http://budget.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1751

So, this is the bill that will be voted on. A few things of interest I have found so far:

• There is a public option in the bill (page 116)
• The tax for not having insurance, is 2.5% of your taxable income. (page 167)
• The person in charge of all this, will work for the president, and not congress. (page 41)

This better not pass.

This is really unfortunate. Why are the democrats shoving this fiscal nightmare down our throats? I'm afraid this bill is only a stepping stone towards single payer.
If it does pass the republicans will definitely regain the house this november and possibly the senate.

It's times like these, that make me rethink the effectiveness of a democracy. As much as I love freedom to elect your leaders, it's obvious the majority isn't capable of doing that. Or even the small percentage that actually vote in America. Which goes back to the old question I proposed a long time ago about having the right people in Congress? Need to stop putting the "suits" in Congress, and get some that no what they are talking about.

I want them to pass it. Not only is it unconstitutional but it will enable the Dems to hand over Congress to the GOP in November. Go ahead Dems, make my day!

It's not so much the effectiveness of a democracy.  It's the effectiveness of OUR democracy. 

I mean, as much as Mafoo is against all universal healthcare plans... I imagine he'd be willing to admit this one is MUCH more a trainwreck then others could be.  For example... this is something he wouldn't vote for even if he wanted universal healthcare.

Think about it... the people who are supposed to make sure that health insurance companies don't make out like bandits... are the same people getting MASSIVE campaign funding from healthcare companies.  Insruance agencies are one of the biggest lobbiests in washington.

The public option should be interesting... I wonder if it'll end up like Massechutuses... where only thoes who are bad risks and in poor health are on it... meaning the government is taking all the risk away from insurance companies yet the insurance companies aren't passing any of that back to the consumer.

2.5% of your taxable income... eh that's better then just the 1,000 dollars or whatever it was originally going to be.  Means people without taxable income can not get healthcare. 

I'm afraid it's quite the opposite.  NOT a stepping stone to single payer. 

I mean, when was the last time government vastly overhauled a failing government program to positive results?

Only one I can think of is the VA hosptial.  VA has some of the best healthcare in the country right now... though to get it... DEAD BODIES had to be lose for months then suddenly found with no idea or clue who they were.

I think this system will last a LONG time until there is a GIANT disaster that causes deaths or it causes a financial meltdown before they reform it to a single payer plan... which would be cheaper... or just get rid of it.

@Kasz216
I am not against all universal healthcare plans, I am just against forcing someone to work in the service of others.

If the government came out with a plan, and told everyone "you owe us 2 week's worth of effort to be on this plan", then I would be ok with it. Everyone supplied 80 hours a year towards it, either by working for the government doing something useful, or doing there own thing paying the government the money they earn in 80 hours.

But if I had to write the worst posable healthcare plan I could think if, the one they are about to vote on would be it.

Stupid leaders are the #1 thing that can kill a nation, and they've been a part of every form of government in history. If someone could find a solution for stupid leaders, then that would be the greatest form of government the world has ever seen.

Glad the public option's back, at least. It was fruitless to try and sacrifice it to make nice with an opposition that doesn't want to do anything but obstruct.

ohh.. thats an awful idea @_@