Here is the problem with the healthcare debate at the moment

[RDD_1210]

I know what you've told me and that is 350 million americans need to be required to purchase health care to make up for those that won't. Which indeed is an inefficient, immoral and fiscally irresponsible means of solving the problem of paying for people who can't and/or won't purchase health care.

So, what's a better, efficient, moral, fiscally responsible means of paying for the healthcare of those who can't afford it? Let's hear your plan.

And FYI the mandate is more about preventing the exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions then it is helping to pay for people who have no health insurance. Still hate the mandate?

I would imagine the plan is to keep things as they were pre-Obamacare where the uninsured show up at the emergency room and the costs get passed down to the rest of us.

I guess somehow, that's supposed to be better.

Haha, Exactly. I've explained this VERY concept to Bern80 on multiple occasions now and he has no response except to say his freedoms are being taken away. (ie. he has no real response).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Republicans are protraying themselves as saviors from Obamacare and want to get us back to status quo (or a few talking point changes that will do little - like tort reform and buying across statelines).

Obamacare might not be the answer, but our system is a ******* mess and needs to be changes ASAP. Most Americans are one sickness or injury away from losing everything! Medical bills is still the leading cause of bankruptcy! Healthcare is still outrageously expensive! Ditto for health insurance. Pre-existing conditions puts the people that really need healthcare in no win situation. Health insurance coverage puts our corporations and small businesses at a HUGE disadvantage in the global market.

I repeat, going back to what it was is NOT ideal or acceptable.

You say the Republicans are proposing a repeal and replace bill. Sorry if I don't trust them, because they did have both houses of Congress and the Presidency for 6 years and a good economy, with low unemployment during the Bush years and they did DICK!

There are all kinds of problems with the health care debate. One of them, and case in point here, would be the misrepresentation of what the right wants. No we don't want the status quo. Another would be that you seem to believe that doing something, anything, is always better than doing nothing. I have heard this from two people now on this board, you and RDD. "Well I really don't like most of the bill either, but hey it's something, so that's good, right?" WRONG!

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I wish you would read what I actually type. I said the bill isn't perfect, but it's certainly better then what we had before the bill. That's quite a bit different than "I don't like most of the bill".

Hate to point out the obvious here, but just because it has a few things you like it does not mean it is batter than what we had before.

Insurance premiums are skyrocketing for the very people that this bill is supposed to be helping. I take that as a negative, but it could be I have been blinded by partisanship. I seriously doubt it, but I am willing to admit the possiblity.

The early estimates about haw many people would take advantage of the new options under the bill have been highly overoptimistic, which is, again, driving up the costs on an individual basis. Again, I see this as a bad sign, but I could be wrong.

This bill was specifically written to prevent the CBO from factoring increased premiums into the deficit. Most people probably do not remember this, but the real reason Hillarycare died was the CBO was including the costs of the premium increases in its estimates. Since the ACA was written to redefine the mandate as a penalty, Congress was able to game the system and the CBO ignored the increase in premiums, AKA cost, and not count it toward the defict in scoring the ACA. Again, I could be wrong, but I do not see it that way.

Please list the benefits you see that outweigh the costs of this bill so I can get back to reality. If this bill does make me better off, even though I can no longer purchase the insurance I used to have, I would really like to know how. That way I can relax and stop worrying about something that is not real, and get back to having a better insurance plan that saves me money, even though it does not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Republicans are protraying themselves as saviors from Obamacare and want to get us back to status quo (or a few talking point changes that will do little - like tort reform and buying across statelines).

Obamacare might not be the answer, but our system is a ******* mess and needs to be changes ASAP. Most Americans are one sickness or injury away from losing everything! Medical bills is still the leading cause of bankruptcy! Healthcare is still outrageously expensive! Ditto for health insurance. Pre-existing conditions puts the people that really need healthcare in no win situation. Health insurance coverage puts our corporations and small businesses at a HUGE disadvantage in the global market.

I repeat, going back to what it was is NOT ideal or acceptable.

You say the Republicans are proposing a repeal and replace bill. Sorry if I don't trust them, because they did have both houses of Congress and the Presidency for 6 years and a good economy, with low unemployment during the Bush years and they did DICK!

There are all kinds of problems with the health care debate. One of them, and case in point here, would be the misrepresentation of what the right wants. No we don't want the status quo. Another would be that you seem to believe that doing something, anything, is always better than doing nothing. I have heard this from two people now on this board, you and RDD. "Well I really don't like most of the bill either, but hey it's something, so that's good, right?" WRONG!

I have never stated that do something or anything is the solution, but remaining at status quo is definitely not the answer. The Republicans had Congress during Clinton's Presidency and did nothing. Then they had it during Bush's Presidency and did nothing. So when I say they are OK with status quo and you say they aren't, I point to their actions and what they dictate!

While I agree that the status quo is not ideal, blaming one party for that is not honest. How many years did the Democrats control Congress and do nothing? Why did the Democrats, in writing this change to the status quo, deliberately shout out anyone but their own party?

Something that I have actually seen very few people mention is that so far every single vote for the ACA has been completely partisan. The only bipartisanship I have seen at all is in opposition to it, just look at the vote to repeal in the House. Or are you suffering under the delusion that only Republicans voted against this law? Can you name any other piece of legislation that has ever passed without a single vote form the minority party? Yet the Democrats stand up and try to argue that the Republicans are rejecting their offers to contribute.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

However, unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be all talk and zero action. One way or another, the prospect of them doing something to actually fix the problems (the problems of the status quo before health care "reform" and those problems created by the "reform") is extremely dim. We will either be stuck with the old system or stuck with the new system and the American Taxpayer will be screwed one way or another.

Immie

That the Republicans have no plan is a message controlled solely by the left. They offered their ideas and were shut out of the process by Obama because it was his way or the highway. They do have a current action plan but since Obama is again not willing to hear it there hand is forced. before they can do anything else, Obamacare has to be repealed.

Did I say they did not have a plan? Nope, I said they would not do anything about it. That would be because they have no more desire to fix the problem than the Democrats do. What matters to them is keeping the flow of corporate dollars into their greasy little palms.

Immie

That must be why the Democrats were so solidly behind this plan. All that money being spent against it by Big Pharma and the insurance companies got their back up, and they choose to stand on principle.

Oops. I just remembered that both of those groups lobbied heavily for the new law, and contributed megabucks to the Democrats. Silly me.

 

[RDD_1210]

There are all kinds of problems with the health care debate. One of them, and case in point here, would be the misrepresentation of what the right wants. No we don't want the status quo. Another would be that you seem to believe that doing something, anything, is always better than doing nothing. I have heard this from two people now on this board, you and RDD. "Well I really don't like most of the bill either, but hey it's something, so that's good, right?" WRONG!

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I wish you would read what I actually type. I said the bill isn't perfect, but it's certainly better then what we had before the bill. That's quite a bit different than "I don't like most of the bill".

Hate to point out the obvious here, but just because it has a few things you like it does not mean it is batter than what we had before.

Insurance premiums are skyrocketing for the very people that this bill is supposed to be helping. I take that as a negative, but it could be I have been blinded by partisanship. I seriously doubt it, but I am willing to admit the possiblity.

The early estimates about haw many people would take advantage of the new options under the bill have been highly overoptimistic, which is, again, driving up the costs on an individual basis. Again, I see this as a bad sign, but I could be wrong.

This bill was specifically written to prevent the CBO from factoring increased premiums into the deficit. Most people probably do not remember this, but the real reason Hillarycare died was the CBO was including the costs of the premium increases in its estimates. Since the ACA was written to redefine the mandate as a penalty, Congress was able to game the system and the CBO ignored the increase in premiums, AKA cost, and not count it toward the defict in scoring the ACA. Again, I could be wrong, but I do not see it that way.

Please list the benefits you see that outweigh the costs of this bill so I can get back to reality. If this bill does make me better off, even though I can no longer purchase the insurance I used to have, I would really like to know how. That way I can relax and stop worrying about something that is not real, and get back to having a better insurance plan that saves me money, even though it does not.

Just to name a few:

- Ending of coverage denial for pre-existing conditions
- Preventing being dropped from your insurance when struck with a major illness.
- Removal of lifetime and eventually yearly caps on coverage limits
- Fewer uninsured people lowers the costs for everyone else
- Closing the Medicare donut hole which immediately helps seniors with their prescription drug costs
- Tax credits for small business who offer medical insurance to their employees

 

[Immanuel]

That the Republicans have no plan is a message controlled solely by the left. They offered their ideas and were shut out of the process by Obama because it was his way or the highway. They do have a current action plan but since Obama is again not willing to hear it there hand is forced. before they can do anything else, Obamacare has to be repealed.

Did I say they did not have a plan? Nope, I said they would not do anything about it. That would be because they have no more desire to fix the problem than the Democrats do. What matters to them is keeping the flow of corporate dollars into their greasy little palms.

Immie

That must be why the Democrats were so solidly behind this plan. All that money being spent against it by Big Pharma and the insurance companies got their back up, and they choose to stand on principle.

Oops. I just remembered that both of those groups lobbied heavily for the new law, and contributed megabucks to the Democrats. Silly me.

Exactly and whatever the Republicans can or will do, they will not significantly change the outlook for those companies. Like I said, lots of talk and no action.

Immie

 

[FA_Q2]

RDD, two of those things are incorrect:
- Fewer uninsured people lowers the costs for everyone else
Then why are premiums rising? I guess that this is a fallacy...

- Tax credits for small business who offer medical insurance to their employees
That is one of the MAJOR problems with the status quo, the fact that insurance was tied to your job. This is a fallacy anyway because it is not breaks for giving coverage, it is charges for NOT giving coverage. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it there are STEEP penalties for companies that refuse to offer medical plans to their employees. This, coupled with increasing premiums, ENSURES the job market will continue to suffer. The other benefits could have been done in FAR smaller bills and without the complete crap that is in this bill. It is over 2000 pages long and the list of benefits are rather short.

 

[RDD_1210]

RDD, two of those things are incorrect:
- Fewer uninsured people lowers the costs for everyone else
Then why are premiums rising? I guess that this is a fallacy...

First of all, the legislation JUST passed. It's not an over-night, flip the switch fix. Health care costs have been rising for years and to blame the continued rise on this legislation is wrong. Sure, it could go further to bring costs down, but those ideas were shot down early on in the debate. So we ended up with what we have now and that will take time to see the effects on our insurance premiums.

- Tax credits for small business who offer medical insurance to their employees
That is one of the MAJOR problems with the status quo, the fact that insurance was tied to your job. This is a fallacy anyway because it is not breaks for giving coverage, it is charges for NOT giving coverage. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it there are STEEP penalties for companies that refuse to offer medical plans to their employees. This, coupled with increasing premiums, ENSURES the job market will continue to suffer. The other benefits could have been done in FAR smaller bills and without the complete crap that is in this bill.

Small businesses under 50 employees are not required to offer coverage but are given tax breaks if they do. I agree though that insurance should not be tied to your employer, but it's the system we are stuck with for now.

It is over 2000 pages long and the list of benefits are rather short.

I said that these were just some of the benefits. There are more, but also the details of how these benefits work are in MUCH greater detail obviously then what I highlighted here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just to name a few:

- Ending of coverage denial for pre-existing conditions

That is a favorite of Democrats and other defenders of this debacle. the problem is that coverage was rarely denied based on those conditions. Rates were higher if a person had a condition that could rise the cost of their health care, and was denied of they failed to disclose it.

- Preventing being dropped from your insurance when struck with a major illness.

Another claim that falls short in the fact department.

- Removal of lifetime and eventually yearly caps on coverage limits

Which will raise rates for everyone, even those who prefer to have that limited coverage.

I can understand why this can cause problems, I just fail to understand why people whine about it. They chose the policy that had limited coverage, and then expect the insurer to keep paying when they have expenses they do not anticipate. My sympathy for this problem is rather low.

- Fewer uninsured people lowers the costs for everyone else

No it does not. What it does is lower the cost ofr the people that use insurance the most, not for everyone. Expanding the risk pool only benefits the insurance companies, why do you think they were so solidly behind the mandate.

- Closing the Medicare donut hole which immediately helps seniors with their prescription drug costs

That could have been accomplished without a 2000 page bill.

- Tax credits for small business who offer medical insurance to their employees

I thought you were opposed to the status quo. Most experts, including those who support this law, tell me that the primary factor that drives up health care costs is the fact that people are not responsible for the costs. Expanding that problem to more people is not going to fix anything.

 

[RDD_1210]

Just to name a few:

- Ending of coverage denial for pre-existing conditions

That is a favorite of Democrats and other defenders of this debacle. the problem is that coverage was rarely denied based on those conditions. Rates were higher if a person had a condition that could rise the cost of their health care, and was denied of they failed to disclose it.

- Preventing being dropped from your insurance when struck with a major illness.

Another claim that falls short in the fact department.



Which will raise rates for everyone, even those who prefer to have that limited coverage.

I can understand why this can cause problems, I just fail to understand why people whine about it. They chose the policy that had limited coverage, and then expect the insurer to keep paying when they have expenses they do not anticipate. My sympathy for this problem is rather low.



No it does not. What it does is lower the cost ofr the people that use insurance the most, not for everyone. Expanding the risk pool only benefits the insurance companies, why do you think they were so solidly behind the mandate.

- Closing the Medicare donut hole which immediately helps seniors with their prescription drug costs

That could have been accomplished without a 2000 page bill.

- Tax credits for small business who offer medical insurance to their employees

I thought you were opposed to the status quo. Most experts, including those who support this law, tell me that the primary factor that drives up health care costs is the fact that people are not responsible for the costs. Expanding that problem to more people is not going to fix anything.

I'm tired of explaining over and over and over again the same concepts to uneducated people. You refute what I posted with opinions. Weak ones at that. When you're ready to post actual facts to backup any of the drivel you posted, let me know.

Pick one thing, I don't care, but post some facts. Trying to debate your obviously misinformed opinion is just not worth it.

 

[Greenbeard]

This bill was specifically written to prevent the CBO from factoring increased premiums into the deficit.

Are you trying to bullshit somebody or do you really believe this?

While I agree that the status quo is not ideal, blaming one party for that is not honest. How many years did the Democrats control Congress and do nothing?

The Democrats have made a major push comprehensive health reform or coverage expansion every time they've had unified government over the past 60 years; the one possible exception is the Carter years, despite both Carter and Congressional Democrats offering plans.

 

[RDD_1210]

Spoken like someone who doesn't want to like or even understand what the legislation actually does.

I know what you've told me and that is 350 million americans need to be required to purchase health care to make up for those that won't. Which indeed is an inefficient, immoral and fiscally irresponsible means of solving the problem of paying for people who can't and/or won't purchase health care.

So, what's a better, efficient, moral, fiscally responsible means of paying for the healthcare of those who can't afford it? Let's hear your plan.

And FYI the mandate is more about preventing the exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions then it is helping to pay for people who have no health insurance. Still hate the mandate?

I'm still waiting to hear your plan Bern.

 

[30x90]

The Republicans are protraying themselves as saviors from Obamacare and want to get us back to status quo (or a few talking point changes that will do little - like tort reform and buying across statelines).

Obamacare might not be the answer, but our system is a ******* mess and needs to be changes ASAP. Most Americans are one sickness or injury away from losing everything! Medical bills are still the leading cause of bankruptcy! Healthcare is still outrageously expensive! Ditto for health insurance. Pre-existing conditions puts the people that really need healthcare in no win situation. Health insurance coverage puts our corporations and small businesses at a HUGE disadvantage in the global market.

I repeat, going back to what it was is NOT ideal or acceptable.

You say the Republicans are proposing a repeal and replace bill. Sorry if I don't trust them, because they did have both houses of Congress and the Presidency for 6 years and a good economy, with low unemployment during the Bush years and they did DICK!

Why don't you summarize the entire 2000 page bill and tell us point by point why it's a good idea and list all the benefits and places where money will be saved?

LMAO..I was kidding...pelosi doesn't know what all is in there or how it will REALLY affect anything..neither does reid...neither does obama...and neither do you.

Look..ANY 2000 page bill that was passed by these thieves and scoundrels in washington (BOTH PARTIES) most assuredly isn't good for the citizens.

To pretend that the dems. or the reps. have the best interest of the country in mind is delusional.

LMAO..the U.S. Tax Code is 35,000 PAGES...and both parties are ok with it...You think it is good for the country?

 

[RDD_1210]

The Republicans are protraying themselves as saviors from Obamacare and want to get us back to status quo (or a few talking point changes that will do little - like tort reform and buying across statelines).

Obamacare might not be the answer, but our system is a ******* mess and needs to be changes ASAP. Most Americans are one sickness or injury away from losing everything! Medical bills are still the leading cause of bankruptcy! Healthcare is still outrageously expensive! Ditto for health insurance. Pre-existing conditions puts the people that really need healthcare in no win situation. Health insurance coverage puts our corporations and small businesses at a HUGE disadvantage in the global market.

I repeat, going back to what it was is NOT ideal or acceptable.

You say the Republicans are proposing a repeal and replace bill. Sorry if I don't trust them, because they did have both houses of Congress and the Presidency for 6 years and a good economy, with low unemployment during the Bush years and they did DICK!

Why don't you summarize the entire 2000 page bill and tell us point by point why it's a good idea and list all the benefits and places where money will be saved?

LMAO..I was kidding...pelosi doesn't know what all is in there or how it will REALLY affect anything..neither does reid...neither does obama...and neither do you.

Look..ANY 2000 page bill that was passed by these thieves and scoundrels in washington (BOTH PARTIES) most assuredly isn't good for the citizens.

To pretend that the dems. or the reps. have the best interest of the country in mind is delusional.

LMAO..the U.S. Tax Code is 35,000 PAGES...and both parties are ok with it...You think it is good for the country?

How many pages should the bill be?

 

[30x90]

The Republicans are protraying themselves as saviors from Obamacare and want to get us back to status quo (or a few talking point changes that will do little - like tort reform and buying across statelines).

Obamacare might not be the answer, but our system is a ******* mess and needs to be changes ASAP. Most Americans are one sickness or injury away from losing everything! Medical bills are still the leading cause of bankruptcy! Healthcare is still outrageously expensive! Ditto for health insurance. Pre-existing conditions puts the people that really need healthcare in no win situation. Health insurance coverage puts our corporations and small businesses at a HUGE disadvantage in the global market.

I repeat, going back to what it was is NOT ideal or acceptable.

You say the Republicans are proposing a repeal and replace bill. Sorry if I don't trust them, because they did have both houses of Congress and the Presidency for 6 years and a good economy, with low unemployment during the Bush years and they did DICK!

Why don't you summarize the entire 2000 page bill and tell us point by point why it's a good idea and list all the benefits and places where money will be saved?

LMAO..I was kidding...pelosi doesn't know what all is in there or how it will REALLY affect anything..neither does reid...neither does obama...and neither do you.

Look..ANY 2000 page bill that was passed by these thieves and scoundrels in washington (BOTH PARTIES) most assuredly isn't good for the citizens.

To pretend that the dems. or the reps. have the best interest of the country in mind is delusional.

LMAO..the U.S. Tax Code is 35,000 PAGES...and both parties are ok with it...You think it is good for the country?

How many pages should the bill be?

I don't know.

You don't even know what all is in there. Neither do the damned fools who invented the whole mess.


Why don't you summarize it for us and explain point by point how it will benefit the citizens and how much money it will "save"?

Explain to us why, if it's so good, do so many (politically connected) groups/unions need to get "waivers"? Why are politicians exempt?
Why should the IRS enforce compliance? Don't they already have enough to do extorting money from working people to give to non productive elements in our society?

"Because obama said so", isn't good enough.
Explain exactly why you think it's such a good bill point by point and include links and cite your sources...
List all the provisions and explain specifically why they're beneficial....

 

[RDD_1210]

Why don't you summarize the entire 2000 page bill and tell us point by point why it's a good idea and list all the benefits and places where money will be saved?

LMAO..I was kidding...pelosi doesn't know what all is in there or how it will REALLY affect anything..neither does reid...neither does obama...and neither do you.

Look..ANY 2000 page bill that was passed by these thieves and scoundrels in washington (BOTH PARTIES) most assuredly isn't good for the citizens.

To pretend that the dems. or the reps. have the best interest of the country in mind is delusional.

LMAO..the U.S. Tax Code is 35,000 PAGES...and both parties are ok with it...You think it is good for the country?

How many pages should the bill be?

I don't know.

You don't even know what all is in there. Neither do the damned fools who invented the whole mess.


Why don't you summarize it for us and explain point by point how it will benefit the citizens and how much money it will "save"?

Explain to us why, if it's so good, do so many (politically connected) groups/unions need to get "waivers"? Why are politicians exempt?
Why should the IRS enforce compliance? Don't they already have enough to do extorting money from working people to give to non productive elements in our society?

"Because obama said so", isn't good enough.
Explain exactly why you think it's such a good bill point by point and include links and cite your sources...
List all the provisions and explain specifically why they're beneficial....

Already did that on page 2 of this thread.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Republicans are protraying themselves as saviors from Obamacare and want to get us back to status quo (or a few talking point changes that will do little - like tort reform and buying across statelines).

Obamacare might not be the answer, but our system is a ******* mess and needs to be changes ASAP. Most Americans are one sickness or injury away from losing everything! Medical bills are still the leading cause of bankruptcy! Healthcare is still outrageously expensive! Ditto for health insurance. Pre-existing conditions puts the people that really need healthcare in no win situation. Health insurance coverage puts our corporations and small businesses at a HUGE disadvantage in the global market.

I repeat, going back to what it was is NOT ideal or acceptable.

You say the Republicans are proposing a repeal and replace bill. Sorry if I don't trust them, because they did have both houses of Congress and the Presidency for 6 years and a good economy, with low unemployment during the Bush years and they did DICK!

Why don't you summarize the entire 2000 page bill and tell us point by point why it's a good idea and list all the benefits and places where money will be saved?

LMAO..I was kidding...pelosi doesn't know what all is in there or how it will REALLY affect anything..neither does reid...neither does obama...and neither do you.

Look..ANY 2000 page bill that was passed by these thieves and scoundrels in washington (BOTH PARTIES) most assuredly isn't good for the citizens.

To pretend that the dems. or the reps. have the best interest of the country in mind is delusional.

LMAO..the U.S. Tax Code is 35,000 PAGES...and both parties are ok with it...You think it is good for the country?

How many pages should the bill be?

It should be MUCH smaller and split into many bills that you can easily read. There is no exact size for each piece but there is reasonable and unreasonable. If you cannot see that over 2000 pages is unreasonable then you are blind. There is no reason that this bill cannot be split into many smaller 20 or so page bills that address each concern separately. As a whole, this bill is trash but there are many good ideas contained within it. My biggest problem is that the members that voted for it could not even have read it and there is no way that anyone can fully understand it. Broken up into pieces, it could be read and understood having each section stand on its own merit. the only reason this did not happen is that you cannot hide crap when there is nothing to hide it under.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why don't you summarize the entire 2000 page bill and tell us point by point why it's a good idea and list all the benefits and places where money will be saved?

LMAO..I was kidding...pelosi doesn't know what all is in there or how it will REALLY affect anything..neither does reid...neither does obama...and neither do you.

Look..ANY 2000 page bill that was passed by these thieves and scoundrels in washington (BOTH PARTIES) most assuredly isn't good for the citizens.

To pretend that the dems. or the reps. have the best interest of the country in mind is delusional.

LMAO..the U.S. Tax Code is 35,000 PAGES...and both parties are ok with it...You think it is good for the country?

How many pages should the bill be?

It should be MUCH smaller and split into many bills that you can easily read. There is no exact size for each piece but there is reasonable and unreasonable. If you cannot see that over 2000 pages is unreasonable then you are blind. There is no reason that this bill cannot be split into many smaller 20 or so page bills that address each concern separately. As a whole, this bill is trash but there are many good ideas contained within it. My biggest problem is that the members that voted for it could not even have read it and there is no way that anyone can fully understand it. Broken up into pieces, it could be read and understood having each section stand on its own merit. the only reason this did not happen is that you cannot hide crap when there is nothing to hide it under.

LOL, Amazing. The number of pages in the bill is getting you upset. So how would 100, 20 page bills be any better? Maybe many of these issues overlap and they can't be just separated out. Six of one half a dozen of the other.

Do you have any actual complaints or are you just whining because that's what you were told to do?

 

[30x90]

How many pages should the bill be?

I don't know.

You don't even know what all is in there. Neither do the damned fools who invented the whole mess.


Why don't you summarize it for us and explain point by point how it will benefit the citizens and how much money it will "save"?

Explain to us why, if it's so good, do so many (politically connected) groups/unions need to get "waivers"? Why are politicians exempt?
Why should the IRS enforce compliance? Don't they already have enough to do extorting money from working people to give to non productive elements in our society?

"Because obama said so", isn't good enough.
Explain exactly why you think it's such a good bill point by point and include links and cite your sources...
List all the provisions and explain specifically why they're beneficial....

Already did that on page 2 of this thread.

I dind't see anything of the sort.
You're implying that you understand all 2000 pages of gibberish concocted by politicians and lawyers and that you've summarized and weighed the benefits versus the deficits and condensed the whole bill into one post?

You have a very high opinion of yourself.

Hell, if you can solve the whole nations health care problems in one post, they don't need a 2000 page bill, do they?

Gee, I wonder what all is in those other 1999 pages?...

 

[RDD_1210]

I don't know.

You don't even know what all is in there. Neither do the damned fools who invented the whole mess.


Why don't you summarize it for us and explain point by point how it will benefit the citizens and how much money it will "save"?

Explain to us why, if it's so good, do so many (politically connected) groups/unions need to get "waivers"? Why are politicians exempt?
Why should the IRS enforce compliance? Don't they already have enough to do extorting money from working people to give to non productive elements in our society?

"Because obama said so", isn't good enough.
Explain exactly why you think it's such a good bill point by point and include links and cite your sources...
List all the provisions and explain specifically why they're beneficial....

Already did that on page 2 of this thread.

I dind't see anything of the sort.
You're implying that you understand all 2000 pages of gibberish concocted by politicians and lawyers and that you've summarized and weighed the benefits versus the deficits and condensed the whole bill into one post?

You have a very high opinion of yourself.

Hell, if you can solve the whole nations health care problems in one post, they don't need a 2000 page bill, do they?

Gee, I wonder what all is in those other 1999 pages?...

I summarized some of the benefits just like you asked for. What exactly were you looking for?

If you admittedly haven't read the bill or even a summary of what the bill does, how do you know it's not a good bill?