CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!

[Prince_of_Light]

This thread is making me die a little inside every time I go from the end of page two forwards...I mean really...dear lord.

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

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

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

Agreed with all of the above.

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

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

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

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

"In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-5" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic"

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

 

[Fur Elise]

I had to laugh at the sponsered link. It says:

Obama Care... Stop Him!

 

[.little monster]

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

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

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

This, I agree with for the most part.

 

[Netto Azure]

Hey, I admit. The bill as structured is the Massachussets plan on Steroids.

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

 

[Prince_of_Light]

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



This, I agree with for the most part.

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

 

[Esper]

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

Healthy people > healthy economy

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

 

[Jake♫]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Captain Hobo.]

I don't like it goverment run health care isn't good.

 

[.little monster]

I don't like it goverment run health care isn't good.

And your reasons are..?

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

 

[Prince_of_Light]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. We are a representative republic. Maybe you missed my edit showing James Madison's position on this: "In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic"

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

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

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

 

[.Gamer]

2. We are a representative republic. Maybe you missed my edit showing James Madison's position on this: "In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic"

What is this, I don't even.

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

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

[paragraph that doesn't apply to my quote]

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

Sad, but true.

Healthy people > healthy economy

The former cannot exist without the latter.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

What is this, I don't even.

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

Addressed this in an earlier post.

 

[.little monster]

Addressed this in an earlier post.

Gamer is right, it's pointless. Stop posting it.

 

[Jake♫]

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

Yeah, I went off of that picture =3

2. We are a representative republic. Maybe you missed my edit showing James Madison's position on this: "In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy" - Wikipedia entry for "Republic"

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

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

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

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

 

[Prince_of_Light]

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

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

 

[doesn't matter]

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

 

[Prince_of_Light]

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

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

 

[Anti]

I suppose I'll defend myself, lol.

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

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


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

 

[Prince_of_Light]

I suppose I'll defend myself, lol.



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


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

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

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

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

But if you want to see the kind of reform I would impose, check out the first post I made in this thread, here.

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

 

[.Gamer]

@ 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)