EPT
On August 16 2009 00:20 Aegraen wrote:
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:
Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 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.
shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a DEPENDANT of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
Let's think here shall we. So, once this bill takes effect you are grandfathered into your current insurance. This is private. Cool, awesome, right? Well, once the bill takes effect no one (Unless you're a dependant (Child/Spouse)) can opt in to a private insurance plan as evidenced by the huge bolded part above. So, once you lose your private insurance plan, either by being fired, or losing your job (Most Americans get their coverage from their employer), you HAVE to take the Public option, you cannot pick a private option. I'm not sure you even tried to critically read what was in front of you. I think you merely tried to see if what was in the bullet point was the exact wording in the bill. Critical thinking and reading comprehension where is it?
![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vje217qvrkiyszedtvznhg.gif)
![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ecgidtozp0guwujm07hxmq.gif)
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:
Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 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.
shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a DEPENDANT of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
Let's think here shall we. So, once this bill takes effect you are grandfathered into your current insurance. This is private. Cool, awesome, right? Well, once the bill takes effect no one (Unless you're a dependant (Child/Spouse)) can opt in to a private insurance plan as evidenced by the huge bolded part above. So, once you lose your private insurance plan, either by being fired, or losing your job (Most Americans get their coverage from their employer), you HAVE to take the Public option, you cannot pick a private option. I'm not sure you even tried to critically read what was in front of you. I think you merely tried to see if what was in the bullet point was the exact wording in the bill. Critical thinking and reading comprehension where is it?
That's not what it says at all. I'm curious how much time you've actually spent reading bills on your own, because you're way off on this interpretation and I suspect the bloggers at FreeRepublic suffer from this same problem as well. None of you know what you're doing, but you pretend to know what you're doing.
For the most part you've remained fairly reasonable in this thread so far (besides the laughable attempt to attribute people's opinions on health care based on awful Gallup services and how they label themselves (those pictures mean basically nothing.))
There's many aspects to national health insurance that aren't be covered adequately because people just lump the whole thing together, which gets you nowhere. Politically, it's a mess. The proposal isn't very good (just like how Democrats destroyed the energy bill) and I think propaganda is at an all time high in this country. The Dingell town meetings happened pretty close to here, and it's difficult to believe the disruptors were anything but paid lackeys from some group. The meeting served as a perfect example of why it's in such bad political shape. There was no dialogue, explanation or back and forth there. There were rude people wasting everyone else's time because they've got a fucked up end justifies the means complex when it comes to discussion. They'd rather make things stall by disrupting conversation than actually talk about it, and possibly convince people through dialogue. It's no different than any other fear mongering like the "death czar" (that part of the bill was included by a Southern Republican, and the idea was supported by Palin & co. before the PR people got a handle on it.) The state of political discourse in America is abysmal. Aegrean, you should be able to agree on that. It's a shame McCain has been invisible since his defeat.
Ethically, I think there's a place for universal health care. Even in conservative ideology, the government's role is to provide a ground level of fairness. Health care gets spun as a positive liberty, but it's really a negative liberty as well, just as other baseline services like roads, immunizations, opportunity for schools, etc. As much as people deserve education, regardless of income, they also deserve medical attention. You can walk into an ER and get treated, but ER service is primarily for stabilization and once that's over you're released (and you still have to pay for it.) ER service is also relatively poor compared to real doctors appointments, and I don't think you can say it meets the baseline level of health care in the 21st century. So there is an ethical imperative to provide some level of health care for everyone (and there are huge positive externalities to be gained from it, just as there are from education/immunization.)
The fear of government wastefulness is fair, but I think the ethical considerations outweigh it, and to some extent the practical ones as well. Part of the problem is that this is only being framed in the realm of health insurance, when there's a lot more things that go into creating a healthy, productive nation than insurance. Normally, it's a good way to hedge your bets but it can also be disastrous if people continue having health problems. It's far too simplistic to say Americans are unhealthy/obese/etc. because they don't get to the doctor enough. Doctors make recommendations, but it's not as if there's any reliable medical recourse to prevent obese children from turning into obese adults with strained hearts and arteries that are close to collapsing. It's missing the fundamental issue of why Americans have unhealthy behavior. If you looked at just people who have insurance, the numbers would be even worse for things like heart disease/diabetes/etc.
If that bill gets passed, there's little doubt in my mind that the first iteration of it will suck. It'll be adjusted over time to something more appropriate, but all of it is missing the point. The government has an obligation to provide a certain low level of medical support to EVERYONE, and part of that can be paid for by some type of insurance (btw, the reason they want to force young/healthy people in is lessen the overall risk, which makes sense but is unfair to the healthy people) and I don't think anyone doubts that our entire health system (from the time you're born to the time you die) needs to be improved but this isn't a great attempt to do so.
).
) So it's not something I've ever needed to think about.
