- 1,175
- 10
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
Congress clears historic health care bill...
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by superantigen,
- Start date
- 3,937
- 2,069
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
I totally agree. Is it fair for a teacher to make as much as a doctor? The answer is no. It is a two way street.
You make more money, you pay more taxes. Everyone knows this before they choose their profession.
We all know that something has to be done. Doing nothing will only dig us a deeper hole.
The real issue here about this health-care reform is about how to pay for it.
People always talking about how Obamacare is gonna bankrupt our country, and we can't pay for it.
No one was saying anything when ******ed @ s s George W. was getting us into 2 wars. which by the way has cost America nearly 975 Billion.
We could've paid for this bill with that alone, not to mention saved the lives of 6397 soldiers.
We'll do what America has always done. Leverage our resources, borrow the money and tax people.
If you don't like it and in fear for your families future, move out of the states.
Because guess what? This is America and you have the right to not live here.
However, if you did you would probably be moving to a country that already has a health-care system similar to the one you're fighting against.
This reform is the right thing to do. PERIOD.
Human life comes before money. PERIOD.
- 1,215
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
So his approval goes down for doing exactly what he said he was going to do when running for office? No wonder other countries hate us.Originally Posted by swizzc
- 8,406
- 41
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
Expensive for business already struggling, not individuals. The belief is that if they can't afford to buy employees insurance expect job losses.Hope it's not the case. But if people aren't worried about health care costs, maybe they'll spend more money and boost the economy
- 127
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
Bout time. Glad to see this being discussed in NT, as well.
- 18,373
- 33,982
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
So did they address any of the core problems with the health care system? Like figuring out how to decide what health care is necessary and useful versus what is inefficient and wasteful? Please tell me we didn't spend this many months figuring out how to fix health care and the best we could come up with is to help people with preexisting conditions (which is good) and then raising taxes so that people who can't afford to pay for health care in our broken, expensive system can now also share in this broken, expensive system.
Or am I missing out on something? Part of the problem was that xx million people were uninsured, and for many of them it was because they could not afford it. But a far bigger and more essential issue is that it costs more money to treat people than it should. Who cares if the money is being paid directly by individuals to doctors/nurses/hospitals or indirectly by individuals to health insurance companies to doctors/nurses/hospitals or even more indirectly by individuals to the government to health insurance companies to doctors/nurses/hospitals.... It's always going to come from individuals. The money comes from us.
This is not reform. This is just expanded coverage of a system that is expensive. I guess we shouldn't have expected much. Reform will come from medicine, not from the government, and will involve new philosophies and approaches to treatment. That sort of reform did not come today.
Or am I missing out on something? Part of the problem was that xx million people were uninsured, and for many of them it was because they could not afford it. But a far bigger and more essential issue is that it costs more money to treat people than it should. Who cares if the money is being paid directly by individuals to doctors/nurses/hospitals or indirectly by individuals to health insurance companies to doctors/nurses/hospitals or even more indirectly by individuals to the government to health insurance companies to doctors/nurses/hospitals.... It's always going to come from individuals. The money comes from us.
This is not reform. This is just expanded coverage of a system that is expensive. I guess we shouldn't have expected much. Reform will come from medicine, not from the government, and will involve new philosophies and approaches to treatment. That sort of reform did not come today.
- 2,406
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
The words "change" and "progress" are not inherently good. Different views on that, for sure.
Per health care, let me put it this way: Accessing a doctor or hospital via someone else's wallet is not a right. You mention welfare being a separate subject but a welfare entitlement is really at the heart of the health care bill.
Look, my biggest gripe with health care has always been cost. If you choose to keep your money instead of putting it into a health insurance plan, the costs are outrageous. You can't go get a routine check up without being taken to the cleaners. I'm all for bringing costs down. But not by government taking away my right as private citizen to not have to pay for others' care. I've already mentioned the Constitution forbids this. What's more, the power the government gains in this process is extremely dangerous because it is unchecked. If they control who gets health care, they can control how much or how little. And they can control who doesn't. Government is not a regulator of life and was never ever remotely intended to be.
Americans are already the most generous people on earth. We give and give and donate and donate, even WITH our own bills, expenses, etc. Government cannot make us give to others. What else must we do to "help out" our fellow Americans? They can't/won't pay for their own health care so we have to do it for them. What if they have no personal transportation? Do we now buy them cars? Do we initiate taxpayer-funded homes? Higher educations? Where does it end?
That's a path to socialism - a fixed society in which personal ambition and achievement is stymied in favor of leveling the field. It's anti-freedom. And it's unrealistic. All men are created equal but each person's life, experiences, opportunities, and talents are not created equal. Nor should they be.
In a universal system you do pay for your own health care, through taxes. We ALL pay taxes, therefore we are ALL paying for health care, just through a different medium. The more you make yearly the more you pay. If you're going to make ridiculous scenarios like taxpayer funded homes, I'll do it to.
The fire and police departments, those are socialized, correct? How many of us actually use the fire department or police department and how often do we use them? For most of us, it really is not that frequent. However we ALL pay for them through our taxes. Is it wrong that we pay for other peoples safety with our money too?
What about the roads that are built with our tax dollars? Should we not have to pay taxes because we don't actually use some of these roads? The same can be said for parks, bridges and the multitude of other things that the government gives back with our tax dollars.
- 1,175
- 10
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
I'm not extremely well-versed in Constitutional law but these guys are. I'll let them explain.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
- 8,169
- 5,365
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
You're the one playing the semantics game.Originally Posted by wawaweewa
Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
Originally Posted by wawaweewa
So you deposit your capital at a bank in order to [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]help[/color] that bank out?Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
Originally Posted by UTVOL23
Are you kidding me? How was that a hand out? I am adding on thousands and thousands of dollars in interest a month yeah that really sounds like a helping hand. Be real. That is not a helping hand it is just impossible to pay 69K for one year of school unless you borrow the money. I am getting nothing handed to me. I have to pay ALL of it back plus by the time I will get done paying it back I only borrowed 250K but will have paid at least 500K back due to interest.
Many of these loans are unsecured debt. They are being taken out from banks not some rich guy who decided to help me out.
And I suppose you think that banks are autonomous entities that just arose out of thin air correct. Add to that the fact that when they came out of thin air, they were already loaded with all the money they would ever need--some of which was the very capital that was loaned to you...right?...
You may choose not to look at it as such, but the fact is the loans you took out = financial [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]AID[/color].
And that AID came from somewhere and out of someones pocket/hand--hence you receiving a "lending hand". Now while you were charged interest, it doesn't change the fact that YOU RECEIVED HELP in getting where you are today, professionally speaking, via financial [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]AID[/color].
...
You are given a loan not because the lender wants to aid you. You are given the loan because the lender sees a [color= rgb(255, 0, 255)]personal [/color]benefit from providing access to that capital to you.
It's not the obvious thought and/or goal but in certain instances, that's exactly what your capital does.
This is entering that world known as semantics.
I could very take your point and say that, a lender chooses to give me loan because a personal benefit can be derived from aiding me. Furthermore, in order for one (lender) to give, another must be willing to receive (burrower). No one forces you to take a loan. A burrower accepts one because they need the [color= rgb(255, 0, 255)]AID[/color].
Like I implied earlier, the hypocrisy is disgusting in this country...
...
Of course your deposit is aiding the bank. If it wasn't then they wouldn't take your money. There is a mutual benefit whereby both you and the bank benefit from the arrangement.
Neither you nor the bank agree to the arrangement because either one of you wants to "help" the other out.
Why are you providing a definition for "aid"? Look up the definition for a loan (specifically an interest loan) and nowhere will you find the words "aid" or "help".
1."Of course your deposit is aiding the bank..."...or in other words..."Of course your deposit is helping the bank..." because as was established above in my post above, one of the many synonyms of AID is HELP.
2. "There is a mutual benefit whereby both you and the bank benefit from the arrangement"...what arrangement would that be?
Ohh yes, that's right, the ARRANGEMENT whereby both you and the bank actively AID each other. And by aid, I make reference to the event whereby you, the burrower, willingly accepts a loan offer from the bank and the bank in turn, willingly offers the loan. That's the mutual benefit you're talking about correct? That mutual benefit = the arrangement = the aid both parties provide to each other = which, going back to #1, merely means that "the HELP both parties provide to each other".
3. "Neither you nor the bank agree to the arrangement because either one of you wants to 'help' the other out."
I addressed this when I stated that: "It's not the obvious thought and/or goal but in certain instances, that's exactly what your capital does."
Point being, while you and the bank don't sign an agreement/come to an arrangement that SPECIFICALLY and LITERALLY states that "I the burrower/lender is helping you the lender/burrower" out, the fact is, that's exactly what is happening. That's at the core of the burrower/lender mutualism. It's a mutual benefit (as you so put it) because you're HELPING/AIDING each other.
GET IT!!!
4. I'm provided a definition for AID because the context of UTVOL loan was educational. Educational loans are a part of FINANCIAL AID.
- 4,951
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- 3,160
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
Respect.
- 3,160
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
Dudes really don't want to admit that getting loans from bank is AID?
You've got to be KIDDING me right now.
If someone loans me $10 and I say I'll give them $20 back, they still kind enough to GIVE me the $10, even if they know they'll get an extra $10 in the process.
Stop it ...
You've got to be KIDDING me right now.
If someone loans me $10 and I say I'll give them $20 back, they still kind enough to GIVE me the $10, even if they know they'll get an extra $10 in the process.
Stop it ...
- 1,175
- 10
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
Well, there isn't a universal system at this time and, God willing, we won't get there. Again, we're not going to see eye to eye on this. Each American "deserves" what the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects. No more, no less. When you start getting into the government creating rights, trouble is not far behind. Keeping in mind the context in which the Founders wrote the original documents, they sought to preserve freedoms they believed were God-given, inborn rights, not to create new ones. People creating each other's rights is pretty creepy, actually.
People aren't afraid of the government; they don't want their personal lives and decisions regulated and overseen. It's about the government being in the position to inform the patient/doctor relationship.
You appear hung up on the idea that taxes and socialism are one and the same. They are not.
I said socialism is a path to a fixed society, and by "fixed" I mean a society in which personal freedom is usurped by government and personal accomplishment is purposely capped by way of inordinately high taxation (income redistribution).
While not a 100% fail safe method (no tax code is), I recommend a flat tax system.
- 923
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
I'm all for this
- 592
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
Im glad the bill was passed.
I cant stand these insurance companies scamming people and making money off what a person NEEDS.
Tax the rich, not like its going to affect them anyways. Somebody else needs this more.
We needed this so that every child and/or person could grow up and be able to go see a doctor whenever
and not have half their income these scamming companies.
We should all care about eachother enough to where they could get the right opportunity to be healthy
and get whatever is needed to take care of themselves.
Insurance companies should go to jail for murder. No doubt
I cant stand these insurance companies scamming people and making money off what a person NEEDS.
Tax the rich, not like its going to affect them anyways. Somebody else needs this more.
We needed this so that every child and/or person could grow up and be able to go see a doctor whenever
and not have half their income these scamming companies.
We should all care about eachother enough to where they could get the right opportunity to be healthy
and get whatever is needed to take care of themselves.
Insurance companies should go to jail for murder. No doubt
- 987
- 21
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2009
my only concern about this bill is that the quality of healthcare will probably diminish
Its a good thing that healthcare will be accessible to more people.
But, there are many shortages in the healthcare field, and this bill will probably discourage many from attending medical school
Its a good thing that healthcare will be accessible to more people.
But, there are many shortages in the healthcare field, and this bill will probably discourage many from attending medical school
- 2,081
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
Isnt it odd that most of the people who are against it are old farts?
- 12,703
- 71
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
maybe the money hungry doctors.
- 3,160
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
Yeah, it's very ironic. But the funny thing about it is, if they didn't have much money, they would want this bill passed.
- 36,991
- 12,294
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
it is basically a reform on details...Originally Posted by whywesteppin
So did they address any of the core problems with the health care system? Like figuring out how to decide what health care is necessary and useful versus what is inefficient and wasteful? Please tell me we didn't spend this many months figuring out how to fix health care and the best we could come up with is to help people with preexisting conditions (which is good) and then raising taxes so that people who can't afford to pay for health care in our broken, expensive system can now also share in this broken, expensive system.
Or am I missing out on something? Part of the problem was that xx million people were uninsured, and for many of them it was because they could not afford it. But a far bigger and more essential issue is that it costs more money to treat people than it should. Who cares if the money is being paid directly by individuals to doctors/nurses/hospitals or indirectly by individuals to health insurance companies to doctors/nurses/hospitals or even more indirectly by individuals to the government to health insurance companies to doctors/nurses/hospitals.... It's always going to come from individuals. The money comes from us.
This is not reform. This is just expanded coverage of a system that is expensive. I guess we shouldn't have expected much. Reform will come from medicine, not from the government, and will involve new philosophies and approaches to treatment. That sort of reform did not come today.
And it is very beneficial to those who actually wanted health care but don't have it through whatever reason.
But the problem with the democrats is that they are not clones.. They have a multitude of opinions and actually try to figure out the best way. While republicans throw out random ideas that are ESSENTIAL to health care, and when it gets put in the bill they still vote against it. So the problem is the dems could never get onto 1 message because they had more than 1 large idea. (Yes the fact that many are bought off also factors into it.. But in this case it really was a problem with moderate dems)
Obama deserves a large part of the blame for this... Because he was trying to have a hands off position and allow the senate to play it out because he had 60 votes and it should have only taken a month or 2. But dems couldn't get 1 message..Also Obama backed off a core principle of his campaign with the public option... If he truly pushed it, it would have gotten support and would have been very favorable with the public which it has always been.
Also blame Reid and Pelosi for not running with it.. Reid got alot stronger about it in the past few months but backed down. Obama gave them the ball they should have ran with it..
Then last the blame is on Rahm Emmanuel.. That guy only cares about getting something passed not the details.. Every Obama failing has 1 key component; Rahm at the helm..
I think also the "useless" and "unnecessary" treatments is actually one of the best things about our system.. It can be abused.. But running a 2nd or 3rd test with something different can't hurt.. And there is plenty of times a test catches something another doesn't.. Now we shouldn't have 20 or 30 tests.. Or even 6 or 7.. But if the 1st one shows nothing try a different test... This is for life threatening conditions only, or something that is severe but may not be life threatening.
But overall this bill has major +'s and -'s but everything needs a start place and if this is what it is then it is great.. Mind you health care has always been tough to get through.. The last big health care change came 45 years ago. I give it a C/C+..
It is all in the selling though.. The best sellers get the message across.. And "ration care" "death panels" come across easier than complicated explanations to reduce the cost. And lack of strength always hurts your argument.... Republicans are great at fear and slogans and have an easy viewpoint "Just Say No" so getting organized is easy.. Just hold it up as long as possible and no matter what happens say no.... Obama has 1 problem he needs a simple straight to the point explanation.. If you watch his speeches he knows what he is talking about but always gives a full explanation... It is good to have an intellectual as president.. But you have to remember the country elected Bush twice... As a society, this country is not the brightest bulb. So if you give 10 minute answers they assume there is something wrong with what you are selling
Now in my opinion there is only 1 fix... It is single payer.... Because no matter how much we do to control costs insurance companies will raise rates... So the only way to control this side is get rid of them completely..... I trust the government more than I trust for profit corporations who deal with sick people but hate when you get sick because it hurts their bottom line.. Anyone who disagrees is someone who is either lying to try and hold their viewpoint or they really are naive...
- 1,175
- 10
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- 12,703
- 71
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
can somebody explain this.
- 36,991
- 12,294
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
is this a "yearly" fine "monthly" fine "weekly fine" why are we getting fined again?
would assume yearly..
If it is monthly it would come out to about $8,400.... That is 10%,20%, maybe even 30% of income if you assume the income of most people without health care insurance make less than 50k. Which is a large majority..
The reason there is a fine.. Is because a person without health insurance hasn't effect on everyone.. If a person without insurance gets sick they go to the emergency room which increases costs for everyone.. This is to make people have insurance so they go to emergency room for emergency only so it doesn't drive up costs for everyone.
To go to car insurance if you get into a crash with someone without insurance everyone is screwed.. It is kind of the same premise for health care insurance
- 12,703
- 71
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
ah, didn't see that part. just skimmed the article. thanks
shatterkneesinc
Banned
- 22,524
- 2,383
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
whatever happens in washington = wall street wins
its a fact, wall street owns DC
its a fact, wall street owns DC
