|
What do(n't) you like about the healthcare reform bill?
So, now that the healthcare reform bill has passed the house, let's hear it. What don't you like about the bill? Please, please, stick to facts about the actual bill...not the process, not conspiracy theories...the bill.
Here's what I don't like: o Personal mandate. I'm just not entirely comfortable with this. I know about the subsidies for people who truly can't afford it, and I understand the why - but I really wish healthcare reform could have been achieved without the personal mandate. o Not single payer or some other 'socialist' system. It freaking works for the rest of the industrialized world. o Not even 'public option', but I'm not so sure that the public option would've been such a great idea after all. Here's what I do like: o Gets most Americans covered. o Bans some of the nastier insurance company practices. o Some fixes for medicare and medicaid o Various other goodies, like encouraging preventative care, etc. |
It's not what it could have been had the proper people been properly motivated. President Obama is a smart man, but he's not a bold man. I fear his decision to begin the compromise with an already compromised position, that of the public option, all but ensured that we would not have any major reforms. I've read every incarnation of the bill that's been released to the public. The bill being passed could be worse, but there are so many areas in which it could be better, I don't know that I can list them all.
Things I don't like: align with robot_parade, at least in the broad strokes. While it probably was unreasonable to expect single-payer, I didn't feel it was unreasonable to expect a public option until the Democrats started opening their mouths and the GOP completely went off the deep end. The mandate scares the shit out of me. A mandate without a public option means higher risk pools in the private market, something that's causing problems already without forcing people into them. The public option along with the mandate made sense because the public option existed without high risk being a factor. I'm very happy that the bill at least seeks to present the illusion of stopping irresponsible practices in the market. It's not the changes that matter, it's the illusion that the government is regulating the market. Over the next few years, as the US does not become a communist state, the nay-sayers will be forced to dine upon their venomous words. The free market can be regulated without it leading to some imaginary nightmare. And if these reforms help one person in real life, at least it will have helped at all. It's better than nothing. |
I haven't been following this at all. Can someone explain what "public option" or "personal mandate" mean?
those words by themselves mean nothing to me. |
mandating insurance without having a public option just seems like a total failure to me.
|
Quote:
public option was an idea where the government would act as the insurance agent for those who did not want/could not afford private insurance. the personal mandate is a new law that says that everyone in the US must have health insurance of some kind or else face an additional income tax |
Quote:
|
I'm hoping the outrage over the mandate will result in either the public option or single payer. I have no fear that this will be repealed, so that seems like the next logical step forward
|
So I'm missing something, how does this cover anyone if there is no public option to get it?
how would one use it? |
Quote:
medicaid access was extended, it used to be that only those with income at the federal poverty line or below could qualify, and now it was extended to 133% of the federal poverty line or below. Young people can stay on their parents' insurance until 26. Significant tax breaks and subsidies for individuals to spend on health insurance, as well as tax breaks for small business to provide them. And finally, the creation of the so called insurance exchange, where people and small business can pool together to negotiate a lower rate. ---------- Post added at 09:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 AM ---------- By the way, here's a decent summary: Health care reform bill 101: what the bill means to you / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com |
Quote:
Sounds decent enough, now can you tell me why my conservative friends are quoting hitler and marx on my facebook feed because the bill passed? “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Adolf Hitler "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them." Karl Marx are these people just brain damaged or what? |
It's the wrong bill. The Dems passed this in a way that was a pure power grab with backroom deals and BS. The only windfalls will be for the insurance companies. If you say "we'll better the bill in reconciliation" you've already admitted that you KNOW you passed a bad bill.
They didn't take their time and truly find the best bill possible. To me that shows they cared nothing about true reform or getting people covered, it was all about POWER. They didn't look into a true public option and seeing if they could make it work. They didn't even consider a sliding scale fee with a maximum lifetime out of pocket (which I advocate). They ramrodded something EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM KNEW was the wrong bill. And it is quite obvious by the way they passed it. |
Quote:
As much as this bill in being touted as something revolutionary, it is actually mostly subsidies for some and tax increases for others, with some new insurance regulations. It is not national health care, government run health care, or anything like that. The rage will subsidy once people realize that their lives didn't change that much, if at all. ---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ---------- Quote:
Other than the "no public option" part, what specific parts of the bill don't you like? Let's not turn this thread into another vent and rant thread without factual information. |
Quote:
the fact that over 32 million people will now have coverage? the fact that pre-ex's will be covered? the fact that life time maximum pay outs are gone? the fact that you can keep what you have if you like it or get something new? the fact that it is budget nuetral? what is it you don't like? |
The whole "no denying coverage for those with preexisting conditions" is something I really like. I have a family member who would have been denied coverage if his health insurance hadn't been COBRA'd for the next two years. For people with serious, chronic conditions who do not qualify as disabled, this is huge.
|
Quote:
How are we going to "subsidize" people when we are broke? You're going to add 17,000 IRS people to enforce this bill? You never made the bill public, allowed no true debate and passed it in a way that is questionably unconstitutional? But it's a good bill? Come on, be real. |
What I like: No public option
What I don't like: People who have self induced pre existing conditions get coverage without any requirement for personal responsibility The mandate that everyone must have insurance coverage or be fined Subsidies that come out of the taxpayer pocket for people who are not disabled and whose income falls below some threshold. Government's intrusion into yet another segment of private enterprise and the resulting expansion in the size of government. Bottom line is this bill does absolutely nothing for me and requires me to pay for other's insurance coverage. |
Quote:
Stop throwing out republican talking points and answer what specific things don't you like in the bill. ---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't envy the president in this situation.
The house is polarized to ridiculous extremes that it's like fighting tooth and nail to get anything passed. However. this is hardly rageworthy. From reading the breakdown of it that dippin posted, it reads off like car insurance, and it reads off that basically if you make under 44k per individual then it will be subsidized anyway? It's not exactly what I envision when people use the words "public health care" when all it seems to be is "go get insurance, job or not, so we can drive the costs down" much like car insurance. For some of the things that people are mentioning online about this bill, either that breakdown left out a lot of things, or people are misinformed. That said, I can't call this "public health care" until there is a "public option" am I off base in saying that? |
Quote:
|
How about if I go with the only thing I do like. No pre-existing. And that won't even start until 2014.
It'll eventually divide the insurance between very basic care and premium care, thus dividing the classes by who can afford what. Say what you want.... but when the very people passing it don't like it, saying they will fix it in reconciliation, they didn't truly debate it they made promises, backroom deals and so on to get enough votes to pass it AND they exempt themselves.....it's a slam dunk the bill is bad. |
Reconciliation isn't about not liking it and has been used in virtually every health care bill in this country.
Every bill has to "fix" the difference between the house version and the senate version, this one just used the "reconciliation" procedure to do it to avoid a filibuster in the senate. It has nothing to do with how much the people who actually voted for it like it. And one would think that this is the most perfect bill ever, given how hard it is for anyone to actually make a case against it based on what is on it. It is specially puzzling when someone complains that this bill doesn't go far enough in providing benefits or a public option while complaining about the cost of what is being provided. I mean, sure, it'd be lovely if we had full coverage for everything for free forever, but that is not reality. |
what i don't like about the bill: no public option. i do not understand how it is that access to basic health care is not a fundamental human right. it is understood that way in the rest of the industrialized world. only in the backwater of the united states is there a Problem with it.
last year 3.47 BILLION dollars were spent on lobbying congress. on health care, 1725 entities registered as being active in this area. initial numbers for outlay on this should be available 20 april. which brings me to the other thing i don't like about this bill: the nihilist strategy adopted by the ultra-right. the overwhelming role that corporate money has played in the disinformation campaign that has people like pan convinced that exactly the opposite of what's in the bill is in fact the case. persuading the gullible of this is expensive it seems. what i like about it: the subsidizing of basic health care insurance for those who cannot afford it. the extension of the definition of child to 26 as a recognition of a shitty job climate that's unlikely to change any time soon. elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre existing conditions sounds kind of like buying fire insurance for your house as it's burning imo. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work...
Also, how is the tab for this group of people going to be picked up? It sounds like those of us already struggling to get by are going to be picking up much of it. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ---------- Quote:
|
the elimination of the pre-existing condition restrictions is a step toward shifting the whole way of understanding what insurance does away from the interests of insurance companies--which really should not be for-profit, but whatever---to the idea that access to basic health care is a fundamental human right. so it moves insurance away from being able to put profit maximizing over the interests of the insured. it's like that.
|
Quote:
|
[quote=flstf;2770585]I think rahl was referring to the fact that everyone currently insured or paying for healthcare are paying for the uninsured via higher prices charged by hospitals, etc.. and therefore higher premiums charged by insurance companies.
QUOTE] Yes, that was exactly what I was talking about. ---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fixing healthcare would let people get healthy affordably and be able to buy groceries and pay utilities. |
Quote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is on this basis that I am fairly hopeful that a Constitutional challenge to this law will be successful and the whole of the legislation shall be thrown out. 10 States have already drafted their challenge and are simply waiting for Obama to sign it so that they can file. Due to the magnitude of the legislation, it will most likely be fast-tracked through the courts and reach SCOTUS within a few weeks. |
Quote:
|
remember when Ronald Reagan said that Medicare would mean the end of America as we know it? was pan his speech writer?
|
Quote:
|
The biggest problem is that there is no reason to believe the cost of services will go down. Second biggest is that it disincentivizes medical professionals, which may reduce supply while increasing demand.
I had my own ideas for improving access and lowering costs but no one ever listens to me. |
Quote:
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that this clause includes regulation of interstate commerce. I think the position of those in favor of this bill will be that healthcare is over 1/6th of US commerce and practiced between the States and therefore the activities can be regulated and taxed by the Federal Government. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ---------- Quote:
If I'm a 60 to 65 year old doctor, I retire. So now, the remaining doctors have > 11-12% increase in patient load in the least paying bracket. The doctors become even more overworked, get to spend less time with each individual patient, and get paid less. That does not seem like a recipe for improved quality of care - oh, except for those 32 million voters. "General Welfare", indeed. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What makes the 32 million the lowest paying and most fraudulent bracket by the way? They will have access to the same private insurance that you do now. |
I dislike this forced buy-in requirement as much as you but I see nothing unconstitutional about it, especially considering past Supreme Court decisions. Perhaps we should amend the constitution.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
They are the lowest paying, most fraudulent bracket because they are medicare/medicaid. ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ---------- dippin, I appreciate the link. Again, it's really up to the courts and not me. edited: dippin, of the articles I scanned, the writer of your article takes the liberal point of view on every article he writes. He doesn't seem like an objective Constitutional scholar. Maybe it was just the ones that I saw... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would contend that SCOTUS is looking forward to a 10th amendment case and that they are no friend to the other two branches right now. With a law of such magnitude, all the pumps are primed for a conclusive decision regarding modern federalism. |
seems to me that alot of the question of what folk think copasetic or the contrary about this bill comes down to a matter of framing.
in the rest of the world one or another form of universal health care was instituted as an aspect of the construction of the welfare state after world war 2, typically during periods of left political ascendancy. the main arguments in favor of it were: access to basic health care is a fundamental human right. this is an ethical argument, both in itself (everyone should be treated with dignity) and in relative terms (capitalism produces enough material benefits such that they can and should be allocated to accord this dignity to everyone...and it empirically produces inequalities and worse, which the system can and should be called upon to address.) it makes sense from a political and business viewpoint as well; it addresses an important political question because it extends the legitimacy of the existing order by incorporating people that capitalism tends to exclude. it allows for a smoother reproduction of the labor pool and for treating health insurance costs as an externality. this decision to make health care available is poses a resource allocation question, but this should have been posed as also political, because it bloody well is political: the united states wastes more money on military expenditures than the next 10 countries behind it on the list put together. the united states obviously has the resources to do this; it simply up to now has chosen to emphasize death (military expenditures can be reduced to that, yes?) rather than quality of life as an overall political objective. there were other arguments of course, but these are the main types that were advanced. i will never understand why the obama administration was not more aggressive about making its case on ethical and political grounds. doing it would have pushed the ultra-right, which seem to be all that remains of the right now that the republican party is essentially in bed with the militia movement across the tea bagger coalition, into making arguments that would be crazy for them to make---like the uninsured should not be treated with the same dignity as others, that dignity correlates with income, that there are no human rights. and you've seen it---that asshat glenn beck and others arguing that social justice is code for communism, etc. the constitutional questions are subsidiary to political questions, and even those quaint strict construction folk know this given that strict construction is itself a politics in which it is politically acceptable to toss around quaint outmoded terms like "objectivity" which of course means really "written from a viewpoint sympathetic to mine"---which is what "objectivity" has always meant--a rhetoric of neutrality masking political positions built into the arguments or viewpoint of a piece---which is why the notion is quaint. so alot of this chaos, this noise from the right is an effect of there simply not having been adequately clear ethical and political arguments made from the outset. it think it's a problem. i never believed personally that the right was going to work in good faith to do something about health care---particularly not once they started acting as a tick sucking the money from the insurance industry et. al. |
From Reuters:
Healthcare overhaul faces new challenges | Reuters Healthcare Overhaul Faces New Challenges click to show And CBC's coverage: CBC News - World - Republicans vow to repeal health-care bill Republicans Vow Health-Care Fight Will Continue click to show So it seems the Republican party will fight this on all available fronts. I suppose that's not really a surprise. If I were a resident of the US, I would be saying that this doesn't go nearly far enough. Turns out that publicly funded health-care is working out pretty well for the rest of the world. I don't understand the objections here. Can someone who's opposed to the bill give a clear and concise summary of precisely what the negative impacts are going to be, and why? All I've seen so far is vague prophecies of doom with no root in the actual legislation being passed. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
— John Kenneth Galbraith |
Quote:
Can someone who is opposed to this bill please answer each one of the questions that I've posed please? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The first three require everyone to purchase insurance from the evil insurance companies. If you work for a company that furnishes insurance, I don't think you can take that money and use it to go out on your own. Many think that this plan is not revenue neutral especially when one includes the Doc fix and too generous Medicare reduction assumptions. |
Quote:
To the extent that coverage come out of my tax dollars, I object. The claim is this is covered by increased taxes on those earning over $200/$250K and by taxes on high cost insurance plans. Taxes on high cost insurance plans don't kick in until 2018. Over the last couple years, we've all seen how well government revenue projections can be counted on to be accurate. To the extent either of those fall short, the middle class taxpayer (me) gets to make up the difference. the fact that pre-ex's will be covered? If someone has a pre-existing condition because of a lifestyle choice, that's their problem, not mine. Somebody who has a pre-existing condition because of hereditary factors, probably ok. the fact that life time maximum pay outs are gone? That sounds an awful lot like expecting the insurance company write you a blank check for your medical care with no way to recoup their expenses. You get enough people and I don't care if you've got the entire world population in your insurance pool, you're still going to go broke. I kind of like the companies my 401K money is invested in to remain profitable, not bankrupt. the fact that you can keep what you have if you like it or get something new? That assumes my employer doesn't decide that it doesn't like the cost of health insurance plans any more, ditches the health care plan, pays the small penalty, and expects me to now pick up the cost of insurance, which I don't get any subsidy for. the fact that it is budget nuetral? That remains to be seen. See my comments about high cost insurance plans and assuming revenue streams for the next 10 years. |
So in your opinion what qualifies as a lifestyle choice?
Smoking?, Drinking?, being a driver? living in a new york? Choosing to have a baby? Moving into a bad neighborhood? It seems to be that the term lifestyle choice is pretty damn vague.... |
Quote:
A for ulitities... I don't know the answer to this but as I understand it (and I could be wrong), utilites are an essential service in the US. Can people have their power completely cut off, their access to fresh water, what about heat in the winter? All of these can be cut off in other parts of the world. With regards to food, it wasn't Obama that set the particular food plan in motion... it was Nixon (not to say there wasn't a plan to keep food cheap prior to him it's just that with Nixon it was reformed to create the system you have today). On top of this, you also have a little thing called food stamps (though I will admit, I don't know how that works). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Having a BMI over 25 or 30 can lead to a higher chance of heart attacks, but we simply don't know whether that specific heart attack was caused by obesity, genetics, stress, etc. So unless you eliminate everyone who ever did something unhealthy, you have no way of doing this. Being sunburned as a kid increases the risk for skin cancer, but whether or not skin cancer was caused specifically by that time someone got sunburned as a kid is impossible to tell. |
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"
following that logic, you'd think that places with universal health care would have obesity rates higher than the united states. but strangely the opposite is the case. so how does that work exactly? |
America's obesity epidemic is linked to its food policy (cheaper food at any cost) and not its health care policies.
|
well, it's linked to alot of things--industrial food production, the subsidy system, the ways in which industrial food is marketed both directly (adverts) and indirectly (sold to, say, public schools)---and ignorance about the consequences of industrial food and diet/nutrition in general. other stuff too---but of these two, you could say that the lack of adequate information about industrial food is a matter of both the educational and health care system. i think more about the french system than any other tho---because basic health care is free across the board, it makes sense for the state to be proactive about nutrition information (among other things) in order to try to influence folk to live more healthy lifestyles in the longer run as a cost-control move. so there's alot of information available about it. i've lived in france more than any other country outside the us so it's my alternate reference point.
|
Watch this. It takes page numbers, lines and all and TELLS you exactly what is wrong with this bill from the bill ITSELF.
Tell me and show me where these items this video quotes is NOT in the bill. |
Kind of getting tired of the unnecessarily large and all-caps inflammatory language. It stopped being amusing awhile ago, and does nothing to add to discussion here.
|
Quote:
Most of these aren't direct quotations, and they contain embellishments. Some of it is simply misleading and propagandist. It's not stating what exactly is wrong; it's stating things wrongly. And it's called fearmongering. No wonder so many people are confused, with shit like this floating around for months leading up to this. |
Quote:
After all every link I follow, every search I do... I cannot find this bill online ANYWHERE. So there's the challenge, show me the lines quoted and then let ME decide. ---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 AM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Knock yourself out. That's the version referenced in the video. It's difficult to post "out of contextization" here. |
As for the video, forgive me if I'm skeptical of a user who calls himself "1NationUnder1God3in1." The video says it is referring to H.R. 3200, which might be useful if it weren't for the fact that the bill the House passed is H.R. 3962. H.R. 3200 never even made it to a vote, and its last activity was Oct 14, 2009. But hey, pan, I'm glad you're making sure to get up-to-date information.
|
Quote:
And my challenge was not to show ANY context OTHER THAN the exact language written on the pages and lines the video quotes and letting ME decide what to believe. I showed primarily what I have and some of the reasons why I find this the wrong bill and all about power.... now show me the true text and let me decide what it means. Otherwise there isn't even debate. You simply say "out of context" but refuse to show how simply by posting the exact words from the pages and lines quoted. To me ANYONE can say "out of context" but if they don't show how then they have nothing to stand on but their beliefs and well, sorry my beliefs and seeing someone who actually did the work means more to me than "out of context". |
You'll note that the pdf the video links is also hosted on the website of one of the staunch Republican critics of the bill. Sorry if I don't trust her materials. If you're going to reference the bill, get it from a neutral website like GovTrack: H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) (Looking closely, this link is the updated version of the bill in October 2009, the video is based on an older version of the bill from July 2009 and that is the version they link to.)
But like I said, none of this matters because this isn't the bill that passed. It's not even the bill they've been discussing for 5 months now. |
Quote:
How are limitations on cost-sharing "healthcare rationing"? I can't say I'm completely familiar with how these thing work, but isn't this in reference to how much you pay as a co-payer? Maybe I'm confused because of the video.... And this is just one example, by the way. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ---------- Baraka: Pretty sure you're reading that section correctly. |
Wow Pan... you really have a lot of pent up anger still to get out.
I have to say, I started watching your attached video and thought... I don't believe that *any* US Administration could get away with passing something like this. It's CRAZY. It motivated me, a non-US citizen, to find the actual BILL and compare it to what was being said in your video... Here is what I discovered: Quote:
I don’t think I need to go on. I am just over 1:40 into this thing and when following along with the actual Bill it is clear to see that this video is not just a reinterpretation but a blatant attempt to skew what the Bill ACTUALLY says with lies, misdirection and bald faced fear mongering using the usual assortment of bugaboos. Try it yourself. Find the Bill online and see what it says vs. what this video says. |
Quote:
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. As for the bills HR3200 and HR3296 are relatively the same not much was changed. But if the bill numbers want someone to try to get others to believe the bill is almost totally different then so let them. Yes, there is a lot of anger towards this bill. From the way they passed it and had to find support for it, to the way it wasn't readily available, to the contents and way they are handling this. It is in no way good for this country. Even Reps. that voted for it say that. Some reps that voted for it admit they have no idea all that is in it. I find that somewhat foolish and it tells me they just wanted to pass something. 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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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). |
Quote:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf You can downlaod this to open it: Adobe - Adobe Reader download - All versions enjoy |
Quote:
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?) |
Quote:
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? |
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? |
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
so you don't believe the president when he says the bill is budget neutral and paid for? |
Quote:
Well, that and the fact that he's a politician and his lips moved - so naturally, he's lying. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
so ace...how about a link please?
|
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:
|
Section 9017-a: Except Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project