Click there to take you to the text of the new healthcare bill. If anyone wants to debate about it, please read the bill first so everyone can make an educated statement.
They haven't read the bill and have admitted as much. But for them it isnt about healthcare anyway so they don't care. It is about providing the means to regulate and control every aspect of your life.
TheHammer24 wrote:They haven't read the bill and have admitted as much. But for them it isnt about healthcare anyway so they don't care. It is about providing the means to regulate and control every aspect of your life.
I don't understand how people believe it is fair to "tax" the "rich" because they have it. The rich are not by definition greedy, evil, or in anyway deserving of such disparate treatment. They have worked hard for their money and have earned it by providing goods and services, excellent goods and services, that we all want.
Furthermore, since when did we forfeit our right to free enterprise? When did corporations that established great successful companies, forfeit their right to earn a profit? Since when has the government ever run anything at all that was successful enough that we should desire they provide us with services in place of the private sector?
mac5155 wrote:ill read it. hopefully it doesnt pass between now and next december when im done.
pittsoccer33 wrote: The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest
Hockeynut! wrote:Here's a good article from the Wash Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03662.html
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill'. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
pittsoccer33 wrote: The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest. their plans arent designed to get results. they are designed to create a dependant class of perpetual democrat voters.
MWB wrote:pittsoccer33 wrote: The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest
Like California, South Carolina, and Rhode Island?
Since the news media seems to be focusing almost entirely on the political fight rather than covering the actual proposal, I've been pretty much in the dark about the specifics of the health care bill. Since I have to have an opinion about everything, I decided to read the bill and provide a summary. I'm not a health care wonk by any stretch of the imagination, so some of the medical talk was above me, but I do basically know how to read a bill.
Long story short:
1. If you have existing insurance coverage and are happy with it, you can keep it (provided your employer keeps offering it, if you get it through work).
2. If not, or if your employer would rather provide service via the new system, then here is how it works:
2A: There's a list of qualifying insurance companies/plans. Basically, any existing insurance company can get on the list as long as they meet the standards. However, there is ALSO an optional government-run program on the list that you can choose if you want.
2B: You pick whichever plan you want from the list. Every type of plan (from basic to super duper extra special premium) is available depending on what company/plan you select.
2C: You pay into the system just like you do now.
2D: If you can't afford it, then the government provides credits so you can select a plan from the list. You can still choose whatever listed plan you want, but if you choose one that costs more than the credits you get, you have to cover the difference on your own.
3. Any person or company who chooses not to have qualifying insurance at all (whether via the list or not via the list) gets taxed at a higher rate. The proceeds from that tax go to pay for the low-income credits.
... It seems like a pretty fair bill to me. If I were a Congressman I'd have questions about the long-term viability of funding and how the government-run option would compete with the private options, but overall I'd be on board with the general concept.
One thing does seem perfectly clear: Those who complain that the government is trying to socialize health care and take away your options are dead wrong. This is NOT the communist-style wait-in-long-lines-to-get-crappy-service proposal that some of the media sound bites would have us believe. The bill intends to provide more choice, not less. It may be true that the bill has some wrinkles that need to be smoothed out, but that's an entirely different story than "socialized medicine will be the end of civilization".
ALABAMA - R D R D R
GEORGIA - R D R
ILLINOIS - D R D
FLORIDA - R D R
INDIANA - R D R
TENNESSEE - R D R D
KENTUCKY - R D R D
NORTH CAROLINA - R D
OHIO - R R D
CALIFORNIA - D R D R
NEVADA - D R
SOUTH CAROLINA - R R D R
OREGON - D D
RHODE ISLAND - D D R
MICHIGAN - D R D
tluke53 wrote:The fact that they are rushing this or any law is the only thing you need know.
Hockeynut! wrote:pittsoccer33 wrote: The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest. their plans arent designed to get results. they are designed to create a dependant class of perpetual democrat voters.
So the democrats want to fail so that people will keep voting for them?
As for your thing about the worst states are the ones with all of the Dems theory, let's examine that. Top 15 states (highest unemployment is listed last) for unemployment and their trends (I'll use the Pres election from 2004 as so few states voted R in 2008 that it doesn't give a good representation to the states' voting history).
ALABAMA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1993-1995, R Gov from 1995-1999, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
GEORGIA - voted R in 2004 D Gov from 1872-2003 (that's NOT a typo - wow!), R gov from 2003-present
ILLINOIS - voted D in 2004 - R Gov from 1977-2003, D Gov from 2003-present
FLORIDA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1991-199, R Gov from 1999-present
INDIANA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1989-2005, R Gov from 2005-present
TENNESSEE - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1987-1995, R Gov from 1995-2003, D Gov from 2003-present
KENTUCKY - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1971-2003, R Gov from 2003-2007, D Gov from 2007-present
NORTH CAROLINA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1993-present
OHIO - voted R in 2004, R Gov from 1991-2007, D Gov from 2007-present
CALIFORNIA - voted D in 2004, R Gov from 1983-1999, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
NEVADA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1989-1999, R Gov from 199-present
SOUTH CAROLINA - voted R in 2004, R Gov from 1987-1995, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
OREGON - voted D in 2004 - D Gov from 1987-present
RHODE ISLAND - voted D in 2004 - D Gov from 1991-1995, R Gov 1995-present
MICHIGAN - voted D in 2004, R Gov from 1991-2003, D Gov from 2003-present
Users browsing this forum: Cagsjr724 and 13 guests