Congratulations America

[Shadow]

People outside America are talking about it because we have all had socialized health care for as long as we care to remember. We have long since stepped out of the health care dark ages and into the modern world.

There is a good reason that the vast majority of health care systems in the world are at least partially publicly run. It is cheaper in the long term, more effective, and more inclusive.

The crap you hear about long wait times is all nonsense - there are extreme cases everywhere, but in general, wait times are short.

[Juska]

I prefer to keep my liberty and stay in the stone age than to lose it and become "modern".

[Shadow]

Socialized medecine does not impinge on your liberty. Au contraire, having that worry off your mind frees you to focus on more important things. You are just griping about being forced to pay into some system. In the long term, you will end up paying less then you are currently AND you will be helping your fellow man. Which is what it's all about, right?

The US spends the highest portion of its GDP of any country in the world on health care at the moment. This system could do wonders with that number.

[Gorak]

what the hell is all this liberty crap?!!
what does that have to do with health care?

wow

I can't believe some people

I happen to be right wing conservative, and yet I still support public healthcare
why?
because it's better for me, and everyone else in my country.

[Gen. Volkov]

As for jobs, we have less unemployment in Canada, and our businesses are required to do a lot more then provide health insurance.

Less unemployment at this time maybe, but not in general. For the last 50 years, the US has had less unemployment than Canada for the majority of the time.

Oh, and by the way, while I do in fact support public health care, I do not like this particular bill. It is compromise upon compromise, filled with kickbacks, (like Nebraska not having to pay for the expansion of Medicaid) and pork-barrel projects. It has no way to pay for itself either, which will only increase the deficit. Yes, the CBO has said that it will cut the deficit $138 billion over 10 years, but that's out of the $940 billion that will be spent over the next ten years. So basically it's going to mitigate it's own costs by a little bit. It wouldn't even have passed if not for the straw man of the the "reconciliation" bill, because most of the House Dems took one look at all the pork in the bill and said no.

In my opinion, either more modest reforms, like allowing the purchase of health care coverage across state lines, and tort reform or a true single payer system similar to what France or Switzerland has is preferable to this bill that the Dems just passed. I'm also not a big fan of the total lack of bipartisan support. Every other major social program we have was passed with bipartisan support, in most cases major support. While proportionally more Republicans voted against Social Security and later Medicare than did Democrats, in both cases Republicans did vote for it, and in large numbers. In this case, not a single Republican voted for the bill. I dunno about you guys, but I'd kind of like bipartisan support for something this big.

[Shadow]

Now that is an opposition reason I can respect. Thank you volk, for actually giving a reasoned arguemtn instead of something about liberty and communism.

I don't think bipartisan support is possible on this one. The way the debate has happened, this will either end up being shot down completely or implemented completely, with any major reforms and support from the republicans happening many years down the road. I think that is largely the fault of th republicans, as well. They way they campaigned against the health care reform (ie, "death panels" etc.) really polarized the argument to the point where a lot of people simply decided that it was bad, end of story, regardless of its actual changing content.

[Peace Alliance]

You can't possibly be suggesting that Obama didn't ask for bipartisan participation. All he got from it was rude words.

[Briar]

Yes. He called for bipartisanship, but he was requesting too much be given up from a Republican p.o.v.  It was still too one sided.

[Peace Alliance]

how do you know this?

[Briar]

I read the newspaper, watch the news, read reports.

Over 200 Republican amendments were placed into the bill, and the majority of those were then killed in committee.

The Dems were more focused on getting the bill passed than be bipartisan.  I don't blame Obama entirely for this, this is on Palosi's shoulders even more than his. 

***
But, all in all, politicians, no matter what side of the aisles they sit, play to their voter-base (or what they presume is their voter base).  This is the bed the government made for us, no matter what  you think of it, and we all have to sleep in it.  It'll take a while for any of us to see the full consequences of this action.

[Sharptooh]

As soon as this bill is passed into law every America loses a little of their freedom, hoorah!

This statement disgusts me. People have lived under dictatorships, in persecuted minorities and in poverty, and a step towards universal healthcare threatens your freedom?

I can't really say anything about this topic. The Americans in here are too thick and insular to have any idea.

I actually have to agree with you, people have lived through pretty bad things, and it's sort of pathetic when people complain about public health care because they 'lose their freedom' what freedom did you have in the old system? It was either pay for insurance or pay onsite, this way you simply pay in advance for a more effective and less biased system.

Like Shadow said the long wait time stuff is rubbish, I've never heard of anything like that here in England, there's always exceptions but there is in every stystem.

The only negative point I can see here is that this will add to America's surmounting pile of debt . . . there's probably other things to take into account too, I don't know much about the bill (Volky has done his homework  :D )

[Juska]

what the [haties] is all this liberty crap?!!
what does that have to do with health care?

wow

I can't believe some people

I happen to be right wing conservative, and yet I still support public healthcare
why?
because it's better for me, and everyone else in my country.

Gorak, Americans are being forced to have health insurance by the government and if we do not have health insurance you will taxed by the government. We will be taxed for simply being alive and sitting in a chair. This has nothing to do with commerce, we aren't engaging in any sort of commerce by being alive.

This is like the pebble that starts a landslide, as soon as we let the government force us pay them money for us simply being alive what else will they do? The government takes power and never gives it back and once it has power it stretches it and stretches it.

The bill is unconstitutional and 14 states are rightfully suing on those very grounds, the 10th amendment states that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. There are no constitutional grounds for forcing someone to have health insurance, the federal government does not have the power to mandate this to the people.

This is better for me? And everyone in my country?

Yeah it's better for the late 20's-30 year old single upper middle-class person who is confident in their health and chooses to save the money they would pay on health insurance premiums, wait no now those people will be taxed because they have chosen where they want to put their money.

Or it's better for the businesses that will now need to provide insurance for their employees, raising costs forcing them to reduce their workforce and retard jobs growth.

Or it's better for the national debt, which is now going to increase.

Or it's better for every person in the country who will now people pay more of their money in taxes to the government, most of who will not see any difference in their current coverage.

@ Shadow: I've not even mentioned communism, this has nothing to do with communism.

Also, it does impinge upon my liberty as I've stated twice now, once with evidence from the preamble of the Constitution and once with the 10th amendment. Secondly, I now will worry less because the government is taking control of my health care?Like [haties] I'm not going to worry. The government does not know what's best for me.

You are implying that I let the government do my thinking for me! How can you even say that? Can't you see that when you let the government think for you it leads to the worst atrocities in history!  

I'll be helping my fellow man how? By paying a load of government bureaucrats to take my money, pay themselves and for their resources with it, and then giving it to my fellow man in need only reduced by the amount taken?

Giving money to my needy neighbor personally is far more effective then giving it to my greedy government to give to the needy neighbor.  

@ Sharptooh

Yeah people have lived through pretty bad things it's true, things a lot worse than being forced to pay for health insurance whether you want to or not; however, it always starts with something small and gradually grows and grows. You might not care today because this bill benefits you, the next time the government forces something on you, it might benefit you also, but by the time they do something that hurts you it won't matter because you won't have any power left to stand in their way.


There is a reason why the colonies rebelled from Great Britain and decided instead to form their own nation, it's the principle of Liberty.

Maybe they don't teach you why The United States were founded or maybe you forgot, but this is my country and I haven't.

[Shadow]

We will be taxed for simply being alive and sitting in a chair.

More later, but what possible reason other than sheer bullheadedness could there be for refusing health insurance provided by the government when it is being provided to you by your taxes?

Secondly, I now will worry less because the government is taking control of my health care?Like [haties] I'm not going to worry. The government does not know what's best for me.

Nope, the insurance company that has a monetary incentive to deny your claim knows better than a government that makes no profit by refusing to pay for you. Very logical.

You are implying that I let the government do my thinking for me! How can you even say that? Can't you see that when you let the government think for you it leads to the worst atrocities in history!  

One again. The VAST MAJORITY of the world has socialized health care systems, and has had for DECADES. No "worst atrocities in history" have resulted from socialized health care.

Or it's better for every person in the country who will now people pay more of their money in taxes to the government, most of who will not see any difference in their current coverage.

...which will actually be cheaper than their current coverage, on average.

Or it's better for the businesses that will now need to provide insurance for their employees, raising costs forcing them to reduce their workforce and retard jobs growth.

On the other hand, all that money that people were saving for when you broke your leg and have to sell your house to get it fixed can now be invested back into your economy, which will raise demand to balance the drop.

Also, it does impinge upon my liberty as I've stated twice now, once with evidence from the preamble of the Constitution and once with the 10th amendment. Secondly, I now will worry less because the government is taking control of my health care?Like [haties] I'm not going to worry. The government does not know what's best for me.

While we are pulling out random bits of idealistic documentation to apply to a real world situation, I will again point out that it is state in the UDHR that health care is a basic human right and that governemtns therefore have an obligation to provide it.

I'll be helping my fellow man how? By paying a load of government bureaucrats to take my money, pay themselves and for their resources with it, and then giving it to my fellow man in need only reduced by the amount taken?

You are assuming here that the people who administer this thing will be skimming off the top. Which is a pretty big assumption, and is utter speculation. The people who administer this have no monetary incentive to deny your claim.



Enough with the liberty crap. It's simply not true, as anyone in a socialized health care system will tell you. And we have the experience of living with it to back it up, whereas you just have the horror stories you hear about in the media. The extremes that are headline worthy are not representative of the quality of care provided in a socilized system.

[Juska]

We will be taxed for simply being alive and sitting in a chair.

More later, but what possible reason other than sheer bullheadedness could there be for refusing health insurance provided by the government when it is being provided to you by your taxes?

Health Insurance is not being provided for me by my taxes, the bill provides subsidies for people who make a very low amount of money; however, for individuals who make $44,000 a year or more there is no health insurance provided by the government and no subsidies for health insurance provided by the government, instead you will be forced to purchase your own health insurance or you will be taxed @ a minimum of $695 or 2.5% of their income whichever is greater.

If you make $14,000 a year you will still be paying 3-4% of your income for health insurance, you need to make more than 133% less than the poverty level to be covered for free under expanded medicaid.

So if I make $44,000 a year and I'm self employed I need to purchase my own health insurance and what if I can't afford or choose not to buy health insurance from the new "health insurance bazaars" we'll I get taxed!

There is no universal free coverage in this bill, it covers everyone by forcing everyone to purchase their own health insurance.

[Shadow]

You are running your numbers assuming that health insurance prices will stay the same. With government competition, prices are going to drop significantly.

Now, the above is a good reason for objections! And there are certainly problems with the system. But the liberty and anti-socilist arguements are just getting on my nerves, at this point. Sorry if I am coming across a little strong in attacking those particular arguments. ^_^