The House just voted

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by painter

Some of us thought it was being pushed too quickly. It'll be interesting to hear how women feel about having to add RIDER for abortions to their policies.

It is ridiculous. I'm not a fan of abortion. But it is legal and it is the kind of thing you'd think you might need a doctor for. Silly to pretend that they're somehow being pro-life with goofy crap like this.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

You can blame the so called Blue Dogs for that bit of nonsense. For a bunch of lawyers they do love playing doctor.

More than just Blue Dogs. It got 64 Democratic votes.

John

[elwood127]

Interesting that Dems only used enough votes to win so that "some dems could state that they had not voted for it during the next election". That tells me that no Dems would have voted for it if they did'nt have to.

[Ohighway]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I'm sure this will be offensive to at least one of you, but if you'd like to know what's in the bill, I think it took me about 90 seconds to read through the link I posted last night. Sure, it's not everything (though I posted a link to that too) but it should alleviate the "I have no idea what they passed" blues.

I'm sure -anyone- could read through your link in 90 seconds. The problem is .. that is someone's -interpretation- of what's in the bill. And as such you can go on the web and find any number of these "interpretations".

And to be fair, how many can read that -entire- document and truly understand what's contained within?

I guess I base my judgment on this through other means. Taking money from Medicare ? That's low. Thinking that a Government run program will be more efficient? That's naive to the extreme. Thinking the cost estimates are accurate and won't be overrun ? C'mon.... are you serious? Providing health care to illegals? That's insane.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Ohighway

I'm sure -anyone- could read through your link in 90 seconds. The problem is .. that is someone's -interpretation- of what's in the bill. And as such you can go on the web and find any number of these "interpretations".

And to be fair, how many can read that -entire- document and truly understand what's contained within?

I guess I base my judgment on this through other means. Taking money from Medicare ? That's low. Thinking that a Government run program will be more efficient? That's naive to the extreme. Thinking the cost estimates are accurate and won't be overrun ? C'mon.... are you serious? Providing health care to illegals? That's insane.

Why is this legislation being held to a standard that *no other in the history of the United States* has been held to? Did you read the "Patirot Act" before it was passed? You want to read it, read it. You can't understand it? Well, that pretty much makes it exactly like every other bill passed in the last 200 years.

You're against taking money from Medicare, but you are against Government run health care?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by elwood127

Interesting that Dems only used enough votes to win so that "some dems could state that they had not voted for it during the next election". That tells me that no Dems would have voted for it if they did'nt have to.

This is different from every other vote how? Note there was one Republican vote from a freshmen in a very Democratic region. It's amazing anything gets done, especially when it's known before hand that it will be used as leverage in the next election cycle. In some districts, a vote for this will hurt a candidate. In some districts, a vote against this will hurt a candidate. Just how it is. And just how this is always done.

[Ohighway]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Why is this legislation being held to a standard that *no other in the history of the United States* has been held to? Did you read the "Patirot Act" before it was passed? You want to read it, read it. You can't understand it? Well, that pretty much makes it exactly like every other bill passed in the last 200 years.

You're against taking money from Medicare, but you are against Government run health care?

Good point in your first paragraph. If it was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now. When do we collectively say "enough" and demand a cure to that ?

Re the Medicare, I say it's low to pull money away from it -now- as it's an established program , and so many older folks (including my parents) will be negatively impacted. However Medicare is a -shining example- of a Government run medical program, and the costs overruns you can expect!

How about my other two points? The cost overruns and the free medical care for illegals? That will happen, and you know it....

[merrylander]

I find something strange in all this talk that illegals will get health care, not that they don't already, ask the governor of Arizona. My medicare number is my SSN, hell you can't even open a bank account without an SSN. Sure some illegals use real peoples SSNs - hey if one want's to use mine and jack up my SS payments be my guest. So AFAIK no SSN, no health insurance, and I doubt that the government will hesitate to use their SSN verification system.

Mind you I still believe they should have gone Single Payer and told the insurance companies to drop dead, just like the insurance companies tell their policy holders.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Yeah, they've been making the "fast sell" on health care reform for about a year now. Now we get to watch the Senate move at lightning speed and take another year...

I'm sure this will be offensive to at least one of you, but if you'd like to know what's in the bill, I think it took me about 90 seconds to read through the link I posted last night. Sure, it's not everything (though I posted a link to that too) but it should alleviate the "I have no idea what they passed" blues.

It's not a perfect bill, but there's way too much good in there to be against it from my perspective. Yeah, I'd have preferred a single pay program. But that is socialist and somehow the Republicans made that a dirty word. So we get this instead. I'll take it. Gets rid of the most egregious Insurance company practices.

Well, I looked at the clip, didn't spend 90 seconds on it, but it looked good on paper. Still don't understand why it took 1,900 pages to say what the clip said.

Reading the entire bill is beyond me.

But I have come up with a new way to evaluate legislation. I figure that if you're for it, then I should be against it!!!!!

Besides, no legislation has been passed.

"Now this is not the end. It's not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Winston Churchill

I'll just wait and see what happens next.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Charles

Well, I looked at the clip, didn't spend 90 seconds on it, but it looked good on paper. Still don't understand why it took 1,900 pages to say what the clip said.

Reading the entire bill is beyond me.

But I have come up with a new way to evaluate legislation. I figure that if you're for it, then I should be against it!!!!!

Besides, no legislation has been passed.

"Now this is not the end. It's not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Winston Churchill

I'll just wait and see what happens next.

Chas

Well, I will say, I appreciate this attitude. I don't mind people being against something. I just hate that so many misdirections have been thrown out at this particular piece of legislation. Criticize the content, but don't criticize the process now when you had nothing to say while passing legislation you supported.

Thanks Chas. Made my morning.

Take care,

Ed