Health Care

[Peet]

I'd just like to take the opportunity to point out that the terms used in american politics are ridiculous. Thank you and have a nice day.

[knorke]

Heh.I'm anti healthcare-nobody should have healthcare,not even if he/she pays for it!

anti-health care

[Noruas]

Michael Savage is my hero...

[Teutooni]

Pfft, politics. ~~

I think we can all agree on one thing, people in the US do love propaganda.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

I'd just like to take the opportunity to point out thatthe terms used in american politics are ridiculous. Thank you and have a nice day.

in other news, I like how the first thing I did upon reading this in the news was giggle hysterically and doubletime to the spring forums to see how people we trollin forb/america

american hospitals run privately as a money making buisness... is that not the source of the problem here? europe/UK have a nationalised health service that runs considerably more cheaply than 30k/ a baby...

I suppose nationalisation is a move towards centrally planned economy is a move towards communism, though

[hoijui]

putting a word on something does not make it bad or good.
in a healthy mind, that is.

From what i read in here, the new US system is comparable to the one in Switzerland, as in: Each citizen is required to have a health insurance, but the insurance is not supplied by the government.
Rich people usually have more expensive insurance, which gives them privileges like having at most one other person in the room when in hospital, having bigger rooms, having a person come to them discussing the composition of their next meal, ...
in addition to these... rather useless things, they may also have broader coverage here and there, eg. min and max limits for certain treatment. basic insurance is like an Athlon X4 2.6GHz, while the rich have an Core 2 Quad 3GHz with SSE10 for 4 times the money.
i did not hear about fundamental qualitative differences between here and other European countries, so i guess the system does not work worse then there, but the US and Switzerland are not comparable when looking at the economic and social situations - eg. lower % of poor here.

[zwzsg]

It's not illogical. No matter how you cut it, socialism is a direct contradiction of our constitution, bill of rights, and our current way of life.

Your bill of right is short enough that I could read it. There's nothing against health care in there, nothing against socialism even. Not even remotly. So you are just bullshiting us when you talk about "direct contradiction".

Your constitution is longer, so I read faster, but again, there was absolutly nothing on health care in it. I was a little disappointed, I hoped the constitution would at least whish for the well being of the citizen, but not even. There was nothing in your constitution against the state being run in a socialist way either. In fact, your constitution wouldn't even be incompatible with hard core communism!

Oh nevermind, I see a line related to health care now:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
There, your constitution explicitly states you should have a welfare system.

So, yeah, you lied to use Forb.

[Spawn_Retard]

i think gota summed this thread up nicely.

You dont care about most of the hilarious shit you guys end up doing to waste trillions of money, but then when it comes to actually helping people out by giving poor people the chance to have healthcare, its all wrong, because putting money into the black hole goverment is far better than giving it to under achivers..

[Forboding Angel]

I didn't write this, but it sums up one of the facets nicely.

The tenth amendment states:

"The 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."

Socialism is defined as government control of the means of production and distribution of wealth. To do this, socialism requires centralized control...as you are now witnessing in increasing intensity.

To introduce socialist constructs in the US, the federal government must usurp rights that are reserved to the states or to the people. One of the most henious examples of this is the intended fines on people who do not want to buy ObamaCare. When the federal government tries to force anyone to buy anything, under penalty of law, it is a terrible violation of the tenth amendment.

The constitution and bill of rights guarantees the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The constitution is designed to keep government small. This is in direct conflict with the ideals of socialism and communism in which you have massive government.

[SinbadEV]

I didn't write this, but it sums up one of the facets nicely.

The tenth amendment states:

"The 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."

Socialism is defined as government control of the means of production and distribution of wealth. To do this, socialism requires centralized control...as you are now witnessing in increasing intensity.

To introduce socialist constructs in the US, the federal government must usurp rights that are reserved to the states or to the people. One of the most henious examples of this is the intended fines on people who do not want to buy ObamaCare. When the federal government tries to force anyone to buy anything, under penalty of law, it is a terrible violation of the tenth amendment.

The constitution and bill of rights guarantees the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm worried about the "life" part of that guarantee...

Anyway, so to summarize the anti-healthcare movement from my perspective:

People should have the freedom to not purchase healthcare. The government should not control private industry.

The constitution is designed to keep government small. This is in direct conflict with the ideals of socialism and communism in which you have massive government.

Perhaps the concept of socialism has become confused at some point here... so here's what I want it to mean... if this is something else let me know.

First:
Things that people need should not cost said people more than said things cost to produce/provide. Things that many people want should be payed for by splitting the cost among all those people. Certain things, like roads, education, parks, healthcare, law enforcement, jails, welfare/employement programs, child and parental benefits and other stuff that not everyone WILL want or need but everyone MIGHT want or need should have their costs spread out in the same way that insurance is... not everyone with life insurance is going to die in a car accident and not everyone with dental insurance is going to need braces and not everyone who lives in a city is going to use the highways and parks... and it makes more sense to use taxes and government to organize these types of programs because their the ones who make the laws... technically if the providers of these services are private industry or actual government employees is incidental... it's just that the government ensures that they are payed for.


Meanwhile one reason Obama made a Federal bill for this is that the states and community governments who SHOULD have been providing healthcare the right way were limited by the national nature of the healthcare providers.

[Forboding Angel]

Meanwhile one reason Obama made a Federal bill for this is that the states and community governments who SHOULD have been providing healthcare the right way were limited by the national nature of the healthcare providers.

Lolno.

Edit: And yes, abortion is unconstitutional technically. I however, refuse to take a stance on abortion.

However, abortion was made legal by the supreme court ruling in wade v roe which is BS. The supreme court should not be legislating from the bench. This is a state law issue and should be that way, but thanks to the supreme court the individual states have no say in the matter.

Edit2: For those who aren't catching on yet, I'm saying that each individual state should be able to legalize or make illegal, abortion in that state via a vote by that state's citizens.

[FLOZi]

the ideals of socialism and communism in which you have massive government.

Never read a word of Marx.

[Caydr]

Forboding is correct: The constitution and bill of rights guarantees the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They aren't necessarily guaranteed to get it, just pursue it. Imagine a dog chasing a car. Being fair and balanced - unless you're Fox News or Rush Limbaugh - is inherently vile and probably the work of the Devil. Or maybe the Russians, you can never tell sometimes.

Sinbad, if you want to have a debate with people who are against, let's say, demonstrable reality, your visit to the 'States will be a great opportunity. There will always be people whose upbringing, experiences, or emotions will get preyed upon and used against them. The "republican" propaganda machine has plenty of other believers, it's just that Forboding here is a member of that unusually rare breed that's figured out how to use an internet.

Nothing against you Forboding, just people who actually believe things that you do don't usually make it past that great firewall we call "the power button".

Then again, there are tons of smart people who say and do dumb things at any point of the political and moral spectrum.

[tombom]

However, abortion was made legal by the supreme court ruling in wade v roe which is BS. The supreme court should not be legislating from the bench. This is a state law issue and should be that way, but thanks to the supreme court the individual states have no say in the matter.

They were not "legislating from the bench", they declared a state law was against the constitution. It's called judical review. You can say "that's bollocks, there's no constitutional foundation for this decision" or something, but it's still not "legislating from the bench". It's not as if it all goes "liberal"'s way, either; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

[zwzsg]

The constitution and bill of rights guarantees the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Funny, I could not see those words in neither the constitution nor the bill of rights.

At fist I was worried that I had abbreviated copies, but then I googled so more, and found out that, Forboding lied to us again. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is neither from the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, but from the Declaration of Independence.

Not to mention the right to life sorta imply the right to not die, if ya see what I mean...

I didn't write this, but it sums up one of the facets nicely.

Can't read up the texts yourself? Can't form up your own informed opinion? You need a nanny to read for you? You need a nanny to interpret for you? You need a nanny to tell you what to think? Then what's so extravagant about needing a nanny when Forby Boy gets a big fever?

"The 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."

So, if I understand well what you were told it means, it's: The federal state cannot have any power outside those written in the constitution.

First, I doubt this is the case, or else you'd have no space program: I'd be surprised if the founding fathers said anything about the right to pursue the moon.

And secondly, even if it were true, that's okay, because as I pointed earlier, your constitution explicitly allows federal welfare.

[Caydr]

First, I doubt this is the case, or else you'd have no space program: I'd be surprised if the founding fathers said anything about the right to pursue the moon.

And secondly, even if it were true, that's okay, because as I pointed earlier, your constitution explicitly allows federal welfare.

First, the space program loophole was recently closed and the Feds have promised not to start any programs in different dimensions, universes, or at the bottom of the sea, just to make sure nobody sneaks one in while they're not looking again.

Second, more seriously, "welfare" is a very generic term and while I agree with your argument I don't think that it really holds any water. That said, I thought that "taking care of citizens in a way which is at least reasonably close to, if not better than, the worldwide average" is something governments are supposed to strive for regardless of what documents their ideology is built around.

IMO people who refer to their country's constitution or whatever else their own country uses as a similar "foundation" document(s) as if it's absolutely correct at all times and for all situations are just being silly. The world is changing too quickly to expect that all our guidance should come from a few pages of text. Interpreting some manuscript and debating what it does and does not "sort of imply" is ridiculous - what works and what doesn't should take precedence.

For example, Americans are subject to things like the "Patriot Act" now, which is by its very nature unconstitutional. I don't hear very many Republicans complaining though, since it was something that happened during Bush's time. Regardless of who was in office when it was enacted, it was probably genuinely thought to be a part of a solution that would save lives. A strong argument can be made that it HAD to be done, regardless of whether it can be proven that it has saved any lives.

It's like with people who insist that the founding documents of their religion are absolutely correct 100% of the time and everything is to be taken 100% literally. Yes, really, the sun actually stood still for many hours just so a battle could finish. Yes, really, you should start killing people if they draw a picture of your prophet.

The key is to just use REASON. A document isn't absolutely correct and its writers weren't all-knowing and all-seeing. They couldn't predict the future and what challenges it would hold, but I'm confident that if they realized what a cult they've created among hardcore "constitution-is-all" people, they would've put "and don't take things too seriously, have a beer and talk it over OK?" at the end.

[Gota]

Caydr you are just bitter cause the light of our lord hasn't shun upon you yet.Embrace god my child.

The time of debating over health-care is over...the bill has passed already.

[zwzsg]

From what I've heard, only half of the initial proposition remains. Like, compulsory health care, but no public option. Which is a boon for the insurance companies, but a scam for the people.

[Pxtl]

From what I've heard, only half of the initial proposition remains. Like, compulsory health care, but no public option. Which is a boon for the insurance companies, but a scam for the people.

Part of the reason for the compulsory thing is the new handling of pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies have to insure people with them, and there are caps on how much they can charge. This means insurance is available to everyone.

However, it also means that you could just not buy insurance until you get sick. Hence the fine for not buying insurance.

[Caydr]

IIRC there are some hefty provisions in place for those who will now be legally obligated to get insurance but are broke to begin with. Like, government pays for it, that kind of thing.

Also the plan will probably get expanded upon at some point, especially if Obama can get a second term I'd imagine. There are, as you say, a lot of people who wanted a public option, and if some of the repubs can get their ego out of the way and be reasonable it could probably be added. I've heard some groups were forgotten about, like children under a certain age or something, so additions or modifications are inevitable. And maybe medicare expansion.

Their "YOU DON'T PLAY RIGHT!!! I'M GOING HOME!!!" attitude, slowing down everything in every way they can, not working a full day, blocking anything and everything (even their normally-loved "moar munneh for guns!" bills) cant possibly go on indefinitely. SURELY they'll suffer some backlash from the middle-right voters for just being douchebags like that.

I love how Sarah Palin, while she was in Canada, talked about crossing the border to get free healthcare. Rush "the blimp" Limbawww got emergency care in Hawaii, where they already have a healthcare system in place similar to the federal bill he was insisting would make the sky fall. Glenn Beck sang praises of the American healthcare system and called it the best in the world, then actually had the opportunity to experience it and made a video crying about it at home during recovery (or was this in the opposite order?)... And these are the experts Forboding and co rely on to get "the real news".