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

[Sunshine]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMG guise death panels! Pulling the plug on grandma!

A republican in the senate even stated that the healthcare bill was 'more of a threat to our country than any terrorist organisation'.
I kid you not.

 

[Emu76]

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)

I don't like it either.

So you pay, on average, £3k a year to give drug addicts free methadone,

No you don't, and some would say that spending money on methadone is worthwhile.

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.

My uncle has a brain tumour, and he was able to get treatment within a month. Not perfect, but better than these wild exaggerations you are propagating.
Just because any of these situations happened one time and made it into the Daily Mail does not make them representative of the entire NHS, however much you may wish it did. I challenge you to find figures proving that those allegations are true averages.

 

[Famine]

No you don't, and some would say that spending money on methadone is worthwhile.

Clarify "no you don't".

Average taxpayer burden is £3,270 for the NHS. Average cost per year to the NHS for drug addicts is £11,000. Drug users undergoing treatment get methadone on the NHS.


Of course some would say that spending money on methadone is worthwhile. But the crucial point is that it doesn't matter whether they say that or not - they have no choice in the matter.

My uncle has a brain tumour, and he was able to get treatment within a month. Not perfect, but better than these wild exaggerations you are propagating.
Just because any of these situations happened one time and made it into the Daily Mail does not make them representative of the entire NHS, however much you may wish it did. I challenge you to find figures proving that those allegations are true averages.

Not particularly wild - all three happened to my dad between 1998 and 2007. And the hip replacement was 6 months ahead of schedule due to a cancellation, so it would have been a 2 year wait. 18 months is thus quite optimistic.

Compare to this.


I don't read the Daily Mail, or any other newspaper for that matter, so please don't attempt to characterise me in that manner.

 

[nasanu]

This whole thread is comedy gold. I am entertained.

 

[Emu76]

Clarify "no you don't".

No you don't pay £3,000 per year to give drug addicts methadone, which is exactly what you said:

So you pay, on average, £3k a year to give drug addicts free methadone

Not particularly wild - all three happened to my dad between 1998 and 2007. And the hip replacement was 6 months ahead of schedule due to a cancellation, so it would have been a 2 year wait. 18 months is thus quite optimistic.

Well now it seems we get to the bottom of your disdain for the NHS. Your dad's treatment sounds like it was a struggle, and I'm sorry to hear that. However, you cannot just tar the whole NHS with the same brush! Like I said, actual statistics if you want to prove anything.

I don't read the Daily Mail, or any other newspaper for that matter, so please don't attempt to characterise me in that manner.

Sorry but you were starting to sound a bit like Richard Littlejohn, and I hate it when people go down that road.

 

[nasanu]

I was bored so I just found the figures and did the math. Drug addicts cost the NHS a total of 0.01 percent of its budget.

 

[Famine]

No you don't pay £3,000 per year to give drug addicts methadone, which is exactly what you said:

Each drug addict costs more than three average taxpayers' contributions per year.

Well now it seems we get to the bottom of your disdain for the NHS.

Not really. I object to having my health valued by someone who doesn't know me. I object to a system where despite having to pay, by threat of prison, ten times what I choose to pay I cannot receive the same quality of service. I object to "free" healthcare really being free for people who cannot be bothered to contribute and yet basic health maintenance for those who can not being free at point of use either. I object to a system which haemorrhages £85bn a year, but only one third of that is spent on doing the job it's supposed to do, and only one sixth of the employees of the system being involved in patient care.

Nationalised health care of any flavour is immoral, wasteful and inadequate.

Your dad's treatment sounds like it was a struggle, and I'm sorry to hear that. However, you cannot just tar the whole NHS with the same brush! Like I said, actual statistics if you want to prove anything.

Remember, I worked in an NHS environment too...

I'm sure you don't need the Daily Mail to point out that getting statistics to do with any government department is... a bit of a struggle. It wasn't until the Telegraph got hold of a leaked document that we found out how much MPs had been taking the piss with expenses for the last decade. Most statistics are skewed by the varying governmental departments - and then skewed even further by journalists, only in the other direction, when they get hold of them. Take unemployment, which is currently officially listed as 1.6m. That's only those unemployed and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance - which is only permitted for a maximum of 6 months. It's 2.5m including those unemployed and not claiming. If you include all people of working age who are not working... well, who knows. Estimates put the UK workforce at about 29m and at a rate of 72.6% - which makes nearly 8m unemployed. Quite a far cry from 1.6m...

However. NHS statistics currently put waiting times for hip operations at about 120 days (call it 4 months) - down from 50 weeks (call it 12 months) in 2002 (my dad's operation was in 1999). Same statistics put the waiting time for coronary bypass grafts at 3 months - in accordance with a governmental target for the operation. And again, the same statistics put chemotherapy waiting lists at 6 weeks.

These statistics must be taken under advisement for several reasons. Times vary from Trust to Trust - an op you must wait 6 months for in the South-east might take only 4 in the North-west - and sometimes even from hospital to hospital. But the most important reason is that these waiting lists are defined as the period between seeing a specialist and undergoing treatment. The wait between seeing a GP/NP and being referred to a specialist isn't counted and, to be honest, I can't find anywhere that these particular statistics appear.

Sorry but you were starting to sound a bit like Richard Littlejohn, and I hate it when people go down that road.

I've never paid any attention to him, so wouldn't know what he sounded like. If he's anti-NHS though, it'd be hard not to sound a bit like him. The Wiki page on him indicates he's a bit of a cross between a Conservative and Nick Griffin.

I was bored so I just found the figures and did the math. Drug addicts cost the NHS a total of 0.01 percent of its budget.

The Scotsman reports drug addicts in Scotland alone cost the NHS £85m a year - which is 0.1 percent of the NHS's £85bn budget last year. Just for drug addicts in Scotland.

For reference, that's 26,000 average taxpayers' contributions. And those taxpayers must still pay for prescription drugs, parking at hospitals, eye tests and dental treatment.

 

[Emu76]

Remember, I worked in an NHS environment too...

Doesn't mean you can pretend you know everything about it.

However. NHS statistics currently put waiting times for hip operations at about 120 days (call it 4 months) - down from 50 weeks (call it 12 months) in 2002 (my dad's operation was in 1999). Same statistics put the waiting time for coronary bypass grafts at 3 months - in accordance with a governmental target for the operation. And again, the same statistics put chemotherapy waiting lists at 6 weeks.

So there has been an improvement, and the figures are not as bad as you said they were, unsurprisingly. You do have a point when you say that it varies, of course it does, but it IS out of character to be waiting for months for these things.

Each drug addict costs more than three average taxpayers' contributions per year.

The Scotsman reports drug addicts in Scotland alone cost the NHS £85m a year - which is 0.1 percent of the NHS's £85bn budget last year. Just for drug addicts in Scotland.

For reference, that's 26,000 average taxpayers' contributions. And those taxpayers must still pay for prescription drugs, parking at hospitals, eye tests and dental treatment.

Now you are the one twisting statistics to your advantage. There are just over 60 million people in the UK who pay some form of tax. 26 million who pay income tax. If we divide 60000000 by £85000000, we get £1.41. That is how much drug addicts in scotland cost taxpayers last year each. Doesn't sound quite so bad anymore. I have £1.41 right here and I could throw it in the bin if I wanted to, it wouldn't be missed. Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a big deal, eh?

I've never paid any attention to him, so wouldn't know what he sounded like. If he's anti-NHS though, it'd be hard not to sound a bit like him. The Wiki page on him indicates he's a bit of a cross between a Conservative and Nick Griffin.

That's about right. Although I was merely citing his stance on the NHS, and I am in no way suggesting that you hold similar views on Asylum seekers or any other topic they share similar ideals on.

 

[Famine]

Doesn't mean you can pretend you know everything about it.

No, but it does mean I've seen the inner workings. My nearly-wife used to be an NHS A&E nurse and she's even less impressed than I am...

So there has been an improvement, and the figures are not as bad as you said they were, unsurprisingly.

Indeed - though I did point out that the numbers I quoted were accurate through first hand experience over a range of dates I cited... The six week wait for chemo was, as I expected, unchanged as that was experienced in 2007.

You do have a point when you say that it varies, of course it does, but it IS out of character to be waiting for months for these things.

The shortest wait on there was 1.5 months, pushing through to 4 months average for the hip operation (which is, would you believe, classed as elective. Elective!).

I also forgot that if you die while on the waiting list, your wait is included. I can only imagine that has a shortening effect on average wait times, especially for the coronary bypass and cancer therapies.

Now you are the one twisting statistics to your advantage. There are just over 60 million people in the UK who pay some form of tax. 26 million who pay income tax. If we divide 60000000 by £85000000, we get £1.41. That is how much drug addicts in scotland cost taxpayers last year each. Doesn't sound quite so bad anymore. I have £1.41 right here and I could throw it in the bin if I wanted to, it wouldn't be missed. Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a big deal, eh?

Ah, actually I forgot that we now have a non-demarcated taxation system - all tax is paid into and out from a central fund - whereas it used to be that this tax paid for that service. Of course that's still true for council tax...

Still. Let's run with the 60m taxpayers (which I'd struggle to believe, since babies tend not to buy things, but we'll roll with it) as an upper bound and the £85bn NHS cost. That's £1,416pa per taxpayer, or £118 per month...

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

Your earlier link to private health cover costs had an upper bound for an average family of three taxpayers at £154.46pcm. In tax, an average family of three taxpayers contributes £354pcm. Doesn't look cheaper to pay the extra taxes...

That's about right. Although I was merely citing his stance on the NHS, and I am in no way suggesting that you hold similar views on Asylum seekers or any other topic they share similar ideals on.

I heard they carry a new form of AIDS that lowers house prices...

 

[Public'sTwin]

Seeing as ericdemoryGT has completely retreated, and there's a similar enough thread to this one, I find no justification in letting this decay any longer. . .

 

[Biggles]

I love it: a thread by a 13 year old "Republican", brought up on Fox News, Glenn Beck, & Sean Hannity. You want to know why there's "polarization" in American politics? Look no further.

From Wikipedia:

More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. The US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy. Currently the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. The USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th). The World Health Organization, in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance). Medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States.

 

[Emu76]

Still. Let's run with the 60m taxpayers (which I'd struggle to believe, since babies tend not to buy things, but we'll roll with it) as an upper bound and the £85bn NHS cost. That's £1,416pa per taxpayer, or £118 per month...

2 income tax payers, one is a child. I would say £118pcm (upper bound) is pretty decent to ensure that you and the rest of the country have access to healthcare anywhere in Britain, and have someone come to rescue you, no questions asked, should you seriously injure yourself. A private company does not have the resources or infrastructure to provide an ambulance service, however shoddy you may claim our current one is.

Your earlier link to private health cover costs had an upper bound for an average family of three taxpayers at £154.46pcm. In tax, an average family of three taxpayers contributes £354pcm. Doesn't look cheaper to pay the extra taxes...

And yet, for that particular plan, Psychiatric care and minor surgical procedures are still not covered.

I heard they carry a new form of AIDS that lowers house prices...

What?

 

[Eric Demory]

Seeing as ericdemoryGT has completely retreated, and there's a similar enough thread to this one, I find no justification in letting this decay any longer. . .

Oh, I'm back. And I'm just going to leave you all continue your conversations here.
And Public'sTwin... I'm not even going to bother listening to you complaining at me.

@ Biggles: Thank you! But I not completely sure if you're against it?

To others: I can't believe there are more votes towards the health care bill. Wow! Geez!

I bow down to the people who voted against the bill. Thank you to the people who are against it.

 

[Famine]

2 income tax payers, one is a child.

You cited 60 million taxpayers. 10.7 million of our 61 million population are children.

I would say £118pcm (upper bound) is pretty decent

But the crucial part is that it doesn't matter whether you think it's pretty decent or not. You get no choice in the matter.

to ensure that you and the rest of the country have access to healthcare anywhere in Britain, and have someone come to rescue you, no questions asked, should you seriously injure yourself. A private company does not have the resources or infrastructure to provide an ambulance service, however shoddy you may claim our current one is.

All A&E care should be free at point of use.

And yet, for that particular plan, Psychiatric care and minor surgical procedures are still not covered.

No, but a £75pcm option further up does.

£75pcm for three people compared to £354. Still considerably less, rather than a lot more.

What?

Frankie Boyle "ideal Daily Mail headline" joke.

 

[Radracing]

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

👎👎👎👎

I like how you equate that. hmmm, let me see Clinton leaves office with the countries finances in the black. Bush takes over 8 years later the country is broke and the big fianancial intitutions are getting bailed out. Ohhh yeah! he's the best.

 

[Danoff]

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

Government is going to have trouble raising additional revenue due in large part to the situation our economy is in. Liberals always assume that tax revenue will go up when taxes go up. Often it goes the other way. You can only squeeze dollars out of the economy so much before the economy shrinks, people are out of work, and revenue goes down. The last major tax cut the US put through (Bush's), increased government revenue.

What I am saying, to make things simple, is that our economy cannot bear to pay for any more government expense (regardless of whether it is taxed directly, or as a result of deficit spending).

 

[Omnis]

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

Universal Healthcare is still ambiguous in the same way, but I know what you're saying. It's nitpicking, but for good reason. Gotta clean up the doublespeak, even though I know you're not using it on purpose.

 

[Eric Demory]

If anyone says that Bush caused 9/11, then you are out of your mind! Lots of people are saying that about Bush. If you agree, GET OUT OF HERE!

 

[Radracing]

If anyone says that Bush caused 9/11, then you are out of your mind! Lots of people are saying that about Bush. If you agree, GET OUT OF HERE!

No Bush didn't do that. Come on don't be silly little boy. He just ran the country to the ground. That's why he's the best!

 

[Eric Demory]

No Bush didn't do that. Come on don't be silly little boy. He just ran the country to the ground. That's why he's the best!

He is "the" best. And I'm just saying because some people are saying that. "still".

 

[Emu76]

You cited 60 million taxpayers. 10.7 million of our 61 million population are children.

I cited 60 million taxpayers, not income tax payers. In this statement:

Your earlier link to private health cover costs had an upper bound for an average family of three taxpayers at £154.46pcm.

You appear to claim that all three members of the family pay income tax, as you refer to them as "upper bound" taxpayers. As I'm sure you are well aware, there are no income-based tax bounds for VAT, so it can easily be interpreted this way. Or were you saying that they all buy a lot of cigarettes? Oh wait they were non-smokers.
So what I'm trying to say is that the child isn't an income tax payer, and so is not included.

But the crucial part is that it doesn't matter whether you think it's pretty decent or not. You get no choice in the matter.

Yes, you do. You can vote for someone who wants to privatise the NHS, if you can find someone who wants that. You can even run for Parliament and try to reform the laws if you wish. I know it's completely hypothetical, but it's possible, although I wonder how many other MPs would agree with you?

All A&E care should be free at point of use.

I agree.

No, but a £75pcm option further up does.

£75pcm for three people compared to £354. Still considerably less, rather than a lot more.

£200 excess

Frankie Boyle "ideal Daily Mail headline" joke.

lol

 

[chepe371]

In Canada, we have socialized health care, and it kicks ass, you pay it in taxes every year and you get this Medicare Card, break an arm? need stitches? appendectomy? Flash the card that's it, you don't need a dime on site, and upon leaving.

The United States should have been on that boat for YEARS now, but i guess that would be counterproductive to the fast food nation they've become, hell maybe there would be stricter GUN LAWS, if everyone had to pay for Bubba's self inflicted gunshot wounds.

Sigh, gotta give it up though you guys got an "entertaining" culture, your news always proves to be an interesting point of conversation and satire for us up here. Like setting off bombs on the moon, ahahha that was sooo DR.EVIL of you guys.

 

[Famine]

I cited 60 million taxpayers, not income tax payers.

I know. But if you're going to class every member of the UK as a taxpayer for these purposes, it must also be extended to the comparison between per capita NHS costs and private healthcare insurance premium. Since no public body receives money from any specific tax, this makes sense.

So the policy costs £75pcm (with £200 excess) for three taxpayers whose proportional NHS contributions would be £354.

So what I'm trying to say is that the child isn't an income tax payer, and so is not included.

If you're going to exclude the child as they aren't an income tax payer, you must also exclude the 10.7m children from the population.

So the policy costs £75pcm (with £200 excess) for two taxpayers and one non-taxpayer whose proportional NHS contributions would be £3,448. But this way makes less sense.

There's no way to jig this about so that the NHS costs less in extra taxes than a private health insurance policy.

Yes, you do. You can vote for someone who wants to privatise the NHS, if you can find someone who wants that. You can even run for Parliament and try to reform the laws if you wish. I know it's completely hypothetical, but it's possible, although I wonder how many other MPs would agree with you?

Indeed, but you have no choice whether you pay for it even if you disagree with it.

 

[DK]

THESE IDIOTS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. THEY JUST WANT US TO SUFFER. NOW THEY ARE GOING TO SUFFER THEM-SELFS. THEY ARE CAUSING HELL OUT THERE, AND JUST PISSING THE HELL OUT OF PEOPLE AGAINST THEM. THIS PASSING OF THE BILL PISSES ME OFF THE MOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That little outburst should be in Famine's signature, seeing as he's always putting funny outbursts from members in his signature.

EDIT:

Besides, the worst thing about living here (Emu76 is talking about the UK) is clearly Piers Morgan.

No, I think the worst thing about the UK is the British National Party, plus half of their members probably have KKK or neo-Nazi connections.

 

[Biggles]

@ Biggles: Thank you! But I not completely sure if you're against it?

Dear Eric. At thirteen you have a lot to learn about the world. If you are getting your information from Fox News/Glenn Beck etc. you are NOT getting a very "rounded" view on issues.

Please read the Wikipedia quote carefully. What it says is that the United States currently spends more per capita, a lot more, than any other country in the world, & yet lags well behind most other countries in most public health statistics. There are, of course pros & cons to each system - private or public - if you are interested in getting a more "fair & balanced" view on the issue than you will get from Fox News, you could start by reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

 

[Emu76]

No, I think the worst thing about the UK is the British National Party, plus half of their members probably have KKK or neo-Nazi connections.

At least I don't have to listen to them, Piers is ****ing everywhere :@

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

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

I hate to do this to you, but I have to call you out on these statements. A good Republican, or even someone who watches Fox News a lot should never have posted this in my profile visitor message:

Who is that musician in your avatar?

Considering that Rand Paul has been interviewed on Fox News (as well as other networks) numerous times since early summer I have to wonder if you are actually paying attention to what you watch.

When America is completely 🤬 up, I will be moving to Canada. Here we come and will be moving to great Quebec.

Um, if you hate this health care bill then Canada is the last place you want to go.

Glenn Beck makes complete sense. The Judge when he takes Glenn's spot sometimes, he is good as well!

Glenn Beck makes complete sense? Then perhaps you can explain how I can show you video of him, from when he was on CNN, saying that our healthcare system is a nightmare and that the $700 billion bank bailout was not enough money.

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

I am a registered Libertarian.

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.

Is it? Have you really read the Constitution or just spouting something you think you heard? Do I need to point you to the limits on Congress in Article 1 Section 8 in regards to what taxes are and are not allowed? While it doesn't say we should be capitalist it does specifically limit the abilities of the government from creating a socialized system of any form.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now how does any of that translate to social security, health care, or half the stuff that government uses as justification to tax us?

And since you did mention what the constitution doesn't say, I feel it is extremely important to point out the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if it is not specifically mentioned then it is not a power held by the United States federal government.

Guess what other power isn't specifically delegated to the United States: Health Care.


So let me make this very clear. Ericdemory may sound like the 13-year-old he is and be unable to actually explain the problems with the health care bill, but it is a bad thing for the US that is unconstitutional and goes against the principles of limiting the government that the founders laid out when writing the Constitution. If anyone ever wants to defend a federal government action with "The Constitution doesn't mention it" it means that the Constitution forbids it.

You hate free healthcare?

Real quick, explain how any government run health care is free. Oh, and taxes are not free.

More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. The US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy. Currently the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations. The USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th). The World Health Organization, in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance). Medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States.

I am looking where that article mentions the way people choose to live in the US. I mean, one evening of watching TLC will tell you why we have such high infant mortality rates. Those rates don't factor for mothers that drink, smoke, and/or do drugs during their pregnancies.

In Canada, we have socialized health care, and it kicks ass, you pay it in taxes every year and you get this Medicare Card, break an arm? need stitches? appendectomy? Flash the card that's it, you don't need a dime on site, and upon leaving.

Weird, that sounds just like what I have, but my pay stub says insurance instead of taxes. Oh, and I can choose not to pay it and not use it if I want to save some money.

Imagine that: I have a choice that I can make of my own free will, for now.

hell maybe there would be stricter GUN LAWS, if everyone had to pay for Bubba's self inflicted gunshot wounds.

Your lack of understanding why we don't have stricter gun laws shows me you are just spewing ignorance for fun right now. So, I will save you the Constitutional lecture.

Like setting off bombs on the moon, ahahha that was sooo DR.EVIL of you guys.

If you are even remotely serious about this statement, then it confirms my above presumption regarding your just spewing ignorance for fun.






My main issues with health care:

1) We are already running a record deficit that will screw up the economy for future generations. If any of these 220 Congressmen and women had half an ounce of economic understanding they would recognize that before they do this they have already screwed us all over with their deficits.

2) It is health care at gunpoint. It is not government provided health care paid for by taxes that comes even close to what Canada or the US has. Anyone trying to compare it to that and say it is about time is ignorant and I can only assume felt like some fun American bashing before actually looking at what we are even talking about. Congratulations for showing your anti-American bias and ignorance. I now understand where you stand and now know to no longer trust your political opinions as even having a semblance of being informed.

No, this plan forces us to buy health care which would be regulated to be even more expensive. By law you have to buy the health care from some one. If you can't afford it, too bad. Pay up, pay a fine in your taxes, or go to jail. So, if you are poor you can spend time in jail, just for being poor. Such a caring plan. Health care at gunpoint is unjust. Any US politician that supports this idea should be tossed out of office for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

3) If any of you think I am being unreasonable or stupid: Famine linked my thread about my defibrillator. If this passed it would guarantee that I never have to worry about my health care again and could go work any job that paid enough to cover the plan. If I wanted to wander around from career to career looking for my place in this world I could. But I will not take a bit of personal security for myself at the cost of my principles. I will not let another be forced to accept paying for my health care plan against his will, at the point of a gun, just so that I can worry a little less. (see my sig quote).

Let me reiterate: This would be good for me individually, but I am not a selfish a-hole that hopes to get my way at the cost of everyone else's freedom. I will trust a man that refuses to give his money to another in charity ten times more than a man who takes money from others to give it to charitable causes. At least the greedy man is honest.


All I can do is wait for November 5th, 2012.
Remember, Remember the fifth of November.





Just to add: I do not think our current health care system is great, but adding on to the problems that past regulation has caused is not how you fix it.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I didn't expect the health care bill to pass. Wow, that's another victory to Obama. I wonder if he can get a win streak going in the Senate

And Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are rift with bias. Watch BBC America.

 

[Biggles]

Foolkiller: we're all (very) familiar with your libertarian positions. While I appreciate the intellectual consistency of truly libertarian views, that doesn't mean I believe they are a good model for the current world. They strike me as increasingly self-indulgent & immature in the face of a world population approaching 7 billion.

Oh, & while the U.S. Constitution may have been a remarkable achievement at the time, it's the height of naivete to believe that a document created over 200 years ago by a small group of rich, white men in the particular circumstances of that time, should continue to provide all the answers for problems that arise in the very, very different contemporary world.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^You should see all the amendments and other revisions. It's very complicated.