Kill the bill and Start Over

[JTalbain]

There is no delusion on my part. I am very clear. The Democrats and Obama attempted a government takeover of the entire health insurance system. They still won't allow the bill in committee to be posted for 72 hours and to be costed by the CBO prior to voting. They are not being transparent or forthcoming with the American people. That is not a delusion!... As I have posted several times. The American People have read the bills. We know what's in there!

I apparently missed the point where the government was nationalizing healthcare. Which provision in the bill states that insurance companies will go out of business? Which provision states that the government will fix prices for health institutions? Which provision states that medical institutions will shift from private to public control? Which provision states that insurance company rates will be fixed? Any of these could indicate an attempted government takeover of the health insurance in America. Since you are not delusional, and since you being of the American people have read the bills (which are supposedly not being posted), perhaps you can enlighten us as to where this will come to pass.

www.congress.org

Take your time.

As I have posted several times. The American People have read the bills. We know what's in there! Killing the public option isn't even enough because the bills have unacceptable provisions in them that give unchecked control to the federal government that it should not have:

Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough

The Democrats need to kill all the bills and start over to fix the problems with our healthcare system not mess up what is right with our system. More than 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance.

More than 80%, hmmmm....... Seems to me that the number corresponds nicely with reports from the US Census Bureau, which estimates that 18% of Americans are uninsured. So the people with insurance are the ones that are happy with health insurance coverage in the US? Whoulda thunk it?

Again, where exactly does this bill give the government unchecked power? Use my above link. Take your time.

 

[Trinity]

I apparently missed the point where the government was nationalizing healthcare. Which provision in the bill states that insurance companies will go out of business? Which provision states that the government will fix prices for health institutions? Which provision states that medical institutions will shift from private to public control? Which provision states that insurance company rates will be fixed? Any of these could indicate an attempted government takeover of the health insurance in America. Since you are not delusional, and since you being of the American people have read the bills (which are supposedly not being posted), perhaps you can enlighten us as to where this will come to pass.

www.congress.org

Take your time.

More than 80%, hmmmm....... Seems to me that the number corresponds nicely with reports from the US Census Bureau, which estimates that 18% of Americans are uninsured. So the people with insurance are the ones that are happy with health insurance coverage in the US? Whoulda thunk it?

Again, where exactly does this bill give the government unchecked power? Use my above link. Take your time.

The article outlines the provisions in H.R. 3200 that amount to too much government control of the health insurance industry. You can find the sections of the bill for yourself.

The government would mandate enrollment practices; regulate how premiums are determined; specify what co-payments can be collected; and dictate how much of the premium would have to be paid out for claims. The government would switch money back and forth among plans (“risk adjustment”) to compensate plans that cover a larger share of sick people.

It would impose “uniform marketing standards” on insurance plans and regulate how plan documents are written to ensure that they use “plain language.” Although the evolving legislation manifestly fails this test itself, it requires insurers to use language that is “clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing.” To help the hapless insurers in this task, the newly created health choices commissioner would “develop and issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing.”

The newly created health choices commissioner would take bids from plans, negotiate with them, and enter into contracts with selected plans. This opens the way for undefined and unchecked informal regulation of plans, including, for instance, the number, type, and location of providers included in a plan, and how they are paid. The government would be able to use the contract mechanism to introduce any requirement it wanted, including social policies in favor at any particular time.

The government’s determination of covered benefits and cost effectiveness would determine what care patients receive. The financial impact of the regulation of insurers would determine the number of people who go into medicine and nursing and thus whether there are manpower shortages, the speed with which patients can see a doctor they want, their access to hospitals, how modern the hospital is, and the distribution of doctors and hospitals.

Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough

 

[JTalbain]

The article outlines the provisions in H.R. 3200 that amount to too much government control of the health insurance industry. You can find the sections of the bill for yourself.

Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough

Why should I go searching for the sections when you've already read the bill and can point them out to me?

Additionally, the article doesn't make any reference to any section of the bill, but can at best be described as an opinion piece of what the bill would entail. It is from the Journal of the American Enterprise Institute: Here's what wiki had to say about the them in the first two paragraphs:

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank founded in 1943. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."[1] AEI is an independent non-profit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.[3] Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow, and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include David Frum, Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Irving Kristol, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.[4]

So you want us to believe what you say based solely upon an unannotated article produced by a journal with such strong ties to the Republican Party that they had a large hand in deciding Bush Administration national policies? Yeah, I'm sure they're unbiased.

 

[Industrialsize]

Why should I go searching for the sections when you've already read the bill and can point them out to me?

Additionally, the article doesn't make any reference to any section of the bill, but can at best be described as an opinion piece of what the bill would entail. It is from the Journal of the American Enterprise Institute: Here's what wiki had to say about the them in the first two paragraphs:

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank founded in 1943. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."[1] AEI is an independent non-profit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.[3] Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow, and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include David Frum, Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Irving Kristol, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.[4]

So you want us to believe what you say based solely upon an unannotated article produced by a journal with such strong ties to the Republican Party that they had a large hand in deciding Bush Administration national policies? Yeah, I'm sure they're unbiased.

Ah you've discovered her sources......this lovely site was the source of one annotation:
Stormfront - White Nationalist Community

 

[Industrialsize]

Why should I go searching for the sections when you've already read the bill and can point them out to me?

Additionally, the article doesn't make any reference to any section of the bill, but can at best be described as an opinion piece of what the bill would entail. It is from the Journal of the American Enterprise Institute: Here's what wiki had to say about the them in the first two paragraphs:

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank founded in 1943. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."[1] AEI is an independent non-profit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.[3] Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow, and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include David Frum, Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Irving Kristol, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.[4]

So you want us to believe what you say based solely upon an unannotated article produced by a journal with such strong ties to the Republican Party that they had a large hand in deciding Bush Administration national policies? Yeah, I'm sure they're unbiased.

BTW.........I love you.

 

[Trinity]

Why should I go searching for the sections when you've already read the bill and can point them out to me?

So you want us to believe what you say based solely upon an unannotated article produced by a journal with such strong ties to the Republican Party that they had a large hand in deciding Bush Administration national policies? Yeah, I'm sure they're unbiased.

I believe it because I read the bills. And several of the points have already been discussed on this forum with sections detailed. If you are asserting that the article isn't factual - prove it. Show in the bills where the points are disputed.:wink:

 

[Industrialsize]

Discussions are often more productive when conducted with civility and the premise that all participants, regardless of disagreement, are participating in good faith. This is practicing the art of diplomacy.

Thoughtfully considering varying opinions rather than simply reacting to them often helps one gain a more complete understanding of the topic and of the other participants in the discussion. This is practicing the art of listening.

just so you know,Trinity and I have been sparring partners since the Democratic Primaries, we've had our ups and downs but it ultimately comes down on the side of civil.......When I call her a liar that is ,for me, being diplomatic.......I'm sure I can get under her skin as well from time to time...We're like oil and vinegar.......

 

[JTalbain]

I believe it because I read the bills. And several of the points have already been discussed on this forum with sections detailed. If you are asserting that the article isn't factual - prove it. Show in the bills where the points are disputed.:wink:

I don't believe that you are acquainted with the way logical debate works. If you provide a statement with no supporting evidence, it doesn't need to be disputed. If you'll notice in evidence that I present, they are fully annotated, complete with their publications and references to any other sources which may be relevant to their claims. They provide proof and evidence, which can be disproven or contradicted by different evidence.

In short, no one has to disprove the statements, because you have yet to prove them, and the author of your article has yet to as well. The burden is not on everyone else to rifle through a 1000 page document to disprove a passage that you supposedly read and may or may not exist. The only thing that you have provided is an unannotated opinion article. Since you're in favor of killing the entire bill and starting over because of the perceived errors, something which would delay the reform both parties have stated is necessary, you really need to qualify your statements. I'll wait for you. www.congress.org

BTW.........I love you.

:redface:

 

[Trinity]

I don't believe that you are acquainted with the way logical debate works. If you provide a statement with no supporting evidence, it doesn't need to be disputed. If you'll notice in evidence that I present, they are fully annotated, complete with their publications and references to any other sources which may be relevant to their claims. They provide proof and evidence, which can be disproven or contradicted by different evidence.

In short, no one has to disprove the statements, because you have yet to prove them, and the author of your article has yet to as well. The burden is not on everyone else to rifle through a 1000 page document to disprove a passage that you supposedly read and may or may not exist. The only thing that you have provided is an unannotated opinion article. Since you're in favor of killing the entire bill and starting over because of the perceived errors, something which would delay the reform both parties have stated is necessary, you really need to qualify your statements. I'll wait for you. www.congress.org

As I stated, I've posted numerous times in this forum on specific passages in the bills. If you believe the article is inaccurate you are welcome to dispute it...I'll wait for you. :wink:

 

[Bbucko]

I don't believe that you are acquainted with the way logical debate works.

You are beginning to understand why Trinity is on so many people's Ignore lists, JT.

Pretty soon we'll be telling you to throw the tennis ball, just like Carole Ann.

 

[JTalbain]

As I stated, I've posted numerous times in this forum on specific passages in the bills. If you believe the article is inaccurate you are welcome to dispute it...I'll wait for you. :wink:

I actually provided the website by which you could check passage of the bill. This is the equivalent to you telling me about a passage in the book, me handing you the book, and me asking you to show me what page it is on.

I'm not interested in what you've posted in the past, you haven't presented it in this thread. This is an entirely new debate, and you don't get a free pass. In this debate you have posted no information. Going into your past posts could lead to me getting past revisions of the bill, which may or may not be accurate today. Basically you are asking me to check your 1000+ posts for information, and then cross reference that against multiple 1000+ page documents in order to find which version you are referring to, an argument which may not even exist, and then make an argument against it. It kind of goes like this...

Lawyer: I have a witness who can attest to the innocence of my client.
Prosecutor: Where is this witness?
Lawyer: ::hands prosecutor phone book:: He's in here somewhere.
Prosecutor: ...Are you kidding me?
Lawyer: No, he's in there somewhere. He's willing to provide an alibi for my client. Just call everyone one at a time and you'll find him eventually. I promise.

Hint: Lawyer loses this case. Why exactly does logic apply differently for you?

 

[JTalbain]

You are beginning to understand why Trinity is on so many people's Ignore lists, JT.

Pretty soon we'll be telling you to throw the tennis ball, just like Carole Ann.

Nah, still enjoying myself. That and I'm taking the same approach Obama is taking toward people spreading rumors about him. Don't try to stop them, just allow them to continue on and on until they've destroyed their credibility so much that no one will listen to them anymore. According to the more logical sides of conservative news, it seems to be working.

 

[JTalbain]

You are beginning to understand why Trinity is on so many people's Ignore lists, JT.

Pretty soon we'll be telling you to throw the tennis ball, just like Carole Ann.

Although it has just occurred to me that anyone with Trinity on their ignore lists is probably amused by what appears to be a bunch of liberal idiots talking to themselves. :biggrin1:

 

[Trinity]

I'm not interested in what you've posted in the past, you haven't presented it in this thread. This is an entirely new debate, and you don't get a free pass. In this debate you have posted no information. Going into your past posts could lead to me getting past revisions of the bill, which may or may not be accurate today. Basically you are asking me to check your 1000+ posts for information, and then cross reference that against multiple 1000+ page documents in order to find which version you are referring to, an argument which may not even exist, and then make an argument against it.

I've posted the information. If you require sections of the bill then do the work. I'm not required to provide that for you. If you believe the article or information is inaccurate - prove it. Have at it.

 

[JTalbain]

I've posted the information. If you require sections of the bill then do the work. I'm not required to provide that for you. If you believe the article or information is inaccurate - prove it. Have at it.

Why? I'm just going to say that part of the bill proves your points irrelevant. It also states that anything you or AEI says is wrong. It's in that 1000+ page document somewhere. I forget where. If you believe my statement is inaccurate - prove it. Have at it. After all I can just make an unfounded claim and the burden is on you to prove that I am wrong.

Has it occurred to you that if any of the points your article makes are not mentioned, then proving this would require posting of the ENTIRE 1000+ page post to prove the NONexistence of said passages?

Try again. Evidence has to be presented before it can be disproven. www.congress.org I'll wait for you.

 

[meatpackingbubba]

I just wonder why health care reform has to be sold with the untruth that it can be done for free or that someone else will pay. It is a promise that cannot be kept.

Generally speaking, politicians seek to entrench and enhance their power by doling out funding, all of which is funded at taxpayer expense. This should be considered when evaluating their promises.

I am reminded of the tongue-in-cheek motto of a famous saloon here in Alaska, Chilkoot Charlies:

"We Cheat the Other Guy and Pass the Savings on to You!"

 

[Trinity]

Poll: Lowest support yet for healthcare


By Eric Zimmermann - 09/28/09 10:24 AM ET

Public support for healthcare reform has dropped to its lowest point this year, Rasmussen finds.


Just 41% of likely voters say they favor the reform proposed by President Obama and Democrats. 56% of respondents are opposed. - The Hill

 

[JTalbain]

Poll: Lowest support yet for healthcare


By Eric Zimmermann - 09/28/09 10:24 AM ET

Public support for healthcare reform has dropped to its lowest point this year, Rasmussen finds.


Just 41% of likely voters say they favor the reform proposed by President Obama and Democrats. 56% of respondents are opposed. - The Hill

Proving that the rampant idiocy is making people nervous.

Still waiting Trinity. www.congress.org

 

[Trinity]

Proving that the rampant idiocy is making people nervous.

Proving that ObamaCare is a fallacy.

Still waiting Trinity. Congress.org - Home

You are waiting on yourself. You've got a lot to educated yourself on...hop to it.

 

[JTalbain]

Proving that ObamaCare is a fallacy.

Since when was Obamacare a statement that could be a fallacy? And for that matter, since when are fallacies of any kind directed by public opinion.

You are waiting on yourself. You've got a lot to educated yourself on...hop to it.

No no, I've argued with petulant children before. Your single article of proof is both unannotated and unqualified. It does not reference specific passages of the bill in any way. It is up to you, as the presenter of the article as "proof" to provide such information.

Still waiting. www.congress.org