Obamacare Lawsuit to be heard in my hometown this week

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Garion

As for Obamacare and the US, I cannot contribute anything to that as I have no experience of it.

That doesn't stop people over here from commenting on your medical system.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Personally I favor a single payer system, but I concider the United states to be too large to run a single payer system efficently, a better option would be for the fed to set a minimal standard of healthcare states must provide and leave it up to the states how set the tax to provide that healthcare coverage. Though this sounds a lot easyer than it would actually be.

See this, folks - an actual idea in formation. Not just rhetoric, but an idea. Well done!

I have some ideas about this I'll get into later. Election day, and all...

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Garion

If it was not for the NHS both myself, my wife and my twin girls would be long dead.

For myself I am severely disabled due to wounds recieved whilst serving in The Royal Navy (many years ago now) and live in constant pain. I spend most of my time in bed (and not in the fun way) and take over 24 pills in a 24 hour period. The cost of these meds, my hospital and doctors appointments are all covered by my National Insurance payments which is used to help fund the NHS. No big aftercare bills that would mean me taking out a second mortgage, which is nice

18 months ago my wife suffered a brain aneurysm, whilst swimming with a friend in the local swimming pool. The Ambulance took her hospital, she was assessed and treated to make her comfortable and she recieved her coiling operation the next day. Since then she has had further visits to specialists and I am happy to say that she is well on the mend and is able to driver her wee car again. She will continue to recieve checkups every year for the rest of her life.

My twin girls were born 3 months premature, we were told that they would not survive. They spent months in neo-natal intensive care and afterwords when they were allowed home we had follow up visits for years after. They are now 17 and both girls are preparing to go to university

Now I agree the NHS is not perfect, but I cannot praise highly enough the doctors, nurses and the care my family have recieved over the years.

Sure there are the few cases where things go wrong, but the service is used by millions of people on a daily 24/7 basis and although I can't speak for them I feel the NHS gets a lot more right than it does wrong.

Of course there is also private healthcare available in the UK so for those that can afford it they have the option.

This post is just to explain my familys experiences with the NHS and why we treasure it.

As for Obamacare and the US, I cannot contribute anything to that as I have no experience of it.

Cheers

Garion

Cheers

Garion

Well I am glad to hear that the NHS has worked well for you.I have heard many horror stories though so nice to hear that.Also, in the UK do you have to pay the NHS tax if you choose to use private insurance?

The US government would do nothing but create a large bloated burden on taxpayers.No doubt the class warefare types here would demand the so called "rich" bare the brunt of it even though they would no doubt choose to use private insurance.

America as she is supposed to be is a free market society, better ways than to create yet another government agency to put us further in the hole.

Perhaps a strictly voluntary "public option", where you only pay a tax for the service if you use the service to compete with private insurance, perhaps help control prices that way.
Tort reform, allow customers to shop across state lines, etc simple ideas that would work, not a big bloated government agency that will end up being a real cluster.

[Aramike]

Mookie, btw, I am trying to figure out where your disdain was for the common American voter when they voted your candidate into office...

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Mookie, btw, I am trying to figure out where your disdain was for the common American voter when they voted your candidate into office...

Dennis Kucinich wasn't elected President.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Dennis Kucinich wasn't elected President.

You would want Tiny Kucinich as President? LOL you must be kidding, that guy is one wacked out Liberal fool.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Dennis Kucinich wasn't elected President.

You know what I meant ...

...again, where was the disdain when liberals took office?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You know what I meant ...

...again, where was the disdain when liberals took office?

I've....always thought American voters were distracted by the "ooh shiny!"? It's politics in general. You're taking it as if I'm leveling my comments at right leaning voters only. Get over that. I'm saying it applies to everyone. We as a country put more thought and emphasis into voting for the next American Idol singer than we do our elected officials.

In 2006, only 37% of voting age people voted for president. A little over 1 in 3 people thought it important that they cast their vote for the highest elected office in the land. In 2008 it was 56.8% - the highest since 1968. What does that say about us when on a good day, a little over half of us can be bothered to vote?

The 24 hour news cycle has addled our brains. 10 second sound bites and 30 second summaries of complex geopolitical and domestic issues are what's fed to us because complex and nuanced discussions are "omg soooo lame!" People can't or won't think for themselves, so issues are boiled down into black and white, us vs. them, good guys and bad guys because that's simple and that's the message they can get across in 2 minutes. And then they have to fill up the rest of the time, since they're on the air 24 hours a day. They spend time discussing what Obama's choice of beer says about him as a person. They devote entire interview segments to Bristol Palin and Levi's relationship status. You know, the hard hitting issues.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Voters in this country are apathetic and ill-informed on the issues that matter. You know it and I know it.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I've....always thought American voters were distracted by the "ooh shiny!"? It's politics in general. You're taking it as if I'm leveling my comments at right leaning voters only. Get over that. I'm saying it applies to everyone. We as a country put more thought and emphasis into voting for the next American Idol singer than we do our elected officials.

In 2006, only 37% of voting age people voted for president. A little over 1 in 3 people thought it important that they cast their vote for the highest elected office in the land. In 2008 it was 56.8% - the highest since 1968. What does that say about us when on a good day, a little over half of us can be bothered to vote?

The 24 hour news cycle has addled our brains. 10 second sound bites and 30 second summaries of complex geopolitical and domestic issues are what's fed to us because complex and nuanced discussions are "omg soooo lame!" People can't or won't think for themselves, so issues are boiled down into black and white, us vs. them, good guys and bad guys because that's simple and that's the message they can get across in 2 minutes. And then they have to fill up the rest of the time, since they're on the air 24 hours a day. They spend time discussing what Obama's choice of beer says about him as a person. They devote entire interview segments to Bristol Palin and Levi's relationship status. You know, the hard hitting issues.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Voters in this country are apathetic and ill-informed on the issues that matter. You know it and I know it.

They WERE apathetic and ill informed.One thing the election of Obama and the mess we have(also thanks to Bush) has done is to awaken the sleeping giant.A lot more people are involved and informed now days and care.The results of apathy and not staying up to date on political issues is well...the election of a man like Barack Hussein Obama.

[XabbaRus]

Well you always hear the horror stories about the NHS. Usually by the people who would like to get rid of it.

And yes, you pay national insurance contributions even if you take out private health care, but then that is your choice to take out private cover. Just to clear a few things up too, over here there are a lot of things private health cover won't touch. Such as cancer treatment, terminal illnesses etc. Bascially you want something that can be treated and fixed and off you go, then sometimes private health care will maybe get it to you quicker. If you have something that they can't make a buck on and is long term and complicated, well funnily enough it is the NHS you have to go to and they probably do a better job.

You might think that is unfair but then most Brits alive and posting here were born after 1947 so have known nothing different.

What it seems with the Obamacare bill is that it is a halfway house, neither fully private nor NHS. It appeases those that want universal no payment at point of service health system but most other people will stick with their own private insurance. It has to be all or nothing, and yes if that happened then you would probably have to pay more tax.

[Bubblehead1980]

My major and first problem with Obamacare is that it is unconstitutional bc of the individual mandate.My second problem is it will hurt small businesses due to the requirement they provide health insurance to employees or face a fine.My third is will cause costs to rise due to the expansion of medicaid(bc medicaid barely pays the bills and the cost eventually gets passed along) Costs will also rise due to various taxes on medical equipment etc Fourth the cost will just add to more debt between medicaid expansion and the subsidies this will be yet another damn entitlement program we cant afford that people are on for life which is on the whole, not the American way.

[Aramike]

In 2006, only 37% of voting age people voted for president. A little over 1 in 3 people thought it important that they cast their vote for the highest elected office in the land. In 2008 it was 56.8% - the highest since 1968. What does that say about us when on a good day, a little over half of us can be bothered to vote?

You're confusing me now - are you talking about American voters or Americans of voting age?

I said it before and I'll say it again. Voters in this country are apathetic and ill-informed on the issues that matter. You know it and I know it.

Okay, but you said...

Your average American voter is so dumb and has such a short attention span that if your political message doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you've lost the debate.

For one, it is a mistake to confuse apathy with ignorance. Some people just feel that their vote is so insignificant that the effort required to cast it is more than its worth. For two, I do agree that many voters are ill-informed, but can you blame them? We have a media that clearly favors one side or the next and, during campaign season, most people get their information from candidate ads and/or special interest spots, which have little in the way of accountability for the truth.

It's not a matter of being "dumb", per se. In fact, in many cases, its just a matter of being too busy and disinterested in the minutiae.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You're confusing me now - are you talking about American voters or Americans of voting age?

Does it matter? If you're of voting age, you should be registered and vote.

Okay, but you said...For one, it is a mistake to confuse apathy with ignorance.

Apathy leads to ignorance.

Some people just feel that their vote is so insignificant that the effort required to cast it is more than its worth.

What if they held an election and nobody showed up? If everyone believes they can't make a difference, then they will be right.

For two, I do agree that many voters are ill-informed, but can you blame them? We have a media that clearly favors one side or the next and, during campaign season, most people get their information from candidate ads and/or special interest spots, which have little in the way of accountability for the truth.

Exactly my point. They shovel the crap because people have appetites for crap. If people demanded more in the way of their news and information, you'd see the crap shovelling go away. Call me idealistic, but it's true. Political campaigns don't run campaigns based on logic, they run them based on on base emotions.

It's not a matter of being "dumb", per se. In fact, in many cases, its just a matter of being too busy and disinterested in the minutiae.

Then the old saw applies - if you're too busy to take an interest in your elected government, then you'll get the government you deserve.

[Aramike]

Does it matter? If you're of voting age, you should be registered and vote.

Yes, it matters. Despitethat you THINK everyone should be active, a free society allows a person to decline to take part in the political process.

Apathy leads to ignorance.

Umm, no - the two are very separate things. It's quite easy to be informed on things but not really care about them. Apathy and ignorance are quite different phenomena.

What if they held an election and nobody showed up? If everyone believes they can't make a difference, then they will be right.

Who's talking about everyone?

Exactly my point. They shovel the crap because people have appetites for crap. If people demanded more in the way of their news and information, you'd see the crap shovelling go away.

I disagree. People have an appetite for news and information, especially that which validates the opinions they have already formed.

As far as ads go, I can't imagine many people have an appetite for them period. But even so, how do you propose creating an environment where people don't gravitate towards things which support their ideologies?

Call me idealistic, but it's true.

It is certainly idealistic, but how can it be a truth when it violates the fundamental human flaw which I described previously? That's akin to saying "it would change everything if the earth was flat. Call me idealistic, but its true".

Umm, clearly? And clearly not?

Then the old saw applies - if you're too busy to take an interest in your elected government, then you'll get the government you deserve.

This is one of my favorite phrases - in both its implications towards the very importance of voting and activism (which I agree with) and the fact that it is a flat-out exaggeration and half-truth (in a nation with two primary parties, you're going to get one or the other despite your vote, and what you deserve is highly subjective).

[Torvald Von Mansee]