Suck it, Bush!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought democrats were opposed to the line-item veto.

Bill Clinton was very pro-line item veto (even working hard to get it passed). Last I checked he was a Democrat.

[Ben Kenobi]

So were you being facetious or what? Because Moore has certainly been to Canada. A lot, actually.

Hence the use of the smilie.

Like I said the Canada Moore depicted in no way resembles the real Canada.

[Boris Godunov]

Hence the use of the smilie.
Like I said the Canada Moore depicted in no way resembles the real Canada.

Given the patently insane things you'll say on any given day, I can never be sure.

I don't recall Moore doing a film that was an advertisement for Canada as a land of wonder. Do you have a specific instance of something he showed/said that is not actually true?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't recall Moore doing a film that was an advertisement for Canada as a land of wonder. Do you have a specific instance of something he showed/said that is not actually true?

His interview with the folks in the Canadian hospital in Sicko. It was clean. The people were happy.

First off, transplants are more likely to occur in the US then Canada, folks from here are more likely to go south, just because of the waitllists here.

[Boris Godunov]

His interview with the folks in the Canadian hospital in Sicko. It was clean. The people were happy.

Look, if you're not going to give a serious reply...

I'm sure there are several Canadian hospitals that are clean and where you can find happy people.

First off, transplants are more likely to occur in the US then Canada, folks from here are more likely to go south, just because of the waitllists here.

Did Moore say otherwise?

[DaShi]

Why not? They could trot out House members with insipid "Think of the children!" stories and still pass a program that does what they wish yet doesn't rely on a revenue stream who's sole reason for existing is to eliminate itself or contain any of the other flaws listed in DaShi's article.

What other flaws? Or are you talking out your ass again?

[DinoDoc]

Read your own damn article. They were mentioned in there. This site might be of help in your quest to read it: http://www.hookedonphonics.com/

[DaShi]

I'm not making the claim that there are other flaws, you are. What are they?

[DinoDoc]

And I told you where to find them: in the article you quoted. They went to the trouble of pointing out the apparent complaints about the bill and I'm not here to hold your hand DaShi.

[Boris Godunov]

Sadly, it appears one of the flaws is that a Republican had to give up his own soul.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/hotline/house_race_hotline.php

The biggest "aye" surprise came from Thad McCotter (R-MI 11). Yes, that's the same McCotter who heads the GOP Policy Cmte and who blogged during the '07 S-CHIP vote that GOPers should battle Dems on the bill, and if they didn't, the party would "not only lose the next election. It will lose its soul."

[DaShi]

And I told you where to find them: in the article you quoted. They went to the trouble of pointing out the apparent complaints about the bill and I'm not here to hold your hand DaShi.

Complaints are not flaws. Once again, your ignorance has led to misunderstanding. Perhaps you should check out http://www.hookedonphonics.com/

[Ramo]

1. The revenues are coming from cigarette taxes because last time this bill came up, various Republicans objected to the original source - eliminating the "Medicare Advantage" program, which pays private insurers 10% more than it pays Medicare to do the same job (i.e. corporate welfare). That could almost certainly pass with the current Dem majority, but probably not today. It looks like they're trying to get accomplishments out as expeditiously as possible.

2. A 61 cent increase isn't going to be tax cigarettes out of legal markets.

3. No one has ever suggested paying for universal health care through tobacco taxes alone. I'm pretty sure. Including random jackasses on teh interwebs.

[DinoDoc]

1. The revenues are coming from cigarette taxes because last time this bill came up, various Republicans objected to the original source - eliminating the "Medicare Advantage" program, which pays private insurers 10% more than it pays Medicare to do the same job (i.e. corporate welfare). That could almost certainly pass with the current Dem majority, but probably not today. It looks like they're trying to get accomplishments out as expeditiously as possible.

That doesn't explain why the revenues for this are coming from tobacco taxes at all.

[Ramo]

Because the type of folks who you'd vote for would object more strenuously to, say, increased income taxes.

[Arrian]

Ok... full figures.

$110/month for heath. $1320/yr, plus copays. Figure those are ~$200/yr (doctor + some chiro visits). Total = ~$1500/yr.
$11.50/month for dental. $138/yr. Some work is only partially covered under the plan, so it works out to more if I need fillings or whatever. Total = ~$150/yr.

Vision, like I said, I don't get via the company plan. It's cheap, but it's total crap. So I just pay for it myself, using pre-tax money set aside in my flexible spending plan. Last year I spent ~$500 on vision (eye exam + new glasses). This year I'll likely pay $50-$75 (I forget how much the basic eye exam costs). If we figure I'll get new glasses every 2-3 years, it works out to ~$250/year on vision.

So now we're at $1900/yr. It's all pretax, provided I estimate the required flexible spending money properly. It's not all that easy, considering it's a "use it or lose it" system.

There's also the $80/month in medicare taxes. $960/yr.

So, right now I am spending ~$3000/yr on healthcare. I'm 32 and reasonably healthy. No kids. My wife is probably spending roughly the same... maybe a little more 'cause she makes more money. The question is, if all this were replaced by a socialized system ala Canada or Britain, funded by income taxes, would we be paying more (or less)? How much?

I'm not sure anyone can really say for sure.

-Arrian