PDA

View Full Version : CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!


Pages : [1] 2

pokejungle
March 21st, 2010, 07:54 PM
Yay <3

This wasn't about Democrat vs Republican, this was about the health of American citizens. Anyone else ecstatic?

zhfac
March 21st, 2010, 08:18 PM
Canadian here; what exactly do Americans "get" now?

Yoshimi
March 21st, 2010, 08:22 PM
Clearly America will be a socialist, fascist, and communist nation under ObamaCare.

In case you can't tell, sarcasm is being used :/

Prince_of_Light
March 21st, 2010, 08:25 PM
Clearly America will be a socialist, fascist, and communist nation under ObamaCare.

In case you can't tell, sarcasm is being used :/

Be sarcastic all you want till a few years come round and this BS is coming out of your wallet.

Feign
March 21st, 2010, 08:25 PM
It's government health care like us. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Lovely how all republicans were against it. Clearly they would only like to see the rich survive.

IceSage
March 21st, 2010, 08:27 PM
Canadian here; what exactly do Americans "get" now?

Certainly not what your country provides. -_-

I'm not understanding how America can be such a great nation, yet we can't just do what other countries are doing... Or in fact, go to even better solutions. However, all the old farts waving their US flags around and praising such geniuses like Sarah Palin think things shouldn't change and that our obviously flawed healthcare plans are A-Okay.

Aureol
March 21st, 2010, 08:34 PM
Eh, 55% of America was opposed to it, myself included. It won't matter to me much though: I already planned on being poor when I'm older.

I'm not gonna rant here though. That's what facebook is for. ;) Besides, I don't want to involve myself in a place where healthcare is thought to only hurt the wealthy.

We needed change, no denying that. Too many people dying, poor economy, etc. This is definitely NOT what I had in mind though.

EDIT: I guess I am glad that taxes won't go to convenient abortions, though. That's one plus.

Chibi-chan
March 21st, 2010, 08:34 PM
BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING COMPLETELY STUPID


Healthcare Bill Summary (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html)



Not like any of you will actually read up on what you argue about.

Drew
March 21st, 2010, 08:43 PM
Woo! This'll have some definite pros for some of my family members.

Yoshimi
March 21st, 2010, 08:46 PM
Be sarcastic all you want till a few years come round and this BS is coming out of your wallet.

At least in 2014, I won't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. :/

Prince_of_Light
March 21st, 2010, 08:49 PM
At least in 2014, I won't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. :/

And this monstrosity was just the perfect way to go about reform, wasn't it? Please.

AND DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO SAY REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSED TO REFORM.

IT'S JUST THIS PIECE OF CRAP BILL WE'RE OPPOSED TO.

Esper
March 21st, 2010, 08:50 PM
I'm stunned. I didn't think it would actually pass.

Insurance Reforms:


Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans through age 26.


^ Most important part of the bill if you ask me.

Yoshimi
March 21st, 2010, 08:53 PM
And this monstrosity was just the perfect way to go about reform, wasn't it? Please.

AND DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO SAY REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSED TO REFORM.

IT'S JUST THIS PIECE OF CRAP BILL WE'RE OPPOSED TO.

Republicans are opposed to reform.
Oh darn, I just had to say it :[

icomeanon6
March 21st, 2010, 08:55 PM
Speaking as a generally conservative-leaning American, I'm highly suspicious of the long term benefits this bill will supposedly have for average Americans. This bill mainly goes after insurance companies, and in doing so avoids the problem of why health costs are so high.

As for you Canadians and such out there, you may want to consider that America's population is roughly 10 times the size of Canada's. It's much more complicated than it sounds to try and fit America into the same mold as Canada and Europe. Attempting to sustain a universal health care system in the United States could prove economically ruinous (which hurts the poor and working class citizens more than it does the rich) if the underlying problems of the costs of health care aren't addressed. I believe these costs can be fixed by de-obfuscating the way patients pay for their medical services, thus encouraging competition and market principles. Government intervention in the economy isn't necessarily good or bad. What matters is whether the government's actions encourage competition and other healthy economic practices. I pray I'm wrong, though, as this clearly isn't the direction in which we are moving.

I hope the Democrats are right about this one, because if they're not, then things are going to get really lousy for the poor/middle class Americans in a decade or two, possibly much worse than they are now. I don't care about the Republican party, they can go off and dissolve for all I care. What matters to me is the American people, and I sincerely do not think that this bill will be good for them in the long run. The rich will be fine whatever happens, they've got money and assets to cushion themselves. It's the rest of us that I'm concerned about.

Nice that you're all so happy. Hope it lasts.

Zet
March 21st, 2010, 08:57 PM
And this monstrosity was just the perfect way to go about reform, wasn't it? Please.

AND DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO SAY REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSED TO REFORM.

IT'S JUST THIS PIECE OF CRAP BILL WE'RE OPPOSED TO.

Aren't you more opposed to gay marriage, stem cells, abortions and crap?

It's also great to see America starting to become a better country.

BHwolfgang
March 21st, 2010, 08:59 PM
To be honest, I didn't expect this to be passed at all. With so much opposition coming from the Republicans, the chances were very slim. I'm just as surprised as many are.

Livewire
March 21st, 2010, 09:00 PM
Republicans are opposed to reform.
Oh darn, I just had to say it :[

pretty true, seeing as this is the second bill ive seen passed since obama took office without a single republican vote. now if it were a republican-backed "reform" (using that word lightly here) bill, there would be "yeas" across the board from them.

Klippy
March 21st, 2010, 09:04 PM
My uncle was just in the hospital and he was denied coverage by three insurance companies because he is unhealthy and had a preexisting condition and the companies would have had to pay for his bills, which were costly. So now he has to teach himself to walk again, since insurance wouldn't pay for his physical therapy for six weeks. If "ObamaCare" (The American taxpayers) wants to pay for his bills, then thanks. Appreciate it. I'm sure he does too, since it'll help him walk again, but he's certainly not complaining and he's doing well on his own. I know I'd love to help him, but my family can barely afford our own bills as it is, since we aren't rich like those evil Republicans!

My favorite part of the bill: "Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services"

And I'll say one thing to the people claiming how Republicans are evil and hate the poor. Some of your own, fellow Democrats voted no for the bill, so...why aren't you calling them evil and poor haters? I just find it funny that it's only the Republicans that are evil and not these Democrats (http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/34_democrats_voted_against_health_care_reform), along with the other 55% of America that opposed the bill. But whatever. Ignore the facts that more than just Republicans opposed the bill and continue to say only they are evil. That's easier than accepting that 55% of people just didn't like it. :)

FreakyLocz14
March 21st, 2010, 09:19 PM
This bill is a shame but thankfully it is nothing like the Canadian system.

The bigegst difference is there still is not socialiazed health plan, thank God.
The good: Bans insurers from denying people for pre-existing conditons or dropping people at will
The bad: Forces Americans who do not want or cannot afford private insurance to purchase it (need to be reviewed by US Supreme Court imo), might cover elective abortions

donavannj
March 21st, 2010, 09:22 PM
Something had to be done, but I frankly think it wasn't enough change. For the insurers, they should have been broken up in a way that was similar to the breakup of Bell Telephone in the 1980s, except it would be more focused on keeping one company from insuring more than 49% of any given state instead of having regional subdivisions of a company. That's the big thing I had issues with, considering how much the insurers spent per Congressman lobbying against this bill.

Åzurε
March 21st, 2010, 09:31 PM
I like the preexisting condition change, but did anybody look at how they say they're paying for it?

Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
So... we're taxing successful investors and their investments? The people who create small businesses, which employ a good third or more of the US workforce? And the administration says they're supporting small business. Interesting...

Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
So this is taxing the companies that support the insurance?

Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.
Wth? Why put a 10% tax on something unprohibited like this? It just kinda seems to come out of thin air. Once it's applied, what percentage of people do you think will stop going?

In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

Or face a $695 fine. You have four years to get in a position where you can buy this health care, or you get fined an extra 700 dollars a year.

Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.

So, if even a single worker gets subsidies, you're paying an extra 2k per year for all of them if you decide not to give health care. That'll get them to provide it, I guess.

I just want to try and state the plans to pay for it in plain English, and it seems... well, a bit taxing. Not to mention the state Medicare is in already...

WriteThemWrong
March 21st, 2010, 09:37 PM
obama's just a bad president, i'm sorry.

remember when he was campaigning and there was so much hope in his eyes (and speeches)? he promised so much, including promoting bipartisanship, helping the economy, and reforming health care. so far he hasn't kept any of his promises

FreakyLocz14
March 21st, 2010, 09:38 PM
I like the preexisting condition change, but did anybody look at how they say they're paying for it?

Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
So... we're taxing successful investors and their investments? The people who create small businesses, which employ a good third or more of the US workforce? And the administration says they're supporting small business. Interesting...

Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
So this is taxing the companies that support the insurance?

Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.
Wth? Why put a 10% tax on something unprohibited like this? It just kinda seems to come out of thin air. Once it's applied, what percentage of people do you think will stop going?

In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

Or face a $695 fine. You have four years to get in a position where you can buy this health care, or you get fined an extra 700 dollars a year.

Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.

So, if even a single worker gets subsidies, you're paying an extra 2k per year for all of them if you decide not to give health care. That'll get them to provide it, I guess.

I just want to try and state the plans to pay for it in plain English, and it seems... well, a bit taxing. Not to mention the state Medicare is in already...

The biggest thing I'm opposed to is the entire "mandate" concept. Why should we force anyone to do anything? We never require anyone to purchase any kind of insurance. You can even get out of purchasing auto insurance by not driving and taking public transit. And you don't even have to insure your own car, you just have to cover other people's cars you might damage, and other associated costs with auto accidents.

A comapny with 50 employees is not large at all. This bill will be detrimental to small busnisses. Sure they say there are subsidies but there will always be some people/companies who barely miss the cut-off income marks to qualify for these subsidies.

Aureol
March 21st, 2010, 09:43 PM
As much as I hate this bill, I'm celebrating Democracy right now. I'm a Libertarian, so I didn't see this bill as a Democrat/Republican thing, I see this as many people see it: a chance to change a very broken system. Sure, it's definitely not in my direction (actually, it's VERY far from it), but I'm glad that on issues like these people actually try to figure out what our government's up to.

Eh, this is very bittersweet. I just hope not too much damage is caused by this.

FreakyLocz14
March 21st, 2010, 09:54 PM
As much as I hate this bill, I'm celebrating Democracy right now. I'm a Libertarian, so I didn't see this bill as a Democrat/Republican thing, I see this as many people see it: a chance to change a very broken system. Sure, it's definitely not in my direction (actually, it's VERY far from it), but I'm glad that on issues like these people actually try to figure out what our government's up to.

Eh, this is very bittersweet. I just hope not too much damage is caused by this.

This could turn out better than we are fearing.
The Supreme Court could strike down parts of the bill like the mandates. Even better if the bill doesn't fund abortions.

Aurafire
March 21st, 2010, 09:56 PM
BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING COMPLETELY STUPID

Healthcare Bill Summary (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html)




Too late.

I'm glad y'all are happy, but...Instead of taking the opportunity to blindly bash Republicans and complain about how we still don't have universal health care, maybe you should actually read the link Chibi posted and try to understand what this bill means in the long run. Because trust me, it's not just *poof* 30 million Americans are now covered with no drawbacks. We'll be paying for this for ages. One trillion dollars is a huge amount of money, and sooner or later, the middle class is going to be feeling the heat in the form of those wonderful things called taxes. Ironic how a bill that's supposed to support the middle/lower classes may actually come back to bite them in the arse in the long run, no?

Please, please, before I die from some these horribly idealistic and naive posts. Try to understand the bill before passing judgement. I don't doubt that many of you will still be 100% in favor of the reform, but at least know that it's not as perfect as it may seem =/

Chibi-chan
March 21st, 2010, 09:58 PM
Put the link in that quote so people can see it on the second page too D:<

Feign
March 21st, 2010, 10:03 PM
I wonder what would happen if the government suddenly rellocated a good majority of military spending to health care and educate... oh shi...

The only thing I don't like about Canada's system is how fragile it is. That is to say, all our good doctors were moving south where the money is. No offense to you guys and all, but I hope also with this bill some Canadian doctors will stay in Canada, and benefit our ailing system as well, that is to say, if they feel they need to stay, or are concerned about salary, though it doesn't sound like that would change... XD

Maybe we can make it as a symbiotic relationship? XD

FreakyLocz14
March 21st, 2010, 10:09 PM
Not to be too mean, but Canada has itself to blame for its doctors leaving. If it didn't have a socialized system, they wouldn't be leaving.

Socialized medicine gives insurance companies less incentive to invest in newer technologies. They would go for what is cheaper so they can conform to the government's strict standards. Which includes paying doctors less. Why do you think most jobs are going overseas?

That being said I don't think this bill will help Canadians significantly. American doctors will probably still be paid much more on average than their Canadian counterparts.

Feign
March 21st, 2010, 10:18 PM
Yeah, what I thought pretty much.

I remember my old sociology prof talking about public medical care, and how it could be fixed and such. Though that was a while back :3 (I should find the notes sometime).

In the end though, it seems the insurance companies just want a profit...

FreakyLocz14
March 21st, 2010, 10:38 PM
College professors tend to be liberals so I wouldn't trust one without filtering for bias.

And of course insurance companies want to make a profit. Why does anyone start a business? To make money off of it.
The profit motive is what puts the US at the top of the world in the quality of healthcare. The best care and the best technologies go to people who can afford it. In countries with socialized systems everyone gets the same mediocre standard of care.

Feign
March 21st, 2010, 10:54 PM
I'm glad I have that care to have the care nonetheless ;)

Lol... Profs tending to be Liberal... ROFL!!! *ahem* If you must know, this specific prof was VERY analytical, and thus would judge things on a per basis...

FreakyLocz14
March 21st, 2010, 11:03 PM
Well you live in Canada.

I'm speaking about American colleges mostly. Your professor could also be different than the majority. I wouldn't know I've never met them.

Feign
March 21st, 2010, 11:09 PM
I'm just not sure "Liberal" is the right term...

I mean a Conservative could still be open-minded, just not adhere to another belief...

It makes it sound as though they are the enemy... (I'd call myself a moderate).

And to keep this on topic, I'd assume schooling to become a nurse or doctor in the US, would just be as intense as it is here? Or rather, is it just as expensive?

bmah
March 21st, 2010, 11:18 PM
I read the summary, and of course the bill isn't going to be perfect (really, did you think it could've?). As mentioned, the bill could be modified later anyhow if stuff doesn't work out the way it should. People won't like the individual mandate, and it's probably not an effective way to mandate health care anyhow, but premiums probably would skyrocket to make up revenue loss from gov't regulations without the mandate.
In any case, I can't complain that the bill would supposedly reduce deficit by $143 billion.

I've been wondering this though:

Americans pay taxes for city maintenance, garbage pickup, and other things related to property, right [correct me on the specifics if otherwise]? Then why do many consider taxes that contribute to health care as "stealing" their money when the access to health care is, I argue, just as fundamental as other services they currently pay for? Basically, why isn't health care treated on the same fundamental level as other services? Really, there are other things that Americans must mandatorily pay for, but I don't hear complaints there.

@Feign: yeah, I'm pretty sure schooling in general, except for perhaps community colleges, would be way more expensive there than in Canada.

FreakyLocz14
March 21st, 2010, 11:18 PM
Just as expensive? It's most likely more expensive. The good news is nursing can be done at community colleges if you are satisfied with just having that level of work completed. Grant nursing programs are competitive to be admitted to, a lot of the time even at community colleges.

The economic crisis is forcing schools K-12 as well as colleges and universities to make cuts and up fees. Now is the time to look into a private school (one that doesn't rely on public funds).

Yusshin
March 22nd, 2010, 04:26 AM
I like the Canadian system; other than dental care not being covered, I know I'm looked after whether it be waiting in emergency for a condition to be analyzed (depending on the time of day, waiting times in my city are 5min-2h, based on severity) and I don't need to worry about costly bills for conception, medication, etc. My sister would normally pay 800$ a month for her diabetic medication, but after insurance and the Health Card, it drops to 10$. If I have to pay taxes over the course of my life to be sure that if something goes wrong with me or my family, I'm going to be okay, then by all means, I'm for it. I may be even paying for someone else's operation with my tax money; but at least it goes to a good place, rather than primarily into the army.

As for doctors leaving, we do have a shortage of doctors, but in Ontario and Quebec, they're trying to fix it by offering bribes to doctors to stay in the community, such as free housing and transport.

Europe has 2x the population of the United States, so I don't see why it can't suddenly take on the European / Canadian Health Care system. It's not biased towards the rich; it gives fair opportunity to all. I personally hate the American system's "Only the rich are treated" mentality. It's inhuman.

Bianca Paragon
March 22nd, 2010, 06:36 AM
Ding! America has reached First World Nation!
Gratz!

FreakyLocz14
March 22nd, 2010, 06:38 AM
If First World Nation means socialized medicine then sorry, we haven't got there yet.

Mika
March 22nd, 2010, 07:16 AM
Actually, this bill really doesn't do all that much in the current time.

They're giving it a few years; 2014 is when most of this gets enacted to the best of my understanding.

If you'll notice, Obama comes up for re-election in 2012 so he could very well not even be in office when/if the thing's actually enacted. There are already states putting up defensive laws against this damn thing and it's just turning into a horrific little pile of poo all around. If it makes it to 2014, great. I don't really see that happening. What loopholes aren't the insurance companies going to find? What tricks are hospitals going to come up with to still make the biggest potential profit?

I'm torn between trying to move abroad to a place with healthcare and leaving absolutely everything I've ever known behind me within the span of a year. I don't really have much of a choice because I can't afford private premiums. Why? To echo Klippy's comment, because I have pre-existing conditions that make me a financial loss to the health insurance company. I'm disabled because of said pre-existing conditions and have no income because of it. I looked into Medicaid and SSI, I'd be the type of person the system's made for, right? Wrong. My dad makes six digits a year and I don't qualify for Medicaid because of it. I can barely walk at the moment and the doctors have no clue why. Pretty scary considering that starting next January, I'm off my parent's nice somewhat affordable insurance and its somewhat reasonable copays. If they find something, ontop of trying to move, I have to try and handle it if it's life threatening or just try and learn to live with the whole not walking thing.

We, my family that is, just recently finished paying over 5 grand in medical bills. That's after insurance copays. That inflation of prices isn't going to come down anytime soon. Honestly, I think it's going to get worse because these doctor and hospital people are going to want to keep their nice little profits as nice little doctors with big houses do and they're going to charge out the ass for things they're already charging out the ass for. 30 dollars for two pills of medication. 3,989 for a simple MRI. 900 a night for an ER visit. 1800 for a bed, 600 a night for the room the bed's in. 60 dollars for a shot of painkillers/antibiotics. 20 dollars for a hospital gown. He had 12 pills a day. 4 shots a day. He was in the hospital for 6 days. You do the math. [Note: These are ACTUAL PRICES just so you know from when my dad was in hospital last year. Same hospital, in 96 when my sister was hospitalized in the ICU for an entire month? We had a 1 grand total copay and the hospital took off 300 dollars because of special circumstances. They don't do that anymore.]

Now I think people are being ridiculous with comments I've already seen places about how the goverment is going to control who lives and who dies apparently that's what they do in Canada/Europe/Australia] and ridiculous little claims like that when the stupid bill hasn't even taken full effect yet. Imho, if we cared more about our fellow man than our own well-being and health ["I want my premium healthcare when I'm sick. If Billy can't afford it, it's Billy's fault for not managing his money properly" and/or "Billy's not my problem, I only care about my family and my problems"] then we wouldn't be so firmly against this I don't think. At least to my knowledge, the rest of the world thinks we're nuts for not already having this.

Something to remember tho, healthcare at its core in the US of A is nothing more than a highly profitable buisness. It's not about helping people, it's not about curing cancer, it's not about making sick people better. It's about doing all those things previously mentioned and making as much money as you possibly can while you're doing them. Canadian doctors moved to the US to get more money. People come from India to the US to make money. Becoming a Doctor is the most expensive school track in University in the US.

And I get that it's going to raise taxes; I'm upper middle class and this is going to hurt us. However, with the health conditions that I've had recently as well as stuff that's sprung up with my parents my ridiculously right winged Republican God-Fearing Stay-at-Home sometimes redneck mother has decided that this healthcare thing is worth the stress if it takes the strain off of us financially and makes it so I don't have to wait 6months to see a specialist about my heart murmur to afford the copay or you know, drop out of college for a semester or two to cover ridiculous medical bills. >:l

What's really ironic to me is that the people who seem to be complaining about this healthcare business the most are the lucky americans who don't have a slew of health problems. They can pay the bare minimum nice little premiums and see the doctor maybe once or twice a year no big deal. In a sense, they're getting 'screwed' by this because now they have to pay more. Poor you.

I understand that America is about the American dream and the pursuit of personal happiness but the more you ignore the problems of the people in your country, the worse things get. You don't take care of your people, the rest of the world looks down on you. Not that America isn't already looked down on for a slew of other things One last comment before I shut up, to those of you who think people are going to abuse the system? Somebody always abuses the system no matter what country, no matter what system it is. You can't avoid it you just have to deal with it. Take a great look at welfare in the US if you don't believe me. :>

Melody
March 22nd, 2010, 08:58 AM
I'll open with a quote by our favorite OC Moderator.
BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING COMPLETELY STUPID


Healthcare Bill Summary (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html)
Not like any of you will actually read up on what you argue about.

It's government health care like us. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Lovely how all republicans were against it. Clearly they would only like to see the rich survive.
Lololol No der. Remember the BS that Dubya pulled in office? You bet your shiney hiney he was oiled! (Meaning he wasn't always defending the interests of the nation, but looking out for BIG OIL COMPANIES)

And this monstrosity was just the perfect way to go about reform, wasn't it? Please.

AND DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO SAY REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSED TO REFORM.

IT'S JUST THIS PIECE OF CRAP BILL WE'RE OPPOSED TO.


Bull. Friking. ****. Seriously, what did even more damage than Dubya managed to do was the largely REPUBLICAN congress that let not only Dubya's BS by, but allowed even more to pass by them while they acted dumb so the rich could get richer and they could keep their fat-asses in office! Yeah, I blame the economic collapse of 2008 squarely on Dubya, his administration, and the congress that had just closed it's session in november of that year!

My uncle was just in the hospital and he was denied coverage by three insurance companies because he is unhealthy and had a preexisting condition and the companies would have had to pay for his bills, which were costly. So now he has to teach himself to walk again, since insurance wouldn't pay for his physical therapy for six weeks. If "ObamaCare" (The American taxpayers) wants to pay for his bills, then thanks. Appreciate it. I'm sure he does too, since it'll help him walk again, but he's certainly not complaining and he's doing well on his own. I know I'd love to help him, but my family can barely afford our own bills as it is, since we aren't rich like those evil Republicans!

My favorite part of the bill: "Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services"

And I'll say one thing to the people claiming how Republicans are evil and hate the poor. Some of your own, fellow Democrats voted no for the bill, so...why aren't you calling them evil and poor haters? I just find it funny that it's only the Republicans that are evil and not these Democrats (http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/34_democrats_voted_against_health_care_reform), along with the other 55% of America that opposed the bill. But whatever. Ignore the facts that more than just Republicans opposed the bill and continue to say only they are evil. That's easier than accepting that 55% of people just didn't like it. :)

I honestly feel for you. I've seen this BS happen to so many families even right here where I live, in the big middle of the Permian Basin. x3

My heart goes out to you as well Mika.

Honestly, I am happy that this bill has squeaked through. While it's not exactly the cure for the issue it will bring some relief to honest americans who NEED the healthcare.

As for the fine, I'm not worried about that provision, you have until 2014 to be insured or be in the poorhouse so that you aren't required to buy it. x3 Hopefully the next bill that is coming up will pass, which essentially makes some changes to the laws enacted by this bill and improves it. I don't exactly know what all is in the addendum bill, but hopefully it will cut out some of the pork that some of the Republicans probably demanded that be inserted into it so they would vote for it, and improve some of the more controversial portions of the bill which just passed. x3

Netto Azure
March 22nd, 2010, 10:22 AM
CHIBI CAN I MAKE MY OLD THREAD SO THE OTHERS CAN SEE THIS SUMMARY?



Original thread: http://pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=197741

Yay <3

This wasn't about Democrat vs Republican, this was about the health of American citizens. Anyone else ecstatic?

BAWW. I WANTED TO REVIVE MY OLD DEBATE THREAD. ;o;


:'(

Anyways my usual crap has to go in here someplace. :P

Economist Tsung-Mei Cheng three Universal Laws of Health Care Systems:

1. No matter how good the health care in a particular country, people will complain about it.
2. No matter how much money is spent on health care, the doctors and hospitals will argue it is not enough.
3. The last reform always failed.

Currently the a stool in the Domestic policy of the Obama Administration, my favorite topic: Health Care reform, is being publicly debated throughout the United States.

The Current Status of United States Healthcare Reform
(March 22, 2010)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46091000/jpg/_46091242_obama_ap226b.jpg
Healthcare reform has been the top domestic agenda for US President Barack Obama for a majority of his first year

Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr3962)

Introduction
“To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.”

Summary: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act)
The summary of the bill includes the following elements, among others: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act)

The central changes made by the legislation include:


prohibiting health insurers from refusing coverage based on patients' medical histories
prohibiting health insurers from charging different rates based on patients' medical histories or gender
repeal of insurance companies' exemption from anti-trust laws
establishing minimum standards for qualified health benefit plans
requiring most employers to provide coverage for their workers or pay a surtax on the worker's wages up to 8%
restrictions on abortion coverage in any insurance plans for which federal funds are used
an expansion of Medicaid to include more low-income Americans by increasing Medicaid eligibility limits to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level and by covering adults without dependents so as long as either or any segment doesn't fall under the narrow exceptions outlined by various clauses throughout the proposal.
a subsidy to low- and middle-income Americans to help buy insurance
a central health insurance exchange where the public can compare policies and rates
a government-run insurance plan (public option); according to some analyses, the plan would be prohibited from covering abortions
requiring most Americans to carry or obtain qualifying health insurance coverage or possibly face a surtax for non-compliance.
a 5.4% surtax on individuals whose adjusted gross income exceeds $500,000 ($1 million for married couples filing joint returns)
a 2.5% excise tax on medical devices
reductions in projected spending on Medicare of $400 billion over a ten-year period
inclusion of language originally proposed in the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_for_Domestic_Partner_and_Health_Plan_Beneficiaries_Act)
inclusion of language originally proposed in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2009.


Status:

US House of Representatives: Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr3962), introduced October 29, 2009, passed on November 7, 2009)

The United States House of Representatives has passed it's version of the bill by a vote of 220 Yay - 215 Nay.

The bill was supported by 219 Democrats and one Republican - Joseph Cao from New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

Now the Senate bill has been deemed the basis for the Health-care reform effort. The bill has passed 219 Yay - 212 Nay

With all Republicans opposing the bill along with 41 Democrats.

US House of Representatives
(1st Vote): Bill Passed (220 Yay - 215 Nay)
(2nd Vote):Bill Passed (219 Yay - 212 Nay)

Tri Committee:
House Energy and Commerce: Bill revised/Passed (31 Yes - 28 No)
House Ways and Means : Bill revised/Passed (23 Yes – 18 No)
House Education and Labor:Bill revised/Passed (26 Yes - 22 No)

US Senate: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr3590)) is a bill passed by the United States Senate at 7:05am on December 24, 2009.

On December 21, the Senate voted to end the Republican filibuster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster) and vote on their version of health care reform, by 60 to 40.

On Christmas Eve of 2009, the Senate arrived at 7am Eastern Time, the first time the Senate had met on Christmas Eve since 1895, and passed the bill to be compromised by both houses of Congress by a vote of 60-39, with only Jim Bunning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bunning) (R-KY) failing to vote.

As the basis for the reform effort, amendments proposed by the House will be bundled under a Reconciliation bill that is subject to a simple majority vote. With Vice President Biden casting the deciding tie breaker vote.

US Senate (1st Vote): Bill Passed (60 Yay - 39 Nay)

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee: Bill revised/Passed (13 Yes – 10 No)
Senate Finance Committee: Bill revised/Passed (14 Yes - 9 No)

No Country for Sick Men: To judge the content of a nation's character, look no further than its health-care system. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/215290)

Healthcare around the world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46217000/gif/_46217836_healthcare_stats_466_2.gif


[QUOTE]United States - Private system
Private sector funded, with more than half from private sources. Private health insurance available through employer, government or private schemes.

15.3% of population (45.7 million people) do not have health insurance.

Federal government is largest healthcare insurer - involved in two main schemes, Medicaid and Medicare, each covering about 13% of population.

Medicaid - joint funded federal-state programme for certain low income and needy groups - eg children, disabled.

Medicare - for people 65 years old and above and some younger disabled people and those with permanent kidney failure undergoing dialysis or transplant.

Most doctors are in private practice and paid through combination of charges, discounted fees paid by private health plans, public programmes, and direct patient fees.

In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals. Hospitals are paid through a combination of charges, per admission, and capitation.

UK - Universal, tax-funded system

Public sector funded by taxation and some national insurance contributions.

About 11% have private health insurance. Private GP services very small.
Healthcare free at point of delivery but charges for prescription drugs (except in Wales), ophthalmic services and dental services unless exempt.
Exemptions include children, elderly, and unemployed. About 85% of prescriptions are exempt.
Most walk-in care provided by GP practices but also some walk-in clinics and 24-hour NHS telephone helpline. Free ambulance service and access to accident and emergency. In patient care through GP referral and follow contractual arrangements between health authorities, Primary Care Trusts and the hospital.
Hospitals are semi-autonomous self-governing public trusts.

France - Social insurance system
All legal residents covered by public health insurance funded by compulsory social health insurance contributions from employers and employees with no option to opt out.
Most people have extra private insurance to cover areas that are not eligible for reimbursement by the public health insurance system and many make out of pocket payments to see a doctor.

Patients pay doctor's bills and are reimbursed by sickness insurance funds.
Government regulates contribution rates paid to sickness funds, sets global budgets and salaries for public hospitals.
In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals (not-for-profit and for-profit). Doctors in public hospitals are salaried whilst those in private hospitals are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Some public hospital doctors are allowed to treat private patients in the hospital. A percentage of the private fee is payable to the hospital.
Most out-patient care is delivered by doctors, dentists and medical auxiliaries working in their own practices.

Singapore - Dual system
Dual system funded by private and public sectors. Public sector provides 80% of hospital care 20% primary care.

Financed by combination of taxes, employee medical benefits, compulsory savings in the form of Medisave, insurance and out-of-pocket payments.
Patients expected to pay part of their medical expenses and to pay more for higher level of service. Government subsidises basic healthcare.

Public sector health services cater for lower income groups who cannot afford private sector charges. In private hospitals and outpatient clinics, patients pay the amount charged by the hospitals and doctors on a fee-for-service basis.

General Bravo
March 22nd, 2010, 11:04 AM
Liberals: Congratulations. You just successfully helped bring about economic armageddon.

Our taxes will go up almost immediately. Most small businesses will be incapable of paying for their employees' health care, so between fines and layoffs, they'll all disappear, and we'll have high unemployment, to levels we haven't seen since the 1930's. Prices on everything will rise, forcing a rise in minimum wage, driving inflation and the dollar's further weakening.
All this, for what? Porkbarrel spending? Giving "free" healthcare to illegal immigrants(it's not free for the taxpayers the money will come from)?
What should really scare EVERYONE is that Nancy Pelosi said Congress had to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it. Not to mention that from Canada, to much of Europe, and even the state of Massachusetts, socialized health care DOESN'T WORK. It ruins economies. And just imagine what the government will do next. I'm finding it more and more plausible that they will shred the Constitution and make the excuse that it is "no longer relevant to the current time".
I say vote out anyone who voted yes to the bill. If that doesn't work, we may have to revolt once again. I am no anarachist, but I will fight to the death anyone who dares to try and take our rights, if I have to.

.Gamer
March 22nd, 2010, 11:11 AM
HEY GUYS, AM I DOING THIS RIGHT? :/

Sarcasm aside, I have mixed feelings about this bill. I mean, yeah, healthcare is important, but I feel like the timing of the bill is awful. Its going to add like a BAGILLION dollars to the defecit and we already have like ~10% unemployment so imo its kinda a step backwards. I mean, healthcare is important and all, but apparently lots of doctors are gonna just up and quit/leave the country (hint: thats bad). Also I feel like the congress should be more focused on trying to give people jobs. Whatevs tho, it passed, I still hate all politicians and think we should nuke Washington D.C. and every other capital city in the world and start over. It'll probably be overturned I think.


EDIT: Also, for anyone who thinks there is such a thing as "free" healtcare remember this annogram: TINSTAFL. There Is No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.

General Bravo
March 22nd, 2010, 11:17 AM
I know someone in the medical field. Their unbiased opinion? They hated the bill.

And around 60% of Americans are against this. Tea Parties(I even went to one)and protests, the people's wishes=IGNORED. The government is saying, "Your rights? **** your rights, we're doing what we want."

Aureol
March 22nd, 2010, 11:18 AM
Sarcasm aside, I have mixed feelings about this bill. I mean, yeah, healthcare is important, but I feel like the timing of the bill is awful. Its going to add like a BAGILLION dollars to the defecit and we already have like ~10% unemployment so imo its kinda a step backwards. I mean, healthcare is important and all, but apparently lots of doctors are gonna just up and quit/leave the country (hint: thats bad). Also I feel like the congress should be more focused on trying to give people jobs. Whatevs tho, it passed, I still hate all politicians and think we should nuke Washington D.C. and every other capital city in the world and start over. It'll probably be overturned I think.


EDIT: Also, for anyone who thinks there is such a thing as "free" healtcare remember this annogram: TINSTAFL. There Is No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.

I'm in the same boat as you. I felt we needed change bad, but I think this is a step in the wrong direction. I'm no genius, so if you asked me, I wouldn't come up with a solution, but this is wrong.

Besides, there's a lot of opposition to this bill; I don't know why Pres. Obama is trying to establish it now, where it will most likely fail, instead of in a few years, and he could just work harder in gathering support. Not that I like him, but this just seems like the smarter decision if I did agree with him.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 11:46 AM
I've got a couple of non-taxpayer funded solutions, if anyone wants to have a look.

First, we have to regulate these frivolous lawsuits better. (TORT REFORM!) It's not necessarily the lawsuits themselves, it's that the medical practices have been driven into paranoia with their frequency. Tons and tons of money is wasted on excess testing and procedures when medical practices do defensive medicine. And who can blame them? lawsuits can put them out of business completely, everyone knows know people sue for all they can get, even if they don't need it. It's the selfishness in human nature.

Secondly, the real greedy scoundrels here are the colleges. THEY are the ones who need reform. Tuition is RIDICULOUSLY high for ANY profession, not to mention becoming a doctor takes a good 12 years of school. I saw a dateline documentary a couple years back that investigated all the frivolous spending colleges undertook while their professors weren't teaching and they hiked tuition to insane levels for those of us in the middle class who don't get many grants. The doctors have to spend the first ten years of their income on nothing but loans. If they want to actually be able to make ends meet with their business, however, they will inevitably pass the college cost onto the insurance companies by raising their fees, which forces the insurance companies to raise their premiums on us.

All because some idiot headmaster has to gold-clad their campus and install Olympic-sized swimming pools. ugh.

But the best part about fixing it with these? It doesn't cost the taxpayers ONE DIME, but it saves us tuition money AND helps the insurance companies lower premiums. And the only people who lose out are the lawyers and the stuck-up rich professors and school boards. You crying for them? I'm not.

And please don't accuse me of not wanting to have health care reform. Everyone wants that. To say that Republicans and conservatives don't want health care reform is utterly ignorant, unfounded, and arrogant. Don't say I don't want reform when I'm laying out solutions right here for you.

If there was one thing that really angered me about this whole process, it was that I, as a conservative, have been personally attacked and accused of not wanting reform and wanting people to die.

Anti
March 22nd, 2010, 11:50 AM
I know someone in the medical field. Their unbiased opinion? They hated the bill.

And around 60% of Americans are against this. Tea Parties(I even went to one)and protests, the people's wishes=IGNORED. The government is saying, "Your rights? **** your rights, we're doing what we want."

The people collectively elected the people who passed the bill. Just because a lot of people oppose the bill does not mean that the government is in any way ignoring or taking away your rights. I wasn't aware that ignoring a bunch of people carrying signs asking to impeach the president or having him with a Hitler mustache was somehow bad.

As for your previous post about taking up arms, that's absolutely absurd. No one is trying to take away your rights. Pardon me if I'm wring, but the Firth Amendment seems to be perfectly intact to me. But seriously, revolt? Because the other party passed a bill you don't like? Seriously? Just because Congressmen aren't doing what you want them to do doesn't mean that they're violating your rights. They are not obligated to go with what the people want. The way we "revolt" is by voting the people who pass what you don't like out of office.

Mattysaurus
March 22nd, 2010, 11:51 AM
Coverage:

* Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

What do they mean by this?
After reading everyone's posts, I'm starting to not believe I will get the helpful insurance I need. I haven't had health insurance my whole life. I thought this would really help my family. But seeing what you guys are putting out on the table, I'm starting to doubt this. I really don't know what to think about it anymore. I'm gonna keep up with this thread so I can learn more about it. :/

General Bravo
March 22nd, 2010, 11:59 AM
The people collectively elected the people who passed the bill. Just because a lot of people oppose the bill does not mean that the government is in any way ignoring or taking away your rights. I wasn't aware that ignoring a bunch of people carrying signs asking to impeach the president or having him with a Hitler mustache was somehow bad.

As for your previous post about taking up arms, that's absolutely absurd. No one is trying to take away your rights. Pardon me if I'm wring, but the Firth Amendment seems to be perfectly intact to me. But seriously, revolt? Because the other party passed a bill you don't like? Seriously? Just because Congressmen aren't doing what you want them to do doesn't mean that they're violating your rights. They are not obligated to go with what the people want. The way we "revolt" is by voting the people who pass what you don't like out of office.
Bold=just plain wrong.


Representative government=they do what the majority of the people want.
And the government doesn't have the right to force what they've rammed through onto the people.
As for the guy with the Hitler mustache on Obama, that was a radical, and was on the opposite side of the spectrum of the liberals who just proved they will do whatever they want.

Went
March 22nd, 2010, 12:03 PM
Guys, remember that the parlamentary democracy we live in means that we vote our representatives and they pass the laws they think are better for the country. If majority voted for a Democrat president and a Democrat House of Representatives and a Democrat Senate, they have the legitimity to pass any Democrat bill they want. The majority show what they want in elections. So there is nothing wrong there.

Millions of people all over the world, America included, protested against the Iraq war, the Congress approved it, and you see how it ended.

If there was one thing that really angered me about this whole process, it was that I, as a conservative, have been personally attacked and accused of not wanting reform and wanting people to die.

I think the same exact thing has been said about Democrats, except without the "not". When it comes down to calling Obama a nazi, something's pretty wrong out there.

General Bravo
March 22nd, 2010, 12:08 PM
We won the Iraq war. Nuff said.

.Gamer
March 22nd, 2010, 12:08 PM
What do they mean by this?
After reading everyone's posts, I'm starting to not believe I will get the helpful insurance I need. I haven't had health insurance my whole life. I thought this would really help my family. But seeing what you guys are putting out on the table, I'm starting to doubt this. I really don't know what to think about it anymore. I'm gonna keep up with this thread so I can learn more about it. :/



Age: 14
=/

Somehow, I feel like you have four years before you have to even start worrying about healtchare or anything like that.

We won the Iraq war. Nuff said.


Please stop posting. We never won, we still have troops there. I being semi-republican do not like the war in Iraq, seemed like a dumb thing imo, even tough Saddam was a terrible person.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 12:11 PM
Guys, remember that the parlamentary democracy we live in means that we vote our representatives and they pass the laws they think are better for the country. If majority voted for a Democrat president and a Democrat House of Representatives and a Democrat Senate, they have the legitimity to pass any Democrat bill they want. The majority show what they want in elections. So there is nothing wrong there.

Millions of people all over the world, America included, protested against the Iraq war, the Congress approved it, and you see how it ended.



I think the same exact thing has been said about Democrats, except without the "not". When it comes down to calling Obama a nazi, something's pretty wrong out there.

1. There's nothing wrong about passing a bill, it's the process by which they did it that was corrupt and wrong.

2. Let's stay on topic. The Iraq War is a totally different deal.

3. Don't forget that there was more to fascism than just the eugenics and the Holocaust. As a conservative I can tell you from personal experience that the protesters who use such signs are trying to point out that our President is trying to run a government similar to the fascist government Hitler and Mussolini proposed, not that he is a genocidal totalitarian maniac. The parallels between this administration and the governmental theories and practices of fascism can be argued for strongly on an academic level. Check out a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg to see what I mean.

Again, they're not trying to call the President a mass-murderer, they are merely trying to say that the governmental principles of fascism are what Obama supports. I think they could have used a more respectful method to go about it, though.

General Bravo
March 22nd, 2010, 12:17 PM
.Gamer, we have troops in Europe, Korea, the Phillippines, and many other locations around the world. And you have to agree that terrorist insurgents need to be put down so they don't come here or elsewhere.

Went
March 22nd, 2010, 12:18 PM
We won the Iraq war. Nuff said.

So that means that you think the Congress did the right thing starting the war despite the protests. But you don't think it's not democratically right that they passed the health care bill despite the protests?

(I'd make a comment about how there was a civil war in Iraq for years that caused millions of deaths, including thousands of American soldiers, and no mass-destruction weapons and little Al Qaeda members, if any, were found there, despite wasting billions of $, but that's another topic).

@ Prince_of_Light: Corupt process? Do you mind explaining?

And I still think that Obama has little to do with fascism, since he's way more libreal that any European leader, and we don't get called "fascist", that I know of :\

Anti
March 22nd, 2010, 12:20 PM
Bold=just plain wrong.


Representative government=they do what the majority of the people want.
And the government doesn't have the right to force what they've rammed through onto the people.

Kindly tell me where in the Constitution it says that Congressmen have to do what their constituents want them to do. They get their power from the people who elect them. Then it is entirely up to their judgment. >_>

As for the guy with the Hitler mustache on Obama, that was a radical, and was on the opposite side of the spectrum of the liberals who just proved they will do whatever they want.

...What? This isn't a liberals vs. conservatives issue. This is a "Barack Obama cannot be compared to Adolf Hitler" issue.

As for the liberals who "will do whatever they want," the Democrats sure don't get a lot done for supposedly having dictatorial tendencies. lol.

General Bravo
March 22nd, 2010, 12:23 PM
Anti: Debating with you will clearly waste my time. You must not understand "representative government".

Went: We had more reasons besides WMDs to enter Iraq. Ignoring Hussein's existence, that was coming off 9/11. We though al-Qaeda was there. We went into Afghanistan, didn't we?
When it comes to war, nobody protested when we entered WWII after Pearl Harbor. Iraq....Iraq is gray for me. But we won, now we're just doing clean up, more or less.

zhfac
March 22nd, 2010, 12:23 PM
We won the Iraq war. Nuff said.
Haha, you're joking right?

Also, to the people bashing the Canadian health system, what's exactly wrong with free health care? I know it has it's downfalls (not everything is covered), but it's kinda hard to complain about something that's free.

Ayselipera
March 22nd, 2010, 12:24 PM
I'm just glad we're finally moving the health care situation along. At least it's getting somewhere even if it's going to take a few years for some of the new changes to take effect.

I'll just leave it at that.

Timbjerr
March 22nd, 2010, 12:26 PM
I can definitely see the good in this, and I can also definitely see the bad in this. We get government healthcare at the expense of huge taxes imposed on small businesses...because the first step to fixing the economy is crippling almost half of the businesses in the country. At least the thousands of people that will inevitably be laid off will have healthcare. XD

I don't claim to be a very politically aware guy, and I'm often called an anarchist, so please educate me if I overgeneralized in this post. :P

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 12:30 PM
So that means that you think the Congress did the right thing starting the war despite the protests. But you don't think it's not democratically right that they passed the health care bill despite the protests?

(I'd make a comment about how there was a civil war in Iraq for years that caused millions of deaths, including thousands of American soldiers, and no mass-destruction weapons and little Al Qaeda members, if any, were found there, despite wasting billions of $, but that's another topic).

@ Prince_of_Light: Corupt process? Do you mind explaining?

And I still think that Obama has little to do with fascism, since he's way more libreal that any European leader, and we don't get called "fascist", that I know of :\

That's why I want you to read the book, friend. Conservatives have been mislabeled with fascism for years on end when the fascists were just as tyrannical as the communists were, and just as much of a government-seize-all state. Liberals may not all be fascists themselves, but a lot of the ways socialists see things are how the fascists saw them back in the 30's. As a matter of fact, Mussolini and Hitler were both revered by the American progressives back in the 20's and 30's if you look at news stories and articles written by Progressives in the press.

The corrupt process has to do with both the Republicans and the press being shut out while the Democrats crafted deals and arm-twisted their less dedicated members. Not to mention the Slaughter solution. That would have totally raped the constitution and the dems were completely ready to go along with it if they needed to. Not to mention all the sweetheart deals present in the Senate bill such as the cornhusker kickback and the louisiana purchase (which still remain since it was the senate bill that was passed, by the way). Outright bribery for votes. And on top of that, if they needed to bribe others they were ready to put forward unused stimulus bill money forward to pay for the bribes as a slush fund!

SBaby
March 22nd, 2010, 12:42 PM
The corrupt process has to do with both the Republicans and the press being shut out while the Democrats crafted deals and arm-twisted their less dedicated members. Not to mention the Slaughter solution. That would have totally raped the constitution and the dems were completely ready to go along with it if they needed to. Not to mention all the sweetheart deals present in the Senate bill such as the cornhusker kickback and the louisiana purchase (which still remain since it was the senate bill that was passed, by the way).

It boils down to this. By 2013, anyone that hasn't bought health insurance (yes, BOUGHT insurance) will be fined $350 per year, and that amount will increase to $750 per year in 2016. That's average Americans, not big nusinesses. So no, the insurance cost isn't going away. And in the coming months, when this starts to become more and more clear, and the true nature of the bill begins to reveal itself, we're going to learn the hard way what this all really means.

But worse yet, the President and the Democratic party outright betrayed the American people. And that won't go over well, regardless of where they think they stand and regardless of how much they try to rationalize what they've done. Delusions of grandeur don't magically change the way the American people think.

In response to anything else, all I can say is, we'll see what happens in November when the TV ads start reminding people about all this.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 12:46 PM
It boils down to this. By 2013, anyone that hasn't bought health insurance (yes, BOUGHT insurance) will be fined $350 per year, and that amount will increase to $750 per year in 2016. That's average Americans, not big nusinesses. So no, the insurance cost isn't going away. And in the coming months, when this starts to become more and more clear, and the true nature of the bill begins to reveal itself, we're going to learn the hard way what this all really means.

But worse yet, the President and the Democratic party outright betrayed the American people. And that won't go over well, regardless of where they think they stand. Delusions of grandeur don't magically change the way people think.

There are polls out now saying that 75% of the people disapprove of Congress. they're all going to be wiped out in November. =/

Netto Azure
March 22nd, 2010, 12:49 PM
I think you're mislabling Conservatives with small government Economic Libertarians my friend.

Anyways, I am quite glad this bill passed. It might be crappy, but it just shows the glacial pace our Legislative system works. Seriously, most Republican ideas (back in '94 anyways) is incorporated into the bill.

And due to the fact that nobody here would even WANT to discuss single-payer or the Wyden-Bennett bill it's no use discussing procedure. The bill passed and it's not easy taking away anti-protection laws. (aka no more recissions, pre-existing etc.) and guaranteed coverage.

SBaby
March 22nd, 2010, 12:49 PM
There are polls out now saying that 75% of the people disapprove of Congress. they're all going to be wiped out in November. =/

Yep. And now they're already talking about repealing it. Didn't take very long, did it?

Netto Azure
March 22nd, 2010, 12:50 PM
Yep. And now they're already talking about repeals. Didn't take it long, did it?

Yeah, yeah. We all talked about repealing Medicare PART D. Where did THAT movement go? >___>

Seriously, polls reflect current mood. once this bill is implemented, things should work a bit better.

General Bravo
March 22nd, 2010, 12:54 PM
Yeah, yeah. We all talked about repealing Medicare PART D. Where did THAT movement go? >___>

Seriously, polls reflect current mood. once this bill is implemented, things should work a bit better.

Sure, and I'll win $1 million tomorrow.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 12:56 PM
Bold=just plain wrong.
No it is not.

I think the important thing here is that it passed. No need to make it into a debate, because frankly, people who are for it don't care about debating it.

Why?

Because it passed.

So suck it.

Netto Azure
March 22nd, 2010, 12:57 PM
Sure, and I'll win $1 million tomorrow.

Yeah, because the fact that being unemployed in this country means I'll get bankrupt due to a sickness is better than the legislation just passed.

Heck we're giving millions to the insurance industry. GET OVER IT.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 12:57 PM
I think you're mislabling Conservatives with small government Economic Libertarians my friend.

Anyways, I am quite glad this bill passed. It might be crappy, but it just shows the glacial pace our Legislative system works. Seriously, most Republican ideas (back in '94 anyways) is incorporated into the bill.

And due to the fact that nobody here would even WANT to discuss single-payer or the Wyden-Bennett bill it's no use discussing procedure. The bill passed and it's not easy taking away anti-protection laws. (aka no more recissions, pre-existing etc.) and guaranteed coverage.

I am not. Brush up on your research. =) The Right that is leading this movement wants nothing to do with the tyranny of either socialism or fascism. One of my favorite authors, W. Cleon Skousen, made a diagram that took a new perspective on "left" and "right", and why such left-right is obsolete.

<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
^ TYRANNY (fascism, socialism, __________________________________ ^ PEOPLE'S RULE ____________________________________________ ANARCHY ^
___________oppressive monarchy)_______________________________(American federalism + ________________________________________(no government
______________________________________________________________our Constitution) _____________________________________________and chaos)

Sorry about the underscores, that was the only way I could figure out how to format it right.

I, and the other conservatives, support the People's rule. Not tyranny.

Secondly, the biggest Republican idea wasn't implemented at all. If all we needed to do was: "The bill passed and it's not easy taking away anti-protection laws. (aka no more recissions, pre-existing etc.) and guaranteed coverage." Then why do we need 2,400 pages to do it? Something smells very fishy to me, and I have good reason to believe there is based on what I stated in my earlier post about corrupt procedure.

On a side note, Obama has been quoted in the past as supporting a single-payer system. What makes you think his views have changed since then? Not to mention he has been insisting in his latest speeches that this is just "one gradual step toward true health care reform." I believe he still wants single-payer.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 02:28 PM
• Pre-existing conditions... gone!
• Dependent care... extended until the age of 26!
• Lifetime caps on coverage... gone!
• Dropped from coverage because you got sick... over!
• 32 million people who don't have coverage... covered!
• Seniors who are impacted by the Medicare "donut hole"... donut hole closed!
• 40,000 people who die on average every single year because they don't have insurance... saved!

However, despite this momentous occasion, you had better believe that those who oppose this legislation will begin a fear campaign of the likes that you have never seen. The worst thing that could have happened to the GOP was for President Obama to obtain this victory. Now, because they positioned themselves as obstructionists, and called the President every name in the book from socialist to communist, they eliminated the possibility from voting with the bill. Doing this left them with no other choice but to continue the strategy of scaring the hell out of the American people before the next political election seasons of 2010 and 2012 in order to obtain a political victory. By not participating in this historic moment the GOP has proven that they are more concerned with self-preservation than trying to improve the conditions of the country.

So here are some of the arguments and counterpoints that you can expect to hear:

• Fear Based Argument - "Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are moving this nation to a socialist state!"
• Response - Socialism is the theory advocating the state ownership of an industry or an economic system based on state ownership of capital. In fact, as far as health care is concerned the Government owns nothing. They only want to regulate it more to make sure that people don't die!

• Fear Based Argument - "Barack Obama and the Democrats rammed this bill down our throats."
• Response - We have been debating this bill for decades and the Republicans have never shown any interest in doing anything but keeping things the same. The same isn't working because costs keep rising and people keep dying. Just like a child who has a toy and hasn't played with it in weeks... let his friend have an interest in the toy and the child starts to cry, "Gimmie my toy!" GOP you had your turn to play with health care, you didn't want to play with it and you let costs continue to skyrocket while people died... it's the Democrats turn now!

• Fear Based Argument - "This will spell political destruction for the Democratic party if you push this through!"
• Response - The people voted Barack Obama into office to push this through. They only are upset with him because he took too long in pushing it through.

• Fear Based Argument - "The people are against this legislation!"
• Response - The people are highly in favor or health care reform. Barack Obama won on a campaign of promising a STRONGER health care legislation and that is the reason that they are against it. They want the public option which was taken out but promised in the campaign and they don't want mandates which Barack stated in his campaign he wasn't for. However, despite the fact that the people wanted a stronger bill, this bill as it stands is infinitely better than nothing at all because we now have a framework which we can build.

• Fear Based Argument - "Obama and the Democrats want to kill Grandma!"
• Response - End of life discussions with your doctor actually empower you to provide your doctor with information so that in case you are ever in a condition where you can't make these decisions for yourself (you are in a coma or vegetative state) your doctor will know exactly those wishes that YOU want to carry out pertaining to your life. Here is a previous blog that I wrote that elaborates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-mack/policies-of-fear-or-ignor_b_269122.html) on this fear based point.

• Fear Based Argument - "The Democrats want to spend, spend, and spend so our children are saddled with heavy mountains of debt!"
• Response - This bill is not only paid for, but it reduces the deficit according to the Congressional Budget Office by $140 billion in the first 10 years and by over $1.2 trillion in the following 10 years. For some reason you don't trust the CBO whenever they produce numbers that disprove your point and call them liars, but you cite them whenever they help to prove your point. Which is it? Are they reliable or liars?
Furthermore, let's just say that this legislation was not funded as the multiple legislations passed under a Republican legislation such as the Medicare prescription drug plan, the tax cuts, and the two wars... there is no dollar value on the value of the almost 50,000 lives that will be spared per year, and millions whose lives will be improved because they now have health care coverage.

• Fear Based Argument - "This is a Government takeover!"
• Response - I thought that a Government takeover required the Government to actually take something over?! The hospitals will still be private, the doctors will still be private, and the Government will not collect ANY funds. For this to be a Government takeover, they sure did a poor job of taking over the health insurance industry.
The GOP is the most effective marketing machine that you will ever come across. Their first priority is to get re-elected and they will stop at no cost to achieve that goal. Although the Democrats are enjoying this victory, we have to be aware of those on the right that will be giving an onslaught of rhetoric that can be very destructive to the party in November. They wake up with the same talking points and you can be sure that those talking points will be plastered on every news channel. Fake grass roots organizations like "Freedom Works", funded by Dick Armey, will continue to spread the message on a massive scale to hundreds of thousands across the country. We can't rest on our laurels thinking that we have done enough because policy is on our side. We have to combat this evil rhetoric not with evil, but with truth, facts, and a hell of a lot of noise! It is NOT ENOUGH to yell at the TV to create change. We have to arm ourselves with truth and become as active as they are. The political success of the left depends upon it.

Hi. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-mack/health-care-passes-here-c_b_508591.html)

Netto Azure
March 22nd, 2010, 02:32 PM
I am not. Brush up on your research. =) The Right that is leading this movement wants nothing to do with the tyranny of either socialism or fascism. One of my favorite authors, W. Cleon Skousen, made a diagram that took a new perspective on "left" and "right", and why such left-right is obsolete.

<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
^ TYRANNY (fascism, socialism, __________________________________ ^ PEOPLE'S RULE ____________________________________________ ANARCHY ^
___________oppressive monarchy)_______________________________(American federalism + ________________________________________(no government
______________________________________________________________our Constitution) _____________________________________________and chaos)

Sorry about the underscores, that was the only way I could figure out how to format it right.

I, and the other conservatives, support the People's rule. Not tyranny.

Secondly, the biggest Republican idea wasn't implemented at all. If all we needed to do was: "The bill passed and it's not easy taking away anti-protection laws. (aka no more recissions, pre-existing etc.) and guaranteed coverage." Then why do we need 2,400 pages to do it? Something smells very fishy to me, and I have good reason to believe there is based on what I stated in my earlier post about corrupt procedure.

On a side note, Obama has been quoted in the past as supporting a single-payer system. What makes you think his views have changed since then? Not to mention he has been insisting in his latest speeches that this is just "one gradual step toward true health care reform." I believe he still wants single-payer.


"People's rule" is such a fluid thing. Didn't HS Government Class teach about the Parliamentary System? That "diagram" is biased to our form of Federalism as if it's the best out there. Democracy and Republicanism can assume different forms.

Anyways, Busy day : Registering with the death panels, getting barcode tattoo, then off to Marxist re-education camp. Glenn Beck tried to warn us.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 02:41 PM
"People's rule" is such a fluid thing. Didn't HS Government Class teach about the Parliamentary System? That "diagram" is biased to our form of Federalism as if it's the best out there. Democracy and Republicanism can assume different forms.

Anyways, Busy day : Registering with the death panels, getting barcode tattoo, then off to Marxist re-education camp. Glenn Beck tried to warn us.

I don't have Skousen's book in front of me, but he spoke to your point after the diagram was set up. I figured it needed more explanation. I believe he said something to the effect that the people's rule is defined as giving the people the power to define their government, while not giving each individual so much power that there can be no order. Secondly, our system of federalism is the best out there, when the constitution is actually being followed. What do you think all the other nations modeled their constitutions after? Thin air? No, ours was the first. Ours drew from Greek, Roman, and British roots. Thereafter, the other nations began to emulate us. Also, I'm aware that other governments achieve this effect. I just put American federalism so you would get the jist of what I meant.

.Gamer
March 22nd, 2010, 02:46 PM
"People's rule" is such a fluid thing. Didn't HS Government Class teach about the Parliamentary System? That "diagram" is biased to our form of Federalism as if it's the best out there. Democracy and Republicanism can assume different forms.

Anyways, Busy day : Registering with the death panels, getting barcode tattoo, then off to Marxist re-education camp. Glenn Beck tried to warn us.


I <3 you Netto. lolGlenn Beck.

As much as I am concerned about the possible repurcussions (for or against the bill, you must admit, it has the potnetial to go wrong) I have to agree with the people's rule part. Its true. Its the most dynamic aspect of our governmental system, and thus causes some swinging changes in public views, sometimes, public opinion shifts radically and other times it is a gradual process, this just happens to be one of those radical shifts in public opinion, it will most likely be brought up for repeal in the near future.

Fur Elise
March 22nd, 2010, 03:05 PM
Kindly tell me where in the Constitution it says that Congressmen have to do what their constituents want them to do. They get their power from the people who elect them. Then it is entirely up to their judgment. >_>



...What? This isn't a liberals vs. conservatives issue. This is a "Barack Obama cannot be compared to Adolf Hitler" issue.

As for the liberals who "will do whatever they want," the Democrats sure don't get a lot done for supposedly having dictatorial tendencies. lol.

the representetives(sp) are voted to represent their state and people. The represent our views and beliefs, well supposed to.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 03:08 PM
the representetives(sp) are voted to represent their state and people. The represent our views and beliefs, well supposed to.

The argument the person you quoted just made basically amounts to the candidate lying on the campaign about what they stand for, getting elected, then revealing themselves to have a completely different ideology than what they ran on, screwing their constituents over completely. And apparently they must think it's ok for that to happen because the will of the people supposedly only matters in the voting booth. If he read anything of the Federalist Papers he would know that that is exactly what legislators were intended to do, VOTE WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS' OPINION.

NikoBelic999
March 22nd, 2010, 03:24 PM
This is a BAD thing.....

Our Taxes will go up about 20%, and the ELDERLY PEOPLE and MEDICARE, are so screwed, Elderly prescriptions that were half cheap will skyrocket, THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 03:26 PM
This is a BAD thing.....

Our Taxes will go up about 20%, and the ELDERLY PEOPLE and MEDICARE, are so screwed, Elderly prescriptions that were half cheap will skyrocket, THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

THANK YOU SIR.

Put it very simply. =P

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 03:28 PM
This is a BAD thing.....

Our Taxes will go up about 20%, and the ELDERLY PEOPLE and MEDICARE, are so screwed, Elderly prescriptions that were half cheap will skyrocket, THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

THANK YOU SIR.

Put it very simply. =P
You both have no idea what you are talking about. Go read my last post (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644424&postcount=72) here. :|

NarutoActor
March 22nd, 2010, 03:32 PM
This is not a good thing. Health care will bankrupt America, and no republicans voted for it. What ever happened to by bipartisanship obamma promised.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 03:32 PM
This is not a good thing. Health care will bankrupt America, and no republicans voted for it. What ever happened to by bipartisanship obamma promised.
Again, stop being stupid. Read my last (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644424&postcount=72) post. :|

NikoBelic999
March 22nd, 2010, 03:33 PM
We DO Have an Idea, Ever since I have read the bible, it does say that if Health Care Passes, and stuff like that, TAKING US OVER, will cause 1 government, one leader, one dictator, and OBAMA is trying to do this, HEALTH CARE IS A BAD THING.

If you want higher taxes, higher prescriptions prices, elderly and medicare screwed, GO AHEAD LIKE IT....

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 03:34 PM
This is not a good thing. Health care will bankrupt America, and no republicans voted for it. What ever happened to by bipartisanship obamma promised.

The bipartisanship was on the "NO" side of the vote.

http://www.worldbuzznow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Health-Care-Vote-Count-Results-Health-Care-Bill-gets-Yes-300x226.jpg

EDIT: Whoops, that's from the 2009 vote. If I can find an image of the Sunday vote I will post it.

NarutoActor
March 22nd, 2010, 03:36 PM
Congrats but what you wrote did not answer my questions slash my points. No republican support. Also this bill will be payed for during the next 10 years but only covering 5 years of medical support.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 03:37 PM
We DO Have an Idea, Ever since I have read the bible, it does say that if Health Care Passes, and stuff like that, TAKING US OVER, will cause 1 government, one leader, one dictator, and OBAMA is trying to do this, HEALTH CARE IS A BAD THING.

If you want higher taxes, higher prescriptions prices, elderly and medicare screwed, GO AHEAD LIKE IT....

Okay, you're obviously one of those completely idiotic republicans who don't even study what they are talking about. They just pull stuff out of their butt and say it's the truth. You're completely wrong. You're just a troll. Welcome to the ignore list.

Congrats but what you wrote did not answer my questions slash my points. No republican support. Also this bill will be payed for during the next 10 years but only covering 5 years of medical support.

It answered everything. You're probably just to dim to comprehend it. Welcome to the ignore list.

Well, these two posts by you guys are the exact reason why no one here respects either of you. :]

NikoBelic999
March 22nd, 2010, 03:39 PM
All I have to say to these People who want health care reform is that Go ahead and believe in it, when you are stuck in an unemployment office, needing to pay taxes, family, AND bills, they wont give you all of the money, taxes WILL be higher, dont complain.

When your parents or grandparents are dieing because they cant afford meds, dont complain here.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 03:39 PM
Okay, you're obviously one of those completely idiotic republicans who don't even study what they are talking about. They just pull stuff out of their butt and say it's the truth. You're completely wrong. You're just a troll. Welcome to the ignore list.



It answered everything. You're probably just to dim to comprehend it. Welcome to the ignore list.

Well, these two posts by you guys are the exact reason why no one here respects either of you. :]

Who exactly is insulting who here, sir? I would say you are the troll.

NarutoActor
March 22nd, 2010, 03:40 PM
demeaning someone dose not prove your point. It was not there, so just make a rebuttal.

.Gamer
March 22nd, 2010, 03:41 PM
We DO Have an Idea, Ever since I have read the bible, it does say that if Health Care Passes, and stuff like that, TAKING US OVER, will cause 1 government, one leader, one dictator, and OBAMA is trying to do this, HEALTH CARE IS A BAD THING.

If you want higher taxes, higher prescriptions prices, elderly and medicare screwed, GO AHEAD LIKE IT....


Could you please type in english please? kthx

If he read anything of the Federalist Papers he would know that that is exactly what legislators were intended to do, VOTE WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS' OPINION.

=/= Constitution. ~___~

Look out for the Dehttp://tommychristopher.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/death_panel1.jpgth Panels!

I think people are really blowing this out of proportion, but its not like the world is gonna blow up or anything I mean sheesh.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 03:42 PM
Who exactly is insulting who here, sir? I would say you are the troll.
Being a troll has nothing to do with calling people who are idiots idiots. And I never said I wasn't a troll, and on top of that, me being one doesn't negate the fact that he is one. kthxbai

LOL I bet you don't know what that means.

Health Care Reform passed. Get over it.

NikoBelic999
March 22nd, 2010, 03:44 PM
Meh Im outta here, you democrats wanting health care reform are stupid.....

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 03:44 PM
Being a troll has nothing to do with calling people who are idiots idiots. And I never said I wasn't a troll, and on top of that, me being one doesn't negate the fact that he is one. kthxbai

LOL I bet you don't know what that means.


Everybody is to respect other people on the board.
Do not flame, bash or insult other people. If someone acts uncivil, or harasses/intimidates you, you are not given the excuse to act the same in retaliation.

fillerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr moar filler

Also.

=/= Constitution. ~___~

They do not equal the Constitution, but they do give a good deal of insight about what the Founders wanted us to do with it.

NikoBelic999
March 22nd, 2010, 03:45 PM
@Prince of light: At least some people has some brains here...

NarutoActor
March 22nd, 2010, 03:48 PM
Being a troll has nothing to do with calling people who are idiots idiots. And I never said I wasn't a troll, and on top of that, me being one doesn't negate the fact that he is one. kthxbai

LOL I bet you don't know what that means.

Health Care Reform passed. Get over it. This is just one lost, the real battle has just begone.

NarutoActor>respect then little monster. I don't call people idiots just because I don't agree with them. The person that dose that is the true idiot. If you can't prove that anyone is an idiot, then you shouldn't say it. Show some facts and make your self seem logical; not the other way around.

Yoshimi
March 22nd, 2010, 03:49 PM
Meh Im outta here, you democrats wanting health care reform are stupid.....

Because we were much better with our older health care system?
I'm not saying this is a perfect bill(far from it), but it is in many ways superior. Of course people will have to pay more taxes, but does it matter if it's for the greater good?(Completely hypothetical situation here, let's just assume it's for the greater good)
Also, is it stupidity or just pure laziness to stretch your finger and press the apostrophe so "I" and "m" can have some space?

BTW, if MOTY ever happens, you get my vote as most entertaining member ;D


I can see this snowballing into a flame war, but it's not like I can do anything about it D:

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 03:51 PM
Because we were much better with our older health care system?
Also, is it stupidity or just pure laziness to stretch your finger and press the apostrophe so "I" and "m" can have some space?

BTW, if MOTY ever happens, you get my vote as most entertaining member ;D


I can see this snowballing into a flame war, but it's not like I can do anything about it D:

Relax, man. If he doesn't want to use apostrophes he doesn't have to. Just because some of us like to use proper grammar even leisurely doesn't mean everyone else has to. It's not like he's writing a term paper or something. =/ Plus, it's a free country. (but maybe not for long...)

NikoBelic999
March 22nd, 2010, 03:51 PM
Because we were much better with our older health care system?
I'm not saying this is a perfect bill(far from it), but it is in many ways superior. Of course people will have to pay more taxes, but does it matter if it's for the greater good?(Completely hypothetical situation here, let's just assume it's for the greater good)
Also, is it stupidity or just pure laziness to stretch your finger and press the apostrophe so "I" and "m" can have some space?

BTW, if MOTY ever happens, you get my vote as most entertaining member ;D


I can see this snowballing into a flame war, but it's not like I can do anything about it D:
IT IS NOT FOR THE GREATER GOOD! EVERYBODY WILL BE SCREWED....Democrats suck.....

Simmons_2.0
March 22nd, 2010, 03:55 PM
Because we were much better with our older health care system?
I'm not saying this is a perfect bill(far from it), but it is in many ways superior. Of course people will have to pay more taxes, but does it matter if it's for the greater good?(Completely hypothetical situation here, let's just assume it's for the greater good)
Also, is it stupidity or just pure laziness to stretch your finger and press the apostrophe so "I" and "m" can have some space?

BTW, if MOTY ever happens, you get my vote as most entertaining member ;D


I can see this snowballing into a flame war, but it's not like I can do anything about it D:

Our Old health care may not have been perfect (Pre existing conditions ftl) but it was better than this bill, take a look at what's in it.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 03:55 PM
^ All false or bent so much you made it false. Paying for something doesn't mean they are involved in it, stoopid.

If I give you 20 dollars to put gas in your car, does that mean I own 20 dollars of your car? No. Exactly. So stfu.

IT IS NOT FOR THE GREATER GOOD! EVERYBODY WILL BE SCREWED....Democrats suck.....
I thought you were leaving?

Don't lie now. You know, like every other republican does? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217)

Lying is a sin. ;_;

Mattysaurus
March 22nd, 2010, 03:55 PM
Thank you, Steven, for your post that made it clearer.

And for the people like NikoBelic999, you should probably try to read the post that little monster put up to prove you wrong. At least try to comprehend the facts before you think everyone is wrong and you are right. Thanks.

Yoshimi
March 22nd, 2010, 03:56 PM
Relax, man. If he doesn't want to use apostrophes he doesn't have to. Just because some of us like to use proper grammar even leisurely doesn't mean everyone else has to. It's not like he's writing a term paper or something. =/ Plus, it's a free country. (but maybe not for long...)
It was my failed attempt at trying to be clever :(
Unless he has to hurry to save America from the depths of ObamaCare, he could take his time to make it more legible.
IT IS NOT FOR THE GREATER GOOD! EVERYBODY WILL BE SCREWED....Democrats suck.....

This is a completely hypothetical situation though :/
I'm sure FDR loved that message.

Our Old health care may not have been perfect (Pre existing conditions ftl) but it was better than this bill, take a look at what's in it.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people

AFAIK, they don't order end of life plans. They just talk to you about it.
What's that supposed to mean? It isn't like the government will be IN your marriage, they'll just help with therapy costs, but I'm not a whiz at health care, so maybe I'm interpreting it wrong.
Also, they could deny you coverage if you have a preexisting condition even if you didn't know about it. They could also deny you coverage if it is something that may be due to your genes.
I would like the public option to be brought back, but we can't have everything, now can we?

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 03:58 PM
^ All false.


I thought you were leaving?

Don't lie now. You know, like every other republican does? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217)

Lying is a sin. ;_;

Because MSNBC can totally be trusted, right? Those images were made by random people on the internet who have nothing to do with the official RNC. Google image it. And even if the RNC is using fear tactics, it doesn't matter because what they are fearing will definitely come to pass if this bill lives. =/ Fear tactics are only bad when the fear isn't legitimate.

Simmons_2.0
March 22nd, 2010, 03:58 PM
Yes, EVERY Rebulican lies, that's complete BS. I know plenty of Republicans who tell the truth, plenty who lie, and also plenty of Dems who tell the truth and plenty who lie, so you can't generalize based on some of the party members. What we need to do is vote out EVERYONE in our state legislature who refuses to cross party lines, same with the senate and congress. this bill shows, how corrupt the two party system is.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 03:58 PM
Thank you, Steven, for your post that made it clearer.

And for the people like NikoBelic999, you should probably try to read the post that little monster put up to prove you wrong. At least try to comprehend the facts before you think everyone is wrong and you are right. Thanks.
Thank you so much. :] You just gave me a little faith in humanity.
Yes, EVERY Rebulican lies, that's complete BS. I know plenty of Republicans who tell the truth, plenty who lie, and also plenty of Dems who tell the truth and plenty who lie, so you can't generalize based on some of the party members. What we need to do is vote out EVERYONE in our state legislature who refuses to cross party lines, same with the senate and congress. this bill shows, how corrupt the two party system is.
I was obviously just saying that to push buttons. I wasn't being serious. Good job.

Fur Elise
March 22nd, 2010, 03:58 PM
Not all democrats suck, tbh. I'm not a Democrat by the way.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 04:01 PM
Thank you so much. :] You just gave me a little faith in humanity.

I was obviously just saying that to push buttons. I wasn't being serious. Good job.

TROLL!

Not all democrats suck, tbh. I'm not a Democrat by the way.

I agree. I have many moderate democrat friends who don't want this bill as much as I do.

Aureol
March 22nd, 2010, 04:03 PM
Not all democrats suck, tbh. I'm not a Democrat by the way.

I don't believe you... okay, not really, some of my really good friends are Democrats. Nice people, I just learn to never talk politics to them.

4 years though before major stuff happens through this bill. Wonder how much (if any) is going to be messed up in that time. Pres. Obama kinda got this bill in place at a bad time. It's pretty unpopular; he should've gotten more support.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 04:05 PM
I don't believe you... okay, not really, some of my really good friends are Democrats. Nice people, I just learn to never talk politics to them.

4 years though before major stuff happens through this bill. Wonder how much (if any) is going to be messed up in that time. Pres. Obama kinda got this bill in place at a bad time. It's pretty unpopular; he should've gotten more support.

Note that conservatives like myself aren't opposed to health care reform. We're just opposed to this trash bill.

Mattysaurus
March 22nd, 2010, 04:05 PM
Thank you so much. :] You just gave me a little faith in humanity.

No problem. It's just that if half the people here who are against it would just read that post, they would actually comprehend. I'm not trying to shove my thoughts down other people's throats, I just want them to understand all the angles. :/

Simmons_2.0
March 22nd, 2010, 04:05 PM
Thank you so much. :] You just gave me a little faith in humanity.

I was obviously just saying that to push buttons. I wasn't being serious. Good job.

Because, sarcasm on the internet is totally visible when you don't point it out =/

NikoBelic999
March 22nd, 2010, 04:06 PM
I wouldnt trust YOU little monster if you put a gun to my head.....

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 04:06 PM
No problem. It's just that if half the people here who are against it would just read that post, they would actually comprehend. I'm not trying to shove my thoughts down other people's throats, I just want them to understand all the angles. :/
Yes, which is why I just call them idiots and move along. D:
Because, sarcasm on the internet is totally visible when you don't point it out =/
It wasn't sarcasm either way.

Fur Elise
March 22nd, 2010, 04:08 PM
Little monster did that because Niko said all Democrats suck, or whatever.

Atleast I think that's why.

.Gamer
March 22nd, 2010, 04:10 PM
I'm so glad we can have a mature discussion about politics without it boiling down to Republican v. Democrat.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 04:10 PM
I'm so glad we can have a mature discussion about politics without it boiling down to Republican v. Democrat.
Me too! <3

/shot

I wouldnt trust YOU little monster if you put a gun to my head.....
Would you really trust anyone..? And I don't expect you to trust me, because as of now, I think I would pull the trigger.

>:3

Not..literally..

Simmons_2.0
March 22nd, 2010, 04:10 PM
Ok, whatever, point is that 55% of the American population didn't want this, why force something on the public that they don't want?

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 04:12 PM
Ok, whatever, point is that 55% of the American population didn't want this, why force something on the public that they don't want?

A. G. E. N. D. A.

Of socialism. Epic proportions of it. They know this is the only chance they will get in a long time to impose this much control over the American people, so they jumped at it even though it cost them their popularity and their seats.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 04:14 PM
A. G. E. N. D. A.

Of socialism. Epic proportions of it. They know this is the only chance they will get in a long time to impose this much control over the American people, so they jumped at it even though it cost them their popularity and their seats.
And yet again. Read my post I linked to you and that multiple other people have mentioned. :|

Jake♫
March 22nd, 2010, 04:15 PM
This thread is making me die a little inside every time I go from the end of page two forwards...I mean really...dear lord.

But, let's actually talk on topic and try to ignore/end the kind-of flamewar/"debate" occurring (lol), this health care bill...I'm not really a fan of it. I mean, yes, there ARE good aspects to it (Pre-existing conditions mostly), but the thing that mainly irks me about it that it is going to completely harm the people it is intended to target and help.

The middle class is the target for this bill, but at the same time, that's where all the money is coming from to pay for it. One trillion dollars is NOT a little petty fee to pay via taxes. I mean really, we are currently around 13 trillion in debt! (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) (Warning: that link might hurt your eyes a tad =P) Yeah, let's just throw ANOTHER one trillion on there, where it is probably going to take at least two generations to pay off what we currently have. Tax payer dollars are the use to fund this bill, with the middle class taking a hefty toll from it. I mean really? Small businesses, homemakers, they are hurt too much, even if it comes with the health care.

Another troubling aspect is the annual fee for not having health care by 2014. Okay, why do I feel like the government is being taken over by corporations (Oh wait...)? I feel like the government is turning into a credit card company, where ridiculous fees are just throw in there to make more money (Re: Underusage Fees). With the taxes being used to pay for it, did the government ever think that familes might not be able to afford it because their income is going to an increased number of taxes?

And from reading this thread, all I'm getting is that this is a liberal vs. conservative debate...yeah no. It really isn't. It isn't like all liberals/democrats voted yes, and all conservatives/republicans voted no. Believe it or not, voting yay or nay, there was bipartisan activity involved, whether you like it or not. Now, I'm not saying it is LARGE bipartisan activity, but hey, it IS there.

And a random aside: The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Therefore, we aren't necessarily a representative government, where elected officials do what we say. We elect them, and they do what they think is best for the nation. I don't remember who started that little debate that continued for awhile, but just throwing in my two cents =3

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 04:18 PM
This thread is making me die a little inside every time I go from the end of page two forwards...I mean really...dear lord.

But, let's actually talk on topic and try to ignore/end the kind-of flamewar/"debate" occurring (lol), this health care bill...I'm not really a fan of it. I mean, yes, there ARE good aspects to it (Pre-existing conditions mostly), but the thing that mainly irks me about it that it is going to completely harm the people it is intended to target and help.

The middle class is the target for this bill, but at the same time, that's where all the money is coming from to pay for it. One trillion dollars is NOT a little petty fee to pay via taxes. I mean really, we are currently around 13 trillion in debt! (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) (Warning: that link might hurt your eyes a tad =P) Yeah, let's just throw ANOTHER one trillion on there, where it is probably going to take at least two generations to pay off what we currently have. Tax payer dollars are the use to fund this bill, with the middle class taking a hefty toll from it. I mean really? Small businesses, homemakers, they are hurt too much, even if it comes with the health care.

Another troubling aspect is the annual fee for not having health care by 2014. Okay, why do I feel like the government is being taken over by corporations (Oh wait...)? I feel like the government is turning into a credit card company, where ridiculous fees are just throw in there to make more money (Re: Underusage Fees). With the taxes being used to pay for it, did the government ever think that familes might not be able to afford it because their income is going to an increased number of taxes?

Agreed with all of the above.

And from reading this thread, all I'm getting is that this is a liberal vs. conservative debate...yeah no. It really isn't. It isn't like all liberals/democrats voted yes, and all conservatives/republicans voted no. Believe it or not, voting yay or nay, there was bipartisan activity involved, whether you like it or not. Now, I'm not saying it is LARGE bipartisan activity, but hey, it IS there.

Like I said, the bipartisanship was on the NO side of the vote. That's why there were a handful of Democrat dissenters.

And a random aside: The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Therefore, we aren't necessarily a representative government, where elected officials do what we say. We elect them, and they do what they think is best for the nation. I don't remember who started that little debate that continued for awhile, but just throwing in my two cents =3

The whole point though is that they "represent" us, or they get thrown out. We are a representative republic, technically.

"In the United States, James Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison) defined republic in terms of representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) as opposed to direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic"



Not sure if the system would accept my post so I'm writing this down here. Bolded section = me.

Fur Elise
March 22nd, 2010, 04:18 PM
I had to laugh at the sponsered link. It says:

Obama Care... Stop Him!

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 04:19 PM
The middle class is the target for this bill, but at the same time, that's where all the money is coming from to pay for it. One trillion dollars is NOT a little petty fee to pay via taxes. I mean really, we are currently around 13 trillion in debt! (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) (Warning: that link might hurt your eyes a tad =P) Yeah, let's just throw ANOTHER one trillion on there, where it is probably going to take at least two generations to pay off what we currently have. Tax payer dollars are the use to fund this bill, with the middle class taking a hefty toll from it. I mean really? Small businesses, homemakers, they are hurt too much, even if it comes with the health care.

• Fear Based Argument - "The Democrats want to spend, spend, and spend so our children are saddled with heavy mountains of debt!"
• Response - This bill is not only paid for, but it reduces the deficit according to the Congressional Budget Office by $140 billion in the first 10 years and by over $1.2 trillion in the following 10 years. For some reason you don't trust the CBO whenever they produce numbers that disprove your point and call them liars, but you cite them whenever they help to prove your point. Which is it? Are they reliable or liars?
Furthermore, let's just say that this legislation was not funded as the multiple legislations passed under a Republican legislation such as the Medicare prescription drug plan, the tax cuts, and the two wars... there is no dollar value on the value of the almost 50,000 lives that will be spared per year, and millions whose lives will be improved because they now have health care coverage.

Another troubling aspect is the annual fee for not having health care by 2014. Okay, why do I feel like the government is being taken over by corporations (Oh wait...)? I feel like the government is turning into a credit card company, where ridiculous fees are just throw in there to make more money (Re: Underusage Fees). With the taxes being used to pay for it, did the government ever think that familes might not be able to afford it because their income is going to an increased number of taxes?

This, I agree with for the most part.

Netto Azure
March 22nd, 2010, 04:19 PM
Hey, I admit. The bill as structured is the Massachussets plan on Steroids.

But since all talk of Single-Payer is crazy socialist talk...it's no use.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 04:25 PM
• Fear Based Argument - "The Democrats want to spend, spend, and spend so our children are saddled with heavy mountains of debt!"
• Response - This bill is not only paid for, but it reduces the deficit according to the Congressional Budget Office by $140 billion in the first 10 years and by over $1.2 trillion in the following 10 years. For some reason you don't trust the CBO whenever they produce numbers that disprove your point and call them liars, but you cite them whenever they help to prove your point. Which is it? Are they reliable or liars?
Furthermore, let's just say that this legislation was not funded as the multiple legislations passed under a Republican legislation such as the Medicare prescription drug plan, the tax cuts, and the two wars... there is no dollar value on the value of the almost 50,000 lives that will be spared per year, and millions whose lives will be improved because they now have health care coverage.



This, I agree with for the most part.


The CBO numbers won't hold up. They gave an "estimate" on the bill's cost because they haven't actually seen the bill yet to produce a bulls-eye number. Nancy Pelosi said herself that "the bill would have to be passed so you all can see what's in it!" But that's beside the point. What happened to Medicaid/care will happen to this bill. The spending on both of those bills has increased NINE-FOLD of what the CBO numbers were at the time of passage.

Esper
March 22nd, 2010, 04:27 PM
These comments about ruining the economy are so unfounded, but even if they weren't I'd still rather be unemployed and have my health than be working and have insufficient/overpriced health care, or no health care.

Healthy people > healthy economy

Hopefully the next round of elections won't see a bunch of feet-dragging politicians try to gut this bill even more than it's already been so we won't have to make that choice.

Jake♫
March 22nd, 2010, 04:28 PM
Not sure if the system would accept my post so I'm writing this down here. Bolded section = me.

Whether or not the bipartisanship was on the NO side or not, it was also on the yes side as well. Republicans voted YES as well (Although the number, not surprisingly was...small to say the least), it WAS there.

And my point on the representative government thing is that we AREN'T one, where they do what we want. We are a republic, therefore that isn't how our government works =P

--------------------------------------------

@monster: I didn't realize that it even reduced the deficit of our nation (It's not like I did extensive research on the topic before posting =3), and if that's the case, well then alright then =P.

But want to know what the sad thing really is? Currently, our government kind of DOES put a dollar value on the lives of Americans, and if it is really worth it. I do NOT, under any circumstances support that, but it's the sad truth. The government is just a giant corporation, and everything involves money, including a bill that might save 50,000 lives.

After rereading what I posted earlier too, I guess I made a superlative in saying the the middle class is paying all of the bill for taxes, yeah, unintentional there. I guess that does give off the front of a fear-based argument alone...=P

But like I said, there are good aspects to the bill, whether it be the 50,000 lives mentioned, but still, all it really boils down to is one thing, and one thing alone: money.

Captain Hobo.
March 22nd, 2010, 04:32 PM
I don't like it goverment run health care isn't good.

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 04:33 PM
I don't like it goverment run health care isn't good.
And your reasons are..?

You cant just say it is because you said so. :[

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 04:34 PM
Whether or not the bipartisanship was on the NO side or not, it was also on the yes side as well. Republicans voted YES as well (Although the number, not surprisingly was...small to say the least), it WAS there.

And my point on the representative government thing is that we AREN'T one, where they do what we want. We are a republic, therefore that isn't how our government works =P

--------------------------------------------

@monster: I didn't realize that it even reduced the deficit of our nation (It's not like I did extensive research on the topic before posting =3), and if that's the case, well then alright then =P.

But want to know what the sad thing really is? Currently, our government kind of DOES put a dollar value on the lives of Americans, and if it is really worth it. I do NOT, under any circumstances support that, but it's the sad truth. The government is just a giant corporation, and everything involves money, including a bill that might save 50,000 lives.

After rereading what I posted earlier too, I guess I made a superlative in saying the the middle class is paying all of the bill for taxes, yeah, unintentional there. I guess that does give off the front of a fear-based argument alone...=P

But like I said, there are good aspects to the bill, whether it be the 50,000 lives mentioned, but still, all it really boils down to is one thing, and one thing alone: money.

1. Actually, no Republicans voted "Yes" on Sunday's bill. There was one republican who voted "Yes" on the 2009 vote (which was the image I posted), that might be what got you confused. As for this vote on Sunday, there were no Republicans who voted "Yes".

2. We are a representative republic. Maybe you missed my edit showing James Madison's position on this: "In the United States, James Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison) defined republic in terms of representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) as opposed to direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic"

3. It doesn't reduce the deficit. This, like every other entitlement, will only grow to the point of unsustainability.

4. YOU SAID IT! The government is the biggest corporation of them all. Except we're forced to pay them since there's only one government. =(

5. Everyone will be paying on the taxes for this thing if Obama expects it to be funded properly without raising the debt/deficit.

.Gamer
March 22nd, 2010, 04:50 PM
2. We are a representative republic. Maybe you missed my edit showing James Madison's position on this: "In the United States, James Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison) defined republic in terms of representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) as opposed to direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic"

What is this, I don't even.

Stop posting that, in every post please, its annoying and who cares about James Madison, the stupid Federalist papers mean nothing, they are akin to someone writing a letter to the editor, they hold no weight for legal presidence, or constitutionality.

But want to know what the sad thing really is? Currently, our government kind of DOES put a dollar value on the lives of Americans, and if it is really worth it. I do NOT, under any circumstances support that, but it's the sad truth. The government is just a giant corporation, and everything involves money, including a bill that might save 50,000 lives.

[paragraph that doesn't apply to my quote]

But like I said, there are good aspects to the bill, whether it be the 50,000 lives mentioned, but still, all it really boils down to is one thing, and one thing alone: money.

Sad, but true.


Healthy people > healthy economy


The former cannot exist without the latter.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 04:54 PM
What is this, I don't even.

Stop posting that, in every post please, its annoying and who cares about James Madison, the stupid Federalist papers mean nothing, they are akin to someone writing a letter to the editor, they hold no weight for legal presidence, or constitutionality.

Addressed this in an earlier post (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644666&postcount=93).

.little monster
March 22nd, 2010, 05:04 PM
Addressed this in an earlier post (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644666&postcount=93).
Gamer is right, it's pointless. Stop posting it.

Jake♫
March 22nd, 2010, 05:14 PM
1. Actually, no Republicans voted "Yes" on Sunday's bill. There was one republican who voted "Yes" on the 2009 vote (which was the image I posted), that might be what got you confused. As for this vote on Sunday, there were no Republicans who voted "Yes".

Yeah, I went off of that picture =3

2. We are a representative republic. Maybe you missed my edit showing James Madison's position on this: "In the United States, James Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison) defined republic in terms of representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) as opposed to direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic"

Wikipedia isn't always true, so meh there (Although it probably is, still). Until this is in an official document, it means absolutely nothing, therefore it doesn't apply.

3. It doesn't reduce the deficit. This, like every other entitlement, will only grow to the point of unsustainability.

Although the bill says it, I do agree that it isn't true until it happens


In bold, so yeah =P I know it might sound a little hypocritical between my responses to two and three, but a bill predicting results isn't "official"

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 05:16 PM
In bold, so yeah =P I know it might sound a little hypocritical between my responses to two and three, but a bill predicting results isn't "official"

Just one minor correction. The bill doesn't say it, the CBO says it about the bill. But I saw your point and it doesn't really affect what you were aiming to say.

Amachi
March 22nd, 2010, 05:21 PM
So has Obama earnt his Nobel Peace Prize yet? Did he finally get something done that makes him worthy to receive such a prize (even though the bill is just a shell of what he intended it to be)? I mean, I know it's just the United States, but surely this is better than nothing.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 05:25 PM
So has Obama earnt his Nobel Peace Prize yet? Did he finally get something done that makes him worthy to receive such a prize (even though the bill is just a shell of what he intended it to be)? I mean, I know it's just the United States, but surely this is better than nothing.

I LOL'ed at this one. Very nice. I needed some humor. Thank you. =)

Anti
March 22nd, 2010, 06:14 PM
I suppose I'll defend myself, lol.

They do not equal the Constitution, but they do give a good deal of insight about what the Founders wanted us to do with it.

All I was arguing was that just because a Congressman doesn't vote with his constituents' opinion does not mean that they are violating our rights, which was what plc was arguing. I'm not basing this on the Federalist papers since they are not the basis of our government. The Constitution is. While the spirit of representative democracy is to truly represent the people and get done what they want, they do not have to do everything they say. And hey, if they really break a big promise, they probably aren't going to get reelected, so going against the will of the people recklessly is political suicide anyway. But no, rights are not violated if someone breaks all of their campaign promises. But as I just said, no reelection and likely infamy will result. Even if that was a violation of rights, it was crazy of plc to suggest that revolt was in any way a good or legitimate option.


But yes, as for my opinion on the bill, I have my doubts, and frankly I think it's hard not to. But I am glad that we finally got some real reform passed. Whether or not you like that bill, it is a huge accomplishment. I sure hope it works, as does every reasonable (AKA not ridiculously partisan) American. The current system had to be tackled though. I was hoping for a public option but beggars can't be choosers.

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 06:23 PM
I suppose I'll defend myself, lol.



All I was arguing was that just because a Congressman doesn't vote with his constituents' opinion does not mean that they are violating our rights, which was what plc was arguing. I'm not basing this on the Federalist papers since they are not the basis of our government. The Constitution is. While the spirit of representative democracy is to truly represent the people and get done what they want, they do not have to do everything they say. And hey, if they really break a big promise, they probably aren't going to get reelected, so going against the will of the people recklessly is political suicide anyway. But no, rights are not violated if someone breaks all of their campaign promises. But as I just said, no reelection and likely infamy will result. Even if that was a violation of rights, it was crazy of plc to suggest that revolt was in any way a good or legitimate option.


But yes, as for my opinion on the bill, I have my doubts, and frankly I think it's hard not to. But I am glad that we finally got some real reform passed. Whether or not you like that bill, it is a huge accomplishment. I sure hope it works, as does every reasonable (AKA not ridiculously partisan) American. The current system had to be tackled though. I was hoping for a public option but beggars can't be choosers.

The violation of rights depends on the content of the individual bill, really. But you are correct in that just because a representative defies his constituents then the vote isn't immediately unconstitutional just because of that.

That being said, I still think that this bill is unconstitutional in many aspects. The vote, however, does not affect this at all.

I don't believe this is real reform, unfortunately. There's a lot of garbage in this bill that stinks up the very few good provisions in it. We really should start from scratch. But I do want reform too, just as much as anyone. We all hope this will work, I just severely doubt it. And a public option would just collapse the government in its own debt.

But if you want to see the kind of reform I would impose, check out the first post I made in this thread, here (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644052&postcount=47).

Honestly I think that post was my most important contribution to this thread (and I've been contributing a lot...), but I think it got overlooked amongst all the arguing. D=

.Gamer
March 22nd, 2010, 06:28 PM
@ Prince_of_Light, you can't win an argument against Anti, trust me, I've tried.

I saw on the news that they are going to fine people who do not purchase healthcare, is that true? (Technically, that IS an infrigement upon rights because the government cannot force you to buy into a private entity, car insurance is excempt because of the interstate commerce clause)

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 06:30 PM
@ Prince_of_Light, you can't win an argument against Anti, trust me, I've tried.

I saw on the news that they are going to fine people who do not purchase healthcare, is that true? (Technically, that IS an infrigement upon rights because the government cannot force you to buy into a private entity, car insurance is excempt because of the interstate commerce clause)

lol I was actually agreeing with Anti.

And yes, they are going to fine people (or jail time) if you refuse to purchase health insurance. I'm not sure where the exact provision is but I know for sure it's in there.

On a side note, driver's insurance (I think you meant that as opposed to auto insurance) is an interesting subject. You don't purchase it to protect yourself, you purchase it to protect whoever you hit and then your premium goes up. Or something along those lines.

And I hate that I have to ask, but... could you (or someone else reading this) go back and read my original post on page 2? I really want an opinion on it. =(

Yoshimi
March 22nd, 2010, 06:47 PM
A. G. E. N. D. A.

Of socialism. Epic proportions of it. They know this is the only chance they will get in a long time to impose this much control over the American people, so they jumped at it even though it cost them their popularity and their seats.

Socialist. Public education is socialist. And as far as I know, social security programs are socialist. What's your point?

Prince_of_Light
March 22nd, 2010, 06:49 PM
Socialist. Public education is socialist. And as far as I know, social security programs are socialist. What's your point?

1. Primary education is not socialist when each individual state controls how it wants to teach. That makes it federalist. Plus it has been argued that a basic education is a fundamental right, since it is required to function as a citizen, but not a full/secondary one.

2. Yes, social security is a very socialist program. Sure, it helps some people, but it's ultimately just another grow-until-debt-is-sky-high entitlement that we could have done without. However, I feel it is worthy to mention that originally social security was meant to be an untouched pool of tax dollars to be given out to people who are in a time of need. But our lovely government couldn't resist the temptation to take it so now all the money is spent; replaced by government IOUs.

FreakyLocz14
March 22nd, 2010, 08:18 PM
Regarding what Light and Anti were going one about...

We should have a re-call process for Congressmen and Senators. It would probably need to take super-majority so that we don't threat them with recall on a montly basis but can still crack down on lawmakers whose wills stray too far from their constituents.

Esper
March 22nd, 2010, 08:47 PM
I think a representative democracy is the best we can hope for. It's not perfect, of course, but I can't see how the will of the constituents can be better gauged than in selecting someone to represent them. People change their collective mind on a monthly-, weekly- and even daily-basis and can be easily swayed by the media and whatever is the political topic du jour. The time it takes from the moment a piece of legislation begins its journey through government to the time it's voted upon can take months (or years if it gets killed in committees and has to be reintroduced) so a representative's constituents could theoretically support a bill and then want it killed by the time it's ready to be a law. Government already moves at a snail's pace. And how would you accurately gauge an entire district's views? Monthly polls? You'd need to have something akin to an election, people would have to take time off work and it all would cost a ton.

Bela
March 22nd, 2010, 11:19 PM
For all of those comments which stated that Republicans aren't opposed to reform, or that quote and I paraphrase the poster, "Republicans will vote for Republican-supported bills":

Of course you'll say that Republicans were not in support of this bill, regardless of the fact that they had no bill of their own for health reform. They were in power for 8 years and did not do a thing about health care; health care has been an issue in this country since at least the days of Nixon (in which Ted Kennedy could have actually struck a deal but he wanted more than what Nixon was offering).

Of course you'll say Republicans are in favor of a health care bill, right? When Republicans like Dick Armey are running Freedom Works, which is the means by which the Tea Party protests have been so well organized, I have to disagree with that notion.

When Republicans were arguing right up to the very end of the debate on Sunday that they were against federally funded abortion (it was nowhere to be found in the bill that abortion was funded by federal dollars), to the point where Mr. Stupak who wrote the previously voted down Stupak amendment (to prevent federal dollars from being used to fund abortion) had to step up and call out the Republicans for "politicizing life" as he put it. Not to mention President Obama's executive order which strictly states that the Hyde amendment (no federal dollars are used to fund abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger) will be upheld. With these two pieces of information, how can arguing against federally funded abortion be reasonable? It wasn't in the bill!

No, Republicans are not in favor of health care reform, as it would mean the health insurance companies from which so many of them receive their campaign contributions would be making less money. It's all about the money, Lebowski. To the person who wondered why our health care system is broken, it's for that very reason: corporate greed from the health insurance companies!

Mika
March 23rd, 2010, 06:05 AM
1. Primary education is not socialist when each individual state controls how it wants to teach. That makes it federalist. Plus it has been argued that a basic education is a fundamental right, since it is required to function as a citizen, but not a full/secondary one.

Yes and that federalistic education system is falling to pieces right now. :D If you look at countries where education is centralized and controlled and, for the most part, every child learns the same thing, oh wow they do better on test scores than places that don't. With no bottom level standard for what students can and must learned beyond rigged standardized tests [that your teachers let you cheat on using things like Graphic Calculators etc] that never accurately judge a student's ability [Why is Algebra on the test at the beginning of the year when that is the level of math the student is begining that year? etc etc]

Why do you think Private and Homeschooled chlidren do better academically than public school chlidren? Mmm? It's really not that hard to figure out.

No, Republicans are not in favor of health care reform, as it would mean the health insurance companies from which so many of them receive their campaign contributions would be making less money. It's all about the money, Lebowski. To the person who wondered why our health care system is broken, it's for that very reason: corporate greed from the health insurance companies!

I hate to be Devil's advocate but since the topic is now swinging both ways, that same policy can be applied to the democrats and the education system because of the lucrative amount of fiances they receive from teacher's unions. Teachers don't want to be held accountable for how they teach, or have any standard like that. They like the one they're in currently even though, for students, it doesn't work in the least. :D

[/devil's advocate]

I do however agree with that statement and I think it's something our neighboors don't entirely understand. In most European countries, Healthcare is about people. In the United States, it's about making progress, making money, and beating things no other country can beat. We do have the 'best' healthcare in the world. Take that governor from Canada that flew to Florida for a more noninvasive surgery to repair his heart. Take the Mayo Clinic. I'm not saying Europe doesn't have ground breaking medical discoveries, I'm just saying America has more of them. People are more motivated to do research if they're given lots of money to do it. People have gotten used to that money and they don't want it to go away. They want to keep the standard of living they've always had, even at the expense of others, because change is not something really anybody likes.

Again, poor them. We can give other incentives instead of money for research and all the nice bells and whistles for one person mean nothing for the people who die untreated because they're uninsured.

I understand that it's going to effect people and I understand people aren't all going to like change. The point of the matter is this: We have hurt and injured and sick people in the United States and we're not doing a thing about them because 'it's their own fault they don't have healthcare'
RT@GOPBoehner:Health care is NOT a right, it's a PRIVILEGE.. If you ********&listen to rap all day you don't deserve it.

This guy has been proven not to be GOPBoehner but the shocking truth of this statement really does disturb me. The real GOPLeader's twitter has listed over 6 states that are planning to sue over Healthcare. With all this stuff mucking up the system, I'm curious as to when/if any of these bill items are actually going to be implemented.

*sigh*

Again, it really floors me just how Selfish some Americans can be to say how unfair this is when, again, they're sitting with their nice and shiny health insurance and good health and they don't have to deal with any of the problems a good portion of America has to deal with. Healthcare and good healthy people make the country a better place to live in. Less sick people, less issues like with H1N1 etc etc. Less sick babies, less sick children, less sick teenagers less sick adults.

Healthier, happier, more productive.

How can America not want this? Is earning 7 - 8 digits for yourself worth the people's suffering it causes when you have to be paid that much? :/ It's not like they're going to stop paying those doctors those lucrative sums, the doctors won't have it, so yes they're going to try to substain those salaries and still provide free healthcare and it just isn't going to work. Eventually the money will run out or the doctors will quit because of a paycheck cut they don't want to take.

Call me pessimistic but really, I doubt that until we start caring about the people in our neighborhood that anything health-care wise is really going to change at all. :/

A business is a business and this Capitalistic economy is what drives our nation. Money money money. All for me, none for you <3

twocows
March 23rd, 2010, 07:27 AM
I hope this makes a difference, but it's been so gutted that I highly doubt it's really going to change much. Some of the most ground-breaking sections of this bill have been removed. There are still a few good things it brings, but it's nowhere near the game changer it once was. And I'm sure the pork attached to it will screw the people over as much as it helps.

No, Republicans are not in favor of health care reform, as it would mean the health insurance companies from which so many of them receive their campaign contributions would be making less money. It's all about the money, Lebowski. To the person who wondered why our health care system is broken, it's for that very reason: corporate greed from the health insurance companies!
While generally true, I hope you're not implying that Democrats as a whole are any better. I'd guess at least a good 90% of politicians are in the pocket of some group of lobbyists; it's really more about which ones. The whole lot of them need to be thrown out.

this Capitalistic economy
The system we have is hardly capitalism. Corporatism would be more accurate.

Åzurε
March 23rd, 2010, 07:30 AM
Again, it really floors me just how Selfish some Americans can be to say how unfair this is when, again, they're sitting with their nice and shiny health insurance and good health and they don't have to deal with any of the problems a good portion of America has to deal with. Healthcare and good healthy people make the country a better place to live in. Less sick people, less issues like with H1N1 etc etc. Less sick babies, less sick children, less sick teenagers less sick adults.

First off, H1N1 was hyped. I have pretty satisfactory health without insurance, and me and my family are still against it. So is a family we know that has a severely autistic child that they struggle to provide for, along with having a weak immune system in the family genetically. It's not just Republican fat cats on this side.

Also, health is not just about health care. If people actually took all this health nut stuff to heart and started with the exercising, you likely wouldn't need to go to the hospital as often. Same as if you took conscious control of your diet, or used homeopathic medicine (very good for the immune system), or other things. I'm not saying that you can get away your whole life without surgery (even if I have so far), or contracting some serious disease, but this is not a simple "yes or no" question. Bringing it to a logical end, people in the US have less incentive to stay healthy themselves, because "well, we bought health care, might as well use it", which of course is not a good thing either, as it strains the budget just a little more.

How can America not want this? Is earning 7 - 8 digits for yourself worth the people's suffering it causes when you have to be paid that much? :/

Only if you're employing more than 50 people, I reckon.

Money money money. All for me, none for you <3

It's the truth. It's unfortunate, but it's all we've got. Or, don't got.

Twocows' post mentioned pork, and I would like to reiterate. There is indeed pork, and while Libby, Montana may be happy, I don't care for any more wasteful or misplaced spending. We are already in debt.

Simmons_2.0
March 23rd, 2010, 08:12 AM
It's been signed into law today, but 14 states are taking legal action against it. And Texas awhile ago said they'd leave the union if they didn't like what the President was doing. :/ really interesting this is getting.

.Gamer
March 23rd, 2010, 08:16 AM
It's been signed into law today, but 14 states are taking legal action against it. And Texas awhile ago said they'd leave the union if they didn't like what the President was doing. :/ really interesting this is getting.


Honestly, will people notice if texas is gone?

Simmons_2.0
March 23rd, 2010, 08:17 AM
Honestly, will people notice if texas is gone?

It's the biggest donor state to the government. The government will notice, but no, your right, no one else will.

Timbjerr
March 23rd, 2010, 09:20 AM
It's been signed into law today, but 14 states are taking legal action against it. And Texas awhile ago said they'd leave the union if they didn't like what the President was doing. :/ really interesting this is getting.

Man, I just gotta love my home state. XD

...because secession is the best way to deal with dissatisfaction over federal laws...instead of...you know, calling for judicial review or something like that. >_<

Netto Azure
March 23rd, 2010, 09:26 AM
US President Barack Obama signs landmark US healthcare bill into law (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8583350.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47524000/jpg/_47524757_008993241-1.jpg
Mr Obama now has to sell the reforms to a divided American public



US President Barack Obama has signed his landmark healthcare bill into law in a ceremony at the White House.
The new law will eventually extend health insurance cover to about 32 million Americans who currently do not have any.
Mr Obama said he was signing the bill for people like his mother "who argued with insurance companies even as she battled cancer in her final days".
The bill is strongly opposed by the Republicans, who say it is too costly.
Immediately after the signing, attorneys general from 13 states - 12 Republicans and one Democrat - began legal proceedings against the federal government seeking to stop the reforms on the grounds that they are unconstitutional.
Mr Obama was joined at the White House signing ceremony by healthcare reform supporters including Democrats from both Houses of Congress who supported the measure.
He said the bill's provisions were "desperately needed", adding: "The bill I'm signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see."
He hailed the "historic leadership and uncommon courage" of the Democratic leadership in Congress that secured the bill's passage, singling out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for particular praise.
He concluded: "Today after almost a century of trial, today after over a year of debate, today after all the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes law in the United States of America. Today.
"All of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform."
Mr Obama now has to sell the reforms to a divided American public before November's mid-term elections.
On Thursday, he will go to the state of Iowa to talk about how the new law will help to lower healthcare costs for small businesses and families.
After a heated debate, the House of Representatives voted 219-212 late on Sunday to send the 10-year, $938bn bill to Mr Obama. Not one Republican voted for the bill, and some Democrats also voted against it.
The measure, which the Senate passed in December, is expected to expand health insurance coverage to about 95% of eligible Americans, compared with the 83% covered today.
It will ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with existing medical problems.
Correspondents say the bill represents the biggest expansion of the federal government's social safety net since President Lyndon Johnson enacted the Medicare and Medicaid government-funded healthcare programmes for the elderly and poor in the 1960s.
Mr Obama's campaign to overhaul US healthcare seemed stalled in January, when a Republican won a special election to fill the late Edward Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, enough Republican votes to prevent the bill from coming to a final vote in the Senate.
But Democrats came up with a plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure - despite its opposition to many of its provisions - and then have both chambers pass a measure incorporating numerous changes after the president signed it into law.
So yes, the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is officially law on March 23rd 2010. :D

Now on to reconciliation.

Anyways:

Parliamentarian Rules Against GOP Challenge (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/22/parliamentarian_rules_against_gop_challenge.html)

Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin ruled against a Republican challenge to the health care reconciliation package, Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/44559-1.html) reports.

However, Senate Republicans "remain confident that Frumin will rule in their favor on at least one of the many challenges they plan to raise."

Said one GOP aide: "One down, many more to go."Also:

Waterloo (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo)
By David Frum

"No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?"

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.


As for the court battles. Federal Law trumps (>) State actions.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 10:12 AM
Yes and that federalistic education system is falling to pieces right now. :D If you look at countries where education is centralized and controlled and, for the most part, every child learns the same thing, oh wow they do better on test scores than places that don't. With no bottom level standard for what students can and must learned beyond rigged standardized tests [that your teachers let you cheat on using things like Graphic Calculators etc] that never accurately judge a student's ability [Why is Algebra on the test at the beginning of the year when that is the level of math the student is begining that year? etc etc]

Why do you think Private and Homeschooled chlidren do better academically than public school chlidren? Mmm? It's really not that hard to figure out.



I hate to be Devil's advocate but since the topic is now swinging both ways, that same policy can be applied to the democrats and the education system because of the lucrative amount of fiances they receive from teacher's unions. Teachers don't want to be held accountable for how they teach, or have any standard like that. They like the one they're in currently even though, for students, it doesn't work in the least. :D

[/devil's advocate]

I agree with most of what you have stated, minus the obvious fact that our federal government would never be able to regulate how millions of kids get educated at a centralized level. That's why it was left out of the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. The Constitution stays silent about it, therefore this power applies to the states.

But yes, I would agree. Home schooling and private schooling PWNZ public schooling. Centralized schooling works well in smaller countries because there's less population to regulate (most of these countries are about the size of a state anyway). The founders knew that eventually America would encompass both shores of the continent, so they left education up to the states.

However, I also disagree with your statement that it is because of the federalist system that our education is falling to pieces. The system isn't the problem, it's the local administrations failing to keep a high standard so they can get a good score on No Child Left Behind (HATE!) coupled with downright lack of student effort.

Man, I just gotta love my home state. XD

...because secession is the best way to deal with dissatisfaction over federal laws...instead of...you know, calling for judicial review or something like that. >_<

LOL. If Texas were to ever secede I would definitely move there. Texas has always been like that though, ever since they were separate from the republic before they actually became a state. Same deal with California, although they love what's going on too much to be rebellious.

As for the court battles. Federal Law trumps (>) State actions.

The states can still challenge the constitutionality of the bill, which they will win on unless the courts are stuffed with liberal activist judges who don't actually care about the Constitution.

Simmons_2.0
March 23rd, 2010, 10:31 AM
Prince, there are court battles that maybe be happening 14 or so states are filing or thinking about sueing the US Government over this bill. If it goes to the Supreme Court, the bill could be Nullified alltogether. Because if I recall, the Supreme court has mainly Conservatives on it.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 10:48 AM
Prince, there are court battles that maybe be happening 14 or so states are filing or thinking about sueing the US Government over this bill. If it goes to the Supreme Court, the bill could be Nullified alltogether. Because if I recall, the Supreme court has mainly Conservatives on it.

I'm not sure what the liberal/conservative count on the Supreme Court is, actually. I hope you're right though.

Mario The World Champion
March 23rd, 2010, 10:49 AM
I want to meet the guy who put in that stupid "get health insurance or be fined" thing in there. The one where if you DON'T have it by 2013, you'll be fined $350 per year. THAT is what I'm so against this "bill". If it didn't have that, I would have supported it. Somewhat.

I don't care about the good points. THAT one detail is what kills it for me. Just force more stuff on us, Obama!

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 10:50 AM
I want to meet the guy who put in that stupid "get health insurance or be fined" thing in there. The one where if you DON'T have it by 2013, you'll be fined $350 per year. THAT is what I'm so against this "bill". If it didn't have that, I would have supported it. Somewhat.

I don't care about the good points. THAT one detail is what kills it for me. Just force more stuff on us, Obama!

It starts out as $350, then it gets jacked up to $750. And that provision is what's mostly fueling the 13 state lawsuit.

And everyone supports a few provisions in the bill. It's just the other 2,395 pages of trash that make us hate it so.

Netto Azure
March 23rd, 2010, 11:24 AM
Prince, there are court battles that maybe be happening 14 or so states are filing or thinking about sueing the US Government over this bill. If it goes to the Supreme Court, the bill could be Nullified alltogether. Because if I recall, the Supreme court has mainly Conservatives on it.

I don't know. Legal court challenges take years to get to the Supreme Court on account of Appeals.

And by that time this law will be fully in effect.

@Mario: Yes, the Individual Mandate portion of the bill sucks. But it has been floated around by both parties for so long because we can't "put everyone in the system" if they don't buy the private insurance (There are hardship exemptions though)

Oh well, that's why I was so critical of this bill from the beginning. (http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/showpost.php?p=887828&postcount=4) Yet, it's what we get. Nobody wanted to have an open debate on the merits of other countries systems (Publicly, on record, shown in the Halls of Congress) due to the whole "American Exceptionalism" and "Socialized Medicine" stuff that we're seeing in this whole "apocalypse" reaction to this law.

Simmons_2.0
March 23rd, 2010, 11:26 AM
I'm not sure what the liberal/conservative count on the Supreme Court is, actually. I hope you're right though.

Supreme Court Members
Chief Justice John Roberts- Conservative Appointed by George W. Bush
Justice John Stevens- Moderate, appointed by Ford
Justice Antonin Scalia- Conservative(I believe), Appointed by Reagan
Justice Anthony Kennedy- Moderate, Appointed by Reagan
Justice Clarence Thomas- Conservative, Appointed by George H.W. Bush
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg- Liberal, appointed by Clinton
Justice Stephan Breyer- Liberal, Appointed by Clinton
Justice Samuel Alito- Conservative, Appointed by George W. Bush
Justice Sonya Sotamayor- Liberal, Appointed by Barack Obama

So if this does end up going to the supreme court there are more Conservatives, but we have 2 moderates aswell, that could swing it.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 11:28 AM
I don't know. Legal court challenges take years to get to the Supreme Court on account of Appeals.

And by that time this law will be fully in effect.

@Mario: Yes, the Individual Mandate portion of the bill sucks. But it has been floated around by both parties for so long because we can't "put everyone in the system" if they don't buy the private insurance (There are hardship exemptions though)

Oh well, that's why I was so critical of this bill from the beginning. (http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/showpost.php?p=887828&postcount=4) Yet, it's what we get. Nobody wanted to have an open debate on the merits of other countries systems (Publicly, on record, shown in the Halls of Congress) due to the whole "American Exceptionalism" and "Socialized Medicine" stuff that we're seeing in this whole "apocalypse" reaction to this law.


You must realize that "other countries" have drastically smaller populations than we do, for the most part. That's why it doesn't FAIL as much for them (but it still fails). We have 350 million people as opposed to Canada's 30 million. That's why debt will be such a problem when making sure "everyone gets their fair share". As a matter of fact, India tried doing this, and they have about a couple billion people. They collapsed the hardest out of all the countries that tried a national system.

Justice Sonya Sotamayor- Liberal, Appointed by Barack Obama.

This nomination made me want to throw up. This woman advocates determining what OUR Constitution means based on the opinions of judges on OTHER NATIONS' Constitutions! On top of that, she has said in many countless statements that "a wise Latina judge" knows better than most people.

Right. Ok. Racist and bigoted, much?

Bluerang1
March 23rd, 2010, 11:38 AM
Yeah congrats, good to see Mr Obama isn't just words!

Netto Azure
March 23rd, 2010, 11:39 AM
You must realize that "other countries" have drastically fewer populations than we do, for the most part. That's why it doesn't FAIL as much for them (but it still fails). We have 350 million people as opposed to Canada's 30 million. That's why debt will be such a problem when making sure "everyone gets their fair share". As a matter of fact, India tried doing this, and they have about a couple billion people. They collapsed the hardest out of all the countries that tried a national system.

Is that so? You keep on quoting Canada, but the French and the Germans have a Private health Insurance system similar to our Employer based system. And the French is considered as having the best.

Otherwise, we should expand Medicare to all because either way from what people can see there is no other way of controlling costs. (Even the French is moving toward it as their private insurance system is being deemed by the public as unsustainable) The free market is not working as it is in healthcare because as people demand the "best" medical technologies, it of course costs more. Then by the time we adopt that and the costs go down...there's a new technology that is even more expensive that people want.

To be frank Medicare is only "failing" now only on the revenue side because, as insurance was originally designed, the more healthy population isn't there to spread the risk pool of our senior citizens. And people wonder why Senior Citizens are picky about "keeping governments hands off Medicare"

Simmons_2.0
March 23rd, 2010, 11:40 AM
Yeah congrats, good to see Mr Obama isn't just words!

He pretty much is... this is really the only major thing he's done. Besides berate Israel.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 11:46 AM
Is that so? You keep on quoting Canada, but the French and the Germans have a Private health Insurance system similar to our Employer based system. And the French is considered as having the best.

Otherwise, we should expand Medicare to all because either way from what people can see there is no other way of controlling costs. (Even the French is moving toward it as their private insurance system is being deemed by the public as unsustainable) The free market is not working as it is in healthcare because as people demand the "best" medical technologies, it of course costs more. Then by the time we adopt that and the costs go down...there's a new technology that is even more expensive that people want.

To be frank Medicare is only "failing" now only on the revenue side because, as insurance was originally designed, the more healthy population isn't there to spread the risk pool of our senior citizens. And people wonder why Senior Citizens are picky about "keeping governments hands off Medicare"

There are plenty of ways to control costs that don't cost taxpayers a cent. Read my first post (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644052&postcount=47). one of the few I didn't mention was opening up state borders so that people can choose what insurance companies they want to pick from. That way, the failing or overly expensive companies will go under and people can regulate it with their own pocketbooks instead of having the government stick its nose into everything.

Secondly, as you can tell from my first post, I really don't believe insurance companies or the technology is really the big problem (although I do agree that new technology should cost less). But that whole technology thing goes straight back to my point about colleges being the true money suckers. Hi-tech jobs take 6-8 years of school as well, and if you want to go to the best technical colleges in the country, you can expect tuition to be sky-high. Naturally, the new hi-tech employees expect to be paid well to get rid of their student loans, so their bosses help them out with a six-figure income if you do your work well. Which then gets passed on to the consumer. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at the software industry. Between that and all the piracy, it's no wonder why the price of Photoshop is several hundred dollars.

Thirdly, even if not for the baby-boomers retiring, the Medicare program is STILL an entitlement, destined to grow until it collapses. Unfortunately for the liberals, there's never enough of other people's money to spread around. So they take more.

Fur Elise
March 23rd, 2010, 11:48 AM
I'm curious to know if some people hate this bill so much that a civil war would begin. So Texas would break away? Imagine that.

Simmons_2.0
March 23rd, 2010, 11:50 AM
I'm curious to know if some people hate this bill so much that a civil war would begin. So Texas would break away? Imagine that.

Texas, and some other states now are actually considering it, such as Oklahoma and Montana. It would be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming months.

.little monster
March 23rd, 2010, 11:56 AM
I'm curious to know if some people hate this bill so much that a civil war would begin. So Texas would break away? Imagine that.
I would love to see Texas leave. :3

Unfortunately, they would run themselves into the ground yet again (yes they were a country before) and we would take them back. :/

Simmons_2.0
March 23rd, 2010, 12:04 PM
Actually Every state BUT Texas would run themselves into the ground, I personally think Texas would do fairly well.

Timbjerr
March 23rd, 2010, 12:33 PM
As a Texan myself, I can see a particular angle to secession that would be a benefit to my personal situation in life.

That's not to say that it's the right thing to do, and I'm fairly sure that the Texas state government isn't that stupid (as well as those other ones tossing around the idea)

GFA
March 23rd, 2010, 01:29 PM
This bill is a shame but thankfully it is nothing like the Canadian system.

The bigegst difference is there still is not socialiazed health plan, thank God.
The good: Bans insurers from denying people for pre-existing conditons or dropping people at will
The bad: Forces Americans who do not want or cannot afford private insurance to purchase it (need to be reviewed by US Supreme Court imo), might cover elective abortions

Don't see how it's bad that people must have health insurance in the end, it's good for them. Who actually wants to take their medicine? Nobody. Do they? Yes.

might cover elective abortions.

As far as I understand it, no. Obama will be make an executive order that won't make this possible.* I thionk that I also remember that it didn't have any money for except for rape cases anyway. Though, considering I don't remember where I got that, may be that should be ignored.

Anway, an Abortion is someones rights. Late-term abortion should be considered murder, but anything in the 1st 3 months I'm fine with, as was the Supreme Court.

For now anyway, I have a Government test over Congress to study. So good-day to you all.

*Source: NPR

Oh, and OBAMA 2012! Woo Hoo!

.little monster
March 23rd, 2010, 01:33 PM
Texas, and some other states now are actually considering it, such as Oklahoma and Montana. It would be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming months.
No. They are not considering a civil war. :| They filed lawsuits against the federal government. That happens all the time. :|

wow.

Just wow.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 01:37 PM
No. They are not considering a civil war. :| They filed lawsuits against the federal government. That happens all the time. :|

wow.

Just wow.

He was referring to this part:

So Texas would break away? Imagine that.

aka not civil war, just secession.

.little monster
March 23rd, 2010, 01:40 PM
He was referring to this part:
Then he still said something stupid, because the only place where sucession is even remotely popular is Texas. :|

And most people in Texas say that it's stupid because they know Texas by itself cannot maintain itself as a strong independent country.

GFA
March 23rd, 2010, 01:42 PM
You must realize that "other countries" have drastically smaller populations than we do, for the most part. That's why it doesn't FAIL as much for them (but it still fails). We have 350 million people as opposed to Canada's 30 million. That's why debt will be such a problem when making sure "everyone gets their fair share". As a matter of fact, India tried doing this, and they have about a couple billion people. They collapsed the hardest out of all the countries that tried a national system.

Would like o point out that India does NOT have "a couple billion people" no where near close. The world has 6 Billion~ total. How much is ac puple? 2? 3? If India had that many people, ... just wow.

Now, I must really do HW. If I post again, (in the near future) someone tell me to get off the board.

GFA

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 01:42 PM
Then he is still stupid, because the only place where sucession is even remotely popular is Texas. :|

And most people in Texas say that it's stupid because they know Texas by itself cannot maintain itself as a strong independent country.

Simmons certainly isn't stupid, but the secession idea might be.

.little monster
March 23rd, 2010, 01:43 PM
Simmons certainly isn't stupid, but the secession idea might be.
I actually meant to say "He said something stupid." Sorry Simmons. :[

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 01:45 PM
Would like o point out that India does NOT have "a couple billion people" no where near close. The world has 6 Billion~ total. How much is ac puple? 2? 3? If India had that many people, ... just wow.

Now, I must really do HW. If I post again, (in the near future) someone tell me to get off the board.

GFA



Population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population)
2010 estimate 1,178,605,000[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#cite_note-pop-9) (2nd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population))
2001 census 1,028,610,328[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#cite_note-10)
Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density) 358.5/km2 (32nd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density)) 928.6/sq mi


So it's one billion. China's the one that has two billion. Doesn't really affect my point though because India still has three times our population.

.little monster
March 23rd, 2010, 01:48 PM
So it's one billion. Doesn't really affect my point though because they still have three times our population.
1. One billion is not "a couple billion"
2. That's an estimate. Please look up that definition.
3. Who cares about India in this thread? This is a thread about Health Care in the US, being passed in the US.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 01:53 PM
1. One billion is not "a couple billion"
2. That's an estimate. Please look up that definition.
3. Who cares about India in this thread? This is a thread about Health Care in the US, being passed in the US.

1. I admitted my mistake.

2. It's not just an estimate.


2001 census 1,028,610,328[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#cite_note-10)


official count ^

3. I was using India as an example of how a health care overhaul with a public option would fail because the sheer population trying to use said option would overload the system.

TRIFORCE89
March 23rd, 2010, 02:00 PM
As a Canadian looking in, I've got mixed feelings.

It's great that they've made some progress. And hopefully, something greater can come from this in the long run. But, in reality, this is health insurance reform, not health care before.

Originally, I think, the bill included a public option among other things. And they should have left it in. The Republicans *****ed and moaned and Obama wanting to be bipartisan cut it and many other things out. And in the end the bill that was passed was very republican. A mixture of Romeny and Dole's plans. All to cater to people who just don't care.

Obama, the Republicans just aren't that into you. You watered down the bill immensely because they kept threatening they wouldn't vote for it. You catered them. And in the end the bill was passed without one single Republican vote. You could have left everything in. You should have left everything in. They wouldn't have voted either way. So, in the end, who won? The Republicans got the bill they wanted (despite what the three amigos Rush, Beck, and Palin say) and America is left without a public option.

The bill makes private health insurance a must, or pay fine. Just like house and car insurance. That's good, but if you had a public option that'd be even better. Because, as long as your health care system is for profit you will have problems. The penalty an insurance company must pay if they refuse to cover you (despite the reforms, children are covered longer, no more pre-existing conditions, etc.) is $100 a day. Oooooo. I'm sure the the insurance companies are shaking in their boots. So long as it's private, regardless of reform, the aim of the insurance companies will not be to save lives but to save money. And if the option is paying $100,000 that you are entitled to or pay a $100 penalty until you drop dead - they're going to go with the later.

Almost everyone is forced to buy-in to the insurance companies now. It's also now cheaper to do so. Employers must also offer it (which...during a job crises and trying to make industry more competitive on a global scale wasn't the brightest of decisions and all could have been avoided, once again, with the public option). This is all good. But not everyone is covered. The poorest of the poor, those who do not have employers to offer insurance are still out of luck.

You made a great giant baby step. Now get universal healthcare and join the rest of the civilized world.

The Democrats showed on the weekend that they have the balls to get things accomplished. No more bipartisan crap. You won. You have a majority. Use it before you lose it. Bush did all kinds of crap that was unpopular because he was able to. Now, please do the same. Get a move on.

blackwell
March 23rd, 2010, 02:46 PM
[censored]... No reform just more fed power... [screw] the repubs [screw] the dems [screw] the corruption [screw] the whole system. Wait 10 years we will be in the red on this program as well.

mod edits: hey bro, I appreciate your opinion on this an' everything but try not to bypass the censor. :/

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 02:54 PM
Be sarcastic all you want till a few years come round and this BS is coming out of your wallet.

You'd be paying for health insurance with the old way anyway.

We have NHS here in the UK and it works.

blackwell
March 23rd, 2010, 03:03 PM
Porygon it work until something serious happens and you actually need quality healthcare. :P

.Gamer
March 23rd, 2010, 03:08 PM
Fvck this sh1t... No reform just more fed power... Fvck the repubs fvck the dems fvck the corruption fvck the whole system. Wait 10 years we will be in the red on this program as well.

I'm sorry, censor bypass is not allowed on my forum.

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 03:08 PM
Porygon it work until something serious happens and you actually need quality healthcare. :P


If I do I can always go private and use Bupa.

Private health care still exists, but now it's not just privileges for the privileged. Everyone can get health care.

NarutoActor
March 23rd, 2010, 03:09 PM
You'd be paying for health insurance with the old way anyway.

We have NHS here in the UK and it works.
That's assuming you have heath care. This bill forces you to bye heath care.

Also great Britain is in debt. (but the us is in debt, even with out the health care, but the heath care would increase the debt.)

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 03:11 PM
That's assuming you have heath care. This bill forces you to bye heath care.

Also great Britain is in debt. (but the us is in debt, even with out the health care, but the heath care would increase the debt.)

Entitlements = debt. Sad but inevitable. When will the government learn that you don't fill a hole in by digging deeper?

Netto Azure
March 23rd, 2010, 03:16 PM
That's assuming you have heath care. This bill forces you to bye heath care.

Also great Britain is in debt. (but the us is in debt, even with out the health care, but the heath care would increase the debt.)

It's in debt. But it's overall spending on Healthcare is half as much as we have. (8%+ rather than 17% per capita GDP)

So they spend that debt on other stuff...like Education. o3o

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 03:18 PM
It's in debt. But it's overall spending on Healthcare is half as much as we have. (8%+ rather than 17% per capita GDP)

So they spend that debt on other stuff...like Education. o3o

They also have a much smaller population (1/7th of the US) with a smaller proportion of people currently entering retirement. Didn't you bring up the baby boomers earlier?

So considering their GDP expenditure on health care is higher than 1/7th of our GDP expenditure to match population scale, not to mention they should have less people to treat, they're still technically in a lot of debt and are spending a lot for the size of their nation.

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 03:28 PM
That's assuming you have heath care. This bill forces you to bye heath care.

Also great Britain is in debt. (but the us is in debt, even with out the health care, but the heath care would increase the debt.)


Our countries are in debt because they spent an inordinate amount of money going to war with Iraq.

http://www.tenthousandfilms.com/10k/wp-content//2009/11/book_billion.jpg

Do you really think health care expenditure will make that much of a difference compared to that?

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 03:30 PM
Our countries are in debt because they spent an inordinate amount of money going to war with Iraq.

http://www.tenthousandfilms.com/10k/wp-content//2009/11/book_billion.jpg

Well you're wrong at least about the United States. Bush's debt additions at the end of 8 years was 700 billion because of the wars. Obama quadrupled that and more is on the way with this health care monstrosity.

As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-0)

Roughly the same as the stimulus package, which was $787 billion. Which means double debt plus change right there.

Simmons_2.0
March 23rd, 2010, 03:31 PM
And the UK is in a huge amount of debt aswell, but not just because of Health care. External debt per capita (US$)$150,673 in the UK. compared to $43k in the US, which Is still a crapload. but hey it's less.

blackwell
March 23rd, 2010, 03:54 PM
Porygon you act like people in the US are denied care which isnt the case.

1) Whats wrong with being wealthy and being able to afford the best? Do I sense class envy?

2) The US Constitution does not allow such legislation by the fed. (Please spare me the general welfare clause talking point.)

3) Why not actually take steps to make it affordable instead of this BS?

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 04:03 PM
Porygon you act like people in the US are denied care which isnt the case.

1) Whats wrong with being wealthy and being able to afford the best? Do I sense class envy?

2) The US Constitution does not allow such legislation by the fed. (Please spare me the general welfare clause talking point.)

3) Why not actually take steps to make it affordable instead of this BS?

The former american health insurance would not have covered somebody for pre-existing conditions. If somebody couldn't afford health care and then became sick, then they would be screwed because nobody would cover them. I don't know about you but I don't think that's fair at all.

And no I don't have class envy because here in the UK we all get equal opportunities, there's no need to be jealous.

How would you make health care more affordable when the health insurance is run by private companies? You'd have to subsidise them with tax payers dollars, so either way you end up paying.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 04:08 PM
The former american health insurance would not have covered somebody for pre-existing conditions. If somebody couldn't afford health care and then became sick, then they would be screwed because nobody would cover them. I don't know about you but I don't think that's fair at all.

And no I don't have class envy because here in the UK we all get equal opportunities, there's no need to be jealous.

How would you make health care more affordable when the health insurance is run by private companies? You'd have to subsidise them with tax payers dollars, so either way you end up paying.

1. Covering pre-existing conditions is something everyone supports, this trash bill just smothers the few good things still inside it with 2600 pages of waste.

2. America already gives its citizens equal opportunity, that's why anyone is free to work hard and earn what they desire. You, sir, support equal results, not equal opportunity. Under socialism everyone gets exactly the same stuff in theory. Sadly this can't work in the real world, as different people are different.

3. For solutions, see this post and the post linked inside it:

http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5646888&postcount=166

.little monster
March 23rd, 2010, 04:12 PM
Porygon you act like people in the US are denied care which isnt the case.

1) Whats wrong with being wealthy and being able to afford the best? Do I sense class envy?

2) The US Constitution does not allow such legislation by the fed. (Please spare me the general welfare clause talking point.)

3) Why not actually take steps to make it affordable instead of this BS?
1. How is that relavent?
2. That point is completely false. The US constitution does not forbid this legislation in any way.
3. That's what the bill is doing. Putting more regulations on it so it is affordable as well as making it so insurance companies cant rape you for money and giving people who need insurance, insurance. What ever happened to a person's fundamental right as a human to life? Try reading about it before saying stuff, kthxbai.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 04:16 PM
1. How is that relavent?
2. That point is completely false. The US constitution does not forbid this legislation in any way.
3. That's what the bill is doing. Putting more regulations on it so it is affordable as well as making it so insurance companies cant rape you for money and giving people who need insurance, insurance. What ever happened to a person's fundamental right as a human to life? Try reading about it before saying stuff, kthxbai.

1. It wasn't really relevant. Agreed.

2. It is not completely false, this bill is unconstitutional because it mandates people to buy health insurance from a private entity.

3. Again, see the posts I linked to in my last reply. How many times must I repeat that bigger government and more regulations aren't the solution? Secondly, the right to life only protects it from being taken by another human being.

Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being) has an essential right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right) to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill) by another human being.

Mario The World Champion
March 23rd, 2010, 04:23 PM
I have a feeling that this will continue to be a major argument point for days to come. I have an idea. Let's get some dirt and water, put these "people" we voted in power in a ring and let them fling mud at each other. Since that's the only good thing they do anyway.

.little monster
March 23rd, 2010, 04:24 PM
1. It wasn't really relevant. Agreed.

2. It is not completely false, this bill is unconstitutional because it mandates people to buy health insurance from a private entity.

3. Again, see the posts I linked to in my last reply. How many times must I repeat that bigger government and more regulations aren't the solution? Secondly, the right to life only protects it from being taken by another human being.
2. So auto insurance is unconstitutional?
3. This bill in no way makes the government bigger. How many times must I repeat that? In order for it to become bigger, it has to gain control of something which it does not. It is just putting more regulations on private suppliers. And it's alright for a government to pass a law making it so people of a certain age aren't allowed to eat? That's not a violation of the basic human right to life? Because that way, a human isn't killing another human. However, the law is making it so the human must kill itself.

And stop quoting unreliable sources. Wikipedia isn't good. Find an actual source. I know that's hard.

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 04:28 PM
2. America already gives its citizens equal opportunity, that's why anyone is free to work hard and earn what they desire.


If only life were that kind.


Family A:

Family A earns lots of money and because of that they can afford a good education for their children. The children received a good education because their parent's were rich and can get high paying jobs. They get lots of money for their kids education and the cycle continues.


Family B:

Family B is a single parent family who can only afford public education. Because of this the kids don't go to college and because of this they don't get a higher paying job. Their children end up in the same situation and the cycle continues.

Can the kid of family B afford health care? No.
Is it his fault? No.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 04:30 PM
2. So auto insurance is unconstitutional?
3. This bill in no way makes the government bigger. How many times must I repeat that? In order for it to become bigger, it has to gain control of something which it does not. It is just putting more regulations on private suppliers. And it's alright for a government to pass a law making it so people of a certain age aren't allowed to eat? That's not a violation of the basic human right to life? Because that way, a human isn't killing another human. However, the law is making it so the human must kill itself.

And stop quoting unreliable sources. Wikipedia isn't good. Find an actual source. I know that's hard.

2. Auto insurance doesn't count because you're not forced to buy a car. Health care is mandated on everyone, there is nothing you have to own beforehand in order to be forced into health insurance under this law.

3. If the government won't get bigger, then why does this bill cost about a trillion dollars? (and that's just the estimate, like every other entitlement it will grow exponentially) The government will grow as the cost grows exponentially because in order to keep up with new entitlement claims bureaucracy will increase and more funds will be needed to satisfy the growing demand.

Your argument about passing a law requiring humans not to eat is an empty one. All humans must eat to survive, but not all humans become ill. on a side note, a law forcing anyone to buy food of any type would be unconstitutional as well. A government can't tell people what to buy under any circumstance. What happened to the fundamental right of LIBERTY?

If only life were that kind.


Family A:

Family A earns lots of money and because of that they can afford a good education for their children. The children received a good education because their parent's were rich and can get high paying jobs. They get lots of money for their kids education and the cycle continues.


Family B:

Family B is a single parent family who can only afford public education. Because of this the kids don't go to college and because of this they don't get a higher paying job. Their children end up in the same situation and the cycle continues.

Can the kid of family B afford health care? No.
Is it his fault? No.

STUDENT LOANS + SCHOLARSHIP + GRANTS = SUCCESS OF THE IMPOVERISHED THANKS TO HARD WORK

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 04:33 PM
3. If the government won't get bigger, then why does this bill cost about a trillion dollars? (and that's just the estimate, like every other entitlement it will grow exponentially) The government will grow as the cost grows exponentially because in order to keep up with new entitlement claims bureaucracy will increase and more funds will be needed to satisfy the growing demand.


That's spread out over ten years though, which per year, is less that what was payed for the war if you divide it up evenly by it's duration.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 04:35 PM
That's spread out over ten years though, which per year, is less that what was payed for the war if you divide it up evenly by it's duration.

What part of "it will grow exponentially" did you miss? Look at Medicaid/care. The cost for those has increased nine-fold of what they were originally projected to be at passage.

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 04:39 PM
. All humans must eat to survive, but not all humans become ill. on a side note, a law forcing anyone to buy food of any type would be unconstitutional as well. A government can't tell people what to buy under any circumstance. What happened to the fundamental right of LIBERTY?


This is a very good point. I don't think that makes the old system any better though.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 04:40 PM
This is a very good point. I don't think that makes the old system any better though.

I thought I already said I agree that we need reform in the US. Just not like this. Did you ever go read my previous posts about my suggested solutions like I asked you to? lol.

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 04:42 PM
I thought I already said I agree that we need reform in the US. Just not like this. Did you ever go read my previous posts about my suggested solutions like I asked you to? lol.

When did I say that you (specifically) didn't?
You have a funny way of accepting when people agree with you.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 04:44 PM
When did I say you didn't?
You have a funny way of letting people agree with you.

I never said you said I didn't. lol tongue twister. But yes, please go read them. I would like your opinion. =)

http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpos...&postcount=166 (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5646888&postcount=166)

Porygon-Z
March 23rd, 2010, 04:54 PM
I've got a couple of non-taxpayer funded solutions, if anyone wants to have a look.

First, we have to regulate these frivolous lawsuits better. (TORT REFORM!) It's not necessarily the lawsuits themselves, it's that the medical practices have been driven into paranoia with their frequency. Tons and tons of money is wasted on excess testing and procedures when medical practices do defensive medicine. And who can blame them? lawsuits can put them out of business completely, everyone knows know people sue for all they can get, even if they don't need it. It's the selfishness in human nature.


I agree, but this is a complex subject. I mean, where do you draw the line with the lawsuits? I don't know if the lawsuits should be stopped, but if the rulings were more sensible and fell on the side of the medical professional more often then the patient would be less likely to attempt one.



Secondly, the real greedy scoundrels here are the colleges. THEY are the ones who need reform. Tuition is RIDICULOUSLY high for ANY profession, not to mention becoming a doctor takes a good 12 years of school. I saw a dateline documentary a couple years back that investigated all the frivolous spending colleges undertook while their professors weren't teaching and they hiked tuition to insane levels for those of us in the middle class who don't get many grants. The doctors have to spend the first ten years of their income on nothing but loans. If they want to actually be able to make ends meet with their business, however, they will inevitably pass the college cost onto the insurance companies by raising their fees, which forces the insurance companies to raise their premiums on us.

All because some idiot headmaster has to gold-clad their campus and install Olympic-sized swimming pools. ugh.
.


The principal is sound, but in order to enforce it the government would have to regulate the Universities, which are private institutions. I'm no expert on constitutional rights, but that sounds to me like state regulation of fees of a private institution would contravene some of them. But I would like to see this happen anyway.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 05:06 PM
I agree, but this is a complex subject. I mean, where do you draw the line with the lawsuits? I don't know if the lawsuits should be stopped, but if the rulings were more sensible and fell on the side of the medical professional more often then the patient would be less likely to attempt one.





The principal is sound, but in order to enforce it the government would have to regulate the Universities, which are private institutions. I'm no expert on constitutional rights, but that sounds to me like state regulation of fees of a private institution would contravene some of them. But I would like to see this happen anyway.

Firstly, the main way we can do tort reform is to put more burden of proof on the plaintiff. All of that rests on the presiding judge however, which means that will have to be accomplished through sheer executive appointment. However, I believe there is a way we can achieve the same ends through the legislature, such as putting caps on legal gains from cases involving malpractice. Most malpractice wins are in the tens of millions range, when in reality if the plaintiff only asked for what was reasonable to cover the extent of their injury and the procedures required to correct it, it may only cost a couple million. Tort reform is more of an executive and judicial issue than anything else, because it requires stronger monitoring for fraud and knocking down frivolous malpractice lawsuits.

Secondly, universities are just like other businesses, they need to be regulated as well. It reminds me of the monopoly concept. (Do note that all regulation does not come through legislation, regulation is what executive agencies are for.) Again, I think the reform needs to come from the inside of the institution mainly to achieve the best effect. I think the individual student could do more than the government could here as well. Go to colleges that are dedicated to providing a strong education but also maintain low tuition levels, such as BYU (which I'm planning to go to). Other colleges will see that their high costs are driving away their consumers, so they will adjust.

SCV058
March 23rd, 2010, 05:12 PM
I'll celebrate when the gov't spends more time with the economy and the people without jobs than when they pass health care.

Prince_of_Light
March 23rd, 2010, 05:14 PM
I'll celebrate when the gov't spends more time with the economy and the people without jobs than when they pass health care.

Yes indeed. How many more jobs do you think there would be if this trillion dollars were used to oh, say, invest in small businesses? Wasn't that what the stimulus bill was supposed to do? Oh wait...

Mika
March 23rd, 2010, 08:03 PM
STUDENT LOANS + SCHOLARSHIP + GRANTS = SUCCESS OF THE IMPOVERISHED THANKS TO HARD WORK

HAHAHAHA.

Sorry, I'd rather not take out close to 100k in student loans and oh by the way if Colleges keep jacking up tuition and keep reducing scholarships and not increasing grants, that's the only way anyone in America is going to get a college education. And oh by the way, at most colleges you don't learn anything useful at all until your third or fourth year if then so you're paying for a bunch of nonsense.

To stay on topic, I agree with Mario that nobody at all is going to be happy and the only way to potentially delcare a 'winner' is to have an Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny.

Neither side is going to win and big concessions have been made on either side.

Nobody here is going to be 'right' and 'win' because after a certain amount of time, the presuppositions come into play and really, at page 9 of this thread, you can see that for the most part people are sticking solidly to their corners and refusing to budge. Sure we can keep arguing but I don't think I'm going to change my mind on most of this. You can yell at me until you're blue in the face; I seriously doubt I'm going to agree with you. In spite of that, debates are healthy so as to avoid narrowminded-ness. In true FFL style, I present a nice little bold question for you to answer Asty don't kill me

Are there things in general or piece by piece that we can somewhat agree were good in this bill? Anything at all? Did we learn anything, did we get anything out of it that we can actually use? What's your biggest fear either way with the bill?

Bela
March 23rd, 2010, 08:32 PM
I hate to be Devil's advocate but since the topic is now swinging both ways, that same policy can be applied to the democrats and the education system because of the lucrative amount of fiances they receive from teacher's unions. Teachers don't want to be held accountable for how they teach, or have any standard like that. They like the one they're in currently even though, for students, it doesn't work in the least. :D

[/devil's advocate]

While generally true, I hope you're not implying that Democrats as a whole are any better. I'd guess at least a good 90% of politicians are in the pocket of some group of lobbyists; it's really more about which ones. The whole lot of them need to be thrown out.
Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that at all! In fact I thought I mentioned in my post that if it wasn't for (Democratic) Senator Ted Kennedy not going through with the health care proposal Nixon had, we wouldn't be talking about whether or not we have health care, not whether or not we have a public option; we'd be talking about single payer today! And ever since that event, Ted Kennedy wanted another opportunity for Health care reform. He died just after the Health, Labor, and Pension committee he chaired finalized their version of the bill in the Senate. Rest in peace, Edward Kennedy.

I'm not really going to criticize the Democrats past this since they were the 220 votes who passed this bill in the House after all.

Åzurε
March 23rd, 2010, 08:42 PM
...debates are healthy so as to avoid narrowminded-ness.

Ideally. =/

Are there things in general or piece by piece that we can somewhat agree were good in this bill? Anything at all?

No denial due to preexisting conditions is a good thing.

Did we learn anything, did we get anything out of it that we can actually use?

For the most part, I see this as more political arguing, but I'm sure there's some moral to the story I haven't come to yet.

What's your biggest fear either way with the bill?


Biggest fear for the moment is that it fails worse than I predict, in which case the US has probably fallen down the slippery slope of international debt.
Even more so, I mean.

namora
March 24th, 2010, 05:36 AM
I just love it how some people seem to think that whatever the government touches turns into gold when often the opposite is true. If they were truly as smart as they think they are, Social Security and Medicare wouldn't be slowly going broke. They think that throwing more weight (health care) on that sinking vessel will make it float. Don't make me laugh...

Our Government, both federal and state, has shown time and time again that they don't know how to handle money- not that it keeps them from giving themselves raises every chance that they get-, and so I don't want them within 50 miles of my health insurance.

Just because the current system has flaws, that doesn't mean that anything would be better, and some people seem to forget that. I get tired when the government keeps punishing the so-called "rich", simply because they make more money than the rest of us. Just because they make more money, that doesn't mean that they bring home that much money, and the vast majority of these "rich" people are small business owners that have worked their fingers to the bone to get where they are and can't afford their rising taxes because most of their money goes into their business and employees, so they don't earn as much as the government says that they do. Maybe it is a small percentage that are going to be affected, but still how do they know that they can afford it just b/c their business earns a lot of money? If they can't, they're going to go out of business, and we'll lose even more jobs and money.

Notice how nearly all of Congress "just happens" to fall short of the requirements for the extra tax:

That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).

Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

Speaker of the House (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/speaker.htm) - $223,500 (Uh oh.....)
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Don't tell me that you think that this is a coincidence...

In summary, if something is broke, fix it, but not with something that will break even more catastrophically a little farther down the road.

TRIFORCE89
March 24th, 2010, 06:04 AM
I just love it how some people seem to think that whatever the government touches turns into gold when often the opposite is true. If they were truly as smart as they think they are, Social Security and Medicare wouldn't be slowly going broke. They think that throwing more weight (health care) on that sinking vessel will make it float. Don't make me laugh...

Our Government, both federal and state, has shown time and time again that they don't know how to handle money- not that it keeps them from giving themselves raises every chance that they get-, and so I don't want them within 50 miles of my health insurance.

Just because the current system has flaws, that doesn't mean that anything would be better, and some people seem to forget that.[/LEFT]
As a fiscal conservative (which the Republican party hasn't been for years) I know that. Government sucks. They can't management themselves or our money. They don't look for the cheapest most-cost effective way to do something, they just do.

However, I'm not one of the those right-wing crazies who think the government should be gone or not doing anything at all. I just prefer they be more careful with our money. Have some responsibility and tighten their belts. We elect governments to get things accomplished. To pass laws and govern. The Republican argument that all government is bad (odd, when they were last one) doesn't make sense. Why would we elect them? What would we paying them to do? Just to sit down while the world outside turns into Lord of the Flies?

Government is supposed to work and actually do things. Social programs. Infrastructure building. New laws. Ideally, in the most responsible and affordable way. The United States should have had health care reform many years ago. There was a real possibility during Clinton's run, Republicans didn't let it happen. And certainly no hope in hell of anything happening with Bush. So, no this may not be the greatest time to push it through (especially since it's just health insurance reform now), but that's your country's own fault.

This isn't government health care. There is no public option. The government isn't distributing it. Your taxes aren't going to be raised to pay for it. You just have to buy private health insurance, just like you have to for your house or your car. And it's more affordable now to do so. It's a bill of regulations.

And yes, something is better than nothing. For all of the people who have employers who don't offer insurance. For all the people who get denied by their insurance providers. For all the people who are told cancer is a pre-existing condition. For all the families who have to choose between saving their mother or losing their house. For all the young people just out of school trying to start their lives, especially in this market, without insurance. No, it's not perfect. You need universal healthcare. But it's a start and it's certainly better than nothing. People needlessly dying vs. more people living. Why anyone would ever be against that is beyond me.

There's nothing wrong with universal healthcare. I'm Canadian and I love it. And, while I may think it could be managed better at times, or that some slight reform is needed to update the program. I think the government is doing a pretty a good job with it. We are after all paying half of what you pay. So....which way is financially beneficial now? :p

There should be no money to be gained or saved by having someone die or keeping someone sick. We're all aware of the American dream. Good stuff. But getting sick shouldn't be the American nightmare.

Fur Elise
March 24th, 2010, 11:36 AM
If only life were that kind.


Family A:

Family A earns lots of money and because of that they can afford a good education for their children. The children received a good education because their parent's were rich and can get high paying jobs. They get lots of money for their kids education and the cycle continues.


Family B:

Family B is a single parent family who can only afford public education. Because of this the kids don't go to college and because of this they don't get a higher paying job. Their children end up in the same situation and the cycle continues.

Can the kid of family B afford health care? No.
Is it his fault? No.

So because of public education kids don't go to college? Wow that's wrong. Also, just because someone is rich doesn't mean their children don't go to public school. Public school isn't that bad. /off topic

Simmons_2.0
March 24th, 2010, 12:23 PM
So because of public education kids don't go to college? Wow that's wrong. Also, just because someone is rich doesn't mean their children don't go to public school. Public school isn't that bad. /off topic

Actually the public school system is pretty bad, the reason this is, is because of the teachers union not letting the school district fire bad teachers, teachers get paid for how long they've been there, and it's easier to be mediocre and even though the Government has pumped about 9x the amount of money into the school system, has it produced 9x the results? No, it's actually stayed the same, and in some states gotten worse. And thanks to NCLB, most states cheat their way through standardized tests, or just teach what's in them.

chillj
March 24th, 2010, 12:57 PM
I'm opposed. No healthcare for senior citizens? Now that's stupid. Plus, 55% of America, MORE THAN HALF of the American population opposed! I know democrats want to fix everyone's problems when they're young so they don't have any problems in their old age, but it would be a tragic loss when your grandparent or great grandparent gets a disease and dies in their old age. The same thing happened to my grandmother. She fought cancer for a few years. But the day after the reform passed, she got sick and died. She was so sick that she had to try 8 times to say "Hi, Joseph." This is why I don't like this Healthcare Reform, or democrats who have no care in the world for old people. No offense to any democrats, or people that don't respect old people.

Trap-Eds
March 24th, 2010, 01:45 PM
Okay, can someone please explain to me, in plain simple English, what exactly is this bill doing and why half the country is overjoyed while the other half is dissapointed?

bmah
March 24th, 2010, 02:12 PM
Okay, can someone please explain to me, in plain simple English, what exactly is this bill doing and why half the country is overjoyed while the other half is dissapointed?

bill summary: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

There really isn't one answer as to why a person is happy/disappointed. And it's hard to judge from this thread just from those who have posted here; some are clearly more vocal about it than others.

But it appears that most people understandably dislike the individual mandate in which everyone must purchase health insurance by 2014 or else face a nearly $700 fine. By 2014, ideally just about everyone would have health insurance. But some people here mistakenly deem this as unconstitutional. Well, that's a big part of what's going on in this thread at least.

I know there are indeed a lot of people happy for the change, but as I just said, the people opposing it are a lot more vocal about it, so you're just going to hear who's hollering louder. A big plus is that this bill is supposedly going to reduce deficit by $143 billion throughout a decade.

You can read more about it in the above link.


I would honestly say more about my own opinion, but after reading the thread, I know I'd be struct down because some would say that other countries with better health care experiences aren't comparable to the economical/populational circumstance of the US. I'd have to disagree on that, but overall I think people are a bit too hasty to judge. I'd say to give it some time, since many of the effects won't be imposed until a few years later. It's obvious though that some people just want instant gratification and are basing their predictions in a really short-term mindset.

FreakyLocz14
March 24th, 2010, 03:21 PM
Do you think it is fair an constitutional to require every American citizen to either purchase private health care or to get on Medicaid/Medicare if they qualify?

Sure there will be subsidies but there will be those who slip through the cracks. Those whose incomes just barely miss the cut-off marks to qualify for subsidies and cannot afford care and do not qualify for public care.

TRIFORCE89
March 24th, 2010, 06:07 PM
I'm opposed. No healthcare for senior citizens? Now that's stupid. Plus, 55% of America, MORE THAN HALF of the American population opposed! I know democrats want to fix everyone's problems when they're young so they don't have any problems in their old age, but it would be a tragic loss when your grandparent or great grandparent gets a disease and dies in their old age. The same thing happened to my grandmother. She fought cancer for a few years. But the day after the reform passed, she got sick and died. She was so sick that she had to try 8 times to say "Hi, Joseph." This is why I don't like this Healthcare Reform, or democrats who have no care in the world for old people. No offense to any democrats, or people that don't respect old people.
I'm sorry to hear that. However, I also don't know where you're getting your information from. The elderly are not excluded from the bill.

Things don't just happen once it passed. It didn't get signed into law for a few days after. And even then, a lot of the benefits don't kick in for a while.

TRIFORCE89
March 24th, 2010, 06:08 PM
I'm not a Canadian. I know very little about the constitution. But, I believe you're required to purchase house and car insurance. So, what's the difference?

.Gamer
March 24th, 2010, 06:35 PM
Individual Mandate:

In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.


Uh, yeah, no. They can't force individuals into a private contract.

Simmons_2.0
March 24th, 2010, 07:18 PM
This is the exact bill, it's written in Washington Doublespeak so you'll need like a translator for it... http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

bmah
March 24th, 2010, 07:42 PM
For those of you who'd want to know how the bill acts out over the next decade, refer to this Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

Or I'll just quote the relevant stuff here for the chronologically challenged:

WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011

*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.

*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.

*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.

*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.

*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.

*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012

*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.

*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.

*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013

*A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.

*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.

*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.

*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014

*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.

*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

*Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.

*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015

*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018

*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.

Åzurε
March 24th, 2010, 07:51 PM
Uh, yeah, no. They can't force individuals into a private contract.

Well, they aren't forcing anyone to buy it, they're just putting an annual fine on everyone who doesn't.

Reina
March 24th, 2010, 07:57 PM
Not that I'm not interested in this form of healthcare (no, really, I am) and I have no idea if anyone else pointed this out already, but lets just move to the Pokemon form of healthcare- walk into a building, sit on a machine for 5 seconds, get healed from poisoning, frostbite, 3rd degree burns, and even paralysis! Come on, how is that not an amazing idea?

But in all seriousness, whether it's the best idea or not the best idea doesn't concern me too much (at the moment of course, I'm sure when I'm older it'll be a huge deal to me) but I'm just glad that some effort is being made to actually do something rather than nothing.

bmah
March 24th, 2010, 08:09 PM
Agreed, perfection is unrealistic, but what's present (IMO the bill was better before the most recent modifications) is better than nothing. And people should just wait and see instead of losing their heads. That's mainly why I provided the link that contained chronological info of the bill - I'm sure there's a ton of misinformation about the nature of the bill still.

Netto Azure
March 25th, 2010, 06:44 AM
Yeah, that's why the individual mandate is there, in that, we need the healthier people to pay for the sicker people. That's how insurance "risk pool" works." (That's why putting everyone in a single system lowers cost. It spreads payment evenly to everyone)

I'm not so sure about these class action lawsuits. Federal Law always supersedes state law, and the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the Constitution can be extended to "any officer thereoff" (AKA The Department of Health and Human Services) so...it's constituutional in that way. :|

Also:

US health bill sent back for new House vote (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8586492.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47512000/jpg/_47512700_008991686-1.jpg
The bill has sharply divided politicians and voters alike

The landmark US healthcare reform bill must be sent back to the House of Representatives for approval after two issues were raised by Republicans.
During an all-night voting session, two points relating to student loans were found to violate Senate procedure, said an aide to the Senate majority leader.
They were described as "relatively minor provisions".
They will have to be deleted, approved by the Senate and then sent back to the House for approval.
The bill was passed in the House of Representatives by 219 votes to 212 on Sunday, with no Republican backing.
It extends coverage to 32 million more Americans, and marks the biggest change to the US healthcare system in decades.
As part of the package, on Sunday the House also approved a separate set of amendments.
That package returned to the Senate for a vote, under a process known as budget reconciliation, where amendments have to relate to budgetary rather than policy issues.
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans submitted 30 amendments - which were all rejected by Democrats during the marathon overnight voting session.

Democrats 'confident'
However, Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin upheld two Republican challenges on points of order under budget reconciliation rules, Senate Democratic aides said.
Jim Manley, spokesman for the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said: "After hours of trying to find a way to block this, they (Republicans) found two relatively minor provisions that are violations of Senate procedure which means we're going to have to send it back to the House."
He added that he was "confident that the House will be able to deal with these and pass the legislation".
Mr Manley said 16 lines will be deleted from the bill, but any change required another House vote.
One of the changes was technical, and the other involved a provision to prevent reductions in the federal Pell Grant student aid programme, Associated Press reported.
President Barack Obama signed the healthcare bill into law without delay after the House vote, as he did not need to wait for the Senate vote on the reconciliation bill.
He is due to travel to Iowa on Thursday to promote the benefits of the health care reform.
Some supporters of the bill had received threats and abusive messages, prompting them to call police and the FBI.
Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said more than 10 Democratic politicians had reported incidents since Sunday's vote, some of which he described as "very serious".
Well MOST of the law is in place already. The last changes are just on financials and the accompanying Higher Education bill.

(I want mah increased Pell Grants XD)

FreakyLocz14
March 25th, 2010, 10:16 AM
Well, they aren't forcing anyone to buy it, they're just putting an annual fine on everyone who doesn't.

That means they are forcing it. They fine you becuase you disobeyed the law and are now being charged with a minor crime called a infraction.

I'm not a Canadian. I know very little about the constitution. But, I believe you're required to purchase house and car insurance. So, what's the difference?

You are not required to purchase home insurance at all.
You are required to purchase auto insurance only if you drive. You can easily avoid that mandate by biking and using public transportation. There is no way to avoid the health care mandate.

Red1530
March 25th, 2010, 10:23 AM
The bill that was passed is unconstitutional. There is no provision that allows the Federal Government to force someone to by a product or service as a condition of legal residence.

FreakyLocz14
March 25th, 2010, 10:30 AM
What is worse is this will hurt small businesses. A business with as little as 50 employees will be required to provide coverage for their employees. Last time I checked 50 employees isn't a very large company at all.

Yes I know there will be tax credits and subsidies but these only cover so much and some business owners will fall between the cracks of eligibility for these just like individuals will.

Esper
March 25th, 2010, 10:33 AM
You are required to purchase auto insurance only if you drive. You can easily avoid that mandate by biking and using public transportation. There is no way to avoid the health care mandate.
Part of the taxes people pay go to emergency services like your local fire department. Just because you don't avail yourself of their services doesn't mean you can stop paying money that keeps them running. Same general idea with the mandate. The manner is different, but the result is more or less the same: everyone pays so that those who need it can get it.

And off topic, biking and public transportation aren't always an option depending on where you live.

Netto Azure
March 25th, 2010, 04:04 PM
The bill that was passed is unconstitutional. There is no provision that allows the Federal Government to force someone to by a product or service as a condition of legal residence.

If you can't stop the bill, just have another Bush v. Gore (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-cant-stop-bill-just-have-another.html)


In today's Washington Post, Randy Barnett outlines various theories for attacking health care reform if it is passed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html). If all else fails, he offers the remarkable suggestion that the Supreme Court might try what it did in an infamous case decided almost exactly ten years ago-- Bush v. Gore.

The most likely constitutional challenge will be that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance. Barnett omits to mention in his op-ed that the mandate is actually structured as a tax (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/01/apparently-senator-hatch-has-not-read.html): if you don't buy insurance, you are assessed a tax for each month you fail to pay premiums. Barnett argues that individual mandate must be unconstitutional because the government can't require people to do anything; however, the government can make you pay taxes (http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2764). It does so every year. Congress pretty clearly has the power to pass such a tax under its powers to tax and spend for the general welfare. This is an easy case for constitutionality.

Congress also has the power to require the individual mandate under the Commerce clause, despite Barnett's objection. That is because Congress can regulate economic activities that have a cumulative economic effect on interstate commerce, and as Justice Scalia pointed out in Gonzales v. Raich (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454) (a case, by the way, that Barnett himself litigated and lost in the Supreme Court), Congress can regulate even non-economic activities if it believes that this is necessary to make its regulation of interstate commerce effective. As I've explained elsewhere
Critics charge that . . . people [who do not buy insurance] are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means. When uninsured people get sick, they rely on their families for financial support, go to emergency rooms (often passing costs on to others), or purchase over-the-counter remedies. They substitute these activities for paying premiums to health insurance companies. All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Moreover, like people who substitute homegrown marijuana or wheat for purchased crops, the cumulative effect of uninsured people’s behavior undermines Congress’s regulation — in this case, its regulation of health insurance markets. Because Congress believes that national health care reform won’t succeed unless these people are brought into national risk pools, it can regulate their activities in order to make its general regulation of health insurance effective.A second theory for challenging health care reform is that special deals for Louisiana and Nebraska violate the General Welfare Clause because they only benefit particular states. These features will be gone if Congress passes a reconciliation measure, which the House will vote on today. If a reconciliation bill is not passed, Barnett points out, Congress would have to show why these special deals benefit the entire union.

Even if Congress couldn't come up with a reason, the proper remedy would be to hold these special deals unconstitutional, not to declare the entire health care reform act invalid. So here's the irony of Barnett's suggestion: If opponents successfully attack these special deals, they will actually strengthen health care reform because in effect they will have gotten the courts to perform the same function as the reconciliation measure.

A third possibility is that states will pass laws exempting their citizens from the individual mandate. Barnett correctly sees that this strategy is itself unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

A fourth strategy is a constitutional amendment. Once health care reform is passed, however, it is unlikely that the public will support an constitutional amendment eliminating it. Such an amendment would require approval by three fourths of the states and two thirds of both houses of Congress. But as Barnett suggests, if health care reform ever becomes that unpopular, Congress will simply repeal the legislation first.

A fifth strategy is to attack the House rule for passing the bill. But as Barnett points out, the House decided yesterday not to use "deem and pass" and so this objection is now irrelevant. (It would not have succeeded in the courts in any case, because of the enrolled bill rule (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/can-deem-and-pass-be-successfully.html)).

Barnett's final suggestion is that the Supreme Court might simply decide that the Democrats didn't play fair and strike down health care reform in the same way that it decided that the Democrats didn't deserve the presidency in Bush v. Gore.

I assume that Barnett actually isn't advocating it. Bush v. Gore was widely derided as a travesty of legal reasoning, and the Supreme Court has avoided citing it or mentioning it in its opinions since. Whether or not the individual Justices viewed their actions this way at the time, many people saw Bush v. Gore as five conservative Justices making implausible legal arguments to benefit the interests of a particular political party which they happened to favor. And not to put too fine a point on it, Bush v. Gore helped smooth the way to the Bush Presidency, the dissipation of the federal budget surplus, the war in Iraq, presidentially approved torture, the cratering of the economy, and enormous budget deficits through reckless overspending by the Bush Administration. Bush v. Gore was, in hindsight, not only deeply flawed judicial reasoning, but led to a disaster for the country. Bush v. Gore is an example of what the Supreme Court and federal judges shouldn't do.

If opponents of the bill are reduced to wishing for a second Bush v. Gore, they, and not their opponents, have truly given up believing in American democracy.


UPDATE: In an e-mail to me, Barnett confirms that his reference to Bush v. Gore "was simply about predicting 5 votes." He writes: "If the conservative justices are as lawless as accused, the bill's supporters should worry. But if not, not. Which is it?"


Then again:

So George Washington was a socialist, too! (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia/index.html)
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, how could our first president require every citizen to buy a gun?

Oh well, that pretty much lays out most of the theories on unconstitutionality of the bill out the window.

SBaby
March 25th, 2010, 04:17 PM
And off topic, biking and public transportation aren't always an option depending on where you live.

Well, they can't force you not to walk.


Now, don't get me wrong. I agree with 90 percent of this bill. I do believe that people should be entitled to insurance, even if they have pre-existing conditions, and I do believe that children should always be allowed to be covered. But I also believe that there are flaws in this.

Here's the thing. This is the first time in US History that the government can legally force you to buy a product that is unrelated to direct taxes or an imminent threat, against the will of the American people (a majority of people were against this, according to many polls done by both the right and left; both sides got similar results). Not only are they going to require you to buy insurance, but they have specifically stated that you have to be covered to an extent that satisfies the IRS. So now, the IRS can tell you to buy insurance, and even make you buy whatever policy they want. Say you have Allstate or one of those other insurances. Maybe it isn't enough for the IRS. Now all of a sudden, they're telling you that you have to buy a different policy, or maybe even MULTIPLE policies. They will have the authority to make you do this, and you WILL have to do this. And those that don't, will be slapped with a fine. Anyone who doesn't have insurance is going to have to pay by the year. And if you don't, your wages will be garnished. The government should not be allowed to force you to do this. To be allowed to force you into this is nothing more than Socialism. It's unconstitutional, and I think it's high time for people to wake up.

If this remains - and it probably will - then what's to stop the government from passing a bill forcing you to buy cars from specific companies, or forcing you to go with DSL instead of Cable, or forcing you to go with AT&T? This is happening right now.


And I'm not even going to talk about College tuitions.


So George Washington was a socialist, too! (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia/index.html)
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, how could our first president require every citizen to buy a gun?

Oh well, that pretty much lays out most of the theories on unconstitutionality of the bill out the window.
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]

I just think it's hilarious how people try to rationalize this with things that happened 200+ years ago. I can do that too, you know. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

First off, I suggest you do a little research as to the validity of that claim, and look at the bigger picture of what was going on at the time. George Washington did not require every citizen to have a gun because he felt that the government would make more money off it. He required it because the country was at war with Britain at the time and most people living in the Colonies already owned firearms anyway for hunting. And even if they didn't, alot of them were provided for free and people often made their own firearms and even their own BULLETS. You can't make your own insurance. Not to mention, having guns didn't exactly bother anyone. A one-time payment of a few dollars for something that would protect you on a regular basis for your entire life back then is alot better than a 200 dollar a month payment for something that you might not ever use. I love all the misinformation that the media is feeding the public. It really just goes to show how far downhill this country's going.

Anyway, I've already explained on my site why this is unconstitutional, and what is going to be happening in the future. You can take it as you will. But this situation won't magically go away just because some words are changed or because a few historical points are misconstrued to give someone a fleeting debate advantage. And this is the tip of the iceberg. It only gets worse from here. Alot worse.

Åzurε
March 25th, 2010, 07:17 PM
=So George Washington was a socialist, too!
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, how could our first president require every citizen to buy a gun?

Oh well, that pretty much lays out most of the theories on unconstitutionality of the bill out the window.


Also, how does saying that somebody else did it justify someone doing it this time?

The above sentence is applicable in too many situations to count.

HeidiMoose
March 25th, 2010, 09:34 PM
Sarah Palin sure isn't happy about this.

But on a serious note (besides the fact that I utterly despise Sarah Palin with a passion), I honestly don't know much about the health care bill and therefor can not cast an opinion about it. I've had health insurance my entire life be it through my dad growing up and I have my own health care now at my job.. I do hope that this a good step forward for our country but I've heard enough negative things about the bill up to this point to be concerned as well.

Sotto Voce
March 26th, 2010, 06:57 AM
I'm stunned. I didn't think it would actually pass.


^ Most important part of the bill if you ask me.

I like that last one.

Also:
7. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE-- Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

I'll add on later--still reading thru the summary.

Netto Azure
March 26th, 2010, 08:38 AM
First off, I suggest you do a little research as to the validity of that claim, and look at the bigger picture of what was going on at the time. George Washington did not require every citizen to have a gun because he felt that the government would make more money off it. He required it because the country was at war with Britain at the time and most people living in the Colonies already owned firearms anyway for hunting. And even if they didn't, alot of them were provided for free and people often made their own firearms and even their own BULLETS. You can't make your own insurance. Not to mention, having guns didn't exactly bother anyone. A one-time payment of a few dollars for something that would protect you on a regular basis for your entire life back then is alot better than a 200 dollar a month payment for something that you might not ever use. I love all the misinformation that the media is feeding the public. It really just goes to show how far downhill this country's going.

Anyway, I've already explained on my site why this is unconstitutional, and what is going to be happening in the future. You can take it as you will. But this situation won't magically go away just because some words are changed or because a few historical points are misconstrued to give someone a fleeting debate advantage. And this is the tip of the iceberg. It only gets worse from here. Alot worse.

."A lot better than something you will never use..."

Wow that is one of the craziest things I've heard in a while. Because who cares about going to the doctor when I'm sick. Forget about good health choices and live your life to the fullest! >__>

Sheesh, people keep on complaining about rising healthcare cost without realizing it's their own fault. Who the heck pays for your emergency room visit when you waltz down there because you've been in an accident? Our darn premiums go up because we ultimately pay for your visit. People think they are invincible when they are young but that is not the case. V___V

Also, how does saying that somebody else did it justify someone doing it this time?


Because people here cannot accept the fact that Health care access is a vital part of a persons ability to live.

I've explained the reason why the individual mandate is there on another forum post I made but I guess I have to repeat it here:

The individual mandate is there, in that, we need the healthier people to pay for the sicker people. That's how insurance "risk pool" works."(That's why putting everyone in a single system lowers cost. It spreads payment evenly to everyone)

Otherwise, the insurance companies wouldn't even bother covering sicker people with lower premiums if there is no one there to balance the payment structure. Then this whole house of cards of a refom bill willfall down. :/ And because NOBODY lieks dem "Socialized" medicine, (Or more accurately insurance) we get a reform bill that forces us to get what you guys love, Private "Free Market" insurance.

Also:

It’s Done: House Passes Reconciliation Bill (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/its-done-house-passes-reconciliation-bill/)


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/03/25/health/house480/house480-blogSpan.jpg
The House of Representatives on Thursday gave final approval to the budget reconciliation bill containing a package of changes to the Democrats’ sweeping health care overhaul. The bill, which Democratic leaders hailed as a landmark achievement, now goes to President Obama for his signature.
“The American people have waited for this moment for a century,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said at a news conference. “This, of course, was a health bill. But it is also a jobs bill, an economic recovery bill, was a deficit-reduction bill, was an antidiscrimination bill. It was truly a bill of rights. And now it is the law of the land.”


In a fitting finale to the yearlong health care saga, the budget reconciliation measure that included the final changes was approved first by the Senate and then by the House on a tumultuous day at the Capitol, as lawmakers raced to complete their work ahead of a two-week recess.
The final House vote was 220 to 207 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/194), and the Senate vote was 56 to 43 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/105), with the Republicans unanimously opposed in both chambers.
The reconciliation bill makes numerous revisions to many of the central provisions in the measure adopted by the Senate on Dec. 24, including changes in the levels of subsidies that will help moderate-income Americans afford private insurance, as well as changes to the increase in the Medicare payroll tax that will take effect in 2013 and help pay for the legislation.
The bill also delays the start of a new tax on high-cost employer-sponsored insurance policies to 2018 and raises the thresholds at which policies are hit by the tax, reflecting a deal struck by the White House and organized labor leaders. It also includes changes to close the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage known as the doughnut hole, and to clarify a provision requiring insurers to allow adult children to remain on their parents’ insurance policies until their 26th birthday.

Many of the changes were intended to address the concerns of House Democrats, as well as to bridge differences between the original House and Senate bills and to incorporate additional provisions sought by Mr. Obama.
The bill also included a broad restructuring of federal student loan programs, a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s education agenda.
Well the entire Law is now in plce. Thank Goodness for the Student Loan Modification programs. :3

Trap-Eds
March 26th, 2010, 10:52 AM
bill summary: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html)

There really isn't one answer as to why a person is happy/disappointed. And it's hard to judge from this thread just from those who have posted here; some are clearly more vocal about it than others.


Hmmmm...I think I understand now. Americans now have to buy health insurance or risk a fine in the future. I don't see a problem with that, unless you can't afford to buy the insurance in the first place. But there's some sort of catch to this, like...

Here's the thing. This is the first time in US History that the government can legally force you to buy a product that is unrelated to direct taxes or an imminent threat, against the will of the American people (a majority of people were against this, according to many polls done by both the right and left; both sides got similar results). Not only are they going to require you to buy insurance, but they have specifically stated that you have to be covered to an extent that satisfies the IRS. So now, the IRS can tell you to buy insurance, and even make you buy whatever policy they want. Say you have Allstate or one of those other insurances. Maybe it isn't enough for the IRS. Now all of a sudden, they're telling you that you have to buy a different policy, or maybe even MULTIPLE policies. They will have the authority to make you do this, and you WILL have to do this. And those that don't, will be slapped with a fine. Anyone who doesn't have insurance is going to have to pay by the year. And if you don't, your wages will be garnished. The government should not be allowed to force you to do this. To be allowed to force you into this is nothing more than Socialism. It's unconstitutional, and I think it's high time for people to wake up.


...The IRS are the scary tax people, right? The goverment officials who collect taxes; so if you haven't been paying them they won't let you buy health insurance? That seems pretty sensible to me-just pay your taxes! But then again, that could lead into another debate about whether some taxes are fair ot not...and whether it's right to let the IRS control you that much...grrah, my head is spinning. Just how influential are the IRS, anyway?

Åzurε
March 26th, 2010, 11:16 AM
Because people here cannot accept the fact that Health care access is a vital part of a persons ability to live.

Helpful? Undeniably. Vital? Hardly. Immune systems and livers are vital parts of a person's ability to live.

My guess is you have strong opinions on the subject, and hence, "Fact" and "Vital".
That quote, however, is not a real response to observations of an attempt to justify this bill with an apparently irrelevant example.

FreakyLocz14
March 26th, 2010, 12:33 PM
If healthcare is a vital part of a person's existance explain why me and my siblings have survived a good 13-20 years without it.

Food and shelter and what is vital.

Netto Azure
March 26th, 2010, 02:56 PM
Helpful? Undeniably. Vital? Hardly. Immune systems and livers are vital parts of a person's ability to live.

My guess is you have strong opinions on the subject, and hence, "Fact" and "Vital".
That quote, however, is not a real response to observations of an attempt to justify this bill with an apparently irrelevant example.

And so the breakthroughs in medicine are not supposed to be shared to all those that need it? How do you expect to have a healthy workforce if you allow them to work in unproductive conditions. :/

And yeah, while our immune systems are great wonders of human anatomy, it cannot by itself get rid of Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other long term ailments. Plus yeah, our fractures will properly heal themselves without any medical help.

How is it an irrelevant example? Isn't that why you rush a person to the emergency room in case of illness and accidents? The reason we are debating this LAW is because although you might have access to the emergency room, we have to foot the bill with higher premiums.

If healthcare is a vital part of a person's existance explain why me and my siblings have survived a good 13-20 years without it.

Food and shelter and what is vital.

Yeah, because the had of fate was good to you guys. >__>
Just pray that you guys stay safe.

And those 2 are provided if you actually look for it.

Chibi Robo
March 26th, 2010, 08:09 PM
What happens with free health care:

Free healthcare bill is passed.

Lots of people uninsured want it.
More people means longer lines.
Longer Lines meaning longer wait.
Longer Lines mean you might not get your operation in time.
Not getting it in time could lead to a possible death or permanent damage.

Plus in this Health care bill illegal immigrants can get coverage.

Which means more lines :D

Also Doctors get a lowered income.

So now less doctors to treat the many patients.
Isn't this lovely~

Honestly I would love Health care reform, but not done like this.
Fortunately for us this thing doesn't take effect in about 4 years.
I stated my opinion, troll plz

Yoshimi
March 26th, 2010, 09:23 PM
Anyway, I've already explained on my site why this is unconstitutional, and what is going to be happening in the future. You can take it as you will. But this situation won't magically go away just because some words are changed or because a few historical points are misconstrued to give someone a fleeting debate advantage.

Since you went out of your way to provide a link for us who are ignorant of your presence, I'll just put this down and be on my way.

»This I think (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/25/white-house-defends-constitutionality-of-health-care-bill/)«

And this is the tip of the iceberg. It only gets worse from here. Alot worse.
I thought the whole Bush administration was the tip?

ANYWAYS, thanks for the tip Alan Greenspan.

Åzurε
March 26th, 2010, 10:02 PM
And so the breakthroughs in medicine are not supposed to be shared to all those that need it? How do you expect to have a healthy workforce if you allow them to work in unproductive conditions? :/
Did I say that you were to withhold medicine like that...?

Logical consequences of refusing to buy something such as a car is one thing. Deeming it unlawful to not purchase something is limiting freedom (which is supposed to be one of the things this country was made for). If people wish to put themselves in a position where they are at risk for something, why stop them? If the cards come up wrong, well, they deal with the consequences of the decisions they made. Forcing the matter through government makes no sense to me. Everyone is paying for everyone whether they are benefiting or not. This strikes no chords with you?

And yeah, while our immune systems are great wonders of human anatomy, it cannot by itself get rid of Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other long term ailments. Plus yeah, our fractures will properly heal themselves without any medical help.
Hey, they do for me and my extended family at least. As for the rest of this bit, appropriate changes in diet do wonders for diabetes and heart disease, and cancer-specific facilities are already very accessible anyway. If it comes down to "saving my life with drugs and surgery", people are indeed less stupid than other people take them for, and can get it (or find it, rather) themselves.

How is it an irrelevant example? Isn't that why you rush a person to the emergency room in case of illness and accidents? The reason we are debating this LAW is because although you might have access to the emergency room, we have to foot the bill with higher premiums.
I was referring to your older post about George Washington.

LAW
Okay, okay. Law.

Yeah, because the hand of fate was good to you guys. >__>
Just pray that you guys stay safe.
I always do.

And those 2 [food and shelter] are provided if you actually look for it.
Exactly right. It's provided if you look for it.