New Health Care Bill-US

[bakurachick]

Discuss it here

Good?

Bad?

[AllisonWalker]

Bad...

[mystra]

/me awaits the revolution now that the presidents and senate decided to shit on the constitution....yeah very bad

[AllisonWalker]

Hopefully it'll be gotten rid of when the Republicans take over the House.

[mystra]

it will take a lot of work for a repeal to go through even with a republican dominated house.

[Mokuba Kaiba's Girl]

I dunno~ It seems bad...

I mean, it sounded like a good idea at first, but now I think it's gonna go straight downhill and blow up in our faces

[gwtyler1985]

already working on how to bring down the government once my state succeeds, cause we can do that, and we'd end up just fine cause we have one of the best state economies in the country, plus an avid military unit made up of college graduates who are about as good as marines for 1/10 the work and price. we really are the greatest!!!

[gwtyler1985]

I dunno~ It seems bad...

I mean, it sounded like a good idea at first, but now I think it's gonna go straight downhill and blow up in our faces

it was always going to go straight downhill and blow up in our faces. the question is are you going to sit around and get left with the bill?

[Ljos]

You can lynch me for this, but I feel the need to ask this - probably stupid - question.

Why do you/most people think it's bad?

I seriously don't understand why so many people are against it; we've got a similar system over here and as far as I know, it usually works just fine.
If not for yourself, but also for the others, poorer people, that can't afford something similar.

Obviously, I haven't done much research, so I don't know much. Still, I'm curious about this (and I'm going to avoid some direct discussions by going offline now, seeing as it's midnight) and I'd like to know more.
Feel free to correct any wrong information.

[Mokuba Kaiba's Girl]

Well.... some of the past choices made didn't go down so well, and we ended up in a shitload of trouble xD Again and again and again, at times, I suppose.

[AllisonWalker]

You can lynch me for this, but I feel the need to ask this - probably stupid - question.

Why do you/most people think it's bad?

I seriously don't understand why so many people are against it; we've got a similar system over here and as far as I know, it usually works just fine.
If not for yourself, but also for the others, poorer people, that can't afford something similar.

Obviously, I haven't done much research, so I don't know much. Still, I'm curious about this (and I'm going to avoid some direct discussions by going offline now, seeing as it's midnight) and I'd like to know more.
Feel free to correct any wrong information.

To put some more prespective to it, Germany is around the size of Texas. Big populations don't work with socialism(universial health care, etc).

[Lord Shmeckie]

You can lynch me for this, but I feel the need to ask this - probably stupid - question.

Why do you/most people think it's bad?

I seriously don't understand why so many people are against it; we've got a similar system over here and as far as I know, it usually works just fine.
If not for yourself, but also for the others, poorer people, that can't afford something similar.

Obviously, I haven't done much research, so I don't know much. Still, I'm curious about this (and I'm going to avoid some direct discussions by going offline now, seeing as it's midnight) and I'd like to know more.
Feel free to correct any wrong information.

The biggest problem is that we can't afford it. Social Security and Medicaid were already running out of money. Medicaid being especially bad.

There's also a constitutionality issue in all this, as it essentially forces each citizen to buy, or in some way acquire, health care, whether they want it or not. Forcing citizens to buy a service goes directly against the constitution. This is also the reason some states are going to be suing the federal gov't once this is signed into law.

These would be the two biggest complaints about the bill. Does healthcare need to be fixed? God yes, it does. But this was the wrong way to go about it.

[AllisonWalker]

The biggest problem is that we can't afford it. Social Security and Medicaid were already running out of money. Medicaid being especially bad.

There's also a constitutionality issue in all this, as it essentially forces each citizen to buy, or in some way acquire, health care, whether they want it or not. Forcing citizens to buy a service goes directly against the constitution. This is also the reason some states are going to be suing the federal gov't once this is signed into law.

These would be the two biggest complaints about the bill. Does healthcare need to be fixed? God yes, it does. But this was the wrong way to go about it.

QFT

[MrsSallyBakura]

Another problem with the bill is that regular American people haven't exactly been informed about what the bill actually does...

I'm not entirely against the idea of national health care, and I absolutely agree that the current (old?) system needed to be fixed, but as it stands, I don't really know if I agree with what's being brought to the table.

I feel like the regular American people need a say in this.

[Fat1Fared]

-Walks into the room wonders if worth the effort, decides to have ago despite knowing how futile his efforts will be

Ljos, what you need to understand is that whatever reason they come up with, is in short a media fuelled form of self vindication of their stance (i doubt most even know how bill works and are less informed about its acts than most british poeple are,) because the money this will cost them is nothing compared to things like their Armed forces and the constitution is something which only seems to come out when suites them, what this all comes down to one thing, the cultural inhabitation and socialisation within the USA, though i hate to generalise and be so judgemental (and do not get me wrong I know the english have own cultural problems, but this is one to do with US, so how it stands) know this will not cover all, most of the users of this site will be middle class people and so their socialisation will be one that, every man should look out for number one (which is ironic when look how many of them will also be Christian, but that is whole other thing) and if you cannot do that, then this is your own failing, now despite the obvious failings of this limited beleif which most other western countries try to reject, this is the one they will hold and it will fine for them to hold it, because quite simply, what do they care if have to pay for health care, they have it payed for already by their middle class standing, and all this means to these people is higher taxes for them (well mostly their parents actually but still) and no personal benefits, outside the obvious, but those are the very ones which conflicts with the very way their raised, I hate to generalise, but the USA is a very cut throat soceity in this regard

The problem people who are not covered are so far removed from them, that well they are forgettable and all they see is the limited view their world gives them, which backs up this idea

-I await my onslaught

[AllisonWalker]

Oh Fared...
>_>
<_<
60,943,912 English vs 307,006,550 Americans.

You can't use European or English principals in the US. It's illogical.

[David Bowie]

It's a step in the right direct. I'd say it's almost worth it purely on the basis of the elimination of exclusion based on preexisting conditions. The bill does little if anything to address tort reform though, one of the biggest contributors to health care costs in the USA.

[AllisonWalker]

And what exactly is "right" to you?

[David Bowie]

And what exactly is "right" to you?

That which is the good and the just.

[AllisonWalker]

That which is the good and the just.

It's all perspective. Some think bombing abortion clinics is the good and the just.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Oh Fared...
>_>
<_<
60,943,912 English vs 307,006,550 Americans.

You can't use European or English principals in the US. It's illogical.

I would say that maybe there could be a way to implement health care within state government instead of the federal government, but I do nooooooot trust Michigan to be able to take care of our health care.

[bakurachick]

im glad people are discussing this now. wasnt sure if it would gain interest or not

[AllisonWalker]

I would say that maybe there could be a way to implement health care within state government instead of the federal government, but I do nooooooot trust Michigan to be able to take care of our health care.

That, and many states just can't afford it. Look at California.
Or states with large populations of illegals. You have to keep people from stealing health care they didn't pay for in taxes.
This is why I don't like it. There's no such thing as "free" health care. You're still paying for it, but less control over your policy.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I would love the idea of national health care... if it weren't for the little bugs in the system.

I heard that in Canada, the waitlist for getting gastric bypass is huge. Even on our old health care, a friend of mine is still on a waitlist for a kidney. I can't imagine how much longer it would take for her to get one if the waitlist for it suddenly skyrocketed.

[AllisonWalker]

I love the idea of people being responsible for themselves.
>_>
<_<
Run a hospital like a business and things will become cheaper.

[mystra]

until last year i was never able to afford health care in general. right now i know a lot of people who cannot afford it or their job does not offer it. one would think on the service that a national plan for EVERYONE would be a good thing...but it's not. a few point issues that most have problems with (albeit since we don't have a bill to even look at these are just the things given to media attention)
1. the bill makes those with more monies pay to provide others with healthcare.
2. abortion will now be covered. whether you believe in it or not it's still technically a non-essential (barring the cases where the featus is killing the woman) surgery like breast implants.
3. if you choose NOT to get healthcare you WILL be charged penalties. that's like telling city folk who don't drive and take subways/trains/buses they have to pay a fine.
4. those that already have what is now going to be known as private healthcare will be taxed for having it. those taxes will in turn pay for the care of those on nationalized healthcare.
5. nationalized healthcare will be providing free healthcare to illegal immigrants. that means the money americans have to pay into the taxes go to these people.
you will be penalized for having healthcare, you will be penalized for not having healthcare....IF you do not choose the government option.

onto the next issue which is constitutional rights. obama and the senate decided to take a piss on the very values, ethics and rules that have governed america for a couple hundred years to get a bill passed that more than 63% of americans DO NOT WANT. obama yelled about bush bending rules to suit himself and yet now when he wants something passed he's done far far worse. the government has no right and no legal grounds to force us into this healthcare situation and there will be dire repercussions. whether or not states secede only time will tell but there is already a lawsuit in the works by some senators and others on this.

another big issue with the bill was it was passed BEFORE it was finished and obama has stated that whatever changes being made will NOT need to be voted on now and he has the final say on changes. this is constitutionally impossible! the president has no power to change a bill. he simply signs it or vetoes it in which case it goes back to the house for fixing. this bill skipped many steps needed to create a bill and is in no way legal by american law. for those of you that don't know how an american bill is passed into law here's a decent chart on it: http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg900_wnFm-J3BGmQwBEolAIfUw1S01HWMFhc9Fgn2bl1Ya4LKLW7TRZA8oCB rx-IYg7V3FDJxz9qtZ5DYjDd6m1JOQZlvWeo_90V_ULAImKBlIzmk QOUTOuWg4caOfubFBpOvL&q=cache%3ADoCUQYermKoJ%3Amercury.educ.kent.edu%2Fd atabase%2Feureka%2Fdocuments%2FHowABillBecomesALaw _TeacherAndStudent.pdf%20how%20a%20bill%20becomes% 20a%20law%20flowchart&docid=9150bd33d43f0de139d46e05ae2b6ad1&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=800

@Sally: the problem is no one listened to the people. this is the first time in american history that the american people were NOT heard on an issue involving the entire nation.

[AllisonWalker]

^Exactly.

[MrsSallyBakura]

@Sally: the problem is no one listened to the people. this is the first time in american history that the american people were NOT heard on an issue involving the entire nation.

Oh Obama... YES WE CAN, he said. Moar lyk YES I CAN

[kudos]

That, and many states just can't afford it. Look at California.
Or states with large populations of illegals. You have to keep people from stealing health care they didn't pay for in taxes.
This is why I don't like it. There's no such thing as "free" health care. You're still paying for it, but less control over your policy.

yep. as a cali resident, i can attest to our epic failure at managing money as a state :P

edit: ya mystra. you seem to have it all down, and I agree with you. ^ ^
the only point i'm not sure on is whether illegal immigrants would actually fall under the new health care system... someone was telling me the other day that they don't... haven't researched that point yet for myself.

[Fat1Fared]

looks at the in factual and rumoured filled post by Msytra and cries at the irony of how these very words are the reason it will fail, not because its bad idea that can't work, but because the people it is going to help are so against being helped they will make it fail, I mean seriously how is it that poeple in countries like Britian know more factual information about this bill than county it is going to brought into, I just want to cry for you poor people, I mean it actually makes me (mr neo-libel, every culture is right because of its subjective rights) pity you,

@Sally: the problem is no one listened to the people. this is the first time in american history that the american people were NOT heard on an issue involving the entire nation.


-This line alone proves there is no hope what so ever, so I leave this talk and pray that i am wrong and you don't destroy your chance at what can be a good thing if let it (no one believes public funded health is perfect, but it does lot of good)

[AllisonWalker]

Fared, you make my head hurt.

[MrsSallyBakura]

This line alone proves there is no hope what so ever,

Hope in what? Getting our brains back on our head? lol

Listen, The United States and England are not the same country. What works in some countries may not work in other countries.

If mystra's post is so full of rumors, then why don't you supply us with the facts?

I suppose that's part of the problem. If all we get are rumors, then that means we're not getting any facts. So how are we supposed to support a bill that the government doesn't want to share with us?

[AllisonWalker]

Listen, The United States and England are not the same country. What works in some countries may not work in other countries.

Like the insane population difference.

[kudos]

Like the insane population difference.

and the culture and history

[MrsSallyBakura]

The healthcare bill might not even contain a lot of the same language as the healthcare plan in other countries that support national healthcare.

[AllisonWalker]

I don't think the US even wants to model after Europe anyways.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I love Europe. But I don't know anything about their politics, lol.

So I don't really have an opinion on that.

[Fat1Fared]

Hope in what? Getting our brains back on our head? lol


just this having any logical meaning, the fact is sally, I could go through all these things and pick out by bit by bit....etc and explain how population differences, money, constitutions, abortions and all the other things which are flying around are ether being twist or misunderstood, but fact of the matter is, the thought of it alone, tires me, as I know in the end i wouldn't do this for fun of debating, but because this is something I have serious concern over and yet whatever I did wouldn't make blind bit of difference and that what I'm saying wouldn't even change the heads of the people on this site let alone an actual meaningful change.

-So rather than boil my own brains and just get into a needless fight (like with the parents thread, which has conclusively told me once and for all not to get involved in things i believe in, on this site) I will just site back and let history play out as it always does with a condersending air of supercilious scorn towards a race which will never help itself grow, because too busy living in the filth that is its own past

=Don't get me wrong I know I'm copping out and being coward, but for once in my life I am going to back down and just let it happen

[MrsSallyBakura]

I'm not saying that there aren't points that are being misunderstood or twisted in some way, but you have to admit, we don't know who to believe in this case.

I do want to know why, specifically, population wouldn't make a difference, according to you.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

I am on a fixed income and have to work a part time job in order to make enough to cover basic expenses NOT related to healthcare. For healthcare, I have something called Medicaid. Medicaid is healthcare coverage that is available for those that can't afford it otherwise.

IMHO, a person shouldn't have to be poor to receive healthcare. If a bill gets passed, that could give everyone healthcare like Medicaid I think it would make that much more sense than what's going on now.

[MrsSallyBakura]

IMHO, a person shouldn't have to be poor to receive healthcare.

*nods*

Rich people are people too.

[gwtyler1985]

looks at the in factual and rumoured filled post by Msytra and cries at the irony of how these very words are the reason it will fail, not because its bad idea that can't work, but because the people it is going to help are so against being helped they will make it fail, I mean seriously how is it that poeple in countries like Britian know more factual information about this bill than county it is going to brought into, I just want to cry for you poor people, I mean it actually makes me (mr neo-libel, every culture is right because of its subjective rights) pity you,

Quote:
@Sally: the problem is no one listened to the people. this is the first time in american history that the american people were NOT heard on an issue involving the entire nation.
-This line alone proves there is no hope what so ever, so I leave this talk and pray that i am wrong and you don't destroy your chance at what can be a good thing if let it (no one believes public funded health is perfect, but it does lot of good)
Last edited by Fat1Fared; 57 Minutes Ago at 10:01 PM.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message


fared, i know that a publicly funded health plan is a good thing, but having it forced on an unwilling public won't help us see that. if this bill were to spend some time in congress, i'm sure that they can come up with something that everyone can agree to. i'm also certain that in this time, the states may come up with a few solutions to other problems like power (if only we could adopt a few nuclear plants for the east coast and one for california...) and our economy in general so as to make the expected tax increase from this less of a burden. as one of the "self professed christians" i would like to paraphrase something from the book of Acts: "if this cause is not for the general good, then it will certainly fail. However, if it is, then it will keep coming and eventually succeed." all i'm saying is that now is not the right time and the system proposed needs work before it can successfully be adopted by the american people (and by american people, i mean those who fear that they would be paying for it for the most part who keep threatening to succeed and move to other countries).

and if you want better, too bad. i'm from texas, the state that everybody hate with the regressive tax and the relatively good economy. it's the best that my stereotypical cowboy mind can come up with.

EDIT: ok, i've had my say. go back to badmouthing me without actually referring to me as an individual.

[mystra]

looks at the in factual and rumoured filled post by Msytra

by all means please enlighten on these rumours. you do understand the meaning of the word i hope. given that my statements are based in what the american government has allowed the media to dissemble to the population i'm unclear where the rumours lie. i had the opportunity to read the second draft of the original bill. while it took me 3 days to finish it and i in no way understood all the legal jargon i can tell you it wasn't a very heartening story. as i stated earlier no one has a clear cut document to go by. neither house or the senate have a bill that's been finalized for viewing.

i personally think providing healthcare to those that deserve it is a good thing. albeit the word there is deserved and i do not think the federal government needs to be involved. there is no clause for states or people to opt out of it. i honestly can't imagine being monetarily punished because others are too lazy to get up off their arses or create semi-fictitious maladies to justify taking more of my money. i've got fibromyalgia and at it's peak i was told to stop working by my doctor and take the money from the state instead. albeit part of that is my money but a good portion is not. i saw absolutely no reason to filch off of a system when i could still function in my job (though with cut back hours and a lot of pain). there are too many people filching when it's not needed. things like that need to be fixed and we do not need nationalized healthcare to do so. the current (or past) system just needs to be fixed/amended.

my truest and most vocal points are the fact that the constitution has been pissed on. i guess the simple fact that the common people do not know the procedure on how a bill/law is passed is the part that pisses me off. the healthcare debate is no longer simply about healthcare. it's about our very core laws being ignored for one mans horrible legacy and it's not even legal.

as i said before i await the revolution.

[killshot]

Bill just passed.

[gwtyler1985]

i would like to point out one of the possible consequences of this bill. it'ss a scenario that my college professor pointed out when we were going over financial aspects of socialism (which you must admit shares the same principle of group taxing). the problem with this is that the poor cannot pay for their share of the taxes for this, so it is then passed up the chain to the rich. the very richest feel the brunt of the taxing for this, but as they are rich, they have the option of escaping to another country leaving the bill to the next richest. this keeps going down the chain until it falls upon the people who could afford their share but can't afford anymore, aka the middle class. they are now responsible for paying for the shares of those below them as well as themselves. they cannot escape because their income is focused on maintaining their current lifestyle of being middle class. once these people pay for the shares of the poor, then they themselves are poor. then no one can pay and the entirety of the country comes to a halt. this is the general law of unconditional group taxing.

in this case, the people who are talking about secession and revolution are the people who are escaping

EDIT: this is merely my attempt to present an appeal to logic, as opposed to the equally sensible appeals to ethics and the overflow of appeals to emotion.

[mystra]

in this case, the people who are talking about secession and revolution are the people who are escaping
i'm a single parent living in a bedroom with my kid in my parent's house. i can't afford to move out and i can barely afford the healthcare offered by my job. i'm in no way capable of escape but i'm damned well gonna fight for what i believe is right and fair.

btw i'm one of those people who could be on welfare and state aide for health reasons and because of being a single parent. the difference is i've got the drive to work and take care of my own instead of sitting on my arse taking money out of other people's pockets when i don't need it. the system needs to be fixed we don't need more problems added to it.

[Eia]

The fact that this bill has passed is a good thing.

Now how it's actually implemented in real life is going to be the real issue. I swear the major problem with this bill has been partisan politics because the republicans don't like the fact that the democrats are running congress right now. GTFO and grow the hell up.

And the abortion debate? Really not relevant. Someone started that crap just to cause more arguments.

Now I can go get insurance because my pre-existing health problems won't prevent me from it and I don't have to watch as people go bankrupt and lose their life savings after coming down with a life-threatening illness.

Most of the people who have been arguing against this bill have private insurance - which WON'T be changing that much beside adhering to the new federal guidelines. Or people who already have insurance through the government because they work for it in some way. Or teenagers who don't understand that now they won't have to go out and buy their own insurance until they're 26 now. Retarded much? Yes.

And of all the wank I've heard about this bill, the most hilarious is the one about people wanting to move to Canada now. Because, you know, not like they don't already have universal, state run health care.

[AllisonWalker]

The fact that this bill has passed is a good thing.

Yes, ignoring the Constitution is a good thing.

-eye roll-

And before someone starts on the "it's so old, who cares" arguement, the Constitution is suppose to protect us from the government. I guess if you like the idea of the government using you like a bitch, move abroad and have fun with that.

[killshot]

Yes, ignoring the Constitution is a good thing.

-eye roll-

Cause it was just fine when Bush shit all over the Constitution, miright? Now that Obama is actually trying to help people, you suddenly decide the Constitution is important?

This bill is a good thing. Stop letting Fox News tell you what your politics should be.

[AllisonWalker]

Cause it was just fine when Bush shit all over the Constitution, miright? Now that Obama is actually trying to help people, you suddenly decide the Constitution is important?

This bill is a good thing. Stop letting Fox News tell you what your politics should be.

Helping people by raising taxes when we're in an economic recession? Or forcing quasi-socialism on people by bullying members of the House into voting for an unfinished bill?

Come on, Killshot.

[killshot]

Helping people by raising taxes when we're in an economic recession? Or forcing quasi-socialism on people by bullying members of the House into voting for an unfinished bill?

Come on, Killshot.

The US has some of the lowest taxes in the Western World. Things cost money. You can't expect the government to be able to do anything if you don't want to pay for anything. Socialism isn't a dirty word. The most successful countries in the world have elements of socialism in their public policy. If you know how insurance works, you know that it makes more sense to have healthcare run by a non-profit entity (the government.)

The only bullying going on was from the Republicans who have absolutely refused to work with the Democrats on ANYTHING. They have essentially voted down anything proposed by the Obama administration and have impeded progress every step of the way. Maybe the bill could have been improved if congress could just drop the partisan politics and focused on a real issue for once in their career.

[AllisonWalker]

The US has some of the lowest taxes in the Western World. Things cost money. You can't expect the government to be able to do anything if you don't want to pay for anything. Socialism isn't a dirty word. The most successful countries in the world have elements of socialism in their public policy. If you know how insurance works, you know that it makes more sense to have healthcare run by a non-profit entity (the government.)

The only bullying going on was from the Republicans who have absolutely refused to work with the Democrats on ANYTHING. They have essentially voted down anything proposed by the Obama administration and have impeded progress every step of the way. Maybe the bill could have been improved if congress could just drop the partisan politics and focused on a real issue for once in their career.

1) Socialism doesn't work in large populations that are plagued with illegals who cheat the system. I perfer my private insurance I have control over than allowing the gov't to tell me what I can and can't have.

2) They don't have to. Republicans don't even have enough numbers to do anything, it was on the fence Democrats who were forced into voting for the Health care bill(that's not yet finished).

[killshot]

1) Socialism doesn't work in large populations that are plagued with illegals who cheat the system. I perfer my private insurance I have control over than allowing the gov't to tell me what I can and can't have.


Guess what? You've been paying for illegal immigrants to get healthcare for years. They don't refuse treatment to anyone in an emergency and the bill is picked up by the government. This bill doesn't actually affect the money being spent on illegal immigrants.

What do you have against illegal immigrants getting healthcare anyway? Should they all die because you aren't willing to pay a little more in taxes? Doesn't everyone deserve treatment when they get sick regardless of citizenship?

[AllisonWalker]

Guess what? You've been paying for illegal immigrants to get healthcare for years. They don't refuse treatment to anyone in an emergency and the bill is picked up by the government. This bill doesn't actually affect the money being spent on illegal immigrants.

What do you have against illegal immigrants getting healthcare anyway? Should they all die because you aren't willing to pay a little more in taxes? Doesn't everyone deserve treatment when they get sick regardless of citizenship?

1) No, it's just allowing the problem to continue. I've said this before, hospitals should ruin like a private business.

Nope. :8V:

[killshot]

Nope. :8V:

You're a terrible person.

[AllisonWalker]

You're a terrible person.

There's private charities for that sort of thing.

[Fat1Fared]

Killshot, why do you think I didn't even bother with this thread and if anyone worth talking to about this subject matter, I did so in private, its because some poeple don't actually care about facts and complex truths and talking logically about these things, they just like putting down the same divisive views over and over again, there like Holyshadow, only difference being, he was entertaining and could actually could make creative and interesting debates, rather putting the shame single lined view over and over again, no matter what you said

-Mate it is a shame as reason this section is probably dieing, is because of this, but I would just give up before get heartburn and hope these poeple are only winding you up, rather than really believing these things, because if do actually believe these things, it is a sad world we live in, still

[AllisonWalker]

Take your superiority complex somewhere else, Fared. Seriously, it's so obnoxious.

[LiftedShadows]

Maybe this is a bit late to jump in on this, but I have a few issues with the bill.

As has already been discussed, the current bill mandates that all citizens get health care or they will be fined (unless they are too poor to purchase health care). I really dislike the whole "demanding that everyone get health care" for obvious reasons stated, a.k.a unconstitutional. I understand that some things Bush did were unconstitutional and I didn't support those acts either...nor do I think that simply because something is being done to help others, it is acceptable despite breaking the founding rules.

I also think it is kinda ridiculous that the government feels it is necessary to shake its finger at me if I decide I don't want health care. So I don't want health care. My call. Not really the government's job to fine me for it.

That's my main issue, really. There are a few others, but that's my biggest problem with it. >>;

[gwtyler1985]

i'm going to go sit over in the corner with fared. while she is having to argue with middle class republican chirstians with a superiority complex, i'm having to argue with every other hard headed person on this thread, and as none of them have the time to listen to me between saying i'm wrong and calling me a terrible person (now at an accelerated rate after the bill has passed and the fors who only focus on why i'm wrong have arrived), and as i don't have the energy to deal with these people, i'm just going to shut up, and sit in the corner. have fun butting heads over and over again, cause i'm stepping out of the way.

[ThePRPD]

AllisonWalker is a republican?

[MrsSallyBakura]

Take your superiority complex somewhere else, Fared. Seriously, it's so obnoxious.

Mod time.

Stop.

You don't listen to the other side of the debate and you're acting like your opinion is the only one worth listening to.

Reality check. It's not.

Telling someone that they have a superiority complex is not an argument nor is it debate-worthy. It does not belong in this thread. It also shows your own superiority complex. Stop being so arrogant and holier-than-thou or else you will gain no respect from the people in this sub-forum.

These kinds of threads are meant for debate and critical thinking. They're not meant for snobby one-liners. I'll be watching you in these threads.

*pulls hair out*

This thread is about to boil over. So let's calm things down a bit. Let my mini-explosion be the last... *crosses fingers*

Maybe this is a bit late to jump in on this, but I have a few issues with the bill.

As has already been discussed, the current bill mandates that all citizens get health care or they will be fined (unless they are too poor to purchase health care). I really dislike the whole "demanding that everyone get health care" for obvious reasons stated, a.k.a unconstitutional. I understand that some things Bush did were unconstitutional and I didn't support those acts either...nor do I think that simply because something is being done to help others, it is acceptable despite breaking the founding rules.

I also think it is kinda ridiculous that the government feels it is necessary to shake its finger at me if I decide I don't want health care. So I don't want health care. My call. Not really the government's job to fine me for it.

That's my main issue, really. There are a few others, but that's my biggest problem with it. >>;

Yaaaaay smart post.

I also agree that just because Bush disobeyed the constitution, it doesn't mean that other politicians get to do the same thing. If Obama is supposed to be better than Bush, then he shouldn't be more-or-less disregarding the constitution either.

I'm not opposed to national health care. I just think that they passed this thing way too soon.

As for the abortion issue, I've heard so many stories left-and-right about the whole ordeal. My roommate and I are going out to eat later this evening with friends who have read into the abortion issue in health care and they're the kind of guys who like to get their facts straight and don't rely on emotionally strung propaganda as their news sources. Maybe a more proper debate can start about that once I hear some of these things.

[mystra]

As for the abortion issue, I've heard so many stories left-and-right about the whole ordeal. My roommate and I are going out to eat later this evening with friends who have read into the abortion issue in health care and they're the kind of guys who like to get their facts straight and don't rely on emotionally strung propaganda as their news sources. Maybe a more proper debate can start about that once I hear some of these things.

i'd be interested to hear about more than what the media has told us. as i said i have only read the second draft of the initial bill and honestly i've no desire to try and get through another one any time soon. maybe my stupidity but there's enough law jargon in it to make a lawyer's head spin! please keep us informed.

[MrsSallyBakura]

No, don't feel stupid about all the law jargon. It exists just to confuse people, IMO.

It takes me 2 or 3 times to get through a reading with law jargon.

[Fat1Fared]

-sally in that one, I believe is only fair I take some blame as well as Allison, as though I was not actually directing it at her personally, but a raise in insubstantial debates in general, there was an indications towards her which she could fairly take offense at, however my comment was more attaining to the fact that some poeple seem to constantly state their opinion without stating anything to back it up or at least explain why believe what do and this really doesn't invite interesting talks.

-I am not saying that these poeple need to go into the depth I do, but it would help their posts and points greatly if said more just "I believe.........breaches constitution......" for this to invite any meaningful debates needs a reason why, I mean continuing to use this example, many posters have not even stated the part of the Article it "supposely" breaches, let alone the direct use it has here (use the word supposely, because to say it is wiliful breach is unfair here)"

[gwtyler1985]

-sally\-I am not saying that these poeple need to go into the depth I do, but it would help their posts and points greatly if said more just "I believe.........breaches constitution......" for this to invite any meaningful debates needs a reason why, I mean continuing to use this example, many posters have not even stated the part of the Article it "supposely" breaches, let alone the direct use it has here (use the word supposely, because to say it is wiliful breach is unfair here)"

as things have calmed down now, i believe that now i might be able to get a word in edgewise if i come back.

after having looked at the united states federal constitution, i cannot find grounds for the word unconstitutional. i would like for people using "unconstituional" to provide a specific passage in the consititution's articles or amendments in it's bill of rights so that i may confirm this.

[gwtyler1985]

actually, as the bill has passed with apparent consent of both houses and the president, there is nothing that i can find in our constitution that would suggest that it is unconstitutional. as this condition must be filled for the supreme court to stop it, i think that we have a new, if admittedly harsh, law. after this, the only thing that can put this law out of place is if the majority of the doctors in this country stop practising in protest.

EDIT: this in no way indicates my personal feelings. i am just conceding to logic and probability. as i am typing this i am playing "run for the hills" by iron maiden very loudly. i am sad about this, but i cannot see any legal way to oppose this any longer other than my own personal opinion.

[LiftedShadows]

I suppose I should be more specific in my "unconstitutional" argument. For that, I do apologize.

Congress is allowed under Section 8 of Article I to regulate commerce across the country, from the federal level (obviously), which is what the argument behind them being able to require that people take part in health insurance is based on. However, regulating commerce is completely different than fining people for not participating in commerce. It is not within Congress's powers to fine individuals for not participating in commerce, which is what purchasing insurance is. The only imposing, financially-speaking, that Congress can do is taxes, which is entirely different matter.

Hence why I feel that Congress is overstepping their powers, as granted in the Constitution, and that the bill is therefore unconstitutional.

If I was unclear at all, or was incorrect in something, please correct me. I want to make sure my facts are straight.

[MightPiccolo]

Another problem with the bill is that regular American people haven't exactly been informed about what the bill actually does...

I'm not entirely against the idea of national health care, and I absolutely agree that the current (old?) system needed to be fixed, but as it stands, I don't really know if I agree with what's being brought to the table.

I feel like the regular American people need a say in this.

Me being one of those Americans who don't know what the bill actually does I'm so stupid!):smiley6:(, all I hear is that our rates are gonna go up

[MightPiccolo]

I can't even type right!

[gwtyler1985]

I suppose I should be more specific in my "unconstitutional" argument. For that, I do apologize.

Congress is allowed under Section 8 of Article I to regulate commerce across the country, from the federal level (obviously), which is what the argument behind them being able to require that people take part in health insurance is based on. However, regulating commerce is completely different than fining people for not participating in commerce. It is not within Congress's powers to fine individuals for not participating in commerce, which is what purchasing insurance is. The only imposing, financially-speaking, that Congress can do is taxes, which is entirely different matter.

Hence why I feel that Congress is overstepping their powers, as granted in the Constitution, and that the bill is therefore unconstitutional.

If I was unclear at all, or was incorrect in something, please correct me. I want to make sure my facts are straight.

actually, i think you may be right. i also looked into court cases relating to the article you mentioned and i think that fining people for not taking part in commerce might fall under a precedent of the supreme court decision from US vs. Lopez concerning federal action in response to individual conduct.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I wonder if there's a way we can actually get the (so far) final copy of the bill linked in this thread. That way we can all have a look at what it actually says. Even if we don't completely understand the legal jargon, we can help each other out in understanding the bill and then discussing the bill bit by bit so that we can gather as many facts as we can.

Even if we all differ in opinions regarding whether or not this bill should have been passed, I think we can all agree that we need to know the facts and not rely on rumors to support our arguments.

[gwtyler1985]

not to divert from the discussion, but the bill has already been passed.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I know that it has, but not everyone agrees that it should have been. That's the drift I'm getting at.

[Fat1Fared]

Ok, now this is actually looking at facts, First guys your not going to get fined for not using public sercive, this merely a levy tax being placed on private services (if use niether will not tax, you refuse treatment will not tax....etc, its just a tax on your normal payment to private section, which gos driectly back to area taxed, now not saying I like levy taxes, but these are common things now day and the juistication for them is that means will not have to add taxes else where and least be happy you know where ths tax is going and even if didn't have this levy tax, money would have to come from other areas, so <shrugs> this will raise your taxes, but the way obama has done it, at least it a direct way, so someone in future cannot start pulling money out the sercive second feels like it, which is weakness of our health sercive here, politicans constantly change how much goes into it)

=Now the whole unconstitutional agrument is like most of these anti-agruments, a half-truth being spread by lobbieres who is spend time helping poeple rather than weakening everything may actually do something good.
-There claiming this will be uncontitutional way of raising money, but first it is not actually blocked by contitution from doing this, because very gray area as where this blocking line actually falls in your constitution and secondarly there is justifed agrument for using this gray because the restrictions that were placed in it, simply never made a prevision for changes in soceity and techongy, other than to simply leave a gray area within the wording as to what can actually be taxed for/on and what cannot

[gwtyler1985]

well, shoot. that would seem to be the case. after looking over things again, our Section 8 Commerce clause and Supreme Court precedents that liftedshadows and i brought up earlier do not cover taxing, so on this front, all people can do is complain that they don't like it, which we shall not do on this thread. fared, can i ask you where you got your information? i'd like to make a copy to take home.

[Fat1Fared]

Well, I read the constitution and compared it to the bill, now here is cover of bill

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

(of course, this the first copy I found, so not sure how in date this one is)

and believe if remember correctly you want "individual responsibility section" which starts on page 296

-Basically says you will be taxed depending on what your health cover is in comparison to what your income is and if don't have health insunance, then will given tax to match that, those with it, will have levy on it, but are encouaged to have insaunce if can

PS though didn't realise also taxing your employers lol, no wounder met such hate

PS This is likw 1990 pages, so only open it if got good internet

[MrsSallyBakura]

I was just about to ask when the last time it was updated.

Because I found this version as well: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Last updated in October 2009.

[gwtyler1985]

i think that they are the same. i looked at the date on fared's and it's also Oct. 2009

and this is a copy of the bill accepted by the house of representatives. from what i've heard, there are a few differences between bill H.R 3962 and the bill accepted by the senate, and this is what sparked some of the controversy.

[MrsSallyBakura]

and this is a copy of the bill accepted by the house of representatives. from what i've heard, there are a few differences between bill H.R 3962 and the bill accepted by the senate, and this is what sparked some of the controversy.

So... are you saying that there are two different versions of this bill floating around that the House and the Senate agree with their own versions?

So which version are Americans going off of?

I could be way off in understanding what you're saying, though.

[gwtyler1985]

yes, except that they aren't floating around now because one of them has been passed.

EDIT: and as we have yet to see the finished bill, i can't tell what congress actually decided on.

[Fat1Fared]

Sally, you would be amazed how often this happens, (though less in english fused system, still happens a lot) it scary, but until the bill is officially passed, it is not finished and so a lot of time it having little changes made to it, right up to moment of passing, then it will given to friendly legal man to write up the finial version of it, however this is will basically be whatever it was just before passed, of course, for you, I am not sure how quickly that gets released, but with bill as contentious as this, any major changes would have been quickly brought to everyone eyes, whether you get told correct information about it, is another thing though

[ThePRPD]

Is the Health Care Bill bad (aside from the fact we would get fined)?

[TitanAura]

If you are reading this post right now, your complaints about financial problems are simply invalid. You have a roof over your head and enough money to own a computer and have internet. These would be considered luxuries in many less fortunate countries. But we have a god complex and believe we are flawless and so we extend a helping hand to other countries like Haiti but what does it take for us to notice? Catastrophic disasters. But when it's within our borders we turn a blind eye and ignore it *cough cough*. After all, we are perfect. But enough about how the USA can go fuck itself.

Will this bill fix everything wrong with health care? No.
Will it improve the overall health of our nation as a whole? Maybe.
Should we continue to allow private business to hold sway over medical finances? FUCK NO.

People who could have been saved have been sentenced to death by insurance companies because it would have been too expensive. If you can AFFORD health insurance on your own dime you have enough to pay a government required tax. If businesses were able to drop health care plans for their employees because national health care was available instead do you realize how much money those companies would then be able to invest in creating jobs and expanding their market share? Huh? Oh wait nevermind, every CEO in the nation just tripled their own salaries. I guess we're all fucked.

[gwtyler1985]

alright, as we have another guest in the mood to resort to pathos even though the debate is over, i'm going back to my corner. same procedure as last time: pm me for objective conversation.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Someone in my choir was talking about the bill today and she said that it was suspicious that they signed the bill at 2 in the morning and that absolutely no Republicans voted for it. 34 Democrats opposed the bill.

Now, I know some of you can say that all Republicans are shitty politicians or something. But come on... there are liberal Republicans and not all of them are, like, horrible people. I think to say that they are encourages the gap between Democrats and Republicans that does nooooooooot need to increase in size.

I'm all for health care reform. I don't think that private insurance companies should run everything and make people not receive health care for stupid reasons like pre-existing conditions or something like that. I more or less wonder if government-run health care is the only other alternative, or if there's actually something else that we can come up with that people haven't thought of yet.

[Turtlicious]

like sensu beans?

[Eia]

The Obama administration took advantage of having a complete, fillibuster proof democratic majority in order to get health care reform passed. Without it, nothing, and I mean nothing would have gotten done due to partisan politics. The bill was passed at 2 am because that's how long it took to get through all the voting. The senate is voting on the bill right now and it's going to take an all nighter + most of tomorrow to pass it because every single republican has proposed an amendment to stall the bill, and they have to vote each and every single one down. So that's 42 amendments? Yep. Plus 8 hours of debate time.

If it had been a republican dominated administration, they would have done the exact same thing given their position if it had been one of their goals. The bill would have looked different, but the politics used to pass it would have been the same.

I have seen so much abuse through the private health care systems that I don't fucking care if people think the US is becoming socialist. The US has been socialist since the new deal in the 1930s.

Even if this huge bill was not passed, something desperately needed to be done to change the rules and regulations of the insurance industry. When I was a kid, you could get by on your OWN, without having to have insurance, and you could afford medical treatments. Why do I know this? I was in and out of the hospital all the time. And throughout my lifetime, medical costs have increased ten to twenty fold due to nothing more than insurance. Insurance companies hard line hospitals into giving them special, "reduced" rates, of which their customers have to pay part or most of, while non-insured patients are charged three to five times that for the exact same procedure. And since most people who don't have health insurance already can't afford it, how are they supposed to afford the jacked up prices that come from not having it? They can't. They die.

Oh and then insurance companies go and drop people because they get sick. It costs them profit, so whoops, they're dropped. Then they can't afford their bills. Then they die.

And sometimes insurance companies even try to regain the money they spent on someone who was sick and filed a claim by saying that the patient in question had a "pre-existing condition," even if he or she was not diagnosed until after taking out the insurance. It happens. It happened to my mom. Thankfully they didn't get away with it, but they do manage it more often than not.

So many people are blessed to have never had to have dealt with serious health issues in their life times. I really wish I could be one of you - my life would have been so much easier. And if so I maybe could step back and look at the larger ramifications of a bill like this and what it might do to the US decades into the future.

But at the moment all I can see is relief for millions of people who desperately need it to literally survive.

Doctors don't benefit from the current health care situation either. They lose money and drown in repetitive paperwork that they end up having to hire extra secretaries just to manage for them.

Lastly, I think illegals should be forced into the proposed health care tax system as well. I have nothing against giving emergency room treatment to anyone, regardless of who they are. But in my home town hospital they literally had to shut down the OBGYN and baby delivery sections because so many illegal immigrants just came in to have their children and then never paid. It drained the department and they gave up trying. I'm hoping that some sort of shared tax burden will ease pressures on situations like this in the future.

Oh and P.S. about the abortion thing: Obama signed a special amendment thingermabob today that explicitly states that no tax funding will be used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or a health threat to the mother.


I appreciate all of the intelligent contributions given to this debate so far - even Fared's long-winded ones. ;D

[Turtlicious]

so no sensu beans?

[Eia]

... No sensu beans.

[LiftedShadows]

There are also states that are filing suit with the federal government, saying their residents should not be taxed/fined for not buying insurance, so I doubt the fact that the bill passed means that this whole debacle is over.

...just saying. xD

[MrsSallyBakura]

I like the point about illegal immigrants. Giving birth is freaking expensive without insurance. Why should they get away with not paying a dime? Sure, they're human beings and they have the right to be taken care of, but doctors have the right to get paid for their job, so if a party is deprived of those sorts of rights, what can you do to fix it so that it's more fair?

I don't care if the US becomes 'socialist' either. As far as I can tell, it's not even that socialist, even with this health care bill.

[gwtyler1985]

the socialism is more like extended government control over business, as opposed to our free market competition model. those who know what they are talking about when they throw that word around are objecting to the fact that the government is taking over medical insurance, not to paying for anyone else's treatment.

[greymagick711]

And even if this system is worse, I probably will just try to adapt.

I have to mention first that this in an area which I try to understand but in the end, simply fail. So naturally, I have some questions (feel free to tell me to read someone else's post or not bother answering if you don't know):

So, what was the DEAL with this bill when it was trying to be passed? I've skimmed some older posts and got the notion that it was unconstitutional, that the people were excluded in its formation...

And now people are talking about socialism? I don't get it. I thought everyone getting cared for was a good thing, but I see from the discussions that even more problems can arise.

How will a doctor be effected in all of this?

What happens to the insurance companies?

What was wrong with the old one? From my (most likely misinformed) knowledge, it was that many people just couldn't afford it.

Also, I'd like to give an example of the area I live in, and I want to ask if this bill had anything to do with it:

So, my hometown in booming with new people of all ages. Some people recommended building a new hospital, and put in a bid for one to be built in the area. Well, it didn't work. So, the other and farther away hospitals and outpatient clinics and x-ray/surgery centers were expanded instead. Is that due to the bill or something?

In addition, I'm a student (as in, mommy and daddy currently and voluntarily pay my bills)...what will this new bill mean for me after I graduate?

[darkarcher]

I have very limited knowledge over all of this, but I will attempt to answer your questions as best as I know how. I'll break each answer into reality (as well as I know) and hypothetical (as well as I can figure) paragraphs.
How will a doctor be effected in all of this?
Hospitals overall will be pretty much required to perform medical services for lower costs than they were able to in the past. Most doctors will be forced to take pay cuts.

On a more theoretical side, many doctors could be forced, due to the existence of insurance, to perform unnecessary tests on an admitted individual just to cover all their bases (this happens already to an extent, but I can see it increasing substantially).
What happens to the insurance companies?
The insurance companies are still going to be in business for the time being. In a few years, an extra tax will be imposed upon citizens receiving insurance from a private company.

Theoretically, depending on how sustainable the system is, it may eventually be considered too expensive by most citizens to buy private insurance and the insurance companies will go out of business, giving the government a monopoly on the insurance industry.
What was wrong with the old one?
From my (most likely misinformed) knowledge, it was that many people just couldn't afford it.
Yes, expense was a large contributing factor.
Also:
- Insurance companies could deny you if you have a preexisting condition (or drop you if they could prove that you knowingly had one when you obtained the insurance).
- At some age, each individual would be required to get their own insurance (probably 18 or 21, I am unsure).
- The old system of government medical care is wasteful and unsustainable, taking in more money than can be reasonably allocated to it.

There are several other problems that I cannot think of but I'm sure others would love to chime in.

Also, I'd like to give an example of the area I live in, and I want to ask if this bill had anything to do with it:

So, my hometown in booming with new people of all ages. Some people recommended building a new hospital, and put in a bid for one to be built in the area. Well, it didn't work. So, the other and farther away hospitals and outpatient clinics and x-ray/surgery centers were expanded instead. Is that due to the bill or something?

No, as the new bill has not gone into effect yet. That was most likely due to population and stimulus factors.

In addition, I'm a student (as in, mommy and daddy currently and voluntarily pay my bills)...what will this new bill mean for me after I graduate?
As a dependent you probably have one of the more favorable positions from the new bill. If you remain dependent (i.e. no source of taxable personal income) then you can remain under your parents' insurance until you turn 26.

Once you get a job, your taxes will include some additional dividend that will be paid to the governmental health insurance policy. Since you will have never paid taxes before this probably will not be significant to you. If you decide to purchase private insurance, then you will instead be charged a "Cadillac Tax", meaning the government will tax you in proportion to the benefits and cost of your private insurance.


Like I said, this all falls under my limited knowledge of the subject. If I am wrong then somebody please correct me.

[AnAliasUnknown]

And now people are talking about socialism? I don't get it. I thought everyone getting cared for was a good thing, but I see from the discussions that even more problems can arise.


How will a doctor be effected in all of this?

What happens to the insurance companies?

What was wrong with the old one? From my (most likely misinformed) knowledge, it was that many people just couldn't afford it.


I'm a bit in the same boat as you, but this is my understanding of it...

The socialism bit is essentially people worrying about the government monopolizing the health insurance due to the other insurance companies running out of business. To my understanding, it's not as much the fact that everyone is getting health care that's the problem (in this case, anyway: there's the people who argue that it is against constitutional rights to force someone to do something) as it is that as a result, the privately owned insurance companies may go out of business as a result of these changes, so then the government is the last insurance company standing, and therefore the system is technically socialism. (lovely run-on sentence, right? I apologize)

The bill itself does not directly affect the doctors. What happens to the doctors down the line I'm not sure of, but from what I've heard it will mostly be that they will have more patients. Which could be very good or very bad...I'm not an expert so I don't know :8V:

The insurance companies cannot deny someone due to some sort of health condition. Period. Now I've heard a few different things on this, such as "It will promote more competition between insurance companies" to "This will be bad for business and we'll eventually become socialized medicine." (Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...I'm a bit confused on this myself)

As for the problem with the old one, you're right: people couldn't afford it. In addition, doctors weren't compensated as much for caring for people on Medicaid/Medicare (I don't know which one, I can never keep them straight), so it was risky business taking care of someone on that system.

Frankly I keep getting compelling arguments for and against the health care bill, so I'm a bit on the fence about it myself.

[MrsSallyBakura]

The insurance companies are still going to be in business for the time being. In a few years, an extra tax will be imposed upon citizens receiving insurance from a private company.

See, I want to know... why the tax?

[HarleyThomas1002]

Taxes are what pay for the lot of things.

As for the health care bill, it's a step in the right direction.

Of course my opinion could be considered biased due to being from a country plauged by the evil disease known as socialism that infecting its citizens with universal healthcare.

Of course for reasons I can't seem to fathom one reason that I've noticed why the Canadian healthcare system is shit upon is because you have to wait in line at the hospital or medical clinic.

Which is often followed by some BS story about how someone died while waiting in line at a Canadian hospital because they bled to death or had a heart attack.

Another common argument is "It'll raise out taxes and we're already in a recession!!!!" and maybe something about socialism.

Again, my opinion could be considered biased due to where I am in the world.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Another common argument is "It'll raise out taxes and we're already in a recession!!!!" and maybe something about socialism.

Well, it will... so why do you propose that it's a good thing to raise our taxes while in recession?

And I won't mention anything about socialism because for the most part, it seems like a cop-out argument or sorts and people just throw the word around to scare people.

[Gamemaster300]

has anyone read the damb thing.???

[MrsSallyBakura]

has anyone read the damb thing.???

You do realize how long it is, right?

Most of us don't have time to sit down and read it.

[Gamemaster300]

You do realize how long it is, right?

Most of us don't have time to sit down and read it.

i know, that is my point, you can't really argue about what you don't know about. (last i heard 2400 pages)

[Takahirokuun]

This topic is pointless. How?
because it's very simple unless your an dumbass.

The healthcare Bill is going to save a bunch of lifes. How can you be against this?
Do you want people to die? Do you want kids in the hospital to never be cured?
And don't give me that "population growth" shit. If you care about the Population that bad, then just wait until people die from Natural Causes. Not from not being able to afford going to the hospital. Thats just pathetic. Just think about it.
"I died from a Severe Fever because I couldn't afford going to the hospital."
Just because you can afford health care doesn't mean others can. My mom can't even afford to go to the hospital for her High Blood Pressure(really high blood pressure).

Anyways, don't bother replying because I'm not staying in this topic. I refuse to get my point across when it's the obvious :thatface:

[darkarcher]

This topic is pointless. How?
because it's very simple unless your an dumbass.

The healthcare Bill is going to save a bunch of lifes. How can you be against this?
Do you want people to die? Do you want kids in the hospital to never be cured?
And don't give me that "population growth" shit. If you care about the Population that bad, then just wait until people die from Natural Causes. Not from not being able to afford going to the hospital. Thats just pathetic. Just think about it.
"I died from a Severe Fever because I couldn't afford going to the hospital."
Just because you can afford health care doesn't mean others can. My mom can't even afford to go to the hospital for her High Blood Pressure(really high blood pressure).

Anyways, don't bother replying because I'm not staying in this topic. I refuse to get my point across when it's the obvious :thatface:

There are no obvious answers. You're just spouting off what all the pro-legislation scare groups are saying without rationalizing all the way through. If you can explain how your position comes about instead of just saying "this is what will happen" your argument holds more water.

As a counter example, In response to this:

Just think about it.
"I died from a Severe Fever because I couldn't afford going to the hospital."

I could say: "I died while being on a waiting list to be treated due to overcrowding in the hospital."

Now what I said is probably a load of crap, and I can't prove it at all, but in that regard both our statements have the same merit. Never say that something is "common sense" without proving your point, as there are as many opinions on a subject as there are people discussing it.

Finally, hit-and-run debating is really a weak method of convincing somebody. If you don't plan to stick around and defend your viewpoint then nobody's going to take you seriously.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Anyways, don't bother replying because I'm not staying in this topic. I refuse to get my point across when it's the obvious :thatface:

Too bad, I'm replying for everyone else's sake. :P

I don't think it's very intelligent, IMO, to be coming in here calling the rest of us out for not supporting something that, under the surface, is pretty controversial. Even people who support the healthcare bill can understand why it's controversial.

This topic is pointless. How?
because it's very simple unless your an dumbass.

The healthcare Bill is going to save a bunch of lifes. How can you be against this?

Technically, a bunch of lives were saved under the old healthcare bill... the problem with the old system is that no one can afford it anymore because the insurance companies like to make a bigger profit than a good chunk of people can afford.

Something tells me that you haven't read any of the thread... because the issue is more about money and what people can do constitutionally and how fair it is to the rest of the public.

For example, I'm not opposed to making healthcare better. In fact, it NEEDS to be better and more affordable. But there are some problems with the bill itself, like what darkarcher was saying about taxing people for using a private company. Just because the bill has a good heart and intention, it doesn't mean that every single detail about it is excellent.

Do you want people to die? Do you want kids in the hospital to never be cured?

People are going to die no matter what our healthcare bill is. And I'm pretty sure that children will die under the healthcare bill, as sad as it is to say.

I know the point of the bill is to decrease chances, but it's not a guaranteed way to preserve life under all circumstances, you know? We don't have a cure for every disease.

And don't give me that "population growth" shit. If you care about the Population that bad, then just wait until people die from Natural Causes. Not from not being able to afford going to the hospital. Thats just pathetic. Just think about it.

I don't think ANYONE in this thread has said anything about population growth. People have mentioned that maybe universal healthcare wouldn't work with a large population such as the US, but that's the only time we've mentioned any kind of "population excuse." Believe me, I actually read the thread before you came in here, lol.

"I died from a Severe Fever because I couldn't afford going to the hospital."
Just because you can afford health care doesn't mean others can. My mom can't even afford to go to the hospital for her High Blood Pressure(really high blood pressure).

Like I said, the old system was corrupt and needed fixing. It's sad that many people can't afford health care and that many people are being denied due to preexisting conditions or because it would cost the insurance company too much money to get them healed.
But that DOES NOT MEAN that this new health care bill is Jesus. Controversies exist in this bill and those who are both for or against the bill need to understand that.

EDIT: lol darkarcher beat me to it. Darn those ninja skills. :P

EDIT AGAIN: By the way, how can you tell people how you died if you're already dead? :O lol

[Gamemaster300]

yes, well the bill is passed now, so time to see what it really dose. by the way there are several states filing a lawsuit now. so it seems that will be its first hurdle.

[HarleyThomas1002]

I'm gonna go on a limb and assume those state are red.

If you listen closely you can ehar thousands cry about socialism.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I'm gonna go on a limb and assume those state are red.

If you listen closely you can ehar thousands cry about socialism.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88571-thirteen-states-file-lawsuit-against-healthcare-bill

Michigan is one of those states.

Michigan is nooooooooooooooooot red.

[Gamemaster300]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88571-thirteen-states-file-lawsuit-against-healthcare-bill

Michigan is one of those states.

Michigan is nooooooooooooooooot red.

i know, Michigan is my state, i was at a tea party today.

[HarleyThomas1002]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88571-thirteen-states-file-lawsuit-against-healthcare-bill

Michigan is one of those states.

Michigan is nooooooooooooooooot red.

Color me shocked. And a few other colors just because.

[Gamemaster300]

maby pay more attention to the political world??

[MrsSallyBakura]

maby pay more attention to the political world??

Well, there's that, but I would personally suggest that people look beyond the Democratic/Republican biases and stereotypes and whatnot.

I consider myself moderately conservative and the way that people talk about socialism annoys me.

[Gamemaster300]

Well, there's that, but I would personally suggest that people look beyond the Democratic/Republican biases and stereotypes and whatnot.

I consider myself moderately conservative and the way that people talk about socialism annoys me.

you and i are very similar (politically), i too would consider myself moderatley conservitive. i really don't like the 2 party system. vote for people cause they will do what you want, not because there demecrat or republican. it is just dumb (in my opinion) to vote just because i want one side to win, it isn't a game and i wish people would stop talking about it like it is.

[HarleyThomas1002]

Here in Canada we have four parties although no one cares about the Green Party unless you're under the impression that they'll legalize marijuana and no one cares about the Liberal Party.

A fifth party may show up, but it's usually a bunch of nobodies that drop out after a short time because their funds run out or something.

Which essentially makes it a two party system which are moderate versions of their American counterparts.

No wonder I don't pay attention to my countries politics. It's a much more entertaining to pay attention (albeit not a whole lot) to the United States politics.

[Gamemaster300]

i did not know you were canadian. yes our politics are messed up, very. so tell me, how is your healthcare? (seriousely)

[Takahirokuun]

Too bad, I'm replying for everyone else's sake. :P

I don't think it's very intelligent, IMO, to be coming in here calling the rest of us out for not supporting something that, under the surface, is pretty controversial. Even people who support the healthcare bill can understand why it's controversial.



Technically, a bunch of lives were saved under the old healthcare bill... the problem with the old system is that no one can afford it anymore because the insurance companies like to make a bigger profit than a good chunk of people can afford.

Something tells me that you haven't read any of the thread... because the issue is more about money and what people can do constitutionally and how fair it is to the rest of the public.

For example, I'm not opposed to making healthcare better. In fact, it NEEDS to be better and more affordable. But there are some problems with the bill itself, like what darkarcher was saying about taxing people for using a private company. Just because the bill has a good heart and intention, it doesn't mean that every single detail about it is excellent.



People are going to die no matter what our healthcare bill is. And I'm pretty sure that children will die under the healthcare bill, as sad as it is to say.

I know the point of the bill is to decrease chances, but it's not a guaranteed way to preserve life under all circumstances, you know? We don't have a cure for every disease.



I don't think ANYONE in this thread has said anything about population growth. People have mentioned that maybe universal healthcare wouldn't work with a large population such as the US, but that's the only time we've mentioned any kind of "population excuse." Believe me, I actually read the thread before you came in here, lol.



Like I said, the old system was corrupt and needed fixing. It's sad that many people can't afford health care and that many people are being denied due to preexisting conditions or because it would cost the insurance company too much money to get them healed.
But that DOES NOT MEAN that this new health care bill is Jesus. Controversies exist in this bill and those who are both for or against the bill need to understand that.

EDIT: lol darkarcher beat me to it. Darn those ninja skills. :P

EDIT AGAIN: By the way, how can you tell people how you died if you're already dead? :O lol

Lol. You don't know sarcasm at all.

There are no obvious answers. You're just spouting off what all the pro-legislation scare groups are saying without rationalizing all the way through. If you can explain how your position comes about instead of just saying "this is what will happen" your argument holds more water.

As a counter example, In response to this:



I could say: "I died while being on a waiting list to be treated due to overcrowding in the hospital."

Now what I said is probably a load of crap, and I can't prove it at all, but in that regard both our statements have the same merit. Never say that something is "common sense" without proving your point, as there are as many opinions on a subject as there are people discussing it.

Finally, hit-and-run debating is really a weak method of convincing somebody. If you don't plan to stick around and defend your viewpoint then nobody's going to take you seriously.
(And also, I meant *population control. Don't know why I put growth.)

You guys can't read can you? I'm not about to stay in this POINTLESS topic so that I can be ignored. And again, I'm not about to stay in here when it's the obvious.

You guys act like you have no hope in anything. Saying "it's going to crumble under us". Just because other bills have, doesn't mean this one is.
Just have hope and stop arguing about something that can't be solved until it happens.

...

:thatface:

[Gamemaster300]

we will see, wont we. afterall the bill has passed.

[HarleyThomas1002]

i did not know you were canadian. yes our politics are messed up, very. so tell me, how is your healthcare? (seriousely)

Line ups can be unbearable at times, but overall it's not that bad.

If you're insured and have to pay for medication or crutches or something you just show the pharmicist your insurance card, they phone the insurance company up and they reimburse you the money providing they cover whatever it is you need.

I could be a bit off on the last bit as I never actually had to deal with that sort of thing myself as being under 18 I'm covered by the government (IE: taxes).

[darkarcher]

You guys can't read can you? I'm not about to stay in this POINTLESS topic so that I can be ignored. And again, I'm not about to stay in here when it's the obvious.
Thank you for ignoring the point I made in favor of returning to a logical fallacy.
You guys act like you have no hope in anything. Saying "it's going to crumble under us". Just because other bills have, doesn't mean this one is.
Just have hope and stop arguing about something that can't be solved until it happens.
Once again, you're not applying any reasoning to your viewpoint.

[Gamemaster300]

see, i think both sides way over exagerate the issue, the left says people hear are dieing outside hospital doors do to lack of money and that a single payer system would cover everybody and you get your care now and ya it is perfect. the right says in a single payer system you will die in lines and the gov, is ineficiant and would select who gets care and things like that. neither of those are true, but it is part of what made our political theater so (interesting) the way it is now. i for one would want our polititions to at least read what there voting for.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Thank you for ignoring the point I made in favor of returning to a logical fallacy.

Once again, you're not applying any reasoning to your viewpoint.

To back up this point...

1) First and foremost, everyone has an opinion. Your opinion is no better than anyone else's. Don't act as if it is. Be respectful of the opinions of others. That doesn't mean agreeing with them, but it does mean not to insult them for their opinions.

It's also expected that you have an informed and well-rounded opinion when you enter this sub-forum. Takahirokuun, if you can't formulate such an opinion, then don't post here.

see, i think both sides way over exagerate the issue, the left says people hear are dieing outside hospital doors do to lack of money and that a single payer system would cover everybody and you get your care now and ya it is perfect. the right says in a single payer system you will die in lines and the gov, is ineficiant and would select who gets care and things like that. neither of those are true, but it is part of what made our political theater so (interesting) the way it is now.

I think that both sides tend to have representatives who exaggerate the facts just to get their side to win. But this goes back to your post about how people shouldn't be treating politics like a game... it's far more serious than that and there's no room for exaggerations, yet people make them anyways. :/

[Gamemaster300]

people think (winning) is more importent than being right (no pun intended). it really is sad. especialy when it is our lives, our money, our land, etc. (sory i can't spell.) i mean the left goes yes, we got the bill, who cares if we get voted out. the right goes, ya well, november, ha! then people make up nicknames like the party of no, then they have mascotts. it's almost sickening. no it is when you take a step back and look at it for what it is or has become.

[HarleyThomas1002]

Like the Republican Party of old (read: Abe Lincoln and Teddy Rossevelt) and now it's pretty much the exact opposite.

It's making me wonder how Britain is doing with their election.

[Gamemaster300]

Like the Republican Party of old (read: Abe Lincoln and Teddy Rossevelt) and now it's pretty much the exact opposite.

It's making me wonder how Britain is doing with their election.

ya, the republican party was originally started by abriham lincon to end slavery. now the demicrats are the ones seen as for people's rights while the right is seen as all about the corperations.
sory, but i can't really be woried about briten right now.

[gwtyler1985]

It's making me wonder how Britain is doing with their election.

well, if fared were here, he'd probably tell you about while typing up a very long speech about how american politics aren't meant to be entertaining and how we've degenerated into a bipartisan popularity contest, some things to contradict or drive home sally's statements like how if representatives treat politics as a game to see who can get get more support and then turning that into who can bend the facts to suit there purposes the most then these people who make our laws will never realize how inefficient these laws are until their families suffer from them or the protesters actually break in and tell them at gunpoint, and remarking how he could see where takahirokuun was coming from but then fully agree with sally and then i would chime in to state my own views while agreeing with sally and fared and say that a few of the taka's statements reminded me of that funny letter in john grisham's "The Rainmaker"

EDIT: sort of like this

[mystra]

here's another tidbit from the healthcare bill. Breastfeeding rooms hidden in health care law (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/09/breast.feeding.society/)



imo it's good and bad. i don't find it wrong to breast feed a child out in the open. it's part of nature so people need to get over themselves and this reinforces the fact that people think there's something wrong with it. on the other hand people can't get over themselves and now women will not have to be ridiculed for doing what's natural.

[Gamemaster300]

that is true, i think there is really no problem with doing that in public. but i also think thaere is diference between doing what is necisary and just being rude.

[Fat1Fared]

well, if fared were here, he'd probably tell you about while typing up a very long speech about how american politics aren't meant to be entertaining and how we've degenerated into a bipartisan popularity contest, some things to contradict or drive home sally's statements like how if representatives treat politics as a game to see who can get get more support and then turning that into who can bend the facts to suit there purposes the most then these people who make our laws will never realize how inefficient these laws are until their families suffer from them or the protesters actually break in and tell them at gunpoint, and remarking how he could see where takahirokuun was coming from but then fully agree with sally and then i would chime in to state my own views while agreeing with sally and fared and say that a few of the taka's statements reminded me of that funny letter in john grisham's "The Rainmaker"

EDIT: sort of like this

-O_0, I don't like you because errrrr well this is exactly what I was going to do (well apart from agreeing with Sally, me and sally never agree on anything, other than never to agree with each other, an unagreed, agreement between two of us ^_-)

PS still totally going to do this some day <___<
>__>

[Gamemaster300]

you shouldn't disagree with someone for the sake of disagreeing.

[gwtyler1985]

well, it's nice to know that if fared steps out, i can always fill in for him in 1/8 the space that one of his posts would take up.

[Gunblader_3]

I'm not for it. Sorry, but I'm already getting billed like crazy (living in California is heck a expensive). If I want to help people then I'll do it out of good, but not because the government forces me to do so.

[Gamemaster300]

I'm not for it. Sorry, but I'm already getting billed like crazy (living in California is heck a expensive). If I want to help people then I'll do it out of good, but not because the government forces me to do so.

ya, is it really giving if your forced to do it?

[Malcolm1044]

The biggest problem is that we can't afford it. Social Security and Medicaid were already running out of money. Medicaid being especially bad.

There's also a constitutionality issue in all this, as it essentially forces each citizen to buy, or in some way acquire, health care, whether they want it or not. Forcing citizens to buy a service goes directly against the constitution. This is also the reason some states are going to be suing the federal gov't once this is signed into law.

These would be the two biggest complaints about the bill. Does healthcare need to be fixed? God yes, it does. But this was the wrong way to go about it.





Sorry, just wanted to respond to this. Some of what I say may have already been said.


Point one: The people who are complaining about it costing too much money are holding, quite honestly, a double standard. Apparently to them, it was okay to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for it, but it's not okay to pay for our own citizens to have health insurance.

Consider this: 9/11 killed about 2,700 Americans. In contrast, 45,000 Americans die every YEAR from lack of health care. That's not a random figure I pulled out of my ass, that was a Harvard study. (note: any "statistic" or "fact" that I use can be traced to its' source) So in a sense, we spent all this money and all of those soldiers out of "saving American lives" from those evil terrorists, but it's morally wrong to spend proportionally less on saving many more Americans from lack of health care?


Point two: Constitutionality is a moot point. We already force everyone to carry a driver's license and to have auto insurance if they want to drive a car. The Constitution provides for with regard to Congress, and I quote: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

The key words: "The Congress shall have Power to...collect Taxes....to pay the Debts and provide for the...general Welfare of the Untied States". This essentially means, that Congress has the right to tax Americans in order to pay for the general welfare of those Americans. Now the word "welfare" may be up for debate, but Princeton defines it as "wellbeing: a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous".




Conclusion: It's partisan and hypocritical to use "it costs too much" when arguing against this bill, unless you ALSO opposed the money spent in Iraq or Afghanistan(ostensibly to save Americans) by the other side of the aisle.

The idea that it's unconstitutional is wrong. Plain and simple. I quoted it for you above. Congress has the right to tax people, and that's what this bill does. If you don't own healthcare, you get taxed to "promote the general Welfare" of the U.S.A.

[TitanAura]

here's another tidbit from the healthcare bill. Breastfeeding rooms hidden in health care law (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/09/breast.feeding.society/)



imo it's good and bad. i don't find it wrong to breast feed a child out in the open. it's part of nature so people need to get over themselves and this reinforces the fact that people think there's something wrong with it. on the other hand people can't get over themselves and now women will not have to be ridiculed for doing what's natural.
If anything, children are the ones who should be taught early on about the purpose of breasts since the first year of their life they were living off of the damn things. I think it's fucktard stupid to continually think of breasts as something sexually related and ONLY sexually related. Anyone who's been online knows that if it's on the body, someone will find a way to make it fuckable. The same regard should be given to women's udders.... not the part about it being fuckable- oh nevermind.

PS
Look up National Geographic.

[darkarcher]

Sorry, just wanted to respond to this. Some of what I say may have already been said.


Point one: The people who are complaining about it costing too much money are holding, quite honestly, a double standard. Apparently to them, it was okay to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for it, but it's not okay to pay for our own citizens to have health insurance.

Consider this: 9/11 killed about 2,700 Americans. In contrast, 45,000 Americans die every YEAR from lack of health care. That's not a random figure I pulled out of my ass, that was a Harvard study. (note: any "statistic" or "fact" that I use can be traced to its' source) So in a sense, we spent all this money and all of those soldiers out of "saving American lives" from those evil terrorists, but it's morally wrong to spend proportionally less on saving many more Americans from lack of health care?


Point two: Constitutionality is a moot point. We already force everyone to carry a driver's license and to have auto insurance if they want to drive a car. The Constitution provides for with regard to Congress, and I quote: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

The key words: "The Congress shall have Power to...collect Taxes....to pay the Debts and provide for the...general Welfare of the Untied States". This essentially means, that Congress has the right to tax Americans in order to pay for the general welfare of those Americans. Now the word "welfare" may be up for debate, but Princeton defines it as "wellbeing: a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous".




Conclusion: It's partisan and hypocritical to use "it costs too much" when arguing against this bill, unless you ALSO opposed the money spent in Iraq or Afghanistan(ostensibly to save Americans) by the other side of the aisle.

The idea that it's unconstitutional is wrong. Plain and simple. I quoted it for you above. Congress has the right to tax people, and that's what this bill does. If you don't own healthcare, you get taxed to "promote the general Welfare" of the U.S.A.

Your entire logic is based on bipartisan stereotypes. Not everyone who thinks the reform will be too expensive supports the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither is everyone who opposed the Health Care Reform Republican, as politicians would have us believe.

[Malcolm1044]

I agree, not everyone who says it will be too expensive is supporting the wars. So in that sense, I suppose it IS a sterotype, however it's one that typically is true. So I'll grant you that this doesn't apply to everyone, however I was assuming that the writers of this were either "conservative" or "Republican" given that the start of this thread had comments such as "Let's just hope the Republicans can fix it" or "Even with a Republican majority it'll be hard to undo".

My response was directed at one particular commentary, that appeared to be written by a conservative. I was addressing the claim that it would be too expensive based on the assumption that Lord Schmeckie was conservative, which was based on, like I said, the context. If that was incorrect, I apologize. I also believe I successfully rebutted the whole "constitutionality" argument, regardless of their ideological standing.

[Fat1Fared]

Oh the thread of death has returned o_0

-To be honest dark, he has a point, you only to look at the rather redundent agruments being made and those who "generally" make them, it is not a random concindance that those making these points are very middle class, very conversative and have very little to gain from this bill (other than knowing that doing something good for their fellow man, but sense when has that very been an ideal of the us <_<)
-The fact of the matter is all this debate is moot, because all these poeple "generally" want to say is, why should I pay a small amountto help those I do not know and are socially lower than me anyway <oh and suspect this is quickly followed by a, if their dieing with no money, it will be their own fault anyway because veryone knows that all poor poeple deverse to be poor <_<)

=It maybe a sterotype, but it is one which these poeple are hardly moving themselves away from

[Malcolm1044]

They also tend, at least where I live, to be fairly uneducated.

The local Rep. was doing the usual town hall meetings, and he had a younger few Tea Party guys ask him about the "implanted computer chips that this bill will allow to be placed in my head so that the gov. can track me"....He asked them for the specific section, they gave it to him, so he looked it up right in front of them and made them read it out loud.

Turned out the section they were referring to was a requirement for medical implants like pacemakers or others to have a serial number so that if there was a recall because of a defective product, they could see who was registered to it, and go help them. Sort of like having a gun permit, except for something that keeps you alive.

Anyways, the two TP-ers kind of went "0.0 uhhhh.......", and the Rep. asked them why they had asked, and they showed him a PREPARED list of questions that the local Tea Party movement had given them to read at the town hall meeting. He went through the list, one by one, and EVERY single one of them mis-quoted the bill completely.


So I grant you, there's obviously people that this sterotype doesn't apply to, but the gist of my 1st post was directed towards those that do.

[maisetofan]

Oh the thread of death has returned o_0

-To be honest dark, he has a point, you only to look at the rather redundent agruments being made and those who "generally" make them, it is not a random concindance that those making these points are very middle class, very conversative and have very little to gain from this bill (other than knowing that doing something good for their fellow man, but sense when has that very been an ideal of the us <_<)
-The fact of the matter is all this debate is moot, because all these poeple "generally" want to say is, why should I pay a small amount to help those I do not know and are socially lower than me anyway <oh and suspect this is quickly followed by a, if their dieing with no money, it will be their own fault anyway because veryone knows that all poor poeple deverse to be poor <_<)

=It maybe a sterotype, but it is one which these poeple are hardly moving themselves away from

I completely agree with Fat. The majority of people who are complaining about this new health bill are those with money or who have health insurance which WILL cover them, however after watching the documentary SICKO and seeing all the people who were unable to get insurance due to already being sick or having had a yeast infection, i find that utterly ridiculous and cruel.

New Zealand has had free public health care for years and there is the option for the richer upper class to purchase health insurance as jobs do not offer health benefits because the public health system is not that bad

If you are in an accident, you are covered by ACC accident compensation
Which means free doctor visits and a private hospital within a matter of weeks. When I broke my arm, it was claimed on ACC and everything was free of charge including physiotherapy

For those in america who cannot afford healthcare and literally die because of their inability to pay for prescription medication or to see a doctor, Obamas health care reform is GOOD

It seems as though the Rich do not like it and the poor are thankful for it

[HarleyThomas1002]

But how much do you pay in taxes? Contary to popular belief, it's not free.

You're paying for it, but you're paying indirectly.

[maisetofan]

Not a lot actually
Depending how much you earn and if you are a student well you are not paying taxes or if you are on a welfare system like a support benefit meaning money coming in each week, that is taxed, but the highest amount of tax one would pay here would be 30%
however most people only pay around 18-20% and we do not rely on tips in the hospitality industry like over in the states ;)

[darkarcher]

Well, mai, I'm not actually against universal health care when it comes to making sure people get the basic necessary level of care, or to provide care to people with preexisting conditions. My biggest concern is that the system that has been set up is not sustainable.

Another issue for me comes with the "Cadillac tax" which forces people who have private insurance to pay significant taxes on that insurance. There is also a policy in place that will fine people who don't have insurance at all but don't want the government stuff. I feel like this is forcing dependence on the government when many of these people want to simply choose some option not provided by the government. EDIT and NOTE: This is not to say I am against across-the-board taxes being raised to alleviate the system. I simply think that charging people for not using the government plan is not a good idea.

And before someone says that the people with private insurance already have money to spare, that's not always true, and keep in mind that in America the top quintile (highest 20% GDP households) already pays for way more than half of the taxes collected by the government, while the lowest 2 quintiles, a large portion of whom are not even living in poverty, receive more in government programs and aid than they contribute. This bill is going to push these numbers to even greater extremes.

[maisetofan]

I see, and I do agree Dark, that this new set up may not be sustainable in reality.
We only get the little bits and pieces from the news and the web, as I do not live in the states I do not know as much as you would, however we seem to be shown a lot of negative feedback by republicans and it is shown more than positive things, including the conservative and the christian who do approve of the bill.

The media is great at filtering

[darkarcher]

I see, and I do agree Dark, that this new set up may not be sustainable in reality.
We only get the little bits and pieces from the news and the web, as I do not live in the states I do not know as much as you would, however we seem to be shown a lot of negative feedback by republicans and it is shown more than positive things, including the conservative and the christian who do approve of the bill.

The media is great at filtering

Depends on the media outlet, but yes it is typical to show republicans opposing the bill and democrats supporting it even though it is not nearly so cut and dry.

Yes, every republican in the house of representatives voted against the bill, but at the same time the media acted as if this were the only reason the bill was not being passed when in reality a good portion of democrats opposed the bill as well. The republicans were not numerous to stop the vote on their own.

This shows evidence of a greater problem in our country with the bipartisan system and the way everything is slanted to act like there are only two sides to any argument and somehow the republicans and democrats must always be on the opposing sides. You get this feeling with any media outlet and it only serves to dumb down voters into voting for a party rather than voting on the issues.

And now I am digressing.