idrankwhat

Right, the majority of Americans wanted a public option included.

Thanks for bringing that up. That was one of the things that has ticked me off so much during the debate. Everyone wants to ask "how are we going to pay for it" yet no one was asking "why is it so fucking expensive?". People should be seriously concerned with HC comprising 1/6 of our economy.

We're talking about WMD's, I mean WMD programs, I mean WMD program related activities. Those would leave a pretty big fingerprint. We're not talking about flushing a joint when you hear your mom coming up the stairs.

The bill Obama signed (HR 3590) has been posted for quite a while. The reconciliation bill (HR 4872) is apparently dated 3/17/10. I don't know when it was posted.

I guess the ~$14K per year that my employer and I pay to Anthem isn't enough to get that nice of a plan. Group size and state have a lot to do with it. $6000 for an individual/$12,000 for a couple/$18,000 for a family was enough to get a 0-deductible, 0 co-pay plan when I was at Microsoft in Washington State in 2006. In practice you may be better off with a higher co-pay/deductible plan with the difference going into a use-it-or-loose-it flexible spending account. At my current company we can select among a number of options offered by our Professional Employer Organization, and at one point putting the price difference between the $500 deductible and $1000 deductible plan into an FSA effectively made it zero. I'm a Virginia State employee so the group is pretty large. My wife has a flex spending account through her work at the hospital. Unfortunately the company which manages that account apparently has a policy of deny/lock down account until additional paperwork arrives. We use a card for the service yet they continually ask us to provide receipts for receipts that they already have. It's really quite annoying to have to constantly do battle to get your money. If you ask just about anyone what it is that they don't like about their health care I'm willing to bet it's the administrative component.

Well, she's pretty much done all that here in the US so one might think she'd appreciate the prescient letter from the Provost. Nah.

I am sorry Coulter does nothing for me. Please show me one once of evidence where I have ever supported anything this woman has said. However it is rather interesting that the vice-president of the University of Ottawa Francois Houle has threaten Ms Coulter with a lawsuit if she says anything during her speeches that Mr Houle feels is inappropriate. Obviously free speech only applies to some in this ever so politically correct nation. Is there any truth to his statement that promotion of hatred towards a group is punishable by law?

I don't think that anyone was expecting any GOP cooperation. So, big whoop. Isn't he being challenged for his Senate seat this year? Methinks he's appealing to those who think that statesmanship is a sign of weakness.

the really sad part is that 800 people showed up..... I'd like to think that it was simply morbid curiosity. I'm assuming that someone paid her to speak. THAT's the real crime.

I guess the ~$14K per year that my employer and I pay to Anthem isn't enough to get that nice of a plan.

$5 co-pay? I haven't seen that in a couple of decades. If I go to the doc it's either $35 or $45, and possibly both if I'm there for an x-ray. And when we have to take my youngest to the children's hospital there are two $35 co-pays, one for the facility and one for the Dr. And woe be the family who makes an appointment with the wrong branch of the same hospital (after being referred by the right branch) as we'll get billed for the full amount of the visit, after the two co-pays of course. IMO, a single payer system would eliminate most of the nonsense and expense listed above.

That's how they (meaning "politicians") do it. This is nothing new. You may be right. Even though the GOP has used the same tactics when they were in power, for some reason they seem to be able to get the media to behave like it's unprecedented when the Dems do it. My first reaction is to agree with you. Unfortunately the dynamics in Washington have changed. The health care bill that just passed is, at its roots, what was proposed by Dole and the Heritage Foundation a decade and a half ago. My bet is that if the GOP takes Congress this fall then they will have their eyes fixed on the next election. The partisanship will be crippling.

Yeah, it was really impressive seeing them use returned TARP money to pay for a new job bill act. Oh wait, you mean that TARP money wasn't real money, it was just more debt? Face it, "Pay as you go" is just as much a fraud as their pledge to end earmarks. I do wonder what the imbalanced tax increases (200k for individual, 250k for married couples) will do to marriage rates in big cities where the cost of living is 50-100% higher than the average. The marriage penalty is back and bigger than ever! You have to give the Dems credit for reducing earmarks from the all time highs of a few years ago. But that argument is basically "hey, they suck less", which admittedly isn't a very good one. Who knows, Pay-Go may actually pan out to be a good thing if it is ever actually implemented. But at least they're paying specific lip service to addressing costs, as opposed to the emergency supplemental fiscal magic that we saw in the Bush years, which was the reason for my post. As for the marriage penalty crap, I hope they don't figure out another way to gouge the middle class again. I think they should institute a "failed leadership" tax. If you've ever run a company (or country) into such financial trouble that you needed a taxpayer bailout, then you owe "X" percentage of your most recent bonus.

Damned Democrats and their insistence in paying for things. One day they'll learn that it's "emergency" supplementals that are the answer to balancing the budget! It will definitely work if they call it something like the "Free Patriot's Freedom and Liberty Supplement for Freedom" act.

But now it will happen, as opposed to just saying (for decades) that it needs to happen. Now it's up to us to make sure that the legislation gets improved upon.

Ouch. But that's a valid criticism.

In addition to the disaster that is the HC bill, as the economy continues to stagnate/decline, I'm betting the majorities will look a little bit different in November. It's hard to say. If history is any indicator then Republicans will pick up seats in Congress, regardless of any legislation concerns. On the other hand, the D's will have a few months to talk about the good aspects of the health care bill. Those benefits poll well and the R's completely severed any relationship to them. The R's are courting the tea party movement but that's also a potentially perilous position. You have to embrace a lot of idiots and CONservatives in order to get to the actual conservatives who sympathize with the movement. The D's will have all summer to talk about the avoided depression and growing economy, the health care "win", the troops coming home from Iraq, and the good work they're doing WRT student lending so they've got some stuff to work with in their favor. The R's have spent all of their energy obstructing and not offering up much in the form of solutions to anything. I expect the R's to pray for a failing economy or some other catastrophe and to use the deficit arguments to their advantage, along with, of course, a tremendous amount of fear mongering. So let's see. I'd say that the R's have have a good chance for winning in Nov. On their side they have historical trends, fear mongering (the media loves that crap) and the reality that the D's will be inept in their ability to publicly present their accomplishments to a society of people can't think beyond 140 character tweets. P.S. I'm not sure how immigration reform will play into the election but that may turn out to be the deciding factor.

+1

There's no "increase less than usual" option.

Oh my no not today Hey, it's Friday! Don't mind if I do. Thanks! .......[100% de agave]

Shutting down the FDA and the CDC should get the body count rolling. The media will love it. I'll have to remember to buy some of their stock before we start this experiment.

C'mon, you can think at a much higher level than this. And actually, he wasn't arguing that the rest of the base take a tax hike. He was stating the his secretary was already paying enough and that his tax bracket wasn't.

If you're taking your citizenship in Texas it will be easy. Thomas Jefferson doesn't exit, nor does Ted Kennedy so forget them. Just remember Ronald Reagan, Joe McCarthy, Jefferson Davis, and Newt Gingrich. If you get stuck on a question just remember that Jesus wrote the Constitution so if the answer might sully the image of the baby Jesus (and his stash of gold, frankincense and 50 cal ammunition) or of Israel or any form of taxation, then go with the opposite.

I completely agree. Cut the waste.

Quite possibly. The first time I read it I thought you were arguing against change. My mistake if that was not the point.