No, you don't have to be part of Obama's Regime to know what is in the bill.

All you really have to do is look for it a little bit.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/ ... -care-bill

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/mar/22/ ... -ar-60585/

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

I have read all the facts and that's all I have to say. I am is as knowledgeable about it as anyone else. I am not scared to read what is going on as you suggested. The only thing that scares me is this health plan and a financial hardship this country is under. Have you tried to get money, borrowed money, from government lately to put two children through college? I am 100% disabled and my husband, although he works full time, does not bring home a huge salary! and still, time and time again we have been denied borrowed money from the government. Now who's to blame for that?

did you read the links?

They explain what is in the health care bill. We are talking about a 1000 page document. That's the same as some stephen king novels, not the literary equivalent of the minotaur's labyrinth.

You keep saying there is no way of knowing what is in the bill. Well, try reading the three links i posted in this thread that explain what's in there. If that doesnt satisfy you, you could certainly find other links with more detailed info, or even read the bill yourself.

It isn't that hard to be informed on these things. Instead you repeatedly say how "nobody knows" what's in the bill.

What do you imagine you might find in the bill? What secret devestation lies waiting for us in this diabolical document?

Phillies, you're defending the insurance companies. Have you ever been a victim of one? The loudest voices tend to be those with the most money(most access to media). Your views are very polarized, but so are millions of Americans. It's absurd, when you think about it. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle, but people always believe what they hear the most. The two are not the same.

I'm familiar with the health care bill, but am not opposed to it. A good exercise in critical thinking is to list the pros as well as the cons, regardless of your current standing. Can you list the reasons that the Health Care bill is beneficial to all Americans?

I'll repeat that the problem might be with the hospitals, doctors, medical supply companies, etc., as far as the high cost of our health-care. To what extent do the insurance companies contribute to the fact that we pay a lot more for care than is the case in other rich countries? Just asking; I'm sure they might, but is it that much?

My employer is raising the cost of my family plan 9.5%. That's a big one-year increase that might be due to the failure of this plan to address the high prices that providers charge. I'm not complaining, though, because we've got two children under 26 who now can get covered. If we, or they, had to pay for separate policies, the cost would be huge. Even if I didn't benefit personally from the reform, I hope I'd still be in favor of it for how it benefits the country as a whole.

Some posts back, etudient wrote:

People are excited about this plan but think about all the money that has been spent for health care in this entire country when the most important thing the president should be working on is finding jobs for so many people who are unemployed and all the wars overseas.

I hate to sound like a Luddite - but how can one 'find' jobs? If technology diminishes the need for jobs.....we reach the age of unemployment.

Where the 'working' classes are the elite and support those whose employment is not needed. Can we make this change peacefully???

Perhaps men were made to evolve - to eat, drink, be merry and dance....not go and work down in a coalmine....for the length of their days.

Perhaps we have reached the age of leisure....Can we cope with it?

Just a thought.

Perhaps men were made to evolve - to eat, drink, be merry and dance....not go and work down in a coalmine....for the length of their days.

Perhaps we have reached the age of leisure....Can we cope with it?

That is teleological Penelope. It's so easy to take that perspective, but in the end it's false. We would all be better off in an age of leisure. But for that to happen we would require not only our needs to be satisfied(food/water/shelter), but also our wants. You can't sit around leisurely when you want something.

Those unemployed also see many of their 'wants' as 'needs', in this age of entitlement. It feels like a sacrifice when you must cancel cable television in order to pay rent. We aren't satisfied with living with our 'needs' alone satisfied. We must also have our 'wants' satisfied, as we feel entitled to them and empty without them. To change the zeitgeist and make this an age of leisure, you'd have to wax philosophical with millions of people and get them to be utterly non-materialistic and do away with their entitlement philosophy.

Interbane wrote:

It's so easy to take that perspective, but in the end it's false. We would all be better off in an age of leisure. But for that to happen we would require not only our needs to be satisfied(food/water/shelter), but also our wants. You can't sit around leisurely when you want something.

Perhaps are wants are illusionary...our needs are real??

Much as I admire and appreciate what Charles Darwin did for us in showing us in 'Origin of Species' what is happening. I am with Alfred Russel Wallace - He independently discovered the principle of natural selection in 1858 and this spurred Darwn into publishing his own theories. Wallace always gave Darwin the credit for being the first to discover natural selection. Whilst he firmly believed in evolution, unlike Darwin he maintained that the human mind could not have originated by evolutionary processes.

Interbane, please forgive me.....I am in awe of your intput and I appreciate what you post....but I am writing this, none-the-less. I believe that it is good for our readers.....and if I lose the argument......I am not in a position to care.

But thank you....

Interbane wrote:

Those unemployed also see many of their 'wants' as 'needs', in this age of entitlement. It feels like a sacrifice when you must cancel cable television in order to pay rent. We aren't satisfied with living with our 'needs' alone satisfied. We must also have our 'wants' satisfied, as we feel entitled to them and empty without them. To change the zeitgeist and make this an age of leisure, you'd have to wax philosophical with millions of people and get them to be utterly non-materialistic and do away with their entitlement philosophy.

We only 'feel' empty without them.....that is the propaganda at work.

We are not empty.....we are creative beings.

We are definitely as rich as the things we can do without....just take a look at 'poor' Paris Hilton.

One of the reasons often cited for needing to change the health care system in this country is the higher costs but lower life expectancies in the United States compared with other developed countries. Critics of health care reform often counter that lower life expectancy is due to obesity, car accidents, homicides, and smoking in the United States. In other words, lower life expectancies come from factors outside the health care system (funny, they rarely advocate gun control or stricter auto regulations).

Until recently, there was no good answer to this argument. But last week a paper by two professors from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia (one of whom is on leave, working at HHS), was published that refutes this idea:

"Others say that poor US health outcomes are largely due not to health care but to high rates of smoking, obesity, traffic fatalities, and homicides. We used cross-national data on the fifteen-year survival of men and women over three decades to examine the validity of these arguments. We found that the risk profiles of Americans generally improved relative to those for citizens of many other nations, but Americans’ relative fifteen-year survival has nevertheless been declining. For example, by 2005, fifteen-year survival rates for forty-five-year-old US white women were lower than in twelve comparison countries with populations of at least seven million and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of at least 60 percent of US per capita GDP in 1975. The findings undercut critics who might argue that the US health care system is not in need of major changes."

The point is simple. Americans are not killing each other or eating themselves to death at a rate high enough to explain the higher mortality rates in the United States than the rest of the world. Something else must be responsible. The health care system is the likely culprit.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... 010.0073v1