• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!

Is the individual mandate fair? (Please state your reasoning in the thread)

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 48.1%
  • No

    Votes: 14 51.9%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
  • 284
    Posts
    14
    Years
    @ 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. =(
     
    Last edited:

    Luck

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 6,779
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen May 20, 2023
    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?
     
  • 284
    Posts
    14
    Years
    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

    Conservative Patriot
  • 3,498
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Aug 29, 2018
    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.
     
  • 10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
    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

    Banned
  • 262
    Posts
    15
    Years
    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

    もえじゃないも
  • 1,036
    Posts
    18
    Years
    • Seen Feb 11, 2013
    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

    The not-so-black cat of ill omen
  • 4,307
    Posts
    15
    Years
    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.

    Bela said:
    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.

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

    Åzurε

    Shi-shi-shi-shaw!
  • 2,276
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen Jun 2, 2013
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    Simmons_2.0

    -_- STOP STARING!!
  • 344
    Posts
    19
    Years
    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

    »»───knee─►
  • 1,523
    Posts
    14
    Years
    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?
     

    Timbjerr

    [color=Indigo][i][b]T-o-X-i-C[/b][/i][/color]
  • 7,415
    Posts
    20
    Years
    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. >_<
     
  • 9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    US President Barack Obama signs landmark US healthcare bill into law

    CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!

    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

    Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin ruled against a Republican challenge to the health care reconciliation package, Roll Call 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
    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.
     
    Last edited:
  • 284
    Posts
    14
    Years
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    Simmons_2.0

    -_- STOP STARING!!
  • 344
    Posts
    19
    Years
    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.
     
  • 284
    Posts
    14
    Years
    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.
     
  • 3,299
    Posts
    19
    Years
    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!
     
  • 284
    Posts
    14
    Years
    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.
     
  • 9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    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. 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.
     
    Back
    Top