bachus's bill includes no public option

[blackascoal]

He didn't say republicans support it, he said not only republicans were against it.

Strange you noticed that but didn't notice that I was talking about democratic attempts to win over republicans that failed .. not democrats who didn't support it .. which I DO talk about in other posts and threads.

If neither you nor he can name the republicans who support the bill .. even among those who crafted it, then my statement is absolutely correct mr hack.

 

[Damocles]

Crap. I barely started and already see "Bronze Plan"...

 

[Damocles]

Strange you noticed that but didn't notice that I was talking about democratic attempts to win over republicans that failed .. not democrats who didn't support it .. which I DO talk about in other posts and threads.

If neither you nor he can name the republicans who support the bill .. even among those who crafted it, then my statement is absolutely correct mr hack.

Again, why would he name something he never said existed? The poster never said republicans supported it, he said simply that not only republicans were against it. What he would need to name to prove that point is somebody other than an R who was against it, showing an R who supported it would not prove his point.

This has nothing to do with "hack" and everything to do with language.

If I say that not only birds fly in the sky and then you ask me to name a bird... well, how is that proving my point? If I can name something other than a bird that flies in the sky then I will have proved my point.

 

[blackascoal]

Again, why would he name something he never said existed? The poster never said republicans supported it, he said simply that not only republicans were against it. What he would need to name to prove that point is somebody other than an R who was against it, showing an R who supported it would not prove his point.

This has nothing to do with "hack" and everything to do with language.

If I say that not only birds fly in the sky and then you ask me to name a bird... well, how is that proving my point? If I can name something other than a bird that flies in the sky then I will have proved my point.

You really have become a full-fledged moron.

Still can't point to ANY republicans who support it, eh? What a fucking surprise.

Point out the inaccuracy in this statement ..

So after democrats cave in to republican demands and offer a watered down weak ass no serious reform bill that was paid for with THREE MILLION DOLLARS to Baucus in donations .. still NO REPUBLICANS WILL SUPPORT IT.


There is no inaccuracy, particularly as it relates to republicans in that statement mr hack .. and he said I was a fool if I thought only republicans were against it. Point out where I said only republicans were against it. Tell me I don't fault democrats in other thraeds and posts just as I said.

Save your faulted lingusitic bullshit for your fellow morons. Try DRUMMING up controversy somewhere else dude.

 

[Damocles]

You really have become a full-fledged moron.

Still can't point to ANY republicans who support it, eh? What a fucking surprise.

Point out the inaccuracy in this statement ..

So after democrats cave in to republican demands and offer a watered down weak ass no serious reform bill that was paid for with THREE MILLION DOLLARS to Baucus in donations .. still NO REPUBLICANS WILL SUPPORT IT.


There is no inaccuracy, particularly as it relates to republicans in that statement mr hack .. and he said I was a fool if I thought only republicans were against it. Point out where I said only republicans were against it. Tell me I don't fault democrats in other thraeds and posts just as I said.

Save your faulted lingusitic bullshit for your fellow morons. Try DRUMMING up controversy somewhere else dude.

Why do you keep proving that you have no reading comprehension skills? I find it entertaining, but "drumming" up controversy has nothing to do with pointing out that nothing you are asking him for would prove or disprove what he said.

The sentence that you quoted was, "You are a fool if you think only republicans were against it."

Then you asked him to post an R that was for it, there is nothing in the remark that said that any Rs were for it. In this you are in "synch" (nobody said any Rs were for it, including you) asking him to show one R who supported it would not do anything to prove or disprove his point, showing somebody who was not an R who was against it would.

You think I'm arguing about your opinion. I'm not. I am pointing out the simple and clear meaning in the statement you quoted.

If I were you I'd be mocking him for not reading your previous posts where you said there were Ds against the public option, not asking him for something he never said existed.

 

[Bonestorm]

1. I mean is your insurance still provided by your employer as the payer? If it is this bill sucks too.
2. Then there is no real cost saving benefit to the end user.
3. And that sucks. We need more information.

1. I don't really know what you are driving at here. Maybe you could tell me what you would like to see in a bill.

2. Maybe so, maybe not. It gets rid of state-wide monopolies so you are likely to see costs decreases as a result of competition. If you want real cost control you'd find in with a public option but that would apparently make entirely too much sense. I'd also note that there are other ways to control costs other than increasing competition.

3. What more information do you need? I posted a link to the bill. It's all in there.

 

[Damocles]

1. I don't really know what you are driving at here. Maybe you could tell me what you would like to see in a bill.

2. Maybe so, maybe not. It gets rid of state-wide monopolies so you are likely to see costs decreases as a result of competition. If you want real cost control you'd find in with a public option but that would apparently make entirely too much sense. I'd also note that there are other ways to control costs other than increasing competition.

3. What more information do you need? I posted a link to the bill. It's all in there.

1. I think I've been clear, your employer should no longer be the payer for your health insurance.

We need to make it so people are no longer chained to their employer, we do this by decoupling the insurance from the employer. The best way to do this is to simply have the employer add the money they would otherwise pay as premiums into a health savings account that the employee can use to buy the insurance they select. Taking nothing from their current paychecks, adding to the mobility of the insurance plans. Even better would be to include the capacity of an individual to add to that fund pre-tax to allow for real mobility as they seek new employment opportunities and to allow them to save pre-tax for medical expenses.

One of the worst things that unions "gave" us is the chain that locks so many to a job with the chains of insurance.

3. You didn't post a link to the bill, you said "I don't know". You posted a link to the "Chairman's mark" which is the goals the chairman sets with the legislation, not a copy of the legislation.

2. And the public option is not the easiest or best way to make competition, expanding available insurance providers is. Allowing me to select insurance from another state that doesn't give me pregnancy coverage, for instance...

 

[Bonestorm]

I think I've been clear, your employer should no longer be the payer for your health insurance.

We need to make it so people are no longer chained to their employer, we do this by decoupling the insurance from the employer. The best way to do this is to simply have the employer add the money they would otherwise pay as premiums into a health savings account that the employee can use to buy the insurance they select. Taking nothing from their current paychecks, adding to the mobility of the insurance plans.

One of the worst things that unions "gave" us is the chain that locks so many to a job with the chains of insurance.

Oh, so you want Democrats to propose the McCain plan. Wasn't there an election not too long ago?


Edit: And how does this comport with allowing individuals to keep the insurance that they have.

Another Edit: My understanidng of the history of employer provided health insurance is that is has nothing to do with unions. At all.

 

[blackascoal]

Why do you keep proving that you have no reading comprehension skills? I find it entertaining, but "drumming" up controversy has nothing to do with pointing out that nothing you are asking him for would prove or disprove what he said.

The sentence that you quoted was, "You are a fool if you think only republicans were against it."

Then you asked him to post an R that was for it, there is nothing in the remark that said that any Rs were for it. In this you are in "synch" (nobody said any Rs were for it, including you) asking him to show one R who supported it would not do anything to prove or disprove his point, showing somebody who was not an R who was against it would.

You think I'm arguing about your opinion. I'm not. I am pointing out the simple and clear meaning in the statement you quoted.

If I were you I'd be mocking him for not reading your previous posts where you said there were Ds against the public option, not asking him for something he never said existed.

Simple question .. doesn't require much thought.

Are there any republicans who support the Bacus bill, even among those who helped to craft it?

 

[Damocles]

Simple question .. doesn't require much thought.

Are there any republicans who support the Bacus bill, even among those who helped to craft it?

Simple answer: I have no idea. I'm still reading the Chairman's Mark rather than the actual bill, and I am certainly not the Senate Whip.

Now, simple point, how would that prove STY or whomever posted that original remark wrong? The answer is it wouldn't. He didn't say any Rs supported the plan, he said more than just Rs were against it.

Again, if you want to mock him without seeming to be incapable of actual comprehension you should mock him for being unable to read your previous posts wherein you stated that Ds were against it as well.

 

[Damocles]

Oh, so you want Democrats to propose the McCain plan. Wasn't there an election not too long ago?


Edit: And how does this comport with allowing individuals to keep the insurance that they have.

Another Edit: My understanidng of the history of employer provided health insurance is that is has nothing to do with unions. At all.

No, the McCain "plan" did not decouple insurance from the employer. If we don't do that much of this "reform" is simply a government provided chain to your employer. If you cannot afford to quit your job because you cannot pay the full premiums without it you are chained to the company that can end your existence as you know it, even if there is a "public option"...

Why are you incapable of simply reading what somebody says rather than hacking it up with partisan blindness?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

TurdFerguson is grade A Moron material.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, the McCain "plan" did not decouple insurance from the employer. If we don't do that much of this "reform" is simply a government provided chain to your employer. If you cannot afford to quit your job because you cannot pay the full premiums without it you are chained to the company that can end your existence as you know it, even if there is a "public option"...

Why are you incapable of simply reading what somebody says rather than hacking it up with partisan blindness?

1) McCain's plan was to end the tax benefit provided to employers for providing health insurance to their employees. The purpose of that was to decouple insurance from the employer by disincetivizing employer-sponsored health care. What is it that you specifically propose, making employer-provided health insurance illegal foisting everyone into the individual insurance market? I'm sure that would sell really well.

2) I understand your concerns about employer-provided insurance. That's why I support Medicare for all. Your alternative is not terribly appealing. Preventing employers from providing health insurance wouldn't make health insurance any more affordable. Instead we'd have a lot more people that couldn't pay for health insurance. That's not a good idea. At all.

3) It's not partisan blindness. There are these things called elections. During these election people vote based on the positions of the candidates running for office. The candidate that ran for the presidency for the Republicans proposed a plan and tried to do pretty much the same thing you are proposing. Pointing that out isn't "partisan." It's the truth of the matter.

 

[Chapdog]

1) McCain's plan was to end the tax benefit provided to employers for providing health insurance to their employees.

Probably the #1 or #2 reason I voted for Obama.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

TurdFerguson is FOR The status quo of having our health coverage through our asshole bosses, who use it as a bargaining chip. Shame on you, TurdFerguson.

 

[blackascoal]

Simple answer: I have no idea. I'm still reading the Chairman's Mark rather than the actual bill, and I am certainly not the Senate Whip.

Now, simple point, how would that prove STY or whomever posted that original remark wrong? The answer is it wouldn't. He didn't say any Rs supported the plan, he said more than just Rs were against it.

Again, if you want to mock him without seeming to be incapable of actual comprehension you should mock him for being unable to read your previous posts wherein you stated that Ds were against it as well.

You can keep on harping on STY's comment if you choose. I have nothing more to prove there.

And, NO, there are no republicans supporting this bill, not even Snowe.

I could easily post supporting evidence of what I said .. but what would be the point?

 

[Damocles]

1) McCain's plan was to end the tax benefit provided to employers for providing health insurance to their employees. The purpose of that was to decouple insurance from the employer by disincetivizing employer-sponsored health care. What is it that you specifically propose, making employer-provided health insurance illegal foisting everyone into the individual insurance market? I'm sure that would sell really well.

2) I understand your concerns about employer-provided insurance. That's why I support Medicare for all. Your alternative is not terribly appealing. Preventing employers from providing health insurance wouldn't make health insurance any more affordable. Instead we'd have a lot more people that couldn't pay for health insurance. That's not a good idea. At all.

3) It's not partisan blindness. There are these things called elections. During these election people vote based on the positions of the candidates running for office. The candidate that ran for the presidency for the Republicans proposed a plan and tried to do pretty much the same thing you are proposing. Pointing that out isn't "partisan." It's the truth of the matter.

Rubbish. The same insurance policy, paid for by the same funds, through a different (personally directed) means, allows for affordable and portable insurance. The main difference is your insurance wouldn't end simply because you change jobs, and you would have the ability to save directly and plan for the future.

And it is partisan blindness. There are these things called elections where in the future the people voting on and for these things will have their biennial job "review" or six year job review depending on which body they are in. If they refuse to pay attention to the fact that 47% of the people did not vote their way, and that among those that did there is direct opposition to the idea of the "public option" they will lose their jobs and be replaced by others... Since they like and want to keep their jobs they write differently and vote more realistically than you'd like.

And they do things like create coops rather than public options...

 

[Bonestorm]

Rubbish. The same insurance policy, paid for by the same funds, through a different (personally directed) means, allows for affordable and portable insurance. The main difference is your insurance wouldn't end simply because you change jobs, and you would have the ability to save directly and plan for the future.

I don't think you understand very much about group insurance versus individual insurance.

 

[Bonestorm]

Rubbish. The same insurance policy, paid for by the same funds, through a different (personally directed) means, allows for affordable and portable insurance. The main difference is your insurance wouldn't end simply because you change jobs, and you would have the ability to save directly and plan for the future.

And it is partisan blindness. There are these things called elections where in the future the people voting on and for these things will have their biennial job "review" or six year job review depending on which body they are in. If they refuse to pay attention to the fact that 47% of the people did not vote their way, and that among those that did there is direct opposition to the idea of the "public option" they will lose their jobs and be replaced by others... Since they like and want to keep their jobs they write differently and vote more realistically than you'd like.

And they do things like create coops rather than public options...

Who is proposing coops?

 

[Damocles]

You can keep on harping on STY's comment if you choose. I have nothing more to prove there.

And, NO, there are no republicans supporting this bill, not even Snowe.

I could easily post supporting evidence of what I said .. but what would be the point?

Which was really my point. You both agree, more than republicans are against it. Pretending as if he were saying that Rs were for it with that remark was significantly less intelligent than your usual fare. At least don't pretend he claimed there were Rs that were for the public option.