I appreciate you actually writing a mature response, it helps mature debates!
Yeah im having an off day so sorry for being mature in my response
So, your main hangup is the method in which it was adopted?
Yes and no. I have issues with how it was put together, I have issues with the time allotted for people to read it before voting on it, and I have
issues with the manner it was passed. They all snowball into my issues with it.
I always thought that bills were rarely ever read or studying before being voted. Sounds like this one was voted on like all the others in the
To an extent you are correct. However, when its a massive piece of legislation due diligence should have been allowed and it was not. The hearings /
meetings were held behind closed doors and most importantly they never allowed the citizens to review it.
If you go to Congress's website (senate / House of reps) you will see you can search for legislation. Clicking on the legislation will show you the
* - Who sponsored / co sponsored the bill
* - links to the text-legislation being considered
* - Where the bill is at in the process (introduction / debate / committees / compromise committees from both houses / other hearings / whether or not
if its still active or was shelved / removed). It also shows proposed changes if the same bill is active in both houses (both branches can introduce
the same legislation, even if they are 10 miles apart on the issue).
Debate on the topic was also restricted.
When the federal government is putting together legislation that will affect pretty much everyone person in the US / territories / commonwealths I
expect ample time for the public / elected officials to review it and offer feedback. Instead we got blocked out, were given no time to review it
properly and told to vote in order to see it.
When they want to pass a law yet not want anyone to know what's in it a red flag goes up.
Would you personally have read it?
Yes because I was affected by the pre-existing medical condition denial. Which actually was another example of the problems Obamacare caused. While
its claimed you cant be denied, what they don't tell you is it can be denied.
If a person is employed and has insurance and undergoes medical treatment its covered. If that person leave the business for a new job, they only
have 60-90 days to find new employment. If they find employment that has insurance, the insurance company cannot deny coverage.
If they don't find employment within that time frame their new place of employment (specifically the insurance company the business uses) can deny
coverage for the medical condition.
Is universal health care a good idea? Absolutely.
Is the universal healthcare plan in Mitts's (his law) state working? Yes.
Could the affordable care act succeed? As of now, in its current condition, no.
Problems have been identified -
The Republicans hate it and want it gone because they think there is something better.
The Democrats want it yet don't seem to have any interest in fixing it.
In the meantime Grandma was walking thru the forest, trips over a stick and is never heard from again.
Republicans seem to hate it based on arrogance.
Democrats refuse to fix it out of pride.