CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!

[.little monster]

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]

2. America already gives its citizens equal opportunity, that's why anyone is free to work hard and earn what they desire.
https://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5646888&postcount=166

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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]

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. =)

https://www.pokecommunity.com/showpos...&postcount=166

 

[Porygon-Z]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.

 

[Gumshoe Satyr]

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 - $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]

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]

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]

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.