So, under their own "Cut-Go" rules they can't pass the repeal without offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget, riiight? Unless of course they choose to make that yet another broken promise.

Feisty:

This will drive them nuts. Now, more than ever, they will want to score their own bills.

These folks don't need no stinkin' CBO. They have their own scorer, kinda llike a mob Consigliare!

Nice, real nice! Where the heck is the Tea Party......too much lemon in the tea! Bitter to say the least that they have been so quickly betrayed and tossed aside like a used tea bag!

Another inconvenient truth for the deniers.

This is republican dramatology.....2011 scene.

WOW!!!

I didn't see this one coming!!!

And, I'm SURE the lefty liberals didn't see it coming either!!!!

According to today's WSJ, buried in an article about discussions between Barry and Republican's about corporate tax reform: "the WH confirmed yesterday that Barry will be addressing members of the US Chamber of Commerce on Feb. 7, 2011 AT THE CHAMBER'S HEADQUARTERS in D.C."

WOW!!!

Mr. Ed (Schultz) is positively going to stroke out, have a heart attack, and soil his panties, all at once when he hears this news!!!!!

LMAO!!!!

So that's "The Truth." So hard to figure out these days.

Kinda like the autism to immunization fraud, or that government was going to root out all the fraud in waste in medicare, or that salt is bad for you.

Excellent use of terms Salt Grass: "deniers." Reminds me of the article back in 2000 that said snow was a thing of the past in Engalnd, and then the one by Pat Kennedy that said something similiar for the No. East US. Anyone who thought they were wrong were "deniers."

And god bless Big Ed. He either need to nad up and go with or not. Do be all full of bluster one minute only to apologize 10 minutes later.

"The CBO is the independent agency that scores legislation."

This CBO Director was appointed to his position by Pelosi and Reid. Does anyone think they chose a fiscal conservative or a lefty liberal for this "all-important" (not so much!!) position??

2011 first punch's landed...lets see how Gopers/teabaggers will respond.

I read an article in November just after the GOPTP won the House and declared their first action would be to repeal HCR. At that time, repealing would have added $143 billion to the deficit immediately upon repeal. Add to it the cost of overriding automatic cuts in Medicare fees paid to doctors and the total cost immediately would be $160 billion. What additional spending cuts will they make to offset either $143 or $160 billion when they cannot find the first $100 billion they promised to cut.

If the GOP tried to repeal the more unpopular parts or try to "defund" it, both carried political and financial risks. The most unpopular part of HCR was the mandate but the mandate was a republican idea; repealing that part only would create an "insurance death spiral" because everyone, well or ill, would have to be covered which would result in rates based on age, not health--that would allow healthy people to opt out of coverage UNTIL they got sick.

Republicans could cancel popular parts of the bill that requires insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, parents covering their children until age 26, coverage for all children, eliminating the dough-nut hole for seniors, paying for cancer screenings at no cost to seniors, etc. but would do so at their own peril.

Repealing or defunding the portion that provides insurance for more low income earners would impact mostly children, the disabled and the elderly; it pays for about 60% of the nation's nursing home patients. More peril in the way of re-election because opting out via repeal or defunding means cutting care for kids and throwing the elderly out of nursing homes.

Always nice to see a story about Ed Schultz on here. Thank you, MSNBC.

"The CBO is the independent agency that scores legislation."

This CBO Director was appointed to his position by Pelosi and Reid. Does anyone think they chose a fiscal conservative or a lefty liberal for this "all-important" (not so much!!) position??

You miss the point...in the Republican-controlled Congress the CBO's word was to be taken as gospel. Now they're just another mouthpiece? I don't understand? What changed?

Douglas Holtz-Eakin was supposed to be a fiscal conservative when he was appointed to the office in 2003. How'd that work out for the GOP spending binge?

GOP only pays attention to the CBO when it fits their narrative. Otherwise, it is just a mouthpiece for the progressives, liberals, socialists, etc.

Shame on you Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party Patriots for behaving like juveniles.

I got this Email today. its a bit off Topic. but it goes along with the usual Liberal mantra...

Subject: Scary news article on Arctic Warming!

Subject: Scary news article on Arctic Warming!

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!

Still haven't figured out the difference between weather and climate, have you Steve?

Of course, they may have already been on to something, because by 1922 global temperature was already warmer than it had been any time in the last 1000 years.

I guess I owe you an apology. Apparently your actual intent was to point out that Global Warming science is nothing new and that the warning signs have been apparent for decades. Well said, steve!

Obama should have stopped the health care bill as soon as the corporate lobbyists removed the Public Option, the bill he signed into law is just a federal mandate to buy insurance from a monopoly at whatever cost, he screwed the American people on that deal folks.

Who changed my story from Ed Schultz to a 1922 report on something about climate?

DBO, it was Steve, ITM's twin!

Subject: Scary news article on Arctic Warming!

Subject: Scary news article on Arctic Warming!

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!

Just for good measure. I dont want you liberals to get to far off track

Steve's approach is to divert attention from what's really important and baffle with BS. He's actually admitted it here before.

He's a great example of how Conservatives are desperate to talk about anything but the real issues at hand.

Jody, Iowa

I read an article in November just after the GOPTP won the House and declared their first action would be to repeal HCR. At that time, repealing would have added $143 billion to the deficit immediately upon repeal. Add to it the cost of overriding automatic cuts in Medicare fees paid to doctors and the total cost immediately would be $160 billion.

_________________________________

Jody, got a link to that article so others can read it for themselves??

If not, your post is about as credible as a claim that "Iowa cow farts smell like roses if you're standing real close to the cow's assh*le and breathe deeply. I know because I've been there and done that."

LMAO@U!!!!

Poor John,

you are a small minded person...

All moot.....repeal of HCR wont get past senate. Futile, time and money wasting effort. All with no ammendments or debate....so much for the 'transparency' the GOP /Tea BAggers promised.

The GOP has misplaced priorities. Last time I checked, people want jobs bills. Something the GOP/Tea Baggers will never do (they will just give more tax breaks and de-regulation to the same Banks and Corporations that got us into this stinking economy)

I also have to laugh that the GOP/Tea Baggers are now saying they cant get $100 Billion in dicretionalry cuts...now they are saying $50 Billion.

I can hear those Tea Bag campaign promises breaking already. Whats worse, is they cant tell you WHAT will get cut either

THe GOP/Tea Baggers have NO SOLUTIONS and its now becoming apparent to everyone.

Tim in Seattle

Not a broken Promise if the republicans in the House Pass it. that a Promise kept. just because the Senate. doesn't. those Republicans kept their Promise to me.

we understand that you as a liberal will believe anything the Democrats tell you . all so they can keep you Finacailly Enslaved to them is ok with me. but please dont try and convince me your reallity is mine. K. Thanks

420 bills passed the House in the last Congress and died in the Senate. Nearly all of them were due to Republican obstruction of one kind or another. Those are portrayed as broken promises by Conservatives.

Don't promise what you can't deliver. And Republicans had plenty of reason to know they had no chance to deliver a repeal of HCR. Therefore it's a broken promise.

Folks,

I have never been a math major, and expect some of you to laugh at that. But I read the entire letter, and took a small portion out of it for some comments.

Honorable John Boehner
Page 4
Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade
As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that
enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the
2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion, plus or minus the
effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include
in the forthcoming estimate.

Now, by reading this from the letter, on page 4, we are expecting to have deficits of roughly $145 billion dollars, but if repealed, and I as well as most logical people, know that won't happen until the courts decide parts of it, will add to the deficit $230 billion.

Now trying to look at this thing logically, wouldn't we only add $85 billion to the deficit if it was repealed? I mean if we are already projecting $145 billion in deficits if enacted, then if repealed, shouldn't the difference be the correct number? Now $85 billion is still a lot to add to the deficit, but I would think that should be the number used, not the total amount.

Plus the whole thing is a shame--because it is still just an estimate, and our government has never estimated anything correctly.

Steve...c'mon...get a brain....if you pronise to repeal Healthcare and it doesnt get repealed...that is a failure and a broken promise.

I dont remember Tea BAggers and the GOP saying they 'promise to submit a HCR repeal bill'.. All I heard all last summer was 'elect us and we WILL repeal HCR'

Boy you GOP/Tea BAggers are in trouble if your measuring stick for keeping promises to voters is 'we submitted a bill but if failed, therfore we kept our promise'.

lol...pretty weak Steve. Looks like your realitty is one of abject FAILURE

Hmm.. apparently you "dont have no stinin fact either"..!

First: $230 Billion over 10 years.. is much improved over the trillion we will spend for only 5-6 years of the fully implemented "Obama care".

Second: If you took the time read and to evaluate the full context of the letter form the CBo.. then you would quickly realize that potential for substantial reductions in that estimate exist.

Third: Keep in mind.. while the legisation may add to the Federal defict (essentially debt held by every tax payer), the taxpayer will pay less for there future health care.. then had been raised (as estimatd by the CBO) through the implementation by Obama Care.

Bottom Line: Repeal or defunding is multiple times cheaper then implementation of Obama Care' which not only raises the Defict much higher than Repeal.. but also costs the individual taxpayer more for future health care.

All of this.. derived directly from cujrrent and prior estimates by the CBO.

"How do you like them apples"..!

Bearpaw,

I can't understand why everyone is stuck on this $230 billion dollar number. Because in real terms, it is only going to be $85 to repeal it.

Honorable John Boehner
Page 4
Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade
As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that
enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the
2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion, plus or minus the
effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include
in the forthcoming estimate.

And even if there is potential for reductions to exists, there is also the potential for the estimate to rise. That is why it is called an estimate. They estimated low on medicare in the 60s, gee look at it now. They are so good at estimating:)

So you disagree with conservative positions and we are all "sheep, kool aid drinkers."

Ok Louis, enlighten us with your definition of the term. Maybe you could post your IQ score, highest educational degree obtained, and of course [cause I'm a conservative and it really is the "only" thing that matters] how much money you made last fiscal year.

It was just sarcasm, thought an intellectual such as yourself could recognize it. No need to get upset.

Sarcasm like your repetitive use of the term "Repulithug?"

I am easily upset and names are hurtful. So how about it Louie, think you could author a post without an insult or your so called sarcasm?

When I refer to Republithugs, I refer to the pushy Right that have no qualms with strong arming the conversation through means of intimidation as afforded by the Thug machine known as Talking Heads that issue lies and malevolence with no desire to distance themselves from it, well knowing that they are in fact just vicious assaults on the conversation. And those that do not denounce those same venomous poisons are no different than the same that issued them and yet attack the people the insults were hurled at.

Do you accept those people Spanky or are you against them?

Considering liberals have spent the last two years saying that the Obama needs more time to turn things around (because you can't fix this over night - even though he had the majority in the Senate and the House)... You sound quite foolish making statements like this.

And oh yeah, where are the jobs?

What a dolt!

SickOfTheBickering "And oh yeah, where are the jobs?"

I think tgriff is being ironic, as in, this is what the Republicans have been chanting since Obama took office.

Yeah... i got it... and it took him a whole 24 hours to yell it right back didn't it.

But sir or ma'am, the right was spouting the same no sooner than President Obama was inaugurated. Oh yeah, and as soon as he was inaugurated we all of a sudden had an unsustainable deficit, 20 million illegals entered the country, the borders were all of a sudden unsafe. Turn about is fair play.

And two wrongs make a right... way to go libbies!

Thanks for admitting that Conservatives have been wrong on this for the last 2 years. Next, please.

And two wrongs make a right... way to go libbies!.... Wow SOTB........

The truth will set you free........you have taken the first step......admission!

The Sunshine State - sudden had an unsustainable deficit, 20 million illegals entered the country, the borders were all of a sudden unsafe.

They have been unsafe for years. Obama have been in office for 2 years and has done little to resolve this issue except to sue Arizona, and to post signs - Danger: Public Warning--Travel Not Recommended. The Federal Government, the administration, and its new border security plan is to tell us, Don't travel this highway. It's not recommended by the Federal Government. The administration has issued travel warnings to citizens to not travel in parts of America. It's just too dangerous for Americans to go through America.

The sign goes on and says some more. Right here, the first bullet point: Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area. So now we know why we're not to be in that part of Arizona--because it's not safe. There's an active area of drug smuggling and human trafficking. And so the remedy of the Federal Government is warning Americans to stay away.

thetotas

And yet the Obama Administration has done more to secure the southern border than any other administration … ever.

Do you believe everything the administration says? Just because Big Sis says it doesn't make it so.

This administration has consistantly said one thing and done the opposite. If you watched anything but MSNBC you would know that.

More border patrol agents, more national guard, more arrests, more deportations. Those are facts, cruiser. Paint it however you want, if you believe this Administration has done less for border security than the last one you've believed a pack of lies.

As a resident of Arizona I have to say it is time for ALL sides to stop playing games, trying to use this to political advantage or shying away from a complex problem due to political winds...and seriously sit down and get to work on Immigration Reform and border issues.

'United we Stand, Divided... comes to mind and I hope and pray that our representatives will starting LEADING in uniting this nation and seeking the best for all (reading most of these posts and listening to the rhetoric most politicians are engaging in is disheartening!)

Wrong. Keeping it does not increase the deficit. Only repealing it increases the deficit.

So that averages to about 23 billion a year to repeal and about 87 billion a year if we keep it?

The source for your "$87 billion" figure?

...see, because if the question is "$23 billion reported by the CBO" vs. "$87 billion reported by you", I'm choosing the CBO.

John - 1888246

You wouldn't believe it from the way the Republicans have demonized HCR, but the healthcare reform bill actually LOWERS the federal deficit by 120 billion over the first ten years.

Amy,

Maybe you should read the letter again.

Honorable John Boehner
Page 4
Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade
As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that
enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the
2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion, plus or minus the
effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include
in the forthcoming estimate.

Seems like a couple of weeks ago Obama was extolling the "tax cuts" and pushing the Dems to pass it, which they did, which he signed and said it would help with the recovery? The American people supported it. Funny, Obama's numbers actually improved too.

The American people also understand that not taxing doesn't add to the debt - spending adds to the debt. Such a simple thing to understand, well I guess unless you are a progressive. Obama did tack on other spending things, that added to the debt - shame on the Repubs for allowing him to do that.

Yea, they want to repeal Healthcare, so do most Americans. 85% of Americans had health care they liked. Their problem was the rising costs. Obamacare addressed everything ....... but cost. Yea the CBO hit the number, but they don't even believe their number due to the ridiculuous assumptions they were forced to use. Now Obama laughs about the cost going up and says you can't add 30 million people for nothing. Hundreds of companies and organizations are applying for waivers because they can't afford it and would have to drop their coverages.

Sorry Obama is refuting your arguments on taxes and cost of HCR.

Wow, me apologizing for Obama to you.

Yea, how wierd is that?

"Yea, they want to repeal Healthcare, so do most Americans. 85% of Americans had health care they liked"

And no one said they had to get rid of it.

The American people also understand that not taxing doesn't add to the debt - spending adds to the debt. Such a simple thing to understand, well I guess unless you are a progressive.

I don't understand that. If you can explain this then maybe I will. Imagine we don't have any public services except military and we have a flat tax that exactly covers the cost of the military so we have a balanced budget. Now imagine all taxes are abolished but we keep paying for the military. According to your "simple thing to understand" we should have no debt but that is impossible. You would have to incur debt to pay for the military. Please explain to me what I am missing here because as I understand it in both this hypothetical situation and the real world if you lower taxes you either increase the deficit or reduce your surplus.

I will try to put this in terms you can understand...

If Jimmy is selling the cookie in his lunch and you want it but you don't have extra milk money with you today you can promise to pay Jimmy tomorrow.

If you have the milk money at home your budget is balanced because you will bring the milk money with you tomorrow and pay Jimmy.

If you don't you should not have purchased the cookie from Jimmy becasue now you owe him and he is the school bully. (yikes!)

SEE! Debt comes from spending!

Drive-by,

"Hundreds of companies and organizations are applying for waivers because they can't afford it and would have to drop their coverages."

It's amazing that even th American Federation of Teachers union package isn't good enough and because of the new costs 150, 000+ teachers would eveidently lose their coverage without the waiver. And what about those poor kids working at McDonalds losing their coverage, on and on.

And no one said they had to get rid of it.

Yea, and when a crack head points a 9mm at your head and says give me your money - no one says you have to give it to him.

What if I buy one carton of milk every day with money I collect from my parents which is the exact amount I need to buy the milk. I have a balanced budget.

Now lets say I reduce the collection I take from my parents by 50% but keep buying the same carton of milk every day. Do I somehow magically stay debt free? No. I now have a daily deficit of half the price of a carton of milk. Therefore, not taxing increase my debt. Am I missing something or did Bob leave out a key piece of information that makes his oversimplified statement false?

So the CBO again is the be-all and end-all to this estimation game they keep playing in Washington where a +/- 100% estimation of cost accuracy is considered close enough for government work. And according to this sacred CBO report, we're talking about a $23 billion dollar bump per year if this goofy ObamaCare legislation doesn't get implemented. Now, we can all be deficit hawks and say that's a big deal, but with a $3.5 trillion dollar budget, $23 billion is one-half of 1% of the total budget, hardly something to get too excited about.

You'd think Washington DC could cut something else fairly easily to balance their books for this "cost". For examble, take it out of Defense, that's 3% of their budget, and that would make the Libs happy.

Plus we wouldn't all be forced to buy health insurance we do not want. Kind of win-win.

Add SOTB to the long list of Conservatives who can't get the concept that a balanced checkbook consists of income in one column AND debits in the other.

I know, it's really, really complicated. God help them when they try to learn fractions.

Drive by - how many business health care plans did you review this year? Did you see any changes in what was offered?

Is there anything behind your conclusive statements?

You see Drive By, "someone is saying what is and is no longer available. You get that right?

Well in actuality, debt does come from spending, however, considering we have to spend on certain items in the budget such as the defense budget (paying for two wars is expensive) as well as SSI and Medicare we will never balance a budget unless we increase revenue to off set those expenditures. So if your Mom has no choice but to give you cookies everyday otherwise you will throw a tantrum and get expelled from school, then Mom has to find a way to pay for the cookies, hopefully from her job.

and the bulk of you are pretending that LAST year during Open Enrolllment there was NO rate change. And the year before THAT there was no rate change, all the way back to when Healthcare has never been an ongoing problem in this country. The fact that it is tied to an employer and that employer's experience rating determines the cost is what is wrong with this equation. Healthcare should be available for purchase from an Open Exchange. That way, when you become unemployed and you can't afford COBRA, you don't just show up at the ER for treatment and then default on your bill. The framing of how people are covered is the problem. We can't BEND the Cost Curve until their are PUBLIC OPTIONS. Off my box now,...

To answer Spanky's question to drive-by, there were changes to my health care coverage thanks to HCR--I can now see the doctor for an annual physical and there is NO out of pocket expense for me. This is investing in "wellness" to prevent serious illness which costs considerably more than that annual physical; this is how you reduce the cost of health care over time by focusing on keeping people well rather than treating them when they become seriously ill. Think outside the box by actually reading and researching instead of just listening to the talking points fed you.

Ron:

The Republicans cannot add or subtract.

Oh well. We are stuck with them for at least two years.

Charles,

A crack head points a 9mm at your head and says give me your money, or you will be increasing my debt.

The 111th Congress spent money like they were on crack.

The reason the debt exploded was not that Congress didn't tax enough, the debt exploded because they spent too much.

The other thing is the progressive idiocy of believing taxes are static. Raise the tax rate on the rich and believe that's money in the treasury? Asinine. They just move their money, put where they don't have to pay. The rich have the means to avoid it and they are not stupid. They don't pay like the static model suggests. History has proved it time after time.

My point was that, yes, debt comes from spending but not taxing (all else being the same) does increase debt. In order for you statement to not be false you have to qualify it. Your false statement was:

...not taxing doesn't add to the debt - spending adds to the debt.

The correct statement is:

not taxing doesn't add to the debt if you offset it with spending cuts - spending adds to the debt if you don't offset it with tax increases.

The inverse of this is also true:

not taxing does add to the debt if you don't offset it with spending cuts - spending does not add to the debt if you increase taxes.

You can't just lower taxes without cutting services and claim that your not increasing debt.

Bob

What's your fascination with 'crack'? Are you on the supply side or the consumer side?

We can argue about what the right level of spending is but you can't claim that tax cuts without spending cuts have no impact on debt.

The other thing is the progressive idiocy of believing taxes are static. Raise the tax rate on the rich and believe that's money in the treasury? Asinine. They just move their money, put where they don't have to pay. The rich have the means to avoid it and they are not stupid. They don't pay like the static model suggests. History has proved it time after time.

It is not a black and white world and is not as simple as that. Yes, increasing taxes 2% does not increase revenues by 2%, it would increase revenues by some lower amount but it still increases revenues.

"Yea, and when a crack head points a 9mm at your head and says give me your money - no one says you have to give it to him."

I likemy company and coverage, and I don't have to change it. Nothing Omama has done changes any of it. What does your 9mm comment have to do with anything??

Sorry Charles, (A lot of distractions)

In support of my previous comments:

According to IRS records, there were 206 people who reported an income of 1 million in 1916. Tax rates started climbing under the progressive Woodrow Wilson. Within 5 years there were only 21 people reporting an income of 1 million. Congress enacted tax cuts and suddenly 207 reported an income of 1 million in 1925.

The government which collected less than 50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, when tax rate dropped they collected over 100 million in 1925.

Thomas Sowell has a bunch of good stuff on this. Check his archives - especially the Brass Oldies, Can Republicans Talk

That is outstanding that you like the coverage your employer provides. Did you by chance ask your employer anything about the plans being offered, the reduced benefits and increased costs?

Basic risk management: how do the insurance companies cover the extra people with unlimited benefits? Why, they increase the costs and reduce the services for the rest of us. Get it? Naw, I not too confident you do, Drive By. But your HR department does.

Bob, I know the jist of what you are talking about and I don't deny it. It is a very valid point that raising tax rates doesn't necessarily mean increasing revenue. At the same time cutting taxes doesn't always mean increasing revenue. There are times when rates are too high and decreasing them leads to higher revenue, like the examples you cited but that is not always the case. It depends on a lot of variables and the key is finding the right balance. I will look into Thomas Sowell's writings, it sounds really intersting.

Yea, they want to repeal Healthcare, so do most Americans. 85% of Americans had health care they liked.

This is factually incorrect. Recent polls show that around 43% of people like the HCR reform bill and another 13% wish more would have been done to it. That leaves a minority that actually oppose the bill totally. Nice try. That lie has run its course. Its more divided than you are making it.

Also, nice try tying the '85% like their Healthcare' to the view of Americans about HCR. As if there is ANYTHING in this bill that says you cant keep what you have. Another GOP/Tea BAgging lie.

Think,....your company that you work for that gives you health care, often change their plans they offer over time (mine has changed 3 times). So this idea that you somehow have control over what health plan you get is bull$%&. ANother distraction by deceitful the GOP/Tea Baggers

Thank you Bob!! If you have to try to explain this again to these financial illiterates, it's hopeless.

Oh, and drive by observer, in a couple of years your employer will figure out that he can't keep paying the skyrocketing premiums that all the new things included in the HCR cost the insurance companies. He will have to dump you on the government plan to stay in business. Single payor has always been the goal of this administration. You haven't been listening. Try dealing with the government when your care isn't to your liking!!!!!

That isn't the fault of HCR, cruiser. Health insurance premiums QUADRUPLED during the GW Bush Administration. The number of uninsured has risen dramatically over the past 20 years because the whole system is in the early stages of a death spiral. Was that also President Obama's fault?

Plus we wouldn't all be forced to buy health insurance we do not want. Kind of win-win.

lol...i love this stupid argument. So by not having to purchase insurance, you would stand up and shout to the world...'look at me! I dont have to get health insurance!" ??

Who on here would drop their insurance or risk not getting it just because the Government no longer requires that you do? Please let us know how not having insurance is a good thing. It will cost you more, you will have to use the ER in most cases to get routine care and that drives up the rest of our premiums.

Unless you are rich and you have the $ to pay for 100% of your care. Otherwise this is a lame argument against the mandatory requirement

Well, first of all we don't believe the CBO because the CBO is a Commie apparatus.

That 'stupidity' 'badge' on your chest sure is shiny!

Keep on displaying it proudly and I won't point out to you the the CBO is a NON-partisian group m'kay?

Feisty... you obviously can't detect sarcasm when you hear it.

Brilliant!

It's obvious that it was sarcasm because the real GOP doesn't use big words like "apparatus".

Ooooooo... Good one Noid... You Are Smart... S M R T!

Andy -- I apologize if that was sarcasm !

Re-read it and I got to admit it's pretty damn funny! lol

To play it 'safe' it's usually best to insert a ;o) or *snark*...

Good job of sarcasm, Andy.

So essentially... your saying that if I don't work and take FULL advantage of the new benefits... it's all good.

BUT...

Since I am a working, tax paying citizen it COSTS me (and my fellow tax payer) hundreds of Billion in increased taxes... You see... your 'increased revenue' is my increased cost!

NICE! (for you!) NOT SO NICE for me :-(

(but you really don't care about me until i can't take care of myself now do you)

You make a valid point. I don't think pure capitalism works for health care and I think it is worth the cost. I don't expect we will ever agree on that.

You see... that's where you are wrong...

Pure capitalism DOES work for health care. If you want it go EARN it.

My family, for generations has taught ourchildren that a good education is the key to reaching all of your goals. So we put tremendous effort into acquiring a good education and as a result we are able to afford the things we want in life (like health insurance). Don't get me wrong, I am NOT one of those "RICH" people that you all seem to hate so much. I don't even come close to earning the magical $250K that people were so focused on recently. But I provide for my family, give what I can to charity, and try to get along.

If the takers were more focused on giving their kids an education perhaps this would be a non-issue. Instead they teach their kids how to take full advantage of the 'system'.

With the way things are going I may be one of the 'takers' too. (I sure hope not.)

What about not raising tax for the wealthy , How will it be pd for?

I said "pure" capitalism. What about mentally disabled people with no family? In a "pure" capitalist system they would be SOL. Do you advocate for leaving severely mentally disabled people with no families to fend for themselves? We are never going to agree on what the right balance is but I would expect you to admit that there needs to be some balance.

Pretty much sums up the Conservative view, Charles. For them it's FYIGM.

Of course what they're missing is that they're helping establish a system whose final outcome will be for the top 1% to have EVERYTHING, much like the old European aristocracy.

FINALLY Charles get it.

You cant keep spending if you dont have the money! (hooray!) A major breakthrough!

(now go eat a cookie you clowns!)

Charles Arlington Heights, IL

I said "pure" capitalism. What about mentally disabled people with no family? In a "pure" capitalist system they would be SOL. Do you advocate for leaving severely mentally disabled people with no families to fend for themselves? We are never going to agree on what the right balance is but I would expect you to admit that there needs to be some balance.

Charles, THAT is what CHARITY is for! (NOT Government!)

"Are there no work houses?" -- SOTB

As Dickens pointed out, Cratchit lived the typical life of that day's English working poor. He couldn't afford medical care for Tim, dooming his son to death or a lifetime of deformity. He had no idea where his Christmas dinner may come from, let along how to get gifts for his children, and always lived on the edge of the terror of unemployment and homelessness. Although he had a full-time job at Scrooge & Marley, Inc., he was so desperately anxious to keep his job that he worked weekends and evenings and put up with years of daily abuse from his employer.

This demonstrates the true liberal/conservative divide. Conservatives believe what business does is business's business, and government should keep its nose out of it, even when it leads to centuries of Tiny Tims and terrified-of-job-loss employees. As the Wall Street Journal noted in 1997, Alan Greenspan sees one of his main jobs as being to maintain a high enough level of "worker insecurity" that employees won't demand pay raises and benefits increases, thus provoking "wage inflation." ("CEO inflation" is fine with the cons.)

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to the notions of the founder of today's Democratic Party -- Thomas Jefferson -- that if the government doesn't actively participate in regulating how the game of business is played, the middle class (what in Jefferson's day were the "yeomanry") would vanish.

Okay, you do believe in pure capitalism. I would not want to live in a society that leaves the protection of the the most vulnerable and helpless people to whim of some charitable organization. I'm glad I live in a country that guarantees some level of survival to the severely mentally retarded. You have proven yourself to be of a very extreme opinion on this matter.

I'm sure that most Americans would want the severely mentally retarded to be guaranteed some protection by the government. Americans differ greatly on where the balance between "pure" capitalism and some social safety net should be but most believe in some level of protection. You are entitled to your opinion but I am sure glad it is not shared by the vast majority of Americans.

Nah!! They won't do that........ they just do what their base (otherwise known as the American people) want. Democrats and Independents are not true patriots and therefore their opinions don't count.

Ramboet -

That's kinda how I felt for the past two years.

I wish we could get a CBO score for a potential Supreme Courts decisions. If you think $230B is a lot, imagine what the price tag of that decison would be!

Beverely: I think Andy was being sarcastic.

Happy 2011 everyone... It's going to be a very interesting year. What with Bachmann overdrive on the Intelligence committee, republicans fighting amongst themselves, tea-baggers trying to shut the government down, and goodness knows whatt else.

Wonder how that constitution reading is going. Is anyone listening. I was watching Larry O yesterday and the nut-job that is reading it got eaten alive by Larry. It was hysterical. The guy had written just one solitary bill and it got thrown out by his hero on the supreme court for being unconstitutional. ha ha ha ha!!!

Bev, I think

Andy M - MA was being sarcastic. But, that is exactly how my right wing brother talks, so I was momentarily fooled. I'm pretty used to being called a commie in my family because I support Obama.

Amy B. Portland, ME

Bev, I think

Ramboet

Beverely: I think Andy was being sarcastic.

Thank you guys its so easy to be tricked. I too am called all kinds of names on this board due to my support for the President and where I live.

Bev, He was being sarcastic.

You sanctimonious, non-ideological obstructionist, Republican Nazis didn't think it when you Nazi Republican routinely bolstered your own proposals the CBO did for you. Now, did you?

Frank Luntz's hater-aide is intoxicating.

You need to get a grip! Seriously, how can you spew this stuff, find out it was sarcasm, and then turn it around away from you. (yea, you're not a bad person, people just like to bully you)

Kudos to you, Retired Military, for reading the whole letter. I confess I got a little swamped in there. Unfortunately, I think the right wing takes advantage of the complexity of the language and the issues to mislead average people like me as to the contents of the bill. I wish the Democrats were doing a better job of presenting it in language people understand.

I agree Amy, the democrats do a lousy job of selling their position. Unfortunately the republicans have a bigger mouth piece in Fox News as well as the talking heads for the right talk a whole lot louder than those on the left.

Retired Military

I agree Amy, the democrats do a lousy job of selling their position. Unfortunately the republicans have a bigger mouth piece in Fox News as well as the talking heads for the right talk a whole lot louder than those on the left.

I agree. But, the right has more outlets than the left. In some regions they get nothing but FOX. That's why the left's message is out drummed.

I totally agree Beverly, so how do we combat such a large political machine. How do the democrats educate the American people to the truth. I get so frustrated to hear some of the out right lies being told with sometimes no response from the left.

RM,

How is the insurance companies not for the HCR bill? This bill will increase their membership which increases there premiun intake. Plus this allows them to raise the rates on healthier low risk people due to the highest rates cant be 5x more then the lowest rates.

Do you think they will drop the high risk pools, I doubt it. So everything in this is good for the insurance companies.

RM, just keep telling the truth wherever you can. Ultimately Conservatism is about taking our freedom, either in a "legislating morality" sense or in a "stacking the deck in favor of the rich" sense. Either way, people now have a sense of and taste for freedom. They won't give it up lightly.

The only way to do that is in a vacuum, an environment in which theirs is the only message available. Speak truth, it wins out in the end.

Well one would think they would be for the bill and certainly they are all for the mandate portion of the bill, however the insurance companies feel that the penalties for not purchasing insurance are not strong enough, thus they feel that a large group of young Americans will simply ignore the mandate. On the other side, they are strongly opposed to the provisions that restrict who they most insure, as well as the catastrophic caps, not to mention the provision where they have to spend 80% of premiums on actual health care. In short there's a whole lot the insurance companies don't like about this bill.

Bev,

right has more outlets than the left. In some regions they get nothing but FOX. That's why the left's message is out drummed.

Please name the outlets and what regions only gets Fox?

Thanks

RV, did you actually read the letter, sounded credible to me.

There are Lies, Damned Lies, and CBO Estimates.