I guess that means the AARP is okay with sending old people to jail for not enrolling.

AARP sold out the seniors for seven pieces of silver. Sad. Older people really think AARP is there for their protection when in fact AARP is for AARP and f**k granny.

I have to conclude the the Retardicans must think no one can see them making utter jerks of themselves.

Winston;

The fool is the man with the gavel! How clueless was he, a parliamentary order must be addressed but his dementia overrode any understanding of the situation. Isn't government working great under the dimwits?? This is railroad job. Republicans can't object, the dimwits just move on.

Jail time? Heh. One last pathetic little scare tactic.

One last pathetic little scare tactic.

Check it out, genius...this is clearly not a scare tactic if it's part of the bill, and there's nothing "pathetic" or "little" about it. There is not doubt in my mind that these self-aggrandizing assholes wouldn't hesitate to prosecute anyone with the cajones to NOT buy into this train wreck. The Queen Bitch already reneged on on earlier promise to publish this abomination online, so obviously mommy thinks she knows what's best for all us young'uns.

My GAWD, you people are either intentionally stupid or you seriously believe everything you're told.

(blockquote fixed by skinny)

Will they be selling insurance in the penitentiary?

Hell yeah....right next to the ramen noodles and Magic Shave.

I ain't gonna say how I know that, so just go with me on that one.

So, folks cruising without health insurance, who will continue to drive up costs for the rest of us if they require any serious care at all and can't pay for it, pay the tax to keep the system going. The civil/criminal penalties only come into play if you refuse to purchase health insurance AND refuse to pay the additional tax.

Comparisons to the coverage mandate to purchase auto insurance--and the penalties for failing to do so--are obvious.

Horseshit.

So, a guy working for a dog daycare center for $8.25 an hour ($1320/mo gross), after paying $600 for rent, $75 per week for groceries (assuming he can eat for that little), $200 or so for gas and electricity, $100 for phone, $80 a month for laundry, has about $140 left over.

Now lets see, maybe he owns his car, but most likely doesn't. If he takes public transportation to work, he spends another $80 a month for bus fare. If he does own his car, he spends about $100 a month for gas plus $75 for insurance, so he has maybe $60 left if he owns a car.

Of course, all of this is BEFORE taxes, so more than likely he has zilch after he pays his present bills, but for the sake of argument, let's say our guy has about $20 left for emergencies once everything's paid.

Our wonderful, benevolent millionaire assholes in Congress would lock this kid up for not ponying up money he doesn't f*cking have." That's just swell.

As for comparing auto insurance to this, you're flat wrong, dude. You don't buy auto insurance, you don't drive. Nobody makes you buy auto insurance or face prosecution. This ridiculous legislation forces a colossal sh*t sandwich down our throats, whether we want it or not, and then has the audacity to say pay up, or we'll take EVERYTHING from you.

"Fearmongering," my ass. And before you try marginalizing my example, just about everyone I know is in just that situation.

You don't buy auto insurance, you don't drive.

Spoken like a guy who's never had his vehicle totalled by an uninsured motorist

Switch the narrative around, Mr. Mama:

You don't drive, you don't have to pay for auto insurance.

Auto insurance has always been required in order to protect other people from the damage you might do to them or to their property. Some states have instituted some no-fault systems, which was just a way to decrease litigation costs on more minor injury accidents. But they still do not require you to carry auto insurance unless you own or operate a motor vehicle.

Lefty's know very well that the comparison is bogus, but they still argue otherwise.

Joe Mama - Under the plan Democrats have proposed a person who is in the situation you have proposed would be eligible for Medicaid at no charge. As such the only reason such a person would ever go to jail is if they were simply unwilling to sign up for the free program which would offer them free healthcare at no costs. The bill offers Medicaid free of charge for all people making up to 150% of the poverty level which for a single person with no dependents would be $16,245 per year in 2009.

If you're that stupid then you deserve to go to jail.

The proposal by the Democrats offers subsidized healthcare for all people atleast up to 400% of the poverty level, which means a single person with no children making up to $43,000 per year would still qualify for some assistance for paying for their health coverage.

Gray - Nobody has said that you have to use the free healthcare insurance that is being given to them at no cost, only that they must be registered for it. So if you choose to be sick and still not use the insurance, then Democrats have left the most stupid with an opt out. We're for choice. :)

it'll never pass the Senate

LOL! Is it true? Has Gray Rider accepted a Senior Associate's position with Tom Miller's Neva-Fail Prognostication Consultants ™ ?

Opinionator - How could the bill have possibly been posted online for 72 hours. It was being amended right up until it passed.

Secondly, who cares. Even if it had been posted for 72 hours almost nobody would have read it anyways. If I felt for one second that posting it for 72 hours would result in the media and both political parties working to ensure everybody understood what was in the bill, I'd be all for it. Instead that 72 hours would only result in a grand political wack off session and very little learning about the bill.

And we already knew what was in the bill. That part had been posted for quite a while. We may not know the nick picky details, but the gist of it anybody who wanted to know could have found out.

The problem you have Opinionator is that the bill does not require everyone to have health insurance, it merely levies penalty taxes on those who don't. The 16th amendment to the constitution gives the Congress to tax people in any manner they see fit.

The legislation may have as its intent to get everybody to buy insurance, but legally it stops short of making such a requirement, as such you'll have a pretty hard time making a constitutional argument against it.

I would say that the issue of healthcare and jobs are intertwined. Healthcare costs are choking employers and employees alike. Getting premiums down through introduction of competition to the marketplace will help employers and having a public option will help businesses, especially small and midsize businesses compete for employees with large businesses.

As for people on the right argueing that we can not afford this, the CBO says that this bill will bring down the deficit. On top of that the yearly costs are less than 25% of what we were spending on the Iraq War. Somehow I think we'll manage.

Its really all going to depend on how much political pressure Obama is willing to put forward to make it happen, perhaps even in just getting it through in the reconciliation process. I can't say that I have much faith in Obama to do that at this point.

Unfortunately the ego brigade amongst the moderates led by Joementum himself might make it hard to do. Good thing Obama let him back in the caucus and let him keep his committee chairmanships ehh?

No, no, tax hell outta the job makers (those rich f**kers), that should SAVE or CREATE THREE MILLION JOBS! DUDE! :)

Oh, wait a minute, green jobs that's the ticket.

Opinionator - How could the bill have possibly been posted online for 72 hours. It was being amended right up until it passed.

Secondly, who cares.

I'm in shock "who cares" is still an actual sentiment, especially after this stupidity occurred.

Barack Obama has been a perfect opposite barometer since January 20th 2009 on what not to do to create jobs. Why think he will change now?

This certainly goes to show where the democrats were going with this deal of gaining access to all of your tax records. It also is a sneakey way to get increased taxes and the proof of the fact it is a tax if you can be sent to jail for failure to pay.
So for the priviledge of not participating in nationalized health care you go to jail.

"Easy, just do what we've always done throughout our history to create jobs. Give incentives to the job makers."

Interesting that we can deduce that since this comment came from a wingnut the translation of this is 'tax cuts'.

Ofcourse giving states money to build roads and bridges in their minds isn't an incentive to create jobs. 'cause those would be union jobs which pay people good wages.

And giving schools money to hire teachers, that isn't an incentive to create jobs either, you see those are union jobs too.

It really is a very one dimensional view of economics, which wingnuts accept without question simply because it is what they want to believe is true.

KwAwk;

Of course an economist such as yourself would understand that stimulus money for "shovel ready" projects where workers are hired must face the inevitable day when the stimulus money runs out and the employer more than likely has to let that employee go. That’s the difference between the private sector and 'stimulus’ jobs; one is created from long-term capitalistic demand, the other from taxes or transfer payments from say me to you. So the stimulus are bogus in the long run unless we turn 250 years of American ideals on its head and just make the government the employer for all Americans.

Of course an economist such as yourself would understand that stimulus money for "shovel ready" projects where workers are hired must face the inevitable day when the stimulus money runs out and the employer more than likely has to let that employee go.

Of course what's obvious to an economist like yourself is that at that point the ripple effect of having people with government jobs buying goods and services for their families has stimulated the private-sector economy. Now there's a greater likelihood that the laid-off public worker can find private sector employment.

On top of that, in the meantime the roads / bridges / dams / rail lines / parks are in better shape. It's sorta win-win.

That's why economists (like yourself) call it "stimulus." It's not a sexual term.

TM - What you seem to fail to grasp and as Winston tries to illustrate for you is that the idea of a stimulus package, deficit spending during a recession, is meant as a time period for government to pick up the slack in the economy to ease the pain of a downturn and a recession untill the private sector corrects itself and is in a position to create jobs and economic growth.

This also serves as the government serving to keep the economy from complete collapse so as to minimize the economic infrastructure from being destroyed. In this latest econmic downturn there are thousands if not tens of thousands of entreupreneurs who are having their life's work destroyed because a bunch of greedy assholes on Wall Street decided to wreck the world economy for their own enrichment.

Tax cuts don't help those small businesses, or any business for that matter, that isn't making a profit because the economy is in the tank. It does however help the greedy assholes on Wall Street who profited on the collapse of the economy.

I think that's well said.

So, Thomas, are you an economist? Or are you a neo-Hooverite?

Cause you can't, um, be both.

I appreciate GrayRider's sarcasm but let's face it: people who insist Roosevelt caused the Depression and the best move the federal government can make in the face of a severe economic contraction is to itself shrink drastically (compounding the problem), these people have a very high burden to meet. People aren't any more impressed with faith-based economics any more than they are with faith-based "science." So your name-calling may amuse your compatriots but it's just not very persuasive.

Besides, you'd think at some point you'd realize how badly this silly, juvenile tactic of labeling everyone to the left of Ayn Rand a Castro brother under the skin has damaged "conservatism." People stop taking you seriously. They tune you out as background noise.

If you want to present an argument, please do. If you can't, just calling people "Commies" isn't going to persuade anyone but the biggest dumbasses.

'But it's so easy, when people with their brains pouring out of their left ear, just keep on insisting that our current path of big government spending and government control and expansion AREN'T tenets of Marxism. Sooo easy.'

Only someone with basically zero understanding of Marxism could possibly believe that statement.

For Nooshans, it's not really a doctrine, just an epithet.

So my tax dollars are used for Winston to smooth out a walking path in the park and it’s called a "stimulus." The multiplier effect on the economy (trust me boys I'm familiar with the term) is that Winston and his buddy kwAwk then go drinking that night and the economy gets the positive effect of the stimulus by the shots they buy with my tax money? Yet lowering business or withholding taxes that allows business to keep their money and hire people for investment they know to have value is money down a rat hole?

I think this business model has been tested with GREAT results in Cuba. Venezuela is seeing the effects of "government stimulus" jobs and what it's doing to once vibrant private sector. Smart, really smart.

Where's the Unicorn?