Please explain to me

[noonereal]

why you support a system that currently has 1% of the population holding as much wealth as the 95% of the population?

My guess is I'll get the same response as when I asked what the lovely Sarah stood for, which of course was none.

Any cons what to justify this?

Maybe the replies will "trickle? in?

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by noonereal

My guess is I'll get the same response as when I asked what the lovely Sarah stood for, which of course was none.

Kind of the same feeling I get when I mention that the Health Care Reform bills presented require all to participate except for House, Senate and upward. They get a pass for some reason.

No responses to that one either.

RC

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Kind of the same feeling I get when I mention that the Health Care Reform bills presented require all to participate except for House, Senate and upward. They get a pass for some reason.

No responses to that one either.

RC

I might be missing something, but what are you talking about? Doesn't the proposed legislation simply require everyone to have health insurance? And if you already have it, well, you have it. Maybe I'm wrong about it. So, members of Congress do have health insurance. Right? So, I guess I am confused.

Seriously, I might be missing something here. Please enlighten me if I am. I have health insurance from CBS and it's quite good. Costs me a fortune, but I'm gald to have it. I'm very happy to reform health care and not change my coverage at all. I would suspect a lot of people who currently have no insurance will end up with something that isn't as good as what I have. I don't want anyone to require me to get worse insurance and I wouldn't expect Congress to do so either.

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I might be missing something, but what are you talking about? Doesn't the proposed legislation simply require everyone to have health insurance? And if you already have it, well, you have it. Maybe I'm wrong about it. So, members of Congress do have health insurance. Right? So, I guess I am confused.

Seriously, I might be missing something here. Please enlighten me if I am. I have health insurance from CBS and it's quite good. Costs me a fortune, but I'm gald to have it. I'm very happy to reform health care and not change my coverage at all. I would suspect a lot of people who currently have no insurance will end up with something that isn't as good as what I have. I don't want anyone to require me to get worse insurance and I wouldn't expect Congress to do so either.

The way I understand it is that people can keep their existing insurance providers, however, if there are subsequent changes to the policy i.e. rate, coverage, etc. all bets are off and they will be rolled into the new program.

The language of the bills presented speak for themselves. "Must" and "May" are clearly identified when referring to the people as opposed to Congress.

Correct me if I am wrong.

RC

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

The way I understand it is that people can keep their existing insurance providers, however, if there are subsequent changes to the policy i.e. rate, coverage, etc. all bets are off and they will be rolled into the new program.

The language of the bills presented speak for themselves. "Must" and "May" are clearly identified when referring to the people as opposed to Congress.

Correct me if I am wrong.

RC

Let's just wait to see what comes out of conference, shall we? We can piss and moan about provisions in all the various proposals but none of them might end up in the final legislation.

John

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Let's just wait to see what comes out of conference, shall we? We can piss and moan about provisions in all the various proposals but none of them might end up in the final legislation.

John

I would think that the fact that it's there alone would give people insight.

Maybe we need this...


Amendment 28

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .

This would solve a lot of problems toot sweet. The hard working people of our nation wouldn't need to spend their free time scouring over bills trying to determine how they are about to bent over the fence.

Back to your question. The Jury is still out for me regarding Palin. Right now, I believe she is just as relevant as anyone else out there on either side. Thats not an endorsement mind you.


RC

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

The way I understand it is that people can keep their existing insurance providers, however, if there are subsequent changes to the policy i.e. rate, coverage, etc. all bets are off and they will be rolled into the new program.

This is all part of the Republican campaign of lies to make people afraid that they will be forced to give up the insurance they presently have. No proposal that I'm aware of would have required someone to be moved into the public system if their carrier changed their policy. On the other hand, I think some proposals gave people that option. Now, since it appears that any public option we might get will be means tested, I doubt there will be a provision even remotely like you describe.

John

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Seriously, I might be missing something here. Please enlighten me if I am. I have health insurance from CBS and it's quite good. Costs me a fortune, but I'm gald to have it. I'm very happy to reform health care and not change my coverage at all. I would suspect a lot of people who currently have no insurance will end up with something that isn't as good as what I have. I don't want anyone to require me to get worse insurance and I wouldn't expect Congress to do so either.

My guess is that all those who are inscripted will receive a less expensive though vastly inferior coverage than you have. It will clearly be a cut all corners private insurance run inscription. The bills presently in debate are no help to any America. The healthcare battle 09 is already lost.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by noonereal

My guess is that all those who are inscripted will receive a less expensive though vastly inferior coverage than you have.

I agree. If they get a "public option" passed, I almost certainly won't opt for it and wouldn't expect Congress to either.

Originally Posted by noonereal

It will clearly be a cut all corners private insurance run inscription. The bills presently in debate are no help to any America. The healthcare battle 09 is already lost.

Well, I don't agree here. Having some coverage will help them if they have a catastrophic illness. And having them "in the pool" is a big part of what makes this work. A lot of folks with no insurance now are young and don't get sick much. With them paying in too, it will make it all work better. Yes. It's Socialism. Bwa ha ha ha ha! Working of the common good of all Americans.

It's not what I'd do if I were King of America. But if I were King of America, it woudn't be America. We have a system and you have to work in our system. Part of that is making a lot of people happy. So we often end up with solutions that are complicated and inefficent. But it's like the old saying, ours in the worst system on Earth, except for all the others.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Kind of the same feeling I get when I mention that the Health Care Reform bills presented require all to participate except for House, Senate and upward. They get a pass for some reason.

No responses to that one either.

RC

All people presently covered can elect to stay with there current provider as I understand it.