Well, it has arrived. We've been picking over the democrats proposal for several months, and even though the GOP has stated many times they had no intention of offering their own health care reform bill, they finally decided to put forward a proposal.

Now, this plan differs greatly from the democrats legislation, and I have a few problems with what they intend to do. It seems they have taken some pretty aggregious steps toward consumer advocacy. I'd be willing to bet that private insurers are going to raise all manners of hell over this plan.

For instance:

Page 22:

Private insurance companies will have to offer free "I support the troops" bumper sticker and American Flag refrigerator magnet to anyone denied coverage.

Page 38:

Private health insurance premiums will double. Any family who's premiums increase more than 100% will be entered into a drawing for a free 7 days/6 nights trip to the Creation Museum.

Page 45:

Primary care giver co-pays will increase from 15% to 25%. In an effort to offset this expense, in-network physicians will offer 10% off coupons for all smokeless tobacco products.

Page 357:

In the event your private insurance policy is rescinded, your insurance provider will keep your premiums. However, you will receive a free pair of custom alligator cowboy boots.

Page 410:

Anyone signing up for the "exclusively name-brand prescriptions" private plan will receive a complimentary gun cabinet.

Page 765:

Your private health insurance provider will determine what procedures your physicians are allowed to submit. This will of course be underscored by an in-house arbitrary pricing guide that determines many are unnecessary. We extend to you, the consumer, the right to bitch and moan in any cases where critical procedures are not covered.

"A joke:  A Story with a humorous climax?"

It would be funny if it were not so true and accurate.  I just attended a brilliant lecture on Pres. Franklin Pierce (Democrat) and how he was a small government, though military pro-interventionist.  The Republican party has these small government "ideals" when it runs, but it totally abandons them when it comes to elections.  It claims it wants "government out of our lives," except when it comes to religion, marriage, family, and the manner by which we distribute our assets.

The Republican party does not have a "plan" because, frankly, it is not a party; it does not function like an organization.  

It is an ideology:  (a) pro war and (b) pro money.

Good for a small laugh. I especially love page 38. Nice.

Lol, good stuff.

I would say though, that if the Republicans finally submitted a health plan, it would have been the first one in a LONNNNNNNNNNG time.

Reagan didn't submit one.

Bush didn't submit one.

Bush Jr. didn't submit one.

Ford didn't submit one.

As far as I know, there's only been one Republican president who went anywhere near this issue: Richard Millhouse Nixon.

Address on the State of the Union Delivered Before a Joint Session of the Congress
January 30, 1974

---

In his 1974 State of the Union address, Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance.[152]

On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.[152][153][154]

---

Of course, what he said and what happened were two totally different things:

---

""I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses," he told America.

"We will establish a new system that makes high-quality health care available to every American in a dignified manner and at a price he can afford."

"Turning now to the rest of the agenda for 1974, the time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American. I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses. This will be a plan that maintains the high standards of quality in America's health care. And it will not require additional taxes.

Now, I recognize that other plans have been put forward that would cost $80 billion or even $100 billion and that would put our whole health care system under the heavy hand of the Federal Government. This is the wrong approach. This has been tried abroad, and it has failed. It is not the way we do things here in America. This kind of plan would threaten the quality of care provided by our whole health care system. The right way is one that builds on the strengths of the present system and one that does not destroy those strengths, one based on partnership, not paternalism. Most important of all, let us keep this as the guiding principle of our health programs. Government has a great role to play, but we must always make sure that our doctors will be working for their patients and not for the Federal Government."

---

The sad thing is if you look at what Nixon considered too much money to pay at the time (above in red) and was "too scary for the government to control" would have gladly been paid today. This is an example of where if we would have bitten the bullet and paid for things when they were MUCH cheaper, it saves you money in the long run. Now we are talking TRILLIONS to fix the health care instead of billions.

Thirty years from now, we will say it costs quadrillions to fix health insurance instead of the trillions now, which will have seemed like peanuts to pay now. The sooner we fix this, the cheaper it will be down the line.

I'm still trying to figure out if those who oppose the health care bill do so because they don't like the bill, don't like the government intervening, or just don't think providing health care for everyone is needed.

I'm fine with the first 2.  They are valid arguments, but there are some people out there who just don't even want to attempt to provide health care to everyone.  It wouldn't matter if it was completely free.  They believe that everyone should be able to make enough money to pay their own way through life.  Which is ignorance beyond belief.  Some people are dealt horrible hands in life, and if we don't at least try to give them a boost, we aren't looking out for our fellow citizens.

If there was a miracle bill introduced that didn't increase any taxes, didn't cut money from anything, allowed people to keep their current health providers and doctors, and didn't increase any wait times, you would still have large groups of people against it because they are either extremely ignorant , or just plain evil.

---

Originally posted by Sabiancym
I'm still trying to figure out if those who oppose the health care bill do so because they don't like the bill, don't like the government intervening, or just don't think providing health care for everyone is needed.
 
I'm fine with the first 2.  They are valid arguments, but there are some people out there who just don't even want to attempt to provide health care to everyone.  It wouldn't matter if it was completely free.  They believe that everyone should be able to make enough money to pay their own way through life.  Which is ignorance beyond belief.  Some people are dealt horrible hands in life, and if we don't at least try to give them a boost, we aren't looking out for our fellow citizens.
 
If there was a miracle bill introduced that didn't increase any taxes, didn't cut money from anything, allowed people to keep their current health providers and doctors, and didn't increase any wait times, you would still have large groups of people against it because they are either extremely ignorant , or just plain evil.

---

Based on what you've seen, we know Conservatives have flat out lied to seniors. "Death Panels." "Taking away Medicaid." "Single Payer system." None of that stuff is in there at all.

Old people are easy to confuse; look how easily they get scammed by contractors, telemarketers, salesman of any type basically, and some by their own lawyers/doctors who steal their assets supposed to be left to their heirs. That's one group of people who are showing up and objecting; the lied to.

Then you have the group that don't want to pay taxes at all for anything and think the government is setting up FEMA camps and show up wearing guns to civil events. There's really no need to describe them; they are pretty simple beings. This group plays the race card as well at times. They simply hate that a Black man is running the country and their side lost. They feel the country is slipping away from them with all the "immigrants" and others and "reverse racism" and whatever else they blame their own misfortune in life on. It's purely projection and illogical thinking. They feel empowered everytime they strap on a gun and yell.

Then you have the portion that have insurance on their own already through a job and don't need any coverage (or THINK they don't). Those people already think they don't have anything to worry about and they say "I got this done and that done, through my own insurance. I don't need national healthcare."

They'll say that until they lose their job somehow, or their business folds. Then they'll apply for unemloyment and CHIPs for their kids, while saying it's all Obama's fault. They'll never admit it but they do this. It's like that guy that had that "I hate Micheal Moore" site that had his wife almost die. He was going to shut his site down and Moore sent him an anonymous check.

Well, that guy was all "WOOHOO! Some angel came and rescued us! Thank you readers! My wife is now well and I can keep my site that hates Micheal Moore up! America is great!" Then he found out it wasn't some Capitalistic Tooth Fairy, but Moore and he got all quiet, lol. Those are the hypocrites. There are some on this site who won't ever say they took unemployment, or any kind of aid but you and I both know they probably did.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I'm still trying to figure out if those who oppose the health care bill do so because they don't like the bill, don't like the government intervening, or just don't think providing health care for everyone is needed.

 It wouldn't matter if it was completely free.

All three. And no, it would never be free. It would be paid for from actual taxpayers, however, 60% of the U.S. does not pay taxes. If you get taxes taken from your paycheck, then either refunded or owe -0- on taxes, you are not paying taxes. So, 60% of those covered would not be putting anything in, but taking most.

I donate time, items and sometimes money to charity on my terms.

National health care, however, is forced charity.

There is no right to health care - absolutely, positvely, no Constitutional right to health care.

I'm neither ignorant, nor evil because of it. I work, let me repeat, I WORK, I make my money, I do with it what I please. I do not feel my money should be given to those who do nothing and simply feed off of the government teat.

I propose a solution that would benefit both sides. How about an answer to it?

For those who are interested in supporting and using a national health care plan paid by taxes opt in, for those who do not wish to, allow them to opt out.

Why is such an proposal not in place? Because there would be no funding then for health care. Most who would opt out are those that would be paying for those who opt in.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I'm still trying to figure out if those who oppose the health care bill do so because they don't like the bill, don't like the government intervening, or just don't think providing health care for everyone is needed.

 It wouldn't matter if it was completely free.

All three. And no, it would never be free. It would be paid for from actual taxpayers, however, 60% of the U.S. does not pay taxes. If you get taxes taken from your paycheck, then either refunded or owe -0- on taxes, you are not paying taxes. So, 60% of those covered would not be putting anything in, but taking most.

I donate time, items and sometimes money to charity on my terms.

National health care, however, is forced charity.

There is no right to health care - absolutely, positvely, no Constitutional right to health care.

I'm neither ignorant, nor evil because of it. I work, let me repeat, I WORK, I make my money, I do with it what I please. I do not feel my money should be given to those who do nothing and simply feed off of the government teat.

I propose a solution that would benefit both sides. How about an answer to it?

For those who are interested in supporting and using a national health care plan paid by taxes opt in, for those who do not wish to, allow them to opt out.

Why is such an proposal not in place? Because there would be no funding then for health care. Most who would opt out are those that would be paying for those who opt in.

You completely missed what I was going for and purposely edited out part of my post to fit your context.  I said nothing about it actually being free, I was proposing a hypothetical. 

I think I know what your answer to that hypothetical is, based on how you completely avoided it to make a different point.

Originally posted by popinjay

This group plays the race card as well at times and whatever else they blame their own misfortune in life on

You seriously just gave me a "What the f***?" moment. Are you seriously going to call non-liberals the race-baiters who blame their own misfortunes on everyone else. Are you kidding?

Last time I checked, the Democrat party has jackasses such as Sharpton and Jackson who live on race. Look at the percentage of discrimination lawsuits that are white compared to minorities.

Wow, you are just way off base here.

Originally posted by Sabiancym 

You completely missed what I was going for and purposely edited out part of my post to fit your context.  I said nothing about it actually being free, I was proposing a hypothetical.

No, I thought you were labeling it as "free" as I have heard so many tout is as before.

Now, for your hypothetical, which, as I said, I thought was a mere label of the current proposal, sure, I wouldn't mind it if it wasn't forced.

There is an old saying "You get what you pay for".

Now, answer my hypothetical:

I propose a solution that would benefit both sides. How about an answer to it?

For those who are interested in supporting and using a national health care plan paid by taxes opt in, for those who do not wish to, allow them to opt out.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by popinjay

This group plays the race card as well at times and whatever else they blame their own misfortune in life on

You seriously just gave me a "What the f***?" moment. Are you seriously going to call non-liberals the race-baiters who blame their own misfortunes on everyone else. Are you kidding?

Last time I checked, the Democrat party has jackasses such as Sharpton and Jackson who live on race. Look at the percentage of discrimination lawsuits that are white compared to minorities.

Wow, you are just way off base here.

Not saying liberals don't do it but........

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230040

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym 

You completely missed what I was going for and purposely edited out part of my post to fit your context.  I said nothing about it actually being free, I was proposing a hypothetical.

No, I thought you were labeling it as "free" as I have heard so many tout is as before.

Now, for your hypothetical, which, as I said, I thought was a mere label of the current proposal, sure, I wouldn't mind it if it wasn't forced.

There is an old saying "You get what you pay for".

Now, answer my hypothetical:

I propose a solution that would benefit both sides. How about an answer to it?

For those who are interested in supporting and using a national health care plan paid by taxes opt in, for those who do not wish to, allow them to opt out.

 

I would be completely fine with that as long as no one is left behind.  As long as there is enough money to cover everyone, I would gladly pay.  It's all about covering every single person in the country.  That is the bottom line for me.

However that opens massive doors to people wanting to opt out of other taxes.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by popinjay

This group plays the race card as well at times and whatever else they blame their own misfortune in life on

You seriously just gave me a "What the f***?" moment. Are you seriously going to call non-liberals the race-baiters who blame their own misfortunes on everyone else. Are you kidding?

Last time I checked, the Democrat party has jackasses such as Sharpton and Jackson who live on race. Look at the percentage of discrimination lawsuits that are white compared to minorities.

Wow, you are just way off base here.

 

Not saying liberals don't do it but........

 

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230040

I agree. Beck is a nutjob. Yes, both sides have extremes and both sides have their trash, but labeling all those who oppose this bill as racists, playing the race card, et cetera is simply ridiculous.

Buzz's comment was seriously off base this time around.

Originally posted by Sabiancym 

However that opens massive doors to people wanting to opt out of other taxes.

I'd propose the Fair Tax, but you've shown your dislike of it when I mentioned it before.

You claimed it unfair, why?

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym 

However that opens massive doors to people wanting to opt out of other taxes.

I'd propose the Fair Tax, but you've shown your dislike of it when I mentioned it before.

You claimed it unfair, why?

I don't remember saying anything about a fair tax here.  Might have me mixed up with someone else, but nonetheless I don't support it because those in poverty paying almost no income tax now under the fair tax system would be completely screwed.

How would an opt in for health care coverage work with the fair tax anyway?  Swipe a card when buying something that says "Oh he's taxed at 35% instead of 30?"

---

Originally posted by Dekron

---

Originally posted by popinjay
This group plays the race card as well at times and whatever else they blame their own misfortune in life on

---

You seriously just gave me a "What the f***?" moment. Are you seriously going to call non-liberals the race-baiters who blame their own misfortunes on everyone else. Are you kidding?
Last time I checked, the Democrat party has jackasses such as Sharpton and Jackson who live on race. Look at the percentage of discrimination lawsuits that are white compared to minorities.
Wow, you are just way off base here.

---

I don't think you have either.

Lawsuit percentages have no bearing on what that section of nutters that are at those town meetings are doing there. Their fears are irrational but they play them up as some kind of imminent thread (immigrants and minorities). That section of people are the ones contributing to the hate speech, spray painting swastikas on congressmen's signs and sending racist N-word letters.

Those are the people who blame everyone else for their failure at life.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

If there was a miracle bill introduced that didn't increase any taxes, didn't cut money from anything, allowed people to keep their current health providers and doctors, and didn't increase any wait times, you would still have large groups of people against it because they are either extremely ignorant , or just plain evil.

Yep, you pretty much nailed it there. Extremely ignorant.

Originally posted by Sabiancym 

I don't remember saying anything about a fair tax here.  Might have me mixed up with someone else, but nonetheless I don't support it because those in poverty paying almost no income tax now under the fair tax system would be completely screwed.

How would they be screwed?

I'll give a simple example of how the Fair Tax would work.

We'll start with the current income tax system.

We have a Mr. Hard Worker. He works very hard, but his pay is $1,000 per month.

Suppose the tax rate is 10%.

After taxes Mr. Worker has $900 of disposable income. He's hungry, he needs groceries.

Mr. Worker's grocery budget for the month is $100. He goes shopping and after adding up, his bill comes to $97.26.

"Whew! I made it under $100."

But wait, let's not forget sales tax of 8.5% - $8.27. Mr Worker's bill is now $105.53. He is over budget.

Mr. Worker paid a total of $108.27 in taxes so far.

Now, Mr. Worker is enjoying the benefits of Fair Tax.

Once again, his pay is $1000 per month.

After taxes...wait, what is that? No income taxes? Wow, his disposable income is now $1000.

Mr. Worker goes shopping once again - his bill again comes to $97.26. Uh-oh, he is going to go over his budget again.

Wrong! Mr. Worker is purchasing food! There is no tax on food under a proposed Fair Tax bill! Mr. Worker has paid 0% taxes.

In short, the Fair Tax is a consumption tax (call it a luxury tax if you will) on goods and services (excluding food).

Now, if he decides to purchase an XBOX360, the price may go up slightly because an inclusive tax. But, Mr. Worker should not be buying an XBOX260 here. If he were responsible, he would realize this is out of his budget.

What is unfair about that?

Originally posted by popinjay

That section of people are the ones contributing to the hate speech, spray painting swastikas on congressmen's signs and sending racist N-word letters.

Yes, there are idiots in the crowd, but labeling them all from the actions of a few is plain idiotic.

I mentioned Sharpton and Jackson as they are the race-baiters of the US. Does that make them representative of a whole group of people? No!

You are focusing solely on the rejects of the crowd (but hey, the media does the same, so what else can you see). The swastikas, by the way, are not all from the racists. If you remember Pelosi stating "Ohh, they are bringing swastikas to these rallies", the individuals who did so had signs that said "NO [picture of swastika]". They were stating "No Facism". Did they choose the wrong way to promote their ideals? Definately. Were they racists? No.

Does Godwin's Law apply to non-virtual forums?

I'm not saying there are biggots, racists, et cetera going to these meetings, I am, however, saying not all, or even a large % of them are.

---

Originally posted by Dekron

 
In short, the Fair Tax is a consumption tax (call it a luxury tax if you will) on goods and services (excluding food).

Now, if he decides to purchase an XBOX360, the price may go up slightly because an inclusive tax. But, Mr. Worker should not be buying an XBOX260 here. If he were responsible, he would realize this is out of his budget.
What is unfair about that?
 

---

You are all over the place with imaginary conversations that you control with no other external forces and Xbox360s. You are leaving straw all over the floor. Please sweep up after your next comment.

A "Fair Tax" will increase the burden on the middle class, not help out anyone else. Politicians know this and they don't want to cut their throats by following your suggestion of doing that. If it was good for them to get into office, they'd have been on this bandwagon a LONG time ago, especially since most of them are upper class, don'tcha think? They'd be the biggest recepients of the "Fair Tax".

That consumption tax will kill the average American family as we are a high consumption nation; that's how our economy works, unless you haven't been paying attention into what got us to a recession in the first place. The average American family has to spend tons of raising kids, if you had any you'd know how much taxes in "value added" tax that would cost them per child.

If a "fair tax" was tacked onto all that spending, the recession would have been a DEpression because of all the added taxes.

Meanwhile, it doesn't phase the wealthy at all. Not one bit. So you'd have a much less tax base to pull from without those higher revenue taxes. There's nothing good or fair about the "Fair Tax".

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym 

I don't remember saying anything about a fair tax here.  Might have me mixed up with someone else, but nonetheless I don't support it because those in poverty paying almost no income tax now under the fair tax system would be completely screwed.

How would they be screwed?

I'll give a simple example of how the Fair Tax would work.

We'll start with the current income tax system.

We have a Mr. Hard Worker. He works very hard, but his pay is $1,000 per month.

Suppose the tax rate is 10%.

After taxes Mr. Worker has $900 of disposable income. He's hungry, he needs groceries.

Mr. Worker's grocery budget for the month is $100. He goes shopping and after adding up, his bill comes to $97.26.

"Whew! I made it under $100."

But wait, let's not forget sales tax of 8.5% - $8.27. Mr Worker's bill is now $105.53. He is over budget.

Mr. Worker paid a total of $108.27 in taxes so far.

 

Now, Mr. Worker is enjoying the benefits of Fair Tax.

Once again, his pay is $1000 per month.

After taxes...wait, what is that? No income taxes? Wow, his disposable income is now $1000.

Mr. Worker goes shopping once again - his bill again comes to $97.26. Uh-oh, he is going to go over his budget again.

Wrong! Mr. Worker is purchasing food! There is no tax on food under a proposed Fair Tax bill! Mr. Worker has paid 0% taxes.

 

In short, the Fair Tax is a consumption tax (call it a luxury tax if you will) on goods and services (excluding food).

Now, if he decides to purchase an XBOX360, the price may go up slightly because an inclusive tax. But, Mr. Worker should not be buying an XBOX260 here. If he were responsible, he would realize this is out of his budget.

What is unfair about that?

 

The propositions for a fair tax that I have seen said nothing about not taxing food.  Seems like we would be losing a good amount of money by not doing so since...well this is america, we love food.

Originally posted by popinjay

That consumption tax will kill the average American family as we are a high consumption nation; that's how our economy works, unless you haven't been paying attention into what got us to a recession in the first place.

Well now, isn't that one of your side's arguments? We consume too much? Consumption should be reduced?

It would not increase the burden on the middle class. You are the one, to quote your standard phrase, creating strawmen.

You're very uninformed if you believe the fair tax will not hit the upper class. Who consumes more? The lower, middle, or upper class?

I have three children - sorry, but an inclusive tax would not create more expenditures - especially when there are no income taxes. I spend roughly $150/month/child. That's simply for necessities - anything more is luxury. If I put away for college for my kids, that is a luxury, if I buy toys for my kids, that is a luxury. It does not take much money to raise a child. Those who think otherwise are poor at handling money.

The proposed inclusive tax is 23% (and to Sab, there are multiple "unofficial versions" which would exclude food and medicine, but the current "official" one does not). The middle class are in the 25% income [tax] bracket.

Tell me, how this does not phase the wealthy?

If they consume more and if they make larger purchases which result in higher revenues, how are they not affected?

Lower income individuals would not be able to afford luxuries. So what! They are called luxuries for a reason.

You simply mean that they are not gouged at near 40% of their income - that they can choose to pay a consumption tax based on whether they purchase something or not. That's what bothers you, not the fact that consumption would be reduced, but the fact they would keep more of their money and there would be less to distribute.

To answer your question "Why aren't more politicians on board?" Simple, to tax is to have power. With the Fair Tax, they lose lots and lots of power.

The point of this thread is to display how the GOP has no ideas. They intend to allow our health care system to continue on the unsustainable path it's on because fighting it politically is scoring them points with the conservative base. They have injected the narrative of liberal/conservative wedge issues.

Let's face it, the GOP has no solutions. The only chance they have to defeat a measure that will benefit nearly all Americans is to link the stand-by wedge issues, that the GOP has used to scare conservatives for well over a decade, in with this legislation. Just look at the people yelling at town halls. They scream about illegals, abortion, assisted suicide, sex changes, unborn right to life, etc.

It's quite obvious that they don't want to debate health care reform. If they were commited to reform, they'd introduce their own plan. No, what they want is to tie wedge issues into these health reform bills.

Never heard a republican talk about any sort of climax before.

I guess you aren't all as repressed as I thought.