"The time for talk is over." Obama


Hasnt he been saying that for over a year now? LOL

3/11/2010 9:04:12 AM

Yeah, they've been saying it for over a year. This whole debate has dragged on for over a year now.

And yet the Dems are "jamming it down the American people's throats"

Go figure

(^ eyeroll not directed at you, but at the talking point)

3/11/2010 9:52:32 AM

whenever someone says "the time to talk is over," then people should start getting scared

Quote :

"Sure you can. You simply say "give us what your ideas are" for several months and wait, wait, wait, for the other side to actually come in with ideas."

if only that were what happened. from the beginning, they shut the pubs out. They held closed door meetings, LOCKING THE DOOR so pubs couldn't get in. Obama held meetings with only democrats. Now it is nothing but sprinkles.

Quote :

"This is the kind of shit that is broken and fucked up about the process. It's simply impossible to know in reading through the 50 pages of services to know what is covered and what isn't."

so you think 3000 pages will be more concise?

Quote :

"http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/obama_would_pay_for_overhaul_w.html 2.9% tax on investment income - because what America needs is less saving!"

way to go, Obama. keep on doing a great job by taxing away incentives for responsible behaviour.

3/12/2010 2:54:03 PM

Yeah, Obama has fucked this up.

3/12/2010 2:57:07 PM

I'm going to love the narrative change from the GOP once the bill passes.

Previous to the passage of the bill: "KILL THE BILL. KILL THE BILL. IT'S GOING TO DESTROY AMERICA."

After the passage of the bill: "LOOK AT THIS USELESS BILL THAT DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. WHAT A WASTE OF CONGRESS'S TIME."

3/17/2010 9:38:31 AM

I keep hearing that if this bill passes, it'll be almost impossible to repeal it. How's that possible? I've also heard the bill could be passed without actually being voted now. How the hell is that possible/constitutional?

I'm confused

3/17/2010 10:42:30 AM

It wouldn't be impossible to repeal, its just incredibly unlikely. Its like if you tried to repeal medicare or social security. Once the entitlements are there, then no one touches them. Which is why this bill is a bad thing. There are many things that need to be fixed with our healthcare system, but this bill does none of them. If it passes it just makes it even less likely they we'll ever get real reform.

3/17/2010 10:47:37 AM

^^stop watching fox news

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2010 10:47:39 AM

Quote :

"way to go, Obama. keep on doing a great job by taxing away incentives for responsible behaviour."

low taxes on investment really encouraged responsible behavior didnt it?

3/17/2010 10:50:10 AM

Ah, so it'd just be like any other entitlement program. I guess I have nothing to worry about then.

3/17/2010 12:36:33 PM

Quote :

"low taxes on investment really encouraged responsible behavior didnt it? "

still look better than my SS returns in 32 yrs.

3/17/2010 1:08:45 PM

The proposed new taxes are essentially extensions of the Medicare payroll tax for the "wealthy":

1) a 2.9% tax is on "investment income", which actually includes any non-wage earnings like dividends, royalties, etc. For example, the story posted looked at the $2.5M+ the Obamas earned last year from book royalties. As of now, there is no Medicare payroll tax on these earnings. Under this new provision, the Obamas would have had to pony up about $75K of that money or 2.9% of earnings over the $250K (for couples, $200K for individuals) threshold.

2) an increase in the Medicare payroll tax from 1.45% to 2.35% on earned wages over the threshold.

- Taxing investments absolutely reduces the incentive to invest. The net effect of a tax of this magnitude on that incentive is certainly debatable, but the logic is rather simple. What I don't find debatable is the assertion that prudent investment and saving for retirement is responsible behavior.

- The big issue here, IMHO, is that this proposed way to help pay for the health care overhaul amounts to nothing more than class warfare a la Robin Hood. Why should a small portion of the country pay a special tax to fund health care for the rest of the country. EVERYONE needs more skin in the game.

3/17/2010 1:26:50 PM

the thing is, I wouldn't be totally opposed to new taxes on the wealthy if it wasnt the only thing they were doing. If they went and figured out why healthcare costs are so high (not the same as insurance costs) and fixed them and then determined people still needed financial aid then thats great.

But this is just bullshit class warfare to increase government income. They aren't doing anything to combat costs.

3/17/2010 3:26:02 PM

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
- Warren Buffet

3/17/2010 5:59:46 PM

warren buffet would have some credibility if he gave away all his money

he's rich enough that he can handle any taxes no matter what. therefore, its pretty shitty of him to campaign for higher ones.

in the good old days, rich bastards would alleviate their guilt by becoming philanthropists. I guess nowadays rich bastards alleviate their guilt by advocating to give away everyone else's money.

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 6:40 PM. Reason : s]

3/17/2010 6:39:37 PM

^^ That quote is from a New York Times article for which Buffet was interviewed. Nevermind that the article was published in 2006, when the economy was humming along. The context of the quote was Buffet comparing his taxes paid/income fraction to that of his secretarial staff. Buffet's fraction was lower, due to the majority of his earnings coming from dividends and capitals gains, which were taxed at a low rate or not at all. I wonder whether Buffet would have made the same statement under the proposed tax provision.

3/17/2010 6:48:26 PM

"Math sucks."
- Jimmy Buffett

3/17/2010 8:09:27 PM

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/multimedia/video/video.html?video=949486

Look at the compassionate conservatism at 0:51-1:21!

3/18/2010 10:13:40 AM

Quote :

"in the good old days, rich bastards would alleviate their guilt by becoming philanthropists. I guess nowadays rich bastards alleviate their guilt by advocating to give away everyone else's money."

"Buffett Gift Sends $31 Billion to Gates Foundation"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5512893

3/18/2010 10:34:58 AM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html

Quote :

"Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement ... In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a "continued reduction in reimbursement" under the state's Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents. ... Along with Walgreens and Bartell, the Ritzville Drug Company in Adams County announced in November that it would stop participating in Medicaid. Fred Meyer and Safeway said their pharmacies would continue to serve existing Medicaid patients and to take new ones, though both expressed concern that the reimbursement rate is too low for pharmacies to make a profit. ... "Washington state Medicaid is now reimbursing pharmacies less than their cost of participation," said Jeff Rochon, CEO of the Washington State Pharmacy Association. Pharmacies that continue to fill Medicaid prescriptions at the current state reimbursement rate are "at risk of putting themselves out of business altogether," he said"

It's only going to get worse.

3/18/2010 2:19:38 PM

from a reimbursement standpoint, medicaid really isnt too bad.(for us) I have private insurances that are much worse. However, the number of no shows you get really hurts.

But as the states start having budget problems I would expect the rates to drop as well.

Our former Va Governor, in a moment of genius, decided to leave a budget that restricts any non MD from seeing VA's medicaid patients. I suppose the idiot thinks that MDs, who are dropping medicare in the state, are going to be MORE than willing to open things up to medicaid patients...LOL. It will save money as they will have no where to go... until they line the ERs.

3/18/2010 2:36:48 PM

i'm going to go on the record and state that I think healthcare is a done deal at this point. democrats have it.

3/18/2010 2:50:40 PM

you are a way better troll than i am

3/18/2010 2:53:28 PM

House Reconciliation Bill:
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

So is this bill no longer relevant or is it the bill on which the Senate will be voting?

[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2010 3:17:26 PM

Obama cancelled his trip again. Which means they dont have the votes but are in the process of buying/bullying to get them.

3/18/2010 3:28:29 PM

Sweet!

3/18/2010 3:29:56 PM

I hope that's true. It's well past time for him to be using the Office of the President's bully pulpit on this issue.

3/18/2010 5:15:36 PM

The Democrats are basically deciding who gets the privilege of voting "Nay". No one wants this bill slung around their necks. First-term representatives, especially those in heavily contested districts or districts that McCain won, see a vote for this bill as a ticket out of office. Obama is exchanging fundraiser appearances for votes. Business as usual in Washington.

3/18/2010 5:15:51 PM

He is apparently offering cabinet positions for votes in case they do lose.

3/18/2010 6:10:12 PM

interesting, but i gotta say, the congress people voting for this bill are courageous

3/18/2010 6:17:25 PM

Quote :

"He is apparently offering cabinet positions for votes in case they do lose."

* citation needed

3/18/2010 7:19:25 PM

Anyone want to address my question above, regarding the House reconciliation bill? Is it identical to the Senate reconciliation bill or is just not even a factor at this point in time?

I'm not sure if it's sad or not that I don't know this.

3/18/2010 7:32:06 PM

I myself am not entirely sure just how the senate can go about performing reconciliation on something that is not yet law.

3/18/2010 7:34:40 PM

I really enjoyed the piece on NPR this morning where they talked about BCBS and how it used to be. How they would take anyone, no matter what, and how everyone paid the exact same premium, no matter what. Then they said that BCBS consistently had rates higher than every other insurer out there.

Wait, isn't that kind of like Obama-care? Only, Obama-care is gonna is gonna lower premiums? what?

3/18/2010 10:43:56 PM

^ (honest question) what changed for BCBS?

3/18/2010 11:02:59 PM

If Kucinich gets voted out in November for voting yes on health-care, Obama has promised him the ambassadorship to Venus.

3/18/2010 11:05:20 PM

^^ what do you mean?

3/18/2010 11:10:35 PM

Quote :

"I really enjoyed the piece on NPR this morning where they talked about BCBS and how it used to be."

Is it not that way now?

3/18/2010 11:16:39 PM

no, it's not at all how it is now. It was on morning edition. I'll see if I can find it. Basically, they said that BCBS in some states is no longer non-profit, because they couldn't compete with the for-profits.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124807720

3/18/2010 11:20:53 PM

Quote :

"These new insurers who didn't offer universal coverage attacked younger, healthier people with better deals. In response, "

Help! I'm being attacked by a better deal. I'm saving money! Save Me!

Quote :

"Before Congress greases up yet another ramp on the already slippery slope toward socialized medicine, let’s pause to identify those endangered rights and some of the destructive consequences. * Insurance companies are profit-making businesses, not social welfare agencies. They have the right to charge premiums that reflect actual risk. But ObamaCare would force them to cover almost every American—no matter how sick they already are, no matter how bad their health habits, no matter how high the cost of their exotic treatments–and to raise everyone’s premiums accordingly. * Doctors are morally entitled to regard themselves as profit-making professionals, not public servants. They have the right to charge fees that reflect the value received by all parties to the transaction. But ObamaCare, by driving down permissible fees, will force physicians into a deadly conflict of interest: Either lose money by doing everything necessary to meet patients’ needs, or make money by satisfying some minimum bureaucratic standard. * Patients are sovereign individuals, not particles in a social organism. They have the right to buy all the health care they deem necessary and can afford, without apologizing to those who can’t afford it. But under ObamaCare, patients will have the moral status of beggars at a soup kitchen who must uncomplainingly accept whatever gruel from the health-care pot happens to land in their dish. Let ObamaCare be seen for what it is: yet another offensive in the long-running assault on individual rights in medicine. --Tom Bowden"

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .]

3/19/2010 10:55:32 AM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124888616

- Explanation of some of the biggest proposed new changes to the reconciliation "health care bill", I'm assuming the passage of which now involves the infusion of the blood of a phoenix, the eye of a wolverine, and the tears of 12 virgins.

- of note, per previous discussion of new tax on investment income over $200K - now apparently, 3.8% not 2.9%

- ^ The only physicians that pull of that feat nowadays are those who perform procedures which insurance does not cover, and therefore patients pay for out of pocket, and those in "concierge" practices. The rest are slaves to insurance.

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 11:06 AM. Reason : ]

3/19/2010 11:04:37 AM

Quote :

"new tax on investment income over $200K - now apparently, 3.8% not 2.9%"

That'll be awesome, but how soon until we hear that taxing people making more than $200k on investments per year is hurting small businesses(TM).

3/19/2010 11:08:08 AM

Your New Higher Health-care Taxes....

Quote :

"Americans for Tax Reform today released the following “By the Numbers” breakdown of ObamaCare: The number of new tax increases in the healthcare bill: 19 The number of tax increases that unquestionably violate President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000: 7 The tax increase over the first decade if the healthcare bill becomes law: $497 billion The top federal tax rate on wages and self-employment earnings under this bill: 43.4% The annual tax hike for every man, woman, and child in America: $165 The top federal tax rate on early distributions from HSAs under this bill: 59.6% The most parents of special-needs kids can save tax-free for tuition in FSAs (currently, the amount is unlimited): $2500 "

Quote :

" from The Washington Examiner: New tax mandates and penalties included in Obamacare will cause the greatest expansion of the Internal Revenue Service since World War II, according to a release from Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas. A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ... Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes. Isn't it reassuring that at a time of recession, government will do what's necessary to ensure its growth?"

3/19/2010 11:13:14 AM

Oh god, $165! That's one half of one percent of my annual income!

How will I be able to cope with such a financial burden!? I'm going to be ruined.

Frankly, I'd much rather take on the financial burden of millions of uninsured people than have to pay an extra $165 a year.

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ]

3/19/2010 11:39:41 AM

Quote :

"up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information"

The last thing we need in this economy is more job creation.

3/19/2010 11:40:29 AM

Quote :

"^ (honest question) what changed for BCBS?"

They wanted to stay in business would be my guess

spooky, not the best source, but you are hearing more of these deals, even a senate republican was talking about looking at holding up thier nomination if they switch votes or if their district gets a lot more funding.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36065

Most interesting rumor from the Hill yesterday: Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) who announced his retirement from Congress has been promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote, and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), another retiring Democrat, has been promised an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.

It will be interesting to note any job announcements from this Tennessee duo post-House retirement. Both voted against passage of the House bill back in November

3/19/2010 11:41:09 AM

Quote :

"Oh god, $165! That's one half of one percent of my annual income!"

Im sure a number of charities that provide health care, St. Jude, Lions club, Red Cross were happy to get your donation last year.

So be generous with your own money, not someone elses.

3/19/2010 11:54:10 AM

Quote :

"Frankly, I'd much rather take on the financial burden of millions of uninsured people than have to pay an extra $165 a year."

Well, luckily for you, under .gov care, you can do both. As Massachusetts has demonstrated insurance != affordable health care. Similarly, ask and medicare patient in the doughnut hole how awesome it is to have insurance so they can afford their meds. I assure you, you will continue to pay for the millions of uninsured, you'll just now pay a percentage on top to pay for all the middle men.

3/19/2010 12:51:31 PM

everyone still pays for insurance. its just cheaper and they have to buy it now.

3/19/2010 1:08:48 PM

Quote :

"Im sure a number of charities that provide health care, St. Jude, Lions club, Red Cross were happy to get your donation last year. So be generous with your own money, not someone elses."

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/

3/19/2010 1:13:18 PM