US House passes health insurance overhaul

[Panoptes]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8579322.stm

 

The US House of Representatives has narrowly voted to pass a landmark healthcare reform bill at the heart of President Barack Obama's agenda. The bill passed by 219 votes to 212, with no Republican backing, after hours of fierce argument and debate.

 

It extends coverage to 32 million more Americans, and marks the biggest change to the US healthcare system in decades.

 

I guess you're all "Socialists" now!

[aznriptide859]

Whatever, I'm already a commie.

 

Or so my platoon sergeant says lol.

[galactica]

i'm watching it on CNN. It's absolutely insane, how the reps managed to make this about abortion AGAIN. You vote for HC reform, you're voting for abortion. It's "you're either with us or against us" all over again. Simple-minded bullshine yet again. Amazing that Obama got it through before midterms. It might be the only big thing he gets to do, but it's a massive thing. I will enjoy watching the place not fall to pieces, much as it hasn't with its socialist, state-controlled army.

[Cornington]

Healthy Socialists

[Desolation mkII]

Long live the USSA. There were reds under your beds all along it seems.

 

[Kyrian_Zenda]

This'll be good news for a friend of mine in the US. That is, IF they manage to get it instituted properly. Learn from the UK version, America, but make it better. With the logistical capabilities of the Yanks, that shouldn't be too hard.

[Gir]

[Desolation mkII]

Fairly sure you want the USSR anthem.

[galactica]

what do you expect from the republican cheerleaders? an actual understanding of what they're talking about?

[Victory]

The next week will be interesting.

 

-Vic

[GuzziHero]

Thing is, before Reagan, America was happy with abortion. Its a protestant dominated nation, not catholic.

 

Some time back, it was considered that the poor had too many babies, so both parties were all for it.

 

It's only when the Reoublicans realised they could steal some Democrat voters by going hardline on abortion that it became a taboo.

[Seraphim989]

Democracy's always good until people vote for something you don't like apparently...

[Chimpy]

Thing to remember is that 32 million people who previously had no coverage and therefore pretty limited access to healthcare now do. It's pretty awesome and although it only passed by a narrow margin reflects brilliantly on the USA.

 

I wonder if Glenn Beck will keep his promise.

[Stealthbomber]

Course, this is far from the end of the matter.

 

Next up will be a queue of state governers (probably republicand and democrats) all demanding unfeasibly large budget increases to fund all the "extra" resources they now have to provide.

 

I wonder if there's any way to get commercial sponsorship for a health service?

Put in TVs running adverts etc.

[UrPeaceKeeper]

I'm going to step onto this Political minefield and say one thing:

 

Healthcare is an important issue, one that needs to be decided by the people, that needs to be agreed upon by THE PEOPLE. I believe we went to war over improper representation... the mere fact that over half of the United States DOES NOT support this bill, and that many of our congressional leaders voted against what the PEOPLE who elected them to congress told them to vote, is flat. out. wrong.

 

Honestly, I can't believe it. The unregulated mess that is already in place (medicare and social security, or how about the Veteran's Association Hospitals?) should be a prime indicator of how the future of this goes... Crack addicts and drug abusers who sit on their *albatross* living off of government aid and spend their entire government aid on *suitcase* they dont need rather than paying the bills or making sure their kids get good educations and eat healthy, ###### me off. There are those who are poor, legitematly poor, who need help and try with all their might to help themselves, but then there are those who are poor, and do NOTHING to try and fix the issue. Those are the people who do not deserve this bill, those who wont help themselves not be poor.

 

The entire world will see this is as a great triumph for human rights, I see it as a front against human rights, a bill funded by a government who no longer represents its people, and would rather force something down their voters throats then actually shut their own yaps and listen to what people have to say and let the people decide. That is a travesty to the thing we wrote 223 (Interesting number) years ago that defines the people's rights and outlines how our government was designed to operate for us, in our behalf, not for their perceived "best wishes" of the people. I'm glad you all think this is a great bill, fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but our government, nor our people is ready to have healthcare shoved down our throats by a horribly flawed bill "in the name of the greater good."

[Stealthbomber]

Healthcare is an important issue, one that needs to be decided by the people, that needs to be agreed upon by THE PEOPLE. I believe we went to war over improper representation... the mere fact that over half of the United States DOES NOT support this bill, and that many of our congressional leaders voted against what the PEOPLE who elected them to congress told them to vote, is flat. out. wrong.

Not too sure about that.

 

Given the choice, how many people would vote for reduced or waived taxes?

Equally, what if somebody suggested that people who earn more than, say, £500,000 a year have to pay 75% tax?

 

A huge majority of the population would agree to both these things but it doesn't mean they're fair or good for the country.

 

*EDIT*

Not to mention, of course, the ongoing "war on terror" which isn't exactly popular amongst the US public.

[galactica]

Heh. That's how democracy gets the job done, URp. You elect representatives in whom you put faith that they will do the right thing. The supposed 50% of the country who didn't want this, shouldn't have voted the guy in - there was no doubt it was on the agenda. The fact is that those who object to it are either single-issue nutnuts (abortion) or are just really selfish about tax. Like yourself, it would seem. We have the same problem with deadbeats in our country, but you know what? The fact that we provide for the genuinely needy MASSIVELY outweighs the fact that there will always be people who don't deserve it. They're not a majority, they're a minority and you get that in society. You just do. Much like the equally deadbeat bankers who have been sucking your taxes into the hundreds of billions for the last few years. Who do you think is more of a drain on the USA's finances? Those bankers or some drug addicts?

[UrPeaceKeeper]

Not too sure about that.

 

Given the choice, how many people would vote for reduced or waived taxes?

Equally, what if somebody suggested that people who earn more than, say, £500,000 a year have to pay 75% tax?

 

A huge majority of the population would agree to both these things but it doesn't mean they're fair or good for the country.

 

*EDIT*

Not to mention, of course, the ongoing "war on terror" which isn't exactly popular amongst the US public.

 

So you'd rather them increase taxes for the middle class "for the greater good" (healthcare in this case) without our consent or support? This isnt about the rich, the poor, the middle classes, this is about the American People, this bill affects all of us, not just the rich, the poor, or the middle classes.

 

The War on Terror, flawed in it's form, is far from popular, but certainly is not unpopular. It is simply no longer in the public's mind. All we see is death tolls rising, not the construction of schools, roads, infastructure, the build up of the Iraqi government and the protection of it's people, or the security of the Afghan people. The frak up done by the Bush administration has to be resolved in a way that does not leave both Iraq and Afghanistan worse off then they where, or we only give more proof of our incompetancy to those terrorists we fight.

 

You also forget that post 9/11 there was immense support for both Wars (one of which is justified, the other questionably so) and the media has not done their best portraying the more positive aspects of the war. Whereas they are all too happy to point out that government healthcare is for the best of the people and leave out the horrifying details that should weigh more heavily on the people like where the money for this is coming from when our nation is in debt, to countless other nations worldwide...

 

 

Heh. That's how democracy gets the job done, URp. You elect representatives in whom you put faith that they will do the right thing. The supposed 50% of the country who didn't want this, shouldn't have voted the guy in - there was no doubt it was on the agenda. The fact is that those who object to it are either single-issue nutnuts (abortion) or are just really selfish about tax. Like yourself, it would seem. We have the same problem with deadbeats in our country, but you know what? The fact that we provide for the genuinely needy MASSIVELY outweighs the fact that there will always be people who don't deserve it. They're not a majority, they're a minority and you get that in society. You just do. Much like the equally deadbeat bankers who have been sucking your taxes into the hundreds of billions for the last few years. Who do you think is more of a drain on the USA's finances? Those bankers or some drug addicts?

 

So because I dont support this on the grounds of a failling economy and lack of funding, on top of other things, I'm now a single issue nutjob? Ok... fine, have it your way. You are right, our election process for officials is perfect, in every way... people dont vote because of who the person is, just the issues he stands for. I didnt vote Obama into office, nor the 219 officials who voted for, nor 207 of the 212 oficials who voted against it, but instead, I am required to lay down and understand that "this is how it is" considering there are many of those same officials who did not vote as the people who elected them into office told them to vote? Perfect!

[Chimpy]

So because I dont support this on the grounds of a failling economy and lack of funding, on top of other things, I'm now a single issue nutjob? Ok... fine, have it your way. You are right, our election process for officials is perfect, in every way... people dont vote because of who the person is, just the issues he stands for. I didnt vote Obama into office, nor the 219 officials who voted for, nor 207 of the 212 oficials who voted against it, but instead, I am required to lay down and understand that "this is how it is" considering there are many of those same officials who did not vote as the people who elected them into office told them to vote? Perfect!

 

It's called a representative democracy enshrined in your constitution thingumy. More people wanted it one way than you did. It's what happens!

[galactica]

So because I dont support this on the grounds of a failling economy and lack of funding, on top of other things, I'm now a single issue nutjob? Ok... fine, have it your way. You are right, our election process for officials is perfect, in every way... people dont vote because of who the person is, just the issues he stands for. I didnt vote Obama into office, nor the 219 officials who voted for, nor 207 of the 212 oficials who voted against it, but instead, I am required to lay down and understand that "this is how it is" considering there are many of those same officials who did not vote as the people who elected them into office told them to vote? Perfect!

 

 

Yes, this is how democracy works. It's what your guys have been championing in the middle east, if you recall.

 

Your side didn't present a credible choice to the electorate, putting forward a sweet old man (apart from when he calls his wife a c**t in public) and a looney-tune, so they paid the price and don't get to make decisions.

 

I was referring to the anti-abortionists as single issue nutnuts, you just appear to have a financial problem with it.

[Stealthbomber]

So you'd rather them increase taxes for the middle class "for the greater good" (healthcare in this case) without our consent or support? This isnt about the rich, the poor, the middle classes, this is about the American People, this bill affects all of us, not just the rich, the poor, or the middle classes.

 

The War on Terror, flawed in it's form, is far from popular, but certainly is not unpopular. It is simply no longer in the public's mind. All we see is death tolls rising, not the construction of schools, roads, infastructure, the build up of the Iraqi government and the protection of it's people, or the security of the Afghan people. The frak up done by the Bush administration has to be resolved in a way that does not leave both Iraq and Afghanistan worse off then they where, or we only give more proof of our incompetancy to those terrorists we fight.

 

You also forget that post 9/11 there was immense support for both Wars (one of which is justified, the other questionably so) and the media has not done their best portraying the more positive aspects of the war. Whereas they are all too happy to point out that government healthcare is for the best of the people and leave out the horrifying details that should weigh more heavily on the people like where the money for this is coming from when our nation is in debt, to countless other nations worldwide...

I'm just pointing out that you can't have it both ways.

 

If you want, effectively, a referendum on the issue of healthcare then why shouldn't the same conditions apply to other, equally disliked, bits of policy?

 

The main reason most of the world sees this attitude as grossly hypocritical is that the USA was founded on a principle of being a haven for minorities.

For the comfortable middle-classes of the modern USA to reject the founding philosophy of the USA for the sake of petty self-interest is rather distasteful (and rather baffling) to the rest of us.

[UrPeaceKeeper]

It's called a representative democracy Republic enshrined in your constitution thingumy. More people wanted it one way than you did. It's what happens!

 

Except the problem is more people DONT want it then do.

 

Would you advise your member of Congress to vote for or against a healthcare bill this year, or do you not have an opinion?

 

 

 

% Vote for

% Vote against

% No opinion

 

 

 

 

2010 Jan 8-10

37

41

22

 

2009 Dec 11-13

36

43

21

 

2009 Nov 20-22

35

42

22

 

2009 Nov 5-8

29

38

33

 

2009 Oct 1-4

40

36

25

 

2009 Sep 11-13

38

40

22

 

2009 Aug 31-Sep 2 ^

37

39

24

 

2009 Aug 6-9 ^

35

36

29

 

^ WORDING: Would you advise your member of Congress to vote for or against a healthcare reform bill when they return to Washington in September, or do you not have an opinion?

 

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx

 

Bill passes without the support of the people...

 

CNN:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...bid=fYNbWLl6rZY

 

Rassmussen Reports:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...lth_care_reform

 

MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35897512/ns/politics/

 

I can go on if you really want... Over half of the people dont want this bill... not even half of the people want healthcare reform anyway (I personally think it needs to be done, but this is not the way it should be done).

 

 

[UrPeaceKeeper]

I'm just pointing out that you can't have it both ways.

 

If you want, effectively, a referendum on the issue of healthcare then why shouldn't the same conditions apply to other, equally disliked, bits of policy?

 

The main reason most of the world sees this attitude as grossly hypocritical is that the USA was founded on a principle of being a haven for minorities.

For the comfortable middle-classes of the modern USA to reject the founding philosophy of the USA for the sake of petty self-interest is rather distasteful (and rather baffling) to the rest of us.

 

The poor are not soley minorities... and this bill doesnt apply to just them (although it certainly is aimed at them). They also are not paying the majority of the cost for their own healthcare. Maybe it's just the ideal of mine of "You get what you work for" that is clouding my judgement and preventing me from seeing why this is such a great thing...

 

Last I checked, the United States was founded on the ideals that a government should represent it's people, and act in it's favor based on the support of the people through elected representatives, which at the time of Colonial Great Britain, they where not.

 

It's not petty self-interest, it's about paying for people who wont help themselves get out of the situation they are in, and then not even putting regulations in place to prevent abuse of the system. Considering the already shoddy state of affairs of our own Hospitals (Both their abuse of insurance agencies, and in some places substandard care) I dont see this bill as helping that situation any. The poor already have government provided basic health care, reform that instead of shoving a very shoddy bill down our throats, and put provisions in place that prevent abuse of the system. Then people only have themselves to blame if their coverage gets dropped because of drug abuse or lack of employment. If I'm going to work my *albatross* off to get to where I am, then dont tax me to hold up people who wont even put forth effort to hold themselves up.

[galactica]

jeez, it's good thing polling data doesn't get to make laws. 22% of people polled don't give a stuff. Way to go!

[Stealthbomber]

Last I checked, the United States was founded on the ideals that a government should represent it's people, and act in it's favor based on the support of the people through elected representatives, which at the time of Colonial Great Britain, they where not.

And the people back then seem to have had a far more liberal approach to caring about one another.

 

Did Lincoln kick out the Chinese when the Dutch whined that all their jobs were being taken?

Did the Dutch actually moan about it or did they just accept the new immigrants as fellow Americans?

 

How times change, eh?