[Bobboau]

if it didn't then it was going to involve a trillion dollars more debt.

[General Battuta]

Are you sure? At least on the campaign trail, Obama's big idea was to cut down on waste in health care in order to help offset new costs.

[Nuclear1]

The house bill calls for a surtax of 5.4% on incomes over $500,000 for single people or $1,000,000 for families.  The Senate bill calls for increasing the Medicare payroll tax from 1.45% to 2.35% on incomes over $200K for individuals and $250K for families.  The house bill would cost about $1.05 trillion over 10 years, but that would still reduce the deficit by $138 billion.  The Senate bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit by $132 billion.  That's all from the nonpartisan CBO.

So see?  The rich are being taxed to pay for it, not your average American.  The leaders of FreedomWorks, Fox, and Americans for Prosperity are going to be taxed, not the idiots they wrangled together and filled with lies and misinformation.  It's not going to increase the deficit, no one under $200K would pay additional taxes under either bill.  

There's no legitimate grassroots opposition to the bill...****, 70% of Americans supported the public option.  The rich are just being greedy assholes again.

[Bobboau]

[Nuclear1]

Seriously, Bob, if you can find any legitimate opposition to this from someone making under $200K that doesn't involve "they're taking my money", "it's going to increase the deficit", or "it's evil socialism" (all of which have been disproved at one point or another here), I'll give it some credit.  Otherwise, those fears are completely unfounded.

But I'm guessing you don't have anything else to contribute?  Look, I know your entire argument fell apart when I quoted the stats from the bills, but you can at least have the decency to just say "Golly, maybe I was wrong!"

[Scotty]

Speaking as the oldest child in a three-person, single parent family that makes ~$36,000/year, I am still opposed to this bill on principle, if nothing else.  Yes, health care/insurance for everyone would be absolutely fricking wonderful, but I don't think that the federal government should be the enacting party here.  That's not an "EVIL SOCIALISM!" argument, it's a legitimate concern.

[Nuclear1]

Then who should enact it?  The Senate bill calls for the states to create their own insurance exchanges that would have to follow one of two plans for insurance.  Is it a federal vs states concern?

By the way, it is a legitimate concern.  Appreciate it.

[Bobboau]

Seriously, Bob, if you can find any legitimate opposition to this from someone making under $200K that doesn't involve "they're taking my money", "it's going to increase the deficit", or "it's evil socialism" (all of which have been disproved at one point or another here), I'll give it some credit.  Otherwise, those fears are completely unfounded.

But I'm guessing you don't have anything else to contribute?  Look, I know your entire argument fell apart when I quoted the stats from the bills, but you can at least have the decency to just say "Golly, maybe I was wrong!"

that's not what I was rolling my eyes at, the fact that you posted that seems to indicate you haven't heard a single word I've typed.

[SpardaSon21]

I think a lot of people are worried about more government control over one-sixth of the economy.  To be fair, a lot of people are also worried about the fact the government already accounts for 50% of all health care spending already, and they believe that that is what's driving up costs.  And government is notorious for budget overruns and programs costing way more than anticipated.  Social Security and MediCare were supposed to be far cheaper than they have been.

[Nuclear1]

I've heard so far you're against health care reform because it's authoritarian and you don't want to pay for it.

Then I heard the argument where you essentially told everyone who has left-leaning policies to take their liberal ideas and GTFO your country:

I really think it would be best if people went to the place that most resembled their ideal and strived to perfect it, than try to make there ideal the only one

Which puzzles me, since a few posts ago you were telling me how it was bad to enforce one way over another just because you disagree with it.

Then you came out with that ****ing stupid ad hominem "winced at the propaganda words" referring to liberty and freedom.  **** you, I don't hate liberty or freedom, I'm putting my life on the line for it.  Your entire argument was based around "if everybody doesn't want it, then it's authoritarianism", and I told you repeatedly that the Tea Party protests were astroturfed nonsense based on irrational fears of people who've been lied to and misinformed.  

No one's trying to outlaw sausage dammit, we just want to be able to see a doctor every now and then and we know those people who "just want to be left alone" won't do a damned thing on their own to help out.  Is that too much to ask?

I think a lot of people are worried about more government control over one-sixth of the economy.  To be fair, a lot of people are also worried about the fact the government already accounts for 50% of all health care spending already, and they believe that that is what's driving up costs.  And government is notorious for budget overruns and programs costing way more than anticipated.  Social Security and MediCare were supposed to be far cheaper than they have been.

Dude, the health insurance industry is one of the least-regulated in the economy, and that's the problem--there's no protection for people who lose their entire policies because company X doesn't want to pay out and is more concerned for their profit then those people's health.  Telling the health insurance industry that it can't screw over average Americans anymore is what this is supposed to do.

[Bobboau]

whatever you just keep hearing what you want and I'll see you when the riots start.

[iamzack]

Pretty irritating to me how people who apparently want to riot over rich people having to pay for other people to be frigging healthy don't mind the billions the government spends on imprisoning people for smoking a plant that's less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, etc... They don't mind that the government controls who they can marry. They don't mind that the government places killing other people over educating our own....

[Nuclear1]

whatever you just keep hearing what you want and I'll see you when the riots start.

And as soon as they do something that's antithetical to democracy or attacking freedom, I'll be right there in the streets protesting it.

But no one's attacking your freedom here.  That's the whole point--you're not paying for it, you're not being forced into anything, you don't even have to give up your private insurance if you don't like.  This isn't about some government take-over of the health insurance industry--they're just making some rules to protect the average American from disgusting, greedy practices.  The government's stepping in to protect people's right to life, their right to be free from a monstrosity of a corrupt industry, and their right to not go into bankruptcy because of medical bills.

Obama's government isn't out to destroy your personal freedom--fine, walk outside if you want, no one's stopping you.  But don't whine and ***** when the government pays for health education to teach people the science behind cancer-causing UV rays.  Eat as many sausages as you'd like, just don't whine and ***** when the FDA establishes standards for keeping poisons out of the supermarket.  Go ahead and get as sick as you want; just don't whine and ***** when your insurance cops out on you and the government isn't there to give you affordable coverage because you thought it was a authoritarian powergrab. 

[Bobboau]

if the government controls health care they control your life literally, they can mandate any arbitrary rule they want under the pretenses of improving health, they can claim the authority to do this because they are the ones providing health care. not that they can't do this now but it has a much bigger impact if they are literally footing the bill for it, it doesn't come for free it comes at the cost of your autonomy.

[iamzack]

Slippery slope fallacy. Banning abortion is more likely to lead to all that nonsense anyway.

[Nuclear1]

if the government controls health care they control your life literally, they can mandate any arbitrary rule they want under the pretenses of improving health, they can claim the authority to do this because they are the ones providing health care. not that they can't do this now but it has a much bigger impact if they are literally footing the bill for it, it doesn't come for free it comes at the cost of your autonomy.

But they're not in control; it's called a public option for a reason.

Plus, look what happened when the government started doing whatever they wanted with the police force in the name of improving security over the last eight years.  Remember the stink that raised?

[General Battuta]

if the government controls health care they control your life literally,

Yet that has not happened in other countries with nationalized health care. Why would it happen here?

[Scotty]

Nor, in fact, would the government control your healthcare.  Not anymore than it already does.  I'm still not convinced this is the best idea to go about reform, but I know that any argument about government take-over of the industry has no leg to stand on.

[Mars]

My doctor sister anticipates NO change in her job after reform, other then being able to accept many more patients than she can now.

[Blue Lion]

Frankly, I'm amazed people don't realize government already controls their lives.