Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the left is the text of the bill passing the house and a link to it.
Once you get to that page with the bill you then need to click on
"Official Bill Text" in upper right..that will get you the complete text.
I think ya'll need to read a little more of the section, not just the first line. It would be interesting to see how you (well Hannity, O'Riely, Limbaugh, that is) interpret how these charges are to be applied from all that government speak. Have to have a law degree to understand the lingo.
It's "(a) In General- Chapter 31 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:"
You got the rest of Chapter 31 of the IRS code? It says there are exceptions. Know what they are? Know where to find them? How about the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?
Bottom line is I'd bet it ain't nowhere as sinister as you, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Rielly and others portray it to be. Problem is none of us are smart or resourceful enough to show the other, are we?
Apparently only conservatives are allowed to play the race card on this forum, going around calling everyone racist for objecting to thinly veiled racial slurs used against Obama.
Hmm, hadn't herad any used. Could you provide an example?
Bachmann's office did not respond to our call or an e-mail, but we found the language that she seemed to be referring to on Page 91 of the new bill: "The individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."
To decipher it, we called Karen Pollitz, project director for the Health Policy Institute at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute. She said it was a clause that allows people who would be eligible for coverage in the new health care exchange to keep an old policy they like.
"If you have a plan that's in effect prior to the effective date (of the exchange) and you like it, you can keep it," she said. (This is similar to a claim we checked back in July when the editorial page of Investor's Business Daily said the bill would outlaw private insurance. We rated that Pants on Fire.)
Karen Pollitz.
Mr. Chairman, the Tri-Committee draft proposal for health care reform is an impressive accomplishment, worthy of the challenges we face to make health coverage available, affordable, and adequate for all Americans. Your proposal defines a minimum health benefits standard, requires all Americans to have it, and institutes reforms to ensure affordable coverage in reformed markets with added, important consumer protections. You also make available a new public plan option that will add to consumer choice and move insurance markets to compete on the basis of cost efficiency, not risk selection. No doubt, others will recommend modifications as I have today. The legislative process was intended to consider all points of view and then to act in the best interests of the public you represent. I could not be more pleased to see this legislative process at work. I thank you for your courage and commitment to health care reform that secures good, affordable health coverage for all Americans, and will be happy to provide you any additional information or assistance that I can.
Fantastic pick for an unbiased authority.
Statement of Karen Pollitz, Research Professor Georgetown University Health Policy Institute Hearing on (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:fl-ZZM6fKEsJ:edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/testimony/20090623KarenPollitzTestimony.pdf+Karen+Pollitz&cd =3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us - broken link)
Of course fact-checking sites are "biased" in the eyes of newsbusters.
Since you are hitting your head, I assume you have a big list of things that are incorrect on politifact?
Or is it frustration with facts in general that you are portraying?
In one of your links:
Quote:
The idea has potential. Pundits across the political spectrum have a knack for spinning facts in their favor, so a niche definitely exists for a truly neutral observer to fill. PolitiFact also can make a legitimate claim to being just such an observer because of its ties to Congressional Quarterly. I worked at CQ nearly seven years after moving to Washington, so I know firsthand that there isn't a more fair, balanced and nonpartisan news organization in America.
Then the author goes on a right-wing rant, complaining that conservatives show up in the "false" category too often.
I got the email from Dick Morris. Remember him? He was the one who told Clinton to stop being so left wing if he wanted to be in the WH for another 4 years. Clinton followed his advice and won.
You can go to Dick Morris's web site at www.dickmorris.com and read what he has to say about the bill. He is also on FOX. Yes, he went to the dark side like a lot of commentators, etc, etc. Good for him.
Also, he has very good reason to hate this bill. His father had colon surgery recently and he is in his 90s. If this bill was in effect his father would have never qualified for surgery and would be dead now.
You can sign up to get his email on his web site.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
