The proposed health care bill thread (merged)

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

"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.

/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 ?!

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]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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]

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

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]

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]

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

[CaptainHaplo]

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]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

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]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

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]

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...)

[609_Avatar]

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.