Hey guys, guess what finally made it's way through Congress

[Wigmund]

Yep, they finally got that fucking health care bill through.
From MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35961584/ns/politics-health_care_reform/):

House sends health care bill to Obama's desk
President to sign reforms into law; 'fixes' still require House, Senate action

WASHINGTON - After well over a year of negotiations, setbacks, and political wrangling, the House has approved President Barack Obama’s top domestic policy initiative, sending a bill to massively overhaul the nation’s health insurance system to his desk to be signed and enacted into law.

The climactic chapter in a century-long quest for near universal coverage concludes with the House's 219-212 approval of a bill to extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade.

Republicans voted unanimously against the bill, which they say constitutes a government takeover of the health care system, financed by a trillion dollars in higher taxes and Medicare cuts combined.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as the vote neared.

"We have failed to listen to Americans," said Minority Leader John Boehner during a fiery speech on the Senate floor before the vote. "And we failed to reflect the will of our constituents."

Passage of the central health care bill, which has already been cleared by the Senate, sends it to Obama for his signature. That still leaves one more step, a companion package of changes still needing Senate approval. That package of changes is expected to be approved by the House late Sunday.

Senate Republicans believe that they may be able to derail passage of that corrections bill during the complex budget "reconciliation" procedure that the upper chamber will use following House passage.

The Senate is expected to start work on the reconciliation process on Tuesday.

The measure cleared a critical early test vote, 224-206, a few hours after Obama and Democratic leaders struck a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose votes had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and a handful of fellow abortion opponents said they were satisfied and announced their support for the bill. A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church's objections.

A shouting band of protesters outside the Capitol dramatized their opposition, and one man stood up in the House visitor's gallery yelling, "Kill the bill" before he was ushered out — evidence of the passions the tumultuous yearlong debate over health care has stirred.

For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill's demise could cripple his still-young presidency.

Far beyond the political ramifications — a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind — were the sweeping changes the bill holds in store for millions of individuals, the insurance companies that will come under tougher control and the health care providers, many of whom would face higher taxes.

For the first time, most Americans will be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill is devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.

The measure will also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.

The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.

Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.

A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.

After more than a year of political combat — certain to persist into the fall election campaign for control of Congress — Democrats piled superlative upon superlative across several hours of House debate.

Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York read a message President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress in 1939 urging lawmakers to address the needs of those without health care, and said Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Richard Nixon had also sought to broaden insurance coverage.

Republicans attacked the bill without let-up, warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system.

"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.

"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."

Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.

The 44th president's quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.

But the White House, Pelosi and Reid soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.

To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.

In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.

The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.

The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.
And here's some sidebar info...
Also from MSNBC.com:
If enacted, the reconciliation bill combined with the Senate-passed bill would, from 2010-2019:
* Spend $938 billion on expanding insurance coverage, including $464 billion in subsidies to help uninsured people buy coverage.
* Expand Medicaid coverage to 16 million additional people.
* Require many employers to offer coverage for their workers.
* Collect $69 billion in penalties from uninsured individuals and employers for non-coverage.
* Provide coverage through an insurance exchange to 24 million people.
* Reduce the number of uninsured by 32 million people, but leave 23 million (including illegal immigrants) not covered.
* Cut Medicare spending by $455 billion from currently-projected levels.
* Not affect next month’s scheduled 21 percent cut in payment rates to doctors who treat Medicare patients.
* Produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion.
Source: The Congressional Budget Office, msnbc.com's Tom Curry

According to some badly done calculations a person working at minimum wage for 60 hours a week including time-and-a-half yearly would still be exempt from the required insurance coverage (which I imagine includes the largest chunk of working uninsured Americans).

I'm sure there's gonna be better info on everything involved tomorrow, but at least the worst of this damned legislative battle is finally over.

[Bob The Mercenary]

The bad thing is, all those fixes they promised were coming? Yeah, I don't think they're going to want to ever mention health care again. At least until after the elections. And if they try anything afterwards, the GOP most likely will have picked up a few seats, making it near impossible.

And what's this I'm hearing about major pharmacies dropping Medicaid already?

[Wigmund]

I think the fact that it's March means that something else will be the focus of the debate by time November rolls around unless the GOP can keep the ball in the court of something that's already gone by.

The Democrats could keep the campaigns of 06 and 08 focused on the likes of Iraq and other such things because they were at the forefront of the news constantly...for years.

Now that this bill is passed and people see that the sky didn't collapse and the seas didn't burst into flame and the dolphins didn't wade out of the surf to rape our daughters, most voters will forget about the worse of the health care debate. The Democrats and Republicans will find something new to argue about soon, probably the future jobs/economic relief bills or the repeal of DADT that they've been talking about since the last election.

As for the GOP picking up seats, that tends to be given for the party not in power to pick up seats during midterm elections. That was why the elections in 02 were such big news because the GOP was already in nominal control and they managed to seal it with Bush in office (helped they milked 9/11 for all it was worth). But if the Democrats can make the focus of the future debates the economic recovery plans or something similar that the public tends to favor them on, the GOP's hopes might be tempered pretty severely.

But anyways, it looks like the House is still voting on the reconciliation package and they claim the Senate will take that up Tuesday (http://saxaspeak.thehoya.com/2010/03/21/health-care-bill-with-student-loan-legislation-attached-passes-congress/) with a reconciliation vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29).

[Azisien]

Definitely need to tax that $200,000 plus bracket more, pay for all this.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Definitely need to tax that $200,000 plus bracket more, pay for all this.

That there sounds like socialist fascist commie talk to me young man!

Actually, don't they already get taxed for like half of what they make?

[bluestarultor]

That there sounds like socialist fascist commie talk to me young man!

Actually, don't they already get taxed for like half of what they make?

If by "taxed for like half of what they make" you mean "rich people don't pay taxes because they're good at hiding it and finding loopholes," then yes. :p

[Azisien]

Actually, don't they already get taxed for like half of what they make?

On top of what Blues said, honestly, it's like oh shit, I gave myself a bunch of bonuses this year weee! Oh no, tax, now my two million dollars is only one million dollars because of this damn tax!

Only one million dollars nooooo how will I feed my cat diamonds?!

[Premmy]

Doesn't hurt that most of those rich people are bestest buddies with politicians.

[Mirai Gen]

There is, and has always been, a "Billionaires Can Do Whatever The Fuck They Want" Escape Clause.

[Donomni]

On top of what Blues said, honestly, it's like oh shit, I gave myself a bunch of bonuses this year weee! Oh no, tax, now my two million dollars is only one million dollars because of this damn tax!

Only one million dollars nooooo how will I feed my cat diamonds?!

Didn't a guy kill himself for more-or-less that exact reason(Barring the diamond-fed cat)?

Also, hopefully this doesn't impact me too much, as I already have Medicaid/Medicare(It could be both, but it's such a clusterfuck I dunno).

I'm betting it's still gonna be butchered eventually.

[Premmy]

Didn't a guy kill himself for more-or-less that exact reason(Barring the diamond-fed cat)?


This really just proves why rich people shouldn't be allowed to decide ANYTHING that effects someone outside themselves.

[Eldezar]

Soo, I'm single and make less than 20k a year. What kind of premium/taxes would I be paying with this?

[Nique]

Only one million dollars nooooo how will I feed my cat diamonds?!

Many millionaires live outside their means just like the rest of us. Of course the more wealth you have the more accountability you should have so it shouldn't really be an issue. I'm just saying that you might actually find yourself asking the same question if you were ever in a possession to feed anything diamonds. (Tiger's instead maybe?)

[Premmy]

Many millionaires live outside their means just like the rest of us.
The means of a millionaire are signifigantly greater than is recquired to live comfortably with all your needs attended to and even a good chunk of your wants if you're not crazy as hell.

The issue is more like that the majority of them are living to the maximum of their means for no damn reason beyond stupidity and greed.

Of course the more wealth you have the more accountability you should have so it shouldn't really be an issue.
Exactly

I'm just saying that you might actually find yourself asking the same question if you were ever in a possession to feed anything diamonds. (Tiger's instead maybe?)

Sharks they need a little kindness every now and then

[Amake]

Depending on exchange rates, my yearly income is between 14 000 and 17 400 dollars. And I've got nothing to complain about. Fascinating that such different standards can exist I think.

Soo isn't it funny that the most prevalent argument against the bill is that it's bad for the economy. I guess when you're rich enough, money becomes more important than people. We might have to ask if a person should ever be that wealthy. Of course that's my opinion as a poor person, and we know no one could never be happy without a lot of money, ergo I must be bitter.

Avatar notwithstanding.

[Mirai Gen]

Everyone, let's all get together and make a nice farewell card for Rush Limbaugh. (http://www.dccc.org/page/s/rushfarewell)

He leaves for Costa Rica soon. We won't miss you!

[Azisien]

I guess when you're rich enough, money becomes more important than people. We might have to ask if a person should ever be that wealthy.

Indeed. I have a new measure of success though. Let's call it "cool success." Instead of the usual measure of success (profit, GDP, income), let's make it "decrease in the number of hospitalizations." Now wouldn't that be a nice goal we can all agree is nice!

Everyone, let's all get together and make a nice farewell card for Rush Limbaugh. (http://www.dccc.org/page/s/rushfarewell)

He leaves for Costa Rica soon. We won't miss you!

From Matthew
P.S. Die in a hole

[Raiden]

If by "taxed for like half of what they make" you mean "rich people don't pay taxes because they're good at hiding it and finding loopholes," then yes. :p

Technically, my dad makes $200,000 a year. But they get zero tax exemptions and yeah, he pays $120,000 in taxes every year, so he makes about 80K a year. Still good, but the $200,000 bracket gets taxed a lot, yes.

[POS Industries]

Everyone, let's all get together and make a nice farewell card for Rush Limbaugh. (http://www.dccc.org/page/s/rushfarewell)

He leaves for Costa Rica soon. We won't miss you!
My favorite part of this is that Costa Rica has universal, government-run healthcare. (http://www.internationalliving.com/Countries/Costa-Rica/Health-Care)

[Mirai Gen]

Yeah I think we covered it in another thread but him saying Costa Rica was like, the absolute goddamn dumbest thing he could have spouted from his ugly fat noise-hole.

[Premmy]

Yeah I think we covered it in another thread but him saying Costa Rica was like, the absolute goddamn dumbest thing he could have spouted from his ugly fat noise-hole.
Don't say that, it encourages him!

[Green Spanner]

Well, this bill is a good start.

A good start.

Though you all should hope it stops here. God forbid poor people become able to get healthcare! Disgusting!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah bill isn't great but it is important to get something through as a start that can be built off when people see that sky doesn't collapse.

[Bob The Mercenary]

This really just proves why rich people shouldn't be allowed to decide ANYTHING that effects someone outside themselves.

So...is it just evil to be rich?

[Kim]

So...is it just evil to be rich?

Depends on how you got there.

More than anything, it's just the fact that hey, people really don't need a million dollars to live comfortably, so if you're making a million dollars, maybe you could try living on a couple hundred thousand dollars so the people making less than twenty thousand a year don't die.

And if you ever think that a couple hundred thousand dollars isn't enough to live comfortably on, you have too much fucking money.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So...is it just evil to be rich?

Yes

[Wigmund]

I made less than $8,000 last year (well, roughly $12k if you want to throw in the student loan monies I get after tuition is paid). And I tend to make it through alright. I don't rely on any welfare/food stamp programs...yet. So if a person says that it's hard to live on anything under even $50k, I want to call them a shithead. Learn to rent, learn to drive an old used car, learn to cut coupons, learn to save and be frugal, learn to live in areas where the income demands aren't fucking ridiculous.

Technically, my dad makes $200,000 a year. But they get zero tax exemptions and yeah, he pays $120,000 in taxes every year, so he makes about 80K a year. Still good, but the $200,000 bracket gets taxed a lot, yes.

How is he paying 60% of his income in taxes? The top tax bracket is currently 35% for everyone that makes over $370,000 (http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html).

Everyone, let's all get together and make a nice farewell card for Rush Limbaugh. (http://www.dccc.org/page/s/rushfarewell)

He leaves for Costa Rica soon. We won't miss you!

Just left my farewell form Rushie:
Hope you can find unlimited supplies of Oxycontin and Viagra down there.

And I hope you enjoy their nationalized health care system.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Yes

So if I ever make a lot of money, you would have me give away all but just enough so that I could live comfortably and not be allowed a little fun along the way? That is if I were ever in such a position through perfectly legal and ethical means.

[Azisien]

So if I ever make a lot of money, you would have me give away all but just enough so that I could live comfortably and not be allowed a little fun along the way? That is if I were ever in such a position through perfectly legal and ethical means.

I think more or less, yes. Maybe a little fun, but not very much good sir!

PS I assume by fun you mean hookers and $1000 cigars

[Viridis]

Single college student. There any guide to cashing in on this and living off the guv'ment? Currently have no health care.

Some sort of general FAQ of who this applies to and when it goes into effect would be nice.

Edit: According to this (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319), not much for me until 2012-2014.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Unfortunately most of this thing won't go into effect until after you're out of college, probably.

[Viridis]

"Oh yeah, that healthcare bill, it also redesigned the student loan funding system. The bill will spend an additional $36 billion on Pell grants over 10 years and eliminates fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in student loans. (nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/education/22pell.html))"

No one told me that and that is awesome.

[Raiden]

How is he paying 60% of his income in taxes? The top tax bracket is currently 35% for everyone that makes over $370,000 (http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html).

Like my dad says, we're too rich for exemptions, but not rich enough for the breaks.

He also has four children (normally you get a tax exemption for each kid you have, but he makes too much), works in a company based out of Germany so foreign money, and some other stuff that I don't honestly know all about so I can't list off.

But yeah, I know it affects me since with his income, I'm not eligible for Student Loans. Working off your full tuition every semester is AWESOME.

[Viridis]

Another helpful "How the helath care overall will affect you" thing (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So if I ever make a lot of money, you would have me give away all but just enough so that I could live comfortably and not be allowed a little fun along the way? That is if I were ever in such a position through perfectly legal and ethical means.

Yes though by making that much money it would already be unethical.

[Azisien]

Yes though by making that much money it would already be unethical.

Well, if I am following your thought, existence is more or less unethical at this point.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm downn with murdering everyone. Well maybe just outlawing babies- I defineatly think having children is pretty unethical.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I'm curious though. If pre-existing conditions don't apply anymore, in theory couldn't you just wait until right after a car accident or after you're diagnosed with cancer to buy insurance. If so, wouldn't that just force premiums up until the entire industry goes bankrupt as people hold out buying a plan until a catastrophe happens?

Or maybe there's something built in that I missed.

[Azisien]

Is there something stopping people from having much higher premiums when you sign up quickly with medical conditions?

From what I read (just the summaries), you just can't be rejected outright. That doesn't mean you can't face penalties, right?

That at least creates a system of rewarding smart people that get insurance before they get run over by 17 tractor trailers packed with nitroglycerine.

[Mirai Gen]

So if I ever make a lot of money, you would have me give away all but just enough so that I could live comfortably and not be allowed a little fun along the way? That is if I were ever in such a position through perfectly legal and ethical means.

Bob's inner Republican is coming out again. Everyone, get the baseball bats.

[Tev]

So if I ever make a lot of money, you would have me give away all but just enough so that I could live comfortably and not be allowed a little fun along the way? That is if I were ever in such a position through perfectly legal and ethical means.As with all things, moderation is key. What constitutes a “little” fun actually grows with the more money you have. What you consider fun now isn’t even a blip on the radar of a billionaire.

To be honest, there’s not enough recognition and personal reward in honest philanthropy these days. If wealth could be measured in how many lives you’ve made better, how many children you’ve helped educate, or how many towns you’ve helped recover from natural disasters then maybe it would shift the wealthy from materialistic goals to more humanitarian aims. Imagine being the guy who is known for filling NASA’s budget shortfall to help them build a colony on Mars? Hell I’d bet they’d even name it after you and everything.

[Melfice]

I'm curious though. If pre-existing conditions don't apply anymore, in theory couldn't you just wait until right after a car accident or after you're diagnosed with cancer to buy insurance. If so, wouldn't that just force premiums up until the entire industry goes bankrupt as people hold out buying a plan until a catastrophe happens?

Or maybe there's something built in that I missed.

Since you're injured before you were insured, I can't imagine you getting a lot of your medical bill paid for you.
I mean, that's like crashing your multi-billion Euro, hand-signed by zombie-Enzo, Enzo Ferrari, buying a car insurance after you did so and then expecting the repair bill to be paid for you. (Bit of a wobbly analogy, I know. But I hope you get the point.)

Besides, as I understood it, it's now mandatory for everybody to have health insurance (some people exempt still, I think?).

[Solid Snake]

The only thing I dislike about the healthcare bill as stands is that it currently seems to require everyone to pay for healthcare, and those kinds of minor intrusions on personal liberty, however well intentioned, can lead to disastrous future consequences if Congress starts seriously believing it has a mandate to choke decisions down people's throats whenever it's in their interest.

In my Constitutional Law class the narrative is basically how the Courts have gradually allowed Congress to get away with more and more, and while I often find myself agreeing with the substantive policies Congress passes, the justification that "the moral value of the bill Congress is pushing" somehow overrides constitutional or procedural objections seems tenuous at best and outright dangerous at worst. (In other words: just because the health care bill may be substantively good in content doesn't mean Congress should have had the right to pass it, at least without amending the Constitution or redefining the balance of federalism between state and national governments.)

That's not my old-school old-days conservatism seeping out though, because conservatives right now are acting like assholes. Seriously. Those of you know how I used to be a staunch Republican years back shouldn't be surprised to know that I'm still apparently on a few lists to get e-mails from Republican-aligned interest groups. And boy you'd think Obama and Pelosi were the antichrist and his trusted succubus or some crazy shit based on the crap they're pulling. Huckabee's announcing that this somehow proves that Congress hates America and there's some really weird logic about how the opposition to healthcare reform is really what's bipartisan because some Democrats actually tagged along with every Republican. There's literally a Top Ten list of "Ways Obama Hates Us" circulating around from a goddamn legit interest group and it just makes me want to punch something. Would it hurt Republicans to actually articulate their substantive, policy-oriented objections to the Healthcare bill in a way that didn't appeal to the lowest common denominator?

I mean this is why I'm now calling myself a libertarian: it's not really because I entirely agree with libertarian principles or consider myself the next Ayn Rand or anything like that, it's more that libertarian has become a new codeword for "I disagree with some of the Democrat's fundamental assertions about the role of the federal government and its power and would enjoy debating them on the merits of their positions, but I'm not batshit insane like Republicans, please don't associate me with those wackos."

...Anyway, when all's said and done, the strange thing about Healthcare Reform is that the Democrats are applauding its passage after having stripped the bill of much of its prior authority. The Healthcare bill makes some interesting changes, to be sure, but it's certainly not the revolutionary beacon of change and hope the Dems have made it out to be, and their own liberal constituents should be angry that they bartered down the terms of the bill as much as they did. Insofar as the Republicans may try to ride this wave of change and insofar as progressives may actually notice how little has changed, I wonder how well or how poorly the Dems will fare in 2010.

My guess is Obama actually doesn't mind: a slight Republican rejuvenation in 2010 may actually increase his reelection odds in 2012, insofar as stronger Republican opposition may give Obama justification as to why certain reforms aren't passing and enable him to attack the Republicans as the enemy. Furthermore, if the Republicans do poorly in 2010 that simmering anger among the tea party might boil by 2012, whereas a successful Tea Party run that just falls short of winning back the House or the Senate might prevent a similar populist current in 2012.
Right now with the Dems owning both houses as they do, it's difficult to justify recent screw-ups as anything other than Democratic cowardice (they seriously need to stick up for their beliefs a bit more, and I'm saying that despite often disagreeing with them) or stupidity.

[Amake]

Imagine if the gov'ment were to buy every hospital in the country and have you pay for them with taxes rather than being billed at the door. Welcome to Sweden. :)

Being forced to pay for insurance seems like it accomplishes more or less the same thing, but I imagine it's a much less shocking transition than the alternative. Slippery slopes aside.

[Osterbaum]

Welcome to Sweden.
Or Finland. If only the current goverment weren't working so hard to model this country after the US. I mean seriosly, if they've done some shit badly and are now even somewhat realizing that themselves, then there's really no excuse for us to fucking do the same shit.

[stefan]

So if I ever make a lot of money, you would have me give away all but just enough so that I could live comfortably and not be allowed a little fun along the way? That is if I were ever in such a position through perfectly legal and ethical means.

there's a difference between "fun" and "blowing the cumulative wealth of the entire third world on hookers made of cocaine and diamonds"

[Premmy]

I mean this is why I'm now calling myself a libertarian: it's not really because I entirely agree with libertarian principles or consider myself the next Ayn Rand or anything like that, it's more that libertarian has become a new codeword for "I disagree with some of the Democrat's fundamental assertions about the role of the federal government and its power and would enjoy debating them on the merits of their positions, but I'm not batshit insane like Republicans, please don't associate me with those wackos."

For some reason I've always viewed Libertarians as Conservatives who reserve the right to have a superior attitude towards Conservatives.

Like, I've never met a Libertarian who wasn't just a conservative who didn't gay-bash or something. So I'd be really interested in what differences there are beyond "I'm totally better than Conservatives" there is to Libertarianism.

[CABAL49]

For some reason I've always viewed Libertarians as Conservatives who reserve the right to have a superior attitude towards Conservatives.

Like, I've never met a Libertarian who wasn't just a conservative who didn't gay-bash or something. So I'd be really interested in what differences there are beyond "I'm totally better than Conservatives" there is to Libertarianism.

There actually is a difference between Conservatives and Libertarians. Libertarians position is more like, "do what ever you want as long as it doesn't affect me." They hang out with Republicans when it comes to limitations on government. They hang out Democrats when it comes to individual freedoms. I like to call them anarchist. But that is because I am a jerk.

[Krylo]

there's a difference between "fun" and "blowing the cumulative wealth of the entire third world on hookers made of cocaine and diamonds"

Not in MY America, there isn't!

[Premmy]

Not in MY America, there isn't!

If they ain't made of at least platinum, they're no good for buyin'!

[Mirai Gen]

I mean this is why I'm now calling myself a libertarian: it's not really because I entirely agree with libertarian principles or consider myself the next Ayn Rand or anything like that, it's more that libertarian has become a new codeword for "I disagree with some of the Democrat's fundamental assertions about the role of the federal government and its power and would enjoy debating them on the merits of their positions, but I'm not batshit insane like Republicans, please don't associate me with those wackos."

Register as an independent, then. Since you're not running for an office it isn't like you're required to be in a party to gain affiliation support.

[Premmy]

There actually is a difference between Conservatives and Libertarians. Libertarians position is more like, "do what ever you want as long as it doesn't affect me." They hang out with Republicans when it comes to limitations on government. They hang out Democrats when it comes to individual freedoms. I like to call them anarchist. But that is because I am a jerk.

That really does sound like exactly what I said.

[CABAL49]

That really does sound like exactly what I said.

How about this then. The Libertarian's official stance on homosexuality is that you should be able to bang anyone you want as long as it is consensual. So obviously they can't all be gay bashers.

[Premmy]

How about this then. The Libertarian's official stance on homosexuality is that you should be able to bang anyone you want as long as it is consensual. So obviously they can't all be gay bashers.

My point was:
Libertarians= Conservatives who get to act superior because they're not gay-bashers, e.t.c

My question was:what else?

[Magus]

The only thing I dislike about the healthcare bill as stands is that it currently seems to require everyone to pay for healthcare, and those kinds of minor intrusions on personal liberty, however well intentioned, can lead to disastrous future consequences if Congress starts seriously believing it has a mandate to choke decisions down people's throats whenever it's in their interest.

.......

...Anyway, when all's said and done, the strange thing about Healthcare Reform is that the Democrats are applauding its passage after having stripped the bill of much of its prior authority. The Healthcare bill makes some interesting changes, to be sure, but it's certainly not the revolutionary beacon of change and hope the Dems have made it out to be, and their own liberal constituents should be angry that they bartered down the terms of the bill as much as they did. Insofar as the Republicans may try to ride this wave of change and insofar as progressives may actually notice how little has changed, I wonder how well or how poorly the Dems will fare in 2010.

My guess is Obama actually doesn't mind: a slight Republican rejuvenation in 2010 may actually increase his reelection odds in 2012, insofar as stronger Republican opposition may give Obama justification as to why certain reforms aren't passing and enable him to attack the Republicans as the enemy. Furthermore, if the Republicans do poorly in 2010 that simmering anger among the tea party might boil by 2012, whereas a successful Tea Party run that just falls short of winning back the House or the Senate might prevent a similar populist current in 2012.
Right now with the Dems owning both houses as they do, it's difficult to justify recent screw-ups as anything other than Democratic cowardice (they seriously need to stick up for their beliefs a bit more, and I'm saying that despite often disagreeing with them) or stupidity.

It's not so much cowardice, it's a lack of party unity. Around 30 Democrats in the House at least sided with Republicans in voting against the bill, along with enough Senators to prevent a super majority. I personally base someone's being a Democrat around their economic and social policies--if you vote against a bill giving everyone affordable healthcare because it costs too much money, it's difficult to maintain your position as a Democrat. Blue Dog Democrat makes little sense--why not just say you're a Conservative and avoid even being part of the Democratic party? One supposes it is because they disagree with the Republicans on something, but defining exactly what that is would be difficult, it would seem. If you walk and talk like a Republican it makes little sense to stay in the Democratic party.

On the other hand, absolutely no Republicans voted for the bill in the House. Which means they have high party unity and can pull together to actually maintain their power base on important issues like this. Until Democrats can do the same they'll keep having trouble with passing bills.

About forcing everyone to get health care, the problem with this entire bill is it is an unwieldy semi-private mish mashed mess. There would be nothing wrong with "forcing" everyone to get health care--if there were a public option. Heck, they should technically take it further and just make health care free, subsidize hospitals with a tax on the higher income brackets (over 250,000 dollars), much like Scandinavian countries. The argument that this makes people want to make less is unfounded--I'd rather pay a high tax on a million dollars than not make a million dollars. At this point it is simply that people want to have their cake and eat it too.

However, lacking even a public option, the bill makes a lot of people at least partially hostage to private insurance companies which quite simply don't need to exist. So many other countries have cut out this unneeded middle man that the idea of maintaining them simply for the sake of creating this odd quasi-private system is idiotic. Of course, to have done away with the entire private system overnight is supposedly too "revolutionary" for America, so that is why we get this thing instead of true health care reform. It's a step in the right direction (until I find out I don't qualify for subsidies or something), but it's not what we truly need as a society.

Blaming the Democrats, though? Democrats started out with a public option and the past year has shown that other than lacking party unity, the blame can be placed on the Republicans for all the private parts of this bill that still exist. Obviously the average voter might blame the Democrats, but they shouldn't when the overall problem lies with the Republicans political position as the party of "NO" to everything.

[Kim]

Like Ebert said, the Democrats my not have the party unity and thus strength, but at least you know that they're more likely to vote what they think, as opposed to the Republicans who just vote what the party says to vote.

[Magic_Marker]

All I know is we got a healthcare bill out there that wasn't completely retarded. There are some good things, some bad things. It's a start, and things can get better from here, but the health care laws are better today than they were Friday.

That's something and I'm taking it, goddammit.

[Magus]

Yeah, I was thinking earlier that, hey, might have to pay a little for health care, but I'm going to go to the dentist now. Gonna dentist the hell out of that shit.

...it is depressing that we live in a country where I was not going to the dentist because it costs too much, and yet this is the GREATEST ONE, amirite?

[Aklyon]

If by "taxed for like half of what they make" you mean "rich people don't pay taxes because they're good at hiding it and finding loopholes," then yes. :pAlso, there are some companies are so good at finding loopholes that they have negative taxes (meaning they are getting paid instead of them paying)

[Magic_Marker]

I'm telling you guys, stop bummin' me out! Like Biden said "This is a big fucking deal. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/oh-that-joe-no-49-in-a-series-vice-president-biden-sums-up-health-care-reform-legislation-this-is-a-.html)

[Magus]

I enjoy having our vice president returned to the gaffe-making powerless figure in government they have always been. 8 years of Cheney actually doing (horrible) stuff was too much.

It's not like Biden will ever reach the heights of Dan Quayle, anyway. Those were the days of vice presidential idiocy. Though I suppose we came close with the McCain/Palin bid. I almost wish I could see what could have been...

[Magic_Marker]

Almost.

Almost wish.

[Funka Genocide]

I pay like uh... I don't know. 1600 to 2000 dollars a month in taxes?

Yeah it's kind of weak as fuck. But oh well, I'm all for this change. It doesn't really affect me but its nice to see America at least trying to act like a first world nation.

And with the cost of real estate, petroleum, food and damn near everything going up, I have no clue how I'd raise a child on 100k a year comfortably, let alone 2. My rent is cheap as hell and it's not like I have a coke problem and yet I find myself struggling on 65k a year. I'm not building any equity or making any profit from investments because everything goes to bills. Still paycheck to paycheck, and while this is entirely my own fault and the product of youthful excess, still saying that 100k a year is some magical formula for happiness is ridiculous.

[Magus]

I'm not sure what state you live in but 65k is an extremely high salary for the area I live in (heck, 30k is doing good). Like what you pay in taxes in a month is more than a lot of people make as a salary in a month. But if you are still struggling...then there is some dire need for change.

[Premmy]

Still paycheck to paycheck, and while this is entirely my own fault and the product of youthful excess, still saying that 100k a year is some magical formula for happiness is ridiculous.

Not having to pay for healthcare might help that, plus, we're talking about millionares here.

[Funka Genocide]

Well let's take a rough estimate of income.

Let's say that Person A made $5500.00 in March.

Person A is a single male aged 26 with a used Nissan who rents a room in a house and has a few personal loans, a credit card and a small student loan.

Let's assume that person A puts 8% of his income into a 401k retirement fund.

So after his 401k deduction, taxes and insurance, Person A only takes home $3800.00

Person A actually paid $1100.00 in taxes in March, and will likely owe at the end of the year.

Of course there are worse positions to be in in, but you can't tell me that isn't a kick in the nuts.

[Ryanderman]

Not having to pay for healthcare might help that, plus, we're talking about millionares here.
I think, while you may be talking about millionares, the people you've been arguing against are not.

[Premmy]

Of course there are worse positions to be in in, but you can't tell me that isn't a kick in the nuts.

Never said it isn't. Better to be kicked in the nuts than stabbed, though, and I'll take a kick in the nuts to prevent someone else form getting stabbed.

Doesn't mean people bitching about taxes and directly opposing things like Healthcare reform aren't taking into account the people IN those worse situations when they only concern themselves with how much THEY'RE paying.

I think, while you may be talking about millionares, the people you've been arguing against are not.

Well then either I should stop talking, they should join the conversation I'M having, they should stop talking, I should start talking about what THEY want to talk about, or we should all go get drunk.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well let's take a rough estimate of income.

Let's say that Person A made $5500.00 in March.

Person A is a single male aged 26 with a used Nissan who rents a room in a house and has a few personal loans, a credit card and a small student loan.

Let's assume that person A puts 8% of his income into a 401k retirement fund.

So after his 401k deduction, taxes and insurance, Person A only takes home $3800.00

Person A actually paid $1100.00 in taxes in March, and will likely owe at the end of the year.

Of course there are worse positions to be in in, but you can't tell me that isn't a kick in the nuts.

That sounds pretty financially healthy to me. My pay for a month would be less than a quarter of what he's making and I live very comfortably. Like I honestly don't know what they would spend the money on.
I reckon with a 100k I could just live my life in a brothel.

[Mirai Gen]

Well let's take a rough estimate of income.

Let's say that Person A made $5500.00 in March.

Person A is a single male aged 26 with a used Nissan who rents a room in a house and has a few personal loans, a credit card and a small student loan.

Let's assume that person A puts 8% of his income into a 401k retirement fund.

So after his 401k deduction, taxes and insurance, Person A only takes home $3800.00

Person A actually paid $1100.00 in taxes in March, and will likely owe at the end of the year.

Of course there are worse positions to be in in, but you can't tell me that isn't a kick in the nuts.
$5500 a month is pretty fucking good.

That basically means your check gets you, what, about $1,300 a week? Even with that kind of taxation you'd get like, $980 a week, paying like 250$ in taxes? That's pretty much triple what I make.

You starting to see the problem yet?

[DFM]

Well let's take a rough estimate of income.

Let's say that Person A made $5500.00 in March.

Person A is a single male aged 26 with a used Nissan who rents a room in a house and has a few personal loans, a credit card and a small student loan.

Let's assume that person A puts 8% of his income into a 401k retirement fund.

So after his 401k deduction, taxes and insurance, Person A only takes home $3800.00

Person A actually paid $1100.00 in taxes in March, and will likely owe at the end of the year.

Of course there are worse positions to be in in, but you can't tell me that isn't a kick in the nuts.

Yeah actually I can tell you that is not a kick in the nuts.

[Sithdarth]

The wonderful thing about is American taxes is that somewhere along the lines the rich discovered you can't really tax the "poor" that much because they don't have it and you risk not getting elected. The "poor" in this case is like lower middle class on down. But what you can do is tax people between like $100k and around $300k like there is no tomorrow. They have enough money to pay but their isn't enough of them and they don't have the money to have significant political power on a national scale. Plus it handily helps keep them from moving into a higher tax bracket without some serious investment by cleverly taking a significant portion of their income. Anyone that makes it out of that region usually has enough money to exploit the loopholes and pay significantly less taxes.

In reality the US income tax is overall regressive in that the lower end of the income spectrum tend to pay a greater percentage of their income. Mainly because as Funka pointed out shelling out a double digit percentage of your income is a kick in the nuts even if you don't need it to live and the richest among us are generally the ones making laws and taxes. A truly progressive tax system would pretty much solve our budget problems but good luck getting Bill Gates to pay a significant portion of his earnings in taxes.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Mainly because as Funka pointed out shelling out a double digit percentage of your income is a kick in the nuts even if you don't need it to live and the richest among us are generally the ones making laws and taxes.

The absolute lowest tax bracket where I'm from is 13% but the average tax rate is around 30% and even that is way too low (top rate is about 50% which is not enough either)
It helps not to think about the pretax money as "yours" because it's all a largesse from the government anyway. You shouldn't worry about how much money you are "losing". It doesn't really make sense in the larger scale of things.
But yeah the US system is crazy shits in that the rich end up paing less which basically only works if you are an economist doing coke in the 80s.

[Magic_Marker]

But yeah the US system is crazy shits in that the rich end up paing less which basically only works if you are an economist doing coke in the 80s.

And There's Proof! (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well there's plenty of proof that trickledown economics is bullshit- I was hoping the link would take me to proof that 80s economists were all on cocaine- I was most disappointed.

[Funka Genocide]

Well like I said I'm a supporter of American Healthcare reform and yes, I would be much happier if my grand a month went towards making people's lives better rather than killing them. I'm just trying to illustrate that from a very real, personal perspective it does feel a bit usurious.

I mean, it's not like I just sit here at work posting nonsense on internet forums all day or anything...

Wait I mean that was person A's problem, yeah. No relation.

[Viridis]

Bill goes back to Senate for changes? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-25-senate-health-care_N.htm)

Can someone explain to me this process? Is it just now being tweaked or can it still be blocked outright, however unlikely?

[Magic_Marker]

Fuck.

Republicans are trying really hard to kill the bill they suggested in 1993 (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx)

[krogothwolf]

Fuck.

Republicans are trying really hard to kill the bill they suggested in 1993 (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx)

Pfft, there clearly are a few differences! The major one is that this bill is from the Democrats! That's serious bad mojo right there.

[Amake]

Yeah, I'm getting really tired of hearing how everything the Republicans do is just for the sake of being contrary and stopping the Dems, not because they don't like what they do but because they are the other party. What's the protocol for calling bullshit on that and why isn't it done?

[Jagos]

Politics. I mean seriously, when a party is in power, they do what they can to stay in power. When out, they whine like little school girls until the power returns.

[Amake]

On reflection, Sweden had one prime minister who was like that. If you made a direct suggestion, according to people who had meetings with him, it would be shot down. Eventually everyone figured out that you had to present ideas in a roundabout way to allow him to draw the conclusions they wanted and present the solutions himself and feel clever. It worked too. He'd make any decision they wanted as long as he thought he'd figured it out by himself.

I suppose either of your parties could be played the same way, except it'd have to be adjusted for a larger scale than a single person. You'd maybe debate things you wanted done as if you're putting together a bill, and make it such a good one the opposing party will be unable to resist stealing it. Then you wait for them to introduce it, maybe only when they're in majority, so you can vote against it and still win. Probably this plan needs a few details ironed out.

But whichever party first figures it out is going to win politics. I'm a Goddamned genius.

[Wigmund]

Bill goes back to Senate for changes? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-25-senate-health-care_N.htm)

Can someone explain to me this process? Is it just now being tweaked or can it still be blocked outright, however unlikely?

It looks like the Republicans were able to get the Parliamentarian to agree that some provisions of the Education Reform portion of the bill didn't meet the requirements for reconciliation (namely they didn't save money).

But I imagine this is gonna be fixed rather quickly as the Democrats up there are probably getting more rallied to get this shit through. They can fix the Pell Grant system later and then use that as a sledgehammer against Republicans by showing how much they hate helping people go to college to improve their lot in life.

[Magic_Marker]

But that would be counting on the Democrats to play the good hand they were actually dealt. Recent history shows that when they get a good hand they hand it back to the Republicans and say: "Sorry, but the cards must not be random enough, I have a Royal Flush, could you reshuffle the deck?"

[Magus]

Personally I would be surprised if the Republicans didn't try to do something to harm the educational system monetarily. Just, like, because.

[waddle2120]

My take on the Health Care Bill-

Pros-
Expands coverage to people who couldn't get it previously

Cons-
Doesn't seem to do anything (or enough) to "contain" the already spiraling out of control costs

[Tev]

Looking back, I really liked the closing arguments (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html) made by the chief intellectuals of both parties on Healthcare. Or, more accurately, I like what it shows about the character of those leaders.
The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”
And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.
And as the columnist so cheerfully wrote:
Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.

This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.
Agreed good sir. Agreed.