<p>^ I read the bill on the house website, I believe. My dad showed me the important parts, and he found them by looking at the table of contents…</p>
<p>What were the important parts? </p>
<p>So you only read what your dad wanted you to read. Interesting.</p>
<p>^ That being said, the bill itself (I’m getting this from my dad who did read the bill who as he ran for congress in 1990 knows his political stuff) “contradicts itself all the time and has lots of fodder for media spin” he says it’s a bad bill not due to the sentiment behind it but because between the house and senate everybody got a teeny tiny part of what they want in but nobody got enough in to make any real changes other than creating a bureaucratic nightmare.</p>
<p>I’m not saying it’s a great bill or a terrible bill. There are parts I agree with and parts I don’t. However, I dislike on BOTH sides of the issue people that aren’t well informed or who only choose to look at certain things in the bill. </p>
<p>Every piece of legislation has issues. At least someone did SOMETHING to get the ball rolling. Plus, I’ll have health insurance (FULL health insurance) for the first time ever. Can’t complain too loudly about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but what if I want to use a drug that is known to induce death, yet which I think will cure me of cancer/AIDS/whatever else I might have, and make me absolutely invincible? By your logic, isn’t that my right? (Actually, here’s where that mental health coverage might help…)</p>
<p>And what if I choose to be addicted? What if it has been my dream, since childhood, to have a horrible, self-destructive addiction? Why is the government’s job to stop me?</p>
<p>^^ Did you read the whole thing romani? I’m glad it provides you with insurance, I wish that was all it did. The parts I read were the parts relevant to me. My dad’s not hiding anything, I have it saved on my PC and I can read to table of contents myself. Like I said, I’m not 100% sure I follow all the revisions. The bottom line is, if, after this bill, I have coverage that does not cover all the things listed under Sec. 1302(b) of the bill, will I be in compliance with the law?</p>
<p>^ No, I didn’t read the whole thing, nor have I claimed to. I am not claiming most things about it except for what I have definitively read. Such as the medicaid, the pre-existing conditions, the fines, etc.</p>
<p>^^ If there is an actual chance that it will save you, then I think you’d have the right to try it. As for the addiction question, well, once under the influence of the drugs you are very likely to break laws and/or harm other people. But it is a complex issue and I don’t claim to have all the answers.</p>
<p>“I wonder how she determined which parts were “important” if she didn’t read the whole bill. Actually, it’s more like I wonder WHO decided which parts were important FOR her :rolleyes:”</p>
<p>Not to be critical or anything :P</p>
<p>I never claimed to read the important parts like you did. Therefore, that doesn’t work.</p>
<p>Well, then I wonder who is giving you the “definitive” information on it…</p>
<p>I just reread the bill as passed and found out that my particular coverage may be exempt from the law, as it is a non-profit religious group. I’m not a lawyer, and it has a lot of politicobabble, but anyway that may be a good thing for me. Still, I don’t think options for health care should be limited to people in “religious” groups.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read it again:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In what sphere of life do you believe that you have the irrevocable right to harm others?</p>
<p>^So, people don’t have any “rights”. If the government doesn’t interfere with something that is profitable to not interfere with, that’s not a right. A right is something worth spending resources to protect, and something that can’t be taken away even if that would be convienent for society.</p>
<p>^ By that definition, health care should be a right.</p>
<p>Who said treatment was a right?</p>
<p>100 years ago if you got cancer, you died. 300 years ago if a person doesn’t cough up some dough for that surgery, he died.</p>
<p>All of these signs suggest that insurance is a privelege, a private good. Who is the government to tell PRIVATE Corporations running on already thin margins to cover everyone? If a seller refuses his services, I’d brt something in the constitution says that the government can’t force him to provide. In fact, there is…</p>
<p>^Who said you have the right to live?</p>
<p>A few 1000 years ago, if someone wanted to kill someone else, they could, with no consequences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, if you disagree with what I said, feel free to answer the question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When was that? Can you show me a civilization that didn’t consider murder wrong? About as far back as we can go is Hammurabi, or maybe the Torah if you believe that Moses wrote it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First you answer a question from me: Is it harming someone when you don’t do something that would benefit them?</p>
<p>^^Who said anything about a civilization?</p>