All your bank accounts are belong to us!

[Sir_Brizz]

Hey Brizz, how about a little fact checking? You're like my mom who keeps forwarding the emails about how bill gates will pay her for every email sent and she's always surprised that snopes has debunked that already.

from the politifact link already posted on this thread:

I apologize that I don't sit around reading political fact checking sites all day long. They are clearly neutral and only deal with political facts, it's right in their name!

Besides, those responses don't really eliminate the explanations. If even half of that is true, it doesn't scare you at all? If not, I guess you're also riding in ACORN provided vans to town hall meetings to agitate peaceful protesters (that are not just people on the right, mind you)? Obama brigade UNITE!

 

[dragonfliet]

Wait, I'm confused. Your quote says exactly the same thing as Brizz's quote, but in more detail. Now who is correct?

Brizz's quote says that the government will gain access to YOUR PERSONAL banking account. What the bill actually says is there will be an electronic payment system and puts up standards for that payment system.

So one is outlining a simple payment system and one is a wholly inaccurate bugaboo that the government is going to be in your bank account, looking at what you're spending your money on.

@Brizz: If you're going to quote obviously skewed logic and someone presents to you the logical and clear explanations that refute the silliness you've posted, then yes, I expect you to read it. As a generally* rational person you should recognize obvious crackpot-ery and try to find a more logical conclusion instead of going onto further rants when someone points out you've dropped the ball.

Also, I'm curious if you've ever read anything about politifact being biased? Look around their site, check out the rumors on both sides of the fence you've heard and see what they report. It's not perfect, but it's a solid site. Perhaps check it out a little bit before your next rant?

~Jason


*generally refers to threads where lolitics aren't involved

 

[Sir_Brizz]

@Brizz: If you're going to quote obviously skewed logic and someone presents to you the logical and clear explanations that refute the silliness you've posted, then yes, I expect you to read it. As a generally* rational person you should recognize obvious crackpot-ery and try to find a more logical conclusion instead of going onto further rants when someone points out you've dropped the ball.

I'm not ranting... "To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave." I indicated I hadn't done any diligence on it in my first post.

The fact is, there are things to be concerned about. The people involved in passing this bill often don't know any more than I do about the bill, and I haven't even read it.

Also, I'm curious if you've ever read anything about politifact being biased? Look around their site, check out the rumors on both sides of the fence you've heard and see what they report. It's not perfect, but it's a solid site. Perhaps check it out a little bit before your next rant?

I've read things on there before.

There are a lot of people/sites who explain why PolitiFact is stupid. The main one is that they happily used biased sources as the resource for the information they provide in their articles. Here's one guy who writes blog entries all the time about how poor their articles are.

http://subloviate.blogspot.com/search/label/PolitiFact

That said, I don't think they are always wrong, or even try to make an estimate about how right they are. The point is, every news resource is going to be biased in some way or another. I posted this thread to encourage conversation about the topic, not engage in apologizing for the government about something that may or may not be accurate, half accurate or false.

To be honest, I was hoping someone would just paste parts of the bill itself for perusal and discussion. I can look on PolitiFact myself, if I care what they say.

 

[Crotale]

Honestly how is Obama's health care plan any different then government funded police and fire protection? The Government exists to server the people, but it can't do so for free.

The difference is that members of police and fire departments are public servants. Private doctors who treat patients covered under Government plans are not public servants.

The Right is going to fight any sort of push for a more progressive society.

The issue is with personal responsibility and separation of powers.

1. Personal responsibility: why is it MY responsibility to pay more taxes so that others may get free or low cost (to them) health coverage? I have no problem paying taxes that are necessary to keep the infrastructure in place and protect our citizens and interests. But since FDR's days in the WH, our country has provided more and more support to those who do not want to support themselves. I'm all for helping those who need temporary assistance, but we now have generations of families and entire neighborhoods that "make a living" off of that support.

2. Separation of powers: The 10th amendment states the limitation of the Federal Government and establishes the rights of the States. There is no provision for the Federal Government to provide any form of national health coverage, to include Medicare. This type of public support should be relegated to the States. And please do not try to use the VA or military as an argumentative point. These folks are and were public servants and deserve all the benefits promised to them when they entered into that service, just the same as police and firemen, not to mention all other Government employees.

I fail to see how putting more of your people in the hands of the Government is progressive.

 

[kiff]

so, what does this mean to you guys?

to me "A" says no more private coverage after the bill's effective date.
"B" says, to me, you can add other members of your family if you already have a policy.

16
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

The difference is that members of police and fire departments are public servants. Private doctors who treat patients covered under Government plans are not public servants.

The issue is with personal responsibility and separation of powers.

1. Personal responsibility: why is it MY responsibility to pay more taxes so that others may get free or low cost (to them) health coverage? I have no problem paying taxes that are necessary to keep the infrastructure in place and protect our citizens and interests. But since FDR's days in the WH, our country has provided more and more support to those who do not want to support themselves. I'm all for helping those who need temporary assistance, but we now have generations of families and entire neighborhoods that "make a living" off of that support.

2. Separation of powers: The 10th amendment states the limitation of the Federal Government and establishes the rights of the States. There is no provision for the Federal Government to provide any form of national health coverage, to include Medicare. This type of public support should be relegated to the States. And please do not try to use the VA or military as an argumentative point. These folks are and were public servants and deserve all the benefits promised to them when they entered into that service, just the same as police and firemen, not to mention all other Government employees.

I fail to see how putting more of your people in the hands of the Government is progressive.

So you're ok with people having to sell their houses to pay for life saving surgery? Millions of Americans are still without health insurance.

Yes, Welfare leeches are a spot on societies ass and nobody likes them, but if there is a system, there will be someone there to manipulate it too.

 

[dragonfliet]

The fact is, there are things to be concerned about. The people involved in passing this bill often don't know any more than I do about the bill, and I haven't even read it.

There are certainly things to be concerned about, but crazed extrapolations that bear little truth are not the vessel for conversation, they are mere fodder for extreme comments that come as close to the truth as Wilt Chamberlain did to monogamy.

There are a lot of people/sites who explain why PolitiFact is stupid. The main one is that they happily used biased sources as the resource for the information they provide in their articles. Here's one guy who writes blog entries all the time about how poor their articles are.

http://subloviate.blogspot.com/search/label/PolitiFact

That said, I don't think they are always wrong, or even try to make an estimate about how right they are. The point is, every news resource is going to be biased in some way or another.

Yeah, but the people that do are idiots themselves. Here is a hint, when every grade is an F, you don't even need to bother reading. I particularly enjoyed him ranting about how, sure, politifact was right, but he didn't think they were spending their time on a topic he approved on and so he graded them (wait for it) as an F.

I don't defer to it as the be-all, end-all of truth, but in discriminating truth from fiction, it's an extremely useful resource.

I posted this thread to encourage conversation about the topic, not engage in apologizing for the government about something that may or may not be accurate, half accurate or false.

To be honest, I was hoping someone would just paste parts of the bill itself for perusal and discussion. I can look on PolitiFact myself, if I care what they say.

If you want to look through the thousand page bill, please be our guest. I'm going to assume, however, that most sane people like me won't bother with anything larger than 100pages.

I'm not saying the points from the bill aren't worth discussing, but the points as they ACTUALLY OCCUR (yeah, I'm gonna refer to poltifact again here, but only because I'm too busy to look up any other articles atm) are what are worth discussing. Just because a nutcase has an opinion (ie: the points you had posted come from such a nutcase) doesn't mean it's worth giving weight too. Such things should be acknowledged as there and then ridiculed for being stupid. We shouldn't pretend that every argument is valid otherwise we'll be as ignorant as cable news and never get to the points at hand.

~Jason

edit:

so, what does this mean to you guys?

Ooo, how about

C. Taking sections out of context is confusing.


SO. Under the new bill, Individuals currently buying health insurance directly through insurers will get to keep their policies. This part is true.

HOWEVER, individuals that want new policies will purchase policies (still through private companies) via the Health Insurance Exchange. This isn't a middleman (ie: you're not paying out more fees), so much as a regulatory body, which metes out such standards as not denying insurance based on pre-existing conditions, insuring reasonable premiums, etc. (this can be found in The Kaiser Foundation's analysis of the various health reforms on the table. Page 6 is a good place to start).

Private insurance is still here to stay, the bill does NOT do away with it in any way shape or form, it simply tells insurance they can't force people to pay out the ass or deny them coverage. Yay for completely skewing the truth by taking a paragraph out of context. Thanks extreme republican editorials!

 

[Sir_Brizz]

There are certainly things to be concerned about, but crazed extrapolations that bear little truth are not the vessel for conversation, they are mere fodder for extreme comments that come as close to the truth as Wilt Chamberlain did to monogamy.

They are a good springboard for discussion, though. That's the only basis for them in this thread.

Yeah, but the people that do are idiots themselves. Here is a hint, when every grade is an F, you don't even need to bother reading. I particularly enjoyed him ranting about how, sure, politifact was right, but he didn't think they were spending their time on a topic he approved on and so he graded them (wait for it) as an F.

He only grades them to mock their use of the truth-o-meter.

I don't defer to it as the be-all, end-all of truth, but in discriminating truth from fiction, it's an extremely useful resource.

I'm hardly going to disagree. I was simply pointing out that expecting someone to regularly check up on issues they hear about or read about on a site that is often just as politically charged as where the original information came from is slightly ridiculous.

If you want to look through the thousand page bill, please be our guest. I'm going to assume, however, that most sane people like me won't bother with anything larger than 100pages.

I guess that should be the first indicator that the bill should be tossed out, then. IMO bills of this size should automatically hit the cutting board. Nobody is reading the whole bill, so how do we know something isn't being slipped in that is unrelated AND is a horrible burden?

I'm not saying the points from the bill aren't worth discussing, but the points as they ACTUALLY OCCUR (yeah, I'm gonna refer to poltifact again here, but only because I'm too busy to look up any other articles atm) are what are worth discussing. Just because a nutcase has an opinion (ie: the points you had posted come from such a nutcase) doesn't mean it's worth giving weight too. Such things should be acknowledged as there and then ridiculed for being stupid. We shouldn't pretend that every argument is valid otherwise we'll be as ignorant as cable news and never get to the points at hand.

I agree, and I made no such assumption. I intentionally pointed out in my posts that I didn't know if any of the points were accurate or not. Since I was trying to use them as a springboard for discussion, and not intentionally fear-mongering, I think it's reasonable for me to do so.

 

[Crotale]

So you're ok with people having to sell their houses to pay for life saving surgery?

How much is it worth to have someone save your life? No, I'm not okay with persons going into lifelong debt to pay for these measures, but sometimes it cannot be avoided.

Millions of Americans are still without health insurance.

Honestly, there are so many plans and programs available, there is literally no excuse for a person not to have some type or level of coverage. Heck, with a little homework, a person can have some semblance of coverage and a drug plan for next to nothing. I'm not saying it is great coverage but some is better than none. Also, many States have well-baby and well-child clinics/programs that are either very low-cost or even free for many families, regardless of ability or inability to pay.

Yes, Welfare leeches are a spot on societies ass and nobody likes them, but if there is a system, there will be someone there to manipulate it too.

Seems to be a lot leeches. 'Tis the reason we had the big welfare reform in 1996, which has done some good in many States that adopted some positive types of reform.

 

[Benfica]

I've seen on the news a guy complaining about the fact the state will subsidize wheel chairs!

 

[TWD]

Brizz's quote says that the government will gain access to YOUR PERSONAL banking account. What the bill actually says is there will be an electronic payment system and puts up standards for that payment system.

So one is outlining a simple payment system and one is a wholly inaccurate bugaboo that the government is going to be in your bank account, looking at what you're spending your money on.

Nope, still sounds like the same thing to me. It seems to me that either way the government has direct access to my bank account in some form or another. You can put up whatever standards and electronic system you want it's still access in my book. Not that I ever thought they were going to spy on my bank account or take money when I don't want them to. It's just I would rather the government get paid when I mail them a check and only when I mail them a check.

 

[Zxanphorian]

I have a question: In the current system, how much power do the private insurers have in researching your financial situation, including your bank account?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

None, because the money they receive is (typically) collected from your employer. I'm not sure how INDIVIDUAL private insurance works, but I'd imagine it's a "pay with your credit card, check, bank account, etc" thing like other services.

 

[kiff]

HOWEVER, individuals that want new policies will purchase policies (still through private companies) via the Health Insurance Exchange. This isn't a middleman (ie: you're not paying out more fees), so much as a regulatory body, which metes out such standards as not denying insurance based on pre-existing conditions, insuring reasonable premiums, etc. (this can be found in The Kaiser Foundation's analysis of the various health reforms on the table. Page 6 is a good place to start).

Private insurance is still here to stay, the bill does NOT do away with it in any way shape or form, it simply tells insurance they can't force people to pay out the ass or deny them coverage. Yay for completely skewing the truth by taking a paragraph out of context. Thanks extreme republican editorials!

first off, you don't have to be a smartass, I was actually reading the bill and not trying to take anything out of context.

So, is this HIE the "public option" ? If it is, then what I said was true, according to Kaiser

 

[Sir_Brizz]

HIE, supposedly, is competing with the public option. But they have to conform to the strict guidelines of the government plan anyway (capped premiums, no exclusions based on health or pre-existing conditions, etc) so it's not likely that all of the private carriers now would be able to survive in that system.

 

[TWD]

HIE, supposedly, is competing with the public option. But they have to conform to the strict guidelines of the government plan anyway (capped premiums, no exclusions based on health or pre-existing conditions, etc) so it's not likely that all of the private carriers now would be able to survive in that system.

I wouldn't just outright say that the private carriers wouldn't be able to survive in that system. Many experts disagree. However, I would still be skeptical as to if this really would open up the door for a single payer system.

I just don't think that we even have to go into these arguments to talk about how bad this bill is anyways. For instance, the rising cost of health care is the most serious issue we have. It doesn't matter what system we use, the current costs are simply unsustainable and will bankrupt us either way. Until someone comes up with a bill that reduces healthcare costs we're screwed.

Might I also open up another can of worms and mention this whole thing about having a national database for health care records. Something I just cannot support due to privacy concerns. I don't remember if this was in the stimulus bill or in this bill or what happened to it, but I am concerned about it.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I wouldn't just outright say that the private carriers wouldn't be able to survive in that system. Many experts disagree. However, I would still be skeptical as to if this really would open up the door for a single payer system.

How could they? They have to cap premiums, likely far below "profit" so either they let all of their staff go, or just shutdown (I assume most would rather choose the latter).

I just don't think that we even have to go into these arguments to talk about how bad this bill is anyways. For instance, the rising cost of health care is the most serious issue we have. It doesn't matter what system we use, the current costs are simply unsustainable and will bankrupt us either way. Until someone comes up with a bill that reduces healthcare costs we're screwed.

I really don't think many people on either side of the issue think that the current system is maintainable. We need healthcare reform, we don't need healthcare re-envisioned. Never mind the fact that the federal government isn't supposed to do anything more than it needs to, the states should be in control of most of this stuff.

 

[Neddaf]

Eminently useful comment. You people had no problem with the douchebags being disrespectful and downright retarded towards the conservatives in power whenever you thought they did something wrong. This stuff is positively mild by comparison.

Uhm, except the conservatives WERE wrong. Debating about if this is wrong or not, is laughable, because it isn't wrong.

Let's see which is milder.

A false war found on false pretense on lies based by men with hands dirty with oil who are religious wing nuts comparing their war to a "crusade" OR providing health care to an entire country.

Mild? Really? You are ill informed and far more deluded than any Limbaugh or Beck. You should be ashamed of yourself, and you should tuck your dick between your legs and hold on to your guns, cause you know Obama is comin' for them without his birth certificate.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Yes, the other side is always wrong, and your side is the only one who has the right to complain!

 

[Larkin]

Private insurance is still here to stay, the bill does NOT do away with it in any way shape or form, it simply tells insurance they can't force people to pay out the ass or deny them coverage. Yay for completely skewing the truth by taking a paragraph out of context. Thanks extreme republican editorials!

Can you explain to me how they will survive?

If you force them to cover everyone they will be forced to raise their prices, but if you also block that ability you are giving them no choice but to close their doors. Sorry, but that is the reality.

Now I know you going to say the bill will cut costs, but please feel free to explain to me how that is possible. From what I see it doesn't even touch half the problems and it ignores simple realities on most of the other half. Its a economics and healthcare understanding nightmare.