Are there any objective views on the new Health Care bill?

1. 89

   SimeyCposted 11 years ago

   I'm really tired of seeing political messages relating to the Healthcare bill. One side tells us how everything is very poor, how it's going to raise the cost for us all, and how it's going to destroy America.
   
   The other side tells us how good it is, how it will benefit us all and how it will save billions of dollars.
   
   Where's the truly non-partisan analysis that doesn't spin the law so that it can have political power? Where's the analysis that tells me what is actually good about the law and what can be changed?
   
   If it exists - why doesn't every politician sit down with the objective analysis and then WORK together to get it totally right!

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I guess your question is really moot to start out. There's nothing and no one in Congress interested in critical thinking analysis of any bill.
      
      If it tried to do that, they would be b*T*h slapped by their master.
      
      If they did that, then they would have given the citizens a taste of true honesty in politics and we cannot have that now, can we?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Now that you put it that way - DOH! I guess I need to remove these rose colored glasses - somehow I hoped to see integrity and honesty in politics! How naiive of me!!!

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Chris Hughposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, you can look at Wikipedia. That seems fairly objective from a cursory glance. Don't let the cynical blowhards get you down.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Really? I would tell SimeyC to not listen to those who are willful ignorant and trust government has the answer to an individual problem which isn't it's place to begin with.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Chris Hughposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Uh huh, and there's no in between, huh? Thanks for the contribution to this discussion.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Sure, there's an in between, but first an obstacle has to be moved which isn't being looked upon as an obstacle. Do you know what that obstacle is? If not, then apparently you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Chris Hughposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, thanks so much for your insight. I think you've elevated the discussion. I know so much more about the issue now. I'm sure everything you have to say is of equal or perhaps even greater value if that is even possible. I'm going to let you have the last word, as you most certainly deserve to sum this up. Thanks again.

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Sarcasm? Maybe?
                     That is something I am known for doing. To do otherwise is meaningless.
                     More sarcasm?
                     More sarcasm?
                     More sarcasm? More meaningless drivel from the uninformed. Good show on you.
                     
                     If you're not curious about the "obstacle" mentioned, which NONE of your post asked or addressed? Hmmmm....I wonder why not?
                     
                     Asking what the obstacle was instead of posting the above junk would have been nice. But, you apparently aren't interested. So, since you're not interested, I'm going to tell you anyways, just to ensure that it's been said and you READ it.
                     
                     Get rid of the corruption(obstacle) in Congress. Dispatch the pathetic puppet masters controlling the laws, regulations and freedom(liberties) of others.

                     replyreport
2. 0

   DigbyAdamsposted 11 years ago

   It's hard to project cost savings accurately, so neither side can agree to that methodology. Even non-partisan groups have a hard time estimating costs and savings.
   
   It's also hard to know how it will affect every single citizen, since 50 states have to implement it independently.
   
   Even when you look at the Massachusetts program several years after implementation, it's difficult to "prove" how many people have insurance that would not have had it. Who hasn't gone to the emergency room, who's hasn't gotten sick because of preventative health care. Which businesses have left the state because of it, which businesses have located there because of it.
   
   So it really does come down to a philosophy about how health care is provided, who is "entitled" to it and how it is paid for.

   replyreport
3. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 11 years ago

   "Are there any objective views on the new Health Care bill?"
   
   Nah, why do you ask?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Stupid question really! Just thought I'd try and start July 4th week on a positive note. Shucks - I'll just have to drink myself silly instead!!!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Do both!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Chris Hughposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I think you've got this issue surrounded, paradigm:)

            replyreport
4. 71

   livewithrichardposted 11 years ago

   You have to put your own objectivity in it.  I'm sure it is good for a large segment of our population but if it is so good then why isn't it good enough for Congress and other Federal employees?  I still don't have my head around it all. 
   
   Being self employed, I already have to pay for my own healthcare. Also, some of my tax dollars go to pay for those that do not pay for healthcare.  The way I'm seeing it, by taxing those that don't pay for their healthcare now should lessen my tax burden.  But like everything else the Govt. tries to "fix" I'm sure we're all going to be screwed. Though this might be a good time to start investing in stocks and mutual funds that invest in healthcare products, pharmaceuticals, and health related insurance.

   replyreport
5. 61

   JSChamsposted 11 years ago

   I believe in a concept called the proof is in the pudding. It relates to people and their behavior.
   So now SCOTUS has ruled the mandate stands under the taxation clause.
   Why did the administration fight so strongly...and still today are...to deny it is a tax? Hm?
   Well under the commerce clause it would have been easier to get the states to go along. Taxation? Boy does that open a can of worms.
   
   Also why almost immediately were droves of people exempted? Does this not create almost immediately two classes?
   
   But back to taxes. Let's look at the history of our Congress and taxes. When has a tax levied ever been enough? When have they not come back literally year after year seeking more? When have those taxes actually ever gone where they were supposed to?
   
   And what made those 435 people experts on health care and what we need or even want in terms of that?
   There were an estimated 30 million who really needed the care, so why didn't it focus on them? At less cost?
   
   Why did we have to"Pass it to know what's in it?' Why did we swallow such an absurd premise to begin with?
   
   Answers?

   replyreport
6. 89

   SimeyCposted 11 years ago

   Wow I did actually find a constructive article:
   
   http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/new … act.Check/

   replyreport