Spring RTS Engine

Relative wrote:

SinbadEV wrote:

Relative wrote:US:
Person becomes ill or needs a consult - person is then billed for expenses by doctor or hospital - if person has health insurance (personal or through their job) and if the health insurance covers the illness or consult (e.g. might not cover pre-existing conditions, or not cover metal illness) and cost of care isn't below (like most insurance small claims are covered by person) or exceeds limits (pays up to limit unless the plan is unlimited, then costs covered by person). If person doesn't have insurance or the insurance policy doesn't cover their needs then costs may be covered by Medicare (senior citizens) or Medicaid (the very poor). Everyone else personally cover the costs - which in many cases can be crippling if they have a serious condition.

Sorry, that's the old system I hope right? This new system fixes that?



Oh, I suppose another good angle is the "Think of the children" gambit... if a child get's sick should he/she be denied care because his/her parents are poor? The gamble is that to a real Republican is so anti-socialist that their answer to this question is "Yes, their parents should have worked harder to make more money if they wanted to have children."

Well its still the same system roughly, but now its a legal requirement to get insurance; there are subsidies for those who can't afford it and are not covered by medicaid; businesses now get tax credits for each employee they give insurance to; insurance companies cannot deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions or exit from agreements with high-risk customers; children can continue to be covered by their parent's plan until the age of 26 so that they don't have additional costs as they go through education and are still dependent on parents; unrelated small businesses and individuals will eventually be able to buy group policies together to bring down the individual costs of insurance; and a shit load of other stuff.

I kinda feel a little bit sorry for the people of America, their governments can't pass emissions laws because their in bed with the car companies, they can't promote electric cars because their in bed with the oil companies, they can "really" fix health-care because they are in bed with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers/Insurance Companies/HMOs... essentially the "right" solution would cost inordinate amounts of money to set up and dissolve the entire business model of hundreds of publicly traded companies, costing thousands their jobs... and then embroiling the already complicated system in the works of a horribly corrupt bureaucracy... and that's BEFORE you take into account the kinds of riders that are attached to bills in order to get them passed.

Forboding Angel wrote:

SinbadEV wrote: Oh, I suppose another good angle is the "Think of the children" gambit... if a child get's sick should he/she be denied care because his/her parents are poor? The gamble is that to a real Republican is so anti-socialist that their answer to this question is "Yes, their parents should have worked harder to make more money if they wanted to have children."

This is BS. Medicaid and are you forgetting "SCHIP"?

Sorry. Was in fact unaware of said program, thanks for outing my ignorance here instead of in front of real Americans. (not sarcastic for once... I know it's hard to tell)

Forboding Angel wrote:

SinbadEV wrote:...illogical fear of socialism?

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.

Which amendment is that? Where does it say the government shall not expand government services? Because that appears to be the definition of "socialism" that is currently prevalent in political discourse.

I believe The Onion covered this.

Forboding Angel wrote:

SinbadEV wrote:...illogical fear of socialism?

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.

Tom Paine.

Pxtl wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:

SinbadEV wrote:...illogical fear of socialism?

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.

Which amendment is that? Where does it say the government shall not expand government services? Because that appears to be the definition of "socialism" that is currently prevalent in political discourse.

I was going to ask the same thing... namely because I actually respect Forb and an intelligent person on the other side of this argument is exactly what I was hoping to flush out.

It amuse me that in america, socialist is an insult, while in France, it's one of the two big political party, alternating in power with the right.

Also, here in france, Communists are not executed. We even had a few communist ministers.

And they still have the same fundamental system of insurance middle men, private hospitals, and private doctors - there is hardly anything socialist about it. Just more consumer protections, tax credits, and some expansion of existing welfare systems (which are still mostly private).

zwzsg wrote:It amuse me that in america, socialist is an insult, while in France, it's one of the two big political party, alternating in power with the right.

Also, here in france, Communists are not executed. We even had a few communist ministers.

In the US basically "Communism" was vilified by the government for a very long time (the "Red Menace") because it was thought there were in fact representatives of the Russian "Communist Party" infiltrating and trying to spread anti-US propaganda while the US were effectively at (cold) war with them... or at least that's what the US government said at the time... as such, despite the fact that the Russian government system were basically a Military Dictatorship masquerading behind socialistic programs, the US, to counteract the perception that Russia was this Utopian society convinced the common man that socialism was "letting the government run their lives"... also, bit of trivia, socialists and social liberals are reffed to as "pinkos" because they are "kinda red"... I'm sure there are people who would tell you that the government was not in fact afraid of communism and made Russia the enemy expressly to line the pockets of american industrialists...

Relative wrote:And they still have the same fundamental system of insurance middle men, private hospitals, and private doctors - there is hardly anything socialist about it. Just more consumer protections, tax credits, and some expansion of existing welfare systems (which are still mostly private).

To me, the new system actually looks like it would be better for the economy. How many people are prevented from entering the small-business/freelancer/whatever world because they _must_ have an employer? How many people can't switch jobs because they're worried about what this will mean for their insurance? Particularly people with conditions that _do_ require insurance attention.

The new system means those people can make that jump more freely, allowing them to better compete in the marketplace.

SinbadEV wrote:

Yeah, I know the story, but it's still funny (well, not really) to see the good american patriots are still witch hunting for communists socialists sapping their great nation.

I don't think it has anything to do with anti-communist paranoia actually. I think it's just another aspect of the American right-wing's spectacular ability to make common political concepts into insults. I mean, Limbaugh managed to make the word "liberal" a dirty word, to the point that left-wingers have re-branded themselves as "progressives".

SinbadEV wrote:So it basically amounts to a Government owned "Affordable Insurance" provider? Great job Obama, way to make people even MORE afraid of Universal Socialized Free Health-Care...

As far as I know, not even that.

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.

How?

Although asking that is pandering to the idea that socialist policies - at least more so than what already exists - are on the table

The delivery of modern health care depends on an expanding group of trained professionals coming together as an interdisciplinary team.

The health-care industry incorporates several sectors that are dedicated to providing services and products dedicated to improving the health of individuals. According to market classifications of industry such as the Global Industry Classification Standard and the Industry Classification Benchmark the health-care industry includes health care equipment & services and pharmaceuticals, biotechnology & life sciences. The particular sectors associated with these groups are: biotechnology, diagnostic substances, drug delivery, drug manufacturers, hospitals, medical equipment and instruments, diagnostic laboratories, nursing homes, providers of health care plans and home health care.

According to government classifications of Industry, which are mostly based on the United Nations system, the International Standard Industrial Classification, health care generally consists of hospital activities, medical and dental practice activities, and other human health activities. The last class consists of all activities for human health not performed by hospitals or by medical doctors or dentists. This involves activities of, or under the supervision of, nurses, midwives, physiotherapists, scientific or diagnostic laboratories, pathology clinics, ambulance, nursing home, or other para-medical practitioners in the field of optometry, hydrotherapy, medical massage, music therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, chiropody, homeopathy, chiropractice, acupuncture, etc.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that Sinbad was right all along..

tombom wrote:

SinbadEV wrote:So it basically amounts to a Government owned "Affordable Insurance" provider? Great job Obama, way to make people even MORE afraid of Universal Socialized Free Health-Care...

As far as I know, not even that.

Government mandated, non-discriminatory "Affordable Insurance" then?

SinbadEV wrote:

tombom wrote:

SinbadEV wrote:So it basically amounts to a Government owned "Affordable Insurance" provider? Great job Obama, way to make people even MORE afraid of Universal Socialized Free Health-Care...

As far as I know, not even that.

Government mandated, non-discriminatory "Affordable Insurance" then?

Basically - still all private insurance companies, but people are required to have some kind of health insurance and new consumer protections have been introduced.

Relative wrote:

SinbadEV wrote:

tombom wrote: As far as I know, not even that.

Government mandated, non-discriminatory "Affordable Insurance" then?

Basically - still all private insurance companies, but people are required to have some kind of health insurance and new consumer protections have been introduced.

Okay, we are now back to square one... aside from the obvious "not doing enough" argument... what is the problem 49% of Americans have with this change? Does it come down to non-government interference with private industry?

Sausage wrote:The delivery of modern health care depends on an expanding group of trained professionals coming together as an interdisciplinary team.

The health-care industry incorporates several sectors that are dedicated to providing services and products dedicated to improving the health of individuals. According to market classifications of industry such as the Global Industry Classification Standard and the Industry Classification Benchmark the health-care industry includes health care equipment & services and pharmaceuticals, biotechnology & life sciences. The particular sectors associated with these groups are: biotechnology, diagnostic substances, drug delivery, drug manufacturers, hospitals, medical equipment and instruments, diagnostic laboratories, nursing homes, providers of health care plans and home health care.

According to government classifications of Industry, which are mostly based on the United Nations system, the International Standard Industrial Classification, health care generally consists of hospital activities, medical and dental practice activities, and other human health activities. The last class consists of all activities for human health not performed by hospitals or by medical doctors or dentists. This involves activities of, or under the supervision of, nurses, midwives, physiotherapists, scientific or diagnostic laboratories, pathology clinics, ambulance, nursing home, or other para-medical practitioners in the field of optometry, hydrotherapy, medical massage, music therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, chiropody, homeopathy, chiropractice, acupuncture, etc.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that Sinbad was right all along..

Nice copypasta.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

If all our information on the bill is second source, we're no more informed than the people we criticize. I've seen an awful lot of misinformed people on both sides of the issue.

Hey, another bash america/disagree and flame anyone who doesn't share your narrow views!

Yeah, count me out.

Pxtl wrote:I mean, Limbaugh managed to make the word "liberal" a dirty word, to the point that left-wingers have re-branded themselves as "progressives".

I'm guessing you are completely oblivious to the fact that liberals started out calling them socialists, then it went to progressives, then to liberal, and now back to progressives.

Zebras trying to change their stripes. Pathetic.

Rush Limbaugh is one man in a sea of liberal media. I like how you vilify the single voice against your opinions.

Anyway, /thread for me. A moderator should not be making these types of threads and honestly as they are just trollbait, threads like these should be deleted instantly. If you want to talk to people that only agree with you and your ridiculous views then perhaps you should visit "Democratic Underground". Google it, and post this BS there. They'll love you for it.

Edit: And while you're there let them know that conservatives enjoy feasting on all the aborted babies that come out of planned parenthood. Mmmmm, yummy fetus/baby. The ones that are babies were simply cooked to long and are simply "Well Done".