The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES! (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=211774)

TRIFORCE89 March 27th, 2010 4:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chibi Robo (Post 5655642)
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

Actually.... no. Illegal immigrants are not covered. In fact there's nothing for them to be covered with. There's no public option.

This is a problem we have in Canada that bugs me. Technically, I don't think anyway, they aren't covered. Neither are travellers. But everyone just lets it slide for some reason. Which costs us money.

Longer lines means that everyone who needs to see a doctor actually is instead of sitting at home because they can't afford it. So, that's a good thing.

Same argument about the lower wages for doctor's. I don't know the bill instead and out, but...logically... given that this is a health insurance reform bill and not a health care reform bill, that's there's no public option, that the government won't be "distributing" health (which don't happen anyway with universal health care but seems to be a popular talking point), there's no reason for doctor's to have lower pay. If there was a public option, if this was universal healthcare... yeah, their salaries would take a hit because the tax payer is paying for it. But this didn't happen, so it's non-issue.

Chibi Robo March 27th, 2010 7:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 5656232)

Actually.... no. Illegal immigrants are not covered. In fact there's nothing for them to be covered with. There's no public option.

This is a problem we have in Canada that bugs me. Technically, I don't think anyway, they aren't covered. Neither are travellers. But everyone just lets it slide for some reason. Which costs us money.

Longer lines means that everyone who needs to see a doctor actually is instead of sitting at home because they can't afford it. So, that's a good thing.

Same argument about the lower wages for doctor's. I don't know the bill instead and out, but...logically... given that this is a health insurance reform bill and not a health care reform bill, that's there's no public option, that the government won't be "distributing" health (which don't happen anyway with universal health care but seems to be a popular talking point), there's no reason for doctor's to have lower pay. If there was a public option, if this was universal healthcare... yeah, their salaries would take a hit because the tax payer is paying for it. But this didn't happen, so it's non-issue.

That may be true, but there is a huge point I forgot to miss.
about a trillion dollars of dept will be given to the U.S. to pay off because of this healthcare plan. Now last time I recall hearing about the national dept it was 7 - 8 trillion. If we're in a recession right now, why are we spending so much?

Esper March 27th, 2010 12:11 PM

The Congressional Budget Office says the bill will save $138 billion over the course of a decade and up to $1.2 trillion over the next. But they probably made up that number in between death panel meetings chaired by illegal immigrants.

But that's really not the point. The government has to spend in a recession to get out of a recession whether they rack up debt or not. That's what they did after Great Depression with all those public works programs. A healthy workforce that isn't spending all its money on medical bills is going to be spending their cash on cars and $6 coffees and whatever else the economy runs on.

Netto Azure March 27th, 2010 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Åzurε (Post 5655845)
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?

Yes, because access to medicine depends on one's ability to pay in the Health care system of the United States.

We need to "stop them" from taking such risks in that we as a society foot the bill in the end. We pay twice overall for healthcare, make buisnesses less competitive in the world market by creating disincentives that bar access to proper medical care.

Quote:

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.
But as you said isn't it one's freedom to choose the consumer intensive lifestyle. While we are already bombarded with PSA's saying "change for the better" nobody bothers to listen, and yeah cancer surgery, and chemotheraphy are handed out as charity to everyone. >___>

Quote:

I was referring to your older post about George Washington.
Yet that is because older precidents are always cited in Judicial debates, people always reference to the founding fathers and the constitution without realizing that there is the Amendment process and judicial rulings signifying that it's definition is always fluid.

Quote:

I always do.
Sad to say it doesn't always work. :/

Quote:

Exactly right. It's provided if you look for it.
But not Healthcare, you are saddled with debt (and bankruptcy) if you are struck by a medical malady.

SBaby March 29th, 2010 10:23 AM

This is the fifth time I've tried posting this. Let's see if it works this time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 5654152)
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=Black][SIZE=2]

."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

First, learn to read. I said, you might not ever use it. Maybe you will, but maybe I won't. And the thing is, I agree that people should be entitled to it. But I don't think we should be required by law to buy insurance or face a fine. It should be up to the people whether they buy the product, not the government. And I think it's high time the people actually stood up and took back this country.

So stop dancing around my post looking for ways to misconstrue what I typed. Because you aren't fooling anyone. To everybody else: This is exacxtly what I mean by misinformation being more harmful than helpful.

PokemonLeagueChamp March 29th, 2010 11:15 AM

I would have to agree. If the government can tell you to buy something, what else can they order you to do? Why do you think all those states are taking this up against the Federal Government?

Frankly, I'd have to agree with Joe Biden's statement, "This is a big f***ing deal." It is, but for all the wrong reasons.

Esper March 29th, 2010 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBaby (Post 5661601)
It should be up to the people whether they buy the product, not the government.

It's not a product. It's a necessary service.

You can't always keep your house from catching fire no matter how careful you are. That's why there's the fire department you pay to keep running. You can't always avoid fender benders no matter how good a driver you are. That's why you need to buy insurance. You can't always keep yourself well no matter how healthy you are. That's why health care for everyone is necessary.

If you don't have insurance you're putting yourself and other people at risk. Imagine if people were able to opt out of having the fire department come to their house in exchange for paying fewer taxes. What happens if your house catches fire? The firefighters can either let your house burn because you didn't pay and put your neighbors at risk your neighbors' houses or they can protect everyone and save your house even though you didn't pay and everyone else had to pick up the slack.

If you get sick with something contagious you're more than likely going to get someone else sick and cause them to take time off from work or a trip to the drugstore/hospital. You've caused them financial trouble and you have to pay for it. Since you can never know who infects who the only way to make things fair is for everyone to share in the costs of keeping society as a whole healthy.

In conclusion: it's not a product; it's a responsibility of anyone living in a civilized society.

Captain Hobo. March 29th, 2010 2:22 PM

Here is something my parnets always say goverment run anything is crap.

Åzurε March 29th, 2010 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 5661816)
It's not a product. It's a necessary service.

You can't always keep your house from catching fire no matter how careful you are. That's why there's the fire department you pay to keep running. You can't always avoid fender benders no matter how good a driver you are. That's why you need to buy insurance. You can't always keep yourself well no matter how healthy you are. That's why health care for everyone is necessary.

If you don't have insurance you're putting yourself and other people at risk. Imagine if people were able to opt out of having the fire department come to their house in exchange for paying fewer taxes. What happens if your house catches fire? The firefighters can either let your house burn because you didn't pay and put your neighbors at risk your neighbors' houses or they can protect everyone and save your house even though you didn't pay and everyone else had to pick up the slack.

If you get sick with something contagious you're more than likely going to get someone else sick and cause them to take time off from work or a trip to the drugstore/hospital. You've caused them financial trouble and you have to pay for it. Since you can never know who infects who the only way to make things fair is for everyone to share in the costs of keeping society as a whole healthy.

In conclusion: it's not a product; it's a responsibility of anyone living in a civilized society.

First off, germs are not fires. Fire is immediate, always has the potential to destroy your material possessions and take lives in a matter of hours, and is fairly common because we as a nation use it in controlled environments multiple times in multiple locations everyday.

Health problems come in multiple shades of severity, and even moderately dangerous diseases can be overcome reliably without intervention or money. Serious, life threatening issues like cancer are big business right now, and you can find surgeons and specialists all over the place in the U.S. Note, Netto, that I did not say this was free. There are grants and other services available today to help people who cannot pay for the treatment.

Continuing from that earlier sentiment, I propose that many people go to hospitals too often for things that don't require it. There are plenty of ways to deter disease in the sense it was used in Scarf's example. Regular hand washing, living in a clean home, diet, etc. are surprisingly effective and even if you get it, you can take a day or two off work, rest, drink your liquids, take frequent showers, or take an immune booster or something. If you're really concerned about society, there's always self-quarantine.

Health care is not a responsibility of anyone living in a civilized society, for the purpose of Scarf's example it's a supplemental to steps you can take to help keep yourself and others healthy.

Esper March 29th, 2010 9:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Åzurε (Post 5663546)
First off, germs are not fires. Fire is immediate, always has the potential to destroy your material possessions and take lives in a matter of hours, and is fairly common because we as a nation use it in controlled environments multiple times in multiple locations everyday.

Think of disease as a slow acting fire. It destroys in days, months and years, but fighting it can bankrupt you (which is just as bad as having your house burn down) and it can still take your life if it's not stopped in time.
Quote:

Health problems come in multiple shades of severity, and even moderately dangerous diseases can be overcome reliably without intervention or money. Serious, life threatening issues like cancer are big business right now, and you can find surgeons and specialists all over the place in the U.S. Note, Netto, that I did not say this was free. There are grants and other services available today to help people who cannot pay for the treatment.
I have a relative who suffers chronic pain. It's not life-threatening, but she has trouble working for a full day because of it even while taking precautions not to over-strain herself. There's no free/cheap/home remedy for this. Medicines to treat it cost hundreds of dollars and even with them she needs to see physical therapists to help manage the pain and that costs even more hundreds of dollars. There are no grants or other services giving her money to pay for this.
Quote:

I propose that many people go to hospitals too often for things that don't require it. There are plenty of ways to deter disease in the sense it was used in Scarf's example. Regular hand washing, living in a clean home, diet, etc. are surprisingly effective and even if you get it, you can take a day or two off work, rest, drink your liquids, take frequent showers, or take an immune booster or something. If you're really concerned about society, there's always self-quarantine.
I propose that many people don't go to hospitals when they really do require it. None of these steps, good though they are (seriously, people should wash their hands more), will do a thing for someone with a serious chronic illness. Cancer and HIV absolutely require you to see doctors. Taking time off work can cut into your pay and that's really going to hurt people living from paycheck to paycheck. And I wouldn't trust everyone to keep themselves clean and healthy just for my sake because they all won't and I can still get sick from some infected person coughing next to me on the bus even if I take my vitamins.

FreakyLocz14 March 29th, 2010 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 5661816)
It's not a product. It's a necessary service.

You can't always keep your house from catching fire no matter how careful you are. That's why there's the fire department you pay to keep running. You can't always avoid fender benders no matter how good a driver you are. That's why you need to buy insurance. You can't always keep yourself well no matter how healthy you are. That's why health care for everyone is necessary.

If you don't have insurance you're putting yourself and other people at risk. Imagine if people were able to opt out of having the fire department come to their house in exchange for paying fewer taxes. What happens if your house catches fire? The firefighters can either let your house burn because you didn't pay and put your neighbors at risk your neighbors' houses or they can protect everyone and save your house even though you didn't pay and everyone else had to pick up the slack.

If you get sick with something contagious you're more than likely going to get someone else sick and cause them to take time off from work or a trip to the drugstore/hospital. You've caused them financial trouble and you have to pay for it. Since you can never know who infects who the only way to make things fair is for everyone to share in the costs of keeping society as a whole healthy.

In conclusion: it's not a product; it's a responsibility of anyone living in a civilized society.

I understand your agrument relating to fire department services, but this bill is nothing like that. You're thinking of a socialized health care system where people would pay taxes into a single-payer system. There is no single-payer or public option at all in the bill that passed. This is more like there is no fire department, everyone just has to buy private fire insurance. While I oppose both single-payer and this bill, I think single-payer is the lesser of two evils here because it is less intrusive on individual rights.

Remember that the greatest right American citizens enjoy is the right to be left alone by the government. This is why American criminal law is so restricting on how the government can deal with citizens they believe commited a crime. Most social services (save things like Social Security), are voluntary transactions between citizens and their government. People apply for things like housing assistance, food stamps, cash aid, and forms of government health care we have now such as Medicaid; the government does not force citizens to have these services.

I would support the individual mandate if the penalty paid funded some sort of temporary public health system that covers medical emergencies for people who did not follow the mandate, assuming they did so because they couldn't afford private care. I'm all for having a safety net for people down on their luck I just believe that it should be the last resort in order to restrict the size of government.

PokemonLeagueChamp March 30th, 2010 2:22 AM

Scarf, if you believe health care costs too much, don't blame the insurance companies. It's the pharmaceutical companies that make the medicines. The pharmaceutical companies that jack up prices because they can. The pharmaceutical companies that are UNTOUCHED by this bill.

Prince_of_Light March 30th, 2010 6:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 5661816)
It's not a product. It's a necessary service.

You can't always keep your house from catching fire no matter how careful you are. That's why there's the fire department you pay to keep running. You can't always avoid fender benders no matter how good a driver you are. That's why you need to buy insurance. You can't always keep yourself well no matter how healthy you are. That's why health care for everyone is necessary.

If you don't have insurance you're putting yourself and other people at risk. Imagine if people were able to opt out of having the fire department come to their house in exchange for paying fewer taxes. What happens if your house catches fire? The firefighters can either let your house burn because you didn't pay and put your neighbors at risk your neighbors' houses or they can protect everyone and save your house even though you didn't pay and everyone else had to pick up the slack.

This is the worst analogy I have ever seen. The fire department is a PREVENTATIVE BODY. They stop the fire as soon as they can before the damage overtakes it, this is akin to prevention; they prevent the damages from occurring. This DOES NOT mean the fire department is obligated in any way to pay for the damages to the house. That is what fire INSURANCE is for, which must be purchased by the homeowner prior to the fire taking place. By your direct comparison of the fire department to universal health care, you are alleging that fire departments would not only be charged with preventing damages, but paying for the damages as well. As pokemonleaguechamp said above me, the fire department would be best compared to the preventative examples he gave; eating healthy, washing hands, etc. HOWEVER. This is exactly the same backward thinking applied in universal health care. You got sick/your house caught fire, so you have to pay to make yourself better/fix the damages with medical/fire insurance that YOU ALREADY PAID FOR TO PROTECT YOURSELF IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE.

Note that damage prevention is already in place; by law you must be given emergency care to stop any further damage from occurring, much like the fire department is required to stop the fire to keep more damage from occurring. But as for the damage that has already occurred before the emergency services could stop it, who must pay for it? The fire department? I think not. If the taxpayers don't have to pay for THE DAMAGES caused by your house burning, then why should we have to pay for THE DAMAGES you sustained from your health condition?

No one else has anything other than a moral obligation to nurse you back to health or rebuild your house. In other words, I'm not your freaking mommy, and even then your mommy isn't shackled by law to help you unless you're a minor. But if you ASK me for help, I would help you because I'm a nice guy. That doesn't mean you have the right to force me to help you by paying to fix your problems. It's in the hands of each one of us to protect ourselves from catastrophe, and nothing more than the goodness in someone's heart should compel them to help you. Forced payment is slavery just as much as forced labor is, because the money one earns is the fruit of his labor.

When people are in need, the other people will come forth with noble charity to help one another. STOP relying on government and for once, TRUST THE PEOPLE.

bmah March 30th, 2010 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince_of_Light (Post 5664378)
No one else has anything other than a moral obligation to nurse you back to health or rebuild your house. In other words, I'm not your freaking mommy, and even then your mommy isn't shackled by law to help you unless you're a minor. But if you ASK me for help, I would help you because I'm a nice guy. That doesn't mean you have the right to force me to help you by paying to fix your problems.

If everyone was morally sound, then there shouldn't be any issue in paying up then, should there? i.e. If you knew that it was the right thing to pay for universal health care, wouldn't this override any irks that may arise from thinking of the concept of apparent gov't force?
The concept of "force" itself isn't something that I like at all, but on the other hand, it's scary to think of the people who would truly lack a moral compass. Perhaps it's a conceptual hurdle that gets to a lot of people.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince_of_Light (Post 5664378)
When people are in need, the other people will come forth with noble charity to help one another. STOP relying on government and for once, TRUST THE PEOPLE.

Before this amount of government control struct people's nerves, how WAS the economy and society in the US doing? How did so many unfortunate people end up the way they did? DID the trust and participation of the people really fixed the kinks if so many people are in need? In other words, if you look at the issues that concern us today, and judge society's responsiveness/awareness to similar situations from past experience, how much trust can you really invest in hoping that people will do the right thing?

Would it be a safe bet to hope someone would come to my rescue if I required a $30k surgery? If there are also many other people in the same situation, that wouldn't make my case any more special than theirs, and then that'd probably further drop potential for people's will to help "a person in need".

PokemonLeagueChamp March 31st, 2010 2:38 AM

So we NEED the government to do everything for us?
Tell me, how'd that work over in Russia? It didn't. More people starved, more people died. Government run health care is 100% not free. Frankly, if I had an extreme allergic reaction right now, the only people I'd expect to pay the costs are my parents, because I'm 15. Not some anonymous taxpayer out in Iowa. And besides, there's a difference between morality and stupidity. Many taxpayers have families. They take care of them. If people had actual DECENT families, and kid's parents weren't divorced or murdered, then they should be covering each other. Orphans, paying their coverage I have no problem with, until they get a job. And I don't want hear the whole "you're rich, they may not be" argument because I am certainly NOT rich, I am lower middle class, and if your solution is to spread wealth around equally, no one will have much of anything.

FreakyLocz14 March 31st, 2010 11:53 AM

Spreading wealth around is another failed tennet of Soviet Russia. People work hard and earn their wealth, or they inherit it from relatives that work hard for it. The American system is a system that allows people to be the masters of their own destiny. We should be giving people a hand-up, not a hand-out. Give them educational and job oppurtunities to better themselves but don't try and say people hard-earned money has to take care of their every whim.

Prince_of_Light March 31st, 2010 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmah (Post 5667009)
If everyone was morally sound, then there shouldn't be any issue in paying up then, should there? i.e. If you knew that it was the right thing to pay for universal health care, wouldn't this override any irks that may arise from thinking of the concept of apparent gov't force?
The concept of "force" itself isn't something that I like at all, but on the other hand, it's scary to think of the people who would truly lack a moral compass. Perhaps it's a conceptual hurdle that gets to a lot of people.




Before this amount of government control struct people's nerves, how WAS the economy and society in the US doing? How did so many unfortunate people end up the way they did? DID the trust and participation of the people really fixed the kinks if so many people are in need? In other words, if you look at the issues that concern us today, and judge society's responsiveness/awareness to similar situations from past experience, how much trust can you really invest in hoping that people will do the right thing?

Would it be a safe bet to hope someone would come to my rescue if I required a $30k surgery? If there are also many other people in the same situation, that wouldn't make my case any more special than theirs, and then that'd probably further drop potential for people's will to help "a person in need".

Way to only attack the ethical portion of my argument. Whether or not I thought it was the "right thing to do" to pay for someone else's health insurance bill is irrelevant. It still isn't the government's place to be forcing me to, even if I agreed. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION, so people can't force their will on everyone else. And it's not the right thing to make someone pay for something they don't want. Need I remind you 60% of the American people DON'T WANT THIS BILL. And apparently you didn't watch the link, either. Charities WILL help those in need who seek it. Not to mention if Medicaid were restructured as a medical savings account similar to the one Whole Foods implements, the people who really need the care would be able to get it. But no, instead of restructuring Medicaid the dems just force another few million people onto it when it's already losing money. We ALREADY HAVE safety nets for the poor in place. If they were maintained and utilized honestly and properly, we wouldn't be having this problem. We still don't need this bill.

Yuoaman March 31st, 2010 1:23 PM

It's nice to see that the US government is taking some steps to improve their country. Not to say that these changes are perfect, there will probably be many changes needed in coming years, but it's a step in the right direction.

Prince_of_Light March 31st, 2010 1:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuoaman (Post 5668242)
It's nice to see that the US government is taking some steps to improve their country. Not to say that these changes are perfect, there will probably be many changes needed in coming years, but it's a step in the right direction.

Read the bill and you just might change your mind. Reform is necessary, but not like this. I've said it before and I'll gladly say it again.

http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644052&postcount=47

SBaby March 31st, 2010 3:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 5661816)
It's not a product. It's a necessary service.

You can't always keep your house from catching fire no matter how careful you are. That's why there's the fire department you pay to keep running. You can't always avoid fender benders no matter how good a driver you are. That's why you need to buy insurance. You can't always keep yourself well no matter how healthy you are. That's why health care for everyone is necessary.

Again, you are misconstruing facts and twisting things around to better suit your argument and rationalize Socialism. Comparing Health Care to a Fire Department is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different things. And really, you aren't making a very good case if that's all you can muster in the bill's defense.

I'll say once again: MISINFORMATION IS MORE HARMFUL THAN HELPFUL.

Prince_of_Light March 31st, 2010 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBaby (Post 5668620)
Again, you are misconstruing facts and twisting things around to better suit your argument and rationalize Socialism. Comparing Health Care to a Fire Department is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different things. And really, you aren't making a very good case if that's all you can muster in the bill's defense.

I'll say once again: MISINFORMATION IS MORE HARMFUL THAN HELPFUL.

lol check out my reply to that stupid analogy. Expands on your argument quite well. =P

bmah April 1st, 2010 9:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokemonleaguechamp (Post 5667312)
So we NEED the government to do everything for us?
Tell me, how'd that work over in Russia? It didn't. More people starved, more people died.

Thing is, Russia was far more communist than something like this bill ever could be. The comparison of the bill to actual socialism is an overstatement of people so ingrained into capitalism. This kind of far-right thinking is really just as bad as far-left thinking that so many people are against in the US. The bill really doesn't go very far left - it's just shocking unfamiliarity to the US.

I'm suggesting more of a moderate description of running the economy - neither too far left or right. I'd see that as satisfying more people than going full out Adam Smith style. And this bill really doesn't go very far left - it's just shocking unfamiliarity to the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince_of_Light (Post 5668196)
Whether or not I thought it was the "right thing to do" to pay for someone else's health insurance bill is irrelevant. It still isn't the government's place to be forcing me to, even if I agreed. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION, so people can't force their will on everyone else. And it's not the right thing to make someone pay for something they don't want.

I understand where you're coming from. But I'm fairly sure you're getting wrapped up in the semantics of the definition of "constitution". You may be thinking that "IF the majority of people accepted this bill and qualms were few, the government may see this as an opportunity to continue introducing intervention in other aspects of the economy." I can understand that as well. I really have little to comment on this other than people are too quick to judge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince_of_Light (Post 5668196)
Need I remind you 60% of the American people DON'T WANT THIS BILL.

Need I remind you that probably 60% of Americans probably have no real insight on the bill's final outlook either. Along the lines of:
Quote:

Originally Posted by SBaby (Post 5668620)
I'll say once again: MISINFORMATION IS MORE HARMFUL THAN HELPFUL.

This very much applies to both parties. A great chunk of people who "don't want the bill" also have no clue.

"There has been so much intentional misinformation over the course of this conversation, I'm anxious to get to the point where we can tell people what the bill does and what it doesn't."

- Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. of Health and Humanity Services)

Actually, let's see things on a broader scope. I think people just need to be patient, and let events roll out the way they are. I'm sure there are surprises that you nor I would have anticipated, both that can go in favor of either of our viewpoints. We're already judging before half of the stuff becomes implemented. Save yourself the forehead wrinkles. So many of these arguments go under this "quick to judge" category. You might think this is an easy way for me to wriggle out of an argument, but I honestly think you can only go so far in predicting this kind of event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince_of_Light (Post 5668196)
And apparently you didn't watch the link, either. Charities WILL help those in need who seek it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince_of_Light (Post 5668196)
We ALREADY HAVE safety nets for the poor in place. If they were maintained and utilized honestly and properly, we wouldn't be having this problem.

But IMO, the already-present safety nets are insufficient, and as you said, the overstaffed Medicaid needs to have an overhaul - which this bill is planning to do, but not immediately. I'm cautious in accepting your absolute certainty that charities are sufficient. I do agree that alternatives to reaching the same solution is certainly preferable though. Once again, we're far from the point in time to judge this bill sufficiently.

I initially had the same degree of certainty in my arguments that you have. But after reading so many arguments, I think there is legit concern on both sides. Alternatives to the bill may certainly be better...time is by far the best determinator. The rest of the babble-rousing is 90% trying to voice yourself the loudest. I already see a ton of hypocrisies and miscontruing facts that it's not really worth trying to make a statement anymore. Overall, I think it's worth revisiting the subject after the bill is allotted some more time.

Yuukihime April 2nd, 2010 5:54 AM

Lovely, now he can get to the other things he promised he'd do in his term as President. :>

Prince_of_Light April 2nd, 2010 9:58 AM

For the record, bold = me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmah (Post 5672983)
Thing is, Russia was far more communist than something like this bill ever could be. The comparison of the bill to actual socialism is an overstatement of people so ingrained into capitalism. This kind of far-right thinking is really just as bad as far-left thinking that so many people are against in the US. The bill really doesn't go very far left - it's just shocking unfamiliarity to the US.

The individual mandate isn't far left or communist? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me, to be forcing people to purchase health insurance that they might not want or need, and threatening fines or jail time.

I'm suggesting more of a moderate description of running the economy - neither too far left or right. I'd see that as satisfying more people than going full out Adam Smith style. And this bill really doesn't go very far left - it's just shocking unfamiliarity to the US.

It's fine the way it is. People bash businesses but they forget the hand that feeds them. And yeah, it does go pretty far left when you have the government taking steps to control one sixth of the GDP. Socialist corporatist cronyism anyone? We aren't living under real capitalism anymore.

I understand where you're coming from. But I'm fairly sure you're getting wrapped up in the semantics of the definition of "constitution". You may be thinking that "IF the majority of people accepted this bill and qualms were few, the government may see this as an opportunity to continue introducing intervention in other aspects of the economy." I can understand that as well. I really have little to comment on this other than people are too quick to judge.

That isn't what I think. I've said it a hundred times and I will continue to say it. No matter the public opinion on this bill it is still unconstitutional in many aspects, the most glaring being the individual mandate. And quite frankly it obviously doesn't matter what the people think, the liberals will continue to force down legislation as much as they want, constitutional or no. Why do you think they passed this thing when 60% of Americans don't want it? They don't care about their jobs or our opinions, only about committing political suicide to rape the constitution.

Need I remind you that probably 60% of Americans probably have no real insight on the bill's final outlook either. Along the lines of:

This very much applies to both parties. A great chunk of people who "don't want the bill" also have no clue.

"There has been so much intentional misinformation over the course of this conversation, I'm anxious to get to the point where we can tell people what the bill does and what it doesn't."

- Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. of Health and Humanity Services)

Really now? This is coming from the same person (Sebelius) who insists the economy is getting better despite the fact that unemployment is still hanging at 9.7%, closer to 20% when you factor in people who gave up looking and dropped out of the unemployment system. As for your baseless charge that people aren't educated about this bill, I'll link you to a small list of just a few of the problem sections citizens like you and I are debating over.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1871361

To mindlessly and baselessly allege that people who don't support this bill are uninformed is both insulting and arrogant. I'm not going to tolerate it. I've done my homework, don't accuse me of being uneducated. To further bring home my point, there was a recent poll that said the Tea Party movement was more informed about these issues and more in sync with the pulse of the rest of the people than the Democrats in Congress.

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/03/grim-news-majority-says-tea-party-more.html

Not to mention you have House Democrats blatantly and shamelessly admitting they don't give a rat's behind about the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8aWmJQd49k

Actually, let's see things on a broader scope. I think people just need to be patient, and let events roll out the way they are. I'm sure there are surprises that you nor I would have anticipated, both that can go in favor of either of our viewpoints. We're already judging before half of the stuff becomes implemented. Save yourself the forehead wrinkles. So many of these arguments go under this "quick to judge" category. You might think this is an easy way for me to wriggle out of an argument, but I honestly think you can only go so far in predicting this kind of event.

Quick to judge? Really? Why is it so "quick to judge" when we FINALLY have the bill passed and in front of us to read (after Nancy Pelosi tried to get away with saying the bill had to pass before we could see what it said) and analyze to our hearts' content? Don't be ridiculous. It's all laid out in the bill exactly what is intended to be done. Even if you're right and exactly what is intended to be done probably won't happen, it still shines a strong light on the kind of debt machine the liberals want to put in place. Your argument is empty because even if the bill doesn't do everything it says, it still shows the glaring socialism both in the bill and in the hearts of our progressive congressmen.

But IMO, the already-present safety nets are insufficient, and as you said, the overstaffed Medicaid needs to have an overhaul - which this bill is planning to do, but not immediately. I'm cautious in accepting your absolute certainty that charities are sufficient. I do agree that alternatives to reaching the same solution is certainly preferable though. Once again, we're far from the point in time to judge this bill sufficiently.

If you agree with me, then why are you arguing with me about what this bill will do? If it's preferable to have Medicare/aid reform than this bill, why aren't you dumping this bill and only supporting that and the few tenets in this bill that are good for the country like I myself do? This bill does have good things. I've repeated THAT many times as well. It's just that the rest of it is 2,695 pages of trash. I don't have absolute certainty that charities will be sufficient, only faith and trust in the good nature of the American people that they will give and the people who don't really truly need won't take. But if it didn't fail back when Grover Cleveland struck down that entitlement as unconstitutional, why would it fail now? And don't tell me we're far from being able to judge this bill sufficiently. If something isn't done to stop this juggernaut now, based on what we KNOW will hurt our economy like the added 1 trillion in taxes and debt, it will never be killed.

I initially had the same degree of certainty in my arguments that you have. But after reading so many arguments, I think there is legit concern on both sides. Alternatives to the bill may certainly be better...time is by far the best determinator. The rest of the babble-rousing is 90% trying to voice yourself the loudest. I already see a ton of hypocrisies and miscontruing facts that it's not really worth trying to make a statement anymore. Overall, I think it's worth revisiting the subject after the bill is allotted some more time.

I agree with this. I have said from the start in my earlier posts that there are things we all can agree on like covering people with pre-existing conditions and taking comprehensive action to lower costs. But my problem lies with this bill. There are many blatantly unconstitutional portions of it, and it lays the foundation for the almighty unconstitutional single-payer plan. This is a step toward that. Not to mention we can't afford the new taxes which will drive businesses into the ground and jack up our debt past 12 trillion. And don't forget that the cost of Medicare and Medicaid has increased nine-fold from original projections when they were passed. This entitlement will act in the same way. We're going to be slaves to China at this rate. I have stated many arguments of my own where cost could be greatly reduced by methods that wouldn't affect taxpayers at all. The republicans have been plastering these same common sense ideas in their own dialogue. But given the totalitarian socialist nature of the liberals in power, the republicans AND the press were shut out completely while the original Senate bill was crafted. Anyone who has paid attention to what's been going on in Congress these past few months knows this. The only real screen time the Republicans got was with the big old debate a couple weeks ago, and that was after the Senate bill had been voted through by the Senate AND after the President had made amendments.

I also agree that there is a slight amount of partisan hypocrisy on my side of the aisle going on because of what Bush did with legislation such as Medicare part D and No Child Left Behind. I will have you know that the current conservative movement does not support that legislation and most never have. Not only that, but our current President and many of the democrats still in power in the legislative branch lauded president Bush for his efforts with that legislation.

For my ideas on what to do, read these two posts, then come back and critique them. I and the other conservatives are proud to offer effective alternatives to this bill. I always thought reform was necessary, just not in the shape the Democrats want to mutate it into.

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

http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644052&postcount=47

And to go along with the tort reform argument, here are some figures in this article:

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/87901-tort-reform-key-to-cutting-soaring-healthcare-costs



lx_theo April 2nd, 2010 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince_of_Light (Post 5674423)
For the record, bold = me.

Are you one of those people that think Fox News is actually giving honest and fair opinions? Because its starting to seem like it, with you linking to the blatantly Republican biased Hannity and Fox News in general.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:03 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.