Poll: This is the actual healthcare bill. Would you vote for or against it?

[kavika411]

I know there have been numerous healthcare threads of late. However, we can now actually view the proposed bill. The purpose of this thread is to ask simply, were you in the House or the Senate, would you vote for or against this bill?

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Edit: Thank you to the moderator who fixed the poll.

[djellison]

For or Against

And the options are
Yes or No


:rolleyes:

[Badandy]

For or Against

And the options are
Yes or No


:rolleyes:

Hahahahaha, that is classic.

[Unspoken Demise]

Yes. I vote for or against it.

[leekohler]

Could someone paraphrase? I'm at work and don't have time to read it.

[Unspoken Demise]

Could someone paraphrase? I'm at work and don't have time to read it.

Its 1,018 pages long. No one has time to read it.
So just say yes.

[kavika411]

Edit: No longer relevant now that the poll has been corrected. Thanks to the moderator who fixed it.

[danpass]

I don't even have to read it.

I voted NO




tort reform to modify the impact of malpractice suits (and the subsequent high cost of malpractice insurance) will lower costs.




yeah, yeah I know its all about .gov control ... whatever.


.

[spaceboots06]

ayo aint da real 1 liek 3000 pagesz?

[leekohler]

Lee, to answer your question, the link is to the actual healthcare bill that will be going to vote soon, and the poll is asking whether you would vote for it or against it were you in the House or Senate.

I can't really say. I don't have time to read it right now.

I
tort reform to modify the impact of malpractice suits (and the subsequent high cost of malpractice insurance) will lower costs.


Tort reform has already been shown to have little or no effect on health care costs.

[danpass]

I can't really say. I don't have time to read it right now.



Tort reform has already been shown to have little or no effect on health care costs.

well the no-limit-suits have certainly had an effect ;)

[beatzfreak]

if I were a member of the House or Senate, I wouldn't need to read it. I would just check my bank account and see which lobbyists gave me the most money and vote accordingly.

[leekohler]

well the no-limit-suits have certainly had an effect ;)

No- they haven't:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/jlanders/stories/DN-Landers_21bus.State.Edition1.9be351.html

[Peace]

I voted NO I wouldn't vote for or against it.

Now had there been an actual real poll I might consider it. I've been in PRSI long enough to know everyone has an agenda.
Since the agenda here is confusing I'm guessing......

well...you get the rest..

[kavika411]

I voted NO I wouldn't vote for or against it.

Now had there been an actual real poll I might consider it. I've been in PRSI long enough to know everyone has an agenda.
Since the agenda here is confusing I'm guessing......

well...you get the rest..

Try reading the edit to the original post and/or post #7.

[danpass]

No- they haven't:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/jlanders/stories/DN-Landers_21bus.State.Edition1.9be351.html

well defensive medicine is the culprit, a method to defend against malpractice though it seems to continue despite the tort reform.

overall I stand corrected.


the comments at the bottom of the article are interesting

[rdowns]

Pole FAIL! :D


http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/epic-failure-pole-dancer1.jpg

[kavika411]

Pole FAIL! :D


http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/epic-failure-pole-dancer1.jpg

Deserved. ;)

[solvs]

Having read detailed synopsis (sorry, best I could do), I'd say NO... because it doesn't go far enough. Something more comprehensive could actually save us money overall. This is a stop gap with lots of little caveats thrown in for those who won't vote on it anyway. So they can say it's failed before it's even started, just as they already are about the slow to start stimulus that hasn't even really started, that actual experts say also isn't enough.

Or we could recognize that the system is broken (I defy anyone to actually be able to say that it isn't), that 80% of the population wants major reforms (even Republicans), and actually model it after a mixed system (complete with oversight) that actually works (similar to Germany, but not quite), while actually promoting it to the public, instead of letting the talking heads who are wrong about everything all the time steer the argument, while the not so liberal media repeats it ad naseum in the interest of being "fair" (facts be damned).

[Zombie Acorn]

Seeing as its 1018 pages I vote against it.

[Eraserhead]

Having read detailed synopsis

Link?

Seeing as its 1018 pages I vote against it.

Seeing as the font is absolutely huge, it isn't as long as you think. You could probably fit it on 100 pages of normally sized font - maybe less.

[it5five]

Seeing as the font is absolutely huge, it isn't as long as you think. You could probably fit it on 100 pages of normally sized font - maybe less.

That and the margins seem to be very large. There are maybe 4-5 words on each line.

[Rodimus Prime]

I voted no and will not support a bill like that until it has 2 things are answered my satisfaction

1. How are we going to pay for it? Health care is not free and with out acquitted and acceptable funding it is nothing but a feel good.

2. How are run away rising health care cost are going to be brought under control. With out bring runaway rising cost under control answering 1 is impossible.


Those are 2 key facts everyone seems to be completely passing over. Right now the "universal health care" idea for the US is nothing more than a "feel good action"

[iGary]

Pole FAIL! :D


http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/epic-failure-pole-dancer1.jpg

I ROFL'd :D

[Zombie Acorn]

Link?



Seeing as the font is absolutely huge, it isn't as long as you think. You could probably fit it on 100 pages of normally sized font - maybe less.

Nearly as many words as the new testament according to word count. Just saying, its pretty damn lengthy no matter how many pages are in it.

[spaceboots06]

Seeing as its 1018 pages I vote against it.

I agree. I think a lot of it is confusing garble which is almost hard to understand.

[Badandy]

Yeah, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was too long. Must be rubbish.

[Zombie Acorn]

Yeah, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was too long. Must be rubbish.

Took a decade to publish completely from the looks of it. We throw 1000 page bills around every other month.

[Eraserhead]

Nearly as many words as the new testament according to word count. Just saying, its pretty damn lengthy no matter how many pages are in it.

If you just copied it into a text editor, that word count includes the footer on every page, and the numbered lines, neither of which are actually words in the bill. It also includes all the words split over two lines, and there are a fair number of them.

[solvs]

Link?

Paper. No link, sorry. Feel free to take what I say as conjecture and opinion, because I'm not reading that again. Highlighted some of the big stuff. Some glossing over the details and lawyer speak. Unless more is hidden in there that contradicts the big points though, color me unimpressed.

Rough draft - higher taxes on the higher earners, but only a few hundred a year projected, maybe a few thousand on the very high end. Barely felt by the lower-middle class, especially if their costs are lowered in kind. There's a scale, but it's an estimate, could change (and lots of caveats, like the tax code, and worse if your income changes). A total of a little less than $2 trillion over 10 years, as you've heard, estimated at somewhere between $1.7 and $1.8 or so trillion. Some cost savings added in already, but missing others that could come down as well. No guarantee though, so not factored in. Could actually be higher if employers simply try to drop employee benefits, which they're not supposed to be able to do, and there are opt-in programs to make it easier for them to sign employees up, but there are loopholes and exclusions that from my impression could make things worse. Lots to help small businesses though, in theory (couldn't be worse than now, I'd hope). Could be a flood to the system, though not to the point the right seems to think it will (seem to be pretty prepared for all but about 99%+ signups). Though not covering everyone as the left hopes, as there are still a few percent who could easily fall through the cracks. I'm sure I missed some of the finer points.


Edit: Trying again to read the rest of the bill, but if the highlights were boring, imagine how the actual whole thing feels, even to a policy wonk:

Based on 90 days of enrollment, 90 days of payments, projected minimums, projected possible maximums, not to exceed $2 trillion at a time (funding run by the Treasury Sec apparently), notes about limits (though the part I read wasn't clear, it was just referring to itself without defining itself), some ironic stuff about a web page that makes everything clear (after about a hundred pages of index, where it constantly simply refers to itself), payments and prescriptions similar to Medicare (though again, not defined where I read, seems to reference a sliding scale I couldn't find), more fuzzy rules on networks and limitations, modern equipment (both for billers and doctors), exclusions of providers (but I can't tell if it's an opt out up to the Dr. like Medicare and 'caid, or up to the gov - though lots of info on those, that pretty much says nothing about whether it will be addendum, or supplanted), some stuff about how it could overlap with Medicaid, NO payments for illegals, satisfaction guaranteed (not really, but part of it does make it seem that way), oversight, penalties, another whole section on tax stuff I don't completely understand and won't bother trying to, nothing on gays that I could find, lots on families, provisions at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, market comparisons, home health care details, future cost/benfit analysis, allowances for future population increases, future expansion if successful, little pieces on prevention, some on reform elsewhere in the medical industry (but surprisingly not that specific despite it's continued wordiness, except with Medicare), more administrative and legal mumbo jumbo, more comparative analysis, more on eligibility, more on reports (that part gets specific, every year to Congress, with small updates here and there, full evaluation in 3 years time), nursing homes (standard fare, complete with more codes and self referencing), mental health is covered (kinda), lots of Medicaid reform too (not quite sure what, or if this is just going over updates of existing programs), more exclusions, but also info on outlying areas (slow but steady increases to Puerto Rico and other territories), corrections to the bill (seriously, added later rather than simply altered), some more going over revenue and funding, a pretty comprehensive what to do if you're already insured (good news for us too, if anything our costs should go down, possibly even also complimented with tax credits), a section on fees with self insured plans (but those aren't what you might think they are apparently - health savings plans maybe?), a line about adding care for Native American Indians if they're below a certain calculation of the poverty line, same with territories, another report in 5 years, and states reports, and more yearly reports (lots of reports), another section about dual eligibility (like this and Medicare, or another plan and Medicare supplemental), more talk about prevention (but still not much with the specifics other than that it will aid in it - edit: much later added more details, still not convinced, seems more about what you can't do than what you can), projected numbers (big #'s) for the next 10 years or so via the Public Health Investment Fund (from shared Treasury Revenue, not adjusted for projected cost savings), a provision for additions to Community and Public Health centers (also big #'s, but part of included costs), as well as new school based care, added cost analysis of workforce, basic dentistry, help with loan repayments for medical staff, more talk of training (special accreditation to be added as well), some updates to the current inter-agency health systems, and a whole bunch more of that self referencing gobbledygook...

Couldn't make it all the way through (pardon the cutoff earlier, didn't copy and paste all the way) but I finally got most of the gist from the actual, overly complicated though surprisingly missing a lot of details .pdf, and I stand by my statements from the earlier analysis. Looks like a watered down first draft. Better than nothing, but less than we need, while the right and Blue Dogs will call it too much. And like the stimulus, could very well have a VERY rocky beginning, making some think it's already failed before it's even really started. Not bad really, a (slow) start I guess, but disappointing if this is basically what they're going with (or worse). I'm not reading any more, for realz this time, and seriously, is anybody even reading this?


Quickie: This may be somewhat of a shallow analysis, but it almost looks like they're basically just tacking this slapped together ramble no one will read on to Medicare.

[hulugu]

Yeah, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was too long. Must be rubbish.

LOL.

I remember a student grousing about Gibbon's magnus opus:

"Sir, the Decline and Fall? Can't we read just the Decline and consider it over?"

Paper. No link, sorry. Feel free to take what I say as conjecture and opinion, because I'm not reading that again. Highlighted some of the big stuff. Some glossing over the details and lawyer speak. Unless more is hidden in there that contradicts the big points though, color me unimpressed. ....
but disappointing if this is basically what they're going with (or worse). I'm not reading any more, for realz this time, and seriously, is anybody even reading this?...

*snort*

Huh? What? Oh yes, raptly.

[KingYaba]

Forced coverage under penalty of a tax increase (2.5%). I voted no.

[Shivetya]

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/07/more-information-on-government.html


While I normally love to disagree with this guy, this collection of articles is pretty informative. Warning, if you read them all it really is a wall of text that will take quite a bit of time to digest.

Like anything else on the web, I like to read both sides but honestly this whole thing stinks. It is being rammed down our throats just like the Stimulus bill because they // Washington // know that if we had time to think about it, let alone know what it is in it, the majority would be up in arms.

Public opinion polls have moved greatly towards disfavor and that is why you see PrezBO on his three week campaign for it. He is desperate to get it passed and is willing to run over people in his own party who don't toe the line to include threats of withholding stimulus money from states with "errant" Congressmen.

I cannot wait for his four years to be over.

[munkees]

I do not mind a better health care system, but I believe this should be done by the states not the feds. The feds can not make it effective enough and would be way to costly. How ever the states can make a big difference. In Washington state there is push for universal health care, it does not need a tax increase on the people to pay for it either, they already have the funds assigned, the difference is they will limit the administration overheads of medical facilities etc to 11% of the fee charge, by doing this there is more than enough in the states funs to support such a bill.

I fear the federal health care bill they are pushing will not address the real reason why health care is so expensive, and non functional. I see it as a bad band aid patch that will fail, and grow into a bigger more expensive mess.

[munkees]

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/07/more-information-on-government.html


While I normally love to disagree with this guy, this collection of articles is pretty informative. Warning, if you read them all it really is a wall of text that will take quite a bit of time to digest.

Like anything else on the web, I like to read both sides but honestly this whole thing stinks. It is being rammed down our throats just like the Stimulus bill because they // Washington // know that if we had time to think about it, let alone know what it is in it, the majority would be up in arms.

Public opinion polls have moved greatly towards disfavor and that is why you see PrezBO on his three week campaign for it. He is desperate to get it passed and is willing to run over people in his own party who don't toe the line to include threats of withholding stimulus money from states with "errant" Congressmen.

I cannot wait for his four years to be over.


the corruption of Washington, always trying to buy the vote.

[Unspoken Demise]

I cannot wait for his four years to be over.

So another 4 years can begin. :)

[Ugg]

Like anything else on the web, I like to read both sides but honestly this whole thing stinks. It is being rammed down our throats just like the Stimulus bill because they // Washington // know that if we had time to think about it, let alone know what it is in it, the majority would be up in arms.

Hmmm, something that's been in the works for 17 years is being "rammed down our throats"? We've had plenty of time to think about it and mull over what we want. Unfortunately, the only opposition voices being heard are from the wingnuts who as usual, are claiming that the Free Market will solve everything. Anyone who can't see the irony in that must be delusional.

I do not mind a better health care system, but I believe this should be done by the states not the feds.

Great! Then WA, OR, CA and New England and perhaps MN and a few other left leaning states will have excellent health care systems. The South will turn grow poorer and those in ill health will be left to die in the streets.

The last thing this country needs is more polarization. I'd rather see a regional approach. The South has serious health issues that are mostly a result of poverty. The west coast's issues are mostly of affluence.

[Rodimus Prime]

Hmmm, something that's been in the works for 17 years is being "rammed down our throats"? We've had plenty of time to think about it and mull over what we want. Unfortunately, the only opposition voices being heard are from the wingnuts who as usual, are claiming that the Free Market will solve everything. Anyone who can't see the irony in that must be delusional.

.

It may of "been in the works" for 17 years but they are going to try ramming it down out throats right now because they think they can get away with it. Why else would they wait so long to try to pass it.

1.) My problem with the bill is how are they going to fund it. It sure as hell is not free.

2.) How are they going to control future cost increase?

3.) More importantly how are they going to control the run away rising health care cost?

They can not answer question 1 because it requires question 2 to be answered which in turn requires question 3 to be answered.

They need to answer all 3 of those critical question before they pass it. Right now they are trying to shove it on the tax payers under what I call "feel good."

Normal Solv and I are on different sides but even he is against it and by the sounds of it the same reasons I am against it. Right now the bill is nothing more than expanding on medicare which is already hardly working so you can not expand a broken system.

[kavika411]

[T]he only opposition voices being heard are from the wingnuts who as usual, are claiming that the Free Market will solve everything.

So, when the current bill passes in neither the House nor the Senate, it will be because of Free Market wingnuts? I din't realize Free Market wingnuts had a majority in both the House and the Senate.

[ucfgrad93]

I would vote against it.

[Jeffrosproto]

As someone who knows several people in Canada who hate the nationalized healthcare, I honestly would have to pick no. Even though they could be vastly improved, medicare and medicaid should suffice for the time being.

[Ugg]

As someone who knows several people in Canada who hate the nationalized healthcare, I honestly would have to pick no. Even though they could be vastly improved, medicare and medicaid should suffice for the time being.

For whom should medicare and medicaid suffice?

It looks as though you want to continue with the current dysfunctional, profit at all costs system. What's the point? It's not working.

[solvs]

Forced coverage under penalty of a tax increase (2.5%). I voted no.
You don't have health insurance? If you do, don't worry about it. Even with this watered down bill, your costs may actually go down, not to mention possible tax cuts in the future if this even works a little after they see what's missing and seek to fix it. If you don't, someone needs to pay for those ER's you'll most assuredly be using sometime.

For the record, Obama is against mandates, and it may come out of the final bill.

Normal Solv and I are on different sides
I wouldn't say that. Maybe for different reasons, but we've agreed on quite a few things. It's not that I'm against it, it's just that it's completely watered down to appeal to a bunch of people who won't support it anyway. What we need are major changes, some in gov, some in the business world that still treats this as for profit as if they're dealing in stocks not people. This is not that. It's an ineffective stop gap that if it doesn't work, could actually set back healthcare reform. Which we need. Desperately. Anyone who says we don't is completely and totally wrong, and ignoring the needs of a majority of us, even with insurance.

It should pay for itself if done right, I don't think this will.

So, when the current bill passes in neither the House nor the Senate, it will be because of Free Market wingnuts? I din't realize Free Market wingnuts had a majority in both the House and the Senate.
Because they're still trying to win those people over, just like they did with the stimulus. I don't know why either, they'll never get those to support them anyway, but they keep trying. They also need support of moderates, who have their own races to think about in '10 and '12. Not that any of them have plans of their own, the costs savings ideas they've come up (the few things actually done about this by the opposition other than try to slow things down and lie about it to the media, and focus on the money even though a lot of them helped to raise our deficit in the first place) don't have save much in costs, if any.

I'm not happy about costs either, but we're already paying more money for our healthcare than others, while getting less for it, and compared to the 6-7 trillion added by Bush, ~$1 trillion over 10 years that could wind up SAVING money in the long run is a pill I can force myself to swallow if the cure isn't worse than the disease.

As someone who knows several people in Canada who hate the nationalized healthcare, I honestly would have to pick no. Even though they could be vastly improved, medicare and medicaid should suffice for the time being.
Well if you know someone who knows several people. :rolleyes: Look, Canada's system isn't perfect. Neither is Britain's, or other fully socialized programs. But for one, they will overwhelming choose their own programs over ours any day. Ask someone here, we have several members here who live in those countries. For another thing, this bill isn't that. Nor do any of us want it to be. I personally don't think such things would work for us. A mixed system similar to Germany, maybe Belgium (I think it was Belgium) look better, at least on paper. Who knows, Americans could overwhelmingly jump on to this system, glaring flaws and all, compared to their own flawed systems. With a few modifications though, those other companies could adjust their systems to be better so that wouldn't happen.

I don't plan on moving to this unless I have to. I have Cobra left for over a year, and am fairly happy with my company (for once). Had it been my previous company, I wouldn't be. Despite that plan being cheaper, it was terrible. I would have jumped on this plan, even with the problems mentioned, in a heartbeat. With the cuts in price received thanks to the stimulus, my current healthcare is affordable, and covers most of what I need with limited extra costs. Because of my lack of revenue at this point, thus plan could be cheaper, but I still have reservations, especially if my revenue does increase the way I expect it to be. I could actually wind up with less for more money. I guess we'll see as it's rolled out. That would be when, not if, because we are getting some kind of plan. We can't afford not to have one.

If this is the best we're getting for now though, I'll still be somewhat disappointed, though not for the reasons most of you have reservations over apparently (except the money spent).


As side effect though, either way, could be an improvement to Medicare and 'caid back to where it was before Bush "fixed" it, which is desperately needed, especially for those who have or are going to soon retire, and those with no money who've been hit with states Medicaid cuts backs when it is now needed more than ever.

[Zombie Acorn]

Hmmm, something that's been in the works for 17 years is being "rammed down our throats"? We've had plenty of time to think about it and mull over what we want. Unfortunately, the only opposition voices being heard are from the wingnuts who as usual, are claiming that the Free Market will solve everything. Anyone who can't see the irony in that must be delusional.



Great! Then WA, OR, CA and New England and perhaps MN and a few other left leaning states will have excellent health care systems. The South will turn grow poorer and those in ill health will be left to die in the streets.

The last thing this country needs is more polarization. I'd rather see a regional approach. The South has serious health issues that are mostly a result of poverty. The west coast's issues are mostly of affluence.

Mostly of affluence? Give me a break.

[solvs]

Anybody else read this long, boring, exercise in kerfuflery?

[KingYaba]

As side effect though, either way, could be an improvement to Medicare and 'caid back to where it was before Bush "fixed" it, which is desperately needed, especially for those who have or are going to soon retire, and those with no money who've been hit with states Medicaid cuts backs when it is now needed more than ever.

If President Obama wants to win votes for the healthcare bill, he should have started with Medicare and Medicaid. Prove to the American people that the government is capable of lowering costs and making these two programs successful. That way if it works, he may have a few more votes for further healthcare reform. Yes?

You don't have health insurance? If you do, don't worry about it.
Or maybe I'm capable of paying cash? Did you think of that one? :o That's besides the point. This is so absurd I'm surprised I'm the only one irritated about it.

[opinioncircle]

Forced coverage under penalty of a tax increase (2.5%). I voted no.

I think this is an actual good thing. It'll force people to care about their health rather than have a flat screen tv or some 24" rims...

[Badandy]

I think this is an actual good thing. It'll force people to care about their health rather than have a flat screen tv or some 24" rims...

I hope the government takes away all my money so I can really know what's important!

[opinioncircle]

I hope the government takes away all my money so I can really know what's important!

Well if you're not able to make sure you actually buy stuffs that matters like healthcare, then yeah the government should actually take more money away from you so you don't come complain and whine if you get hurt...

[kavika411]

Here is the most current actual bill in case you want to read it/have access to it. It is 1,502 pages.

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf

[Sky Blue]

this bill is going to be combined with other bills before it is voted on.

[SactoGuy18]

Based on what I've read of that 1,018 page monstrosity, NO!! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_doubledown.gif

I'd rather have the following done:

1) Allow health insurers to sell their plans on the interstate level--this provides more competition across state lines, which in turn cuts the cost of the insurance itself.

2) Allow Americans--regardless of income--to set up health savings accounts to pay for insurance.

3) Institute tort reform to provide more immediate financial relief of medical malpractice cases, and the plantiff must better demonstrate a clear case of malpractice (this keeps out the frivilous lawsuits that clog up the legal system over legitimate cases).