http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/final-h … e-act.aspx
All 907 pages of it? Did anyone actually read it for themselves, take notes on what they liked, researched what they didn't like and then formed entirely their own opinion on the various parts without taking their cues and talking points from the media or their political party of choice?
Not me. I got to the part about Soylent Green and could go no further. Think I hear the dinner bell! Bye!
Well I did not take notes and while I tried to be impartial I am sure I had a certain bias but I read it, while it sounds like an intimidating amount the vast majority of it can be skim read.
As soon as I found the full ruling, I luckily plopped myself down to read it (slow morning) and so didn't get any media influence on my opinion. But my ideological perspective certainly affected my views, as I'm sure is the case for many.
I did not read the bill but have followed health care carefully for some time. Whitehouse.gov is loaded with info on the bill, and Politifact has some very good nonpartisan information about it as well. This info is posted on my hub regarding health care and I updated as new info comes out. I do this mainly because people seem confused and frightened and need to know the facts.
Some would say that WE had to pass it to find out what is in it.
I'm still marveling over the extremely short time period it took to write this behemoth of a bill and pass it. I haven't even gotten past the fancy header.
And you think they came up with this overnight? I'm willing to bet it was something Clinton was working on, but never made it public.
One doesn't need to read the Health Care bill to know that no government should control society's healthcare. It's seriously damaging and give the government far too much power it doesn't need access to to start off.
This is the life work and dream of TED KENNEDY! Uncle Ted fought for health care long before it was possible to become the law of the land. No body listened to him...until this guy running for Governor tried out Uncle Teds' ideas and liked them so much he made Universal Health Care his own. Then care this senator from Chicago and so on and so forth...and here we are with OROMNEYCARE!
Thanks for pointing out the jest Cags, and that person was Nancy Pelosi, uttering the most ridiculous statement in American history.
Hey Ready, been a while. Haven't seen you in like forever. Nice to see you in the forums.
You too Cags, only pop in occassionally, been working on promoting my novel and writing the follow up
would you read it out of necessity or pleasure/
Well, it's not a necessity and since I'm not willing to read it, I'll take pleasure in not reading it.
I think come 2013 there we're gonna take pleasure in a hell of a bon fire. That and laughing at the environmentlists and climate change mongers having a stroke over the smoke and carbon released into the atmosphere.
Bon fire? Hmmm....not just yet. Maybe in 2015 or 16.
Well, the only thing I will say to that is that cleaner forms of energy is better regardless. But, you're not going to get it now or even in the next decade.
Cags ole buddy you're trying to be too politically correct, just laugh, you know its funny.
Choosing not to read the bill isn't ignorance. There's nothing in the bill that is to be legitimized as a good idea when packaged together as it stands.
Affordable health care does not come via government. It was never a good idea, except for those who don't mind taking from others to satisfy a false need, but disguised as "greater good", when it's not actually for the greater good.
This is called distortion and misinformation.
I honestly don't see where you are trying to help anyone. You claim to be someone that helps people. How do you help anybody trying to turn them off to the health care act? If you are bitter about your personal situation; you have to remember people respect you and listen to you. I sounds like you're trying to lead sick people off a cliff! I'm sorry about your Mother. Other people can be helped by the Health Care Act and you need to tell people that.
Really? Revealing distortion for what it is that people see as valid, is very helpful to the overall of society's true health.
I do. I inform them of the stupidity in motion of government. The object is to wake up the willful ignorant who continually put in place idiots and other morons, as if it does any good.
I'm sorry to report to you kind sir/madam whichever it may be, but your government doesn't give a damn about you. What makes you think the government gives a damn about saving lives.
People of limited view are the ones who don't see the control being done.
When are people going to honestly step up and take on the true responsibility life requires them to take on?
Yet again, your pathetic attempt at defending a government which doesn't give a damn about you. Wake up!
I'm not bitter about a personal situation. I hold no regrets for the path my life has taken and where I am as a result. I made my choices and I live through them.
No I am not. I want people to be more responsible and to realize that government shouldn't have to dictate what responsibilities are. That is ridiculous.
Don't be. I have accepted the fact that she is going to die and there's nothing I can do to prevent it.
I'm not saying that people are not going to get help. I am stating a fact that government has sold the general public a bill of goods which isn't worth the price it will end up costing.
Value is the word my friend. Valued Quality care. Do you really think the quality of care is going to go up? Because of this bill has been passed?
If you do, then you've only deluded yourself and you're making other people NOT see it because you refuse to admit the government has NO RIGHT to dictate health care of it's citizens.
The insurance companies and lawyers are the only ones making money out of this, then will be the true benefactors of the bill.
Sure it will do some good for some people. The homeless are still SOL, unless they are deathly sick, in which case emergency services would be provided. And that cost would be added to the bulk price which isn't likely accounted for because the homeless are not counted. Oops, the cat is out of the bag now.
Real help for the homeless....let's ensure that you stay healthy so you can remain homeless, possibly die from something else and all your problems will be covered under the totality of the bill.
Yeah, this bill was given thought. Not. There are some aspects I like, such as the "not allowing companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. It's nice. However, putting that regulation on the company is going instantly increase their price because they are not going to lose profit which they were getting, but can gain more profit by re-working their coverage and even make up individual cost analysis for every specific problem, just to squeeze out more profit.
Whenever the government gets involved to apply regulations, it always costs both the company and the taxpayer money. The company can make up any losses, but the taxpayer has no recourse when the government continually fails to apply those regulations.
As far as I know..Obama Care is not a good thing. I can't remember why but it's not! lol
obama anything isn't good
Not me but at least I know what you're talking about.
I’m shocked the tree huggers haven’t gone into anaphylactic shock over the number of trees that were destroyed to print the stupid thing for anyone to read
Well I am not a tree hugger but I suspect most people did as I did and read it online.
I read it all, every single word! Woohoo! If anyone else is interested, or just wants to skim it, here's the link to the pdf: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/image … h.care.pdf .
However, the only part I reread, and that I'll be saving, is the first 40 or so pages of the majority opinion, written by Justice Roberts. I wrote a hub in summary of it! Dunno what anyone else here thinks, but I thought it was gold. Ginsberg's defense of the Commerce Clause (p.45-48) didn't do it for me.
I am still analyzing Robert’s opinion, however my initial impression is that the defense he provided offers too much power and potential expansion for the Federal Government and the Congressional taxing power. I also think the opinion will be called into question and perhaps over turned by the Constitutional tenets of States rights. His opinion also did not endorse the law, and in a way derided it, setting up a political plank for the Republican party.
I think that he was correct in saying that Congress does have the right to the ACA under its tax powers, but I also think he, purposely or not (I lean towards very purposefully) set it up to encourage repealing the law in full because it's bad policy. But I'm glad he at least did not pull an "activist judge" by actually abusing his position to pass the law without the Constitution.
Wow, I just realized I completely misunderstood the forum starter. Absolute failure, Bob.
Please ignore my previous posts; they were on the SCOTUS ruling. Sorry, sorry, sorry. In my defense, I just finished writing a hub on it. (Excuse for mis-post AND shameless promotion! Woohoo )
I did also read the healthcare bill itself, though not nearly as word-for-word. The writing simply wasn't that great.
Hey Bob, you should be able to delete your two comments here if you don't want them. There's always been a 3 hour expiration on control over posts. If you don't see an option to delete them, then look for more options. All browsers can delete posts.
I don't want to read it. I saw it here - the full decision and the bill
http://www.motherjones.com/documents/39 … e-decision
and I read the summary not the 190 plus pages bill,
I don't want to read it because :
I do listen and read "echo" journalism - polished regurgitated journalists opinion that captures the most controversial part of it.
I only listen to what I want to hear so I go to channel or read news which cater to my political leanings
I don't analyze aspects of it even the summary ones, I copy what news commentator said and I only grasp what I want to understand
I don't want to spend time reading it - specially whereas, whereas, unending whereas, that is not my job, that is the job of my congressman who represent me in my district, they deliberated on it already why will I read it. I will just say what my favorite TV news analyst
Reading the whole bill is the job of the law researchers at the Supreme Court before the men in robes will read and deliberate on it based on the Consti (with their biases and prejudices of course), why would I read it.
I am not a law student, why will I read it.
Predicting the end result of the bill/law is just speculative. How can I know the outcome of it. Ten years after is not even enough. Then perhaps lawyers can conduct a policy analysis and impact of a decade of health reform law after ten years at the minimum.
I don't read any of the bills considered or passed by Congress. I don't think that's a meaningful measure of a bill's value to us.
Furthermore, even if I don't understand a law, I'm still bound to it. Our country's laws probably number in the millions of pages. It doesn't matter if I don't read or understand any of them; I'm still required to abide by them.
I do know the essentials of the Affordable Health Act, and know that it was the best law that could have been hammered out given the level of obstructionism by the Republicans. And considering it took about a *year* to pass, I don't think this was rushed. That's yet another right-wing meme, I'm afraid.
Just to be clear-- I wasn't trying to bash the bill. I honestly have no opinion on it, because I really have no clue what's in it. Nor was I trying to make the argument that you can't have an opinion on the bill without reading it.
As for a year-- that's still pretttty short considering the processes a bill has to take in its lifetime. Especially a bill of it's length.
I think a year is reasonable. Any longer and interest in having it passed would wane. I can't think of any other piece of legislation that took longer.
Given the complexity and scope of the law, it would have to address countless contingencies and integration into many of our other affiliated institutions (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.); 1,000 pages seems about right.
How it affects us was distilled nicely by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
They have a 10-question quiz which I think covers the basics (and dispels some of the most persistent myths):
http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/hea … -quiz.aspx
I got 9/10 right (apparently better than 97% of Americans) without having read even one page of the law.
by easyspeak7 years ago
Has anybody actually read this bill? There are lots of information and misinformation floating around.One question I have is...will you still be able to keep your current doctor? I've heard conservatives say...
by Scott Bateman16 hours ago
Odd that the House was able to pass 60 bills repealing Obamacare when Obama was president but can't pass one when Trump is president.
by MikeNV7 years ago
Or should they just be voted on and made into law and "fixed" later.Maybe this is the new Government Paradigm.Make laws that only a select few are privy too... then just fix them later.That's an interesting...
by kerryg6 years ago
Thought some of you right wingers might be interested in seeing what some ACTUAL socialists think of the health care bill. Not that I expect any of you to admit that Obama isn't socialist by any definition of the word...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
I thought this article was interesting, especially since it appeared in the NYT. According to this guru, costs will INCREASE, not decrease. This is the same guru that democrats hailed as wonderful when he challenged...
by Cowboy Coasters6 years ago
....for immigrants and very lazy poor people.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.