Get Subtitles - Don't you think it's foolish to advocate people NOT read the health reform proposals?

Don't you think it's foolish to advocate people NOT read the health reform proposals?

because you believe they won't understand them? There is a user on here who believes that the general population (apparently NOT including himself) is too stupid to understand what is in the legislation and should therefore leave it to the government to read and understand. I have challenged him TWICE and he has not responded. So I will ask you guys, have I misunderstood this excerpt? EXAMPLE: You will be fined for not having health care coverage: ‘‘SEC. 59B. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS. 22 ‘‘(a) PAYMENT.— 23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any indi 24 vidual who did not have in effect qualifying coverage 1 (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health 2 Service Act) for any month during the taxable year, 3 there is hereby imposed for the taxable year, in addi4 tion to any other amount imposed by this subtitle, 5 an amount equal to the amount established under 6 paragraph (2). 7 ‘‘(2) AMOUNT ESTABLISHED.— 8 ‘‘(A) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH.—Not 9 later than June 30 of each calendar year, the 10 Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 11 Health and Human Services and with the 12 States, shall establish an amount for purposes 13 of paragraph (1). 14 ‘‘(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amount es 15 tablished under subparagraph (A) shall be ef 16 fective with respect to the taxable year following 17 the date on which the amount under subpara 18 graph (A) is established. 19 ‘‘(C) REQUIRED CONSIDERATION.—In es 20 tablishing the amount under subparagraph (A), 21 the Secretary shall seek to establish the min 22 imum practicable amount that can accomplish 23 the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying 24 coverage (as so defined). If this is NOT a fine, then why does it also say ‘‘(b) EXEMPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 2 any individual— (5) for whom a payment under subsection (a) 21 would otherwise represent an exceptional financial 22 hardship, as determined by the Secretary OK, let's hear it. Have I misunderstood this? If so, how? And I am only using this one because of all the things I've found, it is relatively short. We can move on to other issues if needed. It isn't really that hard to understand if you just READ it. How many of you needed me to TELL you what this says? I have the Senate and House proposal DL to my computer. Here is a link where you can download the Senate proposal: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7093926/HELP-bill Prince: Agreed. You would probably also rush it through quickly, too, no? Prince: No, not you-you. The you that is the people trying to get you not to read it for their own agenda. Lol. Sorry about that. Repubs Want: Thank you. Even the "opposition" agrees I have interpreted it correctly. :0) JustA: "This seems to hinge on paragraph 2 with no amount determined. Your own header says that you will be fined not the body of the portion you listed." That's because the fine hasn't been determined yet. It is up to the Secretary. And it is Paragraph ONE that says you will indeed be fined: In the case of any indi 24 vidual who did not have in effect qualifying coverage 1 (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health 2 Service Act) for any month during the taxable year, 3 THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED for the taxable year, in addi4 tion to any other amount imposed by this subtitle, 5 AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT ESTABLISHED UNDER 6 PARAGRAPH (2) Pinkie: I will break it down for you really simply - Paragraph 1 says that if anyone did not have what they consider "qualifying" coverage (which is defined in another section) for any month of the year, they will be fined the amount decided in paragraph 2. And Paragraph 2 basically says that the Secretary will decide how much you get fined. The last one says that you won't be fined if it will create an "extreme hardship." What they'd consider an extreme hardship, it doesn't say. You see, that is another bad thing about this clause: it says you will be find if you don't have QUALIFYING coverage. So say you HAVE insurance but it's a plan they haven't certified, you will still get fined. That is to "encourage participation" in the national plan, as it says. Sage: There IS a qualification for it. If you like, I will post a link to the same bill I have and a page reference (it's too long to post here). There is an entire section stating what insurance companies must do to get their plans "certified" and what the plans must offer. Did you really think I just put this on here with a lick and a promise? I told you: I read it. Sage: It even says IN THE CLAUSE: "qualifying coverage (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health Service Act)." Section 3116: Page 110, Paragraph (4) http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7093926/ HELP-bill

Public Comments

I can think of cases when it wouldn't be. For example, when you want the bill to pass and don't want others to know what's in it in order to expedite the process and minimize resistance. edit: Me? I don't want the bill we have now. Nothing good can come from rushing a creeky infrastructure. I think we should take our time--but definitely build a good bill. edit: Oh, and yeah, if that's what I wanted, I'd rush it quickly.
Heck, the the president hasn't even read it all. They wanted this thing done long ago so none of what is going on now would happen.
I have answered nearly every question posed by the same user you mentioned this morning with intelligent reason, but it appears that he is merely interested in either pushing an agenda or feeding an elitist ego. I've tried reason. What else is there?
Yes, I 've seen a few people like that on here. They accuse people of being too stupid to understand what's in the bill so they tell everyone that they shouldn't even try reading it. I would hate to be their children. How can you advocate NOT reading something that is going to affect you so drastically? Who would promote an idea like that except someone who doesn't want you to know what's going on?
That really makes no sense to me. It's written in legalese. There's a movement afoot to make Congress read its own bills (since many congressmen have admitted that they don't) and I think there's also a push to make them write the bills (or maybe I'm thinking of the tax code) in a format which can actually be read by someone who didn't go to law school.
time for IT and the Originators to GO
This seems to hinge on paragraph 2 with no amount determined. Your own header says that you will be fined not the body of the portion you listed. And by the way that is extremely confusing. Its been a common theme for governments to charge fees and not taxes, a little wordplay that allows them to claim they haven't raised taxes, when they do raise fees. But if you think of it, every uninsured person costs us money, and that's not fair to people who do pay. So some sort of fine, is understandable. That so many people here don't understand it, and I make no bones about being one of them, would indicate that it is confusing but then, I'm not a lawyer or a legislator. Maybe for them its not.
Oh yeah-yeah...I've heard that one before...Trust me, I'm in Congress!?
You understand correctly. It is designed to destroy the private health insurance industry. "Insurance" requires a large pool of people to keep rates down. That one person that gets really sick is a percentage they expect when the other 100 do not get sick. The other 100 want to pay in just in case they are the ones that gets sick. This is not different then car insurance... NOBODY wants to use it, though they pay for it. The insurance premiums are divided umong them all. When Obama care starts to FORCE people over, then there are less people to share in the expense, and the rates go way up.... forcing even MORE over... Untill finally, the Obama care has everybody right where the hair is short. Everybody except the government employees.... Yeah, check the link out at the bottom of this question listed below. .
Yes, it is foolish not reading a major bill before voting on it. Also, it is foolish to hide a final draft version of the bill from the public before voting on it. DTG
Yes that is what the section says. However your pretence that there is some ulterior motive to the "qualifying" clause is simply ridiculous and evidence of a desire to make a partisan and inaccurate point rather than actually seek the truth. Clearly there must be some qualification for a rule like this. Otherwise I could produce a receipt for $0.01 from my brother in law saying he will massage my shoulders if I get testicular cancer and claim that I had health insurance. Why would you think pretending to not be clever enough to understand something so simple constitutes an argument? What are you on about in your response to me. I never denied the bill had a qualifying clause - I was merely rebutting your claim that it was proof of an ulterior motive.
I say its our DUTY to know what bills there passing. It is our duty to be informed. It is our DUTY to try and get bills we liked passed and get the ones we do not like not passed.
Thank you for taking the time to dissect this and post it. We all should be forwarding it to our "representatives" for whatever good that will do. Americans should not suffer the un-Constitutional (and therefore illegal) actions of tyrants, and make no mistake, this is tyrannical and illegal!