Charlatan

I am confused. You see it as a scare tactic and yet you are willing to buy into it hook, line and sinker.

As for legal interpretation... I have to say, looking at the text of the actual Bill vs. what was said in that video, there is no way that the exaggerations and out right lies that are in that video are in any related to what the actual Bill says... both in the letter and the spirit of the Bill (FYI-I spend a lot of my job reading and writing contracts).


I have not heard any who actually voted in favour of this Bill state that it is a *bad* Bill. If anything they are saying it didn't go far enough (i.e. Public Option or Single Payer).

Here is the thing Pan:

1) The Republicans gave up every opportunity to work with the Democrats on this piece of legislation. They *could* have taken part in the reformation of Health Care. They could have engaged in debate. They could have offered alternatives. Obama explicitly invited them to participate saying that nothing was off the table. I would even suggest that by removing Public Option and Single Payer from the table, he was trying to meet some of their demand (explicitly stated or not). Unfortunately, the Republican party chose a different route. The route of do nothing constructive. Argue for the status quo while vilifying the attempt to bring change to a system that most people would agree was not working very well.

2) Regarding legal interpretations... ALL laws are open to legal interpretation. That's what the courts are there for. They interpret laws as they are written. The job of those who create legislation is to mitigate this with clarity (i.e. the legalese that you find in contracts isn't there just because the lawyers bill by the word... it is there to lay out, as clearly as possible what is expected and what is intended -- letter and spirit).


This law was *not* rammed through. It went through due process. The Bill has been posted and available for anyone to vet it (certainly for longer than most Bills are ever made available). Attempts were made to bring about a bi-partisan solution but when the other party does not want to participate, what are you to do?

Having now read quite a bit of the Bill, I can say that this is mostly about regulating the existing industry to remove some of the more egregious practices (cutting people off, the pre-existing clauses, etc.) while bringing coverage to nearly everyone.

This is not an attack one personal freedom. The government is legislating minimum coverage for all (more people covered means lower costs as the risk is spread amongst a much greater number people). If you want more coverage you can get it. Nobody will prevent this from happening. If you want to go without coverage, you will pay an additional tax as an incentive to participate (i.e. you don't need to participate if you wish to opt out... by why would you when you can actually have coverage at a decent rate?)

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke