Very true, it's impossible to do a comprehensive read through. In the bill writers defense, the sections of the bill(or another bill) they refer to were probably hashed in subcommittee and maybe even court tested for language.
Bullshit, just nobody who could vote on it. We spend millions for congressional staff to do just that, and explain to the drones we elect what it says. And business spends billions to do the same. You can be sure every syllable was thoroughly parsed.
Why? Because of all the Chicken Littles screaming the sky is falling, for their various and often devious reasons. So the confused public hearing growling from inside the cave, says back up, don't go in there.
Au contraire, the farm bill is more than just giving large farm corporations millions of dollars, and a few bucks for the little guys. A large portion of that hard to read legalese pertains to the government stabilizing markets/price floors, by buying excess production... can you say government cheese.

I admit there is a whole lot of hiding shit in unrelated bills, and should be stopped. But in this case it would be logical... ok, as logical as any government plans, to use the stuff they bought to help feed the people they've deemed worthy of not starving. So you see, it's all tied together.

I actually deliver a daily piece of this action. The bulk of the bill is free money for Big Ag but they occasionally do good by people.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/care/

CACFP plays a vital role in improving the quality of day care for children and elderly adults by making care more affordable for many low-income families.

Through CACFP, more than 3.3 million children and 120,000 adults receive nutritious meals and snacks each day as part of the day care they receive.

Don't you remember the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi), saying that the bill should be voted on now, and we'll find out what's in the bill, later?

Absolutely, our Congress did NOT have a chance to read through the bill before they voted on it. Even with the help of their staff, all they could do was peruse through parts of it. This was widely discussed on the conservative talk shows, and all the Senators and Reps who were interviewed all agreed, they had not had time to read through it all. That's one reason why they were so upset. They did not know the complete contents of the bill, before they had to vote on it.

I'm just thrilled that we are making more and more people, dependent on the federal government. Because we know there could never be a 30-40% fraud rate in any of their programs.

If it's one thing we need to do to raise our standard of living, it's put a few more million people, onto welfare programs - yep! That will really help! :rolleyes:

Yeah, welfare is for corporations! Because they never try to cheat the government.

Sure, and agree it was a stupid remark made in frustration with congressmen whining about not having time to read it, using that to try and drag out the process for month after month after month.

In truth her remark meant nothing, everyone of those cocksuckers knew exactly what they were voting for after the staff and more importantly the lobbyists briefed them.

Because of the concerted effort by the political overlords wanting Obama would fail, and the tremendous power of the insurance, drug, and medical device suppliers, the only way to make it happen was to pass an imperfect bill and then make adjustments. A truly bipartisan effort in favor of the voters, could slowly wrest the power back from the lobbyists and build a world class system of medical care for everyone.

You mean like GE paying no corporate income tax?

Sure! But who MADE THE LAWS that make all those exemptions possible for GE?

Our corrupt politicians in Washington, that's who!

I want to blame GE, but they're just big enough, and smart enough, to use the legal exemptions, already in place. They did NOT make them the law of the land.

Corporations SHOULD limit their legal liability (taxes). So should we. Our politicians should QUIT pandering to everything the corporations want, so they can get $$$ for their next election.

We are LONG overdue for election reform in this country.

Close. Four "our" read "their" and for "corrupt" read "tame".

See above. See also Lobbyist, campaign contribution.

Still, you're largely right. (man, that's twice in two days! WTF?) If voters allow themselves to be suckered by the corporate funded ad blitz into electing a bunch of lobby-puppets, well, they get the government they deserve.

I understand the frustration for any US voters who actually pay attention and take things seriously.

I pay attention but I'm learning not to take things seriously. Empires fall, we're just in a unique position to watch. This is high entertainment if you keep your distance.

July 18, 2013

I keep trying to get this point across to my Dad, who laments the downfall of America every time we talk. It's inevitable. Someone else will be in power next. The human race will go on, just like Celine Dion's heart...

Most Republicans don't want a different result - they want to keep right on delaying the start of Obamacare.

Personally, I'd like to see a good NHS (National Health Service), but good to me, means it runs in a few county wide pilot projects first, while they work the kinks out of it. One thing nobody wants is a NHS that's got a lot of things wrong with it! Set it up, let it prove it's value in some pilot projects, and THEN implement it for the entire country.

And the cost of our health care will increase quite a bit, because there are a lot of people now with very minimal health care. Now, (one way or another), they would be covered.

And this idea that employers can opt out -- NO. We're all in this together, or it's crap. Workers at McDonalds, etc., all need health care, just as bad as anyone else.

We had a huge boost from WWII, while GB, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan (and Korea in their war), all were seriously hurt. It's natural that other countries would start closing the gap, after all these years since 1945.

For now, I'll only take issue with this one paragraph.

Pilot projects have been run, but some people
either don't want to admit to their success,
or don't want to admit to their success.

Kaiser Permanente started during WWII... that's about 60+ years of "pilot project-ing".
Obamacare is closely modeled on this and similar health care programs.
All the things you hear about being included in Obamacare can be found in the KP health care coverages.
... no charges for preventative services such as immunizations
... no charges for diagnostic testing, such as lab tests
... no charges for diagnostic services, such as x-rays
... fixed costs of co-pays for "in hospital" surgeries, drugs, physician care, etc.
... no exclusion for pre-existing conditions
... no cap on total / annual care
... on and on, etc., etc.

As an example, my wife just came home last Sunday from having a
"full knee replacement" surgery + 2 days in hospital
(including free parking, private room with TV, meals, meds, etc.)
+ take-home cold-water pump to prevent/reduce swelling,
+ scheduled Physical / Occupational Therapy for 2 months post-surgery, etc. etc.
-------- our total co-pay cost was $215.00 + $28 for post-discharge pain meds.

If Kaiser Permanente can run such a health care provider program
in Washington, Oregon, and California for 60+ years,
how much more "pilot projecting" do you feel would be necessary
to switch Republicans over to supporting Obama ?
... Oh, I meant to say "over to supporting Obamacare ?" ;)

Here is just one link to KP,
but I'm sure it's easy to find more.

One problem with small scale pilots of health provision is that you don't get the economy if scale to bring prices down and more importantly you don't have leverage at the research and price setting stages.

The nhs in the uk is one of the workd's biggest single employers and the purchasing power it wields gives it a lot weight with phaceutical companies. It's one of the reasons the uk punches far above its weight in research
And development if new drugs.

I'm familiar with Kaiser. I used to be on it. Overall, I give Kaiser good marks, but I'll tell you a little anecdote:

My foot (bottom of) was starting to hurt more and more, as I walked on it. Every day just a bit worse than the day before. Finally, went to Kaiser.

The doctor, looked at it, twisted my foot all around (ouch!) and took X-rays. Then twisted it around some more, for good measure. (Yes, it STILL hurts when you do that!). Couldn't do anything, had no idea what was causing it. Nothing they could do (no, I don't want your pain pills, although it was tempting).

Next day, foot hurt badly again. Went to a little Podiatrist's office. The RECEPTIONIST guides me into a little exam room, and ask to see the foot. She is going to report to the doctor, what she sees. **

She takes one glance at it, says "Oh, it's a lajkdf;ljkf (some kind of plantar wart that grows inward, instead of outward).

Doctor comes in a bit later, says "Oh, it's a lajkdf;ljkf", and says "how are you with pain?"

I say "I'm acquainted". :(

Doc says, "hold on and we can fix this really quickly." He grabs a surgical blade, and the receptionist and the doc help anchor my foot so it won't squirm, and he cuts it out. Slap a 3x3 gauze on it, and I'm out the door in 20 minutes, for $30, iirc.

Kaiser did fine with others, I know. Some serious failures, of course, but that was the doctors greed, not Kaiser's. I believe there's a big difference between a Kaiser model of practice, and the model that Obamacare must follow. Of course, I note that our Congress will not be using Obamacare, for their own medical care. I wonder why?? :rolleyes:

**As I was leaving, I found out the receptionist was the doc's daughter, and was studying Podiatry.

What is the big difference that you cite ?
... other than the obvious "nation-wide" vs "area -wide",
and Federal $ vs employer/individual $, etc

If you want to talk about existing incompetent or greedy MD's
and/or MBA Hospital Adminstrators, I think those would be points
in favor of implementing Obamacare.