spectere.net
The Chatterbox => Random Chat => Topic started by: Sqthreer! on March 22, 2010, 02:55:16 PM
-
Anybody care to explain this new and apparently important bill thinger that is going down?
All I've heard is that healthcare will now be mandatory, and taxes for the wealthy will increase. I suppose I could look it up on some news website but it seems like something worthy of discussing anyway. I'd like to hear everyone's own interpretation of this reform and how it affects you.
-
Mandatory coverage and no public option means no reform, no competition, no personal choice. This is just another betrayal of the citizens to corporate interests.
-
It's still a "reform" by definition, just for the fact that the system is changing...
And why, exactly, is it a betrayal of America?
-
If everyone is required to have insurance, there isn't much to stop health care companies from raising their premiums, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it besides be fined for not buying in. I love the provision that keeps them from rejecting people due to pre-existing conditions, but you know they'll use that as an excuse to raise premiums through the roof. If they competed against each other, that would be one thing, but there's not really much competition to go around. (It's even worse than the car insurance racket, which at least has some pretense of competition.) No public option means no forced competition, means no motivation to provide low prices. As far as betrayal, my opinion is that giving health insurance companies the means and the motive to financially rape average people is pretty crappy.
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-101-what-the-bill-means-to-you
read up sons, so we can discuss. I haven't read shit about this yet.
-
words
Okay well that makes sense. I can definitely see the negative aspect of something like this, but there's no reason to rely on one possible outcome happening. From what I've read (see: skimmed) of Sneaky's link, the insurance companies losing money from not rejecting patients for pre-existing conditions might be balanced out by the flow of young, healthier people who would come in now that they can.
And as for the fine for not complying, it looks like it won't be implemented until 2014, if the bill lasts beyond this year anyway.
I like the idea of having healthcare, but making it mandatory and still charging unreasonable prices for it seems shitty. At this point it's still all speculation for me though :/
-
I was against the public option before it was removed in the Senate version because it could have allowed the government to have a monopoly of the health insurance industry; they could theoretically force competition, but like any company that would be granted a monopoly, it would look out for its own interests, meaning running any other company out of business.
The best type of reform, in my opinion, would be that which gave individuals more power and got rid of the government interference that plagues the system.
I also never understood why the bill had to be so god damn long.
-
Well the Patriot Act apparently was only read completely by one or two members of congress before it passed because it was so long, and only person voted against it (probably the one who actually bothered to read it).
-
If everyone is required to have insurance, there isn't much to stop health care companies from raising their premiums, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it besides be fined for not buying in. I love the provision that keeps them from rejecting people due to pre-existing conditions, but you know they'll use that as an excuse to raise premiums through the roof. If they competed against each other, that would be one thing, but there's not really much competition to go around. (It's even worse than the car insurance racket, which at least has some pretense of competition.) No public option means no forced competition, means no motivation to provide low prices. As far as betrayal, my opinion is that giving health insurance companies the means and the motive to financially rape average people is pretty crappy.
That's not really how it works.
-
Feel free to enlighten me, then. I expect the worst out of corporations, and they usually deliver.
-
I am not against public health care but what I am reading seems like this not what I would want. I personaly think it is bullshit that one has to have it or be fined...some people cannot afford it. I know I can't. Why is there the potental that I must pay a fine for not being covered under shitty health insurance that I probably can't afford in the first place. Has the government forgot about a thing called Natural Selection and the Life Cycle...sorry if I am being cynical but thats how I feel.
-
Coming form someone who has public healthcare, I can say this: If you guys stopped gettting all pissy about the government "interfering" with your precious freedom, maybe obama wouldn't have to push through such a mangled version of his idea. The only reason that you are seeing that reform, rather than the one Obama really wants is because everybody and their mother thinks that universal helthcare is some plot to turn the states into some communist regime. I'm sorry to burst your little bubble, but the purpose of government is to GOVERN. To control the country, to mkae choises for the people of the country. Occasionally, the government has to make decisions that aren't appreciated by the people. However, just because the people don't like the changes, doesn't mean they aren't a good idea.
I like my healthcare system. A lot. The only problem I have with it is the waiting times, and that's partially because lots of doctors know they can make more money by going to the states, and charging an arm and a leg rather than the government controlled amounts they get here. But don't think that the government screws them over. Doctors can still afford bigger houses, and nicer cars, and can afford to send their children to university more than the rest of us.
What our healthcare did was decide that everyone, whether they're that hobo on the street, or the richest prick, has the right to good health. Unfortunately, you people seem to think that money decides who has the right to live or die. I don't say that lightly either. Here, if you need something to live, the government will pay for it. I've heard plenty of stories about how people have died in the states because they couldn't afford treatment. I don't see how anyone who has a conscicence can say that that is right.
So what do I have to sya about your healthcare reform? You did it to yourselves. If anything bad comes of this, rather than good, it's because nobody had the brains and the guts to stand up and support a proper health care reform in the states. This is not something you can do halfway and leave it at that.
-
Unfortunately, you people seem to think that money decides who has the right to live or die.
Excuse me, "you people?"
I hardly believe we all think that way. If I had it my way, everyone would get good healthcare whether they had money or not.
-
Coming form someone who has public healthcare, I can say this: If you guys stopped gettting all pissy about the government "interfering" with your precious freedom, maybe obama wouldn't have to push through such a mangled version of his idea. The only reason that you are seeing that reform, rather than the one Obama really wants is because everybody and their mother thinks that universal helthcare is some plot to turn the states into some communist regime. I'm sorry to burst your little bubble, but the purpose of government is to GOVERN. To control the country, to mkae choises for the people of the country. Occasionally, the government has to make decisions that aren't appreciated by the people. However, just because the people don't like the changes, doesn't mean they aren't a good idea.
I like my healthcare system. A lot. The only problem I have with it is the waiting times, and that's partially because lots of doctors know they can make more money by going to the states, and charging an arm and a leg rather than the government controlled amounts they get here. But don't think that the government screws them over. Doctors can still afford bigger houses, and nicer cars, and can afford to send their children to university more than the rest of us.
What our healthcare did was decide that everyone, whether they're that hobo on the street, or the richest prick, has the right to good health. Unfortunately, you people seem to think that money decides who has the right to live or die. I don't say that lightly either. Here, if you need something to live, the government will pay for it. I've heard plenty of stories about how people have died in the states because they couldn't afford treatment. I don't see how anyone who has a conscicence can say that that is right.
So what do I have to sya about your healthcare reform? You did it to yourselves. If anything bad comes of this, rather than good, it's because nobody had the brains and the guts to stand up and support a proper health care reform in the states. This is not something you can do halfway and leave it at that.
Bobbias thinks he's posting on the GOP website
ps just because you were lucky enough to be from Canada doesn't mean you should rub it in, bro
-
The thing is, it's not about Obama wants. It's about what the people want. I hate to burst your little bubble, but they true purpose of our government, as it was designed, is/was to protect people against force and fraud, provide people with representation in government, and conduct Official Business. The End. The reason we call our elected representatives "public servants" is so that they can be servants of the public, not so they can make our decisions for us, especially ones that we don't want, no matter how amazingly great of an idea it is. Nonetheless, even if HR 3200, Obama's original plan, was passed with no changes along the way, it would still be a monstrosity. A gazillion pages worth of shoddy details, ect.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
You know what Franklin did when asked about the possibility of government-run hospitals? He opened up a charity hospital with his own wealth.
I mean, if you like Canada's health care system, great! Live in Canada. But we (majority of Americans) don't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health care cannot be a right by any stretch whatsoever. You could maybe argue that the government has a duty to provide health care, but it's not a right. A right is a freedom of action, ie, speech, life, protection; they're not goods, commodities, or services. For this reason, I strongly disagree with people who claim they have a right to health care. And people like Nancy Pelosi, who claim the passage of the bill is the equivalent to the civil rights acts are despicable.
-
I agree this country is based off the free market. This means that the free market for shopping for health care could be greatly ruined.
-
The thing is, it's not about Obama wants. It's about what the people want. I hate to burst your little bubble, but they true purpose of our government, as it was designed, is/was to protect people against force and fraud, provide people with representation in government, and conduct Official Business. The End. The reason we call our elected representatives "public servants" is so that they can be servants of the public, not so they can make our decisions for us, especially ones that we don't want, no matter how amazingly great of an idea it is. Nonetheless, even if HR 3200, Obama's original plan, was passed with no changes along the way, it would still be a monstrosity. A gazillion pages worth of shoddy details, ect.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
You know what Franklin did when asked about the possibility of government-run hospitals? He opened up a charity hospital with his own wealth.
I mean, if you like Canada's health care system, great! Live in Canada. But we (majority of Americans) don't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health care cannot be a right by any stretch whatsoever. You could maybe argue that the government has a duty to provide health care, but it's not a right. A right is a freedom of action, ie, speech, life, protection; they're not goods, commodities, or services. For this reason, I strongly disagree with people who claim they have a right to health care. And people like Nancy Pelosi, who claim the passage of the bill is the equivalent to the civil rights acts are despicable.
EDIT: lol at the idea that letting people die/getting 5-figure health costs is just fine because government are just "public servants" so free health care is not a right
pretty cool imo
-
I agree this country is based off the free market. This means that the free market for shopping for health care could be greatly ruined.
It's ruined right now and this will only lead to it being fixed. The current way of healthcare involves everyone being ripped off constantly. You have no idea how badly health insurance companies have been screwing over the public.
-
EDIT: lol at the idea that letting people die/getting 5-figure health costs is just fine because government are just "public servants" so free health care is not a right
Wait when did I say letting people die/getting 5-figure health costs is alright? "Free" health care cannot be a right because a right is a freedom of action; health care is a service that can be bought and traded, not an action that can be carried out by an individual by their own volition. As I said, you could argue that the government may have a duty to provide such goods, commodities, and services, but they are not natural rights because they contradict what rights are.
I don't think the government should run health care, or act as a public insurance company because they give themselves a de jure monopoly. To say that the government wouldn't act as evil as an evil insurance company that would be granted a monopoly, and made it so people had to purchase from them or be fined, or would only exist to force competition, would be like saying that an evil insurance company who would be granted a monopoly, with the government making it so people had to purchase from them or be fined, and were exempt from taxes, regulations, ect, would turn out to be the greatest insurance company of all time who would never look out for their own self-interests.
And in regard to the government trying to force competition: it can't. It can't force growth, competition, innovation, or anything that the free market system is great at. Any such is artificial, akin to stapling a pair of bird's wings to a dog and claiming they've created a new species.
BUT in regard to your point, any person who is in need of medical services would ideally be taken care of by charity. Ideally, charity hospitals and not for profit organizations would take care of these people; believe it or not, people's benevolence is more effective and of a higher quality than the "charity" of the government.
PS. The only thing wrong with the insurance companies is that they exist in a country whose economic system is not that of laissez-faire capitalism, but of crony capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism).
-
Alright. My post may have been a little out of line.
I was going to write a wall of text, then I decided that there's no point in going so far into what I believe.
In a perfect world, where there is truly free trade, where there is no crony capitalism, where competition drives prices to a reasonable level, and where the number of benevolent individuals heavily outweighs (or at least balances) the malicious, I would think that health care would be available to anyone who needs it, at either an affordable price, or by way of charity, to those who are unable to pay the price. In that world, I can see it as being equal to healthcare provided by the government to every citizen, like we have in Canada.
In the real world, things don't work that way. people are greedy, and companies are even worse, because the people involved are shielded from how terrible the company really is. If there is a way to make more money than the "honest" way, a company will most likely find it, and do it. In a perfect world, companies wouldn't spend more money advertising their donations to charities than they actually donated. But in our world, that happens all the time.
Sometimes, someone needs to step in, and decide when a company has gone too far.
I'm not advocating a healthcare system where the government fleeces the public as much, or more (like that's possible...), than the current system. I'm advocating a true reform where the system serves the people, and cares for them.
The government should be like your parents. Supportive, always willing to give assistance to you when you need it, always concerned about your issues, be it health, money, or something else, but knowing when to step back, and let you make your own choices, good or bad.
-
I honestly don't see why it's such a massive deal. People shouldn't go without health insurance, it's just a fucking dumb thing to do and it's generally a burden to everyone involved.
It seems generally sound overall, I mean sure is has some problems but it shouldn't be the massive fuck up that some people are hyping it up to be.
Plus, FUCK the medical industry, they need someone to step in and tell them not to be such a massive gathering of assholes. Plus, the fact that they actually address and help with the whole "Doughnut hole" situation is great.
Beginning in 2010, people who fall into this hole will get $250 from the government to help. Thereafter, according to the bill, the US will gradually increase the percentage of drug costs it pays within this gap. By 2020, the US will pay 75 percent of senior drug costs between $2,700 and $6,154.
-
FUCK POOR PEOPLE. GET MONEY AND WORK FOR YOUR SHIT
-
FUCK POOR PEOPLE. GET MONEY AND WORK FOR YOUR SHIT
you won't be saying that when your parents stop paying for your insurance, bro
-
you won't be saying that when your parents stop paying for your insurance, bro
Quoted for a ridiculous amount of truth...
-
I don't think he was serious.
-
Eh, I took it seriously because I used to think like that. But now that I'm going to college in a different state...
-
I don't think he was serious.
Meh, tbh I wasn't but at the same time I kinda was. I don't necessarily agree 100% but it's regardless a very very good idea.