|
Post by RavynousHunter on Nov 8, 2009 13:28:23 GMT -5
.............WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY GETTING THIS INFORMATION!? Ironbite-what plane of reality are they living in so I can obliterate it? Don't destroy the Far Planes! That's where most of my friends are!
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Nov 8, 2009 15:00:52 GMT -5
Dennis Kucinich posted his reason for voting no on the bill. I just don't understand the viewpoint, which is that he feels the bill doesn't do enough to help people and really only helps the insurance companies. Yes, the bill has issues, but that doesn't change the fact that it will allow more people to have insurance than currently do, and that's a good thing. It's a good first step, hopefully it gets the bad parts worked out.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgreen on Nov 8, 2009 15:06:21 GMT -5
Dennis Kucinich posted his reason for voting no on the bill. I just don't understand the viewpoint, which is that he feels the bill doesn't do enough to help people and really only helps the insurance companies. Yes, the bill has issues, but that doesn't change the fact that it will allow more people to have insurance than currently do, and that's a good thing. It's a good first step, hopefully it gets the bad parts worked out. He doesn't understand the concept that things can change after it's passed, apparently. I mean it could be improved but the hard part is getting it passed in the first place and his vote didn't help.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 8, 2009 16:03:22 GMT -5
Dennis Kucinich posted his reason for voting no on the bill. I just don't understand the viewpoint, which is that he feels the bill doesn't do enough to help people and really only helps the insurance companies. Yes, the bill has issues, but that doesn't change the fact that it will allow more people to have insurance than currently do, and that's a good thing. It's a good first step, hopefully it gets the bad parts worked out. Well, the problem I have with it is there's a punishment for not having insurance, or so last I heard. That's gonna hurt a lot of people that don't have insurance because they can't afford it in the first place. To me that huge group that will get shafted by this does outweigh the amount of people it will help. I'd rather this went through with provisions to be changed and improved the moment it goes through, or in all honesty, it should be rejected
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 8, 2009 16:19:35 GMT -5
Well, the problem I have with it is there's a punishment for not having insurance, or so last I heard. That's gonna hurt a lot of people that don't have insurance because they can't afford it in the first place. To me that huge group that will get shafted by this does outweigh the amount of people it will help. I'd rather this went through with provisions to be changed and improved the moment it goes through, or in all honesty, it should be rejected Remember that people will only be punished if they can afford heath insurance but choose not to get it.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 8, 2009 17:10:13 GMT -5
I just hope the "greedy" liberals/democrats/people in the senate don't down-vote the bill because of the alterations regarding abortions.
By greedy, I mean they want too much too soon. This bill is a giant leap in the right direction, it just happens to come a few feet short of the mark. An "all or nothing" mentality would only cause more suffering in this situation.
If this bill should pass, amendments can be added later to fine tune it. We'll see full coverage for abortion eventually, just not right now.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Nov 8, 2009 18:14:09 GMT -5
Surprisingly 1 republican voted for the bill- that was surprising to me Probably pressed the wrong button
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgreen on Nov 8, 2009 20:53:03 GMT -5
Either way that Bachman- "not one Republican will vote for this" illusion got snubbed
|
|
|
Post by booley on Nov 8, 2009 23:46:28 GMT -5
[... Remember that people will only be punished if they can afford heath insurance but choose not to get it. OF course the people making that decision will be the same one who tell thousands that they make to much to get any help from the government... even though they are barely getting by and are in exactly the position that such programs were designed for. Not to mention, why do we need Insurance companies anyway? Why force people to give money to the very companies that have been screwing them all these decades?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 9, 2009 1:31:23 GMT -5
OF course the people making that decision will be the same one who tell thousands that they make to much to get any help from the government... even though they are barely getting by and are in exactly the position that such programs were designed for. Not to mention, why do we need Insurance companies anyway? Why force people to give money to the very companies that have been screwing them all these decades? 1. Families of four making less then $80,000 will be able to get subsidies. 2. That is what the Public option is all about. The mandate for coverage is not to force people who can't afford insurance to buy it, it is to force people who can but don't. This increases the insurance pool which is needed since there will be no more dropping people for pre-existing conditions.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 9, 2009 1:59:17 GMT -5
OF course the people making that decision will be the same one who tell thousands that they make to much to get any help from the government... even though they are barely getting by and are in exactly the position that such programs were designed for. Not to mention, why do we need Insurance companies anyway? Why force people to give money to the very companies that have been screwing them all these decades? 1. Families of four making less then $80,000 will be able to get subsidies. 2. That is what the Public option is all about. The mandate for coverage is not to force people who can't afford insurance to buy it, it is to force people who can but don't. This increases the insurance pool which is needed since there will be no more dropping people for pre-existing conditions. Nevertheless, all those people will be forced to buy private insurance. The government will not provide a cheaper, better alternative, because... um. Yeah. In return for that fabulous win for insurance corporations everywhere, Roe vs Wade got repealed.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 9, 2009 2:12:00 GMT -5
Well, the problem I have with it is there's a punishment for not having insurance, or so last I heard. That's gonna hurt a lot of people that don't have insurance because they can't afford it in the first place. To me that huge group that will get shafted by this does outweigh the amount of people it will help. I'd rather this went through with provisions to be changed and improved the moment it goes through, or in all honesty, it should be rejected Remember that people will only be punished if they can afford heath insurance but choose not to get it. Well by afford, are they talking income afford, or what the people actually have afford. I mean i bring home 300 to 400 a week and sometimes it just barely covers the week
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 9, 2009 4:01:41 GMT -5
OF course the people making that decision will be the same one who tell thousands that they make to much to get any help from the government... even though they are barely getting by and are in exactly the position that such programs were designed for. Not to mention, why do we need Insurance companies anyway? Why force people to give money to the very companies that have been screwing them all these decades? 1. Families of four making less then $80,000 will be able to get subsidies. 2. That is what the Public option is all about. The mandate for coverage is not to force people who can't afford insurance to buy it, it is to force people who can but don't. This increases the insurance pool which is needed since there will be no more dropping people for pre-existing conditions. What about families of less than four? How much is subsidized? I want to know the actual numbers. From looking at the bill, even the public option has premiums. That is not universal health care. In the UK, they don't have premiums, it's paid for with taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Deimos on Nov 9, 2009 5:54:11 GMT -5
Why do they hate this bill so much anyway. As soon as the word Obama and health care are mentioned in the same sentence the whole situation turns into a shitstorm of communism and rapture prayers
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 9, 2009 10:20:15 GMT -5
Nevertheless, all those people will be forced to buy private insurance. The government will not provide a cheaper, better alternative, because... um. Yeah. In return for that fabulous win for insurance corporations everywhere, Roe vs Wade got repealed. When did the public option get taken out? You would be hard pressed to find an insurance policy that covers abortions now, what changed?
|
|