Real Conspiracy(healthcare bill) - Page 5

On December 21 2009 21:54 Baal wrote: 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.

Clearly you sound like a dictator and I ain't going anywhere...so there you go... cry cry cry!

On December 21 2009 21:54 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 21:17 zaragyemo wrote:   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.

I'm happy with post offices and I don't use medicare but I know it's extremely popular and old people get really ready to kick some ass if you talk about taking it away. Same with social security.

On December 21 2009 22:40 Bejamin1 wrote: 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.

I agree, I live here and I feel the same!

On December 21 2009 22:01 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

I did answer but you skipped over it.

On December 21 2009 22:49 zaragyemo wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 22:40 Bejamin1 wrote: 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. I agree, I live here and I feel the same!

hahah very well said benjamin =)

meh baal the US debt situation has always been a trainwreck waiting to happen its nothing new

their current medicare/social security system is completely unsustainable so may as welll investigate other options if it results in the people being better off....

On December 21 2009 22:01 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

Baal, you make a point that makes perfect sense. However, you have to consider the current path that America is headed towards. The US already has something called Medicare which provides excellent and free medical coverage to all seniors over the age of 65. The problem that the US faces is that there is a demographic called the baby boomers and they will start to reach the age where they qualify for Medicare within the next few years. There are something like 75 million + people of the baby boom generation and they make up a disproportionately high percentage of the American population. In twenty years, as the last of the baby boomers hits retirement age and begin to collect Medicare benefits, the number of people collecting Medicare will exceed 100 million. There are roughly 300 million people in the US, subtract the 100 million that will be on Medicare, and the young, disabled, and unemployed, and you are nearing a situation where each taxpayer has the burden of supporting one senior on Medicare. The reality is that if the US keeps the current system, Medicare alone will overwhelm the US budget and suffocate the economy and this fact is supported by both liberals and conservatives alike.

So how does adding trillions more in new obligations solve this problem? Let's take a step back and take a simple and practical look at ways to tackle the Medicare time bomb problem that the US faces. One solution is to cut benefits and this is politically impossible. I think I linked the following article on my blog a while ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html

At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

That statement, besides for the obvious ignorance, goes to show how immensely popular a program Medicare is and it will be political suicide for any politician to scale it back. In the US, it is very easy for politicians to add entitlement programs but it is impossible to take it away. George W Bush had all the same warnings regarding the Medicare time bomb that we have today, but he blatantly ignored it all and added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. In theory it sounds great, free drugs for old people. The problem is that he added trillions of dollars in new government obligations without finding a way to pay for it. The second problem with Bush's prescription drug plan is that it basically gave a blank check to the drug companies and did absolutely nothing to tackle the root of the problem.

The core problem here is that the US spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation. By any measure, the US health care system is easily the most inefficient system in the world. For guys like Toteheastside and curtinsea that will make the claim that this inefficiency is due to government involvement, that is simply not the case since the majority of Americans receive their health care from private insurers. The UK and Canada which have completely socialized health care, spend less than half of what the US spends per capita AND their scores for overall quality of care are higher.

The bottom line is that the US cannot revoke medicare since the voters will never allow it to happen and if we continue to spend more than twice the money that nearly every other industrialized nation spends, then once it comes time to cover the 75million + baby boomers, there will be a serious problem. If the US government can overhaul the entire health care system and change how things are done, then we might have a chance at reducing the cost per capita of health care. The idea goes that even if we add trillions in benefits for the 40million + uninsured in the US, if that will lead to changes that reduce the cost of benefits for the 100million + that will eventually be on medicare in the coming years, it might work out to actually cost less for the government.

I personally have not had the time to thoroughly dissect the full details of the legislation yet so I will reserve making a personal judgment on the actual legislation until I've done my homework. My reaction though from what I have read is that I'm a bit skeptical that enough has been done in this legislation and I think it has been watered down too heavily due to political pressures. I don't blame Obama for this as this is the political reality in the US today. Paul Krugman of the NYTimes has an excellent Op-Ed piece recently touching on the political realities in the US today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opi...nlx=1261459144-E+33G7uqeZCwJCyKl3pK0w

So while I remain skeptical, I am certain that this legislation is absolutely necessary because while it is still unclear whether it will succeed or fail, the alternative in maintaining status quo is guaranteed failure in the near future. Not to mention it is totally the right thing to do and it's about damn time that the wealthiest nation in the world provide its citizens with something that every other industrialized nation in the world has, universal coverage.

holy tenbagger batman

i swear to god i was waiting for tenbagger to post i was tired about arguing with dumb ppl :3, i g2g now but ill come back and read and post tomorrow.

thank god TB is comin around

so many binks in that post even if still warped in some spots =D

Thanks Tenbagger, I was way too lazy to write my thoughts out clearly like that and I agree with you 100%.

From the NYT:

There is a lot to like in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cover more than 30 million of the uninsured and would, by 2019, result in 94 percent of all citizens and legal residents below Medicare age having health insurance. That is a big improvement from the current 83 percent. It also estimates that the bill would reduce deficits over the next decade by $132 billion and even more in the following decade. Despite all the exaggerated Republican rhetoric that the bill will lead to fiscal disaster, it has been carefully and responsibly drafted so that it is fully paid for without busting future budgets.

Full story here.

On December 21 2009 22:01 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

baal where do you think this 1 trillion dollars will come from
and where do you think it will go

seriously baal you're just so fucking stubborn it's amazing
just answer this questin since you know everything

On December 21 2009 01:05 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 00:34 Baal wrote: This shows why you call 9/11 conspiracy as "random" since you are apparently clueless about politics. This is standard procedure on holidays and it is done over and over and over when they want a quick decision on something they vote before holidays because they know they just want to go home asap. I guess it is better that you slowly start to realize how evil the government is than to stay ignorant but this is kiddy stuff.

Wow, cool you actually used a picture rather than saying it.... you are cool dude

More about what the bill will actually do:

But let's talk about what's really at stake for America. The Senate health reform bill will: -- Extend coverage to 31 million Americans, the largest expansion of coverage since the creation of Medicare. -- Ensure that you can choose your own doctor. -- Finally stop insurance companies from denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. -- Make sure you will never be charged exorbitant premiums on the basis of your age, health, or gender. -- Guarantee you will never lose your coverage just because you get sick or injured. -- Protect you from outrageous out-of-pocket expenditures by establishing lifetime and annual limits. -- Allow young people to stay on their parents' coverage until they're 26 years old. -- Create health insurance exchanges, or "one-stop shops" for individuals purchasing insurance, where insurance companies are forced to compete for new customers. -- Lower premiums for families, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- especially for struggling folks who will receive subsidies. -- Help small businesses provide health care coverage to their employees with tax credits and by allowing them to purchase coverage through the exchanges. -- Improve and strengthen Medicare by eliminating waste and fraud (without cutting basic benefits), beginning to close the Medicare Part D donut hole, and extending the life of the Medicare trust fund. -- Create jobs by reining in costs -- fostering competition, reducing waste and inefficiency, and starting to reward doctors and hospitals for quality, not quantity, of care. -- Cut the deficit by over $130 billion in the next 10 years. It's a long list. But that's only because this bill represents the most significant health reform our nation has seen since the creation of Medicare.

cut the deficit by $130 billion over ten years . . . . $13 billion a year in reduction when the deficit this year is more than a trillion dollars?

That's like saying I lost "$1000 playing poker, but check it out I got $1.50 in rakeback"

and surely you realize these numbers are skewed for the purpose of scoring . . . that the taxes start immediately and the payouts don't start for three years . . . and that the projections are only for the first decade, hiding the increasing costs beyond the ten year period

this bill is a freaking joke . . . pure and simple

I would love to see universal, free health care in America. This bill isn't even remotely coming close to that.

this is just a simple case of those in power at the moment spending all the money they can while they can.

this administration has already spent more money it doesn't have than any other in the history of the nation. Wake up.

On December 21 2009 23:24 TenBagger wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 22:01 Baal wrote:   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. Baal, you make a point that makes perfect sense. However, you have to consider the current path that America is headed towards. The US already has something called Medicare which provides excellent and free medical coverage to all seniors over the age of 65. The problem that the US faces is that there is a demographic called the baby boomers and they will start to reach the age where they qualify for Medicare within the next few years. There are something like 75 million + people of the baby boom generation and they make up a disproportionately high percentage of the American population. In twenty years, as the last of the baby boomers hits retirement age and begin to collect Medicare benefits, the number of people collecting Medicare will exceed 100 million. There are roughly 300 million people in the US, subtract the 100 million that will be on Medicare, and the young, disabled, and unemployed, and you are nearing a situation where each taxpayer has the burden of supporting one senior on Medicare. The reality is that if the US keeps the current system, Medicare alone will overwhelm the US budget and suffocate the economy and this fact is supported by both liberals and conservatives alike. So how does adding trillions more in new obligations solve this problem? Let's take a step back and take a simple and practical look at ways to tackle the Medicare time bomb problem that the US faces. One solution is to cut benefits and this is politically impossible. I think I linked the following article on my blog a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” That statement, besides for the obvious ignorance, goes to show how immensely popular a program Medicare is and it will be political suicide for any politician to scale it back. In the US, it is very easy for politicians to add entitlement programs but it is impossible to take it away. George W Bush had all the same warnings regarding the Medicare time bomb that we have today, but he blatantly ignored it all and added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. In theory it sounds great, free drugs for old people. The problem is that he added trillions of dollars in new government obligations without finding a way to pay for it. The second problem with Bush's prescription drug plan is that it basically gave a blank check to the drug companies and did absolutely nothing to tackle the root of the problem. The core problem here is that the US spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation. By any measure, the US health care system is easily the most inefficient system in the world. For guys like Toteheastside and curtinsea that will make the claim that this inefficiency is due to government involvement, that is simply not the case since the majority of Americans receive their health care from private insurers. The UK and Canada which have completely socialized health care, spend less than half of what the US spends per capita AND their scores for overall quality of care are higher. The bottom line is that the US cannot revoke medicare since the voters will never allow it to happen and if we continue to spend more than twice the money that nearly every other industrialized nation spends, then once it comes time to cover the 75million + baby boomers, there will be a serious problem. If the US government can overhaul the entire health care system and change how things are done, then we might have a chance at reducing the cost per capita of health care. The idea goes that even if we add trillions in benefits for the 40million + uninsured in the US, if that will lead to changes that reduce the cost of benefits for the 100million + that will eventually be on medicare in the coming years, it might work out to actually cost less for the government. I personally have not had the time to thoroughly dissect the full details of the legislation yet so I will reserve making a personal judgment on the actual legislation until I've done my homework. My reaction though from what I have read is that I'm a bit skeptical that enough has been done in this legislation and I think it has been watered down too heavily due to political pressures. I don't blame Obama for this as this is the political reality in the US today. Paul Krugman of the NYTimes has an excellent Op-Ed piece recently touching on the political realities in the US today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opi...nlx=1261459144-E+33G7uqeZCwJCyKl3pK0w So while I remain skeptical, I am certain that this legislation is absolutely necessary because while it is still unclear whether it will succeed or fail, the alternative in maintaining status quo is guaranteed failure in the near future. Not to mention it is totally the right thing to do and it's about damn time that the wealthiest nation in the world provide its citizens with something that every other industrialized nation in the world has, universal coverage.

So basically you think this is designed to actually cut down on the benefits of the already unsustainable Medicare, but then you say you dont know the details of the actual bill (nor do i), but its a wild assumption not knowing that.

So lets say it does not cut back heavily on the benefits of Medicare, you agree that this is economical suicide?

On December 22 2009 16:57 k2o4 wrote: More about what the bill will actually do: Show nested quote + But let's talk about what's really at stake for America. The Senate health reform bill will: -- Extend coverage to 31 million Americans, the largest expansion of coverage since the creation of Medicare. -- Ensure that you can choose your own doctor. -- Finally stop insurance companies from denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. -- Make sure you will never be charged exorbitant premiums on the basis of your age, health, or gender. -- Guarantee you will never lose your coverage just because you get sick or injured. -- Protect you from outrageous out-of-pocket expenditures by establishing lifetime and annual limits. -- Allow young people to stay on their parents' coverage until they're 26 years old. -- Create health insurance exchanges, or "one-stop shops" for individuals purchasing insurance, where insurance companies are forced to compete for new customers. -- Lower premiums for families, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- especially for struggling folks who will receive subsidies. -- Help small businesses provide health care coverage to their employees with tax credits and by allowing them to purchase coverage through the exchanges. -- Improve and strengthen Medicare by eliminating waste and fraud (without cutting basic benefits), beginning to close the Medicare Part D donut hole, and extending the life of the Medicare trust fund. -- Create jobs by reining in costs -- fostering competition, reducing waste and inefficiency, and starting to reward doctors and hospitals for quality, not quantity, of care. -- Cut the deficit by over $130 billion in the next 10 years. It's a long list. But that's only because this bill represents the most significant health reform our nation has seen since the creation of Medicare.

If those points were true, then it would mean american bankruptcy as it states they dont plan to cut heavily in medicare, as Tenbagger said, without that its GG economy.

Anyway nobody should take those points seriously they are obvious bullshit propaganda