Americans must now buy bad health insurance policies - even if they don't need them.

[a-chan]

@a-chan, I personally am for the healthcare reform, but I think the main complaint against it (other than people being afraid that the US will turn socialist :rolleyes:) is the money factor. The cost of the program is huge and people don't want their taxes to go up. While I understand that, we (the US) have typically had no problem spending BILLIONS of dollars on defense. I feel that the health of the citizens is just as, if not more important than the latest military equipment. And before anyone jumps down my throat, YES, OF COURSE I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

Ok, thanks for your explanation :)

Don't get american 'fear' of 'socialism'...it's not like it's an extremist thing like 'extreme right'(?) ideas and views... :thinking:

 

It's this simple idea people fail to grasp. Thus prices are going to RISE A LOT because of this while real output by the nation and wealth is decreasing.

Dunno how your american system will work but in here, our gouvernement regulates prices. The national insurance program is funded mostly by payroll and income taxes. Those payments go to several quasi-public insurance funds that then negotiate with medical unions to set doctors' fees and the government regulates most hospital fees. This system works collectively to keep costs down.

 

It forces the productive class to pay for the non-productive class's healthcare, which drives up prices overall for society.

It's called solidarity. Yes it has a cost but it's better than leave what you call the 'non-productive' class cast aside :confused: Everybody deserve to have access to medical care, it's a vital need. It doesn't bother me to pay for others cause I think it's normal on a 'human' level...

[Julie]

Yeah, but they don't have their own news channel.

 

Fox News BITCH

[Saffire]

It's called solidarity. Yes it has a cost but it's better than leave what you call the 'non-productive' class cast aside Everybody deserve to have access to medical care, it's a vital need. It doesn't bother me to pay for others cause I think it's normal on a 'human' level...

 

I'm not "casting the non-productive class aside". I'm suggesting lowering the price of healthcare by breaking the AMA's monopoly on it.

 

What's happening here is this simply this: The government is monopolizing a sector of the economy, and is making it attractive to the masses by saying "Only the wealthy will be required to pay for it". That may be true, but the COSTS of monopolization go beyond who merely foots the bill. The quality and diversity of the services will go down. The price (taxes) the wealthy pay for these services will increase over time, causing the wealthy to have less money to spend on goods/services produced by the poor.

 

Look at what happened here: http://city-journal.org/2010/eon0322td.html

 

Americans would do well to ponder a recent admission by a former British minister in the Blair government. On March 2, the Guardian reported that the ex-minister, now Lord Warner, said that while spending on Britain’s National Health Service had increased by 60 percent under the Labour government, its output had decreased by 4 percent.

 

Just like any other monopoly, costs go up, while quality goes down. You need competition to make it work. Not solidarity.

 

The economy is an ecosystem. This is Obama spewing toxic waste in the river.

[noonsun]

It does seem to me that medical research is going to be fucked over by socialized health care. If the government takes over health care here there is reduced incentive for it to fund research, really the only reason it would do so would be to compete with other countries, not like it is with pharmaceutical industry now.

 

But on the other hand you do have the whole "compassion for the lower class" thing. And there will still be pharma research by companies because it isn't like the government controls all health care, for now at least. To be honest I don't know what to make of this entire issue, it's so complex, I keep flip-flopping on what position I take on it.

 

It really really fucking bothers me how galvanized America's youth is one way or another, half of the people I know (well well over half actually) are like FUCK YEAH FREE SHIT, and the others just mimic their parents and go THANKS FOR FUCKING OVER AMERICA OBAMA. It isn't that simple, but nobody really tries to figure it out. It's scary.

[mc_squared]

Almost a quarter of Republicans think Obama 'may be the Antichrist' as 14 states sue over healthcare reforms

 

 

By David Gardner

Last updated at 10:23 PM on 24th March 2010

 

 

• Comments (40)
  
• Add to My Stories
  

 

Americans who suggest Barack Obama should rot in hell are apparently deadly serious.

Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president 'may be the Antichrist', according to a survey.

An even greater number compared him to Hitler.

Just another boys' club: Barack Obama, centre on the phone, is surrounded by male aides at the White House as they plot healthcare reform this week in a new image released today. The President has been compared to the Antichrist

 

Mr Obama was jubilant this week after securing his £626billion healthcare reform plan.

But his triumph seems only to have inflamed his critics among the evangelical Christians from America's heartland who kept George Bush in power for eight years and have demonised his successor.

 

More...

 

 

• 'This is a big f****** deal': Jubilant Joe Biden gaffes again as Obama signs historic healthcare reforms into law
  

 

More than half of the Republicans quizzed by Harris Poll, 57 per cent, believed the president was secretly Muslim, something he has consistently denied.

And 67 per cent of Republicans who responded believed Obama was a socialist, despite his central leanings.

 

The startling results came as lawyers representing 14 U.S. states filed lawsuits yesterday challenging an overhaul of the country's $2.5trillion healthcare system, minutes after President Barack Obama signed the landmark legislation.

One joint lawsuit by a dozen Republican attorneys general and a Democrat claims the sweeping reforms violate state-government rights in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.

Virginia went to court separately, while Missouri Republican Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder said he would like to join the suit.

 

 

'A big f****** deal': Mr Biden (second left) gaffed as the president signed the historic healthcare reform bill

 

 

The joint suit, led by Florida, was filed with a federal court in Pensacola, according to the office of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

 

In addition to McCollum, the Republican attorneys general from Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington joined the suit.

The lawsuit says the law - which expands government health plans for the poor, imposes new taxes on the wealthy and requires insurers to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions - violates the Constitution's commerce clause by requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance.

Mr McCollum said: 'It forces people to do something - in the sense of buying a healthcare policy or paying a penalty, a tax or a fine - that simply the Constitution does not allow Congress to do.'

Mr McCollum, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run for Florida governor, said the healthcare reforms would add $1.6billion to Florida's spending on the Medicaid health program for the poor.

The Justice Department, which is responsible for defending U.S. law in court, pledged to vigorously fight any challenges to the new healthcare law.

'We are confident that this statute is constitutional and we will prevail,' said Justice spokesman Charles Miller.

The White House agreed the suits would fail.

'There have been hearings about the constitutionality of the law, and I think there's pretty much widespread agreement that it is constitutional,' Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said.

'I think we have governors who might be aiming for higher office who are starting to just send a message.'

The suits were filed just moments after Mr Obama signed the healthcare reforms into law.

But on the most historic occasion of his presidency so far, vice-president Joe Biden managed to put his foot in it.

 

Gaffe-prone Mr Biden inadvertently broadcast the F-word to America after he introduced the President to sign his much vaunted health reform bill into law yesterday.

After hugging Mr Obama at a a ceremony in the White House, Mr Biden leaned in and whispered in the President's ear: 'This is a big f****** deal.'

The remark was caught on microphones recording the event that was shown live across the country. By last night, the clip was being replayed all over the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

White House aides seemed to be unembarrassed, with press secretary Robert Gibbs later tweeting: 'Yes, Mr Vice-President, you're right.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1260195/U-S-healthcare-reform-14-rebel-states-sue.html#ixzz0j97mJNWg

[Saffire]

Really the only reason there's massive resistance to this bill is because it's a Democrat behaving like a Democrat.

 

Notice when Bush passed his multi-trillion dollar Medicare prescription drug bill, there wasn't a peep of criticism from the Republicans, or a cheer of approval from the Democrats.

 

In the same way that when Obama extended the PATRIOT Act, the Democrats didn't take him to task on it.

 

Both parties work together to take away our freedoms gradually. Politics is like wrestling - back stage, the wrestlers are laughing and patting each other on the back, and splitting the money they collected from the ticket-buyers (who think their fights are real).

[Tnspieler1012]

Just came from a campus dem-rep debate.

 

Exactly what I expected, campus democrats were extremely naive, dodged arguments and pleaded to emotions. campus republicans were well prepared and articulate but extremely dense when it came to discussing things like homosexuality and 'don't ask, don't tell'.

[Saffire]

Politics is just appeal to emotion, on both sides. It's just like religion - you've got the God-like "father figure" presidents, the "miracle period" which occurred at the founding, the "sacred texts", the hymns (National Anthem), the different sects (protestants/catholics, republicans/democrats), the liturgy (Pledge of Allegiance), symbols (flag), etc.

[Tnspieler1012]

Spot on with the analogies. Its obviously no coincidence, just shows how politicians recognise the effectiveness of religious methods to deify itself and control the masses.

[Tnspieler1012]

When you have nothing witty to say you insult. There are and will always be extremists, on all sides who have absolutley no idea what they're talking about. Fox News seems to be a gathering spot for the right wingers.

There are far more stations than fox.

[mc_squared]

Spot on with the analogies. Its obviously no coincidence, just shows how politicians recognise the effectiveness of religious methods to deify itself and control the masses.

 

Sounds like Iran or Saudi Arabia.................................. :stunned:

[Pseudonym]

Politics is just appeal to emotion, on both sides. It's just like religion - you've got the God-like "father figure" presidents, the "miracle period" which occurred at the founding, the "sacred texts", the hymns (National Anthem), the different sects (protestants/catholics, republicans/democrats), the liturgy (Pledge of Allegiance), symbols (flag), etc.

And the Demons and Satan Worshipers - the Muslims and Jews. Oh and the Haitians.

[The Final Track]

Fox News BITCH

 

That's republican ;)

 

There are far more stations than fox.

 

That are as big? :thinking:

[Matter-Eater Lad]

That's republican

 

No way, I call it the Obama news channel. Oreilly and Hannity are huge Obama supporters.

[Cobalt]

I have never heard one Australian complain about our healthcare system. It helps support people who can't afford pay for hospital and doctors fees so that everyone in the country can enjoy good health. It is charged at 1.5% of your taxable income and covers any expenses there may be. If you have privite health insurance then the government will pay for 30% of your premium costs.

 

Hospitals are overcrowded and services are pretty lax at times. There is a complaint.

[jenflor]

I like you, good debate.

 

I believe aggregate government employment has been on the rise in the country. Also my point is interference in the private sector. There has been a huge increase in the last 60 years. Fannie, Freddie, all the bailouts, more regulation, owning GM, Czars. If you look at laws and the governments movement into the private sector beyond the take overs and aggregate growth in jobs, you see more involvement in the private sector. Also the massive rise in government spending is another example of the massive expansion of government.

 

Yes, there has been a lot of recent govt interference in the private sector, but isn't this a little like a chicken and egg scenario? The interference- specifically the increase in regulation and bailouts- were in response to problems caused by an initial lack of regulation. And yes, there has been a masive increase in govt spending, but please don't suggest that's only happened since Obama took office. Let's not forget that GW Bush added TRILLIONS of dollars to the national debt during his time in office.

 

Too some degree, the majority are against it because they want less government and involvement, they don't know the specifics of the plan. I feel the people supporting are just "Yeah! free shit!", "It's cool to be pro-government". At least that's the vibe I get from the younger college kids I know.

I personally haven't seen that attitude, but you're right, it is ignorant... of course it's not "free shit"... nothing's free. They will be paying for it.

 

At one point I wanted socialized medicine, but after much research realized how horrible it would be.

 

It in itself is a tax and redistribution of wealth. It's completely unsustainable.

 

Like I said before, more government involvement means more money to that sector, thus higher prices. A broke government and economy can't afford higher prices in that sector.

 

I obviously don't want "a broke government and economy"; I'm not thrilled about adding more money to the national debt, and I know some aspects of the reform are going to be very difficult for small businesses, which I'm also concerned about. BUT, I don't understand how now there is this massive outcry about "how much this is going to cost!!!" *now*, and Bush's spending went largely unchecked. The war(s), defense spending... all that is OK, but when it comes to the health of citizens, we draw the line.

 

like i've seen larry king before and i got the impression that he is more left wing... he seems to always be having bill maher, and from what i've seen at least he has more of a bias towards the left just from his attitude.

 

also their coverage of the election in 2008 seemed to be more sided towards obama... i can't think of a specific example but it's just my overall view of it.

I can see what you mean about Larry King, but I don't really think of him as a "newscaster". I'll also give you Chris Matthews... he kinda went off the rails during the election. I always hear that NBC is sooo liberal, and maybe Brian Williams *is*, but their reporting seems pretty even to me.

 

Really the only reason there's massive resistance to this bill is because it's a Democrat behaving like a Democrat.

 

Notice when Bush passed his multi-trillion dollar Medicare prescription drug bill, there wasn't a peep of criticism from the Republicans, or a cheer of approval from the Democrats.

 

In the same way that when Obama extended the PATRIOT Act, the Democrats didn't take him to task on it.

 

Both parties work together to take away our freedoms gradually. Politics is like wrestling - back stage, the wrestlers are laughing and patting each other on the back, and splitting the money they collected from the ticket-buyers (who think their fights are real).

yep.

 

I'm not "casting the non-productive class aside". I'm suggesting lowering the price of healthcare by breaking the AMA's monopoly on it.

 

What's happening here is this simply this: The government is monopolizing a sector of the economy, and is making it attractive to the masses by saying "Only the wealthy will be required to pay for it". That may be true, but the COSTS of monopolization go beyond who merely foots the bill. The quality and diversity of the services will go down. The price (taxes) the wealthy pay for these services will increase over time, causing the wealthy to have less money to spend on goods/services produced by the poor.

 

Look at what happened here: http://city-journal.org/2010/eon0322td.html

 

Just like any other monopoly, costs go up, while quality goes down. You need competition to make it work. Not solidarity.

 

The economy is an ecosystem. This is Obama spewing toxic waste in the river.

 

is the govt *really* monopolizing the healthcare industry, though? People are not being forced into a public option, they're not being forced to choose a specific insurance company or plan, they're not being told who their providers can be (oh, wait, ... insurance companies already tell us who we can and cannot see). I don't see the monopoly. Insurance companies will still get their money.

 

I know you're all for de-regulation and the dissolution of the AMA... but realistically, do you think that would ever happen?

 

and I'm honestly curious and don't know the answer to this... perhaps some of our international friends with "socialized" healthcare can help me out... are doctors in your country required to hold licenses to practice medicine?

 

btw, sorry for the super-long post. ;)

[Tnspieler1012]

That are as big? :thinking:

Yes, have you ever actually been to america?

[jenflor]

Notice when Bush passed his multi-trillion dollar Medicare prescription drug bill, there wasn't a peep of criticism from the Republicans, or a cheer of approval from the Democrats.

sorry, I skimmed over that bit earlier... the dems didn't cheer because that bill is horrible. It's costing nearly as much as the Obama plan and doesn't do half as much. It was essentially a gift to pharmaceutical companies.

[The Escapist]

Hospitals are overcrowded and services are pretty lax at times. There is a complaint.

 

I agree but you will be treated and it will be for free or for a reduced cost. Thats why people with private health go to private health hospitals.

[The Final Track]

Yes, have you ever actually been to america?

 

:angry:

[Saffire]

sorry, I skimmed over that bit earlier... the dems didn't cheer because that bill is horrible. It's costing nearly as much as the Obama plan and doesn't do half as much. It was essentially a gift to pharmaceutical companies.

 

Exactly, it was a gift to drug companies.

 

Like the current bill is a gift to insurance companies.

 

Wake up.

 

I agree but you will be treated and it will be for free or for a reduced cost. Thats why people with private health go to private health hospitals.

 

Ok, even if I accept the argument that medical care will be available to everyone in the same quality it currently is (unlikely - no competition), the quantity will still be lacking. So you've got increased demand with static supply. Just like the UK system (and New Zealand, and Canada, etc.)

 

It's very important to include wait times with cost. Because money has time value (interest), and if you are injured and can't work in the meantime, you are hemorrhaging potential income. Not to mention the pain you may be in while you wait. That's got to be against your human rights.

[Saffire]

is the govt *really* monopolizing the healthcare industry, though? People are not being forced into a public option, they're not being forced to choose a specific insurance company or plan, they're not being told who their providers can be (oh, wait, ... insurance companies already tell us who we can and cannot see). I don't see the monopoly. Insurance companies will still get their money.

 

I know you're all for de-regulation and the dissolution of the AMA... but realistically, do you think that would ever happen?

 

Well the individual insurance companies already have virtual monopolies in their respective states, thanks to government regulation. Look at this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360923109310680.html

 

So the idea of opening up competition has been floated, but never seriously considered by either the Republicans or Democrats. Wonder why?

 

And no, I don't think the AMA will be disbanded. Like a malignant tumor, governments eventually grow to the point they destroy their host society. It's the cycle of empire, Thomas Cole immortalized it in a beautiful set of paintings. You should google it.

[a-chan]

and I'm honestly curious and don't know the answer to this... perhaps some of our international friends with "socialized" healthcare can help me out... are doctors in your country required to hold licenses to practice medicine?

What do you mean by that :thinking: You mean do they need a diploma? Yes of course! If they're not graduated by an establishment recognized by state, they're not allowed to practice medecine, it's fraud! When they open an office, they have to be registred to the state so their patient can be reimburse of their fees.

As for 'alternative' medicine like some specific type of kinesitherapy like osteopathy (?), it's not recognize officially but tolerate. So they can practise but the 'securite social' (the state fund) will not pay for it ;)

[Saffire]

Licenses (for anything) are unnecessary. They're just a way to limit competition.

 

Consumers are able to weed out the untrustworthy / bad businesses very quickly. They buy based on word-of-mouth and reputation.

[Cobalt]

It's very important to include wait times with cost. Because money has time value (interest), and if you are injured and can't work in the meantime, you are hemorrhaging potential income. Not to mention the pain you may be in while you wait. That's got to be against your human rights.

 

Yea my sister was in labour for 4 days and the doctors and nurses weren't really doing much or telling her much. She finally got a C-section on the 5th day, she was breech, but that's still too long to be suffering. If it was a private hospital that time would have at least been half or something.