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

[Guest Speed Racer]

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.

 

I think the penalities are fine. From the NYTimes:

 

American Indians don’t have to buy insurance. Those with religious objections or a financial hardship can also avoid the requirement. And if you would pay more than 8 percent of your income for the cheapest available plan, you will not be penalized for failing to buy coverage.

 

The bill is going to raise the cost of premiums on what must be covered because, in my opinion, it is raising the bar on what should be covered - which I (but clearly not you) think is a good thing.

[ikol]

The bill is going to raise the cost of premiums on what must be covered because, in my opinion, it is raising the bar on what should be covered - which I (but clearly not you) think is a good thing.

 

Which (if this bill were really about choices) could also be covered by health savings accounts should one choose to go that route.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Which (if this bill were really about choices) could also be covered by health savings accounts should one choose to go that route.

 

Yes, it could. But it's not. This bill is about more choices for more people. As you can see, this bill is not about every single conceivable choice for every single person.

[Atticus]

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.

 

so you wouldn't like to read an even-handed piece from someone who has talked to both sides of the debate, read the bill, and reported findings and potential strengths and weaknesses in the least passionate way possible? I would very much like to read such an account, because I will never have the time to review the entire bill itself, not to mention the hundreds if not thousands of references to other legislation within it, and I'm tired of the majority of press on this issue being opinion pieces about how [insert excitable adjective(s)] the other side is.

 

as to providing a reference to the actual bill, I guess what I'm nitpicking is the general trend these days to discuss these issues by their "_____-gate" titles and talking points, rather than to reference the actual items. it's probably a minor issue really, I just don't see what's so hard about providing the reference.

[Guest Speed Racer]

no one seems to be suggesting that this bill is the "best, most workable solution at the time." is that clearer?

 

E.J. Dionne, Jr. of the Washington Post is pretty crazy about it. The Editorial in the NYTimes today is from a perspective that is pretty pleased with the outcome.

[Guest Speed Racer]

so you wouldn't like to read an even-handed piece from someone who has talked to both sides of the debate, read the bill, and reported findings and potential strengths and weaknesses in the least passionate way possible? I would very much like to read such an account, because I will never have the time to review the entire bill itself, not to mention the hundreds if not thousands of references to other legislation within it, and I'm tired of the majority of press on this issue being opinion pieces about how [insert excitable adjective(s)] the other side is.

 

Would I like to read a retrospective? Sure, I'd like to read one big piece about this bill and what it means. What I've been doing, which also works for me, is keeping up with the health care reform-specific blogs on the Times and the Post, which also cite other blogs and sources, and speak with a lot of the key players about the key stories as they develop. I've been reading those weekly, sometimes daily, for a while now, and that works for me.

[ikol]

Yes, it could. But it's not. This bill is about more choices for more people. As you can see, this bill is not about every single conceivable choice for every single person.

 

But a health savings account isn't a rarely utilized option that only sits at the edge of the umbrella covering "every single conceivable choice." It's actually a very popular option and something that needs to be better utilized to help control healthcare costs. This bill isn't failing to create the option in the interest of covering more important ones, it's further restricting one that already exists.

[LouieB]

All bills (laws) need to be tweaked to conform to existing conditions. This one will also need to be revised as time goes on. Nothing stays the same and considering the pressure cooker this one was developed in, some parts of it will need to be redrawn sooner than later. Arguing about if this is good or bad is pointless. To those who think we need more coverage for people, it is a step in that direction. For those crying that this is government take-over of health care (like the health insurance companies are doing such a great job) this is nothing short of fascism. The world won't stop turning because this was passed.

 

Actually the lead story on the morning newses this AM was Tiger Woods, not even this bill. Go figure.

 

LouieB

[Atticus]

Arguing about if this is good or bad is pointless

 

if having a point is becoming a requirement on this board then we're all fucked

[LouieB]

if having a point is becoming a requirement on this board then we're all fucked

Don't I know this better than anyone.

 

After more than a year of this bullshit, reading about it in every paper, magazine, blog, etc. and listening to talk radio on every side of the spectrum, this seems more pointless than ever.

 

The madness surrounding this and just about every aspect of the quickly aging Obama presidency is becoming numbing. Anyone that thinks that Obama runs this country or that he is either a right wing sell-out no better than Bush or a left wing commie, islamic, facist etc, etc. has their heads up their ass. To me it is clear that Obama wants to do the correct thing and isn't trying to turn the US of A(ssholes)into anything other than a somewhat better image of its better self. Barack will never be a Chomsky, Nader, Ron Paul, Stalin, Hitler, or anyone other else. What he is, is a somewhat thoughtful, pragmatic, and reasonably intelligent guy who is trying to do as many of the "right" (not right wing) things as he can in his short time in office.

 

Although this bill is certainly imperfect and disappointing in many respects, it must be doing something right to have so many people foaming at the mouth. Giving people the option of some sort of health insurance when they don't now have it, and trying to protect the rest of us from the insurance companies who really don't have our interest at heart is a perfectly good place to start so I accept that. There is alot of stuff in this bill that was needed for a long time and some problems that are going to have to be ironed out in the not too distant future.

 

LouieB

[Ghost of Electricity]

So is there anyone here who does not have coverage but will when this takes effect?

[Guest Jules]

What he is, is a somewhat thoughtful, pragmatic, and reasonably intelligent guy who is trying to do as many of the "right" (not right wing) things as he can in his short time in office.

This can be said of every President.

[Ghost of Electricity]

This can be said of every President.

Depending on your definition of reasonably intelligent.

 

Edit to add: and thoughtful.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Or depending on for whom they are said to be doing the right thing. Nixon did some damned crazy stuff during the end of his first and his second term that weren't really right for anyone, though he sure thought they were.

[Guest Jules]

ok

[bjorn_skurj]

And when given the choice, about 2/3 of people choose against complying with medical treatment, which in the long run is not affordable regardless of who is paying.

For a libertarian, you're kinda pushy, dude.

 

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

Dude, I love you, but I think you would be a much happier person if you developed a sense of humor, at least when responding to my posts.

[Central Scrutinizer]

this here was your point:

 

 

 

this here was my response:

 

 

 

 

 

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?

The bill passed. It is the law of the land. It is better than those who stood by and did nothing, who did everything to stop any effort. It is better than what has been. It is the best option because it is reality.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Which (if this bill were really about choices) could also be covered by health savings accounts should one choose to go that route.

There were options. But where was the right, the tea-baggers -- ANYONE ELSE -- to come up with alternatives. To come up with a minority bill that could be used against Obama's health care bill to reach a workable compromise. No where. There was no alternative to a problem that has gone unfettered for decades. Each time there's an attempt to create a solution, the only answer is to destroy, decry, lie and denounce. And the problem gets worse.

 

In the VC over the past few years, there were previous debates that covered conservative options. Moderate republications and conservatives have offered interesting options. But Republicans as a party were not willing to address this issue; only to kill it. When it came time for push or shove, after a year of public process, the 11th hour Republican cry was "let's start over." Let's stall and make sure nothing happens for another year.

 

Guess what? Medical skyrockets further during the inaction.

 

Preventative care? Brilliant. Important. Certainly within the role of an employer who's paying the insurance. But it's a red herring to say Preventive health care = solution over providing health care coverage. One guarantees coverage of health issues that has nothing to do with prevention.

[Central Scrutinizer]

so you wouldn't like to read an even-handed piece from someone who has talked to both sides of the debate, read the bill, and reported findings and potential strengths and weaknesses in the least passionate way possible? I would very much like to read such an account, because I will never have the time to review the entire bill itself, not to mention the hundreds if not thousands of references to other legislation within it, and I'm tired of the majority of press on this issue being opinion pieces about how [insert excitable adjective(s)] the other side is.

 

as to providing a reference to the actual bill, I guess what I'm nitpicking is the general trend these days to discuss these issues by their "_____-gate" titles and talking points, rather than to reference the actual items. it's probably a minor issue really, I just don't see what's so hard about providing the reference.

Any legislative bill has an "executive summary," if you will, which details what the bill covers and main issues it addresses. It would certainly be available through the Federal Register.

 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

 

if having a point is becoming a requirement on this board then we're all fucked

[Central Scrutinizer]

Don't I know this better than anyone.

 

After more than a year of this bullshit, reading about it in every paper, magazine, blog, etc. and listening to talk radio on every side of the spectrum, this seems more pointless than ever.

 

The madness surrounding this and just about every aspect of the quickly aging Obama presidency is becoming numbing. Anyone that thinks that Obama runs this country or that he is either a right wing sell-out no better than Bush or a left wing commie, islamic, facist etc, etc. has their heads up their ass. To me it is clear that Obama wants to do the correct thing and isn't trying to turn the US of A(ssholes)into anything other than a somewhat better image of its better self. Barack will never be a Chomsky, Nader, Ron Paul, Stalin, Hitler, or anyone other else. What he is, is a somewhat thoughtful, pragmatic, and reasonably intelligent guy who is trying to do as many of the "right" (not right wing) things as he can in his short time in office.

 

Although this bill is certainly imperfect and disappointing in many respects, it must be doing something right to have so many people foaming at the mouth. Giving people the option of some sort of health insurance when they don't now have it, and trying to protect the rest of us from the insurance companies who really don't have our interest at heart is a perfectly good place to start so I accept that. There is alot of stuff in this bill that was needed for a long time and some problems that are going to have to be ironed out in the not too distant future.

 

LouieB

I don't know how you could say this any better. And that this is true is pointless in the current climate. The coverage, debates, media attention has made no difference because it has never been about the details. It's been people lashing out with fear -- either of what they don't know or don't want to know; or hope for what might be, but no faith in government to approach it pragmatically and not just to "be right" but to do what is right.

 

Honestly, the only alternative solution presented was to do nothing. That obviously hasn't been working.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Or depending on for whom they are said to be doing the right thing. Nixon did some damned crazy stuff during the end of his first and his second term that weren't really right for anyone, though he sure thought they were.

But I would also be the first to say that Nixon did some significant things in office. And in his later years he became a statesman.

[ikol]

For a libertarian, you're kinda pushy, dude.

 

I'm all for freedom of people to not comply with treatment and also the freedom of the rest of us to not have to pay for the results, dude. I'm opposed to the nanny state in all its forms, which is a position that is anything but pushy, dude.

 

There were options. But where was the right, the tea-baggers -- ANYONE ELSE -- to come up with alternatives. To come up with a minority bill that could be used against Obama's health care bill to reach a workable compromise. No where. There was no alternative to a problem that has gone unfettered for decades. Each time there's an attempt to create a solution, the only answer is to destroy, decry, lie and denounce. And the problem gets worse.

 

Are you serious? Republicans offered several proposals that provided alternative ways to reform healthcare. They even detailed many of these proposals in the healthcare summit. They just didn't get anywhere in a Democrat-controlled government. Just because Democrats ignored minority bills doesn't mean they didn't exist.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I'm all for freedom of people to not comply with treatment and also the freedom of the rest of us to not have to pay for the results, dude. I'm opposed to the nanny state in all its forms, which is a position that is anything but pushy, dude.

 

Health care is like any other public good: the more people that are healthy, the more productive and happy our society is. Just because you don't use roads in another part of the state doesn't make the government a "nanny state" for making you pay taxes that support them.

 

Some of us believe in taxes that help the common good, others don't (and adamantly disagree with the the use of the word "good"), but dude, talking about denying certain people access to things that others have often comes off as pushy.

 

 

They just didn't get anywhere in a Democrat-controlled government.

 

Perry Bacon was talking in the Post today about how overwhelming political science research has shown that, contrary to popular belief, a divided government (GOP congress, Democratic president) accomplishes just as much as a single-party-held government.

[Atticus]

Dude, I love you, but I think you would be a much happier person if you developed a sense of humor, at least when responding to my posts.

 

I'm a very happy person, and I have a healthier sense of humor today than I have ever had. in fact it is in large part how I'm able to tolerate and laugh at the ridiculous PC bullshit that runs rampant these days on this board that used to get laughed out of the room with fervor.

 

(and I love you too Dan, for realz)

[Panther]

To combat this unconstatutional hidden aggenda style bill the white house is going to spend millionns over the next few months on public relations Obama will do his tour and the media will keep championing History has been made!!! CNN's anchors have been practically attacking ppl who oppose this bill its almost funny exept this is reality , i guesse well all se what happens wont we.

 

P.S i dont want to go into personal arguments with anyone its clear many of you view reality the history of the world and current state very diffreently than I especialy the so called progressives around these parts but taking the argument to the republicans is foolish ur playing into the right left paradigm. Stating what you belive based on the lack of your support for the opposing view is insanity when you don't know the facts or the truth , its better than nothing? yea thats a great attitude. Just like the convenional notion hey Obama at least hes not Bush , when hes continued every policey that Bush was demonized for and infact pushed the agenda further on every issue FACT!! you name it , go ahead try.

 

i do not know the details of this Bill but it is my estimation that if either the democrats or the repub;icans have anything to do with anything it aint good, now thats reality sorry.

Go watch John Stewart and have sweet dreams.