US House passes health insurance overhaul

[spetsnazdave87]

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...

 

Surely that immense support came around purely because of the media spin surrounding it? I remember seeing American 'news coverage' of the invasion in 2003 and it was essentially a 'America, F*** Yeah!' music video. I dont think your media could have been any more positive about it, and the fact that popular support for it dwindled might be to do with the rising bodycount and the growing public realisation that Iraq was a f***-up of massive proportions.

 

I may have misread this but you seem to be saying that spending billions of taxpayer dollars is ok as long as you're ploughing the money into blowing up foreigners half a world away and meddling in their affairs, but not if you want to use those dollars trying to help people in your own country instead?

[galactica]

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

[Chimpy]

UrPeaceKeeper - A republic is a form of representative democracy which you don't seem to understand the workings of very well or more likely are just bitter at a result that didn't go your way.

[mysl1]

fun fact: Americans know *suitcase* about socialism or communism and if schoolkids get a free healthy breakfast, they see the Red Army marching on the Times Square.

[Stealthbomber]

fun fact: Americans know *suitcase* about socialism or communism and if schoolkids get a free healthy breakfast, they see the Red Army marching on the Times Square.

Alas, I supsect there certainly is an element of this.

Seems as though words like "liberal" and "socialist" have been used as insults for so long in America that people now immediately reject anything branded as such regardless of actual merit.

[UrPeaceKeeper]

Surely that immense support came around purely because of the media spin surrounding it? I remember seeing American 'news coverage' of the invasion in 2003 and it was essentially a 'America, F*** Yeah!' music video. I dont think your media could have been any more positive about it, and the fact that popular support for it dwindled might be to do with the rising bodycount and the growing public realisation that Iraq was a f***-up of massive proportions.

 

I may have misread this but you seem to be saying that spending billions of taxpayer dollars is ok as long as you're ploughing the money into blowing up foreigners half a world away and meddling in their affairs, but not if you want to use those dollars trying to help people in your own country instead?

 

In case you forgot, the US population as well as our intelligence community was duped by our informants in the Northern Alliance (what a reliable bunch of folks they be....) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (to which, there is proof that they did and had used chemical weapons prior) in addition to harboring known terrorists... The invasion justifications where played to our president (who was admitedly not the most intelligent) and our media (who like to spin things as you pointed out) and then to us... The part that got everyone going "Yeah get the frakers" was the last part, and the spin that both the president and our media put on it. Call it lack of thinking critically on our part... blame us... fine...

 

Most of our "Billions of dollars spent on blowing up foreigners half a world away and meddling in their affairs" is being spent on rebuilding countries that we *fruitcage*ed up, whether you like it or not, beit through our defense budget's spending or our federal government's spending directly. What you seem to be implying is that all we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is killing people, to which you are missing the rest of the details of the war. You can believe what you want about it, but I know for a fact that we are spending money on other things than blowing foreigners up and "meddling in their affairs."

 

And yes, supporting a war with my tax dollars that has turned into the reconstruction of two countries we, as you would put it, frakked up, is better than supporting people who dont try to support themselves, in my eyes. But you seem to have missed the part in my first post where I said that Healthcare reform is an important subject, I'm not against helping those who genuinely need help and work their arses off and still can't make ends meet (the genuinely poor), but the many of lowlifes who wont help themselves are undeserving of any of my tax dollars, as well as the fact that the US government's blatant disregard for the majority of the United State's disapproval of the Bill as is... It's horribly done and should have been thrown out and rewritten from scratch, but they wouldnt even hear it, and instead now, this flawed and unsupported bill is being shoved down our throats on our tax dollars.

 

But I wont continue to clutter this thread with my radical selfish views... you have defeated me, you who know my country best and have nothing at stake in this at all...

 

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

 

Yes... This radical US Redneck is utterly defeated...

[galactica]

it's not a question of spin. It's outright LIES. Our government did it too. You can believe all that "o no we wus tricked by the arabs!" rubbish if you like, but it makes you look extremely naive.

[spetsnazdave87]

Yeah, the rebuilding argument doesnt work as justification for the spending. Thats like beating someones face in then offering to pay for reconstructive surgery on an installment plan.

 

Feel free to define 'People who dont try to support themselves' though... Im interested how you would propose to make the bill help only those that need it, with no possibility of a minority exploiting loopholes. Especially as many of your elected republican politicians have failed to come up with an argument more than 'mlar communism mlar abortion mlar unconstitutional'...

[mysl1]

[Chimpy]

Poor diddums!

[Desolation mkII]

We lost our democracy today without even firing a shot. Our kids and grandkids will pay for our sins

 

Right, but at least they won't pay for healthcare.

[spetsnazdave87]

[jotohomomoto]

I feel like this bill didn't go far enough. I can't believe all these Tea Party types get all bent out of shape when the government wants to spend money on helping people get and stay healthy. Conservatives are so wrapped up in this "government takeover" paranoid garbage they can't even see they're shooting themselves in the foot (and then lack the healthcare to get a bandage!).

Conservatives don't mind a government takeover of a woman's womb, other countries, and biology textbooks but the second you start talking about (god forbid) helping your felllow man through healthcare reform....suddenly we've got an uncontrollable totalitarian government.

I think conservatives pick and choose when they want to diss the concept of a strong government, i.e., when one of their own (Bush) is in office. They're arguments against healthcare reform are so weak, they have to appeal to deep seated scare tactics about socialism and of course Hitler.

 

[Jagdraben]

I'm all for universal healthcare. I don't believe that this bill was the way to accomplish it and that it will be a dismal failure for the United States and the Democratic Party in particular.

 

It goes without saying that the Dems were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The GOP will be able to capitalize on this, as they already have before it even passed.

 

In this bill, (from summaries, I haven't read it. Who has the time to read a thousand-plus page bill?) we will be forced to buy health insurance. Never in the history of this country has our government told us to buy something or else. Furthermore, if the fines for not buying insurance are not high enough, you will not see uninsured Americans becoming insured, you will see them gleefully paying those fines for years and then, as they say, buying health insurance (they can't be denied) on their way to the hospital. If, on the other hand, you make the fines high enough to goad most Americans into buying insurance, you are forcing people into the hands of an industry whose chief regulation is to make more money... and with the requirement that they insure everybody who wants to buy coverage, premiums will skyrocket. Not that they haven't been doing that, already, with virtually no government regulation.

 

In other words, healthcare, already unaffordable for many Americans, will become more and more unaffordable as a result of this bill. More and more of our money will line the pockets of insurance and health industry fatcats with the net result of lowering the American standard of living (and if you've ever seen an American trailer park, you know that's pretty low, already).

 

I feel that the US government should, with our tax dollars, be able to insure Americans who are uninsured. A marginal tax increase would be inevitable, of course. If you need healthcare, you should get it. Period, fullstop. However, the US government should not usurp health insurance corporations: They should remain as an option for those who desire to feel pampered. Throw in a tax rebate for those who have their own coverage, giving insurance corporations a reason to offer plans competitive with the government.

 

Ultimately, though, my biggest objection stems from the fact that this healthcare bill is unfair to me, personally. I have spent a grand total of $275 on my own healthcare over the past twelve months. A quick internet search for the cost of insurance reveals that for me to buy into health insurance, would start at $98 a month. Not a crippling amount. But when you consider that health insurance doesn't cover all your costs, frequently not at all or very little, it rapidly becomes stupid. Why should I spend nearly $1200 a year for less than $300 worth of healthcare, especially when that $1200 is only going to reduce the amount of money that I pay directly to my doctor and my pharmacist?

[Stealthbomber]

I'm all for universal healthcare. I don't believe that this bill was the way to accomplish it and that it will be a dismal failure for the United States and the Democratic Party in particular.

Fair point.

 

If this bill does fail miserably then it'll only reinforce the opinion of the nay-sayers that it can't actually be done.

[spetsnazdave87]

Jag to be fair you've made a more eloquent argument against it than most republican politicans I've seen on the TV in the past week...

[Chimpy]

In this bill, (from summaries, I haven't read it. Who has the time to read a thousand-plus page bill?) we will be forced to buy health insurance. Never in the history of this country has our government told us to buy something or else. Furthermore, if the fines for not buying insurance are not high enough, you will not see uninsured Americans becoming insured, you will see them gleefully paying those fines for years and then, as they say, buying health insurance (they can't be denied) on their way to the hospital. If, on the other hand, you make the fines high enough to goad most Americans into buying insurance, you are forcing people into the hands of an industry whose chief regulation is to make more money... and with the requirement that they insure everybody who wants to buy coverage, premiums will skyrocket. Not that they haven't been doing that, already, with virtually no government regulation.

 

I think you need to look into the details more. The idea is to make the insurance affordable and remove quite a few of the ludicrous things an insurance company can do to you (e.g. dropping you when you get ill, not covering pre-existing conditions and having caps on the amount you can claim in a year).

 

I guess the only people that will honestly be ###### off about that are people that don't want to have health insurance but can afford it. But that's okay those people are selfish idiots. Idiots because insurance ultimately works for them particularly with increased consumer protection. Unless you have an unfailing crystal ball you cannot guess at your future medical costs and have utterly no idea how and when you might be struck down by illness. Selfish because people that don't pay into insurance are ultimately harming the group as a whole.

 

I tend to agree this is far from ideal but it's better than the status quo.

[Jagdraben]

I think you need to look into the details more. The idea is to make the insurance affordable and remove quite a few of the ludicrous things an insurance company can do to you (e.g. dropping you when you get ill, not covering pre-existing conditions and having caps on the amount you can claim in a year).

 

I guess the only people that will honestly be ###### off about that are people that don't want to have health insurance but can afford it. But that's okay those people are selfish idiots. Idiots because insurance ultimately works for them particularly with increased consumer protection. Selfish because people that don't pay into insurance are ultimately harming the group as a whole.

 

I tend to agree this is far from ideal but it's better than the status quo previously.

 

I understand what the idea is. You think a bill could pass if it's objective was to increase the cost of healthcare? That's a bit like arguing against "affordable housing": Not even Kucinich would support such a thing! If memory serves, the people of Massachusetts passed a similar bill sometime ago and their insurance premiums skyrocketed. I could be thinking of the earlier House bill, though.

 

And I guess that makes be a selfish idiot.

[Chimpy]

We'll see what happens.

[Jagdraben]

I'm glad that I get to be your Guinea Pig.

[Desolation mkII]

???

 

No mate, we all have functioning state healthcare systems. We were the guinea pigs.

[Jagdraben]

That would imply that we paid any attention to how things went abroad.

 

Which, I can assure you, we didn't.

[spetsnazdave87]

at least hes honest...

[galactica]

The argument that says "I only spent $275 on healthcare last year, now I'll have to pay $98 a month" is essentially countered by this:

 

tomorrow, you're diagnosed with a curable cancer. You don't have insurance because you are young and fit and don't think anything's going to happen to you. This is not how life works.

 

We in the UK have "national insurance" which is a mandatory contribution to the state healthcare system. Your mandatory insurance will function in broadly the same way, only because you had it, you will be treated free of charge for your illness, and the insurance

company can't cut you off.

[GuzziHero]

I cannot believe that anyone who has no health insurance would vote against this. That would be insanity. Then again, this is America...

 

Those opposed are just louder, thats all.

 

And if you dont want state healthcare, you could always refuse and choose to go untreated. I wonder how many will take that option?

 

Lets face it, if a nation was totally unsocialised you would have to pay for a cop to turn up...or a fire engine. You pay for ambulances, so why not? You would pay no taxes, but then what you got paid by your employers would also be unregulated. You dont want to accept $3 an hour? Go starve because there is no government aid for you. Not that that would be a huge difference in places like New Orleans...

 

Any time any goverment official or body provides any service for the people, that is a socialised scheme.

 

America has finally, FINALLY, joined the civilised world with universal healthcare. Even bloody Cuba has it for bogs sake!