How many people complaining about the healthcare bill actually know what's in it

1. 37

   ChristinSposted 12 years ago

   How many people complaining about the healthcare bill actually know what's in it?
   
   I see a lot of people complaining and crying about how it will destroy America etc. What I don't see are logical arguments against it or any evidence that said people are making educated and informed opinions - and not merely regurgitating tea party talking points.  Should one not familiarize themselves with the law before being so melodramatic about it? What happened to reason and logical, well-informed debate? Hate for Obama is what is fueling it and not reason - I find this sad. That being said, I disagree with PARTS of the bill myself - but I know what's in it!

   report
2. 59

   harmony155posted 12 years ago

   Thank you for your comment! Glad you have taken the time to actually read the bill unlike a good majority of Americans who complain without proper understanding. Also, I'd like  to point out that Romneycare is very very similar to ObamaCare. Americans: please do your research before the November election!!

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree! In fact many parts of "Obamacare" were directly taken from "Romneycare" People get so caught up in the us vs them of politics they can't think critically about problems and solutions.

      report
   2. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Since Romneycare has proven to be too costly why is the left insisting on pointing to it as a model for supporting Obamacare? Is it based on the brilliant premise that two negatives equal a positive? So dumb+dumber=smart? Who knew!?)

      report
   3. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      you can stop being insulting with your comments Lions den - the point is the hypocrisy of Romney who supported now opposes healthcare.

      report
3. 0

   Daniel Peeblesposted 12 years ago

   The funny thing is that many people are threatening to immigrate to Canada to escape the socialism of "Obamacare."

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I do find that funny seeing as how Canada has socialized healthcare lol.  People are afraid of a "socialism" demon like communists back in the 50's & 60's. These same people drive on roads, collect "social security" - hello! it's laughable.

      report
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Canada has a workable system, but as I understand it some choices are not under your control. That would bother me.

      report
   3. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      lack of choices would trouble me too Larry, but what troubles me more is an accident or catastrophic illness being able to ruin a family. Socialized healthcare that's not a problem so surely we can make something work right here in the US?

      report
4. 89

   suzettenaplesposted 12 years ago

   Thank you for a sane question and comments about the new Obama healthcare bill.  I haven't read the bill and don't know everything that is in it.  It is so refreshing for someone to approach this in a common sense fashion.  I, too, and tired of the dramatic scenes and comments against the bill.  I think you are correct when you say it is  more about hate for Obama than knowledge about the bill.  I certainly will not criticize it until I have read the whole thing.   I will say this, it don't think it is a bad thing to have everyone in our country covered with medical insurance.  I'm not sure how it will all work, but as a humane society we should give everyone the opportunity to be covered medically.

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I respect those who don't criticize without knowing all the facts.  If we all could do more of that the world would be a better place and we'd solve a lot more problems .  I agree all people should be covered medically

      report
5. 74

   pagesvoiceposted 12 years ago

   I seriously doubt that many on both sides of the issue of the Affordable Health Care Act have actually read the entire bill. When you have networks and political pundits who make their fortunes by spilling incendiary and headline grabbing statements, we end up with a knee jerk, reactionary audience that become lazy and complacent in doing their own research. I have been reading comments in newspapers and on facebook and one of the common threads between the disgruntled is calling President Obama a liar. Really? Exactly how has Mr. Obama lied? Those on the opposite side of the fence decry, "It's a tax...it's tax!" Actuaries base their projections on the "law of large numbers" and I can't even begin to imagine the number of actuaries involved in figuring the ultimate cost of this program. Finally, it just boggles my mind in wondering who wouldn't want to have health insurance?

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, but there are ways to get to the facts of what is actually in it people are just lazy. As for wanting insurance, Many people, like me, want it but can't afford due to preexisting condition. Now there are caps on what can be charged! yay

      report
6. 93

   peeplesposted 12 years ago

   I have read as much as I can find but I will be honest, there's not much available out there other than rhetoric. I am against it for two reasons. 1. I dislike the government being involved in anything unless it is a must. 2. The outcome as of yesterday is either buy insurance or be forced to pay a tax that will increase each year. Health insurance costs our family $5600 a year. We have dropped it several times because it is more cost effective for our family to just pay cash for doctor's visits. So I don't think I should be taxed (fined) for choosing to do what is best for our family.
   That being said if anyone could actually produce something that would only make health insurance more affordable to all without trying to strong arm the people into buying it I would support them on that topic. Romney care by what I can tell is no better. I may be wrong since he seems to just talk about appealing Obamacare rather than actually talking about what he would offer. It's all becoming a giant load of BS hitting us from every direction.

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      some might argue with healthcare in its current state it is a must. Govt funds roads, schools, fire, police, medicare, social security etc. This is by no means a govt. run system - you choose insurer, physician etc. it's about consumer protections.

      report
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I am not trying to be nosy, and I understand the $5,600 in premiums is more that the average family would spend in a year. Do you have a backup plan for emergency surgeries. I needed colon surgery and the final cost was more than $100,000.

      report
   3. 93

      peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Larry, usually we keep our insurance even though the high premium. When we don't and we have medical bills that cost more we set up a payment plan through our local hospital. Most hospitals offer this option.

      report
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your response. You are right about hospitals. Not all doctors and labs are so agreeable.

      report
7. 60

   Briana Fayeposted 12 years ago

   Thank you for this question! I am just as frustrated with the regurgitation of tea party talking points and the lack of interest in finding the real facts! It's incredibly sad how few Americans actually get real information before going off on a rant about it.  People need to get the facts to make an informed decision, especially before November!

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, people need to stop cheering for their teams and think independently for themselves.  People don't value educating themselves and forming their own opinions, it's easier for talking heads to tell one what to think I guess... sad.

      report
8. 68

   Angela Blairposted 12 years ago

   I know what's in this Bill,  and understand it -- bottom line. Do I understand the "legalese language" used to describe the various parts of it -- some yes and parts - no, but the general public isn't meant to understand it. I've repeatedly heard from Liberals how if Conservatives understood the Bill they wouldn't so vehemently reject it. I'm very liberal on some things and extremely conservative on others so consider myself an independent -- no matter -- I'm an American first and foremost -- and can find nothing about this Bill that in any way reflects the American value of independent choice -- not in the way it came about, was passed or judged by our Supreme Court. By nature I've never been a "Henny Penny the sky is falling" person but after this mess -- and as far as I'm concerned -- it's time all Americans start looking up and watching the sky for future developments.

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I understand your concerns but disagree. you have your choice of doctors, insurance plans etc. I agree with being forced to purchase - I don't like that. Also protections offered to those with preexisting conditions, no lifetime caps are pluses.

      report
   2. 74

      pagesvoiceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      While I understand your concerns and I too share some of them, one thing I am 100%, hands down in favor of is no one being denied coverage for preexisting conditions. With a health history and over $7,000 yr. premiums that has always concerned me.

      report
   3. 68

      Angela Blairposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In Texas there has always been insurance available for those with catastrophic/ongoing illnesses. It's an insurance pool, basically for the otherwise uninsurable.Premiums are astronomical -- will this Bill correct that?

      report
   4. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Angela, in 2014 higher premiums due to preexisting conditions will be prohibited due to the new law, it does appear to be helpful to those of us who can't get coverage now due to outrageous rates. I understand your concerns there for sure!

      report
   5. 93

      peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I just want to comment here because none of you have mentioned the increases that have already occured with many companies due to the lack of being able to charge accordingly in 2014. They are raising regular rates now to prepare.

      report
   6. 68

      Angela Blairposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I pray your expectations will be met Christin as ongoing illness with no insurance is frightening. I found out about Texas' insurance pool when my brother suffered a massive stroke -- and we couldn't afford the premiums to insure him thereafter.

      report
   7. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Angela-good point, which is where we can do something regarding "catastrophic illness" solutions. The gov is forcing 320 million Americans into the same coverage. Its like forcing everyone to wear mittens to prevent frostbite-its 110 degrees in AZ!

      report
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I just did a Google check and in Louisiana health insurance rates are regulated by the Louisiana Department of Insurance. However, they only regulate the major medical carriers, which is the kind of insurance you want.

      report
9. 61

   Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years ago

   I find it humorous to read people claiming they know what is in this bill. First all there are approximately 2,700 pages of legalese. All of these 2,700 pages requires regulatory agencies to write thousands of more pages of regulations. A majority of those regulations have yet to be written. Therefore, for anyone to claim they know anything substantive about this bill is delusional.
   It is a childishly naive assertion that this is some sort of "health care bill" that will provide "free" health benefits or free anything. It is also patently absurd to believe that adding 30 million more people, to an already expensive system, who could not afford health care before, will now somehow miraculously be able to afford paying for it now is delusional.
   What we know about this bill is that: doctors are leaving fewer doctors equals higher costs based on the economic principles of supply and demand; this bill  raises taxes on -- real estate, gold, capital gains, small businesses, etc (what does gold, real estate and capital gains taxes have to do with health care?).
   We also know that the Supreme Court ruling upheld Obamacare, not on the argument made by Obama - the Commerce Clause, but instead on the right and power of the federal government to TAX.
   The Supreme Court gave the government the UNLIMITED power to tax you.
   The IRS will be adding 16,000 agents to ENFORCE health care compliance and collect fines. Obama said the plan would not cost over 870 billion, but the current projections are over $1.6 trillion. Obama and liberals stated hundreds of times that the healthcare bill was NOT a TAX. We know that the claims of FREE anything are absurd falsehoods that only the ignorant could believe unless doctors, nurses and hospitals are working for free. We know that this law now is twice as expensive as the initial claim. We know that the federal government is hiring more IRS agents to take MORE MONEY FROM YOU in order to give you FREE stuff. Brilliant thinking people. We know that hundreds of companies and unions have requested and received WAIVERS from this wonderful bill. Politicians have exempted themselves from adhering to this bill.
   So this is not utopia. Hence, I've presented a logical fact based argument against this bill based on the indisputable facts that a power grab via expanding the tax powers of the federal government to unlimited proportions has just enslaved you in perpetuity. Welcome to slavery!

   report
   1. 68

      Angela Blairposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You put the truth very succinctly -- thank you.

      report
   2. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      this is emotional and not rational. No one claimed it was "free" ever.  I can understand some of your concerns with how it will be funded and enforced. the rest is speculation and scare tactics and not factually based. No one said it's utopia either.

      report
   3. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Angela. Christin - how can facts be emotional? Yes there are "free" breast exams, pap smears, cancer screening, birth cntrl etc. None of what I stated is speculation. And the Utopian comment is called - sarcasm. http://lionsdenmedia.hubpages.c

      report
   4. 59

      harmony155posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Lions Den Media: Good point, nobody in their right mind will read 2700 pages of legal nonsense but there are several good websites that give an unbiased summary of the bill. I encourage you to read them and see that:

      report
   5. 60

      KK Trainorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Nicely put. Also, the IRS will now have access to every American's health insurance so that they can be sure you bought the proper coverage; this is how they will decide who will be penalized, which will come straight out of tax refunds.

      report
   6. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Christin - I wanted to inform everyone that a government commercial aired stating - NOW Seniors can access "FREE" health care benefits,like cancer screenings. And is HC not free if people up to age 26 are on their parents plan?

      report
   7. 37

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      without hearing it myself, I cant comment on a commercial and no to the 26 year olds because the parents are paying for the health insurance. It means kids can be covered on their parents plan until age 26 helps college kids imo.

      report
   8. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insu

      report
   9. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Alan - FANTASTIC POINT!! Why eliminate health savings account when they could actually be an additional retirement acct if structured where the amount not used each yr is rolled over and at retirement what is not used is tax free retirement income?

      report
   10. 39

       Making MS Workposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If they would just cut out the bull that doctors go through to get you MRI, bloodwork etc. they could cut their overhead and cost might, just might go down.  They should have started there.

       report
   11. 0

       Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Health Savings Accounts still exist. There are not as attractive because people abuse them by trying to claim dandruff shampoo and baby wash as medical expenses. If working, you can still run your premiums through the HSA and pay no taxes on it.

       report
10. 0

    Larry Wallposted 12 years ago

    I have not read it. If I read the entire bill, I probably would not understand it and I have a lot of experience reading legislation, and related regulations. I do know that the bigger the bill, i.e., number of pages, the more likely it is that one or more conflicts exist within the bill. So if it is put into actual practice, it may be months or years before anyone fully understands it.
    
    I have read summaries from different groups and it is somewhat amazing the different interpretations you can find.
    
    While the bill has been enacted and the Supreme Court has rule it is constitutional, there are going to be many other court battles on some of the finer details, especially those that conflict state laws and religious beliefs. This fight is not over.

    report
    1. 37

       ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I understand what you're saying too big = room for confusion etc. absolutely. I don't think it's anywhere near a perfect bill - far from it. Rather than "fight" it though wouldn't it be more prudent to improve it?

       report
    2. 61

       Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       CS how many times do you go to the store & buy clothes that are: too big, wrong color, wrong style, and far too costly as well as having defects you don't know about yet-on the basis you'll "fix them" later? Is it too hard to do it right first?

       report
    3. 37

       ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       comparing clothes shopping to a major country wide overhaul is overly simplistic.  Large projects require time to iron out. If you wait for "perfect" nothing ever gets done.

       report
    4. 0

       Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Improvement would be better. However, only Congress can improve it. You can fight it in the Courts and hope to get the sought-after improvements there through interpretation. I do not think Congress is going to touch that bill. Repeal is unlikely.

       report
    5. 39

       Making MS Workposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Never will be!  Physicians and staff spend more time figuring out all the insurance issues now, driving the cost up.  They will have to ad more employees to sort through the billing issues.  Make it simple or don't do it at all.  That will cut costs

       report
    6. 37

       ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       MS - this is speculation and not fact. We can speculate all day long, the question here is about people knowing the FACTS about what is in the bill and most arguing do not.

       report
    7. 0

       Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       As I said, I have not read the bill. However, standardized rates can be established for procedures and then a prevailing cost factor developed for each area that would allow adjustment of the fees. Problems like that can be solved.

       report
11. 62

    SportsBetterposted 12 years ago

    Okay, yes a healthcare bill seems like a solution, but no one asks why healthcare costs are so high.  Technology has brought down prices in almost all areas of the economy, except healthcare. 
    
    The reason costs are so high and people can't afford it, is because the government inflated the money supply, and prices go up mostly in the places government is involved.
    
    This bill isn't the first time government has partnered with the medical industry.  The government has been apart of medical care for thirty years.  They created Medicare and Medicaid the two programs that inflated the cost.
    
    Because we give so much power to the government, they are able to auction that power off to corporations. The corporations use this to their advantage and write regulations and pay off the government to pass them.  Corporations like regulations because it eliminates their competition. 
    
    There is more than just coming up with a government solution. You have to look at the whole picture.

    report
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Its a mixed bag. Go back to when I was under a group policy. You go to the doctor and the cost is $100. I go for the same reason. I pay $15 co-pay and insurance pays $45. Is the Dr. losing $40. Is his price to high. Are you subsidizing my health cost

       report
    2. 39

       Making MS Workposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Because doctors and hospitals have to employee so many people just to sort out all the regulations.  My medications cost $4,000.00 plus a month for my MS. Guess what the government won't pay that, I get assistance right from the pharmacuitical compan

       report
    3. 61

       Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Sports - you're right...way too much gov and not enough private free market competition - it works every time its tried. So now the gov has the solution to healthcare - more gov, less competition + fines and threat of jail!? Genius in minds of idiots

       report
    4. 0

       Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Making MS Work: The situation you mentioned will hopefully be addressed in the bill so that people with long-term catastrophic illnesses can get the coverage they need and deserve.

       report
12. 63

    Kareem Ganttposted 12 years ago

    I don't understand it either ChristinS. It is mind boggling to think that there are people out there who would be upset at the thought of making people get health insurance. The truth is, people without health insurance who constantly rely on going to the emergency room for treatment drives up health care premiums, because those ER visit have to be paid by someone, and who foots the bill? You guessed it!! People with health insurance. Obamacare will finally stop letting people be free riders on the health care system and make people responsible for there own health and well being, which is what I thought the Tea Party was all for, personal responsibility.

    report
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Uninsured go to the ER and have to be treated. Insured go to the urgent care clinics, which require insurance or payment up front. If more people had ins. the ER would be less crowded and cost to general public would be less.

       report
13. 37

    ChristinSposted 12 years ago

    I will delete responses and comments that are rude.  We can disagree without resorting to childish behavior.  - seriously let's all be adults - Thanks!

    report
14. 76

    cydroposted 12 years ago

    As bad as it is for people to complain without reading it, it's infinitely worse when some Congress members themselves probably couldn't list what's in it (in a reasonably detailed fashion).  Forget the average Joe like me, they're the ones that are actually voting on it.
    
    Along those same lines, like with any large bill, Obamacare is so encompassing that when one examines the pages closely there is a bunch of BS that even most Democrats wouldn't support wholeheartedly.  An example, if you wish, is that as soon as someone is declared senile in a home, the government can now take all the lethal weapons within that home (I have some WWII antiques that are quite valuable to me).  That probably doesn't bother everybody, but it has to be somewhat disturbing that hundreds of these laws are squeaking by without hardly anyone bringing them up.
    
    Lastly, has anyone mentioned that it will cost near $2 trillion over 10 years? That's 6 times more dollars than there are stars in the Milky Way.  We're lucky that the United States isn't already in debt.  Oh wait.

    report
    1. 37

       ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I'm sure no one would take your antique guns if you become senile.  I'd also like a reference as to where this is in the bill - sounds like scare tactics to me sorry.  Also govt already pays for uninusured

       report