The proposed health care bill thread (merged) [Archive] - Page 4

Sea Demon

11-23-09, 04:59 AM

Don't get all worked up about it, Plat. It's just amusing to watch what they have to say, due to them having to face the facts which they don't much care for lol. And the fact is, the bill is going to pass in the end.:yeah:

Something's probably going to pass in the end. But guaranteed, it ain't going to be a liberal's wet dream. And it's going to be a taxpayer's nightmare. You know, the people who actually grow and sustain the private sector, and make the economy work. There's a whole lot of crap in this legislation. And still many hurdles to get through.

Bottom line. This healthcare bill has simply turned into a "pass anything at all costs, even if it sucks" for Democrats in Congress and Obama.

The fact that these Democrats have to advance this crap late on Saturdays when everyone is asleep on the East Coast or out doing weekend stuff, and the media cycles for the week are over is only a reflection on how liberals (Democrats) think of representative government. They don't like it or respect it. They intend to do this under the radar and out of sight. Pathetic.

My thinking at this point...the Democrats are a joke. They're utterly worthless. Pass anything despite it being crap, and the fact that most people in this country don't want it shows that the Democrats at this point are clueless. This country now has unemployment at 10.5% and growing, and we have a situation in Afghanistan not being seriously looked at by the administration, and these i-dots are working this issue??!!? Most people are concerned about the economy and don't give a wit about this legislation.

Anyway, the independents are leaving Democrats. And rightly so. One of the issues Republicans lost their majority for was out of control spending, and the Democrats will lose theirs for the same reason. Mostly because Democrats have shown themselves to be a whole lot worse since January. And they're aloof on every single other issue of importance. Don't think it won't be any different. They'll pass an expensive crap bill...you're probably right. But it will not help Democrats keep their majority. Especially since it will cost upfront and no so-called "benefits" are expected until 2013. If people are spending more, and don't see any improvement, or see problems which is almost a guarantee, Democrats will pay the price.

Onkel Neal

11-23-09, 07:57 AM

Don't get all worked up about it, Plat. It's just amusing to watch what they have to say, due to them having to face the facts which they don't much care for lol. And the fact is, the bill is going to pass in the end.:yeah:

Oh, good. So, can you answer my questions? Do you know what exactly it is your are so in favor of?

Someone explain the health care bill to me, please. Specifically, you guys who are ardent supporters of it. How does it work? If I stop paying my corporate policy, am I covered by the govt? How much does it cost me? How is this funded?

Do you know?

Something's probably going to pass in the end. But guaranteed, it ain't going to be a liberal's wet dream. And it's going to be a taxpayer's nightmare. You know, the people who actually grow and sustain the private sector, and make the economy work. There's a whole lot of crap in this legislation. And still many hurdles to get through.

Bottom line. This healthcare bill has simply turned into a "pass anything at all costs, even if it sucks" for Democrats in Congress and Obama.

I'm inclined to agree. What I am thinking, we all should ditch our private insurance coverage and get on the govt dole. And then use the coverage to the max. Let's see how great an idea this is then.:cool: Becasue, you know the people who are paying for this will do it.

AVGWarhawk

11-23-09, 09:15 AM

I'm inclined to agree. What I am thinking, we all should ditch our private insurance coverage and get on the govt dole.

Yeah, why not. Hell. I have more family members on my wife's side on the dole that they have become professionals at it. Really, it is a career. So I'm going to jump on the band wagon and get mine. :88) See you at my house! I will be the one on the couch watching the soap operas. :doh:

Something will pass but not what they want. The abortion aspect will be the killer of the bill. This will be the answer as to why the Dems failed to pass the bill. Failure of the bill will be pinned on the Republicans and a picture will be painted in 2012 as to why Republicans hate everyone so do not bother voting for them.

AVGWarhawk

11-23-09, 09:28 AM

Did you feel the same way when Bill Frist was the Majority Leader?

Bill Frist was not putting the thumb screws to me. So, no I do not feel the same way. You have to remember Platapus, this healthcare bill is just one of many bills coming my way that will tax my income. My small tax break of about $7/week is now absolutely worthless and I will probably be taxed double if not triple the $7/week that Obama graciously returned to me.

SteamWake

11-23-09, 11:28 AM

AVGWarhawk

11-23-09, 12:14 PM

Regardless of the peoples will.

To be honest SW, there in is the problem. One would think the golden key to the crapper was handed over. Anything goes as they see fit. It is ridiculas the amount of spending going on and it is wild spending. There is no thought about the issue at hand. It is such a blantant snub at the public.

Skybird

11-23-09, 12:54 PM

"Regardless of the people'S will" ...?

I cannot get the impression from both American and european news coverage that there is a substantial, overwhelming majority of the American people objecting to these plans. It is a prominent number of people, yes - but let'S do not mistake noisiness with numerical superiority.

the US health system, to my best knowlege, is said to be the most expensive in the West. At comparable quality and competence levels, the Us system was calculated in past years to be twice as costly (per head) as for example the German and French systems. But you do not get twice as much quality, but roughly it is en par with what you get in germany. This is due to massive lobbyism of the pharmaceutical industry, and med-tech lobbies. We have this lobbyism, too, germany is the most expensive european drug market, but still we are only half as expensive than your system is. This prevention of reasonable price fixing obviously is no concern for you guys, although it costs your people many hundreds of billions per year. Why do you will to pay twice as much for what we get for half the money over here? :03:

and the follow-up costs of a population massively turning to obesiety due to bad food habits, is calculated in different studies to cost between 150 and 400 billion (in the US). Again, no problem for you, who cares.

But a mandatory insurrance system where also those 30+ million currently excluded could benefit from health care that is not oin the level of a third world desaster area - there goes the mood up in temperature, this shall not be, this is socialism! :88)

I find this self-contradiction both fascinating and entertaining, especially when hysterics turn noisy on TV and start talking of death camps and Nazi-ideology. We have it on TV occasionally, when especially drastic freaks get reported in the daily news, at the end, to give the audience something to laugh about.

what do we learn from it? It is not so much about additional costs and growing debts (for the most it is us non-americans anyway being effected by your national debts), and it is not about the possible flaws in the draft for the reform - it is about dogmatic ideology in the first, and nothing else.

One would asusme there should be more important things on people's mind than blowing this thing up in size. what you consider to be the manifesdtation of Sartanic evil - in all other parts of the civilised West is considered to be a most natural thing only.

If those hundreds of billions in additional debts would be caused by raised military spendings, most of you would not complain, and even less so with that same enthusiasm you complain about the health reform. ;)

SteamWake

11-23-09, 12:58 PM

JU_88

11-23-09, 01:09 PM

AVGWarhawk

11-23-09, 01:50 PM

I wish I could understand what some of you (those against the bill) are so worried about.
We have had this system of healthcare in the UK for decades and while it its by no means perfect, I still wouldnt trade it in for what you guys currently have in place. (not everyone chooses to be poor you know.)

Our current system is not perfect either but not fixing what is wrong first then proceeding is just stupid. What, replace a imperfect systems with another one? As far at the poor comment, I did not choose to pay for poor peoples misgivings. BTW, I can show you many who choose to be poor. You can start with a few bums in my family and my wife's family.

IMHO, all this talk of turning to 'Socialism' seems rather paranoid to me. As if somehow, by next year everything will be state owned and you will all be arrested for speaking out against Premier Obama and his evil Soviet/terrorist ways :haha:.

Highly unlikely but have fun with it anyway! :O:

Can some one please tell why are words like 'Socialism' and 'Liberal' seem to be such dirty words in so many Amercian vocabularies? This i do not understand at all -they are not so frowned upon in the rest of the western world thats for sure..
Feel free to explain it to me.

The same frown as Capitalism and Conserative receives. So what is to explain?

And hey ...Since when did Capliatism become the greatest regime ever invented anyway? Sure in someways its great, but its also about at stable as 200 foot statue made of soup, look at the way we just had a recession caused by lack of regulation on the way our bankers conduct themselves.
Thanks to our system of 'free enterprise' they abused it and screwed us all. There is a down side to everything, is there not?

A majority of the problem created was a group effort. This includes the folks who took loans above and beyond their means to pay it back. Please assess some of the blame on the consumer. No on force them to sign a loan that could not be paid back. These are the same folks who ran credit card through the roof and were living off their homes in a refinance. Cut me a break on the just pointed at one group or a few that created this issue.

It dosent matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice ;)
Love him or hate him, there is one fact you cannot deny Barack Obama - he is a very brave guy indeed.

Please explain how you determined BO is brave? What, he will walk the streets of Chicago after dark? :har:

JU_88

11-23-09, 02:13 PM

Our current system is not perfect either but not fixing what is wrong first then proceeding is just stupid. What, replace a imperfect systems with another one? As far at the poor comment, I did not choose to pay for poor peoples misgivings. BTW, I can show you many who choose to be poor. You can start with a few bums in my family and my wife's family.
--
Yeah - but surely its no more socialist or whatever - to the way your/my Tax dollars are collected and spent?

Highly unlikely but have fun with it anyway! :O:
--
I was being sarcastic :DL

The same frown as Capitalism and Conserative receives. So what is to explain?
---
Fair enough - no alot i guess, Ill give you that one :up:

A majority of the problem created was a group effort. This includes the folks who took loans above and beyond their means to pay it back. Please assess some of the blame on the consumer. No on force them to sign a loan that could not be paid back. These are the same folks who ran credit card through the roof and were living off their homes in a refinance. Cut me a break on the just pointed at one group or a few that created this issue.

--

No, I still blame the banks, it is there responisibily to not over lend, what the hell where they doing handing out huge sums to those who obviosuly could not afford to pay it back?
While both banker and ocnsumer are guilty of greed, the banks has the power to prevent it - and they did not.

Please explain how you determined BO is brave? What, he will walk the streets of Chicago after dark? :har:

--
:haha:
Well I was refering to bringing this heath care bill to table in the first place. As its obviously a pretty radical move for you guys -and was bound to be met with vast opposition and even hatred.
Not to mention he recieves an adverage of 30 death threats a day. (Probably just few white supremecist retards though)

AVGWarhawk

11-23-09, 02:25 PM

No, I still blame the banks, it is there responisibily to not over lend, what the hell where they doing handing out huge sums to those who obviosuly could not afford to pay it back?
While both banker and ocnsumer are guilty of greed, the banks has the power to prevent it - and they did not.

Sorry, no. Again, no one forced the signature. People are to read the contracts. I have walked from quite a few contracts. Come on, you mean to tell me people sat and thought gee, I can afford $100/month mortgage because I bring home $101/month. What, no eating, utilities, vehicles, etc? By no stretch of the imagination....people got loans they could afford. Then the credit card offers came pouring in. These cards were maxed. Then the trouble began. Refinance the banks says. So the folks do but then they run their now zero'd out cards up again. The cycle starts. I been there brother and it ain't pretty. I learned my lesson on living off credit cards and refinancing the house into the ground. Come on, the bank would not approve someone who was way over their head in a loan. I have seen it plenty of times in my own situation and long before the implosion a year ago.

Well I was refering to bringing this heath care bill to table in the first place. As its obviously a pretty radical move for you guys -and was bound to be met with vast opposition and even hatred.
Not to mention he recieves an adverage of 30 death threats a day. (Probably just few white supremecist retards though)

Then Hillary Clinton must be a Storm Trooper! She not only did this during Bill's administration but almost got it done without being the President herself. Nothing new here or brave by OB.

You need to qualify the last statement on the threats. Need some proof. I would venture to guess he receives no more than any other president.

JU_88

11-23-09, 02:48 PM

Skybird

11-23-09, 03:26 PM

Well you may get that impression but its simply not true. The polling data has shown so time and time again. If it were somehow to be put to a vote by the american public it would not only go down it would go down by a wide margin.

This is just find No. 1 when asking google for polls.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121664/majority-favors-healthcare-reform-this-year.aspx

If I would need to make an estimation on majorites being reported from the Us over the past 6 months or so, I would say that around 55-60% of people are in favour of the reform, and around 35-40 are beign against it.

and as long as you do not have a hidden ministry that keeps US polls published inside the US and US polls published in foreign countries and reports about them strictly separate, and makes sure the latter do not get published inside the US, then this is the general trend I remember to have seen there since the debate began: a small but real majority of "one half +" of the population being in favour, and a minority of "one third and some more" being against it. An estimation of 55:35 or 55:40 being in favour matches the general mood quite well, I get the impression.

Needless to say that those 35% or 40% have shown to be incredibly noisy over the past couple of months.

AVGWarhawk

11-23-09, 03:38 PM

Well, agree to disagree regarding the Bankers, as I can only honestly go by the way they are in the UK.
personal experience of my own -I seem to remember as soon as I turned 18, getting bomabarded with junk mail and cold calls encouraging me to apply for silly loans and credit cards, it was the same for my friends too, like the f**kers just couldnt wait to get us all in to debt. That is no way to have someone start their adult life :(

Regarding death threats.. Sad but apparently true...

"Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush,"

linky

The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

CNN
http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-tells/comment-page-1/

You can find more sources on google: search for 'Obama & death threats'.

I agree to agee on disagreeing! I would say the UK is different in some respects concerning the loans. Really, here in the state banks do not award loans on folks who can not afford them. That is like me giving you a dollar knowing you can not pay it back and I would incur additional expenses with the court costs. Not good business sense. Loans are approved on gross income. People need to base the cost of keeping a home with what cash is actually in hand to spend. Some do and some don't. Not the banks fault. Anyway, here in the states if you get a nice fat loan approval the credit card companies will give you all kinds of credit cards. You are seen now as a non-risk because ABC Loans just approved you for $350,000.00. Great! Off the consumer goes and runs the cards up. I'm talking $10,0000+. It is not survivable is not handled correctly. Like I said, I been there and done that. 15 years ago I was up to my neck in debt. My home was two months behind. I had to claw my way out. You know what, the bank did not put me there. I put me there. High time people take some responsibily for their actions or lack their of.

Good link for the threats. How many does Obama actually see? Well, zero. That is what secret service is for. Does it worry him? I would say no as he declined body guards during the campaign. He was forced to have them once nominated. Secret Service are on double time with Obama. You can bet your next bank loan on that one.

AVGWarhawk

11-23-09, 03:39 PM

Well, agree to disagree regarding the Bankers, as I can only honestly go by the way they are in the UK.
personal experience of my own -I seem to remember as soon as I turned 18, getting bomabarded with junk mail and cold calls encouraging me to apply for silly loans and credit cards, it was the same for my friends too, like the f**kers just couldnt wait to get us all in to debt. That is no way to have someone start their adult life :(

Regarding death threats.. Sad but apparently true...

"Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush,"

linky

The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

CNN
http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-tells/comment-page-1/

You can find more sources on google: search for 'Obama & death threats'.

I agree to agee on disagreeing! I would say the UK is different in some respects concerning the loans. Really, here in the state banks do not award loans on folks who can not afford them. That is like me giving you a dollar knowing you can not pay it back and I would incur additional expenses with the court costs. Not good business sense. Loans are approved on gross income. People need to base the cost of keeping a home with what cash is actually in hand to spend. Some do and some don't. Not the banks fault. Anyway, here in the states if you get a nice fat loan approval the credit card companies will give you all kinds of credit cards. You are seen now as a non-risk because ABC Loans just approved you for $350,000.00. Great! Off the consumer goes and runs the cards up. I'm talking $10,0000+. It is not survivable if not handled correctly. Like I said, I been there and done that. 15 years ago I was up to my neck in debt. My home was two months behind. I had to claw my way out. You know what, the bank did not put me there. I put me there. High time people take some responsibily for their actions or lack there of.

Good link for the threats. How many does Obama actually see? Well, zero. That is what secret service is for. Does it worry him? I would say no as he declined body guards during the campaign. He was forced to have them once nominated. Secret Service are on double time with Obama. You can bet your next bank loan on that one.

AVGWarhawk

11-23-09, 04:29 PM

This is just find No. 1 when asking google for polls.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121664/majority-favors-healthcare-reform-this-year.aspx

If I would need to make an estimation on majorites being reported from the Us over the past 6 months or so, I would say that around 55-60% of people are in favour of the reform, and around 35-40 are beign against it.

and as long as you do not have a hidden ministry that keeps US polls published inside the US and US polls published in foreign countries and reports about them strictly separate, and makes sure the latter do not get published inside the US, then this is the general trend I remember to have seen there since the debate began: a small but real majority of "one half +" of the population being in favour, and a minority of "one third and some more" being against it. An estimation of 55:35 or 55:40 being in favour matches the general mood quite well, I get the impression.

Needless to say that those 35% or 40% have shown to be incredibly noisy over the past couple of months.

Get an updated one Skybird:

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Stealth Hunter

11-23-09, 06:22 PM

Regardless of the peoples will.

Good thing my will favors it.

Skybird

11-23-09, 07:54 PM

Get an updated one Skybird:

Well, possible that I am indeed not up to date with the very latest ones. Nevertheless, polls are polls, and I still do not think that although there has been a drop in favouring the reform, there is such a "huge margin" between the pro and contra camp as Steam Wake claimed.

Gallup 13th-Novembre:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/13/gallup-less-half-think-healthcare-governments-responsibility

More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%).

A poll that close should not be taken as a fundament to assume the opinion war is already decided. thgere seem to have a shift recently, though - this I have to admit.

Blacklight

11-23-09, 11:23 PM

AVGWarhawk

11-24-09, 08:45 AM

Well, possible that I am indeed not up to date with the very latest ones. Nevertheless, polls are polls, and I still do not think that although there has been a drop in favouring the reform, there is such a "huge margin" between the pro and contra camp as Steam Wake claimed.

Gallup 13th-Novembre:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/13/gallup-less-half-think-healthcare-governments-responsibility

A poll that close should not be taken as a fundament to assume the opinion war is already decided. thgere seem to have a shift recently, though - this I have to admit.

There is a trend certainly. The once starry-eyed Obama voter is getting leery.

AVGWarhawk

11-24-09, 08:49 AM

I'm TOTALLY for universal healthcare or some kind of bill that supports something similar. The bill that's going through now is just the kind of thing that would help people like me (disabled), my sister (also disabled with schitzophrenia), and my wife (laid off and no one wants to hire her for other than temp work, which pays pennies and nowhere near enough for her to afford health insurance. God forbid should something happen to her)

I REALLY don't understand what the conservatives are so afraid of.
We either need a way to get people who can't afford health insurance insured somehow, or somehow regulate the costs of healthcare and drugs (especially drugs because the drug companies are REALLY REALLY inflating their prices).
There are SO many struggling people like me and my family that NEEDS a bill like this. Private companies rates are just way too high for lower middle to lower class people to afford.

Almost every other country in the world has some kind of universal healthcare that is working as well as lower drug costs ! The only reason I can see people not likeing this is greed. Pure and simple.

I truly have no issue with a government run program. However, it should be competative with the private sector insurance plans. To participate everyone needs to pay. If you are not part of the government run program then you do not have to pay into that program. If you fail to purchase insurance you are fined. In the state of MD you are fined for not having car insurance. No reason that could not be done here. The bill is riddle with wholes and unanswered questions. It is typical legislation from Capital Hill.....muddled, confused and pushed.

Skybird

11-24-09, 09:07 AM

There is a trend certainly. The once starry-eyed Obama voter is getting leery.
I personally rate his lacking success and failure in foreign politics as more severe, with more serious longterm conseqeunces. Especially regarding Israel and the ME he has shown a stunning lack of insight. Europeans meanwzhile have woken up climate issues. Much more hopes and expectations had grown over here, regarding Obama. But I said early this year that especially for Europe there will be a tough waking-up over Obama, didn't I.

But that is what makes me wondering a bit, you see. From all problems, the health reform maybe is the most unimportant for you americans, since the growth in debts and deficits it will casue is more of a concern for the rest of the world and global economy, than just your own country. Yet you treat this health reform as if it decides the fate of thr world between heaven and hell. that makes us people over here scratching our heads and thinking about misled standards.

Onkel Neal

11-24-09, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by SteamWake http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1207830#post1207830)
Regardless of the peoples will.

Good thing my will favors it.

Without really knowing what "it" is... :O:

AVGWarhawk

11-24-09, 10:00 AM

I personally rate his lacking success and failure in foreign politics as more severe, with more serious longterm conseqeunces. Especially regarding Israel and the ME he has shown a stunning lack of insight. Europeans meanwzhile have woken up climate issues. Much more hopes and expectations had grown over here, regarding Obama. But I said early this year that especially for Europe there will be a tough waking-up over Obama, didn't I.

But that is what makes me wondering a bit, you see. From all problems, the health reform maybe is the most unimportant for you americans, since the growth in debts and deficits it will casue is more of a concern for the rest of the world and global economy, than just your own country. Yet you treat this health reform as if it decides the fate of thr world between heaven and hell. that makes us people over here scratching our heads and thinking about misled standards.

I think his stunning lack of insight is atributed to his young age. He was and is uninformed of the world politics thus recruited Joe Biden as VP. That was just a quelling maneuver during the campaign. We never see Biden at all. Obama is two years older than me. There is no way I could handle world politics. I simply do not have the facilities to do so. Nor does Obama. Just because one traveled the world going from school to school does not qualify one in world politics. I agree that healthcare reform should be shelved for the moment but some like to hit when the people are down. Certainly generating jobs and bolstering the economy should be on top of the list. What good is healthcare that is paid for via our taxes when a lot of the population is without work and can not pay? Skybird, you have to understand that this healthcare reform is a huge change in status quo. Furthermore, the bill is 2000+ pages and no one has read the damn thing. For all we know it says on page 28 that any extra cash amassed from the taxed on this will go towards building new improved ICBM's. This is how pork is introduced. Furthermore, the funds collected for this healthcare system will be raped repeatedly for other things. This is how it goes. Medicare gets it's funds raped. Rain day funds get raped. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. To further the issue with healthcare, the abortion question is still out there lingering like a bad flatulence.

mookiemookie

11-24-09, 10:21 AM

To further the issue with healthcare, the abortion question is still out there lingering like a bad flatulence.

There is no "abortion question." The bill specifically states that no federal tax dollars are used for abortions. Which I may add, is a perfectly legal procedure, and settled law. But to placate the un-placateable, its specifically excluded.

But I'm sure there's some kind of wacky mental gymnastics here as to why that's not good enough and the plan evilly covers abortions, even though in black and white, it says it doesn't. Amazing how no one has a problem when their tax dollars go to killing civilians in wars, but the moment abortion pops up, everyone suddenly goes ape-crap.

AVGWarhawk

11-24-09, 10:31 AM

But I'm sure there's some kind of wacky mental gymnastics here as to why that's not good enough and the plan evilly covers abortions, even though in black and white, it says it doesn't. Amazing how no one has a problem when their tax dollars go to killing civilians in wars, but the moment abortion pops up, everyone suddenly goes ape-crap.

Abortion can not be compared to war. People go ape-crap over war at any rate. What, do you think the public at large relishes in the glow of military hardward exploding? My word Mookie, the protests against war is much more prevelent than the abortion protests ever were. Come on guy, two totally different subjects and both passionatly protested by those that have a concern.

Onkel Neal

11-24-09, 12:33 PM

Abortion can not be compared to war. People go ape-crap over war at any rate. What, do you think the public at large relishes in the glow of military hardward exploding? My word Mookie, the protests against war is much more prevelent than the abortion protests ever were. Come on guy, two totally different subjects and both passionatly protested by those that have a concern.

Agreed. And slavery was legal at one time, and totally acceptable and defended by many people.

mookiemookie

11-24-09, 01:33 PM

Abortion can not be compared to war. Sure it can. I don't want my tax dollars going to a useless war. You don't want your tax dollars going to abortions. But the fact of the matter is we don't get a say in the matter.

AVGWarhawk

11-24-09, 01:41 PM

Sure it can. I don't want my tax dollars going to a useless war. You don't want your tax dollars going to abortions. But the fact of the matter is we don't get a say in the matter.

If the baby was holding an AK-47 while in utero then perhaps you can compare it to war. The tax dollars that finance war keeps you safe in your home. Really Mookie, when was the last time you had to bare arms because someone from a foreign country was invading your shores? Does any of the abortion issues, problems or cost affect you? Would someone coming ashore to take your life, rape and pillage affect you? There is a major difference in the two.

The tax dollars for war protect you, your home and family. Tax dollars under a government program will become nothing but a form of free contraception. You can push aside the moral issue and focus soley on the social implications. Go to your local high school and get free condoms. Soon you can go to the local high school and get free abortions. Come as often as you like. No problem. Do you really see a reason for you or I to pay for someone else 5 minutes in a back seat of a Camaro? I do not. You want to be careless when there are a plethora of contraceptives out there then it should be your financial burden.

Tribesman

11-24-09, 04:47 PM

The tax dollars that finance war keeps you safe in your home. It's true, if you didn't have a nice war then Saddam would be running Fannie Mae by now.

Stealth Hunter

11-24-09, 04:52 PM

Without really knowing what "it" is... :O:

That couldn't be further from the truth, lol. For the past three weeks I've been reading through it on OpenCongress.com. I'm done with half of it, and so far I like what I see. I wonder though, do YOU really know what it is? Does anyone on your side really know what it says.

AVGWarhawk

11-24-09, 04:54 PM

It's true, if you didn't have a nice war then Saddam would be running Fannie Mae by now.

Or perhaps a few more towers would come down on American soil. Yeah I know, eye on the ball, Afghanistan yadda yadda yadda.

Tribesman

11-24-09, 05:45 PM

Or perhaps a few more towers would come down on American soil.
Sorry, you have lost me there.
Could you explain in simple terms the "link" between 9/11 and Iraq?
Actually while you are at it, just for a laugh can you remind me what percentage of US citizens was it that believed Saddam and Iraq was involved in those attacks on America?

Skybird

11-24-09, 07:06 PM

Or perhaps a few more towers would come down on American soil. Yeah I know, eye on the ball, Afghanistan yadda yadda yadda.

The 03 war was launched over unproven claims of Saddam having nukes and the capacity to deliver them to London within 30 minutes (the infamous "missile dossier", which was copied from A-Z from a student'S diploma paper from ten years earlier :) ).

Just later the nukes were replaced with claimed weapoins of mass destruction - less specific than nukes.

during the first 6 or 8 weeks, the escuse for the war was altered again. Itr then was about bringing them freedom and democracy.

when a longer time later they learned that there were neither actual WMDs nor freedom and democracy, no plan for peace and no understanding of the situation, they started to indicate there were links between Al Quaeda and Saddam, 9/11 and the Iraq war. They have mistaken it with Afghanistan, I suppose.

So, the claimed link between 9/11 and Saddam never was a reason in advance of the war (nor have there ever be any true reasons for the Iraq war), but a foul excuse afterwards.

Actually, inention and drafts for execution for invading Iraq already was outlined in writing in the early 90s, the group around Wolfowitz did that. Under Clinton, the paper disapeared in a drawer, with Buszh winning, it was back on the table.

tjhe war 2003 - was willed and decided ten years earlier. 9/11 had nothing to do with it.

I wonder how very often this must be expolained again, after having explained it so very often in the past already.

For reasons of completeness. Yes, Iraq has had WMDs, chemcial agents, in the past. Nobody denies that. Traces for that have been found. But ther eis no evidence or even clues indicating that it still had these old chemkical WMDs after, I think, 1998 or 99 or 2000.

Anyone still buying this quote "We know they have them and we know where they are?" :haha: :har:

SteamWake

11-24-09, 07:33 PM

Fact of the matter is the majority of representaives believed it at the time.

But hey uhh whats this have to do with the health care debate.

August

11-24-09, 07:51 PM

Fact of the matter is the majority of representaives believed it at the time.

But hey uhh whats this have to do with the health care debate.

The bottom line is that Saddam represented a knife poised at our national back. He had to be taken out. He should have been taken out back in '91 but I firmly believe that getting rid of him in 2003 is still preferable to the specter of him still in power in 2009.

Tribesman

11-25-09, 03:37 AM

The bottom line is that Saddam represented a knife poised at our national back.
Wow, I didn't think people could still believe such rubbish.

But hey uhh whats this have to do with the health care debate.
Ask those that raised it.
Though I suppose it is indicative of a misinformed government and electorate in both cases.

Skybird

11-25-09, 07:01 AM

Saddam'S teeth had been pulled in 91, his military since then in no way was capable anymore to pose a serious thread to somebody beyond Iraqi borders, and he was not able to destabalise the region. His payments to families of Palestinian terrorists were hardly more than symbolic acts, not comparing to for example the massive rearmament of Hezbollah with modern ATGMs and SAMs in Lebanon currently. How dangerous Saddam's army was you could see in how fast and quickly it fell apart in 2003 although it was attacked by an anything but well-prepared offensive, as we learn again these days. Two days ago I linked to those British inquiry documents. Somewhere there the British voiced surprise that their attack was so successful despite their ill preparation and lacking equipement. They said that this probably only was because the Iraqi army was in an even poorer shape, and that maybe they would have bogged down if facing a more adequate enemy.

Saddam was a rethoric pain in the azz, yes. But in no way he was a knife at America's throat, or a threat in the region anymore. Early this year there was a discussion on TV with defence experts from several NATO countries, and they almost unisono said that if he would have attacked Saudi Arabia, for example, the saudis probably would have been able to throw back the attack in short time all by themselves. This says something, considering the small numbers in the Saudi army. And the Turks - would have had a party with any Iraqi attack. Iran as well.

Onkel Neal

11-25-09, 10:48 AM

That couldn't be further from the truth, lol. For the past three weeks I've been reading through it on OpenCongress.com. I'm done with half of it, and so far I like what I see. I wonder though, do YOU really know what it is? Does anyone on your side really know what it says.

:DL No, I don't, I thought I made that clear by asking some specific questions for you and supporters of the bill. And yet, my questions still go unanswered.

SteamWake

11-25-09, 11:56 AM

:DL No, I don't, I thought I made that clear by asking some specific questions for you and supporters of the bill. And yet, my questions still go unanswered.

Instead they debate the past regiemes in the middle east.

Back on topic "impressions" aside is the Obama adminstration, Peolosi, Reed, and their willing accomplis in the media pressing an agenda contrary to many .. if not most ... americans wishes?

I say yes. From my first hand observations.

A day after the Senate begins debate on health care legislation a new survey from Rasmussen Reports shows the highest level of opposition yet recorded. In a staggering reversal from last week the poll suggests just 38% of American voters now favor the Democratic health care plan against 56% who are opposed. The previous poll taken on November 13-14 showed support had grown to its highest level since mid-September with 47% of voters in favor against 49% in opposition.

http://www.examiner.com/x-13600-Philadelphia-Opinion-Polls-Examiner~y2009m11d23-Poll-Support-for-health-care-plan-plummets-Senate-Democrats-push-ahead

August

11-25-09, 02:45 PM

edit: nm.

AVGWarhawk

11-25-09, 03:01 PM

Instead they debate the past regiemes in the middle east.

It had something to do with Sadam's teeth. This begs the question, is dental covered under the Obummer Healthcare Bill? :hmmm:

SteamWake

11-25-09, 04:07 PM

It had something to do with Sadam's teeth. This begs the question, is dental covered under the Obummer Healthcare Bill? :hmmm:

Taxible medical devices 'toothbrushes' page xxx :03:

So yea they got it covered.

AVGWarhawk

11-25-09, 04:17 PM

Taxible medical devices 'toothbrushes' page xxx :03:

So yea they got it covered.

:har:

Is the actual brush covered under 'utensils' page 1845?

August

11-25-09, 05:07 PM

Quick! Somebody do a google search!

SteamWake

11-25-09, 08:13 PM

Quick! Somebody do a google search!

Well uh not specifically tooth brushes but it makes some good points.

A tax is a tax is a tax.

In Fight Over Medical-Devices Tax, Jobs Are Big Issue

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091124-715391.html

Stealth Hunter

11-26-09, 03:48 PM

:DL No, I don't, I thought I made that clear by asking some specific questions for you and supporters of the bill. And yet, my questions still go unanswered.
Someone explain the health care bill to me, please. Specifically, you guys who are ardent supporters of it. How does it work?

What they're proposing through is simple: every United States citizen will receive health care, of their choice; government or private. You don't have to switch from one to the other if you're already pleased with your existing plan. If you're one of the 45.7 million uninsured citizens, you're automatically placed onto the government plan, though you can change to private coverage later on (assuming of course you can afford it; the problem being most of that number cannot because of how ridiculous it's become, what with shifting into a business and not a cause). That's a quick summary of it. If you want all the details, you'll have to read it yourself. Because it's long. Very long. Though it's similar to Germany's system, if that simplifies things at all, which they've been using since Otto von Bismarck put it in place nearly 130 years ago.

If I stop paying my corporate policy, am I covered by the govt?

You're automatically shifted to the government plan if you choose to drop your private insurance, unless you're just moving from one private insurer to another.

How much does it cost me?

Not a damn thing.

How is this funded?

Tax revenue will be the primary source of income.

Do you know?

Yep.

SteamWake

11-26-09, 06:01 PM

LOL

"How much will it cost me?" - "Not a damn thing"

"How will it be paid for?" - "Tax Revenue"

:doh:

August

11-26-09, 06:22 PM

So if the government gives me free health care why should my employer continue to pay thousands of dollars in order to provide health care insurance?

Platapus

11-26-09, 08:04 PM

So if the government gives me free health care why should my employer continue to pay thousands of dollars in order to provide health care insurance?

For the same reason companies "waste" money on other benefits-- in order to attract and keep the best employees.

At least that is true in my line of work.

August

11-26-09, 08:11 PM

For the same reason companies "waste" money on other benefits-- in order to attract and keep the best employees.

At least that is true in my line of work.

My employers would rather not have to deal with the hassle. They'll probably bump our pay by 75% or so of what providing health care costs them and let us either get our own or go on the government plan.

Platapus

11-26-09, 08:19 PM

My employers would rather not have to deal with the hassle. They'll probably bump our pay by 75% or so of what providing health care costs them and let us either get our own or go on the government plan.

Different industries address compensation differently I guess.

August

11-26-09, 09:06 PM

Different industries address compensation differently I guess.

The wonderful world of small business.

Platapus

11-26-09, 09:38 PM

In my industry it is all about benefits. The salaries are all about the same so the only way to entice the workers (of which there is a chronic shortage) away from the competition is through bennies.

I remember my first company I worked for after retiring from the military. They paid 100% of all health insurance costs. A very nice perk. We had some other nice perks.

Well one day, our company was sold to a competitor and they cut our benefits. No exaggeration, over 75% of the workers in my company left within the first quarter. The purchasing company spent a lot of money, but forgot that, in my industry, the only value of a company are the workers.

They basically paid mega-millions for a name but no workers... just because they wanted to save on the bennies like Health Insurance. :nope:

Again, I can only speak about my industry, but if any company decided to save money and dump nice health care for some government program, you would be deafened by the sound of the resumes printing.

If I owned my company, and I heard that my competition was cutting health programs, I would consider it an excellent business investment to maintain a nice health care program.... I would get a lot of those workers... and their contracts (in my industry contracts often follow the worker, especially if you have a good rep in the industry) resulting in a butt-load more money coming in.

I, of course, can't speak for other industries. Other industries might not work out so well.

Onkel Neal

11-27-09, 12:08 AM

What they're proposing through is simple: every United States citizen will receive health care, of their choice; government or private. You don't have to switch from one to the other if you're already pleased with your existing plan. If you're one of the 45.7 million uninsured citizens, you're automatically placed onto the government plan, though you can change to private coverage later on (assuming of course you can afford it; the problem being most of that number cannot because of how ridiculous it's become, what with shifting into a business and not a cause). That's a quick summary of it. If you want all the details, you'll have to read it yourself. Because it's long. Very long. Though it's similar to Germany's system, if that simplifies things at all, which they've been using since Otto von Bismarck put it in place nearly 130 years ago.

You're automatically shifted to the government plan if you choose to drop your private insurance, unless you're just moving from one private insurer to another.

Not a damn thing.

Tax revenue will be the primary source of income.

Yep.

Ok, I'm in. I put my trust in our politicians.

SteamWake

12-15-09, 11:42 AM

ATLANTA (AP) -- Health officials are recalling hundreds of thousands of doses of swine flu (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/79312162.html#) vaccine after tests indicated they may not be potent enough to protect against the virus.

So not only were they late with the vaccine they got the dosage wrong. Just typical.

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/79312162.html

Snestorm

12-15-09, 12:18 PM

It was in the danish news that this had happened weeks ago in Canada.

Flu vaccines are not always a good idé for everyone.
I've never had a flu shot, and never had the flu.

SteamWake

12-15-09, 12:25 PM

Fourtunatly for me or rather not so I have already had my dose of swine flue. I got mine the old fashoned way took almost a week to recover. :oops:

Tribesman

12-15-09, 07:30 PM

Government run health care?
You are talking about a screw up by an independant corporation that just happens to be the 3rd largest independant corporation operating in the market.
So a quick question for ya .
If a government healthcare system ordered a batch that turned out to be ineffective due to a fault with the independant corporation then who is to blame?
If a private helthcare system ordered a a batch that turned out to be inffective due to a fault with the independant corporation then who is to blame?

If the answer to both questions is of course ....the independant corporation who screwed up .....where does it leave your topic?
Can it be putin the "rants with a complete lack of objectivity" file.

SteamWake

12-16-09, 11:59 AM

Federal and local goverments were in charge of the distribution and administration of the vaccine.

The way I see it the 'indipendant company' did their job. The goverment(s) ran late for whatever reason and the doses were declared expired.

Dowly

12-16-09, 12:11 PM

Méo

12-16-09, 01:21 PM

which means the company that made the batch ****ed up. :shifty:

Even if it would be the goverment's fault, it would have been by no way a proof that government is unable to run health care efficiently.

@SteamWake

You cannot establish the basis of a sound reasoning on a single example, it might not be representative.

There is no perfect system, no matter private or public, there will always have flaws.

If you seek truth and really want it, you must put aside your preferences and try to be as objective as you can.

Whatever your opinion is about my comments, I can assure you that you don't have to take it as an offence. :03:

SteamWake

12-16-09, 03:00 PM

Ffs Steamwake, do you even read the articles you post? The article clearly says that "The vaccine being recalled has a slightly lower antigen content", which means the company that made the batch ****ed up. :shifty:

The lower antigen content was due to the vaccines age the article overlooks that fact..

But yes of course you cannot point to a single example and declare the goverment incompetint. I could of course point to many other examples but meh.. aint worth it.

Dowly

12-16-09, 05:08 PM

The lower antigen content was due to the vaccines age the article overlooks that fact..

But yes of course you cannot point to a single example and declare the goverment incompetint. I could of course point to many other examples but meh.. aint worth it.

How about giving something to back up that "fact"? :roll:

Also, the article says that the company contacted the government officials, which would indicate that they had realised that one batch went fubar.

Tribesman

12-16-09, 05:40 PM

The way I see it the 'indipendant company' did their job. The goverment(s) ran late for whatever reason and the doses were declared expired.
So facts don't matter and you are simply inventing them to fit the way you want to see it.

Also, the article says that the company contacted the government officials, which would indicate that they had realised that one batch went fubar.
Routine testing indicated one batch had gone , that led to retesting the whole run, 4 batches out of the run were found to be below standard.
So for example batch UTD023DA failed while UTD024DA, UTD025DA, UTD026DA, UTD027DA all passed and UTD028DA failed.
If it was a matter of them being out of date as Steamwake strangely imagines then the whole run would be out of date

Stealth Hunter

12-17-09, 08:15 AM

You know it's funny, because all these people complaining and claiming that government-run health care is always a bad thing and can never bring anything good overlook the fact that the United States is the ONLY remaining industrialized country in the world that doesn't have universal coverage with at least 3/4ths of it being under government control... Germany alone has had their system for nearly 130 years since Otto von Bismarck came to power.

Thomen

12-17-09, 02:19 PM

Germany alone has had their system for nearly 130 years since Otto von Bismarck came to power.

They do indeed, and guess what? It is slowly going down the crapper. The cost for the individual is going up and the volume of rendered and covered services are declining.

EDIT: I have to admit, though that both system have their good and bad points. However, I am against the possibility of a single payer option. IMHO, the strain on the system would be too great.

Stealth Hunter

12-18-09, 01:01 AM

Well actually the current system costs its users nothing out of wallet. Not like our system anyway. They are only required to pay half of the costs if they exceed a certain salary limit (with taxes figured in) and their employer must also do the same. Demographically speaking, most don't have to do this. They're given a card, when they need to go to the hospital they have the staff there scan the card and pull up a registry system that lists their information, and then they're sent on to a doctor for analysis and treatment. And granted while that does have its drawbacks, they're spending 10.6% of their GDP on their system while we're spending over 16%, significantly higher than any other modern industrialized country on the planet as I previously mentioned.

There's no reason why we can't switch over to a new system and have it be as successful and effective, if not moreso, than fellow nations across the globe. What it comes down to is that people in high places will not allow it to be done. Some I suspect do this because they truly feel it will be a colossal failure (despite the obvious contrary facts of the matter). Most I suspect do this because they've got something to lose. Of course medical companies are going to be against this kind of health care reform (you've seen the TV commercials against any type of reform, the 60 Plus Association to name one example); it means a lot more regulations for them and a lot less that they can get away with- and as a result a decline in profits. And some politicians who have investments in these types of things don't want their values to decrease. So they aim to drum up support for them and their beliefs, whether it really is for the better or for the worst.

Now I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that the German system is perfect. But there's one thing about it that we can see plainly: it's damn good. It's functioned just as it was supposed to through two world wars and a disastrous division between the Soviets and the West, economic events of pretty much every degree conceivable, leaders of varying skill and quality, government-style and political changes/events of astoundingly differing levels- a Military Autocracy to a Parliamentary Republic; a Dictatorship to a Democratic Republic and back again to a Parliamentary Republic... I don't think I need to go on any further. The point is, it's proven itself more than capable to survive the tests time can throw at it- nearly 130 years worth. I'll take that over our current excuse for a health care system, which really is not clear in the least as to what it really is. At first sight, it appears to have been conceived from little more than a few ideas tossed together by the government and people which was then thrown into action with the intent of being amended along the way. And the latter has been done.

While that has worked for maybe 60 or 65 years, it's not working now. And it hasn't been for quite some time. With that said, you have some people out there who say that we don't need an entirely new system; that we can go back and edit the old one and produce something top-notch, which simply isn't reasonable. I mean, do they realize how many changes we'd have to make to the current one to get our GDP spending on it down to the point where we could be saving billions like the Germans have been for over a century? It's timelier and easier just to draft up a new system entirely.

The biggest problem will be integrating it. If we just try and force it in too quickly as a replacement for the old one, we'll lose tremendous amounts of money. The medical companies and their supporting politicians certainly haven't got that part wrong thusfar. On the other hand, if we integrate it too slowly, we'll still be losing quite a bit of money and risk cluttering up the two systems. Of course we've got to lay the basic framework for a new system, but therein lies the problem: which laws and principles do we put in first to make sure we can keep it in place once we start adding the other components of it, how do we enforce them after we've done so, what do we do in the event that some outside force messes up a component, etc.? It's going to be a long road ahead.

Really though I don't care anymore. Not about the reforms being proposed because I do favor them. It's just a simple matter of what will be done shall be done. And we have no say or control in it whatsoever. Despite what we're led to believe. Quite honestly, I think our arguments here on internet forums would be better spent on issues that we do have more of a say in, like getting a politics forum setup, Neal lol.

Thomen

12-18-09, 02:18 AM

Well actually the current system costs its users nothing out of wallet. Not like our system anyway. They are only required to pay half of the costs if they exceed a certain salary limit (with taxes figured in) and their employer must also do the same. Demographically speaking, most don't have to do this. They're given a card, when they need to go to the hospital they have the staff there scan the card and pull up a registry system that lists their information, and then they're sent on to a doctor for analysis and treatment. And granted while that does have its drawbacks, they're spending 10.6% of their GDP on their system while we're spending over 16%, significantly higher than any other modern industrialized country on the planet as I previously mentioned.

From what I am being told, one of the biggest problems they have in Germany at the moment, is a certain inequality in service or coverage between what everybody gets as a minimum and what privately insured clients/customers/patients get. Mind you, I am all for the if you pay more, you should get more scheme, but do they really have to start putting the welfare recipients on private insurance, just so that the feds can budget the welfare expanses differently? What that means is, as a welfare recipient you are better off health insurance coverage wise than someone who is paying for years into the pot, and it doesn't cost him a damn dime.

There's no reason why we can't switch over to a new system and have it be as successful and effective, if not moreso, than fellow nations across the globe. What it comes down to is that people in high places will not allow it to be done. Some I suspect do this because they truly feel it will be a colossal failure (despite the obvious contrary facts of the matter). Most I suspect do this because they've got something to lose. Of course medical companies are going to be against this kind of health care reform (you've seen the TV commercials against any type of reform, the 60 Plus Association to name one example); it means a lot more regulations for them and a lot less that they can get away with- and as a result a decline in profits. And some politicians who have investments in these types of things don't want their values to decrease. So they aim to drum up support for them and their beliefs, whether it really is for the better or for the worst.IMHO, both sides constantly shoot themselves in the foot. On the one side you have people that are unable to get stuff done, and on the other, you got people drumming up support against a reform by comparing the possible outcome to the Canadian or British system. Which, after some well placed reporting and propaganda are seen as the worst social health care systems.

There are working, cheaper and probably better systems out there than what we currently have in the US. Are they perfect? Probably not, but that those are being apparently ignored by either side bugs the hell out of me.

Now I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that the German system is perfect. But there's one thing about it that we can see plainly: it's damn good. It's functioned just as it was supposed to through two world wars and a disastrous division between the Soviets and the West, economic events of pretty much every degree conceivable, leaders of varying skill and quality, government-style and political changes/events of astoundingly differing levels- a Military Autocracy to a Parliamentary Republic; a Dictatorship to a Democratic Republic and back again to a Parliamentary Republic... I don't think I need to go on any further. The point is, it's proven itself more than capable to survive the tests time can throw at it- nearly 130 years worth. I'll take that over our current excuse for a health care system.It is damn good system. I was on the receiving and paying end for over 30 years. But as I said, the coverage got crappier for the people that actually pay into the pot.

The biggest problem will be integrating it. If we just try and force it in too quickly as a replacement for the old one, we'll lose tremendous amounts of money. The medical companies and their supporting politicians certainly haven't got that part wrong thusfar. On the other hand, if we integrate it too slowly, we'll still be losing quite a bit of money and risk cluttering up the two systems. Of course we've got to lay the basic framework for a new system, but therein lies the problem: which laws and principles do we put in first to make sure we can keep it in place once we start adding the other components of it, how do we enforce them after we've done so, what do we do in the event that some outside force messes up a component, etc.? It's going to be a long road ahead.IMHO, the problem for many people doesn't seem to lie with a health care reform per se. From what I hear and read, many are concerned (and probably rightly so) about the government involvement when it comes to services and privacy. The latter is most likely the biggest point of opposition. Lets face it, the privacy laws in this country are a freaking joke (when you compare them to Germany, as example) and getting the Feds even more involved or rather give them more access to your information does not really bode well with many people living in the country.

Quite honestly, I think our arguments here on internet forums would be better spent on issues that we do have more of a say in, like getting a politics forum setup, Neal lol.Jesus.. not again :D

Catfish

12-18-09, 08:20 AM

Hello,

imho it is all quite easy. A state-run health care system usually does what it should. A private one is prone to all kinds of "errors", like greed, incompetence in really important things, and failing for longevity of existing, just being three of those "errors".

It is just like the railway systems here in Europe (you can also enter telecom systems, gas-pipelines, power plants here).

It was once built by the "state", or better: us taxpayers.
All went more or less well until the company AND the railroad hardware itself, became privatized. Now nobody cared about decent tracks or security aspects anymore, it is all about "how can we pull the maximum money out of it, in the shortest of time". Maybe they buy some few nice looking new cars, and repaint some old ones with the shiny company logo.

So the usual maintenance of railways systems is spared out, the people who did it are being fired, and (astonishing isn't it) there seems to be a sudden increase of all kinds of smaller accidents, which tend to get bigger as time goes by. :hmmm:

After the whole system is so f**cked up that it becomes a real threat to use it - guess what ?
There is general indignation (not too loud, people have still to believe in the markets) and all this now worthless trash is now coming back under the hood of the state - which "may" now reconstruct and repair all those thingies the private companies didn't care about - again with the money of the taxpayers. :woot:

This is going on in circles since 150+ years, astonishingly the politicians who "sold" the state property to private companies, are now sitting in their supervisory boards :woot:

The privatizing of interstate infrastructure and technology like railroads, telecommunications, pipelines, streets and whatnot is indeed a dispossession of the people it was PAID BY and built for.
But people tend to forget, and one generation further no one will even remember those deals lol. Isn't this great ? You only have to come into a board or circle of decision makers, and all this common tax payer's money can be yours. Go for it ! :woot:

Greetings,
Catfish

Torvald Von Mansee

01-29-10, 11:37 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

Blacklight

01-30-10, 02:56 AM

Aramike

01-30-10, 03:39 AM

My wife could seriously use some of that "universal healthcare". Seriously. In the past three years, she's been laid off four times. She's a high cancer risk because she's at the age where cancer suddenly appears and kills women in her family and she has a few other health dissorders that should be monitored, but we simply can't afford insurance for her and because she's been stuck working as a temp for the past few years being told that she's "overqualified" for the hundreds of jobs she's been applying for, she gets no insurance at all. And with me on physical dissability because of an annoying genetic condition that cropped up out of the blue, I don't work any more and can't provide it either. I really don't understand opposition to universal healthcare, even after reading that article. I find opposition to it, silly.Hmm ... if you're both unemployed its hard to imagine that you don't qualify for any one of the many subsidized healthcare programs that already exist. If you can't find one in your state, move to Wisconsin - we've got tons here.

The fact that you can't be bothered to understand the opposition and find it "silly" is ludicrous. You, someone who would only stand to "benefit" from others paying your healthcare bills, finds it silly that others don't want to? Well, hell, I find it silly that others don't want to pay my mortgage.

Rather, I find that line of reasoning silly.

Now don't get me wrong - I have stated, MANY times on this very forum that I am in favor of some sort of universal healthcare plan, especially regarding coverage in cases of catastrophic costs, but I really get annoyed with the debate is framed improperly.

In this nation, you CANNOT BE DENIED CARE! Amongst other things, the Patient's Bill of Rights entitles everyone in this country to some amount of healthcare.

So let's be honest for once, shall we? The debate isn't about universal healthcare. Rather, it's about universal MONETARY COVERAGE of healthcare EXPENSES.

Now, if you go state-by-state, you'll find that, at or below certain income levels, there are always benefits available to assist the poor (if you're both not working, you should qualify at that level). I'm completely in favor of that. Furthermore, I am in favor of assuring that the working class isn't impoverished by sudden, excessive healthcare costs thusly diminishing that class.

But, I am NOT in favor of this so-called "universal" solution that means that everyone's healthcare expense needs should simply be provided for by a government that is woefully inefficient at its core.

People who believe in this grandiose idea of universal healthcare coverage typically fall into one of two categories. First is the hand-out, "woe is me" crowd. Second is the "that would suck if it happened to me" crowd. The problem is that, the "silly" opposition you see comes from people who frankly are quite tired of the hand-out crowd, and don't really give a damn about the people who simply choose to take the risk of being uninsured.

I pay for my insurance, through money and work. Why should YOU get away with NOT doing so? Why should YOU be able to NOT work, and NOT pay money to receive the same thing that I *EARN*?

Why are YOU entitled, for nothing, to that which I EARN, through something?

The problem with what you believe is "universal healthcare" is this: it's "universal". It covers people who choose to earn their coverage. It covers people who choose NOT to earn their coverage. It covers people who CANNOT earn their coverage.

In my not-so-humble opinion, only the latter group should be supported by the government. For the most part, it is. Healthcare reform should fix the parts that currently are not.

However, the belief that the former two categories should also be lumped in is, quite frankly, not only silly, but ridiculous.

And that, sir, is what you're proposing when you use the term "universal healthcare".

OneToughHerring

01-30-10, 06:15 AM

I pay for my insurance, through money and work. Why should YOU get away with NOT doing so? Why should YOU be able to NOT work, and NOT pay money to receive the same thing that I *EARN*?

What's so negative about work?

Why are YOU entitled, for nothing, to that which I EARN, through something?

Because he is ill with the condition he described and his wife also needs treatment?

The problem with what you believe is "universal healthcare" is this: it's "universal". It covers people who choose to earn their coverage. It covers people who choose NOT to earn their coverage. It covers people who CANNOT earn their coverage.

In my not-so-humble opinion, only the latter group should be supported by the government. For the most part, it is. Healthcare reform should fix the parts that currently are not.

However, the belief that the former two categories should also be lumped in is, quite frankly, not only silly, but ridiculous.

And that, sir, is what you're proposing when you use the term "universal healthcare".

Over here even rich people are covered by the universal healthcare, don't hear them complaining about that. It also covers people like the unemployed. For example right now there just isn't work for a lot people no matter where they look, especially if you're fresh out of school and don't have connections. We also have a private health care sector where doctors can work and earn some extra. The universal healthcare that we have is not criticized in any great measure by any of the political parties.

But hey, I don't really have an opinion on how some ex-colonial nation should organize it's health care. How about taking care of those native people and their health first.

XabbaRus

01-30-10, 09:01 AM

CaptainHaplo

01-30-10, 09:03 AM

Blacklight - I am against universal health care. Do you find it silly to make a distinction between people like yourself and your wife - one disabled and the other TRYING to work, as compared to those who for example, cross into this country illegally, refuse to get any type of employment, and instead pump out children so they can get more food stamps that is paid for by not only my taxes, but those of your wife since she IS working?

I see a rather big difference there. Yes there are things to be fixed in our healthcare system. I concur with Aramike, look into what safety nets there are where you are at, and by all means, make use of those. That is what they are there for - to help those who are TRYING to help themselves! If you don't qualify for them, contact local churches and charities that do the same kind of work. If you do not qualify for the help you need from our social safety net, then your proving WHERE the efforts of reform need to go, because the help that is there needs to be available to those like you and your wife who are trying your best, as compared to those that CHOOSE to not do so.

OneToughHerring

01-30-10, 09:30 AM

Blacklight - I am against universal health care. Do you find it silly to make a distinction between people like yourself and your wife - one disabled and the other TRYING to work, as compared to those who for example, cross into this country illegally, refuse to get any type of employment, and instead pump out children so they can get more food stamps that is paid for by not only my taxes, but those of your wife since she IS working?

Ah, racism. Somehow I'm not surprised to see racism and anti-health care views are so closely related.

I see a rather big difference there. Yes there are things to be fixed in our healthcare system. I concur with Aramike, look into what safety nets there are where you are at, and by all means, make use of those. That is what they are there for - to help those who are TRYING to help themselves! If you don't qualify for them, contact local churches and charities that do the same kind of work. If you do not qualify for the help you need from our social safety net, then your proving WHERE the efforts of reform need to go, because the help that is there needs to be available to those like you and your wife who are trying your best, as compared to those that CHOOSE to not do so.

How about contacting your local mosques? :)

Torvald Von Mansee

01-30-10, 09:55 AM

The fact that you can't be bothered to understand the opposition and find it "silly" is ludicrous. You, someone who would only stand to "benefit" from others paying your healthcare bills, finds it silly that others don't want to? Well, hell, I find it silly that others don't want to pay my mortgage.

Rather, I find that line of reasoning silly.

I do, too.

CaptainHaplo

01-30-10, 12:46 PM

ATH - how was my post racist? At no point did I specify any race in that post. I simply spoke about anyone illegally in the US that is sucking off the government nipple. There are multiple nationalities that do this, not one. Unless you mean that I was being racist because anyone here illegally isn't an American? If so, then let me be clear - my view applies the same way to any American citizen that refuses to try and do for themselves and instead chooses to milk the system at taxpayers expense.

So does that make me racist against every race there is, including my own, or just a person who has the equal opportunity view of "I don't accept people who are to lazy to do for themselves sucking up tax dollars that I worked for!"?

Also - just so you know - a mosque is a place of worship - same as a church. In fact - it is a TYPE of church, so note that I didn't specify that he should go to a "protestant" or "catholic" or "islamic" chuch. I also encouraged him to look into getting help from what might be non-denominational or non-religious sources as well. So does that make me a hater of religion - or of non-religion?

You seriously need to grow up and stop reading racism and such in every post - its like your obsessed with it. Ever heard of projection? Its where you take flaws you know you have, and project (or try to find) them onto or in everyone else around you so that you feel better about yourself. I hope you consider getting some serious help for yourself.

I am always ok with debating based on reality - but when you have to create false claims like racism when there isn't any, it shows you are just trying to start a fight. And in those cases, your not worth the time.

OneToughHerring

01-30-10, 12:51 PM

So does that make me racist against every race there is, including my own,

Yes.

Aramike

01-30-10, 01:01 PM

What's so negative about work? Nothing at all. What's your point?

What's negative is having one person's investment result in another's reward simply because.Because he is ill with the condition he described and his wife also needs treatment? I addressed that point.

You must have only glanced over my post.Over here even rich people are covered by the universal healthcare, don't hear them complaining about that. It also covers people like the unemployed. Different culture.

Yet, we have programs for the needy already in place.

CaptainHaplo

01-30-10, 01:03 PM

:o So your saying that my lack of tolerance for people - regardless of nationality - who CHOOSE to not work and suck of the government safety net at the expense of people like myself - is racist...:doh:

Either your not familiar with the meaning of the word racist, you have serious mental health issues, or you are simply trying to be personally insulting. I strongly suspect the last is the case, as you have added nothing substantiative to this discussion.

CaptainHaplo

01-30-10, 01:18 PM

Xabbarus - the issue with such "universal" care is that currently in the US we can look at other government programs designed to help those who need it - and see nothing but failure. You mentioned that you feel confident it is only a small percentage of people defrauding the medical system where you are.

In the US, the welfare system is routinely defrauded through unreported income, an "absent" parent actually being in the home, as well as people who are not entitled to benefits securing them under false pretenses. Additionally, the system is supposedly to be transitional, providing a net where people can regain their feet and move onward. However, its actual function rewards lack of effort and fraudulent behavior.

When we look at programs like this that the government has put into place, and see them as the huge failures they are, why would we want to support the government doing the same thing to health care?

OneToughHerring

01-30-10, 01:50 PM

Nothing at all. What's your point?

Well you seem to make a big deal about people not wanting to work in your country, I thought that maybe there's a reason for it. Looking at the unemployment figures of US I think the reasons might be a bit bigger then just individual people.

What's negative is having one person's investment result in another's reward simply because.I addressed that point.

You must have only glanced over my post.

You used a lot of YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOUUUU! in your post. Not exactly the passive form is it when answering Blacklight's post.

Different culture.

Yea, one with brains.

Yet, we have programs for the needy already in place.

Yes and I recommend the one's at the local mosque. You wouldn't want to limit their freedom of thought now would you?

Catfish

01-30-10, 03:07 PM

"social responsibility" and the freedom to give a damn about others.
This covers the whole situation quite reasonably. Just think a bit about it, calmly, and without prejudice.

/rant on
Certainly this stands against the "right" of self-actualization, but have you ever thought about how far this may go until damageing your neighbour ? And the "freedom" and all that America is about: Like plutocracy, locust capitalism and giving a damn about the poor. "Fun" for some few, really.
Did i forget those who i call "religiously challenged", like scientologists, creationists and all those people who assume that "god is with the good ones", and if someone is poor it is his own guilt, maybe he should pray a bit more, and pay those TV preachers. Why don't the poor just get a job ? Not to forgot the NRA, the Ku-Klux-Clan and Fox News.
The freedom to buy a car, to kill some "sand-******s" abroad and generally bullying against all that stands against own interests, resources and money-wise. The freedom to give a damn.

Strange, it is foremost young people who have a job and never experienced REAL problems in their life, who say they want to pay for their own health insurance, and e.g. older people who lost all their money (maybe in those bank crashes?) are not able to work anymore, can also go to hell. Ask some unemployed Detroit workers, who lost their jobs due to some "managers" (who are not really worth being called that) and now need a dentist, how they think about it.
Everyone can become president of the USA, with a "bit" of money or industrial influence, that is. I would not even call this system of elections a "democracy".
And as soon as someone comes along who thinks a bit more about the future, who has charisma of the right kind, and an ideal, and cares about your own country and how to handle it and make it a bit better, he is instantly accused of being against this glorious freedom to give a damn about social ideas. It is not the man, but that he's a democrat, and black. Certainly no one mentions this, officially. It is this official lack of interest, that pi$$es me off. This bighead behaviour of the old-time McCarthy types is so outright wrong and self-righteous.

Back then in Nixon times the solution to all problems was not to change the real situation of egoism and unfairness, but to not let it leak out too much, to not outrage the populace. Panem et circenses etc.
Now the rigth wing admits being greedy, corrupt and giving a damn about what they said yesterday, they do this "leak-out" officially, and the people applaud them ?!
I guess you cannot even imagine how this rage against Mr. Obama is being looked at and evaluated outside of the USA. Certainly, why give a damn.
If you want to know what's up with Israel and Palestine, and the US president's "efforts" of the last decades, you have the core of the problem. We should probably not expect too much from this country any more.

Why have social responsability, why even give anything to the poor, let it be, problem solved. Same with health insurance.
I have long ago thought that the US would be morally or anything superior, but this hounding from just industry bosses of all and their controlling media, against social ideas of the first president to have a genuine concern about the future of your own country since a very long time, is nothing but a rotten bloodhound chase.
:stare::nope:
/rant off

Edit: Yes, i have read the article, but i think it is wrong. People do not just rage against Obama, because he "explains to them what is obvious", so that they "feel like idiots". Certainly the older governments have consistently been corrupt, paid by the weapon industry lobbies and belied their populace, and all this B$ is now being blamed on Obama.

But if a right-wing politician now exclaims he is against public health insurance, and against giving some less-rich people the opportunity to join a new public system of social responsability, he is being applauded for being "credible", just because he now says what he thinks openly and admits being an egoistic as$hole ?! :rotfl2::rotfl2:

Those were the people who have messed around with the US populace before Obama, i cannot understand it.
There's some real media-driven hate in the US, and the republicans not only innocently profit from this, they are the initial fire raisers.

"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."

That's more about it.

Greetings,
Catfish

P.S. @Platapus immediately south of this post: By god you are a good man.

Platapus

01-30-10, 03:28 PM

I also don't get why there are so many in the US against what is in essence a national health system?

It benefits everyone. At the end of the day it HAS to be paid for.

What is the difference of paying it from your taxes or handing a cheque over to a private comany? At the end of the day you are giving money out of your pocket to pay for your health care.

As for the whole "why should you get benefit from money I earn" argument. That is called social responsibility. The crux is no matter how well of you are now sh!t could happen and you find yourself on the downside and will need the safety net.

I'm not saying that there isn't abuse in social care systems, god knows in the UK we do have an issues with scroungers, however in all fairness I think as a percentage of the population it is quite small. However I know I can relax in that if things do go pear shaped due to unforseen cirumstances.

All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...

As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....

No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. - John Donne

That's why not only do I want a universal health program (the devil is in the details of course) but why I am willing, as a tax payer, to pay for this program. Because I feel it is the "right" thing to do.

Call it Noblesse oblige if you like or Social Responsibility, or Morality. I leave those definitions to the philosophers.

I just recognize something that is right in my opinion and I am committed by my effort and by my money to support this, despite whether I do or do not garner any benefit.

There can not be a greater cause then to help people you don't know and will never meet.

CaptainHaplo

01-30-10, 04:54 PM

Platypus - I applaud your sense of wanting to help those less fortunate. I also think a level of social responsibility is a good thing. However, the plan as put forth is neither fair and equitable, nor in the interest of the country to pursue. If you want to pay someone else's medical bills, then I would point you to groups like the shrinders, red cross or red crescent, or other not for profit or charitable groups who will happily be willing to take a donation from you and help someone less fortunate.

To both you and Catfish I would point out this though - as Catfish said - its:
the freedom to give a damn

What this does is remove my right and freedom to NOT give a damn if I so choose.

The current proposal is nothing more than the COMPULSION upon law abiding citizen to pay for those who cannot - or WILL NOT while giving government a greater hand in our daily lives.

I have no problem with you having the freedom to care. You have that right, and I have served to protect that freedom. What those who support universal health care want the removal of freedom from those that don't want to care. Where is that freedom? Oh that's right - it will be removed.

Just as it has been removed in the case of those who choose NOT to work, choose to sit at home and suck off of welfare - even to the point of defrauding it - so that others work to pay their way.

There are ways for you to care and help - but stop trying to make everyone else do it just because you think they should. That isn't the way this country is supposed to work.

Platapus

01-30-10, 04:58 PM

There are ways for you to care and help - but stop trying to make everyone else do it just because you think they should. That isn't the way this country is supposed to work.

When have I done that? Or even said that?

CaptainHaplo

01-30-10, 05:09 PM

Platypus - you stated
That's why not only do I want a universal health program (the devil is in the details of course) but why I am willing, as a tax payer, to pay for this program. Because I feel it is the "right" thing to do.

Supporting universal health care means not just YOU as a tax payer are paying for it - but that all of us taxpayers pay for it. Why? Because you think it is the "right" thing to do. Your words. If I take them in a spirit they are not meant, then please clarify how you want universal health care and are willing to exempt those who don't want to pay into it and also NOT use it.

Platapus

01-30-10, 05:14 PM

Platypus - you stated

Supporting universal health care means not just YOU as a tax payer are paying for it - but that all of us taxpayers pay for it. Why? Because you think it is the "right" thing to do. Your words. If I take them in a spirit they are not meant, then please clarify how you want universal health care and are willing to exempt those who don't want to pay into it and also NOT use it.

I was only stating my opinion, not citing law. The statement that I am willing to pay should not be construed to say that I feel that you should pay. I am only speaking for myself-- not drafting up legislative wording.

CaptainHaplo

01-30-10, 05:37 PM

Platypus - fair enough. You may be speaking your opinion, but ultimately supporting a universal health care system means your willing to impose the burden on those that don't want it. Unless you think everone is going to somehow suddenly think the idea is great.

There will always be dissent. I personally think we do need to address alot of shortcomings in health care. But making all the workers pay for it - whether they want to or not - is philisophically something I cannot support. Can you?

Aramike

01-30-10, 11:46 PM

Well you seem to make a big deal about people not wanting to work in your country, I thought that maybe there's a reason for it. Looking at the unemployment figures of US I think the reasons might be a bit bigger then just individual people. Seriously? Are you reading the same things I'm writing?You used a lot of YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOUUUU! in your post. Not exactly the passive form is it when answering Blacklight's post. Passive form?

Are you even on the same page?

Let me spell it out to you in the simplist way possible. My issue was with the charaterization of the anti-universal healthcare argument as "silly". I find such a statement to be pointless and dismissive, ESPECIALLY considering that the source clearly stated that he's coming from a biased position. That "silly" comment was even more foolish considering that, should his situation truly be that dire, there are already programs in place to help out.

Clearly in your ill-advised haste to run to the defense to one you feel is ideologically inline with yourself, you glossed over ALL of the facts, including the one where I've stated that I am IN FAVOR of a universal healthcare plan.

All of that leads to this...Yea, one with brains.Heh, you should get someone who's an example of those "brains" to post for you then.

Unless by "brains" you mean typical liberal "emotionalism". In that case you're doing just fine.Yes and I recommend the one's at the local mosque. You wouldn't want to limit their freedom of thought now would you? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Actually I would suggest state programs.

Catfish

01-31-10, 04:11 PM

Bump.
good link from Torvald in the first post, maybe more people should read it :yep:
Greetings,
Catfish

CaptainHaplo

01-31-10, 07:30 PM

I read it. It simply has the reality wrong, except for the fact that being patronizing is a really good way to get people to stand against you to begin with - which is funny because the article itself was very patronizing itself.

Its entire tone is "these idiots don't know that the democrats know what is good for them" - which itself would tick your average voter off.

However, it is in error when it says people cannot see that they are against something that will benefit them. Because what the writer, and the two democrats it mentions all fail to comprehend, is that in the end the current proposal for "universal" health care in fact will NOT benefit them, but will harm them.

Sure, it might provide medical care with an "invisible" cost since its paid for in taxes vs the patient writing a check. But it was Benjamin Franklin who said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - and that is exactly what such a plan does - it gives to those who want it something they can make others pay for. Add in the huge ADDITIONAL costs to the taxpayers, the growth of government as well as the privacy concerns, and you have a public that says they don't want it - because the LONG TERM costs are too high.

Its nice to think your getting something for free - and in many ways this is being sold just like that - or with a "minimal" cost that the government is going to make sure is something you can afford..... but there is no such thing as a "free lunch" - its being paid for somehow.

Another thought to consider is this gem by Thomas Jefferson:
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."

Heck, lets throw out a few others from the man as well:

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. "

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. "

"I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others."

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Steeltrap

02-06-10, 08:43 AM

Obviously the UbiSoft guy missed his calling as a US Congressman.

He may as well end his sentences with... and everyone will love our new healthcare plan.

That's an example that might work with some other citizens of the USA.

It might help for you to understand, however, that most of the Western world looks at your health care system, rolls their eyes, and say "don't ever let that happen here".

But I don't wish to derail this thread.

Cheers

tater

02-06-10, 10:45 AM

That's an example that might work with some other citizens of the USA.

It might help for you to understand, however, that most of the Western world looks at your health care system, rolls their eyes, and say "don't ever let that happen here".

But I don't wish to derail this thread.

Cheers

You post crap, then wish it didn't derail?

That's 'cause the rest of the world doesn't have the first clue about how it actually works here, they think what they saw on a movie about it is true. As an exercise for the reader, find the death rate to a cancer, say prostate or breast (both VERY common) and divide it by the incidence rate. You'll get mortality per incidence. Compare countries. Warts and all, US has the best outcomes when you look at actual treatment of disease, not indicators confounded by lifestyle and other variables. Everyone, for example, gets treated here, regardless of ability to pay.

janh

02-06-10, 12:00 PM

609_Avatar

02-06-10, 12:28 PM

Guys, please take the political stuff to PM as it really has no place here and when people are so polarized in their beliefs there's little chance of convincing the other party to your point of view. Thanks.

Back on topic, I'm glad to hear that there are those on the "inside" of the business that take "our" (those against this type of DRM) point of view. Hopefully this will also help to change things.

Takeda Shingen

02-06-10, 01:16 PM

Politics belongs in GT, guys.

The Management

Platapus

02-06-10, 02:17 PM

All the more reason to have a separate Political forum :D

tater

02-06-10, 07:54 PM

tater, side note:

I usually agree with your statements, but with the exception of the pubic health insurance discussion. I live and teach at Harvard for 3 years now, but I am German, so I have high expectations for social security and health standards.

Everyone I know here around Boston, particularly my US friends, agree that the system in the US is flawed and needs to be brought UP to standards for everyone. (though that "test set" of friends, etc is probably all limited to people from well-above average education and but few friends from the blue-collar set, which, however, would probably benefit a lot, too)

The simple truth is that medical and insurance screws you over, if you look at the statistics and see what you pay for the same "quality" (of service) that Europeans receive for half the cost (leaving more in their pockets). Why? Because if everyone pays his fair share, rates will drop. Like huge sales will drop the price of SHV (oh, sad, how hypothetical).
The numbers are there, the result undisputable, but of course "inconvenient" for those who benefit from it. This, and related "lobbyism" seems to influence politics in the USA significantly (think of the leaky gun-laws/huge police apparatus, the situation in iraq... blunder after blunder the USA dumps tax billions in). Certain factions more than others (oops, this democracy only has two parties -- time for an upgrade...)

Hey,

my wife is a PhD bio-science person who then went to med school. (2 doctorates). I am well immersed in healthcare.

The simple reality is that the US system as it is RIGHT NOW, warts and all produces better outcomes than anywhere else.

Breast cancer mortality over incidence (US have very high incidence) is half what it is in the UK. Half. That means half as many people dying who are diagnosed. That is 100% a measure of quality of medical care since without treatment they will almost all die. Similar numbers fall out for prostate cancer. Again, a treatable but deadly disease. Those stats include people who die without ever getting treatment, BTW.

Very few people don;t have insurance.

BTW, since something over 90% of lifetime medical expense is incurred in the very last months of life, any public medical policy that does not massively limit aggressive care for people at grave risk of death saves not enough money to matter. 90+% spent in the last 6 months of life—by definition ineffective care.

It's great to cut those costs unless it's YOU asked to take one for the team (since a tiny % of those people get the expensive care—and it works).

Average lifespan, and other nonsensical metrics are hopelessly confounded by lifestyle, etc (lard-ass americans skewing the results, etc :) )

Méo

02-07-10, 12:05 AM

People always say a lot of things about this subject but it's never (or rarely) backed by some serious & impartial documentation. :hmmm:

Torvald Von Mansee

03-01-10, 03:39 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson-grfk.html

SteamWake

03-01-10, 03:48 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/01/americans-reliance-on-government-at-all-time-high/

Torvald Von Mansee

03-01-10, 03:53 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/01/americans-reliance-on-government-at-all-time-high/

This is a reaction to my link...er...how?

Aramike

03-01-10, 03:55 PM

http://www.answers.com/topic/health-care

AVGWarhawk

03-01-10, 03:57 PM

My guess that folks will be looking to depend on the goverment for health care now. :hmmm: :06:

Torvald Von Mansee

03-01-10, 05:14 PM

My guess that folks will be looking to depend on the goverment for health care now. :hmmm: :06:

Just about every experience I've had w/a major corporation has been negative in some way (anecdotal, I know). I'd say you have far less input on how a corporation is run than the government.

August

03-01-10, 05:16 PM

krashkart

03-01-10, 06:22 PM

*decides to stay out of this one as well...*

:lurk:

Aramike

03-01-10, 06:54 PM

Just about every experience I've had w/a major corporation has been negative in some way (anecdotal, I know). I'd say you have far less input on how a corporation is run than the government.Why do you say that?

Besides, isn't that circular logic? Government regulates corporations, and you suggest that you have control over government. Ergo, why not allow the regulation of government to combine with the efficiency of a corporation?

Ishmael

03-02-10, 12:45 AM

Why do you say that?

Besides, isn't that circular logic? Government regulates corporations, and you suggest that you have control over government. Ergo, why not allow the regulation of government to combine with the efficiency of a corporation?

That might be true if government actually regulated corporations. But over the past 30 years at least, Less regulation has translated to emasculation of the very laws and mechanisms designed to ensure corporations obeyed the law. Now we have corporations effectively regulating themselves, which is no regulation at all.

As for combining government regulation with corporate efficiency, there is an alternate definition of the convergence of governmental and corporate power. Benito Mussolini called it Fascism.

Kaye T. Bai

03-02-10, 05:59 AM

In before the sh*t storm. :up:

Onkel Neal

03-02-10, 08:44 AM

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/news/economy/usps/index.htm?hpt=T1

nikimcbee

03-02-10, 09:52 AM

Aramike

03-02-10, 02:45 PM

That might be true if government actually regulated corporations. But over the past 30 years at least, Less regulation has translated to emasculation of the very laws and mechanisms designed to ensure corporations obeyed the law. Now we have corporations effectively regulating themselves, which is no regulation at all.You're kidding, right? Or are you not talking about the United States?

Corporations in the US are regulated to a ridiculous degree. The EPA, OSHA, Sarbanes-Oxley Act, ISO, GLBA, and FISMA are just 6 examples of EXTENSIVE laws regulating corporations.

Just because corporations don't have regulations that specifically fit your political ideology does not mean in any way that the government does not regulate them. Over-regulation is partly why the US can't keep corporations based in the US.

In any case, the US government has imposed an INSANE amount of regulation upon corporations.

Besides, if you WERE right, you would have made my point for me. How can you expect a government that cannot properly regulate corporations to be able to RUN HEALTHCARE?

AVGWarhawk

03-02-10, 03:16 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/news/economy/usps/index.htm?hpt=T1

Oh hell, the USPS has my SH5 game! I hope they do not close shop until after I get my game!

Wolfehunter

03-02-10, 06:21 PM

I'll just throw my 2 cents in. I'm having major eye surgery tomorrow. (not an emergency). My wait time from scheduleing to d-day... 1 week. I even got in for a physical on 1 day notice.

the funny thing is, guess who else is in line with me to get the same eye surgery? Citizens from our socialist utopia from the North, Canada.:haha::haha::haha: Now, why are they in the US having eye surgery? They must not have any eye doctors up there?

So If I wanted to have my surgery done in Canada, how long would I need to wait in line before anything happened?

Our system may have issues, but I sure as hell don't want their sub-par system.My mother in law has to wait one month. She chose the soft lens so she has to pay $350 per eye. If it was the hard lens then the government covers that. The operation is one day for her one eye. Then she can have her second eye operated later on after a week or two. If there is no complications.

August

03-02-10, 07:59 PM

Aren't hard contact lenses pretty much obsolete? Free 1970's vintage health care is better than no health care at all I guess but is that sort of thing typical for your system?

Tribesman

03-03-10, 05:52 AM

Aren't hard contact lenses pretty much obsolete? Free 1970's vintage health care is better than no health care at all I guess but is that sort of thing typical for your system?
So Wolfs mother in law can get rigid lenses implanted free at source under a government scheme, or get flexible ones under the same scheme for a small fee. The only real difference in the lenses is the surgical proceedure.
So to take an example under Augusts system, he could get a proceedure specified and approved under the vets healthcare, he could get a specified and approved under an ordinary employers helthcare cover, he could get the procedure under his own private cover.
If he wants a procedure above the minimum specified under any of thse policies he would have to pay for extras.
I guess that is typical of both systems, though under Augusts preferred system you end up with a hell of a lot of people going bankrupt when they discover that what they thought was covered isn't covered.

Torvald Von Mansee

03-03-10, 01:12 PM

I'll just throw my 2 cents in. I'm having major eye surgery tomorrow. (not an emergency). My wait time from scheduleing to d-day... 1 week. I even got in for a physical on 1 day notice.

the funny thing is, guess who else is in line with me to get the same eye surgery? Citizens from our socialist utopia from the North, Canada.:haha::haha::haha: Now, why are they in the US having eye surgery? They must not have any eye doctors up there?

So If I wanted to have my surgery done in Canada, how long would I need to wait in line before anything happened?

Our system may have issues, but I sure as hell don't want their sub-par system.

Anecdotal false dichotomy. Also doesn't address the linked article.

Zachstar

03-04-10, 12:36 AM

August

03-04-10, 08:31 AM

You know what is funny about the healthcare thing? Republicans promise to campaign against it but wont let it come up for vote.

Tell me if its such a winning issue for pubs why are they so hesitant to get their no vote in and start on the campaign trail? Maybe its because they fear that most Americans don't like being bent over the barrel by insurance companies?

There's no ongoing Filibuster that I know of so exactly how are they keeping it from coming up for a vote? Could it be that the Democrats don't have enough votes even in their own party for passage and you're just saying this to cover that internal failure?

CaptainHaplo

03-04-10, 06:22 PM

Right now its not going through reconciliation because there is no bill - and without one the Dems have no hope of reaching the simple majority in the HOUSE needed. The Senate will pass it with 52 votes if it comes up - 52 because that is one more than needed - and no senator that votes for it will want to be held up in their district as THE ONE vote that could have made the difference.

The House on the other hand - BARELY passed this the first time with a simple majority (as thats all that is needed there) and there are a dozen anti-abortion democrats that have made it clear they will NOT vote for it unless there is language added that prohibits tax dollars paying for abortions. There are a number of other House Representatives that know what their constituents think - and are very hesitant to vote yes on this when their voters don't want it.

The leadership is hoping for a vote before the easter recess - and they already are talking about not making it.... If they don't then this health care bill - even under reconciliation - has no chance. Let those swing votes go back home and they will get back to washington with a clear message from the people - vote no...

This boondoggle will not pass.

SteamWake

03-19-10, 09:37 AM

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

While the politicos dither over a bill that doesent exist and ponder passing said bill without a vote "Deemed it passed" more and more are beginning to see the true costs.

Those reports you may have heard from the CBO are 'estimates' because they havent seen an actual bill. Furthermore the 'estimate' is full of little tricks like taking a couple of million from medicare and applying it to the accounting of the proposed bill as revenue.

http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html

tater

03-19-10, 10:14 AM

No, the "savings" touted is all smoke and mirrors.

The current bill claims something like 138 billion in savings, but they specifically don't count over 350 billion in medicare increases as counting, while they DO count several billions in savings coming out of student loan changes bolted onto the "health care" bill as savings! Really. It's insane. All the long-term saving claims are based on similarly absurd assumptions about economic and job growth, and commensurate revenue increases (while similarly NOT counting many large expenses for no apparent reason).

It's a mess, and the only reason to be for it is partisan.

It will also increase taxes and premiums on anyone who is already paying "real" taxes.

Edit:

the dems are apparently planning on repealing the 370+ billion in medicare reimbursement cuts to doctors. This is a good thing, actually. The trouble is that the CBO rating of the healthcare "reform" bill includes that 370 billion dollars as savings—even though they plan on removing 100% of that!

From a fiscal standpoint, the medicare cuts seem like they make sense, but they suck. My wife is a surgeon, and she will cease taking medicare if the cuts ever happen (they have been set to, and get put off each year so far). As it is, medicare is very nearly at cost for her, and on top of that, private insurance is pegged to it. So any older folks out there will have a huge difficulty finding specialists should those 21% pay cuts ever go into effect. As it is, docs lose money (I don't mean lost wages, I mean out of pocket money spent) every time they see a medicAID patient, losing money on every medicare patient is not an option.

So when you hear about the current bill saving 138 billion, subtract 371 billion from that and realize that the bill actually costs 233 (over 10 years or whatever, it gets far worse later).

OneToughHerring

03-19-10, 05:22 PM

Does it include the cost to bury Rachel Corrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie)?

Tribesman

03-19-10, 06:08 PM

We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors
Is that because the global competitors have to pay the costs for health coverage in their countries already?
Though if the CBO hasn't seen the bill and is just guessing then doesn't that mean that Caterpillar is also just guessing with their claim of 100million extra expense

tater

03-19-10, 06:31 PM

Does it include the cost to bury Rachel Corrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie)?

God, I hope we didn't spend a penny on someone colluding with Islamic terrorists.

tater

03-19-10, 06:48 PM

Is that because the global competitors have to pay the costs for health coverage in their countries already?
Though if the CBO hasn't seen the bill and is just guessing then doesn't that mean that Caterpillar is also just guessing with their claim of 100million extra expense

Their guess is likely better than CBO's since the CBO can only use the statements in the bill, even if they are absurd.

The CBO has to swallow at face value claims that X amount of revenue will be forthcoming due to some part of the bill for example, even if that is predicated on unrealistic economic growth, or other BS assumptions.

The original "mission" of healthcare reform according to Obama was to "bend the cost curve down."

This bill does worse than nothing to do that. The argument that to be against it is to be for some sort of broken status quo is misleading because the bill in question INCREASES COSTS. Doing nothing actually does less harm, LOL.

There are few ways to reduce costs, and this bill does none of them.

1. Malpractice reform. Malpractice and insurance (except for OB/GYNs) is not really the issue, that's an insignificant % of total costs. The issue is defensive medicine, and malpractice reform could absolutely bend this down over time (it would likely require a new generation of docs to see full effect, defensive medicine is 100% "trained in" at this point). Still, this would be not huge, maybe 10% of total cost.

2. "Conservative" care. Studies have shown that docs out here in "flyover" states practice more conservative medicine—likely this is largely due to a shortage of docs. Outcomes are virtually identical, but FAR less money is spent. They looked at Medicaid patients who died of bad illness, and they spent literally 10X as much per patient in the last 2 years in New York as Iowa—and all the patients in the study died in their 2 years of care. Similar numbers for other urban areas... and who is pushing for "reform?"

3. If you want draconian reform, ration care. Over 90% of lifetime healthcare costs are incurred in the last months of life. That means other than that, all care could magically cost $0.00, and you'd only drop total expense by under 10%.

Care in the last months of life is by definition ineffective, right? (otherwise they'd not be last months of life).

If the government stopped messing with insurance (it is pegged to Medicare, after all, so it is HIGHLY regulated right now), they'd be far more free to do what they should to ration care—they'd charge way higher premiums for people at risk, or already sick. This is a GOOD THING. Yeah, if it's you, it sucks, but the reality is that you'll likely die anyway in these cases. It;s cold, but that's the way it is. If the government rations care, you have no recourse, you are SOL. If Blue Cross does, you can always try another insurance, sell the house, whatever.

Cut defensive medicine, and practice conservative care (both closely related) and you can bend down the curve without sacrifices in quality of care. Leaving some avenue for aggressive care is clearly good, as the US has the best outcomes when you look at treatable but fatal disease (breast cancer, prostate cancer, etc). Clearly some of this is aggressive care that doesn't work for most, but works for enough that it's worth the shot if it is your life on the line.

Stealth Hunter

03-19-10, 11:25 PM

God, I hope we didn't spend a penny on someone colluding with Islamic terrorists.

Well someone's a bit of a stereotypical and ill-informed jerk. She wasn't "colluding with Islamic terrorists" as you put it. That fact aside, do you really think that a bunch of radical Islamics who treat women like dirt, let alone an American, would actually accept one to help them to begin with? Hell no. She was trying to keep the Israelis from bulldozing a Palestinian pharmacist's house down, because they claimed it was in an area where there were guerrilla hideouts and tunnels and that it was necessary to keep the peace (even though, as the Wiki stated, they never produced any evidence to prove this to the public).

The Israelis have a nasty habit of pulling this kind of stuff with the Palestinians, because they know, as far as international law is concerned, no action will be taken by any governments in the West and they can consequently get away with it. And if any controversy does arise, it's always from private groups and organizations that can do very little to interfere. Take these examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2RiEXrJ69o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQyIKyd2gqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bdbA2Ka3Bo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BXRKqSSKWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mO8CWSam2o

And then there's of course the Muhammad al-Durah Incident at Netzarim Junction.

http://blog.france2.fr/charles-enderlin/index.php/2008/05/28/73147

Some claim that it was all some kind of elaborate hoax, but nobody has ever launched a scientific debunking investigation into it (the government hasn't anyway). There's been YouTube documentaries by third-party "investigators", and I stress the third-party part (the "Three Bullets" documentary is about as enlightening as the Zeitgeist documentary; they're both originally just Internet videos).

Not to say all Israeli soldiers in Palestine are this bad. That would be stupid. You have bad and good ones, with everything. Like this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJGyfvoJz64&feature=related

Even so, we should be doing more to prevent the bad ones from remaining out there in the field. And we should also be monitoring more and more the actions the IDF is taking (as in operations they're launching, tactics they're using, etc.).

Tribesman

03-20-10, 03:54 AM

God, I hope we didn't spend a penny on someone colluding with Islamic terrorists.
I could have sworn that ISM is made up of people from the all the big three Abrahmic branches and has a policy of non-violent protest.
Its amazing how something like that can suddenly be transformed into colluding with islamic terrorists....or was it just a throwaway knee jerk statement based on pure ignorance that Tater made.

If the government stopped messing with insurance (it is pegged to Medicare, after all, so it is HIGHLY regulated right now), they'd be far more free to do what they should to ration care—they'd charge way higher premiums for people at risk, or already sick. This is a GOOD THING. Yeah, if it's you, it sucks, but the reality is that you'll likely die anyway in these cases. It;s cold, but that's the way it is. If the government rations care, you have no recourse, you are SOL. If Blue Cross does, you can always try another insurance, sell the house, whatever.

So if you did away with more restrictions then more people can be stripped of their cover, employers would end up paying more for less, the already ridiculous levels of bankrupcy due to health costs could be increased and more people would become entirely reliant on government handouts and healthcare which taxpayers would then have to fund.

OneToughHerring

03-20-10, 10:13 AM

God, I hope we didn't spend a penny on someone colluding with Islamic terrorists.

What about people who collude with state terrorists like Israel?

Oh wait, the US is the biggest state terrorist in the world.

CCIP

03-20-10, 10:25 AM

:timeout:

tater

03-20-10, 11:56 AM

Stepping in front of a bull dozer and hoping it will stop is idiotic. Glad she's out of the gene pool, frankly. I feel sorry for the driver.

There could have been a peaceful, 2-state solution ages ago if not for islamic terrorists. Heck, they had a solution that even the Saudis said was "criminal" that they didn't take during the Clinton Administration. Curse it was not in Arafat's personal interest to solve anything, it would have prevented him lining his Swiss bank accounts. But go ahead, side with them all you like.

Aramike

03-20-10, 01:31 PM

An interesting take: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy. I couldn't agree more with this, and anyone who thinks that such a move could actually be justified Constitutionally, is being intellectually dishonest.

Does anyone really think that liberals would not be claiming the exact same thing should, say, conservatives move similarly on an abortion ban?

Aramike

03-20-10, 01:41 PM

Update: They apparently just abandoned the idea. Good.

Still, I'm concerned that such a concept could even be considered.

SteamWake

03-20-10, 02:15 PM

Their brazenness has reached new highs.

I dont think they can pass it with a vote as alot of them realize this will be their last term if they do so.

It's simple voting against the will of the pepole is not a good idea.

What I am afraid of is politicians that are willing to walk the plank and follow through with this monstrosity contrary to the american will just to secure the Obama legacy and garner even more control over the citizens.

SteamWake

03-20-10, 02:17 PM

How in the hell did this thread turn into a discussion on terrorisim?! :nope:

CaptainHaplo

03-20-10, 03:29 PM

It wouldn't have been the first time - both sides have used it before. However, I am glad to see it off the table. Question is - how many reps have the will to vote for the original bill?

Aramike

03-20-10, 04:02 PM

It wouldn't have been the first time - both sides have used it before. However, I am glad to see it off the table. Question is - how many reps have the will to vote for the original bill?Both sides have used it for budget processes, yes. However, budget processes are not laws.

This would have been entirely unique.

Stealth Hunter

03-20-10, 04:04 PM

Stepping in front of a bull dozer and hoping it will stop is idiotic.

Hardly, when it comes to this cause. The fact is she had done this many times before and nothing this deadly had ever happened before. This certainly doesn't satisfy to dispel our suspicions. I must agree with the lot that has concluded that the driver did this intentionally.

Glad she's out of the gene pool, frankly. I feel sorry for the driver.

I was about to say the same about him. Apparently, he was a Russian immigrant to Israel who was killed after a gravel truck rolled over with him in the cab in 2008, working for the IDF to the end.

There could have been a peaceful, 2-state solution ages ago if not for islamic terrorists.

Oh please. When Palestine was carved up for the creation of Israel by the UN, there were no Islamic terrorist groups even in existence in the region. Hamas, Hezbollah, none of these groups existed there. The only real reason why Israel was created was to provide a safehaven for the Jews of Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War and after details of the Holocaust had been brought to light. What kind of crappy justification is that for completely revamping the homelands of a settled people who had lived there for hundreds of years already? Thousands were forced out of their homes and made to settle down elsewhere where they would be accepted. Had Israel never been allowed to have been created, or at least never encouraged by the United Nations, this would not have been an issue to begin with. There would not have been a war like this to begin with. These terrorist groups in that specific region would not be what they are today, if they were even brought into existence. The Jews of Europe could have settled back down where they had lived- and had long, happy lives in peace.

Heck, they had a solution that even the Saudis said was "criminal" that they didn't take during the Clinton Administration.

The Saudi Arabians never called the Hebron nor the Wye Agreements "criminal". The 1993-1996 agreements were almost entirely strictly between Israel and Egypt.

Curse it was not in Arafat's personal interest to solve anything,

Correction: Yasir agreed to both the Hebron ad Wye Agreements. Hell- the Wye Agreement he signed in the presence of then-President Clinton. Netanyahu also signed it. The problem is that when Ehud Barak was elected Prime Minister of Israel, he tried in 2000 to convince the Palestinians to allow 69 Jewish settlements to be built in their territory and also allow the IDF military access to reach these settlements, though 95% of the West Bank and some of the Gaza Strip would be given to them in exchange. With that said, military access is still a very unreasonable demand on the part of the Israelis, especially considering that it was the Palestinians they were making this demand towards (the same people who's land they, the Israelis, were living on after it was taken from its rightful former owners).

it would have prevented him lining his Swiss bank accounts.

Not that his finances have anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian relations or the Hebron and Wye Agreements, but whatever.

But go ahead, side with them all you like.

Ok.

How in the hell did this thread turn into a discussion on terrorisim?! :nope:

Thank Tater for his statement that: God, I hope we didn't spend a penny on someone colluding with Islamic terrorists. :roll:

Tribesman

03-20-10, 04:10 PM

How in the hell did this thread turn into a discussion on terrorisim?
Thats easy.
You just get someone to ignore the Christian/Jewish /Israeli /American aspects of the specifics of a topic which unless by a divine miracle that cannot be explained......
then(apart from that of pure ignorant bias) and you end up with ("islamic terrorist").....simple isn't it:yeah:

Though to be fair the question of US citizens paying for Israeli government stupidity is a moot point...they just pay for it and in general(on a vocal level) tend to cheer the unending waste of tax dollars.

Look its gulliver on his travels:hmmm:

geetrue

03-21-10, 03:02 AM

Lets get back to health care, just shoot the bad guys and get it over with :yawn:

The health care plan in it's present state is not an effective way to serve the American people.

It will bloat everything, including the price of health care for the rich which will be the only people left being able to afford present day health care after they raise their prices and promise quicker options for all of your needs.

While the government health care plan will wind up like everything else they have done since the end of the Korean conflict ... this just spells disaster in the making for America if it passes.

Instead of this monster bill they should just suport the emergency rooms in America which see the urgent care needs of millions of people every year. Right now the emergency rooms are reporting a 2 billion dollar loss every year.

Shoot give the emergency rooms 100 billion dollars and solve the whole problem ... instant health care. :salute:

Immigration is next on the agenda ... will they get this new plan too (if it passes that is)

Tribesman

03-21-10, 03:39 AM

Instead of this monster bill they should just suport the emergency rooms in America which see the urgent care needs of millions of people every year. Right now the emergency rooms are reporting a 2 billion dollar loss every year.

Shoot give the emergency rooms 100 billion dollars and solve the whole problem ... instant health care.
Emergency rooms are government funded already.
Isn't one problem with current set up that people go to emergency rooms when they should instead just be going to a family doctor.

SteamWake

03-21-10, 12:00 PM

We dont need no stinking rules !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHTJSu_2Lk

CaptainHaplo

03-21-10, 01:55 PM

The next few hours will be telling. The funny thing is that even if this passes - its still got along way to go before its law. Not to mention the 38 states that have already said they will challenge it, along with the countless people that will do so in courts as it is unconstitutional. Yet the Dems seem intent of driving themselves off this cliff.

GoldenRivet

03-21-10, 04:45 PM

Oberon

03-21-10, 04:58 PM

Not many nations governments are doing that, to be honest. I know ours certainly isn't.

CaptainHaplo

03-21-10, 10:07 PM

Buddahaid

03-21-10, 11:14 PM

Torvald Von Mansee

03-21-10, 11:51 PM

LOL!!!! Do you people view yourselves as Christians?

Dowly

03-21-10, 11:59 PM

LOL!!!! Do you people view yourselves as Christians?

Sure they do, but the dollar comes first. :O:

GoldenRivet

03-22-10, 12:08 AM

LOL!!!! Do you people view yourselves as Christians?

what? :06:

please elaborate

Aramike

03-22-10, 12:22 AM

LOL!!!! Do you people view yourselves as Christians?No, I'm an atheist.

mookiemookie

03-22-10, 12:23 AM

Well it passed the House - 219 -212. Thing is it won't hold up under legal challenges. Going to be real interesting yet. The fight isn't over yet. 38 States onboard to challenge it.

The amazing thing - is that this just goes to show how stoooooopid some "leaders" can be. Only 1/3 of America supported this - and they somehow think they will keep their jobs come November?

The Dems not only handed the house to the Republicans - they likely just gave them the Senate as well within 4 years.

To paraphrase -

So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could they muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

Aramike

03-22-10, 12:24 AM

Sure they do, but the dollar comes first. :O:Without the dollar there can be no healthcare for anyone.

So yes, you're damned right - the dollar must come first. If we can't PAY for a system, than such a system can't effectively exist. It should be pretty clear.

Aramike

03-22-10, 12:30 AM

This healthcare bill is forever. I doubt that. Even far less contested legislations (such as those arising from the New Deal) have seen drastic shifts in policy. And, considering that the Democrats are stupidly leaving portions of the law open to Executive Order, they are setting the precendent that such an order can impact the existing legislation, thereby eliminating any legit legal challenge they would have against such a thing in the future.

You forget that this bill is wildly unpopular. And while you cite certain examples of the bill that ARE popular, you forget that the bill itself as whole is NOT, and are suggesting that somehow Republicans would face a line-by-line fight while the Democrats clearly didn't.

And finally, why do you suggest that Obama is forever?

mookiemookie

03-22-10, 12:40 AM

I'm just eagerly awaiting Limbaugh to stay true to his word and pack it up and get out of my country.

F33bs

03-22-10, 01:27 AM

You forget that this bill is wildly unpopular. And while you cite certain examples of the bill that ARE popular, you forget that the bill itself as whole is NOT

I hate for my first post on SubSim to be about healthcare of all things, but it would really behoove you to actually prove to anyone that that is the case.

I've never been polled, and I don't know a single person who has, so frankly I don't trust opinion polls, and I'm wary of anyone who does.

The only people I knew who didn't like the bill (I love using the past tense here) were my parents (I'm 20) back in the Central Valley of California where there is a strong Republican base against the backdrop of rural agriculture. While talking to my mom, she bashed the bill literally without even knowing what was in it. She still thought the public option was included, when it had been trashed months ago. Unfortunately, there was a HUGE amount of disinformation spread about the contents of the bill, as is the case when any large industry is losing their status quo.

I live in urban Las Vegas, where there is a sizable African-American population as well as a lot of single and young people working in the service industry, and I can tell you from first-hand knowledge and experience that there are A LOT of people who are seriously getting hurt by how healthcare is being run at present.

Letting 40 million people fall through the cracks of a system that has successfully avoided even anti-trust laws for half a century (until now) is just unacceptable in a developed country with the means to provide for it's citizens basic health. Just because the Republican side is louder, doesn't mean they are more numerous, and it certainly doesn't mean that they are morally, ethically or even philosophically correct, which they aren't.

If people only could see the toll that the lack of healthcare legroom and regulation that a lot of Americans are single-handedly bearing the brunt of, they'd realize how wrong they are.

But I'm afraid that a good portion of America still relies on that selfish old maxim, "Not in my backyard," even when disaster has been knocking on all our front doors for years, and noone wanted to face it until now.

GoldenRivet

03-22-10, 01:41 AM

I'm just eagerly awaiting Limbaugh to stay true to his word and pack it up and get out of OUR country.

fixed :up:

Mookie, America is a partnership co-owned by 300+ million people... its not a sole proprietorship

if rush were to leave... he would be doing a lot of people a favor IMHO

@ F33bs

My wife is one of those people who might benefit from this bill simply from the pre-existing condition issues.

personally, Im a healthy person, i get a flight physical every 12 months, i get routine check ups and exams.

the only thing they have found wrong in 30+ years has been a very slightly elevated cholesterol level about 5 years ago that i quickly corrected through diet and exercise.

there are a few things in the bill i agree with.

there are a lot of things in the bill i dont agree with.

The main disagreement being that the Federal Government doesnt have the right to MANDATE a GD MFing thing to its citizens.

Tribesman

03-22-10, 02:52 AM

I'm just eagerly awaiting Limbaugh to stay true to his word and pack it up and get out of my country.

But wasn't he threatening to go to a country that altready has universal healthcare.:har:

The main disagreement being that the Federal Government doesnt have the right to MANDATE a GD MFing thing to its citizens.
Oh dear...read the constitution, its a document you are fond of mentioning.
The federal government has plenty of right to do lots of things, and that mandate is verified by the people.

If we can't PAY for a system, than such a system can't effectively exist. It should be pretty clear.
So does thast mean the armed forces should be abolished, after all the country is in debt and they do cost a lot of money.

Skybird

03-22-10, 04:21 AM

bashed the bill literally without even knowing what was in it.

That is the one major and dominant impression I get from every piece of news reporting about the issue time and again, no matter whether it is German, British or American papers.

I think very, very many people snapped up the word "socialism" somewhere in the anti-propaganda, and immediately jumped off the deck without further thinking, since where there is socialism, there is Satan already very near.

I do not like socialism. I do not say you should run a society that way. the point is, this reform hardly is the socialist-made end of the world. Nor are all the many utmost evil chlichées true that have been raised as propaganda against it. That can be understood even from reading just summaries of it oin foreign newspapers.

I think Americans have turned hysteric and irrational about opposing this bill.

Without the dollar there can be no healthcare for anyone.

So yes, you're damned right - the dollar must come first. If we can't PAY for a system, than such a system can't effectively exist. It should be pretty clear.

Concerning the national debts, Americans never have cared much for their nation'S debt levels, let their nation live on tick is as much en vogue there as it is in other Western nations, too - so why do they argue with that in this case...? Because the cause justifies any means? If this would be a project of your most interesting hobby - defence, war on terror and security - most of you guys now complaining would not spend a second thought on making more debts to finance it.

Bubblehead1980

03-22-10, 04:22 AM

Looks like obama got his way and along with most of congress, defied the American people to pass Health Control after many bribes, backroom deals etc along with taking over student loans via a little discussed bill attached to the health control bill.Anyway, thoughts? Everyone is welcome of course but would like to here my fellow citizens thoughts on the bill.Hopefully no more destructive legislation will get passed before the Dems are sent packing in November.:arrgh!:

Skybird

03-22-10, 04:26 AM

what? :06:

please elaborate

He wants to know how to bring the sermon on the mount and Jesus' preachings for compassion into conformity with certain pillars of the capitalistic-materialistic dogma and this typical willingness to leave everybody behind who has been hit by fate and is too weak to pay anymore, or has been born as weaker than others.

Skybird

03-22-10, 04:30 AM

Well it passed the House - 219 -212. Thing is it won't hold up under legal challenges.
Like some also predicted it would not pass the House? :O:

Skybird

03-22-10, 04:33 AM

---> http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=165619

Bubblehead1980

03-22-10, 04:33 AM

Either way you slice it.

November 2010 will be one of the most sweeping land slide victories for the Republican Party in United States History.

I dont care who you are or what party you represent... this is a democracy, you dont pass a wildly unpopular bill which is unfavored by anywhere from 60% - 75% of the people without committing political suicide.

If the republicans were peddling this crap and trying to create some 200 additional government agencies - i would be placing a huge check mark next to the democrat ticket in November.

its not a party issue... its an issue of representing the people... the dems are NOT doing that.

Well said, the president and dem majority defied the people who put them there because they think they know whats best for us, but they do not.Pretty excited for November because our country can still be saved, on the brink of disaster but it can be saved, going to take some tough choices though.

Tribesman

03-22-10, 04:46 AM

Well said, the president and dem majority defied the people who put them there because they think they know whats best for us,
Errrr...they were elected by the people after they had said they would try and push through legislation to reform healthcare in the US.
If you want a referendum by the people on every piece of legislation before its passed then change your constitution.

Catfish

03-22-10, 05:56 AM

Hello,
well it is not about ethical basics. A national basic health care has been part of the basic law in lots of civilized countries, but i guess in the US it just is a bad idea to even think about health care for poor people, and those who lost their job due to some criminals hrrrm greedy managers. There are even war veterans who cann not afford health care, but they are too proud to mention it (leaks out now and then).
Talking about, wait 30 millions (?) US citizens without any health care at all ?
I am with health care for the rich, thus the poor will die out eventually. We will then all become rich automatically, just listen to the republicans.

:88):dead::woot:

Greetings,
Catfish

CaptainHaplo

03-22-10, 06:04 AM

Skybird - I fully recognize that my earlier prediction that it would not pass was not accurate. Realize however that had it not been for a total cave-in by the supposed "anti-abortion" Democrats - this bill would NOT have passed. The cave was unexpected.

Still - while the legaslative branch under Democrat leadership is willing to overstep its bounds (and obviously the Executive is as well) - the Supreme Court still holds a slight majority that believes in limited governmental power as defined by the Constitution. So the battle isn't over.

As for repealing the entire act - no that will not be done immediately. What you will see are drastic changes to the bill. As for Obama not signing them - given the public backlash, it is very likely that the House will have enough of a majority to overcome a Veto - and the Senate may as well. If that happens, Obama becomes a moot point.

Seems some folks are really underestimating the anger of the American people here....

Catfish - the thing is that the whole idea that the poor don't get healthcare is a crock. The poor have Medicaid. The old have Medicare (which gets a budget CUT in this). Then you have the illegals and uninsured that simply go to the hospital or emergency room and get treatment and never pay. All this does is add government waste to an already broken system, leaving the ever shrinking middle class and business to pay for it. I am not against health care reform - I am however against stupid, costly and ineffective health care reform which is what this is. Especially when there are bigger issues to deal with.

As for the "Christian" issue - the Xtian ideal is one of charity and a willingness to step up to help others. Nothing in the Bible says that a Christian should gladly accept the government over-reaching and stealing from some people to give to others - ie "mandated" charity via theft. Most Biblical texts describe theft and stealing as a bad thing - and thus NOT to be supported. Hope that clears it up for ya, though I doubt the question was asked with any real interest other than to "slam" those who claim a religious mantle.

F33bs - we can disagree all we want - but even so - WELCOME ABOARD!

Tribesman

03-22-10, 07:09 AM

Nothing in the Bible says that a Christian should gladly accept the government over-reaching and stealing from some people to give to others -
Yeah apart from that bit where people were complaining about the evil government wanting money and that carpenter fella said about giving it to the government because it is the governments.
But hey what did that carpenter know about christianity anyway:har:

jumpy

03-22-10, 07:23 AM

I don't get it... surely universal healthcare for all if they choose it, and those less fortunate individuals who cannot afford expensive healthcare (private healthcare as it it here in the UK) is something any civilised society can look upon and say it's a good thing?

I realise I might be completely missing the point regarding the politics of the healthcare bill over there, but I do have experience of the National Health Service here - it's not perfect by any means - in some cases it has been downright incompetent, but it's better than having nothing whatsoever.

Indeed had it not been for the NHS I had an uncle who would have died many years ago. I'm convinced that the care of NHS staff and the treatments available to him as a result of the NHS, were what kept him alive for 18 years when he was initially given 6 months after being diagnosed with Lymphoma (non-hodgekinsons disease).
Being a minority of patients who required a great deal of care over the years, there's absolutely no way he would have been able to afford the sort of care he got had he had to pay for all of it himself privately. And no, he was not some lazy sit at home bum who expected the state to pay for his entire life. But without the NHS he would have died years ago, not getting to see his grandchildren born and many other things.

I think it's a credit to the NHS that we did not have to carry his coffin to lay him to rest until we (his nephews and sons) were all old enough to perform that particular honour.

Mark Steel (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-my-advice-to-obama-ndash-throw-away-the-kid-gloves-1918820.html) has an ironic dig at this whole healthcare bill :O:

gutted

03-22-10, 08:14 AM

Atleast noone in the House from my state voted for it (Louisiana).

That b*tch Mary Landrieu on the other hand... she better watch out when her Senate seat is up for grabs. Louisiana is not for sale.

The argument that it was for Katrina is moot. I'm from the New Orleans area... and I, like most people i know 'round here wish people in the media would shut the hell up about Katrina. We're alive, we're doing well... and it was almost 5 years ago.. get over it.

Torvald Von Mansee

03-22-10, 08:27 AM

Looks like obama got his way and along with most of congress, defied the American people

I see logic is not your strong point.

AVGWarhawk

03-22-10, 08:52 AM

I see logic is not your strong point.

Quote all of Bubbleheads post please. :03:

Onkel Neal

03-22-10, 08:55 AM

All kinds of duplicate health care topics merged.

Oh boy, where do I go for my free medical now? :yeah:

AVGWarhawk

03-22-10, 09:07 AM

All kinds of duplicate health care topics merged.

Oh boy, where do I go for my free medical now? :yeah:

No where because it starts in 2014 :shifty:

nikimcbee

03-22-10, 09:15 AM

So where are all of the Canadians going to go for their specialized healthcare?:haha:
No more trips to Canada for us for cheap meds:O:.

Tribesman

03-22-10, 09:18 AM

So where are all of the Canadians going to go for their specialized healthcare?
How are all those third world countries going to survive without money from the hordes of US patients desperate for treatment?

nikimcbee

03-22-10, 09:18 AM

No where because it starts in 2014 :shifty:

I'll start the timer now for when the dems whine: we don't have enough money for it, and they raid the fund to pay for something else like they used to do in the 90's with SS fund.:nope:

SteamWake

03-22-10, 09:22 AM

I'm just eagerly awaiting Limbaugh to stay true to his word and pack it up and get out of my country.

Hrm.. dont remember him saying that.. could you show me a quote? Ive seen a couple of hit pieces on blogs but for some reason cannot find the actual quote.

Ah found it... see context is everything...

"I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000188-503544.html

I do remember a few celebratards (Alec Baldwin) that said they would leave if George Bush was elected however they did not follow through.

http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/09/20/starexile/index.html

Not that it matters the will of the pepole is irrelevant and it wont be long before the FCC finds some way to squelch the opposing point of view somehow.

AVGWarhawk

03-22-10, 09:26 AM

I'll start the timer now for when the dems whine: we don't have enough money for it, and they raid the fund to pay for something else like they used to do in the 90's with SS fund.:nope:

I suspect that Nov elections will paint a different picture on the political landscape. I invision this program will be altered quite a bit in the coming years. I agree that some type of heatlhcare system needs to be addressed and implemented however shoving it down are throats and gloating about it is not the way to go. Not knowing how to pay for it is even more of a concern. The bill was to haphazard and there was to many deals going on during the 11th hour. :stare:

SteamWake

03-22-10, 09:26 AM

I'll start the timer now for when the dems whine: we don't have enough money for it, and they raid the fund to pay for something else like they used to do in the 90's with SS fund.:nope:

The funds have already been raided to 'adjust' the apparent costs of the bill. The coffers re running dry. It will be your children, grand children, and generations to come that will pay the true price.

ReallyDedPoet

03-22-10, 09:59 AM

The bill was to haphazard and there was to many deals going on during the 11th hour. :stare:

That's politics :yep:

As far as $$ to cover the cost, the same could be said about many government led initiatives.

Besides, look at the US debt currently, before the whole health care debate.
Health-care would seem the least of your worries:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

For the record Canada is also billions of dollars in debt :oops:

http://www.debtclock.ca/

nikimcbee

03-22-10, 10:01 AM

I've got mixed feelings about the pre-existing conditions part. But I think a lot of the healthcare problems(cost) are from the state gov't mandates:nope:.

So how many layers of healthcare do we get now? Can we scrap the state programs now, now that we have a fed one? In ore-gone, the creator of our universal HC has declared it a total failure:haha:, but if you elect him gov again, he can fix it.:har:

Skybird

03-22-10, 10:11 AM

Der Spiegel comments with a nice quote by the "iron chancellor", Otto von Bismarck:

Bismarck led the country from 1871 to 1890 -- and preferred to keep the process of governing away from the public eye. Lawmaking, he once pointed out, was not all that different from what a butcher does. "The less people know about how sausages and laws are made," he famously said, "the better they will sleep."

And:

The reform bill only half-heartedly addresses the reduction of health care costs and those measures aimed at savings can easily be skirted. Insurance companies will get millions of new customers, but no real competition. Their shares are currently skyrocketing -- they are the true winners of US health care reform.
(...)
The debate will dominate the next few months -- and will no doubt also have an impact on the other projects that Obama is finally planning to tackle. The attention that the president will have to continue to pay to health care, in fact, makes further successes that much more doubtful.

Every other issue has become a sideshow, particularly those outside the borders of America. The Afghanistan mission: of marginal interest. Protecting the environment: postponed. Peace in the Middle East: off in the distance. Sanctions against Iran: delayed. Europe: not even worth a trip.

The one remaining global superpower has succumbed to navel gazing. The nature of Obama's hard-fought victory means little will change in the near future.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,684952,00.html

In the end, the reform is extremely pharma-industry-friendly, and the battle was also abused by Republicans to maximise damage for Obama as much as possible not only over the healthcare debate, but also to minimise his chances for re-election by choosing a path of total and complete opposition to anything he does. The way this reform already has been watered down and fragmentated, not only is expression of fears of "socialism" or concers over the issue of healthcare itself - it already is a display of tactics choosen in order to win the next presidential election with the traumatised Republican party still being in disarray and being hijacked by anti-intellectual demagogues like Palin and Limbaugh.

The Republican party still cannot defeat Obama. But it can claim victory - by preventing him to win. It is a known tactic, called "scorched earth". whether such total opposition is in th einterest of state'S reason, is something different. And political parties tend to put their own powerinterests above the interests of their nations and their people.

SteamWake

03-22-10, 10:15 AM

"We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

:nope:

nikimcbee

03-22-10, 10:23 AM

Well, atleast the radio will be exciting today:doh:.

Skybird

03-22-10, 10:29 AM

The director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin explains a fundamental difference between European and American mentality:

(in German)
http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/tid-17662/us-gesundheitsreform-amerikaner-genervt-vom-dauerstreit_aid_492025.html?drucken=1

Aramike

03-22-10, 11:00 AM

I hate for my first post on SubSim to be about healthcare of all things, but it would really behoove you to actually prove to anyone that that is the case.

I've never been polled, and I don't know a single person who has, so frankly I don't trust opinion polls, and I'm wary of anyone who does.Opinion polls are proven quite accurate, time and time again, and are used religiously by the same people you trust to reform heathcare.

In any case, scientific opinion polls are far better measurement tools of public opinion than anecdotal accounts such as "I don't know of anyone...".

Unfortunately, there was a HUGE amount of disinformation spread about the contents of the bill, as is the case when any large industry is losing their status quo.There was also a HUGE price tag that we can't afford attached to the bill, which is in the end, the bottom line.

I don't know how it is that your side, time and time again, choses to ignore the costs of the things you WANT, but that type of mentality is literally what crashed the housing market. So sue me if I'd like to avoid that happening to our nation in general.

PS: Because your new here, I feel the need to point something out - I have, time and time again, stated that I am in favor of healthcare reform (hell, I've even advocated single-payer, so long is it was done right). This bill is a disaster.

Yeah, you can point out some good things that are in it, and those 5 or 6 items are great Democrat talking points. But why are we ignoring the other 1500 pages of garbage within the legislation?

Aramike

03-22-10, 11:05 AM

Concerning the national debts, Americans never have cared much for their nation'S debt levels, let their nation live on tick is as much en vogue there as it is in other Western nations, too - so why do they argue with that in this case...?I'm not sure if you're actually forgetting or you're simply being choosy, but we were arguing pretty hard regarding the nation debt against Obama's stimulus package as well.

To be fair, I don't think that certain amounts of debt are bad for any nation, so long as financing remains available. The latter part is the key. Spending money on the order of trillions of dollars that we do not have is a quite way to strain US consumerism to the point where other nations may fail to see the benefit of continuing to underwrite such a high amount of our debt.

Torvald Von Mansee

03-22-10, 11:58 AM

I'm not sure if you're actually forgetting or you're simply being choosy, but we were arguing pretty hard regarding the nation debt against Obama's stimulus package as well.

To be fair, I don't think that certain amounts of debt are bad for any nation, so long as financing remains available. The latter part is the key. Spending money on the order of trillions of dollars that we do not have is a quite way to strain US consumerism to the point where other nations may fail to see the benefit of continuing to underwrite such a high amount of our debt.

Where were the Teabaggers when Bush was giving away billions and billions to Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater in Iraq?

Skybird

03-22-10, 11:58 AM

I would say none of the great Western nations is capable anymore to "finance" it's debts. Not America, not Germany, not England, France, Italy, Spain.

If for paying back your debts over a longer timeframe you would need totally utopic economy growth rates that are lightyears beyond the best rates you ever acchieved in the past even during economic boom years, then you know that these debts will never be payed back again but will continue to breed interest rates that will eat your children's future up, and you know that we and they all are deadlocked on the highway to hell. One nation going bancrupt, as was the case with practically ever major european power during the past 500 years, is one thing. All dominant nations of one and the same cultural sphere collapsing within a (historically seen) short ammount of time, but this time with alien global rivals now standing ready on the sideline of the playfield to make best use of the opportunity that is dawning upon them - that is something completely different.

Western finances and economies are a total disaster. Some nations mess up things worse than others, but messing things up in general all nations do. We have lived on tick already for too long. Now we are in the trap and will not get out. I only burst with bitter laughter nowadays when a politician says that the entry into reducing debts is to make more debts today and hoping for better days to come. An economy boom that we would need for that we even naver have had in te past, with our problems being less than today.

The West dug out his own grave by living on tick for too long. Now things have detoriated so far that there is no way out anymore. What it will end in? Collapse.

Faster! Wider! Greater! Bigger! More! More...! More...!

AVGWarhawk

03-22-10, 12:14 PM

That's politics :yep:

As far as $$ to cover the cost, the same could be said about many government led initiatives.

Besides, look at the US debt currently, before the whole health care debate.
Health-care would seem the least of your worries:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

For the record Canada is also billions of dollars in debt :oops:

http://www.debtclock.ca/

Very true...I would venture to guess that all government programs originate without one idea on where the money will come from. They seem to raid one for another and it is a vicious cycle! Still, the healthcare systems is still on a run away course. It is a real shame when last week my dad passed away but before he did we told the hospital we have a catastrophic healthcare policy on my dad for 2 million. We advised the hospital to do whatever that needs to get done. It is a shame anyone has to carry such a policy to begin with!!!! Even with all the money we could through at the issue he did not survive. So, who really determines these costs and why has no one regulated this industry?

Torvald Von Mansee

03-22-10, 12:36 PM

HOLY CRAP this thread got real big, real fast. Well, w/the merging and all..

Powerthighs

03-22-10, 12:40 PM

There was also a HUGE price tag that we can't afford attached to the bill, which is in the end, the bottom line.

Wrong. Although the cost is around a trillion dollars, the non-partisan CBO projects deficit reductions of above $100 billon, meaning the bill will pay for itself and then some by reducing overall health care costs.

Now, I can't guarantee that everything will work out exactly as planned, there will almost certainly be some unintended consequences. But neither can you.

God forbid we should be spending money to help people with insurance not get screwed over for profit. It makes much more sense to spend it invading some more Middle Eastern countries.

Powerthighs

03-22-10, 12:44 PM

By the way, I should add that there are legitimate reasons to be concered or opposed to the care bill. However, those reasons are not misinformation about "socialism", "death panels", etc. that most opponents cite. Those are lies designed to scare the unaware, plain and simple.

Lately, polls have shown that a plurality of people are opposed to the bill. However, once the pollster explains the contents of the bill, the polls flip and a plurality support it. So the opposition largely depends on misinformation, not legitimate arguments, to drum up protest.

Don't let yourself be one of those people.

Torvald Von Mansee

03-22-10, 12:48 PM

Aramike

03-22-10, 01:28 PM

Where were the Teabaggers when Bush was giving away billions and billions to Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater in Iraq? Gotta love the absolute resolve the uninformed have when they think they have a point.

Please, illustrate your point using actual analysis from non-partisan sources, and with reasoning why you think it equivocates.Sigh. Unfortunately, people have already made up their minds along ideological lines and stubbornly refuse to listen to other views.Odd statement considering the source. Have you EVER postulated an independent view seperate from your leftist leanings?

Hell, I'm pretty damned independent. Even Skybird, who's usually opposite my views, although I respect him, is ferociously independent.

Until you can demonstrate some form of ciritcal, self-supported thinking its pretty disingenous to lament the fact that people have already made up their minds along ideological lines.

I've stated time and time again - we NEED reform, and I'm in favor of some form of universal healthcare. THIS legislation, however, is a UNMITIGATED DISASTER.

AVGWarhawk

03-22-10, 01:49 PM

Aramike

03-22-10, 01:52 PM

Well, we can sit here and discuss it a length...no wait...that has been done for months on end now in DC. Perhaps now the people in Washington can start addressing other issues in the country for a change. :hmmm:It would be nice, but Congress just approved spending yet another trillion dollars for no solid purpose other than saving face for Barack Obama. :damn:

SteamWake

03-22-10, 02:02 PM

What happened to that 'laser like focus' on jobs?

F33bs

03-22-10, 03:15 PM

Opinion polls are proven quite accurate, time and time again, and are used religiously by the same people you trust to reform heathcare.

In any case, scientific opinion polls are far better measurement tools of public opinion than anecdotal accounts such as "I don't know of anyone...".

You'd be hard-pressed to get all those people who oppose it to tell you what is actually in the bill. Which illustrates exactly why opinion polls are absurd and useless in a country that is supposed to value debate and discussion.

Polls reduce things to the buzzwords and soundbytes that get floated around the mainstream media and airwaves long enough for both sides to pick and choose which particular ones they agree with, and which ones they hate.

Meeting real people with real problems and real troubles with a failing system is never wasted time, and even if it is anecdotal, isn't America supposed to stand up for the individual? There are plenty of regular people that are being shafted by the system that they didn't want and didn't vote for, and they are having to fight through the masses of healthy people who don't have the same problems.

I abhor the idea of Americans fighting other Americans for the right not to die, and to me it smacks of tribalism, if you really must know.

America has enough problems abroad and at home that we don't need our citizens engaged in a life-or-death (for one side anyway) class struggle just to see the inside of a hospital.

August

03-22-10, 03:28 PM

You'd be hard-pressed to get all those people who oppose it to tell you what is actually in the bill.

You'd be just as hard pressed to find a supporter who knows what's in the bill too. But isn't that the point? The American people are being asked to support a very radical and very expensive change to our health care system without being allowed to see and digest the particulars.

If this is such a good idea then how come the so called Transparency Administration is being anything but transparent about it?

Bubblehead1980

03-22-10, 03:35 PM

The only positive things about the bill:

Can not deny people for pre existing conditions

Can not drop people for illness

College students can stay on family policies longer

The cons:

billions in new taxes

fining people who can not afford health care(unconstitutional by the way)

trillions in spending, adding to the debt

So the rest is CRAP including the takeover of student loans by the govt, so they can decided who gets money for college etc Does not affect me, my parents paid for my college not my neighbors or strangers, but not everyone can so should not have ONLY the fed govt to help.Private market is key to this nation's recovery and future success.November can not come fast enough and neither can 2012:stare:

Skybird

03-22-10, 03:49 PM

You'd be hard-pressed to get all those people who oppose it to tell you what is actually in the bill. Which illustrates exactly why opinion polls are absurd and useless in a country that is supposed to value debate and discussion.

Polls reduce things to the buzzwords and soundbytes that get floated around the mainstream media and airwaves long enough for both sides to pick and choose which particular ones they agree with, and which ones they hate.

Beeing free to make a choice, having a right to vote, imo is not a right. It is a skill. A skill must be learned and trained, maintained, and founded. If you "choose" without having the skill to do so, you do not choose - you just get decided by your reflexes.

That is not freedom, but right the opposite. That'S why I am convinced that politicians, establishement leaders and economy bosses want an uneducated people, not an educated people. And that explains why the media get so massively manipulated, corrupted and manipulated by interested lobby groups.

Aramike

03-22-10, 03:55 PM

You'd be just as hard pressed to find a supporter who knows what's in the bill too. But isn't that the point? The American people are being asked to support a very radical and very expensive change to our health care system without being allowed to see and digest the particulars.

If this is such a good idea then how come the so called Transparency Administration is being anything but transparent about it?Exactly.

Aramike

03-22-10, 04:37 PM

Okay, let's put this into perspective for those of you who support this bill but continuously ignore the price tag associated with it. Ask yourself: what kind of people are you?

Think about it: Typical American family. Father needs expensive heart procedure that will put his family into bankruptcy. Now, are you the father who accepts bankruptcy for your family OR are you the father that pushes for healthcare laws that would instead impose bankruptcy on the COUNTRY?

It just blows me away how far Democrats have come from JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you...".

What really pisses me off about this is that there are so many things we COULD have done to help limit the burden on the aforementioned family, without attaching a trillion dollar price tag to it.

This was about winning a pissing contest for Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrats, plain and simple. A TRILLION DOLLAR PISSING CONTEST that, considering their large majorities, the Democrats should have EASILY won, but could only barely squeak by.

That, in and of itself, should tell you how poorly constructed this legislation is.

Carotio

03-22-10, 05:09 PM

Onkel Neal

03-22-10, 05:16 PM

2014? Are you sure? Obamsa will be out of office by then, it will be pretty easy for the Republicans to repeal this whole mess.

Sigh. Unfortunately, people have already made up their minds along ideological lines and stubbornly refuse to listen to other views.

Heh. I can tell you, if I inherited 100 million dollars, today, you'd better believe I'd become a conservative!!!

An honest man! :haha:

thorn69

03-22-10, 08:16 PM

No where because it starts in 2014 :shifty:

They've got to give all the illegal aliens and their families time to move into the country first!

Example of what a future medical insurance card might look like for someone...

EXAMPLE:

Name: Jose "Jose" Valaquez
Date of Birth: 04-05-76
US Citizen: No
Employer: Mexican Mafia
Occupation: Drug Dealer/Smuggler
Medical Insurance Provider: US Government
Tax Exempt: Yes

Torvald Von Mansee

03-22-10, 09:21 PM

2014? Are you sure? Obamsa will be out of office by then, it will be pretty easy for the Republicans to repeal this whole mess.

Nice crystal ball you've got, there. Bush41's approval ratings were in the 90s in 1991, and he lost reelection to Clinton the next year.

Torvald Von Mansee

03-22-10, 09:23 PM

An honest man! :haha:

Well, I don't understand why someone who lives in a trailer park and works at Wal Mart for minimum wage might advocate cuts in the capital gains or estate taxes. A bird in hand and all that..

nikimcbee

03-22-10, 09:29 PM

Speaking of crystal balls, any thoughts on the Mass plan (you MA people)? They had some great comparisons between the 2 plans and what the future holds.

August

03-22-10, 10:09 PM

Speaking of crystal balls, any thoughts on the Mass plan (you MA people)? They had some great comparisons between the 2 plans and what the future holds.

It doesn't look good. Insurance premiums have been going up by leaps and bounds as have deductibles. The wife's premium for example jumped $200 bucks per month this year. My plan through work has gone up as well though they are covering it, in lieu of raises of course.

Making it worse the penalties for not getting insurance amount to little more than a monthly insurance premium so the low risk youth whose participation is vital to the success of the states scheme are opting to pay a little later instead of a lot now.

Onkel Neal

03-22-10, 10:13 PM

How do they enforce compliance? If you are unemployed and don't get insurance?

August

03-22-10, 10:18 PM

How do they enforce compliance? If you are unemployed and don't get insurance?

You have to submit proof of insurance when you file your state taxes.

Onkel Neal

03-22-10, 10:23 PM

Or? .... you don't have to file? :O: You're not helping me much...

August

03-22-10, 10:33 PM

Or? .... you don't have to file? :O: You're not helping me much...

The state levies a fine. If you don't file your state taxes then it levies another fine for tax evasion.

Here read more than you'll ever want to know about this mess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

Powerthighs

03-22-10, 11:07 PM

As a European having been brought up with universal health care for all citizens, I can only say that I wouldn't want that as an extra thing to worry about in my daily life. Instead I can worry about finishing my studies and find me a good job, which ultimately will bring some money in for taxes to maintain this among other stuff the society takes care off.

I know many Americans see it as a threat to their own free right of life, but how do you really know that it won't actually be benificial if you never even try it? Nothing in this life is meant to remain as it is forever. Give it a try, let the health care program prove its justification within a time frame of at least 10-20 years, and if it doesn't work for the American society or only work in some aspects? Well, then, one reform can reform the previous, you know. :03:

To just say no, it doesn't work, when it has proven to work in numerous other countries, then it is to be blind to facts.:shifty:
If you're afraid of taxes raising, then ask your politicians to make some cuts in other places which is less human, like military expenses. Maybe that will bring some positive influence on the view of America's reputation abroad in less friendly circles. Some would say, it will show weakness. Probably true speaking of terrorists, but among ordinary people it would most liking change the view in a more positive direction ultimately leading them away from extremist views. It's not done overnight, that would be naive to believe, but more like a long run. But it has to start somewhere. And a greater focus on more humane goals is definitely a positive signal to send.:yep:

To those of you American members, who actually were in favor of the bill - there must be some, it can't only be republicans posting their objections here - let me give you my fair congratulations. It only took about a century to pass such a reform. It was about time, and not a second too late. :yeah:

Thanks you and God bless you, Carotio. There are many of us Americans that support the bill, but the demographic at subsim skews republican (older white males). There are some legitimate concerns with the bill, primarily the cost, and the effect of having a mandate to buy something from private corporations. But a lot of the dissent is based on misinformation spread about what the bill will actually do. There have been a ton of lies told by those with a financial interest in the status quo, such as the idea it will provide insurance to illegal aliens, result in a restriction of the amount of medical services available, allocate health resources based on race (!), etc.

We Americans do love our freedom, and take pride in the founding of our nation on some principles that were fairly radical at the time. Whenever there is opposition to anything government related, the idea that it will make us "lose our freedom" is put forward as a scare tactic. And it works, because it hits at the very core of how we define ourselves.

The fact is, there are things the government does well, and things best left to private industry. Finding the optimum balance is the trick. We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined, and insist on maintaining military bases around the globe. Believe me, plenty of Americans would rather spend a chunk of that money on improving our own nation, rather than attempting to be the world's policeman. Sadly, most of the people here complaining about the cost of the bill never said a peep when we spent as much money invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if that makes me a commie pinko, then so be it.

GoldenRivet

03-22-10, 11:20 PM

Building on carotio and powerthighs comments (lol - power thighs)

i agree that we should find a way to extend health care coverage to that segment of society which doesnt have it... but i also feel like we can do so without...

1. creating 1 hundred some odd new government agencies

2. socializing the field of medicine

3. forcing individuals to buy insurance

4. damning future generations to the TRILLIONS this thing will cost.

you have to look at it from my "old white guy" point of view...

we have been down this road before with these programs like social security (failed) and medicare in which approximately 90 cents of every dollar hospitals try to claim is spent claiming that one dollar :doh: (failed)

in my life, the government has only proven to me the ability to overstep its bounds and take more and more things away from people.

time and time again - having huge sprawling governments take your sh*t away from you - has proven not to be such a big deal in Europe.

but in the United States - lots of people dont like that idea.

i think that we - as Americans - could have done better than this particular bill - but the elected officials have taken a path of doing whatever the hell they want because they think it is whats best for us... i know we could have spent a few years on this and found something that would be bipartisan and somewhat popular among the general public (a hell of a lot more popular than 30%)

AVGWarhawk

03-23-10, 10:41 AM

Or? .... you don't have to file? :O: You're not helping me much...

The State will catch up to you eventually. In MD the DMV can be a living hell. Apply for a new license or new car registration and bang....here comes an entire list of traffic parking tickets, did not take care for emissions check, insurance lapse....man..the Lord giveth and the DMV taketh away... Anyway, I see the DMV as the ones catching up to the unisured. :yep:

SteamWake

03-23-10, 10:44 AM

How do they enforce compliance? If you are unemployed and don't get insurance?

Ask the IRS believe it or not...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63181

AVGWarhawk

03-23-10, 10:53 AM

Thanks you and God bless you, Carotio. There are many of us Americans that support the bill, but the demographic at subsim skews republican (older white males). There are some legitimate concerns with the bill, primarily the cost, and the effect of having a mandate to buy something from private corporations. But a lot of the dissent is based on misinformation spread about what the bill will actually do. There have been a ton of lies told by those with a financial interest in the status quo, such as the idea it will provide insurance to illegal aliens, result in a restriction of the amount of medical services available, allocate health resources based on race (!), etc.

We Americans do love our freedom, and take pride in the founding of our nation on some principles that were fairly radical at the time. Whenever there is opposition to anything government related, the idea that it will make us "lose our freedom" is put forward as a scare tactic. And it works, because it hits at the very core of how we define ourselves.

The fact is, there are things the government does well, and things best left to private industry. Finding the optimum balance is the trick. We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined, and insist on maintaining military bases around the globe. Believe me, plenty of Americans would rather spend a chunk of that money on improving our own nation, rather than attempting to be the world's policeman. Sadly, most of the people here complaining about the cost of the bill never said a peep when we spent as much money invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if that makes me a commie pinko, then so be it.

The illegals will get care when they hit the emergency room no matter what. They do now and will with this bill. Now EVERYONE can pay for their care and not just those that carry a policy at present. The ER will NOT turn anyone away because they lack insurance.

As far as others here not saying anything about the monies spent on Iraq and Afghanistan you are incorrect. I myself have said this and we need to stop being the world police. Our infrastructure is in very bad shape. But you know what, start playing Mr. Isolationist and watch the world get up in arms. And to be sure, were is the money coming from to pay for this healthcare bill? Social Security? Nope, already been raped. Once again, a bill that our checkbook can not write.

To be sure, I'm for a healthcare reform. The system at present needs a overhaul and not just have money thrown at it. Investigate why premiums go through the roof every year. Why is pill A cost 10x more than pill B yet they both contain the same medicine.

Also, for craps and giggles, over the next few years....keep an eye on General Electric. From what I hear, GE will make significant gains as a result of this bill.

SteamWake

03-23-10, 10:57 AM

The ER will NOT turn anyone away because they lack insurance.

Well thats the way it is now... I'm not so sure it will be that way in the future. They cant be dealing with criminals after all.

August

03-23-10, 11:10 AM

If either an individual or a business has failed to comply with this mandate for any month out of the year, they are required to pay a separate tax to the IRS. For individuals this is a maximum of $750 per person (up to $2,250 per household) and $750 per uncovered employee for businesses.

So is a $750 penalty per uncovered employee really going to encourage employers to provide a service that costs over $7-8K per employee? I don't think so.

AVGWarhawk

03-23-10, 11:18 AM

Well thats the way it is now... I'm not so sure it will be that way in the future. They cant be dealing with criminals after all.

My dad dealt with criminals in the ER for over 40 years. No one was turned away.

Torvald Von Mansee

03-23-10, 10:41 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

Torvald Von Mansee

03-23-10, 10:46 PM

I can already predict one response: "It's from the Washington Post, therefore it can't possible be accurate."

VonHesse

03-23-10, 11:54 PM

Link goes to some silly poll type thingy. No news story there :hmmm:

GoldenRivet

03-24-10, 12:31 AM

looks like im going to have to spend about $4,000 per year that i wouldnt have ordinarily spent.

thanks Obama, your my hero :doh:

:damn:

edit:

from the looks of it, Obama basically just reduced a fair number of us to being welfare recipients

Onkel Neal

03-24-10, 12:58 AM

$4000 reduced you to welfare? :o You better not decide to have any kids.

GoldenRivet

03-24-10, 01:08 AM

$4000 reduced you to welfare? :o You better not decide to have any kids.

lol no no no

the part where it said "you will receive government subsidies to help ensure that you dont spend more than 3-4 thousand dollars on insurance."

THATS what has put me on involuntary welfare of sorts. (get it?)

i dont want government subsidies, nor do i wish to pay a $2,000 fine if i refuse to do business with uncle sam.

I work for a living, i pay my own bills... dont need or want uncle sam's money nor do i want the mandate from congress

Torvald Von Mansee

03-24-10, 02:43 AM

lol no no no

the part where it said "you will receive government subsidies to help ensure that you dont spend more than 3-4 thousand dollars on insurance."

THATS what has put me on involuntary welfare of sorts. (get it?)

i dont want government subsidies, nor do i wish to pay a $2,000 fine if i refuse to do business with uncle sam.

I work for a living, i pay my own bills... dont need or want uncle sam's money nor do i want the mandate from congress

Oh, well. Too bad about that democracy thing.

GoldenRivet

03-24-10, 02:59 AM

How is this a democracy?

The government socializes an entire industry and then requires you by law to do business with said industry.

Sorry, that scenario does not a democracy make.

This health care crap would be no different than congress coming out and saying "everyone has to buy Chevrolet products or we will fine you the cost of the car.

Tribesman

03-24-10, 04:02 AM

How is this a democracy?

Lets see, in two easy steps....
There was this group of people who stood for election saying they were going to bring in wide ranging healthcare and insurance reforms.

The voters elected them and the people who were elected brought in wide ranging healthcare and insurance reforms.

This health care crap would be no different than congress coming out and saying "everyone has to buy Chevrolet products or we will fine you the cost of the car.
For decades they have been giving money to Chevrolet(GM) and encouraging people to buy their products, since not enough people did they turned round and fined all the tax payers by giving piles more money to Chevy.

i dont want government subsidies
Can you go to your accountants and tell them to ignore all your allowances and credits because you wish to do without government subsidies:har:

GoldenRivet

03-24-10, 04:40 AM

Tribesman... one simple question

Do you think it is fair for an individual to be required by law to purchase a good or service, whatever it might be or else be fined or punished for not doing so?

examples:

you must eat one meal a day at McDonalds or else you will be fined the cumulative cost of all the meals you didnt eat there.

or how bout...

You are required by law to purchase one high end gaming computer from dell for every room in your home, if you choose not to you will be fined the cost of all that equipment.

or...

You are required to have a land line telephone and the service must be through AT&T, if you elect not to have a land line you will be fined the cost of the service.

or here is a good one

You are required to purchase health insurance from one of the following companies, or else you are going to be fined $1800 per year for the rest of your life.

Personally, i don't think any of those situations are fair in the least, and here in the United States, this represents a gross overstepping of bounds by government.

Your two easy steps to democracy aside... myself being one of those voters who was in favor of health care reform... like many other voters im sure... probably didnt know the health care reform would involve socializing medicine as a whole, and setting up 200 new government agencies, loading the bill up with nonsense and garbage, fining those who elected not to participate and slapping a trillion dollar price tag on it.

sorry, but the whole thing stinks... you mean to tell me you trust the united states government to come up with an end all solution to health care in 365 days while pretty much locking out one entire political party from participation, suggestions or input of any kind?

Edit:

here is something else from the Washington post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

Tribesman

03-24-10, 10:05 AM

Tribesman... one simple question

Do you think it is fair for an individual to be required by law to purchase a good or service, whatever it might be or else be fined or punished for not doing so?

examples:

oh dear thats a hard question. I take it you have now realised that your "subsidised" approach was very faulty in relation to both business and individuals.
you must eat one meal a day at McDonalds or else you will be fined the cumulative cost of all the meals you didnt eat there.

Is there any possible way a Mcd consumed in America can be covered under the constitution?
You are required by law to purchase one high end gaming computer from dell for every room in your home, if you choose not to you will be fined the cost of all that equipment.

Does Dell with all its overseas opearations and the fact that there are viable alternatives within the US entirely negate that approach?
You are required to have a land line telephone and the service must be through AT&T, if you elect not to have a land line you will be fined the cost of the service.

Now you is getting down to business:yeah:
So if for example an organisation which set limits on a countries financial rating which meant the measure of that countries ability could meet the requirements for financial and industrial expansion in relation to access to available credit....then yes....can you name a country or organisation that goes along those guidelines?
Have a clue you live in one and....errrr....you live in one.
If you get lost on your answerr then think "you live in one" and other people go by that measure and depend on the terms set up in the country you live in.

Personally, i don't think any of those situations are fair in the least, and here in the United States, this represents a gross overstepping of bounds by government.

We have recently seen how little you understand the bounds of your own government in a relatively straightforward look at the constitution, so for you to claim an overstepping puts the onus fairly on you.
Given past efforts by yourself to show how your interpretation of the constitution and all its amendments is correct I expect this to be a rather short and inconsequencial effort on your part.

AVGWarhawk

03-24-10, 10:24 AM

Some key points to the bill I watched on the news today:

Insurance can not turn you down for a pre-existing condition.
Insurance can not drop you for a medical condition.
You may keep the insurance you have.

I do not think it was the governments intention of shutting down the entire insurance industry. However, it may be possible considering the premium costs issued by Uncle Sam's Insurance Company. At any rate, something needs to be done. Every year the insurance premiums go up, copay goes up and deductible goes up. It is high time someone makes a wave or two and reel in the skyrocketing costs of insurance. From what I understand we are looking at 30 million Americans needed coverage. Can those that already have a policy with ABC Insurance now get a reduction if the policy holder does not have to pay additional monies for the uninsured that has been going on for decades? There are many holes to cover and thankfully it will be 4 years of hopeful meaningful study of the problems with the current system. I do not see this legislation as all bad and I do not see it as all good either. I see it as a mess drafted in part by a person who basically says the CIA lies. But what do I know:06: Is it November yet?

August

03-24-10, 10:50 AM

Told ya not to feed the troll GR, but you didn't listen... He's not interested in having an actual friendly conversation with anyone. Notice how he answers every question with another question. That'a sure sign that all he want's to do is play gotcha games.

Tribesman

03-24-10, 10:51 AM

AVGWarhawk

03-24-10, 11:31 AM

AVG. One part of that, you now pay for the uninsured.
You will still pay for the uninsured.
You also now pay for the illegals, you will still pay for the illegals.
But there will be less uninsured to pay for which will also mean less people at ER because they can go to family doctors which means better ER as they are not clogged up with cases that should be elsewhere.
So in effect it does suggest better more efficient service at less cost for the taxpayer.
Of course you will still get the arguements about paying for those that don't pay, but as they pay for that already those arguements are hollow.

We pay for the illegals and have been. That does not look to be going away however there will 30 million others helping to pay for the illegals. I think you are bit ahead of yourself in stating there will be less traffic in the ER now that people can get a family doctor. That would have to be studied after said medical plans have commenced. It would require many years of study as well.

There are other ramification here as well. What about my medical files? Is it now open for all to see now that Uncle Sam holds the reigns? Who dictates who gets what treatment and when? Uncle Sam (clerk in DC) or the doctors? A lot of unanswered questions above and beyond how this will be paid for.