Democrats Post “Reconciliation Bill” (Updated x2)
[Guest post by DRJ]
The text is here and according to the title and the press release, this is a reconciliation bill.
Does this mean reconciliation is back on the table or is this part of the Slaughter solution or both? It looks like the Slaughter solution with the House passing it first (in lieu of the Senate health care bill) and the Senate passing it last via reconciliation.
Section 401 imposes a tax on uninsured individuals equal to 2.5% of AGI effective after 12/31/2012, and an excise tax on businesses of 8% of wages for employers who do not provide health care. “Small” employers with payrolls under $400,000 a year pay excise taxes based on a sliding scale from 0-6%:
‘Does not exceed $250,000 — 0%;
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 — 2%;
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 — 4%;
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 — 6%.
These aren’t the only taxes but the timing suggests this a Get-Obama-Reelected Provision.
— DRJ
UPDATE: Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit notes the bill also contains the student loan takeover provisions.
UPDATE 2: Hot Air has more, including links that say this is a shell bill and will largely be gutted.
in other news, diarrhea ice cubes enjoy a renewed popularity…..
may i be the first to say “Foxtrot You!”
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/14/2010 @ 8:48 pmThis cure for this manufactured crisis must not be implemented until after the next presidential election.
JD (dd585e) — 3/14/2010 @ 8:52 pmWell that settles that. If this passes I will be forced to fire 17 people and shut down my business. I can’t afford the excise tax and frankly, even if I could I don’t want any part of a country that does this sort of thing so I am going Galt and retiring at 43. I only kept the business going for my partner and employees anyway. If you are breaking even then there is always the possibility that you will make money down the road so it made sense to me to ride the recession out… but with this travesty passed and more outrages planned for as far as the eye can see only an idiot would fight the tide. It’s a shame since these are good steady jobs that my employees like. In 15 years of business we never laid anyone off because we were careful and frugal.
BTW, if this passes by the Slaughter Method then I will no longer consider our government to be a legitimate entity. I don’t even care if the Supreme Court eventually strikes it down. We have crossed over into Banana Republic territory.
Even if Obama is thwarted and driven back, the divide he has created in the nation will never heal. Regardless of the outcome of this issue a lot of us who thought we were living in a country dedicated to limited government and liberty have suddenly realized a large segment of the population is ignorant of (and even hostile to) these ideals. We have been forced to realize that our neighbors are our implacable enemies.
No country can long survive being divided in this fashion.
Voluble (1e2a18) — 3/14/2010 @ 9:17 pmI wonder if Gleeen Greenwald, Mr. hawk-eyed Constitutional scholar lawyer, has any thoughts on the unconstitutional shenanigans being perpetrated by Pelosi and Company.
elissa (cdc8ec) — 3/14/2010 @ 9:38 pm@elissa: i’d be more intrigued as to the insights, preferably supported with cites, of that famous Constitutional scholar and professor currently preying on poultry in the Oval Office.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/14/2010 @ 10:00 pmI think many small employers who are on the fence trying to decide where to go with their businesses will feel the same way you do, Voluble.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/14/2010 @ 10:07 pmIt would be bad enough if this P.O.S. bill passed the way we were taught in the seventh grade. Hell, even Schoolhouse Rock knows how a bill becomes law.
But when Nancy and Harry start parsing the words in the constitution like Bill Clinton parses the meaning of the word is, we may as well just admit that Arthur Fonzarelli’s jacket in the Smithsonian is more important to our society than that old piece of parchment kept at the National Archives.
Do our representatives in D.C. even understand what they are saying when they take their oath of office?
MU789 (87ad51) — 3/14/2010 @ 10:08 pmThe “Slaughter Solution” is bad marketing. It should be called the “Thermonuclear Option.” This thing is such a breathtaking violation of existing procedure that it makes the Republican’s threat of ruling filibusters out of order in confirmations seem like a trivial playground exercise.
But in any case, I think that they’ll back off — not only will the Senate probably not play, but it is unconstitutional for a couple of reasons: the lack of bicamerality (the House “rule” hinges upon Senate actions); and it ignores the clear definition of a bill in Art 1, Sec 7. Both of those are clearly justiciable, even if the fast and loose rule changes are not.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/14/2010 @ 10:17 pmBy the way, if they do pull of this three-card-monte, where did the bill originate? I think there’s a tax in it….
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/14/2010 @ 10:18 pmI think if they ever make a film of the Obama Presidency, they should title it “The Phantom Menace.”
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/14/2010 @ 10:20 pmFTFY!
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/14/2010 @ 10:51 pmbrilliant: if you w*rk for someone who doesn’t offer insurance, you get taxed, even if that’s the only j*b you can find. that will encourage people to go out and look for employment!
from the employer POV, where does 8% of wages come in with respect to insurance costs? is it cheaper for an employer to say “screw it” and just pay the flat tax nut instead of variable insurance rates, not to mention the lower overhead for not having to track or process insurance and all the related paperw*rk?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/14/2010 @ 11:14 pmI’m not sure what the brain trust of the democrats think they are going to accomplish. As an employer who would be hit with the 8% payroll tax I have run my numbers and concluded its cheaper for me to cancel my company health insurance and pay the tax than continuing to provide my staff with insurance. Most health insurance plans, even HMO’s (never mind PPO’s and forget about even thinking family coverage) to be specific that have any kind of decent coverage is going to the employer about 15% of payroll. If the employer’s plan requires a co-payment from the employee then the employer runs the risk of having the employee drop the coverage resulting in the situation of having the health insurance expense AND the payroll tax. The only solution would be to provide every employee with a 100% employer paid policy. But do that would raise the payroll expense higher than than the payroll tax amount. So the logical conclusion for the employer would be to drop the plan and pay the tax and save about 7%.
Up to now health insurance was not a requirement so I along with other employers offered it as a way of recruiting and retaining employees all else being equal to employers who either didn’t offer the benefit or who paid a little higher wage but did not provide the coverage. Now if this passes every employer will be compelled to provide the coverage or pay the tax. At that point there is no real advantage for the employer to offer the coverage when he/she given a choice of paying 15% of payroll (and possibly higher when the insurance rates go absolutely sky high when pre-existing condition denial of coverage is banned) or paying 8% (or less) payroll tax. Its a no brainer.
For every snarky comment from people who never have and never will be required to make a payroll who go on to snark on why offer the insurance to begin with the answer is simple:
1-health coverage wasn’t always that high a percentage. Its the endlessly medical inflation that results from government action that is the driver for the inflation.
2-Unlike a pay raise of 15% which cost the employer and additional 7.25% is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes in addition to higher taxes based on gross payroll such unemployment insurance the health insurance amount doesn’t add those extra costs. So in reality giving the employee a 15% raise cost the employer closer to 24% or more as opposed to providing the employer health insurance benefit. So up to now all things considered it was cheaper to provide health coverage rather than increase pay (if this bill passes). If it passes and every employer is forced to provide or pay the tax, paying the tax is the cheaper option.
3-If it passes and the employers drop the health coverage then not only does the average employee who was getting health coverage now suffer a drop of the equivalent of 15% of gross pay but will either be forced to buy their own insurance out of pocket (an additional income reduction) or pay a penalty for not having insurance. So far the only employees who appear to exempt from this are civil servants, members of congress and the president, vice-president and the members of the judiciary and the analogues at the state and local level. So other than the favored class everyone in the private sector will conclude that either join this new version of medicaid (if you believe you will need some kind of coverage) or pay your tax (both solutions will still be cheaper than buying the current version of private insurance).
4-The employers win (to a degree) the private sector employees lose all the way around and even if unions (private sector) get the special dispensation joining a union will not solve the benefits/tax issue for the employee if he/she works for an employer who can outsource their jobs if the labor component gets too high.
5-if pre-existing conditions cannot be excluded then no insurer can make money and the companies go out of business or out of the health insurance business. The alternative is the companies sue the government claiming they have been forced to become regulated utilities and therefore are entitled to receive a guaranteed rate of return (like regulated utility companies). Which in turn would require the government to provide everyone a guaranteed affordable health insurance plan and that would entail removing most of the benefits the private plans offer but the government would have to provide the coverage through the the health insurance providers (to guarantee a return on investment). That or provide hundreds of billions if not trillions to the companies under the constitution’s taking clause. The coverage will be worse as well as more expensive and most doctors will demand cash up front for many procedures as they can’t afford to have continuous compensation cut backs without corresponding expense cut backs. So the country goes bankrupt under this hare-brained scheme or nearly all private sector employees get worse coverage at a much higher expense to them and will probably have to pay the doctor upfront and hope to get a prorated reimbursement from the government contractor if they want immediate quality care. Or wait patiently for care and pray that yours is a covered procedure by the government contractor. And the client, the government, decides what is covered and what is not.
Only democrats can be support this. No ordinary person is capable of such self imposed stupidity.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/14/2010 @ 11:33 pmThe 8% is far cheaper, since it will come out of the company’s wage budget. Sooner or later it comes out of the employee’s wage. Just like the “employer’s half” of social security does today.
Oh, and of course that 8% is just the starting point. It will be “unexpectedly” necessary to raise that.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/14/2010 @ 11:36 pmBack when I had a real job (2008), I had individual health insurance. I paid 24 a week for health and another 7 a week for dental. There was no optical.
The company said people on the “individual” plans were paying 30-40 percent of the total cost of the plans. At 40 percent employee contribution, that puts the company’s contribution around 46.50 a week. And remember, this is for the “individual” plans and doesn’t take into consideration the “employee and spouse”, “employee and one child”, “family” plans nor does it take into consideration the optional add-ons such as the AFLAC-like add-on or the cancer add-on.
The company’s base-rate hourly wage capped at 12 an hour for a “class ‘A'” production-worker after 5 years of employment and at least half the production crew had less than 4 years on the job. And most of the production crew were other than “class ‘A'”, meaning their pay was below 12 an hour. Now, the company had a convoluted dual pay-scale thing going on where half were working hourly jobs and half were working piece-rate jobs. And piece-raters could make as much as 15 an hour with the rare birds making 18 an hour (and the liberal-owned and run company was “doing something about that”). But it averaged out to where the company was paying substantially less than 12 per man-hour.
Based on 12 an hour, my “individual” plan had a cost of roughly 6.5 percent of my pay. And based on my paying 40 percent of the cost of the plan, the company’s cost was roughly 9.7 percent of my wages. So, even with the “individual” plan without special add-ons other than dental, the company was kicking in more than the 8 percent penalty. The other insurance plans would kick the employer contribution well above 10 percent.
And there we get to the reason for the 8 percent tax on employers who do not offer insurance. It will be cheaper on the employer to just drop their insurance plans and pay the tax, pushing people into the government plan. And that’s the goal. You can keep your plan if those evil companies don’t drop it, or you can become a ward of the state as the benevolent progressives and liberals want.
But Kevin Murphy is right, as well. As health care costs necessarily skyrocket after the government take-over ensues, so too will health insurance rates (see Massachusetts). And the government will jump their tax rate on those evil companies who don’t offer insurance. But the punisher tax will always be substantially less than the cost of providing insurance, meaning the companies that survive will always be left with the option of the more expensive insurance or the less expensive punisher tax.
And that’s the end-game. Take over all health care while blaming all business.
John Hitchcock (b7ef1f) — 3/15/2010 @ 2:27 am“BTW, if this passes by the Slaughter Method then I will no longer consider our government to be a legitimate entity.”
How will you know? they’ll have a vote. Who will tell you whether to believe this vote or not?
imdw (8f8ead) — 3/15/2010 @ 4:23 amI gotta say of all the brain-dead key-strokes imadimwit has made here, the above has to be among the most brain-dead of them all.
John Hitchcock (b7ef1f) — 3/15/2010 @ 4:26 am“By the way, if they do pull of this three-card-monte, where did the bill originate? I think there’s a tax in it….”
The house first passed health care reform last year.
imdw (8f8ead) — 3/15/2010 @ 4:27 am“Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit notes the bill”
This is a good example of why those ‘read the bill’ refrains sometimes fall short. Lots of people don’t know how to read bills. For example, gateway says that illegal immigrants are covered, pointing to a non-discrimination provision. However, simply searching for the word “immigration” shows that the definition of an “affordable credit eligible individual” is limited to those lawfully present in the US.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (b6a6d9) — 3/15/2010 @ 4:48 amYes, but this bill is worse than the House bill, probably worse than the Senate bill, it leaves most
ian cormac (0a5527) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:01 amthings up to the Health Insurance Commissioner, theHealth Benefits board, can you say ‘death panels,
to craft the appropriate legislation
Actually, the ‘death panels’ start on pg 1557
ian cormac (0a5527) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:29 am18, are you mentally impaired or just a “Donkey”?
The Senate passed their own bill and that is what is waiting in the House to be voted on.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:30 am“can you say ‘death panels,
to craft the appropriate legislation”
Anyone can say ‘death panels.’ Specially on their facebook pages.
imdw (7cc81b) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:40 am“can you say ‘death panels,
to craft the appropriate legislation”
Anyone can say ‘death panels.’ Specially on their facebook pages.
“The Senate passed their own bill and that is what is waiting in the House to be voted on.”
The senate health bill was an ammednment to the house bill.
imdw (7cc81b) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:41 am23, G-d, are you dense. Are you able to feed and dress yourself, or does mommy still do that for you?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:57 amThere will magically appear millions of small companies with payrolls under $250K. Including mine.
1 Company becomes 10 with employees scattered everywhere and my canceling my insurance coverage for my employees amd throwing them in ObamaCaID.
Good luck Degenerate Low Life Democrats!!!
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES RIGHT?
Jim (0c993b) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:09 amdepleted uranium is less dense that immit, and more useful, in punching through hard targets. now it may be that this is like the decoy bomber in “Failsafe” but this is what they presented as the recon bill, complete with public option on pg 117
ian cormac (0a5527) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:29 amThe Longest Suicide Note in history has been supplanted.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:34 amAnd that’s the end-game. Take over all health care while blaming all business.
Exactly. This plan is unworkable and extremely costly (as are all of the other Federal medical programs, but I digress). It will further exacerbate the difference in charges between those in the system (negotiated rates) and those on the outside (list prices of 10x or more). It will probably lead to FEWER insured than more insured, and that will be blamed on anyone other than the government.
So, when this fails, the insurance industry is teetering, and medical costs spiral out of control, it will be “unexpectedly” necessary to rescue it.
With Single Payer. The plan is that we’ll be begging for it by then.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:50 am“It will probably lead to FEWER insured than more insured”
Who is out there saying this? I mean, besides you.
imdw (490521) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:57 amBy the way, it is not clear really what the 8% levy will do. It quite likely will result in failed businesses, especially in the service sector which is labor intensive.
The Democrat spin, though, is that it reduces the marginal cost for providing insurance to workers, and indeed those businesses that do not currently offer insurance might do so if they have to pay 8% anyway. Paying, say, 12% (net 4%) and offering insurance might be seen as a good way to keep workers happy and be cheaper (again, given the mandated 8% hit) than a 12% pay raise.
Problem is that many of the businesses that could afford insurance (and remember the 50 employee floor) mostly already do. Especially as you move up the pay scale, where medical benefits are required to be competitive for skilled workers.
All in all, it seems to me that the Dems assume that all business owners will offer health insurance only if forced, when the truth is that most already do unless they cannot afford it. If they cannot afford it, it seems unlikely that a tax penalty will get blood from the rock.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/15/2010 @ 7:05 amI’m not sure what the brain trust of the democrats
That’s an oxymoron if I ever hear one.
The senate health bill was an ammednment to the house bill.
Whereas that one’s just the blatherings of a moron.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/15/2010 @ 7:16 amIf Obamacare passes, all employers who will be dropping their health insurance plans for their employees should make it known to their employees; especially those that voted for Obama, why they are doing so. Give them the facts and figures and include how much it’s going to cost each of them to join the Obama pool. Let them know how that Hope and Change is working out for them.
Zoltan (aa0da2) — 3/15/2010 @ 7:49 am“By the way, it is not clear really what the 8% levy will do. It quite likely will result in failed businesses, especially in the service sector which is labor intensive.”
Hawaii has an employer mandate. Would you say their service sector is vibrant or not?
“Whereas that one’s just the blatherings of a moron.”
You didn’t notice that the Senate bill was passed with an “HR” number? It was an amendment by substitution of the house bill. It originated in the house. Don’t be a moron.
imdw (cafdd5) — 3/15/2010 @ 7:58 amAh, overconfidence. It’s a beautiful thing from a Trollish One.
School will be in session shortly, and you will run away and come back with more, um, unusual posts.
Eric Blair (e9dd87) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:00 amEven better, if Obamacare passes, employers should point out how much taxes are being paid even before the whole thing starts.
“You mean you and I are paying this much and getting nothing?!?!”… Yup.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:02 amThe last time I looked at it, quite a while now, Hawaii had the highest percentage of the medical dollar going to administration. One third of every dollar went to pay for bureaucrats and clerical assistants. So I guess it sorta helped jobs…
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:05 am“School will be in session shortly, and you will run away and come back with more, um, unusual posts.”
If you have a problem figuring out that the senate bill ‘originated in the house’ then you can just look it up.
imdw (143bb3) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:28 amimdw, Hawaii’s economy is not “vibrant”. It is dependant almost entirely on tourism, because its costs are too high for any business to rationally locate there outside of the tourism business.
So for what is probably the one-millionth time, one of analogies or examples flops.
SPQR (159590) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:28 amSpeaking of looking things up…
Look, imdw, you are clearly a person who, um, doesn’t do a lot of homework, but you just know what is right. Or “left,” I should say.
Fine. Have fun.
But be really, really cautious about calling other people stupid. Especially given your own, well, inattentive track record.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:49 amThey took the public option out, and put the Stupak language in the house, and they reversed the pattern
ian cormac (0a5527) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:51 amin the Senate
It is always amazing to me just how many “facts” that imdw, Intelliology, Myron, timb et al “know” that are just flat out, absolutely, easily researched, wrong.
And that they will continue to believe these false things regardless of the reality, and how clearly it is shown to them.
SPQR (159590) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:54 amIs that like your search for whether or not the bill will allow Federal funds to pay for abortions? You were wrong, again. Your answer was Nope. Then you moved the goalposts. Don’t complain when people don’t take your word for something.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:58 amSPQR, Stashiu3, it is about what they want to be true. And it has everything to do with how they feel about themselves—Tom Sowell’s “Vision of the Anointed.”
Although some of them are more trollish than others, it’s true.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:04 amMeanwhile, Social Security will be forcing the US Treasury to borrow even more to meet its obligations. As Ed puts it, the wheels are coming off the Democrats’ welfare state.
SPQR (159590) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:07 amBTW Ed is saying that the text of the reconciliation bill is a shell. It is a placeholder and they haven’t produced the actual reconciliation bill yet.
More Keystone Kops behavior from Pelosi.
SPQR (159590) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:13 amDo people here really enjoy bantering with imdw, because as far as I am concerned those interactions merely make the blog less interesting and more tedious for those who want to try to have a reasonable discussion on whatever thread Patterico or DRJ has posted. No offense is intended but I really do not “get” the attraction of continually trying to reason with it, or pointing out its obvious idiocy by calling attention to it. Also, assuming it has been hired to astroturf and is being paid ten cents or so per comment wouldn’t it be better to just starve it?
elissa (6ae89f) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:15 amWell much like the squid creatures in the matrix they are very hard to get rid of.
ian cormac (0a5527) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:20 am“Is that like your search for whether or not the bill will allow Federal funds to pay for abortions? You were wrong, again. Your answer was Nope. Then you moved the goalposts. ”
Yes I said what was more accurate. This time I took a different approach and just showed my work so you could replicate it.
imdw (15129e) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:26 am“Yes I said what was more accurate. This time I took a different approach…”
And I am saying something that is less accurate. FTFY
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:55 amWHO BELIEVES THAT THOSE RATES % ARE NOT JUST STARTING POINTS LIKE THE HISTORY OF THE INCOME TAX AS A PARADIGM.GOVERNMENTS ALWAYS SPEND ALL THE MONEY THEY CAN GET IN TAXES AND THEN USE DEBT WHEN THAT RUNS OUT.
clyde (53cebb) — 3/15/2010 @ 10:09 amClyde, there’s a capslock key on the left side of your keyboard.
John Hitchcock (b7ef1f) — 3/15/2010 @ 10:31 am[…] the article here: Democrats Post “Reconciliation Bill” (Updated x2) […]
Democrats Post “Reconciliation Bill” (Updated x2) | Liberal Whoppers (d16888) — 3/15/2010 @ 10:34 amanyone with an IQ larger than their hat size….
which is why you aren’t. 😀
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/15/2010 @ 10:38 amDo people here really enjoy bantering with imadouchebag
FTFW.
No, we don’t enjoy it – but as long as imadouchebag continues to threadjack and lie his way across every post, we have no choice until he’s banned.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/15/2010 @ 11:39 am“…The senate health bill was an ammednment to the house bill.”
Comment by imdw — 3/15/2010 @ 5:41 am
Wrong again, Elmo!
AD - RtR/OS! (913281) — 3/15/2010 @ 11:39 am“Wrong again, Elmo!”
Why not look at the THOMAS page for it?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:
You’ll see it has an HR number, it passed the house, then went to the senate, they passed it but with their own language. See the congressional actions for more details.
imdw (017d51) — 3/15/2010 @ 12:03 pmFor example, gateway says that illegal immigrants are covered, pointing to a non-discrimination provision. However, simply searching for the word “immigration” shows that the definition of an “affordable credit eligible individual” is limited to those lawfully present in the US.
Typical lefty doublespeak. The language you cite is intended to con the foolish and give the Dems cover. It means nothing to insert some BS claiming that coverage is limited to those lawfully present in the US, unless some mechanism provided for detecting those who are not, and for punishing them for attempting to use the system. And the bill does not do these things.
Subotai (a40355) — 3/15/2010 @ 12:06 pmDo people here really enjoy bantering with imdw
If you want to know what the left is thinking without the trouble of reading their sites, he serves some purpose.
Subotai (a40355) — 3/15/2010 @ 12:16 pm“The language you cite is intended to con the foolish and give the Dems cover.”
Funny it seems to define who is eligible for credits and to exclude undocumented immigrants.
How hard did you look for an enforcement mechanism?
imdw (89ba95) — 3/15/2010 @ 12:45 pmIt’s odd that they’re working on a “reconciliation bill” for a bill which they have not passed yet.
They need to pass the Senate bill as is. Then Obama needs to sign it. Then and only then can the House worry about crafting this “fix” for the screwed up law they enacted.
Subotai (a40355) — 3/15/2010 @ 12:57 pmHawaii junked its experiment; parents were taking their kids off the family policy and putting them on the state policy.
If people do that to their own kids, why does anyone expect employers to be more mindful? The only thing stopping them is they could lose valued employees who want a medical benefit.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/15/2010 @ 1:23 pm“It’s odd that they’re working on a “reconciliation bill” for a bill which they have not passed yet.”
The reconciliation rules allow reconciliation to be used for bills.
imdw (829dfa) — 3/15/2010 @ 1:31 pmA tedious troll wrote:
And you have to admit: that is just plain ironically funny. I mean, given the history of this character. Hilarious.
Go back to your Cheetoh’s, crumb boy.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 3/15/2010 @ 1:41 pmhe serves some purpose
If you’re referring to Stalin’s characterization of “useful idiots,” then I’d have to agree.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/15/2010 @ 1:58 pm“How hard did you look for an enforcement mechanism?”
imdw – There is one?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/15/2010 @ 3:41 pmActually Obama promoted Death Panels when he told a woman that her mother would be denied a pace maker and be given pain relievers until she died from an eminently treatable condition because the government would not pay for her care under his plan.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:51 pmI own a small manufacturing company, that I am embarrassed to admit is located in Nevada. I employ 50 people and pay 97 percent of my employees health care insurance. I do not pay for family and dependent coverage. Based on the estimates of my CPA, if this bill passes my costs will increase by just under a half million. Right now we struggle to compete against low cost imports. I feel I will have no choice if this bill passes but be forced to take a majority of the jobs off shore or eventually go out completely out of business. Thanks Nancy and Harry for the sleepless nights and the hard choices you are going to force me to make.
I feel big time, not only for my current employees, but also for all the employees who are lucky enough to have a job today that will probably disappear tomorrow if this bill passes.
Anybody know how to say “This Sucks!” in Chinese?
Killer Deal (43993c) — 3/20/2010 @ 10:35 am#68: what happens to the numbers if you just cancel all insurance and simply pay the penalty?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/20/2010 @ 10:51 am