Pilgrim's HR 3200 Must Read Pages

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Wow...so when someone actually stops to read something and think about it with some parsing of text and reasoned debate...the thread dies. NICE!!!!

Thanks for letting me decide the healthcare issue.

It happens to me every time i try to stick to the language and parse it out.

If you dont use uniformed partisan attacks and defenses no one wants to talk health care with you.

 

[Vanquish]

Does that mean I get to bang PoliticalChic now? ha ha ha

 

[OneWorld]

HR 3200 you can quick jump to the pages in this pdf pretty easily.

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 gov option! So much for choice

God how many times do we need to debunk these talking points? It's hard to take your post serious when your first point is a lie. This area reads that IF your grandfathered insurance plan is changed by the insurance company, then they must add in the new previsions of health care reform (ie, they can't cut you, there is a ceiling on premiums, etc...) to make sure that the existing system changes to the new laws (which are of benefit from you). If the plan never changes and you like it... keep it. But this is in place so that the 80% of people that have plans can't just have the insurance companies under the old laws... this is a STANDARD grandfather clause of any new law/bill. Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me.

Where did you get these talking points from? They are lying to you. Doesn't that upset you at all? I mean, they have no respect for your intelligence. Try READING the bill yourself.

 

[veritas]

We already covered those issues you mentioned by morphing to other threads. Why can't you edit your OP, pilgrim?


I can edit my posts.

 

[OneWorld]

Wow...so when someone actually stops to read something and think about it with some parsing of text and reasoned debate...the thread dies. NICE!!!!

Thanks for letting me decide the healthcare issue.

It happens to me every time i try to stick to the language and parse it out.

If you dont use uniformed partisan attacks and defenses no one wants to talk health care with you.

You are delusional. We've already covered this several times. It's beating a dead horse. You don't want to hear the truth.

 

[OneWorld]

We already covered those issues you mentioned by morphing to other threads. Why can't you edit your OP, pilgrim?


I can edit my posts.

Exactly... he just keeps doing a new thread, despite how many times these points are debunked. I mean, if you just want high fives from brainwashed zombies, then say so... and we won't bother posting.

 

[Vanquish]

I dont want to hear the truth? So you just come in and say it's been decided?

HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Here I am...the one of maybe 3 people on this forum who doesnt insult people or use sweeping generalizations...I talk about a subject IN DEPTH...but repeating yourself or linking to your arguments are too much trouble.

HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[veritas]

I dont want to hear the truth? So you just come in and say it's been decided?

HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Here I am...the one of maybe 3 people on this forum who doesnt insult people or use sweeping generalizations...I talk about a subject IN DEPTH...but repeating yourself or linking to your arguments are too much trouble.

HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!HA AHA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Not really vanquish........we were agreeing with you and chastising pilgrim.........

carry on.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

HR 3200 you can quick jump to the pages in this pdf pretty easily.

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 gov option! So much for choice

God how many times do we need to debunk these talking points? It's hard to take your post serious when your first point is a lie. This area reads that IF your grandfathered insurance plan is changed by the insurance company, then they must add in the new previsions of health care reform (ie, they can't cut you, there is a ceiling on premiums, etc...) to make sure that the existing system changes to the new laws (which are of benefit from you). If the plan never changes and you like it... keep it. But this is in place so that the 80% of people that have plans can't just have the insurance companies under the old laws... this is a STANDARD grandfather clause of any new law/bill. Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me.

Where did you get these talking points from? They are lying to you. Doesn't that upset you at all? I mean, they have no respect for your intelligence. Try READING the bill yourself.

You obviously didn't read the whole thread....we were going through it together without insulting each other to find out what was accurate and what wasn't. Why dont you try going through one point at a time then referring back to the actual language of the bill to either disprove or prove the claim.

As you can see from my self quote below we already found one claim to be wrong and I fully admitted to it being wrong so why dont you stop being an asshole and start actually being productive, it may actually help your position.

Yeah i need a moderator to come in and delete the part i found most troublilng, as after discussion i found out that I was wrong on the part i put in big red letters

DOH!!!!

We already covered those issues you mentioned by morphing to other threads. Why can't you edit your OP, pilgrim?


I can edit my posts.

It wont let me edit the OP. Make a thread then wait a few days and you'll see they dont let you edit, you need a mod to do it.

 

[OneWorld]

So you want us to debunk this spam e-mail (this is where it came from correct?) about lies from the bill?

It's hard to even want to when the first few are blatant lies.

I had an idea though last night when I was watching the Stewart / Betsy McCaughey interview (big pharma paid liar - although she honestly seems quite nice, like she almost believes what she's saying) ... which was quite entertaining. I got on the daily show bandwagon late, but have found it funny as of late (especially the entire episode last night). It's like comic relief for the complete insanity that's going on.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News <-- extended interview on front page.

Any ways... My idea was... why not put a midnight clause on the first run of the reform. Say in 4 years they have to re-vote it in. This will allow the nutballs to see that it will actually work, and if liberals are wrong (which sorry, not being partisan here, but that's rarely the case), then we revoke it and go back to the immoral insanity that is called American health care.

I mean, I know we'd have to fight an onslaught of disinformation and lies from the industry for 4 years, but I think it could be fought off the more people have direct experience with the new system. Thoughts?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Most of it is accurate thus far. But feel free to disprove anything you dont agree with, give me a direction where the language is, and if you do disprove anything i'll ask for it to be removed.

Daily show is funny but, like i said in another thread, not serious(sorta like glenn beck).

 

[OneWorld]

Most of it is accurate thus far. But feel free to disprove anything you dont agree with, give me a direction where the language is, and if you do disprove anything i'll ask for it to be removed.

Daily show is funny but, like i said in another thread, not serious(sorta like glenn beck).

This is the problem with you and, why likely no one is going to discuss it with you. In the brief time I've been on this site, you've shown over and over that when people point out where the lies are, you ignore them, and just hold that it's true.

Look at the first point. It's a blatant lie? Agree?

You compare Glen beck to Stewart? Are you for you real? Minus 4 points in credibility. When does glen beck do an interview like stewart just did with that paid shill? How many times has Stewart blatantly lied compared to Beck, or flip flopped in issues? Don't want to derail thread, but good lord...

Guess no comment on midnight clause.

 

[veritas]

Most of it is accurate thus far. But feel free to disprove anything you dont agree with, give me a direction where the language is, and if you do disprove anything i'll ask for it to be removed.

Daily show is funny but, like i said in another thread, not serious(sorta like glenn beck).

The Daily Show is funny. But Jon Stewart is really really sharp. And he uses facts to be funny, because that's the only way anybody's going to listen and then get the jokes. The humor doesn't work if the truth isn't being examined and Stewart has it down to a science. He's serious as a heart attack. Another thing is, as a comedian, anything's game if there's a funny angle, so he's not biased.

Funny people are very smart people.

Beck isn't funny, except in a train wreck sort of way.

Humor has a rare way of distilling things so they are made plain.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny people are very smart people.

What a fucktard statement.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Jon Stewart isn't biased? Yeah, go smoke some more pot.

 

[OneWorld]

Funny people are very smart people.

Beck isn't funny, except in a train wreck sort of way.

Humor has a rare way of distilling things so they are made plain.

Yes, good humor takes intelligence. You have to understand analogies, similes, and metaphors and be able to deliver them in a fresh and unique way.

Name me some funny conservatives.... I think we can rest our case.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Most of it is accurate thus far. But feel free to disprove anything you dont agree with, give me a direction where the language is, and if you do disprove anything i'll ask for it to be removed.

Daily show is funny but, like i said in another thread, not serious(sorta like glenn beck).

This is the problem with you and, why likely no one is going to discuss it with you. In the brief time I've been on this site, you've shown over and over that when people point out where the lies are, you ignore them, and just hold that it's true.

Look at the first point. It's a blatant lie? Agree?

You compare Glen beck to Stewart? Are you for you real? Minus 4 points in credibility. When does glen beck do an interview like stewart just did with that paid shill? How many times has Stewart blatantly lied compared to Beck, or flip flopped in issues? Don't want to derail thread, but good lord...

Guess no comment on midnight clause.

Show me how it is a blatant lie, from the language of HR3200, and I'll tell you if I agree.

In my brief time on here I have just challenged those who disagree to SHOW me their reasoning using the language of the law and not talking points. Since its in my own thread its up to YOU to convince me.

I have shown that when someone does use facts to disprove something I thought was true that I am able to say "ok you are right, thank you"

 

[veritas]

Agronsky was funny. Buckley was funny. Although they were high brow funny.

Perot is funny.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Agronsky was funny. Buckley was funny. Although they were high brow funny.

Perot is funny.

hey leave perot alone

 

[OneWorld]

Show me how it is a blatant lie, from the language of HR3200, and I'll tell you if I agree.

In my brief time on here I have just challenged those who disagree to SHOW me their reasoning using the language of the law and not talking points. Since its in my own thread its up to YOU to convince me.

I have shown that when someone does use facts to disprove something I thought was true that I am able to say "ok you are right, thank you"

I have zero talking points. I'm just reading the bill. It's a standard grandfather clause. I've told you what it says, it's your talking points and spam mail. If you show me where you think it says that... for example, you say:

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

This part states that we will be forced into government health insurance, etc... then I will pull out exact lines from the bill. However, until you do that, how am I supposed to find something that doesn't exist?