Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568052]You're right. It's not most, but some. I don't hate corporations, but I feel they can easily go astray with just a few bad executives.

LOL @ SS[/quote]

Tell me that isn't you ;)

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GMScud;568047]That just made this whole thread. LOL![/quote]
You know I did that on purpose.

Re: Obama Care
 

yeah, ok :)

Re: Obama Care
 

The latest on Obama Care:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/16/house-dems-votes-health/"]Congressional Budget Director Warns Health Care Bills Will Raise Costs - Political News - FOXNews.com[/URL]

When Harry Reid is accussing the CBO of playing partisan politics considering the balance of power in DC you have to find that incredibly laughable. This should be a very clear, very loud signal to all those that aren't wearing their partisan hats 24x7. The left wing of the Dem party and the White House should take a major step back and truly evaluate different solutions to health care reform rather than the piss-poor current Health Care legislation.

[URL="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854"]IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option[/URL]

From the article: "It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there [B]on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.[/B]
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: 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" [B]section of the bill clearly states:[/B]
[B]"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.[/B]

So the lefties who railed against Bush and the Patriot Act have no problem with this Administration and Congress trampling on individual freedom.....

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568279]The latest on Obama Care:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/16/house-dems-votes-health/"]Congressional Budget Director Warns Health Care Bills Will Raise Costs - Political News - FOXNews.com[/URL]

When Harry Reid is accussing the CBO of playing partisan politics considering the balance of power in DC you have to find that incredibly laughable. This should be a very clear, very loud signal to all those that aren't wearing their partisan hats 24x7. The left wing of the Dem party and the White House should take a major step back and truly evaluate different solutions to health care reform rather than the piss-poor current Health Care legislation.

[URL="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854"]IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option[/URL]

From the article: "It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there [B]on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.[/B]
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: 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" [B]section of the bill clearly states:[/B]
[B]"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.[/B]

So the lefties who railed against Bush and the Patriot Act have no problem with this Administration and Congress trampling on individual freedom.....[/quote]

LOL @ Orwellian. I'm very impressed IBD, not so very slick stuff but scary nonetheless. Word of caution though IBD, if you're going to go after mainstream Americans to share your views avoid using righting rhetoric. The right wing is already with you and you really don't want to be seen as impartial. Did you see the wingnut vocabulary that I saw? I'm starting to suspect there's a wingnut grammar book out there, one that's due for a major tuneup.

[quote]With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to [B]the left's expansion[/B] of the [B]welfare state [/B]will be removed.
The public option [B]won't be an option[/B] for many, but rather a [B]mandate[/B] for buying [B]government care[/B]. A [B]free people[/B] should be outraged at this advance of [B]soft tyranny[/B].
Washington does not have the [B]constitutional or moral authority[/B] to outlaw [B]private markets[/B] in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be [B]killing business [/B]opportunities, or [B]limiting choices[/B], or [B]legislating[/B] [B]major changes[/B] in [B]Americans' lives[/B].
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this [B]naked attempt[/B] by the political powers to [B]increase their reach[/B]. [B]It's scary[/B] to think how many more [B]breaches of liberty[/B] we'll come across in the final 1,002.
[/quote]

Re: Obama Care
 

between Slinging Sammy and Saden, I think the whole IBD quote is now in bold!

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568297]LOL @ Orwellian. I'm very impressed IBD, not so very slick stuff but scary nonetheless. Word of caution though IBD, if you're going to go after mainstream Americans to share your views avoid using righting rhetoric. The right wing is already with you and you really don't want to be seen as impartial. Did you see the wingnut vocabulary that I saw? I'm starting to suspect there's a wingnut grammar book out there, one that's due for a major tuneup.[/quote]Orwellian is pretty over the top, but outside of trying to discredit the source.....one should focus on the actual impact of the current legislation, confirmed by the House Ways and Means Committee, that this bill will outlaw private individual health insurance.

Certainly one on the left who is for personal freedom to the point of justifying a woman's right to a late-term abortion for mental health reasons would have a problem with the government disallowing a private citizen to pay for his/her own health insurance through a private insurance company with his/her own money? You do still believe that the money U.S. citizens earn is their money and not Premier Obama's and the Politburo's, right?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568314]Orwellian is pretty over the top, but outside of trying to discredit the source.....one should focus on the actual impact of the current legislation, confirmed by the House Ways and Means Committee, that this bill will outlaw private individual health insurance.

Certainly one on the left who is for personal freedom to the point of justifying a woman's right to a late-term abortion for mental health reasons would have a problem with the government disallowing a private citizen to pay for his/her own health insurance through a private insurance company with his/her own money? You do still believe that the money U.S. citizens earn is their money and not Premier Obama's and the Politburo's, right?[/quote]

See, I'm smart enough to doubt IBD's claim because a) a law preventing private commerce would not stand up to a constitutional challenge, b) democrats aren't stupid enough to expose themselves like that politically, and c) I know IBD is no friend of mine, they're like Jim Cramer in paper form. I wonder who in the House Ways and Means Committee confirmed their suspicion?

Anywho, we're both men capable of [URL="http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf"]reading the bill[/URL] for themselves. The subsection IBD referenced is part of a broader section that insures going forward that any government Qualified Health Benefits Plan meets certain requirements (affordable coverage, essential benefits, and consumer protection). That is to say private sector enterprises that want universal healthcare $$$ have to adhere to these set of rules. Now you're wondering what does this have to do with any of the scary stuff put forth by IBD? Well, the government has a grandfather clause in the bill which says private enterprises don't have to adhere to these rules with respect to individuals they currently have signed up.

Furthermore, both you and private enterprises are free to conduct business as usual (individually or through employer/group) but if the private enterprise want to sign you up under universal healthcare they must adhere to government requirements. Seems pretty reasonable and not so scary. If you didn't have such provisions private enterprises would sign-up their healthy clients through their own private plan and the not so healthy clients under universal healthcare.

I don't believe the hype and the snipes from IBD types.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568279]The latest on Obama Care:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/16/house-dems-votes-health/"]Congressional Budget Director Warns Health Care Bills Will Raise Costs - Political News - FOXNews.com[/URL]

When Harry Reid is accussing the CBO of playing partisan politics considering the balance of power in DC you have to find that incredibly laughable. This should be a very clear, very loud signal to all those that aren't wearing their partisan hats 24x7. The left wing of the Dem party and the White House should take a major step back and truly evaluate different solutions to health care reform rather than the piss-poor current Health Care legislation.

[URL="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854"]IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option[/URL]

From the article: "It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there [B]on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.[/B]
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: 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" [B]section of the bill clearly states:[/B]
[B]"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.[/B]

So the lefties who railed against Bush and the Patriot Act have no problem with this Administration and Congress trampling on individual freedom.....[/quote]

Good thing I'll be grandfathered in if this bill passes. I have great private medical insurance. Thank goodness "Premier Obama" (LOL by the way) can't strip me of that.

Interesting stuff here:

[url=http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328]Director’s Blog » Blog Archive » The Long-Term Budget Outlook[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GMScud;568372]Good thing I'll be grandfathered in if this bill passes. I have great private medical insurance. Thank goodness "Premier Obama" (LOL by the way) can't strip me of that.

Interesting stuff here:

[URL="http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328"]Director’s Blog » Blog Archive » The Long-Term Budget Outlook[/URL][/quote]

We prefer the title "Emperor Obama" thank you. "Lord Obama" is also acceptable.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568337]I wonder who in the House Ways and Means Committee confirmed their suspicion?[/quote]Good question.

[quote]Anywho, we're both men capable of [URL="http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf"]reading the bill[/URL] for themselves. The subsection IBD referenced is part of a broader section that insures going forward that any government Qualified Health Benefits Plan meets certain requirements (affordable coverage, essential benefits, and consumer protection). That is to say private sector enterprises that want universal healthcare $$$ have to adhere to these set of rules. Now you're wondering what does this have to do with any of the scary stuff put forth by IBD? Well, the government has a grandfather clause in the bill which says private enterprises don't have to adhere to these rules with respect to individuals they currently have signed up.

Furthermore, both you and private enterprises are free to conduct business as usual (individually or through employer/group) but if the private enterprise want to sign you up under universal healthcare they must adhere to government requirements. Seems pretty reasonable and not so scary. If you didn't have such provisions private enterprises would sign-up their healthy clients through their own private plan and the not so healthy clients under universal healthcare.

I don't believe the hype and the snipes from IBD types.[/quote]While IBD exaggerated the claim that private insurance will be outlawed, the Bill does force private insurance carriers to comply with the rules/regulations of the Health Insurance Exchange and new coverage may be purchased [B]only[/B] through the Exchange.

[URL="http://mediamatters.org/research/200907160040"]IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage" | Media Matters for America[/URL]

from the link: "Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations."

This error in source-checking or reading comprehension by the folks at IBD still doesn't account for the massive price tag (estimated by CBO at $ 1.5T, real numbers likely over $ 3T) or the fact that covering the uninsured could be done with tax-credits or vouchers much more cost-effectively rather than a full-scale government take-over of health care.

So, you and I, who are both at least reasonably intelligent/educated spent more than a minute or two researching and understanding what is involved in about 2-3 pages of this bill. There are 1018 pages in the .pdf. At the very least, don't you agree that more time should be taken to truly understand and evaluate such a major piece of legislation rather than ramming it through due to political considerations.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568297]LOL @ Orwellian. I'm very impressed IBD, not so very slick stuff but scary nonetheless. Word of caution though IBD, if you're going to go after mainstream Americans to share your views avoid using righting rhetoric. The right wing is already with you and you really don't want to be seen as impartial. Did you see the wingnut vocabulary that I saw? I'm starting to suspect there's a wingnut grammar book out there, one that's due for a major tuneup.[/quote]

Funny thing is you high lighted the stuff the left seems to ignore.

Re: Obama Care
 

This whole proposal highlights to me the problem with Washington politics. Both sides are so eager to do something about something that they ignore the details. The throw together a mishmash of proposals with no real understanding of what they mean in the real world. Slap a nice name on it so it sounds awesome. Put it out there and ignore everyone with a clue saying it wont work and then they pass it. The only people I see who are behind this deal are politicians. Oh plenty of people are behind the principles attached, they are truly noble and worth pursuin,g but this proposal is a steaming pile and everyone knows it. But at the end of the day politicians get to say they did something.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;568428]This whole proposal highlights to me the problem with Washington politics. Both sides are so eager to do something about something that they ignore the details. The throw together a mishmash of proposals with no real understanding of what they mean in the real world. Slap a nice name on it so it sounds awesome. Put it out there and ignore everyone with a clue saying it wont work and then they pass it. The only people I see who are behind this deal are politicians. Oh plenty of people are behind the principles attached, they are truly noble and worth pursuin,g but this proposal is a steaming pile and everyone knows it. But at the end of the day politicians get to say they did something.[/quote]
Saden

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;568428]This whole proposal highlights to me the problem with Washington politics. Both sides are so eager to do something about something that they ignore the details. The throw together a mishmash of proposals with no real understanding of what they mean in the real world. Slap a nice name on it so it sounds awesome. Put it out there and ignore everyone with a clue saying it wont work and then they pass it. The only people I see who are behind this deal are politicians. Oh plenty of people are behind the principles attached, they are truly noble and worth pursuin,g but this proposal is a steaming pile and everyone knows it. But at the end of the day politicians get to say they did something.[/quote]

Seriously. It has the feel of the Dems wanting to shove 20 years worth of agenda down our throats ASAP. Especially the fact that Obama is pushing hard to get this crammed through Congress before the August recess.