Is obamacare really bad for doctors?

[ClemsonFirst]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Not innocuous at all. It's doublespeak in that it makes the negative appear positive, limits, conceals, and prevents thought, and made the inevitably unpleasant burden of costs and regulations to follow appear attractive or tolerable without getting down to the details.

It's tantamount to "There, there. Sign the paper and don't worry your pretty little head over it. Now get back in bed and assume the position."

Really. It's insulting, and it was tactically elusive.

Are you condemning the use of soundbite quotations?

 

[cheesier]

Meh... I tend to think there are people out there looking for soundbites regardless, and will present them in the most negative light possible. Personally I find it inept and irresponsible to suggest that we just pass it and see what happens. The quote alone is enough to make me think poorly of it. But most people won't look up the source anyways so why not make it sting a little bit more?

She's saying that after passing it all the fervor will die down and it will be easier to objectively look at what the bill contains. That seems pretty accurate.

 

[SpecterGT260]

She's saying that after passing it all the fervor will die down and it will be easier to objectively look at what the bill contains. That seems pretty accurate.

I'm not sure how what I said failed to convey that I already get this 😕

That is still a terrible idea. Would you sign a contract without understanding the fine print, thinking "oh once I sign it the pressure will be off and then I can really look this thing over"?

No... It is a ridiculous idea to pass a bill, locking us into something, so that we can see what the bill contains after people stop talking about it.

 

[Gut Shot]

Meh... I tend to think there are people out there looking for soundbites regardless, and will present them in the most negative light possible. Personally I find it inept and irresponsible to suggest that we just pass it and see what happens.

Fail.

Her redacted quote was packaged in a narrative that the contents of the PPACA were kept secret from the public because they were so unpalatable. Never mind that the entire thing was publicly available for download on the Senate Democrats' website during this period.

Let's contextualize it a bit more, shall we?

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention - it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy."

I find the message to be pretty clear and, again, innocuous. Making legislative sausage was unpleasant to watch, but the PPACA contains many elements the public will find agreeable once it can experience them in sober tranquility.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Fail.

Her redacted quote was packaged in a narrative that the contents of the PPACA were kept secret from the public because they were so unpalatable. Never mind that the entire thing was publicly available for download on the Senate Democrats' website during this period.

Let's contextualize it a bit more, shall we?

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention - it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy."

I find the message to be pretty clear and, again, innocuous. Making legislative sausage was unpleasant to watch, but the PPACA contains many elements the public will find agreeable once it can experience them in sober tranquility.

My fail? 🙄

If you took a moment to read rather than think I was trying to combat you (then... this post.. yes, much more direct😉) I was not claiming to be aware all of the context. YOU said *ahem* "here is the full quote" as if it made things better. I was saying, no... that "full quote" does not make the statement better. It is important to understand what point is being made, because you just made a fine counter argument.... to something that wasn't said 👍

 

[cheesier]

I'm not sure how what I said failed to convey that I already get this 😕

That is still a terrible idea. Would you sign a contract without understanding the fine print, thinking "oh once I sign it the pressure will be off and then I can really look this thing over"?

No... It is a ridiculous idea to pass a bill, locking us into something, so that we can see what the bill contains after people stop talking about it.

You still sound like you don't understand what she said. It's not that nobody understood what was in the bill, it was that there was a huge amount of spin from people who were trying to block it aimed towards the public and that after passing it the public would have a less distorted view of it. She was in no way saying that she was passing a bill that Congress didn't know the contents of or had not looked over adequately.

You were just as free to read the bill in its entirety before it passed as you are today.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You still sound like you don't understand what she said. It's not that nobody understood what was in the bill, it was that there was a huge amount of spin from people who were trying to block it aimed towards the public and that after passing it the public would have a less distorted view of it. She was in no way saying that she was passing a bill that Congress didn't know the contents of or had not looked over adequately.

You were just as free to read the bill in its entirety before it passed as you are today.

Then I am not expressing what I mean correctly. In this I agree with ji. "Just trust me, it'll be fine" is insulting and a poor way to communicate with your voter base. Fervor in no way impacts the content of the bill so she is at best implying that any and all counterarguments are invalid and not worth considering anyways.

 

[Gut Shot]

My fail? 🙄

If you took a moment to read rather than think I was trying to combat you (then... this post.. yes, much more direct😉) I was not claiming to be aware all of the context. YOU said *ahem* "here is the full quote" as if it made things better. I was saying, no... that "full quote" does not make the statement better.

I got that, but looking at the full sentence does indeed change its meaning significantly. Again, there is a reason why those last seven words got cut.

It is important to understand what point is being made, because you just made a fine counter argument.... to something that wasn't said 👍

I was responding to this:

Personally I find it inept and irresponsible to suggest that we just pass it and see what happens.

If you read the entire, expanded quote you will hopefully understand that Pelosi's suggestion was not that we should "pass it and see what happens." Perhaps you should take your own advice about understanding the point being made.

 

[Gut Shot]

"Just trust me, it'll be fine" is insulting and a poor way to communicate with your voter base.

I find making a blanket condemnation based on a sentence fragment to be insulting and poor use of one's intellect, but perhaps that's just me.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I got that, but looking at the full sentence does indeed change its meaning significantly. Again, there is a reason why those last seven words got cut.



I was responding to this:



If you read the entire, expanded quote you will hopefully understand that Pelosi's suggestion was not that we should "pass it and see what happens." Perhaps you should take your own advice about understanding the point being made.

I do hope you're kidding
You said "Soundbite bad! full quote good! Here full good quote! "____"
I said "No kind sir, that full quote does not make things better and I fine it less than innocuous for these reasons...."

I did not argue that the ending did not change the meaning of the original soundbite. In fact, I specifically said that yes the meaning does indeed change for the worse with their omission. However, I said I do not personally find the rest of what she said, in any context, to be benign. And I said that while that soundbite is worse than the full quote, or even the partial that you gave, that I think the fact that a part was omitted does not necessarily mean (as you implied in the post you labeled as "fail") that the addition of the omitted means it was a non-negative comment in the first place. It is perfectly possible to take a piss poor comment and lope off part of it to yield a sh** poor comment. That is all I was getting at with that post. There was no need to do background homework on the subject in any case. My point was "that thing you said doesn't support your position", and you seem to want me to have said "That thing you didn't say would have supported your position". Yeah... that's better 🙄

 

[syoung]

That's the problem with fee for service, man. When docs face reimbursement cuts they generally respond by increasing volume and/or finding new ways to milk revenue. Both lead to greater overall spending on healthcare, which in turn increases pressure to cut reimbursement.

Like it or not, the financial impact of each physician on health spending goes far beyond his or her own income.

Still as the 6-8% cost of health care (physician salaries, fee for service), if we reduce that, there's still 92-94% of spending that isn't getting reduced? namely high drug prices, high administrative salaries, ER spending (due to people uninsured or underinsured, ignoring the actual uses of real emergncies), high insurance deductibles or premiums both which reduce access to healthcare.

Docs can't increase volume significantly if they are private practice though right? Groups/hospitals might be able to, but even then, people have to be willing/able to come/afford it, no?

Is it possible to break down the healthcare spending a bit more than just salaries, tests, procedures, drugs, insurance? Do we know the breakdowns?

 

[SpecterGT260]

I find making a blanket condemnation based on a sentence fragment to be insulting and poor use of one's intellect, but perhaps that's just me.

Why don't you remind me... what exactly was it that I condemned? 🙄 I think you are reading into my statements things that are not really there.

The post you are getting your panties all bunched up over was only saying that I think political journalists will spin negative soundbites out of anything, good, bad neutral. There isnt some rule that says that only positive statements can be spun negatively and that all minor negative comments must be presented as fairly and objectively as possible. That was my point. Your additional context does not change my opinion that telling the people to just go with it is in bad form.

 

[Gut Shot]

Why don't you remind me... what exactly was it that I condemned? 🙄

In the context of this discussion I can only assume you were condemning Nancy Pelosi:

"Just trust me, it'll be fine" is insulting and a poor way to communicate with your voter base.

 

[UCSFx2017]

I think salary disparity between specialist and GP along with the large gap between the number of GPs and specialists will likely decrease slightly. They're trying to make GP more attractive.

 

[SpecterGT260]

In the context of this discussion I can only assume you were condemning Nancy Pelosi:

I am arguing that the statement was not innocuous. I am not saying that Pelosi is a radial bitch that is going to undermine the nation and oh yeah, she probably kicks puppies for fun. No. Just that while yes, ji's excerpt WAS in fact made to look worse than it really is, this truth does not make the original full context statement neutral. That is all

 

[Gut Shot]

I do hope you're kidding
You said "Soundbite bad! full quote good! Here full good quote! "____"

Not quite. More like "you're a sucker if you realize that soundbites are almost invariably a tool for deliberate deception, so repeating them just makes you look like someone who is fine with being lied to."

I said "No kind sir, that full quote does not make things better and I fine it less than innocuous for these reasons...."

At which point you created an interpretation of the larger quote which I still find perplexing.

My point was "that thing you said doesn't support your position", and you seem to want me to have said "That thing you didn't say would have supported your position". Yeah... that's better 🙄

Your point seems to change on a post-by-post basis. Perhaps it will stabilize tomorrow which I can read it away from the fog of controversy.

 

[Gut Shot]

I am arguing that the statement was not innocuous. I am not saying that Pelosi is a radial bitch that is going to undermine the nation

No, just that her communication with her voter base is insulting and poor. Gotcha.

No. Just that while yes, ji's excerpt WAS in fact made to look worse than it really is, this truth does not make the original full context statement neutral. That is all

So what part of the larger quote was so alarming? The part where she talked about expanding preventative services?

 

[SpecterGT260]

That is why I clarified it. If you were interpreting the point as static (as it was) there wouldn't be any need to reiterate it 😉

That is kinda how these things work. 👍 But we are now far enough down the rabbit hole that I honestly don't give a damn anymore.

 

[SpecterGT260]

No, just that her communication with her voter base is insulting and poor. Gotcha.



So what part of the larger quote was so alarming? The part where she talked about expanding preventative services?

Yes. Absolutely. Preventative services are the worst man. They like... kill you and such 🙄

Does "not neutral" mean alarming now?

Seriously... do you just have a raging boner for pelosi or something? This is approaching what feels like an overreaction. The only point I made, reiterated, and fleshed out within confusion, was that I think telling people that we should just pass it and trust we will be happy with the outcome is not a good thing. Is it on par with writing an editiorial piece in Sandusky's defense? No. I am just not a fan of politicians saying at any level that something is just above our heads and we should just go along with the plan. I don't think that is so unreasonable, and find it somewhat curious that you do. Rather than say "we should go through with it and I'm sure you will be happy once the dust settles" I'd prefer someone who convinces me ahead of time that I will be happy with the outcome. And again, this is within the broader context of you correcting a soundbite as if it was something truly innocuous like Obama's "you didn't build that" quote. I find the statement to be slightly off-putting. Deal with it 😎

 

[Gut Shot]

Still as the 6-8% cost of health care (physician salaries, fee for service), if we reduce that, there's still 92-94% of spending that isn't getting reduced? namely high drug prices, high administrative salaries, ER spending (due to people uninsured or underinsured, ignoring the actual uses of real emergncies), high insurance deductibles or premiums both which reduce access to healthcare.

Our payment model does not allow physician salaries to be easily disentangled from the rest of health care spending. Those of us who are not salaried live on a percentage of what we bill. How much we bill depends on what we do, and what we do impacts overall health expenditure.

Docs can't increase volume significantly if they are private practice though right? Groups/hospitals might be able to, but even then, people have to be willing/able to come/afford it, no?

Almost all specialties can adjust their volume, either directly or indirectly. Why do you think an average PCP visit is 10-15 minutes? It's to get enough paying customers through the clinic in a day so the lights stay on.

Is it possible to break down the healthcare spending a bit more than just salaries, tests, procedures, drugs, insurance? Do we know the breakdowns?

I'm sure somebody deep in the bowels of a DC think tank knows.

 

[Gut Shot]

Does "not neutral" mean alarming now?

When one is being slightly sarcastic, yes.

Seriously... do you just have a raging boner for pelosi or something?

No, but criticism should be fair.

I think telling people that we should just pass it and trust we will be happy with the outcome is not a good thing. Is it on par with writing an editiorial piece in Sandusky's defense? No. I am just not a fan of politicians saying at any level that something is just above our heads and we should just go along with the plan.

Where does she imply that the legislation is "above our heads?"

 

[jl lin]

No, just that her communication with her voter base is insulting and poor. Gotcha.

So what part of the larger quote was so alarming? The part where she talked about expanding preventative services?

I don't think Specter was talking down on Pelosi. Regardless of the phrasing at the end, what she stated was illogical in the greater context of things.

I am talking down on her politic game-speak. Think what you want.

Nothing changes the fact that people needed to understand the whole bill prior to voting on it. For God's sakes. It was all over TV how Congressman were struggling with what was in there and what it meant. Are saying that what was put down in 2009 was the same as in 2010? It's an idiotic position that is the way of many of her ilk--ramrodding. This has been in the works for a long time, and it was so ramrodded, it isn't funny.

Anyway:


[House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi came to the Chronicle for an editorial board meeting Wednesday. I used the opportunity to ask Pelosi about her most famous and quoted statement from 2010. On March 9, 2010, Pelosi said of the Affordable Care Act, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
What did you mean by that? I asked.

Pelosi said that the quote “was taken out of context” and it is most often quoted “by the far right.”

The health insurance industry, she said, spent “$200 million while we were debating the bill to lie about it. … I hate to use the word lie. I hate to use the word hate. I hate to tell you, they’re lying about it.”

“We’re in the trenches fighting this out,” she said. And: “We don’t even have a bill written yet. The Senate has not acted. And that really, the president really thought he was going to get a Republican vote in the Senate… You can’t say it’s in the bill, read it, ’cause there is no bill.”

Also, Pelosi said “we read the bill.”

Politifact wrote on Pelosi’s statement, and interpretations of it, here. Problem is, while Pelosi told the Chronicle that there was no bill yet on March 9, 2010, that’s not quite accurate. Congress had not enacted a final measure, although later that month it would do so and Obama would sign the bill. But the House and Senate passed versions of Obamacare in 2009. This is a great example of Pelosi’s insider-speak and her insistence of arguing a dubious technicality — yes, there was no final bill – making her both unintelligible and open to parody....Pelosi may hate to use the word lie, but whether she knows it or not, she also seems to hate relating accurate versions of events.] Debra Saunders


Of course, this is all just another "token Conservative" speaking 🙄

 

[SpecterGT260]

When one is being slightly sarcastic, yes.

As someone well versed and practiced in being sarcastic, I can tell you with assurance that this is wrong. This is where I would spin the quote around to my own doings except you beat me to that punch a few posts back. shucks 👎

No, but criticism should be fair.

I think it was fair

Where does she imply that the legislation is "above our heads?"

I'm not sure how else to interpret the statement. "We just need to pass it and wait for the dust to settle, and then you will see it was really what you wanted all along".

Anything promoting passing a bill before everyone is on board on the basis that we will be happy once we see it in action implies that it was just above our heads to begin with. Unless you have another interpretation.

Remember, I find it only slightly off-putting. You seem to be responding to my posts as if I am saying I am outraged by the statement. The issue probably being that to put it into succinct words makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is. That is what happens when trying to clarify a misunderstanding gets interpreted as obstinate defense of a position. 👍

 

[jl lin]

Are you condemning the use of soundbite quotations?

The only think I am condemning is the essence of the intent--which perfectly paralleled the behavior. I addressed this above.

 

[Gut Shot]

As someone well versed and practiced in being sarcastic,

You sound like a rapper rapping about how awesome his raps are. Forgive me if I am unconvinced.

I think it was fair

A sentence fragment is never fair.

I'm not sure how else to interpret the statement. "We just need to pass it and wait for the dust to settle, and then you will see it was really what you wanted all along".

You interpret it differently by not equating "find out" with the discovery of some heretofore hidden knowledge. I interpret it like this:

"We need to pass the bill so you can experience what's in it away from the fog of controversy."

How you can find that sentiment even slightly odious eludes me.

Anything promoting passing a bill before everyone is on board on the basis that we will be happy once we see it in action implies that it was just above our heads to begin with.

Everybody? Would you prefer a national referendum that requires 100% voting in favor? That sounds practical. We elect representatives for a reason, and the ones we elected passed the bill in the House, passed it in the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority, and signed it into law.

 

[SpecterGT260]

you're getting very nitpicky. Sorry you are so bored.

But I refer you to a part of my earlier post:

"Deal with it 😎"

 

[Gut Shot]

you're getting very nitpicky. Sorry you are so bored.

But I refer you to a part of my earlier post:

"Deal with it 😎"

Deal with what?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Deal with what?

*ahem* "it"
👍

 

[Gut Shot]

*ahem* "it"
👍

Your acne?

 

[KnuxNole]

I need to buy a dictionary to follow the last few pages 😳

 

[SpecterGT260]

 

[jl lin]

A sentence fragment is never fair.



Everybody? Would you prefer a national referendum that requires 100% voting in favor? That sounds practical. We elect representatives for a reason, and the ones we elected passed the bill in the House, passed it in the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority, and signed it into law.

The statement is not, by definition, a sentence fragment. The portion mostly reported, the one of essential content, was a complete thought by definition.
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,

away from the fog of controversy.”

"away from the fog of controversy" may modify it somewhat, but the essence of what she said, in terms of what is a complete thought, remains.

Now, you can say it was taken somewhat out of context, but it seems like you are dancing a bit around the truth of the matter. The complete thought stands alone. I guess we all need to be careful with out independent clauses. In the end, it doesn't matter that she tagged on that prepositional phrase. The core of what she said stands, and it should.

Why? Well why was there even a fog of controversy, and there certain was and still is????

It was because the bill was not clear to all that voted, and it was so massive and comprehensive, but not necessarily in a good or effective way, and not necessarily in a way that doesn't step on others. It was just all about politics as usual. Heck it's still not clear in terms of full and thorough application.

Anything as far-reaching and invasive as a bill like that should have been allowed to be pulled apart, piece by piece, inspected and questioned up one end and down the other--and vetted thoroughly. You seem satisfied that it was.
I am not, and many folks feel the same way.
This wasn't a free represented republic at work. This was, once more, politics by ramrod.

Relax. Sadly, I fear it will stand and the damage will be done. Much if any of it will be irreversible. Folks like Ms Pelosi and others that approach governing by ramrod methodology knew it would go down this way. It's domination politics, and that is precisely how big government rolls. It always has.

 

[jl lin]

OK, now that's really cute. My dogs nod up and down, but they only tilt their heads to one side when they don't get something. 🙂

 

[PikminOC]

OK, now that's really cute. My dogs nod up and down, but they only tilt their heads to one side when they don't get something. 🙂

I think that's the point.

 

[jl lin]

I think that's the point.

😉


Yea, but also that dog's head is moving like a pendulum. 😀

 

[SpecterGT260]

They also photoshopped the photo around the dogs head to stay still leaving a weird line where the moving gif and the still image meet. You can't always get the perfect image response when you want it

 

[jl lin]

They also photoshopped the photo around the dogs head to stay still leaving a weird line where the moving gif and the still image meet. You can't always get the perfect image response when you want it

Seriously, call me sick, but I would love it if one of my dogs did that--especially to music.

 

[Gut Shot]

The statement is not, by definition, a sentence fragment. The portion mostly reported, the one of essential content, was a complete thought by definition.
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,

away from the fog of controversy.”

"away from the fog of controversy" may modify it somewhat, but the essence of what she said, in terms of what is a complete thought, remains.

Now, you can say it was taken somewhat out of context, but it seems like you are dancing a bit around the truth of the matter. The complete thought stands alone. I guess we all need to be careful with out independent clauses. In the end, it doesn't matter that she tagged on that prepositional phrase. The core of what she said stands, and it should.

Why? Well why was there even a fog of controversy, and there certain was and still is????

It was because the bill was not clear to all that voted, and it was so massive and comprehensive, but not necessarily in a good or effective way, and not necessarily in a way that doesn't step on others. It was just all about politics as usual. Heck it's still not clear in terms of full and thorough application.

Anything as far-reaching and invasive as a bill like that should have been allowed to be pulled apart, piece by piece, inspected and questioned up one end and down the other--and vetted thoroughly. You seem satisfied that it was.
I am not, and many folks feel the same way.
This wasn't a free represented republic at work. This was, once more, politics by ramrod.

Relax. Sadly, I fear it will stand and the damage will be done. Much if any of it will be irreversible. Folks like Ms Pelosi and others that approach governing by ramrod methodology knew it would go down this way. It's domination politics, and that is precisely how big government rolls. It always has.

Well guess what, guys? Back in June, Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post asker her about it, and apparently we are all wrong.

You may find this timeline of events useful in piecing it together.

 

[Gut Shot]

Anything as far-reaching and invasive as a bill like that should have been allowed to be pulled apart, piece by piece, inspected and questioned up one end and down the other--and vetted thoroughly. You seem satisfied that it was.
I am not, and many folks feel the same way.
This wasn't a free represented republic at work. This was, once more, politics by ramrod

You're just sore at the process because you don't like the outcome. As you may recall, Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. The Senate started holding hearings on health reform in May of that year. All summer long we had a rancorous debate on health reform, both in Congress, the media, and in public (remember all the Town Halls with people screaming "death panels" and "get government out of Medicare"?). I have actually never seen a legislative effort receive that much generalized discussion in my lifetime. So in November (six months after the first formal hearings) the House passes its bill, and the next month the Senate passes its bill. We never got to see the great merger because of Scott Brown's election, but the passage of the Senate version by the House and subsequent reconciliation all passed according the rule of law. The Republic worked.

You say I seem satisfied that the legislation was "vetted thoroughly", but I am really just satisfied that the process worked as it always does: citizens yelled, politicians postured, and in the basement a bunch of nameless wonks actually wrote the language. You want something "pulled apart, piece by piece, inspected and questioned up one end and down the other"? Great, that would only require a totally new standard for writing laws and a complete reworking of how the legislative branch functions.

By the way, the House bill and Senate bill were available for download in November and December of 2009, respectively. Did you read them?

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

You're just sore at the process because you don't like the outcome. As you may recall, Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. The Senate started holding hearings on health reform in May of that year. All summer long we had a rancorous debate on health reform, both in Congress, the media, and in public (remember all the Town Halls with people screaming "death panels" and "get government out of Medicare"?). I have actually never seen a legislative effort receive that much generalized discussion in my lifetime. So in November (six months after the first formal hearings) the House passes its bill, and the next month the Senate passes its bill. We never got to see the great merger because of Scott Brown's election, but the passage of the Senate version by the House and subsequent reconciliation all passed according the rule of law. The Republic worked.

You say I seem satisfied that the legislation was "vetted thoroughly", but I am really just satisfied that the process worked as it always does: citizens yelled, politicians postured, and in the basement a bunch of nameless wonks actually wrote the language. You want something "pulled apart, piece by piece, inspected and questioned up one end and down the other"? Great, that would only require a totally new standard for writing laws and a complete reworking of how the legislative branch functions.

By the way, the House bill and Senate bill were available for download in November and December of 2009, respectively. Did you read them?

Somehow I doubt it considering she doesnt seem to be able to respond to more than a couple sentences at a time. At least thats what it seems like based on the responses so far.

 

[circulus vitios]

 

[jpark1800]

You're just sore at the process because you don't like the outcome. As you may recall, Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. The Senate started holding hearings on health reform in May of that year. All summer long we had a rancorous debate on health reform, both in Congress, the media, and in public (remember all the Town Halls with people screaming "death panels" and "get government out of Medicare"?). I have actually never seen a legislative effort receive that much generalized discussion in my lifetime. So in November (six months after the first formal hearings) the House passes its bill, and the next month the Senate passes its bill. We never got to see the great merger because of Scott Brown's election, but the passage of the Senate version by the House and subsequent reconciliation all passed according the rule of law. The Republic worked.

You say I seem satisfied that the legislation was "vetted thoroughly", but I am really just satisfied that the process worked as it always does: citizens yelled, politicians postured, and in the basement a bunch of nameless wonks actually wrote the language. You want something "pulled apart, piece by piece, inspected and questioned up one end and down the other"? Great, that would only require a totally new standard for writing laws and a complete reworking of how the legislative branch functions.

By the way, the House bill and Senate bill were available for download in November and December of 2009, respectively. Did you read them?

oh god. not you again. 😴

 

[jl lin]

You're just sore at the process because you don't like the outcome. As you may recall, Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. The Senate started holding hearings on health reform in May of that year. All summer long we had a rancorous debate on health reform, both in Congress, the media, and in public (remember all the Town Halls with people screaming "death panels" and "get government out of Medicare"?). I have actually never seen a legislative effort receive that much generalized discussion in my lifetime. So in November (six months after the first formal hearings) the House passes its bill, and the next month the Senate passes its bill. We never got to see the great merger because of Scott Brown's election, but the passage of the Senate version by the House and subsequent reconciliation all passed according the rule of law. The Republic worked.

You say I seem satisfied that the legislation was "vetted thoroughly", but I am really just satisfied that the process worked as it always does: citizens yelled, politicians postured, and in the basement a bunch of nameless wonks actually wrote the language. You want something "pulled apart, piece by piece, inspected and questioned up one end and down the other"? Great, that would only require a totally new standard for writing laws and a complete reworking of how the legislative branch functions.

By the way, the House bill and Senate bill were available for download in November and December of 2009, respectively. Did you read them?

I feel that you are missing sooo much. I can give you plans and tables, but it does not by, any means, show that all the points are clear and that all reasonable questions were/are addressed and answered.

Please people do NOT know how this nightmare will function exactly, but it's a monster. It will involve radical regulations that will be burdensome to all. It is not anything affordable, but merely a drain on the nation and taxpayers. It will require higher taxes for everyone from mid-class on up, without any reasonable sense of true self-determination for care. Physicians will be more limited ithan ever in terms of how they approach medicine and their relationships with their patients--thanks Big Government for stepping in the middle of that. And you can bet you last dollar that regardless of what you want to call them--appointed "overseers" or panels--they will be limiting of the cost of care, and that will invariably involve rationing or limiting treatment. The elderly stand to get screwed big time. It's the next step in the progression anyway. Unborn, elderly, handicapped people. . . This is a sickness with those of you that swear that having big government in control is the answer to all things.

I can only pray things will get exposed for what they truly are soon enough and that more people open their eyes.

But the government tentacles now run so deep and are so far-reaching, it's difficult to see how America will get out of this mess and survive.

You are seeing what you want to see. People still don't know the gory details about what is in the bill and how it will go down. If you keep asserting that they do, it speaks of stubbornness or naivety IMHO. I am NOT at all trying to offend you sir or maam; but honestly I cannot believe people aren't seeing this as what it truly is--ramrod politics that kills freedom and stands to, in all actuality, hurt a number of Americans.

Think what you will of me. We have not seen even the beginning of sorrows yet with ACA. As a physician or at least a person becoming one, one thing that is often done in practice from what I have worked with is that it's better to go slow and carefully, b/c if you overshoot, many times it is harder to take that back or the deleterious affects of overshooting. I do not for one second believe that sound care was taken in the development and movement of this bill, and I don't believe sound care will be taken in terms of it's delivery.

But since it's here now, guess what? Once more as Grover stated, "We'll see."

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

yada yada yada

Swing and a miss.

So no, apparently jl lin does not have any familiarity with the bill at all considering she doesn't even cite one specific provision she disagrees with. Overarching warnings about how big government is out to screw us all as usual.

 

[jl lin]

Had to correct many errors in the last post. I apologize.

calvin dude, I can't see your response.

 

[Gut Shot]

Swing and a miss.

So no, apparently jl lin does not have any familiarity with the bill at all considering she doesn't even cite one specific provision she disagrees with. Overarching warnings about how big government is out to screw us all as usual.

Ever since they phased out real tin foil in favor of aluminum the world just hasn't been the same.

 

[Gut Shot]

oh god. not you again. 😴

Perhaps you will find this more enjoyable:

 

[Dires]

Perhaps you will find this more enjoyable:

Do you watch any sports?

 

[jpark1800]

Perhaps you will find this more enjoyable:

naw that was boring.

 

[Fivo]