Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 311 To 320 Of 657 Comments
WHY CONSERVATISM SUCKS RIGHT NOW
Your Brother Jim said:
"But when Bush was accused of being a fascist (everyone’s favorite word for the person in power whom they don’t like), the left was calling for impeachment, not revolution. Last time I checked, that was the constitutional solution."
THIS.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 05:07
@Jazz Shaw:
Golf clap for you, good sir.
Sadly, I have a feeling judging from the tenor of the other comments in here your post got more "Hell Yeahs!!" than chuckles.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.07.2009 @ 19:49
NO, AMERICA -- YOU CAN'T KEEP THE HEALTH INSURANCE YOU HAVE NOW
@ Mr. M:
"Of course the Ways and Means Committee oversees all changes to the tax code - ALL. Please don’t show how ignorant you are by making a high school civics class mistake like that."You're right. Dumb mistake, and clearly wrong. I take it back, disavow it, acknowledge its wrong, whatever you like.
“And the plain English translation of the bill is simple and straight forward. You cannot switch out your insurance. If you are unhappy with your policy, you either stick with it or go to the public option. No looking around for a better private insurance policy. You are forbidden free choice and forced onto the health insurance plantation.”
Prove it. I can’t find anything remotely like this in the text. I find no language at all banning future private insurance plans. Where do you get this in the “plain language” of the text? The plain language is clear, and it clearly doesn’t say that.
The Health Insuuance Exchanges are supposed to be created:
“[in] order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option.”
(page 72, ll.11-14)
“Including” a public option means that a public option is only one choice. Does that include private insurance? Explicitly yes:“(3) INSURANCE REFORMS.—This division—
(A) enacts strong insurance market reforms;
(B) creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans;”
(page 5, ll.3-8)“alongside private plans”, so the plan specifically does not outlaw private plans. The plans do seem to have to be part of an Exchange, but there is no language banning Exchanges from taking private plans.
“You cannot switch out your insurance.”
. . . except during the enrollment periods (page 75-76, page 95, l. 23 et. al.), or if there are special enrollment circumstances like losing your job coverage or a radical change in your income (same cites). Y’know, just like they did it at my employer. Just like most health care insurance works now.
That’s the plain language I found. I also didn’t find a single word prohibiting private plans. Granted, it’s a 1,000+ pages, so I certainly could have missed it. But I didn’t find it, and I did find plain language stating clearly the exact opposite of your claim.“the plain English translation of the bill is simple and straight forward.”
You’re damn right . . . it is pretty clear. And it pretty clearly does NOT say what you claim. Ignorant claims do cheapen the debate, so they should be corrected as soon as possible.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.07.2009 @ 21:33
@Alarm:
WSJ.com comes up with a subscription tag when you get search results. I've now gone to the WSJ site. Some content is fre, some is not. I read three
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124398857510379561.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122878091745389615.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640626749276595.html
The last is the only one that discusses the current ideas, as the others are older. Even that piece acknowledges that the plan allows you to keep your current plan . . . it just opines that theoretically in the future the government could pass other rules that take away our options thru another avenue. I suppose that's true, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the text of the plan now.
The government could pass a law that mandates the injection of radio tracking chips in all people, but that doesn't mean the creation of the Social Security number calls for implanting chips.I appeal to your all-powerful Googling talent. I tried "Alarm's totally awesome WSJ article that he won't cite to", but for some reason I came up short. Educate me. Please. I provided my links so that you might see the facts underlying my thoughts, because "I say so" is pretty weak. Link me an article.
. . . and no comment on the other source? Well, that's good enough for me to disregard the plain English text of the bill. The one I not only cited, but cut and pasted so you could see it.
p.s.: a good origin for your handle -- good "an interesting story", not good "error codes are good". Why that particular error? Was it the nature of the error itself, or did you just like the sound of it? **serious questions, no snark intended in this part**
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.07.2009 @ 20:29
@ Travis:
a) House Ways and Means has no authority to re-write the Tax Code, so at best this is a suggestion.
b) Respectfully, that is not "Correct" in many respects. The Section DOES propose an Amendment to the IRS Code that would be essentially a penalty tax if you can’t show proof of “acceptable coverage”. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf, page 167, l.18, et.al.)
You have a right to be pissed about that. I am too.
I could spin this by saying it should be “positioned” as imposing a fair cost on everybody. Rich or poor, there are no lazy Welfare-Wastin, Blood-Suckin’ deadwood of society, a bill that doesn’t discriminate against the rich – they don’t have to pay a cent more than the next guy. If its Universal Coverage, then its only fair that everybody pays a fair share. Get your own Insurance, use the Public Option, get an exemption (even an Exemption if you have a Faith-Based Conscientious Objection to buying Insurance) . . . your choice because God Bless Mom Apple Pie and America you have the Freedom of Choice to decide what’s best for your Family etc. etc. . . . but you’re gonna have to get some form of health coverage. That’s the whole point, to insure everybody. You don’t want a Socialist State spending money on supporting people, so then everybody has to pony into the kitty. John Wayne would.
It’s a fair spin (in that’s all that is true), but it still sucks. Money don’t grow on trees, agreed. But the fact that its expensive as hell doesn’t make it a “bad” thing. Is Universal HealthCare worth doing? That’s a different question than Is this the Best Way To Pay For It? And it’s a damn sight different than “ObamaCare will Literally Enslave Your Family For Bolshevik Good – Floggings and Tatoos Begin Tuesday”.
Literally, that tenor kills constructive criticism. You may bring up a brilliant, cogent criticism, something that should be corrected, but if you end it with “’cuz the aliens told me” you lose any credibility.That’s a rude metaphor, and for that I apologize. But you do raise legitimate issues, so when you say something like “and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).”
Is “Correct” . . . no, it’s not Correct.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
Where? It’s not done specifying all the exemptions to the tax by the time it ends on page 175, and not once did I see any reference to involuntarily forcing a citizen to be enrolled in a randomly selected plan. There’s the link, give me page and line.It could well be there. I’ve missed language in Leglislative text before. Correct me and I’ll apologize. But I don’t see it.
The only mention of random enrollment in the entire bill (do a search for the word “random”) is on page 98, line 2-7, and says that in some possible circumstances a person might get involved with a process, “Such process may involve a random assignment or some other form of assignment that takes into account the health care providers used by the individual involved or such other relevant factors as the Commissioner may specify.”
Might involve under limited circumstances. If you refuse to pick, you have to be covered, then its possible you might have to be assigned a plan that best continues whatever healthcare you have been using. If I work in the private sector, and my employer has to cover me, and I don’t chose, they’re going to have to assign me to the default coverage. I can’t be left uninsured. That’s not unusual. Nothing says you can’t pick whatever you want, nothing says if you have to be assigned to something, and you object, you can’t change it. We gotta send the bill for your care somewhere.
Fair to disagree with this . . . but it’s a damn sight different than “and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan.”
Its not Correct. Not by a long shot.
a) House Ways and Means has no authority to re-write the Tax Code, so at best this is a suggestion.
From WIkpedia: The Committee of Ways and Means is the chief tax-writing committee of the United States House of Representatives. Members of the Ways and Means Committee cannot serve on any other House Committees, though they can apply for a waiver from their party's congressional leadership. The Committee has jurisdiction over all taxation, tariffs and other revenue-raising measures, as well as a number of other programs
Um...just who do you think is responsible for initiating tax legislation? Maybe the Fisheries Committee? What do you think "Ways and Means" means?
Of course the Ways and Means Committee oversees all changes to the tax code - ALL. Please don't show how ignorant you are by making a high school civics class mistake like that.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.07.2009 @ 13:24
@Alarm (how appropriate):
I love a challenge.
First source you list – the WSJ. It’s a pay site, and proving you’re an idiot isn’t worth paying money to me.
Next – Investors Buisness Daily. Plenty of Articles in their series “Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription for Failure”, and they do in fact make the same claim:“It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854Well, if IBD said it, it must be true. I mean, talking points don’t get repeated without someone checking them, right?
Just for giggles, lets actually read the text BEFORE the paragraph quoted:
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered healthinsurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first
day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
(page 16, lines 3-20 . . . see, providing links to your sources isn’t so hard)So the limitation on enrolling new members applies to insurance that is defined as “Grandfathered” insurance, meaning that it existed before the bill hypothetically passes. It does not say, at all, in any possible way, shape, or form, that you cannot get new private insurance – it just says that such new insurance will not be defined as “Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage”.
Which makes perfect sense. Maybe IBD missed those words sitting on the same page. I mean, otherwise they are deliberately mis-reading the text to promote a demonstrable lie presumably to promote their agenda. I’m sure they would never do that, so let’s just assume they don’t actually know how to read.
“a host of other sources”
Well, I certainly can’t refute that.You snidely suggest people learn to Google. Maybe you might want to consider doing the same to get facts instead of opinions that bolster your own paranoia.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.07.2009 @ 11:59
I had a more detailed comment, but it seems to have been eaten by the InterTubes.
Short version -- Betsy M., the author of the Post piece, is a demonstrable fraud. This is beneath you Mr. M.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.07.2009 @ 10:00
ANOTHER 'IRAN IS SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM HAVING THE BOMB' STORY
"You would be wasting most of your U235 but at that point, who cares?"
Just a guess here, but I think the Iranians might care. They might be crary enough to think whomever's city they destroyed might get a little mad about that and make some kind of concerted effort to kick their ass.
Nukes make great defensive weapons, but unless you go in for total obliteration of all possible and potential opponents they make lousy offensive weapons.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.07.2009 @ 15:14
PROSECUTING TORTURE AS A DISTRACTION FROM THE ECONOMY
@jackson:
"All that matters now is the economy, which Obama began to own after his massive spending orgies."
So if he hadn't spent the funds, you would blame Bush?
"Transparent distraction only will make things worse for the Dems unless there is some economic turn-around no one believes will happen."
Why is this a transparent distraction? Why couldn't it be possible that this new interest in prosecution stems from new evidence that crimes were indeed committed? Did you read the 5OIG report? The ony other possible explanation for what happened, other than intentional criminality, is Reckless/Negligence-level incompetency and stupidity.
And now its looking like Cheney deliberately ordered the CIA not to brief Congress, which is (a) clearly a contravention of Constitutional power and (b) clearly illegal.I know Repubs have grown quite comfortable in their "I'm such a poor downtrodden victim" costumes lately, but is there really anybody here that thinks no crimes were committed? Honestly?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.07.2009 @ 16:19
@Mason:
You are indeed right. We don't know what we are talking about. Maybe we should find out so we as American Citizens can become better informed. I wonder how we could find out about all this stuff . . . maybe some sort of committee that would determine what the truth is? They could call it a Truth Commission possibly.
Nah. Better to blindly trust your government. That's why you unreservedly trust and support Obama, right?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.07.2009 @ 18:43
