That you don't actually know what is in the new health care law.
You also said you would get rid of the government public option...which also isn't in the new law.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Healthcare Reform - Obama
- Thread starter jradicle11
- Start date
You also said you would get rid of the government public option...which also isn't in the new law.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
So we are all imagining the public option now huh?
You fail for assuming that the article is to link what is going on to racism....
Try reading for once
toasty
Android Enthusiast
In a word, yes. It wasn't a part of the final bill. Your side won on this point, congratulations. I can't believe it is necessary to point this out.
toasty
Android Enthusiast
First and foremost, I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Not trying to be obtuse, but what is "semi immunity" and what sort of "clause" would you use to grant it?
As a starting point, the pharma companies you seek to protect would fight this tooth and nail, for a couple of reasons. First, it isn't as if they conduct a study or two and send a drug on its merry way to the FDA, they perform dozens of studies on everything from broad-line safety and efficacy to the individual features of a drug that constitute its safety and efficacy profile, like dissolution rates. Accordingly, getting all of them ready for public dissemination in easy to understand language would be an exercise in hoop jumping and busy work that they aren't going to want to take on. The second reason they'd oppose it is that not all of these studies paint their product in a favorable light, particularly the early studies when they're trying to get the formulation down. Publishing these studies could decrease demand for their drug, even though it's a natural and expected part of the development process to have the drug fail along the way. No one gets it right the first time.
From the consumer's side, this may sound paternalistic, but the truth of the matter is that if all of these studies were published, it would be such an overload of information that 99% of consumers wouldn't bother to read them. Even if you were to compel the dissemination of the final safety and efficacy study only, I seriously doubt most people would read it. I mean, do you read the package insert on a drug before you take it? If you do, you're part of a very small batch of people, because most people look for the warnings and contraindications, and that's about it, because that's what's important to them.
To be clear, I have no problem with drug companies making money, even a lot of money. They do a lot of good for society and should be rewarded for that innovation. With that said, though, I don't think that asking them to disclose known material risks in a prominent manner (read: one that you would expect the average consumer to actually notice) is unfair. As a matter of fact, I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with that.
Crude
Android Expert
washingtonpost is the lefts version of fox news.
Also I'd like to point out that comparing this bill to racism is psychology that appeals to the type that shouldn't be voting in the first place....which is what got us to this bill.
Read the damn article instead of just seeing it came from the washingtonpost.. It isn't an opinion piece or a left slanted view about how racists your side is or anything like that... It is a piece about state vs federal government...
toasty
Android Enthusiast
c-span ftw.
No, it was removed from bill (along with a bunch of other stuff that people complained about) before it was signed into law.
This is why all these polls that say xx% disapprove of this law are completely worthless. Most people don't even know what is in the actual law anyway. Its sad.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Most people not knowing what made it into the "final cut" is not sad. Fact is most people don't have time to sift through a novels worth of confusing legal jargon. Why can't it be written in plain old english? Na that would be too easy.
3devious
Android Expert
His side is racists, huh? Your response is the same that anyone has when called to task about their inflamatory BS. That is no better than the crap that Limbaugh pulls. "What, I am not saying it's a racial issue... but the first thing I am going to contrast the situation with is a dispute over segregation." versus "I wasn't saying that in Obama's america white people that ride the bus are going to get beat up while black people chant "Right on!" but..."
I read the article just like I am always getting WaPo nonsense flung around like feces tossed by baboons. The point is, you picked the most inflammatory thing you could find to wade into something that you "normally don't participate in" and cry like Paris Hilton when being called out for your not so subtle nonsense. Learn to read? How about trying to have some accountability for what you actually do say?
toasty
Android Enthusiast
It is when they go on and on demonizing a bill for provisions it doesn't even contain. Fox et al learned early on that the term "public option" was a pressure point for conservatives back in the summer of '09, and they've continued to use it to whip you folks into a froth even though it hasn't been a serious point of contention since last fall.
The bill is huge, and indeed, our VP might even refer to it as a "big effin' bill," but it represents the most significant overhaul of the health care system in this country in a century so yeah, it's going to take more than a few pages to do what it needs to do. People rightfully hate the length and complexity of legislation, but what what they should hate even more is poorly worded, overly simplified legislation that doesn't address the multiplicity of other existing statutes that will be affected or leaves open too much room for interpretation.
Point is, all those words aren't there just for show. Ultimately, though, I don't think anyone suggests that you need to actually read the bill in its entirety to have a sense of what is contained and what is not -- there are plenty of non-partisan outlets you can visit that will hit the highlights for you in terms of what it does and doesn't do. With the public option or the related claims of "government take-over of health care," though, it isn't in there, and it hasn't been a part of it for a long time, so complaining about it makes you look like you're getting your info from the only people that are continuing to bitch about it.
3devious
Android Expert
What is even more sad is when legislators draft things in the middle of the night and want you to vote on them before you get a chance to read them. It might even be tragic that when the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office was going to be published that Saturday, law makers were expected to just "pass it now and we'll work out additional funding later."
I don't need things to be simple. I was aware that the public option was out before the Senate blew off that garbage. The problem is that we have 437 of the most corrupt people in the country deciding how the rest of us will be living and I would bet all of what I have that most of the people who voted on this bill have no idea of what is even in it and are even more worthless than these polls.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
My point still stands. There is no logical reason legal procedings need to have their own "language" and a learning curve.
You are the only one who brought up racism as the subject of that article.. Read the damn article.. It is about a state who attempted to challenge the federal government's authority to mandate laws that effect the states.. how they lost and are still in the shadow of that lose and how it still resonates into todays situation... all you people want to do is dismiss anything without even understanding what the hell it is about..
Who the hell brought up the racism card.. YES THE ARTICLE WAS ABOUT SEGREGATION.. but read the damn article.. it didn't say anythign about, they were racists or this was a racists act.. It was about what happened to arkansas when they challenged the federal government's ability to create laws that effected the citizens of that state...
Here is a friggen clue.
If the federal government has no right to create laws that effect citizens of the states, then what the hell is the purpose of the federal government at all? We were founded on the principle of a centralized federal government... That is why they are all STATES of the COUNTRY and not sovereign nations of their own...
toasty
Android Enthusiast
They don't have their own language, they use a very precise version of the same language that everyone uses, and the reason should be obvious -- there is a need for a high degree of specificity, to make it clear exactly what is supposed to happen, when, by whom, etc.
It isn't pleasure reading, FFS. Do you complain about the language that doctors, engineers, etc. use as well? Are you annoyed that the assembly instructions for that item you bought aren't in flowery prose?
What prescriptions are written in latin?!?
Yes it is sad. One doesn't need to read the actual entire law to know what is in it. There are plenty of non biased places to get summaries of exactly what made it in and what was cut. These also usually include explanations in plain simple English to make understanding it a bit easier.
The truly sad part is the majority of people would rather spend time bashing either side then actually taking the time to educated themselves on something of this significance.
FireChief
Well-Known Member
What do you think of this:
"This is also an income shift. It's a shift, it's a leveling to help lower income Americans. Too often in the last couple of three years, the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much. The wealthier are getting way, way too wealthy. Wages have not kept up with the increased income of the highest income Americans. This legislation (healthcare) will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution income in America, because health care is now a right for all Americans and because health care is now affordable for all Americans."
How you feel about this reveals your view. Try not to think about who said this, but just how it makes you feel..
What do you think?
"This is also an income shift. It's a shift, it's a leveling to help lower income Americans. Too often in the last couple of three years, the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much. The wealthier are getting way, way too wealthy. Wages have not kept up with the increased income of the highest income Americans. This legislation (healthcare) will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution income in America, because health care is now a right for all Americans and because health care is now affordable for all Americans."
How you feel about this reveals your view. Try not to think about who said this, but just how it makes you feel..
What do you think?
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Until they put doctors through med school for free... healthcare should not be a right. As bad as that sounds.
They do.. it is called serving your country... Problem is doctors who just want to go straight to private practice and make large amounts of money...
Same reason i work for the state government of florida.. They are putting me thru graduate school (my tuition is waived), but i work for the government and thus earn a lower income then my private industry counterpart (they earn about 3x the amount i do)...