How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Oh, those Little Details!!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ]
 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Oh, those Little Details!!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


275 posted 08-21-2009 04:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone has actually taken the time to read the whole bill.

Section 313 in full:


quote:
SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—

A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any employer

who is a small employer for any calendar year, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for ‘‘8 percent’’:
If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year:
The applicable percentage is:

Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent

(2) SMALL EMPLOYER.—

For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘small employer’’ means any employer for any calendar year if the annual payrollof such employer for the preceding calendar year
does not exceed $400,000.

(3) ANNUAL PAYROLL.—

For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘annual payroll’’ means, with respect to any employer for any calendar year, the aggregate wages paid by the employer during such calendar year.

(4) AGGREGATION RULES.—

Related employers and predecessors shall be treated as a single employer for purposes of this subsection.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


276 posted 08-21-2009 04:48 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"Employers would be taxed on personnel who refuse company coverage in favor of their spouses’ policies.”

Is specifically this right or wrong?

PS Grinch, I don't see the major disparity between
your qouted:


"who is a small employer for any calendar year, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for ‘‘8 percent’’:
If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year:
The applicable percentage is:

Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent"

and the articles:

". . .employers with payrolls exceeding $250,000.

Section 313 of H.R. 3200, House Democrats’ key bill, concocts a tax of up to 8 percent on the total payrolls of employers who do not give their workers health insurance"

?
.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (08-21-2009 05:24 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


277 posted 08-21-2009 05:52 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
"Employers would be taxed on personnel who refuse company coverage in favor of their spouses’ policies.”

Is specifically this right or wrong?


Specifically, absolutely and categorically - WRONG!

Read section 311.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


278 posted 08-21-2009 06:36 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

Grinch,

I need the link.

John

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


279 posted 08-21-2009 06:56 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


My name's Grinch not Google.


http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/vl/www/wwwcon.htm

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


280 posted 08-21-2009 07:06 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


OK
someone else please do it then.

Also I take it you don't disagree
there being no major disparity between
our respective qoutes in:

"PS Grinch, I don't see the major disparity between
your qouted:


"who is a small employer for any calendar year, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for ‘‘8 percent’’:
If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year:
The applicable percentage is:

Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent"

and the articles:

". . .employers with payrolls exceeding $250,000.

Section 313 of H.R. 3200, House Democrats’ key bill, concocts a tax of up to 8 percent on the total payrolls of employers who do not give their workers health insurance"

?"
.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


281 posted 08-21-2009 07:54 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Huan,

I agree that two years after the bill is enacted any Company with an annual payroll of over $400,000 will pay 8% of the average wage in lieu of contributing to an individual employee's health plan. Companies with a total payroll of $250,000 will pay nothing and a sliding scale will be used up to the $400,000 figure.

The part of the article that dealt with the amount charged was simply vague on that point. But that's not the bit that I disagreed with and quoted which was just plain wrong or an out and out lie.

Here's the full quote from the article - the bit I maintain that's wrong is in bold:

quote:
Section 313 of H.R. 3200, House Democrats’ key bill, concocts a tax of up to 8 percent on the total payrolls of employers who do not give their workers health insurance. This tax would apply to employers who do provide insurance, if their plans are not “qualified” by the new Health Choices Commissioner. Employers would be taxed on personnel who refuse company coverage in favor of their spouses’ policies. Otherwise-generous employers who grant insurance would suffer this tax hike if they paid anything less than 65 percent of premiums for family plans and 72.5 percent for individual coverage.


The article is basically twaddle with a couple of vague references to half explained parts of the bill presented in a purposely confusing and negative light. Anyone who reads the bill would recognise that.

quote:
OK
someone else please do it then.


I'll save someone else doing your work for you Huan. If you ever get around to actually reading the bill you'll find that section 311 explicitly excludes employees who refuse to participate in a company scheme in favour of their spouse's policies.

quote:
(3) CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.—

Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313.


The claim in the article is wrong.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


282 posted 08-21-2009 08:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, those umployed would have coverage if they weren't unemployed. The focus should be on job creations, not destruction.

WHen you start celebrating a 15% unemployment level, you're in big doo-doo!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


283 posted 08-22-2009 09:26 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hey, Ron...at least Michigan has a good congressman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


284 posted 08-22-2009 11:14 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ron, those umployed would have coverage if they weren't unemployed. The focus should be on job creations, not destruction.

Mike, I certainly agree that job creation should be a focus. Personally, I think it is and has been. I just don't agree it should be an excuse to do nothing about a whole lot of things that are going to be painful in large part because we've put them off for so long.

I'd really like to think that our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, can chew gum and walk at the same time.

quote:
Hey, Ron...at least Michigan has a good congressman

Mike, Congressman Roger's argument only holds water if you accept his underlying premise that health care reform is automatically "punishing the 85 percent" at the expense of the 15 percent currently without coverage. That's pretty much the same premise that's been shot down again and again and again in this thread as so much nonsense.

The need for opponents of the legislation to make up problems that don't exist doesn't lend much credence to their positions. When did the truth stop being enough?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


285 posted 08-22-2009 11:39 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I suppose truth and liberty, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107575
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


286 posted 08-22-2009 03:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Mike, I certainly agree that job creation should be a focus. Personally, I think it is and has been.

Ron, I just don't know how you can say that. In 5 months that incredible amount of stimulus money has been sitting there, doing nothing, with only 10% of it being used. Where are the shovel-ready jobs Obama spoke of that would provide immediate employment? I don't see where he has done anything to stimulate  job creation.  ALso, when you are fighting unemployment, you don't threaten employers with higher taxes, which is what Obama has done. His actions have stifled employment with the proof being that it has risen to record levels. Surely you don't call that coincidence?

That's pretty much the same premise that's been shot down again and again and again in this thread as so much nonsense. SHot down  by whom? Us? It's nice that you think we are so much smarter than your congressman. Maybe we ARE!
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


287 posted 08-22-2009 06:03 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
From Denise's article: In his remarks, the president ticked off points of contention that dissenters have with his proposals – "government takeover of health care … government funding of abortion … death panels" – and dismissed these concerns as "fabrications." In one swipe, Mr. Obama reduced his opposition to liars.

See, that's exactly the danger people face when they spread misinformation, either knowingly or just because they don't take the time to check something they WANT to believe is true. Misinformation gets characterized as lies and the people who spread it are labeled as liars.

The minute you complain about something that was never true, more legitimate complaints are seriously weakened.

quote:
And why, according to the president, are dissenters supposedly making all this stuff up? Because, he told his audience, they want to "discourage people from meeting … a core ethical and moral obligation ... that we look out for one another … that I am my brother's keeper. …"

Now, THERE is a legitimate complaint. To take it seriously, however, we have to assume it wasn't taken out of context, that the President actually meant what the quotation implies he meant. Personally, I can't make that assumption because most of what I've heard from this source has been utter garbage, manipulated to build fear and confusion. This potentially legitimate complaint gets lost in the muck.

quote:
I suppose truth and liberty, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes, I suppose maybe they are, Denise. Some people, for example, think they have the freedom to not pay taxes, to exact vengeance on alleged criminals, or to pollute the land and waters that everyone else has to share. Google Tragedy of the Commons and you'll find the problems of defining individual freedom is hardly new.

There are really only two choices regarding health care.

One, we can let people die. If you don't take care of yourself, if you don't build a support network of family and friends, if you don't get off your butt and work to fulfill your basic needs, then it has to be YOUR problem, not society's. Don't show up on a hospital doorstep unless you can pay for its services.

Two, we can not let people die. If health care is going to be a basic human right, as so many want to claim, then it has to be regulated so that EVERYONE has exactly the same basic human right. If a poor indigent doesn't get to choose his doctor, Denise, then neither do you. Especially if your choices impact the rights of others by raising the cost for those who can't afford it. Basic rights are, well, basic. You and I don't get to upgrade ours just because we can afford more.

Either health care is a social problem with a social solution or . . . it's not. What it cannot be, I think, is a social problem with a private, individual solution. That's not fair to those who can't afford your solution.

quote:
In 5 months that incredible amount of stimulus money has been sitting there, doing nothing, with only 10% of it being used.

So long as that ten percent is being used wisely, Mike, and the remaining 90 percent is available when it's needed, I have no problem with that. I don't spend all my money at once, either.

On last night's local news, I heard that our Michigan State Police was hiring and training fifteen troopers and three sergeants, a move directly attributed to $6.5M of stimulus money. Two days ago, I was forced to detour around a freeway overpass in Kalamazoo, again a project that wouldn't have happened without Federal stimulus money. (It was a big deal a month or two ago, in fact, because it was the 200th or 2000th or something such project to break ground. Bidden cut the ribbon.)

Is it enough? No, of course not. But I'm not blaming this administration for failing to instantly solve economic problems they inherited from past administrations (and, no, Mike, I'm not limiting that to just the last one, either). Problems more than a decade in the making aren't resolved in just a few months.

quote:
SHot down by whom? Us?

Mostly by Grinch, Mike.

Read your originating post some twelve pages back, Mike. Is there any point made in that post still in question for you? In my opinion, every single point was shot down as nonsense. People are spreading misinformation widely.

And, yea, that definitely includes a few politicians from Michigan, too.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


288 posted 08-22-2009 07:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

In my opinion, every single  point was shot down as nonsense. and I have to repeat...shot down by whom? Forgive me but I do not consider Grinch to be the Amazing Kreskin here. He reads things the way he wants to read them, like everyone else,  and creates his own definitions as he goes along. He has made his political slant very clear.

and the remaining 90 percent is available when it's needed, and you would consider that time to be....when? How about when unemployment is at an all-time high? That would seem like a good time to me. How about you? And the shovel-ready jobs I mentioned...what happened to them?

It's good that you are getting more troopers. What happens next year when stimulus money doesn't come in? WHo pays  their salaries then? That stimulus check is not designed to be an annual event. That's why many cities turned it down.

    n his remarks, the president ticked off points of contention that dissenters have with his proposals – "government takeover of health care … government funding of abortion … death panels" – and dismissed these concerns as "fabrications." In one swipe, Mr. Obama reduced his opposition to liars.

The jury is out as to whether he reduced them to liars or exposed himself  as one. He has certainly made comments about preferring a single payer system, which would indicate government takeover. He also made a speech to planned parenthood concerning abortion funding (I'll look for it). He has certainly made comments about giving grandma pain pills instead of surgery and how spirit or will to live was too difficult to measure to consider it. Did he reduce anyone to liar status just by saying it wasn't true? Did he reduce AARP to liars by claiming he had their endorsement when they claimed he did not? Did he reduce the CBO to liars by claiming the health bill would not increase the deficit when they claimed that was an impossibility. Obama denying things does make anyone a liar automatically. His creditability was weakened by the billions in pork in the stimulus bill he promised would be there and then, when uncovered, declared it wouldn't happen with any bills "in the future". Obama's declarations are not written in stone, believe me.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


289 posted 08-22-2009 08:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Although the plan is clear in some respects, it is hazy vis-a-vis the abortion question.

John McCormack, a writer for the magazine Weekly Standard, hoped to resolve the question recently.
"During a campaign conference call about health care yesterday, I asked Obama-Biden surrogate Gov. Kathleen Sebelius if Obama's health care plan would mandate coverage for all legal abortions," he writes. "I really don’t know the specifics of that," Sebelius replied.

"An Obama-Biden spokesman told me via email that he'd find an answer to my question. But subsequent emails and phone calls in the past 24 hours from me to Obama-Biden spokesmen have gone unanswered," McCormack adds. "Apparently the Obama-Biden campaign doesn't think it needs to provide basic factual information about their candidate's health care plan. Will any one in the mainstream media hold Obama accountable?" McCormack asks.

Without a specific answer, voters are forced to guess what Obama's plan would do.

McCormack points to the speech Obama gave to Planned Parenthood activists in July 2007, where he pledged to cover abortions in any national health care plan.

"In my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose," Obama said. "We're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services"

Mike Dorning of the Chicago Tribune followed up on the Obama speech and reported that an Obama representative said "reproductive services" included abortions.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4415.html
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


290 posted 08-22-2009 09:02 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

That's exactly right, Mike. If abortion is not specifically EXCLUDED in this bill it WOULD be covered under any plan the government comes up with under the umbrella of reproductive health, according to an attorney that I heard on one program and a former senator, Rich Santorum on another program. Both stated that the courts have ruled that way in previous cases. Three or four amendments soecifically excluding abortion from the bills have all been shot down by the Democrats.

And if the government intruding itself into every area imaginable seeking to control it through health advisory boards that will determine acceptable treatments, and the government setting physican pay, reimbursement rates, taxes on employers and employees, etc. isn't a government takeover, I don't know what would be. And having bureaucrats determining treatments based on cost/benefit analysis is essentially a Death Panel if you are the one being denied care that could save or extend your life or the life of a loved one. It doesn't have to be specifically spelled out in those words in the bill. Just look at the philosophy of the 'health' advisors that Obama has surrounded himself with and I think it's easy to ascertain the direction they will take if this bill is passed and it is time to 'fill in the details'.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


291 posted 08-22-2009 09:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (*and your life*). Health care will be denied based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care will not be an option.


The above are all lies Mike. You don't need to be Kreskin to see that, all you need to do is compare the above claims of what's supposedly contained in the bill with what is actually written in the bill.

Fortunately my political slant doesn't affect my ability to do that, and it shouldn't affect yours either, you only require the ability, and inclination, to read the original bill to shoot those claims down in a ball of flames.

BTW - For the record, and for what it's worth, I tend to support and vote for whichever political party seems to have the best policies - the last time around it was the Conservatives and it's likely to be them again next time.

Does the health care plan cover abortion?

Which health care plan Mike? Do you mean the minimum standard plan that's proposed in the bill? If so the answer is easy, nobody knows because the standard health plan hasn't been agreed yet.

The bill contains a proposal that a standard will be established, it lays out the mechanism by which that standard will be agreed, but until it is agreed nobody knows whether it will contain cover for abortions.

That's probably why Kathleen Sebelius couldn't give a specific answer.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


292 posted 08-23-2009 07:15 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

There is quite a bit that isn't 'said' in the bill Grinch, and I'm sure that's intentional. It is purposely vague, but lays the groundwork in giving the government the power to say it means whatever the government says it means when they go back in to 'fill in the details' if/when it's passed. Obama himself said to judge him by the company he keeps. Look at his advisors and czars. That should help people understand what those details might be.

I'm sure Sebelius is aware that by it not being specifically excluded that by default it is included under 'reproductive health', and it doesn't matter if it is a basic plan or an enhanced plan. But she won't come out and say that and cause even more public outcry over the attempted takeover of the healtcare/insurance industries.


As for "bearing false witness", no one does it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

And here is a slip of the tongue moment by Maxine Waters. Sometimes the truth slips out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


293 posted 08-23-2009 08:32 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


The local government council in the town where I live has just announced a plan to refurbish the town library. The proposal is to form a committee to discuss what facilities are going to be included in the new library layout and to field suggestions from interested parties.

Personally I'd like a separate reading room with a refreshment area to replace the open reading area that's two floors away from the nearest place to get a coffee.

The proposed plan however doesn't mention a reading room. I asked a local councillor whether there would be one but he simply said that he didn't know.

Do you think it would be reasonable for me to start a petition to get the refurbishment plan shelved based on the fact that it doesn't specifically state whether there's going to be a separate reading room?

I don't - In fact I think that would be a decidedly stupid idea.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


294 posted 08-23-2009 09:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

We are not speaking of reading rooms or petitions here and there is little correlation between the two.

nobody knows because the standard health plan hasn't been agreed yet.

To me, that is the point that makes this whole thing ludicrous. Obama is touting his health plan. The minions he sends out to town hall meetings are touting his health plan. The Democrats are praising his health plan.......and there is no health plan! That certainly gives Obama and company nice wiggle room, doesn't it? Sebilius can't be expected to answer  questions about the health plan...because there is no health plan. Obama is outraged that there are lies about a health plan that doesn't exist. Participants at the town hall meeting are branded as terrorists, Nazis, organized crime and right wing conspiratists by demanding to know what is in a health plan that doesn't exist. Obama demanded that COngress pass his health care plan before they recessed, even though there was no health plan.

I have a radical suggestion. Why not have a finalized health plan and THEN talk about it, then explain it to the people, then defend it and be able to answer question concerning it? Does that sound so illogical? Obama is trying to sneak the health plan that doesn't exist the same way he handled the stimulus and cap and trade. "Just take my word for it, people, that it's good for you and we need it and don't worry about the details." Well, with health care, that ain't flying and it irritates Obama that his word is not good enough....when his track record now indicated that his word is indeed not good enough.

Why not avoid the confusion? Finalize a health plan. You don't want rumors? Finalize a health plan. You want to be able to explain the specifics of a health plan? Finalize a health plan. Americans don't know what's in the plan and, lately, even many Democrats don't know what's in the plan....mainly because there is no plan. Obama seems to claim what's in the plan that doesn;t exist based on daily polls. The public option is vital. The  public option is not vital. Whatever  to polls indicate the public is against somehow elicits a speech from Obama that it is not in his health plan, which he can;t really say because there is no health plan. Ron claims that Obama  has effectively branded critics as liars for their interpretations of a health plan that doesn't exist. Is that supposed to make sense??

Obama is a car salesman trying to get a customer to write a check, speaking of the beauty of the vehicle, the savings in gas mileage, the lush interiors, the safety factors, how it's a car they can't live without...but he's not showing them the car! He just wants the check in advance and have them believe that it will be everything he says, and he's incensed that they actually want to see it first! That's a shame....

Obama said illegal immigrants would not be part of the health care overhaul, taxpayers would not be mandated to fund abortions and he does not intend a government takeover of health care — all claims that critics have made at contentious town hall-style meetings with members of Congress.

Fine. Mr. President. Show us that in a finalized health plan.


There is no health plan finalized. The rest is just blahblahblah...
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


295 posted 08-23-2009 09:57 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
We are not speaking of reading rooms or petitions here and there is little correlation between the two.


Little correlation? Forgive me if I don't believe a word you say Mike, you have a history of being wrong - hang on let me check again for myself:

The council are proposing to reform the library.
The government are proposing to reform health care.

The council are proposing to form a committee to agree the facilities that will be included.
The Government is proposing to form a commission to agree what cover will be included.

Nobody knows yet whether the library will get a reading room.
Nobody knows yet whether abortion will be included in the health plan.

Hmm..

Rat-a-tat-tat

Another false statement shot down.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


296 posted 08-23-2009 09:58 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You make too much sense, Michael. You'd never make it in DC!

Just like the abortion issue, amendments excluding illegals were thrown out by the Democrats. Sounds a little suspicious to me.

And here's a take on Obama's 'appeal' to the Church:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/08/22/obama_makes_a_political_booty_call_to_the_church
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


297 posted 08-23-2009 10:00 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

If abortion were going to be excluded, Grinch, the amendments to that effect would not have been thrown out.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


298 posted 08-23-2009 10:12 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Fine. Mr. President. Show us that in a finalized health plan.

LOL. I think they call that a law, Mike. You know, like after our legislature has voted on it and the executive branch has signed it?

Until a bill has been voted in or out, it can't be considered finalized.

Oh, and I'm not quite sure why we're talking about abortions? They're still legal, aren't they? If they are non-elective medical procedures, why shouldn't they be covered?

quote:
Just like the abortion issue, amendments excluding illegals were thrown out by the Democrats.

Again, Denise, there are only two choices. One, we can let people die. Or, two, we can not let people die.

Are you suggesting we should add a third alternative and let some people die?


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


299 posted 08-23-2009 10:17 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Yes they would Denise.

For the same reason they'd throw out a clause that excluded in-growing toenails and  cosmetic surgery.

The health bill isn't the right instrument in which to lay out what is and what isn't covered in a standard health plan. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out why. If you list everything that is and isn't covered in a bill that's enacted into law you'd need an amendment every time you wanted to change what is and isn't covered.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Oh, those Little Details!!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors