Comments on: The Opt-Out

By: Holly

Holly — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:56:28 +0000

Obviously, I’m aware that there’s a reason bills are written in formal legal language. That does not, however, make them easy to read for someone (like me) without formal legal training. I find myself reading and rereading a passage to understand the full implications.

Whether or not the bill should be this complex is another matter entirely. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they started off with a complex idea that’s not easily explained in normal language. Put it into legal terms, and you have 1,990 pages that few have read and fewer understand. Now you’re basically asking Americans to trust you that it will work. Good luck to them.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:39:47 +0000

Would it make you feel better if it was the length and writing level of, say, an Archie comic book?

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:51:53 +0000

How about they separate the reform bills from the spending bills? How are you going to get reform when they keep writing blank checks? And why is reform so dang expensive? This is like throwing Bonnie and Clyde a couple of extra machine guns.

By: Harry

Harry — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:26:22 +0000

Let’s hope the final version doesn’t contain uneconomic public options, opt outs for states, and opt outs for unions, lawyers, and government workers. As it stands, the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare will increase, not decrease. Obamacare will sink from carrying too much ballast. It’s a Democrat baby.

By: ChiefofStaff65

ChiefofStaff65 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:59:54 +0000

Steve,

My point exactly in my original post.

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:35:14 +0000

I would rather as well. But individuals are pooled into lobbying groups that are just as powerful as corporations at times.

By: benevolus

benevolus — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:27:49 +0000

You can represent yourself, but you should check your spelling.

By: Steve Perkins

Steve Perkins — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:13:41 +0000

Which is why it’s nothing more than pandering to say what you would do under the legislation at this point.

By: Holly

Holly — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:45:02 +0000

Do you know how long it takes to read 1,990 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo, let alone make sense of it? I doubt anyone (other than committee health staffers) has finished reading it yet.

By: Holly

Holly — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:42:00 +0000

It should change Peachcare rather significantly. Under H.R. 3962, Medicaid is extended to individuals whose incomes are 150% of the federal poverty line, meaning that many children under Peachcare will be moved to Medicaid instead. Families earning between 150% to 400% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for subsidies to purchase private plans available in the new state exchanges. (Theoretically, I think these subsidies are available for the public option, too, but I’ve not read through the entire bill yet.)

By: Steve Perkins

Steve Perkins — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:23:11 +0000

The AARP? Various unions?

Your Honor, I ask to represent myself pro se.

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:15:18 +0000

Steve,

So the members of AARP are what exactly? AMA? Various Unions? I guess they are all made up of evil corporations too.

By: Steve Perkins

Steve Perkins — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:11:46 +0000

Legislators must then have the ability to sort out what they have heard- much like a judge.

Oh please. Even in the most corrupt of kangaroo courtrooms, the other side at least HAS counsel. In Gold Dome lobbying battles between the insurance industry and individual citizens, however… not so much.

By: benevolus

benevolus — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:07:59 +0000

It is unrealistic to expect every legislator to read and understand every bill they vote on. Some of the stuff that comes before them is very technical and very complicated, and even experts might disagree about the implications.

I was disappointed in the Obama campaign’s demonization of lobbyists, because this is something they can and should do- explain their side of an issue to legislators. Legislators must then have the ability to sort out what they have heard- much like a judge.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:50:21 +0000

You’re really laying down the gauntlet for them. Don’t be surprised when you find that you can’t respect any of them.

By: ChiefofStaff65

ChiefofStaff65 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:38:14 +0000

I wonder out of all the campaigns who responded, how many of them have read the bill, or are they merely working off GOP talking points? I respect those who do not give an immediate sound bite and instead actually read the legislation before coming to a conclusion and offering fresh solutions.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:27:59 +0000

So, does opting out = do nothing different and get the same poor results we currently get for our overpriced healthcare dollar? How will businesses here appreciate that as they compete for talent with other states where they opt-in and lower their healthcare costs?

Pandering is easy. Finding and getting acceptance for a solution is hard.

By: John Konop

John Konop — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:40:01 +0000

I wonder how this would off-set the cost of Peachcare if it all?

By: Three Jack

Three Jack — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:34:46 +0000

i support ox opting out now.

By: kyleinatl

kyleinatl — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:20:49 +0000

“I believe Georgia would be better off if we could opt out of the whole thing.”

I guess the Secretary of State either isn’t aware, or doesn’t particularly care about the fact that the House version of the bill will also get a Federal High Risk pool up and running in 2010, something that the state can’t bother with apparently.

Say what you will about the Federal efforts to reform Healthcare, until the state legislature actually proposes some type of reform to counter it, we’ll continue to languish in the bottom rankings for states in Healthcare delivery. Georgia’s lack of healthcare options for people with chronic conditions is shocking and irresponsible.