Democrats killed an ACA amendment to let people keep their plans.

[Harshaw]

All I asked for was a link to the source of the pdf file in the OP. Was that too much to ask? Apparently it was to the OP who doesn't seem to know the difference between a pdf file and a website.

The SOURCE was house.gov. How do you not understand this? HOW?

 

[Harshaw]

How does the source of the PDF have any impact on the legitimacy of the OP's argument? By all indications, the PDF's source is an unofficial tally of the votes taken by the committee and scanned into a PDF document and posted on the website. The legitimacy of the website lends legitimacy to the document. That legitimacy is solidified by the video fo the legislative action regarding it. What's your point in demanding the exact source of the PDF? What are you trying to accomplish?

She is attempting to deny that the Republicans introduced a bill specifically to allow people to keep their plans that the Democrats killed in committee, preventing it from being included in the ACA. That's her point. She doesn't want it to be true, so she's trying to deny it.

 

[274ina]

What makes it "fake", aside from it failing to subsidize other policyholders?

Dumping
$100 ER visit limits
$1000 year caps
not covering all HC
$1,000,000 limits on even the best policys
etc etc etc

 

[274ina]

Dumping
$100 ER visit limits
$1000 year caps
not covering all HC
$1,000,000 limits on even the best policys
etc etc etc

Oh and "subsidizing other people" is the WHOLE POINT of insurance. Spread the risk..............

rather than being greedy, "all for me" think US for once. And read a book about insurance. Actuarial science

 

[US Conservative]

Do we let people drink posioned vodka?

Eat contaminated chicken?

Why allow fake healthcare?

Stop worrying about what you "let" people do.
Let them take care of that.

 

[274ina]

Stop worrying about what you "let" people do.
Let them take care of that.

Why ? so we can be like China?

Go to the grocery store in fear every time?

if you dont like it, go to your "free trade" slave capitol heaven of Dubai or China. Then you can profit from posion food all you want.

 

[US Conservative]

Why ? so we can be like China?

Are you aware of the supreme irony of this statement?

How many laws until utopia, buddy?

 

[274ina]

Are you aware of the supreme irony of this statement?

How many laws until utopia, buddy?

How about this law.

Its a fellony to cross a picket line.................

As many laws as it takes...............

 

[US Conservative]

How about this law.


Its a fellony to cross a picket line.................

As many laws as it takes...............

Take your meds.

 

[Mycroft]

The fact that the right are distancing themselves speaks more of their hypocricy about the free market and personal responibilty than it does it about the DP poster you're trying to slime.

I don't think you really know what "free market" is, Moot. But I'm feeling generous, so I'll help you out:

Definition of 'Free Market'
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

Free Market Definition | Investopedia

Obamacare is nothing like a free market.

 

[US Conservative]

I don't think you really know what "free market" is, Moot. But I'm feeling generous, so I'll help you out:



Obamacare is nothing like a free market.

Most liberals didn't take econ, and get their econ from socialists.

 

[Moot]

I don't think you really know what "free market" is, Moot. But I'm feeling generous, so I'll help you out:



Obamacare is nothing like a free market.

In reality, there's no such thing as a "completely free market"...at least not as defined by investopedia.

"....A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy...."



Obamacare builds on and uses the existing private insurance market....which btw was a republican idea. Hence, their rejection of it is hypocritical.

 

[Mycroft]

In reality, there's no such thing as a "completely free market"...at least not as defined by investopedia.

"....A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy...."



Obamacare builds on and uses the existing private insurance market....which btw was a republican idea. Hence, their rejection of it is hypocritical.

Oh, I agree that we will never have anything like a true free market, but we should set limits on our government's control of the free market. Obamacare stands any semblance of a free market in respect to health insurance on it's head.

As long as we allow our government to mandate that people WILL buy a product...that businesses WILL sell that product...and what that product will be, there is no free market because the government has removed all choices except those they approve.

 

[Moot]

How does the source of the PDF have any impact on the legitimacy of the OP's argument? By all indications, the PDF's source is an unofficial tally of the votes taken by the committee and scanned into a PDF document and posted on the website. The legitimacy of the website lends legitimacy to the document. That legitimacy is solidified by the video fo the legislative action regarding it. What's your point in demanding the exact source of the PDF? What are you trying to accomplish?

It's worth noting that the "unofficial" tag on the PDF is repeated for every ammendment discussed. Here is a vote from their most recent mark-up meeting: http://democrats.energycommerce.hou...Call-Vote-Final-Passage-HR-2810-2013-7-31.pdf

Did you get that pdf from the website that Samsain linked to.....or the pdfs that the OP linked to? I suspect you got it from the former and not the latter. Now you know the answer to your question.

 

[Moot]

Oh, I agree that we will never have anything like a true free market, but we should set limits on our government's control of the free market. Obamacare stands any semblance of a free market in respect to health insurance on it's head.

As long as we allow our government to mandate that people WILL buy a product...that businesses WILL sell that product...and what that product will be, there is no free market because the government has removed all choices except those they approve.

I understand and sympathize with your opinion...but health care isn't like buying a car or a cute outfit. Those are things you can survive without....but you would be hard pressed to do without your health or even your life.

 

[Harshaw]

Did you get that pdf from the website that Samsain linked to.....or the pdfs that the OP linked to? I suspect you got it from the former and not the latter. Now you know the answer to your question.

Here's the site the documents come from, Moot, not that it hasn't already been pointed out to you a embarrassing number of times:

Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats

I know you don't want the OP to be true, but it is. I know you THINK if you can get the Heritage Foundation or some other conservative group involved in some way, it'll make it NOT true, but it won't.

 

[Moot]

Here's the site the documents come from, Moot, not that it hasn't already been pointed out to you a embarrassing number of times:

Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats

I know you don't want the OP to be true, but it is.

Thats nice Harshaw but Samsain posted the link days ago because he understood the difference between a pdf file and a website.....you did not.

 

[Harshaw]

Thats nice Harshaw but Samsain posted the link days ago because he understood the difference between a pdf file and a website.....you did not.

I gave the the website I don't know how many times, Moot. I spelled it out for you. I made it LARGE AND BOLD:

Check the URL of the links.

http:// democrats.energycommerce.house. gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_stearns_1.pdf

That you can't read a link isn't my fault.

But now that you've been dragged kicking and screaming to understanding where the PDFs come from, do you accept the OP or not?

 

[Moot]

I gave the the website I don't know how many times, Moot. I spelled it out for you. I made it LARGE AND BOLD:



That you can't read a link isn't my fault.

But now that you've been dragged kicking and screaming to understanding where the PDFs come from, do you accept the OP or not?

I read your link Harshaw....several times in fact. But I wanted to read more about it and thats why I asked for the website..the source that you got it from. But for some reason that was too much for you to handle. Unlike you I do ask questions before I form an opinion especially when the OP himself does not and then expects everyone else to just accept his talking points at face value and throws a major hissy fit when they don't.

 

[Harshaw]

I read your link Harshaw....several times in fact.

By "link," you apparently still think I'm referring to the PDF. :roll:

But I wanted to read more about it and thats why I asked for the website

I doubt that very much. You invoked the Heritage website and wanted to dismiss the whole thing based on that. That's why you wanted a website.

the source that you got it from. But for some reason that was too much for you to handle.

No -- I gave it to you. No one else -- that is, NO ONE ELSE -- had any problem understanding that. You just wanted it to be from some right-wing blog.

Unlike you I do ask questions before I form an opinion

Never once seen the slightest bit of evidence of that.

especially when the OP himself does not and then expects everyone else to just accept his talking points at face value

I expected no one to take anything at face value, which is why I provided documentation. Of course, you see it like you want to see it, just like you do with everything else.

and throws a major hissy fit when they don't.

I know you'd like to think I did, but I did not.

And you haven't answered my question -- do you now accept the OP? I think regardless of this entire thread, you don't. You still deny it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and you now accept it.

 

[Mycroft]

I understand and sympathize with your opinion...but health care isn't like buying a car or a cute outfit. Those are things you can survive without....but you would be hard pressed to do without your health or even your life.

Makes no difference. Health insurance (we ARE talking about health insurance...not health here) is a commodity just like food, housing...or anything else. The free market is the best way to distribute these commodities and Obamacare is out to destroy the free market in respect to health insurance.

 

[Moot]

I doubt that very much. You invoked the Heritage website and wanted to dismiss the whole based on that. That's why you wanted a website.

Thats because after I googled 'Stearns amendment 3200', the Heritage Foundation was the first to pop up. At that point I figured it was your responsibility to prove where you got the pdf file from, not mine.

In lieu of your evasiveness I suspect you didn't get the pdf file from the 'democrat energy and commerce committee' website...but rather a right wing blog. Which might explain your evasiness because if it doesn't, then it sure as hell explains your ignorance. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is the former and not the latter...but feel free to prove me wrong.

No -- I gave it to you. No one else -- that is, NO ONE ELSE -- had any problem understanding that. You just wanted it to be from some right-wing blog.


ever once seen the slightest bit of evidence of that.



I expected no one to take anything at face value, which is why I provided documentation. Of course, you see it like you want to see it, just like you do with everything else.

I know you'd like to think I did, but I did not.

And you haven't answered my question -- do you now accept the OP? I think regardless of this entire thread, you don't. You still deny it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and you now accept it.

I'd still like to know what the committee debate over the amendment was or if there even was one.

What was Rep. Stearns reasoning for introducing an amendment that would allow people to keep their sub standard policies if the point of reform is to standardize the insurance industry?

What if the insurance companies didn't want to sell those substandard policies anymore....would Stearns amendment force them to continue selling them?

 

[Harshaw]

Thats because after googled Stearns amendment 3200, the Heritage Foundation was the first to pop up. At that point I figured it was your responsibility to prove where you got the pdf file from

:doh The link itself shows where it's from. Good grief. How. Do. You. Not. Get. That?

I'd still like to know what the committee debate over the amendment was or if there even was one.

What was Rep. Stearns reasoning for introducing an amendment that would allow people to keep their policies if the point of reform is to standardize the insurance industry?

What if the insurance companies didn't want to sell those substandard policies anymore....would Stearns amendment force them to continue selling them?

You have not answered the question -- yes or no -- did it happen?

 

[Moot]

Makes no difference. Health insurance (we ARE talking about health insurance...not health here) is a commodity just like food, housing...or anything else. The free market is the best way to distribute these commodities and Obamacare is out to destroy the free market in respect to health insurance.

Insurance is not a tangible commodity ....it's a financial security instrument that insures against financial risk. Sickness and death is a risk that we all face, so how do you put a commodity trade value on that? What your life is worth to you, may not be so much to the insurance company. So what do you do when the insurance company rescinds your policy and denies your claim to a life saving operation or treatment?

 

[Objective Voice]

I really don't understand what you are trying to accomplish with this "it wasn't official" argument. I believe the intention of the OP was to show that republicans tried to address at least a portion of the current problems with O-Care. Regardless of whether or not the ammendment had an official vote, it was brought before democrats and shot down. Often times, unofficial votes will take place to determine where people stand to allow for discussion and determine if it would have enough support to warrant an official vote. What point are you trying to make? The fact that it might not have recieved an "official" vote in committee harms your argument as it could be interpretted that democrats in committee were not concerned in the slightest about their constituents' potential desires to remain on their current health insurance plan. What exactly is the point of your harping on the status of the vote as "preliminary and unofficial?"

Granted, Republicans may have tried to address the problem concerning health insurance plans purchased on the individual market, but a roll call vote doesn't necessarily mean that the full House voted on the proposed amendment. In most cases, it's simply a head count before the actually vote - an unofficial vote whip if you will. As such, Moot is correct. Per House procedures, the amendment was never officially voted on and so you really can't say it was a viable attempt to amend the law. It may have been a good idea Republicans came up with and proposed to bring to the House floor for a vote, but it was never officially voted on. Therefore, by procedure it never happened.

Process, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not saying the Dems were right for suppressing that particular vote, just saying it wasn't an official amendment since it was never brought to the floor for a vote.