No new taxes on those under $250k

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

[/quote]

The subject matter was Obama's plans on nationalized healthcare. Of course it hasn't happened yet - its a major undertaking. Once wheels start rolling, it will take years to accomplish.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah, call me when it's on the table instead of some whisper campaign.

Curse you NY Times and your right wing whisper campaigns!!!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

if you are paying 17% of your income for catastrophic insurance, you are being ripped off. That type of insurance is very affordable.

 

[palehorse]

Until this is actually proposed, those of us who would loudly protest are just pissing in the wind.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

Salary of 50,000. 2700 for catastrophic for me. 5000 for my wife and child with slightly better than catastrophic. No pre-existing conditions covered either.

Every insurance denied us full insurance in our state.

17% of 50k is 8500, which is pretty close after we pay out of pocket for prescriptions, etc.

So, medical costs of 17% a year, 14-15% for the insurance itself.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

Salary of 50,000. 2700 for catastrophic for me. 5000 for my wife and child with slightly better than catastrophic. No pre-existing conditions covered either.

Every insurance denied us full insurance in our state.

17% of 50k is 8500, which is pretty close after we pay out of pocket for prescriptions, etc.

So, medical costs of 17% a year, 14-15% for the insurance itself.

We spend about 16% of our GDP on healthcare. What's the problem, exactly?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

Rare circumstances? It's pretty common, and it's going to get more common as employers continue to drop health coverage and people have to get individual coverage. If our health care system is failing to provide health coverage to those who actually need it, that seems like a good justification for UHC to me.

 

[palehorse]

What makes UHC supporters confident of the fact that it would somehow be run more efficiently or effectively than the VA? Or is the VA "good enough" for you?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

Rare circumstances? It's pretty common, and it's going to get more common as employers continue to drop health coverage and people have to get individual coverage. If our health care system is failing to provide health coverage to those who actually need it, that seems like a good justification for UHC to me.

Catastrophic insurance is usually less than 100/month for an individual. If he is paying 5k a year for catastrophic insurance for wife and child, he is being ripped off.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: XMan

Point. Neither of the candidates had any real business background. Romney would have been a much better pick in this economy.

agreed. the idiots of this country could not get past the fact that he is religious. he stated many times that his religion would not become a deciding factor in his policies. he would have run the country like a business, probable could have started paying down the dept, and not creating more.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

Rare circumstances? It's pretty common, and it's going to get more common as employers continue to drop health coverage and people have to get individual coverage. If our health care system is failing to provide health coverage to those who actually need it, that seems like a good justification for UHC to me.

Catastrophic insurance is usually less than 100/month for an individual. If he is paying 5k a year for catastrophic insurance for wife and child, he is being ripped off.

Those who are likely to need more health care will have to pay a lot more and likely not be able to afford it. So under current system, those who have chronic conditions and need insurance most are least likely to afford it. That's how private insurance works, which is why it should not be primary source of coverage, and we need a system like UHC. It's long overdue.

 

[Deliximus]

its' been said before by the Republicans like Bill Kristol. If the Democrats succeeds in passing UHC, the Republicans will lose the middle class forever. Republicans always try to represent themselves as 'conservatives', 'pro-life', etc etc. They have been in power from 2001-2006 of ALL THREE law-making bodies of gov't, and yet did they pass any of the pro-life, ant-abortion stuff? no. They will continue to use it as a wedge issue forever and ever, while they make fun of the same people that voted for them behind their backs.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deliximus
its' been said before by the Republicans like Bill Kristol. If the Democrats succeeds in passing UHC, the Republicans will lose the middle class forever. Republicans always try to represent themselves as 'conservatives', 'pro-life', etc etc. They have been in power from 2001-2006 of ALL THREE law-making bodies of gov't, and yet did they pass any of the pro-life, ant-abortion stuff? no. They will continue to use it as a wedge issue forever and ever, while they make fun of the same people that voted for them behind their backs.

To be fair, their not passing a pro-life abortion amendment wasn't conspiratorial, they just don't have the super-majority needed - and that just happens to help them politically.

It's not as if Republicans made up the issue, it's a 'legitimate' wedge issue, even if it's clearly politically exploited.

That's better than the hyped issues (gay marriage) and distortions and lies they tell on many other issues for the same purpose (only Republicans can keep you safe, welfare queens, red scare, claiming they're against the 'tax and spend liberals', 'Al Gore is a liar', on and on.

 

[ElFenix]

when i was watching obama's speach where he said that no one would see a dime more tax the first thing i thought was 'damnit i want a raise, and if i get a raise i'll be paying more taxes, so obama just told me i'm not getting a raise.'

 

[Strk]

I'd hate to see how much my insurance would get taxed. I'm not sure how much the medical is exactly, but the benefits package as a whole is up there.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: palehorse
What makes UHC supporters confident of the fact that it would somehow be run more efficiently or effectively than the VA? Or is the VA "good enough" for you?

*crickets*

 

[Red Dawn]

I'll wait until they propose it before I get annoyed.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Par for the course. Cry and mislead when Senator McCain comes up with a solid proposal, then duplicate it, except without the tax credit that goes along with it. All part of pillaging hard working America for his deadbeat supporters.

Of course, the Obamatons will still parrot some gibberish about being taxes less than the 90s....if you discount half the taxes that they have to pay. :laugh:

Uh yeah, let me know when it actually becomes an official proposal and/or actually happens. Let me point you to some key words from your own article so you can attempt to cogitate with your two remaining brain cells:

"... signaling ... could support ... the health debate is at an early stage and no comprehensive plans are on the table ..."

A couple weeks ago you tried to use that excuse:


"Let's put things in perspective here - the $410B omnibus hasn't yet been ratified by the Senate - and at present the pork accounts for around $7.7B ... or 1.8% As for the health care proposals contained in his budget proposals, at least half the funds to pay for the program will be found through increased revenues elsewhere and frankly, we don't really know in what form this will actually take assuming Congress even passes such a thing. Seems a bit premature to blindly assume that everything Obama proposes will make it through unscathed, but leave it to you to misrepresent reality!"



Guess what? Everything Zero talks about is making through Congress 'unscathed'.

Except Obama isn't talking about this. Re-read your own article.

As for pork spending, I'll be watching future spending bills. I fully expect to see less earmarks (both in number and amount).

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

Rare circumstances? It's pretty common, and it's going to get more common as employers continue to drop health coverage and people have to get individual coverage. If our health care system is failing to provide health coverage to those who actually need it, that seems like a good justification for UHC to me.

Yes, it is an incredibly rare circumstance that someone is unable to get any kind of coverage besides catastrophic insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and then pays an astronomical rate for a bare minimum catastrophic insurance plan. I don't know one person that this has ever happened to. Do you have any statistics to show that this is indeed a common occurence?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Par for the course. Cry and mislead when Senator McCain comes up with a solid proposal, then duplicate it, except without the tax credit that goes along with it.

Or: it was a bad idea when McCain proposed it, it's still a bad idea when Obama considers it.

Do bad ideas seem good to you just because Republicans come up with them?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Par for the course. Cry and mislead when Senator McCain comes up with a solid proposal, then duplicate it, except without the tax credit that goes along with it. All part of pillaging hard working America for his deadbeat supporters.

Of course, the Obamatons will still parrot some gibberish about being taxes less than the 90s....if you discount half the taxes that they have to pay. :laugh:

Uh yeah, let me know when it actually becomes an official proposal and/or actually happens. Let me point you to some key words from your own article so you can attempt to cogitate with your two remaining brain cells:

"... signaling ... could support ... the health debate is at an early stage and no comprehensive plans are on the table ..."

A couple weeks ago you tried to use that excuse:


"Let's put things in perspective here - the $410B omnibus hasn't yet been ratified by the Senate - and at present the pork accounts for around $7.7B ... or 1.8% As for the health care proposals contained in his budget proposals, at least half the funds to pay for the program will be found through increased revenues elsewhere and frankly, we don't really know in what form this will actually take assuming Congress even passes such a thing. Seems a bit premature to blindly assume that everything Obama proposes will make it through unscathed, but leave it to you to misrepresent reality!"



Guess what? Everything Zero talks about is making through Congress 'unscathed'.

Except Obama isn't talking about this. Re-read your own article.

As for pork spending, I'll be watching future spending bills. I fully expect to see less earmarks (both in number and amount).

It's only his budget director, his treasury secretary, and their aides. Yawn.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

Rare circumstances? It's pretty common, and it's going to get more common as employers continue to drop health coverage and people have to get individual coverage. If our health care system is failing to provide health coverage to those who actually need it, that seems like a good justification for UHC to me.

Catastrophic insurance is usually less than 100/month for an individual. If he is paying 5k a year for catastrophic insurance for wife and child, he is being ripped off.

Those who are likely to need more health care will have to pay a lot more and likely not be able to afford it. So under current system, those who have chronic conditions and need insurance most are least likely to afford it. That's how private insurance works, which is why it should not be primary source of coverage, and we need a system like UHC. It's long overdue.

You do know that catastrophic insurance does not cover anything chronic and that is the reason it is cheap.