Obama Care Could Be Deadly

I'm calling a penalty against you for an illegal procedure: failure to properly ask an UncleBob question.

I'll get back to you with the point of what I'm trying to state.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm calling a penalty against you for an illegal procedure: failure to properly ask an UncleBob question.

I'll get back to you with the point of what I'm trying to state.[/QUOTE]

Boo!

I'll admit it. I'm too lazy to read a 1500 page bill. I'm going to rely on other people to find faults with it. I may only look at a few points of view of the bill.

When I'm not working, I'm unwinding or studying for a certification exam.

If I was unemployed, I would have the time to read some of this bill.

However, memorizing this bill will not change whether or not it passes. It probably won't give me an additional ability to change somebody's mind about it.

So ... we back to representatives with no other job or no real room for advancement ignoring the "reading bills" part of their job.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm going to rely on other people to find faults with it. I may only look at a few points of view of the bill.[/QUOTE]

I see what you're trying to point out. Nevertheless, what I'm trying to say is that there are more than 638 people on Capitol Hill who come across the bill. Call it a division of labor, call it relying on gophers, call it what you will - reading the text of a given bill is not the only way to come across knowledge of what it contains and implies.

In short, criticizing politicians for not reading legislation is an apt criticism if you want them to read it. But criticizing them for not knowing what is in the bill because they have not read it personally is not an inherently factual claim.
 
Myke - Do you agree that the health care reform bill will *DRASTICALLY* change our country and our daily lives?

Because I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with that (for better or for worse, mind you).

I want those who are elected to represent us to both read the bill and know what's in the bill. Not to simply assume what they're being told is correct.

It's fine for us internet-armchair-politicians to take the word of someone else for it - quite frankly, we're not being paid by the taxpayers to represent people and if one of us makes a bad decision on supporting the bill based on misinformation, it's not going to actually effect the passage of that bill.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
In short, criticizing politicians for not reading legislation is an apt criticism if you want them to read it. But criticizing them for not knowing what is in the bill because they have not read it personally is not an inherently factual claim.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. One can have a firm grasp of all the facets of a bill from detailed bullet points put together by staffers etc. Bills have a ton of useless language and can be condensed into summaries and bullet points that accurately outline the laws it would put in place etc. And the congressmen can go by that and look up the parts of the bill that concern them based on those summaries in the real bill.

I do the same sometimes in my research work with having an assistant read and summarize a stack of articles related to the topic so I have that as my starting point and can just read the ones that are most pertinent in more detail.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Myke - Do you agree that the health care reform bill will *DRASTICALLY* change our country and our daily lives?
[/quote]

Country--hopefully. As we won't look like a third world country in terms of health care (lack of) for the working poor.

Daily lives? Not really. Some will be better as they have access to health care. The rest of us that have always had health care will be relatively unaffected. Maybe premiums will go up or down for some, but I don't see my daily life changing at all since I did well for myself and will never have issues getting jobs with good benefits.

I want those who are elected to represent us to both read the bill and know what's in the bill. Not to simply assume what they're being told is correct.
Click to expand...

Again, they can do just as well with having other prepare detailed summaries for them. Sure one staffer may miss some key point--but across all the 100s of congressmen and 100 senators, every key point will come up and be addressed in floor debate, so I don't see it as a huge issue personally.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, they can do just as well with having other prepare detailed summaries for them. Sure one staffer may miss some key point--but across all the 100s of congressmen and 100 senators, every key point will come up and be addressed in floor debate, so I don't see it as a huge issue personally.[/QUOTE]

You'd think that, until you remember these guys (well, some of them) passed the Patriot Act.

The summaries they read were probably something like this:
1.) Vote for this, or you support terrorists.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Absolutely. One can have a firm grasp of all the facets of a bill from detailed bullet points put together by staffers etc. Bills have a ton of useless language and can be condensed into summaries and bullet points that accurately outline the laws it would put in place etc. And the congressmen can go by that and look up the parts of the bill that concern them based on those summaries in the real bill.

I do the same sometimes in my research work with having an assistant read and summarize a stack of articles related to the topic so I have that as my starting point and can just read the ones that are most pertinent in more detail.[/QUOTE]

Then don't take this the wrong way, but now that you have written that it is public record on the internet, and many people, including myself, wouldn't vote for you if you ever ran for anything - simply based on what you just said there.

I expect my elected officials to read entire bills. If they are too big and complex then I expect them to find a way to prevent that or change that, since that right there is the root of many problems. You know as well as I do that they wordsmith these things into as big, long, as complicated documents as possible in order to hide things and hope they won't be caught till it's too late. This combined with bullrushing bills through is how many lawmakers hope to pass unpopular items, create pork, or worst of all - create slippery slopes and set ups to worse bullshit down the road.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I expect my elected officials to read entire bills.[/QUOTE]

Reading ≠ knowledge. Clinging onto the "they must read it" argument is simply tenuous, because you're not addressing that people come across plenty of knowledge and understanding without actual hands-on work. Copy notes, read summaries, cliffs notes - so many people do it in education as is.

Would you hold so strongly onto this idea if a given politician could accurately and immediately respond to any question about the bill, thereby demonstrating their knowledge? Of course you wouldn't, as you inherently distrust politicians. Not a bad starting point by itself, mind you, but let's be honest: you're holding steadfast onto a ritual that is absolutely separable from the problem that you think results from it. You therefore have little reason to hang onto the exaltation of that ritual.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Then don't take this the wrong way, but now that you have written that it is public record on the internet, and many people, including myself, wouldn't vote for you if you ever ran for anything - simply based on what you just said there.

I expect my elected officials to read entire bills.[/QUOTE]

No worries. I have 0 desire to every do anything related to politics or public office. :D

But I agree wholeheartedly with Myke. The key is that they have a knowledge of the bills. And they can acquire that without reading these stupid, overly long and wordy pieces of legislation by having trusted aids condense it down to a more usable format. Every key issue will be raised at some point by someone in the house or senate. Pork and other things get through as people don't care about it, or as you note, bills just get rushed to votes etc. Less from senators going off bullet points/summaries which probably included the pork anyway.

Honestly, there should probably be a congressional office tasked with condensing bills down to a more digestible format that's approved by a committee as being 100% representative of the bill so there's an official "cliff's notes" version of each bill--at least each bill over a certain length.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You'd think that, until you remember these guys (well, some of them) passed the Patriot Act.

The summaries they read were probably something like this:[/QUOTE]


I don't think the summaries were like that, they probably had very detailed summaries of what powers were being extended etc.

It was just a time period when elected officials couldn't risk looking soft on terror and thus voted for it despite any objections to the content.

Just like states can't get rid of stupid laws like three strikes and you're out etc. as politicians can't risk looking soft on crime.

There's a lot of problems with politicians and the way laws are passed. I don't believe that not reading full bills has much to do with it.
 
You're right myke. I wouldn't care if they actually read every page if they could answer any question on it. So make them pass a quiz before they can vote, at least.

As a side note, I have a feeling that next year it will be the new popular thing to bust politician chops about - "How many bills did you read in it's entirety" after this past year.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Would you hold so strongly onto this idea if a given politician could accurately and immediately respond to any question about the bill, thereby demonstrating their knowledge?[/QUOTE]

Will there be a penalty if they disseminate false information? I understand that violates the First Amendment, but they aren't required to follow the laws they pass so the Constitution doesn't always have to apply to them.

How about a quiz or test a week or so before the final vote and have the results posted online?

Then, the conservation of "Gee, your representative is (for/against) the bill and knows (nothing/some/everything) about it." can happen.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You're right myke. I wouldn't care if they actually read every page if they could answer any question on it. So make them pass a quiz before they can vote, at least.

As a side note, I have a feeling that next year it will be the new popular thing to bust politician chops about - "How many bills did you read in it's entirety" after this past year.[/QUOTE]

Damn customers tying me up so I can't post the idea first.
 
Maybe there should be a ten question quiz on any legislation before a vote can be made? It's all electronic so it shouldn't be that hard.

You could even say that a Congressman must have a least a 80% passing percentage during his/her term to be eligible for re-election. Some people might bash it and say that the elites are trying to take over Congress though.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Maybe there should be a ten question quiz on any legislation before a vote can be made? It's all electronic so it shouldn't be that hard.

You could even say that a Congressman must have a least a 80% passing percentage during his/her term to be eligible for re-election. Some people might bash it and say that the elites are trying to take over Congress though.[/QUOTE]

I would say no because so many bills are fluff.

In this isolated case, the government is taking over 1/7th 1/6th of the US economy.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']As a side note, I have a feeling that next year it will be the new popular thing to bust politician chops about - "How many bills did you read in it's entirety" after this past year.[/QUOTE]
Was there something special about this year?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Then, the conservation of "Gee, your representative is (for/against) the bill and knows (nothing/some/everything) about it." can happen.[/QUOTE]

Although that would never happen, it would be absolutely fascinating. Just take these for examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DALcHFTKlzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XSo0etBC4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_YT6SE7iY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdNKQ8XapIA

Of course, the easy way to find more of these sorts of things is to look up just about everything politicians say about video games, but we all knew that.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Was there something special about this year?[/QUOTE]

It's been major news stories repeatedly that nobody in Congress and the Senate can/do read legislation.
 
Has anybody pointed this out yet?

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102801/Jailing_the_uninsured

Republicans point out that the House bill specifies “a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

The rest of the article claims nobody will go to jail, but "imprisonment of up to five years" sounds like a real possibility.

I'm trying to load the actual text of section 7201 or 7203 of the bill, but my puny browser is having trouble loading a 300 thousand word bill.

EDIT: For some reason, I can't find sections 7201 or 7203. The sections stop in the 800s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The rest of the article claims nobody will go to jail, but "imprisonment of up to five years" sounds like a real possibility.[/QUOTE]

From what I have read it is possible, but you would have to pull some really major and blatant fraud for their to be jail time. Just like when skipping out on taxes.
 
[quote name='Msut77']From what I have read it is possible, but you would have to pull some really major and blatant fraud for their to be jail time. Just like when skipping out on taxes.[/QUOTE]

What is the exact wording in the bill?

I can't find it.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']:lol::lol:

well said.[/QUOTE]

One more and it's a circle jerk.

Oh, and conservatives believe Mexicans are stealing our jobs.

And for the finish, Faux News is mo' garbage than garbage.
 
[quote name='depascal22']One more and it's a circle jerk.

Oh, and conservatives believe Mexicans are stealing our jobs.

And for the finish, Faux News is mo' garbage than garbage.[/QUOTE]

Awww... I made depascal strike out in anger again. Thought you were working on that?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Has anybody pointed this out yet?

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102801/Jailing_the_uninsured[/quote]

Bullshit...
Calm down — these "prison sentences" are a myth: The only people who'd face penalties are those who have plenty of money to buy insurance, but choose not to, says Karina Newton at Speaker Pelosi's official blog. And, frankly, they should be penalized: "Right now, every insured American family will pay $1,017 a year in insurance premiums just to cover the medical expenses of the uninsured.
Click to expand...
Here's a better idea - how about you penalize them after the abuse the system? Why preemptively penalize them because they may potentially one day abuse the system?

EDIT: For some reason, I can't find sections 7201 or 7203. The sections stop in the 800s.
Click to expand...

Here's the trick - the penalty for not having Federally approved health insurance will be considered a part of your income taxes.

Sections 7201 and 7203 refer to the tax code and the penalties for not complying with income tax laws.
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/26/26USC07201.html
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Here's the trick - the penalty for not having Federally approved health insurance will be considered a part of your income taxes.

Sections 7201 and 7203 refer to the tax code and the penalties for not complying with income tax laws.
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/26/26USC07201.html[/QUOTE]

There we go. If a person chooses to not buy medical insurance and they make more than some threshold, the IRS will bite down on them like a pit bull? Ummm... I don't like that.

Is there a real difference between filing bankruptcy because of medical expenses and bankruptcy because of tax penalties and interest?
 
[quote name='speedracer']You know full well you can't trust any major news stories.

Politico just pointed out that the RNC's health coverage for the last 18 years has covered abortion. lol.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I saw that article this morning. It confirms what many of us who are pro-life believe: the Republican establishment for the most part uses the issue for political purposes, but doesn't really care about it. It's the same way with many other issues, and in both political parties. For example, how wonderful that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over, huh, Code Pink?

EDIT: to clarify, the RNC policy not only covers abortion when the mother's life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest, but elective abortions. And it's done so since 1991. The RNC couldn't care less about the issue, unless it brings them more donations and Republican votes. fuckers.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']People go to jail for tax fraud?

I thought they just got special appointments by President Obama.[/QUOTE]

They either get in charge of the IRS or made chairman of the committee that writes tax law. What a country we live in!
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is there a real difference between filing bankruptcy because of medical expenses and bankruptcy because of tax penalties and interest?[/QUOTE]

Well in this case the subsidies are fairly generous so yeah.

And again you would have to be both a relatively big fish and ridiculously blatant at trying to game the system for jail time to be considered let alone prosecuted succesfully.

It isn't literally impossible but it just isn't likely at all.
 
I don't really know that much about Obama's health care plan, and I can admit that. I've learned a bit or two here from this thread, but my overall knowledge is hardly any. But I do know ONE thing for sure. Our health insurance rates just nearly doubled. We now either have to start living on a much tighter budget, eating less and buying less, or we have to drop down from high option to standard option insurance. Screw Obama and his health care plan. Maybe someone will come around in 2012 and fix this fuck up.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33946165/ns/politics-washington_post/
A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Msut77']You admit you know next to nothing about anything but you do know you are angry.

/facepalm[/QUOTE]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that our health insurance rates doubled because of his new law, and that we'll be receiving the same coverage as before. :roll:
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']It doesn't take a genius to realize that our health insurance rates doubled because of his new law, and that we'll be receiving the same coverage as before. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Huh? There is no new law in place whatsoever. A bill has passed the house, and hasn't even been voted on in the senate yet. Get more informed before posting non-sense.

If anything, you should be encouraging your senators to vote for the bill with a public option as that's the best chance of driving rates down.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Huh? There is no new law in place whatsoever. A bill has passed the house, and hasn't even been voted on in the senate yet. Get more informed before posting non-sense.

If anything, you should be encouraging your senators to vote for the bill with a public option as that's the best chance of driving rates down.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I meant to say his new bill. I do know enough to know that it's still in the Senate.
 
Access, you need to speak to one of our resident Libertarian or faux-Conservative Customer Service Representatives who will gladly explain to you how the doubling of your premium is not only the magic of the free market at work, but that America would suffer if you paid any less. Don't you love America?

Operators are standing by.
 
Thanks for call Libertarian Tech Support. My name is fatherofcaitlyn. How can I help you?

[quote name='Access_Denied']I don't really know that much about Obama's health care plan, and I can admit that. I've learned a bit or two here from this thread, but my overall knowledge is hardly any. But I do know ONE thing for sure. Our health insurance rates just nearly doubled. We now either have to start living on a much tighter budget, eating less and buying less, or we have to drop down from high option to standard option insurance. Screw Obama and his health care plan. Maybe someone will come around in 2012 and fix this fuck up.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry that is happening. I understand higher medical premiums can be frustrating. I want to help you out as much as possible.

[quote name='Access_Denied']It doesn't take a genius to realize that our health insurance rates doubled because of his new law, and that we'll be receiving the same coverage as before. :roll: [/quote]

I agree that government ran health care will cause premiums to go up and services to go down. However, there is no new law yet. Perhaps your health care provider is attempt to squeeze its customers one last time before being taken over.

[quote name='Access_Denied']Sorry, I meant to say his new bill. I do know enough to know that it's still in the Senate.[/quote]

Agreed. It isn't in effect yet. Can I get your health care provider support number to determine if you would be better served with a high deductible/health care savings account plan?
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Sorry, I meant to say his new bill. I do know enough to know that it's still in the Senate.[/QUOTE]

There hasn't been any new law passed, so as others have said it's a big leap to blame the possibility of a new law for increases in premiums, which have been increasing at insane rates for years before there was even discussion of an Obama health-care plan.

However, if a new law is passed that looks anything like Pelosi's bill, and you are under 40, expect to pay more (possibly much more) in premiums due to the new law. Since the government will mandate what kind of coverage you can get (i.e. the minimum coverage, as in you can't get something really cheap that only covers catastrophic situations), you'll be paying out the ass even when you're young and healthy. And if you have a good policy through your employer, be prepared for the high probability of losing it in three years, when the government decides your employer's plan doesn't meet specifications, or your employer finds it's cheaper to dump you on the government plan and pay the fine. And of course, taxes and inflation will increase because of the new government liability in the trillions of dollars on top of the tens of trillions we already face. This deal is getting worse all the time.
 
Oy, now that's a sleight of hand argument. "Premiums will go up b/c of this bill" ≠ "this bill means you can't buy next to no medical coverage."

And isn't coverage the point of the bill?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oy, now that's a sleight of hand argument. "Premiums will go up b/c of this bill" ≠ "this bill means you can't buy next to no medical coverage."

And isn't coverage the point of the bill?[/QUOTE]

Coverage is the point of the bill. And I should have added to my reply that if you are at a certain level of income you'll get government assistance with premiums, so depending on your situation your out-of-pocket costs won't necessarily go up.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Coverage is the point of the bill. And I should have added to my reply that if you are at a certain level of income you'll get tax-payer assistance with premiums, so depending on your situation your out-of-pocket costs won't necessarily go up.[/QUOTE]

Fixed. ;)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']There hasn't been any new law passed, so as others have said it's a big leap to blame the possibility of a new law for increases in premiums, which have been increasing at insane rates for years before there was even discussion of an Obama health-care plan.

However, if a new law is passed that looks anything like Pelosi's bill, and you are under 40, expect to pay more (possibly much more) in premiums due to the new law. Since the government will mandate what kind of coverage you can get (i.e. the minimum coverage, as in you can't get something really cheap that only covers catastrophic situations), you'll be paying out the ass even when you're young and healthy. And if you have a good policy through your employer, be prepared for the high probability of losing it in three years, when the government decides your employer's plan doesn't meet specifications, or your employer finds it's cheaper to dump you on the government plan and pay the fine. And of course, taxes and inflation will increase because of the new government liability in the trillions of dollars on top of the tens of trillions we already face. This deal is getting worse all the time.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but this is the largest increase we've had since my dad started with his insurance company, and I fail to believe that it has no relation to Obama's bill.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Yes, but this is the largest increase we've had since my dad started with his insurance company, and I fail to believe that it has no relation to Obama's bill.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps this doesn't fit in with your anecdote, but...

3%20Percentage%20Increase%20in%20Health%20Insurance%20Premiums%20Compared%20to%20Inflation1.jpg


Obviously I can't claim to know why your premiums increased so much, but it's a stretch to say it's because of a bill that hasn't passed yet (and may not pass at all, or in a dramatically different form).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top