PDA

View Full Version : Healthcare thoughts



LegalSmash
22 Mar 2010, 06:42pm
congressional debate appears to be more entertaining than the Wesley Snipes/Woody Harrelson motion picture classics Money train, and white men can't jump... wait, did that just sum up the entire healthcare argument?

Bald
22 Mar 2010, 06:45pm
I believe so, I mean I honestly think that this should have been veto'd but we should see how it goes. I mean right now Republicans are trying to attack this one.

Sander Cohen
22 Mar 2010, 06:48pm
Good luck my Merrikun Friends

Metal
22 Mar 2010, 07:20pm
move to Canada.
I think change is good, let it try to work

SgtJoo
22 Mar 2010, 07:41pm
They need to privatize the whole flipping health care system.

Deregulate the system, provide MSAs (Medical Savings Accounts) and make health care free market like it should be.

Drox
22 Mar 2010, 07:42pm
Its a bit much, some people were acting kinda stupid outside throwing racial slurs and spitting on black reps. I dont agree with the bill but I think some people should handle themselves with more care.

Prez
22 Mar 2010, 08:17pm
Let's see what happens. I like to observe things like this. If it sucks, it tumbles. If it works, that's great. I'm neutral, so whatever happens, happens. Hopefully this will be for the better ^^

Metal
22 Mar 2010, 08:55pm
Let's see what happens. I like to observe things like this. If it sucks, it tumbles. If it works, that's great. I'm neutral, so whatever happens, happens. Hopefully this will be for the better ^^

You are neutral cuz your a leaf.
dumbass XD

Kuro
22 Mar 2010, 09:24pm
i believe they didn't go far enough. the argument should have been medicare for all. I say we voted for change. lets try it. if it doesn't work, you can change it back.

SchmoSalt
22 Mar 2010, 11:10pm
They need to privatize the whole flipping health care system.

Deregulate the system, provide MSAs (Medical Savings Accounts) and make health care free market like it should be.

This. History has proven that markets controlled by the government are worse off than they would be if they were private.


i believe they didn't go far enough. the argument should have been medicare for all. I say we voted for change. lets try it. if it doesn't work, you can change it back.

How exactly is it right that money is taken away from me by the federal government and given as services for other people? Just because something is for the greater good doesn't mean it is right.

Wrathek
22 Mar 2010, 11:37pm
This. History has proven that markets controlled by the government are worse off than they would be if they were private.



How exactly is it right that money is taken away from me by the federal government and given as services for other people? Just because something is for the greater good doesn't mean it is right.

I'm not saying how I think on the subject at all, but, thats how taxes work friend. what the fuck do you think pays for everything the government does? (hint, they're services)

SchmoSalt
22 Mar 2010, 11:43pm
I'm not saying how I think on the subject at all, but, thats how taxes work friend. what the fuck do you think pays for everything the government does? (hint, they're services)

Healthcare isn't the only thing I have problems with. Most of the government programs are unnecessary and we could do without. Most people don't realize this because they have become so dependent on them.

Kuro
22 Mar 2010, 11:45pm
Healthcare isn't the only thing I have problems with. Most of the government programs are unnecessary and we could do without. Most people don't realize this because they have become so dependent on them.

lets not open a can of worms here.

trakaill
22 Mar 2010, 11:58pm
Isnt their argument for the gov. handling things is that if they can improve health and education of the "poorer" side of society, the "richer" side of society and society as a whole will benefit from it?

I see their point Im just not sure they are doing it right...

VirDeBello
23 Mar 2010, 03:02am
I still have no fucking clue what this bill is about. And because of that I will remain neutral until someone tells me facts of whether its the best thing since canned bread or just a bunch of crapshit. And if we turn into a socislism country, I'll just invade some small island in the pacific and make my own god damn country and call it........ New America.....:hail:

Astrum
23 Mar 2010, 03:55am
How exactly is it right that money is taken away from me by the federal government and given as services for other people? Just because something is for the greater good doesn't mean it is right.

It's not black and white by any means. Fire departments being the prototypical example of this; in many ways fire protection is analogous to healthcare, though certainly not all. Granted we didn't really get healthcare reform, more health insurance reform.

I might comment on this more later.

SchmoSalt
23 Mar 2010, 08:48am
It's not black and white by any means. Fire departments being the prototypical example of this; in many ways fire protection is analogous to healthcare, though certainly not all. Granted we didn't really get healthcare reform, more health insurance reform.

I might comment on this more later.

There is such a thing as necessary programs. Plus, fire departments are handled on a more local level. Not on a federal level.

The federal government was set up to regulate interstate commerce, so that states would play fair with each other. It also originally had the power to keep a standing army. Back when this country was founded the federal government couldn't even dream of having the kind of power it does today.

In effect it has become this big and bloated mess that has been running our deficit deeper into the red in the past decade. The level of inefficiency is astounding. I would say if a company acted like the federal government they would be out of business in a heartbeat, but then again the federal government would just bail them out with our money.

We need to press the reset button on the federal government. Get rid of all of this spending and stupid regulation that is anti-capitalist (anti-FREE market). Then focus on paying off our debt before China has us by our balls. THAT is the step in the RIGHT direction.

trakaill
23 Mar 2010, 10:11am
There is such a thing as necessary programs. Plus, fire departments are handled on a more local level. Not on a federal level.

The federal government was set up to regulate interstate commerce, so that states would play fair with each other. It also originally had the power to keep a standing army. Back when this country was founded the federal government couldn't even dream of having the kind of power it does today.

I think there is a "flaw" there because the government didnt have nearly as many people to look after or things to worry about. It was just America sustaining it self..not needing the rest of the world... this has changed with international trades and changes needed to be made to adapt

it might be silly to compare this but before when this community was much smaller though we had higher ups they didnt have as big of role as they have today. People were doping what they were supposed to do and things ran smoothly... as it became bigger more "variables" came into play and now the higher hierarchy had to distinguish them selves and take a more important role to regulate these new variables...

The point is we cant compare america of then with what it is today. Government interference is necessitated and your hard capitalist ideology cannot work like it did before...


In effect it has become this big and bloated mess that has been running our deficit deeper into the red in the past decade. The level of inefficiency is astounding. I would say if a company acted like the federal government they would be out of business in a heartbeat, but then again the federal government would just bail them out with our money.

I agree and do not believe it is right to bail out companies...

We need to press the reset button on the federal government. Get rid of all of this spending and stupid regulation that is anti-capitalist (anti-FREE market). Then focus on paying off our debt before China has us by our balls. THAT is the step in the RIGHT direction.

I dont think it was built with a reset button :( it might be a little harder than that..
For one our involvement in the middle east as of now cannot be reset and is a big money sucker..



my .01 cent

SgtJoo
23 Mar 2010, 10:34am
Parallels can be drawn between the constitution our founding fathers drew up and the violations of it occurring today... if they could see what is happening now, they'd be rolling in their graves. My opinions are summed up by the quote by Thomas Paine: "That government is best which governs least."

Our society should be one with more of an emphasis on civil liberties, with a limited government playing less of a role. We're supposed to be a free market country, not a bailout country.

Waste money on welfare? Check.
Pump tons of money into a critically failing social security? Check.
Get involved overseas and be entangled in problems that aren't ours? Check.
Have a "Prohibition" on drugs? Check.
Curb economic growth and prosperity via massive taxes? Check.

Sounds like a great country.

Slavic
23 Mar 2010, 11:46am
Parallels can be drawn between the constitution our founding fathers drew up and the violations of it occurring today... if they were alive now, they'd be rolling in their graves. My opinions are summed up by the quote by Thomas Paine: "That government is best which governs least."

Our society should be one with more of an emphasis on civil liberties, with a limited government playing less of a role. We're supposed to be a free market country, not a bailout country.

Waste money on welfare? Check.
Pump tons of money into a critically failing social security? Check.
Get involved overseas and be entangled in problems that aren't ours? Check.
Have a "Prohibition" on drugs? Check.
Curb economic growth and prosperity via massive taxes? Check.

Sounds like a great country.

Sounds like every country in the world. Despite the fact that the system seems "broken" and ineffective, the United States has provided some of the highest standards of living in the world and the most possibilities for individual success.

With regards to the current trend of Americans and Tea Baggers boasting about 1776 American Government vs 2010 American Government. Society was so different in the 18th century compared to the 21st century that it is naive and moronic to criticize current government with "what the founding fathers would do". If 1700's America was so grand then sign me up; I'd love to get some slaves and shoot some natives.

SgtJoo
23 Mar 2010, 12:24pm
Finland invades the Middle East and pretends to be the world police?

It's a fact the social security system is entirely broken. I'll never have a chance to draw from it before it becomes completely bankrupt. If individuals making an average salary were able to take all the money they put in social security and even conservatively invest it, they'd make hundreds of thousands of dollars. Income tax robs the American people of their money and hinders economic growth. There should be no welfare, only private charity. Not to mention the education system is total crap compared to the rest of the world. Privitization of many aspects of the government would improve America exponentially.

And as for the founding fathers, I guess we should just disregard the whole freedom of speech, press, etc. because those are clearly 18th century ideals. It's not about what was going on in the society at the time, rather the ideas put forth during them. The French Revolution was similar to ours, we just replaced Life, Liberty, and Fraternity with Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Still, we didn't go around chopping peoples heads off with a guillotine.

Simmons1114
23 Mar 2010, 12:30pm
SgtJoo for Prez 2012

Determined2Win
23 Mar 2010, 02:12pm
SgtJoo for Prez 2012

You almost Hijacked this thread, but I simply won't allow it.

The only defect I can see in this bill for right now is how it will play out in the long run. Will we have decent success (for the lack of better words) like Canada, or will the shit really hit the fan come ~5-10 years from now? The only sympathy I have right now is for anyone directly/indirectly related to the medical field who are now preparing to be bombarded, more or less.

Frostbyte
23 Mar 2010, 02:38pm
You almost Hijacked this thread, but I simply won't allow it.

The only defect I can see in this bill for right now is how it will play out in the long run. Will we have decent success (for the lack of better words) like Canada, or will the shit really hit the fan come ~5-10 years from now? The only sympathy I have right now is for anyone directly/indirectly related to the medical field who are now preparing to be bombarded, more or less.

Pretty much this, but I would also like to state that veterans should receive compensation for their actions overseas. If a soldier gets his leg blown off for serving his country, he shouldn't have to worry about putting food on the table.

Italian Jew
23 Mar 2010, 02:48pm
And as for the founding fathers, I guess we should just disregard the whole freedom of speech, press, etc. because those are clearly 18th century ideals. It's not about what was going on in the society at the time, rather the ideas put forth during them. The French Revolution was similar to ours, we just replaced Life, Liberty, and Fraternity with Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Still, we didn't go around chopping peoples heads off with a guillotine.

You are misrepresenting what relevance they would have in today's world. They had it much easier back then when deciding things as their decisions didn't affect the world as US decisions do today. We aren't talking about free speech or any of those broad concepts; we are talking about concise political decisions based on intensely detailed issues. I would bet many of the founding fathers would fail hard in today's politics.


SgtJoo for Prez 2012

Why? We don't like your kind around here boy... *spits chewing tobacco on ground*

SgtJoo
23 Mar 2010, 03:24pm
The "concise political decision" of health care is a pretty easy one to make.

Deregulate the health care industry and make it free market like it should be. Through the massive amounts of government intervention in the health care industry (HMO Act, Medic----, etc.) it's made costs go up. There's too much regulation and government involvement. Like I've said before: Let the free market handle it. Create MSAs and embrace the capitalist spirit.

Italian Jew
23 Mar 2010, 03:31pm
The "concise political decision" of health care is a pretty easy one to make.


Not for people who lived over 200 years ago, so please leave them out of the discussion.

SgtJoo
23 Mar 2010, 03:36pm
Not for people who lived over 200 years ago, so please leave them out of the discussion.

Was responding to this:

"The federal government was set up to regulate interstate commerce, so that states would play fair with each other. It also originally had the power to keep a standing army. Back when this country was founded the federal government couldn't even dream of having the kind of power it does today."

"I think there is a "flaw" there because the government didnt have nearly as many people to look after or things to worry about. It was just America sustaining it self..not needing the rest of the world... this has changed with international trades and changes needed to be made to adapt"

Ganzta
23 Mar 2010, 06:18pm
YAA People who have no idea what's actually on the bill criticizing it! WOOT!
Obama is a communist and we're all going to die from this bill!!!

Seriously though, can anyone actually briefly (and maybe unbiasedly) explain the bill? because I'm gonna be lazy and wait for a reply instead of looking it up :thumb:

SgtJoo
23 Mar 2010, 06:36pm
Here's an excerpt from a Yahoo! News article.

The law's most far-reaching changes don't kick until 2014, including a requirement that most Americans carry health insurance — whether through an employer, a government program or their own purchase — or pay a fine. To make that a reality, tax credits to help cover the cost of premiums will start flowing to middle-class families and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income people.

Among the new rules on insurance companies are banning lifetime dollar limits on policies, coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, and policy cancellations when someone gets sick. Insurers also will have to allow parents to keep children on their plans up to age 26.

The changes are to be paid for with cuts in projected government payment increases to hospitals, insurance companies and others under Medicare and other health programs, an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for some, fees on insurance companies, drug makers and medical device manufacturers, a new excise tax on high-value insurance plans and a tax on indoor tanning services.

For seniors, the plan will gradually close the "doughnut hole" prescription coverage gap and improve preventive care. But it also will cut funding for popular private insurance plans offered through Medicare Advantage. About one-quarter of seniors have signed up for such plans, which generally offer lower out-of-pocket costs.

Veggie
24 Mar 2010, 12:03am
I hope this works. I lol'd when the republicans threw tantrums when they had the floor after it passed.

Drox
24 Mar 2010, 12:27am
lol found this how people are already pretty pissed about the bill's like this passing :P

kEe1nWxGb5s

BlackEagle
24 Mar 2010, 01:20pm
Yay...more money being spent.

Bilbo Baggins
24 Mar 2010, 02:04pm
I do think that the bill will help with health care, but probably not nearly as much as one could hope. I feel the need to point out that whole stock market crash thing was kind of caused by there not being oversight pointing the stupid investments that were being made. Also, a lot of industrialized (post-industrialized, if your nitpicky (or so I'm told)) have socialized health care systems, and they aren't all dead/dieing, so how bad can it be?



And as for the founding fathers, I guess we should just disregard the whole freedom of speech, press, etc. because those are clearly 18th century ideals

**COUGH** patriot act **Cough**

trakaill
24 Mar 2010, 03:27pm
I do think that the bill will help with health care, but probably not nearly as much as one could hope. I feel the need to point out that whole stock market crash thing was kind of caused by there not being oversight pointing the stupid investments that were being made. Also, a lot of industrialized (post-industrialized, if your nitpicky (or so I'm told)) have socialized health care systems, and they aren't all dead/dieing, so how bad can it be?




**COUGH** patriot act **Cough**

But the economical power of these countries cannot even be compared to the USA even today...
and you obviously missed out on the sarcasm....

I though you were banned from this section of the forums...

Delirium
24 Mar 2010, 04:02pm
Here's an excerpt from a Yahoo! News article.

The law's most far-reaching changes don't kick until 2014, including a requirement that most Americans carry health insurance — whether through an employer, a government program or their own purchase — or pay a fine. To make that a reality, tax credits to help cover the cost of premiums will start flowing to middle-class families and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income people.

Among the new rules on insurance companies are banning lifetime dollar limits on policies, coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, and policy cancellations when someone gets sick. Insurers also will have to allow parents to keep children on their plans up to age 26.

The changes are to be paid for with cuts in projected government payment increases to hospitals, insurance companies and others under Medicare and other health programs, an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for some, fees on insurance companies, drug makers and medical device manufacturers, a new excise tax on high-value insurance plans and a tax on indoor tanning services.

For seniors, the plan will gradually close the "doughnut hole" prescription coverage gap and improve preventive care. But it also will cut funding for popular private insurance plans offered through Medicare Advantage. About one-quarter of seniors have signed up for such plans, which generally offer lower out-of-pocket costs.


Yahoo is a bad source.

The bill has student loan changes pinned on to the back of it; planning to save the U.S $500 million a year by not subsidizing banks to loan to students, out of that money some of it is going to refund the Pale(?) grant scholarship program, but the majority of it will go to the national deficit, and lowering national debt.

Bilbo Baggins
24 Mar 2010, 04:51pm
But the economical power of these countries cannot even be compared to the USA even today...
and you obviously missed out on the sarcasm....

I though you were banned from this section of the forums...

I didn't miss the sarcasm I was merely pointing out how, at least to me, it seemed to be a poor point. I really don't see how deregulating the health insurance companies would really help anybody except the health insurance companies. They will simply continue to drop those who actually need the service which they have been paying for, while the cost of insurance is too high for many Americans to even hope to afford. Furthermore the US spends the most money in the developed world on health care, and overall is only 37th in the world, privatizing health care won't fix that.

I'm curious to know how much it actually costs the government to subsidize student loans through banks...


Me... banned.... huh?

trakaill
24 Mar 2010, 06:23pm
I didn't miss the sarcasm I was merely pointing out how, at least to me, it seemed to be a poor point. I really don't see how deregulating the health insurance companies would really help anybody except the health insurance companies. They will simply continue to drop those who actually need the service which they have been paying for, while the cost of insurance is too high for many Americans to even hope to afford. Furthermore the US spends the most money in the developed world on health care, and overall is only 37th in the world, privatizing health care won't fix that.

I'm curious to know how much it actually costs the government to subsidize student loans through banks...


Me... banned.... huh?

the basic idea behind deregulating is that it would create competition and drive the prices down making it affordable for the said americans..

theoretically it could work
republican argument here is that we are increasing demand without increasing supply causing the opposite of the desired effect.. i dont know that this stands true..

Shadowex3
24 Mar 2010, 07:36pm
That is the IDEAL of deregulation, yes, but in reality going all the way back to Standard Oil and Theodore Roosevelt (republican, nicknamed the Trust Buster) it's been proven that deregulation is even more harmful than overregulation. The latter does lead to a stagnant "market" but does not, like the former, lead to explicit and outright harm. Deregulation is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences.

As for why the US is a world power, it's simple: We're fucking enormous and have no competition. Every other first world country (all of which also have healthcare reform) shares borders and history with other countries. They're also the size of some of our STATES. America shares a border with two countries that really aren't a threat, has two ocean borders leading to easy sea trade between either side of Eurasia or Africa, and especially important has sheer size going for it. Other countries have their population and one or two natural resources in varying amounts, we have about 310,000,000 people (1/3rd of all of europe put together) and not just vast quantities of natural resources but also a far greater VARIETY than other nations. We have easy access to fossil fuels, wood, metals, rare earth metals, radioactive substances, arable land and sheer space.

Our problem isnt that healthcare reform is inherently bad, it's that our legislative branch itself has become inherently corrupt.

Kuro
25 Mar 2010, 10:57am
well from what i hear from most of you, I'm actually more confident in the bill now. I think if the news would actually GIVE THE NEWS about the bill and how it works and what it does. Maybe, some of these less informed people would accept the bill and you'd have less "ignorant outrage".

SgtJoo
25 Mar 2010, 11:19am
Most of the "ignorant outrage" comes from conservative extremists using scare tactics. See: Glenn Beck. I'm actually aware of the basic concept of expanding healthcare to include the currently uninsured Americans. The problem is that you can't create an overarching program to include more people (health care, anything) without raising costs. The CBO says this is going to save money over a certain period of time, but like Medicare-aid and other government projects it's going to go overbudget--and quickly.

And when it does start adding more to the national debt, taxes will be the answer. More taxes is just hurting the people and robbing them of income. The real problem is the expansion of government power. A government can function wthout being a sprawling, massive, ineffective monster of a bureaucracy. The latest proposals of a national ID card (lol, SSN is what?) and the tracking of people using cell phones personifies the issues in America today.

We're sitting at one extreme of regulation. There's a veritable alphabet soup of redundant government organizations restricting the free market economy of America. The other extreme of complete and total deregulation of all systems and programs in America is frequently contrasted as what will happen if deregulation occurs. Therein lies the rub. There is some middle ground between the extremes of government regulation. Of course, people like to conveniently ignore that fact...

Metal
25 Mar 2010, 11:55am
If it works it works.
If it doesn't it doesn't.

Time will only tell.

Toxin
25 Mar 2010, 06:34pm
If it works it works.
If it doesn't it doesn't.

Time will only tell.

Because we have American people running across the border to get Canada's awesome health care.

Kuro
25 Mar 2010, 07:24pm
Because we have American people running across the border to get Canada's awesome health care.

fixed.

/dev/null
25 Mar 2010, 08:29pm
If we really need to fix our health care system, and I think we probably do, why do we need to use a huge omnibus bill to do it? Why can't we fix a little at a time? How about eliminating pre-existing conditions and seeing what happens. Move on to something next and see what happens there. That's the problem I have with moronic politicians. Everything has to be a huge bill and it has to be done now or else. That's why I'm against the health reform bill. I was against the TARP bill and the stimulus bill. They're all spending. How in hell does spending on saving a mouse in California help "stimulate" our economy? Sounds like a politician pet project if you ask me.

Itch
25 Mar 2010, 08:46pm
Managed healthcare by an obese surgeon general, passed by a Congress that has not read it, signed by a President that smokes and drinks quite excessively, administered by a Treasury Chief who didn't pay taxes and financed by a country that is broke? What could possibly go wrong?

Drox
25 Mar 2010, 11:15pm
Managed healthcare by an obese surgeon general, passed by a Congress that has not read it, signed by a President that smokes and drinks quite excessively, administered by a Treasury Chief who didn't pay taxes and financed by a country that is broke? What could possibly go wrong?

Nothing according to the majority of liberal Americans lol

Kuro
25 Mar 2010, 11:36pm
signed by a President that smokes and drinks quite excessively,

George Bush is still the president? what?

Itch
26 Mar 2010, 08:35am
George Bush is still the president? what?

Thanks for the laugh.

trakaill
26 Mar 2010, 10:43am
George Bush is still the president? what?

"Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo" Bay isnt RL you know....

SgtJoo
26 Mar 2010, 10:53am
"Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo" Bay isnt RL you know....

That's news to me :(

Prez
26 Mar 2010, 01:22pm
Because we have Canadian people running across the border to get America's awesome health care.

Actually, fixed for truth.

Astrum
26 Mar 2010, 10:22pm
I really don't see how deregulating the health insurance companies would really help anybody except the health insurance companies. ... Furthermore the US spends the most money in the developed world on health care, and overall is only 37th in the world, privatizing health care won't fix that.

This bill also helps the insurance companies. You will be required by law to get health insurance. How many new customers did they just get either through private insurance plans, group plans, or the government? It's not that deregulation won't work and this bill will, it's that both have serious down sides. Which is worse? I have no idea.


I'm curious to know how much it actually costs the government to subsidize student loans through banks...

I have subsidized student loans. The answer is: a lot.


Most of the "ignorant outrage" comes from conservative extremists using scare tactics. See: Glenn Beck.

Liberals are just as guilty.


Because we have American people running across the border to get Canada's awesome health care.

This isn't some cut and dry issue. If you want the best medical treatment (a lot of) money can buy, go to the US. There's no secret there. Speaking as someone who has a sister who is a citizen of Canada through marriage, what you stated sarcastically is actually true. No health care system is perfect, none.


Managed healthcare by an obese surgeon general, passed by a Congress that has not read it, signed by a President that smokes and drinks quite excessively, administered by a Treasury Chief who didn't pay taxes and financed by a country that is broke? What could possibly go wrong?

We pay for their medical costs though, they're exempt ;).

Drox
27 Mar 2010, 06:34am
Pretty interesting video asking Ron Paul about the whole health care thing.

TrpHvhnlfXU

/dev/null
27 Mar 2010, 08:29am
Just heard an executive from a medical device company on TV this morning talking about the new tax on medical devices. He said they had about a $9 million profit last year...pretty reasonable. They can't run a company with no profit at all. He said this new tax will probably reduce their profit to around $0. They may have to raise the price of their products, which will raise the cost of health care in our country. Or they'll have to lay off workers...which increases unemployment. They might have to relocate jobs to somewhere cheaper. Currently their research jobs at in Massachusetts, which is quite an expensive state to employ in.

All that yo say, you can't take from the private sector and hand it out as entitlements and expect to see good results. There's too much "hate" of corporations on the liberal side. They say the government needs to protect us from the corporations. That may be a fair statement. But when the government starts to take over entire industries, which is what it is pretty much doing with health care, who is there to protect us from the government? That's why the Constitution is supposed to grant rights to states with a limited federal government. If you want universal health care, move to Massachusetts. They're in major financial trouble because of their health care. If you don't want the financial burden, move to another "freer" state. If the Federal government takes over, what recourse do you have?

Shadowex3
28 Mar 2010, 08:01pm
Dev, did you miss that whole part where the entire rest of the first world not only had universal healthcare but BETTER healthcare than we do? AND paid less per person? And that those death-panel myths are just that, and that the scare-tactic horror stories are also just that as well?

If the taxes fuck his company his salary probably does it even more. Just chop a zero off the average CEO or Director's salary and they'll STILL be in the 99.9th percentile and the company can make billions more.

THAT is our problem. That the idea of paying the 99.9th percentile less than millions a year in pay and benefits is so foreign that businesses will fold before they do it.

Wookies
29 Mar 2010, 01:34am
I only believe that people love some parts of the healthcare plan and hates others. And, they should focus on passing each part as their own separate bill...instead of a whole package.
Because if the people hate one part of the bill and love the rest, then they will hate the whole thing because of one section.
Plus I think Obama would not drop in the popular polls if he written the bill in sections then a whole which might boost his popularity and show that he did something in his first year.

efrozen
29 Mar 2010, 07:36pm
obama is a joke.. nuff said

/dev/null
30 Mar 2010, 08:05pm
There's a good article in the WSJ today about how increasing taxes on the rich won't pay for ObamaCare. If you increase taxes, the rich will either earn less, reduce their capital gains by not selling, or find other legal ways to reduce their tax burden. The CBO cannot take behavioral changes into account when determining the cost of ObamaCare. Their numbers assume that taxable income doesn't go down as the tax rates go up. Why do liberals refuse to understand this and raise taxes and lie anyway?

http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1055972002

Note: Link to article available for 7 days.

Shadowex3
31 Mar 2010, 04:29am
Personally I think what's more telling is that you find "liberals" the problem instead of the people playing silly buggers with their taxes.

Why do <generic us-vs-them name> refuse to understand this and blame the opposite party as though the actions of a third party were somehow their responsibility while simultaneously claiming a lack of responsibility for the actions of their own people when their party was in power?

/dev/null
31 Mar 2010, 07:09am
Personally I think what's more telling is that you find "liberals" the problem instead of the people playing silly buggers with their taxes.


Did I say they weren't paying their taxes? No. If their tax rate goes up, their drive to earn income goes down. What's the point of working and earning more income if more of it's going to the federal government? If the government collects less taxes because the rich earn less income, the rich aren't doing anything unethical or unmoral.

That's why I said it's a liberal problem. The liberal solution to all fiscal issues is to raise taxes on the rich. The information mentioned in this article is the reasoning why raises taxes on the rich does not work.

SgtJoo
31 Mar 2010, 09:05am
That's why all the social programs such as welfare need to be disbanded, so we don't need taxes for crappy, bloated (fiscally/authoritatively) government programs that are unnecessary.

TheVirus
31 Mar 2010, 02:37pm
obama is a joke.. nuff said

[citation needed]

The bill is a step in the right direction. It fixes a lot of things but leaves a lot to be desired. There should be a public option and insurance should work across state lines. The requirement that you must have insurance is really the only thing that truly bothers me about this.

Harpr33t
31 Mar 2010, 04:30pm
obama is a joke.. nuff said

If you don't read the facts in life, this is where you gonna end up.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs109.snc3/15712_1264107726289_1337629972_30644308_1202125_n. jpg

Metal
1 Apr 2010, 08:28am
Because we have American people running across the border to get Canada's awesome health care.

Our heathcare isnt perfect at all, it works but for some it is still hard to get.

Drox
1 Apr 2010, 11:27am
[citation needed]

The bill is a step in the right direction. It fixes a lot of things but leaves a lot to be desired. There should be a public option and insurance should work across state lines. The requirement that you must have insurance is really the only thing that truly bothers me about this.

No one is denying there shouldnt be some kind of public option, the problem is it should have been passed in segments and not in 500+ pages that barely anyone read before voting for it.

So now you probably got holes and shit thats will fuck certain people, for example by father is retired military. For some reason because of this bill they are gonna be taking away military med-care to retired personnel. Thats ok tho right? lol the answer is no ;)

' starbucks
1 Apr 2010, 03:51pm
this whole thing works in austria very good.. so why not in the us ?

Red
1 Apr 2010, 04:03pm
This bill is fucked and took a large step in the wrong direction.

Decisions regarding healthcare choice need to be put back into the hands of the people.

Employers should have NOTHING to do with fucking healthcare. It should be up to the individual to purchase their own health insurance. The current form of "insurance" we have is nothing more than a pre-paid health system, it's not really insurance.

The whole notion of employers providing health coverage to their employees is a remnant from the 40's when wages stagnated and this was seen as a way to make employees feel like they were getting something "more" instead of increased salary.

The real solution to this would have been to remove the employer's responsibility to overpay and piss away money in group coverage costs where everyone is lumped into a massive group.

Had health insurance been allowed to truly compete much like auto insurance, more competition would emerge and we'd see a plethora of plans/options/companies etc, like we do in the car insurance industries.

You'd have a far wider range of coverage options/choices instead of being offered the same 2/3 plans your company offers you.

There seriously is no fucking reason for 20 somethings to pay the same rate as the 50 something fat ass in the cube next to me other than for the sole reason we work for the same company.

Now it's only going to get worse because the insurance companies, which lets face it, are already bloated and overpriced as fuck, are going to have to take on cancer ridden fatass unfiltered cigarette smoking alcoholic crackhead because uncle same says so.

I don't see how the hell the government can force private citizens to fork over money to private businesses, this isn't like paying taxes, that goes to fat uncle sam, this is paying private companies with CEO's in an industry that's already been protected by politicians. People thought insurance execs were "big bad fat cats", just wait til this bill kicks in and EVERYONE is forced to have a plan.

Now ALL our premiums are going to go up even more to cover these fucks, and there is already a shortage of doctors, where the fuck are we gonna find magic doctors to take care of the extra load of extra unhealthy assholes.

Fuck this entire bill and the fucks that voted for it.

It's fucking pathetic that the only bipartisanship for this was on the NO votes and yet this elephant of a shitpile which will have fundamental impacts on businesses and individuals still passed. Companies have already started to plan for their increased healthcare costs, they've already planned to cut hiring (less jobs). GG progressives, you manage to gain more votes from those who already feel too helpless to help themselves, I hope you fucking die.

/end of work day rant

trakaill
2 Apr 2010, 07:21pm
Dont you talk bad about uncle sam!!!!!!!!













glad to see you around I hadnt seen you post around here in a while!!!:dance::hail:

LegalSmash
3 Apr 2010, 11:33pm
They call it interspecies erotica when its bipartisan.

Shadowex3
4 Apr 2010, 04:21am
No one is denying there shouldnt be some kind of public option, the problem is it should have been passed in segments and not in 500+ pages that barely anyone read before voting for it.

So now you probably got holes and shit thats will fuck certain people, for example by father is retired military. For some reason because of this bill they are gonna be taking away military med-care to retired personnel. Thats ok tho right? lol the answer is no ;)

So's mine, never heard of this. Citation?

Drox
4 Apr 2010, 08:28am
So's mine, never heard of this. Citation?

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2680001050001/m/8990033212001

Here is some info on it by men/women who will be effected by it aswell. The VA has said they are trying to protect TRICARE for veterans/retiree's but they will have to wait and see if it truly screws them or gets protected.

Sander Cohen
4 Apr 2010, 12:44pm
I'm not American so I am not totally aware of how people feel about the current healthcare, but in Canada at least, we are happy with our Healthcare for the most part and I only hope our American friends can receive the same or similar treatment.

Shadowex3
4 Apr 2010, 08:53pm
Did you read the thread you're citing drox?


If you read the explanatory sections of the Congressional Budget Office document, you'll see that these are budget OPTIONS, not recommendations. The CBO conducts ongoing studies to provide information to lawmakers on the budgetary effects of changes to myriad federal programs. The CBO doesn't recommend changes, it describes the potential effects of changes. It would be up to Congress to decide to pursue the cost-savings (or, in some cases, spending increases) identified in any of the CBO's reviews.


For those concerned that this was an attempt by President Obama to make changes to TFL, you should note that the study was completed and published in December 2008, so it would be President Bush's initiative, but, again, it's not any President's plan. It is a study by the CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office and not by the Executive Branch's Office of Management and Budget.

Drox
4 Apr 2010, 08:59pm
Did you read the thread you're citing drox?

yea I read it, but in the plan that was passed they do plan on getting rid of TRICARE to retiree's and making it active duty only med-care. That thread I gave u was made in JAN09, its APR10. ;) It was just to show you that it has been in talks about it for awhile and when the healthcare bill passed it screwed over veterans. Also tho the VA is fighting for veterans to keep it also. So have to wait and see what happens.

Shadowex3
4 Apr 2010, 10:50pm
My god man the logic in that post, though I hesitate to call it that, is so bloody convoluted I'm expecting you to start talking about the NWO next.

I'm still waiting on any sort of authoritative citation to this FUDmongering, the only thing you've posted so far actually contradicts your claims by pointing out it's a third party doing nothing but impact-studies from 2008.

Drox
4 Apr 2010, 11:06pm
My god man the logic in that post, though I hesitate to call it that, is so bloody convoluted I'm expecting you to start talking about the NWO next.

I'm still waiting on any sort of authoritative citation to this FUDmongering, the only thing you've posted so far actually contradicts your claims by pointing out it's a third party doing nothing but impact-studies from 2008.

Nah lol I wouldnt really have said anything if it didnt effect my family which it will ;) since really then why would I give a shit if it didnt. lol

Shadowex3
5 Apr 2010, 05:39pm
You're STILL insisting that SOMETHING is going to affect your family even though your only citation explicitly contradicts not just your claims about being affected by SOMETHING but that this SOMETHING even exists.

Drox
5 Apr 2010, 05:56pm
You're STILL insisting that SOMETHING is going to affect your family even though your only citation explicitly contradicts not just your claims about being affected by SOMETHING but that this SOMETHING even exists.

Well like I said, we'll see what happens. If it doesnt happen then awesome. ;)

Ketch
10 Apr 2010, 01:25pm
it sucks