Is this true about the healthcare bill?

[RoughCollie]

Are the high premiums due to your medical history or do *all* families of 6 pay that much?

 

 

In Mass, the health care premiums are determined by the family size and the ages of the parents.

[Scrub Jay]

Hollywood liberals LOVED it.

 

They did? Every single one of us? Because I am a liberal, I live in LA LA Land and my husband works in the industry along with several of our friends. I have never heard of this film before this thread...

 

I know some people love to lump all of Hollywood together, nevermind the liberals in Hollywood but guess what - we are all individuals just like everyone else. We don't all think one way. I have actually yet to meet a person in the industry that fits the cartoonish evil character described by some people on the right.

 

OK, back to lurk mode...

[Jugglin'5]

They did? Every single one of us? Because I am a liberal, I live in LA LA Land and my husband works in the industry along with several of our friends. I have never heard of this film before this thread...

 

I know some people love to lump all of Hollywood together, nevermind the liberals in Hollywood but guess what - we are all individuals just like everyone else. We don't all think one way. I have actually yet to meet a person in the industry that fits the cartoonish evil character described by some people on the right.

 

OK, back to lurk mode...

 

Ah....like the cartoonish, redneck, heartless, racist teabaggers that those of us on the right are routinely pictured as?

[wapiti]

They did? Every single one of us? Because I am a liberal, I live in LA LA Land and my husband works in the industry along with several of our friends. I have never heard of this film before this thread...

 

I know some people love to lump all of Hollywood together, nevermind the liberals in Hollywood but guess what - we are all individuals just like everyone else. We don't all think one way. I have actually yet to meet a person in the industry that fits the cartoonish evil character described by some people on the right.

 

OK, back to lurk mode...

 

I heard of it a long time ago. According to a quick google search, the name of the film was "Death of a President", which premeired at the Toronto Int'l Film Festival, I think in 2006.

 

ETA: oops, I hadn't read the whole thread. I see the title has already been identified.

Edited March 25, 2010 by wapiti

[TXMary2]

They did? Every single one of us? Because I am a liberal, I live in LA LA Land and my husband works in the industry along with several of our friends. I have never heard of this film before this thread...

 

I know some people love to lump all of Hollywood together, nevermind the liberals in Hollywood but guess what - we are all individuals just like everyone else. We don't all think one way. I have actually yet to meet a person in the industry that fits the cartoonish evil character described by some people on the right.

 

OK, back to lurk mode...

 

Unless you are a celebrity, I didn't mean you. I'll try to be more specific next time I use the term "Hollywood Liberal." :tongue_smilie:

[Scrub Jay]

Ah....like the cartoonish' date=' redneck, heartless, racist teabaggers that those of us on the right are routinely pictured as?[/quote']

 

What's your point? It's never OK to stereotype or make one group into some sort of cartoonish group to rally the masses or poke fun, IMHO.

[TXMary2]

Ah....like the cartoonish' date=' redneck, heartless, racist teabaggers that those of us on the right are routinely pictured as?[/quote']

 

Oh no, not like that. Just ask any liberal, we really DO exist.;)

[Scrub Jay]

Unless you are a celebrity, I didn't mean you. I'll try to be more specific next time I use the term "Hollywood Liberal." :tongue_smilie:

 

LOL, well celebrities are real people too. ;) My DH (and friends) has worked with some awesome ones. Obviously no one is perfect but I have to admit I hate it when people act like celebrities are these nonhumans. :)

 

And I'm not saying there aren't any wackadoodle ones, either! :lol:

[Jugglin'5]

What's your point? It's never OK to stereotype or make one group into some sort of cartoonish group to rally the masses or poke fun, IMHO.

 

My point is that this cuts both ways - this was not meant to be directed at you. People on this board have lumped those on the right into the most awful categories, based on their opposition to the health care bill.

[TXMary2]

LOL, well celebrities are real people too. ;) My DH (and friends) has worked with some awesome ones. Obviously no one is perfect but I have to admit I hate it when people act like celebrities are these nonhumans. :)

 

And I'm not saying there aren't any wackadoodle ones, either! :lol:

 

Hmm...celebrities being "real people" is a concept I am not familiar with.......;)

[hsmomto5]

why do the majority of Americans not want it? Why did there have to be so many under the table promises and bribery of their own party? This would have never passed had these schemes not been done. So it makes you wonder why dems didn't like it. And why they didn't bother to even read it.

I just hate government controlled anything. They can't run anything with out it going bankrupt. This will be not different. Very sad day for our country.

Lora in NC

[Scrub Jay]

why do the majority of Americans not want it?

 

OK, I swear I am going back into lurk mode. But I just wanted to post that the recent USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that more Americans are for the healthcare overhaul than against.

[wapiti]

Bad plan in MA, sorry.

My understanding is that the Senate bill's plan is extremely similar to the MA plan.

 

I'm a bit confused by the congress exempt idea. Most major medical plans would be exempt correct?

I don't know about the Congress being exempt issue. But as for most major medical plans, they may or may not be "qualified" plans at the moment, since ultimately what qualifies will be a one-size-fits-all plan, with virtually no choice in terms of plan components.

[kokotg]

why do the majority of Americans not want it? Why did there have to be so many under the table promises and bribery of their own party? This would have never passed had these schemes not been done. So it makes you wonder why dems didn't like it. And why they didn't bother to even read it.

I just hate government controlled anything. They can't run anything with out it going bankrupt. This will be not different. Very sad day for our country.

Lora in NC

 

Well, the first poll taken AFTER the bill passed (USAtoday/Gallup) showed a plurality (49 to 40 percent) approving of the bill having passed. And if you look at the breakdowns of the polls before, a significant minority who opposed it opposed it from the LEFT--i.e. they opposed the bill because they felt it didn't go far enough. If you put together people who supported the bill with people who didn't support it because they felt it was too conservative, they constituted a majority. And that was a big issue with getting democratic support in congress. Democrats are not a homogeneous group anymore than Republicans are; some people didn't want to support a bill without a public option, for example. Also, polling on individual components in the bill (no bans on pre-existing conditions, subsidies to pay for insurance, etc, not to mention a public option) always showed them to be quite popular. It seems to me that by and large people took issue with the politics of the bill rather than the policies.

[ELaurie]

Thank you for your thoughtful attempts to clarify answers to questions about this bill.

 

I've read that the bill will require a higher level of uniformity in insurance plans than we currently have. For example, some plans currently cover eye exams and dental care, while others do not. I've also heard that in order to provide more uniform coverage, plans will need to include a broader range of services than many plans currently offer. As a result, it is quite possible that insurance premiums will go up, at least in the short run.

 

Verizon has published an internal memo to this effect, informing employees of these kinds of changes as well as projected cost increases in coverage for their employees.

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

Thank you.

[mommyrooch]

Oh no, not like that. Just ask any liberal, we really DO exist.;)

 

I'm a liberal and I don't recall ANY of those being said by me. :confused: In fact, I don't recall any of the above labels mentioned here by any of the "liberals"

 

The only time I have heard these labels is when the "conservatives" keep bringing it up. ;)

[wapiti]

Well, the first poll taken AFTER the bill passed (USAtoday/Gallup) showed a plurality (49 to 40 percent) approving of the bill having passed. And if you look at the breakdowns of the polls before, a significant minority who opposed it opposed it from the LEFT--i.e. they opposed the bill because they felt it didn't go far enough. If you put together people who supported the bill with people who didn't support it because they felt it was too conservative, they constituted a majority. And that was a big issue with getting democratic support in congress. Democrats are not a homogeneous group anymore than Republicans are; some people didn't want to support a bill without a public option, for example. Also, polling on individual components in the bill (no bans on pre-existing conditions, subsidies to pay for insurance, etc, not to mention a public option) always showed them to be quite popular. It seems to me that by and large people took issue with the politics of the bill rather than the policies.

 

There are polls that go the other way. Today there is a Quinnipiac poll out with 49% disapproving of the legislation, 40% in favor (see Real Clear Politics website).

 

As for the polls that proved the components are popular, it seems to me that by and large people take issue with the cost. Free ice cream for all is wonderful, but not if it costs a hundred dollars per cone to cover the ones who can't afford to buy their own.

 

Though it is true that the percent opposed fell from Sunday, apparently. And I agree with you that a percentage of the opposed felt the law doesn't go far enough.

[monk17]

I'm not complaining that the bill will take to long to implement, I hope it is never implemented. My point is, the congress that passed it knows that it is not a good bill, because they they exempted themselves from it.

 

 

And, there was no debate. At least not what I consider good debate. It was "our way or the highway."

 

Elaine, much of the bill will be implemented immediately, we debated this bill for a year, albeit final negotiations were closed but that's pretty standard in DC. we may not like that process but it has nothing to do with this bill.

 

I'm convinced by all the posts here that congress did not exempt themselves from the bill. But that doesn't stop amendments and fixes to be offered up from congress. This bill will be tweaked over the years, may not even be passed due to the student loan hold up in the Senate.

[monk17]

Though it is true that the percent opposed fell from Sunday, apparently. And I agree with you that a percentage of the opposed felt the law doesn't go far enough.

 

I resemble that remark!:iagree:

[monk17]

My understanding is that the Senate bill's plan is extremely similar to the MA plan.

 

 

I don't know about the Congress being exempt issue. But as for most major medical plans, they may or may not be "qualified" plans at the moment, since ultimately what qualifies will be a one-size-fits-all plan, with virtually no choice in terms of plan components.

One major differences is the ability to purchase plans on an exchange. I haven't found the definition for what a qualified plan would be, but we have afew years to hash out some details.

[Cammie]

Thank you for your thoughtful attempts to clarify answers to questions about this bill.

 

I've read that the bill will require a higher level of uniformity in insurance plans than we currently have. For example, some plans currently cover eye exams and dental care, while others do not. I've also heard that in order to provide more uniform coverage, plans will need to include a broader range of services than many plans currently offer. As a result, it is quite possible that insurance premiums will go up, at least in the short run.

 

Verizon has published an internal memo to this effect, informing employees of these kinds of changes as well as projected cost increases in coverage for their employees.

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

Thank you.

 

I am sorry, but that requires a greater ability to predict and analyze than I am capable of! I agree, in general, that is possible premiums will go up. I have a feeling that many companies are going to take advantage of all this confusion to increase prices whenever they can.

 

I wish I had a better answer but I am afraid we all just have to wait and see!

[justamouse]

It is your opinion that "most" of the inaccuracies come from FOX.

 

The White House says so. Go look at factchek.org and read there. And, no, I don't get all my news from CNN or MSNBC, either. But I don't watch Fox at all because I know all I'll get there is hyperbole and misinformation. NBC, CBS, ABC-pick any of them-just not Fox.

[wapiti]

I'm convinced by all the posts here that congress did not exempt themselves from the bill.

I believe that Congress is not exempt from the bill generally but certain Congressional staffers are not required to participate in the exchanges.

 

"Today, after seeing my amendment, the White House announced that President Obama will voluntarily participate in the health insurance exchange that starts in 2014. This is a little presumptuous since he has another election before 2014, but it is still effectively an endorsement of my amendment to make sure that political leaders live under the laws that they pass for everyone else," Grassley told his colleagues on the floor.

The amendment he was talking about failed to pass the Senate.

 

This bill will be tweaked over the years, may not even be passed due to the student loan hold up in the Senate.

The Senate bill has already been signed into law. It is only the reconciliation package that is held up due to the student loan issues. (I admit I don't know whether the Congress exemption issue is in the main bill or in the reconciliation package - so please correct me as necessary!) ETA, I believe the "hole" is in the main bill, and the proposed fix didn't pass. Edited March 25, 2010 by wapiti

[TXMary2]

The White House says so. Go look at factchek.org and read there. And, no, I don't get all my news from CNN or MSNBC, either. But I don't watch Fox at all because I know all I'll get there is hyperbole and misinformation. NBC, CBS, ABC-pick any of them-just not Fox.

 

LOL Oh gosh, you're really serious.

[monk17]

The Senate bill has already been signed into law. It is only the reconciliation package that is held up due to the student loan issues. (I admit I don't know whether the Congress exemption issue is in the main bill or in the reconciliation package - so please correct me as necessary!) ETA, I believe the "hole" is in the main bill, and the proposed fix didn't pass.

 

I think the reconciliation could take some pieces out, anyway that's what one of the wire services claimed. If you have the latest news I appreciate it! I'm not real concerned about some staffers being exempt, an earlier post pointed out it was a wording problem. Most major bills have to be revised to fix errors and omissions.

 

I think the essnce of the bill is a good thing and I haven't read any of the posts that lead me to think otherwise. Some of the stuff we'll just have to wait and see.

[babysparkler]

The White House says so.

:lol: Well then it must be true. (Don't worry... that would make me laugh no matter who the current President is.)

[Retired]

The White House says so. Go look at factchek.org and read there. And, no, I don't get all my news from CNN or MSNBC, either. But I don't watch Fox at all because I know all I'll get there is hyperbole and misinformation. NBC, CBS, ABC-pick any of them-just not Fox.

 

:rolleyes:

[wapiti]

The White House says so. Go look at factchek.org and read there. And, no, I don't get all my news from CNN or MSNBC, either. But I don't watch Fox at all because I know all I'll get there is hyperbole and misinformation. NBC, CBS, ABC-pick any of them-just not Fox.

Not to stir up trouble, but I just wanted to point out that some people believe factcheck to be biased.

[cdrumm4448]

Verizon has published an internal memo to this effect, informing employees of these kinds of changes as well as projected cost increases in coverage for their employees.

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

Thank you.

 

Yep.

 

Verizon employees received a memo that their healthcare premiums are going up short-term and they should expect to pay a 40% excise tax...

[hsmomto5]

Yes, if you look hard enough you can find an occasional poll that says Americans are on board, especially one as liberal as USA today. But if you look at every other poll I can find the public did NOT want government takeover of health care. Do a google search on health care polls and you will find that even NBC and ABC have the majority of Americans dissapproving of this bill. In fact they want it repealed. Check Rasmussen too. They are no longer a representative of the people. They don't care and they don't even know what is in it. Explain that to me.

Lora in NC

[wapiti]

I think the reconciliation could take some pieces out, anyway that's what one of the wire services claimed. If you have the latest news I appreciate it! I'm not real concerned about some staffers being exempt, an earlier post pointed out it was a wording problem. Most major bills have to be revised to fix errors and omissions.

 

I think the essnce of the bill is a good thing and I haven't read any of the posts that lead me to think otherwise. Some of the stuff we'll just have to wait and see.

 

Mike, you asked about the latest news - apparently the congressional staffers who DO have to deal with the exchange are unhappy about the exception made for other types of staffers. Apparently there are emails circulating among them discussing this. That's according to an article that, at the moment, is the main article on the Fox website, FWIW. I don't know if the email flap is discussed elsewhere yet.

 

What I don't understand is why some of them have to switch to the exchanges at all, if their current federal plan is a qualified plan (other than to avoid accusations of congressional hypocrisy, I guess - except that it would seem to be the height of hypocrisy to exempt some staffers and not others, particularly staffers who wrote the bill). What I also don't understand is the unwillingess to pass the amendment fixing that if they are agreeing to use the exchanges voluntarily.

 

Although you and I may have opposing viewpoints re: this bill, I appreciate your interest in a rational discussion.

[Renee in NC]

Yep.

 

Verizon employees received a memo that their healthcare premiums are going up short-term and they should expect to pay a 40% excise tax...

 

Verizon can't possibly know any of this, so *if* there is a memo going around at Verizon about this, the company is using this bill as an excuse to either (a) raise the premiums because they want to, or (b) to stir up dissension because the higher ups at Verizon don't like the bill. There is no 40% excise tax.

[Renee in NC]

Mike, you asked about the latest news - apparently the congressional staffers who DO have to deal with the exchange are unhappy about the exception made for other types of staffers. Apparently there are emails circulating among them discussing this. That's according to an article that, at the moment, is the main article on the Fox website, FWIW. I don't know if the email flap is discussed elsewhere yet.

 

What I don't understand is why some of them have to switch to the exchanges at all, if their current federal plan is a qualified plan (other than to avoid accusations of congressional hypocrisy, I guess - except that it would seem to be the height of hypocrisy to exempt some staffers and not others, particularly staffers who wrote the bill). What I also don't understand is the unwillingess to pass the amendment fixing that if they are agreeing to use the exchanges voluntarily.

 

Although you and I may have opposing viewpoints re: this bill, I appreciate your interest in a rational discussion.

 

This is what I can't understand - most people's private policies will meet the requirements. The federal health plans surely will (or will when they need to.) Is there really any public option? Or is the public option the federal health plans?

 

There is so much being thrown around as "truth" that is untrue that it is hard to know what to believe. All health plans are going to have to meet a certain standard. There is going to be a certain minimum that people are going to have to have or pay a fine. The gov't is now going to basically tell insurance companies what they can charge and it will be based on age and number in family, not health. For people under 400% of the poverty level that do not qualify for Medicaid, the premiums will be subsidized. They have added all kinds of regulations regarding hospitals.

 

What am I missing? I've read the list that someone posted (the list put out by CNN, not the email forward) - did I miss anything?

[wapiti]

This is what I can't understand - most people's private policies will meet the requirements. The federal health plans surely will (or will when they need to.) Is there really any public option? Or is the public option the federal health plans?

 

There is so much being thrown around as "truth" that is untrue that it is hard to know what to believe. All health plans are going to have to meet a certain standard. There is going to be a certain minimum that people are going to have to have or pay a fine. The gov't is now going to basically tell insurance companies what they can charge and it will be based on age and number in family, not health. For people under 400% of the poverty level that do not qualify for Medicaid, the premiums will be subsidized. They have added all kinds of regulations regarding hospitals.

 

What am I missing? I've read the list that someone posted (the list put out by CNN, not the email forward) - did I miss anything?

 

I wouldn't be so sure that most private policies will meet the requirements - currently private policies come in many different shapes and sizes, so to speak, and by the very nature of the one-size-fits-all approach, other types of plans won't qualify. Our current plan will probably qualify but it's extremely expensive, so expensive that it would fall under the Cadillac provisions (it's group insurance through an employer but we pay the premium, >$30k. I don't know whether our family size affects that - we have six kids - I suppose it does). We've been considering going to a higher deductible/lower premium plan, on the individual market, as some of his co-workers have found to be much more cost-effective for them. However, according to a section of the bill that was being discussed on one of the threads here last night, such high deductible/low premium plans will ONLY be available to those under 30 y.o., provided they meet certain requirements. I don't have numbers on this, but I would imagine that lots of people on the individual market have such a plan.

 

I have no idea whether the federal employees' plan would meet the requirements - indeed I'd expect that they have a menu of choices like a lot of others who get employer-sponsored coverage. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the choice will be gone.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I wouldn't be so sure that most private policies will meet the requirements - currently private policies come in many different shapes and sizes, so to speak, and by the very nature of the one-size-fits-all approach, other types of plans won't qualify. Our current plan will probably qualify but it's extremely expensive, so expensive that it would fall under the Cadillac provisions (it's group insurance through an employer but we pay the premium, >$30k. I don't know whether our family size affects that - we have six kids - I suppose it does). We've been considering going to a higher deductible/lower premium plan, on the individual market, as some of his co-workers have found to be much more cost-effective for them. However, according to a section of the bill that was being discussed on one of the threads here last night, such high deductible/low premium plans will ONLY be available to those under 30 y.o., provided they meet certain requirements. I don't have numbers on this, but I would imagine that lots of people on the individual market have such a plan.

 

I have no idea whether the federal employees' plan would meet the requirements - indeed I'd expect that they have a menu of choices like a lot of others who get employer-sponsored coverage. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the choice will be gone.

 

My mother has a high deductible(5K)/low premium plan that will probably not qualify. She has no reproductive organs, is in awesome health AND has 5K in the bank --- WHY IS SHE GOING TO BE PUNISHED? She is probably in better shape than these under-30 yo because of her lifestyle choices (anyone notice how many smokers are under 30?).

[LisaKinVA]

Well, if it's based on family size... our insurance rates are definitely going up. :001_huh: $800 in increased taxes, and increased rates. Whoo-hoo, I'm so lucky.:tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

My point is that this cuts both ways - this was not meant to be directed at you. People on this board have lumped those on the right into the most awful categories' date=' based on their opposition to the health care bill.[/quote']

 

Woah, that is not my perception of what happened at all. I'm not saying that your perception is not valid, I'm saying I have a different perspective.

 

It is true that I question and I probe. This is because I am *truly interested* in what other people think and why. I'm interested in finding middle ground, because I'm a *moderate*, not a liberal. The people screaming at me clearly aren't interested in reasonable debate or in what I think.

 

People were denying any element of racism in the tea party movement. There *is* a definite racist element (element, in this case, meaning a certain portion of the group). When you deny the problem *exists* then you are allowing it to continue. It *is* a problem. It's a problem denied by some and *encouraged* by certain talking heads and/or Republican elected leaders. As I said somewhere (so many threads on this, I don't even know where), there are photos of a Republican Congressman *signing* a racist protest sign. Whether or not that sign was planted (and there is no reason to believe that it was) wouldn't take away from the fact that the Congressman signed it.

 

I have no reason to believe that a pastor and civil rights leader who was *beaten severely* in the past would lie about being spit on and it's offensive to me to say that he's lying. I would have believed J.C. Watts if it had happened to him and I would have *condemned* anyone who did such a thing. I wouldn't automatically decide he was lying just because he was a Republican (I say "was," because he's no longer in office).

 

Nobody *here* has said that all conservatives are like this or that all opponents of the health care bill are like this. However, I do think if you (general you) *deny* the racist element of the protests, then I think you (general you) are allowing it to continue and you (general you) are part of the problem.

 

I *also* think certain talking heads are *intentionally* playing on the most extreme faction of those opposed and are creating an extremely dangerous situation. I think if something happens, they are liable. If not legally, then morally. I think it's a stain on their souls.

 

I mentioned the politics of the issue before, but I will say it again. The Democratic party has been fighting for some form of universal health care for over *forty years*. It was the one thing that was absolutely, positively going to happen. *Of course* the Republican party is going to take advantage and make it as scary as possible. They aren't going to vote for it because they knew they didn't have to, even though a *lot* of Republican plans were put in this bill. They are using it as a political ploy. I don't blame them for that, that's politics. However, many people don't seem to be the least bit politically aware.

 

Now, maybe it's easy for me to remain chill about it. I wanted health care reform. I wanted it for my parents, my sisters and many other people that I care about. I wanted it even though we *have* government health care and we're above the $88K earning mark. I'm also sitting out in the sun, getting a tan (hey, can't tax the sun! :D), watching over my younger kids' schoolwork while my eldest is out on a hike. I'm not stir crazy in the snow after a brutal winter. Maybe that makes it easier for me?

[justamouse]

LOL Oh gosh, you're really serious.

 

 

Have you watched any news presses and heard Robert Gibbs talk about it? How about how rude and obnoxious the Fox reporter was who interviewed the President? Do you know WHY Fox only got one interview?

 

Or, here

 

Then Frum said on "Nightline" that the Republican Party's lockstep with the Fox News attack machine has hurt the party, and that "we're discovering we work for Fox." That may have been the last straw for AEI President Arthur Brooks.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/david-frum-aei-split-cons_n_513544.html#postComment

 

Frum is David Frum, the speech writer for George W Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum

 

He got fired for daring to be a moderate Republican and writing an article for CNN that said:

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes, it mobilizes supporters -- but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

 

Now the overheated talk is about to get worse. Over the past 48 hours, I've heard conservatives compare the House bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- a decisive step on the path to the Civil War. Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.

 

Or almost all. The vitriolic talking heads on conservative talk radio and shock TV have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination.

 

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say -- but what is equally true -- is that he also wants Republicans to fail.

 

If Republicans succeed -- if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office -- Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less and hear fewer ads for Sleep Number beds.

 

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html

 

So, yeah. Fox=Faulty. Faulty Hyperbole.

[MSNative]

I mentioned the politics of the issue before, but I will say it again. The Democratic party has been fighting for some form of universal health care for over *forty years*. It was the one thing that was absolutely, positively going to happen. *Of course* the Republican party is going to take advantage and make it as scary as possible.

 

 

 

Since the Republicans were against the bill and voted against the bill, why is their opposition to it considered taking advantage of it and scaring people? Seems to me that they are doing what the Democrats did about the war. Most Democrats didn't like the war and they didn't keep silent about it just because they were in the minority. Isn't that to be expected?

 

Honestly, I think a lot of people on both sides hate the way this bill was passed - straight party vote (except for some Dems who voted nay.) Votes like that always cause rancor and upheaval. I think that there was a better way to deal with this, rather than ramming it through. Even if the outcome were the same, I think people would be less hostile.

 

On the news bit - let's be honest, like history books, all news outlets have spin. Some admit it, some don't. If you want the real news, you have to read from many different sources and even then, who knows. I don't think it's fair to say that one org. lies more than the others. Probably people see one as more inaccurate because they believe the spin of the other one. I don't say that as a negative. If my beliefs align with one side, then the media that spins that way seems more accurate to me.

[Mrs Mungo]

Since the Republicans were against the bill and voted against the bill, why is their opposition to it considered taking advantage of it and scaring people? Seems to me that they are doing what the Democrats did about the war. Most Democrats didn't like the war and they didn't keep silent about it just because they were in the minority. Isn't that to be expected?

 

I'm a Democrat and I have pictures of myself at a pro-war rally. Democrats in Congress overwhelming voted for the war.

 

I think that there was a better way to deal with this, rather than ramming it through. Even if the outcome were the same, I think people would be less hostile.

 

I disagree. The Republicans were *never* going to vote for it. Never. It didn't ever matter that many of the ideas were very similar to McCain's plan, except that isn't taxing insurance as part of your income.

 

On the news bit - let's be honest, like history books, all news outlets have spin. Some admit it, some don't. If you want the real news, you have to read from many different sources and even then, who knows. I don't think it's fair to say that one org. lies more than the others. Probably people see one as more inaccurate because they believe the spin of the other one. I don't say that as a negative. If my beliefs align with one side, then the media that spins that way seems more accurate to me.

 

I can't watch Glenn Beck because he makes my physically ill. But, I don't watch Olberman either. What people are talking about is not "spin," from Fox, it's *total* falsities. Things people on the board have said "what about this? I'm mad about this!!" And others have said "that's not true, here's the text of the bill."

[mcconnellboys]

It was put into the bill (one of them, anyway), but some in Congress are moving to have it stricken. Also, I have heard on the news that President Obama has agreed to be subject to it. I don't know that this means that later Presidents would also have to agree to that, but he has.

 

Congress has never paid into social security, why would we expect them to be part of this health care plan?

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

If only this many people got so interested in every bill passed in previous years.

[yinne]

Actually the issue with the three companies that I have seen in the last couple of days saying their costs are going to go up has to do with a change to retiree drug benefits. Here are some quotes from a WSJ article (I won't link it but it is called ObamaCare Day One.)

 

Mr. Reed (Verizon VP) specifically cited a change in the tax treatment of retiree health benefits. When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, it included a modest tax subsidy to encourage employers to keep drug plans for retirees, rather than dumping them on the government. The Employee Benefit Research Institute says this exclusion—equal to 28% of the cost of a drug plan—will run taxpayers $665 per person next year, while the same Medicare coverage would cost $1,209..... Democrats decided that this $665 fillip should be subject to the ordinary corporate income tax of 35%. Most consulting firms and independent analysts say the higher costs will induce some companies to drop drug coverage, which could affect about five million retirees and 3,500 businesses.

 

U.S. accounting laws also require businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of the higher tax burden on their long-term retiree health liabilities. This will have a big effect on their 2010 earnings. (Which is why these big companies are restating their numbers for 2010.)

 

While the drug tax subsidy is for retirees, companies consider their benefit costs as a total package. The new bill might cause some to drop retiree coverage altogether. Others may be bound by labor contracts to retirees, but then they will find other ways to cut costs. This means raising costs or reducing coverage for other employees.

 

There is a 40% tax on high end plans, unless it was dropped in the reconcillation bill.

 

‘‘SEC. 4980I. EXCISE TAX ON HIGH COST EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE.

‘‘(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX.—If— ‘‘(1) an employee is covered under any applica ble employer-sponsored coverage of an employer at any time during a taxable period, and ‘‘(2) there is any excess benefit with respect to the coverage, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 40 percent of the excess benefit.

 

There is a whole section on this tax in the bill -- most of which I don't understand!!

 

 

Yvonne in NE

[funschooler5]

Woah, that is not my perception of what happened at all. I'm not saying that your perception is not valid, I'm saying I have a different perspective.

 

It is true that I question and I probe. This is because I am *truly interested* in what other people think and why. I'm interested in finding middle ground, because I'm a *moderate*, not a liberal. The people screaming at me clearly aren't interested in reasonable debate or in what I think.

 

People were denying any element of racism in the tea party movement. There *is* a definite racist element (element, in this case, meaning a certain portion of the group). When you deny the problem *exists* then you are allowing it to continue. It *is* a problem. It's a problem denied by some and *encouraged* by certain talking heads and/or Republican elected leaders. As I said somewhere (so many threads on this, I don't even know where), there are photos of a Republican Congressman *signing* a racist protest sign. Whether or not that sign was planted (and there is no reason to believe that it was) wouldn't take away from the fact that the Congressman signed it.

 

I have no reason to believe that a pastor and civil rights leader who was *beaten severely* in the past would lie about being spit on and it's offensive to me to say that he's lying. I would have believed J.C. Watts if it had happened to him and I would have *condemned* anyone who did such a thing. I wouldn't automatically decide he was lying just because he was a Republican (I say "was," because he's no longer in office).

 

Nobody *here* has said that all conservatives are like this or that all opponents of the health care bill are like this. However, I do think if you (general you) *deny* the racist element of the protests, then I think you (general you) are allowing it to continue and you (general you) are part of the problem.

 

I *also* think certain talking heads are *intentionally* playing on the most extreme faction of those opposed and are creating an extremely dangerous situation. I think if something happens, they are liable. If not legally, then morally. I think it's a stain on their souls.

 

I mentioned the politics of the issue before, but I will say it again. The Democratic party has been fighting for some form of universal health care for over *forty years*. It was the one thing that was absolutely, positively going to happen. *Of course* the Republican party is going to take advantage and make it as scary as possible. They aren't going to vote for it because they knew they didn't have to, even though a *lot* of Republican plans were put in this bill. They are using it as a political ploy. I don't blame them for that, that's politics. However, many people don't seem to be the least bit politically aware.

 

Now, maybe it's easy for me to remain chill about it. I wanted health care reform. I wanted it for my parents, my sisters and many other people that I care about. I wanted it even though we *have* government health care and we're above the $88K earning mark. I'm also sitting out in the sun, getting a tan (hey, can't tax the sun! :D), watching over my younger kids' schoolwork while my eldest is out on a hike. I'm not stir crazy in the snow after a brutal winter. Maybe that makes it easier for me?

 

:iagree:

 

I agree with everything you've said here, especially the bolded part.

[Slartibartfast]

Ah nvm it was already clarified

Edited March 25, 2010 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

Since the Republicans were against the bill and voted against the bill, why is their opposition to it considered taking advantage of it and scaring people? Seems to me that they are doing what the Democrats did about the war. Most Democrats didn't like the war and they didn't keep silent about it just because they were in the minority. Isn't that to be expected?

 

 

 

Which war?

 

I am a Democrat and I agreed with us being in Afghanistan, I wasn't so sure about Iraq but I didn't have any qualms about Afghanistan. There are books available which include Bush's wish to invade Iraq before 9-11 ever took place. One of those is Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward (a Republican)

 

I think the war on terror has been a bit vague. I believe the Patriot Act should NEVER have been passed.

 

The war on drugs isn't going very well.

 

The war on hunger....oops I guess we went backwards on that one. Thanks Bush!

Edited March 25, 2010 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

Woah, that is not my perception of what happened at all. I'm not saying that your perception is not valid, I'm saying I have a different perspective.

 

It is true that I question and I probe. This is because I am *truly interested* in what other people think and why. I'm interested in finding middle ground, because I'm a *moderate*, not a liberal. The people screaming at me clearly aren't interested in reasonable debate or in what I think.

 

People were denying any element of racism in the tea party movement. There *is* a definite racist element (element, in this case, meaning a certain portion of the group). When you deny the problem *exists* then you are allowing it to continue. It *is* a problem. It's a problem denied by some and *encouraged* by certain talking heads and/or Republican elected leaders. As I said somewhere (so many threads on this, I don't even know where), there are photos of a Republican Congressman *signing* a racist protest sign. Whether or not that sign was planted (and there is no reason to believe that it was) wouldn't take away from the fact that the Congressman signed it.

 

I have no reason to believe that a pastor and civil rights leader who was *beaten severely* in the past would lie about being spit on and it's offensive to me to say that he's lying. I would have believed J.C. Watts if it had happened to him and I would have *condemned* anyone who did such a thing. I wouldn't automatically decide he was lying just because he was a Republican (I say "was," because he's no longer in office).

 

Nobody *here* has said that all conservatives are like this or that all opponents of the health care bill are like this. However, I do think if you (general you) *deny* the racist element of the protests, then I think you (general you) are allowing it to continue and you (general you) are part of the problem.

 

I *also* think certain talking heads are *intentionally* playing on the most extreme faction of those opposed and are creating an extremely dangerous situation. I think if something happens, they are liable. If not legally, then morally. I think it's a stain on their souls.

 

I mentioned the politics of the issue before, but I will say it again. The Democratic party has been fighting for some form of universal health care for over *forty years*. It was the one thing that was absolutely, positively going to happen. *Of course* the Republican party is going to take advantage and make it as scary as possible. They aren't going to vote for it because they knew they didn't have to, even though a *lot* of Republican plans were put in this bill. They are using it as a political ploy. I don't blame them for that, that's politics. However, many people don't seem to be the least bit politically aware.

 

Now, maybe it's easy for me to remain chill about it. I wanted health care reform. I wanted it for my parents, my sisters and many other people that I care about. I wanted it even though we *have* government health care and we're above the $88K earning mark. I'm also sitting out in the sun, getting a tan (hey, can't tax the sun! :D), watching over my younger kids' schoolwork while my eldest is out on a hike. I'm not stir crazy in the snow after a brutal winter. Maybe that makes it easier for me?

 

I agree.

 

I am particularly concerned with the bolded. It is amazing to me that a media outlet would carry programs that cater and contribute to hysteria and seem to discourage rational discourse.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Sis

[Jugglin'5]

I agree.

 

I am particularly concerned with the bolded. It is amazing to me that a media outlet would carry programs that cater and contribute to hysteria and seem to discourage rational discourse.

 

Yeah, I can't stand Keith Olbermann either. :D

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah' date=' I can't stand Keith Olbermann either. :D[/quote']

 

:lol:

 

I don't think I have ever heard Olbermann say anything that would whip people into a frenzy of anything other than send numerous letters that someone should RREEESSIIIGGGNNNN.

 

I don't watch his show though so maybe I missed it. :)

[TXMary2]

Have you watched any news presses and heard Robert Gibbs talk about it? How about how rude and obnoxious the Fox reporter was who interviewed the President? Do you know WHY Fox only got one interview?

 

Or, here

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/david-frum-aei-split-cons_n_513544.html#postComment

 

Frum is David Frum, the speech writer for George W Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum

 

He got fired for daring to be a moderate Republican and writing an article for CNN that said:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html

 

So, yeah. Fox=Faulty. Faulty Hyperbole.

 

 

I am not a Bush fan, however I am curious if you were this fired up over how rude the press was to Bush? Seriously, I can't take this seriously.:tongue_smilie: