And the bill was passed.

[Trulife8342]

The health care reform bill was passed today with a last minute addition that pretty much states abortion wont be covered. Discuss your opinions and please for the love of all that is holy, make sense.

[Jean-Luc]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, universal healthcare is great notion. On the other hand, I don't trust the American government to be able to run this responsibly and I don't much care about having to pay for someone ELSE's healthcare.

[Trulife8342]

=) Good point, lets hand the police department and fire department to private companies instead!

<3 jean.

[legionaire45]

The Senate still has to get their bill passed.

Thing I'm happiest about:

In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.
The thing I was worried about most was whether they would let the companies keep their monopoly power.. These companies should never have been given monopoly power in the first place; we wouldn't be in the current mess we are if these companies were actually competitive and responsible. This will be the thing that makes this bill really worthwhile in the long run.

Republicans in Congress love to go on and on about how the market should decide everything and how the government is inefficient with everything; and yet they support a government backed monopoly of an entire industry. Either they are so arrogant that they refuse to see how broken the system is or they are so out of touch with what is going on that they think the market can fix things when the government they are running is intentionally restricting the market from being a market...

The abortion part still bothers me, but I suppose the alternative is no health care bill. For now things will be fine - getting abortion covered is a different battle entirely.

Price is another problem... Hopefully after this healthcare debate is over, Obama will still have enough political capital to do something about the deficit. We're going to be in debt for a few presidencies for sure, but hopefully the current administration can at least get some framework going for reducing the deficit. That's the thing that's really going to kill us in the next few decades.

Even though it's another trillion down the hole, health care reform had to happen at some point.

[Limited]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, universal healthcare is great notion. On the other hand, I don't trust the American government to be able to run this responsibly and I don't much care about having to pay for someone ELSE's healthcare.
Well yes, you will have to pay a share of peoples healthcare. They will probably bring in some healthcare tax. Thats what happens in the UK, we have free healthcare (although its pretty shit) and we pay a tax to pay for it.

The problems that can arise from this could be worse than the benefits. For example, okay you pay less, however paying less will mean more people who used to just say "oh we dont need to see doctor, we can take care of it" might start going to see the doctor. Therefore it will be busy, long waiting times, if you need surgery you will be put on a waiting list etc.

Take a look at the UK's system (NHS), waiting lists are ridiculous, my mum had to have an operation, they said it would be 2 years before she was seen. It took them 2 months to even see her to speak about the operation. She decided to screw that and pay money for private care, that did it all within a month.

Personally, I think its great US has passed the bill, I just hope senate/congress whoever has to approve it next does. It will have side effects, but it means poor people will have a chance at getting medical treatment when they need it.

[=sw=warlord]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, universal healthcare is great notion. On the other hand, I don't trust the American government to be able to run this responsibly and I don't much care about having to pay for someone ELSE's healthcare.
Why should health be any different to any other public service?
By that logic the poiice, fire department and any other publicly funded service should be handed to private companies.
House on fire? hire a firefighter, Got a burgler robbing your house? hire a police officer and pay premiums for a investigation.
Your health is the most important thing you could ever have, no point complaining because youve just been robbed if you have some illness you cannot get treated.
You will willingly pay for firefighters to put out fires and for police to give out parking tickets and investigate crimes but your not willing to pay for a public health care program?

[Trulife8342]

Well tbh, the solution to getting rid of waiting list is hiring more doctors. It will be a demanding job therefore kids will stay in school longer to get their MD or PhD further more increasing our rank in medicine and in after graduate education in the world. Problem solved.


Why should health be any different to any other public service?
By that logic the poilice, fire department and any other publicly funded service should be handed to private companies.
House on fire? hire a firefighter, Got a burgler robbing your house? hire a police officer and pay premiums for a investigation.
Your health is the most important thing you could ever have, no point complaining because youve just been robbed if you have some illness you cannot get treated.

T'was why I said lets just hand the police and fire departments over to private companies ;) Sarcastically speaking of course.

[Jean-Luc]

Why should health be any different to any other public service?
By that logic the poilice, fire department and any other publicly funded service should be handed to private companies.
House on fire? hire a firefighter, Got a burgler robbing your house? hire a police officer and pay premiums for a investigation.
Thanks for stating what trulife said 10 minutes ago >_>

I get that, I do. I guess I'll just have to wait and see how this works.

[Limited]

Well tbh, the solution to getting rid of waiting list is hiring more doctors. It will be a demanding job therefore kids will stay in school longer to get their MD or PhD further more increasing our rank in medicine and in after graduate education in the world. Problem solved.
Hiring more doctors means more trainee doctors will have to university for years learning to get their MD and PhD, costing alot of money, something people just dont have right now.

Its not an easy issue.

[=sw=warlord]

Thanks for stating what trulife said 10 minutes ago >_>

I get that, I do. I guess I'll just have to wait and see how this works.
No problem, maybe its just a culture difference or something but if the government tried making the health care over here a completely privatised and capitolized thing the public here would be screaming for blood.
There are some things that are better not being capitalized and healthcare is certainly not something you want to try and ring people in the cash for, moraly speaking ofcourse.
I would say this bill is a very good step forwards for america no matter how you slice it.

[Trulife8342]

Hiring more doctors means more trainee doctors will have to university for years learning to get their MD and PhD, costing alot of money, something people just dont have right now.

Its not an easy issue.

Well is that the governments fault? No. Anyone in this country has the capabilities to become a doctor and go to school on rides such as grants and scholarships, Just cause most people are lazy and screw around in school doesn't mean that the government is to blame for waiting lists. If people actually applied themselves we wouldn't have that problem. And I can go to B.C. Get my doctorates degree without spending over 20k.....

[Limited]

Well is that the governments fault? No. Anyone in this country has the capabilities to become a doctor and go to school on rides such as grants and scholarships, Just cause most people are lazy and screw around in school doesn't mean that the government is to blame for waiting lists. If people actually applied themselves we wouldn't have that problem. And I can go to B.C. Get my doctorates degree without spending over 20k.....
The goverment plays a big part of it though, people nowadays don't have much faith in the financial sector, they are worried things will be shaken up again. For this reason people that have the money, dont want to spend it, just incase it goes belly up again.

Also, not everyone has the capabilities to become a doctor, some people just arent smart enough for it, other people just dont have the opportunity for it. It does require a bit of lady luck. I.e., if theres a pile of 10,000 perfectly fine applicants for a grant/scholarship and 5,000 places, how do they decided which to pick?

[=sw=warlord]

Well is that the governments fault? No. Anyone in this country has the capabilities to become a doctor and go to school on rides such as grants and scholarships, Just cause most people are lazy and screw around in school doesn't mean that the government is to blame for waiting lists. If people actually applied themselves we wouldn't have that problem. And I can go to B.C. Get my doctorates degree without spending over 20k.....
But not everyone has the ability to be a surgion how ever, it takes about 10 years over here atleast before your even allowed into the operating theater, that's a long time training when you could go into another career plus you must have very, very accurate dexterity as you really don't want to have a twitch while your doing surgery.

[Trulife8342]

The goverment plays a big part of it though, people nowadays don't have much faith in the financial sector, they are worried things will be shaken up again. For this reason people that have the money, dont want to spend it, just incase it goes belly up again.

Also, not everyone has the capabilities to become a doctor, some people just arent smart enough for it, other people just dont have the opportunity for it. It does require a bit of lady luck. I.e., if theres a pile of 10,000 perfectly fine applicants for a grant/scholarship and 5,000 places, how do they decided which to pick?

Its called competition Limited. Not all 10,000 people are the same so they need to narrow down the top 5,000 all that is, is encouraging competition, the same things that this country is based on. Now agreed not everyone has the mental capability to become a doctor, but none the less, there should be more than enough to be able to care for everyone in a country.

[Limited]

How do you expect to pay for all these new doctors then? You will have to pay more taxes.

[=sw=warlord]

but none the less, there should be more than enough to be able to care for everyone in a country.
Currently america has around 307,887,932 people according to consensus.gov that is a hell of alot of people even if you had 1 doctor per 1000 you would still need a shit tonne of doctors.

[legionaire45]

Hiring more doctors means more trainee doctors will have to university for years learning to get their MD and PhD, costing alot of money, something people just dont have right now.

Its not an easy issue.
Medical school may be expensive, but doctors currently get paid quite a bit. They probably won't have to worry too much about paying off student loans or whatever.

My understanding of the health care bill is that you can still choose your own doctor and that doctors aren't employed by the state. That part is pretty much left alone. Doctors will still get large salaries and will still have incentives to go through medical school.

[=sw=warlord]

Medical school may be expensive, but doctors currently get paid quite a bit. They probably won't have to worry too much about paying off student loans or whatever.All good and well assuming everyone passes their qualification courses, if you fail for what ever reason thats one big bill

My understanding of the health care bill is that you can still choose your own doctor and that doctors aren't employed by the state. That part is pretty much left alone. Doctors will still get large salaries and will still have incentives to go through medical school.
Most doctors take about 7 years training, a friend of mine is going into nursing and was telling me the course is atleast 4 years..

[Limited]

7 years is just to get the basic doctor level, after that you have to spend even more to become a specialist or consultant.

[Warsaw]

The problem is that all these doctors operate their businesses as just that; singly-owned small businesses where the doctor is the owner and service provider. What needs to happen is a large firm employing many doctors, and then all of a sudden costs go down because it's no longer a "family" business and you now have a bunch of large firms competing against one another to get more customers and increase their staff size to cover more area, thus fulfilling the getting more customers part.

This isn't the 19th century anymore you silly doctors, hth.

[Bodzilla]

the way to solve that is to have a set number of doctors and nurse's coming in and out of the programs.
just keep the system rolling and ya wont have a problem.

Nursing is a joke though, 4 years of uni and you come out and get to wipe peoples ass's.
thats a joke.

[Dwood]

Nursing is a joke though, 4 years of uni and you come out and get to wipe peoples 's.
thats a joke.

Hah. It's like 1-2 years out here... And you're practically guaranteed a job b/c nursing is a job that is in high demand among hospitals.

For this bill, I can't even begin to say what I don't like about it. Will I have to pay extra if I go with private care? If I only want to pay for private, shouldn't I be allowed a tax break?

That's the problem, is that even with other companies, gvt. will always win. :/

[Cojafoji]

The Senate still has to get their bill passed.
Not to mention a whole host of other shit that has to happen before it can even make it to the white house for approval. Bills that aren't fast tracked are hard as hell to reconcile between the house and senate. *Edit: and then there's the whole thrill of bureaucratic implementation, which will probably get fucked.


Nursing is a joke though, 4 years of uni and you come out and get to wipe peoples ass's.
How is it a joke? Nurses here have significantly broader career path options.

[Ganon]

Nursing is a joke though, 4 years of uni and you come out and get to wipe peoples ass's.
thats a joke.

8 years of "uni" you get to be a doctor and stick things in their asses and touch their genitals

[paladin]

What would you expect when the majority of the house are Obamabots?

Also, a victory of 5 votes is not good. That still mean that there are a lot of unhappy people. Its not going to float though the senate quite as easily as Nancy Pelosi thinks it is.

[legionaire45]

All good and well assuming everyone passes their qualification courses, if you fail for what ever reason thats one big bill

Most doctors take about 7 years training, a friend of mine is going into nursing and was telling me the course is atleast 4 years.
Welcome to college. If you fail a class, you don't instantly get dropped from the school - usually your GPA needs to drop below a certain level, otherwise you can just retake the particular course. If someone fails enough courses to get their GPA reduced to the point that they are suspended or whatever then they are idiots and I wouldn't want them poking my guts with a scalpel anyway. Colleges always have resources available for students who are having trouble.

Regarding your second comment, 7 years is actually about normal for an occupation requiring that much knowledge. A BS + MS degree in most programs takes 6-7 years depending on what you are going for. Much like going for an MD, an MS will increase your income significantly. Doctors actually make significantly more (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)_Degrees/Salary) than other disciplines with similar amounts of time spent in school. (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master_of_Science_(MS/MSc),_Computer_Science/Salary) Really, it depends on what you want to do. A doctor may make more than a computer scientist but that doctor is going to have a lot more work to do and much more responsibility in his hands.


*Edit: and then there's the whole thrill of bureaucratic implementation, which will probably get fucked.
We'll see. I don't think the entire system is being taken over by government. Again, my understanding is that as far as most people are concerned, the process of getting healthcare won't change a bit. The only time people will have to deal with the bureaucracy is when they are going for the public option when they can't afford the regular stuff. I will admit that I'm not entirely sure on this - things have gotten so confusing over the past few months with both sides firing misinformation out.

EDIT: Read a bit on the actual numbers involved - 60% of Americans get their health care through their work. From their perspective, nothing will be different.


What would you expect when the majority of the house are Obamabots?

Also, a victory of 5 votes is not good. That still mean that there are a lot of unhappy people. Its not going to float though the senate quite as easily as Nancy Pelosi thinks it is.
It would be great if both sides were more willing to bargain with each other and come up with a better solution, but the right has stubbornly refused to budge on this issue. They haven't proposed any meaningful solutions throughout the course of this whole debate. They have said "no" to everything that has been proposed by Democrats because they don't want to get on the bad side of the whackjob component of the right that will probably represent the Republicans in the next presidential election.

The Obama administration had two options regarding this bill. They could let the healthcare system collapse within a few decades whilst appeasing the Republicans for this presidency. In the process, they could tarnish the Democratic name and not get elected again for a few decades. Or, they could pass this bill without bipartisan support and actually get something done during this presidency and hopefully do something good for America, or whoever is paying them off anyway.

They were given the choice between a horrible non-solution and a less-than ideal one. If the Republicans would be reasonable and realize that Tea Parties and talk show hosts aren't going to solve the problem, then maybe there could have been a solution that is better for America. Until the day that both sides let go of their political jockeying bullshit and start caring about making this world better for everyone, not just themselves and the companies that buy them into office, that isn't going to happen.

[Donut]

8 years of "uni" you get to be a doctor and stick things in their asses and touch their genitals
which is infinitely better than wiping asses :iamafag:

[=sw=warlord]

which is infinitely better than wiping asses :iamafag:
Boomer.
:suicide:

[Dwood]

We'll see. I don't think the entire system isn't being taken over by government.


What?



It would be great if both sides were more willing to bargain with each other and come up with a better solution, but the right has stubbornly refused to budge on this issue. They haven't proposed any meaningful solutions throughout the course of this whole debate. They have said "no" to everything that has been proposed by Democrats because they don't want to get on the bad side of the whackjob component of the right that will probably represent the Republicans in the next presidential election.


***Enter Dane*** Imho that's ridiculous. I mean even if the Republicans proposed a better solution that would require less than half the government, the Democrats would accept it? honestly.

The Democrats are ALL ABOUT Socialization of everything... The exact opposite of what Republicans believe. And have believed for years. For any of them to vote for such a large and all-encompassing bill which I guarantee 90% didn't even read, nor had TIME to read (Which is why so many Democrats said no I bet) it would be defying any and all common sense.



The Obama administration had two options regarding this bill. They could let the healthcare system collapse within a few decades whilst appeasing the Republicans for this presidency. In the process, they could tarnish the Democratic name and not get elected again for a few decades. Or, they could pass this bill without bipartisan support and actually get something done during this presidency and hopefully do something good for America, or whoever is paying them off anyway.


Yeah... no. There are simple solutions... Like allowing insurances to cross state boundaries etc that would solve many problems almost overnight.



They were given the choice between a horrible non-solution and a less-than ideal one. If the Republicans would be reasonable and realize that Tea Parties and talk show hosts aren't going to solve the problem, then maybe there could have been a solution that is better for America. Until the day that both sides let go of their political jockeying and start caring about making this world better for everyone, not just themselves and the companies that buy them into office, that isn't going to happen.

The non-solution is to leave things as they are now. Do you really think leaving them as they are now until people could devise a GOOD solution is really going to hurt? It might seem a good thing now but signing this bill is pure idiocy.

[Bodzilla]

How is it a joke? Nurses here have significantly broader career path options.
because it used to be traineeship based with on the job training.
you know the days when we didnt have a chronic shortage of nurses's in every area.

[Cojafoji]

because it used to be traineeship based with on the job training.
you know the days when we didnt have a chronic shortage of nurses's in every area.
unless i'm missing sarcasm, or something else, an RN with degree or an RN without a degree are both highly trained individuals. really tired, and i'm sorry if i'm not getting what you're saying.

[legionaire45]

What?

Will fix that part to make more sense after this blurb - sorry, in about 3 mental places right now.


What?
***Enter Dane*** Imho that's ridiculous. I mean even if the Republicans proposed a better solution that would require less than half the government, the Democrats would accept it? honestly.

This debate has been two sided and the only thing the Republicans have contributed to it is "No." Maybe if the Right actually cohesively proposed something other than "let the market handle it" (translation: if you can't afford healthcare, you deserve to die) the Democrats would have something to add to the bill from both parties.

BTW, I like how the Republicans are bitching about how the Democrats are leaving them out of this vote when throughout Bush's presidency the left was largely ignored.


What?
The Democrats are ALL ABOUT Socialization of everything... The exact opposite of what Republicans believe. And have believed for years. For any of them to vote for such a large and all-encompassing bill which I guarantee 90% didn't even read, nor had TIME to read (Which is why so many Democrats said no I bet) it would be defying any and all common sense.

Socialization of everything? Really? Oh yeah, that's right, Obama and his evil socialist buddies in Congress are going to take our guns away too, legalize gay marriage and change the name of the country to the USSA. You don't seem to have a basic understanding of the situation besides what Fox "News" has told you.

Democrats who call themselves "fiscally liberal" believe in demand-side economics, that government should help the middle class by directly reducing the various burdens they face. They do this by redistributing wealth (taxing the wealthy in this case) and trying to fix situations where capitalism works against the Middle Class. As my econ teacher puts it, they believe that "they need to save capitalism from itself". The idea behind this is to encourage the middle class to spend their money on stuff, which encourages businesses to make more stuff to sell.

Republicans who call themselves "fiscally conservative" believe in supply-side economics, that government policies should favor business owners and those with wealth. In theory, these wealthy entrepreneurs will use this money to buy factories/other capital and to pay wages to their workers, who will be able to purchase stuff.

In reality, what have the past few decades of mostly Republican rule shown about the final outcome of supply-side economics? The wealthy store their money away in the form of capital gains (investments in the stock market, bonds I think, etc.) and other things that are incredibly easy to get out of being taxed on due to the lax tax law that is in place. What they are doing is taking money straight out of our country's GPD and letting it accumulate more wealth for themselves.
Go read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States) and notice how over the past few decades of mostly Republican rule, wealth has stagnated or declined for the Middle Class and the poor whilst the amount of wealth held by the top 20% has grown significantly.

FYI, income inequality was greatest in 1929 - before the Great Depression. It was at it's lowest when LBJ implemented some of his Great Society programs in the late 1960's. Since then, it has been steadily increasing. It'll be interesting to see where it goes after a term or two of Obama.

I do agree with you on the fact that this bill is excessively long...makes you wonder what kind of crap was snuck in. I am sure that some of them read it...or at the very least skimmed it.

Now, about whether they would vote for it...as it is, nope, probably not. Maybe if they had added something to the conversation besides "no" they could have made a compromise of some sort.



Yeah... no. There are simple solutions... Like allowing insurances to cross state boundaries etc that would solve many problems almost overnight.

Cool, so now the health care oligopolies have to collude across an entire country, not just a handful of states!

No, the problem is that decades ago a handful of companies were given monopoly power over the entire healthcare industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act). Enforced by state legislatures. Joy.

There are two ways you can solve this - You can have the government price regulate the companies like they do with utilities (oh, yeah, btw, the government has price regulated them for decades - OH SHIT SOCIALISM OBAMA = STALIN ) or you can remove the antitrust protection.

If you start price regulating them, the Republican party starts screaming "SOCIALISM!" and Fox "News" starts telling the American people that your guns are going to be taken away.

The other option is to take away their antitrust protection and make them do business fairly. This is the route the democrats are going to go. This will have the greatest affect on the health care industry in the long term because now these companies have to play fair or else the largely democratic state legislature with fuck them up ATnT style.

Why is the public option there then? To be honest, I don't think it's necessary, but it certainly helps improve competition. Whether the cost is justified is debatable. We'll see.



The non-solution is to leave things as they are now. Do you really think leaving them as they are now until people could devise a GOOD solution is really going to hurt? It might seem a good thing now but signing this bill is pure idiocy.
FYI, the democrats have been proposing solutions since at least the mid 1990's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan) and have been bringing the issue up for even longer. Every time it has been shot down by Republicans for being a socialist plot to have a Hammer and Sickle painted on the White House or something.

Also, I'd love to hear what you have to say about this bill. Please tell me why you think it is "pure idiocy".

[Trulife8342]

Legion just owned this topic.

[paladin]

Not really

[Bodzilla]

This debate has been two sided and the only thing the Republicans have contributed to it is "No."


no.*
*paraphrased.






i do believe i lol'd.

[Bodzilla]

IbWw23XwO5o

look where all the political donations are coming from!
both sides.
Pubz are by far worse though.

[paladin]

*paraphrased.






i do believe i lol'd.


To bad your taking what I said out of context. and besides, im a conservative. And if you think that a republican and conservative are the same, you need to go learn politics.

[Dwood]

I'll bbl Later for you legion. I have to go to school so I don't have time right now to come up with a response.


And if you think that a republican and conservative are the same, you need to go learn politics.

This. THIS THIS THIS. It's called voting on party lines... I could be a Conservative and say I'm a Democrat, get elected and defect to the Republican side when they're back in power, et cetera.

[Trulife8342]

To bad your taking what I said out of context. and besides, im a conservative. And if you think that a republican and conservative are the same, you need to go learn politics.


You know Paladin, You are right. Lets spend 720 million dollars a day for a war that doesn't need to be fought, and send our soldiers there to die. Fuck spending 1 trillion dollars in a course of 10 years to make sure people who didn't have care now get care, Why the fuck should I care if my next door neighbor's kid is sick and is missing school and can't go to the Doctor, shits not my problem. I like my tax money well invested, like Michael Jackson's funeral for example, yeah that's where I want my money to go. Fuck living people use my cash on dead people. And to be honest, Senior citizens are really the only ones who need health care provided by the government, we shouldn't take funds away from a broken health care program that the only reason it became broken was because it was lobbied around like a prostitute in Vegas. And as far as im concerned this government can't get anything right, just like Glenn Beck said! I mean they can't get the police department right, the fire department, EMT's. God PALINdin, you opened my eyes to soo much, while we are at it lets take all of those departments away from the government, since clearly after 9/11 (eight-nine) years ago, my government surely can't protect my ass. And plus we don't want to be like those pussy Canadians right? They think they are sooooo cool cause they get to go to the doctors office and get treated....on time.

I really have to thank you for giving me so much enlightenment.

DISCLAIMER- Palidin, you are a cool dude and I have nothing against you so please don't take anything personal in this thread and that goes for everyone. Its a simple discussion on politics. <3

[Jean-Luc]

Fuck spending 1 trillion dollars in a course of 10 years to make sure people who didn't have care now get care.

Care to explain to me where we're going to come up with $1,000,000,000,000 when the economy is in the shitter and we're $14 trillion in debt? I'd be very interested to learn how we can spend all that money and not dig ourselves further into a hole. Not saying it's impossible...just explain it to me.

[Trulife8342]

Care to explain to me where we're going to come up with $1,000,000,000,000 when the economy is in the shitter and we're $14 trillion in debt? I'd be very interested to learn how we can spend all that money and not dig ourselves further into a hole. Not saying it's impossible...just explain it to me.

Stop wasting money in shit we don't need to spend money on.

[Jean-Luc]

Stop wasting money in shit we don't need to spend money on.
A fine notion but we've been trying that shit for a long time. Time and time again, we've seen politicians spend money on non-crucial things. You find a way to stop that entirely, and I'll consider that a viable means.

[Trulife8342]

Well vote for people who actually know what their doing. (not saying you specifically dont)

[CN3089]

Care to explain to me where we're going to come up with $1,000,000,000,000 when the economy is in the shitter and we're $14 trillion in debt? I'd be very interested to learn how we can spend all that money and not dig ourselves further into a hole. Not saying it's impossible...just explain it to me.

Where'd you find the money to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Those wars were far less necessary than fixing your shitty healthcare system. Not that the bill actually does anything, democrats are worthless right wing corporatist shills and the republicans are just insane.


tl;dr your country's fucked and is going to go the way of the soviet union hth

[neuro]

protip: americans, emigrate!

actually, on 2nd thought, please don't.

[Jean-Luc]

Where'd you find the money to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Those wars were far less necessary than fixing your shitty healthcare system.
Valid point.

[paladin]

You know Paladin, You are right. Lets spend 720 million dollars a day for a war that doesn't need to be fought, and send our soldiers there to die
Fuck spending 1 trillion dollars in a course of 10 years to make sure people who didn't have care now get care,Why the fuck should I care if my next door neighbor's kid is sick and is missing school and can't go to the Doctor, shits not my problem. I like my tax money well invested, like Michael Jackson's funeral for example, yeah that's where I want my money to go. Fuck living people use my cash on dead people. And to be honest, Senior citizens are really the only ones who need health care provided by the government, we shouldn't take funds away from a broken health care program that the only reason it became broken was because it was lobbied around like a prostitute in Vegas. And as far as im concerned this government can't get anything right, just like Glenn Beck said! I mean they can't get the police department right, the fire department, EMT's. God PALINdin, you opened my eyes to soo much, while we are at it lets take all of those departments away from the government, since clearly after 9/11 (eight-nine) years ago, my government surely can't protect my ass. And plus we don't want to be like those pussy Canadians right? They think they are sooooo cool cause they get to go to the doctors office and get treated....on time.

I really have to thank you for giving me so much enlightenment.

DISCLAIMER- Palidin, you are a cool dude and I have nothing against you so please don't take anything personal in this thread and that goes for everyone. Its a simple discussion on politics. <3

I cant begin to fill the gaps in your reasoning. If only I had more than 10 minutes between class.

[Disaster]

This debate has been two sided and the only thing the Republicans have contributed to it is "No." Maybe if the Right actually cohesively proposed something other than "let the market handle it" (translation: if you can't afford healthcare, you deserve to die) the Democrats would have something to add to the bill from both parties.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5093897.shtml
Plan was rejected by the US house democrats.

[Dwood]

Valid point.

How'd we find money for the bail-outs?

[Jean-Luc]

How'd we find money for the bail-outs?
The stimulus bill too. And we all know how well that one worked out >_>

[Dwood]

The stimulus bill too. And we all know how well that one worked out >_>

Stimulus and Iraq + Afghan wars pale in comparison to what was spend 3 months or so ago.

[paladin]

ow.


This debate has been two sided and the only thing the Republicans have contributed to it is "No." Maybe if the Right actually cohesively proposed something other than "let the market handle it" (translation: if you can't afford healthcare, you deserve to die) the Democrats would have something to add to the bill from both parties.

Maybe you should actually research something instead of just watching MSNBC.


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5093897.shtml
Plan was rejected by the US house democrats.

also, this (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52896), this (http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news/economy/republican_health_care_bill/index.htm), this (http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan _Updated_11-04-09.pdf), and this. (http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf)

There are other options other than a government one.

e: also, unlike the Democrats. The Republicans actually posted theirs on the internet. Regardless of 'size' and the 'language'. Where the transparency Mrs. Pelosi? Ha, what a joke.

I like this quote:
Now [the government] comes along and says, 'Irrespective of the fact they've gone 20, 30, 40 years of their adult life without ever having bought insurance prior to getting a liver inflammation due to their excessive drinking habits or diabetes because they eat like a pig, you must now insure them...


How'd we find money for the bail-outs?

In your grandchild's pocket. I heard a funny quote about liberals and spending money: Liberals are like teenagers, they don't know where money comes from and like to spend it.


The stimulus bill too. And we all know how well that one worked out >_>

Yeah. GMs tooooo big to fail. Too many jobs at stake. What about the Health Insurance business. What about all those people that are going to loose their jobs because of the new health bill. /sarcasm It is estimated that this bill will actually add to unemployment by up to 5.5 million jobs lost.


You go right back to Shakespeare, who first said, 'If it can't be sold for a profit, it's not worth writing,' or take Thomas Edison's reiteration of it, 'If it can't be sold for a profit, it's not worth inventing. If the government is going to control what it is, whether it can be distributed, what it is, what price it can be sold, you will disincentive the whole process of research.

This is exactly whats going to happen. Sure the Government isn't 'taking over' the health care system, but they are going to make it impossible for a private company to profit.

Its the same concept with at addition of the 5.2% surcharge tax on people making 500k plus. If you tax successful people, especially small business owners (a majority of people making 500k+ a year), you're losing the incentive to succeed. If 50% of my income is going to be taxed, why should I work hard/ run my business/ invent a product/ research a product.

All I can say is fuck it. In 2 years when we are 2x as broke, our dollar is shit, we have 13% unemployment, and socialized government, I'm just going to laugh. And the democrats won't be able to blame anyone but themselves.

[PopeAK49]

First step to a socialist america. California will be the first state to be converted, and then the others will fall like flies being hit by the hand of obama.

[Dwood]

First step to a socialist america. California will be the first state to be converted, and then the others will fall like flies being hit by the hand of obama.

Cali's going to fall into the ocean, hth. :iamafag:

[paladin]

I recommend locking this thread. hth

[legionaire45]

Maybe you should actually research something instead of just watching MSNBC.

Negatory. I get my news from online sources, mainly from whatever happens to show up on delicious or google news. Conservative and Republican sources. It's hard to take the mainstream media seriously when they are actively picking sides in the debate.

FYI, Microeconomics is a field dominated by conservative economists. My textbook was written by a conservative. The course is being taught by a PhD in economics who acknowledges she is middle-left. She points out the biases of both sides.

I'm not basing my arguments in favor of this bill on politics. My support of this bill is based in cold hard economics. Math. Not what some politician tells the media to feed me. Not what my parents or family believes. I'm basing my arguments off of what a Professional economist has to say. And coming to my own conclusions.

None of the Republican bills address the actual issue here. Most of the Democrat's proposals don't either. Adding a public option is nice and forcing everyone to get health care is great, but if the insurance companies still have monopoly power over this industry then what's that point? Tort reform, allowing the companies to sell insurance across state lines, whatever, is great. But they don't address the problem.

Removing their anti-trust protection does. Now, health Care companies are going to have to compete or they will die. Just like every other industry in this country.

I don't like the idea of trillions of dollars of debt either. I didn't like it when Bush was in office spending us into oblivion and repealing laws that prevented another Great Depression scale recession from happening. I wouldn't have liked it during George Bush Sr.'s presidency and I wouldn't have liked it during Reagan's if I was around for their elections. I still don't like it now that Obama is in office.



also, this (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52896), this (http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news/economy/republican_health_care_bill/index.htm), this (http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan _Updated_11-04-09.pdf), and this. (http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf)

There are other options other than a government one.


However, what the Republicans have proposed (half heartedly) is a handful of bills that don't deal with the main problem. My understanding of the one that I just skimmed through (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1324is.txt.pdf) is that it is little more than a tax rebate on health insurance. A quarter of their proposal covered exactly who is eligible and a good chunk of it covers exactly how that money affects your tax return/other crap (I've never done taxes so to be honest, I'm not sure what a lot of the stuff in there refers to). The rest of it boils down to the typical Republican "solutions" - letting companies sell insurance across states, malpractice reform, etc. The other ones weren't even links to the full proposals, just paraphrased bits that appeal to whatever target audience hits that particular website.



e: also, unlike the Democrats. The Republicans actually posted theirs on the internet. Regardless of 'size' and the 'language'. Where the transparency Mrs. Pelosi? Ha, what a joke.

The Republicans also took wrote a little bill called the PATRIOT act into law, illegally wiretapped you, illegally detained and tortured individuals suspected of terrorism and convinced you that taking your rights away is in your best interest. If anything, they are the ones more likely to take your guns away than the Democrats. "It could be used for terrorism". They also started up the process that has brought you ACTA. What the Republicans did during their tenure in office makes this administration's lack of transparency look like as see through as glass.

I'm not going to say that it's right that the Democrats are keeping this bill from the American people. Additionally, the administration has done other things already that are problematic. But at least they haven't started taking away your rights.



I like this quote:

In your grandchild's pocket. I heard a funny quote about liberals and spending money: Liberals are like teenagers, they don't know where money comes from and like to spend it.

For lack of time, I will simply link you to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics). If you go back far enough, I think FDR was the first to engage in deficit spending. But Ronald Reagan took that concept so far beyond what FDR did that Republicans should blush when they say that Democrats like to spend.



Yeah. GMs tooooo big to fail. Too many jobs at stake. What about the Health Insurance business. What about all those people that are going to loose their jobs because of the new health bill. /sarcasm It is estimated that this bill will actually add to unemployment by up to 5.5 million jobs lost.

In the long term, letting GM go would be better. We'd lose jobs up front, but hopefully more competent competitors would enter the fray and innovate. The automobile industry is another industry that has become incredibly concentrated and shaking it up would be good.

Devils advocate in me wants to say that the economic consequences would be bad in the short term since they have such a large effect on our economy. We've been shifting away from manufacturing for decades though, and our cars have been getting less and less innovative every year. These companies have been living in the 90's and they deserve what they've gotten for their incompetence and greed.

However, the health care industry is a whole different kettle of fish. I haven't heard that statistic before, and I'd like to see a source for it. Just curious.

BTW, jobs wouldn't need to be cut if CEOs would cut their wages...which brings me to my next rant:



This is exactly whats going to happen. Sure the Government isn't 'taking over' the health care system, but they are going to make it impossible for a private company to profit.

Its the same concept with at addition of the 5.2% surcharge tax on people making 500k plus. If you tax successful people, especially small business owners (a majority of people making 500k+ a year), you're losing the incentive to succeed. If 50% of my income is going to be taxed, why should I work hard/ run my business/ invent a product/ research a product.

ERRRRR! Wrong.

Small business owners aren't legally required to offer health care or any benefits for that matter (and to my knowledge, the health care bill doesn't change that. I will admit that I am not entirely positive about this). In fact, the average small business owner doesn't even make $500,000 a year - they make less than half that (http://online.wsj.com/article/S61019MEMOS.html?mod=RSS_Startup_Journal&sjrss=wsj).

Why are the wealthy bitching about this again? They own more of this nation's wealth then they have in the past 60 years. Remember what I said about rising income inequality? The wealthy have been doing great under the Republican policies of the past few decades and I find it ironic that tens of thousands of people die every year from things that could have been prevented while those with the most money, those who stand to lose the most from reform, dare to bitch about losing 5.2% of their wealth.

In the 1960's the capital gains tax used to be around 18 or 20%. Now it's down to 13% thanks to the Republicans. Additionally, there are so many loopholes in tax law that it's painfully easy to get around what is there.

Additionally, there has been a trend towards small businesses forcing their workers to work less than 40 hours a week, which means they don't have to be given the benefits of a full time job.



All I can say is fuck it. In 2 years when we are 2x as broke, our dollar is shit, we have 13% unemployment, and socialized government, I'm just going to laugh. And the democrats won't be able to blame anyone but themselves.
Ah, more claims that we are heading towards socialism. Cute.

If you had that attitude back when Bush first got into office you would have been laughed at by conservatives. Well, oddly enough, the Bush Administration got us into this mess. The only ones the Republicans have to blame for the current situation is themselves. But guess what? Passing blame around doesn't solve shit. Neither does refusing to compromise on an issue.


First step to a socialist america. California will be the first state to be converted, and then the others will fall like flies being hit by the hand of obama.
Again with the cries of socialism. What is this, the McCarthy hearings? Seriously, give it a rest.

There are two reasons California is going bankrupt right now - one, they haven't been able to get a reasonable budget through for years because Republican leadership keeps veto'ing anything that has to do with increasing taxation. However, they aren't the only ones to blame - the Democrats have been spending literally everything the state does bring in. What happened when all of a sudden the economy went down the shitty? Yeah, ouch, now we're borrowing more than we can export.

But wait, California has the largest economy of any state in the entire United States! Yeah, that's bad.

Socialism has nothing to do with any of California's problem; Democratic and Republican stupidity have everything to do with it. And no, there won't be socialism in California. There never has been and there never will be. What's more likely to happen is that the state will simply default on it's loans and maybe after that shock, politicians on both sides will get it through their thick skulls that they need to work together or the entire system is going to fail.


I recommend locking this thread. hth
I recommend keeping this thread open since there is actual intelligent debate going on for once. Something that is quite a rarity.

I'm tired and I have homework to do, so I'll give this thread a rest for a few days. Let more information come out regarding the bill.

[Bodzilla]

I recommend locking this thread. hth
i think i'll leave it open.

people have the right to shoot down your nonsense should they choose to.

[Ganon]

someone is gettin sat the fuck down hot damn

[paladin]

i think i'll leave it open.

people have the right to shoot down your nonsense should they choose to.

Much like your posting?

e:Lol look at this bitch (http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/house-bill-wrong-to-deny-abortion-coverage-in-health-care-bill/), she wants the government to pay for her abortion birth-control.

The words of our president:


I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.
Link (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-obama-jobs-health-care-ft/story?id=9033559)


This was also interesting



http://www.nfib.com/

Top 10 Reason why its a bad idea...

1. Employer Mandate - Research shows an employer mandate could cost 1.6 million jobs with more than 1 million of those jobs lost in the small business sector.

2. Payroll Tax Penalty - No matter how profitable or unprofitable a business might be in a given year, businesses are forced to pay this tax. The legislation requires that all employers with a payroll of $250,000 or more pay a payroll tax of up to 8 percent if they do not provide “qualified” health insurance to their employees. If an employer chooses to add a worker or increase wages, the tax rate on that employer may continue to go up. Simply put, this is a tax on job growth.
3. Pay-or-Play, Pay-and-Pay and Offer-and-Pay - The legislation establishes a confusing multi-part test that hits both employers who do and do not offer health insurance. A non-offering employer will pay a payroll tax penalty. Small businesses must 1) offer a qualified plan, as determined by a government-appointed board, 2) provide both individual and family coverage, and 3) meet minimum contribution levels, which could be more than they are already paying and can afford. If employees decline coverage and opt into the exchange, that employer is also penalized. All of these added expenses and new rules will simply lead to a greater chance that employees will not be able to keep the coverage they already have.

4. Mandated Minimum Plan with a Big Price Tag - Today, 86 percent of small businesses who offer coverage only offer one plan. Small employers and their employees want the ability to choose from a variety of affordable plans. H.R. 3200 reduces options available to small businesses. The bill gives a political board the power to determine whether an employer plan is “acceptable.” It does nothing to ensure that the new plans will be less expensive than what small employers are paying today and even requires small employers to cover certain services they are currently exempt from under federal law.

5. Exchange Limits Access to All Small Businesses - NFIB has long been a supporter of creating a simpler and more efficient way to shop for affordable insurance, like an exchange. However, this bill fails to provide guaranteed access to the exchange for employers with 21 or more employees. Providing increased access and more choices for some, but not all small business is not reform that small business can support.

6. An All Powerful Insurance Czar - The “Health Choices Commissioner” will have unbridled authority to institute rules and regulations that greatly affect small employers, including the ability to define who is and is not a full-time and part-time employee. Thresholds set forth by an unelected commissioner would be subject to continual changes, leaving small business owners in constant fear of ever-changing compliance requirements.

7. Government-Run Public Option - The public option would further compromise the viability of private insurance and would restrict choice to a single plan: the government-run plan. A reformed, private insurance marketplace can better provide businesses and employees with more affordable coverage and a sustainable choice of plans.

8. The Surtax: A Tax on Job Creation - The surtax imposes an additional tax on some businesses reducing after-tax profits at a time when small businesses are struggling to find capital. Because 75 percent of small businesses are structured as pass through entities, they pay their business taxes at the individual level. More than one-third of small businesses would face the tax. And those most likely to face this tax employ 33.5 million workers – more than one-quarter of the American workforce.

9. Jeopardizes Options That Small Employers Have Today - The legislation actually takes steps to limit the viability and use of health savings accounts (HSA) – jeopardizing a health insurance option that small business owners have and use today.

10. An Employer Tax Credit with Limited Value - While some small businesses can be helped by tax credits, the structure of the credit is critical to its successes. Under H.R. 3200, only small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would be eligible for a subsidy of up to 50 percent of the cost of health insurance for employees. Businesses that have an average annual salary per worker of $20,000 or less get the full subsidy; however, the average wage of full-time employees at businesses with fewer than 10 employees is more than $30,000, meaning that in many cases the value of the credit is already cut in half.



http://republicans.financialservices.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768


By empowering government bureaucrats to sit in judgment of the `incentive-based' compensation of every employee at thousands of financial institutions across the country, the bill represents another example of a `command and control' approach to economic policy that runs counter to America's free market traditions.Mr government knows whats best! Screw your free market...


Section 4 of the legislation would require the overwhelming majority of U.S. financial institutions (including but not limited to banks, credit unions, broker-dealers, and investment advisors) to disclose incentive-based compensation arrangements, and authorize Federal regulators to control and dictate all incentive-based compensation agreements for all employees of those firms, in order to prevent compensation arrangements that encourage `inappropriate risks' that `threaten the safety and soundness' of individual financial institutions or `have serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability.' The bill would grant broad, vague and undefined powers to Federal regulators to determine if incentive-based compensation structures at financial institutions are `aligned with sound risk management,' `structured to account for the time horizon of risks,' and `meet other criteria [the regulators] determine to be appropriate to reduce unreasonable incentives to take undue risks.'Wow, and they didn't even receive bailout money...

What's this? Click (http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/11/25/banks-forced-to-take-bailout/)

Banks being bulled by the government to take bailout money when they didn't need to so when the time came they could tell them what to dooooooo.

breath

They force you to take it and wont let you give it back!!! omg?
Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html)
Link (http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/27/news/economy/tarp_takeback/index.htm)
Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2008/oct/15/banking)


As introduced, H.R. 3269 would have subjected every financial institution--regardless of size, regardless of whether it is publicly traded, and regardless of whether it played any role in the financial turmoil of the recent past--to this unprecedented level of government micro-management of basic business practices.Oh my gosh...

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/08/health_care_bill_info_from_the.html

HR3200, the fundamentals of HR3962 being exposed line by line. I can't believe he read all 2500 pages!


Oh heres the actual Bill, posted after it was passed....
Link (http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf)


Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCareLovely coming from your leader!

A good read (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html).

You can call me fucking cute all you want, but this is going to shove us down a dark road.

[Bodzilla]

you can try.

but i think i'll leave legonaire handle you.

[paladin]

an aussie would let someone else do their work.

[Trulife8342]

Paladin, the amount of flaws in your arguement are truly astronomical. And yes Legion pretty much summed up everything I was just going to say. You pretty much think adding one more plan is going to raise unemployment? Insurance companies would hire more people in order to oh I don't know compete?

Oh yes, we are turning into a socialist nation, you know what. If that means people are actually getting cared for and rich people can no longer afford their 24 karot covered hummer than call this nation whatever you want to call it. Sometimes its just so obvious to see whats right man. You are talking about sick people getting help and no profit be involved..

[English Mobster]

Socialism? Ha.

We aren't going towards socialism, buddy.

Trust me; I'm a socialist myself.
I'm OK with Socialism and Anarchy. Socialism, everyone gets equal everything. No classes.
Anarchy, as long as there is SOME system in place (and it IS feasible, Spain had an anarchist government for some time before Britain flipped the fuck out and decided to depose a perfectly good and healthy government), is a very good system. Let the people rule, and let the wrath of the people be a deterrent for crime.

Anyway, continue on.

E: Before anyone goes THAT'S NOT WHAT SOCIALISM/ANARCHY IS HURR DURR, it is 1:22 AM, I have to get up in 5 hours, I am sleepy and have a major test first period, so excuse me if there's any flaws in my logic.

[Trulife8342]

Mob, I was speaking in sarcastic tones =P. Since Paladin said that's where we are heading, all I said was as long as it helps people I'm all for it.

[=sw=warlord]

Im all for socialist health care its about time human greed took the back burner and we acted like a social species for once.

[Neuro Guro]

-

[paladin]

haha