Well, I can rephrase the image:

"Objects to their tax dollars being used to fund an unnecessary war based on faulty intelligence which has, to date, caused the death of 4400 U.S. soldiers and over 100,000 civilians."

3/22/2010 10:40:38 AM

Who's being neutral?

3/22/2010 10:40:41 AM

mrfrog said:

Quote :

"I believe "national building" would be a more accurate and neutral phrase than "killing people"."

3/22/2010 10:41:39 AM

Nation building, bringing a genocidal war criminal to justice, liberating a oppressed country, establishing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, showing other despotic regimes in the region that we don't fuck around.

But no, we went to war because Bush hates brown people.

And the Civil War, where almost twice as many Americans died over the course of three days than have died during the seven years we've been in Iraq, that was surely just a war "to kill people".

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 10:53 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2010 10:48:02 AM

I don't remember reading that. Let me adjust my tinfoil hat and try again.

3/22/2010 10:49:59 AM

^^As great as you may think those reasons are for unnecessary war in Iraq, none of them were really championed as the reason for war until after we were already waist deep in war.

3/22/2010 10:52:33 AM

I don't know how you call those reasons both great and unnecessary, but to your main point, I agree. That should have been the primary justification. And they should have been paid for, with taxes. But to suggest that the Bush administration invaded Iraq out of some sadistic desire to kill people is totally ridiculous.

3/22/2010 10:55:29 AM

so hey

war means killing people

it's not a war if no one gets killed

true story

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 10:56 AM. Reason : this is not g.i. joe]

3/22/2010 10:56:22 AM

^^ That's not what they mean.

When someone says they object to their tax dollars being used to kill people, they mean they object to their tax dollars being used to fund a war, a war in which people have died. It's somewhat hyperbolic, but it is true.

3/22/2010 10:58:03 AM

War can also mean saving people. True story. Don't be dense.

3/22/2010 10:58:21 AM

yeah but you can save people without killing people (cf. superman)

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 10:59 AM. Reason : you are such a dumb faggot though seriously]

3/22/2010 10:59:01 AM

Great let's save the entire world. I hear North Korea has a pretty bad dictator who kills people. Want to go there?

3/22/2010 10:59:23 AM

THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN

3/22/2010 11:00:00 AM

I just love these leaps in logic from conservatives.

So, we save people in the war, okay I'll allow that. Let's review:

Spending billions to save foreigners? Let's do it.

Spending billions to save Americans? FUCKIN SOCIALISM HANDOUT COMMUNISM.

3/22/2010 11:00:52 AM

this is why venturing into the soap box is retarded

not a single one of you idiots is qualified to judge what will or will not happen as a result of this bill...it's far beyond your (and my) understanding, and none of you have been around long enough, with the experience or education necessary, to make accurate predictions based on anything other than your personal opinion generated from an only better-than-someone-who-never-attended-college comprehension of the health care industry as a whole and how insurance works in particular

i'm not saying that some you will not "predict" the general outcome, but it will undoubtedly be the result of luck rather than intelligence

3/22/2010 11:01:40 AM

True, none of us should ever make a judgment on anything.

Delete the soapbox.

3/22/2010 11:02:13 AM

there is nothing new under the sitemap

3/22/2010 11:03:14 AM

Quote :

"True, none of us should ever make a judgment on anything. Delete the soapbox."

you, unsurprisingly, missed the point

i didn't say you shouldn't judge, just that you're not qualified to...everything any of you say should be taken with the tiniest grain of salt, since not a single one of you has a clue

3/22/2010 11:04:19 AM

what you don't know is that i work for the cbo

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:05 AM. Reason : dramatic irony]

3/22/2010 11:05:13 AM

God:

I actually support this bill. In fact, I was personally pulling for the public option. But the fact that you just assumed I was opposed to it is pretty telling.

Quote :

"I hear North Korea has a pretty bad dictator who kills people. Want to go there?"

If I thought it were feasible, you're fucking right I would. You wouldn't? What kind of self-respecting liberal wouldn't want to liberate a country from an Orwellian dictatorship?

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2010 11:05:46 AM

Quote :

"n fact, I was personally pulling for the public option. "

I thought there was a public option in the bill? Am I misreading something?

3/22/2010 11:08:05 AM

hey isn't there an island off florida we've kinda quietly tolerated for some goddamn reason

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM. Reason : with a similar situation i mean]

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM. Reason : JUST WHILE WE'RE AT IT]

3/22/2010 11:08:15 AM

^ key largo?

3/22/2010 11:08:47 AM

^^ Cuba is another subject, but I wouldn't compare them to North Korea.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2010 11:10:03 AM

Quote :

"n fact, I was personally pulling for the public option. "

I thought there was a public option in the bill? Am I misreading something?

3/22/2010 11:10:36 AM

Quote :

"Nation building, bringing a genocidal war criminal to justice, liberating a oppressed country, establishing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, showing other despotic regimes in the region that we don't fuck around."

So tell me again why we stand idly by when millions of people are being slaughtered in various African countries? (that's rhetorical in case you're thinking about dropping a textwall)

Seriously. Stop trying to polish the turd.

3/22/2010 11:10:59 AM

Quote :

"I thought there was a public option in the bill? Am I misreading something?"

There isn't.

Quote :

"hey isn't there an island off florida we've kinda quietly tolerated for some goddamn reason"

As bad as the Castro regime is, it is nothing like North Korea. And I think there are other ways to pressure Cuba to reform, short of invasion.

Quote :

"So tell me again why we stand idly by when millions of people are being slaughtered in various African countries? (that's rhetorical in case you're thinking about dropping a textwall)"

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Obviously I don't think we should stand idly by while systemic oppression is being perpetrated. Frankly, I blame the left for creating a political reality in this country (and Europe), where greater involvement in places like Sudan is virtually impossible.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2010 11:11:36 AM

yeah, nobody gives a shit about Africa.

Well, maybe Bono and Jesse Helms, but we're not going to do any nation-building there.

3/22/2010 11:12:14 AM

This most recent bickering, comparing war spending and health care spending, strikes me as ironic. Sure, one can view the two as opposites, but one must also admit that there is an important commonality. What are the two areas in which spending growth has historically been most disproportionate to GDP? War time spending and health care spending. We can argue all day about which is morally superior. The bottom line is neither is sustainable in the current form.

3/22/2010 11:13:12 AM

as bad as the hussein regime was

it was nothing like north korea

? ?

3/22/2010 11:14:05 AM

Quote :

"I thought there was a public option in the bill? Am I misreading something?"

Some of the biggest HCR news in the past few days, other than it passing, was that the far left side of the democratic party was convinced to vote for it despite no public option (the President really had to push Kucinich), and the far right side of the democratic party (yes, there are two sides to a party when you have large majority numbers) was talked into it too (with the president agreeing to do an executive order relating to abortion basically saying the hyde rule is still in effect) with the likes of Stupak. It was the fringes of the party that had the strongest objections to it for not being far enough left for Kucinich & the pro-public option ppl or far enough right for Stupak & his gang of 12.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2010 11:14:15 AM

FroshKiller: When you make a coherent point, I'll be happy to address it.

3/22/2010 11:16:59 AM

LIKEWISE SAMP

3/22/2010 11:17:56 AM

I had a professor who voiced an amusing opinion about the Iraq war. Said that he might be old fashioned, but generally thinks that when one wages a war, one should pay for said war.

That's one thing Bush unambiguously did not do.

3/22/2010 11:30:58 AM

Bush didn't pay for shit. Remember, "deficits don't matter."

3/22/2010 11:33:44 AM

i thought this was a healthcare thread?

3/22/2010 11:57:01 AM

me too.

so what now? I pay about $150/month for my health insurance....I guess I should drop it, pay the penalty, then re-apply whenever I get sick? that will be a lot cheaper for me.

FTW

3/22/2010 12:24:46 PM

Democrats maintain that people will not try to game the system in that way. If there's one thing we can trust, it's human nature, and people always act in ways that benefit society as a whole, rather than just themselves.

3/22/2010 1:01:16 PM

Huh, it would appear that Ron Paul doesn't like the bill very much.

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=100322_3678,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml

Quote :

"Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many – the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn’t be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs. "

Go figure. I thought he would have been all for it, since he is a doctor himself.

3/22/2010 1:05:08 PM

^^^You'd end up a loser due to the financial penalties for doing that.

3/22/2010 1:05:50 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34609984/ns/health-health_care/?GT1=43001

Quote :

"Q: How much is all this going to cost? Will it increase my taxes? A: The bill is estimated to cost $940 billion over a decade. But because of higher taxes and fees and billions of dollars in Medicare payment cuts to providers, the bill would narrow the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If you have a high income, you face higher taxes. Starting in 2013, individuals would pay a higher Medicare payroll tax of 2.35 percent on earnings of more than $200,000 a year and couples earning more than $250,000, up from the current 1.45 percent. In addition, you'd face an additional 3.8 percent tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest over the threshold. Starting in 2018, the bill would also impose a 40 percent excise tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage (excluding dental and vision) that exceeds $10,200 a year for individuals and $27,500 for families. The bill also would raise the threshold for deducting unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent. The bill also would limit the amount of money you can put in a flexible spending account to pay medical expenses to $2,500 starting in 2013. Those using an indoor tanning salon will pay a 10 percent tax starting this year."

I don't like the way this sounds. Enough with taxing the citizens already!

3/22/2010 1:10:39 PM

Quote :

"Democrats maintain that people will not try to game the system in that way. If there's one thing we can trust, it's human nature, and people always act in ways that benefit society as a whole, rather than just themselves."

i see your point...they keep looking at every other country with socialized medicine programs and thinking that americans might want to, at some point, become responsible for themselves

unfortunately, american society is comprised of a significant portion of douchebags, so we can assume that the hardest part will be convincing people that they should consider common decency instead of asshattery

also, i really wish our income taxes would jump to about 50% to help fund some of this stuff (but under more inclusive stipulations, of course)

3/22/2010 1:14:02 PM

yes

in order to raise funds

let's tax some other country's citizens instead

3/22/2010 1:14:23 PM

Quote :

"Go figure. I thought he would have been all for it, since he is a doctor himself."

You kidding? This bill only helps politicians and insurance companies. As a doctor, he's trying to address the actual problem - the cost of health care. The thing that no liberal wants to talk about, for some reason.

Quote :

"Those in favor of this bill touted their good intentions of ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans, as if those of us against the bill are against good medical care. They cite fanciful statistics of deficit reduction, while simultaneously planning to expand the already struggling medical welfare programs we currently have. They somehow think that healthcare in this country will be improved by swelling our welfare rolls and cutting reimbursement payments to doctors who are already losing money. It is estimated that thousands of doctors will be economically forced out of the profession should this government fuzzy math actually try to become healthcare reality. No one has thought to ask what good mandatory health insurance will be if people can’t find a doctor."

3/22/2010 1:16:42 PM

Quote :

"If you have a high income, you face higher taxes. Starting in 2013, individuals would pay a higher Medicare payroll tax of 2.35 percent on earnings of more than $200,000 a year and couples earning more than $250,000, up from the current 1.45 percent. In addition, you'd face an additional 3.8 percent tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest over the threshold."

3/22/2010 1:16:49 PM

Quote :

"Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs."

Really, Ron Paul? Surriously? Call me skeptical, but where does that number come from?

3/22/2010 1:32:09 PM

Many small businesses are already struggling to stay afloat. Require that they offer benefits to their employees, or pay a fine otherwise, and you can bet that jobs will be lost. I don't know where the 5 million number comes from, specifically.

3/22/2010 1:33:47 PM

Can someone help me here? Are these points true given the current bill:
1. Preexisting conditions are no longer grounds to deny insurance coverage
2. People are free to go without insurance
3. People without insurance will pay a fine to the IRS
4. This fine will be used to subsidize the insurance that is purchased by others

If this is the case, then the market should be encouraged to work this way:
A. healthy individuals and employers should drop their insurance, pay the fine
B. Healthy individuals pay out of pocket for all healthcare services
C. Healthcare providers, faced with a majority of cost-conscious customers, compete vigorously to lower costs for everyone
C. Sick individuals get insurance and therefore limitless free-market care

If this is how the system works out, then by God, we have fixed the healthcare system!!! Bravo!!! Cost sensitivity will increase as insurance rates drop from 80% to 40% and the price of insurance doubles.

3/22/2010 1:54:12 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Go figure. I thought he would have been all for it, since he is a doctor himself." You kidding? This bill only helps politicians and insurance companies. As a doctor, he's trying to address the actual problem - the cost of health care. The thing that no liberal wants to talk about, for some reason."

I don't think I could have done the sarcasm bit any harder than what I did right there.

3/22/2010 1:55:20 PM

lol internet, I guess

3/22/2010 2:05:59 PM