A Candian Friend

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

if you are referring to the house bill, it clearly states that if, after the date that the bill is signed into law, you have any change in your existing health insurance...you will be enrolled in the government option(which sounds like no-option single payer to me), now is the government option still on the table because that varies widely depending on who you talk to?....

Where exactly in the bill is this?

There are a lot of items "on the table" depending on whom you talk to. My concern is what's actually *in* the bill. As opposed to what people *say* is in the bill.

Unfortunately, the opposition isn't critical of what their peers say. If *insert radio/tv show host* starting bitching about something in the bill, many take it as truth instead of investigating the facts. For instance, "Is the government really going to force grandma to sit down with a panel to determine how they're going to let her die?" Due Diligence isn't really the name of the game.

Now, I haven't payed any attention to HC since the Congressional break because nothing would have changed. The written Bill being debated hadn't changed, thus the points I have issue haven't changed. There is so much misinformation being spread, sometimes I forget what's up and down. Hopefully when fishbones reads this, he'll correct any possible errors I made.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Where exactly in the bill is this?

There are a lot of items "on the table" depending on whom you talk to. My concern is what's actually *in* the bill. As opposed to what people *say* is in the bill.

Unfortunately, the opposition isn't critical of what their peers say. If *insert radio/tv show host* starting bitching about something in the bill, many take it as truth instead of investigating the facts. For instance, "Is the government really going to force grandma to sit down with a panel to determine how they're going to let her die?" Due Diligence isn't really the name of the game.

Now, I haven't payed any attention to HC since the Congressional break because nothing would have changed. The written Bill being debated hadn't changed, thus the points I have issue haven't changed. There is so much misinformation being spread, sometimes I forget what's up and down. Hopefully when fishbones reads this, he'll correct any possible errors I made.

which bill JD?...you say "the bill"...there's the bill from congress, the Kennedy version in the senate and whatever bill version is in Obama's head....and the dems are spewing different versions/views/interpretations of each...it's the dems that you should be asking to provide clarity but that's not the game, seems that depending on which dem you talk to something is in, something is out...we're all waiting for Obama's "new and improved version"...you seem to find it hard to imagine that these radical leftist actually don't want to run healthcare through government....and you seem perfectly content to believe that they are honest in what they are putting forth...thought you were smarter than that...

[Fishpart]

Make all of your decisions based on these facts:

Obama is a Socialist as stated in his own book.

The way Dictators control the population is through Public Education and by controlling Medical Care.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

which bill JD?...you say "the bill"...there's the bill from congress, the Kennedy version in the senate and whatever bill version is in Obama's head....and the dems are spewing different versions/views/interpretations of each...

There's actually only 1 bill, with a version in the House and one in the Senate. You may be surprised by this.... but that's how every law is created.

As such, I'm talking about the bills that could actually become law. As seen below:
House Version
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Senate Version
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im....care.bill.pdf

The discussion should be about the above, not some hypothetical bill that Republicans are drafting via the media.

[scottw]

you can continue to be a smart ass but again, it's the dems running around with vastly different versions of what's in the bill, what will be in the bill, what cannot be in the bill...when it will be voted on....and Obama is going to give yet another lame ass lecture on the subject that noone will watch....seems to me his extended 15 minutes are up.."the bill" is now less popular than Hillary Care...the actual debate should be...why are they continuing to cling to this farce?

STATISTS will be STATISTS

jd "She is such an ass without a clue." QUOTE

YOU ARE AWARE THAT "SHE" IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE WRITING OF THIS "BILL" ?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

you can continue to be a smart ass but again, it's the dems running around with vastly different versions of what's in the bill, what will be in the bill, what cannot be in the bill...when it will be voted on....

I'm not being a smart ass, just accurate. I see no point in arguing "what might be" when there are a number of issues with "what is". My issue with the Repubs when it comes to this issue is that I think they're conflating the subject and merely working towards next year's elections, as opposed to logically addressing the issues within the bill. My issue with the Dems is that in my opinion the bills *drafted* do not effectively address the issue of rising health care costs. Does anyone even remember that is where this all started - to curb rising costs?

jd "She is such an ass without a clue." QUOTE

YOU ARE AWARE THAT "SHE" IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE WRITING OF THIS "BILL" ?

I disagree. The bill will have to be completely redrafted should there be a change to a single-payer system. If the Democrats want to have Health Care Reform formally drafted and voted on before the end of the year, they don't have that kind of time.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Does anyone even remember that is where this all started - to curb rising costs?

You're missing the point. ScottW doesn't think there's a problem with the current system, so he's perfectly happy just exploiting the situation by spouting random and/or false information to cause confusion.

Sean Hannity would call him a great American.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm not being a smart ass, just accurate. I see no point in arguing "what might be" when there are a number of issues with "what is". My issue with the Repubs when it comes to this issue is that I think they're conflating the subject and merely working towards next year's elections, as opposed to logically addressing the issues within the bill. My issue with the Dems is that in my opinion the bills *drafted* do not effectively address the issue of rising health care costs. Does anyone even remember that is where this all started - to curb rising costs?

sorry about the smart ass remark, it wasn't meant in a mean way..I just feel like you are sticking to a circular argument...you expect particulars on a fishing website that can't even be provided by elected officials and the administration...the bill is not intended to curb rising costs which is why that is not effectively addressed in your opinion...between the house and senate version there's nearly 2000 pages of vague legal muck, so mucky that I can cite the specific part of the bill and you can say, "it doesn't say that" in virtually every case, this was done intentionally...the intention is clearly government take over of the American healthcare system...which is why it needs to be opposed...show me any place in the nearly 2000 pages where government is limited? and I want the names of those 50 million uninsured people without healthcare.....prove that they actually exist

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw;709035}

I want the names of those 50 million uninsured people without healthcare.....prove that they actually exist

That would be a good start, because again #s have been thrown around
from 5, 12, 23, 27, to 50 million. Once the true # is proven, the next step should be what are the costs and how will we pay for it.

Essential marketing questions.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Hopefully when fishbones reads this, he'll correct any possible errors I made.

I can't find any errors, JD. There is so much confusion even among the lawmakers that no one really understands the Bill as it's currently written. There's just too much confusing language. There have been several politicians that have been documented saying they are in favor of the single payer option, although they now are backtracking. I believe that if there wasn't so much of a public outrcry against it, Obama and several others would have liked to make it a single payer option. But, he underestimated that many people in this country don't want all decisions being made for them by the government.