What do(n't) you like about the healthcare reform bill? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 03-22-2010, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

You act like people have been hiding the bill(s) from you. Except, as all bills, they've been posted online. Then when you were given direct links to the bill in this discussion, and your own video told you exactly where to look, you wouldn't even take the time to click the link, instead demanding that someone do the work for you and post it here. It's nice that Charlatan did, but frankly I didn't have the time or patience to put that kind of time into it when I already knew the outcome. Why did I know the outcome? Because videos like the one you posted and similar e-mails have been making the rounds for a year now, and they're almost always wrong. I hate to break it to you pan, but you're not special (and neither are the rest of us). If you post a propaganda video that cites specific passages of something you can't refuse to click a damn link to see those passages and act like other people are the ones keeping you in the dark.I'll save you the time, since again you apparently refuse to open Adobe Reader yourself: they can't.You know, I don't know exactly how different the bills are, but you know what I do know? You're equally lacking in knowledge. I didn't read either bill in its entirety, and you won't even open either bill in its entirety. The point was not that the bill that passed is entirely different, but that propaganda is bad enough on its own, but even worse when it's not even talking about the bill that's being considered. For all you or 1NationUnder1God3in1 know, the new bill could have changed all the sections your video references. Kind of pointless to be basing arguments on 5 month old bills, no matter how similar they may or may not be.Citation please. And, no, a representative saying they're not eager about this bill is not the same as a representative saying this bill is bad for America. Seeing as how we've already established you're a special voice expert for Dennis Kucinich, though, I don't expect you to understand that.Really? Like this link that is easily accessible from the House website and the first Google result for H.R. 3962? (Warning: that's a pdf file of the whole bill, I know how you hate to open those and look for yourself)

I also find it funny that Dems are more willing to attack and work on destroying someone and heighten concerns and paranoia and anger over the bill rather than stand up the bill proudly and show what they passed.

Wrong bill, wrong way to pass it, wrong way to support it and try to ease the public's worries.

I rest my case and am done here.

SecretMethod70 · 03-22-2010, 09:38 PM

Dude, I linked to the damn bill, if that's not proudly showing what passed I don't know what is.

But I am guilty as charged when it comes to attacking laziness and having no sympathy for anger that is demonstrably based on ignorance (not being willing to actually open the file yourself, for one thing).

silent_jay · 03-22-2010, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I also find it funny that Dems are more willing to attack and work on destroying someone and heighten concerns and paranoia and anger over the bill rather than stand up the bill proudly and show what they passed.

I believe a link was already posted, but I'll do it again, maybe this time you'll actually read it rather than ranting about something you've admittedly never read.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
You can downlaod this to open it:
Adobe - Adobe Reader download - All versions
enjoy

Charlatan · 03-22-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I also agree that the video is a scare tactic, however, if the true text of the bill CAN IN ANYWAY be legally interpreted as described by the video then there are issues that need to be resolved.

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?)

dippin · 03-23-2010, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I also find it funny that Dems are more willing to attack and work on destroying someone and heighten concerns and paranoia and anger over the bill rather than stand up the bill proudly and show what they passed.

Wrong bill, wrong way to pass it, wrong way to support it and try to ease the public's worries.

I rest my case and am done here.

This is yet another thread where we again are deep into it, and the people throwing a fit (which, just to be clear, is not everyone who is against the bill - samcol and cimarron did add something of substance) have yet to provide something that is actually on the bill that is bad.

If this bill is indeed that bad (which I don't think it is), maybe the reason for that is that even the people who say that this will "destroy America" are too fucking lazy to even read it. I mean, if it is so bad and the stakes are so high, you'd imagine the people who are complaining the loudest would actually get off their damn butts and read at least the basics of the fucking bill.

It's like arguing with children, for fucks sake.

-"They are HIDING the bill"
-"Dude, the link is right there, you can read it for yourself"
- "But I don't wanna!!!"

Ps: I'm sorry to everyone else if this is too aggressive, but how many pages can we waste on the same bullshit?

dogzilla · 03-23-2010, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

one thing i do not understand is this idea that seems to be shared amongst more conservative folk that others only respond to coercion or pressure from outside--so that people will all smoke or all drink or all be overweight unless there is some outside Penalty that kicks in to punish them for doing it. you see it all the time---this nonsense about "lifestyle choices" above works on that assumption. so you'd think that folk with this condescending christian notion of other people--not themselves of course--oppose universal health care because it removes some fictive "moral hazard"
so how does that work exactly?

That was not my point. My point was that if someone makes a poor lifestyle choice, why is it my responsibility to cover the expenses due to their actions? If I decide that dinner every night is going to be a super-size McDonalds meal, why should you be responsible for paying for my bypass operation 10 years later? If I decide that using crack is fun, why should you be responsible for paying for my trip to the ER when I OD? If I decide that smoking Marlboros makes me look cool, why should you pay for my chemotherapy when I get lung cancer?

If, on the other hand I know the risks, and realize that doing any of the above is quite likely to end up with me dead sooner rather than later, that of itself is sufficient motivation for me to not do any of the above.

Why do I need the nanny state to save me from myself? Why should the nanny state make you pay for my mistakes?

roachboy · 03-23-2010, 03:24 AM

actually, dogzilla, all i did was restate the point i took you as making, which you then restated again in a slightly different way. you are in fact arguing that the absence of access to health care introduces an element of "moral hazard" into these lifestyle choices (smoking is an addiction btw. trust me i know). the implication is, like i said, that were universal health care in place everyone would eat super-sized meals at macdo, drink a whole lot every night and smoke like a chimney.

all you changed in the end was you substituted for "moral hazard"---one conservative fiction---some notion of "the nanny state"---another conservative fiction.
across that, your argument is that you don't want to pay.

to which the counter is that you can then pretend your tax money is going into programs that you like. whether you want to pay or not changes nothing. but this applies more to a universal health care system, which this bill does not institute. single-payer, uk/canadian style seems to be the only alternative on the table--again the french system is better, more effective and would be a far more likely and simple model to consider instituting from the position this bill will bring the united states to. but anyway, that's another matter

Rekna · 03-23-2010, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Obesity, smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc. Basically choices that you made that are generally recognized as having a high correlation to health problems and where the health problems are preventable if you did not make those choices.

What if someone is genetically obese? What if they have a thyroid condition?

What I don't get is we have people on the right saying the government is to involved in our lives but you are saying that the government should tell us exactly what we should eat and drink, how often we should exercise, etc. That seems a bit to Orwellian to me.

dogzilla · 03-23-2010, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

What if someone is genetically obese? What if they have a thyroid condition?

Then that's not a lifestyle choice and you have nothing to worry about. Someone can make determinations like that at the point where you apply for insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

What I don't get is we have people on the right saying the government is to involved in our lives but you are saying that the government should tell us exactly what we should eat and drink, how often we should exercise, etc. That seems a bit to Orwellian to me.

No, you still have the choice. If you choose to do something which is detrimental to your health that's still your right. I'm exercising my right not to pay for it.

Rekna · 03-23-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Then that's not a lifestyle choice and you have nothing to worry about. Someone can make determinations like that at the point where you apply for insurance.

No, you still have the choice. If you choose to do something which is detrimental to your health that's still your right. I'm exercising my right not to pay for it.

So you want to give the insurance company a right to deny coverage based upon what they deem is an unhealthy lifestyle choice. Give them this inch and they will take a mile. They will start saying things like, well you ate fastfood once in your life, well you live in a dangerous city/neighborhood, well you work at a school, well you drive a car, well your church serves wine for communion, well you drink Soda, well you don't drink enough water, well you don't work out enough, well you work out too much.

We are then right back where we started. The insurance companies have the power to deny or revoke coverage based on what they deem is a healthy lifestyle.

Shauk · 03-23-2010, 07:45 AM

well here's a list of 18 positive things in the bill I suppose.

Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects

instead of all this negative nancy bashing how about some optimism?

Cimarron29414 · 03-23-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

So you want to give the insurance company a right to deny coverage based upon what they deem is an unhealthy lifestyle choice. Give them this inch and they will take a mile. They will start saying things like, well you ate fastfood once in your life, well you live in a dangerous city/neighborhood, well you work at a school, well you drive a car, well your church serves wine for communion, well you drink Soda, well you don't drink enough water, well you don't work out enough, well you work out too much.

We are then right back where we started. The insurance companies have the power to deny or revoke coverage based on what they deem is a healthy lifestyle.

Rekna,

What he is stating has nothing to do with the insurance company. It has to do with Dogzilla's wallet. Ultimately, the costs associated with this expanded coverage will come from our (yours, dogzilla's and my) wallet.

To simplify this and every other political argument to its core:

There are people who believe that the haves should be required to pay for the havenots.

There are people who believe that the haves should not be required to pay for the havenots.

Internet hair-splitting isn't going to change people's core positions.

Derwood · 03-23-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Rekna,

What he is stating has nothing to do with the insurance company. It has to do with Dogzilla's wallet. Ultimately, the costs associated with this expanded coverage will come from our (yours, dogzilla's and my) wallet.

To simplify this and every other political argument to its core:

There are people who believe that the haves should be required to pay for the havenots.

There are people who believe that the haves should not be required to pay for the havenots.

Internet hair-splitting isn't going to change people's core positions.

so you don't believe the president when he says the bill is budget neutral and paid for?

Cimarron29414 · 03-23-2010, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

so you don't believe the president when he says the bill is budget neutral and paid for?

I don't think you know what budget neutral means. All that means is that they have found a way to fund their expenditures and that the funding and expenditures are all listed in the legislation. That does not mean they aren't raising taxes to do it.

Well, that and the fact that he's a politician and his lips moved - so naturally, he's lying.

dogzilla · 03-23-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

so you don't believe the president when he says the bill is budget neutral and paid for?

What I've read is that this bill is getting funding from three sources, an increased tax on those earning over $200K/$250K per year, a tax on expensive insurance plans and by saving a few hundred billion dollars in Medicare. The claim is that these revenue streams cover all the expenses. However, this is assuming that the money is actually coming in from these sources. We already know that the money from high cost insurance plans doesn't start coming in until 2018. Taxes on high income people don't start until 2011. Who knows when the government will really save hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare.

Starting this year, seniors get a $250 credit, offsets to early retirement health expenses go into effect, businesses with < 50 employees get a 35% credit on their health care costs and adoption tax credit (WTF does this have to do with health care?) goes up by $1000. In addition, insurance companies get a whole lot on restriction imposed on them. That sure doesn't sound budget neutral to me. That sounds like there's more government funny money (loans) coming out of taxpayer pockets to pay for this.

And, as I stated before, we all know how well government revenue projections worked out over the last couple years. So I have little faith that this bill is anywhere near budget neutral.

aceventura3 · 03-23-2010, 10:01 AM

I recently read the CBO scoring of the PPACA. I can not imagine any person who reads it actually believing the cost estimates and the deficit reduction impact. In fairness to the people at the CBO, they are required to work within the totally unrealistic assumptions given. The cuts projected will not materialize, the savings projected will not materialize, the proposed new taxes will be altered, and ultimately young people will bear the cost of this fraud long after those who passed it are out of office - unless it gets fixed. It is amazing they got away with this without ever answering any specific questions or getting off of their talking points.

roachboy · 03-23-2010, 10:14 AM

so ace...how about a link please?

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 10:20 AM

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

Below is an article from an Investor's Buisness Daily blog. The author highlights (with a bit of sarcasm) just a few of the many bait-and-switch "features" buried throughout the new health care law. I don't necessarily agree with each conclusion, but generally agree with the overall sentiment.

For some reason the article has been unavailable today, but I was able to grab it from a cashed Google page. The original link is listed at the bottom of this post.

Enjoy!

Quote:

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

By David Hogberg

Sun., March 21, '10 3:24 PM ET

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Article from investors.com

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

Cimarron29414 · 03-23-2010, 11:32 AM

Section 9017-a: Except Nancy Pelosi (D-California)

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Section 9017-a: Except Nancy Pelosi (D-California)

roachboy · 03-23-2010, 12:06 PM

before things sputter out in some private language incoherence, how about we make actual posts made up of actual sentences? sentences: they aren't that hard. you can do it. thanks.

flstf · 03-23-2010, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Below is an article from an Investor's Buisness Daily blog. The author highlights (with a bit of sarcasm) just a few of the many bait-and-switch "features" buried throughout the new health care law. I don't necessarily agree with each conclusion, but generally agree with the overall sentiment.

I don't understand the bait and switch comment, they seem to be doing what they have been saying for over a year now. Most of these issues can be resolved by adding a single payer system which will probably be added later after first adding a public option. I agree they should have gone with single payer from the beginning and eliminated the middle man (insurance companies) but too many of our polititians are being bought off by the healthcare industry.

dogzilla · 03-23-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Rekna,

What he is stating has nothing to do with the insurance company. It has to do with Dogzilla's wallet. Ultimately, the costs associated with this expanded coverage will come from our (yours, dogzilla's and my) wallet.

Exactly. I firmly believe the role of the federal government is to only fund a small set of essential services and not to assume that it has the right to redistribute my income.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

To simplify this and every other political argument to its core:

There are people who believe that the haves should be required to pay for the havenots.

There are people who believe that the haves should not be required to pay for the havenots.

Internet hair-splitting isn't going to change people's core positions.

Those wealthy people who believe income should be redistributed to the poor would have a whole lot more credibility if they spent their net worth, including the value of their home down to something under $5 million helping the poor. It's rather hypocritical for somebody like Ted Kennedy to have a yacht and expensive property and then claim that the government has the right to redistribute my income because I'm better off than somebody who earns less than I do.

aceventura3 · 03-23-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so ace...how about a link please?

Do you think it is actually important? And, it not as if the most current or the previous reports are hard to find for anyone interested in reading fantasy material. But here is the link as requested, sir.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc...onProposal.pdf

and here is another from the initial Senate version:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc...tion_Noted.pdf

Cimarron29414 · 03-23-2010, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

before things sputter out in some private language incoherence, how about we make actual posts made up of actual sentences? sentences: they aren't that hard. you can do it. thanks.

Well we wouldn't want you to be incoherent so I will explain it to you. See, Otto listed 20 items you might not like about the bill. The 20th item said, "5% charge on cosmetic surgery (Section 9017)."

I added "Section 9017-a Except Nancy Pelosi". The reason that is funny is because the woman has more surgery than Micheal Jackson and would go broke having to pay such a fee.

So, I have let you in to our little private language which flowed absolutely perfectly if one read the posts. I do apologize for you not getting the joke, though.

P.S. The "Well we wouldn't want you to be incoherent" is another joke and a play on words. The reason others will find that funny is because the most incoherent poster in this forum is accusing others of being incoherent. That's not even Alanis Morissette Ironic - that's "real" ironic. Don'tcha think?

dippin · 03-23-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

Below is an article from an Investor's Buisness Daily blog. The author highlights (with a bit of sarcasm) just a few of the many bait-and-switch "features" buried throughout the new health care law. I don't necessarily agree with each conclusion, but generally agree with the overall sentiment.

For some reason the article has been unavailable today, but I was able to grab it from a cashed Google page. The original link is listed at the bottom of this post.

Enjoy!

The text of the bill is online. Why people can't check these things before passing them on is amazing to me.

1- Says nothing about small business. It is just a clever way to spin the basic fact that there is a mandate. Yes, there is a mandate and the fine will eventually scale up to $750. Of course, people must dress that up with the "killing small business" thing for some reason.

2- Section 2701 says nothing of that. It is a section prohibiting discriminatory premium rates for small or individual coverage. And in fact it allows for "discriminatory" premium rates for smokers.

3- Is just spin of a well known feature of the legislation

4- Section 2712 says nothing of the sort. It is actually the section that prohibits recissions

5- Section 2714 says nothing about employers being mandated to cover children up to 26 years of age. It says that dependents can stay on a plan until 26 years of age, but nothing on who must pay for the dependent's insurance.

6- Nowhere it says that everyone must be covered for all those things. It just defines those as "essential health benefits."

7- goes back to the mandate. I mean, if the mandate didn't have a minimum coverage, what would be the point?

8- Same as above, and again nothing about small businesses there.

9- Misleading at best. Employers will only be fined for each full time employee that enrolls in the subsidized health exchange programs. This is merely a provision to discourage employers from dumping their coverage so employees get on the subsidized plan.

10- That section doesn't say that. It just says that employer contributions will not be treated as qualified benefits for tax purposes if the employee contributes more than 2,500 of his own money towards that.

I could go on, but the 20 points are simply spin related to the two unpopular features of the plan: there are mandates, and certain specific taxes will go up.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Well we wouldn't want you to be incoherent so I will explain it to you. See, Otto listed 20 items you might not like about the bill. The 20th item said, "5% charge on cosmetic surgery (Section 9017)."

I added "Section 9017-a Except Nancy Pelosi". The reason that is funny is because the woman has more surgery than Micheal Jackson and would go broke having to pay such a fee.

So, I have let you in to our little private language which flowed absolutely perfectly if one read the posts. I do apologize for you not getting the joke, though.

P.S. The "Well we wouldn't want you to be incoherent" is another joke and a play on words. The reason others will find that funny is because the most incoherent poster in this forum is accusing others of being incoherent. That's not even Alanis Morissette Ironic - that's "real" ironic. Don'tcha think?

I get it, it wasn't enough that all the other threads were derailed by rants, falsehoods, and generic spin. Maybe robot parade needs to start yet another thread, and then instead of saying "Please, please, stick to facts about the actual bill...not the process, not conspiracy theories...the bill." he could say "Please, please, PLEASE stick to facts about the actual bill...not the process, not conspiracy theories...the bill."

silent_jay · 03-23-2010, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Well we wouldn't want you to be incoherent so I will explain it to you. See, Otto listed 20 items you might not like about the bill. The 20th item said, "5% charge on cosmetic surgery (Section 9017)."

I added "Section 9017-a Except Nancy Pelosi". The reason that is funny is because the woman has more surgery than Micheal Jackson and would go broke having to pay such a fee.

So, I have let you in to our little private language which flowed absolutely perfectly if one read the posts. I do apologize for you not getting the joke, though.

P.S. The "Well we wouldn't want you to be incoherent" is another joke and a play on words. The reason others will find that funny is because the most incoherent poster in this forum is accusing others of being incoherent. That's not even Alanis Morissette Ironic - that's "real" ironic. Don'tcha think?

I believe roachboy was referring to staying on topic and not letting the thread go down the shitter by posting smartass comments or emoticons that do nothing for the thread or any members reading the thread.

Cimarron29414 · 03-23-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

I believe roachboy was referring to staying on topic and not letting the thread go down the shitter by posting smartass comments or emoticons that do nothing for the thread or any members reading the thread.

If you are coming to this thread for some sort of enlightenment, that was lost 85 posts ago. You can't derail a derailed train.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

If you are coming to this thread for some sort of enlightenment, that was lost 85 posts ago. You can't derail a derailed train.

I just check in the laughs and the extent to which those opposed to the legislation will spew the same old debunked myths again and again.

robot_parade · 03-23-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

That was not my point. My point was that if someone makes a poor lifestyle choice, why is it my responsibility to cover the expenses due to their actions? If I decide that dinner every night is going to be a super-size McDonalds meal, why should you be responsible for paying for my bypass operation 10 years later? If I decide that using crack is fun, why should you be responsible for paying for my trip to the ER when I OD? If I decide that smoking Marlboros makes me look cool, why should you pay for my chemotherapy when I get lung cancer?

As far as I'm aware, the healthcare bill, does *not* prevent insurance companies from having lifestyle choices influence the cost of insurance - I could easily be mistaken here, but I've never read that in any of the summaries of the existing bill. It *does* prevent them from denying coverage or charging differently based upon pre-existing conditions. So, a person with lung cancer can still get insurance, but (again, I could easily be wrong about this) a smoker could be charged more than a non-smoker.

Quote:

If, on the other hand I know the risks, and realize that doing any of the above is quite likely to end up with me dead sooner rather than later, that of itself is sufficient motivation for me to not do any of the above.

Why do I need the nanny state to save me from myself? Why should the nanny state make you pay for my mistakes?

Insurance is already about those who don't need it subsidizing those who do - that's the whole point. Your homeowners insurance premium pays for all of those people whose houses burn down when yours doesn't.

Would you seriously ever choose to go without health insurance if you could afford it? Would you then say "Ok, I've got prostate cancer, but I can't afford treatment. I deserve to die the horrible death that awaits me because I decided to roll the dice and lost."?

The difference here is that the government is requiring you to have health insurance, subsidizing you if you can't afford it, and taxing you if you chose to roll the dice - because some percentage of the people who chose to roll the dice *will* end up in the hospital and expect the rest of us to pay for their care.

rahl · 03-23-2010, 05:29 PM

I am for this bill. But one thing I want to point out is that I think the ban on pre-ex's is going to have some unanticipated consequences. If I am a 22 year old healthy male, just out of college and working at my first job, I am not buying insurance. I will pay the fee(whatever it may be cause it's still cheaper than insurance) and wait till I actually get sick then hurry up and buy insurance since I can't be denied. I think this might end up being the mentality of alot of people.

But I could be wrong

WinchesterAA · 03-23-2010, 05:45 PM

@Rahl - That's money you aren't supposed to be forced to give away.

Quote:

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical — in fact, absurd — to assume otherwise.

The Choice Before Us

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate). [2]

from Frederic Bastiat's "The Law"

robot_parade · 03-23-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

I am for this bill. But one thing I want to point out is that I think the ban on pre-ex's is going to have some unanticipated consequences. If I am a 22 year old healthy male, just out of college and working at my first job, I am not buying insurance. I will pay the fee(whatever it may be cause it's still cheaper than insurance) and wait till I actually get sick then hurry up and buy insurance since I can't be denied. I think this might end up being the mentality of alot of people.

But I could be wrong

That is a drawback, one could argue that the penalty should be higher. But, consider - you're a 22 year old healthy male, who just got wheeled into the ER with acute appendicitis. It's too late to sign up for health insurance, and that hefty hospital bill just might teach you a lesson about rolling the dice.

Otoh, if it's lung cancer, then sure, you can still get insurance, even though any idiot can guess that your going to be a financial liability for the insurance company. And I, who plan to live a long life and have health and wealth and all that, will be the one subsidizing that guy. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where I have to pay a few hundred dollars more a year and lung-cancer-man gets proper care than the world where I have those hundred dollars and lung-cancer-man almost certainly dies in agony.

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinchesterAA

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

from Frederic Bastiat's "The Law"

Without all those things, you have nothing but anarchy, which is useless other than as an intellectual exercise.

Would you do without the armed forces? Police? If you want to do away with taxes (sorry, "legal plunder"), you have to do away with those, as well as a whole raft of other things you probably enjoy.

WinchesterAA · 03-23-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

That is a drawback, one could argue that the penalty should be higher. But, consider - you're a 22 year old healthy male, who just got wheeled into the ER with acute appendicitis. It's too late to sign up for health insurance, and that hefty hospital bill just might teach you a lesson about rolling the dice.

Otoh, if it's lung cancer, then sure, you can still get insurance, even though any idiot can guess that your going to be a financial liability for the insurance company. And I, who plan to live a long life and have health and wealth and all that, will be the one subsidizing that guy. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where I have to pay a few hundred dollars more a year and lung-cancer-man gets proper care than the world where I have those hundred dollars and lung-cancer-man almost certainly dies in agony.

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

Without all those things, you have nothing but anarchy, which is useless other than as an intellectual exercise.

Would you do without the armed forces? Police? If you want to do away with taxes (sorry, "legal plunder"), you have to do away with those, as well as a whole raft of other things you probably enjoy.

At what expense do we get the things we enjoy, my friend?

Are the things you enjoy worth the things that humble me so?

Idyllic · 03-23-2010, 06:19 PM

I don’t like it and you can say all the good and wonderful misconceptions about this bill you want to, in the end however you cannot change the simple fact, this singular fact;

Quote:

You are required to have health insurance. If you don't, you will pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5 percent of household income.

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do this to the American people; the Federal government cannot mandate all Americans to purchase whatever they decide we should buy.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution was created to prevent this from happening, to prevent the Federal Government from doing this to its people, from requiring the people of the U.S. to participate in the purchase of health insurance, or anything, as a demand or be penalized.

Say all you want deny all you want, cover and cherry coat all you want, but it is wrong, it will always be wrong, and if you deny this fact, you deny the fundamentals of the America way.

Quote:

St. Louis Globe-Democrat

Health insurance mandate would violate constitutional liberties

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

To the editor:

Among the elements of the health bill currently being considered by Congress is a requirement that every adult would have to obtain health insurance coverage or face large fines. Legal scholars have been debating whether the U.S. Supreme Court would find such a requirement to be constitutional.

Why are so many Americans uninsured in the first place? It is true that, for many of us, insurance is just unaffordable. But many more voluntarily choose to forgo health insurance. Some follow religions that prohibit the use of modern medicine. Others prefer non-traditional treatments.

Still others are confident enough in their propensity for health that they are willing to risk the costs of illness or injury in order to direct their money to concerns they believe to be more pressing. And there are some who, recognizing that most people pay insurance companies far more than they are ever likely to need for their own treatment costs, prefer to self-insure by creating their own health fund.

So, does the U.S. Constitution protect these citizens who might object to the health insurance mandate? Possibly. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the Constitution protects citizens’ rights to associate with others of their choosing, to enter into contracts, to make their own decisions regarding whether or not to receive health care, and, of course, their right to privacy.

The court has also recognized that a constitutional right to do something implies a complementary right not to be forced to do that same thing — the freedom of speech, for example, means that the government may not compel you to speak.

For America’s voluntarily uninsured, a congressional directive to purchase health insurance would mean not only sacrificing a huge amount of money, but also potentially their convictions, personal autonomy, and privacy — all for services they do not want, and in some cases may be prohibited from using.

This sort of mandate would clearly violate some, if not all, of the constitutional rights listed above, although the Supreme Court might decide that congressional interest in passing the mandate justifies the infringement of those rights.

Certain lawmakers are trying to give Missourians an additional layer of protection. Recognizing that state constitutions are permitted to afford liberties beyond those secured under the U.S. Constitution, half of the state Senate has already agreed to cosponsor Senate Joint Resolution 25, which would amend the Missouri Constitution to specify that citizens have a right to decide for themselves whether they will participate in any health care system.

Under this amendment, government officials would also be denied the authority to prevent citizens from offering or accepting direct payment for health care services, and they would not be permitted to substantially limit the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems.

While it is not certain that the Supreme Court would allow state constitutional protections to override a federal statute, this effort could be a useful step toward securing those individual freedoms that ought to be the American birthright.

Dave Roland

If they want to tax us, TAX US, a flat rate for health care, that may be a consideration, but then the insurance companies would be out, and they don't want that, the insurance companies would not have helped to push it through.

Don't any of you get that the insurance company wanted this too, they paid and pushed for it to pass and not because they love Americans, but because they love the money it will make them, what’s with the middle man Obama, why pay a middle man for health care when the government will inevitably be in control.

The bill states over and over again how there will be governmental intervention in all aspects of health care from preventative care to end of life, and not just hello care, we are talking affirmative action care with investigations on all matters from you to the doctors to the hospitals.

If you look you can find plenty of articles that talk of the down-fall of governmental health care, the delays the lack of continuity the lack of follow-up and follow-through the lack of equipment and the shortages of supplies, etc.

This is the wrong bill. It really is that simple and those who disagree don’t truly understand the freedom of being an American, and what the repercussion of the loss of that freedom this represents, not to mention the precedence it will set if it does become law and what additional doors of socialist impositions it will open.

It time to wake up and shake off this attempted takeover people, unless you’re just done with personal freedom.

I’m not against health care for the masses, but this isn’t the answer, to violate our freedom, to violate our trust with the backroom shenanigans, this isn’t the right way to treat this country, or the amazing people who reside within it.

WinchesterAA · 03-23-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

I don’t like it and you can say all the good and wonderful misconceptions about this bill you want to, in the end however you cannot change the simple fact, this singular fact;

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do this to the American people; the Federal government cannot mandate all Americans to purchase whatever they decide we should buy.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution was created to prevent this from happening, to prevent the Federal Government from doing this to its people, from requiring the people of the U.S. to participate in the purchase of health insurance, or anything, as a demand or be penalized.

Say all you want deny all you want, cover and cherry coat all you want, but it is wrong, it will always be wrong, and if you deny this fact, you deny the fundamentals of the America way.

If they want to tax us, TAX US, a flat rate for health care, that may be a consideration, but then the insurance companies would be out, and they don't want that, the insurance companies would not have helped to push it through.

Don't any of you get that the insurance company wanted this too, they paid and pushed for it to pass and not because they love Americans, but because they love the money it will make them, what’s with the middle man Obama, why pay a middle man for health care when the government will inevitably be in control.

The bill states over and over again how there will be governmental intervention in all aspects of health care from preventative care to end of life, and not just hello care, we are talking affirmative action care with investigations on all matters from you to the doctors to the hospitals.

If you look you can find plenty of articles that talk of the down-fall of governmental health care, the delays the lack of continuity the lack of follow-up and follow-through the lack of equipment and the shortages of supplies, etc.

This is the wrong bill. It really is that simple and those who disagree don’t truly understand the freedom of being an American, and what the repercussion of the loss of that freedom this represents, not to mention the precedence it will set if it does become law and what additional doors of socialist impositions it will open.

It time to wake up and shake off this attempted takeover people, unless you’re just done with personal freedom.

I’m not against health care for the masses, but this isn’t the answer, to violate our freedom, to violate our trust with the backroom shenanigans, this isn’t the right way to treat this country, or the amazing people who reside within it.

They'll understand it as soon as their lives begin to crumble, and they start to realize how they really DO belong to someone else.

[FUTURE MODE]

"Greetings, 523-22-2193, we're from the government, we're here to help."
"What is going on?"
"GET ON YOUR KNEES! PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK MOTHERFUCKER!"
"WAAAAA"
*FISTPUNCH_TO_FACE*
"QUIT MOVING! QUIT MOVING!"
*cough*"I---"
"Take him to the truck."

[/FUTURE MODE]

I bet that poor citizen was thinking, as the AO crushed his jaw with his knee, "HEY, THAT'S UNKAWNSTATOOSHUNALL!"

Yeah, and so was everything else they did. So what?

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 07:10 PM

As has been noted before, the Constitutional argument is weak....both in terms of the taxing powers and the commerce clause....even many conservative Constitutional lawyers admit as much.

But it might make an interesting case....if it ever gets to the Supreme Court.

And, it probably wont happen any time soon.

First, there is the question of legal standing. Do the Republican State AGs (most of whom probably want to run for governor in the future) even have legal standing to sue?

They (and the state) are not the potentially injured party. That would be the persons forced to buy insurance or pay the tax.

And then, can those potentially injured parties sue before they are injured? That is, before they are forced into buying insurance or paying and tax, which wont happen until 2014.

Derwood · 03-23-2010, 07:12 PM

My god, it's like pan and dk had a baby

robot_parade · 03-23-2010, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

I don’t like it and you can say all the good and wonderful misconceptions about this bill you want to, in the end however you cannot change the simple fact, this singular fact;

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do this to the American people; the Federal government cannot mandate all Americans to purchase whatever they decide we should buy.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution was created to prevent this from happening, to prevent the Federal Government from doing this to its people, from requiring the people of the U.S. to participate in the purchase of health insurance, or anything, as a demand or be penalized.

Levying taxes and providing for the general welfare are both constitutional, last time I checked. Sure enough, there are constitutional challenges to the bill, and guess what? We have a supreme court to decide these issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

Don't any of you get that the insurance company wanted this too, they paid and pushed for it to pass and not because they love Americans, but because they love the money it will make them, what’s with the middle man Obama, why pay a middle man for health care when the government will inevitably be in control.

Yes - the insurance companies like this bill as well - they will indeed make more money. Conservatives should love this bill, because of how pro-business it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

The bill states over and over again how there will be governmental intervention in all aspects of health care from preventative care to end of life, and not just hello care, we are talking affirmative action care with investigations on all matters from you to the doctors to the hospitals.

Where in this bill is doctor-patient privacy removed? Where is this government intervention you speak of? For most of us, the government intervention is in the form of the mandate. For insurance companies, the trade-off they pay for the mandate are regulations like no more recisions, no more denying coverage based upon pre-existing conditions, etc. Most people get coverage, people who can't afford it get subsidies. Various other fixes for government programs, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

If you look you can find plenty of articles that talk of the down-fall of governmental health care, the delays the lack of continuity the lack of follow-up and follow-through the lack of equipment and the shortages of supplies, etc.

And if you look you can find that *every* other industrialized country provides healthcare for all of their citizens for far less money per-capita, and usually at least as good quality - in terms of life expectancy, patient satisfaction, etc. If they can do it, why can't we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

This is the wrong bill. It really is that simple and those who disagree don’t truly understand the freedom of being an American, and what the repercussion of the loss of that freedom this represents, not to mention the precedence it will set if it does become law and what additional doors of socialist impositions it will open.

In reality, this is a *very* conservative bill. There is no loss of freedom for Americans - none. Zero. Zip. a tax isn't a loss of freedom. You could argue that government-controlled healthcare like in Great Britain would be a loss of freedom...but look at how much less they pay per capita for essentially the same outcomes.

SecretMethod70 · 03-23-2010, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do this to the American people; the Federal government cannot mandate all Americans to purchase whatever they decide we should buy.

The courts exist to decide what is and is not constitutional. So far, they don't seem to be on your side.

Quote:

If they want to tax us, TAX US, a flat rate for health care, that may be a consideration, but then the insurance companies would be out, and they don't want that, the insurance companies would not have helped to push it through.

Don't any of you get that the insurance company wanted this too, they paid and pushed for it to pass and not because they love Americans, but because they love the money it will make them, what’s with the middle man Obama, why pay a middle man for health care when the government will inevitably be in control.

Actually, we do understand this, and you'll find many of us would prefer single-payer. Setting aside the issue of how much we need election reform and how that relates to this topic, the United States is designed, in many ways, to elicit compromise. As much as you may not like it, this bill does represent a compromise between the two major sides on this issue, because if you hate this bill just imagine if me, many other TFPers, and, well, most people I know wrote the bill. This bill is not an overhaul - I struggle to even call it a reform - it is really just a tweak in health insurance regulations. Many other Americans would prefer something much more overtly socialist (yes, I said it), but we're accepting of this compromise because we understand that's how the process works. You'll note, by the way, that the constitution does not require that we remain now and forever a capitalist nation.

Quote:

The bill states over and over again how there will be governmental intervention in all aspects of health care from preventative care to end of life, and not just hello care, we are talking affirmative action care with investigations on all matters from you to the doctors to the hospitals.

How many times do we have to ask for citations before we actually get any? You've got someone associated with the insurance industry (rahl), public policy (dc_dux), and electoral politics (me) in here - you can't just say "the bill does X!" and expect us not to ask where you get that from.

Quote:

If you look you can find plenty of articles that talk of the down-fall of governmental health care, the delays the lack of continuity the lack of follow-up and follow-through the lack of equipment and the shortages of supplies, etc.

You can find plenty of articles on anything under the sun. The question is not how many anecdotes you can find, but what the general result is. So far, looking around the world, government-run healthcare is looking pretty good compared to our system.

Quote:

This is the wrong bill. It really is that simple and those who disagree don’t truly understand the freedom of being an American, and what the repercussion of the loss of that freedom this represents, not to mention the precedence it will set if it does become law and what additional doors of socialist impositions it will open.

Now here we get to a part that I take offense to, because it reads much like Sarah Palin's assertion of "real Americans." I've tried to point it out before, but I'll say it again: we are just as American as you are. This is, for many people, a moral imperative. Funny how for all the talk of the US being a "Christian nation" (not necessarily by you), there are so many people who are unwilling to admit that access to health care is a fundamental right. That is yet another way in which the United States is lagging behind the rest of the world. More unfortunate is that we have declared that health care is a human right, in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was written, in part, by Eleanor Roosevelt, and adopted by the United States. These are not new ideas, and the really amazing thing amidst all this outrage is that this "reform" is ridiculously tame compared to what most proponents of health care reform would prefer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, Section 1

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

03-22-2010, 09:38 PM	#82 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Dude, I linked to the damn bill, if that's not proudly showing what passed I don't know what is. But I am guilty as charged when it comes to attacking laziness and having no sympathy for anger that is demonstrably based on ignorance (not being willing to actually open the file yourself, for one thing). __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-23-2010, 03:24 AM	#87 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	actually, dogzilla, all i did was restate the point i took you as making, which you then restated again in a slightly different way. you are in fact arguing that the absence of access to health care introduces an element of "moral hazard" into these lifestyle choices (smoking is an addiction btw. trust me i know). the implication is, like i said, that were universal health care in place everyone would eat super-sized meals at macdo, drink a whole lot every night and smoke like a chimney. all you changed in the end was you substituted for "moral hazard"---one conservative fiction---some notion of "the nanny state"---another conservative fiction. across that, your argument is that you don't want to pay. to which the counter is that you can then pretend your tax money is going into programs that you like. whether you want to pay or not changes nothing. but this applies more to a universal health care system, which this bill does not institute. single-payer, uk/canadian style seems to be the only alternative on the table--again the french system is better, more effective and would be a far more likely and simple model to consider instituting from the position this bill will bring the united states to. but anyway, that's another matter __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-23-2010, 10:01 AM	#96 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I recently read the CBO scoring of the PPACA. I can not imagine any person who reads it actually believing the cost estimates and the deficit reduction impact. In fairness to the people at the CBO, they are required to work within the totally unrealistic assumptions given. The cuts projected will not materialize, the savings projected will not materialize, the proposed new taxes will be altered, and ultimately young people will bear the cost of this fraud long after those who passed it are out of office - unless it gets fixed. It is amazing they got away with this without ever answering any specific questions or getting off of their talking points. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

03-23-2010, 10:14 AM	#97 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so ace...how about a link please? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-23-2010, 11:32 AM	#99 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Section 9017-a: Except Nancy Pelosi (D-California) __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

03-23-2010, 07:45 AM	#91 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	well here's a list of 18 positive things in the bill I suppose. Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects instead of all this negative nancy bashing how about some optimism?

03-23-2010, 12:06 PM	#101 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	before things sputter out in some private language incoherence, how about we make actual posts made up of actual sentences? sentences: they aren't that hard. you can do it. thanks. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-23-2010, 05:29 PM	#111 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	I am for this bill. But one thing I want to point out is that I think the ban on pre-ex's is going to have some unanticipated consequences. If I am a 22 year old healthy male, just out of college and working at my first job, I am not buying insurance. I will pay the fee(whatever it may be cause it's still cheaper than insurance) and wait till I actually get sick then hurry up and buy insurance since I can't be denied. I think this might end up being the mentality of alot of people. But I could be wrong __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

03-23-2010, 07:10 PM	#117 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	As has been noted before, the Constitutional argument is weak....both in terms of the taxing powers and the commerce clause....even many conservative Constitutional lawyers admit as much. But it might make an interesting case....if it ever gets to the Supreme Court. And, it probably wont happen any time soon. First, there is the question of legal standing. Do the Republican State AGs (most of whom probably want to run for governor in the future) even have legal standing to sue? They (and the state) are not the potentially injured party. That would be the persons forced to buy insurance or pay the tax. And then, can those potentially injured parties sue before they are injured? That is, before they are forced into buying insurance or paying and tax, which wont happen until 2014. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

03-23-2010, 07:12 PM	#118 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	My god, it's like pan and dk had a baby __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel