@Ray Ray -

Just curious as to what form of the law you're referencing here, as your page cites don't match with the official PUBLIC LAW 111–148 - MAR. 23, 2010 document.

Yes, Ray Ray, could you indicate where these quotes are in HR3590? Here is a link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:7:./temp/~c1118M1kql::

This was from an analysis by Texas Judge David Kithil, in his line-item breakdown of the Obama care bill as it was presented for the Dec 2009 senatorial vote. The text has not been altered, but the structure of the text has changed in the format of the final law.

@Ray Ray -

While I'm no fan of Obamacare either, I am a fan of the truth, and the analysis of the bill that you've confided in and posted excerpts from in your commentary is mostly false. First off, it wasn't actually written by Texas Judge David Kithil, but rather by a conservative blogger named Peter Fleckenstein. Second, it analyzes an old version of the bill that was never enacted into law. Third, even under the form of the bill that it was analyzing, it still came to several false and erroneous conclusions.

In today's environment, Hoffa never trusts a secondary source of information and never relies upon another's analysis of a situation in forming my own opinion on something. Instead, Hoffa goes straight to the primary source, makes his own analysis, and only then does Hoffa come to a logical opinion / conclusion. There's plenty in the bill not to like, but we should at least be honest in our assessments - lies and deception are the tools of liberals, not conservatives.

You may want to do the same by looking at the actual public law, as it was passed, for yourself: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

Sources:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

Jan, you ignorantslut, how can you deny the facts from the document itself?

Jan ... Your suggestion that the views of Tommy Thompson and Ray Ray be ignored because of their name truly places you in the light of a permanent non-intellectual. You chose to make fun and dismiss others because of their name? Possibly because you don't like the connotation of your own last name ... OLD + HAM, and choose to take that resentment out on others? there is a med out there with your name on it.

@Johnny... Regardless of the benefits of ACA, the elimination of the 'free-ride' will not lower the financial burden of healthcare on the rest of us. Remember Obamacare is Romneycare;when you look at the actual numbers from Massachusetts the costs went up and availability of healthcare services is reduced.

I think the free ride still exists and may even have been expanded. As far as I can tell this plan taxes the middle class and gives subsidies to people making up to 400% of the poverty level.

By whom? Do you know people who live off their neighbors, or are these apocryphal or composite individuals like Reagan's "Welfare Queen" or Paul Bunyan? ; )

http://www.brainerd.com/pbtrail/tale.html

Yep.

What a crock. Getting a job doesn't help if the job provides no health insurance, as three of mine did not. One was temporary employment (a frequently used tactic nowadays), the other two were with small businesses that 'couldn't afford' employee health coverage. They didn't pay enough to afford it on my own either.

The only personal responsibility I can practice is living as healthily as possible and hoping nothing happens. I'm starting to resent people live on chips and soda and run the costs up for the rest of us, all the time acting smug about how they have health insurance and the rest of us don't.

The crock is someone that would not improve themselves enough to get a job with insurance. It's not real tough, but it does take some effort.
Wisconsin has approx. 9.4% of it's residents that are not covered by health insurance. Massachusetts is at 5.6% with Romneycare. So how much is it going to cost to get that extra 4%?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm

@Greg -- the crock is that you seem to know nothing about being downsized from a professional job. You take what you can get, in an employment market that is increasingly cutthroat.

Your casual assumption that this only happens to the lazy and uneducated is infuriating.

Keep with that line of thinking, no problem Obama has you covered.

@Greg -- Repeal 'ObamaCare', keep up with your line of thinking, and be aware that something like an illness or economic reversal can happen to you at any time.

Unless you're independently wealth and have enough to pay for a catastrophic illness out of pocket once your insurance company drops you for actually getting sick and costing them money. In which case, you and Romney are covered.

My line of thinking was and is "Health insurance was the last real incentive, for many, to get a job." and you have yet to prove otherwise, other than calling it a crock.

Nonsense. Having money is the incentive for getting a job, unless you're talking about someone who would actually worsen his/her standard of living by going off assistance and working for very little money. You're forgetting that BadgerCare and BadgerCare Plus were supposed to address this, but now it's one of the things subject to 'reform'.

@Bren -

"The cost of medical care didn't spiral out of control until businesses began offering health insurance as a recruitment perk after WWII."

You're right - the costs of medical care started spiraling out of control when the practice of the very socialist idea of insurance (pooling individual resources into a collective for the good of all by spreading risk over many payers) started to become the accepted norm. Things were much cheaper when everyone just paid their own bill as they utilized services.

"Things should never have been allowed to reach this pass in the first place but once again powerful lobbies in Washington inspired legislation that benefits a few to the detriment of most."

Right again - it's all the unnecessary regulation and reporting requirements mandated by Washington that have added to the bloated costs of health care in this country, but Obamacare only makes things a hundred times worse in this respect.

"The 80/20 ruling protects everyone from gouging."

Actually, the "80/20 ruling" as you call it, is nothing but a big joke. The insurance industry and its bureaucracy employs millions of people that all have to be paid a decent salary, owns buildings, vehicles, and personal property that all need to be powered and maintained, pays taxes, etc. - where do think the money for all of that comes from? I'll help you out here - policy premium payments!

That's literally billions of dollars yearly spent on health care that doesn't go towards patient care.

And once again, Obamacare only makes this worse, not better. By imposing more regulations, oversights, reporting requirements, and all these mandated national databases, insurance providers will actually have to hire more people, build more buildings, and expend more money. Where do you think the money for this is going to come from? The health care fairy? I'll help you out once again - it's going to come from either higher taxes imposed on the working classes and/or higher premium payments! Thank you Obamacare!

"Of course I personally support removing the middleman and gradually implementing a national healthcare plan."

Grand slam home run on this one Bren! You're absolutely right for a change! We should get rid of health insurance companies all together and go back to the everyone pays their own way as they utilize services approach for a national healthcare plan, just like it was before WWII. And that's what Hoffa has always been doing anyway. Call Guinness, as once again, it's one of those rare moments where Bren and Hoffa actually concur on something!

@mainstreet -

You are dead on correct! I'd go even further in that insurance (a socialist concept) in and of itself has driven up the costs of healthcare. Insurance companies employ tens of thousands of people that all must be paid a decent salary, own several large buildings that must be powered and maintained, pay taxes, etc.. Where does all that money come from? Premium payments! Not to mention all of the HR and staff needed in the hospitals/clinics just to deal with the insurance companies and comply with federal and state regulations. Without all those added costs and expenses, how much would medical procedures really cost on a regular cash / pay as you go basis?

The fine could be calculated on an individualized basis, based on your weight at the time of purchase. The drive-thru and the register lanes will now have scales that weight adjust the fines (read:TAX) for the price of your 'Happy Value Meal'. The Tax(read as 'fine' or 'penalty' this time) is then instantaneously reflected on the menu board pricing.

Jay, let's say one tips the scales at tubby, get's assessed a certain fine/tax/SCOTUS-designation-of-the-moment and then proceeds to order a salad. Do they get credit for that in the form of a reduction in the amount of the whatever-you-want-to-call it calculated at weigh-in?

Tubby would pay regular price, unless the order included an extra pack of Paul Newman's best and extra bacon bits.

Well Bob, the dis-incentives(must avoid those pejoratives:Tax/penalty/fine) will be assessed at point of purchase. The EATeR (earned at the restaurant), for ordering healthy, will be available in the form of tax credit on your 1040. So, save your receipts.

Greg, I think that HAA needs to include a special incentive for pork producers;bacon, even in 'bits', is the other white meat.

"Greg, I think that HAA needs to include a special incentive for pork producers;bacon, even in 'bits', is the other white meat."

**********************

Always with the racial stuff. Where's Queef to call you out for it when we need him?

With bipartisan support, the HAA has been amended to reclassify all pork products as a garnish. Garnishes are not regulated by the HAA. The HAA revision also requires all pork products be renamed parsley, with the exception of pork rinds, they are still listed as a carcinogen.

Somewhere between the stand where you place your fast food order, and where you pick it up, there will be required government counsuling, to determine just why you desired these forbidden food items. Since the counsuling is a government function, it's only open from 9am-3pm, except for an hour off at lunch. No food is delivered w/o counsuling.

@mm -- Where is your freedom now? You take what your employer offers or what you can afford if you're on your own. This doesn't change. Perhaps you don't like the individual mandate? That was originally a GOP idea, going all the way back to Bob Dole.