ikol

Maybe you're all three. Your post sure came across as "this is the way things are and if you disagree, you're a partisan zombie who just parrots talking points without actually thinking." My post was actually written so that only those who are arrogant would disagree.

And if you've read any of the comments in this thread (made by ideologues lacking insight and critical thinking, no doubt), the whole point is that because many of these professionals and business owners make more than $200,000, they get thrown into the "rich" category whenever the topic of what their taxes should be arises. And FWIW, I agree with like 63% of what you said in your post, but damn, even I'm not that arrogant about my views.

Behold the Wikipedia

The government does this all the time.

Of course they do. They're rich.

But then you'd have to increase the benefits to those that would end up paying more. Or you could not, and just label them as "rich" which goes back to my original point.

That's not exactly what I said. My point was that tax increases are inevitable if we maintain/increase the current level of spending. My solution, of course, would be to cut spending. At the very least, we need to raise the Social Security retirement age. And everyone here knows what we're really talking about here as to labeling people "rich." Once you get that label, any tax increase is justified. Why shouldn't their tax rate be 50%? They're rich. Hell, it should be 90%. After all, they're rich. We're not raising taxes on regular folks like us. We're just making the rich pay their fair sh

After you get done paying taxes, you're not!

Eh, it doesn't matter. Everyone's taxes are going up sooner or later with the amount of debt we're in. We cannot sustain this system where most Americans get more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

It's probably the annoying sound that flip flops make with every step that more secure sandals do not make. Personally, I just hate flip flops because I can't walk in them for any significant distance without getting blisters.

That sucks, but the doctor was probably just covering his ass. There's always a small chance that your son had something more serious than swimmer's ear, and it would be really bad if the doctor just called in a prescription without seeing your kid and have it turn out to be something worse.

That's probably near Bush's IQ, and he doesn't get a free pass around here.

Who said you could take my sarcasm and turn it into serious discussion?

Oh yeah, wait till the pyro starts playing with the gas stove before you have him arrested. Just out of curiosity, at what age do you think it's ok to tase and/or pepper spray a kid to teach him a lesson?

That reminds me: people who pronounce centimeter as "sauntimeter".

People who shop for groceries by stopping their cart on the opposite side of the aisle from where they are browsing, thus forcing them to block the entire aisle while they shop.

Joke's on you, I performed the abortion!

If you are implying that I would ever touch Mitt Romney, then I am offended.

HR 4038, HR 2520, and S 1099. Just because you are not aware of the other bills doesn't mean they didn't exist. I watched a little over half of the summit, and they brought up allowing insurance to be bought across state lines (allowing more competition without restricting the types of plans that people must purchase), increasing health savings accounts, and tort reform. Mitt Romney is a turd. Now that we've cleared that up, who wants chocolate chips?

We're not talking about access to anything. We're talking about who should pay. I consider the attitude that you're either for this particular healthcare reform or you're for denying people access to healthcare to be pushy.

I'm all for freedom of people to not comply with treatment and also the freedom of the rest of us to not have to pay for the results, dude. I'm opposed to the nanny state in all its forms, which is a position that is anything but pushy, dude. Are you serious? Republicans offered several proposals that provided alternative ways to reform healthcare. They even detailed many of these proposals in the healthcare summit. They just didn't get anywhere in a Democrat-controlled government. Just because Democrats ignored minority bills doesn't mean they didn't exist.

But a health savings account isn't a rarely utilized option that only sits at the edge of the umbrella covering "every single conceivable choice." It's actually a very popular option and something that needs to be better utilized to help control healthcare costs. This bill isn't failing to create the option in the interest of covering more important ones, it's further restricting one that already exists.

Which (if this bill were really about choices) could also be covered by health savings accounts should one choose to go that route.

I don't really understand how this bill is about choices when it's going to raise premiums on individual plans (due to less choice on what must be covered), restrict health savings accounts, and penalize those that don't get insurance.

So there. Clearly you do not realize that every problem in the nation should be addressed at the federal level. That point notwithstanding, this problem is not a minor one that should be cast aside in the interest in getting more people covered; it may even be the problem that explains why healthcare is so expensive. Whether it is individuals, insurance companies, or the government that is paying for healthcare, someone is going bankrupt if people don't practice preventative care. Yes. Do you want me to actually know it, or can I just make it up?