teenyboone
 
  1  
Mon 23 Nov, 2009 08:31 am
@mysteryman,
That much, I DO know! Bully for you! There are few PAID firemen and rescue squads in NJ, but those that volunteer here, don't pay property taxes.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 23 Nov, 2009 09:41 am
Like FANNIE, FREDDIE, TARP and STIMULUS, Obama healthcare will cause significant increases in costs to the economy, and significant decreases in the number of people employed, BOTH due to its resulting increase in taxes/fees/charges/penalties on individuals, and on small as well as large businesses.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS REPEATING & AMPLIFYING THE MISTAKES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CAUSING A CONTINUATION OF DECREASES IN TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY INCREASING RATES OF:
(1) government expenditures;
(2) increases in budget deficits;
(3 giveaways of government revenues.


ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

2008: ............Employed
August.......145,273,000
September....145,029,000
October......144,657,000
November.....144,144,000
December.....143,338,000

Decrease August 2008 to January 2009 = 3,174,000

2009: ............Employed
January......142,099,000
February.....141,748,000
March........140,887,000
April........141,007,000
May..........140,570,000
June.........140,196,000
July.........140,041,000
August.......139,649,000
September....138,864,000
October......138,275 ,000

Decrease January 2009 to October 2009 = 3,824,000
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 23 Nov, 2009 09:55 am
QUOTES:

The cat is out of the bag... under Pelosi-Care, American citizens who refuse to purchase an Obama-approved health insurance plan will face fines of up to 250,000 dollars and up to five years in jail.

When asked what gave Congress the right to institute such a tyrannical mandate, Democratic Senator Jack Reed actually had the nerve to tell CNS News that it was constitutionally justified.

Why? Because, according to Reed, it was no different than making people “sign up for the draft.”

Got that?

As far as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama and Jack Reed and radical leftists in Congress are concerned, they have every right to force you to purchase a Pelosi-Obama-approved health care plan under penalty of law.

And apparently, like the draft, it's your solemn duty to purchase their so-called health care plan... or else.

If you cross them... if you are not covered by a health care plan that has the Obama-Pelosi Seal Of Approval, the IRS will assess a penalty of up to 2.5 percent and if you resist paying this penalty, you can go to jail for up to five years and/or be fine d up to 250,000 dollars.

Congressman Dave Camp, the Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, put it this way:

“This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing " buy what we tell you or go to jail.”

Specifically, when asked for the justification, under the Constitution, for Congress to make the draconian requirement, Reed told CNS News:

“Let me see... I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]."

< EM>"Get back to you?" ... on the Constitution? ... Is this man actually a United States Senator? ... it should be obvious, Reed has no idea what's in the Constitution. And it should be equally obvious that leftists like Reed and Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama have little regard, if any, for the Constitution anyway.

And lastly, it should be painfully obvious exactly why Pelosi-Care (the spawn of ObamaCare) must be stopped.

Oh... one more thing just recently became obvious... it seems Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to ram Pelosi- Care down our throats before we even know what hit us after all.

Right after some Senior Democrats claimed last week that so-called "health care reform" would not be resolved in the Senate this year, Reid immediately (and quietly) moved to bring Pelosi-Care to the Senate floor.

Debate will start on Tuesday... even though Reid has not even finalized the Senate version of the legislation.

Whoa... just last week, Reid said, "They want us to do this the right way, not the fast way."

What a turnaround.... Why the rush Harry?

If we're going to stop Pelosi-Care, we must act now, because time is short.
...

And Reed's Not The Only One Who Feels That Way.
It would be easy to dismiss Reed's comments as idiotic babblings were it not for the fact that other prominent Democrats agree with the sentiments.

Liberal ABC News tried to pin Barack Obama on whether he thought jail time was appropriate for those who did not purchase a government-approved health care plan... Obama side-stepped the question.

According to ABC News:

"The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the 'biggest question' the House and Senate are facing right now...Obama said, 'penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance .'”

But an army of liberal bloggers and Internet posters came to Obama's defense and attempted to make the bogus claim that the federal government forcing people to buy government-approved health care was no big deal because, after all, people are already required to purchase auto insurance and homeowners insurance.

Of course, what these leftist fellow-travelers failed to mention is that no one is forced, under penalty of law, to drive a car... the government doesn't send people to jail for up to five years for refusing to take out a mortgage.

Driving an automobile and owning a home are voluntary acts. If (and the key word here is "if") you drive a car, most states (and auto lenders) will require that you carry auto insurance. If you take out a mortgage, the lender will require that you actually insure their property (it doesn't really belong to you until the mortgage is paid-off... right?).

And the federal government is not exactly front-and-center in either of those cases.

But that's not the case when it comes to Pelosi-Care.

The Congressional Budget Office stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action.”

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said:

“But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want... you know, if that’s the case, then we didn’t need a 'Cash for Clunkers,' all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you ."

Actually Senator Hatch, almost got it right. When it comes to Pelosi-Care, the government would not simply be saying; "you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you."

The federal government would actually be saying, "you've all got to buy new cars... and you can only buy a Yugo... you must pay at least 15,000 dollars for that Yugo ... if you refuse to buy that Yugo, you'll pay a fine... and if you refuse to pay the fine, you just may go to jail."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 23 Nov, 2009 11:15 am
Betsy McCaughey wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html
What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Protestors wave signs in front of the Capitol on Thursday.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice"basic, enhanced and premium levels"but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

Questionable Priorities:

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.

For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 23 Nov, 2009 12:02 pm
Quote:

www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Defend Your HealthcareHomeBetsy McCaugheyBlog
...
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Mon 23 Nov, 2009 07:09 pm
@teenyboone,
I wish it was that way here.
I still have to pay my property taxes, along with all of my other axes.
okie
 
  -1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 09:33 am
Good news, it is an all time low for Obama in Rasmussen poll, now at minus 15 in Strongly Approve vs Disapprove and the somewhat approve at 45% matches a previous low. The reason I say it is good news is that more and more people are waking up to the reality of this president. The poll does not show any difference in Obama, he is the same guy that was elected, so the poor results of his presidency is no surprise at all, but the poll does show that more people are not seeing the president in a false light, they are seeing him as he really is. The president is now viewed through the more accurate lens of his track record, not through the manufactured synthetic lens of the mainstream media, which trumpeted the man as the next great president based upon one speech, thats all. And that speech can hardly be viewed now as all that great, at least I doubt it, I doubted it greatly then, in fact Micheal Steele gave the far superior speech at the RNC.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/november_2009/obama_approval_index_november_24_2009/266774-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_november_24_2009.jpg
djjd62
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 09:54 am
@okie,
what's a likely voter?

is that like being a little bit pregnant?

by the by, polls are for idiots, make up your own mind
DrewDad
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 09:56 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

You say that HR will cause a lot of small businesses to fail. I don't see this. Moreover, it will cause the creation of many new small businesses. The present situation is that would-be entrepreneurs will not create new businesses because they would have to sacrifice HC they have with their current employer. With the HR, this will not be a problem.

Yup. Too many people have to stay in the corporate world in order to obtain healthcare.

On the other hand, consider the "brain drain" that might happen if people have access to healthcare on their own.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 11:00 am
@djjd62,
Rass polls are for idiots! They can't see the real world by looking at the average of all polls, because they fall in love with other idiots that most often shows the worst of Obama. They have no idea what "bias" means.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 12:41 pm
@DrewDad,
Do you really think that these bills will make it easy or affordable for employer purchased healthcare to be transferred to an individual payer paying for his healthcare?

I don't know anyone who is 'wedded' to their particular health insurance provider and many doctors accept most major forms of insurance. They stay in the corporate world because they can't afford their healthcare insurance. Nothing about this bill will change that.
maporsche
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 12:42 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

...the mainstream media, which trumpeted the man as the next great president based upon one speech, thats all.


To be fair, there have been several great speaches.

His actions I agree with you on.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 01:26 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

okie wrote:

...the mainstream media, which trumpeted the man as the next great president based upon one speech, thats all.


To be fair, there have been several great speaches.

His actions I agree with you on.

Not to beat a deadhorse, my apologies as some people here are tired of hearing me say it, but it all goes back to Obama's speech at the DNC in 2000. I remember how much the speech was ballyhooed as something so special and wonderful, and I also remember clearly thinking what in the world did they hear that I did not? I sat there and listened to the same speech and never heard anything all that wonderful. That same year, I also remember listening to another black man's speech, not a keynote speech, but a speech given at the RNC by Michael Steele, and I remember being inspired, that man spoke my feelings and brought up feelings of pride in being an American as he obviously felt the same as I. Then I remember not a word, nothing, in the media about Michael's speech. I happen to think it had more to do with bias than it did the speeches, because I clearly thought Steele's speech was worlds better than Obama's. But here we are, I think the powers that be, Soros, Moveon, whoever, the media, I confess I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but behind the scenes somebody decided to trumpet Obama as the next political messiah of the liberal leftist movement.

So here we are today with a president that really has done nothing notable before gaining the presidency besides being a community organizer and Chicago politician. I don't know if he is nothing more than a puppet being controlled by his handlers or what, but I think we are in serious trouble. Again, maporsche, I realize people like yourself had high hopes for Obama, and so my apologies for repeating my critique, but I guess I just cannot resist restating my feeling of incredible disbelief that all of this could have happened, that the people got sucked into this mess so easily by a media that decided to promote somebody so inexperienced and I think incompetent. And count me as one that has never thought Obama gave a great speech. They do not inspire, nor are they substantive. Again, my opinion, and I realize alot of people must think they are wonderful, but it stll leaves me incredulous that they do.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 01:36 pm
@maporsche,
What is interesting about the health bill now working its way through congress is that over 80% of Americans already have some form of health insurance, and the majority of those like what they have. On the other side of this coin is the fact that this same majority wants to see reform in our health care - even though they believe it will not impact them personally.

I believe all this concern stems from the fact that most already know that the cost of health insurance is getting to become unaffordable for those same folks who already have health insurance. Company paid health insurance does not protect them from higher premiums that they must pay through their company sponsored insurance plan. Most also understand that in this economy, they may be the next ones without a job and health insurance.

We definitely need health insurance reform; the problem with congress is that they don't tell the truth about its costs, and that creates anxiety.

There are still too many unknowns about future cost and how it will be paid for while our federal deficit continues to create a huge handicap for our economic future.

Increasing taxes in this environment is not an option.



0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 01:39 pm
@okie,
what i can't understand, is why everybody can't just see what's in front of them

everybody hated bush and his cronies (hell i'm guessing bush hated himself by the end)

obama could have stood up in front of the DNC and blown a dead goat and he would still have been elected president

what i don't get is this constant head banging **** all political douchebags go through, my guy's best, no my guy's best, no my guy's blah blah blah

everybody's gonna get there chance to try and change or keep the status quo starting next year and ending in 2012

are the (insert your party here) really dumb enough to think they're going to change (insert your party here) minds

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 01:42 pm
Like CRA, FANNIE, FREDDIE, TARP and STIMULUS, Obama Healthcare will cause significant increases in costs to the economy, and significant decreases in the number of people employed. Both are due to its resulting increase in taxes/fees/charges/penalties on individuals, and on small as well as large businesses.

The Obama Administration is repeating and expanding the mistakes of the Bush Administration causing a continuation of decreases in total employment by increasing rates of:
(1) government expenditures;
(2) increases in budget deficits;
(3) giveaways of government revenues.

Decrease in total USA employment August 2008 to January 2009 = 3,174,000

Decrease in totlal USA employment January 2009 to October 2009 = 3,824,000


Is Obama really that stupid? Does he really believe doing and expanding the that which has made things worse, will cause things to get better?

Or, is Obama a mere puppet of others who are actually seeking to stifle the USA's liberty and its consequent productive economy?
djjd62
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 01:45 pm
@ican711nm,
the answer to your questions are yes and yes

the question should be, who will do better in 2012 puppet head A or puppet head B
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 04:28 pm
@ican711nm,
Unemployment is a significant subject. Thinking of it in terms of the official figures is hardly how an economist would see it. From an economic point of view the figures are meaningless. They are strictly political.

It is quite common for people to have well paid jobs which are neutral from an economic view. And even negative. The Queen's chambermaids for example. Or, if one was being more serious, the ladies beautification industry.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 06:04 pm
@spendius,
Our Defence Secretary is reported to have accused the "dithering" of the US over troops to Afghanistan for undermining support for the mission in Europe.

I don't think he would be unaware of the possibility that the purpose of the dithering is to do exactly that.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Tue 24 Nov, 2009 07:05 pm
@mysteryman,
I've know about that perk since I moved here. In my city, however, they are paid and they do a fantastic job! I have the utmost respect for police and firemen, because they put their lives on the line every day. I have watched from above in the high-rise I live in and see what they have to go through.
When they have fund-raisers, I am one of the first to contribute.

During the holidays, they feed the hungry and the homeless, have coat drives,
collect groceries to feed the poor and do endless acts of kindness. I may disagree with you on politics, but I admire the fact that you are a volunteer.

I hope everyone on this thread, regardless of party affiliate, have a Happy Thanksgiving, because regardless of what happens in Washington, you have to make your own "happy". If you don't, you're missing out on what is really important; family and good friends. Peace!
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1491
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/04/2025 at 09:18:46