Obama Care

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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?

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 reading the bill 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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

I wonder who in the House Ways and Means Committee confirmed their suspicion?

Good question.

Anywho, we're both men capable of reading the bill 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.

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 only through the Exchange.

IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage" | Media Matters for America

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.