Simple question.

 

Yes or no.

How could you unless you've taken time to read the bill?

Simple question.

 

Yes or no.

 

I think it would be very interesting to poll our congresspeople with this very same question.

How could you unless you've taken time to read the bill?

 

I've been taking time to read it (not done yet) and still don't have a firm grasp. IMO it's written in a way that you can't get a firm grasp.

No. I have read several posts about the bill (or about "Obamacare" in general by our members, but I am not qualified to do so.

I've been taking time to read it (not done yet) and still don't have a firm grasp. IMO it's written in a way that you can't get a firm grasp.

 

I agree 100%, I think they did that on purpose......................

So we're all in agreement that we don't have a clue as to what's in it or what the effect will be (outside of the CBO projections) and yet we still are smart enough to criticize its components?

So we're all in agreement that we don't have a clue as to what's in it or what the effect will be (outside of the CBO projections) and yet we still are smart enough to criticize its components?

 

Big difference between "don't have a clue" and "firm grasp".

Big difference between "don't have a clue" and "firm grasp".

 

You mean like stating that the President is advocating "single payer" despite him not mentioning it other than once in 2003?

 

You and others prove my point. You run with something without fully understanding it. You jump to conclusions when you hear something you want to hear.

 

This bill is so convoluted that one cannot speak intelligently on it other than citing the CBO.

 

You say health care will suffer. I haven't seen any indication of that. Pure speculation.

 

"Pure speculation" should be the required title on almost every healthcare thread started on here.

You mean like stating that the President is advocating "single payer" despite him not mentioning it other than once in 2003?

 

You and others prove my point. You run with something without fully understanding it. You jump to conclusions when you hear something you want to hear.

 

This bill is so convoluted that one cannot speak intelligently on it other than citing the CBO.

 

You say health care will suffer. I haven't seen any indication of that. Pure speculation.

 

"Pure speculation" should be the required title on almost every healthcare thread started on here.

Shouldn't all of this be reason enough to scrap this bill and start over? If elected officials aren't smart enough to understand but yet are expected to vote on it what does that tell you? The administration can't fully explain it. Why does legistration this important need to be so hard to understand? Could it be by design? Why would you not question a bill that can have such a huge impact on us for the good or bad if you and most of the country can't understand it? Your just sit back and wait attitude is a dangerous one. If any bill needs to be right the first time it's this one. Once it's in it's too late.

So we're all in agreement that we don't have a clue as to what's in it or what the effect will be (outside of the CBO projections) and yet we still are smart enough to criticize its components?

 

Your argument works for yourself also. You admit you don't have a clue but you support it.

 

You mean like stating that the President is advocating "single payer" despite him not mentioning it other than once in 2003?

Seems to me most everything he spoke of in the past, he has tried to make happen. No reason to think single payer is any different.

 

You and others prove my point. You run with something without fully understanding it. You jump to conclusions when you hear something you want to hear.

You defend it without fully understanding it. So what point is proved.

 

This bill is so convoluted that one cannot speak intelligently on it other than citing the CBO.

There are organizations like the Heritage Foundation that I do trust and they have done some pretty indepth analysis.

 

You say health care will suffer. I haven't seen any indication of that. Pure speculation.

Once again you have nothing to support that it won't suffer. Other role models from around the world would indicate that healthcare will suffer.

 

"Pure speculation" should be the required title on almost every healthcare thread started on here.

Isn't that what politics is?

You mean like stating that the President is advocating "single payer" despite him not mentioning it other than once in 2003?

 

You and others prove my point. You run with something without fully understanding it. You jump to conclusions when you hear something you want to hear.

 

This bill is so convoluted that one cannot speak intelligently on it other than citing the CBO.

 

You say health care will suffer. I haven't seen any indication of that. Pure speculation.

 

"Pure speculation" should be the required title on almost every healthcare thread started on here.

 

This is a perferct argument for congress and the president to slow the heck down and come up with a bill everyone can understand, including the costs.

This is a perferct argument for congress and the president to slow the heck down and come up with a bill everyone can understand, including the costs.

 

Bingo.

Your argument works for yourself also. You admit you don't have a clue but you support it.

 

I support the idea because I know there's a problem. However, I don't grasp the ingredients of the plan so I'm not supporting anything. I hope they come up with something that works. I don't have my head in the sand thinking there's not a problem.

 

 

Seems to me most everything he spoke of in the past, he has tried to make happen. No reason to think single payer is any different.

 

So, again, you prove my point. One quote in 6 years ago and you've got him figured out.

 

 

 

There are organizations like the Heritage Foundation that I do trust and they have done some pretty indepth analysis.

 

Then give me some of their analysis.

I support the idea because I know there's a problem. However, I don't grasp the ingredients of the plan so I'm not supporting anything. I hope they come up with something that works. I don't have my head in the sand thinking there's not a problem.

 

So, again, you prove my point. One quote in 6 years ago and you've got him figured out.

 

Then give me some of their analysis.

I can't recall one person on this board (doesn't mean someone didn't) say that the system we have is perfect and doesn't need some changes. Who has their head in the sand? But if the options are what we have and the 1000+ pages that no one seems to completely understand, I think most will take what we have.