How many of YOU have read the Healthcare legislation?

[Mr. Shaman]

Seems to me if no one were protesting the bill would have been voted on, passed and law by now.

Everyone does appreciate you folks (on The Right) keeping Republican-congressmen/women in-check.

Maybe, now, they'll use their Summer-vacation to read/digest what's been developed, so far.

 

[BigRob]

Bingo!!!!!!!​

Even the suggestion there's a completed-bill is merely one-more-distraction.

At least we know what's NOT-in-it.
​

There is no one single completed bill you are correct. However, you can read HR 3200, as well as the new Senate version (615 pages) that just came out of committee.

While there are still changes to be made, it would seem that at the very least leafing through these bills would be important to most people.

Additionally, the manner in which we know something is not in the proposed legislation is to actually read what has been proposed.

 

[Dr.Who]

I voted no because I have not read it all.

I have read the parts I debate the most. And I have read reports by investigators of the lesser parts.

I may yet be uninformed at times.

But I am confident that there are many red flags in this bill that should be of grave concern to all Americans.

 

[r0beph]

What kills me is how people are all crazy wide over the fact that its 1012 pages. I thought that was ridiculous myself until I read it. When you have a 2" margin on both sides, double spaced, and a 32pt font 1012 pages is more like 100 pages in normal book print font size. People should stop commented on page count unless page content is standardized.


That being said, I read it from front to back, skimmed through the indexes which seemed to be about half the damned thing, so I hope my yes still counts.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I voted no because I have not read it all.

But I am confident that there are many red flags in this bill that should be of grave concern to all Americans.

Yeah....at least you're being open-minded (in a Fair & Balanced way), about it.

​

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

What kills me is how people are all crazy wide over the fact that its 1012 pages. I thought that was ridiculous myself until I read it. When you have a 2" margin on both sides, double spaced, and a 32pt font 1012 pages is more like 100 pages in normal book print font size. People should stop commented on page count unless page content is standardized.


That being said, I read it from front to back, skimmed through the indexes which seemed to be about half the damned thing, so I hope my yes still counts.

My discussion group commented on that poor choice in font/size/page set up selection too...but then we all decided that since most of us had sight restrictions of one sort or another and that that really wide margin allowed for lots of room for notations it probably made some sense in the first printing to make it that way...personally I would have like it to be left justified so that the wide margin was just on the right (1.5") for notations and comments.

But it sure makes it hard to hold and read; it's so heavy and floppy, I keep it on my slant table so that I don't make my arthritis scream and lock up!

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Yeah....at least you're being open-minded (in a Fair & Balanced way), about it.​

​

It is hard to maintain a fair and balanced approach to a bill that is so vague and convoluted that in many sections it defines nothing specific. The Dem's biggest error in the creation of the House version of this bill is that it has little or no specifics. When you write in generalities it opens anyone opposing the concept to create and fill in the blanks with their greatest fears. If they were more specific it would have eliminated much of this speculation, misinformation, and fear.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I suspect most Americans wouldn't read 1000 pages of anything.
It's simply too complicated and it doesn't need to be.

Do you think the illegal immigrants are gonna even try, or is it
written in Spanish?

Illegals know it a free lunch since they don't pay taxes, won't pay taxes
and will never pay into the system, so they have nothing to lose.

But older Americans have alot to lose, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


The bigger question is "who is gonna pay for this bill?"
Obama has destroyed so many jobs and revenue is drying up.
The American people don't really want it, even if they haven't read it.

The Democrats pushing it like Specter, Conyers are arrogant politicians
that will not have to live with it.

Did you read it to see if Illegals are even covered? I suspect not...feel free to show where in the bill they are...I suspect a long wait for you to find it.....

and if you think that a bill to change the health care system of the US, could be a simple bill...just shows what a simple mind you must have.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

But are those pages changing because people have read them and are really upset with them?

Seems to me if no one were protesting the bill would have been voted on, passed and law by now.

It is because people are reading it and getting really mad that they are HAVING to go back and change things...

they change for many reason, cost, someone had a better idea and it was adapted, to make it more in line with other bills, becuse people said they wanted some changes....some because some big company threw there weight ( $$$$$) around....fact is, there is no "bill" at this point, there are Bill (S) and they are fluid...and as stated , at least we know what is not in them right now ...such as the Death panal crap..

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It is hard to maintain a fair and balanced approach to a bill that is so vague and convoluted that in many sections it defines nothing specific. The Dem's biggest error in the creation of the House version of this bill is that it has little or no specifics. When you write in generalities it opens anyone opposing the concept to create and fill in the blanks with their greatest fears. If they were more specific it would have eliminated much of this speculation, misinformation, and fear.

the constitution was pretty general, worked out well...sometimes there is good reason to be less specific. I think it would make a bill almost unreadable and unpassable to be to specific and also would leave to little flexablility to adapt

 

[TheFranklinParty]

the constitution was pretty general, worked out well...sometimes there is good reason to be less specific. I think it would make a bill almost unreadable and unpassable to be to specific and also would leave to little flexablility to adapt

Wow..did you really say that the Constitution was vague? On the contrary what you read as vague, I read as direct and simple language with a solid degree of specificity. The questions that have occurred over the life of the document is when we as a society have changed our minds (slavery and a woman's right to vote) or the terminology changed (gay used to mean happy and now it defines a sexual preference).

Please don't compare this bill to the Constitution in part because one of the things that drove the clarity of the Constitution was the passionate debate that occurred during its writing and ratification.

One of the problems with today's society is too many things are left up to interpretation. Generalizations and open ended langauge is in part what allowed too many tyrannical leaders to change the face of Europe and Asia in the last 100 years.

Vagueness is the tool of the the thief and the con-artist, while specificity is the tool of an honorable leader.