Welcome to Gaia's forums, where millions of members gather to discuss random stuff, make new friends,
complain about life, argue about nothing, laugh at dumb pictures, discuss serious issues and/or curse like sailors.
Lurking is creepy. Quit skulking in the shadows and join the conversation!
Register to reply
 |
As they just announced the house voted on the health care plan and it passed 220- 215... What is your opinion on this?
|
|
|
I hope it covers free prescription lenses so I can read posts in funny fonts and colors.
|
 |
|
|
C0NCRETE_ANGEL As they just announced the house voted on the health care plan and it passed 220- 215... What is your opinion on this? |
|
|
Haha ok i changed it to black ^^
|
|
|
|
I wonder how long it will take for Republicans to get butthurt over Cao's vote.
|
|
|
Horrible. Thats what I think of it. The government can't even run Medicare right, so now they want to run health care for ALL Americans?
My grandmother is on Medicare. She has been paying taxes ever since she has been working (since she was in her teens, and she has never been out of work). In the taxes, they take out money for Medicare. Now that she is retired and on social security they are charging premiums on her social security for her Medicare! What is wrong with this picture? They are charging for the same thing twice! At least with private insurance, you only pay once a month, and you can use it right away, not when you are 65. So people that are pro-this health care bill still going to demonize insurance? And what about pre-existing conditions you say? I have a few things to say about that. If pre-existing conditions were not excluded under private insurance, no one would buy it until they were actually going to use it. It would be like buying car insurance AFTER you had an accident and having the insurance company pay for the whole accident. How long do you think an insurance company would stay in business? Not very long. So I have a proposition for the government that would take care of the pre-existing conditions. Here in my state, auto insurance is required to drive. If you are turned down by enough insurers, you can be placed in a separate "pool" of insurance for a few years, and then as long as you are accident and violation free, you can go with a regular insurer. Now, why won't the government do something similar with people that can't get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Because it would cost too much! So if the government couldn't insure them, how in the hell do they expect the insurance companies to insure them? There is some food for thought |
|
|
|
So what did this one have? I've been out of the loop for a while, so the fact that they even passed one is a bit of a shock to me.
|
|
|
In order to pass it they essentially outlawed the coverage of elective abortions by insurance companies. All of them, private or public option, that participate in the exchange cannot cover elective abortions. It's quite possibly the strongest measure the federal government has ever taken to limit abortion since Roe.
Which is precisely why it will be stripped away when the House and Senate has the bills together. Which will likely put the House back at square one, especially if said hashing takes place after the first of the year. Going forward there are is a best case/worst case scenario I see shaping up: Best Case (for Dems) *The Senate quickly approves it's own version *The two sides meet and hammer out a final bill before Christmas. *The final bill contains enough restrictions on Abortion and Illegal Immigration for the Southern Dems. *The final bill isn't too hard on Abortion or Illegal Immigrants for the Liberal Dems. Outcome: Bill is passed and signed before New Years. Worst Case (for Dems) *Mired in Gridlock that whips can't easily fix (Senators aren't as easy to push as freshman Reps) the Senate delays until New Years a vote on it's version of the bill. *With campaign season in full swing, the conference process descends into all hell as southern Democrats demand concessions that Liberal Democrats will never tolerate. *The final bill, if one ever emerges, is either lacking in anything resembling a Public Option, specifically targets illegal immigration and keeps the House's current no abortion line... or it too much the inverse for Southern Dems to accept... either way... Outcome: Bill is dead. |
|
|
|
Bullet Sweater I wonder how long it will take for Republicans to get butthurt over Cao's vote. Cao is a non-issue. He wasn't even the deciding vote. He's going to lose his reelection bid by close to 20 points. Let him try to get reelected. Hell, maybe he'll pull it off. Not likely though. What I'm more concerned with is the blogosphere going nuts over the 35 Dems that voted no, and the massive amount of money being raised to challenge them in primary contests. Attacks from the left... in McCain Districts... with momentum at the backs of Republicans. 35 seats easy, thanks to the Liberal Purge! xd |
|
|
I think it matters little cause I don't see anyway in hell it's going to pass the Senate.
@Trorbes: It was the House Bill that passed, the one with a public option. |
|
|
|
Foxie-Sama So I have a proposition for the government that would take care of the pre-existing conditions. Here in my state, auto insurance is required to drive. If you are turned down by enough insurers, you can be placed in a separate "pool" of insurance for a few years, and then as long as you are accident and violation free, you can go with a regular insurer. Now, why won't the government do something similar with people that can't get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Because it would cost too much! So if the government couldn't insure them, how in the hell do they expect the insurance companies to insure them? There is some food for thought Because people that fall violently ill don't fall in the same moral or legal category as those that drive recklessly, you horrid little twit. Why on God's green Earth should health insurers get to charge people more when they actually need healthcare? Do casinos get to kick out clients that start winning? |
|
|
Vercingetorix VII Foxie-Sama So I have a proposition for the government that would take care of the pre-existing conditions. Here in my state, auto insurance is required to drive. If you are turned down by enough insurers, you can be placed in a separate "pool" of insurance for a few years, and then as long as you are accident and violation free, you can go with a regular insurer. Now, why won't the government do something similar with people that can't get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Because it would cost too much! So if the government couldn't insure them, how in the hell do they expect the insurance companies to insure them? There is some food for thought Because people that fall violently ill don't fall in the same moral or legal category as those that drive recklessly, you horrid little twit. Why on God's green Earth should health insurers get to charge people more when they actually need healthcare? Do casinos get to kick out clients that start winning? actually....yes....yes they do... If you start winning money, and not losing money, all they have to do is accuse you of cheating and kick you out, you don't even get your money back. |
|
|
|
Quote: So I have a proposition for the government that would take care of the pre-existing conditions. Here in my state, auto insurance is required to drive. If you are turned down by enough insurers, you can be placed in a separate "pool" of insurance for a few years, and then as long as you are accident and violation free, you can go with a regular insurer. Now, why won't the government do something similar with people that can't get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Because it would cost too much! So if the government couldn't insure them, how in the hell do they expect the insurance companies to insure them? Not much of a system if it's not going to bother helping you out if you have a congenital defect. And I'm still against this bill, by the way. It doesn't do dink to fix what I think is wrong and only succeeds in adding to our debt. |
|
|
I was a might pissed when they didn't address the mandatory clause. I understand that they don't want people who become ill to suddenly just the buy the insurance and expect full coverage, at the same time that's what being a responsible American is all about.
I don't know, the whole issue of heath care insurance is a complicated one. |
|
|
|
Jayken - the Caidya I was a might pissed when they didn't address the mandatory clause. I understand that they don't want people who become ill to suddenly just the buy the insurance and expect full coverage, at the same time that's what being a responsible American is all about. I don't know, the whole issue of heath care insurance is a complicated one. No federal funds for it, and no damn subsidies hidden either. If they try to put the abortion clause back in, watch it die again. |
|
