now that its passed
- Thread starter jeff f
- Start date
dukeofbaja
New Member
Is that really how you think? Or do I fail to detect some sarcasm?
SCARHOLE
Well-Known Member
They have your medical records already an dont need to ask to look at em, isnt it great we all can eaqualy worthless healthcare, i buy insurance cause i didnt want to have to go to the free health clinic, But now every hospital an dr office will be just like them.......... Good thing obama is "redefining fair in america"
SouthernGanja
Active Member
Let us know what was reformed. Seriously... 'Cause I don't plan on reading thousands of pages written in secret attorney language.
health care reform passed.
a great day in american history......
If you can't tell me then it's a great day for political agendas...nothing more.
upnorth2505
New Member
If you already have health insurance I am pretty sure that this is not going to happen. From what I have read from the bill synopsis (yes, I have actually read about the bill unlike some conservatives), folks who have health insurance will see little change.
The bigger changes will come in 2014 when most will be required to have insurance. This I think is a good thing: it spreads out costs and risks. It also helps to get rid of health care "moochers"
For those who can't qualify for "regular" insurance, you can apply for pooled insurance. This will still be insurance through private insurers.
I personally feel that there should have been a public option. It would have helped to force insurance companies to trim fat, find efficencies, and trim stratospheric executive compensation.
I also was hoping to see tort reform. This is also needed to trim premium costs.
Anyway, as the dust settles, I think most folks will find that health care reform is NOT the hideous evil that has been portrayed by conservatives and republicans.
SouthernGanja
Active Member
Don't hold your breath. Congress is almost all attorneys.
"...For instance, as soon as the measure passes, parents will be able to carry their children up to the age of 26 on their insurance plans. Children with pre-existing conditions will no longer be denied care and putting a limit on lifetime benefits will be banned. And seniors who face unexpected drug price hikes because of a glitch in the Part D program will receive subsidies to help cover those costs..."
Next Front: Selling what Congress did - Jeanne Cummings, writer for POLITICO
that becomes effective immediately.
the rest, well, do your own damn research. expecting people to spoon-feed you information is lazy and immature.
Next Front: Selling what Congress did - Jeanne Cummings, writer for POLITICO
that becomes effective immediately.
the rest, well, do your own damn research. expecting people to spoon-feed you information is lazy and immature.
ViRedd
New Member
How times have changed. We now consider people of 26 years of age to be "children." What a pant-load. When I was twenty six, I had two kids, a great job, a new house, a new car ... and my wife stayed home with the kids. WTF has happened to America? Are we a country filled with pussies?
Yep.........
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
They had cars then?
medicineman
New Member
What happened, you are now a confirmed bachelor? Did you turn gay?? BTW, calling people that need healthcare pussies is pretty lame, but it figures.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
children is a term used frequently in many different contexts merely describing 'offspring', more readily understood though by idiots!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I do not intend to participate, guess I'm a criminal for having the audacity to believe I should make choices that affect my body and my wallet. Nobody owns me. There will be entire states that will reject this and they will have a good argument constitutionally. The other shoe hasn't dropped yet, this could get interesting.
There's nothing wrong with helping people, there is EVERYTHING wrong with forcing people to purchase something they may not want or need. If I want insurance I'll buy it, if I can't afford it I'll go without.
I won't be filling any questionaires out either...but my bird cage could use a new paper liner, since the census form is getting a little shitty.....and my dog bites bureaucrats.
There's nothing wrong with helping people, there is EVERYTHING wrong with forcing people to purchase something they may not want or need. If I want insurance I'll buy it, if I can't afford it I'll go without.
I won't be filling any questionaires out either...but my bird cage could use a new paper liner, since the census form is getting a little shitty.....and my dog bites bureaucrats.
txhomegrown
Well-Known Member
DITTO!!!I do not intend to participate, guess I'm a criminal for having the audacity to believe I should make choices that affect my body and my wallet. Nobody owns me. There will be entire states that will reject this and they will have a good argument constitutionally. The other shoe hasn't dropped yet, this could get interesting.
There's nothing wrong with helping people, there is EVERYTHING wrong with forcing people to purchase something they may not want or need. If I want insurance I'll buy it, if I can't afford it I'll go without.
I won't be filling any questionaires out either...but my bird cage could use a new paper liner, since the census form is getting a little shitty.....and my dog bites bureaucrats.
Except, I filled out my census form. They now believe that I am a multi-race family of 18. Oh, by the way, my name is now Jesus Martinez.
meowmix
Active Member
Someone is in your corner.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution:
At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service, Cuccinellis statement explained.
We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce, the attorney general added.
If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.
Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution:
At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service, Cuccinellis statement explained.
We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce, the attorney general added.
If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.
Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli
I do not intend to participate, guess I'm a criminal for having the audacity to believe I should make choices that affect my body and my wallet. Nobody owns me. There will be entire states that will reject this and they will have a good argument constitutionally. The other shoe hasn't dropped yet, this could get interesting.
There's nothing wrong with helping people, there is EVERYTHING wrong with forcing people to purchase something they may not want or need. If I want insurance I'll buy it, if I can't afford it I'll go without.
I won't be filling any questionaires out either...but my bird cage could use a new paper liner, since the census form is getting a little shitty.....and my dog bites bureaucrats.
why not ask your kids.
2
24/7/420
Guest
Well we are being led by eunuchs...