Did Obama really say this?

[Wild Cobra]

Not really. My understanding is that there was another bipartisan bill being worked on by the Senate Finance Committee (article about it). I don't know where they're at with it, but with the recess probably not working on it right now.

My point still stands. You will be penalized for not having insurance.

When they do such things, it's just the senate version of the same bill. If the senate passes it, there is then a conference between the house and senate to compromise, then the compromise gets voted on.

Again, it's the same bill.

Where are the other "multiple bills."

[ElNono]

You are a lemming liberal tool!

That is HB 3200, the only one I know of! The one we have been talking about. That is not a different one.

Please direct you attention to some facts:

H.R.3200
le: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other , opening of actions:

Please, where are the other "multiple bills?"

Answer... There are none!

So you're not arguing that an uninsured person would be penalized. You're arguing there's no more than one bill?
Don't be disingenuous.
What we're discussing here is why would anybody pay for insurance while they're healthy if they can always join without limitations (pre existing conditions, etc) later on.
While you were shaking the party pompoms and subscribing to the idea, you merely forgot that people that opt not to be insured get penalized, specifically for that reason.

So thanks for making my point for me...

[ElNono]

When they do such things, it's just the senate version of the same bill. If the senate passes it, there is then a conference between the house and senate to compromise, then the compromise gets voted on.

Again, it's the same bill.

Where are the other "multiple bills."

My understanding is that this Senate bill being worked on did not include a public option.
Obviously, a fairly substantial change from the House bill you quoted earlier.
In a nuts , the bill you like to quote is not final either.

[Wild Cobra]

So you're not arguing that an uninsured person would be penalized. You're arguing there's no more than one bill?
Don't be disingenuous.
What we're discussing here is why would anybody pay for insurance while they're healthy if they can always join without limitations (pre existing conditions, etc) later on.
While you were shaking the party pompoms and subscribing to the idea, you merely forgot that people that opt not to be insured get penalized, specifically for that reason.

So thanks for making my point for me...

LOL

Now that you see I'm right, rather than admit it, you change back to a topic that I stated my beliefs on. Thing is, if I opt not to buy insurance, why should I pay if I am paying in cash when I go to the doctor or emergency room?

Why are liberals brainwashed into thinking insurance is necessary?

Why do liberals want to steal money from me?

[Wild Cobra]

My understanding is that this Senate bill being worked on did not include a public option.
Obviously, a fairly substantial change from the House bill you quoted earlier.
In a nuts , the bill you like to quote is not final either.

Of course it's not final. It's not final until, all the amendment are passed and the senate and house both vote on the same package. Then of course, it need the president to sign it afterwords.

Without complaining about the bad provisions, they will never get corrected. Still, that's not what I want to see happen because I believe no matter what previsions are changed, this is a poison pill for our nation.

[101A]

My understanding is that this Senate bill being worked on did not include a public option.
Obviously, a fairly substantial change from the House bill you quoted earlier.
In a nuts , the bill you like to quote is not final either.

Actually, the HELP (Mssrs Kennedy & Dodd) bill is very similar to HB3200; the Baucus bill, which doesn't exist as of yet, does not include a public option.

[ElNono]

Actually, the HELP (Mssrs Kennedy & Dodd) bill is very similar to HB3200; the Baucus bill, which doesn't exist as of yet, does not include a public option.

Thanks. That was my understanding. I don't really care how many bills there are, I just heard more than one were being worked on. But it's besides the point. I was merely explaining the flawed assumption that there would be no consequences to opting to have no insurance.

[ElNono]

The original proposition:

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".

Your intellectually dishonest response:

Next, people won't want to buy auto insurance to pay for an accident, until they are in an at fault accident!

The explanation why the proposition is a fallacy:

Because you would be penalized for not having insurance. Meaning you would have to PAY for NOT HAVING insurance. Which is actually where your proposition basically ends.
At any rate, this was part of one of the multiple bills circulating.

Your response, which shows you were aware of the penalty, completely nullifying your previous response:

Again, same bill, HB 3200. Section 401, part of text:

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

And finally, as it's almost always the case with you, you end up with some partisan rant:

LOL

Now that you see I'm right, rather than admit it, you change back to a topic that I stated my beliefs on. Thing is, if I opt not to buy insurance, why should I pay if I am paying in cash when I go to the doctor or emergency room?

Why are liberals brainwashed into thinking insurance is necessary?

Why do liberals want to steal money from me?

I could play devil's advocate, and ask you if conserva s didn't steal money from your in the bailout, just to show that stealing money from you and me is not merely a liberal construction. But what's the point? This is not what we were originally talking about here anyways.

[Yonivore]

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, the HELP (Mssrs Kennedy & Dodd) bill is very similar to HB3200; the Baucus bill, which doesn't exist as of yet, does not include a public option.

Well, HELP is not a bill. It stands for United States Senate Committee on "Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions" which Kennedy is the Chair, and Dodd is the acting chair. Again, it will be the senate version of the house bill that you are referring to.

There are two other bills, both dead. HR 676's last action was in January. HR 1321's last action was in March.

[Wild Cobra]

Your response, which shows you were aware of the penalty, completely nullifying your previous response:

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, same bill, HB 3200. Section 401, part of text:

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
<snip>

LOL... My God, you spinmeister...

That was a response to show you what you answered as one of multiple bills was in fact part of HB 3200, not a different one.

And finally, as it's almost always the case with you, you end up with some partisan rant:

Not a partisan rant. What if I cooose to pay my way as I go? That part of the bill violates my right to choose.

I could play devil's advocate, and ask you if conserva s didn't steal money from your in the bailout, just to show that stealing money from you and me is not merely a liberal construction. But what's the point? This is not what we were originally talking about here anyways.

No, you're just being stupid.

[101A]

FWIW; here is the text of teh House bill:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

It's actually chilling to read (and of course I've only read small sections)...but it truly is huge; and I see rights (since I am so familiar with the industry) being usurped in nearly every sentence. "The Commsioner shall set", or "The Commisioner shall limit" - this Commisioner is going to be a seriously powerful individual - gonna have more juice than probably any cabinet member; simply because of the amount of the economy at his/her disposal; gonna be a big political cherry for the Pres to dole out......also limits rating of carriers so much that now I understand they simply won't stay in the business; they won't be able to. They can ONLY change rates based on Age. That's it. Meaning some fat tub of goo been sucking slurpies and watching Oprah for 10 years pays the same as the cyclist who limits his red meat & carbs. Sucks for the cyclist (another right taken away) - and sucks for the insurance company, which HAS to get enough to cover the cow, and won't have a $$$$ printing press. Under that rule book, there simply won't be compe ion.

To put it in UPS/Fed Ex terms; they would be required to charge everybody the same thing, no matter what they are shipping, or where they are shipping it to. 20 X 20 box of lead? Same as a letter; people will be sending LOTS of big ass boxes, won't they? Only the government can operate with such insane guidelines (they don't have to make a profit, remember?)

We are told the problem is the uninsured - but this is 1,000 pages of government usurption of an industry; not simply finding coverage for those people who don't have it. There are far easier, and less expensive ways of doing that. The Libs aren't interested; they aren't going to waste this opportunity; they want the health sector; and dammit, they're gonnna get it!

Oh, and that bill effectively ends my (built for 24 years now) business model

Can make one pretty bitter.

[ElNono]

LOL... My God, you spinmeister...

That was a response to show you what you answered as one of multiple bills was in fact part of HB 3200, not a different one.

Yep. And it clearly shows your original response was simply entirely disingenuous.

Not a partisan rant.

Partisan rant response:

Why are liberals brainwashed into thinking insurance is necessary?

Why do liberals want to steal money from me?

Non-partisan rant response:

What if I cooose to pay my way as I go? That part of the bill violates my right to choose.

See, you are more than capable of doing it. it really escapes me why you almost always take the partisan route.

No, you're just being stupid.

Am I? My memory might be a little foggy, but I seem to recall pretty clearly that you were opposed to the Paulson-engineered bailout, rushed by President Bush, and voted by both conserva s and lib s in Congress.

Are you changing your tune now? Do you now support the bailout?

[ElNono]

Oh, and that bill effectively ends my (built for 24 years now) business model

Can make one pretty bitter.

You know we don't agree on a bunch of things, but I sincerely hope you find a new niche in the new system if it ever passes. Might not be much consolation, but you have a great head start in that you seem to be a bright fella.

[Wild Cobra]

Am I? My memory might be a little foggy, but I seem to recall pretty clearly that you were opposed to the Paulson-engineered bailout, rushed by President Bush, and voted by both conserva s and lib s in Congress.

Are you changing your tune now? Do you now support the bailout?

LOL. No support of the bailout.

Can you name me a conservative that voted for it? Since when does republican = conservative?

[ElNono]

LOL. No support of the bailout.

Can you name me a conservative that voted for it? Since when does republican = conservative?

McCain is not a conservative?
Bush is not a conservative?

Might not be 'fiscally conservative', but that's a different story altogether.

[Wild Cobra]

McCain is not a conservative?
Bush is not a conservative?

Might not be 'fiscally conservative', but that's a different story altogether.

You don't remember me calling them RINO's? What about how many times I specifically said I didn't like president Bush's ideas of Amnesty and his spending?

[ElNono]

You don't remember me calling them RINO's?

You certainly didn't call them liberals, IIRC.

Point being, I'm not the one being stupid. It's you being the partisan hack.
Maybe you should start changing your tune to something like:

It's all the liberals and RINO's fault!!!

[ElNono]

This is a pretty incredible turn of events... just when you thought Bush was going to Mt Rushmore, turns out he's a republican in name only and not even a conservative...

[Wild Cobra]

You certainly didn't call them liberals, IIRC.

Point being, I'm not the one being stupid. It's you being the partisan hack.
Maybe you should start changing your tune to something like:

It's all the liberals and RINO's fault!!!

Well, RINO's aren't as bad as lib s, and I don't can the democrat politicians lib s. I call them demonrats. It's the lemming followers of liberal dogma I call lib s.

Look at you. You believed there was more than one health care bill. You provide two links to show me I was wrong, when in fact they were both parts of HB 3200.

You believe liberal propaganda. Plain and simple. For that, I will call you a lemming and/or a lib . If you verified the facts, and still believed in the ideals, that would be a different story.

Fins any "multiple bills" yet?

Let me address this:

Partisan rant response:

Why are liberals brainwashed into thinking insurance is necessary?

Why do liberals want to steal money from me?

If you call may anger partisan, what an I partisan about? Not the republican platform. I am a concerned angry citizen. I am witnessing this great nation go into a meltdown. I have no power to stop it, and it pisses me off when liberals are so blind, and become unwitting accomplices to our destruction.

[Wild Cobra]

This is a pretty incredible turn of events... just when you thought Bush was going to Mt Rushmore, turns out he's a republican in name only and not even a conservative...

Where did you ever get the idea I felt like that? can you show me a thread/post?

[Yonivore]

It was me that put Bush on Mt. Rushmore.



Was he perfect? No. But, neither were any of the other 4 up there on that rock.

[Yonivore]

Quote of the Day:

“A question you keep hearing is, ‘Have you read the bill?’ There’s nothing that confuses more than reading a bill written by lawyers for lawyers and for bureaucrats.”

--Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Aug. 11, 2009.

[LnGrrrR]

You don't remember me calling them RINO's? What about how many times I specifically said I didn't like president Bush's ideas of Amnesty and his spending?

I don't think you can just call conservatives whoever you think are conservatives. If people self-identify as conservatives, then you can't really 'disown' them, I feel. A decent number of Republicans voted for it.

[ElNono]

Well, RINO's aren't as bad as lib s, and I don't can the democrat politicians lib s. I call them demonrats. It's the lemming followers of liberal dogma I call lib s.

Conservatives stole your money. Hand in hand with lib s/demonrats. FACT.

Look at you. You believed there was more than one health care bill. You provide two links to show me I was wrong, when in fact they were both parts of HB 3200.

They're not part of HB3200. Please quote the part of HB3200, since you have a copy handy, that states there will be no public option.

You believe liberal propaganda. Plain and simple. For that, I will call you a lemming and/or a lib . If you verified the facts, and still believed in the ideals, that would be a different story

What facts did I need to verify? That HB3200 is not a final bill and that there are other options being considered?
It's funny that you think I buy any propaganda, liberal or otherwise. Up until you brought the partisan hackery, I didn't even mention any kind of party/ideology. I'm more a centrist myself, which probably doesn't jive with you either, but who gives a ?

Find any "multiple bills" yet?

We've yet to finalize a bill for that matter. Would you call that bill you've been reading the same bill with no public option and no forced employee insurance coverage?

Let me address this:If you call may anger partisan, what an I partisan about? Not the republican platform. I am a concerned angry citizen. I am witnessing this great nation go into a meltdown. I have no power to stop it, and it pisses me off when liberals are so blind, and become unwitting accomplices to our destruction.

I don't dispute your anger. Heck, I don't particularly like this bill in it's current form any more than you do. The difference is that you like to tag everything under the liberal mantra when the GOP has been just as happy to you in the ass. And that is partisan hackery of the highest level.