Originally Posted by Matt1989

Here's Kucinich on the matter.

I'd love so much, especially after how everyone in the media laughed at him in the primaries, for someday Kucinich to be the guy that emerges from the smoking rubble of this country in order to save it. It would be comic justice of the highest order.

Then again, looking at his wife, I guess he already won....

Originally Posted by The Rani

You sure are, that's libertarians.

Today's Libertarians are Pro-Choice?!

Man, that's the end of the GOP!

Yea, baby!

Erza hits the nail on the head -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...as_much_a.html

Stupak's amendment stated that the public option cannot provide abortion coverage, and that no insurer participating on the exchange can provide abortion coverage to anyone receiving subsidies. But as Rep. Jim Cooper points out in the interview below, the biggest federal subsidy for private insurance coverage is untouched by Stupak's amendment. It's the $250 billion the government spends each year making employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free.

That money, however, subsidizes the insurance of 157 million Americans, many of them quite affluent. Imagine if Stupak had attempted to expand his amendment to their coverage. It would, after all, have been the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it would have failed in an instant. That group is too large, and too affluent, and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch their access to reproductive services. But the poorer women who will be using subsidies on the exchange proved a much easier target. In substance, this amendment was as much about class as it was about choice.

Yep, two Americas

Originally Posted by playwrite

Erza hits the nail on the head -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...as_much_a.html



Yep, two Americas

So will you cry wolf when your automatic health insurance tax deduction is taken away and leave you with less money per paycheck?

Originally Posted by wtrg8

So will you cry wolf when your automatic health insurance tax deduction is taken away and leave you with less money per paycheck?

Do you honestly think that will happen?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Do you honestly think that will happen?

Anything and everything is possible.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

So will you cry wolf when your automatic health insurance tax deduction is taken away and leave you with less money per paycheck?

I think you are missing the point.

The point is that those getting the deduction are too large and too affluent a group to be screwed with - either by taking away the tax deduction or imposing govt restrictions on their health choices.

That is not the case for the poor. They get screwed and those of us in the higher classes can pontificate on whether the casus bali of their screwing is just and wonderful - we literally have the luxury of standing apart to judge.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think you are missing the point.

The point is that those getting the deduction are too large and too affluent a group to be screwed with - either by taking away the tax deduction or imposing govt restrictions on their health choices.

That is not the case for the poor. They get screwed and those of us in the higher classes can pontificate on whether the casus bali of their screwing is just and wonderful - we literally have the luxury of standing apart to judge.

Well under the GOP plan, lower income folks would have that ability of tax-free health care. But the plan pass denied them that opportunity in the House. I hope cooler heads will prevail in the Senate with the Wyden plan.

Originally Posted by Odin

Great, lets throw women and gay people under the bus! That's the ticket! Sorry, I's rather join with the Libertarians.

But didn't FDR throw the blacks "under the bus" by not lifting a finger to alleviate Jim Crow when even his own wife was nagging him to do so? He even threw the Jews under the bus - see the St. Louis affair.

And didn't the Gilded throw the blacks under the bus after the Civil War by acquiescing in the abandonment of Reconstruction, allowing Jim Crow to be born?

Let rising-adult Homelanders worry about gays in the next 1T.

A different kind of flacid argument -

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/...by-i-have.html

An Immoderate Proposal

by digby

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)
.
.
.
I don't want my tax dollars touching even one milimeter of that overly engorged expense.

I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn't want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.

And I think those noxious advertisements for the drugs should be banned as well, if only for aesthetic reasons. Having to watch my baby boomer fellows wail "Viva Viagra" is offensive to anyone who has any taste in music.

Even as a Boomer male, I'm big enough to agree with this!

After seeing Congressman Anthony Weiner on The O'Reilly Factor earlier tonight - and yes, I do watch that, right after I have just taken in Countdown With Keith Olbermann on a typical evening - I can only say this: How can a dude be so cool on health care - yet so lame on national security?

Once it gets out there that the House bill imposes jail time for anyone who doesn't buy insurance, it's DOA. Welcome to reality, Millenial Obamabots. It would be hilarious to see them thrown in jail by the thousands by the very people they worshiped. I guess it's their "civic" duty right? The Senate will presumably strip that out.

Harry Reid has to get something passed as his last act in the Senate before he loses his seat next year. Say hello to Tom Daschle on your way out.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Once it gets out there that the House bill imposes jail time for anyone who doesn't buy insurance, it's DOA.

You might try actually reading the bill before making a statement like that. The only penalty imposed is a tax.

There you go drinkin' that Kool-Aid again.

The idea of JAIL TIME for not buying health insurance is a right wing myth. The jail time is for people who do not pay the tax for not having insurance. Refusal to pay taxes always comes with a possible jail sentence.

This is merely another gross distortion of reality by the rightwing in a rabid attempt to kill health care reform by any means necessary.

If you insist otherwise, just quote the portion of the bill that says so.

Wait... so if I don't get health insurance because I am just not quite poor enough to qualify for an exemption, I'll be taxed? Wow. This is like mandatory car insurance isn't it? Except it will be more like a poll tax by the time it is done- a fee for the privilege of living and breathing air.

I don't see how forcing people to give money to (insurance) corporations is supposed to improve our health care. Why don't they just expand medicare to cover everyone if they really want to address the issue? I don't see how this is going to change a thing except to further enrich the fat cats who make fortunes off this crappy situation already.

They'll never be able to force people to write all those checks every month unless they use the withholding mechanism to get at our paychecks before we do. So we'll end up with federal withholding that goes right to large corporations. That doesn't strike me as very liberal.

Why don't they just expand medicare to cover everyone if they really want to address the issue?

Excellent idea. Sadly, it would not even garner 50 votes in the Senate. But it still a great idea.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

The idea of JAIL TIME for not buying health insurance is a right wing myth. The jail time is for people who do not pay the tax for not having insurance. Refusal to pay taxes always comes with a possible jail sentence.

This is merely another gross distortion of reality by the rightwing in a rabid attempt to kill health care reform by any means necessary.

If you insist otherwise, just quote the portion of the bill that says so.

But what if you simply don't have the money to pay the tax - no "refusal" involved?

True, that's indirect - but if it's you that's behind bars, do you really give a tinker's damn whether you were put there "directly" or "indirectly"?

And the hypocrisy on display here is palpable, in that the left never hesitates to cite cases of indigent, uninsured patients being brought up on "theft of services" or "defrauding an innkeeper" charges (which can be used in many states; even the Wall Street Journal reported such a case in Illinois a while back).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But what if you simply don't have the money to pay the tax - no "refusal" involved?

Criminal penalties apply only to deliberate and wilful tax evasion, which must be proven in court under due process. If you don't have the money to pay your taxes, the IRS only assesses monetary penalties and interest.

There is, of course, no criminal penalty in the House bill for failing to get health insurance. There is a tax, and there is no criminal penalty either for failing to pay the tax, only for deliberately refusing to.

Forcing anyone to buy a product is tyranny - whether it costs you money, or freedom, if you don't.

And auto insurance is a totally faulty analogy, in that millions of people do not own cars - plus there are some states, such as Vermont, where auto insurance for car owners is not compulsory (just think - if you're a child predator, you don't even have to have the car you lure your victims into insured).

Originally Posted by The Rani

California also has a thing where if you can prove you have enough money to cover your own accidents you don't actually need auto insurance.

South Carolina does too.
But you have to put up a bond in the six figures to get the exemption.
I doubt that anyone in this state trusts the politicans enough to deposit that kind of money with them.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

That doesn't strike me as very liberal.

In America, liberal just means corporatism that primarily serves Hollywood, RIAA, and the medical industry. Conservative means corporatism that primarily serves banking and the military.

Anyway, either way all the important corporations get paid. Who gets elected just determines which sectors receive the largest new payouts. Old payouts are always kept on the books

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Forcing anyone to buy a product is tyranny - whether it costs you money, or freedom, if you don't.

And auto insurance is a totally faulty analogy, in that millions of people do not own cars - plus there are some states, such as Vermont, where auto insurance for car owners is not compulsory (just think - if you're a child predator, you don't even have to have the car you lure your victims into insured).

I am hearing there is already a group that will take this legislation, if signed, to Federal Court under Constitutional consideration.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yes, that's the argument against a public health care system also.

But again, your life doesn't depend on having to drive a car.
Also, with all of its problems, California doesn't have the history of corruption that South Carolina has even today. For example, the governator never took off for Argentina while saying that he was going somewhere else.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Nor health insurance.

But you only have to pay for car insurance if you choose to drive a car. You'll have to pay for the health-scam just for the privilege of being alive.

Or else, if you elect not to pay, you can go to jail. Admittedly, it's not a direct step -- you get to elect not to pay; then a guy in a suit tells you you have to pay (he calls it a 'tax' or a 'fine', but the nature of it is no different), which you can continue to elect not to do; then he gets people with guns to put you in jail -- but the underlying reality of it is no different.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yes, that's the argument against a public health care system also.

I trust government bureaucrats far more than I trust corporate bureaucrats.