Healthcare Passes! Thank You, Nancy Pelosi!

[hotatlboi]

And after reading all three pages, i'm still confused about what this all actually means.

I've developed a simple 3 step process for understanding this HCR.

1. If you have insurance, it will harder to lose it for some stupid reason.

2. If you don't have insurance, it will be easier and more affordable to get it.

3. If you don't want insurance... wtf? who doesn't want insurance?

 

[hotatlboi]

many many 22-30yo single people

i know, I was channeling the bill there lol. that was kind of the thinking behind it.

seriously though, I think this bill makes it easier for a lot of younger people though since you can stay on your parents policy until 26.

 

[hotatlboi]

There are probably many people like the Amish and Mennonites who want nothing to do with this, as well.

they always get exempt. they dont even have to pay taxes and no one else gets that.

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Notice

This thread was moved from Hot Topics to Current Events & Politics because the topic is more appropriate to this sub-forum.

CE&P has a few specific Guidelines intended to help the discussions remain courteous and free flowing.

• If you have not already done so, please take a moment to review the CE&P Posting Guidelines.

 

[Seasoned]

Yep. The bill is almost closer to fascism than socialism, if anything.

Our health care system as it was was an embarassment and cost too much. Both parties knew that. The Republicans could have worked on a plan, or come up with their own. They had 60 years. But they chose an obstructionist path.

You belong to the just say no party, including saying no to your equal rights.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

3. If you don't want insurance... wtf? who doesn't want insurance?

I don't want it and I won't buy it. I don't care what they do about it. It's the only way to protest.

 

[NickCole]

Our health care system as it was was an embarassment and cost too much. Both parties knew that. The Republicans could have worked on a plan, or come up with their own. They had 60 years. But they chose an obstructionist path.

You belong to the just say no party, including saying no to your equal rights.

In fact Republicans have come up with their own.

And the Senate bill that Obama just signed is a lot more like Republican plans developed under Nixon and in the early 90s and RomneyCare in Massachusetts than like what Democrats have been trying to pass for many years.

But your ObamaNation talking points seem to make some people feel darned good.

 

[NickCole]

Quoted for truth.

The individual mandate was once supported by John McCain too, but when Democrats supported it, all the sudden the idea turned toxic to Republicans.

It was also supported by Hillary. During the Primaries Obama opposed the individual mandate, pointedly, and said it would be a major difference between electing him or Hillary. Back then his supporters said mandating insurance was bad (Hillary and McCain are the same!!!), but of course now they defend it.

 

[NickCole]

they always get exempt. they dont even have to pay taxes and no one else gets that.

That's not true.

Amish have a principled objection to insurance so they don't have to pay "insurance" taxes, Social Security or Medicare, and they're exempt from the mandated purchase of insurance in Obama's health care bill. But they do pay other taxes.

 

[NickCole]

i got one of those mass email saying that the amish and christian scientist were exempt from the mandate

so this info has a better than 50% chance of being wrong. i have not taken the time to research it

The only religious group that for sure is exempt is Old Order Amish (Amish who live outside the community will not be exempt and some of the younger Amish may be denied exemption, that's still unclear), and probably Old Order Mennonite.

I've not seen any credible source assert that Christian Scientists will be exempt, and it's certainly not in the health care bill itself.

The exemption appears in both the Senate and House versions of the bill, it's a "religious conscience" exemption, which is linked to existing Social Security and Medicare law, and is about religious objection to insurance. So I don't see that Christian Scientists fall into that category.

 

[Ambrocious]

From what I have been hearing, this is nothing more than taxes and more taxes...not much if anything to do with free health care.

 

[grantt]

Thank you Nancy Pelosi? The dame has an approval rating of 11%. She warrants no kudos for leading her party against the american people. Could be why the nation disapproves of her so. Ya think?

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

*oink*

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

It was also supported by Hillary. During the Primaries Obama opposed the individual mandate, pointedly, and said it would be a major difference between electing him or Hillary. Back then his supporters said mandating insurance was bad (Hillary and McCain are the same!!!), but of course now they defend it.

It's amazing how you can never get them to respond to this because they know the majority voted for the man who promised no mandate. It's an unassailable point and they know it. I have not had a single sensible response to it anywhere I've posted it.

 

[NickCole]

Do us all a favor. Don't skew facts.

Grantt didn't skew facts at all. He said Pelosi has an 11% approval rating and the pie chart you posted says Pelosi has an 11% Favorable rating. Same thing. He got it exactly right.

Americans are dying from a lack of health care and this law brings help to millions. How dare you dare call that being against the American people?

You're the one skewing facts. In one sentence linking "Americans are dying from lack of health care" and "this law brings help to millions" makes it sound like this law is going to bring health care to millions, and that's skewing the facts. This law will bring insurance and premium payments (and for some, tax credits) to millions of Americans, but this bill is not necessarily bringing health care. That's a whole different plate of potatoes. In fact we have no idea what's going to happen to health care services, for all of us, when 30 million people are added to the insurance rolls. And actually your sentence implies it'll prevent millions from dying, and that's more than skewing facts, it's just totally made up.

 

[palemale]

No.

He skewed the facts.

It makes it appear that the question is asking people of their opinion, when in fact most people don't have one to begin with!

So as a percentage of people who have an opinion, it is in fact much greater than 11%. I might as well point and say, look, only 37% of people polled a negative opinion of Nancy Pelosi, gee whiz that's not that bad. That too would be skewing the facts.



Go back and read my post for Pete's sake. It did not. The sentence is two exclusive clauses.

Grantt was incorrect when he said the nation disapproves of Nancy Pelosi. In fact, 63% do not have an unfavorable opinion of Nancy Pelosi.

 

[NickCole]

No.

He skewed the facts.

It makes it appear that the question is asking people of their opinion, when in fact most people don't have one to begin with!

So as a percentage of people who have an opinion, it is in fact much greater than 11%. I might as well point and say, look, only 37% of people polled a negative opinion of Nancy Pelosi, gee whiz that's not that bad. That too would be skewing the facts.

No he didn't skew the facts. He told the fact exactly right.

That a lot of Americans can't be bothered to even know about our Speaker of the House is not relevant to the fact of her approval rating. The percentage of Americans who approve is the percentage who approve, period.

Go back and read my post for Pete's sake. It did not. The sentence is two exclusive clauses.

Not that I think you intended to mislead or that I didn't understand what you meant but the sentence, as you wrote it, connects the two clauses to create a simple sentence rather than a compound sentence. You might want to learn about a handy tool we call punctuation.

I pointed it out merely because grantt's sentence as written did not skew anything but your sentence as written, did.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

How about this? Nacy Pelosi is ugly as hell and I don't care how popular she is. She's gonna lose when people get a chance to kick her out on her wrinkly old ass.

 

[NickCole]

How about this? Nacy Pelosi is ugly as hell and I don't care how popular she is. She's gonna lose when people get a chance to kick her out on her wrinkly old ass.

Do you know her approval rating in her district? I don't, but that's obviously the only one that counts.

 

[grantt]

How about this? Nancy Pelosi is ugly as hell and I don't care how popular she is. She's gonna lose when people get a chance to kick her out on her wrinkly old ass.

Now let's not get personal, Edward. LOL

Thanks, NickCole for the backup. JockBoy, I know you like her and this bill, but you know very well that this particular bill was against the wishes of the American people. Far too many polls showed that.

Yet, they, led by Nancy, pushed through a bill that is not even what they wanted, but simply to pass something regardless of what it even says, nor how it was even going to be paid. Reform? Yes, but not this way. Not take this bill, and Americans be damned. In typical process of this administration, and this Congress, they do not even know all the details. They voted for something so complex and so important that the details did not matter to them.....perhaps partly because it will never affect them in Washington.

Vocabulary be damned, it is clear that Nancy Pelosi is not the darling of this nation she thinks she is, and at this rate, she never will be.