My problem with this report from MSNBC and liberals is that they never quote or prove their points with facts from the bill itself. It is likely they have not even read the bill at all like most of the democrats who voted for it. Where is the outcry about the death panels which this bill did create with the authorization of the death panels.

The law creates a nonprofit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute charged with examining the "relative health outcomes, clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness"

These are death panels. They will set what care seniors will get in there final years. Stated by the NYT just yesterday.

6. Federal government employees will be forced to switch their health insurance coverage and participate in the exchanges. Verdict? Mostly not true.

All federal employees should be in the new health plan. If the plan is so good why did they exclude congress and staffers and white house personally from this great new health plan. Because they no it is crap.

Steven K,

Did you read the article? For all seven of the points, they provided analysis from an expert on the subject, and both sides of the issue. Did you want them to put up a PDF of the bill that the reader could pull up for reference while reading? Do you see anything ridiculous about that?

I am all for deporting illegals, but I am confused. Don't they already take advantage of free or subsidized healthcare, through fraud or indifference? I can't see this bill really doing anything for OR against illegals.

I'm glad you understand that currently illegals cost us more money then they would if we had passed universal health care and covered everyone, regardless of status. Most hospitals are required to treat ER patients. Most illegals can't afford health insurance on that $5.00 an hour maid or waitress job, $3.00 an hour picking crops, but, funny thing -- their kids get sick and they want to make them feel better -- and they will end up in the ER, just as do regular Joe-Plumbers without insurance, and we ALL pay for that with the anecdotal $5.00 tissue, $20.00 aspirin.

If our fears wouldn't drive our hatred, we could all benefit from real change, real regulation of the insurance companies and pharma. Universal health care hasn't destroyed any of the other democracies in this world, and most of them aren't any more "socialist" than we are.

This plan is no more radical than the one Nixon backed. Or, just for fun, read the Republican platform from 1956. Sound, compassionate policy. Why all the fear now?

I am so disappointed..everyone here seemed to pick up on illegal immigrants but left out the most important facts..80% of those uninsured are US citizens by birth. There are appx 47 million uninsured Americans in the US. Question is, how many have adequate access to health care of those 47 million. In that 47 million there is an estimate that 23 million will still be uninsured...does anyone see a problem with this picture? It is estimated that almost half of those uninsured will STILL be uninsured after the plan goes completely through...and that is all at a nice cost of over 1 trillion dollars...so we are paying out over 1 trillion dollars to insure 24 million Americans by force? Interesting...how does anyone think that is a logical cost..what does that work out per person in costs? It is going to cost us 42,000 dollars per person to insure 24 million ..are you friggin kidding me? That is over 3,500 per person..someone is messing with them numbers or perhaps the government needs to just flat out purchase and pay for the private plans..it would work out to be a whole lot cheaper in the end.

I couldn't have said it any better lx. You always keep beating me to the comments!!! I'm going to have to get online earlier! :P

no problem I am glad you liked the comment...people keep pointing to constitutional professors..but constitutional professors were incredibly wrong when it came to a few acts a few years ago..the Gun Free School Zones act was found unconstitutional because it exceeded congresses commerce powers and the Violence Against Women act also was found unconstitutional..on the same grounds..they were left speechless. States can and have passed such laws but it has to be left up to state level authorities.

What the hell is with the Mostly True, Mostly Not true ect ect..

True or False, as the title of the article says, is an A or B answer. There is no C and D when you are talking about True or False..

Either it happens or it doesnt. Trying to say, well for the most part its false, BUT if this condition happens its true.........

Stop trying to white wash the lack of health care in this bill.

Jeremy, because ...the talking heads opposed to HCR take some shred of truth, then warp it to support their own particular point of view. Like the comment above about "Death Panels". These specific words and terms were selected explicitly to demonize the HCR plan. Makes for good political theater, but adds nothing of value.

Interesting that many of the ideas in the HCR act came from conservatives. But because it is a politically volatile issue today, those same people renouce the plan as "Socialist" or "Evil" or "Death Panels"....what ever.

Yes, I do believe Health Care Reform act was a good start, but we have more work to do.

I have heard the misinformation about jail time for those who fail to comply with the insurance mandate MANY times...especially here on Newsvine. Just a minute or two of searching yields these three links:

• http://crispy2000.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/06/3469850-committee-confirms-comply-with-pelosicare-or-go-to-jail

• http://shanescolumns.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/20/3526782-senate-healthcare-bill-added-to-hr-3590-is-this-a-tax-bill-or-healthcare-bill

  "you could have possible prison time for not having paid the fine imposed by not have the minimal health plan. Please participate in survey on this issue."

• http://leemarchetta.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/30/4090312-americans-divided-on-repealing-health-care-law-latest-poll-by-cnn

I think it is important to do a TINY bit of research before throwing out completely baseless accusations about "manufactured lie[s]" and maligning the motivations of respected news organizations for reporting facts that don't coincide with your personal biases.

The amount of premeditated misinformation and wild hysteria surrounding this very important and long-overdue legislation is completely beyond the pale, and unfortunately feeds into the fears and ignorance of far too many people (most of whom, ironically, stand to benefit from the very reforms they condemn).

You -do- agree that the US gov't intends to mandate coverage, yes? How do you think the gov't can mandate -anything- without punishing those who choose not to take part?

What a bunch of biased BS!!! They just pick out selected crap to try and dis-credit those opposed to this POS bill. I love this argument:

The IRS won't be hiring as many people because "That responsibility, he said, lies with the Department of Health and Human Services".

In other words we won't have to hire near as many people because they will. How stupid do you think we are MSNBC? Or how about this:

"President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that people who like their health insurance can keep it. However, that doesn't apply to a small group of federal employees."

How about mentioning that it also doesn't apply to the hundreds of thousands that currently purchase catastrophic healthcare which is no longer allowed under this bill. Those people will be required to purchase more comprehensive coverage which today costs more than twice as much. Most of these people don't even realize how badly they are about to get screwed because the media neglects to point out any truth that is negative. Saying BO's statement doesn't apply is just a nice way of saying he lied! Again how stupid do you think we are?

Actually this article was reprinted by MSNBC and written by Kaiser's publicity machine. Why would a health insurer be writing a pro legislation slanted article? Obviously they stand to benefit greatly by this bill as do all health insurers.

Carrie,

YES, you CAN go to prison for not paying the fine.
It's administered by the IRS - the most efficient and ruthless collection agency in the world.
Like any of your other TAXES, it will be collected.

Why do you think the IRS has so many weapons?

If you read my post, I was not asserting that no one would go to jail for not paying the fine...so please take your argument to the person who wrote the article and judged that fear as false, but try to stay focused on their points rather than making completely unsubstantiated and inflammatory claims like the IRS being "the most efficient and ruthless collection agency in the world." I very much doubt you even have knowledge of every single collection agency in the world, let alone a metric by which to measure their ruthlessness.

I was simply setting the record straight for MaximumBob, who said "I've never heard anyone against this law make a statement about jail time, but MSNBC adds it in to sour the argument." It is very clear that many people have made this statement in many different conversations. If we are going to have a meaningful debate, all parties must make factual, credible claims.

And as far as government setting mandates for people without sending those who disobey to jail, it happens all the time. There are many ways to enforce mandates that do not involve incarceration. For example, I once had a fix-it ticket for not displaying my license sticker on my license plate (I had put it in the glove compartment and forgotten about it). When it came time to renew my driver's license, they would not allow me to until I paid the fines and penalties. No jail time on my record.

I believe if you actually read the bill, you will see the fines and penalties spelled out clearly, so why don't you take a look?

I was thinking pretty much the same thing. If these are really the top fears, people are worried about this bill for the wrong reasons.

Yeah, ummmm... I am worried a little that this is only the start of a bad idea. Namely changing to a system where rather then fiscal rewards for doing a job it becomes a mandate.

Now this bill does not do this... However how long will it be before the costs exceed the government expectation? Not long at all. President Obama is saying give it a chance. Well why don't we give Food vouchers for everyone a chance and make it so that vegetables cost next to nothing to allow people to eat more healthy? Give it a chance!!! The reason why you don't give bad ideas a chance is because in the end they are bad ideas. That is not to say there are not benefits from what are in this bill, heck people in my own family will benefit. But there will be a cost

It is like the housing market. Right now we have been given a low interest rate for the first five years, and hey if you can't afford the house it will be worth more right so it is no risk... Enough people decided to 'give it a chance' that it got the whole nation into trouble.

And MSNBC NONE OF THOSE CONCERNS are why I dislike the Health Care Bill... So... Are you just trying to create straw man arguments as to why the bill passage is a good thing? By making the people who see the writing on the wall look dumb?

Actually, I think they're making themselves look dumb as they are not addressing the real fears and reasons people don't like this.

My question & has been all along is that no where, no matter how hard I try, can I find any info. on what costs are for obtaining insurance! Can I get a "ballpark" figure? I MIGHT just be able to obtain insurance in the 19 months I have before I go on Medicare, but at what cost?

In fairness, the article was written by Kaiser. So, the national economy isn't exactly their area of expertise. It kinda makes sense they were just writing about the health care aspects per se, and not the wider economic issues.

Oh, and the second biggest fear is probably that, since the reform doesn't really have any cost or price reduction in it, that health care prices will become further out of control.

Mike: You just might have answered my question!

Did you notice that he prefaced his statements with...probably, might, possibly, etc.? I thought that the original reasons for reform were to #1 have AFFORDABLE coverage available to all citizens, and #2 prevent the insurance companies from blowing up costs. Then there were the Medicare issues. #1....Admittedly, the cost of this insurance is not going to be wonderful or better than what we have now. #2.....See #1. Medicare...going up $120/month....and we are concerned that retires cannot afford to pay high costs for their medical coverage? Please advise me what the advantages of this CHANGE are, I'm serious. I really want to know. Medical coverage has always been available for all....just very expensive for those with pre-existing conditions. I truly don't think they are going to save much with this plan. Do you?

I disagree with your Number 3. It will not force insurance companies out of business because they will be allowed to adjust their premium prices to cover the costs and protect their profits. That's what the risk pooling provisions of the insurance exchanges are all about. The primary effect of this bill is to subsidize the insurance industry.

Brian - What you didn't mention is there are no price restrictions on insurance premiums until 2014, therefore you will see insurance premiums rise tremendously during the next four years. That is why insurance stocks shot up after the bill was passed.

Premiums have already gone up for some people I know. Sure, the increase was probably planned before the bill passed, but I doubt it was a coincidence.

Because MSNBC is owned by GE and GE is slated to get the contract to convert medical records to electronically filed.

MSNBC apparently has a substantial funding from Mexico

"Nobody knows how this will play out" You mean Congress and President Obama and Nancy Pelosi et cetera really really didn't know what in the world they were voting for?

While in one(ER) a while back I had no insurance(long story)and a Mexican woman with gold chains and diamond jewelry told me to lie to get indigent care . She said her and all her relatives do.

I live in a border city. Recently I visited my doctor and was required to wait amost 2 hours until a string of medicaid patients, and one interesting character escorted by an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agent went in ahead of me. I wonder why that guy could get government health care and I can't?

Federal policy for the last 10 years or so is to confiscate without prosecution possession of less than 50 pounds of marijuana found in the custody of an illegal alien running the border. Maybe if you had been bringing in money, then you too could've seen the doctor.

In fact I have, I have very good insurance but had to take my wife a few weeks ago. I live in a farming area where there are a whole bunch of farm labors, mostly from Mexico. When we walked in there were approximatley 45 people. The vast majority were low income working whites. I would say about 20 to 25. Then there were the elderly about 15. The remaining were hispanic. O those 3 were ones that I know, one works at the local golf course, one has a local restrauant, and one works at the local tire store.

I asked the administrator a couple of days later if this was the norm, and he told me that it was a slow day. He further told me that the vast majority of patients treated where working whites or elderly, that either did not have insurance or had no way to get medical service during the day in that they needed to have someone bring them, but those care givers were working.

He further told me that their normal day to day non-reimbursable cost exceed $50,000. And that those cost are passed on to those that have insurance or money to pay. Frankly I do not know if this heath insurance paln will help but something has to be done in that I am sick and tired of paying for someone else medical service.

Bottom line for me is if you don't have insurance or money to pay, NO SERVICE: Period.

Going out on a limb here....

I'm not against helping someone else get medical care who is HONESTLY unable to come by it. I am an American and have been raised with the "we're all in this together" kind of mentality. Of course I am totally against paying for those who could work but abuse the system with fake claims of disability or inability to find work. Again, I said FAKE (meaning dishonest) claims. I have no problem with helping the elderly who are honestly in need of it and all that "liberal sounding" jazz. I am a conservative. So shoot me, lol.

I am against the HCR as it stands as the math just doesn't add up. I am against it on a few moral issues (which is my right thank-you-very-much). I am not against reform as a need. I just don't think THIS reform package will dig us out...only dig us deeper.

I agree Rachel...what I would actually like to see instead of all this nonsense we have right now is caps on insurance..and yeah I am a moderate..but abuse is abuse...and the insurance companies prices are insane. I agree with regulating them to accept pre existing conditions...people need the care when they have this issue.

However, I am against madates.

What I would like to see is something like we have for children in Children's hospitals that is basically charity hospitals for the uninsured that cannot pay all of thier costs. St Josephs or St Jude are all miracles in the making when it comes to children...and they are free..we need the government to set up models like theirs and base it on charity.

Also Shrine Hospitals fall under that as well. I actually was a patient in the Shrine Hospital for Crippled Children (yes, that was the name of the hospital, I am not trying to be insensitive by using the term "crippled") many times as a kid. I am also permanently disabled. I worked full time, paid taxes, etc etc just like everyone else as an adult after putting myself through university.

People tend to believe that conservatives are against all forms of services for those less fortunate. The truth is that most of us are against the abuse of those systems and recognize that "reform" is called for to varying degrees.

I know of very few Republicans personally who think that it's okay to let an elderly, disabled or what have you person starve to death, go without medical care etc. I -do- know that many are opposed to the abuses, inconsistencies and waste inherent in the current systems in place. That reform is needed has never really been the issue.

The lack of transparency, the back room deals, the loop holes and outright lies and the fact that the people who voted for this HCR don't even know what's in it...THAT is a HUGE issue. The fact that this is going to create a LOT more problems than it fixes is also what the REAL issue is, in my opinion.

Exactly...my daughter had difficulties as a baby with apnea. While that today doesn't sound as frightening in 92 they had said there was a connection between it and crib death. She was in a children's hospital that was charity. Not so much cause we were poor, but because the doctor wanted to research and because we had no insurance. Her pediatrician knew this doctor well and sent me to him. I was so fortunate because he set my mind at ease and they were so kind to her...she was tiny from birth even though everything else was normal she just would forget to breath while she was asleep. I spent nine months without sleep, but they took her off the monitor when she was over a year old.

My youngest also spent 1 week at that same charity hospital because he had came from Honduras and had not only rotovirus, but he also had RSV and he was in bad shape...ironically he didn't pick up the RSV in Honduras..he picked it up in the states..but the rotovirus he picked up here. They took great care of him..I would dare say superior to what happens in a public hospital. I have donated to that hospital every year at Christmas and always send a picture of the two children they took care of. The girl is now 18 and the youngest is turning 14 tomorrow.

It sounds like you had difficulty from childhood...do you mind if I ask you what happened? I had an aunt who has now passed that was struck with polio when she was 2 and she as a result had to use braces to walk.

I have a rare hereditary condition called Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

I also have acquired as an adult: Paraplegia (at age 14), Raynaud's Phenomenon, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and horrid migraines.

I got my condition from my mother's side of the family. Hers has entered terminal stage. Mine so far has not. Needless to say....HCR is a HUGE big fat hairy deal to me and I -know- what "social" medicine means when it comes to people like us, cancer patients, etc. It means by the time the powers that be make up their minds whether or not she is worthy of treatment...it'll be too damned late.

I have no illusions as to the game of "life boat" the government will play with people like her, myself and others.

agreed entirely..thank you for sharing now even though I am an NP you have sent me to go stick my nose in a medical book...be back after I figure out the condition you have...don't tell me I wanna see the book..I have figured much of it out by reading the words but I have to see if I am right.

I have lupus and I get migraines that are related to that condition as well so I can certainly sympathize with the migraines..

This article is by Byron York. He's on Laura Ingraham's show two or three times a week bashing the administration from every angle he can think of. He doesn't write an article unless it's criticizing Obama's administration. And he doesn't even mention actual figures. I've read that the actual amount that you may be fined or taxed is something like $65 up to a couple hundred...for an entire year. If that's true, do you really think some agent is going to cart you off to jail for $65?

Does anyone know what the fine is?

Here is the section of HR3590 which was passed:

‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL

COVERAGE

‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.

‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning

after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the

individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum

essential coverage for such month.

‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet

the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during

any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided

in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty

with respect to the individual in the amount determined under

subsection (c).

‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by

this section with respect to any month shall be included with

a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which

includes such month.

‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect

to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—

‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of

another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year

including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable

for such penalty, or

‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including

such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual

shall be jointly liable for such penalty.

‘‘(c) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty determined under this subsection

for any month with respect to any individual is an

amount equal to 1⁄12 of the applicable dollar amount for the

calendar year.

‘‘(2) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—The amount of the penalty

imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year

with respect to all individuals for whom the taxpayer is liable

under subsection (b)(3) shall not exceed an amount equal to

300 percent the applicable dollar amount (determined without

H. R. 3590—127

regard to paragraph (3)(C)) for the calendar year with or within

which the taxable year ends.

‘‘(3) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph

(1)—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraphs

(B) and (C), the applicable dollar amount is $750.

‘‘(B) PHASE IN.—The applicable dollar amount is $95

for 2014 and $350 for 2015.

‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18.—

If an applicable individual has not attained the age of

18 as of the beginning of a month, the applicable dollar

amount with respect to such individual for the month shall

be equal to one-half of the applicable dollar amount for

the calendar year in which the month occurs.

‘‘(D) INDEXING OF AMOUNT.—In the case of any calendar

year beginning after 2016, the applicable dollar amount

shall be equal to $750, increased by an amount equal

to—

‘‘(i) $750, multiplied by

‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined

under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined

by substituting ‘calendar year 2015’ for ‘calendar year

1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If the amount of any increase under clause (i) is not a

multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the

next lowest multiple of $50.

‘‘(4) TERMS RELATING TO INCOME AND FAMILIES.—For purposes

of this section—

‘‘(A) FAMILY SIZE.—The family size involved with

respect to any taxpayer shall be equal to the number of

individuals for whom the taxpayer is allowed a deduction

under section 151 (relating to allowance of deduction for

personal exemptions) for the taxable year.

‘‘(B) HOUSEHOLD INCOME.—The term ‘household

income’ means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable

year, an amount equal to the sum of—

‘‘(i) the modified gross income of the taxpayer,

plus

‘‘(ii) the aggregate modified gross incomes of all

other individuals who—

‘‘(I) were taken into account in determining

the taxpayer’s family size under paragraph (1),

and

‘‘(II) were required to file a return of tax

imposed by section 1 for the taxable year.

‘‘(C) MODIFIED GROSS INCOME.—The term ‘modified

gross income’ means gross income—

‘‘(i) decreased by the amount of any deduction

allowable under paragraph (1), (3), (4), or (10) of section

62(a),

‘‘(ii) increased by the amount of interest received

or accrued during the taxable year which is exempt

from tax imposed by this chapter, and

‘‘(iii) determined without regard to sections 911,

931, and 933.

‘‘(D) POVERTY LINE.—

I hope this helps>>>>

But the one special interest group (health insurance organizations) that lobbied this legislation the whole way is strangely quiet. Maybe because they got pretty much what they wanted out of it?

Kevin,

Here's an idea. why don't you go do some research YOURSELF!! The bill is available for you to read online. Or you can go research every statement that the article made and find out if it's propaganda or not. My guess is that most people aren't going to do that. Then you might find out that it's not as bad as FOX news said it was. I'm not saying who's lying who's telling the truth. But before you come in here repeating the same old rhetoric word for word, please just take some time to research it yourself. And if it IS all BS, provide everyone with links to your findings. Most of the truth is out there...if people will just take the time to look.