Sword, I'll check it out. But, the passages of the bill that Betsy quotes, does she get it right? Are you dismissing her information simply because of who she is? I'll catch the Daily Show bit, but please, you read the bill, with the pages supplied, and tell me if she got it wrong.
It's no surprise to me that agencies like the IRS are involved, or that penalties and jail time are involved for people who don't want to be part of this.
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
It's fine, the provision for forced coverage *should* get tossed out in the Supreme Court, and anyone who voted for it *should* be impeached and/or tossed/voted out of office.How is it unconstitutional?Originally posted by HayateAce:
It is flatly unconstitutional.
Any politician connected with attempting to pass it will be voted out and/or impeached.
Day of reckoning will come for these scumbags.
What the hell is the matter with you people? Out of all the things in this bill you're complaining about people being forced to have healthcare? They should be forced to, esp when it will be provided if they cannot afford it! You're forced by law to have car insurance right? How about homeowners insurance? Is that unconstitutional too? You guys crack me up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you forced to have car insurance if you don't drive and don't own a car. Seriously, wth? Do you think a guy living under a bridge has homeowners insurance?
You think that being alive (unless you're here illegally) gives the government the right to force you to purchase something and if you refuse, you're fined and/or put in jail?
You thought the Patriot Act was bad...
Provisions of this bill threaten to increase my premiums under my retirement benefits and VA, but I haven't been complaining about that, although it will definitely impact my ability to care for my son.
No, I oppose this monstrosity on general principle. If they were really interested in helping people by making healthcare affordable, they would address the root causes like tort reform, deregulating some of the ridiculous requirements on insurance companies so they can compete and consumers can purchase across state lines (some of that is state law that needs reform), education of people on programs they can already take advantage of are all common sense measures that are being ignored but contribute to the rising health care costs that the Democrats claim to want to control.
Instead they're putting a Hello Kitty band-aid on a shotgun blast. Health care costs will continue to rise if the real causes aren't addressed and taxpayers foot the bill.
Andy, if you are unemployed in the UK, how do you pay your taxes? How do you rate health care if you are not working? Do they put you in jail if you do not have a job and are unable to pay taxes thus not being able to pay for your share of NHS?
This is the sticking point many here from the US are complaining about. I do not own a car so I do not have auto insurance and I am not put in jail for not having it. The provisions of this bill state fines of $25,000 if I do not get health insurance with. One can even own a home and not have insurance on it (as long as there is no mortgage) and not have to worry about being fined. The only problem is if there is a problem you could lose everything if an accident of any sort happens.
There are penalties -both fines and jail time- for not having insurance, that is clear.
If you don't have private insurance, you can have the federal, public option, and furthermore, if you can't afford it, subsidies will be available to pay for this public option. This means that everyone in the country *ought* to be covered for health care.
It also means that there are substantial forces at work that will result in more and more people moving to the public 'option'.
..... Regardless of whether or not this bill gets through the Senate, don't believe any claims made by any administration about intentions to reduce healthcare costs until you see some REAL measures put forth to reform this malpractice monstrosity we currently face in the US.
When you see that, there will be at least SOME hope that the effort will be a serious one.
If I am unemployed in the UK, I have no income, so pay no income tax. They also provide 'Jobseekers Allowance' and help pay towards accomodation costs. Such support for the unemployed is fairly basic, and you get a lot of hassle from government bureaucrats, but it is there. That is how taxation works: the more you have, the more you pay: simple really.Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Andy, if you are unemployed in the UK, how do you pay your taxes? How do you rate health care if you are not working? Do they put you in jail if you do not have a job and are unable to pay taxes thus not being able to pay for your share of NHS?
This is the sticking point many here from the US are complaining about. I do not own a car so I do not have auto insurance and I am not put in jail for not having it. The provisions of this bill state fines of $25,000 if I do not get health insurance with. One can even own a home and not have insurance on it (as long as there is no mortgage) and not have to worry about being fined. The only problem is if there is a problem you could lose everything if an accident of any sort happens.
Your comment about auto insurance is missing the point - you can chose not to have a car, but you can't choose not to need healthcare: you might not need it now, but you will be very lucky not to need it at some time in your life. In any case, even if you don't currently have healthcare cover, the costs of providing it to those that do are a burden on the US economy, so will ultimately affect your standard of living. 'Socialised' healthcare, like here in the UK, has been shown to provide better overall healthcare cover for less expenditure.
Malpractice costs in the US account for something like 1% of the cost of health care in the US. I've said this here many times but the Republicans with their Fox-based reality don't seem to care.this malpractice monstrosity we currently face in the US.
The ONLY reason that Republicans care about "tort reform" is because they think "trial lawyers" are all evil Democrats who must be destroyed, despite the fact that many lawyers are Republican. Many states have medical malpractice caps and medical malpractice costs have not gone down. Punishing people who are legitimately harmed by negligent doctors for the sake of politics is stupid. Despite all this Obama is moving forward on a new form of malpractice arbitration where some sort of panel rather than a jury decides awards, or so I read recently.
Her reputation precedes her and it's her own damn fault.Are you dismissing her information simply because of who she is?
I'm not a lawyer or a health care lobbyist plus I just got the new RPG Dragon Age so I'm not going to read the bill (would you? see you in a year, lol) and rebut her claims point by point, but this article seems to do an ok job of it:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911070006
Heres how healthcare works in Canada.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss...-assur/index-eng.php