Happy Atheist Forum

I'm interested in others thoughts on this. It seems like it has the best of intentions. However, I don't know how effective it would be or if it's really the best thing for the country. Although, I doubt the results would be anything like what conservatives make it out to be. After all, we are the only industrialized nation without national health care.

Thanks.

I support it, but actually want more.  I'm in favor of a single payer system, aka universal healthcare.  I think they would have gotten farther with this idea if they simply called it "Medicare for Everyone."

In all honesty, I can't believe our populace is so ignorant as to have allowed this lack of care to go on as long as it has.

I support it only because it's better than the status quo. I'd much rather President Obama completely ignore the Republicans and put massive pressure on the blue dogs in order to get single-payer pushed through, the way FDR ignored the Republicans on the New Deal and LBJ ignored the republicans on Medicare.

They're out of power, so it's time to treat them as such.

I'm for it... I haven't done complete due diligence, but what I have researched thus far sounds good.  I'd prefer a single payer system as well, but it just won't happen, sadly.

Why is it that the people who need this the most are the ones listening to the lies the Republicans are spreading and thus, the ones that will be screwed out of it?  They vote their desired identity, not their best interest, and it really bugs me.  I'm not to change anyone's vote, but this has been confusing to me since I started voting so many years ago.

And don't you love how the Republicans are actively refusing to participate bipartisanly (is that even a word?) then turn around and accuse Obama of not living up to his promises to lead a more bipartisan Congress?  Ugh.

I'm against the national health care plan.  As a Libertarian, I think the federal gov't is involved in too many aspects of our lives already.  They're controlling banks, auto makers and now they want to control health care, too.  Plus they can't explain how they're going to pay for it all (besides printing money in the basement and borrowing more from China).  

I won't be surprised if some manner of national health care bill is passed soon.  Don't expect me to be happy about it.    

Objectivist, so I should be against the plan strictly on principle, but I went undecided because I if (when I read the plan) Obama's proposal really can be paid for using budget cuts in wasteful areas (something I'm very skeptical of) then I'd see it as well worth the price of medical tort reform.

Quote from: "MommaSquid"As a Libertarian...

Wow, really? Were you born libertarian or did you have socialist parents and convert later? Did you lose any friends over it? Have you read Ron Paul's "The Dodd Delusion"?
 

I haven't voted, as the plan won't affect me here living in the UK. However universal health care is good, even if it doesn't go to the lengths of a single payer system or something, just the principle of it is good in my view. No one should be denied or feel unable to get healthcare in a supposedly first world and well off country. Guess I've been spoiled by the NHS It's certainly not perfect, but does well mostly.

Against it, as it stands. Too few details and too much rhetoric. If someone in the government had a clue about how to implement it and pay for it, then I might vote otherwise. But it's pretty obvious that nobody has a clue. It's being rushed too much and will likely be so screwed up that it will only make things worse (and yes, they can get worse).

Quote from: "Arctonyx"However universal health care is good, even if it doesn't go to the lengths of a single payer system or something, just the principle of it is good in my view. No one should be denied or feel unable to get healthcare in a supposedly first world and well off country.

I think one of the worst parts is that, even among people who do have care, they are very often under-insured... meaning they really can't afford to go to the doctor despite the fact they have insurance.  For example, my sister is a lawyer at a relatively small firm, and she can't go to the doctor because she has a $3,000 deductible.  In fact, her boss is considering getting rid of care for his employees altogether because he simply cannot afford it.

That concept of under-covered really strikes home when you realize that 1 out of every 2 bankruptcies filed in the United States are the result of medical costs.  Yes, 50% of bankruptcies because people got sick.  Now... Here's the kicker...  Out of that 50% who went bankrupt due to medical costs, 70% of them had existing healthcare coverage.  Seven out of every ten people who went bankrupt due to medical costs had existing healthcare coverage.  It's simply disgusting.

Here's a link supporting that claim, with some other rather telling numbers:   http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)



Also, McQ - You might enjoy this Frontline Special called "Sick Around the World."  It shows how it's done right now in five other nations, and helps to clarify a lot of the confusion in the short 50 minutes of the program.  It's really well worth the watch.  Enjoy.

Homepage: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... dtheworld/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)
Link to Watch Online:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ntinuous=1 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p101&continuous=1)

Quote from: "iNow"I think one of the worst parts is that, even among people who do have care, they are very often under-insured... meaning they really can't afford to go to the doctor despite the fact they have insurance.  For example, my sister is a lawyer at a relatively small firm, and she can't go to the doctor because she has a $3,000 deductible.  In fact, her boss is considering getting rid of care for his employees altogether because he simply cannot afford it.

That concept of under-covered really strikes home when you realize that 1 out of every 2 bankruptcies filed in the United States are the result of medical costs.  Yes, 50% of bankruptcies because people got sick.  Now... Here's the kicker...  Out of that 50% who went bankrupt due to medical costs, 70% of them had existing healthcare coverage.  Seven out of every ten people who went bankrupt due to medical costs had existing healthcare coverage.  It's simply disgusting.

Here's a link supporting that claim, with some other rather telling numbers:   http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)


Also, McQ - You might enjoy this Frontline Special called "Sick Around the World."  It shows how it's done right now in five other nations, and helps to clarify a lot of the confusion in the short 50 minutes of the program.  It's really well worth the watch.  Enjoy.

Homepage: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... dtheworld/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)
Link to Watch Online:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ntinuous=1 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p101&continuous=1)

Cool. Thanks for the link. I'll give it a looksie this weekend.

And to be clear, in case I sounded like I like things the way they are...I don't. Health Care in the U.S. is very broken and needs an overhaul. I'm just seriously worried that we'll end up with worse than we have now. It needs to be done right, not rushed.

I have listened to so many conservatives talk about why they are against it. Since I have never experienced such a system, I never felt I could really make a decision. Finally, I spoke at length with an English friend who has experienced national health care. He explained to me all the reasons why he was for it and why he thinks the current system is bad.  

I was quite persuaded by his argument.

I forgot that I also spoke with a lady from Canada who very much missed the system in her country.

Quote from: "John09"I have listened to so many conservatives talk about why they are against it. Since I have never experienced such a system, I never felt I could really make a decision. Finally, I spoke at length with an English friend who has experienced national health care. He explained to me all the reasons why he was for it and why he thinks the current system is bad.  

I was quite persuaded by his argument.

I forgot that I also spoke with a lady from Canada who very much missed the system in her country.

Of course, I hear the exact same whenever I meet foreigners from Canada or the UK. I've never met one who didn't like their system or at least preferred it to what we have here.

Thanks iNow, that program was actually very interesting   Although looking at all the systems they all seem to have one thing in common, debt. And it seems it's down to the system of where this debt is deposited, in the US it's on the people, in the UK it's on the hospital administration and in the Japanese/German/Taiwanese systems it seems to be the doctors. There is no perfect system, and lets face it health care almost invariably brings debt for someone along with it, but I think most would agree that that debt shouldn't be on the patients or the doctors shoulders.

After looking over the proposed bills, I'd like to change my vote to against.

I'm for single-payer and frustrated with anything short, but based on my understanding of countries like Canada, it can be a gradual process and the public option in H.R.3200 is a step towards universal healthcare and away from private insurance.

The only reason I'm not liking it is because Obama doesn't have enough balls to push what needs to go through to make it a better system. At first he wanted a public option then the Dems and Reps started crying so he was like OKAY no public option! Then the dems decided hey..maybe public option isnt too bad so now its back on board.  Obama is trying to hard to please everybody trying to keep us his promise of "bipartisanship" and it's ruining every bill that he tries to make

Quote from: "shanster"The only reason I'm not liking it is because Obama doesn't have enough balls to push what needs to go through to make it a better system. At first he wanted a public option then the Dems and Reps started crying so he was like OKAY no public option! Then the dems decided hey..maybe public option isnt too bad so now its back on board.  Obama is trying to hard to please everybody trying to keep us his promise of "bipartisanship" and it's ruining every bill that he tries to make

Actually he just had a speech the other day to a university. Sounds like Obama is taking off his gloves. I think he is going to go for nothing but dem votes and shove it through. Pelosi's comment backs it up too. She said there will be a public option plan in the bill. Obama may have been playing Mr. Rogers for awhile but the guy is incredibly intelligent and he knows the gloves come off now.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Actually he just had a speech the other day to a university. Sounds like Obama is taking off his gloves. I think he is going to go for nothing but dem votes and shove it through. Pelosi's comment backs it up too. She said there will be a public option plan in the bill. Obama may have been playing Mr. Rogers for awhile but the guy is incredibly intelligent and he knows the gloves come off now.

I didn't get to see that speech, but I am glad that he's manning up. There's no sense in being president if you're going to bow down in defeat every time somebody disagrees with you. I do support a NHC because I'm sick of not being able to afford health care, and how my only choice of getting health care is by getting it from my job but my job won't promote me to full time to avoid giving me benefits, and do so by having me work ONE hour less then the full timers get. I went to the dentist yesterday to get a normal teeth cleaning, with the x-rays required for new clients, and the teeth cleaning it came to a grand total of 470 dollars. For 20 minutes of work. It's ridiculous, and to get insurance without going through your job it's even more expensive and more ridiculous.  For all the poverty America has, and all the Middle class who can barely afford their houses at it is, America desperately needs something that will be offered to all citizens, at virtually no cost, or at the least a cost that is clearly affordable.

I've got a private health care insurance here in Germany, which makes the doctors very happy because they can charge me the full pound for each treatment. Nethertheless the costs of these treatments are just a fraction of what the doctors charge in the US. A dentist visit to get my teeth cleaned and X-rayed would cost me around 120 bucks. My wife , who lives in the USA is outraged by these overinflated doctor bills. She thinks that these prices are extremely huge, because the doctors want to cover themselves against liability charges. Personally, I don't see any reason why these bills have to be 3 to 4 times higher than everywhere else in the western world.

I'm strongly against the plan.  The main reason is that there will be a mandate for every individual to buy and keep health insurance that includes fines for non-compliance.  So if both the government and private plans are a problem in some way for someone, they can't opt out of the whole thing.

The government seems to be operating under the delusion that the median income family of around $40,000 can buy a livable house for $50,000 or find rent for under four hundred dollars a month and a new car for $12,000 and you can feed a family of four lean meat fruits and veggies for less than a hundred dollars a week. They should be able to afford to buy health insurance, too, right?  Well, if they can't, it will be the government that decides, not them.  So if money's tight but you are over the line, you're feeding your family mac and cheese five nights a week to afford healthcare, all the while getting less healthy.

This plan is going to cost a lot of money, which was a large part of the problem with people not having insurance in the first place.  Those awful poor people coming to the emergency room without healthcare who are making it so tough for those pitiable poor people who can't afford health care are the same poor people.  The same people who are living off the system now will be living off the system if national health care goes through.  The only difference is more paperwork and government interference.  

Also, why do we assume that people who don't have health insurance don't pay their medical bills and people with health insurance always do?  Lots of people who are self-pay have something called a savings account where the money they don't spend on health insurance plans they can't afford can be used to pay medical bills.  It's not as good as having enough money, but it still covers a lot of the costs.

Other reasons are that it gives the government too much involvement and control into an area that's private, a person's health history and it's just blatantly socialist.  I'm not opposed to every social program, mind you, but this overhaul is made screamingly socialist by it's involuntary nature.

I think we would do better to take individual steps on this.  Pass a bill exclusively on tort reform to help doctors manage malpractice costs, then try expanding some of the funding and income levels for some of the existing programs to get more people in.  See how these ideas effect things and go slowly.  I think we need to find better options for everyone, but not by passing a law that just forces everyone to buy insurance and does little to fix the problem besides a a few tax credits.  And always keep it voluntary.  Americans have to have a reasonable option to get out if the plan goes sour.

There are a few misconceptions in that post, Lara.


Here is the entire Obama plan in FOUR minutes:

[youtube:1n14z1x5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUNCpnRBf9o[/youtube:1n14z1x5]

Quote from: "iNow"There are a few misconceptions in that post, Lara.


Here is the entire Obama plan in FOUR minutes:

[youtube:wukxtbdh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUNCpnRBf9o[/youtube:wukxtbdh]

And there are a few misconceptions in this video as well, the most prominent (to me) is that the opening statement is now changed and it will be possible for those with insurance to have their plan and/or doctor switched. This video is not the current plan. Additionally, the plan itself is so vague in parts that there is more than ample wiggle room for the administration or whoever gets to run this, to make major changes to it (and if history is any indication - and it is - things will change in a patchwork fashion).

Has anyone here tried to deal with Medicare yet? If you like that, just wait until you see what the government can do with the health plan for ALL Amercians! LOL! It's going to be ugly, folks. Look what they did with Medicare Part D when they enacted that a couple of years ago. It's terrible. How about a nice $4500 co-pay for your first month of an oral cancer drug? They made a complete mess of Medicare Part D because a bunch of moron politicians who have no idea how health care works, made it go through too fast, and didn't listen to the people who actually have to try and deliver that health care.

None of this has been thought through enough. Again, I'm for change, but not change for change sake. This needs time and real, blood, sweat and tears planning and implementation. That has not happened yet.

I don't support it because it's basically just going to strengthen the insurance companies' hold on health care, as I understand it anyway.
Anything less than government-sponsored health care, free health care for all citizens, isn't good enough for me. I see all the misinformation tossed out about how terrible health care is in "socialized" countries and it's really silly. I lived in England for four years and the only thing I paid for was prescription medications, and at prices so low that it makes what we pay in America look insane.
If you were to tell Americans that they had to start paying for public school education for their children there would be rioting in the streets. That's how strongly the British feel about their health care system.
Putting up more profit centers between health care and the people is not a solution at all. Obama has made a real mess of this and I'm pretty dissapointed, especially since I was an rabid Obama volunteer. I'm almost embarassed to admit that now.
Now don't even get me started on Afghanistan.

The way things sound I'm packing for Europe. HERE I COME AMSTERDAM!!!

Quote from: "McQ"And there are a few misconceptions in this video as well, the most prominent (to me) is that the opening statement is now changed and it will be possible for those with insurance to have their plan and/or doctor switched.

Can you elaborate on this?  My reading suggests that switching will not be required... While it's possible that your employer will choose a different option, and hence change the plan under which you're currently covered, that's really no different than your employer today... Who can switch to ANY cheaper plan they wish.  Is that the point you're making?  That the employers may decide to dump their current provider in favor of the government plan?  Also, you mention they can switch your doctor.  That one just doesn't pass the smell test with me, but I've read your posts, and you strike me as a very serious guy who is more than capable of supporting an argument.  So, with that said, can you please elaborate?

I've heard/read nothing about not being able to choose your own doctor (unless maybe they are incompetent and/or refuse to play within the rules of the system).

Quote from: "McQ"This video is not the current plan.

Understood.  There are many different "plans" out there.  The video summarizes what the president is asking for, and what he is asking be part of any final plan put forth.  To your point, though, I understand we do not yet have a final bill, so it's not chiseled in stone yet, not by any means.

Quote from: "McQ"Additionally, the plan itself is so vague in parts that there is more than ample wiggle room for the administration or whoever gets to run this, to make major changes to it (and if history is any indication - and it is - things will change in a patchwork fashion).

An interesting concern, but clearly based on "crystal ball" debate style.  There is ample history to support your intended point, but neither of us can say for certain what will specifically be written/allowed/prohibited.

Quote from: "McQ"Has anyone here tried to deal with Medicare yet? If you like that, just wait until you see what the government can do with the health plan for ALL Amercians! LOL! It's going to be ugly, folks.

I don't find fear and ridicule to be very compelling arguments.  Perhaps you can focus on something specific?

Quote from: "McQ"Look what they did with Medicare Part D when they enacted that a couple of years ago. It's terrible.

Completely agree.  That bill was pushed through and it was a big blowjob for the insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies.  We had no way identified to pay for it, and we surrendered our ability to negotiate lower prices for bulk purchases.  Instead of buying in bulk (buying more and paying less per unit), we simply buy more pharmaceuticals at price (buy more, and pay retail for each unit), ultimately padding the profits of pharma and insurance providers.

However, implicit in your argument is that the new approach/bill will simply be more of the same... repeating the same mistakes we made with Medicare part D back in 2003.  Nothing I've read yet implies this is the case.  To what specifically are you referring that gives you this concern?  If you're referring to the Baucus bill, then we are both completely on the same page.  It's crap, and makes things worse, not better.  However, IMO the Baucus bill will never get any further because it's another handjob for the insurance companies (I could be wrong, though... maybe it will pass, I just think the outrage about it has been too great thus far, and that the more intelligent bills and proposals will be the ones to move forward... something more akin to the Waxman bill).

Quote from: "McQ"Again, I'm for change, but not change for change sake. This needs time and real, blood, sweat and tears planning and implementation. That has not happened yet.

I, for one, favor a single payer option... basically "Medicare for Everyone."  By spreading the risk pool across the entire nation, only paying for treatments and tests with proven efficacy, and having a focus on preventative (instead of catastrophic) care, we would bring down the individual costs to each of us rather significantly while simultaneously covering more people.  It's the same logic used in the business world.  Small business struggle to get affordable care for their employees because they have so few of them, and the risk pool is not spread out enough... This results in huge premiums, high deductibles, and pathetic care.  However, with larger corporations with thousands of employees, the risk pool is larger... there are more people paying into the system, so the individual costs are much lower and the leverage to afford better coverage is much better.  Now, apply this logic to the country as a whole.  You spread the risk pool out across the whole country, and the individual costs are minimized.

Unfortunately, that's completely off the table right now, so in that sense I agree that the current approach simply isn't good enough.  I do, however, see the current approach as a "foot in the door" to make things better, as we absolutely can't go on with the way things have been going... Where premiums skyrocket, people can't afford it, and those that can tend to be under-covered.


Did you ever check out the Frontline video I linked for you?  It showed how universal coverage is done in five other nations, and my own feeling is that we could rather easily replicate (borrow the best ideas from) one or more of those systems.

Cheers.

Quote from: "LARA"The main reason is that there will be a mandate for every individual to buy and keep health insurance that includes fines for non-compliance.  
<...>
They should be able to afford to buy health insurance, too, right?  Well, if they can't, it will be the government that decides, not them.  So if money's tight but you are over the line, you're feeding your family mac and cheese five nights a week to afford healthcare, all the while getting less healthy.

For readers who have not been following the discussions very closely, all of the above is plainly false.  People who make too little money to afford care will be granted exceptions.  It's that simple.

Also, I wonder why people freak out about the mandate idea.  You're mandated to carry auto-insurance.  Why the sudden problem carrying health insurance?  Are cars more important than people's health?  The simple fact is that the mandate helps everyone to avoid having to pay for people "gaming the system."  If you don't mandate care, you have too many people willing to "chance it," who will avoid getting coverage.  Then, when they get sick, they show up at the emergency room and get care (which is mandated by law) despite being unable to pay for it.  Then, the rest of us absorb those costs with our own premiums.

By mandating coverage, you ensure that there is enough money in the system to care for all people... Precisely as it works with auto-insurance.  The only difference is that people can choose not to drive a car, but they cannot choose not to get sick.


Again... We mandate coverage for automobiles... We mandate coverage on our mortgages and homes...  We mandate all sorts of sensible things, and the logic underlying those mandates is very plain, clear, and understandable.  Yet, we talk about mandating health care coverage, and everyone starts screaming about socialism?  Give me a break.  Go open a book.

iNow, I don't want to just gloss over the points you've made, as they are thoughtful and thorough. I'm kind of pressed for time tonight and tomorrow, so I may be a bit slow on getting to them. I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring your post.   I haven't been very active recently due to significant family and work obligations, something I don't think will change anytime soon.

Briefly, the reason I mention the potential switching of physicians, is because the President changed his wording in his address between August and September. One of the sources, aside from just listening to his speech, is The Annenberg Public Policy Center (for better or worse!). I've found their summaries to be pretty accurate, as well as their in-depth fact checking.

Also, just to be sure I'm clear, I didn't say that the new plan will require you to switch your doctor. I said it will be possible for those with insurance to have their plans switched. In his change of wording, the President went from guaranteeing existing health coverage would not change (something that would have been highly unlikely) to backing off and leaving it open. To me it is a different scenario than an employer offering different plans (I also don't think employers should necessarily shoulder the burden anyway). And it has always been the case that any insurer at any time can drop health care coverage. Same with any insurance.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas ... re-speech/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/)

I haven't yet viewed the Frontline video. I will watch it. thank you for the reminder.

I disagree that using history as a guideline for predicting future behavior is using a crystal ball. It is a sound method of predicting events, insofar as anything can be. It is not perfect, and I realize that change is inevitable. Just because something has been a certain way, does not necessarily mean it will always be that way. I get that. But history is a good method of predicting behavior, so I give it credence.

I have dealt with, and deal with a variety of Medicare and Medicaid issues every day. It is the most screwed up thing I have ever tried to deal with. I know people who are experts, and I mean with a capital E, and they cannot keep it all straight. If it is fair game to say our current health care system is broken, as our administration is saying, then why is it not fair to say that Medicare is broken and a complete mess?

I have to disagree with your assessment of my argument as using fear and ridicule to make my point. The fact is that Medicare is a complete mess and has been. The same people that currently run Medicare would be the ones running universal health care, unless you've heard something different. If calling Medicare a mess falls under the category of ridicule, I'm sorry if you find fault with that. The fact is that it is a mess.

I'd like to see those who think otherwise prove to me that things won't be a mess somehow. This is what I find disturbing. That otherwise rational, clear thinking people can simply just "buy" the message without asking for details. As a skeptic, I find it bizarre.

Yes, I'm worried about the Baucus bill, but again, I find that history is a pretty decent yardstick. As you've read nothing that implies repetition of mistakes, I've read nothing that implies we won't. What I want to see is detailed information and detailed plans that show exactly how we will not repeat that past and muck it up. If you've found that information, please share it. I have not found it, and will not support this plan until I do see it.

And I know that I may be wrong on some of these points, or that my opinions will simply differ. I'm ok with that. All of us should be checking this out though and looking for holes in the plans and in the arguments for and against.

I do agree with your last point about spreading risk, but I'm not sure how economically viable it will really be. I suck at economics, but something seems to be nagging at me about the ability to sustain that risk management (I know a nagging feeling is not evidence of anything - LOL!). I just can't nail it down yet.

Damn, I just looked at all I typed. I guess I ended up spending more time answering than I thought I would. But I felt your post deserved as much as I could give it for now.

Hope that clarifies at least some of what I wrote. I suppose my bottom line in all of this is that I do not automatically trust any ONE agency for all of anything. Ever. That includes this, or any government, with health care. But I do admit that it is something we need to get under control and make available to all citizens because right now, it ain't!

Cheers!

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply, McQ.  We most definitely agree on much more than was at first obvious.  

The potential for failure here is huge, but so is the potential for meaningful change.  There is really nothing in your post above with which I disagree, so I'm going to leave it here and call it a day.

I wish you all the best in finding simple solutions to the challenges and responsibilities with which you are faced right now, and I thank you tremendously for this really meaningful exchange.  It's really quite amazing what can happen in just two short posts.  Cheers to you, as well, my good man.

QuoteFor readers who have not been following the discussions very closely, all of the above is plainly false. People who make too little money to afford care will be granted exceptions. It's that simple.

And readers who have been following the discussions very closely already know that this is true.  If you watched Obama's speech promoting healthcare a few weeks ago, he mentioned the individual mandate to buy health insurance.   If there was no individual mandate iNOW, then why would you even need to write

QuotePeople who make too little money to afford care will be granted exceptions

. ??    This mandate is included in the Baucus Bill unless something has changed.  It includes tax credits for those who don't meet the income guidelines, true, but iNOW do you know how a tax credits work?  You take it directly off of your taxes, it's not a rebate.  Lower middle class families aren't going to benefit all that much from a credit.

The bill previously to the Baucus plan set premiums at around $400 a month for a family of four at the median income.  I don't think this bill is in play at this point, unless this part gets resurrected somehow.  Now compared to private insurance this is a pretty good price tag, but if you consider a dual career family with a high cost of work, childcare, car payments, etc.  It starts to get painful quite quickly.

If the Baucus bill includes these same income levels and ideas of affordability, then a mandate, which has been thrown on the table by Obama himself, is going to put a lot of economic pressure on families in the lower middle class.

Now I want to address some of your false analogies.  I am not a car, nor am I house.  These things can have a finite value placed on them.  A person's life can't be translated to dollars and this is part of the reason healthcare costs so much in a free market system.  Additionally, you can choose not to own a vehicle or buy a home if you can't afford it.  You cannot choose not to live, at least legally in the United States.  Additionally, not all States require all the same levels of coverage for automobile insurance, and if you buy your own home you are not required to insure it.  The reason it appears that homeowners insurance is enforced in law is because most of us have mortgages and the lien holder requires it.  And lastly, compare the annual cost of an auto premium and a home owners policy to health insurance.  It's not even in the same ballpark.

Now please do note I did not say I was against some redistribution of wealth or improving the healthcare system.  It really needs improving, this is not a point of contention.

What I would like to explain is that I am opposed to strongly socialist economic systems because they remove a great deal of freedom from the individual and reduce incentive to work harder.  I do however realize that not all us us have an altruistic sense and some will strip everyone else of their hard earned cash at any opportunity.  A little redistribution is necessary, so are antitrust laws and fair business practices.

If Obama loses the idea of an individual mandate, then I would  most likely support it.

Here's the full article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125371567686934179.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125371567686934179.html)

And here's the opening paragraphs.

QuoteWASHINGTON -- The Senate Finance Committee opened a second day of debate on health-care legislation, tangling Wednesday over whether the full bill should be made available online before the panel votes on it.

The committee has a "conceptual" version of the health-care bill posted on its Web site, rather than a full legislative text of the bill. Compiling the complex language with amendments into a bill and consequently receiving an official cost estimate would take weeks, according to the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus.
[Baucus] Getty Images

By a 12-11 vote, the committee defeated a Republican amendment that would have required it to post the full bill at least 72 hours before it votes on whether to approve the measure.

Open government my ass.

Quote from: "LARA"And readers who have been following the discussions very closely already know that this is true.  If you watched Obama's speech promoting healthcare a few weeks ago, he mentioned the individual mandate to buy health insurance.   If there was no individual mandate iNOW, then why would you even need to write

I did not say there was no mandate.  I said people who could not afford it would be given exemptions.

Quote from: "LARA"Now I want to address some of your false analogies.  I am not a car, nor am I house.  These things can have a finite value placed on them.  A person's life can't be translated to dollars and this is part of the reason healthcare costs so much in a free market system.  

It was not an analogy, it was a point.  You were railing against mandates.  I was providing an example of existing mandates.  This showed your rage to be incredibly inconsistent.  You were fuming about the mandate of health insurance, and I was simply pointing out how we already have insurance mandates elsewhere.  The issue is that your argumentative stance is not consistent.  We have mandates in many areas of life, and for good reasons.  Crying out that this is socialism (as if caring for our society is somehow a position worthy of denigration) is a rather ridiculous argument to put forth.

Further, we are not a free market economy, so let's just dispose of that old canard right now.  We are a mixed economy, otherwise known as a hybrid economy... incorporating both capitalistic/free market bits and socialistic bits.  History has proven time and again that either of these systems on their own are prone to failure, and cannot meet the public needs.  The point is that if you continue to argue as if we are purely a free market economy, then you are using a false premise as the foundation of your entire argument.

Quote from: "LARA"What I would like to explain is that I am opposed to strongly socialist economic systems because they remove a great deal of freedom from the individual and reduce incentive to work harder.

Really?  That's interesting.  Based on your strong stance, I presume you don't drive on public roadways, right?  I presume you did not attend public schools, right?  I presume you do not use public drinking water, right?  I presume you do not think we should have public universities, right?  I presume you oppose fire departments and police forces protecting your community, right?

These are ALL socialistic systems, and yet people still manage to be free, to work hard, and contribute to their society.  I wonder why that is.  Perhaps you can explain it to me.

QuoteIt was not an analogy, it was a point. You were railing against mandates. I was providing an example of existing mandates. This showed your rage to be incredibly inconsistent. You were fuming about the mandate of health insurance, and I was simply pointing out how we already have insurance mandates elsewhere. The issue is that your argumentative stance is not consistent. We have mandates in many areas of life, and for good reasons. Crying out that this is socialism (as if caring for our society is somehow a position worthy of denigration) is a rather ridiculous argument to put forth.

Nice passage.  I applaud you here iNOW.  I simply love how you typify my posts as emotional, angry and irrational.  But this is not a verbal exchange.  People are free to go back and read the text of my posts.  Also I suggest that you work on your reading comprehension.  It doesn't do any good to "open a book" if you aren't paying attention to what it says.

QuoteLARA wrote:
What I would like to explain is that I am opposed to strongly socialist economic systems because they remove a great deal of freedom from the individual and reduce incentive to work harder.

Really? That's interesting. Based on your strong stance, I presume you don't drive on public roadways, right? I presume you did not attend public schools, right? I presume you do not use public drinking water, right? I presume you do not think we should have public universities, right? I presume you oppose fire departments and police forces protecting your community, right?

These are ALL socialistic systems, and yet people still manage to be free, to work hard, and contribute to their society. I wonder why that is. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

I don't think I can explain it to you until you read my words more closely, stop trying to portray me in a false light and check to see if you aren't projecting your own frustrations on to me.

I will repeat my stance again.   I am opposed to strongly socialist systems not strongly opposed to socialist systems.  Roads and schools don't fall under this category.  The military doesn't either.  Yes, they are socialist.  I've often used the same argument myself for people who are completely opposed to the notion of some redistribution of wealth.

There is a point however when a socialist system has crossed the line, when it doesn't leave room for adaptation or makes compliance difficult or next to impossible.  There is a point where a socialist society is starving certain individuals who perform the main working tasks while yelling about how selfish they are.

This is the point where socialism becomes authoritarian.  Individual rights are thrown out the window and society bleeds dry the very people who are providing the resources.

The mandate makes Obama's healthcare policy, which is socialist, also authoritarian.  And I don't think we want to bring up the general term for authoritarian socialism in any area of polite society.

Obama will not be president in eight years.  The income levels set in this bill may not be adequate in twenty.  There absolutely can be no mandate.  If the healthcare plan becomes corrupt, or unfeasible, the people absolutely have to have an option to opt out.

Quote from: "LARA"I am opposed to strongly socialist systems not strongly opposed to socialist systems.

Thank you for clarifying that.  I did not sense that in your posts.  Either way, though, I disagree with you that the option for people to obtain healthcare from the government (the key word there being "option") is best characterized as a "strongly socialist system."  It has socialistic attributes, sure... but since it is still just an option, it is disingenuous to suggest it is "strongly" socialist.  

Your concerns seem centered around the mandate, and I appreciate that.  However, it's just the only way to make sure it works.  If people don't pay into the system, but then use care which is paid for by the system, the costs will not be balanced with the revenues.  By ensuring everyone pays, we can also ensure everyone receives care.  The logic is really straight forward.  We will need to be careful with how the exemptions and subsidies are setup, but the system will never work unless some sort of mandate is implemented.  Focusing on the term mandate seems odd since it's more about a requirement for any insurance coverage to work.

We're not talking about people surrendering every single dollar they earn to the government so the government can decide how it gets distributed.  We're talking about paying an extra coupla bucks from our paychecks to ensure a basic minimum quality of healthcare is available to our populace, and to help encourage more preventative care thus decreasing the need for catastrophic care.

Quote from: "LARA"There is a point however when a socialist system has crossed the line, when it doesn't leave room for adaptation or makes compliance difficult or next to impossible.  There is a point where a socialist society is starving certain individuals who perform the main working tasks while yelling about how selfish they are.

And that point to which you refer is entirely arbitrary and subjective.

Quote from: "LARA"This is the point where socialism becomes authoritarian.

So, you are now proposing that providing a basic minimum level of health coverage for all citizens regardless of their financial position is authoritarian?  Am I reading you correctly?

Quote from: "LARA"The mandate makes Obama's healthcare policy, which is socialist, also authoritarian.

But, as my examples demonstrate, it is only socialist in the same way that public roadways, public education, public water works, police forces, and fire departments are socialist.  Use of the term "authoritarian" to describe this seems misplaced, but that's just an opinion, so I'll leave it at that since you obviously disagree.

Quote from: "LARA"If the healthcare plan becomes corrupt, or unfeasible, the people absolutely have to have an option to opt out.

Why has it worked so well in other countries?  Why do all of my international colleagues rave about the care they are provided back home?  We are the only advanced civilization on the planet which does not provide basic minimum care for its people.  While I understand and appreciate your concerns regarding government involvement and potential challenges in the future, I find that the benefits FAR outweigh the aforementioned potential costs.

Difference of opinion, I suppose.  I know enough about other systems to recognize how easy this is, and how well it can work here at home.  I'm not swayed by arguments based on fear or cries of socialism, yet that's all we hear from the opposition... Hence, my current support of the change.

Probably been said but my problems with our system or the reform posed is this.

1.) We Americans can help relieve the burden of our healthcare system by taking care of ourselves.

I know I am being a hypocrite here for being slightly overweight (I am working on it and have lost about 20 pounds now, planning to make it another 15 or so by end of year), drinking a lot (I've cut back due to financial and school reasons and health), and smoke (though I have only roughly 5 or day give or take). I do not consume fast food anymore barring a day where I forget to pack a nutritious lunch.

Most people I know have problems stemming from being lazy fat fucks who think walking up a flight of stairs is a chore. I used to work at Wal-Mart and I'd see these fat asses come in and demand a scooter. Get your ass moving and eat some green vegetables.

I don't mean to sound harsh but why the hell should I have to help pay these lazy bums bills? They got themselves into that mess, get themselves out.

It's why other countries can afford to have the healthcare they do. They walk or bike to their destinations more. They don't eat the garbage we do. They are active in sports more often than we are. They value hard work more than we do. We have become lazy with our top dog status of economic and military might that we are losing that as well.

2.) We could easily alleviate a lot of issues with Marijuana Law Reform as well.

By taxing, regulating, and legalizing pot in the same manner as tobacco and booze we would remove over 700k arrests and imprisonments each year. The cost to house, feed, and guard people who have done nothing more than possess/sold weed is insane. The money from taxes by cutting cost and revenue from sales could help pay for healthcare. Not to mention the use of weed as an alternative to expensive and potentially dangerous/addicted pain killers can also alleviate the cost.

I doubt either party would do it because politicians are spineless cowards who don't actually try do the right thing.

3.) Certain people get coverage who I feel are undeserving.

If you intentionally harm yourself by ingesting hard drugs, consume morbid amounts of junk food, and/or essentially smoke yourself to an early death with an excessive amount of tobacco (like 2 packs a day), you have no right to bitch about healthcare. You brought your own problems upon yourself, you dig yourself out. If you don't feel you need to work but are able-bodied, you should starve and die off. I have nothing but contempt for people who are shiftless and lazy while I go to school and work full-time at a job I hate. It angers me more that I am being taxed 15 percent of my income to fund idiots on their path to stupidity.

4.) There are no incentives to improve your health under this plan or any plan.

Why not have tax breaks for people who buy healthy food like fruits, veggies, whole-grain breads, etc. and maintain a healthy weight? Why not encourage people who participate in a sporting activity (no, darts do not count, I mean soccer/football/basketball/rugby/fencing/etc.) by helping fund organizations that help people get away from their TV and computer and be social? Our biggest problem in this country is that we have lost the art of conversation and physical activity. People ate worse than we do back in the day but they also burned it off with work. They used to sit at a table together and talk about their day. They would go see their neighbors on an evening stroll and learn something about the people around them.

Now we just sit behind an idiot box and let it slowly suck our brains dry of its amazing faculties. People focus on celebrities' lives to ignore how empty theirs are.

5.) Tort reform is anemic in my opinion.

A lot of doctors have to buy expensive insurance to protect against medical malpractice suits that drain them even if it's frivolous. The costs get passed onto you and I when some idiot wants to win the moron lottery and sue when they don't obey their doctor's orders. I'm not saying some doctors don't deserve to take it in the shorts but for every one that does dozens more are wrongfully sued.

6.) It does kind of put government in control.

As mommasquid said, it's hard for a libertarian to get behind the government subsidizing and essentially controlling a private sector. I do feel we need reform but not something so intrusive. We have a system that is broke and robbing us blind with all the costs and taxes going into it now.

7.) What about organ donor programs and encouraging people to get on them?

I'm an organ donor and feel that we should actively encourage people to become them. What good are your body parts when you're dead? Why not donate what you can to help others who badly need it. Your kidneys could go to someone who needs them desperately to live or your heart valves can be used to help folks who could really use it. Why not have tax breaks on that as well? Sometimes you gotta use greed to get good things done but it's worth it in my opinion.

Just my opinion in all of this.

Here's the problems I have with some opponents of this reform.

1.) There are no fucking death panels. Stop saying stupid shit like this!

The idea of end-of-life counseling it to aid someone in making a tough decision. I for one would not like the idea of being a freak of nature by prolonging a miserable and painful experience with life support. Some people do, let them do it. Some people don't but are in a very stressful and emotional situation. Counseling could help them make the right decision for themselves and help them execute it so there are no regrets.

2.) Stop screaming socialism.

Seriously, this shit is annoying for two reasons: 1.) Socialism does have some good tenets to it. and 2.) When someone shouts something is socialist they have no idea what socialism is.

3.) Stop calling Obama a Commu-Nazi.

You look fucking stupid. It's like being a Black Panther Klansman or a Homophobic Gay Rights Activist. You can't have it both ways and Obama's not one of them. I don't like him personally but stop with the mudslinging. You are no better than your opponent if you both just fling shit at each like monkeys in a zoo. And we look like a bunch of retards to the rest of the world.

4.) Shouting at each other at town hall meetings can be fun but it goes nowhere.

Seriously, I almost went to a town hall meeting to yell but then realized it looks bad for your cause.

No.  
What we need is a revision of tort law for medical services so that we can get costs down and make it more economical for employers to operate their health plans, and more reasonable in cost for those without health care to be able to pay for it when using State hospitals, etc.  We need to work on the ridiculous cost of prescriptions as well.  This is an economic and cost issue, and while some people feel this type of "plan" works in Europe or Cananda I don't think they are considering the population here.  Physicians with private practice will not be able to operate their practices as they are now, and if we have an issue (such as a blip on a mammogram, for example) it will be two years before we can get in for a biopsy.  We need to curb cost, remove tort liability (thus bring malpractice insurance to a reasonable level) and educate people on wellness and health plans and stop using hopsitals and insurance as "sick policies".  

Medicare has been around for some time, and I don't know if any of you have had any dealings with it but it is a nightmare for the provider and the plan participant and I can only imagine the government taking over our health care.  I think our government has shown they aren't really very good at large-scale national plans or efforts....FEMA, Medicare, Border security, Social Security, and even small things like issuing freaking passports.  They are not capable, nor should they be responsible, nor us subjected to the nightmare.

Does anyone know the actual number of foreigners who come here for health care? I can't imagine it being as high as conservatives suggest it is simply because it's so damned expensive in America.

I also really like the idea of the Estate Tax.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

Quote from: "Sophus"Does anyone know the actual number of foreigners who come here for health care? I can't imagine it being as high as conservatives suggest it is simply because it's so damned expensive in America.

I also really like the idea of the Estate Tax.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

Foreigners come to America for health care? Do you have a link? That seems suspect to me. Why would they abandon free health care for expensive health care? Are we talking third world countries or something?

Quote from: "LARA"The mandate makes Obama's healthcare policy, which is socialist, also authoritarian.
<...>
If the healthcare plan becomes corrupt, or unfeasible, the people absolutely have to have an option to opt out.

I read this today, and it seemed relevant to your points, LARA.  In short, you cannot "opt out" of following the speed limit, nor can you "opt out" of having auto insurance when you have a car.  Similar principles at play here.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Word-fro ... ce-Reform/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Word-from-the-White-House-Common-Ground-on-Health-Insurance-Reform/)

Quote

• The latest en vogue assault in their last-ditch effort to preserve the status quo is an alleged tax that reform will impose on middle-class families

• But here’s the reality: Right now, under the system they wish to preserve, hundreds of millions of Americans who get insurance through their job or buy it on their own are paying a hidden tax of $1,000 to cover the costs of caring for Americans without health insurance.

• And that figure is growing by the day as more and more people lose their insurance.

• What President Obama is proposing is not a tax, but a requirement to comply with the law.
  
  • People are required to obey the speed limit and have to pay a penalty if they get caught speeding?  Does anyone consider that a tax?
  • People are required to have car insurance and can be fined if they are caught without it.  Is that a tax?
  • What we’re talking about is a penalty for the few people who will refuse to buy health insurance â€" even though they can afford it â€" and who expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for their care.

Q: But what about the fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, devicemakers? Won’t that be passed on to consumers as a hidden tax?
 
A: No, for at least three reasons:
 

• First, the fees are lump sum, not per unit, so you should not expect that manufacturers will pass them on.
  
  • Do critics really think the drug companies are holding back their prices today out of the goodness of their hearts and would decide to raise them to make up for this lump sum - but couldn't raise them today to get higher profits?
• Second, these fees are intended to recapture part of the benefits these businesses will get from reform, as they acquire tens of millions of new customers.
  
  • If you believe the lump sum tax put pressure on them to raise prices, then the fact that they are getting lots of revenue from new customers will reduce that pressure.
• Third, the fees are all going to ensure that we are increasing the numbers getting affordable coverage and thus reducing the $1,000 hidden tax that millions of Americans pay for the uncompensated care of the uninsured.
  
  • So even if you believed that somehow companies would find a way to pass them along, that would be more than outweighed by the benefits middle-class families would get from not only hundreds of billions of dollars in health care tax credits but from reducing the hidden tax they currently pay for the uninsured.

Except that in order to pay income tax I have to make money.  In order to pay auto insurance I have to own a car.  in order to pay health insurance all I have to do is be alive.  There's a choice with all of those.  You can live off the grid if you want to (be Amish.)  But now all you have to do is be alive to be taxed "for your own good."

Quote from: "andrewclunn"now all you have to do is be alive to be taxed "for your own good."

Read more closely.  You only pay if you can afford it, and by every logical evaluation, the benefits of doing so FAR outweigh the costs.

Here is something interesting I saw on reddit about the Health Care reform.  My original vote was undecided in this but i'm leaning toward agreeing just because I want to see the assholes in the link fucked.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/1/788757/-UK-press-does-the-job-the-U.S.-media-wont

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Here is something interesting I saw on reddit about the Health Care reform.  My original vote was undecided in this but i'm leaning toward agreeing just because I want to see the assholes in the link fucked.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/1/788757/-UK-press-does-the-job-the-U.S.-media-wont

Who cares who's lobbying more?  Than doesn't say anything about the facts.  Don't care about polls, don't care about endorsements.  Read the bills, learn the facts and hear reasoned arguments and then decide!  Why is everybody so swayed by all these straw men?!!!

Maybe you can clear something up for me, Andrew.

How is it a strawman to point out the FACT that the insurance companies have spent $380 million lobbying to kill a healthcare reform bill, and to point out how successful their lobbying efforts have been in casting aside the public option despite the FACT that nearly 70% of the US public want it?

Maybe you can clear that up for me.  Considering you are here trumpeting the need for reasoned argument, I am merely requesting that you actually make one in support of your own points.  Thanks.

Reasoned debate, folks. There is no need to get angry. Just talk to one another.

Please.  

Thank you.

Sorry.  What I'm saying is that who lobbies for what has no effect on my personal opinion.  What 70% of the American people want has no effect on my opinion.  Those are just meta-debates (debating the debate rather than the topic of the debate.)  All that matters are the actual plans and the facts.  Not the facts about opinions.  i don't care about polls.  more than 70% of the American people believe in God, and that doesn't mean anything to me.  When LoneMateria stated that he might change his opinion merely because of lobbying (not any revealed evidence about the plan(s) themselves) that frustrates me, because it doesn't reflect critical thought.  it's reactionary emotional appeals.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"Sorry.  What I'm saying is that who lobbies for what has no effect on my personal opinion.  What 70% of the American people want has no effect on my opinion.  Those are just meta-debates (debating the debate rather than the topic of the debate.)  All that matters are the actual plans and the facts.  Not the facts about opinions.  i don't care about polls.  more than 70% of the American people believe in God, and that doesn't mean anything to me.  When LoneMateria stated that he might change his opinion merely because of lobbying (not any revealed evidence about the plan(s) themselves) that frustrates me, because it doesn't reflect critical thought.  it's reactionary emotional appeals.

Those are good points. Very good points.

Indeed.  That is much more clear, and makes good sense.  It seems that you misused the label of strawman in the previous post, but I do appreciate you coming back to clarify.


As to Lone Materia's position, I can't help but to understand where he's coming from.  Many people were uncertain about healthcare reform... sitting on the proverbial fence... Then, after witnessing what has been done to stop legislation, and what is motivating it (summarized here as lies and money), it's not hard to understand someone getting fed up and saying, "enough is enough, let's make this happen.  it's important that we don't let those bastards screw us yet again."

Yeah well, if you tend to lean to the right (as I do) then you also tend to be under the impression that 'those bastards' only get to screw us over more and more the larger the role of government becomes in our economy.

Yes, I know.  You've firmly established yourself as the type of person who does not think that Medicare should exist at all.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009 ... hp?ref=fpc (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/gop-senate-candidate-blunt-attacks-government-health-care----like-medicare-and-medicaid.php?ref=fpc)


Or that providing adequate care in a compassionate manner for all citizens will lead us to tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Coffee_Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Coffee_Cup)


I find those ideas myopic, and I completely disagree since they try to treat the system in isolation, thus removing their actual bases in reality.


I look at it this way.  You're okay with government handling security, but not much else.  I simply class protection from bankruptcy resulting from unpreventable illness and having access to quality medical care regardless of income level to be another form of security, and hence worth my governments time and attention.

But isn't that too much of an ideological divide?  I mean by saying it that way haven't we already made it out so that we disagree on the very nature of government, and therefore can't agree on anything regarding health care?  I mean, it's true what you're saying, but shouldn't we both still care whether the particular plans presented will work and what they do?  I mean you want government health care and I don't, but what sort of health care and how?  Just because you're very unlikely to win me over doesn't mean that you should support any plan just because it is some sort of plan.  The details are important.  Saying WHY one is for or against government health care is only part f it.  Because even though I do not want government run health care I certainly like certain government health related laws.  That's part of the reason I was so angry in the post I made 4 pages back or so (When releasing the bill to be seen by the public online was voted down.)  I may not be happy from an ideological point of view with any government run health care, but that is because I am not convinced that government run health care will work in this country.  If you want to sway people like me, then show us that your plan will work.  Present exactly what that plan is.  And if the plan put forth by our politicians turns out to be crap, then it's not hypocrisy for you to oppose it.  If it's bad legislation then you should oppose it, even if you agree with the idea of government run health care in principle.  But when I hear the justification for doing something, anything, being that if we don't then we're screwed, it frustrates me.  Because the system we have is not perfect.  And no it's not what I want (I'm frustrated as hell about health insurance being tied to employment), and so I would be in favor of health care reform, but ti's very different reform than what is being proposed.  I want to be shown that it will work, and how it will work and I want to see the bill.  I'll read it.  But unless I'm shown that we have a real plan that will work, I can't put my support behind anything.  End stream-of-consciousness-like rant.

Okay, I'm going to dissect your wall of text a bit...  I hope you don't mind.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"I mean by saying it that way haven't we already made it out so that we disagree on the very nature of government, and therefore can't agree on anything regarding health care?

As I stated above, we really don't disagree on the nature of government.  We disagree on what constitutes security.  Your view is much narrower than mine.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"I mean, it's true what you're saying, but shouldn't we both still care whether the particular plans presented will work and what they do?  I mean you want government health care and I don't, but what sort of health care and how?

I see no disagreement between us here.  I do... very much... care about the particulars, which is why I've been paying such close attention to the process these last several months.

 

Quote from: "andrewclunn"Just because you're very unlikely to win me over doesn't mean that you should support any plan just because it is some sort of plan.  The details are important.

You must be confusing me with someone else, or with another thread at another forum (like you did regarding the Obama speech to school children issue).  I don't support any plan just because it's a plan, nor have I anywhere even once suggested, implied, nor expressly stated that details are unimportant.  You mentioned strawmen a few posts back... Let's please make sure that you too avoid them.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"I may not be happy from an ideological point of view with any government run health care, but that is because I am not convinced that government run health care will work in this country.  If you want to sway people like me, then show us that your plan will work.  

I don't have a proposal going through Congress.  Since when is this "my" plan?  For the record, what's coming out of the Senate right now won't work IMO, but I will refrain from passing final judgment on the reform in general until it's done with reconciliation (as the House bill had a lot going for it, and I'm curious what compromises will be made before it's sent for signature).

Also, for examples on ideas which we should be leveraging, I highly suggest this special (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/) to see how it's done in five other nations already:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ntinuous=1 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p101&continuous=1)

Quote from: "andrewclunn"And if the plan put forth by our politicians turns out to be crap, then it's not hypocrisy for you to oppose it.  If it's bad legislation then you should oppose it, even if you agree with the idea of government run health care in principle.

Again, you appear to be confusing me with someone else.  We have no disagreement here.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"But when I hear the justification for doing something, anything, being that if we don't then we're screwed, it frustrates me.  

Another strawman.  Nobody has said this.  What WAS said is that the amount of money being spent to screw us makes some people more supportive of any change.  That's not being presented as some justification for doing something.  It is being presented as an explanation of what is motivating people to move past their complacency.

So... be frustrated... I don't care.  Feelings of frustration are precisely what you're choosing to rail against right now.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"Because the system we have is not perfect.  

I agree.  I'd actually go so far as to call it rather broken.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"And no it's not what I want (I'm frustrated as hell about health insurance being tied to employment), and so I would be in favor of health care reform, but ti's very different reform than what is being proposed.

Well, since a single payer system was taken off the table all negotiations have been in context of how to improve the employer based system.  So, with that said, I really don't understand what and how you'd personally like to see reform made.  You've already openly stated that you completely are against the three main approaches available to us (government based, employer based, or a hybrid of the two).

Quote from: "andrewclunn"I want to be shown that it will work, and how it will work

And I want an Aston Martin, and for religion to be eradicated from the face of the planet for the cancer it is on the minds of otherwise intelligent people.  It's not gonna happen.  We can simply do our best, and improve it as we go (exactly as happened in Australia when they implemented their universal health care system).

Quote from: "andrewclunn"But unless I'm shown that we have a real plan that will work, I can't put my support behind anything.

But, you can support certain principles, which you have... despite not having a bill to read.  Most other people are simply doing the same thing.

I contend that... despite your claims to the contrary... this has nothing to do with the absence of a final draft bill at your fingertips to read, and has everything to do with you not agreeing with the principles underlying the current discussion.

The principles are open for debate, and don't require existing legislation to discuss.

Andrew I realize that we haven't had much discussion between us yet so let me be clear.  Belittling me for not sharing the same opinion isn't going to motivate me to change my mind.  I'm still undecided about this topic and I've read most of this thread.  Each side makes valid points and I can neither support nor denounce this bill based on my current understanding of things.  I'm sure as atheists this attitude can be appreciated.  I found the link via reddit and it did exactly what it was supposed to, it pissed me off so I posted it.  I'm not going to make up my mind solely on this one bit of information.  However this article does put into perspective certain aspects of this bill that doesn't seem to be explored.  Why is it that companies are funneling money into getting this bill rejected?  How can these companies justify this investment when they are on the verge of asking for a government handout?  

I'm sure there is personal motivation for people on both side don't get me wrong.  But i'm not in favor of letting these companies funnel all this money into opposing a bill (or anything for that matter) when their companies are failing financially and are expecting a government handout to stay afloat.  Essentially they are using taxpayer money to oppose something they don't like.  That really pisses me off.  When I do make a decision about this healthcare reform this will help affect my final outcome no matter if i'm for this or against it.  I hope we can have a less emotional disagreement in the future ^_^.

Just to be clear, I was using the term 'you' (in my last post) as someone might use the term 'one' (I simply chose to word it in the second person.)  It was not meant directly at anyone and I was not implying that any one person here held those views.  I was speaking to the type of "us and them" mentality that seems to be arising here, and was attempting to show the inner workings of my emotional reactions to this topic so that people would be clear as to where I'm coming from.  I was not pointing at anyone in particular, and am very sorry if it was taken that way.

I'll say it again. Reasoned debate. I'm not just asking one person here. Don't try to push other peoples' buttons, folks. This is not directed at any one person.

That being said.  The poll at the top does not say "Do you support government run health care?"  It also does not say, "Do you support single payer health care reform?" or "Do you support health care reform?"  It asks if you support Obama's plan for health care reform.  Now I voted "not sure" initially, though I would now change my vote to no, since congress voted specifically to keep the bill from being released online.  I can certainly understand that we have differing views on what health care plan is ideal, but I'm just at a loss for how anyone can reasonably support a plan that they can not possible know anything about (Well anything other than the vague generalizations in political promises?)  In order to support this plan you must either:

A) Put your faith and trust Obama and Congress to do the right thing.
B) Want change in some form regardless of what it is.
C) Not feel that the details are really that important.
D) Support Obama's plan for some reason other than wanting a working health care system.
or
E) I'm totally missing something.

I just want to know what it is.  Because (like I said) I voted "not sure" because I was waiting to read the bill, and it's only since congress made it so I couldn't and wouldn't be able to become informed as to the details of the plan that I have come out against it.  So please explain to me (the over 50% of you who voted yes) how using rational critical analysis we can support the plan under A, B, C or D.  Or if it's E, then please enlighten me as to what I'm missing.

The thing you are missing, Andrew, is this...

F) There is more in the plans with which we agree than parts with which we disagree, so we stand in support because... although it's not perfect (nothing ever is)... it contains some rather important improvements to the existing system.

I refer to things like nondiscrimination over preexisting conditions; eliminating yearly or lifetime payout ceilings and caps; making illegal the rationing of care and droppage of coverage when it's most needed; guarantees for coverage of preventative care and early diagnostics; provision of security and stability when people lose their jobs or transfer to other employers; and the list goes on.

For you to dismiss peoples support the way you have with your choices A through D above does not help us to have a quality discussion.  You've done nothing more than disparage those with whom you disagree, and shown how difficult it is for you to think outside of your own ideological box.

Let's avoid creating false dichotomies, okay?  (Errr... I suppose it would actually be a quadchotomy, but it's still a false description of the actual underlying reasoning all the same).

But how do you know those things are there in ways that will work?  How can you know when congress isn't letting us see the bill?  Those things you've said are vague, they have to be implemented in some way.  How do you know that they are being put into law in a way that isn't riddled with loopholes if you can't see the bill?  Why are you just trusting that the result of all this will be what you've stated when you aren't allowed to see it?  (You clearly fall into category A)

I'm done talking to you.  Besides the fact that you keep moving the goalposts, it's as if you're intentionally misrepresenting me, disparaging my position by equating it with faith, and ignoring my actual points.

Chillax, folks.

We don't know what the final bill will look like in its final incarnation... or even if there will be a public option in the bill. When the thing finally gets out of committee, I'll grab a copy and post the link here so we can wade through it. It's probably going to look like the HR 3200 that we saw before, only with lobbyist interference. What level of interference will there be? We don't know yet. President Obama, if I'm remembering correctly, said that he will veto this if it doesn't have the public option.

Remember, if your congressman or congresswoman is obviously feeding from the healthcare lobbyist trough, you can vote for someone else or even run yourself next time around. In fact, I'd highly recommend it, as regardless of whether you're on board with the idea of universal healthcare, lobbyist control over your representative is absolutely unacceptable. That's one constant across the whole ideological spectrum from the most strident libertarian to the most committed collectivist.

Quote from: "Will"President Obama, if I'm remembering correctly, said that he will veto this if it doesn't have the public option.

I don't believe so.  They have not come out and said this, and always dance around the issue when it's brought up.  He's been careful not to make veto threats since it turned out so bad for Clinton when he did it back in '93.  What the administration officials keep saying is that, "We'd prefer a public option, and we think that's the best way to drive down costs and improve quality, but there are many different ways to arrive at that same outcome and we are not taking anything off the table."   ... I paraphrased, but that's the gist.


While I obviously disagree a bit with Andrews ideological stance, and we seem not to share similar underlying principles in this discussion on healthcare, I need to give him credit and acknowledge that he's probably right about one thing...  Even if this is a really crappy bill, it will probably still pass since the Dems cannot afford to look like they were too weak to get anything done with this.  They'd rather pass something bad than nothing at all.

TDS had a wonderful piece on how pathetic they are just last week.  Clip at the link below:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-s ... r-majority (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority)

QuoteJon Stewart went off on Senate Democrats last night for failing to get their health care reform plan past the Senate Finance Committee despite having a super majority. The Democrats had the numbers on the committee, but several members of their party voted against the amendments despite 65% national approval for the plan. Stewart argued that the "Democrats couldn't get laid in a house [where people's] sole purpose is to have consequence and disease-free sex with legislators on finance committees."

Quote from: "andrewclunn"But how do you know those things are there in ways that will work?  How can you know when congress isn't letting us see the bill?  Those things you've said are vague, they have to be implemented in some way.  How do you know that they are being put into law in a way that isn't riddled with loopholes if you can't see the bill?  Why are you just trusting that the result of all this will be what you've stated when you aren't allowed to see it?  (You clearly fall into category A) [support based on nothing more than faith]

I'm surprised I didn't catch this last night since you repeated it so many times.  This is plainly untrue, and can be classed as a meme designed to do nothing more than further propagate false information.

Evidence is always best, so I'll just share this link and let all of you figure out whether or not "Congress isn't letting us see the bill."  This was posted by the Senate Finance Committee on Friday night, and won't be voted upon until Tuesday:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/legislation.htm (http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/legislation.htm)
Specifically:  http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg ... MENDED.pdf (http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/100209_Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_AMENDED.pdf)

This is what I was referring to:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9AT460O0 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9AT460O0)

I'll say more when I'm done reading...

Quote from: "andrewclunn"This is what I was referring to:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9AT460O0 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9AT460O0)

I know what you're referring to, Andrew.  I also know that while they voted down the specific Republican amendment (which, it can be argued, was only offered to allow private health insurance companies enough time to form a strong offensive prior to the vote to kill the process), the Democrats DID offer and implement an alternative.

The existence of the alternative is obvious, and demonstrated by the link I shared above... A link which clearly shows your assertions that they are "hiding it" from us and "not allowing us to review it to be completely nonreality based.  

So... to share a more rounded view of what actually happened, I offer the following:


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/2 ... gislation/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/23/committee-spars-over-transparency-of-health-care-legislation/)

QuoteThe committee voted down an amendment by Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning to make the final legislative language available on the committee’s web site for 72 hours before members of the committee can vote on it. But it adopted a modified version of the amendment, proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, that requires the committee to post a plain-English summary with a complete Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of the bill before a vote on the legislation.

Yes, and a "plain-English summary" is a load of BS.  But like I said, I'm reading.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"Yes, and a "plain-English summary" is a load of BS.

You lose more credibility with me with nearly every post you make.  
It's rather interesting that you would say this, considering that's how it's been done on the Senate Finance Committee for decades by BOTH parties.

From my link above:

QuoteRepublicans challenged a long-standing tradition of the influential Finance Committee, which has wide jurisdiction over trade, tax and health policy. Members of the committee â€" over the years â€" have embraced a practice of working from detailed, plain-language summaries of legislative initiatives, in part because many of the issues before the panel are dense. Those summaries are later translated into formal legislative language before any bill is brought to floor of the full Senate for debate. That has been the practice for yearsâ€"whether Democrats or Republicans controlled the panel.

Ok......the bickering needs to stop.  There is no reason why adults can't discuss this issue without name calling and other insults.

I can appreciate that you may take issue with my tone, but I can't help but to push back a bit on your suggestion that correcting lies and standing up for truth and accuracy is a form of bickering... especially one which "needs to stop."

Andrew has in numerous posts presented falsehoods, half-truths, and comments which isolate facts in such a way as to make them no longer accurate representations of reality.  I am uncertain whether he is simply uninformed or if he's intentionally spinning things to support his preconceived notions, but I'm frankly rather surprised that I'm the only one knowledgeable and willing enough to call him out for it.


If you'd prefer to protect the jovial spirit of the site at the expense of accurate debate grounded in reality regarding real issues happening in our country right now, then mea culpa for my noncompliance.  As a general rule, I find the importance of truth and accuracy to supersede the importance of friendliness, but I also recognize that they are not mutually exclusive.  I've sharpened my rhetorical talons on these issues at other sites, and I sometimes forget the kumbaya theme here.

QuoteI want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance â€" oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/open_season_on_fresh_meat.php)

This is not debate...this is arguing....if you want to debate here that is fine but it is not okay (for anyone) to be calling each other names.  If you can't debate in a mature manner, don't try to debate here.

I don't plan on changing the forum rules just because someone doesn't like them:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522)

Quote from: "iNow"If you'd prefer to protect the jovial spirit of the site at the expense of accurate debate grounded in reality regarding real issues happening in our country right now, then mea culpa for my noncompliance.  As a general rule, I find the importance of truth and accuracy to supersede the importance of friendliness, but I also recognize that they are not mutually exclusive.  I've sharpened my rhetorical talons on these issues at other sites, and I sometimes forget the kumbaya theme here.

iNow, your statement is out of line and is the kind of straw man you seem to have such disdain for. Show me or anyone else here where we have written that we feel we need to compromise on accurate debate. Show me in the forum guidelines, rules, or in any post, that we've said truth, accuracy, honesty, or good debate must be sacrificed in order to be civil.

Just because you feel a certain way about how you want to debate does not make it the correct way. If you want your talons sharpened, feel free to do so on any number of other sites where incivility is more valued than civility.

You said yourself that you recognize truth, accuracy and friendliness are not mutually exclusive. That is correct. They are not. Your quote, however, tells a different story and it is a sentiment that is not one in which the founders of this forum believe in or follow. It effectively equates anyone who is civil with being a liar, or as PZ Meyers puts it in your quote, a charlatan. One can be civil and be truthful. Not everyone who is civil is a liar. Additionally, not everyone who is uncivil is a paragon of truth, either. Being civil or uncivil does not make one a liar or a truthful person.

This forum is not PZ Meyer's blog. Feel free to act any way you please there. In this forum, we ask for civility and truthfulness. Your derogatory, sarcastic name calling of this as "Kumbaya", is inaccurate, and not in keeping with what we strive for. You can accept that or not.

QuoteI want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance â€" oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/open_season_on_fresh_meat.php)

[/quote]

Quote from: "McQ"This forum is not PZ Meyer's blog. Feel free to act any way you please there.

For the record, I've never once posted to his blog.  I do read it, though, and thought that quote summed up my point.

Quote from: "McQ"If you want your talons sharpened, feel free to do so on any number of other sites where incivility is more valued than civility.

Well... speaking of strawmen...   Either way...
Understood.  Take it easy, y'all.

Quote from: "McQ"If you want your talons sharpened, feel free to do so on any number of other sites where incivility is more valued than civility.

Quote from: "iNow"Well... speaking of strawmen...  

Quote from: "iNow"I've sharpened my rhetorical talons on these issues at other sites, and I sometimes forget the kumbaya theme here.

Straw Man? Don't think so.

Quote from: "iNow"

Quote from: "andrewclunn"Yes, and a "plain-English summary" is a load of BS.

You lose more credibility with me with nearly every post you make.  
It's rather interesting that you would say this, considering that's how it's been done on the Senate Finance Committee for decades by BOTH parties.

From my link above:

QuoteRepublicans challenged a long-standing tradition of the influential Finance Committee, which has wide jurisdiction over trade, tax and health policy. Members of the committee â€" over the years â€" have embraced a practice of working from detailed, plain-language summaries of legislative initiatives, in part because many of the issues before the panel are dense. Those summaries are later translated into formal legislative language before any bill is brought to floor of the full Senate for debate. That has been the practice for yearsâ€"whether Democrats or Republicans controlled the panel.

The fact that this is business as usual is no excuse.  The fact that the finance committee gets away with not having to hammer out the details, should worry you.  The articles you linked to paint the motion as nothing more than a Republican stalling technique.  here's an idea.  Maybe they wanted the details to be part of this bill.  Maybe because we can't meaningfully discuss this without talking about the specifics they wanted those specifics, because otherwise people can just hide behind vague generalizations.  (Of course that all assumes that you believe that the Republicans are real people who desire to have a system that works, and aren't simply evil hell spawn attempting to deceive and enslave us all.)  Either way, I have now read the pdf you linked to, so I'm as informed as I legally can be about what's in this proposal.  So if you'd like to continue this discussion, let me know.

I haven't been keeping up with healthcare as of late but the last bill I saw, the Bacchus bill or whatever it's called. I hope that bill gets shot down and for once the republicans were right to shoot that horrible bill down. Now I would hope they can get something better up and even if the Republicans are still refusing to cooperate get a bill passed without their help that doesn't have all of the horrible things Bacchus put in there at the best of lobbyists. I don't know what the current consensus is right now as it's been a few days but I would [strike:3on8ilx2]dream[/strike:3on8ilx2] hope that Republicans and Democrats are being more reasonable with each other to get a proper healthcare bill passed. I'll probably be catching up with the news sooner or later.

Quote from: "iNow"

Quote from: "andrewclunn"now all you have to do is be alive to be taxed "for your own good."

Read more closely.  You only pay if you can afford it, and by every logical evaluation, the benefits of doing so FAR outweigh the costs.

The problem with that is the government and its bureaucracy tends to judge a lot of people of capable of paying their way. For example I do not qualify for FASFA because my mother makes 60K+ a year after working her ass off and getting a master's and getting a job as a school counselor. She does help pay for my college but I do not qualify for a dime of government aid so I have to work full time and go to school full time as well.

I cannot afford the cost of health insurance at this time. It would literally drain me of my small amount of emergency/fun money.

It's almost as if you are penalized for being responsible and actually having ambition in your life. It's total bullshit.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "iNow"

Quote from: "andrewclunn"now all you have to do is be alive to be taxed "for your own good."

Read more closely.  You only pay if you can afford it, and by every logical evaluation, the benefits of doing so FAR outweigh the costs.

The problem with that is the government and its bureaucracy tends to judge a lot of people of capable of paying their way. For example I do not qualify for FASFA because my mother makes 60K+ a year after working her ass off and getting a master's and getting a job as a school counselor. She does help pay for my college but I do not qualify for a dime of government aid so I have to work full time and go to school full time as well.

I cannot afford the cost of health insurance at this time. It would literally drain me of my small amount of emergency/fun money.

It's almost as if you are penalized for being responsible and actually having ambition in your life. It's total bullshit.

This is very true but there are a few congressmen who are making a major push to have a lot of the bureaucracy cleaned up and it looks like they'll be having their way starting with the criminal system.

Something I didn't know was going on.  Apparently religion was being slipped into the Health Care Reform Bill but was taken out.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m10d29-House-excludes-spiritual-care-from-Health-Care-Reform-bill

Breaking news:

QuoteWASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. House on Saturday passed landmark health overhaul legislation that would extend insurance coverage to 36 million Americans now lacking it, taking a crucial step toward realizing President Barack Obama's top legislative priority. The bill passed by a 220-215 vote. Rep. Joseph Cao, (R, La.), was the lone Republican supporting the bill.

The bill's passage, which came after exhaustive negotiations within the Democratic ranks, was assured only hours before the vote took place. It is the first bill of its kind--a broad-ranging measure aimed at revamping the modern U.S. health sector and moving the nation toward universal health coverage--that has passed the House or the Senate.

Interesting:

QuoteHouse Democrats on Friday had appeared to embrace language offered by Rep. Brad Ellsworth, (D, Ind.), that would clarify that the federal government would not pay for abortion coverage. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops indicated that they would not support the bill without stronger language barring federal funding of abortions, which hardened the position of the pro-life lawmakers.

"We thought that we'd met the expectations of those who were against abortion coverage," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, (D, Calif.). " The [Conference of Catholic Bishops] disagreed with that and looked at it in a different way, and that was a very difficult issue to resolve."

Link (http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200911072336DOWJONESDJONLINE000347_univ.xml)

Edit:
Text of bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3962ih.txt.pdf)

220 to 215, with 29 Democrats voting against (some because they're in conservative districts, others because they hated the watered-down public option instead of a single-payer universal system) and one lone brave Republican voting for.

The bill as it exists now is hardly a progressive dream, and it does include mandating healthcare coverage, but it's not bad. I'm going to call this a victory for the moment. We'll see how the Senate deals with this.

Excellent, it's not perfect but maybe I'll be able to go to the doctor soon for that much needed check up I haven't had in two years. It'll be devastating for the republicans if this bill passes and turns out to be an overwhelming success.

Nothing was ever here....got it?

Quote from: "Big Mac"We are so screwed if this shit passes. You think it's awesome now but think about the cost and application of it. TO keep it afloat they would have to kill off people. Fuck the government run healthcare. Other countries who have had it have dead babies and old people. Coincidence, I think not. AMERICA RULES, REST OF THE WORLD DROOLS!! LUYLZ!!

Say what? Links plox? No one is going to be killed off to support this plan.

Quote from: "Big Mac"We are so screwed if this shit passes. You think it's awesome now but think about the cost and application of it. TO keep it afloat they would have to kill off people. Fuck the government run healthcare. Other countries who have had it have dead babies and old people. Coincidence, I think not. AMERICA RULES, REST OF THE WORLD DROOLS!! LUYLZ!!

Is this a serious post?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Big Mac"We are so screwed if this shit passes. You think it's awesome now but think about the cost and application of it. TO keep it afloat they would have to kill off people. Fuck the government run healthcare. Other countries who have had it have dead babies and old people. Coincidence, I think not. AMERICA RULES, REST OF THE WORLD DROOLS!! LUYLZ!!

Is this a serious post?

I'm going to give Big Mac the benefit of doubt and go with NO....

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Big Mac"We are so screwed if this shit passes. You think it's awesome now but think about the cost and application of it. TO keep it afloat they would have to kill off people. Fuck the government run healthcare. Other countries who have had it have dead babies and old people. Coincidence, I think not. AMERICA RULES, REST OF THE WORLD DROOLS!! LUYLZ!!

Is this a serious post?

I'm going to give Big Mac the benefit of doubt and go with NO....

Whoopsie there..... didn't realize this even posted!!!! Allow me to uh...yeah.

Hi Sophus,
I would really like to vote for National Health Care. You can say that I am a fan of President. As I am from England, I don't have any particular idea about this. I want to know for what this plan is made for and why the voting is going on. I hope you will provide me the detail information. Hope to read from your soon. Thanks.

Hi Preston,

There has been a lot of distortion of the plan from the Republican party, although I'm sure Democrats aren't completely innocent of it either. It's also undergone a number of revisions. Many people are afraid they will be forced into the plan although it's only a public option for those who do not have Health Care. My largest concern is paying for it, especially when America is already in such an awful economic situation. There was a proposal of a new "Estate Tax" which would basically take about half of the money from %2 of the wealthiest dead people. There's also talk about taxing medical items more than $100. The taxes are there for the companies that make up the medical industry. With Health Care reform they will benefit so much that they have already agreed to pay $80 billion toward health care reform. Cuts in MediCare will probably be made to pay for the new plan, although the size of it has been largely exaggerated by those opposing the change.

So, it's a sticky issue. It's difficult to know who's being more truthful. There's more on the actual plan here: http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/MNTL1B607U.DTL

Apparently Christian scientists are now lobbying to make the government pay for their "healers" to pray over sick people.  Those people are a fucking joke.