Please explain to me

[noonereal]

why you support a system that currently has 1% of the population holding as much wealth as the 95% of the population?

My guess is I'll get the same response as when I asked what the lovely Sarah stood for, which of course was none.

Any cons what to justify this?

Maybe the replies will "trickle? in?

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by noonereal

My guess is I'll get the same response as when I asked what the lovely Sarah stood for, which of course was none.

Kind of the same feeling I get when I mention that the Health Care Reform bills presented require all to participate except for House, Senate and upward. They get a pass for some reason.

No responses to that one either.

RC

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Kind of the same feeling I get when I mention that the Health Care Reform bills presented require all to participate except for House, Senate and upward. They get a pass for some reason.

No responses to that one either.

RC

I might be missing something, but what are you talking about? Doesn't the proposed legislation simply require everyone to have health insurance? And if you already have it, well, you have it. Maybe I'm wrong about it. So, members of Congress do have health insurance. Right? So, I guess I am confused.

Seriously, I might be missing something here. Please enlighten me if I am. I have health insurance from CBS and it's quite good. Costs me a fortune, but I'm gald to have it. I'm very happy to reform health care and not change my coverage at all. I would suspect a lot of people who currently have no insurance will end up with something that isn't as good as what I have. I don't want anyone to require me to get worse insurance and I wouldn't expect Congress to do so either.

[merrylander]

Sorry Ed, but the congress critters and senators have socialized health insurance - you , me and all the other ordinary citizens are paying for it, it is called CheneyCare.

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I might be missing something, but what are you talking about? Doesn't the proposed legislation simply require everyone to have health insurance? And if you already have it, well, you have it. Maybe I'm wrong about it. So, members of Congress do have health insurance. Right? So, I guess I am confused.

Seriously, I might be missing something here. Please enlighten me if I am. I have health insurance from CBS and it's quite good. Costs me a fortune, but I'm gald to have it. I'm very happy to reform health care and not change my coverage at all. I would suspect a lot of people who currently have no insurance will end up with something that isn't as good as what I have. I don't want anyone to require me to get worse insurance and I wouldn't expect Congress to do so either.

The way I understand it is that people can keep their existing insurance providers, however, if there are subsequent changes to the policy i.e. rate, coverage, etc. all bets are off and they will be rolled into the new program.

The language of the bills presented speak for themselves. "Must" and "May" are clearly identified when referring to the people as opposed to Congress.

Correct me if I am wrong.

RC

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Sorry Ed, but the congress critters and senators have socialized health insurance - you , me and all the other ordinary citizens are paying for it, it is called CheneyCare.

Well, yeah. I know that. But they do have health care. Just as I do. And they'll keep it. And I'll keep mine. Really, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

The way I understand it is that people can keep their existing insurance providers, however, if there are subsequent changes to the policy i.e. rate, coverage, etc. all bets are off and they will be rolled into the new program.

The language of the bills presented speak for themselves. "Must" and "May" are clearly identified when referring to the people as opposed to Congress.

Correct me if I am wrong.

RC

Let's just wait to see what comes out of conference, shall we? We can piss and moan about provisions in all the various proposals but none of them might end up in the final legislation.

John

[merrylander]

We will keep ours hopefully, except the one thing they are saying is that people who buy their health insurance as individuals will see the cost go up. Oh, but we are supposed to get better coverage, except I don't see how ours could be better. Then of course if you want to see something get FUBAR give it to Congress to work on.

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Let's just wait to see what comes out of conference, shall we? We can piss and moan about provisions in all the various proposals but none of them might end up in the final legislation.

John

I would think that the fact that it's there alone would give people insight.

Maybe we need this...


Amendment 28

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .

This would solve a lot of problems toot sweet. The hard working people of our nation wouldn't need to spend their free time scouring over bills trying to determine how they are about to bent over the fence.

Back to your question. The Jury is still out for me regarding Palin. Right now, I believe she is just as relevant as anyone else out there on either side. Thats not an endorsement mind you.


RC

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Kind of the same feeling I get when I mention that the Health Care Reform bills presented require all to participate except for House, Senate and upward. They get a pass for some reason.

No responses to that one either.

RC

All people presently covered can elect to stay with there current provider as I understand it.