I appreciate everyone's input on this bill. I have began to read one of the bills. I also downloaded a second. I am very confused in regards to what is the EXACT components to the bill that has passed. Does anybody know the exact total package that includes the 2600 or 2700 page bill. I do not care about the other components. I would like to see what is law.
This leads into my next point.

Where the hell is the transparency that was promised? It should not be this difficult to attain the complete bill on my computer. These clowns work for we the people, right? I think this is part of the very large problem. The government does not want us to know the complete package.

I will finally mention one more point. There is no debate in regards to forcing people to purchase private industry products. This is unconstitutional. Do not forget, the government has taken over much of the auto industry, they are now taking over the complete student loan industry( geeez, wont this create a fair teaching experience for the students? the professors will surely not want to #!#! of big brother now will they? Teacher teach anti-government-teacher will be looking for new job now wont he or she?), and now the complete medical industry. This is about 20% of the economy. Yes, there will be a few large insurance companies left, but they will be a front for the government control and will only be top heavy. Big pay up top, crap pay and benefits for workers on the bottom.

Actually I do know what goes on in the insurance industry. Knowing how it all worked was my job. That's how I got authorizations for the surgeries we did. I also understand the problem of pre existing conditions. I have lupus and a chronic bone infection. My solution was to hang an IV bag over my desk and go to work even when I would have rather stayed at home in bed. I did that for years in order to keep my medical coverage. I can only get coverage through an employer or my husbands employer but I still disagree with forcing insurance companies to take on pre existing conditions because I fully understand what the outcome will be. I used to deal with patients everyday who claimed they could not afford health insurance but stood in front of me with designer clothes, purses, and shoes while telling me about the vacation they just returned from. When did personal responsibility become a bad thing in this country? There are people out there who need help but there are also many more who are lazy and government dependent and will never improve their lives because they don't have to. The elderly are getting screwed and I'm not just talking about death panels which I believe are indirectly in the bill. I'm talking about the cuts that will be coming to medicare patients and the additional costs they will incur. Time will tell who's right and wrong about this. I do know that the way this is set up is unsustainable. There is no money to pay for it. I just hope you supporters will be happy when you are on government health care. Ask a Canadian how good it is. I've seen it first hand coming from the HMO's in California. You are going to have the very thing you are so critical of. HMO's (health maintenance organizations) are a perfect example of how government health care will work. You will see doctors who's training is questionable. You will have long waits to see them. A panel will decide if you get the surgery or treatment that is being recommended. If you're over 60 or already have chronic medical issues the answer will usually be no. The ct scanners and other equipment are usually outdated and inferior. Doctors have a hard time reading films from second rate equipment which makes it more difficult to make a diagnosis. When you need tests you will have long waits for that too which gives cancer and other serious problems a head start making it more difficult to treat. They will decide what medications are approved and which aren't. Just because you've had a reaction or don't do well on a certain medication will not be grounds for getting the one you need. The only difference between HMO's and government care will be that HMO's do this to keep costs down. The government will do this because there won't be enough money. I joined an HMO in California to save money. I got out of the HMO and gladly spent the extra money after one year because the savings wasn't worth what I went through trying to get the care I used to take for granted. Now I won't have that choice and neither will you. There are better solutions to these problems but they don't want to hear them and I don't think you do either.

I think we need to continue to fight against the health care bill but unemployment is killing us too. The more we have to pay out to support the unemployed, the worse things are going to get overall. Unfortunately, the only way to create jobs is to bring back big business and we are driving them out with higher costs. The health care bill is going to be the final nail in the coffin for employers. With so many out of work there's fewer people to pay taxes so government will continue to go after the wealthy. Since the wealthy provide the majority of jobs we are going to be in worse shape as they continue to take their businesses to other countries. Nobody wants to start a small business right now because people aren't spending like they used to. My husband does mowing for people around here as a side job and we're even noticing people cutting back on that. He's also having more trouble collecting from some people. I think our country is in serious trouble.

I think it's kind of funny that so many people fear Rush but aren't afraid of our present government. I see video clips every day that catch our president and his group of power seekers lying to us about everything and yet there's no outrage in the media about it. I wish the media would spend half as much time doing the job they are supposed to do (finding the truth and bringing it to us) as they do crucifying those who disagree with our president.

Maybe if the Republican party had Hollywood and the unions behind them they wouldn't be in such bad shape. I think Steele came into this with a big mess to clean up. (Sound familiar?) Maybe that excuse can only be used by the democrats. I don't think we should be criticizing him when our federal government is showing complete fiscal irresponsibility. It's true that a presidents budget is complicated but that is all the more reason to not overspend and we should be making hard cuts to all parts of our budget. Instead they are trying to push through more expensive programs and spending more than ever. We just found out we have to pay another 900 dollars in taxes this year so we will be trimming our budget at home in order to pay it. We're not going to go out and buy a big screen tv. Even with all the cash the dems have I suspect they are the ones who should be worried. I think both parties are in trouble and we may finally elect some uncorrupted independents in the near future.

Actually I don't know how I ended up on the blackjack side. I chose Texas holdem; I too can watch hours of it.

Surprise Kaz. No, I didn't pick the other side simply because you picked Black Jack. I chose Texas Hold'em for a very good set of reasons.

Reason #1: You don't really play "against" other players when you play Black Jack, with the exception of the house (dealer). You play against yourself. Will you or will you not get 21, as close as possible without going over, or attaining 5 cards totaling 21 or less? Which leads to reason #2.

Reason #2: Black Jack is pure luck. It's a numbers game and requires no real skill in order to play. There is no "bluffing" in 21 against an opponent. Where's the fun in that?

Reason #3: It is the only form of card poker which does not allow a "kicker". In other words, you absolutely cannot win the entire pot should you hold the same hand as someone else. You have to share it. When I play poker I'm in it to win it, brother!!

Reason #4: Hold'em allows for all of these. You are allowed to play mind games with your opponents (ie. bluffing). If you hold the same hand as another opponent you may still win the pot due to your "kicker". Hold'em allows for several rounds of betting and can even be played with different "at stakes" type levels. For example "No Limits", my favorite. Skill is very much required to play Hold'em. Though luck does play a big part, it's the ability to play it well that makes the difference between a good Hold'em player, and a champion. Black Jack is as about as interesting to watch being played as watching golf on a Sunday afternoon, but I could spend several hours watching a Hold'em tournament!!

Kaz, there are a few things you must consider. One being that a budget ran by a president is far more complicated than that of an organization like the RNC. Two being that when the government is in the red we still have the ability to purchase products, support our military, and send out checks for senior citizens on Medicare or Social Security. The RNC does not hold that privilege. When it is out of money it does not hold credit to pay for television ads, billboards, etc. And last, but certainly not the least, taxpayers always have to pay taxes. You can choose not to pay taxes because you don't like how the government spends it, but that can lead to something ugly called an "audit". The RNC does not hold this privilege either. It must depend on the money of its donors. Which means you are in a position where you must spend funds responsibly, especially if you wish to expect to receive more funds from donors, or else you lose their faith. And if you lose their faith, you probably lose their support (money)!!

Kaz, I apologize for the articles apparently disappearing. I can only assume they delete their pages after a day or so. I cannot be for certain. I'm not sure what you mean about the AP source. I did not provide a source from AP showing anything. As I have said before please read what I type. I did not at any time say "full protection" for children would begin this September. I said that this September children would no longer be excluded from coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

H.R. 3590 is a totally separate bill from H.R. 4872, but they are inexplicably linked by several provisions. This is why I told you about the fact that one is an extension of the other. Basically, H.R. 4872 contains most of the provisions and amendments that democrats feared would not be supported by republicans from the previous bill, H.R. 3590. These were added to H.R. 4872 because President Obama knew if he could not get republican support for the bill he would just use enough democratic support to push it through Congress by way of Reconciliation.

Consider it like this. When the Articles of Confederation failed to work and lost support of our founding fathers they decided to "re-write" the Articles. Using it as a basis, adding amendments, and taking several provisions out they created a document they felt better served the American people. The Constitution of the United States.

The note at the bottom of H.R. 4872 does not make H.R. 3590 irrelevant, but it does "correct" some of the terminologies, programs, and issues that did not work as effectively as President Obama had wanted in the first place.

That's fantastic that you didn't rely on the page count from a regular website. I apologize for the assumption. The link you used in that paragraph led me to believe that the page count there was what you assumed to be the correct bill page count. That's okay, but remember I did say that it was H.R. 4872 that I was making my references toward.

And so you know: I didn't rely on a page count from a website. I downloaded all of the pdf's and did the math on my own; it just happened to be the wrong version of the bill.

Serious question Rick: Seeing how you have a bit more experience in reading and researching these bills answer me this. HR3590 was the original senate bill, when did it transform into hr4872?

And if the hr3590 is irrelevant than why is this note attached to the bottom of hr4872? I'm really trying to sort this nonsense out.

"Note: The bill makes a number of health-related financing and revenue changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted by H.R.3590 and modifies higher education assistance provisions."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR04872:@@@K

While I haven't looked into the use of the money spent by the GOP; we are talking about millions here, not trillions. Am I supposed to stand here and crucify Michael Steele for spending more than they took in (Which is unacceptable and doesn't put the GOP in a good situation for the November elections) when the White House is spending at least 1.59 trillion more than they take in for 2010. Should Obama step down?

There are a couple of things I don't agree with in regards to Michael Steele and how the GOP has handled elections in the last year but I'm not ready to crucify the man. Then again, if I looked into the use of the money my perspective my be altered a bit.