department will need either a social security number or federal id number prior to disbursing funds.  Therefore when agents are dealing with rebates to customers they must receive and provide the tax id numbers to either to the Relocation Department or the Accounting Department.  No funds will be disbursed without this information.




Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated as this is a directive from the Federal government. 


Just what in the hell does this have to do with health care?  And why would the criminals in DC want to add any further burdens to business?

Sheesh, I am so angry right now...

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:31 | 857384 DosZap
DosZap's picture

And why would the criminals in DC want to add any further burdens to business?.


To kill it, and tax you on the amount you get from your company as income.

(not effective yet,but if we last long enough it will be, take it to the bank).

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:48 | 857428 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

Yeah, I know DZ, my question is sort of rhetorical for those who think the new crop of republitards are going to save us.

I would disagree that it's not effective yet; it's killing me and I'm NOT taking much of anything to the bank.  I started a tiny little business about a year ago and at every turn, it's some other form of extorsion or regulatory mountain to climb.  Piles of paperwork for compliance on top of the basic stuff.  If I had to pass the true costs of these extras to my customers, I would be priced so far out of the market, it wouldn't be funny.  I have just about had enough but don't know the answer.  

I did call my senator to bitch loudly.  Of course, the staffer couldn't give a shit. 

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:06 | 857471 Common_Cents22
Common_Cents22's picture


They can't discriminate politically until they have all your transaction info.  Secondly, to tax any benefits.   third, to set up VAT Value Added Tax ON TOP of income taxes.    

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!