Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[Danoff]

I wouldn't get too excited until the house and senate agree on legislation. AFAIK that hasn't happened.

Obviously we cannot afford the enormous government we have, government healthcare will not help matters.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Obviously we cannot afford the enormous government we have, government healthcare will not help matters.

Wouldn't you say that what you can and can't afford is only relative to the importance placed on the object of contention?

 

[Joey D]

The common ultimate failure in gov't, I find, is a hesitance to commit.

Oftentimes a party will be swayed by nonconfidence and the fear of great reprisal from opponents, so what will happen is the empowered party attempts to appease detractors by enforcing a less ambitious version of their original plan—thus being insufficient to actually create the desired outcome.

The downfall of large organisation, or really just people in general, is a failure to commit. No one wants to do the wrong thing and no one wants to admit they did the wrong thing when it comes out that it was messed up in the first place. Case in point, Bush with the WMD's in Iraq. It was bad intelligence and it was acted on incorrectly. Just admit your mistake and then take steps to fix it. Look throughout history for more examples.

It still has to pass through the Senate.

Tis true.

 

[Danoff]

Wouldn't you say that what you can and can't afford is only relative to the importance placed on the object of contention?

Government Expenses > Government Revenue = Can't Afford

 

[Boffin]

I think if Gore got in - we'd be slightly closer to world peace (sounds crazy - stick with me) as the war on terror would be given a completely different outlook that it wouldn't be so much as a war, but a....hmm....something other than war.....neighbourly discussion?? I don't know - but it'd be less inflated and the whole view on it would be different IMO.

Another difference would be bigger strides towards being much more green. I reckon he would have dumped a whole lot more money into green energy and propulstion methods, and that if he was in, hydrogen cars would probably be out already. We say how influencial he can be (An inconvinient truth), just imagine what could've been done with the power.

That is all strictly my opinion - please don't anyone pull me up on any of it. If you think I'm wrong, great.

 

[Delirious]

When does the Senate plan to vote on this? I can already feel my taxes going up...and why on earth do we need more bureaucracies and bigger government?

I'm not against healthcare reform...I just wish it were possible without my taxes and my children and grandchildren paying for this. I understand people who can't afford health insurance; pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage instances...etc.

Maybe I'm just a selfish money loving Libertarian.

 

[Public'sTwin]

The downfall of large organisation, or really just people in general, is a failure to commit.

For the sake of clarity, I'll also point out that I think the failure to commit also often happens in the mistaken interests of maintaining "balance".

And when it comes to funding something, really—you can't go overboard. It's generally easier to withdraw unnecessary funds than it is to procure necessary funds, which undoubtedly require endless explanation and justification followed by bureaucratic standstills and time limits on the actionable intentions of who-ever's in office.

Government Expenses > Government Revenue = Can't Afford

I thought you were implying that you "couldn't afford" the inevitable tax hike (Gov't revenue) to cover Gov't expenses (H-C).

I'm not against healthcare reform...I just wish it were possible without my taxes and my children and grandchildren paying for this.

Consider when you're dead and your children haven't yet made enough money to cover a potential brain operation; you'll sure be glad your children and grandchildren were collectively paying each year to cover that cost.

Besides, what would you prefer your taxes to be spent on? Altruistic concerns are the noblest of donations, rather than say, for infrastructure.

 

[Eric Demory]

I'm just curious. Is Ron Blakojavich someone however you pronounce his name, have any updates on how bad he is doing at his job. And what about Al Franken?

 

[Tornado]

I thought you were implying that you "couldn't afford" the inevitable tax hike (Gov't revenue) to cover Gov't expenses (H-C).

The inevitable tax hike (Gov't revenue) that no one wants over something that most of the country doesn't actually care about (H-C)?
Can't see how that would be a problem...

Consider when you're dead and your children haven't yet made enough money to cover a potential brain operation; you'll sure be glad your children and grandchildren were collectively paying each year to cover that cost.

It worked wonders with Social Security.

Besides, what would you prefer your taxes to be spent on?

I'd rather not pay any taxes to support inherently corrupt government programs.

 

[Delirious]

I'd rather not pay any taxes to support inherently corrupt government programs.

Thank you

 

[Public'sTwin]

The inevitable tax hike (Gov't revenue) that no one wants over something that most of the country doesn't actually care about (H-C)?
Can't see how that would be a problem...

Then just wait until someone tries to take it away and you're all screaming for your right to Universal Healthcare.

It worked wonders with Social Security.

See my commitment clause.

I'd rather not pay any taxes to support inherently corrupt government programs.

Nor would anyone; if the net result, though, is a better-off population at large, then what other issue do you take with it?

 

[Northstar]

I'm guessing the only familiarity of the health care bill that you have is what Fox news has said.

Also, I don't get why so many people are against making America healthier. Than again that new boat is more important than helping someone else get medicine they need to live. This is a major problem with out political setup, they spend so much time arguing over basically what side is better they don't even try and make the country a better place.

Maybe if they actually did their job we wouldn't be falling behind in basically every category.


For the record I hate every politician no matter what party. They are all lying crooks.

 

[Omnis]

I just hope they take out the "Go To Jail or Pay $20000 Fines If You Don't Cooperate With Nazi Comrade Pelosi's Bill" part. That would really put a stake in me, for plans to out-mode managed care would be compromised.

Also, I don't get why so many people are against making America healthier. Than again that new boat is more important than helping someone else get medicine they need to live. This is a major problem with out political setup, they spend so much time arguing over basically what side is better they don't even try and make the country a better place.

We're not. The problem is, socialized medicine is being framed as universal healthcare. (and they did a damn good job of it) But socialized, managed care will hardly achieve that. If your third statement is correct-- and it is-- then why would you want to politicize anything and especially healthcare of all things? Anything done beyond the scope of what's laid out in the constitution is purely to make life miserable for the many to the delight of a few.

 

[Delirious]

Besides us bickering on most of us not changing our minds on how we feel...can anyone figure when the Senate plans to vote on this?

 

[Omnis]

Besides us bickering on most of us not changing our minds on how we feel...can anyone figure when the Senate plans to vote on this?

Not sure, but I hope every republican filibusters the **** out of this thing.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Let's start with this (to everyone):

Assuming you hypothetically supported Universal Healthcare in America—what would you change from its' current apparent outcome?

 

[Omnis]

See, that language is ambiguous and misleading. It's the meaningless shortcut bullcrap that the news feeds to America every day. I'm assuming you mean Pelosi's take on Healthcare Reform. Otherwise, Healthcare Reform on its own doesn't mean a thing.

 

[marchi]

THESE IDIOTS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. THEY JUST WANT US TO SUFFER.

Really. So if they wanted you to suffer, why would they introduce better health care? You just don't get it do you? You are better off with this system.

My parents are republicans. I am a better republican. They are surprised about what I say when I talk politics because they never thought a 13 year old would be really amazing at complaining about the democrats terrible work as usual. I am a very good republican.

No your actually quite poor. You fail to get your point across in a reasonable manner 'I blame Fox news for this' and fail to understand a number of basic principles about your political party.

If you watch Fox News and other Republicans. I want you to find out.

Why would anybody watch such biased crap for factual content is beyond me. I must admit, I do watch Fox news, but more so for a comical factor. Stupidity doesn't even begin to describe that station.

Bush was the best, and will always be the best!

Bush was a puppet.

Ok, for everyone who posted here so far. Just, "Just" say if you are a democrat or a republican.

Liberalist, but that doesn't detract from my opinion. You need to realize along with your parents, that what may seem ridiculous now, can help in the future. That's the problem with conservatives like the American republican party. They sit on their arse for 8 years, fail to implement regulation and legislation that could have curbed the impact of the global financial crises and develop the health system in to a necessary modern style.

 

[Public'sTwin]

See, that language is ambiguous and misleading. It's the meaningless shortcut bullcrap that the news feeds to America every day. I'm assuming you mean Pelosi's take on Healthcare Reform. Otherwise, Healthcare Reform on its own doesn't mean a thing.

Edited to provoke intended response outcome in response to anal retentive nitpicking.

 

[Eric Demory]

@marchi: You don't need to get offensive at me. And what you said about me being poor, that hurt me. My parents don't make much money. And especially with all the paying so many bills is not helping. We don't get that much money. Please don't be mean to me!

 

[Public'sTwin]

@marchi: You don't need to get offensive at me. And what you said about me being poor, that hurt me. My parents don't make much money. And especially with all the paying so many bills is not helping. We don't get that much money. Please don't be mean to me!

Your method is poor; he was not saying you are fiscally poor.

My god.

Anything done beyond the scope of what's laid out in the constitution is purely to make life miserable for the many to the delight of a few.

You do realize the constitution never states specifically that the United States ought to be 'capitalist' (or holistically free-market at all), right? Social democracy is every bit as compatible with it as the current U.S. political model.

Moreover, the aspect of corporate rights arguably most defining of capitalism - their status as 'individuals' with all consequent rights, achieved in the aftermath of the Civil War - contradicts the writings of the U.S.' (byinlarge) classic liberal founders, who never consented to nor inferred that said status should be alloted. In actuality, Adam Smith - and I cite him because his works are so often trumpeted by the right, and he's an influential 18th-century liberal - had as much in common with present-day anarchists as capital 'R' Republicans.

 

[nk4e]

Change will come! [/sarcasm]

 

[Emu76]

I'm from Britain.
I vote Conservative.
The NHS is THE BEST THING about living in this country.

Paying extra taxes is A LOT cheaper than paying medical insurance, that's for sure.

 

[DK]

You hate free healthcare? What's wrong with that? Is it because it reminds you of [Billy Ray Cyrus voice]"those darn commies"[/Billy Ray Cyrus voice]?

 

[Famine]

I'm from Britain.
I vote Conservative.
The NHS is THE BEST THING about living in this country.

It's by far the worst thing about living in this country.

Paying extra taxes is A LOT cheaper than paying medical insurance, that's for sure.

Not by a long shot.

I have health cover for me and my family £500,000 which costs £18 a month - that's a little over £200pa. The NHS costs £85bn per year to run (with 65% of that going into salaries), which is a taxpayer burden of £3,270 per person per year.


Incidentally, Eric, what exactly was wrong with the thread in which this was already being discussed?

 

[Emu76]

Medical insurance price comparisson - 2 parents, 1 young child, all non-smokers.
I cannot believe you are getting comprehensive medical insurance on the same level as the NHS would provide for free, for £18/month for your entire family.
If you are, I want what you're having.

As for the NHS being the worst thing about this country, I suggest you visit a hospital in Belarus before you jump to conclusions.

Besides, the worst thing about living here is clearly Piers Morgan.

 

[Famine]

Medical insurance price comparisson - 2 parents, 1 young child, all non-smokers.
I cannot believe you are getting comprehensive medical insurance on the same level as the NHS would provide for free, for £18/month for your entire family.

If you are, I want what you're having.

It's a long-standing policy - and besides, the cheapest you've got on there is only £25pcm, which is still less than a tenth of what the average taxpayer gives the NHS a year.

As opposed to:

Paying extra taxes is A LOT cheaper than paying medical insurance, that's for sure.

As for the NHS being the worst thing about this country, I suggest you visit a hospital in Belarus before you jump to conclusions.

Last I checked, Belarus isn't in this country...

The NHS itself is a horrible implementation of a bad, old idea. You have to give an amount of money to it judged on how well able you are to pay it, with no say in how much you value your own health (for instance, my cover at the moment is based on how likely I am to require treatment. I'm past the age where I'm likely to suffer hereditary cancers or degenerative diseases - the most expensive disorders to treat - but I am liable to suffer fracture or vehicle-related injuries. In the future I'll get into the age where I'm more likely to suffer from age-disorders like diabetes, heart issues, environmental cancers, organ dysfunction, "organ" dysfunction and the like, and I'll increase the value of my cover to suit) and with no say in how your money is spent. For reference, every drug addict costs the country three average taxpayers' contributions to the NHS every year...

So even if a chunk of the money wasn't wasted and two-thirds of all contributions spent on salaries (I doubt anyone would object to the salaries of those directly involved in treatment, but about £5bn a year is spent on managerial, administrative and clerical staff, not all of whom are strictly necessary - and yes, I've worked in an NHS environment) the whole concept is immoral.

AND that's without even getting to the ridiculous bit. NHS is free healthcare, right? Unless you need to see a dentist of course. Or need a course of drugs for a minor ailment. Or need corrective lenses. Or actually have to drive to a hospital - £5 an hour parking! So you pay, on average, £3k a year to give drug addicts free methadone, but you still have to fork over £80 to see a dentist (twice a year), £7.20 every time you need a course of antibiotics and Xenu alone only knows how much for glasses.

Unless you don't pay income tax, of course. Then it's all free. Yup, that's £3,270 a year to pay for other people to get things and still pay extra for your own "basic maintenance".


Of course where the NHS comes into its own is if you have a serious illness. But if you don't mind an 18-month wait for that new hip (costing the NHS 18 months' worth of anti-inflammatories and painkillers), a 6-month wait for a coronary bypass (costing the NHS 6 months' worth of any number of drugs, and generally if you need a bypass, 6 months isn't going to cut it) or a 6-week wait to see a cancer specialist (no drugs here, but 6 weeks with cancer will make the difference between a locally invasive blob and a metastatic mass), you're good.

Besides, the worst thing about living here is clearly Piers Morgan.

The US are also subjected to that... 🤬

 

[niky]

I think if Gore got in - we'd be slightly closer to world peace (sounds crazy - stick with me) as the war on terror would be given a completely different outlook that it wouldn't be so much as a war, but a....hmm....something other than war.....neighbourly discussion?? I don't know - but it'd be less inflated and the whole view on it would be different IMO.

Another difference would be bigger strides towards being much more green. I reckon he would have dumped a whole lot more money into green energy and propulstion methods, and that if he was in, hydrogen cars would probably be out already. We say how influencial he can be (An inconvinient truth), just imagine what could've been done with the power.

That is all strictly my opinion - please don't anyone pull me up on any of it. If you think I'm wrong, great.

We'll never know.

Really... the big question will always be... which of GWB's military actions was necessary, and whether the measures he enacted helped curb the terrorist threat.

There's no denying that removing Al Quaeda's power base in Afghanistan struck a big blow against that organization's ability to wage its war on the West.

The big question with Bush will always be whether the deposition of Saddam made the world any safer, or whether it created a new breeding ground for terrorist cells in the Middle East.

We'll never know if Al Gore would have declared war on the Taliban, like he should have... and inaction in this regard may have made the problem worse... though there is some certainty that he wouldn't have declared war on Iraq.

 

[Max Powers]

I think if Gore got in - we'd be slightly closer to world peace (sounds crazy - stick with me) as the war on terror would be given a completely different outlook that it wouldn't be so much as a war, but a....hmm....something other than war.....neighbourly discussion?? I don't know - but it'd be less inflated and the whole view on it would be different IMO.

Another difference would be bigger strides towards being much more green. I reckon he would have dumped a whole lot more money into green energy and propulstion methods, and that if he was in, hydrogen cars would probably be out already. We say how influencial he can be (An inconvinient truth), just imagine what could've been done with the power.

That is all strictly my opinion - please don't anyone pull me up on any of it. If you think I'm wrong, great.

Haha, everybody will be happy if the world 'goes green'. Gore would have done nothing but put our economy into a big damn hole, kind of like Bush did. I doubt that most people would have noticed the difference before them, except we would have had a pushy, whiny, environmentalist who tries to push his unproven claims on the whole country. Definitely would have been a better place.

Don't worry, I'd probably look like I knew nothing too if I was commenting on Australian politics, stick to what you know.

 

[nk4e]

We'll never know.

Really... the big question will always be... which of GWB's military actions was necessary, and whether the measures he enacted helped curb the terrorist threat.

There's no denying that removing Al Quaeda's power base in Afghanistan struck a big blow against that organization's ability to wage its war on the West.

The big question with Bush will always be whether the deposition of Saddam made the world any safer, or whether it created a new breeding ground for terrorist cells in the Middle East.

We'll never know if Al Gore would have declared war on the Taliban, like he should have... and inaction in this regard may have made the problem worse... though there is some certainty that he wouldn't have declared war on Iraq.

Well, not to make the topic go way off topic though that A American President had to make a decision about it either if it will be Gore or Bush. But on the topic, if we are being taxed even more about the bill, should it help revive the economy as a whole?