Healthcare reform

[mr_genius]

The bill/bills/multiple bills being 'crafted', 'drafted', or otherwise 'created' is/are/will be riddled with double talk and extremely vague language (such as in the examples above), with words such as, otherwise, explicit, except, related, without regard, extraneous, etc., which translates to the following: It can mean whatever they/we/us/them want it to mean.

 

That's why it's longer than War and Peace.

 

That's why for every fact check there is a counter fact check because the language contradicts itself with meaningless babble, for example, affordability credits, whatever the f*** they are.

 

^^^

and that is what is pissing me off about this whole thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

But he's right.

 

And again, I think its a legitimate argument to have if anyone has proposed such a thing, but as it stands, they haven't. If they do, I'll be right there with you.

 

There are lots of things NOT to like in the various bill proposals that I have seen (and no I haven't read the entire things, only exceprts and overviews), so I am not going to waste energy worrying about what ISN'T in there.

 

[StrangeSox]

The bill/bills/multiple bills being 'crafted', 'drafted', or otherwise 'created' is/are/will be riddled with double talk and extremely vague language (such as in the examples above), with words such as, otherwise, explicit, except, related, without regard, extraneous, etc., which translates to the following: It can mean whatever they/we/us/them want it to mean.

 

That's why it's longer than War and Peace.

 

That's why for every fact check there is a counter fact check because the language contradicts itself with meaningless babble, for example, affordability credits, whatever the f*** they are.

 

Suck on that straw man.

 

When did conservatives become such post-modern literary critics?

 

No, there's not a "counter fact check" for every retarded claim out there.

[Y2HH]

Why would a bill forbid anyone form buying health insurance? That makes no sense. Now, they shouldn't be able to get the US government public program, which makes perfect sense.

 

The question that I've repeatedly asked people, over and over, and has never been answered is simple -- and I still await my answer.

 

Why in the f*** would I want to pay for/purchase/buy private health insurance if this public option will afford and deliver the SAME or HIGHER quality care as I'm receiving now, only at a fraction of the cost (and this is what they've touted it as). Let's forget that we will probably all get taxed to provide this public option...and even if we aren't and the rich foot the bill all by their little lonesome selves...

 

Please, tell me you aren't saying that I can choose to pay for something that provides absolutely no premium service over what is free? Why the holy f*** would I do that?

[StrangeSox]

Conservative discourse has devolved into "data is meaningless! anecdotes are great!" and now "words mean whatever we want them to mean!" in a single thread.

[Y2HH]

When did conservatives become such post-modern literary critics?

 

No, there's not a "counter fact check" for every retarded claim out there.

 

For this bill, yes, there is...because it's filled with double talk and impossible to decipher lawyer speak.

[StrangeSox]

The question that I've repeatedly asked people, over and over, and has never been answered is simple -- and I still await my answer.

 

Why in the f*** would I want to pay for/purchase/buy private health insurance if this public option will afford and deliver the SAME or HIGHER quality care as I'm receiving now, only at a fraction of the cost (and this is what they've touted it as). Let's forget that we will probably all get taxed to provide this public option...and even if we aren't and the rich foot the bill all by their little lonesome selves...

 

Please, tell me you aren't saying that I can choose to pay for something that provides absolutely no premium service over what is free? Why the holy f*** would I do that?

 

You probably wouldn't. FWIW, I haven't seen you post this question.

[Y2HH]

You probably wouldn't. FWIW, I haven't seen you post this question.

 

You have now.

[kapkomet]

But he's right.

 

And again, I think its a legitimate argument to have if anyone has proposed such a thing, but as it stands, they haven't. If they do, I'll be right there with you.

 

There are lots of things NOT to like in the various bill proposals that I have seen (and no I haven't read the entire things, only exceprts and overviews), so I am not going to waste energy worrying about what ISN'T in there.

Are you paying attention? They haven't NOT proposed it, which is really the point. It means they're covered. When the Congresional Research Service is under the opinion that they'll have ability for coverage under this, that makes a pretty good statement.

 

I don't understand why this doesn't bother people. They throw that 46/7 million number around like it's the world dying, yet, the points that are made about "immy-gants" are just swept under the rug as nothing and no big deal. Which way is it?

 

[StrangeSox]

For this bill, yes, there is...because it's filled with double talk and impossible to decipher lawyer speak.

 

It's not impossible to decipher it if you read it. Many of the things claimed to be in there simply are not no matter how much you want them to be.

[StrangeSox]

Are you paying attention? They haven't NOT proposed it, which is really the point. It means they're covered. When the Congresional Research Service is under the opinion that they'll have ability for coverage under this, that makes a pretty good statement.

 

WTF does that even mean?

[StrangeSox]

You have now.

 

And I answered. If the public option offers the exact same coverage for a lower cost, most people will choose the public option. What is wrong with that? Does freedom rely on paying more for inferior services?

[Y2HH]

It's not impossible to decipher it if you read it. Many of the things claimed to be in there simply are not no matter how much you want them to be.

 

I won't pretend to say I read a 1300 page bill, but I have read some of it -- I'm college educated, and I can barely understand it.

 

It is impossible to decipher, it's so long, any page can contradict another page and I probably wouldn't have the memory necessary to remember if it did or not...and may not even contract it on purpose, it may just happen with so much stuff in there and bunches of people creating it.

[BigSqwert]

And I answered. If the public option offers the exact same coverage for a lower cost, most people will choose the public option. What is wrong with that? Does freedom rely on paying more for inferior services?

Maybe you're arguing with the board members of Aetna and BCBS.

[BigSqwert]

I won't pretend to say I read a 1300 page bill, but I have read some of it -- I'm college educated, and I can barely understand it.

Are you in the habit of reading most congressional bills? How does this one compare to others that you have read?

[Y2HH]

And I answered. If the public option offers the exact same coverage for a lower cost, most people will choose the public option. What is wrong with that? Does freedom rely on paying more for inferior services?

 

So then stop saying/repeating that people can keep their private insurance, because there is no way that's reality if everyone ditches it for something "free", which will NOT be free by any stretch, especially if you toss 320+Million people on that free plan.

 

Also, if what you're saying is true, congratulations, private health insurance folds, and you have millions upon millions of unemployed workers.

[StrangeSox]

I won't pretend to say I read a 1300 page bill, but I have read some of it -- I'm college educated, and I can barely understand it.

 

It is impossible to decipher, it's so long, any page can contradict another page and I probably wouldn't have the memory necessary to remember if it did or not...and may not even contract it on purpose, it may just happen with so much stuff in there and bunches of people creating it.

 

Your evidence that it can mean whatever we want it to mean relies on not actually reading and understanding the bill.

 

I can't understand all legal writings, but the sections of this bill are somewhat straight-forward. You won't find guaranteed coverage for illegals. You won't find death panels. You won't find most of the ridiculous s*** being said about it. No amount of subjective interpretation can actually put those provisions into the bill.

[Y2HH]

Are you in the habit of reading most congressional bills? How does this one compare to others that you have read?

 

This one is prominent enough that I actually looked at it. And although I can't say I know from first hand knowledge, from what I understand, since most of these modern bills are being written by lawyers for lawyers, they're all like this now...

 

Which is pretty frightening.

[StrangeSox]

So then stop saying/repeating that people can keep their private insurance, because there is no way that's reality if everyone ditches it for something "free", which will NOT be free by any stretch, especially if you toss 320+Million people on that free plan.

 

Also, if what you're saying is true, congratulations, private health insurance folds, and you have millions upon millions of unemployed workers.

 

But government suxors at everything, so it won't be as good and people will stick with private plans. And, for the millionth time, it won't be free. Its not advertised as free. Its not legislated as free.

 

If enough people want their private insurance, it'll stick around. It sticks around in Canada. And France. And the UK. And Germany. and just about every other place that has a much larger public system than what's being proposed.

[BigSqwert]

Also, if what you're saying is true, congratulations, private health insurance folds, and you have millions upon millions of unemployed workers.

Wouldn't the government then need to hire a s***load of people to help them with the influx of people that need to be covered?

[Cknolls]

Your evidence that it can mean whatever we want it to mean relies on not actually reading and understanding the bill.

 

I can't understand all legal writings, but the sections of this bill are somewhat straight-forward. You won't find guaranteed coverage for illegals. You won't find death panels. You won't find most of the ridiculous s*** being said about it. No amount of subjective interpretation can actually put those provisions into the bill.

 

 

You won't find deficit neutrality.

[Y2HH]

But government suxors at everything, so it won't be as good and people will stick with private plans. And, for the millionth time, it won't be free. Its not advertised as free. Its not legislated as free.

 

If enough people want their private insurance, it'll stick around. It sticks around in Canada. And France. And the UK. And Germany. and just about every other place that has a much larger public system than what's being proposed.

 

But the government doesn't suxors at this! They promised the quality of care will be the same or even higher for less money! Now I know that's not how the really real world works, but they're still saying it...

[StrangeSox]

But the government doesn't suxors at this! They promised the quality of care will be the same or even higher for less money! Now I know that's not how the really real world works, but they're still saying it...

 

Great, so the public plan won't be that good and people won't all switch to it.

 

You'll still have your private coverage as long as the government option isn't a clear-cut better option.

[NorthSideSox72]

Are you paying attention? They haven't NOT proposed it, which is really the point. It means they're covered. When the Congresional Research Service is under the opinion that they'll have ability for coverage under this, that makes a pretty good statement.

 

I don't understand why this doesn't bother people. They throw that 46/7 million number around like it's the world dying, yet, the points that are made about "immy-gants" are just swept under the rug as nothing and no big deal. Which way is it?

My lord. Really?

 

They haven't NOT proposed we cede Alaska back to Russia either. Should we fund the Palins to buy some tanks and fighter jets to keep those Ruskies at bay?

 

Your argument could literally be used to protest anything, even things that do not exist, and then somehow cast us all as "not paying attention", because we don't see the non-existent. This argument reminds me of the character from Mystery Men who claimed he was invisible, but only when no one was looking at him. Makes a nice piece of fiction, but... really?

[BigSqwert]

My lord. Really?

 

They haven't NOT proposed we cede Alaska back to Russia either. Should we fund the Palins to buy some tanks and fighter jets to keep those Ruskies at bay?

 

Your argument could literally be used to protest anything, even things that do not exist, and then somehow cast us all as "not paying attention", because we don't see the non-existent. This argument reminds me of the character from Mystery Men who claimed he was invisible, but only when no one was looking at him. Makes a nice piece of fiction, but... really?