Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

3/15/10 Reconciliation Healthcare Bill (PDF) 2309 pages

page: 2
88
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Regarding taxes on those who dont buy insurance....what about the homeless? they cant afford health insurance. so what do you suggest that they do?




posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 


I believe there are exemptions in this bill for low income families/individuals and there are also subsidies provided for those low income families to purchase insurance.

They aren't going to punish poor people that can't afford to buy insurance...that is a scare tactic being used by the opposition of this bill.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
i think they will push this health care crap thru, but something you need to consider, what happens when it becomes law? plus 5 years down the road they add to it?

if you open the package you can't return it. i for one will not bend with the wind.

as far fixing health care the easiest way and correct way is to END all insurance. the prices drop, those that don't lower the prices go out of business. its true that some folks will have hard times but that is going to happen no matter what. you can't save everyone.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
So basically.. if you cannot afford health insurance (number one reason people don't have it???) .. the Government will make you pay a fee for being poor.

I come from a shrewd school of logical thought.. so it perplexes me as to how this works (you know, instead of .. regulating the effing insurance markets..) but I suppose if the Liberals want it, it must make sense.


Absurdity doesn't adequately describe this bill.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I wouldn't spend too much time parsing thru this bill.This is only the "shell" bill" that is providing the framework with which to work.This bill will be stripped down after passage and only then will the controversial parts be inserted.This "shell" bill was required to meet the Oct.,2009 deadline for reconciliation.Any new bill introduced after this date would not be accepted.So they just re-introduced this already passed bill to get around that.I would expect this will be another weekend middle of the night deal when the new bill is actually voted on and sent to Obama.You will find out the details after it's law,just as Pelosi promised.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


I just received this republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov... and it sure is interesting. Under Obamacare Ms. Canfields insurance will go up, while under the Republican version she would save almost $2,000 this year alone!!



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Scary that you would Support a Socialist bill here in America

A Constitutional Republic - Ronald Reagan said it best in 1964 see video link below, with this Healthcare Bill and Senate bill 3081 - America is slowly becoming the 4th Reich of the NAZI Party.

Ronald Reagan Speech from 1964-

www.youtube.com...

Senate Bill 3081 Introduced by Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman-

www.govtrack.us...

Welcome your New World Order or Fight it with me!

VDOG.45



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5etester
I wouldn't spend too much time parsing thru this bill.This is only the "shell" bill" that is providing the framework with which to work.This bill will be stripped down after passage and only then will the controversial parts be inserted.This "shell" bill was required to meet the Oct.,2009 deadline for reconciliation.Any new bill introduced after this date would not be accepted.So they just re-introduced this already passed bill to get around that.I would expect this will be another weekend middle of the night deal when the new bill is actually voted on and sent to Obama.You will find out the details after it's law,just as Pelosi promised.


So is bill on the Senates website the "Real deal"? I am getting a bit confused....

Senate Bill

-Kdial1



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by rangersdad
 


I believe there are exemptions in this bill for low income families/individuals and there are also subsidies provided for those low income families to purchase insurance.

They aren't going to punish poor people that can't afford to buy insurance...that is a scare tactic being used by the opposition of this bill.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]


There are exemptions and they include people that are below 300% [that was the original number, I haven't found yet if it changed] of the poverty level. Which is really great -- for everyone that is. Meanwhile, guess who's paying their bill? Oh, yeah...the rest of us. AGAIN.

Look, until I can control what goes into another person's body -- which I don't want to do -- I am opposed to paying for their health insurance.

This includes:
[which conveniently tends to be the same demographic of poverty level people]

-- Fast food frequenters
-- heavy drinkers
-- drug users
-- people that don't exercise, ever.
-- couch potatoes
-- sugar-holics
-- microwave food junkies
-- Hamburger, Fries, and Beer Guzzlers

etc.

Why should I pay for them to have healthcare when I have no control of how they take care of their health??

Healthcare costs are going to SKY-ROCKET! Why? Because as soon as this passes, and people in lower income families get subsidized healthcare, they will go to the doctor for everything from a headache to a splinter.

The more people that frequent the doctors with subsidized healthcare, the more we are going to end up paying.

Further, and this is my most important point, we have no business passing anything that spends a trillion dollars. PERIOD. The US doesn't have a trillion dollars, the US taxpayers don't have a trillion dollars, and unless we start flying the darn Chinese flag on top of the White House, I doubt they are willing to cover this as well. At least I wouldn't if I were them since every article that comes out states we can't pay the loans we already have.

This is a nightmare.

Oh, and one final message to OutKast:

More than 60% of Americans are opposed to this healthcare bill. YOU are the minority in the United States, not just on ATS. Further, in case you forgot, this is a democracy and is SUPPOSED to be run by majority rule.

Go back and see why Massachusetts has the first REPUBLICAN senator since the 1970s.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdial1
Sounds like they are including this in the bill like they are anticipating another bill....



They are anticipating another bill. They can not pass reform with only 51 votes unless they agree to one bill.

They are then going to use reconciliation to pass the changes that they wanted in the bill to begin with. If they change the bill now to reflect what it SHOULD say [according to what Congress wants] then they will need 60 votes, which they don't have.

So this bill comes complete with a "it's only in there for now and will be changed immediately upon passage via reconciliation" type of maneuver.

It is a complete circumvention of due process in this country and is completely outrageous.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by rangersdad
 


I believe there are exemptions in this bill for low income families/individuals and there are also subsidies provided for those low income families to purchase insurance.

They aren't going to punish poor people that can't afford to buy insurance...that is a scare tactic being used by the opposition of this bill.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]


There are exemptions and they include people that are below 300% [that was the original number, I haven't found yet if it changed] of the poverty level. Which is really great -- for everyone that is. Meanwhile, guess who's paying their bill? Oh, yeah...the rest of us. AGAIN.

Look, until I can control what goes into another person's body -- which I don't want to do -- I am opposed to paying for their health insurance.

This includes:
[which conveniently tends to be the same demographic of poverty level people]

-- Fast food frequenters
-- heavy drinkers
-- drug users
-- people that don't exercise, ever.
-- couch potatoes
-- sugar-holics
-- microwave food junkies
-- Hamburger, Fries, and Beer Guzzlers

etc.

Why should I pay for them to have healthcare when I have no control of how they take care of their health??

Healthcare costs are going to SKY-ROCKET! Why? Because as soon as this passes, and people in lower income families get subsidized healthcare, they will go to the doctor for everything from a headache to a splinter.

The more people that frequent the doctors with subsidized healthcare, the more we are going to end up paying.

Further, and this is my most important point, we have no business passing anything that spends a trillion dollars. PERIOD. The US doesn't have a trillion dollars, the US taxpayers don't have a trillion dollars, and unless we start flying the darn Chinese flag on top of the White House, I doubt they are willing to cover this as well. At least I wouldn't if I were them since every article that comes out states we can't pay the loans we already have.

This is a nightmare.

Oh, and one final message to OutKast:

More than 60% of Americans are opposed to this healthcare bill. YOU are the minority in the United States, not just on ATS. Further, in case you forgot, this is a democracy and is SUPPOSED to be run by majority rule.

Go back and see why Massachusetts has the first REPUBLICAN senator since the 1970s.




-Kdial1



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by kdial1
Sounds like they are including this in the bill like they are anticipating another bill....



They are anticipating another bill. They can not pass reform with only 51 votes unless they agree to one bill.

They are then going to use reconciliation to pass the changes that they wanted in the bill to begin with. If they change the bill now to reflect what it SHOULD say [according to what Congress wants] then they will need 60 votes, which they don't have.

So this bill comes complete with a "it's only in there for now and will be changed immediately upon passage via reconciliation" type of maneuver.

It is a complete circumvention of due process in this country and is completely outrageous.


How can they do that?!? Is Biden going to overrule or Pelosi? Essentially they will be able to change this once it is signed? Sounds like our government is more broken than I imagined if true...

-Kdial1



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


Sure,it's a real bill.The House bill was already passed last year.They need it to reconcile with the Senate bill.The House must use the old version to get around the deadline for introduction of last October.This is what they are talking about when they say they have to pass it on faith that the changes they want will be inserted later in the final bill sent to the President.My point is the language in the 2,300 page bill is not what will be passed.Some of it will be,of course,but there will be many changes inserted that we won't get to see until after it's law and too late.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 


Actually...Ms. Canfields currently does not have any insurance...so how would her premiums go up?

In fact, under the republican plan...which does not address pre-existing conditions...Ms. Canfields would be hard press to get ANY health insurance since she found out she had cancer while she was uninsured. She will now pay out of pocket...possibly lose everything she owns...and YOU willl still pay for her medical costs in the long run.

So when they say that the republicans will save her $2000...that is not true...you can't save someone mony on health insurance that can't get health insurance in the first place. But they don't mention that...do they?


But to address the issue as a whole...it is true the CBO says that the average premiums may go up by 13%...but the reason is because you will be getting more coverage (or should we say actual health care coverage). I have no issue with that...I'm not naive enough to think that by eliminating pre-existing conditions will cost insurance companies more money. But I would rather pay the 13% now rather than have them tell me later that my treatment isn't covered because I failed to say I had chicken pox on my medical history.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


They shouldn't be able to do it at all. That was not the original purpose of the reconciliation process in the least. They have greatly exaggerated its purpose and intent in order to pass healthcare reform.

This method of course being the only one in which it can pass.

At some point, people should start asking themselves this:

If this bill is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why do they have to try so hard to pass it? Why is Obama spending more of our money travelling state to state to push it on people? I don't recall seeing him holding any town meetings pushing a JOBS bill? How are people -- roughly 1 in 10 -- Americans going to pay for this when they are already on unemployment? Shouldn't we get some income flowing before we spend even more money on ANYTHING?

Here's a little information on the reconciliation process:


Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation streamlines the debate and amendment process. Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.

A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.[1]

A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.[2]

Link: en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_Congress)



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by VDOG.45
 



Scary that you would Support a Socialist bill here in America



What is "socialist" about this bill? There is no more public option...it is all going to be private health insurance companies. How can you continue to call this socialist when there is no longer a public option?

Could you please explain how this is "socialist"?

And am I to assume that you don't pay into or plan on collecting "social" security? Do you not use the socialist funded highway system? The socialist funded education system? Police? Fire Department? Are you going to deny your medicare benefits when you get older?



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


Go here and read this post from the American Spectator that describes what they are doing to get around this.And remember,they really only need 50 votes for reconciliation because in the case of a tie,guess who the tie-breaker is-Joe Biden.
spectator.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

And am I to assume that you don't pay into or plan on collecting "social" security?


Funny that you should mention social security. I have been paying into it my whole working life -- which started at 15. But guess what? At the bottom of my social security statement each year, it now says:

Funds for social security are currently not on track to allow you to receive the full benefit amount by the time you are retirement age. Since we are uncertain as to what percentage may or may not be available to you when you reach retirement age, plan on having alternate funds allotted for your retirement needs and income.

Don't you think that perhaps we should clean up this mess before we go creating another one with healthcare reform? And why is it right that I pay for other people's current retirement, but will not have the funds available for me -- you know, MY money? The money I put into social security SPECIFICALLY for retirement!

Even if you are in favor of this bill in theory, how can you possibly think now is the time to pass it? Especially now, when GOVERNMENT-RUN programs -- social security, medicare, and medicaid -- are all OUT OF MONEY?

Did you ever think that perhaps they should fix their programs, already in existence, BEFORE taking on anything else?

Further, if they can't run the above, which is evidenced by the LACK of funds, why give them even more rope?

[edit on 15-3-2010 by lpowell0627]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 



Look, until I can control what goes into another person's body -- which I don't want to do -- I am opposed to paying for their health insurance.

Why should I pay for them to have healthcare when I have no control of how they take care of their health??


You already do. Currently you pay for their medical costs when they go to the ER with no insurance. And them going in uninsured will cost everyone of us more than if the got subsidies to purchase health insurance.



Healthcare costs are going to SKY-ROCKET! Why? Because as soon as this passes, and people in lower income families get subsidized healthcare, they will go to the doctor for everything from a headache to a splinter.


They won't be getting subsidized healthcare...they will be getting subsidies to PURCHASE health insurance. There is a big difference. So now each time they go to the doctor...either once or a million times...they will most likely have a co-pay and then the insurance will cover the rest. I don't see how an increased in health care use (more revenue for doctors/hospitals) would cause health care costs to rise. Healthcare isn't a limited supply commodity...so an increase demand won't neccesarily increase costs.



The more people that frequent the doctors with subsidized healthcare, the more we are going to end up paying.


Simply not true. And again...they won't have "subsidized healthcare"...they will have health insurance just like everyone else...they will just get assistance in purchasing this health insurance. And hospitals acutally LOVE throughput and for their census to be high...so an increase in patient visits will be a GOOD THING for the healthcare industry.


More than 60% of Americans are opposed to this healthcare bill. YOU are the minority in the United States, not just on ATS. Further, in case you forgot, this is a democracy and is SUPPOSED to be run by majority rule.


More than 60% are opposed when asked if they support the current bill. If I was polled myself...I would say no...because I was a strong supporter for the public option and they dumped that. So those numbers don't mean that 60% of the public want them to do nothing. In fact there were other polls that said only 4% want the government to do nothing.

When I made the comment about me being in the minority here on ATS but not in the public...it was about being scared about a medical device being tracked in a national database...not about the healthcare bill in general.

And we are not a "democracy"...we are a representative republic...and there is a huge difference between the two. We vote in our reps...they vote...what they decide is the law of the land. If we don't like how they vote...we vote them out. But constitutionally...there needs to be no public consensus on what they vote for. It could be 99% opposed by the public...but if the people we voted into office vote for it...then it is law and it is constiutional. We are not, never were, and never will be a "DEMOCRACY".



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by projectvxn
 


If you are going to claim it is not constitutional...then please provide proof of that claim.

Give me the section or the exact text that says this is not constitutional.


The Constitution grants the government only a certain number powers. Anything outside of those powers falls under the tenth amendment. Which mean that if health reform is going to happen at all at a legal level it must be put through the Individual States. Health Reform is not a power granted to the Federal Government. The government cannot MANDATE that you PURCHASE anything as it is NOT a power granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Even under the Commerce Clause. To make my case I shall post the Commerce Clause and the clause which governs the use thereof:

The Commerce Clause


“ The Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”


The Necessary and Proper Clause


The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Necessary: A problem that requires some oversight in order to ensure smooth and fair competition.

Proper: Where it fits into the context ofthe Constitution and ALL of it's provisions.

No where in there does it say Congress can mandate that the people purchase something and then impose a penalty for not complying. The word "regulate" means to make work properly and smoothly. Meaning that what we mean when we use the term today is an incorrect interpretation of the text of the Constitution, and I believe people obfuscate this fact in order to circumvent the spirit and precedent of the law.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by projectvxn]





new topics




 
88
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join