NationStates

Takaram wrote:Price just summed up a year of Republican arguments in one short speech.

And I really don't like where Woolsey is going.

Why not? I thought she mae a valid point?

Helertia wrote:

Takaram wrote:Price just summed up a year of Republican arguments in one short speech.

And I really don't like where Woolsey is going.

Why not? I thought she mae a valid point?

She did. I thought she was going somewhere else with it.

Free Soviets wrote:

United Dependencies wrote:I'm wondering just how truthful this promise to cut the deficit is.

its not a promise, its a bill that provides provisions that will.

Would you kindly list the relevant page numbers? I have a digital copy I'd like to put to good use.

Rolling squid wrote:Is it just me, or do the only two republican points that actually have any substance (IE not just screaming "socialism!") are higher taxes and medicare cuts?

I dunno... I hear more Democrats spouting that they will vote for this bill because it's 'historic'... nothing else, just that they are glad to vote for this 'historic' bill.

Farnhamia wrote:

Hassett wrote:There are about 50 million Americans without health insurance now, if this bill passes, they will immediately get government funded insurance and who's going to pay for that? The middle and upper classes. Also, where are the extra doctors to treat these newly insured people? Answer: There are none, 50 million more patients and not a single additional doctor

Immediately? No, sometime after the year after next year. Almost nothing in the bill goes into effect immediately. And the number is around 30 million, not 50 million. Interesting how the opponents of the bill lower and raise that number to suit the argument they're trying to make. And do you actually think all those uninsured people need medical attention right this minute? Or that no new doctors are being graduated in this country? Please, at least be creative in the lies you make up.

Aren't doctors retiring, too?

And, even if not all 30-50 million people get sick right now, don't you think there will be a substantial increase of sick people, with no new doctors to treat it?

I mean, if 5% of people get sick every year, that is at least 1.5 million new people.

JuNii wrote:

Rolling squid wrote:Is it just me, or do the only two republican points that actually have any substance (IE not just screaming "socialism!") are higher taxes and medicare cuts?

I dunno... I hear more Democrats spouting that they will vote for this bill because it's 'historic'... nothing else, just that they are glad to vote for this 'historic' bill.

I think the Repub complaints against earmarks might be vaild.

I've been away for the past few hours, can someone kindly tell me if we are close to 216?

No, you're listening to Glenn Beck.

Free Soviets wrote:

United Dependencies wrote:I'm wondering just how truthful this promise to cut the deficit is.

its not a promise, its a bill that provides provisions that will.

True but the Repubs suggest that that is just one bill.

United Dependencies wrote:I think the Repub complaints against earmarks might be vaild.

when have republicans ever told the truth before?

the earmark complaint is especially stupid this time since they are being axed out in the reconciliation bill, and only exist at all due to the republican filibuster.

To my understanding, there seem to be two bill that the obama administration have to put together to make one. This is interesting because the need of most americans can not be meet if the bill is put together.

Port Arcana wrote:I've been away for the past few hours, can someone kindly tell me if we are close to 216?

Well we'll know how close they are come the end of the debate period. If they extend then no if they go to vote then yes.

I know that if this bill passes (I have health insurance but my company will stop providing it) I'm going straight down to the doctors (first time since, hell, I forget when) with my new government insurance and demanding the works. Then, after I've gotten myself an MRI, physical, and everything else; I'm going to the dermatologist to remove some moles (benign, no doubt, but I like to look pretty), then the dentist, and (if I have time in my day) down to the chiropractor.

Then I'm going to ask how the hell I was convinced prices would stay down and shortages would not develop.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

(Me laughing darkly)

I love that guy from California. " ... :3 good evening."

United Dependencies wrote:

JuNii wrote:

Rolling squid wrote:Is it just me, or do the only two republican points that actually have any substance (IE not just screaming "socialism!") are higher taxes and medicare cuts?

I dunno... I hear more Democrats spouting that they will vote for this bill because it's 'historic'... nothing else, just that they are glad to vote for this 'historic' bill.

I think the Repub complaints against earmarks might be vaild.

that and the "backroom" deals that they said repeatedly.

You know... the Dems say "it's the same type of health care they have..." didn't they vote against a measure to put those same members on whatever healthcare bill that passes?

Free Soviets wrote:

United Dependencies wrote:I think the Repub complaints against earmarks might be vaild.

when have republicans ever told the truth before?

the earmark complaint is especially stupid this time since they are being axed out in the reconciliation bill, and only exist at all due to the republican filibuster.

I don't know they seemed to have the dems pinned on debate earlier today when they called out the fact that there were earmarks in violation of the rules. What of the cornhusker kickback and the like?

edit:Plus neither side is really infallible

Maxen von Bismarck wrote:Would you kindly list the relevant page numbers? I have a digital copy I'd like to put to good use.

there are lots. here, have a CBO report:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11355

This is not debate, this is just "Take time to spew rhetoric."

Wilgrove wrote:This is not debate, this is just "Take time to spew rhetoric."

Hey, whats two hours after a year of that?

Wilgrove wrote:This is not debate, this is just "Take time to spew rhetoric."

Probably still stalling for votes then. If your just watching now than it's a shame. You missed the real debate at the begining when they were talking abou the provisions of the bill. That was pretty tense.

United Dependencies wrote:What of the cornhusker kickback and the like?

that was exactly what i was thinking of. it is specifically kicked out in the reconciliation bill, and it only exists because the republican filibuster gave the 60th vote in the senate massive clout for causing mischief.

BUSH deficit, BUSH deficit. Jeez. Doublethink

Louisiana Purchase is in this bill? and its a bad thing?

Ok, yes we can allow Texas to secede.

United Dependencies wrote:

Wilgrove wrote:This is not debate, this is just "Take time to spew rhetoric."

Probably still stalling for votes then. If your just watching now than it's a shame. You missed the real debate at the begining when they were talking abou the provisions of the bill. That was pretty tense.

Damn. It's boring now.

Free Soviets wrote:

United Dependencies wrote:What of the cornhusker kickback and the like?

that was exactly what i was thinking of. it is specifically kicked out in the reconciliation bill, and it only exists because the republican filibuster gave the 60th vote in the senate massive clout for causing mischief.

It may be gone but the current bill still bothers me some.