kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-05-10 09:05 AM
Original message |
If it had been a "government run" healthcare program...? |
|
...it would have been easier to understand.
As it is, nobody understands any part of it. It is too complicated. No one can explain it. Does it cover "pre-existing conditions"? Is there a penalty with threat of jail time if you do not pay for the "mandate"?
Lawrence O'Donnell read a paragraph from page 331 of the bill on the Morning Joe show this morning. It plainly states that there is no penalty if someone refuses to pay for the mandate? Which is true? Is it required or isn't it?
In hindsight, since the "reform" is being labeled as a "government-run" program by its opponents, perhaps it would have been better to actually have a "government-run" program? It would have been much less complicated and a much better piece of legislation than what we now have. The President does not have the time to spend the rest of his term trying to explain what is in this bill.
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-05-10 10:14 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I saw that segment and I agree. It looks like so much folderol and nonsense |
|
over what could/should be a given. It's ridiculous. To say there is a fine and then say we won't enforce it is just bizarre.
Sigh, it could all have been so much simpler and less ridiculous. It makes this country look really stupid...which, when it comes to health care, we ARE!!!
|
kenny blankenship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-05-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. All that yes-but-no stuff is in there so people can lie about it |
|
That's what politicians do. It's in there, but for while, if they feel they need to, they can say "but it isn't really there!" They will say "the fine is only $95!" but knowing the fine will ramp up to 8 times that soon enough. They will say but it's not enforced! knowing that the first one of their kind who gets up in the Senate or House and brays about "this important revenue source that is being crippled by 65% or 70% non-compliance!" will set the whole bunch of them scrambling to close whatever loophole existed AND to raise the fine for 'thumbing your nose at The People's Government!'
Now, have you ever heard of the government imposing a fine on something, and then NEVER EVER collecting that fine from anybody? Damn right you haven't.
It's all a bunch of lies hatched by professional thieves and con-artists.
|
Lydia Leftcoast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-05-10 10:20 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Yes, the minute the right-wing pundits started in about "government health care," |
|
Obama should have said, "OK, we'll nationalize all the hospitals, incorporate all their employees into the civil service system, and put the fees on a sliding scale based on household income. Oops. Don't like that? OK, but that's my STARTING point for negotiation."
|
area51
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-05-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
Winterblues
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-05-10 11:05 AM
Response to Original message |
4. There is a penalty for refusing to pay the Mandate...BUT |
|
the penalty is a fine and there is NO Penalty for refusing to pay the fine....
|
Echo In Light
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-05-10 12:20 PM
Response to Original message |
phantom power
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-05-10 12:22 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Sure it would have been better. Politically and pragmatically. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 01:54 AM
Response to Original message |