|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies).
Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services.
I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together.
I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold....
Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!?
|
On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray.
So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense.
Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty.
|
On June 29 2012 03:13 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:03 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:54 Vega62a wrote:On June 29 2012 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see  If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails. I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech. It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'. Only if you're the kind of person who believes that if the smartest people in the room correct you on a point (SCOTUS can be safely considered the smartest people in the room on the subject of constitutional law) then you're an imbecile. Which you should not be, since you should have some depth of thought. I swear you must have taken classes in hyperbole. You're quite good at it. You seem quite accepting of Obama being corrected by SCOTUS. I, however, remember him publicly (some might call it scolding) directing them upon how they should rule on this case back when the arguments were being heard. He doesn't seem to think they are smarter than him. He still doesn't. He still hasn't acknowledged the 'taxing' nature of this law. I don't think he ever will. He is the one with the arrogance to know better than the SCOTUS Justices on the matter of Constitutional Law. I don't think it's unreasonable to find him to be arrogant, and since he's wrong, an imbecile when it comes to the very area of law that he is supposed to be the expert. Being wrong makes him an imbecile? You are literally absurd. It's not like Obama said "the sky is down underneath us." There was no factual right or wrong on the topic. The topic was amazingly complicated, and the SCOTUS decided his interpretation of the constitutional powers of government and the commerce clause were not in line with their own, and since they have the power to make the decisions, what they say goes. You're acting like he asserted vehemently that up was down and 1+1=3. Please demonstrate some depth of thought.
After the Court's decision declaring the only reason this is Constitutional is that it's a tax, how long will it be before Obama acknowledges it as a tax ? Because he was adamantly taken the opposite position leading up to the decision, and even in his one speech after. As he continues, the more he displays.
|
On June 29 2012 03:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. "the people in the US" Pretty please, don't generalize all US citizens based off some outlandish reactions here on the internet forums.
I'm sorry if I offended you, It was not meant as something offensive.
|
On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read peoples reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because universal health care is "comminist"
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray.
There is a difference between health care and health care insurance. People are hardly sick and dying because they aren't getting health care. You get in a car accident, an ambulance comes, you get taken to the hospital and treated. Whether you have insurance or not, you get health care.
|
On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies). Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services. I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together. I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold.... Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!?
Europe has private healthcare also. If you want to you can take out private health insurance in addition to your national insurance. You can then use hospitals that are designed for the more wealthy and tend to offer a better service (in terms of comfort etc).
|
On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:00 ixi.genocide wrote:On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 02:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states. Calling it a tax is semantics and politics. Sure, it's legally valid semantics now. But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare. But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps. It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper. Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US and spending in the us government is atrocious because it is a well that you can just pluck funding out of. In '65 when Medicare was introduced it was supposed to cost 9 billion in 1990 but cost 67 billion, and it is even worse now. Government programs like this are so expensive in a country of 300 million that you can't hope for the same kind of success as you would in smaller european countries. Not to mention that the EU is practically failing, and you could associate the higher taxation of the citizens to this cause (as well as pensions). Obamacare is not going to pay for itself, it is going to cost more money than we can estimate now and what's worse is that it creates uncertainty in the market. Employers are not hiring because the increase in cost per employee is rising and will continue to rise. Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies).
Being 'for-profit' or not is pretty much irrelevant in terms of costs. The problem is HOW those profits are made - not through efficiency or quality of care but through quantity of care and passing the buck. The entire market that exists now in the US is set up wrong and Obamacare only addresses a couple issues within it.
|
On June 29 2012 03:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read peoples reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because universal health care is "comminist"
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. There is a difference between health care and health care insurance. People are hardly sick and dying because they aren't getting health care. You get in a car accident, an ambulance comes, you get taken to the hospital and treated. Whether you have insurance or not, you get health care.
You are absolutely right. And if you can't pay for it, and don't have insurance, the hospital just got screwed out of however much money your bill was. Man, if only there was a way to make sure that never happens.
|
On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty.
To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand?
|
People who supports this, don't actually understand what it does.
This will force everyone to submit to a government run health care plan, effectivly
giving the government control of the entire medical industry. This country will regulate
itself to death.
Freedom died today.
|
On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies). Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services. I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together. I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold.... Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!?
Maybe then we'll get people going into medicine because they want to help people, instead of people who just want to make loads of money.
Maybe having institutions not worry about collecting money from people who couldn't afford the operations will allow them to treat people better.
Maybe we dont really have more "extra mile" doctors compared to Europe or Asia.
|
On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies). Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services. I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together. I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold.... Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!?
As far as I understand private healthcare will continue to exist in its current form? The public health care option is only for people who can't afford private care, right? I don't see how this effect you at all if what I stated is true.
|
On June 29 2012 03:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read peoples reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because universal health care is "comminist"
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. There is a difference between health care and health care insurance. People are hardly sick and dying because they aren't getting health care. You get in a car accident, an ambulance comes, you get taken to the hospital and treated. Whether you have insurance or not, you get health care.
Yeah, and because I've always paid taxes all my life, I don't have to worry about my economics at that point.
Today, Sweden passed a new that makes sure even illegal immigrants get health care, does it bother me? No at all, I'd rather know my tax money is being well spent making sure everyone can have the same chances of surviving accidents as me.
|
On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand?
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
|
On June 29 2012 03:33 StormShield24 wrote:
People who supports this, don't actually understand what it does.
This will force everyone to submit to a government run health care plan, effectivly
giving the government control of the entire medical industry. This country will regulate
itself to death.
Freedom died today.
And this summarizes the platform of the Republican party: smokescreens, word fetishism, and a seemingly insatiable need to insert "freedom" into everything.
|
On June 29 2012 03:34 K_Dilkington wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote:On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies). Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services. I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together. I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold.... Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!? As far as I understand private healthcare will continue to exist in its current form? The public health care option is only for people who can't afford private care, right? I don't see how this effect you at all if what I stated is true.
Because I still have to pay taxes to cover those lazy douches who recieve the public health care.... now that they are guaranteed the care, you can bet that the people will foot the bill, not the gov't. The government might say that they are paying for it but its in the form of collecting more taxes before hand.
|
On June 29 2012 03:00 ixi.genocide wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 02:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states. Calling it a tax is semantics and politics. Sure, it's legally valid semantics now. But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare. But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps. It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper. Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US and spending in the us government is atrocious because it is a well that you can just pluck funding out of. In '65 when Medicare was introduced it was supposed to cost 9 billion in 1990 but cost 67 billion, and it is even worse now. Government programs like this are so expensive in a country of 300 million that you can't hope for the same kind of success as you would in smaller european countries. Not to mention that the EU is practically failing, and you could associate the higher taxation of the citizens to this cause (as well as pensions). Obamacare is not going to pay for itself, it is going to cost more money than we can estimate now and what's worse is that it creates uncertainty in the market. Employers are not hiring because the increase in cost per employee is rising and will continue to rise. Second point- Obamacare is not hated, it's just a bad bill, not only was it delivered with multiple things added including handouts to states that shouldn't have even been considered, the bill tries to force a contract between two private parties and meddles in an already over inflated business. Why would you call people that have a dissenting opinion braindead? Not only do you lose credibility by being a dick, you also patronize a minority on forums like these in a similar way to bullying. Btw, there are about 50 million people on food stamps and most view it as a free voting tool for big government politicians, which is dominated by the left, not the right. You are right, if Obamacare was repealed then he would be fairly gimped, it was one of his main policies (probably main) during these first 4 years and it being unconstitutional would hurt a lot. But even if it was repealed he would be able to play the underdog, The mainstream media in this country would portray the democratic party as the guys fighting for the people against the greedy republicans that never pass any bill and want your children to die of cancer. This could have been a win for the GOP but it is really about limiting the size of government (who we don't trust, we don't think that the government is efficient in any way) and making the US economic engine viable for future generations. I don't think romneys position as a governor is a hurdle he will have to overcome with most independents, the strong republicans are already going to vote for him and the strong liberals are already going to vote for Obama. Also, every politician flip-flops, Democrats just call it evolving.
I'm not gonna debate what's affordable/not affordable or costs money/saves money seeing how neither of us can actually answer that. What I do think is that its reasonable for people to have health insurance and that the state has a role in providing it for those that can't afford it otherwise, so they don't show up for emergency care that could have been avoided by earlier treatment. To me, that seems like a basic function of the state, yet what I'm hearing from the republican side is 'repeal', without any actual solution.
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.
Obama obviously had a strategy incase it were repealed, but he's stronger with the law being upheld. He now gets to explain why this is a good thing without having the whole 'its unconstitutional socialism' hanging over his head.
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented.
|
On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read peoples reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because universal health care is "comminist"
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray.
Calling something communistic is a bad habit that republicans have gotten into, the better thing to call government programs that can't and won't try to cut spending and increase the power of government in the private sector is Socialism. While the EU is failing harder than the US (which I don't have pride for, it's just true) there still is a majority of people on this site and many others that advocate for socialism in the US.
Understanding the basic concept that the inflation of the US dollar, the increase in government size and a unsupporting country for businesses is not a plan for success. The US debt is going to hit 16 trillion soon and the Deficit is 1.3 trillion on top of the largest budget in history (total comes to about 30% of our gdp). You could cut every program outside of medicare, medicaid and social security and still not pay for an entire year of the government running. You can take all the money from the top 1% and you won't be able to pay for a year. As a country US is predominantly built on the idea that government should not be intruding into our lives yet when you have government intrusion you get bubbles like the housing bubble and you have ridiculous inefficiency.
I hope that your grammar mistakes were for a dramatic effect.
|
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself......
Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.
Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.
Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.
Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.
Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).
Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it.
In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly.
|
United States41934 Posts
On June 29 2012 03:37 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:34 K_Dilkington wrote:On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote:On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies). Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services. I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together. I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold.... Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!? As far as I understand private healthcare will continue to exist in its current form? The public health care option is only for people who can't afford private care, right? I don't see how this effect you at all if what I stated is true. Because I still have to pay taxes to cover those lazy douches who recieve the public health care.... now that they are guaranteed the care, you can bet that the people will foot the bill, not the gov't. The government might say that they are paying for it but its in the form of collecting more taxes before hand.
You were paying for them in the emergency ward anyway, now you get to pay for the cheaper preventative care that keeps them from needing emergency care and makes them more functional and productive. It's a good investment on your part. Well done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
