Real Conspiracy(healthcare bill)

I have many friends who dont do research and belive in random theories like explosion in 911 towers and stuff.

I always say the real conspiracy is right in front of your eyes. Like bailing out Goldman Sachs by his ex-CEO using tax payer money.

There is one conspiracy happening right at this moment. The senate is forced to vote on this healthcare bill at 1am. Because they know if the senators go back home during Christmas and see that people are against this bill they wont vote for this bill!

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINBOU

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.

It's at least aginst the spirit of demacracy

yeah if stabbing a guy in the face is against the spirit of peace

On December 21 2009 00:45 Baal wrote: yeah if stabbing a guy in the face is against the spirit of peace

id make this my new quote, but i think iamalex would be super upset about that.

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.

This actually potentially can cause more harm to the Nation and pour money to selected few than 911. Why do you call this Kiddy Stuff?

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.

On December 21 2009 01:04 capaneo 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. This actually potentially can cause more harm to the Nation and pour money to selected few than 911. Why do you call this Kiddy Stuff?

You clearly underestimate the repercussions of 9/11, like the re-election of George W. Bush when he were pretty much drawing dead before 9/11, afghanistan, iraq etc, it was a scam in the scale of hundreds of billions or more.

But anyway i wasnt speaking about the repercussions rather than the method, this is such a textbook democracy rape.

This is so blatant that this should be the thing that trigger people into wearing grinning masks with mustaches and start killing government officials, yet people sit silently in their homes slowly chewing this massive dump the government just fed them once again.

The whole war in Iraq and Afghan have costed around 900 billion in the past 8 years.

This health care is estimated $894 billion.
Bank bailout was around 1.2 Trillion. Around 2T if you count the Bush and prev packages as well!

And in the history of the US there has never been such a huge bill passed in such fashion. And specially with such a close close margin of vote. 60-40. And they need minimum 60 vote to pass.
Waiting for after midnight because it is required a day to be passed to allow voting?
This is really illegal. I dont really think was the intention of any of the founding fathers when they wrote the laws.

I dont see ANY difference between this and what OJ did. (assuming he kiled his wife)
This is breaking the law.

BTW I dont believe that 911 was a total surprise for every high official in US government. I actually believe the government was in it and they allow it to happen.

Passing this healthcare bill is essential to improving and fixing healthcare in America today. At the moment our healthcare system is a completely and utterly broken for profit system that puts profit in front of the overall welfare of the American people. While I would like to eventually see a mandatory public healthcare system put into place due to the efficiency and cost effectiveness that such a plan would generate, the fact remains that lobbyists who are paid for by the profits of the health care industry harness far too much power in controlling both political and public opinions to get such a plan passed. However, the bill that is about to be passed will be an enormous first step in ultimately fixing the horrible practices that our health care industry currently participates in and I, for one, am glad it is getting passed even if it is being forced through the senate on party lines alone.

Edit: The only reason this bill is being forcefully passed in such a manner is because of the insane filibuster rule in the first place that allows someone to waste EVERYONES time by talking until people give up on even voting in the damn bill in the first place. If it were not for the filibuster this bill would have been passed without nearly as much effort and would not have been subject to so many compromises and nitpickings that have caused public support to shift in the first place.

On December 21 2009 02:44 Xenocidegs wrote: Passing this healthcare bill is essential to improving and fixing healthcare in America today. At the moment our healthcare system is a completely and utterly broken for profit system that puts profit in front of the overall welfare of the American people. While I would like to eventually see a mandatory public healthcare system put into place due to the efficiency and cost effectiveness that such a plan would generate, the fact remains that lobbyists who are paid for by the profits of the health care industry harness far too much power in controlling both political and public opinions to get such a plan passed. However, the bill that is about to be passed will be an enormous first step in ultimately fixing the horrible practices that our health care industry currently participates in and I, for one, am glad it is getting passed even if it is being forced through the senate on party lines alone. Edit: The only reason this bill is being forcefully passed in such a manner is because of the insane filibuster rule in the first place that allows someone to waste EVERYONES time by talking until people give up on even voting in the damn bill in the first place. If it were not for the filibuster this bill would have been passed without nearly as much effort and would not have been subject to so many compromises and nitpickings that have caused public support to shift in the first place.

imo

Woodbrave your youtube video fails to address issues such as pre-existing healthcare conditions that people must live with and would bankrupt the average american citizen such as Diabetes, Cancer, any sort of unexpected major surgery. I agree that healthcare costs are way above what they should be but I don't believe a free market system for healthcare is optimal for society. If you compare average healthcare costs around the world you would find that most public health systems are actually very efficient and have much lower average costs for one primary reason that people overlook: preventative healthcare. Having regular checkups and physical exams allows medical professionals to catch many diseases or complications early and stop or prevent any further symptoms that would cost tens of thousands of dollars in the future if neglected.

One other point I would like to address is the fact that health insurance started in the first place due to workers in high risk job environments recognizing a serious injury would financially ruin them and thus pooled their money and thus spread out cost amongst themselves so they could "insure" that their livelihood would not be ruined in the event of physical misfortune. I view public healthcare as an extension of this belief that social welfare is greatly improved when everyone shares the overall cost of healthcare since disease and physical accidents can happen to anyone and without warning. One should not have to bankrupt their life savings because they were unable to acquire insurance due to a pre-existing condition that they were unfortunate enough to be born with or because some freak accident caused them to break their back, etc.

On December 21 2009 00:52 Bigbobm wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 00:45 Baal wrote: yeah if stabbing a guy in the face is against the spirit of peace id make this my new quote, but i think iamalex would be super upset about that.

Just put one quote next to the other. Equality.

I hate so much that taxpayers were forced to just give over soooo much money to some corporations who fucked up in the unstable economy. That's like forcing people to invest in a company with 30% of their paycheck, except they don't really get any returns. Wait no that's stealing.

On December 21 2009 01:52 capaneo wrote: The whole war in Iraq and Afghan have costed around 900 billion in the past 8 years. This health care is estimated $894 billion. Bank bailout was around 1.2 Trillion. Around 2T if you count the Bush and prev packages as well! And in the history of the US there has never been such a huge bill passed in such fashion. And specially with such a close close margin of vote. 60-40. And they need minimum 60 vote to pass. Waiting for after midnight because it is required a day to be passed to allow voting? This is really illegal. I dont really think was the intention of any of the founding fathers when they wrote the laws. I dont see ANY difference between this and what OJ did. (assuming he kiled his wife) This is breaking the law.

I think that we are at a point where most people will just roll over when the Gov does something, They've been getting more and more...(dunno how to explain)..bullyish the past decade.

Also education about the politics/actions and informed opinions very very very rarely exist. To really have an informed opinion you have to..well you cant unless you are a leet hacker i guess.

Citizens often want government to solve problems, despite its dismal track record. Such a viewpoint represents the triumph of hope over wisdom and fails to take into account that it is incentives, not intentions, that determine results. Wealth can only be created by production. Government cannot produce wealth. Its capacity is only to dispose of it with fiscal policy and erode it with monetary policy--which it does relentlessly.

The American government was constructed by our founders to protect individual rights, not destroy them. We were to be a voluntary society, not a compulsory one. The greatness of America resides in its capacity for freedom. Citizens should love their country, but never trust their government. Political power always comes at the expense of individual liberty. As a result, each of us should be keenly aware that the Constitution is our friend and that most politicians are not.

On December 21 2009 03:18 Xenocidegs wrote: Woodbrave your youtube video fails to address issues such as pre-existing healthcare conditions that people must live with and would bankrupt the average american citizen such as Diabetes, Cancer, any sort of unexpected major surgery. I agree that healthcare costs are way above what they should be but I don't believe a free market system for healthcare is optimal for society. If you compare average healthcare costs around the world you would find that most public health systems are actually very efficient and have much lower average costs for one primary reason that people overlook: preventative healthcare. Having regular checkups and physical exams allows medical professionals to catch many diseases or complications early and stop or prevent any further symptoms that would cost tens of thousands of dollars in the future if neglected. One other point I would like to address is the fact that health insurance started in the first place due to workers in high risk job environments recognizing a serious injury would financially ruin them and thus pooled their money and thus spread out cost amongst themselves so they could "insure" that their livelihood would not be ruined in the event of physical misfortune. I view public healthcare as an extension of this belief that social welfare is greatly improved when everyone shares the overall cost of healthcare since disease and physical accidents can happen to anyone and without warning. One should not have to bankrupt their life savings because they were unable to acquire insurance due to a pre-existing condition that they were unfortunate enough to be born with or because some freak accident caused them to break their back, etc.

do you have like some sick person in your family, you don't want to pay for so you want gov healthcare so they can get it for free, but not really free, just cheaper than it would of cost you?

word woodbrave

Baal and cap it seems you two are essentially arguing about the design of the same "cake" which would cause this healthcare to be nothing more than the cherry ontop - if you get what I mean - it's a really big cherry =P

On December 21 2009 00:43 DustySwedeDude wrote: It's at least aginst the spirit of demacracy

so true but such a shame we aren't a democracy eh

On December 21 2009 03:18 Xenocidegs wrote: Woodbrave your youtube video fails to address issues such as pre-existing healthcare conditions that people must live with and would bankrupt the average american citizen such as Diabetes, Cancer, any sort of unexpected major surgery.

ok then, convince me.. the spotlights on you =D
if costs are so high and we already have the federal government social insurance program medicare, how do you really think our federal government is going to somehow provide a BETTER service than it already does, now for every individual throughout the nation?

On December 21 2009 03:18 Xenocidegs wrote: I agree that healthcare costs are way above what they should be but I don't believe a free market system for healthcare is optimal for society.

may I ask if you think that the reason costs are so high is because of the free market?

On December 21 2009 03:18 Xenocidegs wrote: If you compare average healthcare costs around the world you would find that most public health systems are actually very efficient and have much lower average costs for one primary reason that people overlook: preventative healthcare.

you would also find the quality to often times be worse

[edit]
I try to never edit after someone else makes a post after me, but I feel I should clarify the word quality before taken out of context.
By quality I mainly mean the speed/efficiency in which ppl w/ issues small and large are seen, taken care of and dealt with

On December 21 2009 03:18 Xenocidegs wrote: Having regular checkups and physical exams allows medical professionals to catch many diseases or complications early and stop or prevent any further symptoms that would cost tens of thousands of dollars in the future if neglected.

correct me if I'm wrong... is this statement why you are promoting national healthcare? so everyone in America can get more check ups?
Can you imagine the chaos your statement combined with your government healthcare answer will lead to? especially once physician and Doctor salaries get cut and everything becomes rationed? o.0

On December 21 2009 03:18 Xenocidegs wrote: One other point I would like to address is the fact that health insurance started in the first place due to workers in high risk job environments recognizing a serious injury would financially ruin them and thus pooled their money and thus spread out cost amongst themselves so they could "insure" that their livelihood would not be ruined in the event of physical misfortune. I view public healthcare as an extension of this belief that social welfare is greatly improved when everyone shares the overall cost of healthcare since disease and physical accidents can happen to anyone and without warning. One should not have to bankrupt their life savings because they were unable to acquire insurance due to a pre-existing condition that they were unfortunate enough to be born with or because some freak accident caused them to break their back, etc.

if national healthcare becomes a reality, what do you think is going to happen to ones life savings? Especially when the governments motto is we need to spend more to get out of this mess. What is it they are spending?
I mean who do you think is really going to pay for this service? Obama? the next Bush? You don't really think this is going to be some free and a peachy keen thing do you? and if you reply, keep that word you mentioned earlier "bankrupt" in mind throughout ur post

incrementalism ftw

i believe the next things lets see if anyone disagrees:

- The current healthcare system is fucked, the prices are ridiculous so sick ppl without insurance have a death sentence, while all companies try to do is to dodge paying bills of insured people on technicalities.

- Functional free healthcare is possible as we can see in some european countries.

- The united states is currently sunken in corruption and passing through one of the worst crisis in its history with an unprecedented deficit and a massive government and an inflation that doesnt seem to stop.


Thats why free healthcare in USA right now is a terrible choice, just think about it, the government is drowning in debt spending money it doesnt have, printing money to bail out their corrupt corporate friends, and you are advocating that they spend another trillion in healthcare? Your current economy cannot withstand it, it is going to collapse that is certain.

UK NHS ftw!

goddamn capaneo i thought u had quit LP

although i knew this thread was you before i clicked it

On December 21 2009 05:10 Baal wrote: Your current economy cannot withstand it, it is going to collapse that is certain.

quoting for future inyourfacements

lolzcapaneo

agree w/ baal cept our economy wont collapse...national healthcare of somekind is possible for the US and is long over due. We will find a way to pay for it fine...just have china bail us out again or something

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?

On December 21 2009 09:28 palak wrote: agree w/ baal cept our economy wont collapse...national healthcare of somekind is possible for the US and is long over due. We will find a way to pay for it fine...just have china bail us out again or something

Rome falls

On December 21 2009 00:34 WRAWRAWRAWRA wrote: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINBOU

hahah, great anime

On December 21 2009 04:06 ShaperofDreams wrote: Also education about the politics/actions and informed opinions very very very rarely exist. To really have an informed opinion you have to..well you cant unless you are a leet hacker i guess.

This.

Unfortunately, what is being done in DC right now is not universal health care.

What it is is just another spending package. Period. They start with a price tag (read that as a budget amount the president will let us spend) and then try to spend it in a way they can sell to their constituents as reform.

This bill is going to make health care cost more for everyone. There will be a small minority who directly benefit from it, I'm sure, but the price tag is so high, you might as well just give those people cash.

Most of what this bill is intended to do can be done with regulation and without spending a trillion dollars, dollars which Baal has correctly pointed out we simply don't have, and are just printing money to pay for, which will have consequences similar to what we experienced in the mid to late seventies.

Once again, the debate is framed in a way that misses the point. I can be for universal health care and against this bill, because this bill is not even close to universal health care. And the argument that doing something (this bill, for instance) is better than doing nothing is completely ridiculous.

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?

capaneo's original post is a troll right?

anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person, regardless of if they realize it

some people do get sick, and some of those people don't have money. hell, some of those people are children.

argue with that


oh and also, some of the posts about the 1 am vote being "against the spirit of democracy" is ridiculous. xenocidegs explained why

LOL HEY GAIZ IT'S OKAY BECAUSE BUSH SPENT MORE.

On December 21 2009 14:13 asdf2000 wrote: anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person

Or they believe that the efficiency/incentive gains from a private health care system trump the importance of covering every single person.

cap this is totally standard procedure and it's not like it was some secret, they've been saying forever that the vote was gonna be done before xmas so really we have 3 days, obviously it's gonna happen sometime now, and 1am votes before holidays are totally standard procedure. What would be BS is doing last minute changes before the 1am vote that no one had a chance to review. I didn't hear anything like that happening, but that's what they did to get poker and the UIGEA into the port security bill.

As for how horrible this is for the nation, that's a different discussion and I totally disagree with you - without a doubt in my mind this is a great thing and I'm very happy that the bill is going through. It's not perfect, it needs changes, and it won't solve all of our problems, but it's progress in the right direction. As for the financial results, this is huge for SAVING money, as a huge chunk of the forecasted deficit is related to medical expenses and this bill addresses them. So passing this bill reduces the projected deficit, which is a good thing.

"For all those who are continually carping about how this is somehow a big spending government bill, this cuts our deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years, and by over a trillion in the second," Obama said. "That argument that opponents are making against this bill does not hold water."

its basically like any other issue involving a large chunk of money. there are the ones benefiting from same old routine, status quo and then there are the scavangers, reaking benefit were oportunity lies. same with climate, same with terrorism, same with healthcare, same with agriculture.

the wheel keeps on spinning.

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?

this, Xenocidegs, and k2o4, thanks for talking some sense... I don't have the energy or desire after dealing with this ignorance every day with my family.

On December 21 2009 11:34 ToTehEastSide wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

On December 21 2009 07:10 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 05:10 Baal wrote: Your current economy cannot withstand it, it is going to collapse that is certain. quoting for future inyourfacements

To me? when it doesnt collapse?

Lol what, the government has spent around 2 trillion in the last years, it doesnt even need the extra trillion they are about to spend to collapse, the inflation effect of the bailouts hasnt fully kicked in yet, inject another trillion out of nowhere and the worth of the dollar will plummet.

You as people who hold large quantities in dollar should be really against another trillion inflation hit, or just watch ur bankroll loose half its value in a few weeks.

This conspiracy has to be true because its real. Apparently.

On December 21 2009 02:44 Xenocidegs wrote: Passing this healthcare bill is essential to improving and fixing healthcare in America today. At the moment our healthcare system is a completely and utterly broken for profit system that puts profit in front of the overall welfare of the American people. While I would like to eventually see a mandatory public healthcare system put into place due to the efficiency and cost effectiveness that such a plan would generate, the fact remains that lobbyists who are paid for by the profits of the health care industry harness far too much power in controlling both political and public opinions to get such a plan passed. However, the bill that is about to be passed will be an enormous first step in ultimately fixing the horrible practices that our health care industry currently participates in and I, for one, am glad it is getting passed even if it is being forced through the senate on party lines alone. Edit: The only reason this bill is being forcefully passed in such a manner is because of the insane filibuster rule in the first place that allows someone to waste EVERYONES time by talking until people give up on even voting in the damn bill in the first place. If it were not for the filibuster this bill would have been passed without nearly as much effort and would not have been subject to so many compromises and nitpickings that have caused public support to shift in the first place.

Agreed.

On December 21 2009 14:24 Sicks Macks wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 14:13 asdf2000 wrote: anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person Or they believe that the efficiency/incentive gains from a private health care system trump the importance of covering every single person.

I hope we can both agree that they only think this because they or someone they love isn't in such a position.

On December 21 2009 04:18 woodbrave1 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 03:18 Xenocidegs wrote: Woodbrave your youtube video fails to address issues such as pre-existing healthcare conditions that people must live with and would bankrupt the average american citizen such as Diabetes, Cancer, any sort of unexpected major surgery. I agree that healthcare costs are way above what they should be but I don't believe a free market system for healthcare is optimal for society. If you compare average healthcare costs around the world you would find that most public health systems are actually very efficient and have much lower average costs for one primary reason that people overlook: preventative healthcare. Having regular checkups and physical exams allows medical professionals to catch many diseases or complications early and stop or prevent any further symptoms that would cost tens of thousands of dollars in the future if neglected. One other point I would like to address is the fact that health insurance started in the first place due to workers in high risk job environments recognizing a serious injury would financially ruin them and thus pooled their money and thus spread out cost amongst themselves so they could "insure" that their livelihood would not be ruined in the event of physical misfortune. I view public healthcare as an extension of this belief that social welfare is greatly improved when everyone shares the overall cost of healthcare since disease and physical accidents can happen to anyone and without warning. One should not have to bankrupt their life savings because they were unable to acquire insurance due to a pre-existing condition that they were unfortunate enough to be born with or because some freak accident caused them to break their back, etc. do you have like some sick person in your family, you don't want to pay for so you want gov healthcare so they can get it for free, but not really free, just cheaper than it would of cost you?

Have you like, ever even had to use healthcare beyond going to the doctor with the flu? Like, do you just sit there and think that the system works perfectly because you yourself have never had to actually rely upon it for your life?

we have public healthcare in the UK and it rules! I seen what other countries have and it SUCKS. sucks bad.

you Americans complaining are just trying to reason your selfishness and lack of caring for fellow human beings.

the discussion is not whether it is a good think for people or not imo, its just that how is it that a bankrupt country will afford all of this... lol this is madness, they can only be deliberately trying to fuck the world over which supposedly is in their agendas to do so

Have a Canadian residency, and just go to US hospitals. Canada will still cover the tab and you won't have the wait right?

only ignorant americans can be happy with this measure seeing as they wont even benefit from it because the army will be on the streets before they know it

On December 21 2009 17:25 tapatapaz wrote: the discussion is not whether it is a good think for people or not imo, its just that how is it that a bankrupt country will afford all of this... lol this is madness, they can only be deliberately trying to fuck the world over which supposedly is in their agendas to do so

Exactly why does Travis keeps replying to dumb post and totally ignores my multiple posts saying that it is absolutely stupid to start a 1 trillion project on the worst crisis in 80 years.

On December 21 2009 17:29 tapatapaz wrote: only ignorant americans can be happy with this measure seeing as they wont even benefit from it because the army will be on the streets before they know it

prove it
u know we do have taxes here, right?
so show me your statistics to back up what you are saying.

prove me it wont? ..
this is common sense, when someone is in A LOT of debt they dont raise their houses spending, they cut it

edit: IF they want to make things ok

On December 21 2009 17:34 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 17:25 tapatapaz wrote: the discussion is not whether it is a good think for people or not imo, its just that how is it that a bankrupt country will afford all of this... lol this is madness, they can only be deliberately trying to fuck the world over which supposedly is in their agendas to do so Exactly why does Travis keeps replying to dumb post and totally ignores my multiple posts saying that it is absolutely stupid to start a 1 trillion project on the worst crisis in 80 years.

What I have read is that if there is a small raise in taxes to support the health care bill, it will help many low income families in that they will have to spend less on these taxes than they would on medical bills in the first place.

And rich people are rich, they can afford it.

On December 21 2009 17:44 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 17:34 Baal wrote:   On December 21 2009 17:25 tapatapaz wrote: the discussion is not whether it is a good think for people or not imo, its just that how is it that a bankrupt country will afford all of this... lol this is madness, they can only be deliberately trying to fuck the world over which supposedly is in their agendas to do so Exactly why does Travis keeps replying to dumb post and totally ignores my multiple posts saying that it is absolutely stupid to start a 1 trillion project on the worst crisis in 80 years. What I have read is that if there is a small raise in taxes to support the health care bill, it will help many low income families in that they will have to spend less on these taxes than they would on medical bills in the first place. And rich people are rich, they can afford it.

Do you live in a cave or something?, The american economy is fucked and its not getting better, Obama instead of cutting the overblown expenses is spending even at a higher rate than George Bush you are several trillions in debt to the FED and you cant even afford the interests anymore, you are also still spewing hundreds of billions in Irak and will spew some more in Afghanistan soon, the US economy is very shaky to say the least and ur only still standing because China hasnt "panicked" and decided to cut their losses selling the dollars they have, cuz if one day they choose to, u will pretty much be the next Iceland

its a never ending argument both systems have major flaws, public will prevail though in america eventually though since its more equal really.

Like asdf said.

It should all be covered by a tax raise and not be a 1 trillion project. Works fine everywhere, so simple.

its not about the flaws of the systems its about the god damn economy, stop posting the same thing.

Also how can people claim that people defend the private system because of personal interests and not realize the same happens for the public healthcare system, first of all get this straight, none of those sides give a flying fuck about your health, its about their wallets.

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.

On December 21 2009 17:43 tapatapaz wrote: prove me it wont? .. this is common sense, when someone is in A LOT of debt they dont raise their houses spending, they cut it edit: IF they want to make things ok

Common sense is that people still pays just less if they want to choose the government option and that to me is an income source. That's a common sense to me. I would ideally choose a single payer option if it's there. I think that is the best shot at getting the debt down apart from pulling from Iraq and other random wars.

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.

The Office of the Actuary (OACT) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publishes data on total health care spending in the United States, including both historical levels and future projections.[34] In 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person, up from $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per capita, the previous year.[35] Spending in 2006 represented 16% of GDP, an increase of 6.7% over 2004 spending. Growth in spending is projected to average 6.7% annually over the period 2007 through 2017. Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and medical causes were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.

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.

You are totally clueless if you believe the truly wealthy is going to pay shit, its going to be the higher mid class that is going to shallow this and its the most productive in non-parasitic ways (unlike the truly wealthy) social class.

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.

It doesnt matter where the money comes from, it will never come from the people it should (bankers, big CEOs etc), the least thing your country needs right now is spend more, you need to spend less and reduce the size of your retarded huge government, failing to do is proving to be the downfall of your empire

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.

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

On December 22 2009 11:08 asdf2000 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 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

increased taxation and fed loans

On December 21 2009 17:00 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 14:24 Sicks Macks wrote:   On December 21 2009 14:13 asdf2000 wrote: anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person Or they believe that the efficiency/incentive gains from a private health care system trump the importance of covering every single person. I hope we can both agree that they only think this because they or someone they love isn't in such a position.

No, I can divorce the selfish desire for essentially all the world's resources to be spent on my family's wellbeing with the intellectual understanding that this is unworkable.

On December 21 2009 14:13 asdf2000 wrote: anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person, regardless of if they realize it some people do get sick, and some of those people don't have money. hell, some of those people are children. argue with that oh and also, some of the posts about the 1 am vote being "against the spirit of democracy" is ridiculous. xenocidegs explained why

99.9% of humans are horribly selfish, the people you love and care about you care about out of selfishness. if you care about children, you'lll give them freedom and stop by law making them pledge allegiance to the government in the warehouses. "liberty and justice for all", really except for if you are under the age of 21 and depending on what state you are in.
there is a better way, its called liberty. You are a british fucktard pig, you are like a baby dont know what to do making noise.
this is what needs to happen to bring free healthcare to america:
yeah free healthcare and shitload free'er and better than the public option.

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.

Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own--rather than the government's--risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning.

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm sorry woodbrave but that is quite possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever read.

lets not go into deregulation, anarchy models or debating about morality of the issue, lets focus on the first thing that impedes this to be a viable thing to do... the economy.

So TenBagger do you now know if its going to take away most of Medicares benefits and it will costs less money in the end or its still just an speculation.

Judging from that list posted, (which really doesn't have much value) it says that they wont revoke medicare benefits and as a i said, that would imply that im right and this cannot be.

On December 22 2009 17:21 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2009 16:57 k2o4 wrote: 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. 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

It says right there in the list cuts to medicare. Just not cutting the benefits. It's not GG economy.

It's not propaganda. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

On December 22 2009 17:06 curtinsea wrote: 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

After the first decade the savings increase.

On December 22 2009 19:43 TenBagger wrote: I'm sorry woodbrave but that is quite possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever read.

Agreed. I'm assuming that Michele Bachman gives him a big boner. And on the topic of Bachman, despite her constant anti-government BS she's a total hypocrite who's been raking in big bucks from government handouts (welfare-esque farm subsidies).

They will not revoke Medicare benefits. The key point is making the entire system more efficient. The federal government basically pays for the health care of everyone over 65 and that demographic is set to explode and nearly double over the next twenty years. If an overhaul of the entire health care system can lead to a small percentage in cost savings in Medicare, the savings will be so huge that it should be able to cover the costs of extending coverage to uninsured Americans. We can debate on and on about whether or not this will actually happen, only time will tell. What is certain is that if we make no changes and continue our current path, America will likely go bankrupt. The math just doesn't work if the federal government continues to spend over $5000 per person on Medicare and the number of people on Medicare doubles from 40 million to 80 million like it is projected to over the next twenty years. The status quo is an unacceptable situation and we need to do something right now to give ourselves a chance at solving this problem.

We can have a theoretical discussion about the morality of Medicare, etc. but it is pointless because the reality is that it is politically impossible to make any significant reductions in Medicare coverage. Any talk about getting rid of Medicare might as well be talk about the Tooth Fairy because no one will see either of those happen in real life. The arguments brought up by Toteheastside and woodbrave about abolishing all licensing of doctors and hospitals and getting rid of the Medicare altogether is reflective of the type of discourse that is going on all across America and shifting the focus away from real problem solving to pure rhetoric. While it is merely my opinion that those arguments are ridiculous, it is undeniable fact that those arguments will never happen. The focus of the country should be on practical and real solutions to reducing the cost of health care and improving the efficiency of the American health care system so that we no longer spend twice as much as what other industrialized nations spend.

It is true that they will never happen but i am all for functional anarchy but its pointless to discuss it in this thread.

You are just saying that they will use this as an overhaul of medicare, to make it more efficient but well why is it terribly inefficient in the first place?, who started Medicare, the tooth fairy?, in the end you are only adding more people into a broken system.

Also the united states isnt decreasing in population so you speak as if old people were exploding in numbers while that is not true, there are more young people every day unlike countries like Germany or Spain, and that fact makes this even less reasonable.


Basically what you are saying is lets pray that they make an efficient overhaul of the system, despise the fact that they failed awfully the first time with Medicare because our politicians will put down always their popularity before the common good, which would be cutting down Medicare. How are you satisfied with that?

You are trusting a horrible government to just start doing things right, despise they are acting awfully in every other aspect and you are betting the whole US economy on it, that is so ridiculous its even anti-founding fathers, doubt the government, mistrust it and judge it constantly, the kind of concessions you are giving them is the reason the economy is fucked in the first place

On December 22 2009 17:23 Sicks Macks wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 17:00 asdf2000 wrote:   On December 21 2009 14:24 Sicks Macks wrote:   On December 21 2009 14:13 asdf2000 wrote: anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person Or they believe that the efficiency/incentive gains from a private health care system trump the importance of covering every single person. I hope we can both agree that they only think this because they or someone they love isn't in such a position. No, I can divorce the selfish desire for essentially all the world's resources to be spent on my family's wellbeing with the intellectual understanding that this is unworkable.

So if you get laid off and lose your job, are unable to find a new one after 12 months, and can no longer afford to pay your own insurance, and then get hit by a drunk driver who flee's the scene, and are admitted to the hospital, you will be comfortable sacrificing yourself for the greater good after the hospital escorts you from the premises 5 days later regardless of your extenuating conditions?

if you want public healthcare option, how about instead of nationalizing it, you allow the states have their different systems.
and so your state has public healthcare option and my state has freedom. and then youll see how superior freedom is to your slavery system and you'll switch your system.

On December 22 2009 20:03 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2009 19:43 TenBagger wrote: I'm sorry woodbrave but that is quite possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever read. Agreed. I'm assuming that Michele Bachman gives him a big boner. And on the topic of Bachman, despite her constant anti-government BS she's a total hypocrite who's been raking in big bucks from government handouts (welfare-esque farm subsidies).

you purposely trying to needle me? needledick

Baal, you are totally misunderstanding some important points here. Let me explain

On December 22 2009 20:51 Baal wrote: You are just saying that they will use this as an overhaul of medicare

I did not say that. I said that this legislation is the first step towards an overhaul of the entire health care system. Medicare is just a program that pays for the health care of people over 65. It doesn't matter if the patient is 65 and is covered through a government program or if the patient is 25 and is covered through a private insurance company. For both cases, the US health care system spends too much money and this is the root of the problem, not the fact that the government insures old people.

On December 22 2009 20:51 Baal wrote: lets pray that they make an efficient overhaul of the system, despise the fact that they failed awfully the first time with Medicare

They did not fail with Medicare the first time. Medicare has been a successful program for the vast majority of its existence. Do not confuse Medicare with the overall health care system, they are not the same. The problem is not with the government covering the cost of care for the elderly. Countries such as Canada and UK cover not only the elderly but the entire population for less than half the cost per capita. The problem is that after a period of relatively stable growth in the 1990s, health care spending has exploded in the past decade.

On December 22 2009 20:51 Baal wrote:Also the united states isnt decreasing in population so you speak as if old people were exploding in numbers while that is not true, there are more young people every day unlike countries like Germany or Spain, and that fact makes this even less reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom

In the next twenty years, the US population projects to grow by 10-15%, primarily through immigration and the offspring of immigrants. However, the number of people 65+ will nearly double during that time. The proportion of the overall population that are 65+ and therefore qualify for Medicare will explode and this is an undisputed fact.

Here is an excellent resource that provides an overview of the system:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/med...uthier_transform_US_hlt_sys%20pdf.pdf

For everyone that wants to have an intelligent conversation regarding this issue, I urge you to read the entire report, especially Part 3 - Need for Greater Efficiency. I understand people will have different opinions on issues but there needs to be a foundation of basic understanding regarding the facts.

I love Tenbagger's patience. I wish I could be more like him, but I fail at it. I don't think it's worth trying to argue with baal or woodbrave or any of the others who are totally freaking out about this bill, because they're too far gone. They either are incapable of listening and have made up their minds, or they're just coming from such a far right and/or, conservative, anarchist, free market will fix everything, Obama is hitler mindset that there's no way to ever have a real conversation with them.

The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want the lurkers to read and only see posts from the wacko's and think that everyone is against healthcare or that what these guys are saying is fact. The majority of American's are IN SUPPORT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM and understand how important this bill is, and that it has many great things in it. I know conservatives like to throw around polls saying that american's are against it but they're just twisting and manipulating. Those polls are lumping in people who think Obama's bill does not go far enough in the category of "people against the bill". The article I linked above explains it.

So often the teabaggers and right wingers scream so loud and viciously that they scare the rest of us away from sharing our opinions. They try to scare the uninformed people, the ones who don't understand what's going on but maybe open a thread like this to try and formulate an opinion. The majority of the country is not right wing, not conservative, and does not think ill about this health care bill (I rhymed!)... that's why Obama got elected in the first place!

This bill is a good thing and while it definitely doesn't do enough, namely setting up true single payer universal health care, it is a great and important start. I don't think people realize how hard it is to get anything done in washington and how huge of an achievement it is for Obama to have gotten us this bill. Several other presidents have tried and failed, and Obama is getting it done before his first year is up. I didn't expect it to be done till the end of his first term at the earliest.

I'm very happy about this bill and can't wait till the votes are over. If it goes as planned and they do the final vote on Xmas eve day then I will be celebrating like crazy. It's the best Xmas gift I could hope to receive.

they did fail with medicare since the costs of it is unsustainable, what is a fail to you then?

I didnt get it wrong, i meant overhaul medicare, because if medicare is not fixed it cannot be sustained, yet politicians are too afraid of popularity that they wont adress the real problem that is cutting back medicare.

You are not showing what cuts in medicare that will make it efficient enough to even absorb the costs of insuring everybody under 65 and still be way better than before.

Also why do you bring canada or UK up, i already said that i believe free healthcare can work, but this is not the right time to insure just even more people only because they dont have the balls to cut down medicare, and that is assuming they will indeed change medicare that drastically and this being a smoke curtain.

On December 22 2009 23:12 k2o4 wrote: I love Tenbagger's patience. I wish I could be more like him, but I fail at it. I don't think it's worth trying to argue with baal or woodbrave or any of the others who are totally freaking out about this bill, because they're too far gone. They either are incapable of listening and have made up their minds, or they're just coming from such a far right and/or, conservative, free market will fix everything, Obama is hitler mindset that there's no way to ever have a real conversation with them. The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want the lurkers to read and only see posts from the wacko's and think that everyone is against healthcare or that what these guys are saying is fact. The majority of American's are IN SUPPORT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM and understand how important this bill is, and that it has many great things in it. I know conservatives like to throw around polls saying that american's are against it but they're just twisting and manipulating. Those polls are lumping in people who think Obama's bill does not go far enough in the category of "people against the bill". The article I linked above explains it. So often the teabaggers and right wingers scream so loud and viciously that they scare the rest of us away from sharing our opinions. They try to scare the uninformed people, the ones who don't understand what's going on but maybe open a thread like this to try and formulate an opinion. The majority of the country is not right wing, not conservative, and does not think ill about this health care bill (I rhymed!)... that's why Obama got elected in the first place! This bill is a good thing and while it definitely doesn't do enough, namely setting up true single payer universal health care, it is a great and important start. I don't think people realize how hard it is to get anything done in washington and how huge of an achievement it is for Obama to have gotten us this bill. Several other presidents have tried and failed, and Obama is getting it done before his first year is up. I didn't expect it to be done till the end of his first term at the earliest. I'm very happy about this bill and can't wait till the votes are over. If it goes as planned and they do the final vote on Xmas eve day then I will be celebrating like crazy. It's the best Xmas gift I could hope to receive.

Atleast have the fucking decency to read my posts before lumping me in with them ok? i am too far right or free market? you imbecile im an Anarchist, i way farther than the right than you, tenbagger or anybody in this thread -_-

Ive said it like 10 times now in this god damn thread, im not against it as a system, im against it because i think that the worst crisis in 80 years is not a good time to do this, it is time to cut back medicare and other social benefits instead of squeezing an already suffocating economy only because they dont have the balls to loose some popularity to do what is best for the people.

And also who gives a shit about what the majority of america wants, how does that makes it a good thing, the majority of america were in favour with the war in Aghanistan and Iraq at one point ding!.

On December 22 2009 23:25 Baal wrote: Atleast have the fucking decency to read my posts before lumping me in with them ok? i am too far right or free market? you imbecile im an Anarchist, i way farther than the right than you, tenbagger or anybody in this thread -_- Ive said it like 10 times now in this god damn thread, im not against it as a system, im against it because i think that the worst crisis in 80 years is not a good time to do this, it is time to cut back medicare and other social benefits instead of squeezing an already suffocating economy only because they dont have the balls to loose some popularity to do what is best for the people. And also who gives a shit about what the majority of america wants, how does that makes it a good thing, the majority of america were in favour with the war in Aghanistan and Iraq at one point ding!.

Blah Blah Blah...

Sorry baal, I didn't think to add anarchist in the list =) I'll go edit the post and add it to make sure I'm fair in my hating.

It's funny cause when I disagree with you, you drive me crazy. When I agree with you, I think you're awesome. This is one of those times where I disagree with you and I know when that happens there's no talking you into agreeing with me, so I'm not gonna make a big effort to do so. I'd rather just go "that's baal and he has those ideas which are crazy to me, but that's just how he is".

You think it's a bad time, I think it's the perfect time. You think it will bankrupt America, I think it's essential to making sure America doesn't go bankrupt. Tenbagger has laid out the reasons for thinking that better than I could and you still don't agree, so no reason for me to try. I saw a MLK quote today at the Madame Tussadors wax museum in DC that said "The time is always right to do what is right". I think that morally this is the right thing to do, and for the future of the country it is the right thing to do, and now is the time to do it.

And you're right, just cause the majority wants it does not make it the right thing to do. I was just pre-empting any "the polls say american's hate this bill" comments cause I was watching CSPAN earlier tonight and I swear that's what every republican senator was preaching and it was very tilting.

On December 22 2009 23:13 Baal wrote: they did fail with medicare since the costs of it is unsustainable, what is a fail to you then?

They didn't fail at creating it, they failed to adjust to the games as they became more aggressive. They're still set mining and cbetting and assuming that's all you need to do to win. Now people are 3betting light and instead of adjusting they kept doing the same strategy.

What I'm trying to say is it started off fantastic and the overall idea is solid, but adjustments need to be made. Bush ignored the problem and kept making the same plays. Obama sees the problem and is adjusting the strategy for the new game.

Baal, I love you man but you got it wrong plain and simple. You are operating on common sense which usually serves you well since you are a smart guy but on complex issues, you gotta actually read a lot of stuff before you can fully understand the issue no matter how naturally smart you are. Did you read the report I linked? For example, you were totally wrong on the baby boomers which is understandable since that term is not well known outside the US. But if I were in a conversation with someone and they brought up a term I was unfamiliar with, I would look it up and become familiar with it before I confidently assert that the opposite is true.

The report I linked in section 3 highlights a long list of reasons why health care is so damn expensive in the US. If medicare were the problem, then the cost of health care for people on private insurance and not medicare would be cheaper, but in fact the opposite is true.

As I said before, I totally see where you are coming from and it makes a lot of common sense. You are right in that on the surface, it makes no sense for the US to ADD to their spending by expanding coverage when they should be reducing government spending. But try to step back for a second and look at it from a different perspective with an open mind. The US will spend over $8000 per person on health care expenditures in 2009 and at this rate, we will be spending over $13000 per person by 2018.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf

I have no illusions that we will suddenly spend as efficiently as the UK and Canada at less than $4000 per person. But let's say that this legislation can just stop the growth in per capita spending and keep it at $8000 per person in 2018 instead of the projected $13000. That is $5000 per person in savings and there will be something like 80 million people on medicare. That works out to 400 billion a year. That will be enough to provide coverage to another 50 million people @ $8000 a year and the number of uninsured in the US happens to be 40ish million.

That is obviously a rough calculation but it illustrates the point that the major problem is the cost per person. With even small improvements in efficiencies, we can provide universal coverage at a lower cost than what we pay currently.

On December 22 2009 23:13 Baal wrote: they did fail with medicare since the costs of it is unsustainable, what is a fail to you then? I didnt get it wrong, i meant overhaul medicare, because if medicare is not fixed it cannot be sustained

The US can keep medicare the way it is and sustain it if we had a health care system that would charge less than $8000 per person. If we reduce medical errors, improve access to medical records and admistrative functions, improve preventive care, do away with ridiculous expensive procedures that have questionable benefit to patients, stop paying more for drugs than people in every other country in the world, just to name a few, then maybe, JUST MAYBE we can join every other fucking country in the the entire world and spend less than $5000 per person on health care. I mean, come on, 194 other countries can manage to spend less than $5000 but the best that we can do is $8000? If it were even $6000 then I'd be more understanding but $8000 is fucking pathetic. Even if we were to spend as much money as Switzerland, the country that spends the second most on health care out of every country in the entire world, then medicare would be sustainable.

That is why I say that medicare is not the root of the problem. Covering old people is not the problem when plenty of other countries cover everyone with no problem. AND it wasn't a problem for the first thirty years of its existence.

The problem is that slowly but steadily, the US health care system has been falling apart and it is completely broken right now. Every single country in the entire world is managing to spend less than 11% of their GDP on health care but the US is spending 17% and that figure is projected to rise to above 20%.