who supports right to choose

[pattygreen 5]

No, don't reprint it. It wasn't true the first time and it won't make it anymore true the second time.

Again, you just make up stuff. You have no proof for anything you print.

It was talked about for a long time. How the people would start paying for Obama's public option plan as soon as the bill was passed, but coverage wouldn't begin until AFTER 5 years have passed by.

If we started paying for it in 2010, (saving up 5 years of income and not using it) and began recieving the care from it in 2015, (and was still collecting the same rate from the people for those 5 years), how could we continue to have the same great coverage 5 years later (in 2020 and beyond) when we are not taking in the same amount of money? We are only bringing in 1/2 of what we had. ( we will have used up the savings that was collected in the first 5 years before the HC services actually began, plus the incoming monies) The only way to get the same treatment as in the first 5 years of the program is to raise the premiums (tax) If we don't raise them, we would have had to ration the care.

This is where they got the idea of rationed care and a deficit increase. Now, this does not have to be written down somewhere and 'proven', for the people to forsee what would happen in the future (after the first 10 years)when there was no more saved up money and not enough revenue coming in to meet the HC payments going out. Any moron could figure it out. Obama was being truthful when he told you that it would not increase the deficit. He just conveniently left out the latter half of the sentence, "until 2020." He should have said, "It will not increase the deficit until 2020."

Edited January 31, 2010 by pattygreen

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It was talked about for a long time. How the people would start paying for Obama's public option plan as soon as the bill was passed, but coverage wouldn't begin until AFTER 5 years have passed by.

This makes NO SENSE. None. Uninsured people would have been the ones who were eligible to select the public option if they chose to. And you are trying to say that they would choose the public option in 2010 and start paying premiums but not receive coverage until 5 years later. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. That's like buying a car in 2010, making car payments but not picking up the car until 2015. :thumbup: Who would ever do that? No one, that's who.

If we started paying for it in 2010, (saving up 5 years of income and not using it) and began recieving the care from it in 2015, (and was still collecting the same rate from the people for those 5 years), how could we continue to have the same great coverage 5 years later (in 2020 and beyond) when we are not taking in the same amount of money? We are only bringing in 1/2 of what we had. ( we will have used up the savings that was collected in the first 5 years before the HC services actually began, plus the incoming monies) The only way to get the same treatment as in the first 5 years of the program is to raise the premiums (tax) If we don't raise them, we would have had to ration the care.

This is where they Who is they? The tea party idiots? got the idea of rationed care and a deficit increase. Now, this does not have to be written down somewhere and 'proven', Ah, yes it does. Otherwise you just made it up. for the people to forsee what would happen in the future (after the first 10 years)when there was no more saved up money and not enough revenue coming in to meet the HC payments going out. Any moron could figure it out. Obama was being truthful when he told you that it would not increase the deficit. He just conveniently left out the latter half of the sentence, "until 2020." He should have said, "It will not increase the deficit until 2020."

And who did those calculations? Joe the plumber? Once again, I will trust the CBO.

[pattygreen 5]

This makes NO SENSE. None. Uninsured people would have been the ones who were eligible to select the public option if they chose to. And you are trying to say that they would choose the public option in 2010 and start paying premiums but not receive coverage until 5 years later. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. That's like buying a car in 2010, making car payments but not picking up the car until 2015. :thumbup: Who would ever do that? No one, that's who

Everyone would have began paying for it if it had passed. Well, at least those who got a paycheck. It would have come out of their check just like medicaid and social security does. After the first 5 years of people paying into it, THEN the benefits would begin for those who wanted them. (those without ins., those who chose to purchase the gov. insurance individually and employers who wanted it for their employees.) Who did you think was going to pay for the "FREE" medical insurance for all those who don't work and don't have any? It was going to come out of your paycheck just like taxes do.

[pattygreen 5]

And who did those calculations? Joe the plumber? Once again, I will trust the CBO.

The CBO is not going to project the deficit increases in 2020. They are going to answer the question: "Will the HC public option increase the deficit?" No. You need to ask them the 2nd half of the question: "Will the HC public option increase the deficit in 2020, after 10 years?? YES!!!!

This pull from a CNN article will tell you that the bill would have had a deficit reduction (within the first 10 years) But will not tell you what will definitely happen after that. But, if you could do any form of 5th grade math, you would be able to see that without that 5 years of putting aside the tax revenue for it first, it would have never been able to reduce anything.

WASHINGTON (CNN.com) -- A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

Nancy Pelosi, here with Harry Reid, proposes a "more robust" public option. The CBO analyzed the plan.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years. [end]

Well, what about after ten years?? Oh yeah,.... that's when we would have to ration your medical care and increase the premiums. But, too bad. Everyone is on it by now, cause it was the cheapest ins. around and all the other ins. companies went out of business and now the gov. run ins. plan is your only choice! You are stuck with it, and it is bankrupting the country, and now you can't have that medical test you needed for 3 months because the gov. said so. They don't have the money to pay for it.:thumbup: They're in control now.

[pattygreen 5]

Liberals like the idea that the government will take care of them. I believe it is their security and they need to know that they have that backup because they are not willing to be responsible for themselves. It's a valid fear, I guess.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This makes NO SENSE. None. Uninsured people would have been the ones who were eligible to select the public option if they chose to. And you are trying to say that they would choose the public option in 2010 and start paying premiums but not receive coverage until 5 years later. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. That's like buying a car in 2010, making car payments but not picking up the car until 2015. :confused: Who would ever do that? No one, that's who

Everyone would have began paying for it if it had passed. Well, at least those who got a paycheck. It would have come out of their check just like medicaid and social security does. After the first 5 years of people paying into it, THEN the benefits would begin for those who wanted them. (those without ins., those who chose to purchase the gov. insurance individually and employers who wanted it for their employees.) Who did you think was going to pay for the "FREE" medical insurance for all those who don't work and don't have any? It was going to come out of your paycheck just like taxes do.

This is just simply not true. I never heard one thing about there being a deduction out of everyone's paycheck to pay for healthcare. I did hear about a tax on those making over $250,000 or a tax on the insurance companies for their cadillac tax plans. But that is a select group.

Please provide proof of where in the proposed bill it said all people would have money taken out of their paychecks.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The CBO is not going to project the deficit increases in 2020. They are going to answer the question: "Will the HC public option increase the deficit?" No. You need to ask them the 2nd half of the question: "Will the HC public option increase the deficit in 2020, after 10 years?? YES!!!!

This pull from a CNN article will tell you that the bill would have had a deficit reduction (within the first 10 years) But will not tell you what will definitely happen after that. But, if you could do any form of 5th grade math, you would be able to see that without that 5 years of putting aside the tax revenue for it first, it would have never been able to reduce anything.

WASHINGTON (CNN.com)

-- A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

Nancy Pelosi, here with Harry Reid, proposes a "more robust" public option. The CBO analyzed the plan.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years. [end]

Well, what about after ten years?? Oh yeah,.... that's when we would have to ration your medical care and increase the premiums. But, too bad. Everyone is on it by now, cause it was the cheapest ins. around and all the other ins. companies went out of business and now the gov. run ins. plan is your only choice! You are stuck with it, and it is bankrupting the country, and now you can't have that medical test you needed for 3 months because the gov. said so. They don't have the money to pay for it.:confused: They're in control now.

EVERYONE: This last paragraph is a perfect example of the lies, distortions, emotional rants and fear-mongering that those on the right engage in.

Say the lie often enough and people will begin to believe it's true. Lie and put fear into them so they oppose it.

OOOOOOHHH - death panels, rationing, let's all be so scared of the big bad government. When meanwhile, the greedy insurance companies are getting between you and your care by denying coverage. NOW THAT'S A DEATH PANEL I CAN BELIEVE IN!!!

And BTW - no one can make any accurate prediction about anything in the economy 10 years from now. It will depend on what the economy does between now and then with jobs, healthcare costs (if they're not controlled), etc.. Who knew bush would take a good economy and surplus and turn it into a terrible economy and a deficit in 8 years????

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Liberals like the idea that the government will take care of them. I believe it is their security and they need to know that they have that backup because they are not willing to be responsible for themselves. It's a valid fear, I guess.

And, pattygreen, why are you still talking about healthcare? The president has moved on, why haven't you?

Is it because with the jobs bill and the wall street financial reform and the tax on the big bailed out banks coming up for votes - and knowing that even though these things are VERY popular with middle america- that the OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS WILL ONCE AGAIN VOTE AGAINST THESE (AND THUS MIDDLE AMERICA) - leaving you to figure out how to defend them?

Oh, and BTW, I haven't seen one letter to the editor or seen one person on tv - real, middle america people - support the recent decision of the supreme court.

[Devana 0]

Devana, I thought you might be interested in this. I read it in the paper today. It said that Harry Manx, a musician from British Columbia, offered this definition of his countrymen:

What's a Canadian?: And unarmed American with health insurance.

Too funny, Mom. I've also heard us referred to as "dull Swedes". :confused:

I've seen Harry Manx perform here in town a couple of times. He lives quite close. Very good stuff!

[Devana 0]

Liberals like the idea that the government will take care of them. I believe it is their security and they need to know that they have that backup because they are not willing to be responsible for themselves. It's a valid fear, I guess.

Patty, honest to Pete, sometimes the things you say makes me guffaw my beer right out my nose!

Could it be that "Liberals" actually may care for their fellow humans and want the best for all? You know what? It's kind of like some conservatives are colourblind. They can only see Liberal ideas from the point of their own self centeredness and protectionism.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Patty, honest to Pete, sometimes the things you say makes me guffaw my beer right out my nose!

Could it be that "Liberals" actually may care for their fellow humans and want the best for all? You know what? It's kind of like some conservatives are colourblind. They can only see Liberal ideas from the point of their own self centeredness and protectionism.

Read my post on the last page of the "Conservative vs Liberal" thread with the picture of the donkey and elephant. That article, written by a conservative, says it very well. He "gets it".

[pattygreen 5]

This is just simply not true. I never heard one thing about there being a deduction out of everyone's paycheck to pay for healthcare. I did hear about a tax on those making over $250,000 or a tax on the insurance companies for their cadillac tax plans. But that is a select group.

Please provide proof of where in the proposed bill it said all people would have money taken out of their paychecks.

It doesn't say in the bill that those making $250,000+ will be paying for it, either. How to pay the bill is not in the bill. That's a whole nother matter. Obama had told us that the rich would pay for it, but they are not the ONLY ones who would have paid for it. There simply just aren't enough rich people in this country to pay for the HC of the whole nation.

[pattygreen 5]

And, pattygreen, why are you still talking about healthcare? The president has moved on, why haven't you?

Is it because with the jobs bill and the wall street financial reform and the tax on the big bailed out banks coming up for votes - and knowing that even though these things are VERY popular with middle america- that the OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS WILL ONCE AGAIN VOTE AGAINST THESE (AND THUS MIDDLE AMERICA) - leaving you to figure out how to defend them?

Oh, and BTW, I haven't seen one letter to the editor or seen one person on tv - real, middle america people - support the recent decision of the supreme court.

I was talking about his old plan that got dissed, thank God, because you were.

Jobs bill? What a joke. Don't you mean another 'stimulus'? The jobs bill would use $75 billion in money earmarked for the Wall Street bailout and redirect it to infrastructure investment and aid to states. SPEND!!!!! some more.

The money will go to temporary, (yes, temporary cause when the money is gone, so is the job) government jobs to people and give more things that states don't "need" to them while we are under economic stress!

[loserbob 11]

Again Patty, you put down Obama for everything(by the way, I have some "leaked info" for you, I heard Obama uses Charmin to wipe, you know the rest)I figured id tell you first so you can get on him about it, because im sure he isnt doing that right either! Im just wondering what the republican solution is. Im guessing, like everything else, do nothing. Let the big business get all the tax breaks(why is it during this recession, which under bush was not called a recession, big companies are making record profits,ie exxon, healthcare monopolies etc. while the small businesses(the backbone of the American workforce) get screwed?Just like the middle class. Ive got news for you, if the middle class is allowed to fail, the rich will suffer alot more than if theyre taxed higher for healthcare, etc. Without the middle class(also the backbone of our economy)the rich will get poorer. And another thing, if your making over $250,000.00 a year "you aint middle class". So quit using this as a basis. Middle class is defined as $35,000.00-$110,000.00 a year for family of 4.(not you personally Patty, im not sure i heard you use this, im talking about reps. in general).But this also shows you how out of touch with reality the republicans are. You act like the taxes "to the rich" are going to make them broke! The higher amount they will pay is not going to affect them as compared to the effect of raising taxes on an already strapped middle class. You say dems,(majority of middle class) wait for someone else,ie gov. to handle their problems for them. The middle class didnt create the mess theyre suffering from, it was the government,(bush ideals, support big corp. and the . Under bush, rich definately got richer, poor got poorer.And yes the banking system which Obama is bailing out is at fault also. But again i dont hear alternatives or solutions from reps. I think maybe the Obama thought process on bailout and so called "temporary job creation" is to try to create jobs and stabilize the economy and create confidence, possibly creating a snowball effect where small businesses see economy stabilizing a little,in turn giving them the confidence to hire and expand. (not fact, just my opinion). Its not going to happen if reps. like hannity spew negativity, i believe actual hatred for obama and his policies. I do remember bush giving People money(i believe it was$600,00 per working adult, dont quote me on it)to try to stimulate the economy.Most people used it to pay debt. created by bush admin. ideals.The plan backfired and i never heard hannity etc. talk about failed"bailout attempt",how much money did that cost our economy, again another failed rep. idea and he gave money twice, so 2 failed attempts.I dont hear republicans saying anything negative about bush policies on iraq war. Yes im going back to blaming bush. But the reality is if the country was not involved in iraq, we wouldnt be in this mess. You can say what you want but spending billions of dollars a day for 7-8 years, not to mention between 4-5000 precious, priceless lives is taking its toll. that money could have been used elsewhere, actually we would not be in jeopardy of losing economic status to china because if we werent at war we probably wouldnt be in a recession and would have billions to spend however we saw fit. You put obama down for bailout(basically mortgaging our future), if you where in jeopardy,god forbid, of losing your house, you would probably try to get a loan of some sort to save your house as a last resort.Bailout!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I was talking about his old plan that got dissed, thank God, because you were.

Anything that I posted about healthcare was in response to YOUR post. I did not initiate it.

Jobs bill? What a joke. Don't you mean another 'stimulus'? The jobs bill would use $75 billion in money earmarked for the Wall Street bailout and redirect it to infrastructure investment and aid to states. SPEND!!!!! some more. This is taxpayer money paid back (with interest) from those big banks who benefited from the TARP money. And why shouldn't it go to invest in jobs? Isn't that what the republicans have been harping on? Oh, I know - they want to use THEIR solution. Now let me think for a minute what their solution is. Oh, yeah. Tax cuts across the board (translation: tax cuts for the rich, crumbs for everyone else and one of the reasons bush turned a surplus into a deficit).

The way to reduce the deficit is to have a healthy economy that grows (which it did the last 2 quarters, thanks to Obama). And INVESTING (and yes, that means spending) in jobs. When people work, and projects get done, and they pay taxes, that helps to reduce the deficit. As does affordable healthcare.

The money will go to temporary, (yes, temporary cause when the money is gone, so is the job) government jobs to people and give more things that states don't "need" to them while we are under economic stress!

Every state and local entity that received stimulus money had more places than they could count where the money was badly needed. It kept jobs, it created jobs, work got done, roads and bridges got fixed. These are real problems that needed addressed. But of course you don't think infrastructure, education, police and fire need any additional money in these difficult economic times.