Marlo Stanfield
online poker tax cheating
+122|5201
COST: $940 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

HOW MANY COVERED: 32 million uninsured. Major coverage expansion begins in 2014. When fully phased in, 95 percent of eligible Americans would have coverage, compared with 83 percent today.

INSURANCE MANDATE: Almost everyone is required to be insured or else pay a fine. There is an exemption for low-income people. Mandate takes effect in 2014.

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Major consumer safeguards take effect in 2014. Insurers prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Higher premiums for women would be banned. Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, and from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing medical problems. Parents would be able to keep older kids on their policies up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear.

MEDICAID: Expands the federal-state Medicaid insurance program for the poor to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the tab for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016. A special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity is eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, remains.

TAXES: Dramatically scales back a Senate-passed tax on high-cost insurance plans that was opposed by House Democrats and labor unions. The tax would be delayed until 2018, and the thresholds at which it is imposed would be $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. To make up for the lost revenue, the bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to investment income as well as wages for individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Gradually closes the "doughnut hole" coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that seniors fall into once they have spent $2,830. Seniors who hit the gap this year will receive a $250 rebate. Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap receive a discount on brand name drugs, initially 50 percent off. When the gap is completely eliminated in 2020, seniors will still be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in.

EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY: As in the Senate bill, businesses are not required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire workforce, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement. Part-time workers are included in the calculations, counting two part-timers as one full-time worker.

SUBSIDIES: The proposal provides more generous tax credits for purchasing insurance than the original Senate bill did. The aid is available on a sliding scale for households making up to four times the federal poverty level, $88,200 for a family of four. Premiums for a family of four making $44,000 would be capped at around 6 percent of income.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges would offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms would not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No government-run insurance plan. People purchasing coverage through the new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit.

ABORTION: The proposal keeps the abortion provision in the Senate bill. Abortion opponents disagree on whether restrictions on taxpayer funding go far enough. The bill tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer dollars and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. No health plan would be required to cover abortion. In plans that do cover abortion, policyholders would have to pay for it separately, and that money would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money. States could ban abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.

STUDENT LOAN OVERHAUL: Requires the government to originate student loans, closing out a role for banks and other private lenders who charge a fee. The savings – projected to be more than $60 billion over a decade – are plowed into higher Pell Grants for needy college students and increased support for historically black colleges.

GOP HEALTH CARE SUMMIT IDEAS: Following the bipartisan health care summit, Obama announced he was open to incorporating Republican ideas in his legislation. But two of the principal ones – hiring investigators to pose as patients and search for fraud at hospitals and increasing spending for medical malpractice reform initiatives – didn't make it into the bill released Thursday. Only one did, an increase in payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid, proposed by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Straight from the mouth of liberalism on the internet.

Highlighted the parts that make me seethe with anger the most. Unless Obama get possessed by the spirit of Ronald Reagan, I will vote for just anyone else with a R next to their name come 2012. Which is a huge turn around if you can beleive I voted for the guy in 08.

Most of generation voted for the guy in 08 for 2 reasons; avoid Sarah Palin's dumbass and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We didn't vote for health care reform or even know he would damn the economy and plow forward with this shit.

Complete and utter bullshit.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina
It's a shitty bill alright...   It's not so much healthcare reform as it is insurance pork.

If you want a truly socialized healthcare system, you have to move to another country like Canada or France.  You're not gonna find that sort of thing here other than the badly funded and badly managed Medicare.

Seeing as how we have no border security and a seemingly endless supply of illegals, the system will likely collapse from within.  Only then will the market truly be free.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5396|London, England
Bill can't be passed in that form. The House has to pass the Senate bill word for word otherwise it doesn't count. If they are indeed voting on this bill, it would then have to pass the Senate in it's current form.

And yes, it's 100% crap.
"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
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6032|Truthistan
I would disagree with Marlo... PBO was elected on his promise to reform healthcare and bring in a single payer system.

It should have been passed already, for all the GOP whining, they can go f*ck themselves afterall they lost the election in a landslide.

But the bill as it is is a huge pile of dog shit. I've posted before that the worst case scenerio would be an "insurance pork" bill where there would be no controls on costs and a mandate that everyone has to buy private insurance. That's a huge give away to insurance companies. Their lobbiest sure turned this one into a win win for them, thanks to the corruption in congress.

Its such a crappy bill with the add ons and the pork and the give aways and because there is so little substance for health care. Its like the dems poisoned their own bill so that they can walk away from it and cry its a bad bill.... At the core of this I truly believe that there are some dems who would rather permit the sick and dying suffer than reign in the profiteering of the insurance companies. must be nice to live such a posh and blissfully ignorant life (I'm sure satan has a special spot for these guys)

What is really sad though is that even though the bill is undeniably crap, its still better than the status quo... that's how shitty things are now.


Anyway, with that all said I still hope it passes if for no other reason than to make Mitch McConnell  John Boehner Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch all eat shit and well you know the rest... I would love to see these guys filibuster in their depends while they f*ck the American public in the a$$.... which brings to mind the thought, when do you think one of these guys is going to fall out the closet because they all look like angry flamers to me.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6449|'Murka

Hardly a landslide, but the election certainly sent a message...as have a few since then, if you've been paying attention.

The bill is nowhere near better than the status quo. This is one situation where change would be worse than doing nothing. The expense alone makes the bill worse than doing nothing--cost/benefit analysis.

Then there's the fairly evident unconstitutional nature of the bill and the process by which they are attempting to pass it.

The Dems need to quit focusing on "the win" and instead listen. People (and the other party, btw) want reform. Just not this reform. Start over with the pieces that everyone agrees on. Quit trying to ram something down everyone's throat just so you can say you "won" when it doesn't solve the problem you say you want to solve and introduces a shitload of others.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
13rin
Member
+977|6517
This is a debacle.  I am thoroughly disgusted with how this bill will be passed.  They are spitting in the face of the American people while whiping their asses with the Constitution.  Now I see they're will most likely using the 'slaughter' way to pass all their controversial legislation?  Fuck those assholes.  Who do they think they are?  I wonder if they're exempt from this bill.

They need to start over.. Well all that I was about to type would have echoed FEOS's comments so... meh'

@Diesel - Passing a bad bill out of spite?  Come on, I thought you were better than that.  This bill is going to further fuck up Ameica.  I love my Country and it kills me to see this happening.  The backlash is coming, and the scale will flop hard the other way -that isn't a good thing either.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6687

The problem with the way they've gone about it from the start is that nothing they've ever considered truly provides socialized healthcare. They always go on about how much more expensive healthcare in the States is, but how does making everyone have insurance help? It doesn't; hospitals are still free to charge whatever the fuck they want. Everywhere else in the world, where socialized healthcare actually exists, the hospitals and their employees are run by the government. So to get the same system as Europe, they'd need to buy up all the hospitals, which would cost a fucking fortune.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5396|London, England

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I would disagree with Marlo... PBO was elected on his promise to reform healthcare and bring in a single payer system.

It should have been passed already, for all the GOP whining, they can go f*ck themselves afterall they lost the election in a landslide.

But the bill as it is is a huge pile of dog shit. I've posted before that the worst case scenerio would be an "insurance pork" bill where there would be no controls on costs and a mandate that everyone has to buy private insurance. That's a huge give away to insurance companies. Their lobbiest sure turned this one into a win win for them, thanks to the corruption in congress.

Its such a crappy bill with the add ons and the pork and the give aways and because there is so little substance for health care. Its like the dems poisoned their own bill so that they can walk away from it and cry its a bad bill.... At the core of this I truly believe that there are some dems who would rather permit the sick and dying suffer than reign in the profiteering of the insurance companies. must be nice to live such a posh and blissfully ignorant life (I'm sure satan has a special spot for these guys)

What is really sad though is that even though the bill is undeniably crap, its still better than the status quo... that's how shitty things are now.


Anyway, with that all said I still hope it passes if for no other reason than to make Mitch McConnell  John Boehner Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch all eat shit and well you know the rest... I would love to see these guys filibuster in their depends while they f*ck the American public in the a$$.... which brings to mind the thought, when do you think one of these guys is going to fall out the closet because they all look like angry flamers to me.
You're missing the forest for the trees here. What this legislation does is essentially turn the entire system into a single payer system. Sure, companies like Wellpoint stay in business but that's only because of the cries of Nationalization and Socialism that the pussy progressives can't stomach or admit to. What this legislation does is essentially tell every health insurance company in the nation how to run it's business, line by line. They will no longer have real businesses, only fronts like the mob uses, except Congress is the mob in this instance.

"Insurers prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Higher premiums for women would be banned. Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, and from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing medical problems."

Read that again. Prohibited from charging more for people who cost the company more money. That removes what the entire insurance industry is based on, which is assessing risk and charging a premium to offset that risk. That one line would remove the 'insurance' part from their company name and make them nothing more than a moderately privatized Medicare style payer.

Forbidding them from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies will necessitate higher premiums for everyone involved, as will requiring them to take on everyone, including pre-existings as will prohibiting them from charging based on risk. End result is everyone will pay the exact same price for health insurance no matter what the company name at the top and regardless of their health. This is the very definition of a single payer system. Hell, they're even tacking on a tax on the rich to pay for it as well as subsidies for the poor so the entire thing might as well have created a tax funded NHS.

If you don't think price controls would come down the pipe next you're nuts and the well known secret about price controls is that they create shortages and a black market. This is what the Dems have wrought and it's going to be horrific.
"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
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6754
We're fucked... Cons,Libs and everyone else.
Get ready for employers to drop healthcare for employees and pay the cheaper payroll tax for not providing insurance.

And to the younger folks... enjoy buying healthcare whether you like it or not...
Or pay a fine for not having health insurance(and still have no coverage).

We need to fix Healthcare, but the Obama/Pelosis plan is nothing but a big power grab
that will put the final nail in the coffin of the Greatest Country in the World.   Ruislepa will be dancing in the Streets.

Cutting Medicare by 500billion to pay for this monstrosity... and medicare/medicade is 39 Trillion dollars in debt.

November will be forced retirement time for all who supported this disaster of a Pres and Congress.
Hopefully we can all work together, Dems and Cons to make these politicians work for us?
Love is the answer
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6593
Why are you guys so crap at proper sustainable reasonable left wing policy?
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6754

CameronPoe wrote:

Why are you guys so crap at proper sustainable reasonable left wing policy?
If it was reasonable i would be fine with it... It is a monstrosity that they themselves are not really sure what's in it.
and they are going against a majority of the people that don't want this bill in it's current form.
There are ways to fix the healthcare system with tort reform and the ability to cross state lines to buy cheaper insurance etc.

They say that adding 30 million people to the system will not cost any money...
It will actually save money(who the F is dumb enough to believe that?)

They need to fix what we have not double down on an economy crushing entitlement program.

Last edited by Catbox (2010-03-19 16:48:37)

Love is the answer
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Why are you guys so crap at proper sustainable reasonable left wing policy?
Pork, lobbyism, and too many people under one government.  It also doesn't help that we border a really poor country.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're missing the forest for the trees here. What this legislation does is essentially turn the entire system into a single payer system. Sure, companies like Wellpoint stay in business but that's only because of the cries of Nationalization and Socialism that the pussy progressives can't stomach or admit to. What this legislation does is essentially tell every health insurance company in the nation how to run it's business, line by line. They will no longer have real businesses, only fronts like the mob uses, except Congress is the mob in this instance.
Keeping insurers from denying people over pre-existing conditions isn't a bad thing.  What sucks are the mandatory insurance policies.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Read that again. Prohibited from charging more for people who cost the company more money. That removes what the entire insurance industry is based on, which is assessing risk and charging a premium to offset that risk. That one line would remove the 'insurance' part from their company name and make them nothing more than a moderately privatized Medicare style payer.

Forbidding them from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies will necessitate higher premiums for everyone involved, as will requiring them to take on everyone, including pre-existings as will prohibiting them from charging based on risk. End result is everyone will pay the exact same price for health insurance no matter what the company name at the top and regardless of their health. This is the very definition of a single payer system. Hell, they're even tacking on a tax on the rich to pay for it as well as subsidies for the poor so the entire thing might as well have created a tax funded NHS.
Except it's not.  If insurance companies are still private, they aren't a true singlepayer system.  In fact, it's the worst of both worlds, because they still have a profit incentive, but the only way to make that profit is to charge everyone more.

JohnG@lt wrote:

If you don't think price controls would come down the pipe next you're nuts and the well known secret about price controls is that they create shortages and a black market. This is what the Dems have wrought and it's going to be horrific.
I would agree that price controls are ridiculous to implement on private companies.  This is why this issue is an all or nothing one.

Either leave the pricing the way it is, or socialize insurance all the way.  This compromise only benefits insurance lobbies.

So, sadly, they've somehow managed to make the current system worse than it already is -- which is really saying something.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5396|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're missing the forest for the trees here. What this legislation does is essentially turn the entire system into a single payer system. Sure, companies like Wellpoint stay in business but that's only because of the cries of Nationalization and Socialism that the pussy progressives can't stomach or admit to. What this legislation does is essentially tell every health insurance company in the nation how to run it's business, line by line. They will no longer have real businesses, only fronts like the mob uses, except Congress is the mob in this instance.
Keeping insurers from denying people over pre-existing conditions isn't a bad thing.  What sucks are the mandatory insurance policies.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Read that again. Prohibited from charging more for people who cost the company more money. That removes what the entire insurance industry is based on, which is assessing risk and charging a premium to offset that risk. That one line would remove the 'insurance' part from their company name and make them nothing more than a moderately privatized Medicare style payer.

Forbidding them from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies will necessitate higher premiums for everyone involved, as will requiring them to take on everyone, including pre-existings as will prohibiting them from charging based on risk. End result is everyone will pay the exact same price for health insurance no matter what the company name at the top and regardless of their health. This is the very definition of a single payer system. Hell, they're even tacking on a tax on the rich to pay for it as well as subsidies for the poor so the entire thing might as well have created a tax funded NHS.
Except it's not.  If insurance companies are still private, they aren't a true singlepayer system.  In fact, it's the worst of both worlds, because they still have a profit incentive, but the only way to make that profit is to charge everyone more.

JohnG@lt wrote:

If you don't think price controls would come down the pipe next you're nuts and the well known secret about price controls is that they create shortages and a black market. This is what the Dems have wrought and it's going to be horrific.
I would agree that price controls are ridiculous to implement on private companies.  This is why this issue is an all or nothing one.

Either leave the pricing the way it is, or socialize insurance all the way.  This compromise only benefits insurance lobbies.

So, sadly, they've somehow managed to make the current system worse than it already is -- which is really saying something.
The 4% that health insurance companies make in profit from premium revenues is hardly catastrophic to the system. Yes, it is inefficient in comparison to a single payer system. What they've turned this into is a single payer system with a 4% rent built in as a payoff to the insurance companies that already exist. Ridiculous? Yes, but so are the rent plans the Dems are pushing in other arenas like Cap and Trade.

For all their talk of being 'for the little guy' the Dems are the quintessential players in Crony Capitalism. Why do you think they constantly push for more regulation? It's not to help you or me, but to help the companies that line their pockets.
"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
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina
I'm not saying that the profit margin is the issue.  I'm saying that coverage should be comprehensive.

Let the companies charge whatever they want to, but regulate what they can deny people for.

Protecting consumer rights is part of the government's job.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5396|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not saying that the profit margin is the issue.  I'm saying that coverage should be comprehensive.

Let the companies charge whatever they want to, but regulate what they can deny people for.

Protecting consumer rights is part of the government's job.
Then why are Medicare and Medicaid far and away the biggest deniers of coverage? There are mountains of procedures they will refuse to cover.
"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
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not saying that the profit margin is the issue.  I'm saying that coverage should be comprehensive.

Let the companies charge whatever they want to, but regulate what they can deny people for.

Protecting consumer rights is part of the government's job.
Then why are Medicare and Medicaid far and away the biggest deniers of coverage? There are mountains of procedures they will refuse to cover.
Because the government serves better as a regulator than as a provider.  Medicare and Medicaid have very limited funds (in terms of per person funding).

If we got rid of both, private options would take their place, although they would likely be more expensive.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-03-19 19:04:59)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5396|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not saying that the profit margin is the issue.  I'm saying that coverage should be comprehensive.

Let the companies charge whatever they want to, but regulate what they can deny people for.

Protecting consumer rights is part of the government's job.
Then why are Medicare and Medicaid far and away the biggest deniers of coverage? There are mountains of procedures they will refuse to cover.
Because the government serves better as a regulator than as a provider.  Medicare and Medicaid have very limited funds.

If we got rid of both, private options would take their place, although they would likely be more expensive.
You're missing the connection. Regulation is the means by which the government sticks it's nose in and runs the business. A heavily regulated industry might as well be nationalized.
"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
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're missing the connection. Regulation is the means by which the government sticks it's nose in and runs the business. A heavily regulated industry might as well be nationalized.
Restricting the degree to which pre-existing conditions can be denied is hardly running the business.

For the record, most countries have far more restrictions on insurance than we do, so this minor reform isn't exactly extremist.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5396|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're missing the connection. Regulation is the means by which the government sticks it's nose in and runs the business. A heavily regulated industry might as well be nationalized.
Restricting the degree to which pre-existing conditions can be denied is hardly running the business.

For the record, most countries have far more restrictions on insurance than we do, so this minor reform isn't exactly extremist.
Most countries are far more restrictive on everything pertaining to business. Simple stuff like free radio stations, which we take for granted. are mostly state owned in the countries you admire. We are the most free nation in the world. Instead of pointing the finger at others and saying we should be more like them, perhaps you should look at all of the other crap that it entails.

You know damn well that a NHS implemented in this country would end up regulating peoples daily caloric intake and requiring them to exercise, by law. There's enough do-gooder idiots who 'know what's best' for the rest of us with real power.
"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
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're missing the connection. Regulation is the means by which the government sticks it's nose in and runs the business. A heavily regulated industry might as well be nationalized.
Restricting the degree to which pre-existing conditions can be denied is hardly running the business.

For the record, most countries have far more restrictions on insurance than we do, so this minor reform isn't exactly extremist.
Most countries are far more restrictive on everything pertaining to business. Simple stuff like free radio stations, which we take for granted. are mostly state owned in the countries you admire. We are the most free nation in the world. Instead of pointing the finger at others and saying we should be more like them, perhaps you should look at all of the other crap that it entails.

You know damn well that a NHS implemented in this country would end up regulating peoples daily caloric intake and requiring them to exercise, by law. There's enough do-gooder idiots who 'know what's best' for the rest of us with real power.
There's a vast difference between having an NHS and having a few regulations in place that prevent denial of coverage over pre-existing conditions.

As I already mentioned in another thread, I'm against this bill, and I don't believe an NHS would work in America in its current state.  However, other reforms are necessary -- including some regarding coverage.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6719|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're missing the connection. Regulation is the means by which the government sticks it's nose in and runs the business. A heavily regulated industry might as well be nationalized.
Restricting the degree to which pre-existing conditions can be denied is hardly running the business.

For the record, most countries have far more restrictions on insurance than we do, so this minor reform isn't exactly extremist.
Most countries are far more restrictive on everything pertaining to business. Simple stuff like free radio stations, which we take for granted. are mostly state owned in the countries you admire. We are the most free nation in the world. Instead of pointing the finger at others and saying we should be more like them, perhaps you should look at all of the other crap that it entails.

You know damn well that a NHS implemented in this country would end up regulating peoples daily caloric intake and requiring them to exercise, by law. There's enough do-gooder idiots who 'know what's best' for the rest of us with real power.
I have to pay to listen to the radio??
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5396|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Restricting the degree to which pre-existing conditions can be denied is hardly running the business.

For the record, most countries have far more restrictions on insurance than we do, so this minor reform isn't exactly extremist.
Most countries are far more restrictive on everything pertaining to business. Simple stuff like free radio stations, which we take for granted. are mostly state owned in the countries you admire. We are the most free nation in the world. Instead of pointing the finger at others and saying we should be more like them, perhaps you should look at all of the other crap that it entails.

You know damn well that a NHS implemented in this country would end up regulating peoples daily caloric intake and requiring them to exercise, by law. There's enough do-gooder idiots who 'know what's best' for the rest of us with real power.
I have to pay to listen to the radio??
I have no idea how Aussie radio works but the BBC and other European broadcasting companies are publicly funded and thus they do pay for their radio via taxes. I meant 'free' as in free of government control and the freedom to broadcast as they see fit. We're limited here by the FCC but the restrictions are rather lax aside from nudity and profanity on TV and terrestrial radio.

Edit - Full disclosure, I only mentioned the radio as an example because I watched Pirate Radio tonight

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-03-19 20:09:21)

"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
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6567|Global Command
In 2007 I got insurance for my step father who was in chemo and dying of cancer.

He was not denied because of a pre-existing condition.


What the hell are these people talking about?
lxcpikiman
imbad @ bf2
+70|6633|Toronto-Canada
can someone tell me the differences between this healthcare and the one Canada use?
i mean, it isn't that bad here.
there must be something with it that so many people are opposed to it

Last edited by lxcpikiman (2010-03-19 20:52:31)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard