House vote on health care bill(s) close

[Larry Gude]

I think the tide is going to change. There are still some good ones in Congress. Off the top of my head - Mike Pence, Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor to name a few. They have the fire in their bellies. They have been doing Yeoman's work these past few months, as well. I think they are the future leadership of the GOP in Congress.

Cantor voted for TARP. So did Ryan.


Les Evil. It's easy to be for the constitution when you are in the minority. It is hard to follow it when you have the power.

My guy, Roscoe, voted against it.

 

[Bann]

It's certainly not free and it certainly won't not cost anything. I don't even think its most ardent supporters would assert that it is or will.

Even more problematic than the costs that will come to us in the collective as taxpayers, will be the effects (with regard to cost, quality and liberties) that the new rules will have on health care and health insurance in general.

The what???

They're just going to have to do something about that! They must have overlooked that little detail. There will be no liberties allowed during the reign of the Supreme One.

 

[Bann]

Cantor voted for TARP. So did Ryan.


Les Evil. It's easy to be for the constitution when you are in the minority. It is hard to follow it when you have the power.

My guy, Roscoe, voted against it.

Larry, I'm talking about the current stuff going on. And I don't have time to go look up what they said about TARP and their votes, etc. (Honestly.)

 

[Tilted]

What about people like me, who have insurance that we buy on our own - but work for small businessmen?

Will my employer be forced to provide my insurance OR will he just be able to pay (part of) the amount I pay for my premiums? Then will the government will turn around and TAX ME on something they consider a benefit??!!

Additionally, If I am forced to accept any other insurance policy except for a high deductible plan, then I will lose my Health Savings Account.

And if my employer is forced to do that - then he may well get rid of employees.

I think - and I'm not sure about this because it requires me to recall some of the smaller details out of a myriad of details that I have not read in several months - you will be able to continue buying insurance on your own. However, if you qualify for premium subsidies or cost sharing assistance (and a fair number of people that might not expect to may well qualify), your employer might be subject to a fine or penalty for not having provided you with an acceptable level of coverage.

As for the HSA's, they are limited to some degree by the bill - though I can't recall precisely how or how much at the moment.

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry, I'm talking about the current stuff going on. And I don't have time to go look up what they said about TARP and their votes, etc. (Honestly.)

When you get time, you look it up and give it some thought. Where was Eric Cantor when we needed him? That's what I am asking.

 

[Starlifter756]

Here are my questions. Was anyone here around and politically aware when Medicare was passed into law? Was there as much concern and general foreboding at the time that significant expansion of the size and scope of government came into being? I'd ask the same thing of Social Security, but that's probably a stretch time wise (that people here were politically aware at the time of its passage).

Social Security was passed in 1935 and had bipartisan support. But we had just gotten out of a depression and two previous Presidents that defied Congress - Harding for "forgotten depression of 1920" which was a bigger depression than 1929. He did nothing but severely limited Government spending to $25B, which led to the roaring twenties; then Coolidge who also did nothing to moderate the booming times of the 1920s (1.7% unemployment, British and French defaults on loans from WW1) and let our finances go a muck.

Medicare was passed in 1965 with bipartisan support. See Social Security Online

It is important to note on this that each are bankrupt and Medicare has denied more claims than all other insurers "combined".

 

[Bann]

When you get time, you look it up and give it some thought. Where was Eric Cantor when we needed him? That's what I am asking.

I know. I will look for it later. i don't remember why he and some of the others voted for it.

 

[Larry Gude]

I know. I will look for it later. i don't remember why he and some of the others voted for it.

Because they "had to".

Just like Stupak now 'had to' abandon his principles and vote for Obamacare.

See a pattern here?

 

[Bann]

I think - and I'm not sure about this because it requires me to recall some of the smaller details out of a myriad of details that I have not read in several months - you will be able to continue buying insurance on your own. However, if you qualify for premium subsidies or cost sharing assistance (and a fair number of people that might not expect to may well qualify), your employer might be subject to a fine or penalty for not having provided you with an acceptable level of coverage.

As for the HSA's, they are limited to some degree by the bill - though I can't recall precisely how or how much at the moment.

Something else to research later. Maybe if my phones are not too busy at work today I will be able to listen to Boortz and Limbaugh today. Sometimes, their callers bring stuff up. I am also interested in hearing what Mark Levin has to say today.

 

[Starlifter756]

Again - I post this question - if anyone knows---

What about people like me, who have insurance that we buy on our own - but work for small businessmen?

Will my employer be forced to provide my insurance OR will he just be able to pay (part of) the amount I pay for my premiums? Then will the government will turn around and TAX ME on something they consider a benefit??!!

Additionally, If I am forced to accept any other insurance policy except for a high deductible plan, then I will lose my Health Savings Account.

And if my employer is forced to do that - then he may well get rid of employees.

From what I gather, the employer will be able to claim 50% of insurance payments for employees of small companies as a tax break. Insurance will be managed by the IRS and your insurance will be identified on your tax forms. So long as it is reported, you would be fine. But who the hell knows - this is just a guess. However, it seems they want businesses to be responsible for all of this and may not make it cost advantageous for you to keep person insurance.

 

[bcp]

Something else to research later. Maybe if my phones are not too busy at work today I will be able to listen to Boortz and Limbaugh today. Sometimes, their callers bring stuff up. I am also interested in hearing what Mark Levin has to say today.

talk show radio hosts are no place to get information from. They all grandstand, take a little thing and turn it into something big.
the left does it, the right does it etc...

 

[Larry Gude]

talk show radio hosts are no place to get information from. They all grandstand, take a little thing and turn it into something big.
the left does it, the right does it etc...

Sure it is. So are left wing papers and right wing papers. Everywhere is a source for information.

Then, we engage brain and we find what is actually true and act accordingly.

:shrug:

 

[Tilted]

Social Security was passed in 1935 and had bipartisan support. But we had just gotten out of a depression and two previous Presidents that defied Congress - Harding for "forgotten depression of 1920" which was a bigger depression than 1929. He did nothing but severely limited Government spending to $25B, which led to the roaring twenties; then Coolidge who also did nothing to moderate the booming times of the 1920s (1.7% unemployment, British and French defaults on loans from WW1) and let our finances go a muck.

Medicare was passed in 1965 with bipartisan support. See Social Security Online

It is important to note on this that each are bankrupt and Medicare has denied more claims than all other insurers "combined".

See how that socialist revolution thingy works.

... by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

As for Social Security, it is far from bankrupt. It faces serious fiscal issues going forward, as, without changes to the program, its operational obligations will be growing faster than its operational income. However, it is just now at the tipping point where its expenditures begin to exceed its income.

 

[Tilted]

The what???

Your rights my man, your rights! A chicken in every pot, an apple on every tree, a cold drink in every fridge, and a hot woman under every sheet.

 

[Starlifter756]

See how that socialist revolution thingy works.

No kidding. I think, starting at midnight last night, transitioning to a Socialist Republic. By 2014, the transition will be complete.


[/QUOTE]As for Social Security, it is far from bankrupt. It faces serious fiscal issues going forward, as, without changes to the program, its operational obligations will be growing faster than its operational income. However, it is just now at the tipping point where its expenditures begin to exceed its income.[/QUOTE]

Social Security is and has been in the red. When developed, the number crunchers worked from a contribution to benefactor ratio of 14:1. There was a peak in the early 80s, then dropped, but we are now at 2.3:1. This came from the wall street journal about 2 months ago.

 

[Larry Gude]

Social Security is and has been in the red. When developed, the number crunchers worked from a contribution to benefactor ratio of 14:1. There was a peak in the early 80s, then dropped, but we are now at 2.3:1. This came from the wall street journal about 2 months ago.

No it's not. Dollars in are still more than dollars out. It WILL be in the red before too long if we don't fix it.

 

[Tilted]

No kidding. I think, starting at midnight last night, transitioning to a Socialist Republic. By 2014, the transition will be complete.

That transition has been going on for quite a while.

Security is and has been in the red. When developed, the number crunchers worked from a contribution to benefactor ratio of 14:1. There was a peak in the early 80s, then dropped, but we are now at 2.3:1. This came from the wall street journal about 2 months ago.

If by 'in the red', you mean having expenditures greater than income, the Social Security program has certainly not been in the red. In fact, if you include its interest income, it will be quite some time before the program is in the red. It depends on a number of factors that are currently unknowable, but it might be more than 10 years before it transitions into the red. Even still, being 'in the red' doesn't equate to being bankrupt - the SS funds have about $ 2-1/2 Trillion saved and added more than $100 Billion to that figure in 2009.

 

[Pete]

That transition has been going on for quite a while.




If by 'in the red', you mean having expenditures greater than income, the Social Security program has certainly not been in the red. In fact, if you include its interest income, it will be quite some time before the program is in the red. It depends on a number of factors that are currently unknowable, but it might be more than 10 years before it transitions into the red. Even still, being 'in the red' doesn't equate to being bankrupt - the SS funds have about $ 2-1/2 Trillion saved and added more than $100 Billion to that figure in 2009.

I read an article the other day that said 2034 was when it is projected to reverse. That is not counting the trillion or so dollars congress has "borrowed" from SS instead of issuing securities.

They actually have 2 Bonds on paper in a file cabinet somewhere in Pennsylvania covering the money due to SS from the federal government.

 

[This_person]

No it's not. Dollars in are still more than dollars out. It WILL be in the red before too long if we don't fix it.

Washington Post, May 13th, 2009:

Yesterday's report also said the Social Security trust fund will begin to spend more money than it takes in through tax revenue in 2016, one year sooner than predicted a year ago​

 

[Larry Gude]

Washington Post, May 13th, 2009:

Yesterday's report also said the Social Security trust fund will begin to spend more money than it takes in through tax revenue in 2016, one year sooner than predicted a year ago​

Thanks for backing me up.