|
On March 23 2010 17:39 IndigO wrote:
Florida State Attorney Generals Office say it will file lawsuit against the bill which probly will go to supreme court with 9 other states so far after Obama signs the bill. The bill clearly goes against the 10th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I'd put money that it's not in violation. Two times in 50+ years the court shot down any challenges on the 10th.
I don't know about how the PATRIOT Act passed, but I'm pretty damn sure this thing is clean as far as not violating the Constitution.
|
On March 23 2010 17:02 Zoler wrote:
USA is standing on it's knees economically and still the people in America keep going on like before:
"Don't take my money, I shouldn't have to contribute!"
You all do realize how childish of a mindset that is?
Also people who think USA has one of the best healthcare systems need to wake up.
Ummm I'm pretty sure changing the healthcare system is going to make the economy MUCH worse...
|
On March 23 2010 17:02 Zoler wrote:
USA is standing on it's knees economically and still the people in America keep going on like before:
"Don't take my money, I shouldn't have to contribute!"
You all do realize how childish of a mindset that is?
Also people who think USA has one of the best healthcare systems need to wake up.
Do you realize how childish it is to believe everything is about me and how I need free stuff so other people should pay for it, because woe is me, I can't possibly make it without being totally reliant on the government to take care of me. There are already too many hand outs in this country already.
Enough is enough. Some people actually believe in the power of the individual.
The way this was passed was un-American. A government take over of Healthcare while flipping states with the cost as well as a take over of student loans which might lead to students falling prey to paying for this monster of a bill.
The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com
But many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 24 2010 01:08 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 20:56 Jibba wrote:
The statistics are misleading and don't paint an accurate picture, as statistics usually fail to do. Just as the earlier post about America's cancer survival rate being the best, so too are the infant mortality rates misleading. Each country uses different counting methodology, with America's being more rigorous than countries like Canada's. When you adjust for the same methods, there isn't much differentiation between any first world country.
Cost is what's most in need of fixing.
It's rare that I'll so thoroughly agree with Noam Chomsky, but I think he was completely right when he said corporate interests were the original heavy movers behind this healthcare reform. At this point, it's taken a life of its own among the public, but at the beginning it was really big companies who were feeling the pain because of the benefits they had to provide. They weren't dissatisfied with the level of treatment, they were being hurt financially in comparison to Japanese and European companies that had more support from their governments in this area. I'm not sure that this plan has really addressed that, though. I really can't believe that you can dismiss those statistics and leave it at that. Is there some evidence that leads you believe that each country uses clearly different counting methods that cause a +/- 3 variance in infant mortality rates?
Yes.
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
The United States follows the WHO's standard for a live birth, most other countries don't. No healthy babies die out of the womb with a normal birth in a hospital. That just doesn't happen. Premature babies, underdeveloped babies, still births, etc. Those are what infant mortality rates come from and there is a societal problem in the US that causes more premature births per capita to happen, but that's not a product of our hospitals or even necessarily our healthcare. It has to do with younger pregnancies, poor pregnancy conditions, etc. Our wider definition means that doctors must take on high risk cases considered beyond-saving in other countries, and has actually improved medical practice regarding stillbirths, etc. over the past 50 years.
That's not really a function of socialized or private healthcare, though. It's a function of other governments skewing their numbers; everyone should be following the WHO standard. And really, if you just go by statistics, you may be excluding some of the best doctors who do the hardest work, and thus have higher mortality rates. I think there was a Scrubs episode about that...
Breast (female) 88.5%. - Ok that's cool.
Esophagus 15.6% - that's not.
Prostate 99% - That's cool.
Pancreas 5% - That's not.
Just read source data and don't read stuff that tries to build off of the source data.
And why do you have to buy the European cancer statistics? That's just stupid. Can't access that, so I can't make a good comparison =_=.
Anyway, my point is that statistics do hold value, and you can't discredit them, and the US does have a better cancer survival rate :3. It just sucks in other aspects of medical care.
You really need a qualitative study on how it all works. Are mortality rates higher or lower because people with cancer don't get treatment? Is the treatment they get better or worse? What was the patient's health conditions and what other diseases did they have (especially an issue when you're talking about the uninsured- likely impoverished.) We already know that someone with an extreme form of cancer (like pancreatic cancer) or in further stages of development are more likely to seek treatment in the US if they have the means to. If they die, which they're likely to do, should that reflect the same compared to someone receiving an early cancer treatment in another country?
It would be much better to look at the rate of finding cancer and how early it happens. That would be more closely linked to how often people have check ups, which is a problem in the US. Then you could say "4/5 men found their prostate cancer within the first 6 months" and then follow up and find out why the 1/5 didn't, or "Of women, ages 35-45, who found breast cancer within stage 1, their treatment rate was X."
There's hundreds of other questions like that that don't get answered when you just say "X in 1,000 people with Z cancer die in the US, Y in 1,000 people with Z cancer die in France." As a person totally in favor a public option and further healthcare reform beyond HR 3590, I'm simply urging you to stop using statistics, because they're quite likely to be bullshit. Especially when they're endorsed by a political party.
If two politicians meet on a television show and one comes with overgeneralized, 1 line talking point statistics, and the other has detailed, specific spreadsheets, I guarantee you the oversimplified numbers will win in public opinion every time. Just look at Ross Perot and his lovely pie charts.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone.
It's curious to me that the libertarian cause, which has always been focused around protecting against tyranny of the majority, is now turning to majority rule to support their cause.
|
On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone.
If you're basing everything off of public opinion (and poll is a hell of a lot different than an actual election) what's the point of having representatives??
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 24 2010 01:49 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 01:08 Mystlord wrote:On March 23 2010 20:56 Jibba wrote:
The statistics are misleading and don't paint an accurate picture, as statistics usually fail to do. Just as the earlier post about America's cancer survival rate being the best, so too are the infant mortality rates misleading. Each country uses different counting methodology, with America's being more rigorous than countries like Canada's. When you adjust for the same methods, there isn't much differentiation between any first world country.
Cost is what's most in need of fixing.
It's rare that I'll so thoroughly agree with Noam Chomsky, but I think he was completely right when he said corporate interests were the original heavy movers behind this healthcare reform. At this point, it's taken a life of its own among the public, but at the beginning it was really big companies who were feeling the pain because of the benefits they had to provide. They weren't dissatisfied with the level of treatment, they were being hurt financially in comparison to Japanese and European companies that had more support from their governments in this area. I'm not sure that this plan has really addressed that, though. I really can't believe that you can dismiss those statistics and leave it at that. Is there some evidence that leads you believe that each country uses clearly different counting methods that cause a +/- 3 variance in infant mortality rates? Yes. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htmThe United States follows the WHO's standard for a live birth, most other countries don't. No healthy babies die out of the womb with a normal birth in a hospital. That just doesn't happen. Premature babies, underdeveloped babies, still births, etc. Those are what infant mortality rates come from and there is a societal problem in the US that causes more premature births per capita to happen, but that's not a product of our hospitals or even necessarily our healthcare. It has to do with younger pregnancies, poor pregnancy conditions, etc. Our wider definition means that doctors must take on high risk cases considered beyond-saving in other countries, and has actually improved medical practice regarding stillbirths, etc. over the past 50 years. That's not really a function of socialized or private healthcare, though. It's a function of other governments skewing their numbers; everyone should be following the WHO standard. And really, if you just go by statistics, you may be excluding some of the best doctors who do the hardest work, and thus have higher mortality rates. I think there was a Scrubs episode about that...
I concede the point on infant mortality then. If everyone's using different standards as to what constitutes infant mortality, not much we can do on that point  . I think the point on cancer still stands though, unless there's something fatally wrong or slow or something with how we report cancer deaths.
|
That is true the whole reason we have electoral colleges is because the founding fathers thought people were to stupid to pick a leader, we need the representatives to make our decisions because most people are too idiotic to understand how things work.
|
I'm happy for the 10% that can get proper medical care now.
I think it is curious that so many people are against this. Whenever the US acts on foreign soil, aka the army, one of their leading principles seems to be "no one is left behind" but in their own country they don't care about the unfortunate citizens and the general idea seems to be "everyone is left behind if he costs me money" T_T.
|
On March 24 2010 01:51 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone. It's curious to me that the libertarian cause, which has always been focused around protecting against tyranny of the majority, is now turning to majority rule to support their cause.
Tyranny of the minority in this case.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 24 2010 02:20 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 01:51 Jibba wrote:On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone. It's curious to me that the libertarian cause, which has always been focused around protecting against tyranny of the majority, is now turning to majority rule to support their cause. Tyranny of the minority in this case.
Tyranny of the not-my-side. Welkum 2 democrasi.
|
On March 24 2010 01:55 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone. If you're basing everything off of public opinion (and poll is a hell of a lot different than an actual election) what's the point of having representatives??
The point of a representative is to vote how your constituent base wants you to because you are there working for the people who elected you. Heads will roll this Novemeber.
|
United States22883 Posts
I bet if you ran a good survey, you could find a strong correlation between the high levels of public protest and high unemployment rate in the country.
|
|
|
Especially since the US military isn't exactly for free either.
Anyway- congratulations.
|
On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 17:02 Zoler wrote:
USA is standing on it's knees economically and still the people in America keep going on like before:
"Don't take my money, I shouldn't have to contribute!"
You all do realize how childish of a mindset that is?
Also people who think USA has one of the best healthcare systems need to wake up. Do you realize how childish it is to believe everything is about me and how I need free stuff so other people should pay for it, because woe is me, I can't possibly make it without being totally reliant on the government to take care of me. There are already too many hand outs in this country already. Enough is enough. Some people actually believe in the power of the individual. The way this was passed was un-American. A government take over of Healthcare while flipping states with the cost as well as a take over of student loans which might lead to students falling prey to paying for this monster of a bill. The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone.
It is just as childish and outright immoral for one to believe that everything is about me and how I need to live for only myself and that it does not concern me if my neighbours are not receiving the care that they should have regardless of their economic status. I can't possibly give up a small part of my totality in order that many more can be cared for.
Selfish narcissism without an ounce of humanity.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 24 2010 02:15 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
I'm happy for the 10% that can get proper medical care now.
I think it is curious that so many people are against this. Whenever the US acts on foreign soil, aka the army, one of their leading principles seems to be "no one is left behind" but in their own country they don't care about the unfortunate citizens and the general idea seems to be "everyone is left behind if he costs me money" T_T.
Hmmm, you mean the 10% that has to buy health insurance one way or another? Most of them are not buying health insurance because it's too expensive for their risk profile. For the 10% of population that it's supposedly helping the majority of them will see it as a huge unwanted tax. Only a minority of these people will actually welcome this "access to medical care."
There's always moral hazard. But the entire insurance scheme is full of moral hazards.
|
On March 24 2010 02:24 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 01:55 Hawk wrote:On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone. If you're basing everything off of public opinion (and poll is a hell of a lot different than an actual election) what's the point of having representatives?? The point of a representative is to vote how your constituent base wants you to because you are there working for the people who elected you. Heads will roll this Novemeber.
The constituent base voted in a majority of democrats, who have been on record supporting this thing for some time now. So they are serving the people who voted for them.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 24 2010 02:37 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:On March 23 2010 17:02 Zoler wrote:
USA is standing on it's knees economically and still the people in America keep going on like before:
"Don't take my money, I shouldn't have to contribute!"
You all do realize how childish of a mindset that is?
Also people who think USA has one of the best healthcare systems need to wake up. Do you realize how childish it is to believe everything is about me and how I need free stuff so other people should pay for it, because woe is me, I can't possibly make it without being totally reliant on the government to take care of me. There are already too many hand outs in this country already. Enough is enough. Some people actually believe in the power of the individual. The way this was passed was un-American. A government take over of Healthcare while flipping states with the cost as well as a take over of student loans which might lead to students falling prey to paying for this monster of a bill. The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone. It is just as childish and outright immoral for one to believe that everything is about me and how I need to live for only myself and that it does not concern me if my neighbours are not receiving the care that they should have regardless of whether of their economic status. I can't possibly give up a small part of my totality in order that many more can be cared for. Selfish narcissim without an ounce of humanity.
You're being so rude. The air of entitlement and schadenfreude by those demanding others help is a huge turn off for those who would otherwise be willing to be compassionate.
This tactic of demonizing those most able to help but unsure or unwilling to commit to this specific plan is disgusting. Voting and enacting this health care plan is not the ONLY way to show compassion despite all claims of monopoly of high moral ground by the proponents. You can easily help your immediate immediate neighbors independently without a huge overarching bureaucratic structure to share cost among 300 million people.
There is also the question of sustainability and prudence. After all, if compassion doesn't lead to sustainable success, then compassion is misguided and only setting people up for a large failure in the future. Save some moral indignation for yourself if that should happen.
|
On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 17:02 Zoler wrote:
USA is standing on it's knees economically and still the people in America keep going on like before:
"Don't take my money, I shouldn't have to contribute!"
You all do realize how childish of a mindset that is?
Also people who think USA has one of the best healthcare systems need to wake up. Do you realize how childish it is to believe everything is about me and how I need free stuff so other people should pay for it, because woe is me, I can't possibly make it without being totally reliant on the government to take care of me. There are already too many hand outs in this country already. Enough is enough. Some people actually believe in the power of the individual. The way this was passed was un-American. A government take over of Healthcare while flipping states with the cost as well as a take over of student loans which might lead to students falling prey to paying for this monster of a bill. The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone.
Have you seen the people at the tea party things? Or heard Sarah Palin commenting on Fruit Flies....or the Intelligent design crowd....or any number of conservative ideas rolling around right now? Those people do need someone to do whats best for them. Sure it sounds bad, but if someone has to decide they will take losing an election to do whats best for the country as they see it so be it. The right wing religious nuts dont deserve a voice atm.
Enlightened despotism ftw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
