Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Nope.

Did you know that people will still be dying in massive amounts of debt despite this "landmark" bill?

Not to mention I'm pretty sure you have no idea what has happened to me so you probably would be best at keeping your point of view focused on yourself. I've been in debt due to medical bills and I did what a person should do. I paid them off slowly and at my own pace.

But you do a nice job of painting a sad story. You should run for congress.

I am truly sorry to hear about your situation.

 

My question, though, is would you be any better off without the passed health care plan? Would insurance and medical coverage have improved through another 10 years of inaction? With the prospects of status quo, would the U.S. burden have been the same or less for 2010-2011 without the health care bill? With U.S. health care spending already amounting to 16% of our GDP, where were we heading without a health care plan -- which the non-partisan Office of Management and Budget said would save money -- including $1 trillion in the second decade. Would we be better off if, after more than a year of debate, public bills and amendments, of subcommittee and committee hearings, of town hall meetings, media coverage, protests and counter-protests, and a bipartisan congressional forum, that we "started over again" rather than having a bipartisan approach or even an alternative partisan remedy to reach compromise with?

 

Would you have been less covered or more vulnerable if this plan was available prior to your malady? Doesn't this plan project just such a safety net for catastrophic illness?

 

Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can approach this as a punitive attack, or vindictiveness on trying to do what's right for people who need health care.

 

As a relative liberal, I'm not happy with everything about the bill. It's weaker in places, there are challenges to be met and compromises to be found. But I'm grateful for the results and that a workable solution has been found to provide greater opportunities for the wealthiest country on earth to have a better shot at being the healthiest.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Actually, many that already have Medicaid/Medicare still go to the ER for their primary care because they either don't utilize preventative care and thus wait for their chronic conditions to have acute exacerbations or they don't want to deal with the inconvenience of making appointments.

Is there a number behind many? I do not argue that there are circumstances in which what you say happens. But it's a self-justified argument. There's not quantifying whether insured do the same thing. And it doesn't allow for the same untold percentage that must rely on health care because of illness, accident or other malady that could not have been covered by preventative care.

 

This is the same self-justifying argument where someone sees a person paying for snacks with food stamps, therefore ALL families using food stamps are corrupt. On the other hand, I can see the single mother working two jobs and making sure her kids are somehow, clothed, educated and behaved and use food stamps and WIC to ensure they're well-fed too -- and I imagine she is not the exception of people trying to right by themselves and the government.

[Atticus]

Well, I guess Somalia it is. Just don't tell 'em about all the black people.

 

right. because everyone who opposes the democrats' healthcare bill is a racist.

[Guest Speed Racer]

right. because everyone who opposes the democrats' healthcare bill is a racist.

 

I posted the NYTimes graphic "What does the bill mean for me?" in my Facebook feed, and a VERY liberal friend unleashed a tirade against the bill in a comment, because the bill does not provide free healthcare to his willfully under-(just un?)employed daughter.

[LouieB]

Australia has universal health care, too.

the Teabaggers are gonna run out of places to go where there aren't too many "colored" folks and they still speak English.

 

Imagine what it must have been like for John Lewis to be called the "n-word" the other day, all these years after his experiences in the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. No matter what the reason for people's anger (most of which I can't figure out since this discussion should have been rational), that was uncalled for and shows the seamy side of the tea party movement.

 

LouieB

[Atticus]

No one person is completely happy in a compromise. That does not preclude it from being the best, most workable solution at the time.

 

right, except I've yet to hear anyone proclaim this bill as the best, most workable solution at this time. so I guess I don't get your point.

[Guest Speed Racer]

right, except I've yet to hear anyone proclaim this bill as the best, most workable solution at this time. so I guess I don't get your point.

 

Has there ever been a bill to come out of Congress that was?

[Guest Jules]

the Teabaggers are gonna run out of places to go where there aren't too many "colored" folks and they still speak English.

 

Imagine what it must have been like for John Lewis to be called the "n-word" the other day, all these years after his experiences in the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. No matter what the reason for people's anger (most of which I can't figure out since this discussion should have been rational), that was uncalled for and shows the seamy side of the tea party movement.

 

LouieB

There are "seamy sides" to every movement, Lou.

[Atticus]

the Teabaggers are gonna run out of places to go where there aren't too many "colored" folks and they still speak English.

 

LouieB

 

when a liberal says/does something stupid and indefensible, this board rallies around the point that one shouldn't cast dispersions on an entire group based on the idiocy of one or a few individuals. when it's the other side of the fence, that logic seems to vanish.

 

I don't know any teabaggers, which I realize is shocking to most everyone, since I live in Texas where we're all uncultured racist redneck homophobes, but I'm sure there are some who have legitimate reasons for their opinions. why can't their opinions and views be criticised without labeling the whole group as racists?

[Atticus]

Has there ever been a bill to come out of Congress that was?

 

I never made the point that there was, but in answer to your question, I'm not educated enough to know.

 

I searched over 10 articles this morning discussing the healthcare bill and noted that not one of them made reference to the actual number of the house bill that was voted on, nor a link to its full text. wonder why that is?

[ikol]

So?

 

So there.

 

There are a number of problems with the health care system in the United States, and this bill was not intended - and never claimed to intend - to address everything. The problem you are continually bringing up today has little to do with allowing people equal access to care, but is rather something that should be, and often is, addressed at the community level.

 

Clearly you do not realize that every problem in the nation should be addressed at the federal level. That point notwithstanding, this problem is not a minor one that should be cast aside in the interest in getting more people covered; it may even be the problem that explains why healthcare is so expensive. Whether it is individuals, insurance companies, or the government that is paying for healthcare, someone is going bankrupt if people don't practice preventative care.

 

Is there a number behind many?

 

Yes. Do you want me to actually know it, or can I just make it up?

[Guest Speed Racer]

And then there are my uncultured racist redneck homophobe relatives who despise the Tea Baggers, and always seem to be first in line to give to Caesar that which is his.

[Guest Speed Racer]

this problem is not a minor one that should be cast aside in the interest in getting more people covered; it may even be the problem that explains why healthcare is so expensive. Whether it is individuals, insurance companies, or the government that is paying for healthcare, someone is going bankrupt if people don't practice preventative care.

 

Yes, if people-at-large do not practice preventative care, then everyone will go bankrupt. But you keep comparing apples and oranges. What you're essentially doing is calling everyone stupid, and therefore denying some people access to the education system. What this bill intends to do is allow everyone access to the healthcare system, on a federal level (which, if you look at Arizona as an example, can help lessen the state burden of providing healthcare to all). After (or even while) everyone has equal access to healthcare, responsible parties not at all related to the health care bill can see about remedying the situations you describe in your posts.

 

Believe me, I think that situation is as bad as you do; however, I think that the issue you are bringing up is entirely separate from the goals of the health care bill.

 

The health care bill is about access to choices; educating people about how to use preventative care is what will help people make the best of these choices they have.

[Guest Jules]

But, most people are stupid.

[Guest Speed Racer]

wonder why that is?

 

The last bill I remember reading the number of was the bailout bill which, if I recall, was not available in full text on any of the news sites until after the president signed it.

[Atticus]

The last bill I remember reading the number of was the bailout bill which, if I recall, was not available in full text on any of the news sites until after the president signed it.

 

took 5 seconds to find the bill in a google search. it's right here. but no journalist is going to actually read this bill, talk to medical experts on both sides of the issues and explain what the practical effects of it are going to be. it just doesn't sell.

[Central Scrutinizer]

right, except I've yet to hear anyone proclaim this bill as the best, most workable solution at this time. so I guess I don't get your point.

Depends on whether you're actually listening. I know there's a majority of federal House districts that spoke for their constituents. There are the millions of phone calls made to representatives in the run up to the vote in favor of it.

 

If you don't want to hear support and only opposition, I'm sure you'll easily find what you're looking for.

[Winston Legthigh]

it just doesn't sell.

How does this bill affect Heidi Montag's ability to get even bigger tits? This Us Weekly reader wants to know!

[Guest Speed Racer]

took 5 seconds to find the bill in a google search. it's right here. but no journalist is going to actually read this bill, talk to medical experts on both sides of the issues and explain what the practical effects of it are going to be. it just doesn't sell.

 

But it never has, which is why the last one I saw was the bailout bill. Is that necessarily a problem? The Washington Post blogs have done a killer job of tracking the evolution of the bill, and I don't think that you're shortselling a reader at all if you provide them the information in a digestible (and handily interactive) manner. Inquiring minds can find the bill themselves (case in point), and anyone else who wants to know anything else can find it in the papers.

[Central Scrutinizer]

the Teabaggers are gonna run out of places to go where there aren't too many "colored" folks and they still speak English.

 

Imagine what it must have been like for John Lewis to be called the "n-word" the other day, all these years after his experiences in the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. No matter what the reason for people's anger (most of which I can't figure out since this discussion should have been rational), that was uncalled for and shows the seamy side of the tea party movement.

 

LouieB

A woman in our office, a devout Glenn Beck follower, found the most horrific crime committed by the health care bill is that she'll have a harder time getting an appointment with her doctor. Just because these *other* people would be covered and have access to her doctor.

[LouieB]

Yea, there is a seamy side to EVERY movement, right, left, and center, but frankly there isn't any reason to call an African American Congressman a "nigger" EVER. Call people liars, facists, commies, baby killers, whatever, but using that kind of racial slur is beyond the pale.

 

LouieB

[Central Scrutinizer]

took 5 seconds to find the bill in a google search. it's right here. but no journalist is going to actually read this bill, talk to medical experts on both sides of the issues and explain what the practical effects of it are going to be.

Yes, they have, and yes they do.

 

In many cases, this is a much easier process than backing up and spinning bogus stories and attacks in order to spread fear among those who would rather stay blissfully -- though frightfully -- ignorant, rather than seeking out information that affects them.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Yes, they have, and yes they do.

 

In many cases, this is a much easier process than backing up and spinning bogus stories and attacks in order to spread fear among those who would rather stay blissfully -- though frightfully -- ignorant, rather than seeking out information that affects them.

 

Further, was are media outlets except digests of information? There was a sexual assault in my neighborhood this weekend; I could read the public records on the matter, but I read about it in the paper and I'm fine with that. When I have a closer connection to a news event I might go straight to the source, but usually I'm fine with the paper reporting the bulk of it.

[ikol]

I don't really understand how this bill is about choices when it's going to raise premiums on individual plans (due to less choice on what must be covered), restrict health savings accounts, and penalize those that don't get insurance.

[Atticus]

Depends on whether you're actually listening. I know there's a majority of federal House districts that spoke for their constituents. There are the millions of phone calls made to representatives in the run up to the vote in favor of it.

 

If you don't want to hear support and only opposition, I'm sure you'll easily find what you're looking for.

 

 

this here was your point:

 

No one person is completely happy in a compromise. That does not preclude it from being the best, most workable solution at the time.

 

this here was my response:

 

right, except I've yet to hear anyone proclaim this bill as the best, most workable solution at this time. so I guess I don't get your point.

 

Depends on whether you're actually listening. I know there's a majority of federal House districts that spoke for their constituents. There are the millions of phone calls made to representatives in the run up to the vote in favor of it.

 

If you don't want to hear support and only opposition, I'm sure you'll easily find what you're looking for.

 

the fact that congresspersons voted in favor of the bill does not equate to an endorsement of the bill as the "best, most workable solution at the time." I'm not "looking for" anything in particular, I am not failing to "actually listen[ing]" I am pointing out that YOU suggested that although no one is usually completely happy in a compromise, same may be the "best, most workable solution at the time," and that no one seems to be suggesting that this bill is the "best, most workable solution at the time." is that clearer?