(06-27-2017 09:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:20 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans want to balance the budget (or at least they claim they do) and to make individual and corporate income tax rates competitive with the rest of the world. A consumption tax is the only way to do that. France actually does Bismarck for less government spending per capita on health care than our government spends on our system,

c'mom man. The French for the most part live far healthier lifestyles. They walk more and eat better.
It's not a fair comparison. We are one of (f not THE) the fattest nations on the planet. That has nothing to do with our health care or health insurance. You can't compare spending per capita for us to France, Japan, etc. You would have to normalize the numbers somehow to account for all the lardasses here.
In other words if we got as fit as they are I would expect our numbers to drop significantly.
Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

They smoke more. Far more. Not sure who comes out better, net net.

And so what if we can't get all the way to their metrics? If we improve ours significantly, isn't that a win?

yes

(06-27-2017 09:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

From what I understand about the CBO scoring...the 22M number of those who will not have health insurance includes those who will opt of their own free will to not carry coverage because there is no mandate.

Well the truth is that there will still be a mandate, just in a different form. If a person fails to get coverage within 63 days after losing / dropping coverage they can't get it for 6 months.

(06-27-2017 12:53 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 11:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There is no way to assure that. The difference is that YOU get to decide how YOU are taxed. NO more withholding. Think about a paradigm in which those in power can NO longer reach directly into your pocket each paycheck. It takes away the ability for them to borrow against the future fruits of your labor. It forces them to budget in an entirely different manner. It makes them seek economic growth FIRST.

No YOU don't. Everything you buy gets an additional 23% added on. Since I'm already paying a 7% sales tax (6% State and 1% County) that means I'll be paying an additional 30% for EVERYTHING I buy. 32% if I go out to eat at a restaurant in town due to the 2% "tourism" tax.

The discussion got off track here Kal. We are discussing FEDERAL withholding...not state and local taxes. They would for sure remain the same. The 23% you are referring to are the imbedded federal taxes we already pay now in goods and services. The removal of those embedded taxes will spur reduction in prices through competition and after a period... cost of goods and services will equilibrate down by that percentage. You will after a period not pay any more for goods and services than before. Consumption tax proposals like HR25 are not intended to do anything but "replace" the current way we pay federal taxes through a consumption tax. When you buy NEW goods? You pay the tax. All this information is available at Fairtax.org for anyone interested in educating themselves on the topic.

I know that anytime the government creates something, i.e. a tax, they do not eliminate something else. So no, no one should go to that propoganda website to be brainwashed on the virtues of government taxation. No. More. New/Additional. Taxes.

You are obviously unfamiliar with the Fair Tax.

No, actually I'm quite familiar with it. Fair Tax = Additional Tax

Now I'm sure you'll cite chapter and verse about how I'm paranoid about this (not so) Fair Tax being an additional tax. But I've live long enough to know that once the government enacts a tax they don't eliminate a tax...any tax for that matter. To try and tell me otherwise is an insult to my intelligence.

Note: I thought I was responding to Fo Shizzle. My point still stands though.

(06-27-2017 09:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:20 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans want to balance the budget (or at least they claim they do) and to make individual and corporate income tax rates competitive with the rest of the world. A consumption tax is the only way to do that. France actually does Bismarck for less government spending per capita on health care than our government spends on our system,

c'mom man. The French for the most part live far healthier lifestyles. They walk more and eat better.
It's not a fair comparison. We are one of (f not THE) the fattest nations on the planet. That has nothing to do with our health care or health insurance. You can't compare spending per capita for us to France, Japan, etc. You would have to normalize the numbers somehow to account for all the lardasses here.
In other words if we got as fit as they are I would expect our numbers to drop significantly.
Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

They smoke more. Far more. Not sure who comes out better, net net.

And so what if we can't get all the way to their metrics? If we improve ours significantly, isn't that a win?

OK, you took care of the France comparison. How about the other Bismarck nations?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-27-2017 10:13 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  No, actually I'm quite familiar with it. Fair Tax = Additional Tax

Second sentence proves your first to be bs.

(06-27-2017 09:16 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Yep, funny to watch the Dems spin that and their followers lap it up.

I didn't spin anything, I simply linked to the CBO score which says 22M lose coverage.

But then again, I'm not a registered Dem and I don't vote for Dems (I vote for candidates, in each election).

(06-27-2017 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:16 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Yep, funny to watch the Dems spin that and their followers lap it up.

I didn't spin anything, I simply linked to the CBO score which says 22M lose coverage.

But then again, I'm not a registered Dem and I don't vote for Dems (I vote for candidates, in each election).

Referring to Dems and the MSM in general. All I see on MSM is about the 22 million losing coverage but not talk of who these people actually are. Quite humorous if it wasn't so manipulative. Granny being rolled off a cliff, etc. Nonsense like that.

It's still 22M votes, is it not? That's 22M times playing Russian Roulette.

Not saying they'll scrap the senate vote, just saying it is politically risky.

(06-27-2017 09:52 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

From what I understand about the CBO scoring...the 22M number of those who will not have health insurance includes those who will opt of their own free will to not carry coverage because there is no mandate.

Well the truth is that there will still be a mandate, just in a different form. If a person fails to get coverage within 63 days after losing / dropping coverage they can't get it for 6 months.

That is not a mandate.

Getting back on topic, Senator Lee is saying no now as well. McConnell may only have 46 yes votes now or maybe even fewer? I bet they table it for next session. Otherwise, he's looking at a pretty embarrassing set back.

(06-27-2017 12:09 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Getting back on topic, Senator Lee is saying no now as well. McConnell may only have 46 yes votes now or maybe even fewer? I bet they table it for next session. Otherwise, he's looking at a pretty embarrassing set back.

I think he'll force a vote anyway.

If the vote loses, then he'll be absolved of health care, and will be able to wash his hand and move to tax reform.

(06-27-2017 12:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:09 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Getting back on topic, Senator Lee is saying no now as well. McConnell may only have 46 yes votes now or maybe even fewer? I bet they table it for next session. Otherwise, he's looking at a pretty embarrassing set back.

I think he'll force a vote anyway.

If the vote loses, then he'll be absolved of health care, and will be able to wash his hand and move to tax reform.

Which is what's best right now... I'd love Obamacare to be gone but this replacement barely an improvement and things like Tax reform and the "fingers crossed" upcoming SC vacancy are far more important to me.

I think many conservatives, at this point in time, agree with you fully, Bull.

At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

yet the only part of the ACA that gets any air time are the exchanges, and those only impact 11 million Americans.

but much of the ACA is very popular and is not thought,by most Americans, to be "Obamacare".

(06-27-2017 11:42 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:52 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

From what I understand about the CBO scoring...the 22M number of those who will not have health insurance includes those who will opt of their own free will to not carry coverage because there is no mandate.

Well the truth is that there will still be a mandate, just in a different form. If a person fails to get coverage within 63 days after losing / dropping coverage they can't get it for 6 months.

That is not a mandate.

semantics, if you don't get coverage there is a penalty. If you don't need it you don't feel the pain. If you get a cancer diagnosis without insurance you are waiting 6 months to get any insurance and you are either spending a ton of money or you are risking your life waiting for insurance.

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

Republican style legislating:

Obamacare is destroying the economy and hurting my constituents, elect me and I will help you!

A couple months later...

Healthcare is hard. Screw this just let it fail and let my constituents suffer.
#winning

(06-27-2017 01:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

yet the only part of the ACA that gets any air time are the exchanges, and those only impact 11 million Americans.

but much of the ACA is very popular and is not thought,by most Americans, to be "Obamacare".

Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

Don't worry, we'll start working on fixing her up for ya in 2018, and vote on it in 2020.

(06-27-2017 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

Allowing pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps are popular?