America's new healthcare bill has passed!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62673
Printed Date: February 24 2025 at 02:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: America's new healthcare bill has passed!
Posted By: JLocke
Subject: America's new healthcare bill has passed!
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 01:36
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwFzis6cRNo Let the outrage begin!  (Note: This is just thr House's bill. The Senate will now debate THEIR bill, so who knows where things are gonna go from there.) |
Replies:
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 02:11
| Congress: Where good ideas come to die. |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 03:37
|
What I do not understand is why the healthsystem in the USA today cost the US taxpayer the double (pr. head) of what is the public healthcare in the UK cost each of us over here. This even when many millions of US citizens is exluded from this service while everyone in the UK + EU citizens get free healthcare in the UK. Just to avoid misunderstandings: Let's say each UK citizen pay $ 300 each to fund a healthservice where everyone + EU citizens get free healthcare. In the USA, the US citizens pay $ 600 each in tax to pay for a private healthcare (funded by insurance schemes) where approx tens of millions US citizens is exluded from using. The $ 300/$ 600 is just an example. Why is the US taxpayer paying the double of amount in taxes as we in a public (socalled socialist/big government) healthcare is paying ? This is in my view lunacy.
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 06:18
|
It's really not too difficult to understand really. One system is run for the benefit of the profiteers and one is run for the benefit of the patient. Now I don't begrudge healthcare providers making money, but what healthcare do the insurance companies actually provide? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 09:07
|
Just getting this out of the way:
 ------------- "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 09:19
|
"America's new healthcare bill has passed!"
Congratulations!
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 09:32
Exactly. This isn't going to be single-payer. We still have to pay all the bills, plus enrich the middle men. This does not look like a good solution. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Slartibartfast wrote:Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 09:33
You like it? You can have it. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 09:40
|
OK, just got an answer (and a passionate attack on Obama) from a rather well off American relative which to me explains everything about why I do not understand this US health system: In Europe; good health is a right paid by my taxes. In USA, good health is not a right. In Europe; gun ownership is not a right. In USA, gun ownership is a right. I am not saying that everything in USA is wrong and everything in Europe is right. I do not want to bash Americans. There is thousands of things about USA I truly love and a handful of things in the USA I dislike. May God Bless America and all Americans ! ......... But I simply do not understand this, for taxpayers, very expensive US health system. I do not get this. I do not get this. I do not get this ! |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 09:43
|
Personally, I am cautiously optimistic. I am hopeful that somehow or another having the government help/assist with health care will allow me to retire at a younger age then I would otherwise be able to retire because I need employer-provided health care insurance. I have no desire to die with a million bucks in the bank since "in the end you can't take it with you", but I also don't want all of my funds to run out before I do because I get sick and all of my funds have to go to pay for some outrageously priced health care. I don't really know if that is where we are going or not, but I am cautiously optimistic. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:09
|
God I hope you are right Scott. But why do I have the awful feeling this bill will eventually lead my employer to drop my coverage as a benefit, turning me over to the "consumer-empowered marketplace" where I will pay 10 times the premiums I am paying now through work. Since I will be forced by law to buy this insurance and since I make enough money to exclude me from the public option, the well-being of my family will be at the whim of insurance corporations, and I will have lost the stability and quality of the employer program I have now. And all this joy for only another trillion to our deficit. Like I said, I' hope I'm wrong, but I've a feeling we're getting a bad deal jammed down our throats so that the Dems can go into the next election cycle claiming a huge victory. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:22
It's a horrible solution. ------------- 
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:23
This is what will happen, I'm afraid. When it comes to politics and people in general, I've learned to not be cautiously optimistic---or else it ends in severe disappointment and a hand that's been cut off while I was too busy being optimistic. -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:24
|
From a personal standpoint, I work for a small employer and my insurance sucks. It is a high deductible plan that attempts to keep the employer's costs down by passing them on to the employee, but the employee "benefits" because they can put $2 - $4,000 a year of their own money into a plan to pay their expenses pre-tax. Unfortunately, the first $4,000 of medical expenses have to come out of the employee's pockets before they even reach th 80%/20% breakdown that the "good" insurance programs have. Many companies are starting to go this way to save costs and the way things are going it is only a matter of time before all companies go this way. I honestly have no idea whether what Congress will come up with will be better, but as I said I am cautiously optimistic.
I am also hopeful that it will somehow allow US companies, specifically the auto companies, be more competitive with their Japanese and German counterparts who do not have to bare the expense of employee health care since the government takes care of it for them. Personally, I would most definitely prefer a Universal Health Care like what they have in Europe, Canada, and Japan but that was taken off the table early, so unfortunately I am worried that we may end up getting a raw deal in order to line the pockets of insurance company executitves. -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:31
-------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:31
|
Your last sentence says it all. A true single-payer system might have been worth trying when one looks at the high approval ratings those countries give to their systems. But this awful mandated-private/public hybrid we've created doesn't seem to free us from the problems we have now, still requires us to feed Wall Street their lunch, and destroys the system we have now for many people who like what they have. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:33
|
Where did Alex claim to be an expert? Frankly, Alex is smarter than most people my age. (except when he disagrees with me)  ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:40
-------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:56
|
Mmmmm, yeah, but you can say the same thing about the Left, Scott. As someone in the middle, I can tell you there is plenty of venom and BS coming from both sides. Anyway, this is off topic, so I'll drop this line of conversation. Back to health. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:58
Thus my use of the word "moderate" instead of "left".  -------------
|
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:00
|
Welcome to the civilised world, America. Well done President Obama. Those right wing idiots in the States who claim we Brits don't like our National Health Service are liars. Trouble is, the rich, selfish and uneducated believe what they want to hear. The NHS is the best thing about Britain. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:04
Well, when it comes to gun ownership . . . you still have to jump through a few hoops before you can carry one around, and many Liberals here in the US would love to eliminate guns altogether. To put it in a little better perspective (hopefully), you have to take into account what my country's forefathers had just been through when writing about the right to bear arms. We were fighting a war against England, and were afraid of a possible takeover by our own government once we became our own country, and so the right to bear arms to defend ourselves was truly in the front of everybody's mind at the time, no doubt. Where healthcare is concerned, it's a completely different story, because many Americans feel that universal healthcare (much like gun control, censorship, speech codes, etc.) is yet another way for our government to have more control over how we live our lives. I guess we Americans are more weary of this kind of thing, because we look back in our history and see the cost of our freedom. It means too much to us to just hand over everything to our leaders, even if it IS something as important as staying healthy. I'm VERY on the fence about this myself, and at times my Libertarian side takes over, and I feel like it may not be the best thing for us. Though, other times my Liberal side (and yes, I do have one) wins, and I feel like it's the most logical answer. If I'm honest with myself, I cannot say for sure if this is the way to go or not, but I do know that where my country is currently in terms of healthcare is ridiculous, and needs to change. So ANY change at this point, I'm open to . . . but I'll only start believing all the hype about it once it starts to take affect in my own life. At this point, it's really hard for me to say one way or the other, since my country has never really tried it before to this extent. Also, bear in mind that the American government has never been very good at handling anything all on its own aside from a few very unusual cases. I think in America, socialized service of any kind will never work as good as it does in other countries, because we were built on a very different foundation that other countries. Anyway; only time will tell. I'm certainly not going to assume the worst just yet, and I do feel that to be outraged at paying for universal healthcare with tax money is quite ludicrous; considering all of the pointless sh*t we already do pay for with taxes. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:07
Yes, but I don't believe this will be the NHS. Far from it. And again, there are idiots on both sides, not just the right. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:07
We were founded on people wanting the government not to do things like this, which is an entirely different foundation than any European country. What works in one country's system and for that country's people may not necessarily (and most likely will not) work for another. What gets me is that the Baucus Health Bill is really some sort of bizarre compromise; it is not a single-payer system nor is it a completely private system. It's simply a way for a****les in Congress and in the government to express more power and control over the common man. -------------
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:10
I'm definitely not rich; my father busts his ass every day in carpentry and construction to support us and we hardly live anything that I would say is lavish. I've never been on a family vacation in my entire life. Additionally, I think Limbaugh really is an idiot over half of the time, and I don't really know that much about Beck. I simply observe everything around me and make decisions like any other individual who doesn't have their opinions fed to them through the media or any other one particular person. I never said I was an expert either; but I do think that if I've read up quite a bit on a subject and I feel comfortable enough in my assessment of it, then I'm qualified enough to express an opinion on it. If I hadn't spent over two hours reading some of the material in the Baucus Health Bill at the very minimum, I would not have posted. -------------
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:14
Well, it seems that we agree at least when it comes to our beliefs in why our government wouldn't be good at something like this. However, like I say, I really am trying not to be pessimistic, here. The real problem is that we have bleeding heart Libs on one side of the spectrum proclaiming that socialized healthcare is akin to the second coming of Christ, then on the other side of the pool, we have foaming-at-the-mouth right-wingers who are shouting about how universal healthcare has never worked well in any country. Both of those arguments are wrong, obviously. The reality of it is very simple, to me: some countries are successful with government-run healthcare, others aren't. What we really should do is see if America is indded able to benefit from such a thing. At this point, I obviously don't know. Would it be better if I just assumed that we have made a huge mistake? All that would do is get me depressed over something that could *potentially* be a very good thing, but again, it depends on the circumstances. |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:17
|
I suspect (Although others know better) that it is not a way for Congress to express more power over the common man. However, it is simply a way of hoisting Obama by his own petard (Scuse spelling) or the Right are giving him enough rope. Then when it fails the Right can use this as an argument for never allowing any real national health system. And as a way of getting rid! Just a thought!  ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:19
To make the anti-conservative argument. To be a "true" capitalist society should we privatize our police force, our military, our fire department, our K-12 education system, our tax collection system, our national parks system, our judicial system, etc... Every single item that our government "controls" is arguably because it is for the general good of our citizens. Can you honestly say that our citizens would be better off if any of these government controlled areas of our society were privatized? Why should health care be any different? The government already controls medicare and medicaid (despite apparently 45% of our society not realizing that  ) so they are already in the health care business.
Trust me, I am as paranoid as the next American when coming to the conclusion that our government is out to get me, and that it is incompetent and untrustworthy, but again the truth is somewhere more moderate. I think that as a general rule our government means well, it just seems to have a higher proportion of bad eggs than the rest of society. i.e., absolute power absolutely corrupts. -------------
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:21
It seems that most people fit into this category; it's a shame. It's why you should never affiliate yourself with one "side" or organization or label, as you lose some of your ability to make your own informed decisions--not just what some other group or person spews as truth. I actually encourage people who hardly know anything about their prospective Presidential candidates to stay home on Election Day. If you don't know what you're doing with your powerful vote, then don't use it. It's still a right for everyone, but I find that people who don't take the time to form their own opinions based off of information and values held by each candidate and issue are much more apt to make a decision that is bad for them and for everyone else. After the excessive instability in Germany for decades, look at what happened when the Nazis came into power. All it takes is a susceptible base of people desperately looking for some sort of direction for disaster. There is no right side, and no one is right 100% of the time. That's absurd. There's simply billions of individual people, who are all unique, and should be treated each as a unique individual. Everyone is not the same; they should not be given the same and should not be treated in the same exact way as everyone else. By limiting unhealthy and dysfunctional control of institutions over people (whether it be government, a growing occult, or uncontrollable amounts of large monopolies, or anything else) and encouraging people to go out, take in information, and make informed and reasonable decisions with the least amount of bias or consideration for any particular faction of society---then you will secure a much higher chance for individuals to thrive and for innovation to boom. American taxpayers do not deserve the rape that will befall them with this bill, nor do they deserve many other current abominations in our governmental system. But the last thing we need to do is make a decision simply to be moving in a direction---because that will lead in the wrong direction for this nation. We should not look elsewhere to Europe, Canada, or anywhere else to see what works for them, because our national autonomy is obviously different. We need to look in our ourselves and ask ourselves what we really want. And I'm positive that the people of America do not want something as evil and twisted as the Baucus Health Bill, which appears to be good to the uninformed eye, but is easily just another added object for those "in power" to manipulate and control. -------------
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:25
Medicare is an absolute joke. Do you realize all of the problems that have arised due to its existence alone? And the public schools? Pfft! We're churning out more and more idiots all the time due to the slipping standards in that system. Aaaaand, our taxes pay for many ridiculous things that they shouldn't be going toward, and lining the pockets of politicians left AND right. Especially on the right.  Can I honestly say we would be better off? Of course not; and as I have said before, if our taxes go to pay for more sensible things (sch as healthcare), I'm not opposing that directly. We are always benefitting from our government, and we have to pay our dues, and I get that completely. All I'm saying is that the more and more we allow our government to interfere with how we live our lives, the less and less free we become. Universal healthcare is something I would be willing to accept, IF the government can succesfully oull it off. That is why I say I will have to wait and see before I give my final thoughts on it. |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:26
That's silly. I hardly think that if you asked anyone with any sort of sense that they would want total anarchy. In order for a society to function and for its people and economy to thrive, there needs to be a solid judicial code, national defense, and a sense of order. Government in America was established for that reason, to avoid total anarchy, yet also to avoid totalitarian regimes where the common man suffers at the expense of other people. There's a healthy balance. No one sane that I know calls for the complete eradication of government, simply a radical analysis of it, as things have gotten out of control. Absolute power does absolutely corrupt, and that is why government needs a minimal role in the affairs of its citizenry, yet an important one. It should be existent (not non-existent as which is what you described) but it should not step its bounds of what really control it--not that the government controls us. We the people control the government, not the other way around. It's the foundations of what the United States were created on that advocate rightful use of the federal government (hell, George Washington and Alexander Hamiltons were Federalists, and they were all for a substantially established central governmental state), not ridiculousness. This plan is simply an absurd hybrid that will benefit no one, simply look good and force people to give into something which is not logical or beneficial for 98% of people. -------------
|
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:27
NHS is a fantastic organisation, full of dedicated people. Just ask the leader of the Conservative Party about that and you get a big confirmative "Yes". We now have a right-wing party in the UK which is more dedicated to NHS than the ruling social-democratic party. I honestly think NHS is a just system. I have nothing but praise for the hard working NHS staff and for Mr. Nye Bevan who established NHS. Best of all; it is a very cheap service compared to the health system in the USA. But in essence; I find it hard to disagree with your statement. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:27
|
Again that is an argument I don't understand. I don't want the government "controlling" my health care decisions. No offense, but the government controlling your health care decisions is probably a better position for you, than some insurance company executive whose salary and bonus is directly tied into how many claims he/she can turn down. -------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:28
|
"y limiting unhealthy and dysfunctional control of institutions over
people (whether it be government, a growing occult, or uncontrollable
amounts of large monopolies, or anything else) and encouraging people
to go out, take in information, and make informed and reasonable
decisions with the least amount of bias or consideration for any
particular faction of society---then you will secure a much higher
chance for individuals to thrive and for innovation to boom." Wouldn't it be cool if Congress acted more like that? ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:29
Alex, you're an intelligent person. Please do not bring up Nazis when debating healthcare. I know you weren't addressing that directly, but the problem is, every nutcase on the right jumps straight to Nazi Germany when talking about Obama's presidency and his healthcare bill. It possibly makes you appear to be influenced by those guys when you tread the same subject manner.  Just a thought. Still friends?  |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:31
-------------
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:32
I agree with you completely. Though, it still doesn't change the fact that 'controlling' is exactly what the government does. You can put that word in quotations as often as you like; it doesn't make it any less true or important to think about. Government control has the potential to either be very beneficial for the country, or very bad for the country, depending on the specific case. We'll just have to wait and see if healthcare is something they can succeed at or not. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:33
-------------
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:34
I was not discussing anything about health care in that at all; it was simply a factual statement of the positioning of government and the relationship between the government and its citizens. I would never compare Obama to Hitler; that's absurd. And I agree that when people make ridiculous arguments like that which are not meant to be exaggerated then it's absolutely ridiculous. You simply are blinded by hearing two things in the same general area (our government and nazis) that if you see them together even in a completely unrelated matter, it gets your gut reaction to give the same response as it would in other situations. I don't blame you. Doesn't make it a right assumption. -------------
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:35
It's the age-old game of "control the masses to stay in power". Of course it's uncool to act like that. It would be though, I agree. It seems attainable in a perfect world, unfortunately. -------------
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:37
I was simply pointing out how other may choose to take your statement. I do believe that I myself stated that I knew you weren't making the same comparison.
Yeah. See, it's right there. |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:41
I agree; we do have a limited control over our government, but it's really sort of a conundrum. If you give too much power to the people directly to control the government, you get the 80% of the masses who have no informed opinions or any idea of how to even manage a government directly running political and governmental affairs---that would end in disaster. At the other end of the spectrum, you get people who vote but don't even get any representation at all because our system is so corrupt---that is also not very fortunate. That's why I always advocate widespread education to as many people as I can about how in our governmental system works, our country's history, and to always stay up to date with a look at current affairs (the factual account and all sides) to make much better decisions. Knowledge is the real power to the people; the problem with the last presidential election (and any, really) is that you have many people who really do not have a very solid understanding of what they're doing or what they're actually voting for. And even then, the way that candidates present themselves are completely PR. You could run one platform, and then getting into office end up having quite a different presidency--which we see happen all the time. Frankly, there is no perfect governmental system and thus the best thing to do is to live with the imperfections of a chosen system that works (it's the system that works, people always mess it up, and thus nothing is perfect or ideal), have education and information as readily available to every individual, and to allow every individual to live their life to the highest potential without interfering with anyone else's same right. When force gets involved in the picture, particularly in the form of government forcing many things on its citizens----as opposed to order (judicial system, national defense, traffic control system, etc.)---that's when things become very grey and nasty. -------------
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:42
I know; I was pulling your chain and simultaneously making a point to anyone else who may think that. And to answer your question: No matter how much we may disagree on anything, I'd still be your friend.  -------------
|
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:44
|
As a European with a different concept of the phrase "health care" than you highly esteemed Americans here; please explain this to me: I break a wrist in 2001 and a rib in 2006. My insurance company pays for the health treatment. I don't get any further health insurance because I am not a profitable asset for the insurance company. I have just broken my leg. Is it fair that I do not get this leg sorted out in a hospital ? As we know with cancer, it may come and go. I got cancer in 1998 and got it sorted out. It returns in 2004 and I still get it sorted out due to paying a much higher rate for my health insurance. When it returns tomorrow, I will not get hospital treatment because I am not profitable for the insurance companies. Is that right ? Btw, I have five children and a wife. Please clear this up for me because there was no place on Mayflower for me. Please note: I used these as examples who does not represent me at all. |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:50
As a student still in college working on grabbing his degree in Accounting, I've only just recently begun to be exposed to all the exact details and conditions of many of the complications in our insurance and health care standardized system for employers-employees. I believe I don't have enough direct experience or knowledge on this to be able to answer the question well enough for you; I'll pass it along to one of the older members in here who will most likely be of more help. Insurance in this country is practically the equivalent of getting raped. (I just don't think that this particular health care bill or making our system entirely public immediately is the right thing to do to solve it either). -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:53
For the employee who had cancer, if for some reason they lose their job (maybe because of excessive absences due to the cancer) it will be very expensive for them to get insurance on their own. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but the term "pre-existing condition" is quite nasty when it comes to insurance coverage. As in many insurance companies won't cover it if you already have it. -------------
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 11:55
I will never understand the American fear of government-controlled healthcare. Of course the government is not infallible, and often screws things up, but the idea that people will not have control of their healthcare is a ridiculous one, because under the current system Americans do not have control over their healthcare. That control is currently in the hands of large for-profit companies that don't care one bit whether grandma lives or dies and would rather her die than their profit margin be lower. Why some people would prefer to put their faith in heartless corporations that will withhold healthcare from you to boost their profits is beyond me. Americans trust of big business over government has always baffled me. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:00
Hey,hey,hey now! It almost sounds like that large for profit company is a death panel if it wants grandma to die. Does Sarah Palin know about this? |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:04
Don't be such a tool. (And I mean that in the most respectful yet blunt way possible) This thread was progressing actually in a very civilized respectful argument, and you come in here and make it politicized as you so often do whilst contributing nothing to the discussion. -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:09
|
To append my previous comment, our evil and corrupt government did pass a law called HIPAA in 1996 which makes health insurance more portable. Amongst other things it allows an employee to move from Employer A to Employer B and thus change their health insurance and still have any pre-existing conditions covered under Employer B's insurance policy. Can you believe it took our government to pass a law to allow this to happen? Before that, the insurance companies had no requirement to cover pre-existing conditions in this manner. Still not perfect though, because if you were unemployed with the condition, and then get insurance it is still a pre-existing condition and still not covered, and it does nothing to prevent an insurance company from dropping your coverage, especially if you are self-insured. -------------
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:09
^ It's a gift, Alex.  ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:23
you got that right |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:30
|
I think that one of the issues that many in our country have is the idea of the government giving things for "free" to some members of our society that other members of our society have to work so hard for to have themselves. It is an issue that I have from time to time as well. It is kind of the welfare issue all over again. I've worked hard my entire life. I worked my ass off in elementary school, in junior high school, and in high school in order to get high enough grades so that I could get into a good college. I then worked my ass off in college so that I could get high enough grades so that I could get a good job once I got out of college. I then went on to another college so that I could get a Masters Degree so that I could get a better job and make more money. While I am busy working my ass off to do all of this stuff and thus "earn" the salary that I make so that I can afford to buy my house, buy my car, buy some nice clothes, pay for health insurance, etc... there are others in society who spent this same time partying, getting drunk, getting laid, getting high, getting pregnant, and basically not getting educated, who are now delegated to working low paying jobs without benefits and trying to raise a family of 4 kids from 4 different fathers or mothers. Why should I feel sorry for them? Why should my hard work go into paying taxes so that the government can then give my hard earned money to them to reward them for being a slacker? I think that as a general rule we as a society are OK with the government helping out those people who put forth the same type of effort, but through no or little fault of their own they find themselves without a job or without insurance. We also don't have a problem with the government helping out people with mental or physical handicaps who also need this help. Our major number 1 problem is with the government helping out these slackers who don't deserve our help. These people instead deserve their comeuppance for years of avoiding their responsibilities. -------------
|
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:36
Do you honestly have to make nearly everything you say political?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:37
|
And again to append my previous comment, since this is after all a rock and roll website where getting drunk, getting laid, getting high is a natural occurrence, where does this leave the starving artist? -------------
|
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:37
What about the British woman in my Psychology class who went on a 10-minute tirade about how awful NHS is? What is she then? -------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:37
The point may be perfectly valid. Unfortunately the first four words are the kind of discourse that only contributes to the toxic atmosphere of US politics. If we can't debate without calling the other side idiots, little of substance can be achieved. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:38
Thank you, Jim.  -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:39
yeah it's the idea of independence taken too far, that somehow a business is more part of the culture than the government, more "part of us" than the Feds |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:41
Opinionated  ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:44
I understand your position Scott, and to a certain extent I share that opinion. However, I think perhaps the comeuppance of getting cancer and not being able to get treated for it and dying a horrible painful death may be a little overkill for being a layabout. I think there are still basic human rights, and those include for me, the right to health care, food and shelter, whether you're a go-getter or spend your life doing nothing of any productive value. When it comes to anything above the basic necessities of life, then yes, you should not be responsible for buying someone else's tv set, CDs, cars, etc. But I think there are basics that all people are entitled to. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:45
|
I think governments can do things right for their countries.
I think, right now, it's almost impossible for the American government to do anything right. That is, make new laws that are good.
I have completely and utterly lost faith and trust in federal American politics. I like my Senators from Indiana, but utterly loathe most prolific Democrats and Republicans. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:45
Yeah, I guess so. Especially given that she talked about how her brother broke his ankle, it took them 2 months to get an MRI, then they were told to come back to get surgery for it in 2 years, so his ankle never healed properly. Sounds pretty opinionated to me. -------------
|
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:50
What do you call those who think we are ruled by green men from planet Mars ? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There is free speach here. The huge majority of us Brits use their free speach to praise NHS. It is worth noticing that our/the British version of the Republicans (the Conservative Party) is the ones who is our most dedicated defenders of NHS. That's one of their main election pledges. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:51
-------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:54
Stonie, I think many regular Joes feel exactly like you do. Further, I think many Americans wonder why the US they grew up seemed a better place than where the US is currently heading. It seems as if the trajectory is heading down. And I don't mean just economically. There's optimism, but there's also realism. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:58
I feel that way too and I encounter so many other people every day who express their opinions similarly. It's a damn shame; I agree that, while not being pessimistic, this country seems to be headed towards the sh*tter. -------------
|
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:04
It was meant as a joke haha!
But like I say she has an opinion - it's different from the majority of Brits. You will always find stories such as this both from the NHS and from private health providers. One story or two does not make a reason to abandon a system (Which is huge one of the biggest employers in the world) for private insurance run on a for profit basis.
------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:07
we've got it, we've had it since 1947, and it is so successful everybody wants to use it and is bursting at the seams, but i would not be here without it
 out with health insurance money making monopolies, in with health care for all !
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:07
|
Holy sh*t four pages already. That is all I have to say about this topic.  I'm playing video games now. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:17
I agree, but I think of it idealistically, not realistically. It seems no matter what, you lose more than you gain. I like to think of NH optimistically, but nothing is ever going to be perfect. |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:22
|
Fortunately Canada is a communist country so all health care is free. People go to the hospital with headaches here. Our hospitals are more crowded than the shopping malls at Christmas. ------------- |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:24
I'm quite sure that if the shopping malls gave their product away for free too, they would be way more crowded. -------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:24
Yeah, but the US bill is not the NHS, and probably not what you've been enjoying over there. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:31
|
By the way, Alex, I assume based on your above distrust of the government I assume that it is safe to say that you oppose the death penalty? -------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:01
|
The title of this thread could be premature. [excerpt below] (CBS) Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the health care bill passed last night by the House of Representatives is "dead on arrival to the Senate." Graham argued that the House bill was "written for liberals, by liberals. "Just look at how it passed; it passed 220 to 215. It passed by two votes. You had [39] Democrats vote against the bill," Graham told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer Sunday. He also admitted that if it were to come down to it, he would join his independent colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in filibustering a bill including the so-called public option should it come to the Senate floor. "The House bill is a non-starter in the Senate," he added. "I just think the construct out of the House and what exists in the Senate is not going to pass, and I hope and pray it doesn't because it would be a disaster for the economy and health care," Graham concluded. Graham believed a public option would "destroy" private health care, saying that insurance companies could not compete against the lower premiums of a government-backed plan. "It will be a death blow to private choice," he said. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:18
 ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:30
There is something seriously wrong with that, but that's just my opinion. -------------
|
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:31
Read: It will be the end to those handsome paycheques the industry sends me to keep the status quo! ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:31
Actually, I'm not really that strongly for or against the death penalty; it's one of those political issues I don't see as all too important (well, relative to others) and one where I don't feel particularly inclined to align my opinion pro or anti. It all depends on the circumstances of the individual under consideration. -------------
|
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:32
Coming from a different society with a different health care system this has been a very interesting discussion to read, good job gentlemen  ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=42652" rel="nofollow - It's on PA! 
|
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:33
Yeah, it's a shame my parents would lose their health insurance. My mom has to get a shot every day now because of a tumor (non-cancerous thankfully) on her thyroid gland. If it wasn't for the insurance, my parents would be paying nearly $1500 per month for this stuff out of their own pocket, and I know for a fact they would not be able to afford that. I would prefer that she stay alive, thank you. -------------
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:37
The thing is, it doesn't help everyone. I saw an article the other day about a baby that was too big to get insurance. And then there are people who can't afford it. |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:38
------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:42
Sorry if I came off as a bit blunt or insulting there. That was not my intent. Well, the coverage mostly comes from her insurance plan at work (she is a nurse), and the rest comes from my dad's health insurance. Although since my mom's started working, we now also get dental and eye insurance, which is a real blessing since everyone in my family is nearly blind with glasses or contacts. My main fear with a public option would be that said coverage would simply wither up and disappear. And then we'd really be up a creek.I believe MovingPictures said earlier that this kind of situation varies from country to country. I can not speak for how well or not well health care systems work in other countries. But I do not think the solution for the US is to copy other models. -------------
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:50
I didn't take it as insulting. You'll have to try harder next time.
 And I certainly understand your worries, especially if you have a loved-one with a condition that needs constant treatment. I guess my real question here is, and not just for you, but others with similar concerns, perhaps I should be asking Sen. Graham. If the government provides the same services for a lower price, what it the problem if private options do shrivel up? The government plan will provide your family the same services. If the private insurance provides more service but for a higher price (well, there are always those willing to pay more for more service), so the chances of that industry drying up are slim, aren't they? ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 15:04
We could always look to our public education system for answers to that.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 15:25
Well? ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 15:32
I'm just a liar. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 20:27
I know your comment was to Alex, but since he didn't give much of an answer, care if I jump in, here? I am opposed to the death penalty, yes. I think it's wrong to trust corrupt lawyers and buerocrats with the life of another human being. You don't like the idea of paying for life-serving inmates' food? Well, how about we clear out our prisons from all of the unfairly convicted black Americans and potheads? That'll lower the costs real quick. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 20:28
Rob is very opinionated. I knew he wouldn't be able to stay out of my thread for too long. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 23:02
|
This country makes me sick. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 23:23
|
Then leave. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 23:55
|
Every other country makes me sicker. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 00:01
|
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 00:55
Meh, Rushfan is right. It's like someone who's never had sex telling me (as someone who lost their virginity 2 years ago) how to do it because they think they know better after reading more books than I have on the subject. I'd take the opinion of someone who is slightly less intelligent (BTW, not implying rushfan is less intelligent, just a hypothetical thing) and a lot more experienced with far less of grain of salt compared to someone who's read about it but never experienced it first hand. and Pat, come to Australia. Australia may make you sick, but at least you got me babe <3 |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 01:06
|
Well, I'm glad to know you got laid two years ago, but aside from that, this still doesn't really address what we're talking about, here. Nobody knows if American's version of universal healthcare will in fact be an convenient or well-executed as other countries, so how can we say one way or the other? You're just as wrong as Alex is, since neither of you have yet to experience America's new healthcare system. Now, if Americans were complaining about how horrible European healthcare is (and some have!), then of course this argument would hold more water. Obviously, somebody in England has a much better graps on that situation over there than a US citizen would, but what people seem to miss here is that the American bill is nothing at all like the English, Canadian of French system. It's a different thing, so only time will tell if it is successful or not, and that goes for BOTH sides of this argument. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 01:11
|
I didn't really plan to address the topic either, so I'm not too worried. I'm just in one of those just sayin' modes, you know? Just sayin' |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 06:51
|
Here's the bottom line, opponents say it is "government run health care". It isn't even single payer "government run" health insurance. Interesting that it got one Republican yes vote and 39 Democratic no votes. Further interesting is that Dennis Kucinich (D, "cuchi-cuchi" )was a nay voter. That means that I have every confidence that the bill is a piece of crap and is more about the appearance of health care reform than actual reform. But the whole problem here isn't with the quality of health care in this country (there are issues there, too), it's mainly a problem with the health insurance. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 07:32
We can agree here. Holy crap... Slarti and I agree on politics. I think I'm going to go prepare for the end of the world in 2012 after all... -------------
|