Health Care Bill passed the House

On November 10 2009 01:49 Jadyks wrote:
Right, because socialism is a terrible terrible thing. I hate uneducated conservatives.

Socialism != USSR
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, these things are socialist programs we already have in place. Wanna bitch about those too?

Grow up and stop listening to sound-bytes. Stop listening to republican hot-words like 'socialist' 'communist', this is bullshit.

On November 10 2009 02:04 Undisputed- wrote:
Obamacare = legalized stealing

On November 10 2009 02:06 pubbanana wrote:


Yeah, just say shit. People will believe it.

On November 10 2009 01:49 Jadyks wrote:
Right, because socialism is a terrible terrible thing. I hate uneducated conservatives.

Socialism != USSR
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, these things are socialist programs we already have in place. Wanna bitch about those too?

Grow up and stop listening to sound-bytes. Stop listening to republican hot-words like 'socialist' 'communist', this is bullshit.

On November 10 2009 02:11 agorist wrote:
No offense; but you guys are rather retarded.

Any realistically intelligent economist understands that pure socialism is folly. An attainable form of "socialism" is anarchy. Central planning just will not work. Read some Mises.

The United Dtates and most modern countries are state-capitalist (fascism). Fascism and socialism are very alike for a couple reasons; force is required to maintain and institute them, and, some goofy mantra/propoganda is utilized on an indoctrinated public to push the elite's agendas.

The most popular tool for the elite to use is class warfare.

On November 10 2009 02:15 Undisputed- wrote:


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.

On November 10 2009 02:27 Sky101 wrote:
Capitalism carried the U.S. from a nobody to the super power that it is today. Socialism will just make everyone lazy. Look at the Europeans, no offense, try to compare the work ethics and attitude to that of an American.

On November 10 2009 02:23 HwangjaeTerran wrote:


Nice to hear you Americans love your fellow man <3
What about someone whose taxmoney is used for warfare without his will ? Is it stealing too?

On November 10 2009 02:26 Scorch wrote:

Sure, almost the same thing buddy.
It's quite surprising to me how hard some people fight against social measures. Is it a lack of social conscience? Avarice? Or maybe it's just my European upbringing and me being used to living in a welfare state which tell me that Survival Of The Fittest is not an adequate social system.

On November 10 2009 02:38 Undisputed- wrote:


Free healthcare is not a right, some people seem to think they are entitled to it though. Some of us work for a living.

On November 10 2009 02:42 Osmoses wrote:

I seem to remember my economy professor saying capitalism only works if a certain percentage of the population are unemployed at all times.

"Some of us work for a living," what an idiotic thing to say. You are in serious need of falling on some hard times to give you some perspective.

On November 10 2009 02:38 Undisputed- wrote:


Free healthcare is not a right, some people seem to think they are entitled to it though. Some of us work for a living.

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?

Oh, right. You might need to bomb a country that's done nothing to you sometime in the near future.

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?

Oh, right. You might need to bomb a country that's done nothing to you sometime in the near future.

On November 10 2009 02:50 Undisputed- wrote:


True the economy is rough, but I would rather make the choice that I want to help those people out instead of being forced to.

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?

On November 10 2009 03:23 agorist wrote:


And more importantly, are you asserting that it's the government's role to keep you alive? I'm sure then that you're OK with a government prohibiting you from the right to end your life. I'm also sure you'd be OK with the government prohibiting you from eating unhealthy foods and using narcotics.

On November 10 2009 03:27 Scorch wrote:

You don't sound like the type of person who helps voluntarily. Neither am I such a person. This is why I find it necessary for the government to force people to care about others: nobody would do it otherwise. I can't stand your antisocial attitude to be honest. Needy people aren't poor by choice, you know.
And please stop calling spending of tax money stealing. Is it stealing if the government builds streets?

On November 10 2009 03:27 Scorch wrote:

You don't sound like the type of person who helps voluntarily. Neither am I such a person. This is why I find it necessary for the government to force people to care about others: nobody would do it otherwise. I can't stand your antisocial attitude to be honest. Needy people aren't poor by choice, you know.
And please stop calling spending of tax money stealing. Is it stealing if the government builds streets?

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.

On November 10 2009 03:33 BlackJack wrote:


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?

On November 10 2009 03:33 BlackJack wrote:


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?

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.

On November 10 2009 03:44 tirentu wrote:


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 03:43 ulszz wrote:

ad hominem

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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~~~

On November 10 2009 02:15 Undisputed- wrote:


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.

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.

On November 10 2009 04:12 CrimsonLotus wrote:


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 04:14 Try wrote:


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?

On November 10 2009 04:15 motbob wrote:

Yeah, this would definitely make me less likely to work hard. Good thing this isn't what's in the bill.

On November 10 2009 04:15 motbob wrote:

Yeah, this would definitely make me less likely to work hard. Good thing this isn't what's in the bill.

On November 10 2009 04:15 motbob wrote:
Yeah, this would definitely make me less likely to work hard. Good thing this isn't what's in the bill.

On November 10 2009 04:27 agorist wrote:
Nobody is mentioning how the bill forces all Americans to acquire a government-approved insurance plan. Most of these options are private. Those who don't are fined.

Does nobody give a shit that the government is FORCING you to BUY something?

On November 10 2009 04:31 Undisputed- wrote:


Double edged sword I guess, if you don't have health insurance and get injured badly. They can't just turn you away. Who pays for that?

Reflecting the change noted above, CBO and the staff of JCT now estimate that, on
balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the
manager’s amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of
$109 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1).

Among other things, H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager’s amendment would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; establish a public plan that would be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS); significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an income tax surcharge on high-income individuals; and make various other changes to the federal tax code, Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs.

NET CHANGES IN THE DEFICIT FROM OTHER PROVISIONS AFFECTING REVENUES
Effects on the Deficit of
Changes in Revenues -39 -40 -59 -62 -65 -69 -73 -80 -86 -574

Surcharge on Adjusted Gross
Income 0 31 32 45 49 53 57 61 64 68 157 460

On November 10 2009 03:41 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:


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?

(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

Actually, for some higher tax brackets, the tax rate approaches damn near 50%. Given that a good percentage of doctors actually do fall in those income ranges, it's a fairly relevant issue to examine.

On November 10 2009 04:40 Piy wrote:
Have any of you right wing republicans ever thought that by trying to block these health care reforms you are basically saying that the value of a person directly correlates to their net income. Theres a reason why logical people don't think like that y'know.

I appreciate -Undisputed is trolling to some degree, but he does still seem to represent the views of a pretty scary number of Americans today. To equate social reforms to stealing, to me at least, seems to hark back to the initial periods of industrialization in the early 1800's, wherein factory owners equated stealing to not being able to work employees more than 14 hrs a day.

It's a less radical claim of course, no-ones claiming that those two things are close to the same thing. But its funny that the social reforms being implemented by the Obama administration are merely the continuation of a constant attempt to equalise humanity that begun in France with the Libertarian's and the Rights of Man, continued into campaigns for womens suffrage and the NHS and the Civil Right's Movement, and have now begun to spread into the areas of world poverty.

In my opinion any attempt to block these reforms and bills is a step backward towards the problems faced by Lassez Faire capitalism during the industrial revolution.

They will be blocked though, and isn't that just nothing short of very very sad.

On November 10 2009 04:27 agorist wrote:
Nobody is mentioning how the bill forces all Americans to acquire a government-approved insurance plan. Most of these options are private. Those who don't are fined.

Does nobody give a shit that the government is FORCING you to BUY something?

On November 10 2009 04:47 HwangjaeTerran wrote:


True, why are you paying any taxes then?

On November 10 2009 04:50 Undisputed- wrote:


Because if I don't, guys with guns will show up and throw me in jail. They got guns!

On November 10 2009 02:01 Sha[DoW] wrote:


Honestly, I'm Canadian and I think that centralized Healthcare is an excellent step forward for the US. It is very expensive, but it is also very useful for everyone in the middle class and below in the states.

On November 10 2009 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I still don't understand how Dennis Kucinich voted No.

On November 10 2009 03:19 agorist wrote:
I love how logic and reason is left at the door when debating against the indoctrinated.

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?

The reality is that resources and money is finite, and, the foolish quest for faux-egalitarianism will only end up with us facing a net-loss due to the inefficiencies of government. Inflation is a slow killer.

Try reading this paper; it's actually really short and does a good part in describing the windfalls inherit in usurping the free-market.

http://mises.org/midroad.asp

And more importantly, are you asserting that it's the government's role to keep you alive? I'm sure then that you're OK with a government prohibiting you from the right to end your life. I'm also sure you'd be OK with the government prohibiting you from eating unhealthy foods and using narcotics.

On November 10 2009 05:06 QibingZero wrote:

Every argument of your kind ends right here, though. Cut out the real wasteful spending, and suddenly all kinds of things become possible.

On November 10 2009 05:13 BlackJack wrote:
The whole "if you're against socialized healthcare then you don't care about people's lives" is as stupid as the "if you don't support the war then you're against the troops"

On November 10 2009 05:17 motbob wrote:

Healthcare saves lives. War... saves troops' lives?

On November 10 2009 05:13 BlackJack wrote:
The whole "if you're against socialized healthcare then you don't care about people's lives" is as stupid as the "if you don't support the war then you're against the troops"

On November 10 2009 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I still don't understand how Dennis Kucinich voted No.

On November 10 2009 05:20 Undisputed- wrote:


reading comprehension ftw

On November 10 2009 05:26 QibingZero wrote:


Perhaps it would help if anyone who was against socialized health care actually had an argument that wasn't blatant self-interest ("I don't want to pay for someone else's health care"). It's hard to assume you care when all the objective evidence says otherwise.



His vote was strongly against the reliance on the current infrastructure. The insurance companies plan to profit from this, even though they're a large part of the reason health care in the US is so costly and ineffective in the first place. Basically, the government is helping people get health insurance, not health care.... and people wonder why many Americans think the only thing government does is add an extra step to things.

On November 10 2009 05:43 mangomango wrote:
It's gonna pass after a lot of hand wringing and arm twisting. Oh and watering down to the point that it's not worth the paper it will be printed on. We should have a single payer system.

On November 10 2009 05:30 motbob wrote:
Don't be condescending. He was drawing a parallel between the two arguments. my point is that they're not equivalent statements.

On November 10 2009 05:32 LeoTheLion wrote:
Wait. I thought it wasn't free. People still have to pay insurance. Government is just starting a state run insurance company.

On November 10 2009 05:46 TheYango wrote:

Except health insurance *doesn't* save people's lives. It just prevents them from getting a huge bill after their lives have been saved. What happens when people can't pay that? They just don't pay. It happens ALL the time. Someone gets in a car accident/gunshot wound/etc. The hospital doesn't dump them on the street because they can't pay.

My read of the situation is that a public option is a vote or two shy of reality. I'll be very interested to see how this plays out in the coming weeks.

On November 10 2009 05:51 motbob wrote:
After they are stabilized, the hospital does exactly that.

On November 10 2009 05:51 motbob wrote:
You can't get treatment for ANYTHING that isn't immediately deadly without health insurance. Cancer? Heart problems? You can't say that people in the United States get free treatment for heart problems just because heart attacks are treated.

On November 10 2009 05:45 damenmofa wrote:
oh lord, such misinformation in this thread. Why has nobody opposed the argument that a healthcare system costs much money and therefore weakens the economy? If you look at business ethics or modern economy, such claims are unfounded. In fact one can argue it strenghthens the economy, because it enables more people who have problems (in this case get sick, other example would be to get unemployed) to get productive again and contribute to the economy. Also, it enables people to invest more riskily on the market (in this case health, other example would be money), potentially creating more innovations/revenues and general wealth.

Its not like the scientific debate about social market economy is clear cut in terms of it costing more money than it generates or vice versa. It kinda shocks me that people seem oblivious to the fact that there are good economical arguments for a social market economy and even come up with horseshit like "stealing". Try to inform yourself a lil next time pls.

On November 10 2009 05:55 TheYango wrote:

Yes. Because their life is no longer in immediate danger. Housing and feeding those without the means to do so is part of existing social programs, and not the business of a hospital. I don't see how that's relevant.

YOU SAID:
Except health insurance *doesn't* save people's lives.

On November 10 2009 04:11 Try wrote:



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 05:59 motbob wrote:

I showed that it, in fact, does, since it opens up the option of getting treatment for cancer/heart disease/diabetes/anything else that is not going to cause your death in the next 24 hours.

On November 10 2009 06:02 TheYango wrote:

Read my edit. I conceded that point, but also pointed out that it doesn't directly fall out of the ethical "right to life". I'm not sure we're arguing in the same place, but my point is you can't justify universal healthcare out of the fact that it saves lives. It only does it sometimes, and it isn't the only way the same outcome could be achieved in those cases.

On November 10 2009 05:58 Undisputed- wrote:


tl:dr

I'm going to talk about stuff without backing any of it up, just take my word for it I know what I'm talking about.

p.s. you guys are stupid

the end

/smug

On November 10 2009 06:24 johnnyD wrote:
Yes, socialism is at our core, I can vouch for that. Any and all government jobs pay its employees a set amount of money depending on what their position is, and how long they have served.

On November 10 2009 06:29 Ceril wrote:
I find it disturbing that there is such much resistance to giving the citizens of your blessed land of the free, best country in the world etc. a healthcare system that will care for them if they get sick.
Or maybe service should guarantee citizenship? As it stands now I see this between the lines: If you dont have a job, your worthless, if you dont have healthcare your worthless. If your worthless noone would miss you, your just stealing using our roads, our public space, our land.
How many uninsured people do you have again? Say all thoose millions got struck with a disease that only affects people unemployed and worthless, it will kill them if left untreated, not a big loss in your book from what I'am reading seeing as it would leave only the superior that currently have jobs. I exagerate, but sadly not by much I fear.

So, now having basic healthcare avaible to you if you get sick so you can be treated:
You can get a citizen back looking for a job, maybe he'll become very succesful and help the economy.
Your working and doing best you can but it dosent quite cover things, your kid gets sick, you'll now not have to worry about not getting that child a doctor, you can support it and have some stress taken out, making you a happier worker and citizen.

Thats just two scenarios, none of them seem far fetched and none makes you lazy.
Once upon a time someone said, qouting from memory; Do not judge a society based upon the one that has it best, judge it based upon its poorest citizen.

If we do not collaboratively strive for the betterment of our community and land and world, what is there to be so proud of?
That you can die, freely, in diabetes.
That you can go to jail, freely, stealing a piece of food because your not getting jobs and the worlds best country would have you die of starvation.
As of after wwII the home of the brave; land of the free, that so many splendid and humane minds helped fund and lay their lives, slowly rots.

On November 10 2009 06:39 Undisputed- wrote:


Healthcare costs money, we are in debt. The American taxpayers will have to pick up the bill to cover people putting nothing back into the system.

I don't want to be FORCED to pay for someone else.

IT IS SELFISH to assume society should take care of you.

On November 10 2009 06:24 johnnyD wrote:
Yes, socialism is at our core, I can vouch for that. Any and all government jobs pay its employees a set amount of money depending on what their position is, and how long they have served.

On November 10 2009 05:59 timmeh wrote:


Bwahwhahwahwhawhahwhawhahwah

wait.
.
.
.
.


BUAAUBAUBAUHBAUAHBUAHBAUAHBAAU


Great troll. This made my day. Shows that you have no idea how Health Care works in other countries

On November 10 2009 06:39 Undisputed- wrote:


Healthcare costs money, we are in debt. The American taxpayers will have to pick up the bill to cover people putting nothing back into the system.

I don't want to be FORCED to pay for someone else.

IT IS SELFISH to assume society should take care of you.

On November 10 2009 06:42 RoyW wrote:
Undisputed. - Could you please explain why other western nations, with socialised medicine, have a cheaper per capita expense on healthcare than the US?

Also, why, in those countries, hasn't the world ended with all those dire consequences that are happening if US becomes socialised?

On November 10 2009 06:59 Undisputed- wrote:


Why do we lead the world in cancer survival rates? The US health care system is so horrible people from around the world come here to be treated. The US is probably one of the few places you drop into an emergency room and be treated even with no ID because they cannot turn you away. Outside of the US health care is rationed and optimized based on age mostly from what I have seen. We spend the most I think because doctors have to cover there asses from malpractice lawsuits.

On November 10 2009 06:50 motbob wrote:
The "we are in debt" argument is sort of bad in my opinion... the bill is deficit neutral. It's not increasing the debt... why is the debt relevant?

On November 10 2009 07:03 mangomango wrote:
Undisputed- should we shut down the public school system? How about go back in time and stop the polio immunizations. What about rebuilding Europe after WWII? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? Let's not build roads. Let's not send the children of dead soldiers to university. Screw'em all no social safety nets. Let's terminate the police and fireman too. (They've been getting a free ride too if you ask me.)

We don't want to FORCE anyone to pay for someone else.

On November 10 2009 07:04 Hawk wrote:

Do you know how many things are promoted as 'debt neutral' by the government? Plus, when all these rich people and corporations get hit with huge taxes, you can bet they're making up the difference by upping the price on their products. One way or another, this is going to cost everyone in a big way, except those who are uninsured, and given the absolutely craptastic economy we're in, it's stupid.

On November 10 2009 06:59 Undisputed- wrote:


Why do we lead the world in cancer survival rates? The US health care system is so horrible people from around the world come here to be treated. The US is probably one of the few places you drop into an emergency room and be treated even with no ID because they cannot turn you away. Outside of the US health care is rationed and optimized based on age mostly from what I have seen. We spend the most I think because doctors have to cover there asses from malpractice lawsuits.

On November 10 2009 02:20 Ingenol wrote:

This is true, and in line with your statement it should be noted that capitalism != USA. We have never had a truly capitalist economy (it's actually a yet untested political system), and since the New Deal we have basically been more of a "minimally socialist" government, becoming more so all the time.

On November 10 2009 07:11 motbob wrote:

...taxes on rich individuals get passed on to the poor? That's not true at all. In fact it's sort of impossible.

On November 10 2009 07:15 Hawk wrote:

If a dude's making a certain amount of money and would like to maintain that lifestyle and taxes lop off %15 percent of that, you don't think whatever product he's peddling is going up in cost to recoup some of that?

On November 10 2009 07:06 Undisputed- wrote:


yeah thats almost the same thing

RAGE RAGE

On November 10 2009 07:15 Hawk wrote:

If a dude's making a certain amount of money and would like to maintain that lifestyle and taxes lop off %15 percent of that, you don't think whatever product he's peddling is going up in cost to recoup some of that?

On November 10 2009 06:47 RoyW wrote:
USA spends, before any implementation of socialised medicine, 13.8% of it's GDP on health. Germany and switzerland are next two highest in the world at 10%. Why have the wonders of the free market raped the American people of affordable healthcare?

On November 10 2009 07:28 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The one reform that would lower costs more than any other at minimal Federal expense is one Democrats will not touch: using Commerce Clause power to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It has been reported in the news how many markets are served by just a few providers. Instead of introducing a single government competitor to oligopolistic markets, it makes much more sense to introduces dozens of private ones if your concern is competition.

On November 10 2009 07:28 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The one reform that would lower costs more than any other at minimal Federal expense is one Democrats will not touch: using Commerce Clause power to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It has been reported in the news how many markets are served by just a few providers. Instead of introducing a single government competitor to oligopolistic markets, it makes much more sense to introduces dozens of private ones if your concern is competition.

On November 10 2009 07:21 Therapy wrote:
No. Thats simply not how economics work. It is not economically feasible for a "dude" to mark up prices in order to stay at the same net income. Thats just not how supply and demand works.

On November 10 2009 07:36 ZeaL. wrote:


Bad idea. See: Delaware

On November 10 2009 04:11 Try wrote:



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 07:28 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The one reform that would lower costs more than any other at minimal Federal expense is one Democrats will not touch: using Commerce Clause power to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It has been reported in the news how many markets are served by just a few providers. Instead of introducing a single government competitor to oligopolistic markets, it makes much more sense to introduces dozens of private ones if your concern is competition.

On November 10 2009 07:40 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

Please don't talk about the economy when you don't know what you're talking about.

Company's have to maintain a certain percent above costs to make money. All costs must be paid for by revenue. If you increase costs (taxes, minimum wage, inflation, cost of goods, transporting costs etc.) you must raise the price to match your profit margin, or cut the product, or try to dispose of the product to be replaced with something else.

On November 10 2009 07:45 motbob wrote:
Don't be condescending. You haven't been following the argument. We're talking about taxes on individuals, not on corporations.

Besides, taxes on corporations are on profits, not revenue, so corporate behavior does not change as a result of taxes. Profit-maximizing behavior before corporate taxes is the same as profit-maximizing behavior after.

On November 10 2009 09:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

Taxes are a cost of doing business, when it is applied during the accounting process is irrelevant. If your taxes are increased, you increase the cost of the items to maintain your profit.

The debate was that "rich" don't stick the increased cost onto the poor, which is entirely false. The company (and thus an individual, since most people aren't on their own payroll and just make withdrawals from the business when they need money, and will often take all business income as personal income) is still making 10% profit, but the cost of increased tax is shown in the company's increased prices. People who are buying the product are the ones paying, not the one being taxed.

Profit "maximization" has nothing to do with a dollar amount. If you're in the IT business, you could be making a million dollars a year, but if you're below a 10% net income, you won't be in business. Maximizing profits is expending assets to produce revenue at a greater than 1:1 ratio, so it has nothing to do with taxes anyways.

On November 10 2009 07:06 Undisputed- wrote:


yeah thats almost the same thing

RAGE RAGE

On November 10 2009 10:59 ArvickHero wrote:

what the hell is wrong with you? You can't even properly answer the question anymore, you're just stuck in your own little shell where no amount of facts/reasoning will penetrate through.

On November 10 2009 11:22 pubbanana wrote:
So ... if our healthcare is fine the way it is, why are we ranked number 37 on the World Health Organization's global ranking on world healthcare systems? http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

And if socialized democracies are such horrible and ineffective ways to govern our population, why is Norway ranked number one on the Human Development Index? http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

A big thank you to anyone on this website who is credited enough to dispute these facts and figures in advance.

On November 10 2009 11:54 gchan wrote:
motbob, you're not going to find articles from academics that disclose information about how companies internally run their cost structures and pricing structures. Scientific articles are written by academics who work in a university for a living, not work in private industry. The reason why articles on corporate taxation are so scare when you google it is because in the field of taxation, cost accounting, and accounting in general, there is a huge divided between industry and academia. Most accountants who have the knowhow to work the corporate tax system, or have the know how to manipulate their cost structure for profit maximization are going to be working in industry. They can make money there. And they won't disclose that information out by publishing it in scientific papers because that would give away a company's competitive edge.

Most accountants who are the professors have knowledge that is 20 year old antiquated industry knowledge. That is why good accounting professors will try to bring in guest lecturers to provide contemporary industry insight. The bad accounting professors will lecture straight from the book.

Another factor to consider is that it is very expensive to gather information from industry because companies do not want to disclose their information. Most publicly traded companies have the generic 10-Ks they have to file, but that does not provide insight on what you are to address--how companies change their cost and price structure based on taxation.

Disclosure: I'm a tax accountant.

On November 10 2009 12:22 motbob wrote:

You can't just say "it's a trade secret."

On November 10 2009 12:22 motbob wrote:

If there's no academic economic theory or empirical analysis concerning the effect of corporate taxes on prices, then as far as I know, such a relationship doesn't exist. If you maintain that information on the effect of taxes is simply impossible, then fine. I can't say definitively that you're wrong. You have experience in the field and I don't. But you can't expect me or anyone else to just take your word for it. You can't just say "it's a trade secret."

On November 10 2009 12:51 LeoTheLion wrote:
So i'm wondering.

How many of you guys actually know what the bill is about?

On November 10 2009 09:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

Taxes are a cost of doing business, when it is applied during the accounting process is irrelevant. If your taxes are increased, you increase the cost of the items to maintain your profit.

The debate was that "rich" don't stick the increased cost onto the poor, which is entirely false. The company (and thus an individual, since most people aren't on their own payroll and just make withdrawals from the business when they need money, and will often take all business income as personal income) is still making 10% profit, but the cost of increased tax is shown in the company's increased prices. People who are buying the product are the ones paying, not the one being taxed.

Profit "maximization" has nothing to do with a dollar amount. If you're in the IT business, you could be making a million dollars a year, but if you're below a 10% net income, you won't be in business. Maximizing profits is expending assets to produce revenue at a greater than 1:1 ratio, so it has nothing to do with taxes anyways.

On November 10 2009 12:41 Wr3k wrote:
1 Step closer to us socialist Canadians!

On November 10 2009 12:07 HonestTea wrote:
WOMEN!

On November 10 2009 13:11 BlackJack wrote:
How exactly do you work it out in your head to think "if we raise the cost of our product our profits go up." When you raise the cost of your product fewer people can afford it and fewer people want to buy it, so your profits can just as easily go DOWN. If it was as simple as "lets raise our prices to increase our profits" companies would raise their prices every day of the year and charge $1 million for a cheeseburger.

On November 10 2009 03:37 agorist wrote:


Yes, it's stealing if you take money from an individual who doesn't support building a street. A street should be paid directly by those who use and benefit from it. This is done more efficiently via private ownership, however, can be done publicly with tolls and fees.

because most people with a legitimate need won't suddenly decide to stop getting healthcare just because the price goes up a bit

On November 10 2009 15:24 TheYango wrote:
The reason that it's inferred that profits will go up in the case of healthcare is that it seems reasonable to assume that healthcare is fairly inelastic (because most people with a legitimate need won't suddenly decide to stop getting healthcare just because the price goes up a bit).

On November 10 2009 02:27 Sky101 wrote:
Capitalism carried the U.S. from a nobody to the super power that it is today. Socialism will just make everyone lazy. Look at the Europeans, no offense, try to compare the work ethics and attitude to that of an American.

On November 10 2009 17:30 kefkalives wrote:


Aahahahaha, you win fuckmuppet of the day award. Holy shit. Stupidity this intense is just far too much.

On November 10 2009 15:14 IntoTheWow wrote:


Non sequitur.

On November 10 2009 12:51 LeoTheLion wrote:
So i'm wondering.

How many of you guys actually know what the bill is about?

On November 10 2009 21:49 Unentschieden wrote:
Ah the US Healthcare system. It´s both funny and sad at the same time.

For thouse arguing to reduce military spending to pay for Universal healthcare take a look at this, especially the orange countries:
http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/

America doesn´t bomb countries instead of providing Healthcare. America provides healthcare where they are bombing. Maybe you should start another Civil war?

Sad jokes aside, the US does have a system of universal healthcare best described as universal emergency room. But it´s the second worst method to provide healthcare for your people, right after letting the poor die.
By only making the ER available the US maximises the pain, suffering (and cost to) of it´s people since the any issue is untreated until it´s life threatening (and the most expensive to treat).

On November 10 2009 22:10 Shizuru~ wrote:


Apparently none of the Americans posted in this thread do...

i'll give u guys a hint, its not as simple as just the economics of it, have u guys checked how exactly is the government healthcare coverage going to work?

On November 10 2009 20:13 Foucault wrote:


He has quite a valid point. In Europe you can get quite alot of social welfare in many countires, and I've seen ALOT of people get lazy. They sit at home and don't look for work while collecting welfare and play WoW. It's ridiculous. At least in America, people can realize far bigger dreams that getting to level 70 and also have to work to make ends meet.

On November 10 2009 23:27 Piretes wrote:


In America, there are at least as many WoW-playing fatasses. America is no longer the nation of hard work and big dreams, it has long become a nation of fat consumerists. Long live capitalism!

In Europe, we actually do try help lower classes with their problems. In a wealthy, developed nation, people shouldn't have to be denied such simple things such as health treatment and proper schools.

On November 10 2009 23:27 Piretes wrote:


In America, there are at least as many WoW-playing fatasses. America is no longer the nation of hard work and big dreams, it has long become a nation of fat consumerists. Long live capitalism!

In Europe, we actually do try help lower classes with their problems. In a wealthy, developed nation, people shouldn't have to be denied such simple things such as health treatment and proper schools.

On November 10 2009 16:28 SWPIGWANG wrote:
It would be irrational to maintain a price point below the maximum profit price. The elasticity in health care may very well lie in the ability of people to pay over the desires of people to get care.

Looking at the medical bankruptcy rate, health care may be hitting a cap in price. As a person won't pay any more if you bankrupt him once or three times over.
--------------------
The "inelastic demand" up to bankruptcy thing on the other hand suggest that in a monopoly/oligopoly setting, prices would naturally be increased to "just below bankrupting a lot of people" for many medical services. If price discrimination is possible, we are looking at "however much you can pay" instead. This is also independent of the actual cost to provide the services.

On November 10 2009 23:27 Piretes wrote:


In America, there are at least as many WoW-playing fatasses. America is no longer the nation of hard work and big dreams, it has long become a nation of fat consumerists. Long live capitalism!

In Europe, we actually do try help lower classes with their problems. In a wealthy, developed nation, people shouldn't have to be denied such simple things such as health treatment and proper schools.

On November 11 2009 06:10 Mickey wrote:
First of all, I've pretty much skimmed throughout the thread. Even before beginning to skim I realized that YES this was going to end up into a flame war, because people like Undisputed bring their idiotic and mildly hilarious trolling skills into play.

Undisputed, if you are gonna cite something, have the fucking common sense not to cite it from a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. Think before you post.

YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC AMERICAN ASSHOLE!
+ Show Spoiler +

On November 11 2009 06:33 Undisputed- wrote:
So, there is still a long way to go before the left is allowed to turn the world’s leading health care system into yet another entitlement program.

On November 11 2009 06:37 Kennigit wrote:

Are you kidding?

On November 11 2009 06:37 Kennigit wrote:

Are you kidding?

On November 10 2009 04:14 Try wrote:


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.

On November 11 2009 06:37 Kennigit wrote:

Are you kidding?

On November 11 2009 13:57 koreasilver wrote:

lol, Americans.

On November 11 2009 06:50 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:


Well, we have to be careful here. There is no doubt that if you can afford it you get the very highest standards of healthcare in the United States.

Of course, overall the United States performs absolutely woefully in terms of internationally recognised health indicators, which makes the claim of being "the world's leading health care system" look rather hollow.

On November 11 2009 13:57 koreasilver wrote:

lol, Americans.

On November 11 2009 14:04 jalstar wrote:
Private options will always be better due to the profit motive.

On November 11 2009 14:10 Mindcrime wrote:


Private armies will always be better due to the profit motive.

On November 11 2009 14:01 cunninglinguists wrote:


he means the best QUALITY of care available. not necessarily the best system for providing it.