The Wall Street Journal editorial staff thinks so.  They call this 1,990 page monstrosity the worst piece of legislation ever introduced in the post-New Deal era.

Well as usual she is utilizing her reverse midas touch. Anything Pelosi touches turns to crap.

Pelosi is going to fine the crap out of the young folks...she is going to force them to take their meds one way or the other..

With 23% unemployment rate with the 18 to 25 yrs old age group this is going to get real nasty real fast..Big fines every month if you dont pay,LOL.Better get e 2nd job kids...

Pelosi is a flaming idiot!!  Regardless of the WSJ editorial, which is merely their informed opinion, the government continues to demonstrate they are ineffective in really making any meaningful change.  If this current bill passes we will be left with a system that is more broken than the current tyrannical insurance cartels.  Anyone know why heath care reform could not be done through graduated measures?

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Pelosi is a flaming idiot!!  Regardless of the WSJ editorial, which is merely their informed opinion, the government continues to demonstrate they are ineffective in really making any meaningful change.  If this current bill passes we will be left with a system that is more broken than the current tyrannical insurance cartels.  Anyone know why heath care reform could not be done through graduated measures?

No reason at all -- or how about take the 11 million who don't have insurance and want it, and send them a freaking CHECK. I would kick in for that, not this fascist garbage.

The liberals wanted change, now they are getting it.  Pucker up.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Pelosi is a flaming idiot!!  Regardless of the WSJ editorial, which is merely their informed opinion, the government continues to demonstrate they are ineffective in really making any meaningful change.  If this current bill passes we will be left with a system that is more broken than the current tyrannical insurance cartels.  Anyone know why heath care reform could not be done through graduated measures?

 

No reason at all -- or how about take the 11 million who don't have insurance and want it, and send them a freaking CHECK. I would kick in for that, not this fascist garbage.

Hmm that's an interesting statement.  I take it the government would have to send them the check which would mean wealth re-distribution which is Socialism is it not? 

Fisher's for wealth re-distribution, who would have thought it? 

Careful what you concede, at little here a little there, ain't that what you preach to watch out for? 

Perhaps not the worst, but you have to go back 150 years or so to find the worst. Unless you consider executive orders also, such as FDR putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Pelosi is a flaming idiot!!  Regardless of the WSJ editorial, which is merely their informed opinion, the government continues to demonstrate they are ineffective in really making any meaningful change.  If this current bill passes we will be left with a system that is more broken than the current tyrannical insurance cartels.  Anyone know why heath care reform could not be done through graduated measures?

 

No reason at all -- or how about take the 11 million who don't have insurance and want it, and send them a freaking CHECK. I would kick in for that, not this fascist garbage.

 

Hmm that's an interesting statement.  I take it the government would have to send them the check which would mean wealth re-distribution which is Socialism is it not? 

Fisher's for wealth re-distribution, who would have thought it? 

Careful what you concede, at little here a little there, ain't that what you preach to watch out for? 

Absolutely not.  I am not FOR any of this, but as always I prefer the lesser of evils. It's still totally evil, but it would be better than this.

I always advocate compromise in politics. It's always about the lesser of evils -- that's what politics IS.  And a simple welfare program is better than outright government takeover.

When I am discussing what is right and moral, I am quite clear on what I stand for, but he minute we do anything political, we are discussing evil and doing evil.

You obviously don't understand me at all.

I disagree that an additional welfare program is better then universal care in this case.  Doing such a mish-mash of capital and socialist structure, it usually ends up driving up costs just like it is for healthcare and education today.  The problem is there is nothing to control the price structures if the government subsidizes it.  The citizen has nothing to lose on the surface, and the health institute isn't punished for increasing costs.

However, this current bill is simply garbage.  Hey everyone, lets increase the costs of healthcare, limit access to it, and force everyone to pay for it.

Originally posted by Cleffy

I disagree that an additional welfare program is better then universal care in this case.  Doing such a mish-mash of capital and socialist structure, it usually ends up driving up costs just like it is for healthcare and education today.  The problem is there is nothing to control the price structures if the government subsidizes it.  The citizen has nothing to lose on the surface, and the health institute isn't punished for increasing costs.

However, this current bill is simply garbage.  Hey everyone, lets increase the costs of healthcare, limit access to it, and force everyone to pay for it.

ANY socialist scheme will drive costs up, but a simple handout is better than a government takeover any day.

Health Care Reform Assumes Millions Would Pay Fine Rather Than Get Coverage.
 

This is just to sweet.

Quote::The health care reform bill awaiting debate in the House assumes millions of workers and employers would rather pay $167 billion in fines than purchase or provide adequate coverage, according to a recent analysis, raising questions about whether the plan does enough to make insurance affordable.

Though the bill is estimated to expand coverage from the current 83 percent to 96 percent of legal U.S. residents, the windfall of projected penalty payments also exposes a potential contradiction in reform. A significant part of the plan to expand coverage relies financially on fines from the uninsured.

And it still dont cover all the peoples...

Pelosi..

What a shock Pelosi lies about putting the final version of the healthcare bill online for 72 hours preceding the final vote.

www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp

The republicans have finally released their version of the health care bill. The main goal is to reduce private insurance premeiums so that more people can afford insurance. According to the non partisian CBO it will actually reduce the deficit by 68 billion over the next ten years. I'd say that is much better than the back breaking 900 billion plus Pelosi and the rest of the big government tax and spend dems are proposing.

cboblog.cbo.gov/

I guess we get what we deserve for voting enough dems in to put Pelosi in this position. Hopefully the blue dogs will at least water down her madness.

So Pelosi and her cronies decided to add a little sugar in this bill which I think is absolutely horrible.

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium.

Which means a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.

WHAT??  I am against abortion, but the government wants me to pay for women to have one?  FUCK THAT.

Originally posted by outfctrl

So Pelosi and her cronies decided to add a little sugar in this bill which I think is absolutely horrible.

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium.

Which means a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.

WHAT??  I am against abortion, but the government wants me to pay for women to have one?  FUCK THAT.

Lovely so not only do the dems support murder of unborn children they want to take my money to do it. Thank you America!

Just to keep everything in context, there are about 1 billion bills and an equal number of amendments floating around in there, not to speak of two pennies per individual who are involved in any manner regarding the discussion. If it sounds really bad to you, it probably won't get passed.

And to the guy who says he is against abortion, but might pay for it in the unlikely event that that specific amendment is passed, there are a lot of things you are taxed for or otherwise become law that infringes upon others moral and/or religious beliefs.
 

By the way, the pay or be fined thing is a Blue Dog (republican agent) Red Herring topic that you are gobbling up. That will never come to pass, if only partially because it allows for the insurance companies to charge whatever they want. the combination would more or less financially destroy the country.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Pelosi is a flaming idiot!!  Regardless of the WSJ editorial, which is merely their informed opinion, the government continues to demonstrate they are ineffective in really making any meaningful change.  If this current bill passes we will be left with a system that is more broken than the current tyrannical insurance cartels.  Anyone know why heath care reform could not be done through graduated measures?

 

No reason at all -- or how about take the 11 million who don't have insurance and want it, and send them a freaking CHECK. I would kick in for that, not this fascist garbage.

 

Hmm that's an interesting statement.  I take it the government would have to send them the check which would mean wealth re-distribution which is Socialism is it not? 

Fisher's for wealth re-distribution, who would have thought it? 

Careful what you concede, at little here a little there, ain't that what you preach to watch out for? 

 

Absolutely not.  I am not FOR any of this, but as always I prefer the lesser of evils. It's still totally evil, but it would be better than this.

I always advocate compromise in politics. It's always about the lesser of evils -- that's what politics IS.  And a simple welfare program is better than outright government takeover.

When I am discussing what is right and moral, I am quite clear on what I stand for, but he minute we do anything political, we are discussing evil and doing evil.

You obviously don't understand me at all.

 

Lol.   Your view of evil and evil is so screwed up it's sad.  There are other choices.  I don't know why you think that there are no more options than to take shit or a large amount of shit.  You can opt to take no shit.  Call me naive or whatever you want but I believe that only weaklings settle for the lesser of evils. 

Problem is, your still advocating a system that is full of backdoor deals and evils.  Get a clue and choose another. 

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Pelosi is a flaming idiot!!  Regardless of the WSJ editorial, which is merely their informed opinion, the government continues to demonstrate they are ineffective in really making any meaningful change.  If this current bill passes we will be left with a system that is more broken than the current tyrannical insurance cartels.  Anyone know why heath care reform could not be done through graduated measures?

 

No reason at all -- or how about take the 11 million who don't have insurance and want it, and send them a freaking CHECK. I would kick in for that, not this fascist garbage.

 

Hmm that's an interesting statement.  I take it the government would have to send them the check which would mean wealth re-distribution which is Socialism is it not? 

Fisher's for wealth re-distribution, who would have thought it? 

Careful what you concede, at little here a little there, ain't that what you preach to watch out for? 

 

Absolutely not.  I am not FOR any of this, but as always I prefer the lesser of evils. It's still totally evil, but it would be better than this.

I always advocate compromise in politics. It's always about the lesser of evils -- that's what politics IS.  And a simple welfare program is better than outright government takeover.

When I am discussing what is right and moral, I am quite clear on what I stand for, but he minute we do anything political, we are discussing evil and doing evil.

You obviously don't understand me at all.

 

Lol.   Your view of evil and evil is so screwed up it's sad.  There are other choices.  I don't know why you think that there are no more options than to take shit or a large amount of shit.  You can opt to take no shit.  Call me naive or whatever you want but I believe that only weaklings settle for the lesser of evils. 

Problem is, your still advocating a system that is full of backdoor deals and evils.  Get a clue and choose another. 

Again it seems you simply don't understand the basic concepts I am using. I am choosing several things. The first is my favorite choice -- a pure libertarian society. I have worked my whole life for this. However, as a libertarian. I recognize that others have different ideas. In that case, I would rather have shit than a large amount of shit.

If you like , you can sit on the sidelines, take no shit, and end up with a large amount of shit. I think my path is far wiser.

You are the one who is "settling" -- on the large amount of shit. You have no way to "make" something "no shit." You simply sit it out and then pucker up. I would rather be in the debate always advocating the best solution within whatever context we are in. I feel that is the difference between a sensible libertarian and an idiot.

Okay now for my challenge to you. Please define evil, show how your definition is superior to mine, and how it is SOOO superior to mine that mine is "so screwed up it's sad." Let us see if you are actually capable of making a case for a better definition than mine. let us see if you can go beyond your childish retorts and actually do better.

Let's hear your better "view of evil."

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Pelosi is a flaming idiot!!  Regardless of the WSJ editorial, which is merely their informed opinion, the government continues to demonstrate they are ineffective in really making any meaningful change.  If this current bill passes we will be left with a system that is more broken than the current tyrannical insurance cartels.  Anyone know why heath care reform could not be done through graduated measures?

 

No reason at all -- or how about take the 11 million who don't have insurance and want it, and send them a freaking CHECK. I would kick in for that, not this fascist garbage.

 

Hmm that's an interesting statement.  I take it the government would have to send them the check which would mean wealth re-distribution which is Socialism is it not? 

Fisher's for wealth re-distribution, who would have thought it? 

Careful what you concede, at little here a little there, ain't that what you preach to watch out for? 

 

Absolutely not.  I am not FOR any of this, but as always I prefer the lesser of evils. It's still totally evil, but it would be better than this.

I always advocate compromise in politics. It's always about the lesser of evils -- that's what politics IS.  And a simple welfare program is better than outright government takeover.

When I am discussing what is right and moral, I am quite clear on what I stand for, but he minute we do anything political, we are discussing evil and doing evil.

You obviously don't understand me at all.

 

Lol.   Your view of evil and evil is so screwed up it's sad.  There are other choices.  I don't know why you think that there are no more options than to take shit or a large amount of shit.  You can opt to take no shit.  Call me naive or whatever you want but I believe that only weaklings settle for the lesser of evils. 

Problem is, your still advocating a system that is full of backdoor deals and evils.  Get a clue and choose another. 

Again it seems you simply don't understand the basic concepts I am using. I am choosing several things. The first is my favorite choice -- a pure libertarian society. I have worked my whole life for this. However, as a libertarian. I recognize that others have different ideas. In that case, I would rather have shit than a large amount of shit.

If you like , you can sit on the sidelines, take no shit, and end up with a large amount of shit. I think my path is far wiser.

You are the one who is "settling" -- on the large amount of shit. You have no way to "make" something "no shit." You simply sit it out and then pucker up. I would rather be in the debate always advocating the best solution within whatever context we are in. I feel that is the difference between a sensible libertarian and an idiot.

Okay now for my challenge to you. Please define evil, show how your definition is superior to mine, and how it is SOOO superior to mine that mine is "so screwed up it's sad." Let us see if you are actually capable of making a case for a better definition than mine. let us see if you can go beyond your childish retorts and actually do better.

Let's hear your better "view of evil."

 

First off dude, chill.  Your escalating this way out of proportion.  First, I may have mistyped earlier.  But my idea was that settling for any kind of evil is ridiculous.  This is what's been happening with the government from day one.  They have taken little bits here and there because people like you are accepting the lesser evil and thinking that there is no other choice. 

Evil is subjective to your view point.  My opinion is that I find your view points laughable.  Why should I have to prove myself to you?  Prove to me that your infallible and correct.  Or why bother?  You cannot quantify any thing that I would agree with since we have different morals and view points. 

What I find funny is that you would attack me for choosing not to participate in choosing two evil routes.  By choosing the third option, nothing, I refrain from participating in a system that is corrupt.  You participate and therefore you become part of the corrupt system. 

Again you choose to use regular talking points and attacks that I have seen you use on others.  Find another gig, this ones up. 

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Pelosi is a flaming idiot!!  Regardless of the WSJ editorial, which is merely their informed opinion, the government continues to demonstrate they are ineffective in really making any meaningful change.  If this current bill passes we will be left with a system that is more broken than the current tyrannical insurance cartels.  Anyone know why heath care reform could not be done through graduated measures?

 

No reason at all -- or how about take the 11 million who don't have insurance and want it, and send them a freaking CHECK. I would kick in for that, not this fascist garbage.

 

Hmm that's an interesting statement.  I take it the government would have to send them the check which would mean wealth re-distribution which is Socialism is it not? 

Fisher's for wealth re-distribution, who would have thought it? 

Careful what you concede, at little here a little there, ain't that what you preach to watch out for? 

 

Absolutely not.  I am not FOR any of this, but as always I prefer the lesser of evils. It's still totally evil, but it would be better than this.

I always advocate compromise in politics. It's always about the lesser of evils -- that's what politics IS.  And a simple welfare program is better than outright government takeover.

When I am discussing what is right and moral, I am quite clear on what I stand for, but he minute we do anything political, we are discussing evil and doing evil.

You obviously don't understand me at all.

 

Lol.   Your view of evil and evil is so screwed up it's sad.  There are other choices.  I don't know why you think that there are no more options than to take shit or a large amount of shit.  You can opt to take no shit.  Call me naive or whatever you want but I believe that only weaklings settle for the lesser of evils. 

Problem is, your still advocating a system that is full of backdoor deals and evils.  Get a clue and choose another. 

Again it seems you simply don't understand the basic concepts I am using. I am choosing several things. The first is my favorite choice -- a pure libertarian society. I have worked my whole life for this. However, as a libertarian. I recognize that others have different ideas. In that case, I would rather have shit than a large amount of shit.

If you like , you can sit on the sidelines, take no shit, and end up with a large amount of shit. I think my path is far wiser.

You are the one who is "settling" -- on the large amount of shit. You have no way to "make" something "no shit." You simply sit it out and then pucker up. I would rather be in the debate always advocating the best solution within whatever context we are in. I feel that is the difference between a sensible libertarian and an idiot.

Okay now for my challenge to you. Please define evil, show how your definition is superior to mine, and how it is SOOO superior to mine that mine is "so screwed up it's sad." Let us see if you are actually capable of making a case for a better definition than mine. let us see if you can go beyond your childish retorts and actually do better.

Let's hear your better "view of evil."

 

First off dude, chill.  Your escalating this way out of proportion.  First, I may have mistyped earlier.  But my idea was that settling for any kind of evil is ridiculous.  This is what's been happening with the government from day one.  They have taken little bits here and there because people like you are accepting the lesser evil and thinking that there is no other choice. 

Evil is subjective to your view point.  My opinion is that I find your view points laughable.  Why should I have to prove myself to you?  Prove to me that your infallible and correct.  Or why bother?  You cannot quantify any thing that I would agree with since we have different morals and view points. 

What I find funny is that you would attack me for choosing not to participate in choosing two evil routes.  By choosing the third option, nothing, I refrain from participating in a system that is corrupt.  You participate and therefore you become part of the corrupt system. 

Again you choose to use regular talking points and attacks that I have seen you use on others.  Find another gig, this ones up. 

If only we could convince the idiots America voted in to office to do nothing. We would be better off.