I certainly did read the source(CSS Monitor and MSNBC, the other sources are invalid links aside from the Bill itself) you provided and provide one from the AP to show the exact opposite. Both sources released the articles on the same day: March 24th.
"Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation"
Kaz, I know you believed you were correcting me, but I'm afraid you need to pay better attention. The information I provided is absolutely correct. Like I stated before please read what I typed. I made no mention of H.R. 3590. H.R. 3590 (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was introduced to Congress on September 17th 2009, passed by the House on October 8th 2009, Senate on December 24th 2009, and signed by the President on March 23rd 2010. The only bill to which I referred to was H.R. 4872 (Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010). It was introduced to Congress on March 17th 2010. Passed by the House on March 21st and the Senate on March 25th 2010. President Obama signed it into law on March 30th 2010. I know very well that one is the extension of another. All amendments made to the previous bill are included in H.R. 4872 with the exception of a singular last minute amendment by the House. That still does not bring the total to 2,517 as you would LIKE to claim. At best the bill reaches a total of 2,319. That's it. I have pulled up and downloaded both PDF files on H.R.'s 3590 and 4872. I have not relied on a page count presented by the website of a Congressman. I suggest you not do the same.
I am still reading both bills and comparing them as I read them so I try to catch any amendments or provisions that effectively render the previous as useless.
Although I agree it is high time that Congress stop creating bills that look more like Tolstoy's War and Peace than a piece of legislation, the truth of the matter is that every one wants to add something to a bill so they feel like they have made some sort of contribution. Unfortunately you just end up with a bill that's 2,000 pages long when it should have only been 500 at the most.
I'm sorry, but I still have to disagree Kaz. I'm afraid you guys should really read this bill a little further or better. You stated just as Big Ben the same incorrect view that children with pre-existing conditions will not be covered until 2014. That's simply just not true. Did you read any of the sources for which I provided? Not to mention the bill itself!
I'm not sure which source has it right but according to the AP it's like this. If a child has already been approved for coverage they can't be dropped from coverage if a pre-existing condition is discovered. However, the insurance companies can continue to deny children if they have a pre existing condition prior to applying for insurance.
Either way it's irrelevant because I've heard Obama is going to do what him and Bush know best; issue an executive order to fix it.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0
Rick, you know it pains me but I have to correct you on the page count.
The Bill is actually 2,571 pages.
1.) Text of the Senate Amendments to H.R. 3590 (Senate health bill) - 2,401 pages (This is the amended version of the house bill that the Senate passed in December. It was then sling shotted through and added to a reconciliation bill. The House passed this bill as is and then passed the reconciliation bill to the Senate to pass.)
2.) Reconciliations Bill: 153 pages. (Bill passed in the Senate making the changes to the bill listed above.)
3.) Managers Ammendment: 9 pages. An Ammendment that was passed before the reconciliation portion by the house. Trust me, I was watching Cspan.
First let me applaud you for attempting to read this monstrosity. Both Crystal and I have attempted to read portions of the bills (At different stages of the process) and wanted to scratch our eyelids off. The problem is that in order to comprehend the bill in any way shape or form you have to do the following. You have to read the first bill I listed and understand every detail; even when they reference back to other legislation which you may have a hard time finding. After you've thoroughly read and understand the bill you then need to read 161 pages of amendments that alter the bill that you just read. So the bill you just read and understand is no longer accurate. In laymen terms it's impossible for one person to fully comprehend the legislation; which is by design and explains why President Obama didn't realize kids with pre-existing conditions wouldn't be covered until 2014. Sadly, he has never read it.
In a previous discussion you highlighted the high page count of bills that passed in the past and I appreciate you doing so. I didn't pay attention to politics then and would have been equally disgusted at legislation that no common man could understand. If our founders could lay the foundation to our nation in eighteen pages is it really that much to ask that we set a page limit to bills so the average Joe and not so average Senators and Representatives can actually read and understand a bill before it's voted on? My problem with bill length has little to nothing to do with a political party, it has a lot to do with what's best for our country.
Let's say they set a 350 page limit to legislation; even if it was confusing the average person would stand a fighting chance at figuring the bill out. Just a thought.
View all three bills here: http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2010/03/affordable-health-care-for-ame.shtml
Just wanted to get a few opinions on this matter. Although March figures are in and show an increase in jobs for that month (approximately 162,000), should we leave the health care debate behind and move on to more important issues, or continue beating the dead horse in hopes somehow we'll revive it? Anyone know CPR?
Well this was easy!! While I can simply ignore Spam in a can I cannot ignore the hundreds of daily spams I have to end up filtering through and deleting in order to find the emails I genuinely wish to receive. They are nothing more than a waste of time and effort. I understand companies have to advertise, but seriously, do it the right way. Post your advertisements on web pages like most organizations. Quit sending me useless emails and alerts for everything under the sun I have no desire or need for in this life. And that includes you too Cialis. If I begin having any troubles down there you'll be the first to know!!
I apologize for a misuse of the word "coverage" in the last word of paragraph 4. The sentence reads "Which means by the end of September of this year no child will be excluded from being able to acquire insurance coverage due to a pre-existing coverage." The last word "coverage" should actually be the word "condition". Once again I apologize for the mistake.
Big Ben, I'm afraid that you have unfortunately allowed yourself to be misinformed. Though I understand the concerns of many I cannot, and will not be concerned for those who allow themselves to be duped by media organizations who report falsehoods and outright lies simply to promote their own beliefs and agendas. You cannot rely on information reported by one or two organizations as your sole basis for yea or nay on a particular issue. I personally have read and watched several reports from both sides and have downloaded the entire H.R. bill 4872 in PDF to make certain I understand it before I even begin to argue any of its merits or drawbacks. I highly suggest you do the same. I have noticed that several of your statements were either ill informed or just outright lies based on what I can only assume were reports you've seen or heard by apparent media organizations who either did not understand what they were reporting, or just simply lied in order to sway your opinion.
You contend that this bill somehow harbors "secretive" points. How exactly do you come to this conclusion? The bill in its entirety is published online in a PDF format. In addition to that the bill is not 2,700 pages, but approximately 2,300. In some formats it's actually less than 2,300. To say that this bill hides anything from the American public is nothing short of false. As much debate over the points of this bill is possible, how can they possibly be hiding anything from you, myself, or anyone else?
You also state that if someone does not carry insurance they will be required to pay a fine. This is not entirely true. The fact is that the IRS will determine whether or not someone carries the correct coverage of insurance, and even then not reporting it to the IRS is no crime, or absolutely punishable by fine. Not to mention the fact that financial hardship is taken into consideration, and is not an absolute path to payment of fines by the individual or company. Just a little side-note by the way. The requirement to pay a fine for not carrying insurance was introduced not by democrats, though they later agreed to that provision, but by republicans. Yes, that's right, republicans introduced that particular provision. And only later backtracked their support of the provision when democrats agreed to it.
As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned in this bill, what you have stated is absolutely false in the case of children. Although most Americans will not see the change for this provision until 2014 as you've stated, children will be covered within the next six months. Which means by the end of September of this year no child will be excluded from being able to acquire insurance coverage due to a pre-existing coverage.
I would also just like to throw this out there for those of you who intend to argue the other merits or cons of this bill. If you depend solely on the news reports of one or two sources, and you have not read a single page of H.R. 4872, then don't bother. If your argument is that the bill is too long, then don't bother. If you don't believe in informing yourself to the best of your ability, then you don't deserve the right to argue over a matter for which you are quite content in being misinformed and ignorant of in order to save time.
I'm torn on this one. Although biometric cards would be a great thing if they were only used for identifications, payments instead of plastic and medical reasons so that doctors could make necessary decisions in the case of your inability to do so, I'm simply just not convinced that this is only ever meant to be their sole use. If it means that the government in any way shape or form can store personal information, use as a tracking, or use as a means for any type of law enforcement they can kiss my a**!!! I don't think so. What is this? 1984!! This would be such an overstep by our government our courts would HAVE to step in. There's no way this will happen! Americans, not democrats or republicans, but Americans will never allow this to happen. I suggest the good people from the states of New York and South Carolina send a clear message next election to oust these two morons! This is just so unbelievably stupid!! I can't even believe we're discussing this! This shouldn't even be an issue in today's world. Has no one ever read George Orwell's 1984? It's just scary!!
"Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation"
I am still reading both bills and comparing them as I read them so I try to catch any amendments or provisions that effectively render the previous as useless.
Although I agree it is high time that Congress stop creating bills that look more like Tolstoy's War and Peace than a piece of legislation, the truth of the matter is that every one wants to add something to a bill so they feel like they have made some sort of contribution. Unfortunately you just end up with a bill that's 2,000 pages long when it should have only been 500 at the most.
I'm sorry, but I still have to disagree Kaz. I'm afraid you guys should really read this bill a little further or better. You stated just as Big Ben the same incorrect view that children with pre-existing conditions will not be covered until 2014. That's simply just not true. Did you read any of the sources for which I provided? Not to mention the bill itself!
Either way it's irrelevant because I've heard Obama is going to do what him and Bush know best; issue an executive order to fix it.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0
The Bill is actually 2,571 pages.
1.) Text of the Senate Amendments to H.R. 3590 (Senate health bill) - 2,401 pages (This is the amended version of the house bill that the Senate passed in December. It was then sling shotted through and added to a reconciliation bill. The House passed this bill as is and then passed the reconciliation bill to the Senate to pass.)
2.) Reconciliations Bill: 153 pages. (Bill passed in the Senate making the changes to the bill listed above.)
3.) Managers Ammendment: 9 pages. An Ammendment that was passed before the reconciliation portion by the house. Trust me, I was watching Cspan.
First let me applaud you for attempting to read this monstrosity. Both Crystal and I have attempted to read portions of the bills (At different stages of the process) and wanted to scratch our eyelids off. The problem is that in order to comprehend the bill in any way shape or form you have to do the following. You have to read the first bill I listed and understand every detail; even when they reference back to other legislation which you may have a hard time finding. After you've thoroughly read and understand the bill you then need to read 161 pages of amendments that alter the bill that you just read. So the bill you just read and understand is no longer accurate. In laymen terms it's impossible for one person to fully comprehend the legislation; which is by design and explains why President Obama didn't realize kids with pre-existing conditions wouldn't be covered until 2014. Sadly, he has never read it.
In a previous discussion you highlighted the high page count of bills that passed in the past and I appreciate you doing so. I didn't pay attention to politics then and would have been equally disgusted at legislation that no common man could understand. If our founders could lay the foundation to our nation in eighteen pages is it really that much to ask that we set a page limit to bills so the average Joe and not so average Senators and Representatives can actually read and understand a bill before it's voted on? My problem with bill length has little to nothing to do with a political party, it has a lot to do with what's best for our country.
Let's say they set a 350 page limit to legislation; even if it was confusing the average person would stand a fighting chance at figuring the bill out. Just a thought.
View all three bills here: http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2010/03/affordable-health-care-for-ame.shtml
You contend that this bill somehow harbors "secretive" points. How exactly do you come to this conclusion? The bill in its entirety is published online in a PDF format. In addition to that the bill is not 2,700 pages, but approximately 2,300. In some formats it's actually less than 2,300. To say that this bill hides anything from the American public is nothing short of false. As much debate over the points of this bill is possible, how can they possibly be hiding anything from you, myself, or anyone else?
You also state that if someone does not carry insurance they will be required to pay a fine. This is not entirely true. The fact is that the IRS will determine whether or not someone carries the correct coverage of insurance, and even then not reporting it to the IRS is no crime, or absolutely punishable by fine. Not to mention the fact that financial hardship is taken into consideration, and is not an absolute path to payment of fines by the individual or company. Just a little side-note by the way. The requirement to pay a fine for not carrying insurance was introduced not by democrats, though they later agreed to that provision, but by republicans. Yes, that's right, republicans introduced that particular provision. And only later backtracked their support of the provision when democrats agreed to it.
As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned in this bill, what you have stated is absolutely false in the case of children. Although most Americans will not see the change for this provision until 2014 as you've stated, children will be covered within the next six months. Which means by the end of September of this year no child will be excluded from being able to acquire insurance coverage due to a pre-existing coverage.
I would also just like to throw this out there for those of you who intend to argue the other merits or cons of this bill. If you depend solely on the news reports of one or two sources, and you have not read a single page of H.R. 4872, then don't bother. If your argument is that the bill is too long, then don't bother. If you don't believe in informing yourself to the best of your ability, then you don't deserve the right to argue over a matter for which you are quite content in being misinformed and ignorant of in order to save time.
Source ( http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0324/Health-care-reform-bill-101-rules-for-preexisting-conditions )
Source ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36135106/ns/health-health_care )
Source ( http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100327/NEWS/10032964 )
Source ( http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf )
Source ( http://trueslant.com )