Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year.

Who the heck can even eat with only $14,700 in annual income for a 2 person household?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh well that makes a big difference.

Not.

It makes a difference only in the sense that the concept was a Republican concept going back to Nixon.

It is much like your "zero liability voters."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

It makes a difference only in the sense that the concept was a Republican concept going back to Nixon.

It is much like your "zero liability voters."

Come on dude, are they paying you to be a Shill for the White House and the Demoncrats? Certainly you can think for yourself every now and again.

Zero Liability Voters are a reality. Get use to it.

[Happy Monkey]

No they aren't. There are people who don't pay federal income tax, but there's nobody with zero liability.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No they aren't. There are people who don't pay federal income tax, but there's nobody with zero liability.

Certainly they exist. Anyone who can vote for something that costs them absolutely nothing and places the burden for social and public benefits on others is a zero liability voter.

And as long as we have just under 50% of the potential taxpaying public not paying any federal income tax that is a problem.

[Fair&Balanced]

I blame Reagan, that damned socialist, who expanded the EITC, after it was initiated by that other left winger, Ford.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And as long as we have just under 50% of the potential taxpaying public not paying any federal income tax that is a problem.

As long as you specify "federal income tax", you're OK, but if you try to extend that to zero liability altogether, you are incorrect.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

As long as you specify "federal income tax", you're OK, but if you try to extend that to zero liability altogether, you are incorrect.

I have never used any other term in that description, which is why it is qualified.

[Happy Monkey]

When left unqualified, "Zero Liability" is false.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

But look, do you really make a mea culpa like this if you "fudged" the numbers in the first place? Or, does this sound more like "we've been paying attention as we progress on this path, and here's something we weren't expecting. Here's our suggestion to improve the situation."

I see that as a symptom of Pelosi and Reid when they Ramhed it through the legislative process with minimal review, little to no bipartisan participation, and a very limited time to review. Like she said, we have to pass it to find out what's in it..... And this is what you get from such behavior when passing major Bills in Congress. So in that case, for me and many others who said, "Be careful what you wish for." this is the result.

This, to me, is a good example of why ONLY having for profit health insurance is not adequate. Imagine public safety as an analogy. What if we only had for profit police protection? What would our crime statistics look like? And, since we don't have that program, how has that impacted the for profit security industry? I don't think there's any negative impact to those folks that want *extra* protection. Our health insurance industry could benefit from the same dual track, but we don't have such an option for health care.

I don't have the answers, I said early on they should have gone all in or nothing at all. The in between is not going to work and many small companies will shed their health coverage and push people to the public option. But insted we got Obama making a huge backdoor deals with the insurance companies by inacting the individual mandate. And much of this was crafted and constructed by a former high-level executive of the nation's largest private health insurer, Liz Fowler.

You can read more about how corrupt the process was here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...0/07/15/fowler

What we have here is nothing short of Kabuki Theater and a bunch of applogists on here trying to make excuses as to why we should swallow this poison pill. The numbers were fudged and manipulated from the beginning. I said it before, I will say it again, Be careful what you wish for......

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

When left unqualified, "Zero Liability" is false.

Which is why it is qualified. There is nothing false about it. When some 47% of the population has no risk in voting for the empty promises and lies of the current administration, esp as the 2012 election nears, they have no risk in voting.

[Happy Monkey]

The third sentence is only valid for an unqualified "zero liability voter", and they don't exist.

[Fair&Balanced]

There is something at risk for every voter in every election and certainly not just based on whether one pays federal income taxes or not.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

There is something at risk for every voter in every election.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, that may not really be a good thing.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The third sentence is only valid for an unqualified "zero liability voter", and they don't exist.

They exist in every election, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.