Obama's Healthcare Bill
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 110
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Obama's Healthcare Bill

    - "The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare."

    NYPost ( http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172009...ses_179667.htm )


    - "Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill."

    Original link unknown.


    - "Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages."

    NYPost ( http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172009...ses_179667.htm )


    - "Just 35% of U.S. voters now support the creation of a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurers.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% of voters oppose setting up a government health insurance company as President Obama and congressional Democrats are now proposing in their health care reform plan. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

    In mid-June, 41% of American adults thought setting up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies was a good idea, but the identical number (41%) disagreed.

    Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats favor the creation of a government insurance alternative. But Republicans (73%) and voters not affiliated with either party (62%) are opposed."

    Rasmussen Report ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...urance_company )



    Why would the president still push for this bill even when people want to know more before they give into his bill?

    I want to hear your input.

    What can you tell me about the bill that you liked?

    -Wiggs

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    478
    Thanks
    311
    Thanked 162 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggles View Post
    Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more
    This.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianWeeks View Post
    This.
    I'm sorry... I'm confused...

    Is "this" a justifiable reason to rush the bill?

    This is our country, and whatever precautions that are supposed to make our country better, especially during this moment in time, should be taken at a faster pace but with enough time and consideration to understand the ramifications of the bill. More must be understood about Obama's healthcare bill before we take the steps of passing it. This is what I think.

    Pushing this bill to pass at an extraordinarily premature deadline without knowing the facts is incredibly reckless.

    That being said: please explain how "this" is a justifiable reason to rush the bill's passing, blind sighted might I remind you.

    -Wiggs

    PS- I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm genuinely confused and I wish to understand your reasoning.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #4
    Zaxser is offline Steph Laberis Fanboy Level 6 Gladiator: Provocator
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    518
    Thanks
    113
    Thanked 114 Times in 65 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianWeeks View Post
    This.
    People who make over 200,000 dollars a year have enough money to invest. Investment funds companies who supply the vast majority of jobs. When investment ceases, employment takes the hit. This would be a very, very bad time for that.

    Do you Mentler?

    Booting up a new sketchbook.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Zaxser For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    478
    Thanks
    311
    Thanked 162 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggles View Post
    I'm sorry... I'm confused...

    Is "this" a justifiable reason to rush the bill?

    This is our country, and whatever precautions that are supposed to make our country better, especially during this moment in time, should be taken at a faster pace but with enough time and consideration to understand the ramifications of the bill. More must be understood about Obama's healthcare bill before we take the steps of passing it. This is what I think.

    Pushing this bill to pass at an extraordinarily premature deadline without knowing the facts is incredibly reckless.

    That being said: please explain how "this" is a justifiable reason to rush the bill's passing, blind sighted might I remind you.

    -Wiggs

    PS- I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm genuinely confused and I wish to understand your reasoning.
    I was just saying that I like the fact that people making over 280,000 will have to pay more. Its about time the upper class start taking some hits instead of the middle class.

    Honestly, I know very little about the whole thing, I just know that our current system is a complete scam. I'd like to say that anything would be better than what we have now, but I wouldnt be surprised if it got messed up even more.

    So, no, I'm not saying we should rush the bill.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianWeeks View Post
    I was just saying that I like the fact that people making over 280,000 will have to pay more. Its about time the upper class start taking some hits instead of the middle class.

    Honestly, I know very little about the whole thing, I just know that our current system is a complete scam. I'd like to say that anything would be better than what we have now, but I wouldnt be surprised if it got messed up even more.

    So, no, I'm not saying we should rush the bill.
    And in theory that sounds terrific! Tax the rich! But there's a problem with this theory and Zaxser nailed it on the head-
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaxser View Post
    People who make over 200,000 dollars a year have enough money to invest. Investment funds companies who supply the vast majority of jobs. When investment ceases, employment takes the hit. This would be a very, very bad time for that.
    Since we don't know HOW Obama's Healthcare Bill will affect us I suggest holding onto the grievances we have and hear what is going to be done by this bill. After the facts are known we can make an educated decision whether to accept or oppose the bill, with or without our grievances.

    However, I already see this as an economically risky and inappropriate step towards recovery. I say this because the Fed is going to get this sum of money that they need through taxation, and with with the number of jobless climbing taxing away more of the people's money doesn't sound very smart.

    -Wiggs

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    887
    Thanks
    957
    Thanked 492 Times in 226 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Our political parties in this country have been fairly ingeniously devised to be ideologically paradoxical and self-canceling at both ends of the spectrum. The idea, I suppose, was to take certain contradictory ideas, and embed them so deeply in each party’s platform that they’re impossible to dislodge. That way when arguments arise, if any serious threats to the system emerge, they’re invariably diffused in a wash mutual hypocrisy or incomprehensibility, and then allowed to simply morph into something more familiar, and thus easier to ignore.

    For example the Republican party, which is the anti-taxation party, is also the militarist party, and whether we realize it or not (and most of us don’t), the vast majority of our taxes each year go to support our defense infrastructure: our network of overseas bases, the standing armies we maintain, our special forces and intelligence apparatus, and the really big things like our continued domination of space. A hundred some odd years ago, the entire federal government was funded by things like tariffs (we didn’t even have an income tax back then.) Now we’re taxed in ways our predecessors could never have dreamed up in their wildest imaginations, and regularly, every year. The dollar amounts we’re talking about make Obama’s health care proposals look like chump change.

    Similarly the Democratic party, which is the social-welfare party, is also the party which inherited Wilson’s interventionist ideal: to open up foreign markets through the expansion of western-style democratic forms of government, backed by western capital and arms investments. In an abstract theoretical (and highly christian) sense, this is meant to lift the whole of humanity up out of poverty and thereby increase the social welfare of the entire globe by “civilizing” it, much like the British claimed to be doing in the last century. The reality though is that such interventionist policies almost always trend towards exploitation and social degradation, both abroad and at home.

    If you try to point out such internal inconsistencies to advocates on either side, the response is pretty uniformly irrational - angry even. This is because our political system is supposedly set up along two all-enveloping antipodes, where the extremes on either side are married with a whole host of related and unrelated agendas, such that its almost impossible to deal with any one problem in isolation.

    In some respects a two party system of this sort can have a stabilizing effect, which is why Madison favored it, but it also lends itself to a style of political debate where legitimate concerns, or innovative ideas are often marginalized and dismissed, just because we have everything built from the ground up with factions in mind. It will be interesting to see, in the ensuing shit storm on Capital Hill about healthcare, how much of the conversation actually revolves around healthcare, and how much of it just ends up being about something else entirely. To see how easily this can be achieved, with a sensitive topic in a highly politicized climate, just re-read everything posted above.

    Last edited by Jasonwclark; July 23rd, 2009 at 02:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Jasonwclark For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  10. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 397 Times in 177 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Some men devote their entire lives to understanding political science and its evolution. Yet you seem to have explained it all, quite neatly, in 5 paragraphs. Thank you, Übermensch, for opening my eyes.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Goog For This Useful Post:


  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    What business is it of yours where I'm from, friendo?
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaxser View Post
    People who make over 200,000 dollars a year have enough money to invest. Investment funds companies who supply the vast majority of jobs. When investment ceases, employment takes the hit. This would be a very, very bad time for that.
    And who's stopping them from investing in China.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Anton Chigurh For This Useful Post:


  14. #10
    Zaxser is offline Steph Laberis Fanboy Level 6 Gladiator: Provocator
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    518
    Thanks
    113
    Thanked 114 Times in 65 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton Chigurh View Post
    And who's stopping them from investing in China.
    No one. Although the time to investing in Chinese factories being analogous to printing money probably ended at least ten if not twenty years ago. Now it's more smaller businesses getting a foothold in emerging market over there. who do those small business people think they are, giving decent jobs to the Chinese and then bringing down costs for those in the region? Errr... wait.

    Yes, some people think of foreign investment as useless to a nations economy, but most of those people lost credibility when mercantilism ended. The fact is the freedom to invest in foreign enterprise means that they also have the right to invest in us. And as long as we stop freaking the fuck out about it every time some nation tries to invest seriously in our assets (like the Dubai port fiasco a while back) and have the guts to have a sustainable economy and keep our promises (like us owing a lot of money because China likes to buy US Bonds) then I think that foreign investment will pay us back every time.

    Oh, and this has absolutely nothing to do with health care. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but it's insane how fast political threads get derailed around here.

    EDIT: I thought about saying is a lot more work to do anything in China if your from the US, but decided that was both obvious and not a good use of my time. Back to the sketchbook!

    Last edited by Zaxser; July 23rd, 2009 at 09:07 AM.
    Do you Mentler?

    Booting up a new sketchbook.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Zaxser For This Useful Post:


  16. #11
    GhostValkyrie's Avatar
    GhostValkyrie is offline The deep satisfaction of radical ends.. Level 5 Gladiator: Myrmillo
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianWeeks View Post
    I was just saying that I like the fact that people making over 280,000 will have to pay more. Its about time the upper class start taking some hits instead of the middle class.

    Honestly, I know very little about the whole thing, I just know that our current system is a complete scam. I'd like to say that anything would be better than what we have now, but I wouldnt be surprised if it got messed up even more.

    So, no, I'm not saying we should rush the bill.
    200,000, even 300,000, a year is small business....very small business. It seems like everyone has this idea that when someone owns their own company and gets an income of X amount of dollars it's pure profit. It's not.

    Rarely do others factor in how much employees have to be paid, costs for renting/buying supplies, costs for utilities the business uses, costs for possibly paying the lease on space rented, employee health care, dental, and other benefits, any loses sustained, unemployment, etc.

    This whole idea the government is robin hood, and hard workers who want to do more with their lives are criminals, is getting out of hand. Especially when large corporate lobbyist and bankers are chillin' at the white house and throwing parties for congress all the damn time.

    Wait until inflation kicks in from the damage Bush and Obama have done. 280,000 won't be shit.

    Last edited by GhostValkyrie; July 23rd, 2009 at 09:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GhostValkyrie For This Useful Post:


  18. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    2,081
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 968 Times in 519 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    First I'll say I'm not sure I like this implementation of national healthcare. I haven't read up on it enough, but so far what I have read it sounds like a messy compromise. I'm sure it needs a lot of work, but letting it languish is a sure way to have it die before it gets started. There are sadly just too many damn forces at work to let a clean version pass.

    That said, I'd say I'm in favor of a major reform NO MATTER THE COST. Yes, it's expensive, but it needs to be done. Look at all of the infrastructure we currently have. National highways, bridges, and a whole ton more. You think any of that was free? Hell no. At some point in history people said, "this needs to be done no matter the cost." A lot of that same infrastructure is currently crumbling from neglect because current generations don't want to spend the money to maintain it (or improve it).

    Republicans like to beat their chest about how patriotic they are. They will claim how noble it is to serve your country and die if needed. Yet they complain about losing more from their wallets to save people in our own damn country? How fucked up is that?

    No matter how inefficient you think national healthcare will be, realize that there is already a private healthcare with their own payrolls doing the same, except their entire purpose is to make a huge profit. Even if it is slightly inefficient, what this costs out of the publics pocket has to go down because there will no longer be an extra amount, billions of dollars a year, just being bled off to execs and stockholders. Also, the more people that are involved, the cheaper it gets for everyone. Overall this will take less money in the long run, although yeah it will be expensive in the short run to set it up, just like those roads and bridges.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to J Wilson For This Useful Post:


  20. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by J Wilson View Post
    First I'll say I'm not sure I like this implementation of national healthcare. I haven't read up on it enough, but so far what I have read it sounds like a messy compromise. I'm sure it needs a lot of work, but letting it languish is a sure way to have it die before it gets started. There are sadly just too many damn forces at work to let a clean version pass.

    That said, I'd say I'm in favor of a major reform NO MATTER THE COST. Yes, it's expensive, but it needs to be done. Look at all of the infrastructure we currently have. National highways, bridges, and a whole ton more. You think any of that was free? Hell no. At some point in history people said, "this needs to be done no matter the cost." A lot of that same infrastructure is currently crumbling from neglect because current generations don't want to spend the money to maintain it (or improve it).

    Republicans like to beat their chest about how patriotic they are. They will claim how noble it is to serve your country and die if needed. Yet they complain about losing more from their wallets to save people in our own damn country? How fucked up is that?

    No matter how inefficient you think national healthcare will be, realize that there is already a private healthcare with their own payrolls doing the same, except their entire purpose is to make a huge profit. Even if it is slightly inefficient, what this costs out of the publics pocket has to go down because there will no longer be an extra amount, billions of dollars a year, just being bled off to execs and stockholders. Also, the more people that are involved, the cheaper it gets for everyone. Overall this will take less money in the long run, although yeah it will be expensive in the short run to set it up, just like those roads and bridges.
    I agree with you with your last paragraph (mostly). Private healthcare could be improved to support more individuals, for instance the cost of private healthcare could be lowered or increasing the illnesses covered by their healthcare plan.

    However, I see a problem with what you are arguing. If we switch off to a nationalized healthcare system what else are we signing off to? Sure, we know the end product because that is all we are being told.

    No one has discussed how the Obama's Healthcare is going to work, yet too many people are submitting to his Bill without the facts. I see that as a major problem. It's as if a friend told you to give them your wallet. Would you do it? No. You would ask them why and based on his answer you would decide the best course of action.

    So then I ask you:

    Why should we be okay with the ends when the means by which we are getting there are unknown?

    Are you so confident that we should accept Obama's Healthcare no matter the cost? We do not know what is in Obama's Healthcare Bill.

    -Wiggs

    PS - One of your comments bothered me and I mean no harm when I write this:

    J Wilson, it is not intentional on your part but not all don't Republicans act the way you speak of. I maybe Republican, but the notion you made about my political ideology (what you are referring to and what I am more comfortable with saying is Conservatism) desiring to not to give out money is preposterous! I donate my money (from what little I have) to charity and perform acts of public service through my church. I give money to programs that work at finding cures to diseases and I donate items of use to organizations in my hometown that help the poor. Oh, and ever notice that Catholics are predominantly Conservative? Just a thought...

    Last edited by Wiggles; July 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaxser View Post
    Oh, and this has absolutely nothing to do with health care. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but it's insane how fast political threads get derailed around here.

    EDIT: ... Back to the sketchbook!
    Agreed. I suggest we stay on the topic at hand and to get back to our sketchbooks asap!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 847 Times in 457 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggles View Post
    - Why would the president still push for this bill even when people want to know more before they give into his bill?

    I want to hear your input.

    What can you tell me about the bill that you liked?

    -Wiggs
    I don't know much about the bill itself, but what I know is that you cannot trust a majority of people to care for a minority. Prop 8 is the proof of that. A lot of people are skittish at the slight possibility of having less money or less comfort even if it means saving lives. The money is in their pockets and the lives saved are hypothetical, right? The only way to drive the idea home is to show them, in the most "in your face" way that people die from lack of healthcare.

    And seriously, even if a lot of information was given, who is going to take the time to double check, compare facts and think it out before forming an opinion. I know way too many people whose opinion is actually based on that of the guy their heard on the radio this morning, and that guy's opinion is based on what he thinks his audience wants to hear.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Qitsune For This Useful Post:


  24. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    2,081
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 968 Times in 519 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Wiggles, I do apologize, it's not my intent to lump all republicans together, or really all of any group together. At times it's just more expedient to make a point by talking about generalities. My point was that I feel many (although certainly not all) of the same people who support war (and by extension the idea that it is ok to send people to die for a cause), are the same people who complain that saving lives costs to much money. It's patriotic to give a life, but not to pay to support the people of your country? Some of these same conservatives are the ones that are vehemently anti abortion, yet seemingly could care less about people in this country needing basic healthcare.

    I personally think we need to get our priorities straight.

    The "we haven't even read it" argument I think is a scare tactic from people who don't want to see it passed. Why? Because they know the general public doesn't read ANY of the bills. It's an attempt to make the idea of passing the bill seem like sheer stupidity, without arguing the actual topic at hand. Watch the movie "Thank you for smoking" about a tobacco lobbyist. It's very entertaining, and also shows you how they think. If you can't attack the topic itself, then you distract people with other things.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J Wilson For This Useful Post:


  26. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by J Wilson View Post
    Wiggles, I do apologize, it's not my intent to lump all republicans together, or really all of any group together. At times it's just more expedient to make a point by talking about generalities. My point was that I feel many (although certainly not all) of the same people who support war (and by extension the idea that it is ok to send people to die for a cause), are the same people who complain that saving lives costs to much money. It's patriotic to give a life, but not to pay to support the people of your country? Some of these same conservatives are the ones that are vehemently anti abortion, yet seemingly could care less about people in this country needing basic healthcare.

    I personally think we need to get our priorities straight.

    The "we haven't even read it" argument I think is a scare tactic from people who don't want to see it passed. Why? Because they know the general public doesn't read ANY of the bills. It's an attempt to make the idea of passing the bill seem like sheer stupidity, without arguing the actual topic at hand. Watch the movie "Thank you for smoking" about a tobacco lobbyist. It's very entertaining, and also shows you how they think. If you can't attack the topic itself, then you distract people with other things.
    That's alright, no apology needed I just wanted to make something clear.

    Now,
    I don't know if our Republican representatives are afraid to help others because it costs too much. They do so, I think, because they do not like big government. They enjoy small government, which consequently means it is up to the citizens to help others on their own accord. But since they oppose a system that would force them to give in a set amount of wealth and power to the government they are ridiculed for hogging the dough. Also, consequently, they are opposing total social equality, which so many of us wish for, because that requires the government to have absolute power.

    I personally don't like the idea of the government having the power to control you and I! I don't want my life in the hands of a politician!

    Enough of that, back onto the topic.

    "The 'we haven't even read it' argument I think is a scare tactic from people who don't want to see it passed. Why? Because they know the general public doesn't read ANY of the bills. It's an attempt to make the idea of passing the bill seem like sheer stupidity, without arguing the actual topic at hand."

    Are you saying all of the hubbub of needing to get the facts is hooey?

    I strongly disagree with you in the greatest respect. I don't care what it is I'm dealing with, if I am missing information, especially when my country's well-being is being targeted, I will oppose it.

    I also can't help but feel you are targeting the Republicans for raising suspicion about Obama's Healthcare in a negative light. One word: Healthcare. If I don't have knowledge of how our health is going to be cared for then I'm against it. I don't know why you are targeting them. I would support them. Question! Question! Question!

    I don't want to be surprised with something months after we (supposedly) sign the Bill! Oops!

    I don't think questing the Bill is avoiding "arguing the actual topic at hand". How can they argue if they don't KNOW what's in it? They want to KNOW what Obama's Healthcare is.

    -Wiggs

    Also, I think you underestimate people. Many, maybe even most people, don't read about the that are bills passed. Plenty of people I know read up on them (and I'm not in any form of politics and neither are they! Most are young adults!) granted that most of my friends don't even attempt to learn. But! It's promising that people outside of politics take interest in it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Qitsune View Post
    And seriously, even if a lot of information was given, who is going to take the time to double check, compare facts and think it out before forming an opinion. I know way too many people whose opinion is actually based on that of the guy their heard on the radio this morning, and that guy's opinion is based on what he thinks his audience wants to hear.

    Plenty of people would read the information and who knows how long it will take to pass it. One thing for sure is that it must be delayed by a huge margin. People want to be knowledgeable of what will happen and not be taken by surprised. There is no reason to rush into this. I say that because no one knows what the Bill holds but the end product of healthcare reform. No one knows the means of getting there at all.

    -Wiggs

    Last edited by Wiggles; July 23rd, 2009 at 03:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Can anyone tell me why Obama's Healthcare Bill must be passed immediately?

    If so,

    what is it that we will be doing in order to achieve Obama's Healthcare Reform that you approve of so greatly you are willing to miss out on knowing all the facts before the bill is passed?

    -Wiggs

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    2,081
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 968 Times in 519 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggles View Post
    Plenty of people would read the information and who knows how long it will take to pass it. One thing for sure is that it must be delayed by a huge margin. People want to be knowledgeable of what will happen and not be taken by surprised. There is no reason to rush into this. I say that because no one knows what the Bill holds but the end product of healthcare reform. No one knows the means of getting there at all.

    -Wiggs
    See, that's what I mean about fear mongering. Really? No one knows? It's right here:
    http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/...CA09001xml.pdf

    It's lengthy, so good luck reading it all and understanding it, but it's pure hyperbole to exclaim in bold print "no one knows." It took me 5 minutes to find and download to my computer.

    You can catch some bullet points here:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...olts-obameter/

    I'm far from opposed to people being informed, but really something this monumental, I'll readily admit it's beyond my scope to tackle. All I know is it's something I'd really like to see, and I feel it should be one of those basic human rights. Total social equality you bring up, as something you disagree with because it means too much governmental control. I disagree (with respect to your opinions of course). Our country was based on the idea "all men are created equal" even if we are even now struggling to live up to that ideal. I'm not talking about sharing wealth, or socialism as some like to say. It's just basic humanitarian aid to people in our own backyard.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    3,328
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 874 Times in 529 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You say the problem is that some people "could care less about people in this country needing basic healthcare." and yet basic health care is available in this country. That is not the problem. The problem is that some people don't have any money.

    While you may protest that you are not talking about sharing the wealth or socialism, the fact remains that you are advocating a bill that is designed to take money away from specified minority groups (the wealthy and healthcare providers) and use that money specifically to benefit other people to whom they are not related.

    I think struggling to live up to the ideal that all persons are created equal by singling out certain minority groups for disproportionate taxation = permanent fail. Candycoat it all you want. It's discrimination.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to arttorney For This Useful Post:


  32. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by J Wilson View Post
    See, that's what I mean about fear mongering. Really? No one knows? It's right here:
    http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/...CA09001xml.pdf

    It's lengthy, so good luck reading it all and understanding it, but it's pure hyperbole to exclaim in bold print "no one knows." It took me 5 minutes to find and download to my computer.

    You can catch some bullet points here:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...olts-obameter/

    I'm far from opposed to people being informed, but really something this monumental, I'll readily admit it's beyond my scope to tackle. All I know is it's something I'd really like to see, and I feel it should be one of those basic human rights. Total social equality you bring up, as something you disagree with because it means too much governmental control. I disagree (with respect to your opinions of course). Our country was based on the idea "all men are created equal" even if we are even now struggling to live up to that ideal. I'm not talking about sharing wealth, or socialism as some like to say. It's just basic humanitarian aid to people in our own backyard.
    Haha, oh boy. Fear mongering? Really? I was not intending to issue fear into people's minds. I was trying to point out to folks this is an incredibly critical point in time where it is crucial that everyone pay attention! I hope I got their attention by asking them what they know about it! You blew my comment out of proportion. It is one thing to offer the information to the public eye. But it a completely different thing all together to understand it!

    That's why I support questioning of this Bill! I want people to become curious and educate themselves! I'm tired of hearing people going with the flow without a justifiable reason (so I thank you for making an informed decision)! Inquire and question how Obama's Healthcare Bill will affect us besides what we, quote, already know.

    -Wiggs

    PS - I'll expand the idea of social equality that you brought up in your comment:

    People need to be treated with social liberty over social equality. "Equality" has negative connotations and "liberty" has positive connotations, at least for me. The defining difference between the two is one of them supposes liberty for all when one guarantees it. We all need to have the same liberty as one another! BUT! People, being people, treat others differently even in the Land of the Free, making the American Dream seem less liberating. So what are we to do? Do we replace Liberty with "...Equality for all?"

    In the end it is down to picking the lesser of the two evils.

    Last edited by Wiggles; July 23rd, 2009 at 05:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    478
    Thanks
    311
    Thanked 162 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Sorry if this is off topic, as I'm talking about healthcare in general rather than Obamas bill, but, here is how I look at it. Again, I'm no expert in the matter, and if somebody was to correct my insinuation and prove me wrong, I wouldnt care. Anyways...

    To me, Healthcare is run in this country like a corperation: The goal is not to make a great product to help people, but rather to make money. And it certainly works; America is one of the few countries that allows drug companies to advertise on TV, and a ridiculously large amount of commercials are for drugs. Why? If I'm sick, I go to the doctor and get him to tell me what will make me better; the last place I will consult is the goddamned TV. But such it is; drugs have become intermingled with actual commercial products because they are treated like a commercial product. And so the companies make money not because their product actually cures something or helps, but because they have a good ad campaign.

    Secondly, there is no regulation telling medical establishments what they can and can not charge for things. If you actually look at your medical bill after being to the emergency room, you will understand how fucked up that is. Among other things, you will probably see that those two pills of ibuprofen (you know, the stuff you can get a whole bottle of over the counter for 5 bucks) costed you $50. I broke my wrist, and just yesterday I got out of my cast and they put me in a wrist-splint: $270 for the splint alone. So I looked up the product name and manufacturer, and lo and behold, the EXACT SAME PRODUCT online is $30. Thats NINE times what the price should be. And they do the exact same thing with prescribed drugs, and even to a much higher extent. Nobody knows the exact value of some vague drug the doctor prescribes, so nobody can tell when they charge 100 times the actual value for it. And they do. So again, the goal isn't "How can we help this poor sap out?" its "how can we get every last penny out of this guy possible?"

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,160
    Thanks
    1,477
    Thanked 852 Times in 531 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think it's really rude to say that Republicans are "heartless" and don't want to help people in need of health care. That's an opinionated assumption--not an informed fact.


    One of the beauties of this country is that you can work hard and be successful--when u over tax you are punishing someone for being successful. (yes, ppl do become rich off of corrupt means, and I"m all cool with punishing these people). But quite a few of us work hard to be able to have money to support ourselves and our family--is that heartless?

    The rich community in my county has a fund set up for families who cannot pay their outrageous medical bills for their children with special needs or had emergency operations. They raise over a million dollars each event, and they hold an event twice a year--and this is all white collar people donating their money and time to help those who can't afford to pay for their health. Are they heartless?


    I do not support this bill. I support finding means to help underprivileged people, but this bill is full of fraud and problems.
    You have to question, why is congress exempt? And question how much money THEY make, that won't be taxed at the same rate as hard working citizens.

    I'd also like to mention, we want to protect our pockets not because we're greedy, but rather because we want control over it. I know where my money is going if i hand the money to the needy person myself; but I sure as hell know that when a third wheel of the government is added, i have lost control of that money, and I'm pretty damn sure that the needy person didn't get all of it.

    Last edited by hala; July 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 PM.
    "Be either full-assed or no-assed. There is no half assed."

    SSG SKETCHPOT/FLYING RADISHES/ OR JUST PLAIN AWESOME.
    KT | Reutte | Darkmoon |Asatira | AnthonyV

    [CENTER]
    My Website
    ~ My Sketchbook ~ My Blog ~ My Twitter ~ My Deviantart ~
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to hala For This Useful Post:


  36. #25
    GhostValkyrie's Avatar
    GhostValkyrie is offline The deep satisfaction of radical ends.. Level 5 Gladiator: Myrmillo
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianWeeks View Post
    Sorry if this is off topic, as I'm talking about healthcare in general rather than Obamas bill, but, here is how I look at it. Again, I'm no expert in the matter, and if somebody was to correct my insinuation and prove me wrong, I wouldnt care. Anyways...

    To me, Healthcare is run in this country like a corperation: The goal is not to make a great product to help people, but rather to make money. And it certainly works; America is one of the few countries that allows drug companies to advertise on TV, and a ridiculously large amount of commercials are for drugs. Why? If I'm sick, I go to the doctor and get him to tell me what will make me better; the last place I will consult is the goddamned TV. But such it is; drugs have become intermingled with actual commercial products because they are treated like a commercial product. And so the companies make money not because their product actually cures something or helps, but because they have a good ad campaign.

    Secondly, there is no regulation telling medical establishments what they can and can not charge for things. If you actually look at your medical bill after being to the emergency room, you will understand how fucked up that is. Among other things, you will probably see that those two pills of ibuprofen (you know, the stuff you can get a whole bottle of over the counter for 5 bucks) costed you $50. I broke my wrist, and just yesterday I got out of my cast and they put me in a wrist-splint: $270 for the splint alone. So I looked up the product name and manufacturer, and lo and behold, the EXACT SAME PRODUCT online is $30. Thats NINE times what the price should be. And they do the exact same thing with prescribed drugs, and even to a much higher extent. Nobody knows the exact value of some vague drug the doctor prescribes, so nobody can tell when they charge 100 times the actual value for it. And they do. So again, the goal isn't "How can we help this poor sap out?" its "how can we get every last penny out of this guy possible?"
    Perhaps you could try taking some responsibility for yourself. Maybe you should have bought the splint before the provider 'costed' you so much money. You knew they were going to move you to one eventually. Right? Second, I think few people here will say health care here is perfect. However; it is leaps and bounds ahead of other nations who health care systems are facing bankruptcy and ran by corrupt politicians. Politicians who won't have the same plan as you. Do you think the man riding around in a car safer than the bat mobile will wait months for cancer treatment like everyone else if this thing passes? I doubt it.

    Also, there is competition and you have the ability to shop around, try for a better living to get better health care, or even write you representatives. Representatives who themselves, and their predecessors, may have made laws that have driven up the costs of medical insurance, stolen from a social security system that is unsustainable and will default in the coming years, and have abused medicare/medicaid.

    The FDA's heavy hand, along with the WTO, WHO, and our government itself, has played a large roll in the costs of prescription drugs. This is something I've talked with many people about for years when I've questioned a responsible way to reform or offer a public option. Something this bill is far from. If they really gave a damn, they would be taking their time and trying to do it right. Usually, when the government gets involved; prices go up. They tend to create a monopoly from the desire to get some of that sweet dough, which drives out the competition and leaves us footing the bill. Bail outs, Stimulus, Cap and Trade. See a pattern, yet?

    Pelosi has been coming up with one insane scheme after another even before Barry got in office. One of the provisions calls for forcing the public into the public option if they change their provider or certain aspects of their current plan. Sounds real caring, huh? Looks more like health crash.

    Oh. Of course. The doctors do it AALLLLLLL for the money. All those greedy evil doctors just want to make money. All those rich people building research institutes, donating to hospitals, funding data studies and all that other good stuff. Those rich health care providers with their fancy suits, their cigars, and big mansions. You know, the ones that get sued all the time by crooks... the ones who win their cases because it's found no damage is done, but because some asshole wanted to make a quick buck and can't pay up they receive no exoneration and are forced to foot the bill for the court costs.

    EDIT: Data correction
    Dr. Kenneth Salyer in Dallas, TX along with others performed a massive surgery on the egyptian twins that were joined at the head.. Man, if only the health care was socialized. Maybe that greedy, evil doctor wouldn't have 'costed' them so much money.

    Last edited by GhostValkyrie; July 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to GhostValkyrie For This Useful Post:


  38. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,160
    Thanks
    1,477
    Thanked 852 Times in 531 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    " Nobody knows the exact value of some vague drug the doctor prescribes, so nobody can tell when they charge 100 times the actual value for it."

    It's called research. If you are being put on a drug, you should research it anyway.

    "Be either full-assed or no-assed. There is no half assed."

    SSG SKETCHPOT/FLYING RADISHES/ OR JUST PLAIN AWESOME.
    KT | Reutte | Darkmoon |Asatira | AnthonyV

    [CENTER]
    My Website
    ~ My Sketchbook ~ My Blog ~ My Twitter ~ My Deviantart ~
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hala For This Useful Post:


  40. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 125 Times in 70 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggles View Post
    Haha, oh boy. Fear mongering? Really? I was not intending to issue fear into people's minds. I was trying to point out to folks this is an incredibly critical point in time where it is crucial that everyone pay attention! I hope I got their attention by asking them what they know about it! You blew my comment out of proportion. It is one thing to offer the information to the public eye. But it a completely different thing all together to understand it!

    That's why I support questioning of this Bill! I want people to become curious and educate themselves! I'm tired of hearing people going with the flow without a justifiable reason (so I thank you for making an informed decision)! Inquire and question how Obama's Healthcare Bill will affect us besides what we, quote, already know.

    -Wiggs

    PS - I'll expand the idea of social equality that you brought up in your comment:

    People need to be treated with social liberty over social equality. "Equality" has negative connotations and "liberty" has positive connotations, at least for me. The defining difference between the two is one of them supposes liberty for all when one guarantees it. We all need to have the same liberty as one another! BUT! People, being people, treat others differently even in the Land of the Free, making the American Dream seem less liberating. So what are we to do? Do we replace Liberty with "...Equality for all?"

    In the end it is down to picking the lesser of the two evils.
    Explain why health care shouldn't be a liberty. We have the right to own guns. Don't you think the right not to die from disease or medical condition, if it can be helped, is more important?

    We have public housing, public schools, public roads, public libraries, public television, and public food assistance. Since when was it okay for all these things to be free or nearly free, but the preservation of human life to be considered a commodity worth profiting from?

    Website Sketchbook

    "If it looks wrong, it is wrong."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  41. The Following User Says Thank You to Derek the Usurper For This Useful Post:


  42. #28
    Ilaekae's Avatar
    Ilaekae is offline P.O.W.! Leader, Complete Idiot, Super Moderator Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southwestern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,134
    Thanks
    8,227
    Thanked 5,580 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    "People need to be treated with social liberty over social equality. "Equality" has negative connotations and "liberty" has positive connotations, at least for me."

    I'm not sure I'm following here...social liberty implies that society grants the specific liberties in question, therefore slavery or theocratic rule for ALL could be "good." Equality has no negative connotations that I can think of unless one is arguing for blind airline pilots or thoracic surgery performed by those in a coma, which is pretty much the extreme that some imbeciles have gone to for advancing their lunatic agendas. Equality simply means what it says--equal in all ways when appropriate entities are compared. Equal start on the playing field. Equal right to the same chances that all others of your kind have.

    The concept of liberty can not be constrained by society, which is what makes it "liberty." You are free to do as you wish, and must accept that you will also be punished if you infringe on another's right to the same.

    No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary

    Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  43. The Following User Says Thank You to Ilaekae For This Useful Post:


  44. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    3,328
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 874 Times in 529 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    We already have the right to health care.

    If you want to own a gun you have to pay for it. If you want to have health care you have to pay for it. The naked truth is at last exposed. Money makes the world go round. Who would have thought?

    Insurance is a gambling contract. The insured is betting that someday he will get sick. The insurer is betting they will get enough premiums before that day so they don't go bankrupt.

    That company AIG that is allegedly too big to fail is an insurer. That company AIG that is too big to fail got a giant assed pile of bail out money that it hasn't repaid. Is there some connection here? Is there anything fishy about a law that will force people to buy a health insurance gambling contract whether they want to or not? Gee, I wonder.

    Edit: Word! to Ilaekae. For a lousy $100 I went in and got a guys 8 day jail sentence converted to community service with a four month deadline. The idiot only did six days and didn't show on time for his return hearing. He is in jail tonight. Duh! I expressly told him this would happen if he didn't finish out his service and pay the fine. You want liberty you have to know, and pay, the price. (the guy's a long term friend. I ain't working that cheap for everybody. I also know the price of liberty)

    Last edited by arttorney; July 24th, 2009 at 12:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  45. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to arttorney For This Useful Post:


  46. #30
    GhostValkyrie's Avatar
    GhostValkyrie is offline The deep satisfaction of radical ends.. Level 5 Gladiator: Myrmillo
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by arttorney View Post
    That company AIG that is allegedly too big to fail is an insurer. That company AIG that is too big to fail got a giant assed pile of bail out money that it hasn't repaid. Is there some connection here? Is there anything fishy about a law that will force people to buy a health insurance gambling contract whether they want to or not? Gee, I wonder.
    AIG holds the government's pensions and insurances. Congress, the Senate, etc. Another reason why they'll keep bailing it out.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  47. The Following User Says Thank You to GhostValkyrie For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •