Hey, what’s actually in the Health Care bill? This is from the ranking Republican member of the House Ways and Means committee:
To see how the next few years will go, click here.
Knowledge is power. Time is money.
12 thoughts on “There’s Aging Gracefully, Then There is This… A Timeline of the Democrats’ Health Care Bill | House Committee on Ways & Means – Republican”
Comments are closed.
You expect us to get information from a republican website? This issue is so polarized it would be expected for you to use as neutral as possible websites for at least some credibility. Instead you fall into the typical one-sided rhetoric I wouldn’t expect to see from a physician.
Umm, you mean, like a Congressional site (like the one linked, hint)? Speaking of polarization, why dismiss the info because it comes form a Republican site? Doesn’t that fall directly into the stereotype you supposedly object to?
Thanks for thinking the worst of me, BTW.
Oh, feel free to actually dispute the assertions with facts, not just ad hominem silliness.
Many happy returns.
GD
“Oh, feel free to actually dispute the assertions with facts, not just ad hominem silliness.”
But when I asked the question of whether there was a reliable source for info on another post the comment was pulled… I know few Americans truly understand the Voltairean aspect to democracy but please try.
You seemed determined to be het up by all the changes; even when the changes are imagined!
I pulled your comment (made twice) to a) try to protect you from yourself, as there are clear links to the source material in the linked article, so you either didn’t read or didn’t get it, and b) it’s exactly the tactic used by comment spammers.
Thanks for looking down your nose at us Americans, BTW. Charmingly patronizing.
Hand G: are you a Brit?
If so, why do you care? And are you always such a supercilious ass?
Yeah, I suppose we could go to a democrat site and learn that we could keep our doctor if we like him/her, that we can keep our insurance plan if we want, that we can reduce our premiums three thousand percent if we just up our deductible to the minimum, that nobody with an income of less than a quarter million dollars will have a cent of tax increase, that not a dime will be added to the deficit under this plan (now that is technically accurate; several trillion dimes will be added…), that there are 57 states, and that we should treat acute exacerbations of asthma in children with a breathalyzer to save money.
Yeah. I suppose we could.
Polarization works both ways. That’s something all can agree on — Americans and democrats alike.
Actually, those who scream ‘polarization’ are the same ones who will look for WHERE the info came from, and as far as I can tell don’t actually look at the information. There’s nothing polarizing about the information I linked to: it is, indeed, what Speaker Pelosi said would happen, Congress would sign the bill and THEN we’d find out what’s in it.
Of interest to the discussion is this Toronto Sun article:
Coulter shut out, but not silenced
By MONTE SOLBERG, QMI Agency
“Wow, that was close. We almost had some free speech break out last week at the University of Ottawa.
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak there, but thankfully students were able to block her natural right to free expression by threatening violence. Don’t be concerned though, because it was the threat of violence in the name of tolerance!
Thank goodness U of O students escaped the heavy burden of having to choose between competing ideas. University vice-president Francois Houle helped students dodge that anxiety when he made it clear to Coulter in an e-mail that she could speak, but if she was too provocative the police might haul her away.
Tolerance bricks
That said, Coulter is a gifted polemicist with a great business plan that counts on liberals to be themselves, and they never let her down. She argues that liberals oppose free speech, which they immediately set out to prove by blocking her from speaking at the University of Ottawa.”
You see that even in Canada opposing views are protected and those who feel that they have some “right” to protect the public from those views will find that free speech does win out.
Like Monte Solberg I have no real feeling for Ann Coulter, but she does have a right to speak. As he states: free speech “warts and all”, will win out in the end. What counts is not where the information comes from, but how truthful the information is.
Steve Lucas
” those who scream ‘polarization’ are the same ones who will look for WHERE the info came from, and as far as I can tell don’t actually look at the information.”
It’s being realistic. A republican website would be one of the most one-sided viewpoints on this issue, wouldn’t you say? Looking where the info came from is very important for topics this polarized. Otherwise people would believe everything they read. Don’t you agree? Or are you making the unstated major premise that it’s bad to check the source of information when reading such information?
As for earlier, it’s not an ad hominem if it’s true.
Also, I should say that I don’t need to dispute the claims in that list you posted, but rather to point out that it cherry-picks parts of the bill to support a conservative agenda. I am one of the few who have read hundreds of pages of the bill and there is probably more left out of that list than put into it.
“As for earlier, it’s not an ad hominem if it’s true.”
And, again, you want to assail the information as ‘polarizing’ without actually addressing the information. It looks very factual and unbiased to me; there’s no editorializing there, just a timeline of what happens when.
So, your objection is just to the source of the information? Than it’s YOU who are polarizing, not the information.
@TheNewGuy
Half Brit; half American
Supercilious ass half the time.