Here's the Health care bill (HR 3962) - Page 7

Never Left · #61 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shpraralain

Betcha GW will look real good after BHO is done....its just harder for some to catch on to the fact.

So true! So very true!

Alarion · #62 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Never Left

How is it that you do not understand that it is government control of benefits and coverage, niether is free market. It is government control, their control is the problem. It will cost more because of it breaucracy and over management. Real insurence companies will not be able to compete, and then the real of the government plan costs will soar, when trhey have illiminated the competition. That is the way it always is when the government becomes involved. Plus that was an anylisis of the over all package. And I will not pretend to understand the legal language and trust that those who do will say what it really says and trust them. I know for a fact that I do not trust the American hating leftist losers who wrote this monstrosity.

That's not the point we were arguing. You inferred that insurance plans from private insurers were outright banned, which is not the case. I don't argue that maybe this plan is not the right solution.

Never Left · #63 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarion

That's not the point we were arguing. You inferred that insurance plans from private insurers were outright banned, which is not the case. I don't argue that maybe this plan is not the right solution.

It is absolutely the wrong plan, as with all things leftist, it is illconcieved, over stated, over sold, and poorly explained, and worse of all, designed to liberate you and I from our liberty. It may not be an outright ban, but what it is is a unfair advantage to a government monoploly.

Imrahil1 · #64 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Never Left

It is absolutely the wrong plan, as with all things leftist, it is illconcieved, over stated, over sold, and poorly explained, and worse of all, designed to liberate you and I from our liberty. It may not be an outright ban, but what it is is a unfair advantage to a government monoploly.

The problem occurs when you lie about what's in the bill. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the bill or change it, but when you make up stuff, use easily disprovable scare tactics, post near-constant hyperbole, & depend upon slippery slope arguments, you turn more people against you than against the bill.

shpraralain · #65 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imrahil1

The problem occurs when you lie about what's in the bill. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the bill or change it, but when you make up stuff, use easily disprovable scare tactics, post near-constant hyperbole, & depend upon slippery slope arguments, you turn more people against you than against the bill.

The same happens when you deny not only what is in the bill, but the ultimate goal thereof. You can put your head in the sand all you want, but you shouldn't expect others to do the same. We call it as we see it, and with the 'language' of this bill the way it is, one can only assume that those who created it have much to hide.
Accusing someone of lying, just because they interpret this bill different from you is really silly, and I don't think the poster was aiming for your approval or a large crowd of followers. That is BHO's way.

SenaxFlatulus · #66 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

So you can't substantiate that the article is even close to accurate about the very first point it makes?

Kind of puts the veracity of the article in question, doesn't it?

No, not at all.

First of all, it's not an article. It's a partial quote from a MYSPACE page of a Republican politician. I'm not trying to advocate for the Republican party because I'm not a Republican anymore. However, if one is to weigh the merits of a law, they'll need to examine the opinions of both sides of the argument and maybe come up with their own conclusions.

The bill itself references a seperate portion of another bill. Can you find it? I'm willing to listen to your interpretation of that separately referenced clause. Can you please provide us with a link?

Even if you choose not to believe those quotes, you're choosing to believe in what? A 1990 page document that tells us that yes, your previous health insurance plan can be grandfathered into this new plan in 2013, provided it meets governmental standards which will be set forth in the future.

Doesn't that leave you feeling just a tad uneasy?

Lastly, what about the other points it makes?

Taxpayer · #67 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus

A 1990 page document that tells us that yes, your previous health insurance plan can be grandfathered into this new plan in 2013, provided it meets governmental standards which will be set forth in the future. Doesn't that leave you feeling just a tad uneasy?

Considering how badly I feel my trust has been abused by my previous and current health care carriers... no. In fact, as much as I dislike government oversight, I think the current health care situation is such a mess I welcome a not-for-profit third party taking a look at the situation and requiring insurers to meet some basic standards. Some checks and balances have to be added to the system, supply and demand can't cut it when the demand is for life itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus

Lastly, what about the other points it makes?

Respectfully, as I read this string it seems the first two points of this post have been shown to be misleading or false. After that, I'd assume the remainder of the post is on just as shaky ground.

SenaxFlatulus · #68 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarion

Alright lets try this again, with less animosity from me. I will work through a few of the claims you quoted and present my argument.

Thank you for being more reasonable and less "partisan."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarion

This is really a half truth. Yes, insurance plans have to be offered through the exchange. The quote has a very evil undertone that I don't believe to be correct. It suggests to the reader that after 2013, you can only buy government offered health plans. In other words, your quote raises the alarm that in 2013, private insurance companies will go out of business because they can no longer offer insurance plans (because you have to buy the "public option"). Which is *not* what it is saying, imo.

To me, it is saying that in 2013, the "exchange" will be the market for the plans. Kind of like "ebay for insurance". It's still private companies offering insurance to private individuals, just like now, except the customer has to obtain the plan by purchasing through the exchange.

Ok, so what is the exchange then, as outlined in the document? I'm not going to quote the entire section, that would be absurd (I do agree that this bill is way too big).

Doesn't sound too nefarious so far. I am not seeing where people are mandated to buy "government insurance". Insurance through a government run marketplace, yes - but it's still private/group plans from private companies.

The point is, the quote is very very misleading and is borderline a flat out lie. Private insurance can still be bought and provided by private companies.

So what you're saying is, you believe that in 2013 we will be able to continue purchasing our own choice of health care insurance, provided it meets government standards outlined in the Government Exchange plan, right?

How is that a free choice? As it stands right now, I can choose my own plan from many of the insurance companies out there that offer coverage that I'm looking for. Under this plan, those options are limited... narrowed.

That's not free enterprise anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarion

It takes on a whole new meaning when it's a accurate quote.

If I am missing something(very possible) please do point me to direct quotes of the document which prove me wrong and I will be happy to admit as much.

Even given your interpretation, it means less freedom of choice for me in the future. No thanks. I like as many choices as I can find. It's not the place of the government to tell me where I can spend my money on the health and welfare of me and my family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarion

So moving on, next quote:

Ok, so the quote claims that abortions MUST be funded by federal (therefor public) money.

Let's start with what the bill says on the referenced page:

I do not see anywhere in there where it says abortions are required or where it says federal funds MUST be used to cover them. If the quote is simply implying that abortions are covered under the public option. It DOES however state what may be or may not be covered by federal funds in relation to abortion. But wait, the two sections (A and B) do not list any services at all. So what gives there, is my question. So let's back up and see what context we are looking at. So back to page 109:

Well what do we have here. Abortion is NOT even covered at all, or at least can not be mandated to be covered, by the federal government, for the "minimum benefits package". It also says that plans may voluntarily cover abortions. You know, the same thing we have today. It says right there that the company itself determines if they cover abortions.

OK so again, unless I am missing something, that quote is also a lie, or at the very least misrepresenting the truth.

So that's 0/2 for so far from your link.

With a president who voted against limiting late term abortions, and the authors who are members of a party who are like-minded, I'm very hesitant to believe there is no clause that will enable them to include state funded abortions.

I have some problems with the whole Roe vs. Wade issue, but if this widens the argument to spend taxpayer money on more abortion, there's going to be more than me who are going to be increasingly vocal about its passing. Personally, I think the Democrats in the House have bitten off quite a large chunk to chew on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarion

Now if you want to argue that somewhere else in the bill it makes your quotes true, then you need to provide the pages and sections for those, as the ones that are quoted disprove the very quotes you listed.

I really don't feel like going through each one right now, but if I have to, I will.

The bill is 1990 pages long. I've only just begun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarion

Again, more "doom and gloom" when that isn't even close to the case.

doom and gloom as opposed to being drunk on the koolaid? I'm going to withhold my support for such a farce of governmental abuse of my freedoms until I'm convinced it will actually benefit me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarion

All that said, this bill is freaking unwieldy and the public should have at least 30 days to review the final form of this bill before being signed by Obama if it makes it that far.

What makes you think anyone on Capitol Hill gives a rip what the public thinks?

SenaxFlatulus · #69 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Collar

And the GOP Representatives and Congressman have not actually published any sort of bill at all.

If you think Republicans are going to push a bill of any flavor that increases the government and limits the public from purchasing whatever they choose to purchase with their own money (after taxes of course) you're seriously naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Collar

I can see the 2010 bumper stickers now "GOP for Congress, we do nothing but get in the way!!"

Any party that doesn't listen to its constituents after being elected should be removed from power, and relegated to the ash heap of irrelevancy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Collar

Until they do something to bring our infant mortality rates down they should be classified as enemy combatants, the baby murderers.

What does this have to do with the OP?

Imrahil1 · #70 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shpraralain

The same happens when you deny not only what is in the bill, but the ultimate goal thereof. You can put your head in the sand all you want, but you shouldn't expect others to do the same.

Feel free to point out a time when you believe I've done that.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Historic: House unveils their health care bill	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	10-29-2009 10:40 AM
House Health Care Bill Unveiled	LeonCoDem	Health Care	0	10-29-2009 07:10 AM
Dems Go After Each Other Over Health care Reform bill	JP5	Health Care	0	10-17-2009 04:09 PM
Rename health care bill for Kennedy	OverDrive	Health Care	72	08-30-2009 07:54 AM
The reason why the Health Care Bill will not be passed...	armor99	Political Opinions & Beliefs	2	07-26-2009 12:44 PM