Have you read the actual bill? It says nothing of the kind.
Maybe before posting an article, you should actually check out the source material, instead of assuming the correctness of something written secondhand.
Old Trooper
14 years ago
CP, Your comprehension skills are partisan, ignorant and did you get paid to be a partisan whore or are you just an arrogant little turd that I could educate or crush with my 58 year old conservative bare hands?
You just pissed on my boots. That has consequences.
Post again here at your own risk. I can find your Momma’s basement and spank you.
“If you like what you’re getting, keep it,” Obama said. “Nobody is forcing you to shift.” … According to the Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.”
Timothy
14 years ago
From Hotair (CP, read the fine print)
Surprise! You can, as Obama promised, keep your current coverage — as long as it remains available. However, if your employer stops offering health-care benefits, or if you buy it privately and your insurer cancels your plan, you can’t just pick up another private plan. Enrollments will be closed as of the first day the bill becomes law.
That will have the effect of forcing millions of people into the public plan whether they want it or not. Even worse, if insurers get barred from attracting new customers — which this clause outlaws — then they will eventually see their rolls drained, thanks to the natural flow of the market as employers drop plans and skip the expense of offering medical insurance. It won’t take long at all for insurers to exit the market and leave the field for just the public plan, which will automatically get the customers of each individual insurer as they close up shop.
Does this bill outlaw private insurance? Literally, no, but in practical terms, it makes it an endangered species and creates an American single-payer system by default.
It has to pass first, though, and Blue Dog Democrats say they’ve seen enough:
trizzlor
14 years ago
Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
This is saying the exact opposite of what you claim – it’s called a grandfather clause and it guarantees that those who have insurance at the time the law passes will be able to keep it. If you read the remaining subsections (or even the IBD article you yourself linked) the exceptions kick in if your plan changes. In other words, if you like your health-care plan and it doesn’t change, you’ll be able to keep it. How does this at all contradict with what Obama is saying? Obviously he’s not guaranteeing that your coverage won’t change based on externalities, just like he can’t guarantee there won’t be a zombie attack that takes out your insurance company all together. All this cutting and pasting is melting your brain, Mike.
Government Care Cheaper? Hell No!
Um … yeah, from your own post, right there, just a few paragraphs above, in black on brown:
Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington’s coverage.
The CBO is talking about the overall cost not being covered by medicare/medicaid cuts, not about the cost of insurance to the individual. If you can’t be bothered to read the primary source, why do you bother posting the interpretation?
Another huge bill, costing trillions, that few people will read, let alone understand
While we’re on the subject, this “read the whole” bill meme you’ve been pushing is getting absurd. Congressmen have staffers and analysts who draft these bills and interpret them, the representatives’ job is to delegate properly and coalesce these interpretations. Likewise, the CEO of a major corporation doesn’t read every contract he signs – that’s why he has staff. If you actually read even a paragraph of the health care bill, you would see that it requires an understanding of legal intricacies that are beyond a single individual, no matter how bright. Any Congressman who seriously demands that they want to read the entire bill should be impeached immediately for wasting government time and money.
This is the same exact simplistic BS that Michael Moore was pushing with regards to the Patriot Act, and anyone who agrees with it hasn’t gotten past a high-school civics understanding of government.
I haven’t read the entire 615 pages in depth, trizzlor. But I did read quite a bit of it without closing the browser in disgust.
There are new “minimal” insurance requirements for mandated coverage. Coincidently, the self-absorbed Congress figures their superior care meets the “minimums”, so they have no need to participate in the substandard care they are creating for the rest of us. Also in the bill, annual rebates to policy holders, individual and corporate penalties, tax repercussions, required extra filings for reporting (extra accounting expenses), caps on premium charges, no refusal of anyone with preexisting conditions… every bit of it increasing costs of doing business, and simultaneously limiting profitability.
Gee… no surprise there.
If you have a clue about owning businesses, it’s as simple as this… if you do not make a profit, you die. Under the rules laid out by this bill, designed specifically to make private insurers either non profits or to bankrupt them, it will be only a matter of time before private insurers are a thing of the past. Today, you’re a happy camper. A few years down line, it will not make me happy to say to you…. na naaa nana naaaaa… because by then, the damage because of your inability to see what’s going on will be irreversible. For the America you dictate be handed to my granddaughter, I will never forgive you.
What will be curious… will Obama count the destruction of the private insurance industry – big employers – in a jobs lost category? Doubtful. But there is no lie on behalf of those of us trying desperately to make you open your eyes to see that this is a step designed to take the US to a single payer system with the government in charge.
The other thing you lib/progressives spin as a lie is the inevitable rationing of health care based on whom Obama’s America deems as worthy to receive treatment. Even the New York Times recognizes this, and even advocates it as a good thing.
America under Obama is moving into both infanticide, and geriatricide. And the silence of too many citizens signals the downfall of society.
As far as you thinking this is all cheaper? See above…. it’s only cheaper when you ration care.
Timothy
14 years ago
Hey folks, check out this you tube on universal health care (Canada)
Oh my! Look at these libs who are soooo desperate to keep you and I from discovering the truth. You would think that after cramming down our throats one huge legislative monster after another they might get a bit more clever in their scaremongering and disinformation tactics but no! Libs think we are all as DUMB AS THEY ARE!
FedUp
14 years ago
IMHO, if the dems ram this travesty through and We, The People, get it shoved up our collective a$$es, and then get voted out of office – they are as stupid as I think they are!!
I believe in miracles – I do NOT believe in the Gubmint!
I have read through parts of the bill and it looks like everything is covered but the kitchen sink–marital counseling, alcohol and drug rehab, it’s all there, (someone should check to see if therapeutic massage is included) Obama also said that we’d have to make some sacrifices but you can’t tell that by looking at the bill. Everything for everyone and it’s all free or cheap. No one can possibly have any complaints except to abstractly question where the money is going to come from.
I have a serious illness that costs my private insurance company about 30k per year and if this monstrosity passes I may just have to go Gault due to premium increases (healthier people will leave for the temporarily cheaper govt option driving up costs of private plans, they don’t know or care to know what portion of anti-tnf meds or heart scans will be covered by medicare or why that might be important, just as long as that yearly mammogram is covered they’ll be okay with it) I’ll divorce my husband so that I have zero income to show on paper and the government will pay ALL of what remains of my health care options.
Mike
14 years ago
CP-What a joke. You ask us if we read the bill when your own Demoncrats passed it and didn’t read it!! You need some more Kool Aid dude!!
If Congress passes this bill — and I think it is likely — those who voted in BHO will have voter remorse like we’ve never before seen. Nationalized health care will bring home to them what they’ve so far been able to avoid under BHO.
Not much consolation, but it’s all I have right now in the way of consolation.
BTW, even in the UK, people can purchase private health insurance to supplement the NHS. But BHO doesn’t want to allow even that much freedom of choice in the United States.
liam09
14 years ago
@trizzlor:
You are a fine specimen of the liberal cesspool. Do you actually believe the stuff you write?
If you actually read even a paragraph of the health care bill, you would see that it requires an understanding of legal intricacies that are beyond a single individual, no matter how bright. Any Congressman who seriously demands that they want to read the entire bill should be impeached immediately for wasting government time and money.
So if our elected officials lack the capacity or ability to read a bill (or they should get fired if they are able, and do so), then what is there to discuss? And who exactly is making the translation? Seems our founding fathers had no problem drafting one of the prime examples of working democracy the world has ever known. I have read it, studied it, and seemed to understand it. Oh but health care is far more advanced than a working civilization? Something the world seems to mess up time and time again (from the beginning of history mind you).
In no way do I think a third grader should be able to read and understand all the intricacies, but a college educated adult should mostly or fully understand the wording. Credit companies have tried to pull this and so does our government. It doesn’t seem to end well for anyone.
If your argument is that people who have insurance and it doesn’t change, get to keep it, what then constitutes change? A change in policy? Well obviously insurance companies would most likely freeze all the policies out of fear that the government would use that as a clause for ‘change’ (thus they lose clients at that point). So what happens then? Private insurance companies are then forced into pretty much not being able to compete. Competitive health care would absolutely end. That is what our government is essentially wanting anyway. Regulations are far more important than creating competitive markets, as far as this liberal government is concerned. Competitive markets are a staple of conservative thought. With regulations, come taxes, more taxes equal more money for government pocket books.
It doesn’t matter anyway, because if or when it is passed, I assume all the liberals will be the first ones crying when they have to wait 24 hours to even see a nurse. I get the license to laugh.
Trizzlor said; “Any Congressman who seriously demands that they want to read the entire bill should be impeached immediately for wasting government time and money.”
Impeachment for wasting time and money? ROFL, they seem to be good at that regardless whether they read the bills or not. Plus, there is nothing illegal about wasting time or money. If it were, all the members of Congress will be impeached and/or incarcerated, LMAO. This is an asinine statement. Okay, enough with the laughs.
Actually the article that Mike linked contradicts your comment. You said; “The CBO is talking about the overall cost not being covered by medicare/medicaid cuts, not about the cost of insurance to the individual.” Nope, it in fact doesn’t.
If a reader were to read the entire second and third paragraphs of the article linked to this thread, he or she wouldn’t be able to make a connection with your statement and what is actually said in the article. It actually says that the Congressional Budget Office director felt that the legislation in question will raise health care costs for American families and that the Medicaid and Medicare cuts that are being proposed with the legislation will not be enough to change this trend. I don’t know if I’ve misconstrued your comment(forgive me if I did), but if you think the cost for insuring America medically is the only thing that should count when determining the price for this legislation, then you’re wrong and I am glad you are not my representative.
Obama in his American Medical Association address made it sound like Americans will keep their freedom on their medical coverage. The fact that he is supporting this legislation when it will remove health savings accounts which gives Americans larger control than the government over their medical care is a stance contradicting his AMA June 15th, 2009 statement.
Now if you still feel that this legislation is pulling America in the right direction in regards to health care reform, then I honestly respect that. If it passes, then I do hope America can get better health coverage and ultimately live healthier lives(in truth, this is wishful thinking unless we could get them off the couch). Regardless whether this would make health care cheaper or not, one thing is for certain. It won’t be cheap for the succeeding generation who will foot the trillion dollar tab.
trizzlor
14 years ago
This is a cut & paste job that is flat-out FUD. Read the bill yourself and find a passage that forces you to join the government plan. The one you quoted describes only how older plans will be grandfathered in, after that there will be a five year grace period at the end of which insurance companies will have to conform to the new government regulations. You can stay on your current plan, switch to the government plan, or opt for a valid private plan at any point in time.
To be clear, I’m not very happy with this bill; particularly in it’s high cost and low scope. However, if this bill passes, it will be the final nail in the coffin of limited government: let’s not mince words, there will be no “buyer’s remorse” when the fastest growing voting blocs in the nation depend on the government to provide basic care and know that the Democrats fought for it. You have the unique opportunity to drive some debate on this issue; to identify real weaknesses; to honestly discuss a viable conservative alternative. Instead you squander it on tired platitudes that you yourself don’t even understand – that 30 seconds of primary-source reading would invalidate. Patting yourself on the back over future “buyer’s remorse” and “voting the bastards out” is apparently all you have left.
trizzlor
14 years ago
@liam09 & Ryan: Show me a major corporation where the executives actually read the contracts that they sign. Management goes to school for years to learn how to manage, lawyers learn to understand the documents, statisticians learn to interpret the data and make predictions – all of these people work together specifically to prevent one person from reading the bill. If you can’t understand the divide between specialization and management then you shouldn’t be restructuring the government.
@MataHarley: The minimums are definitely the most important and overlooked aspect of this bill. That being said, I haven’t understood their full scope yet enough to comment :).
To your other point, I doubt you truly believe that our current system is free of rationing. We probably differ on this, but I’d rather have to get through a government bureaucrat whose concern is that I have the paperwork in triplicate than a corporate bureaucrat whose concern is that I get as little coverage as possible.
“You can stay on your current plan, switch to the government plan, or opt for a valid private plan at any point in time.”
When the govt specifies each and every item that must be on the plan, the deductibles, the copays, the max out of pocket, controls underwriting, profits, enrollment etc, they are in effect ALL government plans and then the only real issue at hand becomes price.
Here’s what I want: An HSA with no maternity, no mental health, no “free” annual check ups in order to reduce my premiums. Furthermore, I want private health insurance to reimburse for the EVENT rather than according to the date services are rendered. For example, if my house partially burns down my insurance estimates what it will cost to fix it and hands out a sack of cash. If at some future date I find more damage due to the fire I can go back and get more money since the event that caused that damage occured while my policy was in effect. Health insurance should be payable in the same manner that property and casualty is. Get a diabetes diagnosis? Insurance estimates what this is going to cost you for the rest of your life and hands you the money. If you lose your job due to chronic illness or cancer you’ll have all the money you need to pay for treatment, disputes over damages would be reconciled the same way they are with P&C.
Here’s another idea: Instead of micromanaging insurance companies plans and calling that fair competition, how about the government just directly hire the doctors and open its own hospitals for the indigent. Instead of medicare for all, how about VA for all?
Anyone check out the data collection and “no limits” on it’s sharing to all federal agencies? Sec. 332.
For both enrollee applicants and their beneficiaries….race, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, socioeconomic “status” (i.e. education, employment and income).
Triz… I’m not sure what debate you’re looking for that hasn’t already been rejected by those who plain don’t care to know. You can keep your insurance coverage until they are driven out of business. What they offer you will have to conform to the new federal standards. The cost is woefully low-balled, and can’t even be paid for by their tax proposals. And when… like other countries… the feds find themselves underwater, they will decide who lives and who dies.
Instead, the world is filled with bozo’s going “nuh UH… it doesn’t say that”. There is no logic presented that seems to get thru someone who believes they are going to get magnificent health care for free.
I assure you, I’m not “patting myself” on the back. I’m bloody livid at the stubborness and stupidity of the American voter.
And cut the crap on the “viable conservative alternative”. They can’t even get a seat at the table. Their ideas on creating private organizations for more group plans at better prices is rejected because it’s not “government run”. We can’t cut costs without elimination of the frivolous lawsuits that drive up costs because Congress… majority shyster lawyers… won’t abandon the great American way of suing your way out of anything.
The problem is, the corrupt and power hungry are in charge. The GOP has better, but not great ideas. At least they wouldn’t dump us into the economic toilet… which is precisely the big picture.
But noooo… we need to tank the economy and the dollar because everyone wants something for free… and can’t seem to absorb the reality that the cost is beyond sustainable… it is America-altering.
And BTW… there was not a thing “cut and paste” about *my* comment.
liam09
14 years ago
The ‘unique’ opportunity? It is conservative thought (at its very core) that the person who makes their money, knows how to spend it better than the government does. That limited government is essential. That what Obama is/has been doing is absolutely atrocious. An amature, no experience chicago politician, with a long list of bad friends, is driving our country into the ground. [Wait for Bush or Sarah Palin retort here].
It is our belief that competitive markets are a good thing. Especially health care. Who is going to listen now, if they already haven’t in the past? We are going to end up 10 years down a really bad road, and the liberals will still find some way to try and pin this on conservative america. Point and blame has become the staple of our politics (both sides of course).
At some point, things are going to get volatile. I think when enough people tragically get screwed over by our new health care system, things will start to turn ugly. Obamalomadingdong is acting like a thief that takes someones credit card, parties all night with his friends, maxes it out and leaves the owner with a bill they are now obligated to pay. I sure as heck am not partying. Like Marie Antoinette the people will eventually get tired of his lavish and luxurious celebrity lifestyle and come for his head. He promises us all cake, all the while we are barely surviving.
And yes I know, Marie Antoinette wasn’t reported as to actually saying the whole,”let them eat cake.” quote people attribute to her.
Trizzlor: Did you even stop to think FOR ONE SECOND about where the money is going to come from to pay for that “cheaper” plan?
You are going to pay HIGHER TAXES to cover those costs.
There is nothing free in this world except the abundance of willful liberal ignorance and doublespeak which you so clearly have mastered.
Jason
14 years ago
Old Trooper shows you how to look like an ignorant jerk on the Internet.
>CP, Your comprehension skills are partisan, ignorant and did you get paid to be a partisan whore or are you just an arrogant little turd that I could educate or crush with my 58 year old conservative bare hands?
You just pissed on my boots. That has consequences.
Post again here at your own risk. I can find your Momma’s basement and spank you.
Turns out CP was right. There is no gray area here. Individual care will not be outlawed.
So are any of you man enough to admit you were wrong without twisting the definition? What about you, Mike? You man enough to admit you blew it?
First of all Jason, the House and Senate versions are different. The House version prohibits new enrolls on the day of, and there after of year one. All private insurers will have a certain amount of time to be constructed to the government’s criteria.
While we don’t know the final bill until reconciled, I will repeat what we do know… as I said above: they are making the private insurers into either a non profit, or bankrupt company.
So absolutely, you pick your own insurer… for a while at least. Like within one year for you and your dependents. After that, you’ll have the government one size fits all version from either the government, or a private insurer…. until the private entity goes broke and out of business, that is.
So Jason… since you have no forward vision, who picks out what clothes you’re gonna wear tomorrow? Or is it made easy by having a uniform?
liam09
14 years ago
Jason, what I don’t think you understand, is that the burden of proof is on /you/.
Please outline all the advantages to socialized health care over privately (market driven) competitive health care, for ignorant knuckle draggers like us. Please reference living examples around the world that provide a higher standard of care, and please match that standard of care with similar coverage that can be purchased privately here in the U.S. I.E. A country that has a bottom line higher than the top line here, of care I can purchase. And what is the difference?
Since you seem to know what you are talking about, I am just curious… why is it that so many Canadians flood our borders to attend our hospitals and clinics? Why do people within socialized health care truly value those hospitals that are not socialized? They too have the ability to choose private health care just like you are pointing out (e.g. Canada).
Would you say that if you have an entity like the federal government taking over parts of the private sector, that competition then pretty much slows or seizes completely? Except of course for the very high dollar private care that will still be around, only available to the very wealthy. But even then, how does that play with having to conform within the new federal regulations?
Is it fair to force all people to have medical insurance? I am forced to have auto insurance if I have a car and drive it, but I can also choose not to drive my car and not pay for insurance. Everyone will most likely be forced to pay for insurance or will be fined if they do not have it. Please explain the advantages of this, and how America is truly different with these changes than say… communist Russia? Please tell me about Russian health care.. i heard it was pretty horrible, but what do I know. Please inform us. The burden is not on us to be men and prove anything. It is on you to prove that you aren’t an Obamalama-ding-dong-mega-tron-bot, and just spouting off scripture from your savior. That what is suggested is really in the best interest of America and the world.
Jason
14 years ago
Answer: Mata and Liam continue snide tone and don’t admit that they and their ilk spent all day demonstrably misleading people.
All of your points are legitimately debatable. What is not debatable is what that individual health care plans will be outlawed. This was your talking point all day and it is false. If you want to discuss how bad Canada is, make that your point. But when you repeat falsehoods all day and don’t admit to them, it cheapens your points.
You sound like a bunch of lawyers. Man up.
trizzlor
14 years ago
Mata and Karen, unless you’re proposing no regulation of health-care whatsoever, you need to show something more than conjecture for why this increase in regulation is going to bankrupt insurance companies and provide inferior care. As for the debate, Jason’s putting it bluntly, but the fact is there could be a debate about this policy if everyone wasn’t blowing so much smoke with half-quotes and exaggerations. I think it’s fair to correct these simple points before getting into the predictions of economic collapse and such. Of course, the broken telephone got all the way to Hannity tonight, who was wailing about how “government will ban private coverage from day one”.
liam: While I’m not advocating for this particular plan, a massive amount of reform is certainly necessary. We spend significantly more on health-care than other countries while getting inferior or equivalent care. Perhaps you know some Canadians that are flooding to the borders, but non-anecdotal polls show that they’re happier with their coverage than we are. Many people flock to Israel for their superior care even though they have socialized health-care, does that make it the right choice (actually, Israel has the best public/private balance I’ve seen, but their private organizations are non-profits)? Likewise, about the same number of people don’t get treatment in Canada because of those wait-times everyone’s talking about as don’t get treatment here because they can’t afford it. And all this with lower overall spending. Lastly, around 3/4ths of the US feels it important that government offer a public option [CBS, WSJ].
Is it fair to force all people to have medical insurance?
Yes it is, when lack of insurance costs the government in emergency and other indirect fees. When I was a teenager I thought seat-belt laws were absurd – what right does the government have to dictate my own safety? As I got older, I learned about “externalities”, and how high the government cost is to clean someone’s brains off the highway because they weren’t buckled and insured. Now I don’t complain.
Mike:
You are going to pay HIGHER TAXES to cover those costs.
Yes, and considering my bracket and state it’s going to be quite a hike. At the same time, a lot of my friends & family who are uninsured won’t have to lose their job or drop out of business school if they get injured because the government is making an investment in them. I’m quite comfortable with that trade.
Missy
14 years ago
This is copy and paste will also add some bolding:
Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these “qualified plans.” If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year “grace period” to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you’ll have less time.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract — such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year — you’ll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
When you file your taxes, if you can’t prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you’ll be fined thousands of dollars — as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size — and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).
It’s one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone’s consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you’ll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.
The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors’ health benefits under Medicare.
There’s plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and “the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.”
This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?
Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to “community transformation grants,” home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers — and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.
The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
They have good reason to be. If you’re diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients’ needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.
Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. betsy@hospitalinfection.org
Trizzlor said; “@liam09 & Ryan: Show me a major corporation where the executives actually read the contracts that they sign. Management goes to school for years to learn how to manage, lawyers learn to understand the documents, statisticians learn to interpret the data and make predictions – all of these people work together specifically to prevent one person from reading the bill. If you can’t understand the divide between specialization and management then you shouldn’t be restructuring the government.”
Yeah, apparently you didn’t read my comment. Now if you have a team reading the comments on this blog and explaining it to you like the Congressmen and women have to “interpret” the bills to them, then your team failed you miserably and they need to take a bloody English class(sarcasm).
@trizzlor: I am so thrilled that you are in such good financial shape that you can endure the added burden of higher taxes to pay for the dubious quality of care that the few currently uninsured that will be helped by Obama care will receive.
What a shame you don’t currently take that money and help those family and friends who need it instead of demanding the government force the rest of us to pay into a system we find morally reprehensible.
Obama care will NOT solve the health care problems of the uninsured and will make health care for all of us more expensive at a lower quality.
While I’m not advocating for this particular plan, a massive amount of reform is certainly necessary.
Absolutely agree on reform
When I was a teenager I thought seat-belt laws were absurd – what right does the government have to dictate my own safety? As I got older, I learned about “externalities”, and how high the government cost is to clean someone’s brains off the highway because they weren’t buckled and insured. Now I don’t complain.
Should I follow this logic all the way through (on the safety part)? If you are concerned about how much it costs for the government to clean up road-brains, and you aren’t the least bit concerned about the price tag of not only this FIRST stimulus package, but also socialized health care, there is a huge disconnect in your reasoning abilities in this. We could end up owing almost 2 trillion (or more) before Obama is even done with his first year! The only thing liberals have constantly reinforced to me is: Big Government is Great! Unless of course it puts them in jail, keeps them from smoking weed, does not allow them to get married to their gay friend (thats right, Obama is against it), and makes them pay more money. What? Does that really make sense at all?!
Lastly, tell me any program that the government runs better and more efficiently than the private sector? Keep in mind, this all has to be for the benefit of the country, correct? So what happens when all of a sudden government ends up being overwhelmingly conservative republicans that disagree with the socialized plan? Would this system then suffer and end up costing us even more?
If the current administration really cared about the direction of this country, they would use a /lot/ more discretion about the packages they are pushing through. We all know the ‘transparent’ government thing is bull. But at the very minimum, there needs to be a little more thought into the HUGE, long term plans that are being rushed through the whitehouse. I heard Old Man Wisdom lived there once, but now he just jet sets around the world.
Aqua
14 years ago
I only have one question for the left. If this is the bestest healthcare bill evah, why is congress opting out? Why is congress exempt from this or any other law they pass? Why?
Just to elaborate on what you merely implied, as the uniformed, and/or uninformed reader may need to have it ‘splained to him.
After a period of time, private insurers will be driven out of the market by requiring all NEW insurance to be through the sate. When a business has no new customers, and the older ones are lost to attrition, then even if it’s “legal” for some people to retain their coverage, the insurers won’t be around any more, so the end is the same.
And don’t forget what Obama says about “hard choices” when grandma requires tens, or hundreds of thousands of dollars of care, and the system is bankrupt, well, if they can’t figure out where that’s going, they are pretty stupid. Alternatively, they may not care, which is far worse than stupidity.
OK, so, just exactly what is it that’s “misleading” about this statement?
The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
Now you know what shuck and jive act means.
Have you read the actual bill? It says nothing of the kind.
Maybe before posting an article, you should actually check out the source material, instead of assuming the correctness of something written secondhand.
CP, Your comprehension skills are partisan, ignorant and did you get paid to be a partisan whore or are you just an arrogant little turd that I could educate or crush with my 58 year old conservative bare hands?
You just pissed on my boots. That has consequences.
Post again here at your own risk. I can find your Momma’s basement and spank you.
CP
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/07/house-health-care-bill-makes-private.html
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/max/house-healthcare-bill-bombshell-individual-private
http://www.thefoxnation.com/medical-insurance/2009/07/16/house-bill-makes-individual-private-medical-insurance-illegal
http://politisite.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/provision-in-healthcare-bill-would-make-private-insurance-illegal/
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/16/does-obamacare-outlaw-private-insurance/
Also, price estimates for this program have already topped the 1 trillion mark and rising. We don’t have the money for this.
“If you like what you’re getting, keep it,” Obama said. “Nobody is forcing you to shift.”
…
According to the Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.”
From Hotair (CP, read the fine print)
Surprise! You can, as Obama promised, keep your current coverage — as long as it remains available. However, if your employer stops offering health-care benefits, or if you buy it privately and your insurer cancels your plan, you can’t just pick up another private plan. Enrollments will be closed as of the first day the bill becomes law.
That will have the effect of forcing millions of people into the public plan whether they want it or not. Even worse, if insurers get barred from attracting new customers — which this clause outlaws — then they will eventually see their rolls drained, thanks to the natural flow of the market as employers drop plans and skip the expense of offering medical insurance. It won’t take long at all for insurers to exit the market and leave the field for just the public plan, which will automatically get the customers of each individual insurer as they close up shop.
Does this bill outlaw private insurance? Literally, no, but in practical terms, it makes it an endangered species and creates an American single-payer system by default.
It has to pass first, though, and Blue Dog Democrats say they’ve seen enough:
This is saying the exact opposite of what you claim – it’s called a grandfather clause and it guarantees that those who have insurance at the time the law passes will be able to keep it. If you read the remaining subsections (or even the IBD article you yourself linked) the exceptions kick in if your plan changes. In other words, if you like your health-care plan and it doesn’t change, you’ll be able to keep it. How does this at all contradict with what Obama is saying? Obviously he’s not guaranteeing that your coverage won’t change based on externalities, just like he can’t guarantee there won’t be a zombie attack that takes out your insurance company all together. All this cutting and pasting is melting your brain, Mike.
Um … yeah, from your own post, right there, just a few paragraphs above, in black on brown:
The CBO is talking about the overall cost not being covered by medicare/medicaid cuts, not about the cost of insurance to the individual. If you can’t be bothered to read the primary source, why do you bother posting the interpretation?
While we’re on the subject, this “read the whole” bill meme you’ve been pushing is getting absurd. Congressmen have staffers and analysts who draft these bills and interpret them, the representatives’ job is to delegate properly and coalesce these interpretations. Likewise, the CEO of a major corporation doesn’t read every contract he signs – that’s why he has staff. If you actually read even a paragraph of the health care bill, you would see that it requires an understanding of legal intricacies that are beyond a single individual, no matter how bright. Any Congressman who seriously demands that they want to read the entire bill should be impeached immediately for wasting government time and money.
This is the same exact simplistic BS that Michael Moore was pushing with regards to the Patriot Act, and anyone who agrees with it hasn’t gotten past a high-school civics understanding of government.
I haven’t read the entire 615 pages in depth, trizzlor. But I did read quite a bit of it without closing the browser in disgust.
There are new “minimal” insurance requirements for mandated coverage. Coincidently, the self-absorbed Congress figures their superior care meets the “minimums”, so they have no need to participate in the substandard care they are creating for the rest of us. Also in the bill, annual rebates to policy holders, individual and corporate penalties, tax repercussions, required extra filings for reporting (extra accounting expenses), caps on premium charges, no refusal of anyone with preexisting conditions… every bit of it increasing costs of doing business, and simultaneously limiting profitability.
Gee… no surprise there.
If you have a clue about owning businesses, it’s as simple as this… if you do not make a profit, you die. Under the rules laid out by this bill, designed specifically to make private insurers either non profits or to bankrupt them, it will be only a matter of time before private insurers are a thing of the past. Today, you’re a happy camper. A few years down line, it will not make me happy to say to you…. na naaa nana naaaaa… because by then, the damage because of your inability to see what’s going on will be irreversible. For the America you dictate be handed to my granddaughter, I will never forgive you.
What will be curious… will Obama count the destruction of the private insurance industry – big employers – in a jobs lost category? Doubtful. But there is no lie on behalf of those of us trying desperately to make you open your eyes to see that this is a step designed to take the US to a single payer system with the government in charge.
The other thing you lib/progressives spin as a lie is the inevitable rationing of health care based on whom Obama’s America deems as worthy to receive treatment. Even the New York Times recognizes this, and even advocates it as a good thing.
America under Obama is moving into both infanticide, and geriatricide. And the silence of too many citizens signals the downfall of society.
As far as you thinking this is all cheaper? See above…. it’s only cheaper when you ration care.
Hey folks, check out this you tube on universal health care (Canada)
It’s 3/4 th down the page (20 mins long)
Hey CP….is this what you want?????
http://www.politicallore.com/writers/alexander-nobles/lets-fix-healthcare-just-not-this-way/1058%5D
***Courtesy Embed by Mike****
Oh my! Look at these libs who are soooo desperate to keep you and I from discovering the truth. You would think that after cramming down our throats one huge legislative monster after another they might get a bit more clever in their scaremongering and disinformation tactics but no! Libs think we are all as DUMB AS THEY ARE!
IMHO, if the dems ram this travesty through and We, The People, get it shoved up our collective a$$es, and then get voted out of office – they are as stupid as I think they are!!
I believe in miracles – I do NOT believe in the Gubmint!
I have read through parts of the bill and it looks like everything is covered but the kitchen sink–marital counseling, alcohol and drug rehab, it’s all there, (someone should check to see if therapeutic massage is included) Obama also said that we’d have to make some sacrifices but you can’t tell that by looking at the bill. Everything for everyone and it’s all free or cheap. No one can possibly have any complaints except to abstractly question where the money is going to come from.
I have a serious illness that costs my private insurance company about 30k per year and if this monstrosity passes I may just have to go Gault due to premium increases (healthier people will leave for the temporarily cheaper govt option driving up costs of private plans, they don’t know or care to know what portion of anti-tnf meds or heart scans will be covered by medicare or why that might be important, just as long as that yearly mammogram is covered they’ll be okay with it) I’ll divorce my husband so that I have zero income to show on paper and the government will pay ALL of what remains of my health care options.
CP-What a joke. You ask us if we read the bill when your own Demoncrats passed it and didn’t read it!! You need some more Kool Aid dude!!
If Congress passes this bill — and I think it is likely — those who voted in BHO will have voter remorse like we’ve never before seen. Nationalized health care will bring home to them what they’ve so far been able to avoid under BHO.
Not much consolation, but it’s all I have right now in the way of consolation.
BTW, even in the UK, people can purchase private health insurance to supplement the NHS. But BHO doesn’t want to allow even that much freedom of choice in the United States.
@trizzlor:
You are a fine specimen of the liberal cesspool. Do you actually believe the stuff you write?
So if our elected officials lack the capacity or ability to read a bill (or they should get fired if they are able, and do so), then what is there to discuss? And who exactly is making the translation? Seems our founding fathers had no problem drafting one of the prime examples of working democracy the world has ever known. I have read it, studied it, and seemed to understand it. Oh but health care is far more advanced than a working civilization? Something the world seems to mess up time and time again (from the beginning of history mind you).
In no way do I think a third grader should be able to read and understand all the intricacies, but a college educated adult should mostly or fully understand the wording. Credit companies have tried to pull this and so does our government. It doesn’t seem to end well for anyone.
If your argument is that people who have insurance and it doesn’t change, get to keep it, what then constitutes change? A change in policy? Well obviously insurance companies would most likely freeze all the policies out of fear that the government would use that as a clause for ‘change’ (thus they lose clients at that point). So what happens then? Private insurance companies are then forced into pretty much not being able to compete. Competitive health care would absolutely end. That is what our government is essentially wanting anyway. Regulations are far more important than creating competitive markets, as far as this liberal government is concerned. Competitive markets are a staple of conservative thought. With regulations, come taxes, more taxes equal more money for government pocket books.
It doesn’t matter anyway, because if or when it is passed, I assume all the liberals will be the first ones crying when they have to wait 24 hours to even see a nurse. I get the license to laugh.
Trizzlor said; “Any Congressman who seriously demands that they want to read the entire bill should be impeached immediately for wasting government time and money.”
Impeachment for wasting time and money? ROFL, they seem to be good at that regardless whether they read the bills or not. Plus, there is nothing illegal about wasting time or money. If it were, all the members of Congress will be impeached and/or incarcerated, LMAO. This is an asinine statement. Okay, enough with the laughs.
Actually the article that Mike linked contradicts your comment. You said; “The CBO is talking about the overall cost not being covered by medicare/medicaid cuts, not about the cost of insurance to the individual.” Nope, it in fact doesn’t.
If a reader were to read the entire second and third paragraphs of the article linked to this thread, he or she wouldn’t be able to make a connection with your statement and what is actually said in the article. It actually says that the Congressional Budget Office director felt that the legislation in question will raise health care costs for American families and that the Medicaid and Medicare cuts that are being proposed with the legislation will not be enough to change this trend. I don’t know if I’ve misconstrued your comment(forgive me if I did), but if you think the cost for insuring America medically is the only thing that should count when determining the price for this legislation, then you’re wrong and I am glad you are not my representative.
Obama in his American Medical Association address made it sound like Americans will keep their freedom on their medical coverage. The fact that he is supporting this legislation when it will remove health savings accounts which gives Americans larger control than the government over their medical care is a stance contradicting his AMA June 15th, 2009 statement.
Now if you still feel that this legislation is pulling America in the right direction in regards to health care reform, then I honestly respect that. If it passes, then I do hope America can get better health coverage and ultimately live healthier lives(in truth, this is wishful thinking unless we could get them off the couch). Regardless whether this would make health care cheaper or not, one thing is for certain. It won’t be cheap for the succeeding generation who will foot the trillion dollar tab.
This is a cut & paste job that is flat-out FUD. Read the bill yourself and find a passage that forces you to join the government plan. The one you quoted describes only how older plans will be grandfathered in, after that there will be a five year grace period at the end of which insurance companies will have to conform to the new government regulations. You can stay on your current plan, switch to the government plan, or opt for a valid private plan at any point in time.
To be clear, I’m not very happy with this bill; particularly in it’s high cost and low scope. However, if this bill passes, it will be the final nail in the coffin of limited government: let’s not mince words, there will be no “buyer’s remorse” when the fastest growing voting blocs in the nation depend on the government to provide basic care and know that the Democrats fought for it. You have the unique opportunity to drive some debate on this issue; to identify real weaknesses; to honestly discuss a viable conservative alternative. Instead you squander it on tired platitudes that you yourself don’t even understand – that 30 seconds of primary-source reading would invalidate. Patting yourself on the back over future “buyer’s remorse” and “voting the bastards out” is apparently all you have left.
@liam09 & Ryan: Show me a major corporation where the executives actually read the contracts that they sign. Management goes to school for years to learn how to manage, lawyers learn to understand the documents, statisticians learn to interpret the data and make predictions – all of these people work together specifically to prevent one person from reading the bill. If you can’t understand the divide between specialization and management then you shouldn’t be restructuring the government.
@MataHarley: The minimums are definitely the most important and overlooked aspect of this bill. That being said, I haven’t understood their full scope yet enough to comment :).
To your other point, I doubt you truly believe that our current system is free of rationing. We probably differ on this, but I’d rather have to get through a government bureaucrat whose concern is that I have the paperwork in triplicate than a corporate bureaucrat whose concern is that I get as little coverage as possible.
“You can stay on your current plan, switch to the government plan, or opt for a valid private plan at any point in time.”
When the govt specifies each and every item that must be on the plan, the deductibles, the copays, the max out of pocket, controls underwriting, profits, enrollment etc, they are in effect ALL government plans and then the only real issue at hand becomes price.
Here’s what I want: An HSA with no maternity, no mental health, no “free” annual check ups in order to reduce my premiums. Furthermore, I want private health insurance to reimburse for the EVENT rather than according to the date services are rendered. For example, if my house partially burns down my insurance estimates what it will cost to fix it and hands out a sack of cash. If at some future date I find more damage due to the fire I can go back and get more money since the event that caused that damage occured while my policy was in effect. Health insurance should be payable in the same manner that property and casualty is. Get a diabetes diagnosis? Insurance estimates what this is going to cost you for the rest of your life and hands you the money. If you lose your job due to chronic illness or cancer you’ll have all the money you need to pay for treatment, disputes over damages would be reconciled the same way they are with P&C.
Here’s another idea: Instead of micromanaging insurance companies plans and calling that fair competition, how about the government just directly hire the doctors and open its own hospitals for the indigent. Instead of medicare for all, how about VA for all?
Anyone check out the data collection and “no limits” on it’s sharing to all federal agencies? Sec. 332.
For both enrollee applicants and their beneficiaries….race, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, socioeconomic “status” (i.e. education, employment and income).
Triz… I’m not sure what debate you’re looking for that hasn’t already been rejected by those who plain don’t care to know. You can keep your insurance coverage until they are driven out of business. What they offer you will have to conform to the new federal standards. The cost is woefully low-balled, and can’t even be paid for by their tax proposals. And when… like other countries… the feds find themselves underwater, they will decide who lives and who dies.
Instead, the world is filled with bozo’s going “nuh UH… it doesn’t say that”. There is no logic presented that seems to get thru someone who believes they are going to get magnificent health care for free.
I assure you, I’m not “patting myself” on the back. I’m bloody livid at the stubborness and stupidity of the American voter.
And cut the crap on the “viable conservative alternative”. They can’t even get a seat at the table. Their ideas on creating private organizations for more group plans at better prices is rejected because it’s not “government run”. We can’t cut costs without elimination of the frivolous lawsuits that drive up costs because Congress… majority shyster lawyers… won’t abandon the great American way of suing your way out of anything.
The problem is, the corrupt and power hungry are in charge. The GOP has better, but not great ideas. At least they wouldn’t dump us into the economic toilet… which is precisely the big picture.
But noooo… we need to tank the economy and the dollar because everyone wants something for free… and can’t seem to absorb the reality that the cost is beyond sustainable… it is America-altering.
And BTW… there was not a thing “cut and paste” about *my* comment.
The ‘unique’ opportunity? It is conservative thought (at its very core) that the person who makes their money, knows how to spend it better than the government does. That limited government is essential. That what Obama is/has been doing is absolutely atrocious. An amature, no experience chicago politician, with a long list of bad friends, is driving our country into the ground. [Wait for Bush or Sarah Palin retort here].
It is our belief that competitive markets are a good thing. Especially health care. Who is going to listen now, if they already haven’t in the past? We are going to end up 10 years down a really bad road, and the liberals will still find some way to try and pin this on conservative america. Point and blame has become the staple of our politics (both sides of course).
At some point, things are going to get volatile. I think when enough people tragically get screwed over by our new health care system, things will start to turn ugly. Obamalomadingdong is acting like a thief that takes someones credit card, parties all night with his friends, maxes it out and leaves the owner with a bill they are now obligated to pay. I sure as heck am not partying. Like Marie Antoinette the people will eventually get tired of his lavish and luxurious celebrity lifestyle and come for his head. He promises us all cake, all the while we are barely surviving.
And yes I know, Marie Antoinette wasn’t reported as to actually saying the whole,”let them eat cake.” quote people attribute to her.
Trizzlor: Did you even stop to think FOR ONE SECOND about where the money is going to come from to pay for that “cheaper” plan?
You are going to pay HIGHER TAXES to cover those costs.
There is nothing free in this world except the abundance of willful liberal ignorance and doublespeak which you so clearly have mastered.
Old Trooper shows you how to look like an ignorant jerk on the Internet.
>CP, Your comprehension skills are partisan, ignorant and did you get paid to be a partisan whore or are you just an arrogant little turd that I could educate or crush with my 58 year old conservative bare hands?
You just pissed on my boots. That has consequences.
Post again here at your own risk. I can find your Momma’s basement and spank you.
Turns out CP was right. There is no gray area here. Individual care will not be outlawed.
So are any of you man enough to admit you were wrong without twisting the definition? What about you, Mike? You man enough to admit you blew it?
My guess is not.
First of all Jason, the House and Senate versions are different. The House version prohibits new enrolls on the day of, and there after of year one. All private insurers will have a certain amount of time to be constructed to the government’s criteria.
While we don’t know the final bill until reconciled, I will repeat what we do know… as I said above: they are making the private insurers into either a non profit, or bankrupt company.
So absolutely, you pick your own insurer… for a while at least. Like within one year for you and your dependents. After that, you’ll have the government one size fits all version from either the government, or a private insurer…. until the private entity goes broke and out of business, that is.
So Jason… since you have no forward vision, who picks out what clothes you’re gonna wear tomorrow? Or is it made easy by having a uniform?
Jason, what I don’t think you understand, is that the burden of proof is on /you/.
Please outline all the advantages to socialized health care over privately (market driven) competitive health care, for ignorant knuckle draggers like us. Please reference living examples around the world that provide a higher standard of care, and please match that standard of care with similar coverage that can be purchased privately here in the U.S. I.E. A country that has a bottom line higher than the top line here, of care I can purchase. And what is the difference?
Since you seem to know what you are talking about, I am just curious… why is it that so many Canadians flood our borders to attend our hospitals and clinics? Why do people within socialized health care truly value those hospitals that are not socialized? They too have the ability to choose private health care just like you are pointing out (e.g. Canada).
Would you say that if you have an entity like the federal government taking over parts of the private sector, that competition then pretty much slows or seizes completely? Except of course for the very high dollar private care that will still be around, only available to the very wealthy. But even then, how does that play with having to conform within the new federal regulations?
Is it fair to force all people to have medical insurance? I am forced to have auto insurance if I have a car and drive it, but I can also choose not to drive my car and not pay for insurance. Everyone will most likely be forced to pay for insurance or will be fined if they do not have it. Please explain the advantages of this, and how America is truly different with these changes than say… communist Russia? Please tell me about Russian health care.. i heard it was pretty horrible, but what do I know. Please inform us. The burden is not on us to be men and prove anything. It is on you to prove that you aren’t an Obamalama-ding-dong-mega-tron-bot, and just spouting off scripture from your savior. That what is suggested is really in the best interest of America and the world.
Answer: Mata and Liam continue snide tone and don’t admit that they and their ilk spent all day demonstrably misleading people.
All of your points are legitimately debatable. What is not debatable is what that individual health care plans will be outlawed. This was your talking point all day and it is false. If you want to discuss how bad Canada is, make that your point. But when you repeat falsehoods all day and don’t admit to them, it cheapens your points.
You sound like a bunch of lawyers. Man up.
Mata and Karen, unless you’re proposing no regulation of health-care whatsoever, you need to show something more than conjecture for why this increase in regulation is going to bankrupt insurance companies and provide inferior care. As for the debate, Jason’s putting it bluntly, but the fact is there could be a debate about this policy if everyone wasn’t blowing so much smoke with half-quotes and exaggerations. I think it’s fair to correct these simple points before getting into the predictions of economic collapse and such. Of course, the broken telephone got all the way to Hannity tonight, who was wailing about how “government will ban private coverage from day one”.
liam: While I’m not advocating for this particular plan, a massive amount of reform is certainly necessary. We spend significantly more on health-care than other countries while getting inferior or equivalent care. Perhaps you know some Canadians that are flooding to the borders, but non-anecdotal polls show that they’re happier with their coverage than we are. Many people flock to Israel for their superior care even though they have socialized health-care, does that make it the right choice (actually, Israel has the best public/private balance I’ve seen, but their private organizations are non-profits)? Likewise, about the same number of people don’t get treatment in Canada because of those wait-times everyone’s talking about as don’t get treatment here because they can’t afford it. And all this with lower overall spending. Lastly, around 3/4ths of the US feels it important that government offer a public option [CBS, WSJ].
Yes it is, when lack of insurance costs the government in emergency and other indirect fees. When I was a teenager I thought seat-belt laws were absurd – what right does the government have to dictate my own safety? As I got older, I learned about “externalities”, and how high the government cost is to clean someone’s brains off the highway because they weren’t buckled and insured. Now I don’t complain.
Mike:
Yes, and considering my bracket and state it’s going to be quite a hike. At the same time, a lot of my friends & family who are uninsured won’t have to lose their job or drop out of business school if they get injured because the government is making an investment in them. I’m quite comfortable with that trade.
This is copy and paste will also add some bolding:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_broken_promises_179667.htm
Betsy McCaughey has studied this fiasco from the beginning, unlike members of Congress, she has read everything.
Stuck in the filter P&T.
Trizzlor said; “@liam09 & Ryan: Show me a major corporation where the executives actually read the contracts that they sign. Management goes to school for years to learn how to manage, lawyers learn to understand the documents, statisticians learn to interpret the data and make predictions – all of these people work together specifically to prevent one person from reading the bill. If you can’t understand the divide between specialization and management then you shouldn’t be restructuring the government.”
Yeah, apparently you didn’t read my comment. Now if you have a team reading the comments on this blog and explaining it to you like the Congressmen and women have to “interpret” the bills to them, then your team failed you miserably and they need to take a bloody English class(sarcasm).
@trizzlor: I am so thrilled that you are in such good financial shape that you can endure the added burden of higher taxes to pay for the dubious quality of care that the few currently uninsured that will be helped by Obama care will receive.
What a shame you don’t currently take that money and help those family and friends who need it instead of demanding the government force the rest of us to pay into a system we find morally reprehensible.
Obama care will NOT solve the health care problems of the uninsured and will make health care for all of us more expensive at a lower quality.
@trizzlor:
Absolutely agree on reform
Should I follow this logic all the way through (on the safety part)? If you are concerned about how much it costs for the government to clean up road-brains, and you aren’t the least bit concerned about the price tag of not only this FIRST stimulus package, but also socialized health care, there is a huge disconnect in your reasoning abilities in this. We could end up owing almost 2 trillion (or more) before Obama is even done with his first year! The only thing liberals have constantly reinforced to me is: Big Government is Great! Unless of course it puts them in jail, keeps them from smoking weed, does not allow them to get married to their gay friend (thats right, Obama is against it), and makes them pay more money. What? Does that really make sense at all?!
Lastly, tell me any program that the government runs better and more efficiently than the private sector? Keep in mind, this all has to be for the benefit of the country, correct? So what happens when all of a sudden government ends up being overwhelmingly conservative republicans that disagree with the socialized plan? Would this system then suffer and end up costing us even more?
If the current administration really cared about the direction of this country, they would use a /lot/ more discretion about the packages they are pushing through. We all know the ‘transparent’ government thing is bull. But at the very minimum, there needs to be a little more thought into the HUGE, long term plans that are being rushed through the whitehouse. I heard Old Man Wisdom lived there once, but now he just jet sets around the world.
I only have one question for the left. If this is the bestest healthcare bill evah, why is congress opting out? Why is congress exempt from this or any other law they pass? Why?
WHAT ELSE DO YOU EXPECT FROM A SOCIALIST?
“A July 15 editorial in Investor’s Business Daily, “It’s Not an Option”, revealed that the healthcare reform bill the House passed contains ‘a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal’.”
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/07/healthcare-reform-sanctions-torture.html
Oh, yeah, this is gonna be a snap for government to administer…
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/07/your-easy-guide-to-democrat-health.html
…riiiiiiiiight!
Now, we just have to hope the “health” care fiasco won’t be as big a “success” as the Stinkulus Expendaganza.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0StZd9y2rCY
…because for the Obamacrats, “SUCCESS IS NOT AN OPTION!”
@MataHarley:
Just to elaborate on what you merely implied, as the uniformed, and/or uninformed reader may need to have it ‘splained to him.
After a period of time, private insurers will be driven out of the market by requiring all NEW insurance to be through the sate. When a business has no new customers, and the older ones are lost to attrition, then even if it’s “legal” for some people to retain their coverage, the insurers won’t be around any more, so the end is the same.
And don’t forget what Obama says about “hard choices” when grandma requires tens, or hundreds of thousands of dollars of care, and the system is bankrupt, well, if they can’t figure out where that’s going, they are pretty stupid. Alternatively, they may not care, which is far worse than stupidity.
@Jason:
OK, so, just exactly what is it that’s “misleading” about this statement?