The only other Bills out there right now are the faked ones by your people.  I watch the Senate daily and I watched the committee hearings on the one rough draft of the Bill.  The other Bill is just being finished (no one has seen it yet); they need to then go to committee to be joined and voted and amended, then to the House for debates and more amendments, then to the Senate for the same, and then back to the Committee for final amendments and votes and then back to the House and Senate for final votes and passage.  I hope that enlightens you about how it all works.  Sounds like you are against having Health coverage for all and to have the insurance companies reined in so they have to insure people with pre-existing conditions, can't cut off people who get sick, can't decide they will not cover the surgery you need, etc.  Why?  Is it that you already have insurance?  Well, so do I, but there are 47 Million and counting who do not have Health Insurance.  You don't want them to have insurance?  Why?  Sounds like you are a "youngin" who doesn't know what has been going on the past 60 years as far as trying to get health coverage.  Why would you deny that coverage for everyone?  Who gives you the right to deny that coverage to everyone?  You need to read the REAL draft, and stop reading the false lies put out by the insurance companies and their ilk.  Our President and Congressmen were duly elected.  Did anyone elect you to stop this legislation?  What were you elected to?  You need to see the whole picture, not the smears and fears you and yours are spreading around.  You should listen, you might then know that this is not the final Bill, it is only the first step, there is a long way to go before it gets to the President's desk for signature.  You should know that.  Why don't you know that?

Barbara, you said there was NO Bill.  There is.  And yes, more are coming.  And amendments will take place.  But we have to deal with FACTS and what has been passed rather than what we hope is in a final Bill and defend a non-existent Bill.

And I, as an attorney, have read and posted portions of the House Bill---in other words, I have read the actual Bill passed by the House, not summaries or spun descriptions of it.  I have also read the CBO report. 

My comments are all based upon what I have read in the Bills and, primarily but not exclusively, what the Congressional Budget Office has concluded.

If you have read my posts, I have repeatedly stated that I am FOR Healthcare Reform.  And I have stated I am FOR requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions, etc.  My other posts also reveal that I am over 40 and have a pre-existing condition.  I also have a disability.

So I have not denied, nor do I wish to deny, health insurance to anyone.  But I do have an allegiance to facts, as well as the obvious concerns or consequences of (for example) offering doctors monetary incentives NOT to offer certain treatments, especially for the elderly and significantly infirmed.  I am literally trying to protect people and, maybe, myself.

I was not elected, but I do enjoy the right of free speech.

And, by the way, the 47 million uninsured is a very inflated number.  If our first concern is insuring everyone ASAP, however, we could identify and pay for all of the alleged uninsured who are not illegals, do not have access to programs they are not pursuing, and do not have the money to pay and choose not to.

Even using the 47 million figure:

47,000,000 x $5,000 = $235,000,000,000 annually.  That is cheap compared to what we are talking about spending.  And if it is limited to the actually needy who don't have access for reasons beyond their control, it would be significantly less.

Then we could separately work on cost controls and noone would have to wait until 2013 for it to kick in.

JUst an idea for comparison.

If you are truly an attorney, but obviously not, you'd know that there is a difference between a draft done and approved by the Committee and a Bill passed by the House.  The draft bill has been passed by the COMMITTEE.  The house has not debated, amended, or voted on any Health Care Bill yet.  The House one was just passed out of Committee just a week or 2 ago, they've been in recess all of August, and will not be taking up any Bill in the HOUSE until after the recess.  Same with the Senate.  There are now 2 rough draft bills passed out of COMMITTEES, neither has been presented as a Bill yet, as they have more work as I mentioned above to be done on them before they can be debated in the House and in the Senate for passage.  All Bills have to be passed by the HOUSE AND THE SENATE yet.  Besides that, the Senate is working on a version too.  All the versions have to be reconciled into ONE Bill before the House and the Senate can vote on them.  By the way, I managed a law firm for several years.  Lawyers know how Congress and the Bills before it are done.   By the way, the news said today that the 47 Million is closer to 50 Million.  Because more people become uninsured as they lose their jobs.  You do not have a monopoly on the free speech either, we all have that right. 

Barbara,

Give it up.  The nomenclature commonly used and referenced everywhere is to refer to the "House Bill".  Draft or not.  But you, of course, know that. 

And the number loosely thrown around is inflated.  So you tell me Barbara:  Of the alleged 47 million uninsured, how many:

1. Are illegal aliens?

2. Are uninsured by choice?

3. Are included because they were uninsured for a brief period during the sample period?  Say in between job?

4. Are children?

5. Have access to insurance programs but have failed to apply for it?

And I never claimed that you did not have the right of free speech.  Nor that I had a monopoly.  You attacked my opinions because I wasn't "elected."  What does that have to do with anything?

If you truly managed a law firm and interacted with attorneys for years, "obviously not", you would be able to make an argument based upon hard facts and objective analysis rather than partisanship and emotion.  And you wouldn't use  ridiculous statements and poor sentence structure like "What's so bad about Socialism Health Care except in their own minds?" and "false lies." And you would not compound the foolishness by not realizing you used the same nomenclature I used in referring to alleged "fake Bills". 

 So let's stick to the facts.  You've been wrong about everything: who I am, to which Party I belong, my age, my support of healthcare reform and more.  That is the problem with opinions founded on pure partisanship.

When we talk about rushing reform, think about how quickly they out Medicare together and passed it:

H.R. 6675, The Social Security Admendments of 1965, began life in the House Ways & Means Committee where it passed the Committee on March 23, 1965 and a Final Report was sent to the House on March 29, 1965. The House took up consideration of the bill on April 7th, and passed the bill the next day by a vote of 313-115 (with 5 not voting).

The Senate Finance Committee reported the bill out on June 30th and debate began on the Senate floor that same day, concluding with passage on July 9, 1965 by a vote of 68-21 (with 11 not voting).

The Conference Committee to reconcile the differing bills of the two houses completed its work on July 26th. The reconciled version of H.R. 6675 then went to final passage in the House on July 27th and final passage in the Senate the following day.

source: http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally65.html

Don't you get it?  That's 80% of the people (probably 100) that they asked.  It does not count the entire country.  Haven't you wondered why so many want Health Care?  Did you think of that?

Yes, which means only 20% needs fixed!  Not an infringement on the majority (%80) of the population.  This is why the single payer system is not plausible.  I'm on the fence and trying to be sensible.  I would not condone radical reform for the minority. 

I can see where Republicans (I hate to use this label because they are of all walks of life: Rich, Military, Christian Conservative etc.) stand about the worry that government will grow.  Not a great rack record there (Most would agree).

I can also see where Democrats (I hate to use this label because we are from all walks of life: Rich A C L U lawyers, common workers AFL CIO etc.) stand because something should be done.

I just wonder if this is more about winning or losing instead of fixing health care.  Shame on both sides.

Dems, is this about control or helping?  Reps, is this all about "No for Obama"?

Fix health care with sensible non-intrusive ideas, not with radical control nor killing the idea all together.

I know both have good ideas.  We don't have to have the government run or kill the bill.

I hope this is where the president will step in.  I would be disappointed if he didn't!  I would also be disappointed if he listened to the far left or far right but went with common sense and the majority of Americans.

Well, James Turner, I thought I was done with this subject.  First of all, our President inherited nearly all of this debt, most of it war spending on an unnecessary war, not to mention the lives lost (some of my own family).  We definitely need a Health Care system.  Right now, there are several different plans out there that all need to be debated and voted through the House and then the Senate and several Committees to get them all consolidated thru to ONE BILL.  It will take some time to do this.  As far as rushing it, that is just an R excuse to slow it down to kill it, they use that stunt all the time.  I watch the Senate daily, the House during quorum calls and I watched the one Committee hearing with debates and votes on the first draft of a bill.  We have been trying to get a Health Plan in America for 60 years, I wouldn't call it rushing one thru, 60 years is a long time to try to get a bill thru.  The Insurance Companies pull out all the stops and even have their own employees attending the Town Hall Screams, and bus people from town hall to town hall.  We need Health Care, not Wealth Care.  The Insurance Companies have gotten rich enough off the backs of Americans and that needs to stop.  If we don't start now, when do you think we should start?  Another 60 years?  I think everyone should be insured.  Right now we are paying thru increased premiums and less insurance for the costs to pay for the uninureds to use the ERs for a cold, or many simple illnesses, that could be treated at a doctor's office if they had insurance.  That alone would save us all a lot of money.  The Health Insurance Plan will be self-supporting and will not raise the taxes for people who make less than $350,000 a year.  Those are the truths so far.  If you prefer to believe all the lies out there, well that is up to you.

I am thru with this topic, folks, I've said all I have to say, and a user gets some deleted, so please don't address any more comments to me.  It is just a waste of my time.  Thank you.

I was advised that my earlier post was deleted by accident, so I will just re-iterate.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Under Bush they rammed through a bad piece of legislation at lightning speed, and this Administration tried and got caught (after putting a fast one across the plate on the stimulus package supported by both parties.)

We need to get beyond Party affiliation to facts.  This should not be happening, PERIOD.

So comparing one fiasco with another fiasco, and arguing that the second fiasco isn't a fiasco because the other was worse in terms of speed, doesn't make sense.  It's like comparing these movie stars that get married after a 3-week courtship to ones who waited 2 months and saying the 2 month courtship wasn't a rush to the altar.  (Or use your own comparative analogy.)

Lastly, just to be factual and no offense intended to anyone, we are not talking about rushing healthcare per se.  Unless these politicians have been writing and debating these specific Bills and proposals for 60 years, it is a huge rush.  We are talking specifically about the President wanting something completed in mere months which involves a complete overhaul of the system, and a tremendous impact to our economy at a time of historic deficits (which were already historic and have since tripled or more since January). 

If it takes several more months or a year to get it right, it is well worth the time spent.  We could even do it in stages and expand coverage to the uninsured first; after all, is that not the most pressing issue per the President?  Why do it all at once?  But I guess that is a question for another string.