That is the best summary of the bill I have seen!  I wish everyone would read that.  But most will not (and the few that have read the 2000+ page bill are not in congress).

Since the government money does not kick in until 2014, that means that many insurance companies will be pulling out (since they will not be able to afford the increased liability you describe above).  So by the time the government subsidies kick in, the government will be hauling in a ton of money (fines), insuring about 80+% of the people, and the care will be worse (the only way to make up the loss for the remaining insurance companies is to cut coverage).  Plus we already know the biggest denier of health care is the Feds.

So all the liberals have gotten is to kill health care.  As you noted, this bill is not about health care, but Healh Insurance.  In a few years, you will be hard pressed to find quality in either area.  Well, not the very wealthy, but the remaining 95% of the population.

In that case why are so many people opposed so completely/ideologically to it? The second point is a very good one (providing companies are still free to charge such people appropriate rates) since it helps increase competition and choice for such people. As for the first one, people without insurance get insurance provided by the state, by taxing everyone else (but only covering the most basic healthcare, i.e. emergancy healthcare). So if the government was to force all such people to get insured, all they're doing is making sure those people are no longer getting a free ride at everyone elses expense - i.e. making people more responsible for their own actions. The only issue I then see is over the minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage you need - should it just cover such emergancy care, or should it cover more than that? I wouldn't call such differences as great as has been made out though.

So if this is the case, why does it seem like neither side can find any form of consensus on anything regarding this? I could understand if one side was proposing government provided healthcare since that would be an ideological split between whether the state should provide something via taxation or if it should be left to individuals/the market.

As to point 3/the subsidies, it'd probably depend more on the specifics, although if everyone is having to get insurance there isn't any point in having subsidies provided to insurance companies, since the main point of a subsidy on a good/service is to encourage people to consume it, but they're already going to be as a result of it being mandatory.

Don't forget that the penalty for the insurance companies for denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions is only $1500, unless they've updated that number in the past few months.  Everyone can likely determine the effectiveness of that incentive on their own.

Lets not forget who will be enforcing these fines.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/IRS_Power_Report.pdf

Just some highlights:

IRS agents verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage 

IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250 or 2 percent of your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage” 

IRS can confiscate your tax refund  

IRS audits are likely to increase   

IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade 

IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans 

Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four)  

***SPECIAL EXEMPTION*** 

Democrats prohibit the IRS from imposing these taxes and penalties on illegal immigrants 

When I was a kid a made an honest mistake on my tax return and owed the IRS some money, I would have preferred owing money to the Mafia. The IRS getting expanded powers is one of the most troubling aspects of this, but the shredding of our constitution, the backroom deals and corruption, and the closed door sessions where corruptocrats bolted themselves away to decide what was best for all of us without asking is what burns me the most. 

Yes, I can see where you think screwing 200 million americans is fair play.

There was one difference between 2001 and 2009.  In 2001, Bush listened to democrats.  In 2009, democrats (especially obama) did not listen to republicans.  So your fair play is screw them once, screw them twice, and screw them one more time.

yep, that is the MF we have all come to know.

One second is enough for me. It usually begins and ends at "Mumblefratz"

I see the resident socialist came out from the safety of his controlled blog to gloat in the open blogs, how refreshing.

Am I the only one who sees this comment as the dumbest thing ever written? Begging for support?

Bipartisanship - In a two-party system, bipartisan refers to any bill, act, resolution, or any other action of a political body in which both of the major political parties are in agreement.

It was bipartisanship mumble, not "back the Democrats because they have majority". The Democrats refused to work with the Republicans, Obama lied when he claimed bipartisanship and transparency. But what can you expect, in order for anyone to see the transparency of something they would have to be anything but blind. This bill was not the will of the people, this was the will of a political party. All Obama needed was to stand at the top of the Empire State Building screaming "I Am Obama Almighty, My Will Be Done".

This is absolutely laughable. In a sick sort of way.

And the post-passage propaganda from dunces like Frum was entirely predicted.  Enjoy it while you can.

Which is interesting because the way I understand this, allowing interstate insurance sales would give the federal government more control over such sales allowing for much better regulation.

"Most doctors, I am sure, become doctors to help people or at least for the general prestige rather than primarily for the money. It's too hard a job with too late a payoff to be done by people who are after the money."

Someone has a doctor in the family...

No, doctors tell others (and usually themselves) that they became doctors to help people. In fact, they do it for the money. But you are right about the prestige. They do get a kick out of the belief in superiority. That is probably a factor as well, but not a sufficient one on its own.

"And yes, doctors do have a moral duty to help and cure. It is their moral obligation to cure if they can, just as it is mine and yours to help someone in danger as well."

It is not my moral obligation to help someone in danger, especially not at cost to myself and especially if I do not know the person. And a doctor probably doesn't even believe in God, so there goes the moral argument altogether. Scientific materialism excludes moralism unless it has a self-interested explanation.

Let me put it this way. If I could save 7 people from death by giving up my house, then it would certainly be nice if I gave up my house. But I do not have to. This can be seen because it is true that you have no right to take my house from me in order to save them, if I do not want you to take my house. Of course, in the real world, a vigilante (something that is paradoxically not good) would probably just throw me in prison and take my house.

"That's true."

If you understand this, then you must see how doctors are not required to help you. You have no intrinsic right to it, and they have no obligation to provide it for you. It is simply a power they have aquired through the mutilation of animals and that sort of thing, and if they don't want to share it, they don't have to.

"But government has the right to force you to give up your money for charitable causes. It's called taxation and it's completely legal. Governments have all the rights delegated to them including the right to give to charitable causes. The US constitution specifies what rights have been delegated to the government and taxation is one of those.

If the discussion is about whether government may tax, the discussion ends here, because the answer is yes.

We can only discuss whether government should tax and how much and what the money should be used for."

Actually, the government has no right to tax. And to say it's legal is redundant. The government makes the laws. The question is one of morality. The government can only rightly take your money if you agree that it is ok for the government to take your money because you agree with what will be done with your money by the government. Since this is almost never the case, taxation amounts to thievery.

"In that case your problem is not disagreement with this law but disagreement with human society."

I think you might be suprised by how wrong you are. Take the Kitty Genovese story, for instance. Over 30 people watched her get stabbed to death in the street below, and no one did anything about it. Human society has spoken.

And anyway, I am not talking about what would be nice and happy. I am talking about what people are absolutely REQUIRED to do. It turns out, people are only required not to cause harm themselves. They don't have to stop it from happening to other people.