Public Healthcare is Bad

[dld4a]

Constitution is been ignored and will be continued to be ignored.
This could be the exact moment in History when the Constitution that we grew up believing in stop being relevant.

I fear that moment may have been passed long ago, but relevant is a relevant term.

 

[sillypuddybuddy]

Yes that is true. Not sure about what the fine will be but you will be fined and face possible jail time. They better get a cell ready for me.

jail time would only come if the fines arent paid in an alloted time period, not yet specified, but based on the monetary amount of the fines, probably upwards of a year of past due fines before jail time. and there will be assistance programs and such for those who still cannot afford it. the point of the bill is not to put the poverty stricken in jail

Actual production v. the various Works Act which only patched over and prolonged the Depression by creating a pattern of cyclical unemployment wherever money was tossed without producing "goods" -- you can argue that it produced edifices, but the difference in how money was distributed (and they regulated the spending of the worker's pay!) still separates it.

tl;dr -- FDR toyed with economic theories, Depression didn't lift. WWII comes, Depression ends because genuine production/consumption increase.

I read over a few summaries of the bill. I see in it a similar flaw we see in Social Security: the young subsidize the old. However, in this case, it is the infirm. Many students, fresh out of college, opt out of health insurance if they aren't on their family plan -- it's costly, and they're young and healthy, so it makes sense to avoid the cost until it makes sense to purchase coverage.

Under mandatory coverage, they must get coverage of some sort -- they're forced to buy into the risk pool. Effectively, the government is forcing the subsidizing of the high risk people (who would have been turned away due to pre-existings or what-have-you) upon the shoulders of American 20-somethings. I don't know the math, so perhaps, unlike SS, this isn't a pyramid scheme reliant on more workers earning more to subsidize older generations, however, I fear for when we undergo a demographic shift, and there are fewer of these twentysomethings to take the rest of America on their shoulders.

you might have glazed this during your reading of the bill.... but all American citizens can stay under their families healthcare plans until the age of 26, which allows for a smoother transition into the workplace.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Consitution is been ignored and will be continued to be ignored.
This could be the exact moment in History when the consitution that we grew up believing in stop being relevant.

you don't need to even read past the preamble to see this follows in line with the constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


establish Justice the courts have been doing a a pretty decent job so far

insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, the government has protected us via military, police, fire dept. etc.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity america, land of the free since 1776

promote the general Welfare if all of the above notions of the preamble have been satisfied, why until the passing of this bill has this one been left unfulfilled? obviously people are going to have differing opinions, and they are allowed to voice them as such, which is what truly makes this country what it is. But IMHO healthcare has always seemed like something that the government should provide to its citizens, and apparently that was part of the plan since the beginning.

 

[dld4a]

all American citizens can stay under their families healthcare plans until the age of 26, which allows for a smoother transition into the workplace.

And if their family doesn't want to, or can't afford to continue paying for said child until the age of 26?

 

[SLOW DECK]

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.

Sorry Sillypuddy, I think your intrepretation of the preamble has less merit than the Supreme Court.

Now the two words again are used in the Taxing and Spending Clause of the US Constituion. The Federalist papers (written by some guys that actually wrote the silly thing call the US Consitution) are a great study about what was meant by General Welfare. I will suggest that you further your study here on what "THEY" meant on general welfare, not what today's Liberal Thought on General Welfare means.

Under your definition, the United States can Tax at 100% and redistrute those proceeds for the general welfare as they see fit. aKa communism.

 

[Aron*]

Why are you people complaining about public healthcare. In Canada we have had for a long time and we are doing fine. The only people who should be complaining shoulb be the investors because they lost money in healthcare. Stop complaining.

 

[SLOW DECK]

LOL, More 20 year olds that just don't understand how to be jaded yet. Investors who lost money? Who are they?

United Health care 1 year ago traded in the 20-21 dollar range...... now they trade in the 33 dollar range. +50%
Merck, the drug maker, 1 year ago traded in the 22 dollar range..... now they trade in the 38 dollar range. +70%.

All those back room deals where made by Barrack, Rahm, Nancy, and Harry. The Chicago way... I live in Chicago, and I can tell you these guys are Machiavellians at their worst. If you haven't yet read or studied the treasties The Prince written in 1503, do it. Before you go to far acting like a we can begin to understand politics, understand the game that is being played with the gullable sheep among us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

Politics isn't like sports where you root for some guy like a football team. We are being lied to, or given half truths, all the time by both sides. I haven't vote For a politician EVER, I have only voted Against the other guy. Obama slams the Healthcare companies in public, mean time the backroom deals gives them sweetheart deals. Younger folks believe in some utopian society can exist, but don't understand the human condition well enough yet to realize that is foolish. Often quoted: "If you aren't liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you aren't conservative when you are old, you have no brain."

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

I’m not a huge fan of some of the things I’ve seen in the healthcare bill ... but the current system was clearly broken. I say that as someone who has had way too much exposure to “the system” with good insurance and based on objective measures like cost of service and worldwide healthcare rankings. I’m in the “give the bill a chance” camp at the moment. Honestly if it works out great! If not this is America. We can change it.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

Why are you people complaining about public healthcare. In Canada we have had for a long time and we are doing fine. The only people who should be complaining shoulb be the investors because they lost money in healthcare. Stop complaining.

I think the issue is that the American HCR is more of a benefit to the insurance industry than anything else.

Also, Slow Deck, it may be just me, but you seem to share a lot of views with Glenn Beck (and utilize a lot of his tactics).
That being said, who is more to blame; The man who promises free unicorns, or the people who honestly think they'll get a unicorn?

A lot of people who scream about, "OBAMASEKRITMUSLIMDETHPANELLS!!1111!!!) don't seem to notice that the insurance companies didn't technically have death panels. It was more that a lot of those companies have a policy that every claim gets denied until they have no choice.
It would suffice to say that when any system that is put in place to help people stay healthy is actively trying to put them in an early grave, the system is broken.

As far as bargaining power goes. . . . there is none.
The companies have a service and we have no choice but to buy it.
It's kind of like saying we have bargaining power with gas stations (we might save a dollar here and there, but they still have all of the real power).

Illinois politicians are known for being corrupt, I won't lie. lol
I voted against Obama and I often find more negative things to say about him than positive things.
All of that being said, it's stupidity to lay this at his feet.
He campaigned on it and he signed it in, but the republicans had a very VERY big role in turning the entire debate into a three-ring circus.

Not to nitpick, but would you happen to have a precedent from the last 100 years or so? :tongue:

One last thing, if anything costs Obama the re-election, it will be HCR (if the republicans nominate Palin, I don't know if Obama could mess up badly enough to not win that).
Hooray for choosing the lesser evil. :thumb:

 

[SuperWooper]

That being said, who is more to blame; The man who promises free unicorns, or the people who honestly think they'll get a unicorn?

The man who makes the promise is more to blame than those who listen to and believe him; as the promiser, he must be held to a higher standard.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

The man who makes the promise is more to blame than those who listen to and believe him; as the promiser, he must be held to a higher standard.

Even when it is something so crazy that anybody with an ounce of common sense would be skeptical?
What if I told you that there was a Pokemon card that said, "you win the game if. . ." nevermind, bad example. lol

I don't honestly care for Obama, but he promised that he would:
1. Have all the troops out of Iraq within 6 months of being elected (quickly changed to 18 months the day after the election and he probably won't even make that mark).
I should mention that his current plan for the wars are the same as what Bush was planning.

2. Close Gitmo.

3. Do away with, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (already said he won't do it since then).

4. Fix the economy almost immediately.

Whatever, he's a politician and he lied (just like every other politician).
Makes me wish Colbert had won the election. lol

 

[SLOW DECK]

Largest Problem with the high cost of health care......OVER UTILIZATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY PAID BY THE USER OF THAT SERVICE. There are endless stories of goods and services being recomended today in private insurance and especially medicare, because they health care providers know that this service will be reimbursed, without questions ask. If someone at Mc Donalds gives you and charges you for an extra Value meal, you are getting that corrected because you don't want to pay the extra $5 for something you aren't going to eat. The medical system is full of these scams.

A study of human condition is that if you give away something for free, the people will tend to take it even if they don't need it. If people have to pay for something, they have to make a choice of parting with money, or not using the service. If the people choose to part with the money, they have made an active decision and confirmation that they believe they need that good or service.

People complain about the high cost of health insurance, but they will never point a finger at themselves for using and abusing the health care system. As we enter a system where more and more people won't bear ANY cost of there actions, our health care expenditures will only go HIGHER and HIGHER.

Liberals tend to think people wouldn't waste good and services or that controls can actually be 100% effective. Liberals convert to a conservative slant (like myself) because they have seen and know the human condition isn't altrustic, controls aren't and can't be effective, and enough people will abuse the system to an inefficient manner. Only a system where the user bears some element of cost for every services receivedcan the system have an internal design of minimising wastes of goods and services.

Would you like a donut..... It's Free, you don't have to pay for it... someone else will. Again, I do think we should help people that can't help themselves, but I also believe we do people and our nation a bad thing by helping those that don't need help and let them to help themselves. I go back to the original "Wagon" analogy.

(BTW, I haven't never seen Glenn Beck. I know who he is.)

 

[SuperWooper]

Even when it is something so crazy that anybody with an ounce of common sense would be skeptical?
What if I told you that there was a Pokemon card that said, "you win the game if. . ." nevermind, bad example. lol

Heh. Those new Lost Zone mechanics are going to drive me up a wall.

And yes, I think that no matter how ludicrous the promise, the one making it is responsible for its failure. In a pure democracy, the blame is easily spread; in a representative democracy, it can't be. The notion that we are responsible for the successes and failures of the politicians we elect is, to me, a pipe dream.

 

[NoPoke]

Free healthcare isn't realy a donut. Who wants to be ill or break a leg or need dialysis?


From what I hear USA private health care is way way more expensive that either private healthcare in the UK or the public service that much of the UK contribute towards. it isn't at all obvious that introducing a publicly funded insurance service for healthcare will result in an increase in overall cost for the USA taxpayers.

---

One of the things I most admire about the USA is the "Can Do" attitude. Just why would the USA be unable to make public health care work when others have already managed it?

 

[SLOW DECK]

Donut, no, a prescription that is prescribed, cost $300, and isn't needed. An MRI or specialised test to cover the doctors "***" from lawyers that cost $500. Not a Donut, but darn expensive never the less. When it is your money, you don't accept services and the cost of stuff you don't need.

That is a slice of the Current US system.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

The whole thing about goods/services being used and not payed for is flawed because the opposite side of it is exactly what made HCR something that needed to happen (not happy with how it happened, but we needed something).

The reason your argument is flawed is the simple fact that health insurance companies have been taking money and then dropping people as soon as they need to make use of the service that they have been paying for.
Blue Cross (among others) was getting sued less than a year ago by a whole lot of people who had paid into their insurance for years, never missed a payment, got diagnosed with cancer and the insurance dropped them as soon as the diagnoses came in.
Many other insurance companies have a policy that all claims are to be denied unless the person:
A. Gets a lawyer.
or
B. Persists in fighting it after having the claim denied more than three times.

The industry is broken because whether you live or die is simply a matter of whether or not some stuffed suit can make an extra 50 bucks by letting you die.

You aren't going to find people much more jaded than I am (pm me if you really want to know).
I'm generally regarded as a pessimistic, cynical, angry, bitter person.

I wasn't trying to say that Obama was guilt free (like I said, he proposed it in the first place and he did sign it in), but the voters who refuse to educate themselves on any political subject and base their voting habits on a one-word campaign slogan ("Hope" anyone?) are certainly not innocent either.

One of the things I most admire about the USA is the "Can Do" attitude. Just why would the USA be unable to make public health care work when others have already managed it?

Because Americans have deregulated industries that needed more regs to begin with and as such, have created an entire industry that made more money for every person they let die a tragic death.

Because so many people hate Obama because Rush Limbaugh says to.
Because we have a two party system and one of them is constantly destroying their reputation.
Because 30% of the drivers on the road would gladly risk killing somebody in order to get to starbucks 30 seconds faster.

America is so broken that I don't have any faith that it will honestly ever be fixed.

 

[sillypuddybuddy]

And if their family doesn't want to, or can't afford to continue paying for said child until the age of 26?

this is irrelevant, if the family cant afford to keep the child under the bill until 26, then they cant afford it, and don't have to. its an option, a very nice option for many families. i was addressing prodigals post in which he voiced his concern about 20 somethings that were transitioning to the workplace and how they would afford the healthcare. this new option helps many families because in many cases, it is cheaper to keep your child under your own healthcare plan and this bill extending that period of coverage helps that problem.

Sorry Sillypuddy, I think your intrepretation of the preamble has less merit than the Supreme Court.

Now the two words again are used in the Taxing and Spending Clause of the US Constituion. The Federalist papers (written by some guys that actually wrote the silly thing call the US Consitution) are a great study about what was meant by General Welfare. I will suggest that you further your study here on what "THEY" meant on general welfare, not what today's Liberal Thought on General Welfare means.

Under your definition, the United States can Tax at 100% and redistrute those proceeds for the general welfare as they see fit. aKa communism.

"Originally Posted by Butler vs Massachuesets (1905) US Supreme Court
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

First of all, LOL at your misquote. That ruling was given in "Jacobson vs Massachusetts" in 1905, and if you used any websites or resources other than wikipedia for your information you would know that :lol::lol::lol: not to mention, i like how your response above was basically a copy paste from wikipedia, you might have impressed the little tykes with that, made it seem like you knew something, but you didnt slip it past everyone :thumb:

Secondly
Since you love wikipedia as your source of info, im surprised you skipped this....
"the broader view of Alexander Hamilton is that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other."

according to the federalist papers, congress should have the power to spend for the general welfare when needed. and in this context, the general welfare is deemed as "national needs". health is obviously a "national need", and this bill is designed in such a way that it "doesn't favor a specific section of the country over any other". sounds to me like "THEY" (the writers of the consitution) would be ok with this bill:thumb:

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

Slow I reject your characterization of liberals and conservatives.

On the positive side I see conservatives as champions of individual rights, advocates of morality, and folks who prefer financial prudence to uncertain spending. I view liberals are progressive thinkers who are genuinely interested in helping others and making a better future for everyone.

The biggest guiding principle I see in conservatives involves the primacy of the individual both in terms of rights and responsibilities. They celebrate the strength of individuals to make positive choices that lead to a good life.

For liberals there is usually more of a view of the importance of society as a whole along with a desire to make it and the environment we live in better place. They take pride in our common achievements that have helped many people.

The thing is that both of these are true. Individual choice and the impact of society on the choices we make are both hugely important. Politically we do ourselves a disservice when we say it can only be one way or the other. It’s one reason that I hate politics so much these days. It reminds me so much of sports. Folks “root” for their “team” to “win.” They are happy with their political team has a big victory and mad when the other side has one. I honestly think that many politicians use this mindset to keep folks from thinking and to stay in power. It’s more about the game to them than the real principles of either party.

Regarding health care liberals don’t “tend to think that people wouldn’t waste goods and services” and they certainly aren’t naive enough to think that controls “can actually be 100% effective.” Instead there is an honest desire to a) fix something that’s broken & b) make America a better place in the process & c) score a political victory. The thing about controls is that liberals recognize that there will be waste and inefficiency, and do what they can to reduce both. It’s important to keep in mind that many liberals aren’t 100% satisfied with this bill either & some of them for these exact reasons. It’s going to take time to see if this legislation was a step in the right direction or not.

 

[SLOW DECK]

Slow I reject your characterization of liberals and conservatives.

On the positive side I see conservatives as champions of individual rights, advocates of morality, and folks who prefer financial prudence to uncertain spending. I view liberals are progressive thinkers who are genuinely interested in helping others and making a better future for everyone.

......

For liberals there is usually more of a view of the importance of society as a whole along with a desire to make it and the environment we live in better place. They take pride in our common achievements that have helped many people.

Vandy, I agree with your charactertization....nothing new... but it seems to be from a Liberal POV, with further explaination there. My point of view has been very Conservative, and my opinions are even more slated. Some conservatives and some liberals are just greedy SOB that are dominated by "what is in it for me". Thus if they benefit, they are fore it, if it cost them they are against it. I know people would ultimate flip conservative/liberal solely on the size of there paycheck. I would really say that only about half the people who say they are liberal or conservative are really just "what is in it for me voters".

Liberals tend to think the world would be a better place if people just did "this". Then totalirism steps in they make people do "this". Conservatives beleive that Liberals can't think(and shouldn't think) for other people, and people should be "Free" to do what they want. Conservatives now that self determination drives the individual and the collective nation more than a state derived determination.

On the extreme side if there was no rewards for hard work, not many people would work hard. The more we tax hard work, the less hard work is done.

The Wagon(see above) can only weigh(be tax) so much or this country will go nowhere.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

Slow Deck, as a rebuttal to your argument, I will quote Jon Stewart.

I can draw circles too!

Good to know that liberals are for totalitarianism and socialism at the same time.
Mandatory purchase of a private service does come close to socialism and that is why I am so against it.

At the same time, the republicans have destroyed and humiliated their party at every turn, almost to the point where people are going to vote democrat because they don't see them as lunatics.

http://www.abc15.com
How about a news story of Sarah Palin cheering people on for beating a man who disagreed with her?

http://www.necn.com
Sarah Palin telling people to start confrontations with people who have Obama bumper stickers.
Kind of a reference to this next link.

http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net
A republican tried to kill innocent people because of an Obama bumper sticker on their car.

People are so anti-republican right now because the repubs have decided to use a person who promotes political terrorism to be the mouthpiece of their party.

How about when Limbaugh (another figurehead of the republicans) urged all members of the military to refuse to follow orders because Obama was a "SEKRITMUSLIMKENYAN!!!111!!"?

They promote acts of violence in order to intimidate those with a political/religious view different from their own.
The saddest part of that sentence is that it applies to Al-qaeda and the Republicans. :nonono:

I will vote for who I think is the better candidate (regardless of their party), but I'm not about to vote for people who turn into terrorists when they lose an election.

Your wagon analogy works very well if you include conservatives who put pits in the middle of the road because they would rather have everything fail than to have somebody else succeed.
Your logic fail kicks into high gear when you say that liberals want to force people to think a certain way, when the conservatives are already resorting to violence against anybody who doesn't think what they want.

I could go on, but I would probably violate forum rules if I pointed out anything else about how horribly flawed your argument is.

 

[sillypuddybuddy]

Slow Deck, as a rebuttal to your argument, I will quote Jon Stewart.


Good to know that liberals are for totalitarianism and socialism at the same time.
Mandatory purchase of a private service does come close to socialism and that is why I am so against it.

At the same time, the republicans have destroyed and humiliated their party at every turn, almost to the point where people are going to vote democrat because they don't see them as lunatics.

http://www.abc15.com
How about a news story of Sarah Palin cheering people on for beating a man who disagreed with her?

http://www.necn.com
Sarah Palin telling people to start confrontations with people who have Obama bumper stickers.
Kind of a reference to this next link.

http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net
A republican tried to kill innocent people because of an Obama bumper sticker on their car.

People are so anti-republican right now because the repubs have decided to use a person who promotes political terrorism to be the mouthpiece of their party.

How about when Limbaugh (another figurehead of the republicans) urged all members of the military to refuse to follow orders because Obama was a "SEKRITMUSLIMKENYAN!!!111!!"?

They promote acts of violence in order to intimidate those with a political/religious view different from their own.
The saddest part of that sentence is that it applies to Al-qaeda and the Republicans. :nonono:

I will vote for who I think is the better candidate (regardless of their party), but I'm not about to vote for people who turn into terrorists when they lose an election.

Your wagon analogy works very well if you include conservatives who put pits in the middle of the road because they would rather have everything fail than to have somebody else succeed.
Your logic fail kicks into high gear when you say that liberals want to force people to think a certain way, when the conservatives are already resorting to violence against anybody who doesn't think what they want.

I could go on, but I would probably violate forum rules if I pointed out anything else about how horribly flawed your argument is.

sir if i could personally award you the entire internet as a reward for your post i would. mighty fine job!

/thread