EPTThis is the most up-to-date version of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4872:
Healthcare Reform in the US - Page 45
| Forum Index > General Forum |
motbob
United States12546 Posts
This is the most up-to-date version of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4872: | ||
|
jackofclubs81
United States196 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 22 2010 12:34 Jibba wrote: Both sides are to blame. The republicans were irresponsible by opposing any possible plan from the start. In response, instead of trying to break down that opposition and reaching compromise and because they had a super majority, the democrats said fuck it and figured they could push through legislation without regard for Rs. Conservative democrats delayed the issue and then Kennedy died and the super majority was lost because the Democratic party handled the ensuing election about as poorly as you possibly can. Now D leadership got hasty and is pushing through this half assed bill, hoping they can modify it later, while R leadership are still being little bitches and refusing to join the drafting process in a responsible way, because they'd rather try to hamstring Ds and win back seats in 2010/12 No, just one side is to blame. The republicans offered plenty of ideas such as tort reform and cross-state competition, among other things. However, the democrats were not interested. Even the most partisan democrat would have to admit that the republicans were not given much of a chance to incorporate anything into the bill. It was drafted behind closed doors, exclusively by democrats. Obama and the democrats could have passed a health care bill very easily last year had they drafted a more moderate bill. Plenty of republicans would have jumped ship. Instead, the most liberal democrats drafted this piece of garbage that no one really likes. For better or for worse, the democrats own this bill. Republicans are not against health care reform. They just (unsurprisingly) have very different ideas on how to accomplish it. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 22 2010 12:22 TanGeng wrote: Nullification if you know your history is what the American Revolution was all about. According to whom? After that it was what the American Civl War was all about. No, that's just wrong. Secession was all about Southern states throwing a girly little fit when they finally lost their stranglehold on the nation. They feared that as the United States expanded, slavery would be restricted in the new territories and that the voting bloc that the slave states constituted would gradually lose its power. I'm sure that were some paranoid folks who feared that Lincoln would interfere with slavery in the South but the truth is that Lincoln had no intention to and his position was actually quite close to Stephen Douglas'. The nullification crisis had ended nearly two decades earlier. What had southern states tried to nullify in the immediate run up to the civil war? If any states got close to attempting nullification, it was the northern states. But they didn't use such language to express their opposition to the fugitive slave laws that the south had forced on the nation; they simply refused to enforce, or got in the way of enforcing those laws. There was no need to incorrectly declare them to be unconstitutional. If anything was revolutionary about the civil war, it was the coalescence of several major groups into the Republican party. 1860 was the revolution. 1861 was a counterrevolution waged by a group of authoritarians attempting to protect the most despicable institution that has ever existed in the United States. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
|
.Wilsh.
United States133 Posts
On March 22 2010 13:25 LuckyFool wrote: I feel like moving to Canada tbh. Canada is no better. We are going to have as poor quality as them and Europe. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Denotate
Canada294 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 22 2010 13:15 Mindcrime wrote: According to whom? No, that's just wrong. Secession was all about Southern states throwing a girly little fit when they finally lost their stranglehold on the nation. They feared that as the United States expanded, slavery would be restricted in the new territories and that the voting bloc that the slave states constituted would gradually lose its power. I'm sure that were some paranoid folks who feared that Lincoln would interfere with slavery in the South but the truth is that Lincoln had no intention to and his position was actually quite close to Stephen Douglas'. The nullification crisis had ended nearly two decades earlier. What had southern states tried to nullify in the immediate run up to the civil war? If any states got close to attempting nullification, it was the northern states. But they didn't use such language to express their opposition to the fugitive slave laws that the south had forced on the nation; they simply refused to enforce, or got in the way of enforcing those laws. There was no need to incorrectly declare them to be unconstitutional. If anything was revolutionary about the civil war, it was the coalescence of several major groups into the Republican party. 1860 was the revolution. 1861 was a counterrevolution waged by a group of authoritarians attempting to protect the most despicable institution that has ever existed in the United States. Right... Southern states nullified the tariff namely the Morrill Tariff by withdrawing from the union. Lincoln's first inaugural was about how slavery wasn't an issue but the taxes had to be paid. If it was just the South throwing a hissy fit about losing control of the union then there was no reason for the North to fight a war to keep the South in the union. The first shots fired in the Civil War were at Fort Sumter, a customs house, AKA a tax collection center. The Northern states did nullify the fugitive slave acts. Some states didn't recognize the legality of those trying to capture fugitive slaves. The federal government couldn't do anything about it. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 22 2010 13:52 Denotate wrote: Wow you're all really bitter. Canadian health care is great, so don't bring us into this. Plus we own at hockey. But Fox news told them otherwise. How could you, a lowly Canadian with first hand experience possibly know better than them? | ||
|
Denotate
Canada294 Posts
On March 22 2010 13:56 Mohdoo wrote: But Fox news told them otherwise. How could you, a lowly Canadian with first hand experience possibly know better than them? Damn, Fox News said that!? Jeeze, now I look a fool! Oh well, I guess it's suicide again for me.. edit: the last time I attempted it I botched the thing. Thank God I didn't have to pay for my health care costs and rehab. edit2: will the new health care bill cover botched suicides? edit3: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://elchicoibarra.blogia.com/upload/20060115140001-moe-co.gif) Moe reacting to health care bill being passed. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 22 2010 13:53 TanGeng wrote: Right... Southern states nullified the tariff namely the Morrill Tariff by withdrawing from the union. Lincoln's first inaugural was about how slavery wasn't an issue but the taxes had to be paid. If it was just the South throwing a hissy fit about losing control of the union then there was no reason for the North to fight a war to keep the South in the union. The first shots fired in the Civil War were at Fort Sumter, a customs house, AKA a tax collection center. The Northern states did nullify the fugitive slave acts. Some states didn't recognize the legality of those trying to capture fugitive slaves. The federal government couldn't do anything about it. Seven states had already seceded by the time the Morrill Tariff was passed. It was not the issue. Any rhetoric about it was just rhetoric. Secession was entirely about slavery and southern political power and the two were more or less the same thing. The War, however, was about neither. For the Union it was about preservation of the country. For the South, it became about the defense of the homeland. The first shots were fired at Fort Sumter because that is where the Confederacy chose to fire them. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 22 2010 14:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Holy shit, I just remembered that Rush Limbaugh said he would leave the country if the bill passed. I wonder what his show will be about tomorrow? He amended that statement and said that he would only leave the country for medical purposes. I do look forward to his review of Costa Rica's healthcare system though. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On March 22 2010 14:09 Mindcrime wrote: He amended that statement and said only that he would only leave the country for medical purposes. I do look forward to his review of Costa Rica's medical system though. Wait so he will leave the country for medical purposes to go to a country that has Nationalized Healthcare....? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
On March 22 2010 13:32 .Wilsh. wrote: Canada is no better. We are going to have as poor quality as them and Europe. I honestly can't tell if things like this are jokes or if people really don't know how bad the healthcare in the US is compared to anywhere else in the Western World. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
| ||
|
.Wilsh.
United States133 Posts
On March 22 2010 14:33 KwarK wrote: I honestly can't tell if things like this are jokes or if people really don't know how bad the healthcare in the US is compared to anywhere else in the Western World. Cancer Survival Rates: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 | ||
| ||
