Real Conspiracy(healthcare bill) - Page 4

On December 21 2009 19:49 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 17:57 asdf2000 wrote: baal you don't seem to be acknowledging what i am saying accoridng to wikipedia the federal budget of the U.S. is around 3 trillion so then we are going to pay another 1 trillion in taxes this means that low and maybe middle class families may actually save money. they will be paying less money in taxes than they would for their health care anyways. the ones that probably wouldn't save money are the wealthy, but they can afford it. But why am i going into details, if you think right now, in the midst of this huge crisis that is worsening is the right time to apply a trillion dollar social program, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

bingo
we have a winnar

On December 21 2009 18:03 zaragyemo wrote: American people spent 3 trillion dollars in 2008 to private health care companies and made those corporation rich while they refuse to cover you if you have preexisting conditions, or if you are above certain age with certain diseases, and many other BS restrictions. I would rather that this 3 trillion goes to the government option that ways at least if they don't cover you - they are easier to hold accountable.

what think straight man, is it standard for americans these days to actually prefer the government to run things? it is falling apart

I can't take any of these arguments against the healthcare bill seriously cause as I read them they seem to all be based off of BS information. I hope people aren't reading this thread and actually believing the haters.

It's gonna pass, it's gonna be good and the US will not collapse. It's crazy how people can be so against something that will be so good for them. I remember when I was a kid I hated to eat my vegetables. I guess that's a good comparison.

EDIT: Email Obama sent out:

Brett -- Early this morning, the Senate made history and health reform cleared its most important hurdle yet -- garnering the 60 votes needed to move toward a final vote in that chamber later this week. This marks the first time in our nation's history that comprehensive health reform has come to this point. And it appears that the American people will soon realize the genuine reform that offers security to those who have health insurance and affordable options to those who do not. I'm grateful to Senator Harry Reid and every senator who's been working around the clock to make this happen. And I'm grateful to you, and every member of the Organizing for America community, for all the work you have done to make this progress possible. After a nearly century-long struggle, we are now on the cusp of making health insurance reform a reality in the United States of America. As with any legislation, compromise is part of the process. But I'm pleased that recently added provisions have made this landmark bill even stronger. Between the time when the bill passes and the time when the insurance exchanges get up and running, insurance companies that try to jack up their rates do so at their own peril. Those who hike their prices may be barred from selling plans on the exchanges. And while insurance companies will be prevented from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions once the exchanges are open, in the meantime there will be a high-risk pool where people with pre-existing conditions can purchase affordable coverage. A recent amendment has made these protections even stronger. Insurance companies will now be prohibited from denying coverage to children immediately after this bill passes. There's also explicit language in this bill that will protect a patient's choice of doctor. And small businesses will get additional assistance as well. These protections are in addition to the ones we've been talking about for some time. No longer will insurance companies be able to drop your coverage if you become sick and no longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for treatments that you need. Under this bill families will save on their premiums; businesses that would see their costs rise if we don't act will save money now and in the future. This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. Because it's paid for and gets rid of waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade. Finally, this reform will extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans who don't have it. These are not small changes. These are big changes. They're fundamental reforms. They will save money. They will save lives. And your passion, your work, your organizing helped make all of this possible. Now it's time to finish the job. Thank you, President Barack Obama

On December 21 2009 20:44 tapatapaz wrote: what think straight man, is it standard for americans these days to actually prefer the government to run things? it is falling apart

I guess many of us are not as paranoid as you guys think we are. If it works in Europe, I have no problem giving it a try before shutting down the whole effort. And nothing is set on stones if it doesn't work. I just don't get why people are not giving it a chance to see if it works or not. It's just adding another option if people want to take, if not - they can stick with their current health care provider. Obviously what we have right now is not working personally for me! I don't consider UK or France to be a socialist country because health care there is provided mainly by public health service.

yep wow you hit the nail on the head with your emotional reasoning and logic k2...

cuz u see, that's what I am and all of us opposing this are, a bunch of haters
and you are the parent shoving your will into his kids mouth for his own good
you intellect is so overwhelming convincing I guess I gotta concede GG

On December 21 2009 20:44 tapatapaz wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 18:03 zaragyemo wrote: American people spent 3 trillion dollars in 2008 to private health care companies and made those corporation rich while they refuse to cover you if you have preexisting conditions, or if you are above certain age with certain diseases, and many other BS restrictions. I would rather that this 3 trillion goes to the government option that ways at least if they don't cover you - they are easier to hold accountable. what think straight man, is it standard for americans these days to actually prefer the government to run things? it is falling apart

here's your answer

On December 21 2009 20:54 zaragyemo wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 20:44 tapatapaz wrote: what think straight man, is it standard for americans these days to actually prefer the government to run things? it is falling apart I guess many of us are not as paranoid as you guys think we are. If it works in Europe, I have no problem giving it a try before shutting down the whole effort. And nothing is set on stones if it doesn't work. I just don't get why people are not giving it a chance to see if it works or not. It's just adding another option if people want to take, if not - they can stick with their current health care provider. Obviously what we have right now is not working personally for me! I don't consider UK or France to be a socialist country because health care there is provided mainly by public health service.

because once something is put into law based on serving your interests, it is damn near impossible to repeal?
once the government steps in it is virtually impossible for anyone or anything else to compete. look at money, railroads, post offices MEDICARE etc etc

in fact with the natural process of government running things the federal government will down the line state any competition is illegal and needs to be shutdown in order for them to continue to function

having everything centralized black and white on a national level = not a good thing

On December 21 2009 14:50 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 11:34 ToTehEastSide wrote:   On December 21 2009 11:17 nolan wrote: the biggest critics of universal health care have a direct economic interest in the privatized system. they also have an overwhelming inability to even remotely look into and consider opinions of neighboring governments who employ such a plan. i'm yet to hear many citizens/subjects of the UK or Canada actually tell me any real personal stories of devastation or suggesting they would prefer a privatized system. i find it odd that the only people who i talk to who seem overwhelmingly in support of a private system live in a country presently employing one and garner most of their information from said countries media. hello Canadian and UK LP'ers, please do tell me the reasons you wish to have private health care in your countries over the present system? yea well i rather wait 5 hours + then pay 20k because my insurer has a clause for skateboarding accidents.

you totally applied your logical conclusion to the wrong system
who do you think is more likely going to deny you coverage?
a rationed public system or non rationed private system?

On December 21 2009 21:07 ToTehEastSide wrote: once the government steps in it is virtually impossible for anyone or anything else to compete. look at money, railroads, post offices MEDICARE etc etc

I am very much satisfied with all the above mentioned areas run by government. So I guess it's a good thing then!

im still waiting for the canadian and UK LP'ers to tell me about how terrible their system is and that they wish they could buy private
health care.


im also wondering why the american posters who are so outraged at the prospect of public health care are not equally outraged at the present state of publicly funded schools, police, and fire departments. i think they would be more efficient and practical if we allowed private enterprises to fund them as well.

sorta like those blackwater guys, but in our local communities.

On December 21 2009 21:07 ToTehEastSide wrote: in fact with the natural process of government running things the federal government will down the line state any competition is illegal and needs to be shutdown in order for them to continue to function

Slippery slope (you fail).

You preach logic and then your argument's are all filled with logical fallacies.

On December 21 2009 20:58 ToTehEastSide wrote: yep wow you hit the nail on the head with your emotional reasoning and logic k2...

I didn't even try to make an argument cause I know you're way too far gone into crazy land to talk with. You try to insult my argument even though I didn't make one, and it reminds me of how you always misunderstand everything I say. Hence why it's not worth talking to you. Btw, I hadn't read any of your posts in the thread (I've learned to skip yours) but my eye caught the "k2" part so I read it. I was more directing towards baal and 1 or 2 other guys (didn't read their names) who were preaching wackoness.

On December 21 2009 21:19 nolan wrote: im also wondering why the american posters who are so outraged at the prospect of public health care are not equally outraged at the present state of publicly funded schools, police, and fire departments. i think they would be more efficient and practical if we allowed private enterprises to fund them as well. sorta like those blackwater guys, but in our local communities.

hahahahaha well said =)

On December 21 2009 21:19 nolan wrote: im still waiting for the canadian and UK LP'ers to tell me about how terrible their system is and that they wish they could buy private health care. im also wondering why the american posters who are so outraged at the prospect of public health care are not equally outraged at the present state of publicly funded schools, police, and fire departments. i think they would be more efficient and practical if we allowed private enterprises to fund them as well. sorta like those blackwater guys, but in our local communities.

you just mesh everything together eh.
I'm not primarily against or "outraged" against any state or local run things such as the two you mentioned. That is closer to the direction things need to go.
I am definitely against nationalized education tho
momma always said if all of us were thinking the same thing then one of us aint thinkin

also there is a huge difference between state and federally run things and I would be equally "outraged" and against a nationalized fire department and police

On December 21 2009 21:26 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 21:07 ToTehEastSide wrote: in fact with the natural process of government running things the federal government will down the line state any competition is illegal and needs to be shutdown in order for them to continue to function Slippery slope (you fail). You preach logic and then your argument's are all filled with logical fallacies.   On December 21 2009 20:58 ToTehEastSide wrote: yep wow you hit the nail on the head with your emotional reasoning and logic k2... I didn't even try to make an argument cause I know you're way too far gone into crazy land to talk with. You try to insult my argument even though I didn't make one, and it reminds me of how you always misunderstand everything I say. Hence why it's not worth talking to you. Btw, I hadn't read any of your posts in the thread (I've learned to skip yours) but my eye caught the "k2" part so I read it. I was more directing towards baal and 1 or 2 other guys (didn't read their names) who were preaching wackoness.

On December 21 2009 21:17 zaragyemo wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 21:07 ToTehEastSide wrote: once the government steps in it is virtually impossible for anyone or anything else to compete. look at money, railroads, post offices MEDICARE etc etc I am very much satisfied with all the above mentioned areas run by government. So I guess it's a good thing then!

rusrs?



you just led me back to this

On December 21 2009 19:49 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 17:57 asdf2000 wrote: baal you don't seem to be acknowledging what i am saying accoridng to wikipedia the federal budget of the U.S. is around 3 trillion so then we are going to pay another 1 trillion in taxes this means that low and maybe middle class families may actually save money. they will be paying less money in taxes than they would for their health care anyways. the ones that probably wouldn't save money are the wealthy, but they can afford it. But why am i going into details, if you think right now, in the midst of this huge crisis that is worsening is the right time to apply a trillion dollar social program, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

thanks

my my my mymymymy shawty look good tonight

On December 21 2009 21:17 zaragyemo wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 21:07 ToTehEastSide wrote: once the government steps in it is virtually impossible for anyone or anything else to compete. look at money, railroads, post offices MEDICARE etc etc I am very much satisfied with all the above mentioned areas run by government. So I guess it's a good thing then!

get the fuck out of this thread -_-, you clearly have no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about, seriously not even people who agree with free healthcare right now would agree with that.

On December 21 2009 21:19 nolan wrote: im still waiting for the canadian and UK LP'ers to tell me about how terrible their system is and that they wish they could buy private health care. im also wondering why the american posters who are so outraged at the prospect of public health care are not equally outraged at the present state of publicly funded schools, police, and fire departments. i think they would be more efficient and practical if we allowed private enterprises to fund them as well. sorta like those blackwater guys, but in our local communities.

Lets not discuss the morals or the pros and cons of both systems (private and gov), lets address the important thing that ive been saying like 10 times and everybody fucking ignores it because they cant say shit about it.

Nolan do you think that in the midst of the biggest crisis in 80 years where the country is drowning in debt and inflation is wise to dump another trillion dollars into a social program?, it doesnt matter if the program will be good or bad, you simply cannot afford it now and are going more into debt, a debt you cant even pay its interest anymore.

It terms of costs it's cheaper to have universal health care. This is a fact. It brings down costs tremendously. It is also a fact that the U.S. cannot continue to pay more for health care than any other developed country in the world.

The true question should be whether this bill actually achieves it's intentions.

Everything that I have heard and read on the subject says that Democrats have been arguing amongst themselves trying to figure out a health care bill they can actually agree on and in the process have completely nerfed most of the legitimate changes. If the bill doesn't actually trigger massive reform of the American health care system then it's just a very expensive piece of paper.

Aside:
My outsider perspective on American politics is this. The republicans seem to stand for illogical values that I just cannot support. However hey will all vote as one to pass the party's policy. The Democrats seem to be a diverse group of individuals. They can't seem to agree on anything and spend most of their time arguing with one another whilst never getting anything done even though they often go in with the best of intentions. Therefore any piece of legislation the Democrats come up with will be nerfed to shit by the dissenters within their party as they can never agree on anything. The end.