Obama's Health Care Plan.
 

I just thought on putting here a thread to discuss this topic properly since it popped out in "Ignoring won't take us out of the problem".

Although I'm not American, I have to say I'm completely with the reform. The plan is based on our medical system, the Spanish Social Security; and just as I said on the other thread, my mother can afford the expensive breast cancer treatment for just 10 extra euros. I believe that's a great relief for the people who can't get any kind of health insurance.

But that's just a point of view, share yours as well.

The only thing I can say about the health care plan comes more from what I do not think about it than what I do think about it. Some froth at the mouth calling this plan "Armageddon," "the end of freedom" and "the beginning of socialism." I just find it funny that this plan resembles the Republican alternative to HillaryCare and RomneyCare more so than any "Democrat/liberal dream plan." And yet it is being treated as if it were! It is not a "government takeover," unless one qualifies government takeovers as being equal to government regulation.

The plan is entirely built around the private insurance industry. There is no "public option." I might have supported a public option depending on implementation, but I wasn't going to say "Down with the healthcare plan!" just because there wasn't one. Sure the government is telling private industry what to do (no turning people away, setting medical loss ratios, creation of high-risk pools), but the government regulating private industry isn't anything new or extraordinary. Arguing that it is excessive regulation is one thing. I will be more than happy to engage in a debate on that. But the whole "socialism/death of liberty" noise, to me, is bunk and avoids discussing the real issues as it plays on emotions (negatively) and little more.

This smells like an ideological issue as well, though. There are some people who think the government has no business operating in this market. I disagree, because I believe efficiency gains can be had. 32 million people are on the "ER" plan. That increases costs for insurance-paying people. We won't know if the benefits outweigh the costs for years, but that's how any large-scale social program works. If you are truly open-minded, even if you absolutely hate this bill, I challenge you to withhold judgment on whether it actually "works" (regardless of whether you believe the bill was "right" or not) for five years. It's true this restructures 1/6 of the economy, but we Americans have this ridiculous notion that everything should happen overnight.

Sovereign, The reason why I don't support it is that it will inevitably lead to rationing of care and the decisions will be in the hands of bureaucrats. I hate the insurance companies. My husband and I have had serious problems with them. For the past several years my husband has a condition that needs surgery. It is a necessary surgery. The doctors have written letters to the insurance company, etc about it and yet they denied his surgery TWICE because they thought that one of the aspects of the surgery was cosmetic. No it isn't. Its reconstructive. Totally different. So, now we are starting up the process again. For the third time.

He would have had this problem taken care of years ago if it wasn't for the fact that he didn't have insurance at the time :(.

I have a special hatred for them. I agree that the system needs to be fixed. It is badly in need of reform. However, I don't know if allowing the government to intrude even further on us is the answer. Some regulation is required. That is fine. I'm just uncomfortable with the government having more say in it. The system is already being run by the lawyers. Why wasn't there anything in the bill (now law) that deals with the very important issue of TORT reform? Enough with frivolous lawsuits. That could help. Instead, medical decisions are made by lawyers and pencil pushers.

I fear that this health care law will lead to rationing. "Socialized" medicine works in smaller countries (sometimes yes, sometimes no). However, the US is a very large country. We have a lot of people in this country and more come in. The system will bankrupt. Look at other programs that the government oversees. Social security: there won't be any left. Medicare? Ouch. VA? Native American health care? Ouch. Look up some of those. Hell, the Post Office is going caput.

Does anyone want to see the medical system end up like the DMV?

This is the fear at least with some others. There is also the serious problem of forcing the young people to buy insurance or else face fines from the IRS. That is unconstitutional.

I also don't agree with the government being ever more centralized. The states need to assert their rights more. These are just some of the issues that I find disturbing about the new healthcare law. What do you think?

I think there is an extreme fear for anything related to socialism in the US; it looks like something come from Soviet Russia "and communists are the DEVIL blah blah useless ideological chatter blah blah".

Government control is not the kind of Big Brother stuff with cams everywhere and people watching every single act you make. That IS freedom denial. But just paying an extra tax to avoid all the medical insurance stuff is not.

The good thing about the reform (I haven't read it, I'm taking this from personal experience with my own system, so correct me) is that you pay an X amount of money you can easily afford. You forget about the paperwork and you might use in all your lifetime less that what you've given. But an unexpected day you suddenly have a serious disease that needs an expensive treatment, and so the taxes given to the government by millions of people are used for your treatment and you might just pay an extra amount of money.

There are few people needing more money than what they gave to the system so it won't crash (except if of course you just put a 10 dollar tax).

About rationing, I feel that if every state of the US adjusted the plan to its actual needs (so underpopulated ones won't receive the same amount of taxes as the ones with a large population), every state would work as one of those small countries.

Notice please, that you are complaining about two systems, and both deny part of your freedom (you are forced to buy medical insurance or pay taxes to have access to hospitals). Don't just defend ideas because they look pretty or they were defended by great people at a certain moment; have actual and worthy reasons to fight for them. If they're useless at one point, let the rest take over: in this case, it might be equality over freedom.

Interesting Zenit. If the system ends up working that way, it might work. I don't know though. I'm skeptical about it. We will just have to wait and see.

As for as how most Americans are when it comes to "socialized" stuff, yeah they can be allergic to it. Many of them think it will be "soviet style" rationing, etc.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, rapunzel. I see nothing unconstitutional about the healthcare mandate (strict construction is usually the viewpoint that has a problem with the mandate). There are generally two broad approaches to the Constitution: if it's not specifically prohibited it's allowed, and if it's not specifically allowed it's prohibited. I'm of the former school, not the latter. The latter, taken to its logical (though not practical) extreme would, for example, deny the government any control over the Internet that was not commercial. You might be able to accomplish some things with the "necessary and proper" clause but that's interpretation that I don't know strict-constructionists would permit. Another example is Title IX and gender discrimination laws in general. In Article I, Section 8, there is nothing I can see that says "The government shall prohibit sex discrimination." Attempts to enshrine this in the Constitution died with the ERA. Gender-discrimination protection is not: a tax, duty, excise, borrowing of money, regulating commerce with foreign Nations...[or]...among the several states (except in cases of business that conduct such commerce--by ultra-strict construction small local businesses with dealings in one state would be exempt however they are not), part of the naturalization process, coining money, a standard of weights, punishment for counterfeiting of money, establishing post offices, building roads, copyright, inferior courts, punishment for piracy, punishment for felonies, declaring war, granting letters of marque, a rule about captures on land or sea, raising an army, maintaining a navy, regulating the military, suppressing insurrections, creation of a militia or governing the District of Columbia. Those are the enumerated powers (summarized) directly out of my pocket copy of the Constitution. Yes, I have one. Most political science majors do :) I foresee many beneficial regulations endangered by an overly-strict view of the Constitution.

The other reason I am of the first school of thought is because I believe the genius of the Constitution lies in its lack of specificity. The Founders couldn't anticipate 200 years' worth of societal and technological change.

I'm perplexed as to why you speak of rationing of care by the government as being a problem as if we don't already have rationing. You said so yourself: "he didn't have insurance at the time." That is free-market rationing. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but the free market says "If you can't afford it, you're not getting it" which is exactly what happened to you. Is the contention that government rationing is worse than private-sector rationing?

"Pencil pushers and lawyers" at insurance companies already make healthcare decisions for us. Again, the words you use (assuming I am interpreting them correctly) indicate that you're running into problems with the insurance companies. The argument "healthcare will end up like the DMV" is already true in the private sector, per your own reasoning (necessary surgery as determined by medical professionals is being denied by bureaucrats).

I'm not a huge believer in state's rights or strict-construction interpretations of federalism. That's an ideological construct, though, and there's really no "logical" way to prove it (see the thread on eating meat). I can give you an example of why I'm suspicious of "state's rights" and local control, and no, I'm not going to use Jim Crow.

Give too much control to the states and you get the Texas Textbook massacre. Or No Child Left Behind's race to the bottom. My mom is a teacher (and a Democrat); she hates the law. Every teacher I know does. Every Education/Music Education major I know (I'm in University right now) does too. By giving states the ability to set their own standards, they will use the same types of creative accounting that gave us scandals like Enron in order to look good while doing poorly. I believe Texas got in trouble for holding back anyone who didn't pass a certain test so that the results on certain grade-level tests looked better than the actually were. Did the test scores hold steady or go up? Yes. But was it due to weaker students learning? No.

Free-marketers would argue "the stupid children would get left behind." That is true in theory. However, it makes no mention of how quickly the market would react. In this particular case, my contention is that Texas' standards would quickly propagate to other states. What was hitherto unacceptable would become the new norm, degrading the knowledge of the nation. I believe the market would not "fix" the situation quickly enough. This is what economists call "market failure." In cases where market failure is agreed-upon to exist (such as regulation of certain negative externalities), economists within the Keynesian and Classical schools typically agree the government has a role to play (I'm an economics major too).

I know this is long, but I hope it explains why I interpret the Constitution the way I do (which was the one argument I felt needed some exceptionally detailed discussion).

Figures someone else would post before I finished my mini-textbook chapter :P

To ZenitYerkes' point: I agree, Americans have this ridiculous reaction to so-called "socialism" and "evil government" but happily take both Social Security and Medicare. This isn't commentary on the solvency of the programs themselves, merely discussion of what I see as an ideological inconsistency. "Souls of Democrats and pocketbooks of Republicans" is the way my professor put it, which translates to "We like the idea of having something to fall into if we hit hard times, but we don't want to pay for it."

We probably agree on more than you think.

I guess I am more of a strict constructionist because it is very easy to read all sorts of things into the constitution without them actually being in there.

I understand your point but I also think that the other extreme is also problematic (reading into the constitution stuff that isn't there. There is no place where it says that a person is required to buy health insurance).

I understand your point there.

I don't like either one. I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. I don't want the government nor the insurance companies to "ration".

I don't like either one. However, if it is between the choice of fighting the government or fighting a silly insurance company, I would choose to fight the insurance company because there is a slim chance of winning. If you are fighting the government, you won't win.


I agree. Like I said before, I think that the system is in grave need of reform. Its just that I am skeptical that allowing the government to have more control is the answer.

I have a problem with to much overcentralization either of government or private corporations.

I agree that those two were stupid. The states can be just as bad. This is an extreme example though.

I totally agree. That is another system that is shot: the Education system.


That is bad :(.


Sadly, as you know, the knowledge of the Nation is at abysmal levels.


I'm in between on this. I'm not totally free-market and not totally on the socialist side either. Since I don't have an extensive knowledge of economics I probably can't state a decent argument for the economic side of things :).


No problem. It is helpful. I still remain skeptical about it. I have heard some alarming stuff about the law (specifically the conscience clause, etc). I might have got wrong information. I just know there are a lot of scared people out there and there are a ton who are against it. We will just have to wait and see I guess.

You don't sound like a jerk here. You have expressed what I have felt about the insurance company for a while. I don't hate much of anything but I admit that I have a special hatred in my heart for the insurance companies. They have robbed my husband and I. I won't go into details into the specific problem but they are robbers. Pure and Simple. I just fear that the government will be worse :(.

In my opinion, I doubt America will ever get a full Universal Health Care system like in other parts of the world (like Europe). I am surprised It has gotten this far to be honest. Being in the UK, I am looking at this from an outsider's perspective.

It seems that anything that happens in the US, the question people ask is "What about me?" and that their first concern is themselves and not that of concern for the greater good of the country. Now don't get me wrong, I am not calling everyone in America self-centered, just that in places like Europe, even the most self-centered, egotistical people still have a little part of them that think of the greater good of their nation.

If you look at other countries that have Universal Health care, it has generally happened after some sort of uprising. Looking at the UK, the first act of Universal Health care was the National Insurance Act of 1911 but What spurred this on? The general, working-class public off the country were getting restless with the rich, powerful people in charge of the country at the time and were banding together and threatening the people in power (See: The Formation of The Labour Party). In attempt to quell this, the government passed many acts to show that it cared for the people. It did this as it was becoming afraid of the people, whereas in the US, the public are afraid of the Government. I think this needs to shift before any major changes (like Universal Health care can really take shape).

rapunzel, vastly to your credit, you are open to discussing this plan without flying into the hyper-rhetorical cow excrement that comes from many on both sides. Specific examples include the left who says we're all going to be bending over for the insurance companies with this plan (even though in reality it takes power away from them) and the right who claims this is one step toward Soviet Russia.

I'd almost say I trust the government more than the private sector, if only because the government is theoretically accountable to the people, not just shareholders who (absent any level of social activism) are concerned about the next dividend payout and nothing more. Sure, politicians are sometimes self-interested jerks, but it's easier to harness that than to hammer on the closed door of an insurance company (in my view, at least).

As to the strict-construction versus interpretation debate: there's no place that says the government has the right to enforce child labor laws either, unless the corporation employing such labor engages in commerce that crosses state lines ("among the several states") or operates internationally ("with foreign Nations"). It seems what people will say is "too much" depends more on ideology or belief systems than anything else. The point I'm trying to make is that for every incident one says the government is "doing something that's not expressly written in," I believe I can make a claim of the government "stepping in" that most people would agree with and find beneficial. It doesn't make you wrong, nor me right, it just raises the question of how much interpretation a person is going to accept. By the strictest definition of strict construction, almost no one is actually a strict constructionist. The question is where to draw the line. I personally believe a health insurance mandate isn't over the line.

Here's the economic reasoning for a mandate (regardless of constitutional discussions): the cheapest people to insure are the ones at the lowest risk of disease (young people like myself). The concept of insurance is that when the risk is spread over many people, everyone paying in offsets the incidents where there needs to be a payout. The fewer people that need payouts, the lower premiums can be. The more healthy people you place in the pool, the lower the statistical likelihood of requiring a payout (even if you only move the risk by decimal points, it counts).

This is a nice concept but right now it doesn't work very well because many of those whose presence would most benefit the system cannot afford and/or choose not to carry insurance. The mandate helps to alleviate both problems by offering subsidies. Overall, the more people you have in the pool, the better.

Right now, my parents pay $39/mo for "high deductible" (or catastrophic) insurance for me since my dad was laid off and it costs more than it's worth to put me on my mom's plan. Let's say I move to buy my own (comprehensive) coverage in the future. The government says I have to buy insurance. It costs $200/mo (wild guess) but since I'm still a student (and thus potentially considered at the federal poverty threshold) Uncle Sam gives me 66% of my insurance costs back. An effective price of $66/mo makes me more likely to purchase this insurance.

Now for the stick part. By not carrying health insurance, technically you are a risk to all of society. If you end up in a situation where you need medical care, you will go to an ER since they cannot refuse anyone. This probably costs more to the insurance-paying and tax-paying public than your insurance would have cost you. If it doesn't, this logic won't work, but usually people who run up big bills at the ER (and thus are the ones with the big costs) have huge medical issues that are expensive to treat because they were allowed to fester. By taxing you for the risk you create, the government is forcing you to internalize (accept the cost) of the risk you are creating by not carrying insurance.

I agree tort reform is needed. I have two close friends whose parents work as a hospice nurse and doctor respectively. They both complain of having to "shotgun" tests out of fear of lawsuits. The economic logic is this: $10,000 of tests that find nothing to avoid a $1 million lawsuit which would come if the tests had not been done and a problem was missed, plus legal costs. Easy choice. The caveat is that this falls back on the insurance company (and the public).

The argument from trial lawyers is that we "need to sock it to bad hospitals and doctors." Bad doctors exist. Just like teachers who cheat, soldiers who do things like Abu Gharib, accountants who cook the books and others who bring dishonor to their profession, these people need to be punished. However, very few would go through hell and back (med school, residency) to blow it. And a bad hospital, that is highly unlikely. Highly unlikely that a whole hospital would become corrupted and un-salvageable. Hospitals are millions in investment. I just don't see a "hospital conspiracy" lasting too long, and if one does exist it will be plainly obvious. More on this later. Many medical mistakes are simple human error that, while regrettable, speak to the problem with medicine in this country. Doctors have too many patients and are worked too hard. There are not enough general practitioners/surgeons, and too many specialists. 90%+ of medical students last year went into specialized fields because that is where the money is. It only makes sense, given the cost of medical school.

So here's my plan to address the problems I just outlined above:
Capping lawsuit damages except in cases where a "medical grand jury" finds that sufficient evidence exists to justify a higher cap or no cap at all. This would address "drive the bad ones completely out of business." These juries would consist of nine people. Three laypersons (like you and me). Three doctors (most likely from the same or similar field as the doctor who stands accused). Three "health law experts" (could be trial lawyers, hospital legal attaches, insurance company attorneys etc). No ties, since there are nine. But each party (citizens, doctors, law-professionals) is equally represented.

Creation of scholarships, tax breaks and other rewards for those who commit to a certain period of general practice after med school. This would enable doctors to see fewer patients overall, lowering their stress levels and their likelihood of making mistakes. My friend whose mom is a doctor is in private practice. They will only accept a certain number of patients. End of story. Excepting medical emergencies involving immediate family of current patients, they will not take on more than their decided capacity. This has kept mistakes low.

Enable doctors to create "suit-proof" contracts with patients who are then charged a lower rate. Sign a contract or similar waiving your right to sue under specific circumstances (say, you won't sue for mistakes made during routine physicals). You've just lowered the doctor's risk since without the contract you can technically sue for a screwup anywhere. You chose to sign the contract, so if something does happen, you took the risk. Ideally, contracts for riskier procedures would have a set payout (rather than an unpredictable, most likely million-dollar award from a jury) should something go wrong.

Enable doctors to report recalcitrant patients to their insurance company. Again referencing my friend's mom's practice, if one of the doctors finds that despite prescribing Medicine X, you are not following the prescription properly (and thus it is not working), you are given a certain amount of time to "clean up your act" or you are asked to find medical services elsewhere. Many "medical errors" are "patient-side" (not following doctor's orders because "I feel fine" or similar). If you know so much, Mr./Mrs. I-Feel-So-Great, why did you go to the doctor in the first place? Enabling doctors to nail these people through their insurance would reduce risk (since not following a doctor's orders increases risk something might not work).

As to the state's rights discussion: I believe the "extreme examples" do enough damage to wash out benefits of state control on these issues. It's "one person threw a paper airplane so the whole class gets detention" type of thing.

I hope I addressed everything. If I didn't, it's probably my fault for starting such a big discussion in the first place.

I will admit, I don't know much about how the American will be done, but having free healthcare here, I have to say, for all its flaws (the current government have messed up the NHS' funding and it's too full of bureaucracy), it's a great thing. I was always amazed how the world's most powerful nation would let people die if they couldn't afford healthcare.

Sovereign, thank you for taking the time to answer all my points. I like your plan. I just wish it was the one that passed the House instead of what we possibly have on our hands. I'm still skeptical about the government due to the fact that they don't seem to remember that it is the people that they work for. I think that to many of them are drunk on their own power and as a result have become very corrupted. I'd like to see most of them get kicked out of office.

You are right about the medical situation. It is just as much the patient's responsibility as it is the doctor's. IF the patient isn't taking their medication, etc then problems will happen. My dad is a PA (physician's assistant). He sees this sort of thing all the time sadly :(.

We'll see how it goes. I have a few friends who are very alarmist about the new healthcare law. They fear the US becoming like the USSR or Nazi Germany. I think they are exaggerating but I know there is a lot of fear out there.

My biggest concern with term limits (which seems to me to be close to "kick them all out") is the influence of the "special interests" we all love to decry. While I believe the jury is still out on the impact of term limits, at least one essay (I'm not going to write a senior thesis here--I've already done two) suggests the following:
Source: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...t=trevor_dryer

This is not to imply a single work "proves" that term limits are dangerous, but it does show there exists a body of academic work which believes term limits could have detrimental effects.

A discussion of the merits and demerits of term limits can be found in the introduction and first chapter of the book "Institutional change in American politics: the case of term limits" which is partially available on Google Books (and fully available through an order at your local library).

Forcing everyone out of office at once (through a Constitutional amendment, since the Supreme Court ruled that states may not impose term limits on Federal officeholders since the Constitution does not specify term limits) would destroy the institutional memory of the Federal legislature. A less legally-dense summary is available on Wikipedia.

The crux is "kick them out" makes a great bumper-sticker, but I'm markedly less sure about the policy implications of such a move. Though we love to "hate the system" I've been "pulled into" several "systems" (a State Senator's office, Student Government, Senior Patrol Leader in my troop going in reverse-chronological-order) and I've come to find that there are indeed ideology-free, legitimate reasons for some of those policies which I loved to rage at while part of "the masses."

The Federal (and State) governments are much larger and more complex than any organization I've been involved in, and I suspect that for every foolish policy or rule, there exists an equal number of those which everyone might not like, but actually benefit us as a whole.

I am much less suspicious of the government than I am of private industry in many cases. Private industry loves to mock the government for being inefficient "because they don't have to make a profit." It is precisely the obsession with (short-term) profits that is the greatest weakness of the private sector. Due to Wall Street expectations, companies have engaged in deceitful, deceptive, and I would also argue immoral, behavior to pump up returns in the short run rather than focusing on long-run growth. The idea of accepting lower, but still profitable, returns in exchange for doing good for society seems to have vanished from some parts of corporate America. So has the concept of "keep the company running profitably 20 years from now" (I would look at the American automakers here, who pigged out on SUVs while ignoring the fact that oil is a finite resource whose price is destined to rise until it becomes unaffordable, effectively meaning we are "out of oil").

The fear surrounding this new law is justified, and not. What is justified is asking questions of "what was done, how was it done, and how will it matter to me?" What is not justified are these overhyped discussions of fascism, communism and socialism. Just as I scoffed at my liberal friends for saying the Bush "free speech zones" were a "step toward fascism" I have equal disdain for conservatives making similar arguments. It's a childish, immature way of thinking: When "the other party" is in power, they're destroying our country, ignoring the people and turning us into [insert name of big bad historical reference here].

Politicians, to some extent, are mere reflections of what their most vocal and influential constituents are asking them to be. If we accept the premise politicians will do almost anything to be re-elected, they will have to vote the way their constituents would want at least some of the time. Often (especially with gerrymandered House districts), the extreme views of a politician reflect the extremism of those who would "primary" them (from the left or right extreme) for being insufficiently ideological. If every politician were principaled enough to "take it for the team" and tell the extremists of both stripes to get lost, almost no one would be re-elected. The Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, MoveOn.org and AFL-CIO (plus their noisy kin) would see to that!

Hence, I contend to place all of the blame on politicians (which is another great bumper-sticker) ignores the fact that in a democracy, even one as corrupt (according to some) as ours, we the people are sometimes we the problem. Despite the fact that we (rapunzel and I) have agreed on many more items than I initially anticipated we would, and I think we've both advanced our understanding of both "the other side" and the issue at hand, many common folk are not willing to do this. They wall themselves into their Rachel Maddow or Glenn Beck and refuse to accept anything that contradicts their views. As I said before, these people's choice of politician reflects the closed-mindedness of the more ideological voters who turn out in primary elections.

I honestly believe the extremism started both with politicians and with voters (pols trying to outdo each other, voters blasting pols for being insufficiently committed to "the cause"). How to solve it, I do not know. You can't force someone to believe something they don't want to believe. Even if that belief is helping to undermine the civic discourse in this country.

For me, had I grown up with this plan I would think nothing of it. However, having come from the opposite end I oppose it completely. This is just eating more of our money, putting us further into debt etc. I personally do not like that I will have to pay so that bums can get free healthcare when they are not working themselves (yes I know this is not everyone). There are a few positives but also many negatives of this.

I like this quote from a friend lol, "A health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed... by a country that's broke. What could possibly go wrong?"

There are many "money-eating" policies we continue to pursue for various reasons. I find the hypocrisy stunning (not from you but from other groups that attack the health plan due to cost) when dealing with people who didn't object to borrowing to pay for the war in Iraq, borrowing to pay for the war in Afghanistan and the "Bush tax cuts" that were never fully-funded to begin with because that "trillion dollar surplus" discussed back in 2000 was purely hypothetical and assumed both the continuation of Clinton-esque policies and sustained growth of the economy. Now they're shrieking about borrowing to pay for healthcare? I'd rather borrow for that than for a war we know was based on a lie (Iraq) and a war that we're not quite sure how to win (Afghanistan). I supported Afghanistan because that's where the baddies were. I didn't buy the "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" deal.

Here's the "Obama" budget. The three largest categories are Social Security, Defense and Income Security. Before anyone goes blasting Income Security as "welfare for bums," take a look at what's in that category. It includes: unemployment ("welfare"), Supplemental Security Income (have a feeling it might be related to Social Security, not sure), military retirement, food stamps (more "welfare"), Federal retirement for civilians, the cost of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, TANF, Making Work Pay and many smaller categories. The fourth biggest category is Medicare. The fifth and sixth are Health (Medicaid) and Net Interest. Trying to "balance" the budget without touching these top six is bailing water with a thimble. Try to touch Social Security or Medicare and you get uninformed "Teabaggers" yelling about "get the government out of my Medicare." You also get angry AARP members bleating about Social Security cuts. Touch the Defense budget and the hawks/neo-cons are all over you for "hating our troops," "weakening defense" and "letting us fall behind other countries."

In short, yes this proposal is expensive, but to me it's worth more than weapons we don't need. If efficiency gains are actually realized out of this healthcare bill (get people off the ER plan) Medicaid and Medicare costs could drop.

Funny, but doesn't even address the policy (bumpersticker, albeit a long one). To use this in jest makes me chuckle. To use it in a formal argument is ad hominem (and tu quoque). I can do the same thing (paraphrased): I can't wait until everyone has healthcare and education, but the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

LOL, that's a funny quote :).

Sovereign: I agree with most of your points. We are dealing with a complex beast and I know it is probably not feasible to kick all the "bums" out of congress but it is frustrating when it seems that these politicians do not have the best interests of the country but seemed to be bought and paid for by special interest groups and corporations.

I see your point when you talk about not trusting the private sector as much as the government because of their tendency to become corrupt. You are also right that the corporations have been caring more about getting short term profits instead of working to ensure that the company can be successful in the long term. That is why many of them are hurting now. The bubbles that burst in the late 80's with the S&L scandals, the late 90's/2000's with the Dot-com bubble, and now the housing bust is just the icing on the cake for what will come. I fear that there are more bubbles that will be burst.

The same is true for the government. I totally agree that we never should have gone to Iraq. Going to Afghanistan made more sense because there were actual Al'Quada camps there. You also make a good point about the top things that our country pays for is stuff that no one wants touched. I'm concerned that since we are $12 trillion in debt and counting up that we can't afford this healthcare law. We simply can't afford it.

I haven't had time to read every word on the previous page. Good debate so far. I'll admit that I don't know all the details of this bill (or was bill) so I guess I'm just prejudice about it. I'm not a supporter. It just seems too shady. The stuff below was written by a republican so it is all biased but the points are true. Citation is at the bottom.

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

What's Really in Obama's Health Care Reform Bill - A Plain English Translation

Unil_mi_tokx, I hate to bash sources here but if you read carefully the "original" source (from the one you posted) is none other than "FreeRepublic.com." I'm not saying that the above is not true (I don't have time at this moment to look up all those pages, but I will soon). What I am going to assert, however, is that FreeRepublic is far from unbiased and to my knowledge plays fast and loose with the truth.

Ever heard of "Freepers" or "Freeped Poll?" They're not exactly the most honest and ideology-free of people.

Like I said, I will look into all these later, but for now I don't believe any of it. Yet.

I don't doubt that the truth has been stretched. I mean, it does start getting a little overheated at the end. However, I'm just saying that if the summaries of the pages listed above are true, some of those things scare me.

So far looking bad for Mr. Freeper. Out of the first five, 4/5 are flat-out false (and inflammatory to boot). One is ambiguous (more on that when I make my final post).

I figured as much. I'm being honest that I really don't know much about it. Which is bad because considering the law affects pretty much everyone, we should know exactly all what it entails. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure 85% of Congress doesn't even know what it says either. I look forward to your final post.

I am actually concerned that the government will end up turning this country into a socialistic one. No offense to those who live in one, but with leaders like Obama in office, things could get out of hand when it comes down to how much "rationing of health benefits" they decide to impose.

That certainly looks hugely exaggerated, just from a quick read through, without even knowing anything about the site. they aren't stupid, I'm sure they looked at existing healthcare systems that work (e.g. the NHS) in designing their system.

*drum roll*

Mr. Freeper has a score of 46 demonstrated LIES and FALSEHOODS, 4 things that are PARTIALLY TRUE (but either contain inflammatory false statements or are deliberate misinterpretations to build his pathetic case) and ZERO statements that are fully true on their own.

Here's the text I'm basing my analysis on. Note: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. etc. If I screw up, point to the section of the bill you believe I've misinterpreted. Just because I say “FALSE” does not necessarily mean it isn’t in the bill—it just means that I didn’t find any reference to it on the page that it was alleged to be located on. If it is there, point out the correct page, quote the bill, and I will edit this post.

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!
FALSE. I cannot find any reference to required insurance. There is an insurance mandate which kicks in FY2014, but that's not on page 16 either. There is also no "government" (public) option in the bill. It was removed from the original House bill. Freeper needs to learn how to read (if he's looking at the final bill) or specify which bill he is looking at (if he's trying to pass off an old bill as this one to scare people).

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
FALSE. At least the assertion that this is on p22. Not reading the whole bill (906 pages).

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
AMBIGUOUS, LEANING FALSE on the assertion that there is flat-out mention of rationing in the bill. “to the extent feasible and appropriate, enable determination of an individual’s eligibility and financial responsibility for specific services prior to or at the point of care” may be interpreted as “rationing.” To those who complain of government rationing, I ask, what have you to say about the fact that healthcare is already rationed in the private market based on ability to pay? The only way to avoid the private sector’s rationing is the “ER Plan” which costs billions every year.

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
FALSE . The text on p29-30 refers to implementation of electronic standards meant to simplify healthcare administration.

• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
FALSE. No such commissioner exists either on this page or in the entire bill by this name.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
FALSE. This was never in the bill to begin with. Hispanic groups such as La Raza threatened to block the bill at the last minute because there was no provision for illegals. In fact, illegal immigrants are barred from purchasing insurance from the Exchanges even with their own money, unsubsidized.

• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
FALSE. Nowhere in the bill are “National ID Healthcards” mentioned. Page 58 deals with the creation of Health Exchanges established by the states.

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
FALSE. That page covers exemptions from the insurance mandate. The government shall “establish and make available by electronic means a calculator to determine the actual cost of coverage after the application of any premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and any costsharing reduction under section 1402” but that’s the only reference to electronics I can find.

• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
FALSE. This page covers how people can enroll in Exchanges and forces Members of Congress plus their staff to receive benefits packages only from the Exchanges or other provisions of the bill. If you have a plan that meets Minimum Coverage, keep it! If you want to change plans and enroll in something offered through an Exchange, you can. In fact…
“(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.—
(i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle,
the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are—
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established
under this Act (or an amendment made by this
Act).
(ii) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.—The term ‘‘Member
of Congress’’ means any member of the House
of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.—The term ‘‘congressional staff’’ means all full-time and parttime employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.”

Looks like the politicians applied the law to themselves after all! Before saying “I’m sure there’s a loophole,” find the loophole. Don’t just try to play on suspicions that “everyone hates the government so they’ll swallow this without me backing it up.”

• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
TRUE based on personal knowledge, but not mentioned on this page. In order to participate in Exchanges, a plan must meet a certain standard, but beyond that it is entirely up to the company. This is why there was a huge fuss over abortion because plans taking money through Exchanges cannot use the funds collected through federal means to pay for abortions. There must be a separate fund entirely consisting of money collected directly from private citizens by the company, not the government.

• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
FALSE. The reason insurance companies participate is for their own benefit, not by some mandate. They want those 32 million additional customers, and if they don’t participate then their competitors will get them.

• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
FALSE. There has been a requirement for translation services for legal residence whose first language is not English, but there is no such mandate on this page or in this bill.

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
FALSE. There is no Government-run Healthcare Plan! There is no mention of ACORN or Americorps in the whole bill!

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
FALSE. This page covers the “Study on Affordable coverage” and begins “Section 1402 – Reduced Cost-Sharing for Individuals Enrolling in Qualified Health Plans.”

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
FALSE FALSE FALSE! For the third time, there is no government-run healthcare plan!

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
FALSE. The government does set rates for Medicare reimbursement but not the wages of doctors. The page actually covers the limitations on the “uninsured” tax (how much you must pay if you carry no insurance).

• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
FALSE. There. Is. No. Public. Plan.

• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
FALSE. Everyone must carry insurance (in 2014) but no mention is made of part-time employees or their families. This page covers “Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage.”

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
FALSE. FFS! NO! Just. No.

• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
FALSE. See above! However, employers who offer no plan (private plans, ahem), do pay a tax.

• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
PARTIALLY TRUE. You will pay a tax if you do not carry an acceptable insurance plan by government standards, but the tax is not 2.5% of income. See pages 126-131 of the actual bill to learn more about the penalties for those who do not have insurance. The short version is that this tax shall be no more than $750.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
FALSE. Page 170 is full of technical corrections. There is a section about “lawfully residing in the United States” with regard to “Section 605 of Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act” but legal residents pay taxes.

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
FALSE. The government already has a great deal of information on you as a citizen already (this started long before Obama, Bush and the current political mess, it’s called “the IRS”). There is no stipulation on this page which grants the government carte blanche access to everyone’s financial and “personal” records.

• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
FALSE. No, Mr. Freeper, it really doesn’t say that. Please read the bill before making ridiculous accusations.

• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.
FALSE. Reductions in payments specified on this page reference “value-based incentive payments,” not Medicaid.

• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
FALSE. This page continues the discussion of “value-based incentive payments.” From personal knowledge (which may be wrong), payments to specialists are reduced for situations in which a regular doctor and specialist could perform the same test. The specialist received more under the old system simply because he or she is a specialist, not because specialized knowledge was required.

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
FALSE. The government will set reimbursement rates for those treating patients who are receiving benefits directly from the government, but that’s been the case forever when dealing with Medicare and Medicaid. The rates are abysmally low though, I’ll give opponents that. However, the AMA supported this legislation precisely because there was supposed to be a “doc fix” (either in this legislation or upcoming) which would prevent the otherwise-scheduled reimbursement rate cut.

• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
FALSE. The government mandates standards for private insurance. There may be parts in there about hospital Information Technology, but I’m not sure.

• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
FALSE. I’ve heard TV commercials claiming that “We’ll make sure the government reimburses you or the power chair is on us” but that’s not in this bill. Nor do I know how true those ads are either.

• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
FALSE. Again, the private sector already rations. It’s called money and quantity of which is used to purchase services. If you have sufficient money you can buy whatever care you want in the private market. There’s no mention of rationing on this page (or cancer patients for that matter).

I’ll freely admit the government will have to do some rationing somehow (perhaps limiting the number of times they reimburse for Procedure X) but I don’t know if that’s in this bill and rationing is a fact of life anyway. People just seem to think it’s “eviler” when the government does it as opposed to the rationing-by-price we encounter every day. That’s how markets work—by setting a price they limit how much of Good or Service A is purchased.

• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
FALSE. The government may “terminate an agreement with an ACO if it does not meet the quality performance standards established by the Secretary under subsection (b)(3)” but an ACO is an Accountable Care Organization (see page 277), not a hospital.

• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
FALSE. This page deals with how the government pays physicians and contains no punishments.

• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
FALSE. No prohibitions exist.

• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
FALSE. Discusses “presumed rate of utilization of imaging equipment.”

• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
FALSE. If I see one more BS line about ACORN I’m going to scream. This page covers a modification of the Social Security Act to permit a study of cancer hospitals.

• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
FALSE. There are nonbinding effectiveness studies in this bill, but they’re not on this page and there’s no forced rationing based on their outcomes. This page covers Medicare Advantage plans.

• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
PARTIALLY TRUE. The government won’t do that on this page (read the f---ing bill before spouting off, please, Mr. Freeper!) but the government does set standards for minimum care. Assuming that these standards apply to Medicare, then the privately-run Medicare Advantage plans could be disqualified for failure to meet standards. HMOs also have to meet standards.

This does bring up the question of what, exactly, “disqualify” means in this sense, but I’m not going to try to divine the motive of someone who on at least five separate occasions railed about a non-existent “public plan.”

• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
FALSE. This page deals with “drugs of clinical concern” (p353) and “Reducing Part D Premium Subsidy for High Income Beneficiaries.” I presume this is the “Trig Palin With Down Syndrome Won’t Get Anything from the Evil Government” argument. By “enroll” this might be the sixth(?) mention of the phantom public plan that only exists in the minds of paranoid Freepers, or it might refer to restrictions on private companies. Neither exist.

• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
FALSE. This committee does not exist in the bill, and the actual discussion on page 379 is inside-ball dealing with how the bill will be passed between the House and the Senate.

• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
FALSE. Palin’s Death Panels claim was false then, it is false now. The item that was originally there and monstrously distorted by people playing politics was a mandate that doctors should be paid by Medicare if their patients elect to receive end of life counseling. That is, if a patient who is on Medicare/Medicaid chooses to discuss with his or her doctor what to do at the end of his or her life, the doctor should be paid.

• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
FALSE. See above, and note lack of discussion of wills. No mention of the Estate Tax is to be found. In fact, the only two mentions of “estate” in the entire bill exempt them from a tax (p752, 753).

• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
FALSE. No such list exists, here or in any part of the bill.

• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
FALSE. No such mention of government involvement. On p76, “F) PROTECTING ACCESS TO END OF LIFE CARE.—A community health insurance option offered under this section shall be prohibited from limiting access to end of life care.” That is the only mention of it in the bill.

• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
FALSE. Yet more delusional paranoia from the Freeper Universe. Page 429 discusses clinical preventative services. See all above discussions about end-of-life and other “pull the plug on granny” arguments.

• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
FALSE. See above. This is really getting old, making the same argument five times and it being false every single time.

• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
FALSE. *Screams* ACORN was not and is not in this bill. This page discusses a “PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PAIN CARE” and “FUNDING FOR CHILDHOOD OBESITY DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT.”

• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
FALSE. Real World Content: Health Education Centers.

• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
FALSE. The real text discusses the NURSING STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM and INVESTMENT IN TOMORROW’S PEDIATRIC HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE.

• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
FALSE. Page discusses grants and scholarships for training mid-career public and allied healthcare professionals, as well as funding for “National Health Service Corps.” No, that is not a conspiracy.

Yes, I know I started editorializing part way through. I'll be the first to admit when I get really angry, it can show. And I was really angry. Not because I fully support this bill, or because I think Obama is some kind of reincarnation of Jesus Himself.

I was (and am) angry because these "Freepers" not only seem to have way too much time but for someone who claimed to have "decode[d] the bill" he sure did a really, really s--tty job. None of the claims actually matched up to pages. If this bill is so evil, I'd also think he would have read the entire bill (which is 906 pages long). The evil wouldn't stop at page 500 :P Instead, he thought up every "evil" thing that was guaranteed to get the Freepers mad as hornets, fapping to their imagined righteousness against the imagined evil of Emperor Obama urinating on their imagined interpretation of the Constitution which holds everything Obama does is wrong.

I'm sorry for the crude imagery, but these people are, I will say, unequivocal sheep. They claim everyone else buys into all these huge conspiracies, then this "big reveal" comes out and is completely false. When you point this out, they invent new conspiracies as to why "they" are right and everyone else is "being deceived." Enough with the frakking false flag theories!

I'm not necessarily defending the bill (though many of its provisions make sense). I'm shooting down erroneous, deliberate falsehoods which appeal to fear and anger in an attempt to prevent someone from actually verifying their truth. Here, there is none to be found.

File this in the "Useless Freeper Crap" bin. This was never, ever intended to be an attack on Unil_mi_tokx. He is not the Mr. Freeper to which I refer. Mr. Freeper is that so-called "US Army Translator" who posted this garbage over at that site I won't dignify with a link, which was then linked to by a site Unil_mi_tokx was reading, who is completely innocent of this disgusting ignorance.

Case closed.

Whoa...

Sovereign, you are GOOD at this!

That...

...that was epic :D

That also only took me an hour and a half, max.

It's been hard keeping up with what is really included the health care bill, all the political struggle turned it's creation into a nightmare. Is it a step in the right direction? Yes. Is it perfect? Considering the sh*t it's gone through, probably not, but once all the dust has settled we will be able to see what it really is and improve it from there. Hopefully it will not turn into a storm again.


Unrelated:
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

First of all, I bow to Sovereign. That was remarkable. In all fairness I will say, "I was wrong. Thank you for explaining it."

I really do not know everything about the bill. That was actually very educational. I do have some specific remarks...

Does this mean we can get this law translated into Na'vi?

While I certainly would hope that no one in the government would want to deliberately form legislation that gives them the ultimate verdict of someone's end-of-life state, the "pull the plug on granny" part made me laugh.

Like I said in my first post, I'm not surprised that this is extremely biased. I did not realize exactly how waaaay off it was though.

OK, I agree. I don't necessarily like the concept of where this bill was heading. Yes it urges competition to keep the prices down, and the parts about private companies raising their standards to meet government regulations isn't a bad thing. That's actually good. The idea of government involvement in personal matters is a scary thought. The truth was extremely stretched in that, which I now I have proof of - thank you Sovereign. I'll just have to stick it to the other crazy republicans at the next tea party meeting.

No offense taken. I'll have to be more discerning about some of those articles. I'll keep an eye out for Freeper.

Unil_mi_tokx, "Freeper" isn't just one person, FYI. It's a whole collection of internet-libertarians who think they're the Next Coming of the Founding Fathers. Their stuff is mostly contained to their website, FreeRepublic, but they've been known to strike out into other areas.

Example: "Freeping" a poll means a flood of people from FR mass-vote in a poll to make it appear comically tilted in one direction. Such mass-voting is one reason why internet polls hardly meet statistical muster most times (a full-fledged intro to stats course would explain all there is to know about statistical validity).

Freeper ideology is something I don't care to get into, but I will warn you that if you do bring these things to some kind of Tea Party meeting, be aware that many will have convinced themselves of the truth of lists like this. Not because someone actually went and checked, but because the lists arouse anger, fear and even hatred. These emotions tend to blunt any tendency to check into the correctness of such a list, as if sheer anger justifies the "facts" on the piece of paper. "This is so outrageous it must be true" is an outgrowth of "The people in 'the other party' do so many horrible things that everything I can find negative about them must be true since they're out to 'get me' and 'destroy America.'"

I'm convinced this whole list was completely made up (save four parts which are partially true) just to get people angry.

Of course, such cognitive dissonance is hardly unique to the Right, the Left does it too. "When we do X, it's good and The People Want It, but when They do it, The People Are Screaming Stop And X Is Satan."

Also, another commonly-repeated one (that my father fell for) is "Page 122 has an exemption that says the President and his family aren't subject to any of this law." The actual content on page 122 deals with the Small Business Tax Credits established under the law.

Unil_mi_tokx, I'm glad you took the time to actually check into this before letting emotions run away with your thoughts on the bill. There are so many people who, as I said before, take anything Bad About The Other Side as some kind of gospel. As if we need more negativity and distortion in US politics...

I know Freeper isn't one person. I was speaking in somewhat of a metaphor.. or is that a collective adjective....? At any rate, what I meant was - I'll watch out for these people.

Here's the interesting part...
This list actually came to me via email FROM THE TEA PARTY. You know, I've been raised as republican. Not that I've ever been heavily involved with politics - it's not my cup of tea (heh, that was a pun), but I know the ideologies that I agree with.

I was invited to go to this republican governmental group where they discuss important issues about the government and educate you on who to vote for based on certain things (not telling you who to vote for but to really 'break down the candidates'). So anyway, I attended those meetings for a long while. However, recently, they have become exactly what you said. The chain emails seem like their main purpose is to get everybody upset so you think it is wrong when really it is completely false - which you proved.

And that is why I posted that list because I really don't know. My own party is feeding me things that I'm not sure is truth or lie. Hence why I am almost 19 years old and have not registered to vote. If/when I register - I'm definitely not joining any party. I see that both are out for blood. Since when has leading a nation turned into a blood war between differing ideologies? That's not government. Just as a house divided against itself cannot stand, a self opposing government is not a true republic. It's a democracy, of sorts - the loudest mouth wins - but that's about it.

So again, I would gladly be proved wrong in debate, than become a brainwashed sheep from my own party.

Does anyone know how this reform will hurt the republican party and its interest groups?
To me, both parties are more concerned about money/power than anything else, and I want to know what exactly these two are fighting for this time.

Huurraaa as I said before, the usual interest group lineup got scrambled.

Normally, the GOP can count on the insurance companies and medical industry, but not this time. The fight has become more over cost (GOP says it's too expensive, Dems say it will ultimately cut costs) and ideology (GOP says it intrudes too much on the private sector while Dems say such intrusion is necessary to correct market failure). It's not really about interest groups anymore (other than each party's respective faithful, or "base").

The screaming about "Armageddon" by John Boehner (Source, many more exist) arose mostly out of an ideological conflict which led to increasingly overheated rhetoric.

Thanks Sovereign. This and your previous post have clarified things quite a lot.

Thank you Sovereign for your insights into this Healthcare bill/law. I have been hearing all sorts of stuff (the sort of stuff that Unil was referring to) and I have been confused as well. I am very tired of the ideological battles going on right now. Its silly really. No one wants to actually talk to each other. All they want to do is demonize the other side and I'm not sure who to believe. So, I have registered as an independent. I am tired of this silly two-party system. Also, I think that the media has had a role to play in only keeping to two parties and stoking the conflicts on both sides.

The claims of "media bias" annoy the heck out of me because it's usually about how "the media hates my political party and is in the tank for the other side." The media is biased, but it's not anything political. It's just what will make the most money. Conflict (or the appearance of it) generates viewers, so regardless of how people actually feel on an issue, it is in the media's interest to create a conflict they can show on the tube.

The media showed all the clips of people lining up to see Barack Obama during the 2008 election because viewers lapped it up (even if these same viewers said it was too much, they still watched). Now, despite the fact that crowds still line up to see Barack Obama (for example, a health care rally in Iowa a few weeks ago), the media doesn't cover it anymore. Some liberals and Obama supporters attribute this to bias (in favor of the Tea Party, who the media tends to cover more nowadays). The reality, to me, is that the Tea Party makes a more compelling story right now and thus generates the revenue these old-school media orgs need to stay alive.

People viewing these clips then believe the "other" side is far more combative than its rank-and-file members actually are. I'm sure John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have personal stakes in keeping this fight "hot" but most ordinary people don't.