|
On November 10 2009 03:33 Not_A_Notion wrote:
Wow, this is one hell of a flame-fest.
If I may actually reply to the OP's question of if it would pass as opposed to should it pass, I reckon a few moderate republicans could very well side with it, so I think it will pass, if anything the major problem would be with Democrat disagreements, are there any "Blue Dog" Senators? I could only see representatives on their wiki article.
I appreciate the fact that you read and answered my question. The news I have read recently has given me the impression that the house version of the bill will not pass. They need 60 votes to end debate and Lieberman has stated that he won't vote for the house version of the bill. I don't know if any republicans are planning on voting for the bill --- I doubt it though. Maybe the senator from Maine?
|
On November 10 2009 03:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 03:19 agorist wrote:
Sure, I'd love absolutely everyone to have insurance and access to great medical care. I'd love everyone to be able to afford the best education. I'd love everyone to be able to adequately feed and provide for their children. The important question to ask is, are these goals attainable and are they sustainable?
I love the adjectives you throw in there. Great medical care Best Education Adequately feed If everyone got the best education wouldn't that make it the "average" education?
ad hominem
|
On November 10 2009 03:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 03:19 agorist wrote:
Sure, I'd love absolutely everyone to have insurance and access to great medical care. I'd love everyone to be able to afford the best education. I'd love everyone to be able to adequately feed and provide for their children. The important question to ask is, are these goals attainable and are they sustainable?
I love the adjectives you throw in there. Great medical care Best Education Adequately feed If everyone got the best education wouldn't that make it the "average" education?
Sure, by definition. By no means are these goals attainable, either. My point is that in attempting to achieve what you've quoted we undermine the quality of everything across the board.
For example, take a look at college education. Costs are soaring through the roof as we subsidize and bury children in debt, most of which are doing so for useless degrees, We've in essence inflated collegiate degrees; a communications or philosophy degree will get you nowhere today.
|
On November 10 2009 03:40 Undisputed- wrote:
Short of having a disability out of your control, it is very easy to "make it" in American if you are willing to work.
Because the notion of the American dream isn't a lie designed to propagate free market capitalism that benefits the rich, oh no no no!
|
On November 10 2009 03:44 tirentu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 03:40 Undisputed- wrote:
Short of having a disability out of your control, it is very easy to "make it" in American if you are willing to work. Because the notion of the American dream isn't a lie designed to propagate free market capitalism that benefits the rich, oh no no no!
ok comrade
|
|
|
I don't think it will pass, and I hope it doesn't, at least not now. We're in god knows how much debt and taxed the fuck out. I'd much rather have some kind of regulation that prohibits insurers from raping you silly than seeing taxes go up yet again to cover a bunch of people who can't afford the insane rates we currently have. Fixing the budget should be priority #1 one right now, not health care.
|
On November 10 2009 03:43 ulszz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 03:33 BlackJack wrote:On November 10 2009 03:19 agorist wrote:
Sure, I'd love absolutely everyone to have insurance and access to great medical care. I'd love everyone to be able to afford the best education. I'd love everyone to be able to adequately feed and provide for their children. The important question to ask is, are these goals attainable and are they sustainable?
I love the adjectives you throw in there. Great medical care Best Education Adequately feed If everyone got the best education wouldn't that make it the "average" education? ad hominem
noooot really. ah hominem= attack on the person. the adjectives he comments on are all part of agorist's argument, not his character. that is a false criticism. I'm not going to speculate on the motivation.
|
|
|
Like a week ago i watched Michael Moore documenatary about healthcare in USA and im amazed how stuff works in the USA.
And some ppl here are against this you should be against wars and use that HUGE budget for improving your lives instead raging wars for the past 50 years.
|
On November 10 2009 03:59 SkelA wrote:
Like a week ago i watched Michael Moore documenatary about healthcare in USA and im amazed how stuff works in the USA.
And some ppl here are against this you should be against wars and use that HUGE budget for improving your lives instead raging wars for the past 50 years.
Michael Moore is an idiot and we have a massive debt.
|
What's wrong with free health care? Find it kind of unnecessary for children with no health insurance to die in vain because of some random stupid shit.
I don't even know if I'm saying anything that makes any sense, since my knowledge of American politics is very limited. Oh well, life goes on~~~
|
On November 10 2009 03:59 SkelA wrote:
Like a week ago i watched Michael Moore documenatary about healthcare in USA and im amazed how stuff works in the USA.
And some ppl here are against this you should be against wars and use that HUGE budget for improving your lives instead raging wars for the past 50 years.
I am also amazed that anyone would take anything Michael Moore makes seriously.
I am also surprised by the lack of any centrists in this forum. Everyone who has posted so far in this thread has either been a flaming leftist douchebag or a rightist who refuses to accept the fact that Keynes was right in some aspects. Complete control of the economy and purposeful redistribution of wealth is inefficient, and as I would argue, wrong, but certain steps must be taken to control the flaws of a market economy, especially externalities.
As a budding economist (or as I would like to think), I believe that the market economy must be reigned in at times. With our current system, our lack of perfect information and the barriers that block us from acheiving a full market economy status in the realm of health care is causing drastic inefficiency. If such a bill can cut down on this inefficiency, I am all for it. However, a bill that does not protect doctors from malpractice lawsuits and ridiculous medical school rates will be worthless.
|
On November 10 2009 03:59 SkelA wrote:
Like a week ago i watched Michael Moore documenatary about healthcare in USA and im amazed how stuff works in the USA.
And some ppl here are against this you should be against wars and use that HUGE budget for improving your lives instead raging wars for the past 50 years.
NO NO NO NO NO >_<
Michael Moore is not an intelligent individual. Take what he says as simple political satire. He is the John Stewart of documentaries.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 10 2009 02:52 QibingZero wrote:
Why even have government if it's not able to provide the absolutely basic service of keeping you alive?
The business of providing health insurance is not the same as keeping your citizens alive. In the event of immediate, life-threatening issues, such as injuries from a bad car crash or gunshot wound, a hospital does not have the option to turn you away because you can't pay (situations where that does occur indicate a different problem with the system--administrators simply shouldn't have the power to do that, and universal healthcare doesn't fix that). This is precisely why hospitals in poorer areas can have lower collection rates--those without the means to pay simply don't.
What healthcare does is allow citizens' economic well-being to not be drastically affected by medical misfortunes, which may or may not be simple bad luck. Whether that's a socially acceptable use of government funds is up for debate, but needless to say, it's not a right.
On November 10 2009 04:04 knatt wrote:
What's wrong with free health care? Find it kind of unnecessary for children with no health insurance to die in vain because of some random stupid shit.
Again, as far as I know this shouldn't happen to begin with. Hospital administrators aren't supposed to have the power to turn away patients based on their ability to pay in immediate life-threatening situations.
On November 10 2009 04:06 Try wrote:
As a budding economist (or as I would like to think), I believe that the market economy must be reigned in at times. With our current system, our lack of perfect information and the barriers that block us from acheiving a full market economy status in the realm of health care is causing drastic inefficiency. If such a bill can cut down on this inefficiency, I am all for it. However, a bill that does not protect doctors from malpractice lawsuits and ridiculous medical school rates will be worthless.
What inefficiencies does a system of government-managed healthcare actually solve? Regulation of the healthcare industry through other lawmaking might make sense, but doesn't the government entering the market simply create a deadweight loss?
(not trolling, I'm asking a legitimate question as my knowledge of economics is fairly limited in scope)
|
On November 10 2009 04:04 knatt wrote:
What's wrong with free health care? Find it kind of unnecessary for children with no health insurance to die in vain because of some random stupid shit.
I don't even know if I'm saying anything that makes any sense, since my knowledge of American politics is very limited. Oh well, life goes on~~~
Yeah, these kind of posts make me think that very few people posting here actually understand the financial ramifications of universal health care. There are many problems with free health care in the United States.
1. People will always go for the more expensive treatment.
2. People will go to the ER for very minor cuts and diseases.
3. Doctors will be paid far less, which will increase the shortage of surgeons and PCP's.
4. Baby boomers are aging, and will cause the debt to explode.
5. Presciption drug companies will be paid far less, decreasing their incentive to find cures.
6. Due to 1 and 2, wait times for treatments will be far longer
7. (This point might be controversial) People who are more useful to society (generally those who make more money, for example, Bill Gates or someone with a good job probably contributed more than some random hobo) should be able to get better health care.
8. etc, etc, etc.
|
On November 10 2009 02:15 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 02:06 pubbanana wrote:On November 10 2009 02:04 Undisputed- wrote:
Obamacare = legalized stealing Yeah, just say shit. People will believe it. It's pretty obvious, taxes will be used to pay for it. People who don't pay taxes will be covered under it. Pretty much stealing.
Yeah, fuck those poor people who can't afford healthcare.
We all know that being poor just means that you're too lazy/stupid to work and so othey have to steal from the hard working people.
/Sarcasm.
On November 10 2009 04:11 Try wrote:
7. (This point might be controversial) People who are more useful to society (generally those who make more money, for example, Bill Gates or someone with a good job probably contributed more than some random hobo) should be able to get better health care.
Wait, what?
That's really not how socialized medicine works at all... And the idea that some lives are worth more than others contradicts the basic principle of medicine.
"Free healthcare" doesn't mean that you can't get better treatment if you have the money to pay for it, that's just a stupid idea.
|
On November 10 2009 04:12 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 02:15 Undisputed- wrote:On November 10 2009 02:06 pubbanana wrote:On November 10 2009 02:04 Undisputed- wrote:
Obamacare = legalized stealing Yeah, just say shit. People will believe it. It's pretty obvious, taxes will be used to pay for it. People who don't pay taxes will be covered under it. Pretty much stealing. Yeah, fuck those poor people who can't afford healthcare. We all know that being poor just means that you're too lazy/stupid to work and so othey have to steal from the hard working people. /Sarcasm.
Healthcare is expensive. I ask you, if you had the opportunity to work twice as hard and make twice as much money, but the government would take half your money away to pay for poor people's health care, would you still have an incentive to work harder?
Or maybe you are just Mother Teresa. I'm sorry we're not as good of people as you are.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:14 Try wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 04:12 CrimsonLotus wrote:On November 10 2009 02:15 Undisputed- wrote:On November 10 2009 02:06 pubbanana wrote:On November 10 2009 02:04 Undisputed- wrote:
Obamacare = legalized stealing Yeah, just say shit. People will believe it. It's pretty obvious, taxes will be used to pay for it. People who don't pay taxes will be covered under it. Pretty much stealing. Yeah, fuck those poor people who can't afford healthcare. We all know that being poor just means that you're too lazy/stupid to work and so othey have to steal from the hard working people. /Sarcasm. Healthcare is expensive. I ask you, if you had the opportunity to work twice as hard and make twice as much money, but the government would take half your money away to pay for poor people's health care, would you still have an incentive to work harder?
Yeah, this would definitely make me less likely to work hard. Good thing this isn't what's in the bill.
|
The fundamental problem of health care is this: how much is a life worth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
