Congress passes the Health Care Bill

[lord_raken]

everyone who disagrees with you?

No. I'm not that petty. I actually like people to argue with me as long as they make good points and don't insult me.

But ignoring works just as well as banning, and banning someone for just being a loudmouth wouldn't be very fair.

 

[15357]

I guess they expect all the rich people to pay for it. :upstare:

Any way, Unless they do some serious cleaning up of the system this will prove to just be another hole for our money to disappear into.

Ridge is right. Its hard to have intellectual conversation here. Mostly its people making outrageous statements and then flaming everyone who disagrees with them. (sometimes I wish I was a Mod, but that's not the best idea cause then I would totally abuse that power and ban a bunch of people... can you guess who would be on top of the list?)

Hey, at least when I make outrageous statements, I realize it later on and pretend that it was a joke.

 

[lord_raken]

Hey, at least when I make outrageous statements, I realize it later on and pretend that it was a joke.

Touche.

 

[Absinthe]

You must be new to the politics forum.

Logic and common sense have no place in here.

You could leave if you don't like it.

 

[Stigmata]

The problem with HL2.net politics isn't that it's full of outrageous statements and flaming. It's that the outrageous statements and flaming are mostly a reaction to the absence of logic in another person's comment (or, more often, in the content of whatever link has started a thread). If you can support your argument well, then there will be a heated debate. If you cannot support your argument, this will become apparent from your first or second post. After this is discovered, we generally give up trying to reason with you and start mocking your sentence structure.

This is what's known as "the beginning of the end".

 

[Ridge]

You could leave if you don't like it.

Without me and a select few other posters, there is nobody to refute the claims or provide an alternate view of the situation at hand.

 

[Solaris]

Can someone please explain to me how the new health-care system isn't going to end up as debt-ridden as the current system of Medicaid and such? Without taxes?

Have you seen the south park episode where Cartman becomes Glenn Beck? "I'm just asking Questions!"

That's you.

If you have a point to make, make it, don't disguise it in a question like that. It's poor form.

 

[Stigmata]

Can someone please explain to me how the new health-care system isn't going to end up as debt-ridden as the current system of Medicaid and such? Without taxes?

One word: accountability.

Government operations are held accountable to the government. The government is held accountable to the citizens who elect it.

Corporate enterprises are held accountable to their corporations. Corporations are held accountable to their shareholders.

What's the difference? Shareholders are trying to make profit. Citizens are trying to make their country's government better.

 

[Ridge]

General Motors is now held accountable to the shareholders, which is the Government, which is held accountable to us.

Yet it continues to fail, and continues to receive bailout funds.

How is that accountability again?

 

[Stigmata]

Well the problem is that the government in its current state is only partially accountable. There's so much bureaucratic red tape, overhead, and over-application that singling out the source of incompetence or failure is pretty much impossible; you either fire no one or scrap the whole system, and nobody can or will scrap the entire government. Add on that the fact that the bailout itself was an even stronger example of how the government is controlled to a very respectable extent by corporations, lobbyists, and bankers, and it's no wonder nobody thinks the government can be trusted.

But some accountability is better than none, don't you think?

 

[Ridge]

One word: accountability.

Government operations are held accountable to the government. The government is held accountable to the citizens who elect it.

Corporate enterprises are held accountable to their corporations. Corporations are held accountable to their shareholders.

What's the difference? Shareholders are trying to make profit. Citizens are trying to make their country's government better.

Well the problem is that the government in its current state is only partially accountable. There's so much bureaucratic red tape, overhead, and over-application that singling out the source of incompetence or failure is pretty much impossible; you either fire no one or scrap the whole system, and nobody can or will scrap the entire government. Add on that the fact that the bailout itself was an even stronger example of how the government is controlled to a very respectable extent by corporations, lobbyists, and bankers, and it's no wonder nobody thinks the government can be trusted.

But some accountability is better than none, don't you think?

So you just admitted that there is little chance for the program to have enough oversight to stay within it's goals and remain solvent.

 

[Stigmata]

Yes, it's implicit because the American government is corrupt. And you ignored my question: Do you prefer some oversight, or none?

 

[Ridge]

I prefer oversight from a group of people who cannot be swayed by campaign contributions, private jets and other luxuries laid at their feet in exchange for leniency and a willingness to look the other way for violations.

 

[Stigmata]

"I prefer oversight from a group of people who cannot be swayed by paycheck bonuses, private jets and other luxuries laid at their feet in exchange for leniency and a willingness to look the other way for violations."

Bam.

Everyone gets swayed by bribes. It's human nature. Businesses allow this to be easily hidden due to "trade secret" laws and the like. Governments have a much harder time due to bureaucratic oversight. Corporations have bureaucracy too, but the difference is that corporate bureaucracy answers to itself, and governmental bureaucracy answers to outside bodies. More flow of information, and the information gets to places where people can see it, so it's less likely anyone will try or get away with shifty practices.

 

[Ridge]

Then have oversight on the overseers. And have them overseen.

Eventually the bribes will get so watered down it wont even be worth it...

And it'll add to more of that bureaucracy that governments love so much.

 

[Stigmata]

There you go. That's the only current viable solution.

Now, would you prefer that these overseers be contracted out by private companies, or would you prefer that they were hired by the government?

 

[Ridge]

The line between those are so blurred nowadays, its hard to decide...

 

[CptStern]

the ontario government (canada to the geography challenged) has been fighting a losing battle against the public's perception of mishandling of funds lately. the issue stems from disclosed consulting fees totaling in the millions of dollars paid to consultants in a new online healthcare program


just another example of big government spending and lining pockets of the beaurcrats AMRITE?


not really because their consulting fees were TYPICAL business practices that's used in every single industry that uses consultants. the fee structure was exactly the same as it was in th eprivate sector. the ONLY difference is that the government is HELD ACCOUNTABLE whereas if it were a private business no one would bat an eyelash


so you still want a company that has profit as it's main concern to represent you over a government who's main concern is providing a service regardless of cost?


up is down, black is white etc

 

[No Limit]

I prefer oversight from a group of people who cannot be swayed by campaign contributions, private jets and other luxuries laid at their feet in exchange for leniency and a willingness to look the other way for violations.

So I guess you support public funding of our elections and making campaign contributions illegal?

 

[phantomdesign]

Has anyone looked into this bill? I mean "Yay, **** the republicans" but who has actually looked at what this bill does? According to what I've seen... for me (being healthy, young, employed, and single), it will do nothing but increase taxes and health premiums.

I'm all for healthcare reform...in the form of insurance companies being bitch-slapped... but this isn't "Universal Health-care" or anything of the sort. All of use are going to be paying for insurance (required to, under penalty) and paying for healthcare out of our pockets (as usual).... and taxes skyrocket.

 

[No Limit]

Has anyone looked into this bill? I mean "Yay, **** the republicans" but who has actually looked at what this bill does? According to what I've seen... for me (being healthy, young, employed, and single), it will do nothing but increase taxes and health premiums.

I'm all for healthcare reform...in the form of insurance companies being bitch-slapped... but this isn't "Universal Health-care" or anything of the sort. All of use are going to be paying for insurance (required to, under penalty) and paying for healthcare out of our pockets (as usual).... and taxes skyrocket.

Do you already have insurance? If you don't you sound like you are in the same boat as me, young, employed (without employer coverage), and not married with no kids. I will be forced to buy insurance I don't really need at around $150 a month. $150 a month isn't easy to scrape up when you live alone on my income.

You might find this calculator useful:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Choose the reconciliation bill.

But to say this will increase premiums is not accurate, it won't; it will lower them. Atleast once this bill is in effect in 2014. before that the insurance companies can do whatever they wish and chances are that they will increase premiums, but that has little to do with this bill.

 

[CptStern]

it doesnt mean you'll ever need it. have you had colorectal cancer screening yet? you're reaching the age where you should consider it. do you really want to pay cash out of pocket for someone to stick his finger up your ass?

 

[No Limit]

it doesnt mean you'll ever need it. have you had colorectal cancer screening yet? you're reaching the age where you should consider it. do you really want to pay cash out of pocket for someone to stick his finger up your ass?

But it's not a question of wether I will need it, it's a question of wether I can make money I don't have appear out of thin air. $150 is the monthly fee which is already a lot for me. But should I actually need to do any tests as you pointed out or should I get sick there are additional co-pays, deductibles, and other bullshit fees they will charge.

And I am pretty lucky cause I make enough to suck it up and deal with it. People that make $10 or even $15 an hour will have a much harder time sucking it up.

Just as an example my sister has insurance through her boyfriend's employer. She got sick a few months back and went in for some standard care and they had to do a few tests. The insurance company is still sending her bills because of some bullshit reason they came up with not to cover those fees, the latest being some kind of $270 lab fee.

 

[StarBob]

The LAST thing you want to do is be caught with your pants down and not have medical insurance. It is the number one way for someone to become completely inundated with debt. If you think times are tough, go break your leg or something or god forbid get a long-term ailment and you'll be swimming up shit creek with no end in sight.

The thing is, people who don't have insurance never really pay for this stuff because, most of the time, if you don't have insurance you don't make enough to do so. The cost goes to the people that do. Hospitals have to make up the burden of uninsured never paying. Being young and healthy like myself doesn't mean you're invincible.

But really, not having insurance is like carrying a grenade in your pocket and assuming it will never go off.

 

[No Limit]

The LAST thing you want to do is be caught with your pants down and not have medical insurance. It is the number one way for someone to become completely inundated with debt. If you think times are tough, go break your leg or something or god forbid get a long-term ailment and you'll be swimming up shit creek with no end in sight.

The thing is, people who don't have insurance never really pay for this stuff because, most of the time, if you don't have insurance you don't make enough to do so. The cost goes to the people that do. Hospitals have to make up the burden of uninsured never paying. Being young and healthy like myself doesn't mean you're invincible.

But really, not having insurance is like carrying a grenade in your pocket and assuming it will never go off.

Why? If you can't afford $200 a month for insurance you simply can't afford it. The government telling you that you have to buy it won't make that $200 appear out of thin air. Yes, subsidies do exist but there is a huge chunk of the population that makes too much for enough subsidies but not enough to actually afford insurance.

So if someone has no insurance and gets seriously sick they will have to deal with bankruptcy. It's a shitty thing to have to deal with but it is what it is. Now many of these same people will be charged a fee because they can't afford something and if they get stick they will still have to declare bankruptcy. So nothing really improves for them under this bill, it only makes it worse.

 

[CptStern]

But it's not a question of wether I will need it, it's a question of wether I can make money I don't have appear out of thin air. $150 is the monthly fee which is already a lot for me. But should I actually need to do any tests as you pointed out or should I get sick there are additional co-pays, deductibles, and other bullshit fees they will charge.

And I am pretty lucky cause I make enough to suck it up and deal with it. People that make $10 or even $15 an hour will have a much harder time sucking it up.

Just as an example my sister has insurance through her boyfriend's employer. She got sick a few months back and went in for some standard care and they had to do a few tests. The insurance company is still sending her bills because of some bullshit reason they came up with not to cover those fees, the latest being some kind of $270 lab fee.

you might not have the money to pay for it but if you were sick you'd certainly not have the money to pay for your care either. except instead of it being $150 a month it's 3 million deducted from your pay check in tiny increments for the rest of your life. good luck getting a mortgage with that hanging over your head.

unfortunately it's the young colege student or those just starting out that get dinged the most. however if you're employed you should have some sort of coverage and you're still pay a percentage of that as well

 

[No Limit]

you might not have the money to pay for it but if you were sick you'd certainly not have the money to pay for your care either. except instead of it being $150 a month it's 3 million deducted from your pay check in tiny increments for the rest of your life. good luck getting a mortgage with that hanging over your head.

unfortunately it's the young colege student or those just starting out that get dinged the most. however if you're employed you should have some sort of coverage and you're still pay a percentage of that as well

But that's an absurd argument Stern. The point is exactly that you don't have the money to pay for it, so since money doesn't grow on trees (unless you're a weed dealer) saying atleast you won't have to declare bankruptcy isn't an argument. I would much rather declare bankruptcy in some unlikely event should somthing happen then be forced to pay money I dont have in to a cartel that will do everything in its power to make my healthcare as unaffordable and as unaccessable as possible.

So I wish I could poop out $150 a month, but thats not very realistic. In my case as I said I'll figure it out. But someone that makes $10 an hour and is in the same situation will have a much harder time figuring it out. And chances are they will simply pay the fee and be in the exact same position they are in now but with a higher tax. And telling those people "hey look on the bright side, so what you cant afford this, atleast now you have insurance" isn't a good argument.

As Obama said when he was campaiging. If mandates worked we could fix the homeless problem by making it illegal to be homeless. I liked his logic on this back then, sucks that he forgot it.

 

[StarBob]

Everyone gets sick at some point. How many people live their whole life healthy then just die one day with no medical bills accrued? It's not like you have to have cancer or something to go backrupt, you can do basically anything that will be an overnight stay or a minor surgery and you've got the same debt as a college education.

What improves is the ability to get covered if you didn't, and find affordable coverage. My old company had fantastic coverage for $100 a month. It was better than what I have now. The reason was because they were a huge company and of course, they paid part of it... But of course it's part of your pay as well. Insurance is more expenive for individuals because they don't have the negotiating option that large companies have. The bill introduces group policies that will bring the prices down for individuals so they can have SOME coverage. The idea is that with more people paying, prices will go down for everyone.

 

[No Limit]

You miss the point. How do you come up with money you don't have?

Why don't we fix the homeless problem by simply making it illegal to be homeless?

Yes, premiums will probably go down 4 years from now when this takes effect. But not by the amount you seem to think they will.

 

[Krynn72]

Holy shit. According to that site I'll need to pay $265 a month! Thats ridiculous!

 

[No Limit]

Holy shit. According to that site I'll need to pay $265 a month! Thats ridiculous!

That high? How old are you? The most I've seen for young americans was about $219 a month. And the rate will depend on your area, that's an average. Some areas are lower cost and some are even higher. What you might want to do is find out how much insurance costs for you in your area now, it will probably stay around the same.

 

[CptStern]

But that's an absurd argument Stern. The point is exactly that you don't have the money to pay for it, so since money doesn't grow on trees (unless you're a weed dealer) saying atleast you won't have to declare bankruptcy isn't an argument.

I'm not saying it is an argument as to why you should have healthcare. I cant predict the future. however it is in your best interest to protect yourself from yourself. using the hope and pray method isnt very wise because looking at the risk assessment will eventually lead you to getting healthcare coverage. it's inevitable

So I wish I could poop out $150 a month, but thats not very realistic. In my case as I said I'll figure it out. But someone that makes $10 an hour and is in the same situation will have a much harder time figuring it out. And chances are they will simply pay the fee and be in the exact same position they are in now but with a higher tax. And telling those people "hey look on the bright side, so what you cant afford this, atleast now you have insurance" isn't a good argument.

the new healthcare bill covers this:

The uninsured are clearly the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation, which would extend the health care safety net for the lowest-income Americans.

The legislation is meant to provide coverage for as many as 32 million people who have been shut out of the market �¢?? whether because insurers deem them too sick or because they cannot afford ever-rising insurance premiums.

so if the governemnt is picking up the tab for those most in need I dont see a problem. also if you're employed chances are you will have healthcare coverage:

many employers �¢?? those with 50 or more workers �¢?? could face federal fines for not providing insurance coverage

if you're a student or just startign out in life. chances are you're covered with no cost to you:

And dependent children up to age 26 would be eligible for coverage under their parents�¢?? plans �¢?? instead of the current state-by-state rules that often cut off coverage for children at 18 or 19

this covers most of HL2.net's members

and even if it doesnt you can get insurance that wont cost you $150 a month:

Moreover, people of any age who cannot find a plan that costs less than 8 percent of their income would be allowed to buy a catastrophic policy otherwise intended for people under age 30

and other provisions cover the rest:

Although most Americans who do not obtain health insurance would face a federal penalty starting in 2014, many experts question how strict the enforcement of that penalty would actually be.

The first year, consumers who did not have insurance would owe $95, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater.

Families who fall below the income-tax filing thresholds would not owe anything. Nor would people who cannot find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income

More lower-income individuals under the age of 65 would be covered by Medicaid, the federal health insurance plan for the poor. Under the new rules, households with income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $29,327 for a family of four, would be eligible.

so the very poor wouldnt have to pay anything

the not so rich may have to pay but it's subsidized if they do:

People with incomes of more than 133 percent of the poverty level but less than 400 percent (that�¢??s $29,327 to $88,200 for a family of four) would be eligible for premium subsidies through the exchanges.

Premiums would also be capped at a percentage of income, ranging from 3 percent of income to as much as 9.5 percent

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/your-money/health-insurance/22consumer.html

Holy shit. According to that site I'll need to pay $265 a month! Thats ridiculous!

you dont have to pay

And dependent children up to age 26 would be eligible for coverage under their parents plans instead of the current state-by-state rules that often cut off coverage for children at 18 or 19

 

[No Limit]

If you look at the calculator I posted someone making $10 an hour will still have to pay around $100 a month after subsidies. I've lived on $10 an hour a few years back, I didn't have $100 sitting around at the end of the month.

It's nice that you can be on your parents policy up until 26. That's if you happen to be lucky enough to have parents that can afford to cover you, not the case for many people including myself.

You are making the same mistake I originally did, that if you can't afford healthcare the government will make it affordable for you. But if you go and look at the actual figures the story is clear, many will still not be able to afford this even after subsidies yet they will be forced to come up with the money or pay a fine. The $10 /hr is one example, someone making a bit more will get no subsidies and will have to pay twice as much. Everyone agrees that having healthcare is a need, thats not the question. The question is how do you afford it.

There is nothing to question about the penalty, it's in the bill. It will be enforced. Currently as I understand it it's set at $750 a year for single people and around $3K for families.

 

[CptStern]

If you look at the calculator I posted someone making $10 an hour will still have to pay around $100 a month after subsidies. I've lived on $10 an hour a few years back, I didn't have $100 sitting around at the end of the month.

It's nice that you can be on your parents policy up until 26. That's if you happen to be lucky enough to have parents that can afford to cover you, not the case for many people including myself.

You are making the same mistake I originally did, that if you can't afford healthcare the government will make it affordable for you. But if you go and look at the actual figures the story is clear, many will still not be able to afford this even after subsidies yet they will be forced to come up with the money or pay a fine. The $10 /hr is one example, someone making a bit more will get no subsidies and will have to pay twice as much. Everyone agrees that having healthcare is a need, thats not the question. The question is how do you afford it.

There is nothing to question about the penalty, it's in the bill. It will be enforced. Currently as I understand it it's set at $750 a year for single people and around $3K for families.

$10/hr is much less than $29K a year.

More lower-income individuals under the age of 65 would be covered by Medicaid, the federal health insurance plan for the poor. Under the new rules, households with income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $29,327 for a family of four, would be eligible

you dont even have to get monthly coverage:

Moreover, people of any age who cannot find a plan that costs less than 8 percent of their income would be allowed to buy a catastrophic policy otherwise intended for people under age 30

8% of 30K is $2400 divided by 12 that's $200 a month. so if you cant find it for cheaper than $200 a month you can purchase a safety net in case of an emergency. seems like the best case scenario


look the bottom line is that it's absolutely appaling that 45 million americans have absolutely no healthcare coverage. with this bill 27 million of those would have access to healthcare. this is worth it in the grander scheme of things. you've got to step on a few toes to help the greater good: for far too long the US has done nothing to fix the problem; you're going to break a few eggs in the process

 

[Krynn72]

That high? How old are you? The most I've seen for young americans was about $219 a month. And the rate will depend on your area, that's an average. Some areas are lower cost and some are even higher. What you might want to do is find out how much insurance costs for you in your area now, it will probably stay around the same.

I'll be 24 in a couple months. I'm making $35k/yr though.

Iyou dont have to pay

Well, that would only cover me for 2 years, and im not so sure I can be considered a dependent, due to me having a full time job and not even living in the same state as them. Not sure what they consider dependency though.

 

[StarBob]

I'll be 24 in a couple months. I'm making $35k/yr though.



Well, that would only cover me for 2 years, and im not so sure I can be considered a dependent, due to me having a full time job and not even living in the same state as them. Not sure what they consider dependency though.

Aren't you a programmer too? Or am I thinking of someone else...

 

[No Limit]

$10/hr is much less than $29K a year.



you dont even have to get monthly coverage:

What you posted applies to a family of 4. A single person living on $10 /hr does not qualify for medicaid.

8% of 30K is $2400 divided by 12 that's $200 a month. so if you cant find it for cheaper than $200 a month you can purchase a safety net in case of an emergency. seems like the best case scenario

The point is it wont cost them $200, it will cost $100. $100 a month is hard to come by for a single person making $10/hr. As I said, make a couple more dollars an hour and you are going to pay double that because all subsidies become unavailable to you.

look the bottom line is that it's absolutely appaling that 45 million americans have absolutely no healthcare coverage. with this bill 27 million of those would have access to healthcare. this is worth it in the grander scheme of things. you've got to step on a few toes to help the greater good: for far too long the US has done nothing to fix the problem; you're going to break a few eggs in the process

The bottom line is I am sick of the rich getting richer on the backs of people like me. Why are we the ones that have to contantly be asked to sacrifice? If they were gonna force me to buy insurance the least they could have done was offer an affordable public option or a medicare buy in. They chose not to do that. So I'm sorry if I am not willing to accept the fact that the eggs that need to broken are the ones that already have enough of a hard time getting by.

 

[StarBob]

The bottom line is I am sick of the rich getting richer on the backs of people like me. Why are we the ones that have to contantly be asked to sacrifice? If they were gonna force me to buy insurance the least they could have done was offer an affordable public option or a medicare buy in. They chose not to do that. So I'm sorry if I am not willing to accept the fact that the eggs that need to broken are the ones that already have enough of a hard time getting by.

I wish they would have. Obama proposed it but the damn Republicans used the tried and true polarizing issue of least importance, abortion, to crush any hopes of it and take shots at the bill that's passed. The reality of it is that conservative politics does not allow for any potential spending into a public health care option because it's not very conservative. It's a tautology I know, but that's being a conservative for you. They make excuses like tax increase and the inability for private insurance to compete and so on and what not... all of which had wonderful counterpoints that were ignored by stubborn Republicans who only listen to their party constituents and talking heads. Sad way things work here, but that's the way they work.

 

[CptStern]

What you posted applies to a family of 4. A single person living on $10 /hr does not qualify for medicaid.

no but there are other alternatives such as the emergency coverage thingy for all those that dont qualify for medicaid. before this bill there wasnt a choice for most of these people. now at least there's some help in subsidizing coverage

The point is it wont cost them $200, it will cost $100. $100 a month is hard to come by for a single person making $10/hr. As I said, make a couple more dollars an hour and you are going to pay double that because all subsidies become unavailable to you.

it cant be more than 8% of your income. and if you're making more chances are your company will provide healthcare. especially now that any company over 50 employees has to provide it.

now I'm not saying it's perfect and there's bound to be people hosed by this new bill ..but it's better than nothing for millions of americans

The bottom line is I am sick of the rich getting richer on the backs of people like me. Why are we the ones that have to contantly be asked to sacrifice?

but they are:

Affluent families would be required to pay additional taxes.

If they were gonna force me to buy insurance the least they could have done was offer an affordable public option or a medicare buy in. They chose not to do that. So I'm sorry if I am not willing to accept the fact that the eggs that need to broken are the ones that already have enough of a hard time getting by.

admittedly I'm on the outside looking in and dont have those sort of concerns in mind as my healthcare is paid for. at the same time I dont mean to make you and people in your situation the sacrificial lambs but I'm looking at the bigger picture because I can afford to as an outsider

 

[No Limit]

no but there are other alternatives such as the emergency coverage thingy for all those that dont qualify for medicaid. before this bill there wasnt a choice for most of these people. now at least there's some help in subsidizing coverage

I lost you Stern. The figures I gave you, $100 a month for someone making $10 /hr, are after subsidies. What other emergency coverage thingys are available and how much will they cost?

it cant be more than 8% of your income. and if you're making more chances are your company will provide healthcare. especially now that any company over 50 employees has to provide it.

now I'm not saying it's perfect and there's bound to be people hosed by this new bill ..but it's better than nothing for millions of americans

The companies don't really have to provide the covereage, they will simply be fined if they don't. So it will be a business decision like any other and in many of those decisions they will figure it's cheaper to pay the fine than to provide coverage. And no, it can't be more than 8% of your income. But understand what 8% of income is, it's not chump change especially when that 8% applies before taxes. 8% of a $10/hr income is $138 a month.

but they are:

Hardly, the people that will take the biggest hit are the ones we talked about, single adults making $8 - $15 /hr. Sure, they will have a small tax increase for people making more than a quater million a year but it wont be an increase of as much as 8% as some of these middle class americans will see.

admittedly I'm on the outside looking in and dont have those sort of concerns in mind as my healthcare is paid for. at the same time I dont mean to make you and people in your situation the sacrificial lambs but I'm looking at the bigger picture because I can afford to as an outsider

I'm just really pissed off about this, we were totally betrayed by these nimwits in washington. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, maybe this really is better than nothing. But looking at it through the lens of your average hl2.net adult I can't see how this is better than nothing as it will hurt a lot of those people.