Do these actual economics include the fraud? The crooks will learn to break into the system. Will bilk the US tax players out of billions of dollars.

Funny, I thought you initially said you were an independent and didn't like either party.

Re the bolded part...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56109

When he said 'paid abortions' does he mean the bill would pay for abortions or women would get paid to have abortions?

so the house and senate have the taxpayer funding abortions in their bill even tho it goes against half the country's personal beliefs? its good to know congress has our best interests in mind.

would love to see you try to back up your assertion that the idea of paid abortions is one big scare tactic used by repubs after reading that article action.

Did you read the bullet? I doubt it. It specifically mentions letting consumers shop across state lines, an idea you referenced a couple pages ago.

As for Obama lying, easy. 1) He said you can keep your plan/doctor if you like it. Several analyses of the bill show that not to be the case, if not immediately then within a few years. 2) He said it won't add to the deficit. If it doesn't, it's only because we start paying for it years before the plan takes effect. That's BS.

The Democrats care nothing about controlling government spending. It's *obvious* that they don't. Have you read that next year's budget contains a 12+% increase in spending? TWELVE PERCENT at a time with zero inflation. They want to control the health care system. It gives them power and makes it easier to be re-elected. That's all this is about.

Links to said analyses?

Will you just dismiss whoever wrote the analysis as a partisan hack?

My understanding is that it was for rape situations or if the mothers life was in danger. If that's true then your contention about only half supporting it is a big off as something like 80% support abortions being available in those cases.

Also, is there a difference between funding for abortions and 'paid abortions' or are you guys just saying the same thing a different way? I ask because I've seen people claim that women will be paid to have an abortion.

I'll take that as a no to providing links to backup your claims then...

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jos...your-plan-mayb

come on gimmie a break how can u cite them?

its funny YOU know they are partisan hacks and admit it before even posting it..

do you think its a problem that the source you cite takes a TON of money from the industry they are supposed to be studying?

Because they quote the bill and discuss its meaning and consequences.

Not in this specific instance. If you disagree with their interpretation of the bill, please explain why.


Note that I asked about the "partisan hack" response precisely for this reason. It's not like you're going to find a liberal, Obama-loving source criticizing the bill.

First thing that jumped out at me in the article JTG is:

Can you explain to me how a part of the bill talking about raising premiums is analyzed and now means they can't raise the price of the plan at all?

They try to explain it though:

While I don't want to give you the satisfaction of being all 'i posted my link and they called it hackery just like i said they won't believe me ;dlkfjas;fkjldsjfa!!!1' that article seems pretty bad =\

Basically, if they need to raise the premiums on grandfathered plans, they will then have to conform to the new Exchange rules/rates. In other words, even if you have a grandfathered policy, as soon as any aspect of that policy would need changing, including the premiums, the plan is essentially null and you then have to go to the Exchange.

So you can technically keep your coverage if you like it and the insurance company is kind enough to not make any changes, even if they lose money.

I tried to quote from a source that would elicit the least "partisan hackery" response.

Really? I figured FreedomWorks would be the one to get that the most, what were your other sources?

You don't need any analysis for the "He said you can keep your plan/doctor if you like it" thing because if your employer were to end his current plan and quit providing insurance you obviously don't get to keep your plan and Obama can't guarantee your doctor is going to be in the PO. It was just a sloppy thing to say, hence why he rephrased it after a while.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...e-promise.html

Just Google "Obamacare can you keep your plan".

No time to explain it in full (although i think it's obvious) but that section doesn't say what the author is asserting. Cliff notes: what is being prohibited is insurance companies jacking up the rates on an individual or group with a grandfathered policy because they/some of their members got sick and are now more expensive than they used to be (something that's expressly prohibited in the exchange plans.)

They can change the price, but the point is that once they do, the plan falls under the control of the Exchange Commissioner.

No sorry.

What they are saying is that if they try to jack my rate up, they have to jack the rate up for everyone else in my risk group at the exact same rate, ie if they want to jack my rate up because I have diabetes now, they now have to raise the premiums of every other 45 year old non smoker the same amount even if the don't have diabetes.

BTW, this whole argument was debunked months ago, not only is your pony slow, it's apparently pretty stupid.

Ok for the sake of argument, I'll say you're right.

If they can't raise your rate but know you'll cost more, why won't they just cancel your policy? They have no incentive to keep you. So again, you won't keep your plan.

LOL, that's the whole point. They can't drop you for getting sick, nor can they raise your rates to the point where you have no choice but to cancel. This clause does the EXACT opposite of what the article says it does.

What you're saying makes no sense. They can't legally require the companies to lose money.