The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: GOBUCKS on January 09, 2010, 06:15:10 PM
-
DUmmy Raven is shocked, shocked that the socialists she helped to elect are the party of tax, tax, tax, as we said all along. No, she is shocked that even she, who supported them right down the line, is going to be hit by the increased taxes and reduced access to health care that is inherent in communist theology:
Raven (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:28 PM
Original message
I don't get it. Why is the government going to tax me for HCR to correct
a problem that I didn't create and then take my money and pay the insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals who did create the problem? Something is really wrong with this picture. How does this make any sense at all and what happened to the party that I trusted to do the right thing? How do these people expect to be reelected? Where do they think people are going to find the money to pay this? What planet are they living on?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7428991
Now, one DUmbass after another expresses shock and dismay at democrats simply acting like democrats:
anonymous171 (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. The capitol should be moved to ****ing Montana or something
It needs to be as far away from Wall Street as logistically possible.
dkf (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. They are trying to curb what every doctor recommends in treatments by taxing you.
Doesn't that make so much sense?
DUmmy flyarm, who has Cadillac health insurance through the Baltimore Orioles, is appalled that her fellow socialists would raise her taxes and put her into a 16-bed hospital ward instead of her private suite at Johns Hopkins:
flyarm (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. another words..they are playing doctor with no medical training?
I don't want a pencil jockey in some office deciding what medical care my doctors deem nessesary, for my health care..so I have to be penalized because some pencil jockey wants to curb my doctor from being my doctor?????
I am beyond disgust..and any American that thinks this is "good " is ****ing nuts!
The delight of freudenschade is tempered by the fact that this socialism will affect all of us. But it's still nice to see their shock as the realize what it is that they elected.
Now DUmmy frazzled makes one of the stupidest arguments in the history of stupid arguments:
frazzled (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. They're not going to tax you
Which goes to show, I think, that you really don't get it.
If you're speaking of the excise tax, even then they're not going to tax you. The tax is on the insurer. Will they pass along the cost to you? Well, no: your employer, if she or he is not insane, is going to find a plan that doesn't exceed the very generous maximum. Which doesn't necessarily mean it will have significantly worse benefits. (Maybe you'll have to make a $20 copay for office visits instead of none--but that's a good thing. Not you, but maybe lots of your coworkers overuse doctors' visits, going for every hangnail, and thus raising the costs for the whole nation.) If your plan is high because your older, or a coal miner or fire fighter, that's covered, too. Your plan has to be way way higher for it to qualify for the tax. Again, it's not you who will pay the tax.
DUmmy frazzled immediately gets blasted by every DUmbass in sight:
Raven (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. No, I think you really don't get it. Your post is so full of fudge that
I gained 10 pounds reading it.
doc03 (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. Translation: If you have a good health-care plan you
fought decades to get, the government thinks you get to much so they will do what the companies have failed to do even after 3 decades of strikes and lock-outs. Government by and for the insurance and health-care industry, the best government that can be bought.
FreakinDJ (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Which means HIGHER Co-pay with LESS Coverage
Change we can Beleive in alright
DUmmy flyarm is really pissed. The muslim won't allow her the standard of care that the round red faggot got:
flyarm (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. do i have ****ing swamp land for you..real cheap too..with aligators included..
such a deal i know you will fall for it!!
what freaking planet are you from?????????
I know they say ..there is a fool born every minute..but you take the cake!!
Exactly..who..do you think you are kidding here??
Do you think all of us are inguts?????? And do not understand the concept at work here??????
wow..is all i can say..wow..I didn't know it could get this dumb around here.
DUmmy frazzled is still stuck on stupid:
frazzled (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Your opinion versus that of all the top liberal health and labor economists
in the nation. Let's see, given that I'm fairly ignorant, I'm going to stake my bets on the labor and health economists on this one.
80% of the revenues expected to be generated from this excise tax won't come from the tax on the insurers themselves--it comes from the increased wages that will result from keeping the costs of policies down for employers. Now, you're gonna say that's not going to happen. I'll just repeat, every major liberal economist (including Paul Krugman today) says it will.
Somehow the term "top liberal economist" just doesn't sound right.
Nikki Stone1 (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
36. There WILL be extra taxes to cover the "subsidy"
And it will only get worse as time goes on and insurers demand more profits.
frazzled (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Spoken like a true Republican
Turn everything you don't like into a scary "tax" on everybody (even if it's the estate tax, which affects less than 1% of individuals in this country).
Crikey, I've never seen a place that likes to call itself "liberal" get so hysterical about the idea of taxes ... and especially non-existent taxes that don't affect them.
I don't know whether there are Republicans posing here as liberals to troll, or whether the left has turned in on itself and become the right.
But all this libertarian, anti-tax, anti-mandate hysteria is absolute and utter crap ... and the antithesis of liberal values.
Liberals only like taxes that they don't have to pay.
Kansas Wyatt (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. They are basically making sure everyone pays the Insurance Industry...
For a Single Payer Health Care Reform Plan, but they are keeping the same Insurance Industry health care system in place.
Think about how many are paying their so-called 'Cadillac' rates now and how many more will be paying that by the time their alleged HCR goes into effect. It was a bait and switch gimmick all along to FORCE everyone to buy insurance from the Insurance Industry, and those who have insurance now will be paying for those who don't have it now.
That is the bottom line to this HCR/DLC SHIT Bill.
-
Raven (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:28 PM
Original message
I don't get it. Why is the government going to tax me for HCR to correct
a problem that I didn't create and then take my money and pay the insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals who did create the problem? Something is really wrong with this picture. How does this make any sense at all and what happened to the party that I trusted to do the right thing? How do these people expect to be reelected? Where do they think people are going to find the money to pay this? What planet are they living on?
Dear Dear Raven, Mother of the Pitted One, let me explain something. The middle class is where the money is and where it has always been. The politicians and bureaucrats know this even if the DUmmies do not. Second thing is, insurance, drug and hospital companies did not create this problem, government created this problem. Raven, where did you think the money would come from? The rich? Far too few of them to pay for this, the companies? Guess where they get their money? YOU. The middle class.
-
Great find, GOBUCKS, sir.
Sometimes it's hard to believe, given the childishness of their expectations, that the carpetbagging maternal ancestress of the Bostonian Drunkard is in her mid-60s, and that Leona Helmsley of DUmmieland was an airlline stewardess back when airplanes had propellers.
-
anonymous171 (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. The capitol should be moved to ******* Montana or something
It needs to be as far away from Wall Street as logistically possible.
The geographic location has nothing to do with it and its not Wall Street, it is the politicians anjd bureaucrats that populate the swamp of federal basements.
-
dkf (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. They are trying to curb what every doctor recommends in treatments by taxing you.
Doesn't that make so much sense?
Quote
flyarm (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. another words..they are playing doctor with no medical training?
I don't want a pencil jockey in some office deciding what medical care my doctors deem nessesary, for my health care..so I have to be penalized because some pencil jockey wants to curb my doctor from being my doctor?????
I am beyond disgust..and any American that thinks this is "good " is ******* nuts!
Its called rationing. Remember when Lord eVader said that his Gramma shouldn't get a hip replacement, just some pain meds?? What did you think he was referring to? These are the death panels people have been talking about. Haven't you guys been paying attention?
-
There has been a lot of meltdowns at the island this year. I love it. It will only get better.
-
frazzled (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. They're not going to tax you
Which goes to show, I think, that you really don't get it.
If you're speaking of the excise tax, even then they're not going to tax you. The tax is on the insurer. Will they pass along the cost to you? Well, no: your employer, if she or he is not insane, is going to find a plan that doesn't exceed the very generous maximum. Which doesn't necessarily mean it will have significantly worse benefits. (Maybe you'll have to make a $20 copay for office visits instead of none--but that's a good thing. Not you, but maybe lots of your coworkers overuse doctors' visits, going for every hangnail, and thus raising the costs for the whole nation.) If your plan is high because your older, or a coal miner or fire fighter, that's covered, too. Your plan has to be way way higher for it to qualify for the tax. Again, it's not you who will pay the tax.
Yes, you will pay it. You will pay for it with less service. You will pay for it with longer waits. You will find that breast cancer exams and papsmears are held off longer and longer. You will find things cost more and you will find it harder and harder to get a doctor. You will pay for the taxes.
-
doc03 (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. Translation: If you have a good health-care plan you
fought decades to get, the government thinks you get to much so they will do what the companies have failed to do even after 3 decades of strikes and lock-outs. Government by and for the insurance and health-care industry, the best government that can be bought.
FreakinDJ (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Which means HIGHER Co-pay with LESS Coverage
Change we can Beleive in alright
Yes, you idiots. You "reality-based" idiots bought it lock, stock and freaking barrel. Admit it, we were right. Sarah Palin was right. Obama, Reid and Nancy Botox were lying through their teeth.
-
frazzled (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Your opinion versus that of all the top liberal health and labor economists
in the nation. Let's see, given that I'm fairly ignorant, I'm going to stake my bets on the labor and health economists on this one.
80% of the revenues expected to be generated from this excise tax won't come from the tax on the insurers themselves--it comes from the increased wages that will result from keeping the costs of policies down for employers. Now, you're gonna say that's not going to happen. I'll just repeat, every major liberal economist (including Paul Krugman today) says it will.
Krugman is a moron who never gets anything right
-
Nikki Stone1 (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
36. There WILL be extra taxes to cover the "subsidy"
And it will only get worse as time goes on and insurers demand more profits.
as the poor and non-paying demand more and more benefits paid for by the middle class.
-
Sooner or later I am going to get the chance to ask the guy who said "well unless I am going to suddenly make over $250,000.00/year Obama will be better for me" how`s that working for ya dumbass.
-
80% of the revenues expected to be generated from this excise tax won't come from the tax on the insurers themselves--it comes from the increased wages that will result from keeping the costs of policies down for employers. Now, you're gonna say that's not going to happen. I'll just repeat, every major liberal economist (including Paul Krugman today) says it will.
Yes, yes. Some liberal economist tells you that by saving companies money on insurance plans the companies will RAISE your wages and you believe that. Some REAL economist tells you that by cutting taxes for companies you can get your wages raised and you ain't falling for it.
Yup. Makes perfect sense to me.
God they're so stupid.
KC
-
Regardless, if they had received their beloved Marxist single-payer/universal healthcare, it would have meant increased taxes all around and rationing for everyone. I don't know why they ever thought it would be anything different no matter what came out of a Dem controlled Congess, except for the fact that they *don't* think at all so it never stood a chance of occuring to them.
.
-
Well, there's your problem - the phrase "liberal economist" is a contradiction in terms, and Paul Krugman epitomizes that contradiction.
-
wow..is all i can say..wow..I didn't know it could get this dumb around here.
Oh, you have no idea.
-
It's amazing how they honestly believe that just because they supported Obama and his socialist agenda that somehow they would be exempt from the means that this administration has in mind to pay for their Utopia.
Like they would get some kind of special Libtard dispensation.
-
Heh - SO..
Reading this thread tells me that
A ) Raven knows its impossible to make ObamaCare work
B ) Flyarm is saying things that sound kinda death-panel like
C ) Nikki Stone sees taxes for those making less than 250K a year.
Ill address each of these points individually;
A ) We told you so.
B ) We told you so.
C ) We told you so.
-
Not sure if coach's avatar is k.d. lang, or Yoko Ono.
-
That thread really pissses me off. Taxes are for "other" people to pay. As long as other people are paying then they are all for it, once they figure out they will have to pay they are enraged.
-
Paul (moonbat) Krugman gets pwn3d..by himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moonbattery.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
fell free to bring to show and tell.
-
Paul (moonbat) Krugman gets pwn3d..by himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moonbattery.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
fell free to bring to show and tell.
Oh, man, that is too classic!
-
Heh - SO..
Reading this thread tells me that
A ) Raven knows its impossible to make ObamaCare work
B ) Flyarm is saying things that sound kinda death-panel like
C ) Nikki Stone sees taxes for those making less than 250K a year.
Ill address each of these points individually;
A ) We told you so.
B ) We told you so.
C ) We told you so.
The four most cruel words in the English language! Times three.
Bend over, drop your pants, and here comes your medicine, DUmb****s! :evillaugh: :loser: :tongue:
-
Raven (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:28 PM
Original message
I don't get it. Why is the government going to tax me for HCR to correct
a problem that I didn't create and then take my money and pay the insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals who did create the problem? Something is really wrong with this picture.
For a supposedly well-educated woman, you sure are a dumb bitch. Slap all those 'Corporate devils' with the taxes instead and who do you think ends up paying them? Jesus, Raven, that was stupid, even coming from someone who is guilty of raising Will into what he is.
-
80% of the revenues expected to be generated from this excise tax won't come from the tax on the insurers themselves--it comes from the increased wages that will result from keeping the costs of policies down for employers.
In the inimitable words of a certain shrew: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Is this snake oil really what they're selling? Did the CBO come up with this? If so, they all need to go work in a real business for about 10 years, then we'll talk. No such thing will happen, and I have two words for Paul Krugman, the stupidest person on the planet: John Galt.
Make no mistake, the effect is real, and is where our 10% unbudgeable unemployment rate is coming from. Anybody who can hire, is sitting tight.
-
In the inimitable words of a certain shrew: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Is this snake oil really what they're selling? Did the CBO come up with this? If so, they all need to go work in a real business for about 10 years, then we'll talk. No such thing will happen, and I have two words for Paul Krugman, the stupidest person on the planet: John Galt.
Make no mistake, the effect is real, and is where our 10% unbudgeable unemployment rate is coming from. Anybody who can hire, is sitting tight.
I don`t know how they can score this to be honest except by assuming that everything that "is" right bow will stay.
I have coverage through work..we have around 30 employees.
If I understand it correctly my employer would not be forced to provide insurance by employee numbers.
If I also understand it correctly it is likely most of us here would fall under the wage limit to qualify for the "subsidy".
Not saying that it will happen but what is the incentive at that point for an employer to keep providing coverage?
There could be a lot more suddenly pushed to the subsidized exchanges then they are ever calculating on.
-
In the inimitable words of a certain shrew: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Is this snake oil really what they're selling? Did the CBO come up with this? If so, they all need to go work in a real business for about 10 years, then we'll talk. No such thing will happen, and I have two words for Paul Krugman, the stupidest person on the planet: John Galt.
Make no mistake, the effect is real, and is where our 10% unbudgeable unemployment rate is coming from. Anybody who can hire, is sitting tight.
I read something this morning that it's probably going to be at 15% by the fall.
-
I don`t know how they can score this to be honest except by assuming that everything that "is" right bow will stay.
I have coverage through work..we have around 30 employees.
If I understand it correctly my employer would not be forced to provide insurance by employee numbers.
If I also understand it correctly it is likely most of us here would fall under the wage limit to qualify for the "subsidy".
Not saying that it will happen but what is the incentive at that point for an employer to keep providing coverage?
There could be a lot more suddenly pushed to the subsidized exchanges then they are ever calculating on.
Uh, there isn't one. I happen to work in a Benefits Dept, and have worked in one for a good long time. If everything works out the way we think it will, well, there will be a bunch of "us" that will be looking at job redesign/re-fit. There isn't really any monetary incentive for the companies to continue to provide coverage, it is an unnecessary expense.
It is going to get really really nasty.
-
I read something this morning that it's probably going to be at 15% by the fall.
The real unemployment rate is already higher than that. The official number doesn't take people into account who have stopped looking for work out of frustration or whose benefits have ended. It also doesn't do a good job of telling us how many people are working only part-time. I also think they count you as "employed" if you worked a day here and there, which is ridiculous. I read about a stimulus project in Oregon where they created "jobs" paying like $10 an hour (hundreds of thousands of dollars went where again?) that lasted 3 weeks, no doubt those people are considered "employed" for a month or two.
Government stats are not really all that reliable.
-
I read something this morning that it's probably going to be at 15% by the fall.
Picture a small business of 55 people.
Since 50 (I think) is the cut off for being mandated to provide coverage what do you suppose will likely happen?
-
Again, I would like to welcome you watching DUmbasses (aka the smartest people in the room) to where the rest of us were TWO ****ING YEARS AGO!
Brain dead, stupid, gullible, immature ****ing idiots!
-
Sooner or later I am going to get the chance to ask the guy who said "well unless I am going to suddenly make over $250,000.00/year Obama will be better for me" how`s that working for ya dumbass.
I already have had that moment. It was a very savory exercise in reality.
-
Raven (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-09-10 02:28 PM
Original message
I don't get it. Why is the government going to tax me for HCR to correct
a problem that I didn't create and then take my money and pay the insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals who did create the problem? Something is really wrong with this picture. How does this make any sense at all and what happened to the party that I trusted to do the right thing? How do these people expect to be reelected? Where do they think people are going to find the money to pay this? What planet are they living on?
Raven, you ignorant slut! Your saviors, (ie, DC DimWits), and the lawyers, (ever hear of Tort reform), created the current health care so called crisis! I don't understand! Oh yeah, I forgot the idea of it it ain't broke don't **** with it, doesn't apply when it comes to you idiots. I have great Health Insurance because I am willing to, wait for it, wait for it, frikkin' PAY for it!
Just like if I want a new house or a new truck! I make a monthly payment to assure I don't get nailed with some outlandish bill I can't afford! I can't pay cash for a house any more than I could pay cash for the 6 screws they put in my back! It's called preventative maintenance of a personal kind! You idiots should try it! Works every time!
You maroons want something for nothing! When you find out you can't get it, you get outraged! Color me surprised! You voted for these Socialists. Grin and bear it! We'll try to fix it for you in 2010 and 2012. Until then, sit on it and twirl, DUmpass!
-
Again, I would like to welcome you watching DUmbasses (aka the smartest people in the room) to where the rest of us were TWO ****ING YEARS AGO!
Brain dead, stupid, gullible, immature ****ing idiots!
Heh, heh! That's gonna leave a mark! Heh, heh!
-
Uh, there isn't one. I happen to work in a Benefits Dept, and have worked in one for a good long time. If everything works out the way we think it will, well, there will be a bunch of "us" that will be looking at job redesign/re-fit. There isn't really any monetary incentive for the companies to continue to provide coverage, it is an unnecessary expense.
It is going to get really really nasty.
The law of unintended consequences never seems to work out to a positive.
Given the overall scope and size of this monstrosity I have a feeling by this time next year we will be in an economic tailspin none of us can imagine.
-
The law of unintended consequences never seems to work out to a positive.
Given the overall scope and size of this monstrosity I have a feeling by this time next year we will be in an economic tailspin none of us can imagine.
We will if the "Bummer" has anything to do with it! I'm with Rush on this one, it's intentional!
-
The real unemployment rate is already higher than that. The official number doesn't take people into account who have stopped looking for work out of frustration or whose benefits have ended. It also doesn't do a good job of telling us how many people are working only part-time. I also think they count you as "employed" if you worked a day here and there, which is ridiculous. I read about a stimulus project in Oregon where they created "jobs" paying like $10 an hour (hundreds of thousands of dollars went where again?) that lasted 3 weeks, no doubt those people are considered "employed" for a month or two.
Government stats are not really all that reliable.
At the 15% rate I mentioned, the actual rate is going to be damn near 25%. I know already that government stats aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
-
At the 15% rate I mentioned, the actual rate is going to be damn near 25%. I know already that government stats aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Of course not--any month where jobs are lost, yet the unemployment rate goes DOWN tells me that the BLS is basically full of shit.
-
The unemployment statistic includes everyone who has tried to find work in the last month. If benefits have run out, but they are still trying to find work, they are included. If they have not done that, they are retired, disabled, students, working at home, or deadbeats. So I don't see anything wrong with how the number is calculated. We have part-time workers even during boom times, probably even more than now.
-
The unemployment statistic includes everyone who has tried to find work in the last month. If benefits have run out, but they are still trying to find work, they are included. If they have not done that, they are retired, disabled, students, working at home, or deadbeats. So I don't see anything wrong with how the number is calculated. We have part-time workers even during boom times, probably even more than now.
If I understand you correctly, I'm not sure you're entirely correct there. From what I've read of it, it is heavily based on a combination of payrolls, unemployment insurance claims/payments, other welfare rolls, and survey data (used in regression analysis with a statistical model), people whose benefits have totally expired do largely fall off the map and out of the calculation.
-
At the 15% rate I mentioned, the actual rate is going to be damn near 25%. I know already that government stats aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
What is extremely troubling is 1 in 5 men are unemployed. That's 20%!!! This is not a good sign. If it were the 1930's, it would mean depression as back then women stayed at home and raised the kids! There's even talk of calling this a Manpression since we are the largest number unemployed. Thank goodness I no longer have to rely on construction to make a living. My Bro's are hurtin' for certain!
-
The unemployment statistic includes everyone who has tried to find work in the last month. If benefits have run out, but they are still trying to find work, they are included. If they have not done that, they are retired, disabled, students, working at home, or deadbeats. So I don't see anything wrong with how the number is calculated. We have part-time workers even during boom times, probably even more than now.
I'm with Tank. I don't think the Bummer is at all counting those whose unemployment has run out. They're doing their damnedest to try and keep the numbers as low as possible for the MSM. Propaganda is alive and well in the Socialist States of America!
-
I'm with Tank. I don't think the Bummer is at all counting those whose unemployment has run out. They're doing their damnedest to try and keep the numbers as low as possible for the MSM. Propaganda is alive and well in the Socialist States of America!
Just wait a few weeks when the numbers get revised upward or something.
-
Just wait a few weeks when the numbers get revised upward or something.
"Or something" is what we should be worried about!
-
You want a much better indication of unemployment? Look at the BLS U-6 number.
Currently at 17.3 percent. Merry Christmas. Happy 2010.
-
You want a much better indication of unemployment? Look at the BLS U-6 number.
Currently at 17.3 percent. Merry Christmas. Happy 2010.
Thats probably the best indicator we'll find.
-
What is extremely troubling is 1 in 5 men are unemployed. That's 20%!!! This is not a good sign. If it were the 1930's, it would mean depression as back then women stayed at home and raised the kids! There's even talk of calling this a Manpression since we are the largest number unemployed. Thank goodness I no longer have to rely on construction to make a living. My Bro's are hurtin' for certain!
Tell me about it...Just found out the job Cowboy was suppose to go to in ID has been pushed back...He hasn't been laid off yet, but workin at shop cuts his pay and per diem...