• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Town hall tension: Meeting turns ugly over health care

The "anger" is all phony, or perhaps these people are angry because the president is black.

Seriously? We were having a reasonably civil debate, lets not devolve into pathetic race baiting.
 
Seriously? We were having a reasonably civil debate, lets not devolve into pathetic race baiting.

The only thing "pathetic" is these furious, incensed people at town hall meetings who won't allow a democratic exchange of ideas to take place. Why? Because they are so angry about health care. Why are they angry? I have no idea. Nothing has been taken from them, nothing has been threatened, no matter what form of bill is passed they will not have to change their health care if they don't want to. So why are they angry? I suspect because Glenn Beck or some other brainless fringe pundit told them to be angry.
 
The only thing "pathetic" is these furious, incensed people at town hall meetings who won't allow a democratic exchange of ideas to take place. Why? Because they are so angry about health care. Why are they angry? I have no idea. Nothing has been taken from them, nothing has been threatened, no matter what form of bill is passed they will not have to change their health care if they don't want to. So why are they angry? I suspect because Glenn Beck or some other brainless fringe pundit told them to be angry.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia has an okay summary of the bill. Considering that it is quite likely to change significantly before it gets voted on, a constantly updated summary is the most practical way to keep abreast of the bills content.


Rathi provided a source of the bill information so that point isn't correct.

People have legitimate criticisms because there are many problems with our health care system that are not being addressed in any way.

There are also legitimate problems with any kind of government program mainly because the Feds can't afford it, it hasn't been shown to be more efficient and many other things.
 
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia has an okay summary of the bill. Considering that it is quite likely to change significantly before it gets voted on, a constantly updated summary is the most practical way to keep abreast of the bills content.

To amplify this a bit (because it's worth pointing out)--there are many sites that can facilitate tracking any bill as it wends its way through Congress.

GovTrack:
H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

OpenCongress:
H.R.3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

This in addition to the Library of Congress' own THOMAS service:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
 
There is no reason for anyone to be angry about healthcare reform because not only are there no details to get upset about, but it has been made clear that anyone who likes their healthcare coverage may keep it. The "anger" is all phony, or perhaps these people are angry because the president is black.

I guess on top of everything else, you're a race-baiter, too, eh?
 
Do you know every detail of all the legislation enacted by congress?

Why not? Arent you troubled?

I'd be troubled if NO ONE did, which is what Redress said.
 
Rathi provided a source of the bill information so that point isn't correct.

People have legitimate criticisms because there are many problems with our health care system that are not being addressed in any way.

There are also legitimate problems with any kind of government program mainly because the Feds can't afford it, it hasn't been shown to be more efficient and many other things.

Not to mention the inherent dishonesty in the sales pitch. The CBO contradicts pretty much all of the fiscal claims made for it.

Which, of course, makes any thinking person wonder about the honesty around the REST of it, including the part about "getting to keep your current insurance."
 
Not to mention the inherent dishonesty in the sales pitch. The CBO contradicts pretty much all of the fiscal claims made for it.

Which, of course, makes any thinking person wonder about the honesty around the REST of it, including the part about "getting to keep your current insurance."

The president has made multiple claims not supported by the bill present in congress as well.

Either he is lying or he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Going by that he is not a credible person to listen to.
 
Which, of course, makes any thinking person wonder about the honesty around the REST of it, including the part about "getting to keep your current insurance."
I am amazed no one has bothered to challenge the Anti-Republicans on this. If everyone is keeping their current insurance--what does this thousand pages of bill change?

If nothing's changing, how is this "reform"?
 
There is no reason for anyone to be angry about healthcare reform because not only are there no details to get upset about, but it has been made clear that anyone who likes their healthcare coverage may keep it. The "anger" is all phony, or perhaps these people are angry because the president is black.

Read page 16...
 
The summaries posted are short and worth reading. The bill starts by grandfathering in current healthcare plans. It then creates new regulations for health insurance providers such as no denying for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime maximums and minimum required covered treatments. Finally it creates systems that require healthcare for everyone.

Superficially Obama is correct that it won't change your current healthcare, as it is grandfathered in. However, if passed the plan would have a radical influence on the industry, such an upheaval would certainly effect individual coverage. I see it as a technically true statement, but its misleading if you look at the larger context.
 
There is no reason for anyone to be angry about healthcare reform because not only are there no details to get upset about, but it has been made clear that anyone who likes their healthcare coverage may keep it. The "anger" is all phony, or perhaps these people are angry because the president is black.

Your lies ring hollow as usual and your race baiting typical when when you have no intelligent knowledgeable response to make. Click on this link and listen to Obama in his own words. Then go read some of HR 3200 instead of mimicking the party taking points laid out for you by your Messiah in Chief Obama and Pelosi then join real Americans who oppose the National Socialist Movement bfore it's too late for you too.
obama says; I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately - Google Videos
 
The summaries posted are short and worth reading. The bill starts by grandfathering in current healthcare plans. It then creates new regulations for health insurance providers such as no denying for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime maximums and minimum required covered treatments. Finally it creates systems that require healthcare for everyone.

Superficially Obama is correct that it won't change your current healthcare, as it is grandfathered in. However, if passed the plan would have a radical influence on the industry, such an upheaval would certainly effect individual coverage. I see it as a technically true statement, but its misleading if you look at the larger context.

Your heath coverage is "Grandfathered" in.... Kinda.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

Read that carefully.. no insurance company can offer new policies after the first day this bill goes into effect,

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

Notice that if your insurer changes your coverage in any way, it is no longer "Grandfathered" in.

The upshot of this bill is that in a short time there won't be any private insurers... just Obamacare, and that is why the fringe(those who have read this POS) are pissed.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
 
Read that carefully.. no insurance company can offer new policies after the first day this bill goes into effect
Actually, it's much worse than that. No insurance company can adjust policies to reflect a dynamic healthcare marketplace and remain grandfathered.

This sort of grandfathering is almost farcical in its doublespeak. Business survives by being able to adapt to changing circumstance; HR3200 mandates that health insurance outside the as-yet non-existent "exchange" not adapt at all. The slightest change and the policy must be brought into conformance with the exchange.

Additionally, no patient can adjust their insurance coverage but by moving into the "exchange". The no change provision applies to individuals as well as businesses.

The nature of life is adapt or die. Congress, in its finite wisdom, has decided there shall be no adaptation of health insurance save what it has blessed--and thus Congress, in its infinite folly, has decided that health insurance should die.
 
It then creates new regulations for health insurance providers such as no denying for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime maximums and minimum required covered treatments.

Translation: They are going to put private health insurance out of business.
 
Actually, it's much worse than that. No insurance company can adjust policies to reflect a dynamic healthcare marketplace and remain grandfathered.

This sort of grandfathering is almost farcical in its doublespeak. Business survives by being able to adapt to changing circumstance; HR3200 mandates that health insurance outside the as-yet non-existent "exchange" not adapt at all. The slightest change and the policy must be brought into conformance with the exchange.

Additionally, no patient can adjust their insurance coverage but by moving into the "exchange". The no change provision applies to individuals as well as businesses.

The nature of life is adapt or die. Congress, in its finite wisdom, has decided there shall be no adaptation of health insurance save what it has blessed--and thus Congress, in its infinite folly, has decided that health insurance should die.

Absolutly true, which is why I added this:
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
 
The summaries posted are short and worth reading. The bill starts by grandfathering in current healthcare plans. It then creates new regulations for health insurance providers such as no denying for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime maximums and minimum required covered treatments. Finally it creates systems that require healthcare for everyone.

Superficially Obama is correct that it won't change your current healthcare, as it is grandfathered in. However, if passed the plan would have a radical influence on the industry, such an upheaval would certainly effect individual coverage. I see it as a technically true statement, but its misleading if you look at the larger context.

This is why I don't want to see this plan succeed. I keep hearing about how we still have the option of private health insurance, and anyone who voices opposition is made out to be some kind of hysterical fear-mongering fool. There's an old saying....if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. No thank you. Government can keep its nationalized plan and I'll keep my health care autonomy. :2wave:
 
Translation: They are going to put private health insurance out of business.

About 4 paragraphs in after the table of contents.... that is basically what this whole bill is about, that and Nationalizing another sector of our economy.

How's that change working out for you?
 
This is why I don't want to see this plan succeed. I keep hearing about how we still have the option of private health insurance, and anyone who voices opposition is made out to be some kind of hysterical fear-mongering fool. There's an old saying....if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. No thank you. Government can keep its nationalized plan and I'll keep my health care autonomy. :2wave:

Then you better start riding your Congress critters butt, unless we make it plain they won't be re-elected, they will pass this POS and you won't be able to keep your private health insurrance... it will cease to exist.
 
The bill is unlikely to be able to kill private healthcare. Many countries that have adopted government healthcare plans have maintained a private branch as well. Keep in mind that 45% of healthcare spending in this country is government expenditure already.

My current healthcare plan wouldn't even be effected by the new rules. All you can eat care with an annual deductible plans are fairly common, and wouldn't change under the new rules. The biggest problem I see would be the problems with being unable to deny anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions. Unless we adopt Dutch style risk equalization, some insurers could be hit hard if they get unlucky.

I found a wikipedia article that has a list of a bunch of healthcare system around the world and gives a brief summary of how they work and how much they cost. It is a helpful in getting an basis of comparison.

Health care system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
It looks like astroturfing town hall meetings is the new political tactic of choice. Given the organizational capabilities of modern technology, its amazing that it took this long for someone to catch on. The democrats seem to be a step behind, but I suspect they will be adopting the same maneuvers soon enough.

The only thing the Democrats are a step behind on is understanding that spontaneous distrust of socialism is a natural human emotion and that there's little "organized" effort behind granny being pissed at her Democrat congressthing for trying to ration her health care.

So the real story line is that enough individuals have finally gotten fed up with the Democrat's Messiah and realized that if they don't speak up the Messiah is going to steamroll them flat into a horrible and expensive nationalized medicine program that won't deliver the promised goods, only more jobs for government workers, and they started voicing their concerns loudly to their useless trash sucking congressmen who were trying to put yet another con over on them.

The Democrats first phony response was to promulgate the lie that these protesters were "organized", and immediately the Messiah of Inclusiveness and Openness and Attentiveness labeled all who opposed his glorious plan of national self-destruction as "angry mobs", and later "organized angry mobs".

Then they called out their goonions to start fights.


Oh, and what does the covering of your Rapist President's old pick'em up truck have to do with the legitimate concerns real Americans have that they're being railroaded? You think because that moron Pelosi can make a phony metaphor that doesn't fly you have to promote it as if it made any sense whatsoever?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom