Utopia Talk / Politics / Congress working hard on the economy

roland Member	Fri Aug 03 17:20:03 I mean wasting time on abortion bills, and the 30 something times the repeal of Obamacare which so far resulted nothing. WASHINGTON — An effort to provide emergency aid for American ranchers and farmers reeling from a year of drought, frost and other calamities collapsed on Thursday as members of Congress departed for their five-week August recess, leaving behind a pile of unfinished legislation as they go home to campaign for re-election. After refusing to consider a sweeping five-year farm measure, House Republican leaders jammed through a short-term $383 million package of loans and grants for livestock producers and a limited number of farmers. The measure passed 223 to 197, a narrow margin for a bill that has an impact on so many states. But Democrats balked in protest over the way the farm legislation has been handled and some Republicans objected to the costs. Democratic leaders in the Senate, which had already passed a bipartisan five-year bill, refused to take up the House measure, faulting House Republican leaders for failing to consider the broader legislation in time.
Ork Member	Fri Aug 03 17:22:08 "as members of Congress departed for their five-week August recess, leaving behind a pile of unfinished legislation as they go home to campaign for re-election." They should all be greeted home by angry lynch mobs.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 18:47:06 "They should all be greeted home by angry lynch mobs." Oh, if only the world made any sense. I'd try to start such a mob, but the police wouldn't be very happy.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 18:53:39 "But Democrats balked in protest over the way the farm legislation has been handled..." They are kidding. Aren't they?
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 18:57:15 This bothers you, Rod, Republican rejection of a five year farm bill doesn't? And when will you stop supporting all these gigantic spending bills? Military, farmers, your welfare. Fuckin leech, didnt you get the memo about the unbelievably large US debt? I remember you posting the debt clock here, motherfucker.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 19:03:54 I neither believe in the five year plan or the one year plan. What I think is ludicrous is, "Democrats balked in protest over the way the farm legislation has been handled..." After the way they rammed Obamacare down our throats 'so we could find out what was in it'.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:07:35 The phrase "rammed down our throats" simply doesn't apply to "Obamacare" as it was actually passed. You should know.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 19:08:41 I see. That does seem a little childish. But there are also republicans who balked at that bill passage, dont forget to mention it.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 19:11:06 CR - But there are also republicans who balked at that bill passage, dont forget to mention it. Yes, they are the ones who think as I do I imagine, they neither believe in the five year plan or the one year plan.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 19:12:43 ehcks - The phrase "rammed down our throats" simply doesn't apply to "Obamacare" as it was actually passed. Surely you remember how it was passed. Don't you?
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:19:45 "Surely you remember how it was passed. Don't you?" The amount of time and effort that was wasted watering down the bill and trying to convince the Republicans to do what they already did in Massachusetts was disgusting and embarrassing. They were and still are acting like old-aged children* who want everything exactly their way, and if anyone copies them suddenly whatever they were doing was terrible. *Perhaps that's why you like the Republicans so much. There was nothing "rammed" anywhere. Months and months of begging and pleading and altering the plan until they finally decided to not alter the plan any further and just ignore the Reps. It would have been better "rammed."
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 19:24:31 "But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it." ~Rep. Nancy Pelosi No one in Congress had time to read the entire bill before it was passed.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 19:25:49 Well we are finding out what is in it. One huge disaster after another.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:32:34 http://en....Affordable_Care_Act#Provisions Go through there and name a few "disasters."
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:34:10 "All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Women's Preventive Services – including well-woman visits, support for breastfeeding equipment, contraception and domestic violence screening – will be covered without cost sharing. This is also known as the contraceptive mandate." This part went into effect two days ago. I haven't heard any "disaster" claims about it yet.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:35:24 There was plenty of time to read it. That's just an excuse by the insufferably lazy.
roland Member	Fri Aug 03 19:39:50 disaster 1, no death panel, so we still have to pay for socialist rod's healthcare
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 19:45:07 ehcks, This is easier, here is the top ten according to The Heritage Foundation. Top 10 Disasters of Obamacare By Kathryn Nix March 30, 2010 Print PDF Download PDF Share Facebook Twitter Email More President Obama recently signed gargantuan health care legislation into law that will have major ramifications for every man, woman, and child in the United States. This newly enacted law originates from the Senate health care bill (the “Patients Protection and Affordability Act”) and a sidecar reconciliation bill that originated in the House. Between these two bills are countless provisions that grow federal spending, increase burdensome taxes, and put federal rules and regulations between Americans and control over their health care. Outlined here are the 10 major ways in which the Left’s so-called health care reform will hurt Americans. 1. New Spending Grows the Federal Deficit The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the official scorekeeper for Congress, sets the projected cost of the health care package from 2010 to 2019 at $940 billion, reducing the deficit by $138 billion.[1] Unfortunately, the true cost of the new law will be far greater. The CBO is proficient at its work, but it is required to score legislative proposals based on assumptions about the future behavior of Congress—not according to its more likely behavior. The authors of this legislation took advantage of this in crafting the language of the bill, employing several budgetary gimmicks to make it appear cheaper. These include omitting cuts to Medicare provider payment rates, known as the “doc fix,” double-counting savings from Medicare and the CLASS Act, indexing benefits to general inflation rather than medical inflation, and delaying the expensive provisions of the bill. When these costs are accounted for, the new law is more likely to cost closer to $2.5 trillion.[2] Such levels of spending will not only negate any projected deficit reduction but increase the federal deficit further than would prior law. 2. Bending the Cost Curve in the Wrong Direction The provisions of the legislation aimed at reducing health care spending are reactionary, addressing the symptoms rather than the root causes of growth in spending.[3] Instead of reducing spending in health care, the bill will increase overall health spending in the U.S. by $222 billion between now and 2019.[4] In addition, CBO reports that premiums in the non-group market will increase by 10–13 percent as a result of the bill.[5] 3. New Taxes and Mandates Hinder Economic Growth The new law requires employers who do not offer insurance deemed adequate by the federal government to pay a fine of $2,000 for every employee, exempting the first 30 employees. Employers forced to pay this penalty will have to reduce wages, cut jobs, or rely more heavily on part-time workers. Any of these options will be bad for the economy.[6] The health care package also taxes investment income as a means to provide additional revenue to pay for the bill. The tax will discourage investment in the U.S. economy, thereby decreasing capital and reducing the potential for economic growth. Heritage Foundation analysts Karen Campbell, Ph.D., and Guinevere Nell found that this tax, at President Obama’s proposed rate of 2.9 percent, would reduce household disposable income by $17.3 billion a year.[7] The rate included in new law is 3.8 percent, so the actual effects are likely to be even more dramatic. 4. Regulations Grow Government Control over Health Care The new law empowers the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to define a required benefits package that every health plan in America must include. Moreover, the law now allows the federal government to dictate the prices that insurers set through new age rating regulations and medical-loss ratio requirements. The bill also opens the door for a de facto public option by creating government-sponsored national health plans to compete against private health plans in the health insurance exchanges the states are required to establish. The national health plans would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which currently runs the Federal Civil Service and also administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which serves federal workers and retirees.[8] OPM would make the rules for these government-sponsored plans. Because of this difference in regulatory authority, it would be very easy for the OPM-administered health plans to secure an unfair advantage against other plans in the state insurance exchanges. The reason: They will not be subjected to the exact same rules and regulations that are set by HHS for private health insurers. This could result in a gaming of the system in favor of the government-sponsored health plans. It is also possible that the government-sponsored health plans could be protected from insolvency through taxpayer bailouts.[9] Government sponsored enterprises are usually “too big to fail.” 5. Expanding Broken Entitlement Programs Under the new law, Medicaid will be extended to all Americans who fall below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. This is one of the primary means through which coverage is increased among the uninsured. According to CBO, of the 32 million newly insured in 2019, half will receive their coverage from Medicaid.[10] As it stands, Medicaid is a low-quality, poorly functioning program that fails to meet the needs of the Americans it serves. In most states, Medicaid beneficiaries have great difficulty finding a doctor who will treat them at the program’s low reimbursement rates and are more likely than the uninsured to rely on emergency rooms for care. Heritage Foundation Health Policy Fellow Brian Blase reports that, following an expansion of Tennessee’s Medicaid program, health outcomes in Tennessee actually deteriorated and Tennessee’s mortality rate declined at a much slower rate than surrounding states that did not expand their Medicaid programs.[11] 6. Burdening State Budgets The reconciliation bill ensures that the federal government will cover the expansion of Medicaid benefits in all 50 states until 2017. Federal matching rates will decrease from 100 percent in 2017 to 93 percent in 2019, resting permanently there. Moreover, the 100 percent federal match rate does not include administrative costs, which Heritage analyst Ed Haislmaier finds will accrue a cost to the states of $9.6 billion between 2014 and 2019.[12] The health care reconciliation bill further adds to several states’ new costs by changing Medicaid funding formulas. The new law would increase payments for primary care providers to match Medicare payment rates. In the initial years of the expansion, the federal government will provide 100 percent of the funding. However, after two years, federal funding for increases in provider payment rates will end, leaving states to either find a way to pick up the cost or go back to lower reimbursement rates. This provision would thus only temporarily solve the problems Medicaid beneficiaries have finding primary care, instead digging an even bigger financial hole for the states, whose budgets are already in the red due to decreasing revenues.[13] 7. Neglecting Medicare Medicare is due to become insolvent in 2016, and long-term unfunded liabilities exceed $38 trillion.[14] To address this, Medicare provider payment rates are scheduled to decrease annually according to the Sustainable Growth Rate. However, Congress votes to suspend these cuts every year, as it is a well-known fact that severe cuts in provider payments would result in many physicians refusing to see Medicare patients altogether. Congress did not include a permanent way to repeal and pay for the cuts to physician reimbursement rates in their health care bills. Instead, they added a similar and even more unlikely “fix” to create savings in Medicare: more than half a trillion dollars in cuts to the program. These include billions in cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program, which creates savings for seniors and gives them more options and control over their care. These savings—assuming they ever occur—will be used not to extend the solvency of the Medicare program but to fund the new entitlement programs that are now law. 8. Creates Discrimination Against Low Income Workers The employer mandate requires employers to offer a federally defined level of insurance or pay a fine. Moreover, even if an employer does offer insurance but their low-income employees qualify and elect to enter the health exchange instead, the employer will pay a $3,000 penalty for each employee who makes this choice. This is in addition to the cost of offering insurance. In several cases, depending on the proportion of an employer’s workforce that comes from low-income families, it would be more beneficial for employers to drop coverage altogether rather than pay for the increased penalty for employees in the exchange. This creates an incentive for employers to avoid hiring workers from low-income families, hurting those who need jobs the most.[15] 9. Exchange Eligibility Creates Inequity The new law will create generous subsidies for Americans to purchase insurance in the newly created health exchanges. However, these subsidies will be available only to those who fall between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level and are not offered federally defined sufficient assistance by their employer to purchase health insurance. All other Americans—including those in the very same income bracket—will not get subsidies but will instead rely only on the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance for federal assistance to purchase coverage. For workers with comparable incomes, the difference between this and the generous subsidy to buy insurance in the exchange will be thousands of dollars.[16] The federal government will thus create a gross inequity between Americans making similar incomes. It is unlikely that this will be tolerated for long by the American public, which will instead demand that the subsidies be made more equitable. However, doing so will add enormously to the cost of the government overhaul of the health care system. 10. Questions of Constitutionality The new law requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. This represents an unprecedented extension of congressional power—never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase a good or service as a stipulation of being a lawful citizen.[17] The health care overhaul also diminishes the federalist system upon which the U.S. was founded, which grants certain powers to the states in order to limit those of the federal government. The new law undermines state authority through the individual mandate to purchase insurance, a mandate to expand Medicaid (a state–federal joint program), and several new federal regulations of the insurance industry. The End of the Beginning These disasters are only the beginning of the vast effects the President’s health care overhaul will have on the U.S. As bits and pieces of the law are implemented, its effects on states, businesses, and Americans of every ilk will become manifest. Congress and the American people should not view passage of the liberals’ health care package as the end of the debate on reform. Rather, the long and tedious journey toward restoring personal control over health care dollars and decisions is just beginning. Kathryn Nix is a Research Assistant in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. http://www.../top-10-disasters-of-obamacare
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:45:29 Alright, you got me roland. That WAS a disaster.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:49:14 Heritage.org huh? You couldn't get someone without an obvious agenda?
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:53:31 1 and 2 are wrong. 2 is especially wrong because it uses a source that says it's wrong and lies about that. "The weighted average of the differences in those amounts equals the change of 10 percent to 13 percent in the average premium per person summarized above, but the percentage increase in the average premium per policy for family policies is larger and that for single policies is smaller because the average number of people covered per family policy is estimated to increase under the proposal. Those figures indicate what enrollees would pay, on average, not accounting for the new federal subsidies. The majority of nongroup enrollees (about 57 percent) would receive subsidies via the new insurance exchanges, and those subsidies, on average, would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium, CBO and JCTestimate. Thus, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law. Among nongroup enrollees who would not receive new subsidies, average premiums would increase by somewhat less than the 10 percent to 13 percent difference for the nongroup market as a whole because some factors discussed below would have different effects for those enrollees than for those receiving subsidies." I'm sorry that you have to read to see why they're wrong. But mostly I'm sorry i have to do your homework.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:55:04 "3. New Taxes and Mandates Hinder Economic Growth" That's not even worth replying to, honestly. It's just another "Lower taxes is always better" whine, ignoring the fact that we currently have the lowest taxes in over 50 years.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:56:41 "4. Regulations Grow Government Control over Health Care" And one of these BS lines. "The new law empowers the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to define a required benefits package that every health plan in America must include." Life and health are unalienable rights, dipshit. Everyone deserves them equally.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:58:21 "6. Burdening State Budgets The reconciliation bill ensures that the federal government will cover the expansion of Medicaid benefits in all 50 states until 2017. Federal matching rates will decrease from 100 percent in 2017 to 93 percent in 2019, resting permanently there." Oh no, the states have to pay 7% of additional Medicaid coverage. And then not even an estimate of how much that is.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 19:59:03 "7. Neglecting Medicare Medicare is due to become insolvent in 2016, and long-term unfunded liabilities exceed $38 trillion.[14] To address this, Medicare provider payment rates are scheduled to decrease annually according to the Sustainable Growth Rate. However, Congress votes to suspend these cuts every year..." And this has what to do with the healthcare bill?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:00:43 So if the government pays for it their cost is not a factor. Is that what you are saying? "New Spending Grows the Federal Deficit"
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:01:37 "8. Creates Discrimination Against Low Income Workers The employer mandate requires employers to offer a federally defined level of insurance or pay a fine. Moreover, even if an employer does offer insurance but their low-income employees qualify and elect to enter the health exchange instead, the employer will pay a $3,000 penalty for each employee who makes this choice. This is in addition to the cost of offering insurance." The source for this is a book, so I can't do anything with that, but this is a choice to either offer better healthcare options for your employees or pay a fine for not doing so. Again, health is a right.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:02:02 'So if the government pays for it their cost is not a factor. Is that what you are saying? "New Spending Grows the Federal Deficit"' First, what? Second, that's a lie.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:03:10 "9. Exchange Eligibility Creates Inequity The new law will create generous subsidies for Americans to purchase insurance in the newly created health exchanges. However, these subsidies will be available only to those who fall between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level and are not offered federally defined sufficient assistance by their employer to purchase health insurance. All other Americans—including those in the very same income bracket—will not get subsidies" Oh my fucking lord. REALLY?! The complaint is that poor people actually GET SOMETHING?! The FUCK!
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:03:43 I'm convinced number 9 was written by Sam.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:04:03 "10. Questions of Constitutionality" And already settled.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:05:01 "Oh no, the states have to pay 7% of additional Medicaid coverage." 7% for an additional 30 million new enrollees? Most of the states are going broke now, except for the republican states. Talking to you is a waste of time.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:07:44 "Talking to you is a waste of time." Hey, you're the one who linked to a list of "10 things that are not true."
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:11:45 "7% for an additional 30 million new enrollees? Most of the states are going broke now, except for the republican states." I'm sorry you think it's a hindrance to society to pay for people to live healthily. But maybe we could raise medicare and medicaid taxes. Or we could repeal them and put all of their provisions until the health care act. And then we can remove the private health insurance part and pay a tax equal to the average amount that people need for medical care.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:12:09 -until +into
roland Member	Fri Aug 03 20:15:23 " 10. Questions of Constitutionality The new law requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. " this is really funny the heritage foundation once supported and promoted individual mandate, they didn't think it was unconstitutional at the time. And the SC verdicts suggested, they are wrong on the constitutionality
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:16:07 You want them to live healthy, then why don't you start a charity where folks can contribute voluntarily instead of holding a gun to the head of the taxpayers?
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 20:19:20 "Hot Rod Revved Up Fri Aug 03 20:16:07 You want them to live healthy, then why don't you start a charity where folks can contribute voluntarily instead of holding a gun to the head of the taxpayers? " How long do you think you will live if SS, Medicaid and Medicare are scrapped tomorrow? Oh, and a charity program is set up, to serve old leeches like you. I know you don't have much time left as it is, but still, give me a guesstimate.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:20:09 People's lives and health should not be at the whim of the rich trying to look good for picking a charity, you moron.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:21:24 "How long do you think you will live if SS, Medicaid and Medicare are scrapped tomorrow?" Why don't I ever think up the good stuff? I was never meant to be good at communicating.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:23:08 Irrelevant.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:25:29 ehcks - Why don't I ever think up the good stuff? Probably because you are stupid. ehcks - I was never meant to be good at communicating. Probably because you are stupid.
ehcks Member	Fri Aug 03 20:26:50 Since a majority of the things you say are the opposite of how they actually are, thank you sir, I feel better now.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:28:01 LOL, I rest my case. :)
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 20:31:44 Not even a guesstimate? Let me tell you, then. No charity can replace a social insurance program like Medicare or a welfare program like Medicaid. It's a whole different scale. Now, there are people (our Sammy for example) that say that there shouldn't be any programs like that anyway. Mercifully for you, people like Sam are the minority. The facts are pretty clear, if not for these programs, old people would be dying on the streets. Today's news, for example -about 46% of Americans die with virtually no assets. They rely almost solely on SS to survive http://www...ally-no-financial-assets-.html
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 20:34:10 Motherfucker stretched the damn thread. Goddamn, you are useless.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 20:35:31 Lol, your first link is the same Heritage shit you've already posted, you senile dumbass
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:36:30 You said you wanted a different source.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 20:37:37 Reprinted story on another website is your different source?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:38:25 Yes, as a matter of fact it is.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 20:39:35 It's the same author, you idiot
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 20:41:53 Yes it is, but it printed at the location of a different source.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 20:46:35 Is this your definition of different source? If I create two websites and post a single phrase on both "Hot Rod molests boys", would it be fair to say -"Multiple sources confirm Rods pedophilia"? Ok, ok, I don't want to offend you for no reasin now, replace molestation with knifing and pedophilia with murder.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Fri Aug 03 20:58:43 Some of us never stayed in school long enough to be asked to source anything. Just sayin.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 21:07:57 CR - If I create two websites... Then *YOU* have repeated yourself. If *TWO* people post exactly the same thing then *TWO* people are in exact agreement, but they are two different websites run by two different folks so what you have is two different sources. And since you have resorted to name calling, as usual, I will take that as an admission that you have no rational responses left so I will close this futile attempt to educate you.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 03 21:09:41 And some of us still have not been in school long enough to learn to count to two.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Aug 03 21:11:26 Ok, if ehcks writes "Rod like young boys" and I reprint it on a different website, would that count as multiple sources? Ok, forgot again, no offense, replace boys with shoplifting at the local Walmart.
roland Member	Fri Aug 03 21:33:20 how many source does the bible have, a hundreds of thousands?
WilliamTheBastard Member	Sat Aug 04 05:14:40 "Some of us never stayed in school long enough to be asked to source anything. Just sayin. " checking whether the guy telling you something is a liar or not is common sense, not to mention, pedo knows all about sources after a decade at UP. He just hates not lying.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: