George W Bush,,,progressive? John McCain?

In what parallel universe?

Sure, at one time, the Republican party had more than one wing......not today, dude. Perhaps 1-3 moderate conservatives (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe) in the Senate and perhaps 2-3 from the east and west coast in the House and they are marginalized in the Party.

The Republican tent has gotten smaller and smaller...while the Democrats tent has expanded.with many fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, who have the numbers to keep the Dems from moving too far left.

Hell, Harry Reid is anti-choice and anti-gun control. Can you imagine a pro-choice and pro-gun control Republican party leader?

Yeah, I'm up in Birch Bay. About 9 miles south of the border. Bellingham has a lot going for it, but efficient government isn't one of them.

There are provisions in the bill for co-ops, groups formed to pool resources like a company would to buy insurance. And the 'Exchange' program which allows the states to act as a co-op offering multiple insurers. But the numbers posted are the CBO's estimates for those programs. The single payer non-group was higher.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

Indeed it is not in the bill, it is in the IRS tax code. The IRS being the monetary arm of the bill makes all tax law applicable. Unfortunately this is being over looked by most. Currently the bill has wording to the effect "no penalty shall be incurred for lack of excise payment". But the fact remains, it does come under the tax code with all of the other penalties in the bill. They are even defined as excise taxes. Not penalties. Ask any tax evader how understanding the IRS is when it comes to evasion. Do you really think they are hiring 2000 new agents, specifically for this program, so you can get away without paying?

Another section I haven't seen mentioned is 'citizen confirmation'. This falls under the Department of Homeland Security. They have even more freedom to invade and destroy your life than the IRS. Not to mention access to every government data base in the country.

Being a skeptic I have to ask myself why? Why make it a tax instead of a fine or penalty? Why have HLS involved at all? To date, the state, your employer or health care provider have been perfectly capable of confirming your citizenship. But this will be handled by the most powerful law enforcement agency ever conceived in a free country. And like the IRS, they don't play by the same rules as the rest of the country or the constitution for that matter. These are the only two agencies in our country for which you are guilty and must prove your innocence. So yes, their involvement makes me nervous and causes me to ask. Why?

Please identify that section of the bill that mentions DHS.

I assume you are referring to the language that excludes undocumented workers from participating in the Exchange.

Imagine the outcry from the opposition if the bill did not exclude those persons.

Oh...and IRS agents will not be knocking on doors to determine if you have signed up for insurance in the Exchange.

What the IRS will do is similar to a current 1099 where a bank sends IRS a statement that says “here’s the interest” someone owes, and they send it to the taxpayer.

Just the latest scare tactics. When all other arguments have failed, raise the specter of the IRS (and DHS) bogeymen tracking you down and taking away your freedoms.

so the bill shouldn't cover illegal immigrants, but should not verify who is a citizen, does not go far enough and costs too much? You can't have it both ways.

I'll have to look it up to give you exact lines, but yes that was part of it. I also recall, aside from 'undocumented individuals', any citizenship confirmations will go through them. Why isn't INS handling that? Did HLS swallow them up or are 'undocumented individuals' considered threats to the security of the country and therefore terrorists?

I agree, but it won't be an issue after the amnesty is pushed through, will it.


I didn't mean to imply they were going to be knocking on your door to make sure you signed up. I believe I said they would be, as they are now, responsible for enforcing any tax evasion laws that may apply.


I think it would be great if this all ran smoothly, I just don't see it happening. And the appointment of these two particular offices seems fairly ominous to me. I don't see the bill doing very much for what it costs either.

We can't be dropped from a plan.
We can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
How insurers will be regulated is still unclear and according to the CBO, -notorious for under-estimating- for most, rates will increase 10%-13% and I don't consider $400/mo to be anywhere near affordable.
Doctors and the care they give will be regulated -which I don't see as very necessary-.
We get 'no cost' preventative care.
32 million uninsured get insurance.

All that for a measly 940 Billion dollars over the next ten years. Again a CBO estimate.

I read a statistic that said 38% of health care in the US is employee overhead. Which this bill is designed to reduce. To reduce this overhead of the providers it creates 111 new government offices and in the neighbor hood of 10,000 new government jobs, to oversee it. Maybe this is new math and I don't get it, but the numbers don't add up. What's the plan? Take the money from the people doing the work and give it to the people standing in the corner pocking them with a stick saying 'you can't do that'?

Personally, I'd prefer to see a single payer system, with everyone on the same plan, and little government involvement.

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind on this issue. Everyone sees it in their own way. I see it as a recipe for disaster with potential for catastrophic disaster. Giving an out-of-touch, corrupt system this much control over the population can only end badly.

INS is now ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and part of DHS amd has been since 2002.

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

Personally, I think its great that conservative and libertarians like you and Ace are now for a single payer system.....where were you when we needed the support and the votes? :)

But....I dont know how you can have single payer w/o government involvement..or at least a quasi-governmental administering body.

:rolleyes:...nice.
I'm not really surprised at your response. Like many who "follow" or invest themselves emtionally to an ideology, religion, or team are rarely knowledgeable or understand their history or heritage. Some know their ideology and associtions very well and choose to avoid or distract (depending on what end justifies a means) from scrutiny.

I can't really answer your assertions without knowing if you understand the differences between progressivism and classic liberalism. You appear to use them interchangeably. This is a very common trait amongst liberals that say they are progessive because it sounds pleasant (meaning new, young ideas, fresh thimking) versus those who study and promote classic progressive ideology.

Instead of the ad hominem, why don't you point out how, exactly, those two are progressives?

I understand what a classic progressive represents....Teddy Roosevelet did fit the mold.

I too would love to hear how George Bush and John McCain are progressive.