UNHWildCats wrote:Abusive, derogatory and even racist behavior directed at House Democrats by Tea Party protesters on Saturday left several lawmakers in shock..............
Well UNH, you seem quite confident that the folks who did this were not planted shills! How do you know that? These sorts of shill tricks are not all that uncommon.
Let’s see:
The Clairmont- Mckenna professor was convicted of perpetrating a hoax, in which she defaced her own car by slashing its tires, breaking its windows, and spray painting several ethnic slurs and a partial swastika on its doors and hood. Oops caught on survalence camer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerri_Dunn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
During the presidential campaign, I remember once Obama was speaking and behind him were rows of bench seats with only two black guys sitting there instead of the usual rows of smiling supporters. Hum, I remember thinking to myself that seemed a little strange, why only two non-descript black guys and rows of empty seats? Suddenly, the two guys got up and unfurled a banner claiming Obama was not addressing Black issues!!! Without missing a beat Obama went into a dialogue that he would be the “president of all the people, not just blacks”. But that couldn’t have been staged, right. Every time Obama is in a tight spot some racial issue come up. Hum, anyone see Jimmy Carter claiming those against Obama’s health care plan are racists!
Because W signed every spending bill that was placed in front of him.
Google the history of the Tea Party movement. It appears to have been sparked by the actions of government in response to the economic downturn late in the Bush Administration. There simply was not time for a movement to congeal prior to the point at which Bush left office.
What's happened in terms of government spending since the 2008 economic downturn represents a whole 'nuther level of deficit spending. It is unprecedented.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
Because W signed every spending bill that was placed in front of him.
Google the history of the Tea Party movement. It appears to have been sparked by the actions of government in response to the economic downturn late in the Bush Administration. There simply was not time for a movement to congeal prior to the point at which Bush left office.
What's happened in terms of government spending since the 2008 economic downturn represents a whole 'nuther level of deficit spending. It is unprecedented.
Okay...
And historically at that time Reagan had unprecedented deficit spending
and so did Bush
Unprecedented spending is a common precedent
Each President seems to find a way to set "new records"
Apparently it was "very upsetting" what Bush was doing - but not upsetting enough to find another guy to run for president
frankly I just don't buy it... We're always over spending (always) it just pisses us off when it's the other guy doing it - when the other guy is doing it "it's going to ruin the world" when your own guy is doing it is "mildly annoying"
classic American politics
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
JohnStOnge wrote:
Google the history of the Tea Party movement. It appears to have been sparked by the actions of government in response to the economic downturn late in the Bush Administration. There simply was not time for a movement to congeal prior to the point at which Bush left office.
What's happened in terms of government spending since the 2008 economic downturn represents a whole 'nuther level of deficit spending. It is unprecedented.
Okay...
And historically at that time Reagan had unprecedented deficit spending
and so did Bush
Unprecedented spending is a common precedent
Each President seems to find a way to set "new records"
Apparently it was "very upsetting" what Bush was doing - but not upsetting enough to find another guy to run for president
frankly I just don't buy it... We're always over spending (always) it just pisses us off when it's the other guy doing it - when the other guy is doing it "it's going to ruin the world" when your own guy is doing it is "mildly annoying"
First of all, it never happened the way it's portrayed. They either are lying or it was a plant.
Second, this bill could have been done in three easy steps. First, all insurance companies will immediately become non-profits, everyone would have to buy insurance, and noone could be turned down for any reason. Profits would either be place in escrow for future shortfalls, or redistirubuted to policy holders. The poor would receive insurance subsidies according to need, but only for a limited time, becasue dammit get a job already. (that of course excludes the old and retards, they already get coverage from the govt.) Second, all medical malpractice lawsuits that are lost would require that the plaintiffs lawyer remimburse the defendent for all costs plus 50% of damages sought by plaintiff. Third, Nancy Pelosi would be tarred and feathered and sent to Haiti without a passport or return ticket. (this part really doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, I just don't like that bitch. So that's my fee for fixing this whole goddamn mess).
Dear lord... please allow this dangerous combination of hair spary, bat slobber, and D.O.T. four automatic transmission fluid to excite my mind, occupy my spirits, and enrage my body, provoking me to kick any man or woman in the back of the head regardless of what he or she has or has not done unto me. All my Best, Earlie Cuyler.
death dealer wrote:First of all, it never happened the way it's portrayed. They either are lying or it was a plant.
Second, this bill could have been done in three easy steps. First, all insurance companies will immediately become non-profits, everyone would have to buy insurance, and noone could be turned down for any reason. Profits would either be place in escrow for future shortfalls, or redistirubuted to policy holders. The poor would receive insurance subsidies according to need, but only for a limited time, becasue dammit get a job already. (that of course excludes the old and retards, they already get coverage from the govt.) Second, all medical malpractice lawsuits that are lost would require that the plaintiffs lawyer remimburse the defendent for all costs plus 50% of damages sought by plaintiff. Third, Nancy Pelosi would be tarred and feathered and sent to Haiti without a passport or return ticket. (this part really doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, I just don't like that bitch. So that's my fee for fixing this whole goddamn mess).
Of course, this all assumes that the economy returns to normal and folks can get jobs again. Until then, well the govt.'s gonna have to help folks out more than usual.
Dear lord... please allow this dangerous combination of hair spary, bat slobber, and D.O.T. four automatic transmission fluid to excite my mind, occupy my spirits, and enrage my body, provoking me to kick any man or woman in the back of the head regardless of what he or she has or has not done unto me. All my Best, Earlie Cuyler.
death dealer wrote:First of all, it never happened the way it's portrayed. They either are lying or it was a plant.
Second, this bill could have been done in three easy steps. First, all insurance companies will immediately become non-profits, everyone would have to buy insurance, and noone could be turned down for any reason. Profits would either be place in escrow for future shortfalls, or redistirubuted to policy holders. The poor would receive insurance subsidies according to need, but only for a limited time, becasue dammit get a job already. (that of course excludes the old and retards, they already get coverage from the govt.) Second, all medical malpractice lawsuits that are lost would require that the plaintiffs lawyer remimburse the defendent for all costs plus 50% of damages sought by plaintiff. Third, Nancy Pelosi would be tarred and feathered and sent to Haiti without a passport or return ticket. (this part really doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, I just don't like that bitch. So that's my fee for fixing this whole goddamn mess).
Just so you know there is a pretty sizeable portion of this bill that focuses on the creation of not-for-profit insurance companies. The bill creates "insurance exchanges", which is intended to be the private market for health insurance for those not covered at work or those who opt out of work provided plans. These insurance exchanges must include at least one not-for-profit insurance plan and the bill provides some pretty good incentives for the formation of these companies.
death dealer wrote:First of all, it never happened the way it's portrayed. They either are lying or it was a plant.
Second, this bill could have been done in three easy steps. First, all insurance companies will immediately become non-profits, everyone would have to buy insurance, and noone could be turned down for any reason. Profits would either be place in escrow for future shortfalls, or redistirubuted to policy holders. The poor would receive insurance subsidies according to need, but only for a limited time, becasue dammit get a job already. (that of course excludes the old and retards, they already get coverage from the govt.) Second, all medical malpractice lawsuits that are lost would require that the plaintiffs lawyer remimburse the defendent for all costs plus 50% of damages sought by plaintiff. Third, Nancy Pelosi would be tarred and feathered and sent to Haiti without a passport or return ticket. (this part really doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, I just don't like that bitch. So that's my fee for fixing this whole goddamn mess).
Just so you know there is a pretty sizeable portion of this bill that focuses on the creation of not-for-profit insurance companies. The bill creates "insurance exchanges", which is intended to be the private market for health insurance for those not covered at work or those who opt out of work provided plans. These insurance exchanges must include at least one not-for-profit insurance plan and the bill provides some pretty good incentives for the formation of these companies.
I actually like the exchanges part of the bill, only wish it would go further and not be so restrictive. I like the one criticism I heard of these - it's like a cable company coming out with options and having all of the options include premium channels. Some people just don't want or need those premium channels.
danefan wrote:
Just so you know there is a pretty sizeable portion of this bill that focuses on the creation of not-for-profit insurance companies. The bill creates "insurance exchanges", which is intended to be the private market for health insurance for those not covered at work or those who opt out of work provided plans. These insurance exchanges must include at least one not-for-profit insurance plan and the bill provides some pretty good incentives for the formation of these companies.
I actually like the exchanges part of the bill, only wish it would go further and not be so restrictive. I like the one criticism I heard of these - it's like a cable company coming out with options and having all of the options include premium channels. Some people just don't want or need those premium channels.
Anyone know the reasoning why the exchanges were limited by State? Why can't one company offer a plan that's available to residents of multiple states? Doesn't cost-pooling with larger numbers decrease costs for all?
death dealer wrote:First of all, it never happened the way it's portrayed. They either are lying or it was a plant.
Second, this bill could have been done in three easy steps. First, all insurance companies will immediately become non-profits, everyone would have to buy insurance, and noone could be turned down for any reason. Profits would either be place in escrow for future shortfalls, or redistirubuted to policy holders. The poor would receive insurance subsidies according to need, but only for a limited time, becasue dammit get a job already. (that of course excludes the old and retards, they already get coverage from the govt.) Second, all medical malpractice lawsuits that are lost would require that the plaintiffs lawyer remimburse the defendent for all costs plus 50% of damages sought by plaintiff. Third, Nancy Pelosi would be tarred and feathered and sent to Haiti without a passport or return ticket. (this part really doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, I just don't like that bitch. So that's my fee for fixing this whole goddamn mess).
Of course, this all assumes that the economy returns to normal and folks can get jobs again. Until then, well the govt.'s gonna have to help folks out more than usual.
Who actually believes the economy will spring back with this job-killing and business-killing legislation hanging over the country?
The entire effect of the bill is to make people dependent on the government and keep people dependent - especially the middle class - so that they can't avoid doing their "fair share" by making free choices.
Proud Prince of Purple Pomposity YT is not a communist. He's just a ...young pup.
GannonFan wrote:
I actually like the exchanges part of the bill, only wish it would go further and not be so restrictive. I like the one criticism I heard of these - it's like a cable company coming out with options and having all of the options include premium channels. Some people just don't want or need those premium channels.
Anyone know the reasoning why the exchanges were limited by State? Why can't one company offer a plan that's available to residents of multiple states? Doesn't cost-pooling with larger numbers decrease costs for all?
Every state has different requirements. For example New York requires all policies to provide chiropractic care. Other states do not.
Proud Prince of Purple Pomposity YT is not a communist. He's just a ...young pup.
danefan wrote:
Anyone know the reasoning why the exchanges were limited by State? Why can't one company offer a plan that's available to residents of multiple states? Doesn't cost-pooling with larger numbers decrease costs for all?
Every state has different requirements. For example New York requires all policies to provide chiropractic care. Other states do not.
Pwns wrote:Disgusting, but don't read too much into it. You'll have many assholes at any kind of demonstration. Case in point - pro-abortion activists talking about post-birth abortions for evangelical Christians.
Skjellyfetti wrote:
Since "conservatives" were so upset with George W. Bush in 2004... why didn't they mount a primary challenge? Surely with so many upset conservatives some opportunistic teabagger would have taken the opportunity. No?
Some conservatives didn't want GW in 2000 either.
Most voters didn't want W in 2000.
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
danefan wrote:
Just so you know there is a pretty sizeable portion of this bill that focuses on the creation of not-for-profit insurance companies. The bill creates "insurance exchanges", which is intended to be the private market for health insurance for those not covered at work or those who opt out of work provided plans. These insurance exchanges must include at least one not-for-profit insurance plan and the bill provides some pretty good incentives for the formation of these companies.
In our community there is a sizeable Appostolic Christian "community", similar to the amish but not quite the same. None of them have private insurance. Everyone pays into a common fund, held by the church. The church then pays the medical bills of any member that submits one. Seems to be working pretty well, has developed quite a large surplus. Then again, there might be something to the fact that they don't drink, smoke, and aren't overweight.
"It's hard to kiss the lips at night that chew on your ass all day."
danefan wrote:
Just so you know there is a pretty sizeable portion of this bill that focuses on the creation of not-for-profit insurance companies. The bill creates "insurance exchanges", which is intended to be the private market for health insurance for those not covered at work or those who opt out of work provided plans. These insurance exchanges must include at least one not-for-profit insurance plan and the bill provides some pretty good incentives for the formation of these companies.
In our community there is a sizeable Appostolic Christian "community", similar to the amish but not quite the same. None of them have private insurance. Everyone pays into a common fund, held by the church. The church then pays the medical bills of any member that submits one. Seems to be working pretty well, has developed quite a large surplus. Then again, there might be something to the fact that they don't drink, smoke, and aren't overweight.
Sounds like the Baptists: don't believe in sex, because it might lead to dancing
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
death dealer wrote:
Of course, this all assumes that the economy returns to normal and folks can get jobs again. Until then, well the govt.'s gonna have to help folks out more than usual.
Who actually believes the economy will spring back with this job-killing and business-killing legislation hanging over the country?
The entire effect of the bill is to keep the middle class - so that they can't avoid doing their "fair share" by making free choices.
Fixed it for you, nadir.
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
didn't want GW in 2000 either. 
