If you don't have one of the $15,000/year health plans you'll go to jail for 5 years.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
The government cant force me to buy anything it sells.
Surely he can buy private?Harmor wrote:
If you don't have one of the $15,000/year health plans you'll go to jail for 5 years.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
The government cant force me to buy anything it sells.
What a bunch of garbage. If they wanted to lower prices for insurance, and give the people "choice and competition", like they like to say, they should have just opened up the states' borders for private insures. They just want to insure all these people which half of them are illegals and the other half don't want healthcare or don't need it. When did the government ever run anything better then the private sector? All this is going to do is cover ~<10 million people, tax "fine" people for not getting it, and create more debt and further bankrupt the nation. God help us if the banks start lending.
What if he doesn't want to spend his money on health insurance?CameronPoe wrote:
Surely he can buy private?Harmor wrote:
If you don't have one of the $15,000/year health plans you'll go to jail for 5 years.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
The government cant force me to buy anything it sells.
Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2009-11-08 08:57:57)
WWII repurposing of factories? The Chinese semi-command economy? Private companies don't even contemplate building something like the Three Gorges Dam. But in general you're correct.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
When did the government ever run anything better then the private sector?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-08 08:58:29)
Tough shit? Everybody should have it. In the end the hippocratic oath means if he gets sick he'll have to leech off the state anyway. They ain't gonna let him die. Why should the hospitals have to wait on his ability to pay for treatment if he doesn't have the money in his account? I don't walk into a car showroom and expect/demand to drive out of it with a car on the promise of payment as and when I can manage to get the cash together.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
What if he doesn't want to spend his money on health insurance?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-08 09:27:15)
Wartime couldn't be anticipated, the private sector had no reason to build tanks and aircraft before the war. The Chinese realized that total control of the economy didn't work and gave some control back to the private sector, but being communist they wouldn't give up all the control of it. (Not like I'm saying the US doesn't have some control of the US economy.) And private companies wouldn't have a reason to build the Three Gorges Dam, unless government contracted to do so. I believe there would be more cost effective ways of producing power in that region.
My point was the government managed to direct and increase production to an unimaginable degree when called upon during wartime. Your seeming assumption that government is always inept is incorrect. They can be and are inept a fucking lot of the time but it isn't some cast iron irrefutable assertion.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Wartime couldn't be anticipated, the private sector had no reason to build tanks and aircraft before the war. The Chinese realized that total control of the economy didn't work and gave some control back to the private sector, but being communist they wouldn't give up all the control of it. (Not like I'm saying the US doesn't have some control of the US economy.) And private companies wouldn't have a reason to build the Three Gorges Dam, unless government contracted to do so. I believe there would be more cost effective ways of producing power in that region.
No private company on earth would build something as audacious as the Three Gorges Dam - a monumental achievement. Equivalent to fifty belching coal, oil or gas plants. I work in the electricity industry and since they deregulated the markets the price of electricity has went straight up. That doesn't seem very 'efficient'. Markets are nice and do a good job 90% of the time but absolute faith in them is stupidity.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-08 09:25:16)
Here's the argument I heard about that. Democrats say they can do it because States already force you to have Auto Insurance. BUT you only need Auto Insurance if you drive a car on public roads. If you drive a vehicle on private roads or use public transportation you do NOT have to purchase Auto Insurance. So there goes that argument.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't think it will stand up to a Supreme Court decision. They would need a constitutional amendment for this to be legal. Especially the part that requires that you purchase and keep insurance or you will be fined. Since when can government force you to buy a product provided by a private company?
Another argument I've heard is the "the general welfare" mentioned in the Constitution. Democrats say that health is part of the general welfare and thus a right.
What's sad is that they are going to get this passed in the Senate by using an obsure budget rule that will allow them to pass it with only 51 votes instead of the 60 necessary for closure - or only 50 votes with Biden breaking the tie...
Admit I should be a comedian, seriously, do it.Mekstizzle wrote:
hahahahahahahahaBradt3hleader wrote:
Oh, my...God....
RIP United States of America
July 4th 1776 - November 2009
You've lived a wonderful 233 years.
Sorry, stacking the deck against private insurance is destroying the freedom to choose.Cybargs wrote:
This is what people like lowing can't seem to get through their thick head. He thinks Obama is destroying freedom with OMG HEALTHCARE. Fuck the Reagan health care rhetoric tbh.CameronPoe wrote:
And it's not like they're outlawing private healthcare.
Well I guess you'd better only drive your body on private roads then. If I see you in public I'm going to break your legs, then laugh when you don't get fixed up.Harmor wrote:
Here's the argument I heard about that. Democrats say they can do it because States already force you to have Auto Insurance. BUT you only need Auto Insurance if you drive a car on public roads. If you drive a vehicle on private roads or use public transportation you do NOT have to purchase Auto Insurance. So there goes that argument.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't think it will stand up to a Supreme Court decision. They would need a constitutional amendment for this to be legal. Especially the part that requires that you purchase and keep insurance or you will be fined. Since when can government force you to buy a product provided by a private company?
Another argument I've heard is the "the general welfare" mentioned in the Constitution. Democrats say that health is part of the general welfare and thus a right.
What's sad is that they are going to get this passed in the Senate by using an obsure budget rule that will allow them to pass it with only 51 votes instead of the 60 necessary for closure - or only 50 votes with Biden breaking the tie...
The "reform" looks like a bunch of swiss cheese it has so many holes in it. People should have the choice to buy into a govt plan. From what I see that's not going to be an option, and what I heard was that the insurance companies wanted the fines for not having health insurance to be really high so that say for example the fine is $10k, then guess what the base rate for health insurance is going to be? $10,001. The private health insurance companies are probably going to be raping us and anytime I hear the govt saying we are going to make you buy something from a private company I think that we are getting thrown to the wolves. IMO this might be the worst case scenario.
Anyway, with all the baloney about not being constitutional, the govt can always do it using the tax and spend measure. And one thing I can't stand is the BS about taxes going up. For example. if my family is paying $4k for health insurance and the govt comes along and taxes me $3k but I don't have to pay the greedy pos health insurance company anymore, then got a net benefit of $1k in my pocket. even if its a wash I would still come out a head because if you change jobs, are self employed or unemployed you don't lose coverage. The increase in the individuals taxes is offset by not having to pay for outrageous private health insurance. If it were publicly explained as such I think that a blue dog would have a really tough time going against a govt run health insurance program. It should provide a net benefit to the economy.
And one other thing, other countries spend 8% of GDP on health care, the US spends 17% of GDP. If you eliminate private health insurance profiteering you get a net savings of 9% of GDP, now that money can be reinvested or saved or you can look at it as a spending stimulus for the economy. Anyway 9% of GDP is a lot of money to have some useless middle man parasite sucking out of the economy. If someone came to you right now and said that you can cut about 50% off your health insurance bill right now, wouldn't you do it? you'd be crazy not to.
What needs to occur now is to highlight the money trail of corruption and all the millions being funneled to senators right now... if they don't budge on their position then maybe we can oust some of these corrupt POS. With Lieberman on the other side on this one I am confident that reform will pass because frankly, he has been on the losing side of most things from being Gore's VP to backing McCain... its the losing Lieberman factor.
And I really have to laugh at all these people who are so afraid of progress, you'll go kicking and screaming like little children and in the end you will find out that its not a big deal.
Anyway, with all the baloney about not being constitutional, the govt can always do it using the tax and spend measure. And one thing I can't stand is the BS about taxes going up. For example. if my family is paying $4k for health insurance and the govt comes along and taxes me $3k but I don't have to pay the greedy pos health insurance company anymore, then got a net benefit of $1k in my pocket. even if its a wash I would still come out a head because if you change jobs, are self employed or unemployed you don't lose coverage. The increase in the individuals taxes is offset by not having to pay for outrageous private health insurance. If it were publicly explained as such I think that a blue dog would have a really tough time going against a govt run health insurance program. It should provide a net benefit to the economy.
And one other thing, other countries spend 8% of GDP on health care, the US spends 17% of GDP. If you eliminate private health insurance profiteering you get a net savings of 9% of GDP, now that money can be reinvested or saved or you can look at it as a spending stimulus for the economy. Anyway 9% of GDP is a lot of money to have some useless middle man parasite sucking out of the economy. If someone came to you right now and said that you can cut about 50% off your health insurance bill right now, wouldn't you do it? you'd be crazy not to.
What needs to occur now is to highlight the money trail of corruption and all the millions being funneled to senators right now... if they don't budge on their position then maybe we can oust some of these corrupt POS. With Lieberman on the other side on this one I am confident that reform will pass because frankly, he has been on the losing side of most things from being Gore's VP to backing McCain... its the losing Lieberman factor.
And I really have to laugh at all these people who are so afraid of progress, you'll go kicking and screaming like little children and in the end you will find out that its not a big deal.
With all due respect "progress" can be incremental. 80% of people in the United States are satisfied with their current health insurance.Diesel_dyk wrote:
And I really have to laugh at all these people who are so afraid of progress, you'll go kicking and screaming like little children and in the end you will find out that its not a big deal.
Instead of gutting the system and replacing it with an entirely new system perhaps we could do the following:
- Tort Reform - limit payouts for malpractice except for criminal acts. This will lower malpractice insurance costs for doctors and hospitals which will be passed on to us as savings.
- Preexisting conditions - add rules to allow those with preexisting conditions to get healthcare (this will increase insurance costs for everyone, but I'm willing to pay $50-$200/year more)
- Illegal Immigrants - bill back to illegal immigrants the cost of their care, if they do not pay bill their government
- Allow legal immigrants/visa/vistors etc. to buy insurance while they are here
- Increase fines and jailtime for Medicare fraud
- Increase payouts for Medicare to doctors - we currently substitize low Medicare payouts
- Add premiums for elderly above a certain income level for Medicare to help substitize the costs
- Increase prevention/nutrition programs
These are a few ideas off the top of my head that would be better than the current healthcare bill.
BTW, the one Republican that voted for the Healthcare bill will probably have a Recall against him or at least a very strong primary challenger.
Didn't destroy my freedom. I have Sean Quinn private insurance. I could have chosen from several and we are only a small nation.lowing wrote:
Sorry, stacking the deck against private insurance is destroying the freedom to choose.Cybargs wrote:
This is what people like lowing can't seem to get through their thick head. He thinks Obama is destroying freedom with OMG HEALTHCARE. Fuck the Reagan health care rhetoric tbh.CameronPoe wrote:
And it's not like they're outlawing private healthcare.
Sure change can be incremental and slow, but given the power of private insurance companies and the corruption in congress IMO its a recipe for failure or may be even giving them the opportunity to twist things into something worse.Harmor wrote:
With all due respect "progress" can be incremental. 80% of people in the United States are satisfied with their current health insurance.Diesel_dyk wrote:
And I really have to laugh at all these people who are so afraid of progress, you'll go kicking and screaming like little children and in the end you will find out that its not a big deal.
Instead of gutting the system and replacing it with an entirely new system perhaps we could do the following:
- Tort Reform - limit payouts for malpractice except for criminal acts. This will lower malpractice insurance costs for doctors and hospitals which will be passed on to us as savings.
- Preexisting conditions - add rules to allow those with preexisting conditions to get healthcare (this will increase insurance costs for everyone, but I'm willing to pay $50-$200/year more)
- Illegal Immigrants - bill back to illegal immigrants the cost of their care, if they do not pay bill their government
- Allow legal immigrants/visa/vistors etc. to buy insurance while they are here
- Increase fines and jailtime for Medicare fraud
- Increase payouts for Medicare to doctors - we currently substitize low Medicare payouts
- Add premiums for elderly above a certain income level for Medicare to help substitize the costs
- Increase prevention/nutrition programs
These are a few ideas off the top of my head that would be better than the current healthcare bill.
BTW, the one Republican that voted for the Healthcare bill will probably have a Recall against him or at least a very strong primary challenger.
80% are satisifed with their health insurance. Does that mean that 80% see no need to improve it, or that 80% do not want to see private insurance companies make it worse.
I wonder what would be said by those 80% if they were asked if they would like to have their health insurance costs reduced by 50% while maintaining the same level of service. I bet 100% of people would be for that.
Hopefully its not run like the V.A. healthcare system...
if it is, we're fucked.
if it is, we're fucked.
It won't be. Last I check illegal aliens couldn't go to a VA hospital and crack whores could not get their abortions paid for, unless they were former military.S3v3N wrote:
Hopefully its not run like the V.A. healthcare system...
if it is, we're fucked.
So yes, we are well and truly fucked.
I would prefer the government paid for the crack whores baby to be aborted rather than have to pay for a crack babies medical care for the rest of it's life along with everything else like welfare and food stamps.ATG wrote:
It won't be. Last I check illegal aliens couldn't go to a VA hospital and crack whores could not get their abortions paid for, unless they were former military.S3v3N wrote:
Hopefully its not run like the V.A. healthcare system...
if it is, we're fucked.
So yes, we are well and truly fucked.
That's what I like about you Mac; sometimes you make sense.Macbeth wrote:
I would prefer the government paid for the crack whores baby to be aborted rather than have to pay for a crack babies medical care for the rest of it's life along with everything else like welfare and food stamps.ATG wrote:
It won't be. Last I check illegal aliens couldn't go to a VA hospital and crack whores could not get their abortions paid for, unless they were former military.S3v3N wrote:
Hopefully its not run like the V.A. healthcare system...
if it is, we're fucked.
So yes, we are well and truly fucked.
Holy shit, America's gonna die because a bill passed!
Fucking hell some of you are loonies. I'd bet $20 that this same bullshit was spewed (in the 1935 version of DST, of course) when Social Security was passed. So guess what's gonna happen - I'd say there's a 75% chance it gets passed, and when it does, there's gonna be uproar for a few months, maybe even up to a year. Then people will get on with their lives and find something new to bitch about, most likely something they really don't understand other than from what Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck told them.
God, I don't mind opposition to bills I support (and I'm not even 100% for this... I'm 50/50 at this point), but atleast stop being such fucking drama queens (as m3th so eloquently put it) about it. You lost this battle and you're probably gonna lose the war because I'm thinking it's gonna pass in the Senate. Get over it. Move onto something else. And this time, try educating yourselves about it. Remember kids: Just because a conservative talk show host calls someone a socialist doesn't automatically mean they're a socialist!
Fucking hell some of you are loonies. I'd bet $20 that this same bullshit was spewed (in the 1935 version of DST, of course) when Social Security was passed. So guess what's gonna happen - I'd say there's a 75% chance it gets passed, and when it does, there's gonna be uproar for a few months, maybe even up to a year. Then people will get on with their lives and find something new to bitch about, most likely something they really don't understand other than from what Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck told them.
God, I don't mind opposition to bills I support (and I'm not even 100% for this... I'm 50/50 at this point), but atleast stop being such fucking drama queens (as m3th so eloquently put it) about it. You lost this battle and you're probably gonna lose the war because I'm thinking it's gonna pass in the Senate. Get over it. Move onto something else. And this time, try educating yourselves about it. Remember kids: Just because a conservative talk show host calls someone a socialist doesn't automatically mean they're a socialist!
Don't you have an Islanders game to watch? Way to be insulting without actually bringing anything to the debate.Poseidon wrote:
Holy shit, America's gonna die because a bill passed!
Fucking hell some of you are loonies. I'd bet $20 that this same bullshit was spewed (in the 1935 version of DST, of course) when Social Security was passed. So guess what's gonna happen - I'd say there's a 75% chance it gets passed, and when it does, there's gonna be uproar for a few months, maybe even up to a year. Then people will get on with their lives and find something new to bitch about, most likely something they really don't understand other than from what Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck told them.
God, I don't mind opposition to bills I support (and I'm not even 100% for this... I'm 50/50 at this point), but atleast stop being such fucking drama queens (as m3th so eloquently put it) about it. You lost this battle and you're probably gonna lose the war because I'm thinking it's gonna pass in the Senate. Get over it. Move onto something else. And this time, try educating yourselves about it. Remember kids: Just because a conservative talk show host calls someone a socialist doesn't automatically mean they're a socialist!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
...because SS isn't about to explodePoseidon wrote:
Fucking hell some of you are loonies. I'd bet $20 that this same bullshit was spewed (in the 1935 version of DST, of course) when Social Security was passed.
Oh, damn. That stings.JohnG@lt wrote:
Don't you have an Islanders game to watch?
You mean like you're doing right now? Oh shit. That stings too.Way to be insulting without actually bringing anything to the debate.
Last edited by Poseidon (2009-11-08 16:48:19)
Make sure you vote for Peter King next year Oh wait, your vote doesn't count, mine will cancel yours outPoseidon wrote:
Oh, damn. That stings.JohnG@lt wrote:
Don't you have an Islanders game to watch?You mean like you're doing right now? Oh shit. That stings too.Way to be insulting without actually bringing anything to the debate.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Bishop's my guy. But Paterson can gtfo in 2010.JohnG@lt wrote:
Make sure you vote for Peter King next year Oh wait, your vote doesn't count, mine will cancel yours outPoseidon wrote:
Oh, damn. That stings.JohnG@lt wrote:
Don't you have an Islanders game to watch?You mean like you're doing right now? Oh shit. That stings too.Way to be insulting without actually bringing anything to the debate.