Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Happy Monkey]

You go from defending your use of the term by trying to claim that "zero liability voter" is inherently qualified to federal income tax only, to claiming that unqualified zero liability voters exist anyway.

OK

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You go from defending your use of the term by trying to claim that "zero liability voter" is inherently qualified to federal income tax only, to claiming that unqualified zero liability voters exist anyway.

OK

I haven't changed anything. Those are your words. Anytime I use the term it has to do with who does not have to pay federal income tax. Everyone pays some tax, but not all pay federal income tax. There is no doubt they exist. The term is valid whether you want it to be valid or not.

[DanaC]

In my country we call this 'moving the goal posts'

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

In my country we call this 'moving the goal posts'

Scuse me ya commie tart - We have goalposts here as well ya know...
and you can take your expressions to the correct thread
if'in ya don't mind, thank ya kindly

[TheMercenary]

Another possible stumble on the way to the SCOTUS.

ATLANTA (AP) — Three federal appeals judges expressed unease with a requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties, as they repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

At a Wednesday hearing, the three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Atlanta questioned whether upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.

The judges did not immediately rule on the lawsuit brought by 26 states, a coalition of small businesses and private individuals who urged the three to side with a federal judge in Florida who struck down the law.

But the pointed questions about the so-called individual mandate during almost three hours of oral arguments suggest the panel is considering whether to rule against at least part of the federal law to expand health coverage to tens of millions of Americans.

Federal appeals courts in Cincinnati and Richmond have heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law within the last month, and lawyers on both sides agree the case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...18a5836ef76f6a

[TheMercenary]

Medicare Trustees Confirm Democrats' Medicare Plan Would Result in 'Actual' 17% Medicare Cut

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...icare_cut.html

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Everyone pays some tax, but not all pay federal income tax.

THerefore there are no zero liability voters.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Medicare Trustees Confirm Democrats' Medicare Plan Would Result in 'Actual' 17% Medicare Cut

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...icare_cut.html

mercy!

come on. that's really unfair, you totally misrepresented that article. Not what you said, but what you left out. you know, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.. right?

your quote *was* from the article, but you just cut it off, right there. you missed this:

They also confirmed that Medicare would end itself by 2024

no fair cherry picking, right?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

mercy!

come on. that's really unfair, you totally misrepresented that article. Not what you said, but what you left out. you know, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.. right?

your quote *was* from the article, but you just cut it off, right there. you missed this:


no fair cherry picking, right?

I wasn't cherry picking, I posted the headlines AND the link.

Dr. Blahous: Well its 17 percent on average over 75 years, now it varies according to year. I think in 2024 specifically it's about 10 percent and that increases, then it becomes 25 percent by the 2040s.
Dr. Reischauer: What I think my colleague was describing is when the trust fund became insolvent, money would still be flowing in from tax receipts and Medicare would delay paying bills, and so a hospital would send this bill in and rather than being paid in 24 days, it might have to wait five months. The CMS and intermediaries and other payers would be writing out the checks and transferring the resources to the hospital, hospice, whatever, on a much delayed basis.
Roskam: So that cut just so I'm clear, is not a hypothetical cut, it's not a hypothetical delay, it's an actual delay in payment to the point of reaching this 17-percent number based on your own projection. Is that right?

Dr. Blahous: That's right. The Social Security Act which deals with these trust fund issues is very explicit that payments can only be made from the trust funds.

Do you really think anyone is going to let Medicare end in 2024? I don't. It may look different but it will most likely not go away. The way I understand it is that the amount of money coming in will not cover the bills and the shortfall will be a 17% decrease from the baseline of equal in and equal out.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

THerefore there are no zero liability voters.

Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.

[TheMercenary]

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by classicman

Scuse me ya commie tart - We have goalposts here as well ya know...
and you can take your expressions to the correct thread
if'in ya don't mind, thank ya kindly

*grins*

Ya, but like, your goalposts are different (inferior) to our goalposts :P

Just wasn't sure you had the expression.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I wasn't cherry picking, I posted the headlines AND the link.

Hello? You most certainly were cherry picking. From Wickipedia:

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.

I can post the headline and the link to practically any ideological site that catches my fancy, but that doesn't make it true. Your link is for an online publication that is unabashedly right wing and filters its information through tea colored glasses.

I am not impressed. Plus, what's up with the logo of the "patriot" sitting on the throne? Makes me want to send the editors a box of fiber.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.

You do seem to make that assumption a lot.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Hello? You most certainly were cherry picking. From Wickipedia:



I can post the headline and the link to practically any ideological site that catches my fancy, but that doesn't make it true. Your link is for an online publication that is unabashedly right wing and filters its information through tea colored glasses.

I am not impressed. Plus, what's up with the logo of the "patriot" sitting on the throne? Makes me want to send the editors a box of fiber.

Did you click on the link? It says what I posted. I stated my understanding of it to V.