^^^^^ Understood, if you're not upset and charged I'll believe you. You sound a bit embittered to me though.....
http://bit.ly/ctZTE7 One of my favorite characters. And dissent is a major component of science, my friend, so by all means let's continue the conversation.
Your article doesn't really answer the problem of Amish businesses being required to provide health insurance. And if the Amish can claim exemption, why not someone who simply disagrees with the bill? Stuff like that always seems wishy-washy.
86% of U.S. small businesses will be exempt from having to provide coverage for their employees, because they are exactly that- small with few employees. People opposed to this law never wanted to acknowledge that. Additionally, in my part of Northeastern Ohio, where there are a ton of Amish families (
http://bit.ly/aVKTxJ), and they tend to be family-staffed businesses with less than the statute of 50 workers employed within them, they are EXEMPT from having to provide insurance. This would all be clear to anyone that has
actually read the law or contacted their representative (or staff) regarding the law's content. What's wishy-washy is being opposed to something you know very little about- beyond the thorny statement of "I don't like it." Dissent is welcome, but make it
informed dissent. Even though I'm sure you speak Homer more beautifully than anyone. :wink:
And nah, I'm not interested in reading a huge bill. I'd rather read Tolstoy if I'm going to read something so huge. I just want to be able to visit my doctor or dentist, discuss procedures and monetary compensation, and be in and out. I shouldn't need to read 1,000 pages to do that, or even be forced to buy insurance, or forced to buy higher-priced drugs because of backroom deals.
You should be familiar with the text and principles of legislation that you take issue with. Otherwise, it becomes obvious that your argument isn't grounded in much more than your own conviction. There's alot of philosophical flourishing you can do with that alone but in the context of this debate for you it goes as follows: "I am not familiar with the law therefore I am not fit to criticize the law and be taken seriously." Back up that opinion of yours with some data, noble sir.
As for the length of the bill and your unwillingness to read it, KISS, the band or the saying about keeping it simple, doesn't apply. Legislation that affects millions of people in a comprehensive way is going to have alot of words, and all the cynicism in the world isn't going to change that. And nothing's going to get in the way of you hashing it out with your doc, so no worries there since if anything there will be less complications.
As the mandate for insurance goes it doesn't go until effect until 2014, has exemptions (especially if you're already so far down on the poverty level), and in all honesty will not be enforced with all that much rigidity. That last part is pure conjecture on my part (just that part not my whole response!) but I think that will most likely happen. Sometimes that reaching broom to get people to pay up just ain't there.
This is enjoyable discussion. Let me say that much, indeed. And I know people like to use the whole "government takeover" knee-jerk response. Eric Cantor used the tactic when he told Obama at the bi-partisan summit that if we just took all the government out of the insurance industries things could be allowed to operate properly. And to that President Obama responded as follows (not verbatim): "If we took all the meat inspectors out of the meat-packing plants we would probably have alot more inexpensive beef in the grocery stores and markets. That doesn't mean that it would be beef worth buying- or eating." Understand what he 's saying here.
The insurance industries have been allowed to run wild for too long. We're beginning to collar them now, and while there's a ton as yet to be accomplished we've at least admitted that there is a problem that needed to be addressed. We certainly have not made it worse.
Now I'm really starting to have fun. Let's keep it going!
And read Don DeLillo, not Tolstoy. Had to throw that out there.
