Scrambling for Votes, Democrats Face Uphill Climb to Pass Healthcare Reform

Very surprised to hear you say that, Joe Joe. I'm a liberal Democrat who's lived in Austin since the summer of 1980, and visited that fair city and the surrounding Hill Country since the mid-'60's, and I've never, not once, heard a liberal... Democrat, Independent, or wacked out crazy, ever make that comment. Now, I've heard many say they wish a bunch of folks would move back to the Midwest and the West Coast, tens of thousands from said areas having moved to that fair city I mentioned, but politics had nothing to do with it.

You're just bound and determined to be an *******, aren't you.

 

I just love the fact that a woman took republicans to the woodshed for an ass kicking last night!

 

btw, on just this one page, you've called me a despicable jerk. not that i mind, but it does nothing to foster the new spirit of bi-partisanship as demonstrated by the congressional leadership.

 

i don't take your meaning.

 

and you never have

 

I can understand the philosophy of advocating for an entitlement state, even if I don't agree with it morally. What I don't follow is how people can argue that an entitlement system can be sustained without equivilant wealth generation.

Does anyone think we can borrow in perpetuity, promising repayment by future generations not yet born? At what point does that collapse? Does this not worry people as the population gets older at the same time we are expanding entitlements?

There seems to be zero motivation to either a) curb entitlements to match the wealth available, or b ) enact policies that enhance wealth creation to sustain more entitlements.

You would think in a responsible society, you generate the wealth first, then set the entitlements accordingly. Live within our means so to speak.

The only thing I can think of is that people think there is far more wealth available to be appropriated/confiscated from individuals, that tax rates are too low.

But in Greece they are rioting because of inadequate entitlements and high tax rates. Are we destined for a similar fate?

Other than Paul Ryan, I haven't seen a politician with an actual plan to make entitlements solvent.

Indebting future generations (which nearly every congress has done) in order to enjoy current entitlements is a greater moral failing than not having entitlements at all.

But the most immoral aspect of this entire bill is individuals being forced to hand over their wealth to private companies, or else pay a fine. I'm not sure of any other circumstance in this country's history where you are fined for not giving money to a private party (and don't say car insurance, no one forces you to drive).

 

how is this new legislation an entitlement system when insurance companies will still be making money and paying for health care?

 

Please. You knew exactly what you were doing when you tried to equate Dems with Nazis in your terrible Stalingrad post.

 

It's an entitlement with the insurance companies as providers and the state as funders. Tax dollars transferred from the government to the insurance company in the form of an individual subsidy.

The care received in return being the entitlement.

Obama is making corporations (banks, car companies, insurers) offers they can't refuse. He will control them, but they are gonna get rich in the process. The insurance companies now have the state forcing people to give them money. And if they can't afford it, the subsidy will cover it. It's great for their bottom line.

 

you're right about banks and car companies not refusing the offers, or a lot of them would be wacked by their own doing.

as far as your entitlement argument, there are very few people whom insurance companies will be required to cover that otherwise would be dropped or not signed up.

 

i was making a point about hubris, strategic overreach, and russian history.

you?

 

Hey basso, are you happy healthcare reform passed?

 

No, I for one don't think that.

I trust the congressional budget office more than I trust Glenn Beck and some of the more hysterical posters on this site, so that's one big reason I supported this legislation: it spends less federal money than the current horrendous system, which is the most inefficient on earth and getting worse.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why are the hand-wringers ignoring the basic numbers?

 

Bull. You were intentionally picking something that equates Dems with Nazis. Just admit you got a good giggle out of it and be done... I don't expect an apology, but at least be honest about it.

 

Do you really expect basso to be honest about anything?

 

You are such a dork. I mean even I had to look that one up.

But since I did bother looking it up.....

 

I think the following sums up the HCR debate in great detail:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9iv9JbqewcU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9iv9JbqewcU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

i think most people when they see the name Paulus used in an historical context think "6th Army."

but then, you've a far keener intellect.

 

Nevermind.

--
Editor's Note: This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that "Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years" by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in the Washington Post. After this column was printed, The Post reported that Mr Gingrich said that his comment referred to Johnson's Great Society programs, not the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

History fail, the 1964 Civil Rights Act (and the one of 65 and 68) were the centerpieces of the Great Society programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_society#Civil_rights

And of course, we know which side Newt and the teabaggers would have come down on that one...