Reconciliation will be used, and here is the bill.

[adriane23]

Kasz216 said:

adriane23 said:

Kasz216 said:

adriane23 said:

Kasz216 said:

adriane23 said:

Kasz216 said:

adriane23 said:

damkira said:

Sounds like a great bill. The democrats have been too yellow-bellied on this in the past.

 

It's not a great bill, but it's needed and it isn't detrimental to our country like some say. You're right though, the democrats haven't had a backbone in years. I hope it passes, but I really hope they make some changes in the future.

Have you read the bill...?

This is the second time you've asked me this, see my previous response. Have you read it? Do you remember what you read?

Yes.  I have read it.  Not only do i remember a lot of it.  I've actually got the source matieral for the parts I haven't read.

You really shouldn't be making claims  if you don't at least have the same level of knowledge on the subject as the people your trying to debate.

It's like going into a chess tournament shouting yatzhee and demanding that people king you.  78% of people who've actually read the bill at Opencongress.org are against it.  In otherwords... the more informed you are... the more likely you are against it.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

And yet you continue to debate. But, I'll take your word for it and believe you know more than me about the bill. Please tell me what in this bill will destroy our country?

EDIT* And do you think the entire 78% read the entire bill?

I think the 78% on average read as much as the 22% on average... and that both groups read more and therefore know more then the general public who's against the bill by about 60%.

Dennis Kusnich is against this healthcare bill... I'm not sure if you know, but he's pretty much as left as you can go congress wise.

 

Also it wouldn't "destroy the country"... that would just be melodramatic.

It will however be detrimental to the country.

 

How?  Well, just read the thing.

 

1) The Health Chare Exchange -  This is an entire government department being created to be a glrofied "Progessive insurance" website feature.  Also for some reason middle sized and large companies aren't aloud to use this to get cheaper healthcare insurance... but may be able to in the future.

2) The Public option - It's going to be a government owned buisness... like Fannie mae and Freddie Mac.  According to current legislation it's going to forced to be self sufficent.  Which is a good thing.  The bad thing is... non profit insruance companies currently aren't any cheaper then for-profit ones.  A government run healthcare buisness, that has to give everyone government level benefits is going to end up being more expensive.   It'd be a miracle if this really can survive without the government subdisizing it.

3) Health insurance prices will only be able to discriminate based on age group, where you live... and family size.  First off... where you live?  Why?  That's just asking for redline districting...  secondly... this pretty much raises everyones health insurance costs... a LOT.  Since people who are a huge risk, either by birth or often by choice end up paying the same price as everbody else... this means those massive costs of people deemed to risky to even be in the system now are passed on to everyone else.  Everyones healthcare bills are going to go up... and spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP will skyrocket.

4) It limits "out of pocket costs"  Which means... no more cheap plans where you just pay for $10,000 worth of coverage.. etc, because you know you probably won't go over that.   Now every insurance plan reads like this "You get XX,XXX of treatment for free, then have to pay 5,000 dollars, then it's all free again."   In otherwords... rates because of this are going to go up.  Percentage of GDP spent will sky rocket.

5) They don't open up acess to healthcare.  They say they do, but the bill really just talks about making it easier for people to find insurance quotes rather then being forced to call each company. 

6)  To get support of the AMA and various hospitals they had to agree to increase Medicare and medicaid payments and roll back previous reductions that were planned.  In otherwords... "government" medicare rates have gone up for the government... GDP, Prices etc.

7)  Everyone is FORCED to buy healthcare or pay 2.5%.  Well everyone who has taxable income.

8) The vast majority of comapnies are FORCED to provide healthcare.  They either have to get a minium healthcare plan, or contribute an additional 8% or so of payroll.  So... that means less employees, less job growth (Perfect effect for right now).

9) To counter 6... they're going to pay medicare and medicaid doctors bonuses for having low readmission rates.  That could go badly a number of different ways. 

 

How much did they read? How much did they understand? How diverse is the group of people voting for or against the bill? None of these questions are addressed by just looking at this percentage.

Kucinich not supporting the bill doesn't mean it's terrible even if he is very liberal. I believe he wants a Single Payer System which this is not.

1) This is not a bad idea and excluding middle and large companies initially, seems like a capacity control reason.

2) Needs to stay in the bill, but will need revisions. This alone will bring more attention to the real problems of healthcare costs, the hospitals which contribute the majority of healthcare cost increases.

3) Health insurance is already determined by these factors. And just like with auto insurance, rates change based on your location. I don't really believe it's a bad thing.

4) Based on income tier and will be adjustable.

5) I don't see a detrimental problem with this.

6) I have a problem with this since, they need to really pressure the hospitals to lower their costs and provide more detail in their reasoning increasing fees.

7) The bill provides subsidies for low-middle income citizens to help buy insurance.

8) This needs to be revised, but I'm guessing it's to stop companies from not providng healthcare because of the public option.

9) They're trusting the doctors' and hospitals' ethics. It could be good if patient diagnoses and treatments become more accurate. It could be bad in a number of ways.

You're on here a lot......I can't keep up :)

1) You don't think it's a bad thing to spend billions of dollars on a government agency that could be replaced by a simple website?

2) Why?  Why is this going to be the case when we already have non-profit healthcare that doesn't work.

3) Do you think it would be a bad thing if auto insurance companies couldn't take into account driving history?

4) No, it isn't based on income tier or is adjustable.  It's 5,000 across the board last time I saw.

5) They are greatly increasing the costs of healthcare to everybody... without anything to lower costs.

6) They are pressuring the hospitals to lower their fees by paying them MORE?  You don't get it... they WERE pressuring hospitals... and now no longer are.

7) Which will barely cover the vast increases... whenever the government offers assistance you know what happens?  Companies raise prices so the consumer is paying about the same.

8) Except it won't be revised... this bill is being voted on in the nexxt 3 days.

9) They're relieing on doctors ehtics... but this is because they feel like doctors aren't paying enough attention.  You don't see a flaw on this?

I'm just going to address the more important points as i have to get back to work soon.

4) I just looked at the tier breakdown last night. The text of the bill is too large to load on my work computer, but you're more than welcome to re-read the bill.

6) You misread my post. I wrote, "I have a problem with this since, they need to really pressure the hospitals to lower their costs and provide more detail in their reasoning increasing fees." How did you interpret that as me saying they will be pressuring hospitals? I state that they NEED to pressure hospitals more.

8) The upcoming vote has nothing to do with future revisions that can and should be made to this bill.

9) Again, you misread what I wrote. I wrote, "They are trusting the doctors' and hospitals' ethics. It could be good if patient diagnoses and treatments become more accurate. It could be bad in a number of ways."

Looking at several other threads in which you've been a part of, I've concluded that you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, or you're just a very negative person. I'm not on this site to argue, so I'll be sure to never humor you with a response again.