Obamacare for it or against it...

[DirtySanchez]

And why....


For me I'm for it.
My
Mother has worked all her life and as lost over half her 401k during the Bush years. She was then laid off and had 2 years if healthcare coverage from her severance package.
My mother is a cancer survivor and need meds etc. with out Obamacare when her two years are up insurance companies can denie her care.
My Mother is just one story of many.
So I support Obamacare because it does away with ore exisisting conditions.
Republicans do not have a plan that will help my mother and others like her.

I am interested to hear other people take and please be real on how it exactly effects you.

[embersyc]

Don't like the mandate.

It's certainly not the universal healthcare system proposed by the Clintons back in the 90s, or anything close to what other top countries have in place.

However it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully within the next decade or so we see it expanded to at the very least include a public option.

[Mach_3]

I won't say if im against or for it because i havent done all the research i need to make my own decision but i will say it's better than the pitch the republicans were throwing that's for damn sure

[RedBlackAttack]

Don't like the mandate.

It's certainly not the universal healthcare system proposed by the Clintons back in the 90s, or anything close to what other top countries have in place.

However it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully within the next decade or so we see it expanded to at the very least include a public option.
The mandate is what makes it possible for it to be paid for. I don't think anyone "likes" the mandate portion of the bill, but it is necessary for the end-goal to be accomplished. It's sort of like saying you like to go out to eat but you don't like having to write a check.

Hey, I wish we could just have the universal health care system and be done with it. But, the country doesn't seem completely ready for that yet and the otherside sure as hell isn't going to allow it to happen. I mean, this was originally a Republican proposed counter to the Hillary Clinton plan back in '94 and now they rail against it.

I do think we will end up with universal care eventually and I think -- although far from a perfect plan -- this is a major step in the right direction.

[Meticode]

The mandate is what makes it possible for it to be paid for. I don't think anyone "likes" the mandate portion of the bill, but it is necessary for the end-goal to be accomplished. It's sort of like saying you like to go out to eat but you don't like having to write a check.

Hey, I wish we could just have the universal health care system and be done with it. But, the country doesn't seem completely ready for that yet and the otherside sure as hell isn't going to allow it to happen. I mean, this was originally a Republican proposed counter to the Hillary Clinton plan back in '94 and now they rail against it.

I do think we will end up with universal care eventually and I think -- although far from a perfect plan -- this is a major step in the right direction.
Good post.

[ElPigto]

The mandate is what makes it possible for it to be paid for. I don't think anyone "likes" the mandate portion of the bill, but it is necessary for the end-goal to be accomplished. It's sort of like saying you like to go out to eat but you don't like having to write a check.

Hey, I wish we could just have the universal health care system and be done with it. But, the country doesn't seem completely ready for that yet and the otherside sure as hell isn't going to allow it to happen. I mean, this was originally a Republican proposed counter to the Hillary Clinton plan back in '94 and now they rail against it.

I do think we will end up with universal care eventually and I think -- although far from a perfect plan -- this is a major step in the right direction.

I would love to think that eventually we will have a single payer system in this country. I'll cross my fingers that it happens before my lifetime is over.

[DeuceWallaces]

I'm against anything that requires me to pay for something.

What do you do such that this requires you to pay?

[DonDadda59]

The mandate is what makes it possible for it to be paid for. I don't think anyone "likes" the mandate portion of the bill, but it is necessary for the end-goal to be accomplished. It's sort of like saying you like to go out to eat but you don't like having to write a check.

Hey, I wish we could just have the universal health care system and be done with it. But, the country doesn't seem completely ready for that yet and the otherside sure as hell isn't going to allow it to happen. I mean, this was originally a Republican proposed counter to the Hillary Clinton plan back in '94 and now they rail against it.

I do think we will end up with universal care eventually and I think -- although far from a perfect plan -- this is a major step in the right direction.

Which is why it's so hilarious to hear Romney talk about repealing the plan seeing as how he enacted more or less the same law in Massachusetts when he was Governor.

[ElPigto]

Which is why it's so hilarious to hear Romney talk about repealing the plan seeing as how he enacted more or less the same law in Massachusetts when he was Governor.

I find it even more funny when Romney states that he will repeal Obamacare, then a week later he talks about possibly keeping parts of it that he likes. What an idiot.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Hey, I wish we could just have the universal health care system and be done with it. But, the country doesn't seem completely ready for that yet and the otherside sure as hell isn't going to allow it to happen. I mean, this was originally a Republican proposed counter to the Hillary Clinton plan back in '94 and now they rail against it.

I do think we will end up with universal care eventually and I think -- although far from a perfect plan -- this is a major step in the right direction.


- Mate, how many times must the fallacy of using small homogenous nations as a model for the massive US melting pot be pointed out? Do you ignore it on purpose? In and of itself the undertaking of federalizing a healthcare system for 330,000,000 people is far more problematic than one for a nation of 50,000,000 which is about average for European countries sans Russia, maybe even lower in fact. You cannot expect a program that must accomodate five to ten Times as many people to run at the same efficiency. Thats just reality. To make it run effectively would require enormous sums of money. Further, Americans are far less healthy than other developed nations. Incarceration rates are higher. Unplanned pregnancy is more rampant. Mate, why dont you ever focus on the bad decisions individuals make that drive up the cost of these types of programs. You want businesses and taxpayers to write a blank check subsidizing the average persons apathy, lethargy, ignorance, and poor judgment. You have 'always blame the big guy' syndrome mate. You know its true. If your neighbor, and my neighbor, and people everywhere werent so obese, a program like this moves closer toward feasability. Do you ever chastize your neighbor the way you chastize Republicans for demanding accountability and drawing a line on entitlements? No, mate. You dont. You dont have the courage to call out the average bozos you see in person each day who make bad decisions that affect everyone. You just overcompensate by blaming large, broad, ambiguous entities. "Corporations", "the media", "the right wing".

Terrell Owens had like five kids he cant afford to take care of. But tax payers have to spend the salary they work for on those childrens education, on their healthcare, and pribably other subsidies. Antonio Cromartie has eight children that he barely provides for, while taxpayers shoulder the rest. Is this fair? Does social responsibility only apply to the 1%? Good luck making progress when you only demand it from 1% of the population. But thats all you will do, because that 1% are the easiest targets. That is why you target them to be responsible even for problems they dont create. Lawyers, CEOs, doctors, entrepreneurs, investors, engineers, all go to work each day and deserve to not have their earnings pillaged and spent carelessly to cover up the mess of people who live or spend recklessly. Discriminating against them because you arbitrarily decide they owe more to society than others is no different than someone arbitrarily deciding marriage is not for two people of the same sex. You cannot profess to want equality in one scenario, while being completely arbitrary and subjective in the other.

Mate.

[DonDadda59]

I find it even more funny when Romney states that he will repeal Obamacare, then a week later he talks about possibly keeping parts of it that he likes. What an idiot.

Mitt Romney changes his 'beliefs' according to who is in front of him.

"See I'm a liar and I really don't care, I tell them hoes whatever they wanna here" <---Romney's stance on politics :oldlol:

[DeuceWallaces]

- Mate, how many times must the fallacy of using small homogenous nations as a model for the massive US melting pot be pointed out? Do you ignore it on purpose? In and of itself the undertaking of federalizing a healthcare system for 330,000,000 people is far more problematic than one for a nation of 50,000,000 which is about average for European countries sans Russia, maybe even lower in fact. You cannot expect a program that must accomodate five to ten Times as many people to run at the same efficiency. Thats just reality. To make it run effectively would require enormous sums of money. Further, Americans are far less healthy than other developed nations. Incarceration rates are higher. Unplanned pregnancy is more rampant. Mate, why dont you ever focus on the bad decisions individuals make that drive up the cost of these types of programs. You want businesses and taxpayers to write a blank check subsidizing the average persons apathy, lethargy, ignorance, and poor judgment. You have 'always blame the big guy' syndrome mate. You know its true. If your neighbor, and my neighbor, and people everywhere werent so obese, a program like this moves closer toward feasability. Do you ever chastize your neighbor the way you chastize Republicans for demanding accountability and drawing a line on entitlements? No, mate. You dont. You dont have the courage to call out the average bozos you see in person each day who make bad decisions that affect everyone. You just overcompensate by blaming large, broad, ambiguous entities. "Corporations", "the media", "the right wing".

Terrell Owens had like five kids he cant afford to take care of. But tax payers have to spend the salary they work for on those childrens education, on their healthcare, and pribably other subsidies. Antonio Cromartie has eight children that he barely provides for, while taxpayers shoulder the rest. Is this fair? Does social responsibility only apply to the 1%? Good luck making progress when you only demand it from 1% of the population. But thats all you will do, because that 1% are the easiest targets. That is why you target them to be responsible even for problems they dont create. Lawyers, CEOs, doctors, entrepreneurs, investors, engineers, all go to work each day and deserve to not have their earnings pillaged and spent carelessly to cover up the mess of people who live or spend recklessly. Discriminating against them because you arbitrarily decide they owe more to society than others is no different than someone arbitrarily deciding marriage is not for two people of the same sex. You cannot profess to want equality in one scenario, while being completely arbitrary and subjective in the other.

Mate.

You are everything you just bitched about. I have to support you. You are the "unhealthiest" of Americans. You are a loser with no career and education. I go to work each day to support dumb-****s like you. It's terrible. You are everything you criticize.

[ElPigto]

I'm against anything that requires me to pay for something.

Try transitioning to the real world at some point. You'll have to face it one day or another. You can't fantasize about Ariana forever, you'll have to get you a real girl some day.

[JaggerCommaMick]

You are everything you just bitched about. I have to support you. You are the "unhealthiest" of Americans. You are a loser with no career and education. I go to work each day to support dumb-****s like you. It's terrible. You are everything you criticize.


Mate with such a giant forehead I would have assumed you'd have at least a marginal ability to discuss actual isses. Instead tho, mate, you have no real understanding or input to offer, and rely on faux intellectual cynicism as a means to make others think you actually participated in the conversation. Even the misguided left wing loons here at least talk about the topic itself. Youcant even do that! You are quite literally the single biggest intellectual poser on the forum board. You offer quite literally nothing to an adult discussion. You seem only to chime in for attention, so as to be perceived as being informed about the topic everyone else is ACTUALLY discussin.

Anyhow mate, even if your drivel were correct and I were the chap you claim me to be, based on your apparent positions, you have absolutely no problem with me leeching off you 100%. You make money and I dont, right? So it is your obligation to share with me. Hey, thats your position mate, not mine. Dont blame me when Im withdrawing 20s you earned and shovin em down a broads g string at 3 in the mornin. Youre the one who ardently defends such a notion.

And why? Because you literally never have any idea what youre talking about, and yet for some reason you still talk.

[RedBlackAttack]

- Mate, how many times must the fallacy of using small homogenous nations as a model for the massive US melting pot be pointed out? Do you ignore it on purpose? In and of itself the undertaking of federalizing a healthcare system for 330,000,000 people is far more problematic than one for a nation of 50,000,000 which is about average for European countries sans Russia, maybe even lower in fact. You cannot expect a program that must accomodate five to ten Times as many people to run at the same efficiency. Thats just reality. To make it run effectively would require enormous sums of money. Further, Americans are far less healthy than other developed nations. Incarceration rates are higher. Unplanned pregnancy is more rampant. Mate, why dont you ever focus on the bad decisions individuals make that drive up the cost of these types of programs. You want businesses and taxpayers to write a blank check subsidizing the average persons apathy, lethargy, ignorance, and poor judgment. You have 'always blame the big guy' syndrome mate. You know its true. If your neighbor, and my neighbor, and people everywhere werent so obese, a program like this moves closer toward feasability. Do you ever chastize your neighbor the way you chastize Republicans for demanding accountability and drawing a line on entitlements? No, mate. You dont. You dont have the courage to call out the average bozos you see in person each day who make bad decisions that affect everyone. You just overcompensate by blaming large, broad, ambiguous entities. "Corporations", "the media", "the right wing".

Terrell Owens had like five kids he cant afford to take care of. But tax payers have to spend the salary they work for on those childrens education, on their healthcare, and pribably other subsidies. Antonio Cromartie has eight children that he barely provides for, while taxpayers shoulder the rest. Is this fair? Does social responsibility only apply to the 1%? Good luck making progress when you only demand it from 1% of the population. But thats all you will do, because that 1% are the easiest targets. That is why you target them to be responsible even for problems they dont create. Lawyers, CEOs, doctors, entrepreneurs, investors, engineers, all go to work each day and deserve to not have their earnings pillaged and spent carelessly to cover up the mess of people who live or spend recklessly. Discriminating against them because you arbitrarily decide they owe more to society than others is no different than someone arbitrarily deciding marriage is not for two people of the same sex. You cannot profess to want equality in one scenario, while being completely arbitrary and subjective in the other.

Mate.
Starface,
I refuse to read any of your posts, let alone this wall of text, as long as you continue posting with this tremendously annoying gimmick. I'm all for changing things up every now and then and I'm confident you've had gimmicks in the past that I didn't realize were you and I found them entertaining and worthwhile.

However, your keeping on with this Mick Jagger thing even though you know it is absolutely awful is just thick-headed.

If you want to have an honest political discussion as we've had many times in the past, I'm more than willing to engage... But not until you leave the nonsense "mate" stuff behind.

Sincerely,
RBA

[JaggerCommaMick]

Starface,
I refuse to read any of your posts, let alone this wall of text, as long as you continue posting with this tremendously annoying gimmick. I'm all for changing things up every now and then and I'm confident you've had gimmicks in the past that I didn't realize were you and I found them entertaining and worthwhile.

However, your keeping on with this Mick Jagger thing even though you know it is absolutely awful is just thick-headed.

If you want to have an honest political discussion as we've had many times in the past, I'm more than willing to engage... But not until you leave the nonsense "mate" stuff behind.

Sincerely,
RBA


Mate this is an unequivocal cop out. I dont care about this Starface stuff mate. I notice people say this to me everytime I trump them with a point. Other times when they have what they believe to be a strong competent response I dont hear nothin about gimmcks and starface. But when theyre bested they take their ball and go, makin a poor excuse.

Ya aint gonna respond to me analysis of your perspective because I called ya mate? Is that quite rightly what ya just said? A thousand dogs couldnt produce a bigger load of bollocks if they all did their business simultaneously on one tiny lawn.

I aint mean to get contentious with ya as I aint never noticed ya bein the kind of turd these other chaps are with their stubborn denial of lifes realities. But ya got the same refusal to support policy grounded in practical reality than doomed-to-fail ideological fantasy. And it gets on me nerves proper mate. Youre ignorin what I said because you dont have a refutation, so you have to create a phony justification to continue your wilful ignorance. Youll now go in other threads to espouse the same thing, pretendin you aint never heard all of the real legitimate flaws in your perspective that were just pointed out. You are avoiding the discussion of logic because you dont like the answers that await, no different than tryin to talk objective logic with a bloke who loves his religion. Youre too weak to concede your arguments dont have a basis in reason.

[Patrick Chewing]

Mate with such a giant forehead I would have assumed you'd have at least a marginal ability to discuss actual isses. Instead tho, mate, you have no real understanding or input to offer, and rely on faux intellectual cynicism as a means to make others think you actually participated in the conversation.


Goddamn :oldlol:

[DirtySanchez]

The whole universal health care will not work in a population as big as the USA is just a cop out.

My wife and I have a combined income over 250k if we have to pay even more then we do now so some people who really need it can get health care so be it.
We can speak first hand about the health care industry because my wife works in it. And we see the same story time and time again of average Americans going bankrupt because of a failed system just to remain healthy.

Any how Obamacare will help so many old and young people in this country who need healthcare period. I am all for it and in the long run this presidents legacy will be well remembered for this.

[DonDadda59]

The whole universal health care will not work in a population as big as the USA is just a cop out.

My wife and I have a combined income over 250k if we have to pay even more then we do now so some people who really need it can get health care so be it.
We can speak first hand about the health care industry because my wife works in it. And we see the same story time and time again of average Americans going bankrupt because of a failed system just to remain healthy.

Any how Obamacare will help so many old and young people in this country who need healthcare period. I am all for it and in the long run this presidents legacy will be well remembered for this.

[Star]You're a commie socialist pinko effeminate lefty loon, mate. [/Face]

[RedBlackAttack]

Mate this is an unequivocal cop out. I dont care about this Starface stuff mate. I notice people say this to me everytime I trump them with a point. Other times when they have what they believe to be a strong competent response I dont hear nothin about gimmcks and starface. But when theyre bested they take their ball and go, makin a poor excuse.

Ya aint gonna respond to me analysis of your perspective because I called ya mate? Is that quite rightly what ya just said? A thousand dogs couldnt produce a bigger load of bollocks if they all did their business simultaneously on one tiny lawn.

I aint mean to get contentious with ya as I aint never noticed ya bein the kind of turd these other chaps are with their stubborn denial of lifes realities. But ya got the same refusal to support policy grounded in practical reality than doomed-to-fail ideological fantasy. And it gets on me nerves proper mate. Youre ignorin what I said because you dont have a refutation, so you have to create a phony justification to continue your wilful ignorance. Youll now go in other threads to espouse the same thing, pretendin you aint never heard all of the real legitimate flaws in your perspective that were just pointed out. You are avoiding the discussion of logic because you dont like the answers that await, no different than tryin to talk objective logic with a bloke who loves his religion. Youre too weak to concede your arguments dont have a basis in reason.
I feel badly because you are typing up these long responses to my posts and I feel almost obligated to read them, but I'm simply not going to tolerate this annoying gimmick.

If someone wants to translate this into a normal voice, I will read and respond. If not, I'm sorry... I just flatly refuse to read it.

[Jailblazers7]

On the fence. Part of me likes the states right argument because it allows for a form of economic experimentation that can help determine if it is the best policy. But part of me also thinks its a step in the right direction. Either way, the big question is if it will reign in our the growth of medical costs and I'm not convinced it will.

[JaggerCommaMick]

The whole universal health care will not work in a population as big as the USA is just a cop out.

My wife and I have a combined income over 250k if we have to pay even more then we do now so some people who really need it can get health care so be it.
.

Oh dandy! Heres a proposal, mate! How bout I assign you 10-15 people specifically whose premiums you have to pay? You sound generous and willing, eh?

Ill assign you some drug addicts. A couple habitual drunk drivers. Some single mothers with no job and two or three kids. A couple dudes who are con artists. Some folks who could afford coverage if they so chose, but spend their checks on cigarettes and extra TV channels.

YOU can support their healthcare PERSONALLY mate because you can afford it and are willing to do it. Lets see how long you support such a policy when you get a first hand look at what it really means.

By the way mate, how much of your salary are you willing to volunteer? One thoudand per month? Two thousand? Give me a specific figure. You seem to wish to speak for everyone makin over 250 000 to say youre willin to pay more. How much more, mate? Give me somethin specific. Lets see how much money youll put where your mouth is.

[JaggerCommaMick]

I'm completely ignorant about it Do I have health insurance now?


Based on your qualifications and the Democratic model, yes.

[irondarts]

Well considering that I can now go to the Dentist and Doctor again because of it I'm all for it.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Nice! I haven't been to the doctor in years:applause:


Me either, mate. Oh but lucky us, we get lumped into a system that subsidizes the cost of gluttons, hypochondriacs, overdosers, blokes prone to violence, 80 year old shut-ins who break their hip once a month, and all the other chaps who use up a disproportionate amount of medical costs. The quality and cost of the care we sparingly require will be compromised because loony libs are obsessed with excusing poor choices and helping the helpless. Thts their move. Thats how their politicians stay in office, by giving their dumb constituents candy and soda for dinner, instead of vegetables. They give dumb people what they want, even though its bad for the system and bad forthe future, because the dummies dont know any better nor care. And they take from others unfairly to perpetuate their doomed policies of borrowed money and time

[KevinNYC]

On the fence. Part of me likes the states right argument because it allows for a form of economic experimentation that can help determine if it is the best policy. But part of me also thinks its a step in the right direction. Either way, the big question is if it will reign in our the growth of medical costs and I'm not convinced it will.

So far the rate of growth of costs has come down. We'll see if that continues, especially after it goes into full effect

[KevinNYC]

I'm completely ignorant about it. Do I have health insurance now?

http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=4

It's possible if your parents have health coverage. I know you're under 26, but I don't know how that is implemented.


young adults are now allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until they turn 26 years old.

[Balla_Status]

http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=4

It's possible if your parents have health coverage. I know you're under 26, but I don't know how that is implemented.

Encouraging laziness. **** yeah.

[IGOTGAME]

Encouraging laziness. **** yeah.
There is a certain percentage of people who will be unemployed no matter what we encourage. I'd rather they had health insurance.

[irondarts]

http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=4

It's possible if your parents have health coverage. I know you're under 26, but I don't know how that is implemented.
I was able to get back on my fathers health care, which has been very helpful as a full time student.

[irondarts]

Encouraging laziness. **** yeah.
I'm a full time student with a part time job with no benefits. This allowed me to go back on my father's health care which has been extremely useful. It's benefited me in a large way, and I'm not lazy. Some people will abuse it, but some people abuse everything.

[KevinNYC]

Who the **** says this is laziness.

I had a pretty serious mobility issue when I got out of college and it meant I couldn't work a 40 hour work-week, so I had part time jobs and no health insurance for a few years. It actually took several doctor's to accurately diagnose the problem, when I finally did get health insurance. So basically, I had a couple of years where I wasn't fully in the workforces, and thus paid less taxes, less Social Security, etc.

If I had been able to remain on my parent's account until I 26, those years wouldn't have been wasted.

[JaggerCommaMick]

I'm a full time student with a part time job with no benefits. This allowed me to go back on my father's health care which has been extremely useful. It's benefited me in a large way, and I'm not lazy. Some people will abuse it, but some people abuse everything.


Valid point, mate. Which is why I believe states should offer blanket care for everyone under 26. That aint a time when youre makin money, youve got other priorities, there should be a safety net for young people. After 26 it is YOUR responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle and budget for your own bloody coverage. These two things would drive costs down for people needing attention for legitimate health issues. Money is only part of the equation, responsibility is the other. Femocrats think you can compensate the responsibility part with more money but it dont work that way. That just wastes money.

Thats a fair bloody compromise. When youre objective and willin to compromise, you can reach sensible conclusions. When youre a partisan extremist like kevinyc, sarcastic, dondadda, millertime, deucewallaces and so forth, you reach extreme, absurd conclusions like a federal system for 330,000,000 that will burden those who use and affect the cost least to contribute the most to it. A system that incentivizes apathy and irresponsibility. A system asking to be riddled with fraud and inefficiency. A system that compromises the economy. A system... called Obamacare.


:applause:

[JaggerCommaMick]

Wow wish that was in effect a few years ago. The day I left my mom's house I got a letter saying my health insurance was terminated.


Mate can u keep ur dumb arse shtick out of the important threads? Stay in the kiddie pool and act like a silly retard over there.

[AK47DR91]

Encouraging laziness. **** yeah.
Elaborate on that?

It's not like they're getting welfare checks off of it. It's healthcare coverage. Like irondarts, there are millions of others in his age bracket that can't find full-time jobs that offer healthcare right now. And those who can't work FT jobs because of school, then there's nothing wrong with that it.

[DukeDelonte13]

Anybody that's against it is just plain stupid.

It's insurance reform. We need insurance reform. 80% of all bankruptcies prior to Obamacare are due to medical bills.

It's unfair that somebody with 2 or 3 kids w/ no health issues has to pay $1300 + per month for sh*tty coverage.

[gigantes]

I find the term 'Obamacare' extremely disingenuous. This plan is not what he wanted, but merely the end result of compromise after all the opposition tried to kill it. Nobody really wanted this plan, other than someone like Romney, not that he's in any position to admit that at this point.

Obama wanted a more Euro-style healthcare plan. This end result plan is basically Romneycare.

Not sure how I feel about it at this point. If it's an improvement over Medicare, then I guess that's a small step in the right direction. Nobody wants to take Medicare these days, and the situation is only growing worse.

[JMT]

Antonio Cromartie has eight children that he barely provides for, while taxpayers shoulder the rest. Is this fair? Does social responsibility only apply to the 1%? Good luck making progress when you only demand it from 1% of the population.

Cromartie makes $3.8 million a year and pays roughly a quarter million in child support. The tax payers aren't subsidizing them. He is the 1%.

As usual, lots of words, no substance.

[JMT]

I work daily with people who suffer from a somewhat rare genetic disorder that doesn't typically show up until they are in their 40s or later. It results in a form of emphysema that is fatal and incurable. There is a treatment available that involves a weekly IV. The therapy ranges from $10K-18K a week and can extend their lives indefinitely.

Many are disabled, not because they're lazy, but because they can't breathe well enough to perform whatever job they had. In addition to their therapy, most require O2 and several medications daily.

They were all uninsurable due to this pre-existing condition. Under the new program they can get coverage and the treatment they require.

It's not a perfect system, but it's far better than a system that makes us the only developed nation that doesn't make sure all of it's citizens have access to health insurance.

[joe]

I work daily with people who suffer from a somewhat rare genetic disorder that doesn't typically show up until they are in their 40s or later. It results in a form of emphysema that is fatal and incurable. There is a treatment available that involves a weekly IV. The therapy ranges from $10K-18K a week and can extend their lives indefinitely.

Many are disabled, not because they're lazy, but because they can't breathe well enough to perform whatever job they had. In addition to their therapy, most require O2 and several medications daily.

They were all uninsurable due to this pre-existing condition. Under the new program they can get coverage and the treatment they require.

It's not a perfect system, but it's far better than a system that makes us the only developed nation that doesn't make sure all of it's citizens have access to health insurance.

You know what else would do a good job of that? Capitalism.

[dude77]

democrats = party for the lazy, unmovitated dependent zombies .. no wonder ish posters worship barry

[dude77]

Cromartie makes $3.8 million a year and pays roughly a quarter million in child support. The tax payers aren't subsidizing them. He is the 1%.

As usual, lots of words, no substance.


out of everything he said, you chose that to harp on that ? lol there's plenty of substance in his words .. you just chose to completely ignore it because you have no rebuttal for it .. the guy makes good points and the responses he gets are 'he he i refuse to answer you because of your gimmick' .. :facepalm

[FillJackson]

democrats = party for the lazy, unmovitated dependent zombies .. no wonder ish posters worship barry

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/04/mapstatestaxes-thumb-454x340-18041.gif

If you look at states that get more back from the federal government than they pay in taxes, they are the states that vote Republican for the most part. States that get less from the federal government than they pay in taxes, tend to vote Democratic.

[Styles p]

I'm all for it i personally have health insurance. i feel like i already pay taxes out of my check every week whats another couple dollars. i feel nobody should have to suffer cancer or any other health problems without being able to afford treatment or medicine. shit CRIMINALS in prison get free healthcare but alot of law abiding citizens go without it that alone make me for it.

[Joshumitsu]

For it.

[Velocirap31]

I'm all for it i personally have health insurance. i feel like i already pay taxes out of my check every week whats another couple dollars. i feel nobody should have to suffer cancer or any other health problems without being able to afford treatment or medicine. shit CRIMINALS in prison get free healthcare but alot of law abiding citizens go without it that alone make me for it.

I wish more Americans felt this way.

[Crystallas]

I'm against all forms of hierarchy and want to eliminate the hierarchy that led us to the corporatism which is the root of all of our healthcare problems. AHCA adds even MORE problems on top of an already massive mess.

[blacknapalm]

no extensive experience with it but i've only seen it be effective when my friend was in a recent car accident and broke his tibia. he said the new healthcare provisions made it tons more affordable. so in that aspect? i'm easily for it. i don't think families should go broke because a family member was in an accident or has to go through chemotherapy or something. that is ridiculous to me. taxes get wasted on a lot more questionable stuff than that. the homelessness rate in this country is alarming enough. let's at least make sure law abiding citizens can get the treatment they need. who wants to tell a family member that they can't get him/her the medicine or treatment he/she needs because the family can't afford it?

funeral homes already rip you a new one with high priced mahogany caskets and memorials. you end up feeling like a d1ck if you go the cheap route. i'm gonna tell my loved ones to stick me in a paper bag and save the cash.

in the end, what we really need is compromise. people are so divisive that they'll just shoot each other's ideas down and dig their heels in. then we end up going nowhere, without a plan, because ego gets in the way and no one wants to back down.

medicare and student loans are two other areas that need to be intervened but that's an entirely different topic. otherwise, just ignore my general ignorance. i used to be really into political issues, but i've grown really apathetic over the years :/

[Bucket_Nakedz]

damn, im 26. i couldve hopped on pops coverage and got my knee fixed. shiet!

[raiderfan19]

Against it. It fails to do the single biggest thing we need done to healthcare which is tort reform.

The biggest reason that healthcare is so expensive is because of the ridiculously massive legal bills associated with it from judgements/malpractice insurance and so on. This does nothing to curtail that.

As for people saying "I shouldn't have to pay ______ " and that's why I'm for it, you get that this hasn't made healthcare any cheaper right? It's just forcing other people to pay for your healthcare which no one should expect.

[Bucket_Nakedz]

Against it. It fails to do the single biggest thing we need done to healthcare which is tort reform.

The biggest reason that healthcare is so expensive is because of the ridiculously massive legal bills associated with it from judgements/malpractice insurance and so on. This does nothing to curtail that.

As for people saying "I shouldn't have to pay ______ " and that's why I'm for it, you get that this hasn't made healthcare any cheaper right? It's just forcing other people to pay for your healthcare which no one should expect.
tort reform? gtfoh wit dat bullshiet! your acting as if people blatantly take advantage of the judicial system. tort reform only protects businesses and practices. if a doctor fukks up, you better believe that motherfukker will be accountable.

[raiderfan19]

tort reform? gtfoh wit dat bullshiet! your acting as if people blatantly take advantage of the judicial system. tort reform only protects businesses and practices. if a doctor fukks up, you better believe that motherfukker will be accountable.
People do blatantly take advantage of the legal system

[Bucket_Nakedz]

People do blatantly take advantage of the legal system
and most of the time they get denied. i would understand if tort reform was about putting a limit or having some sort of guideline/restriction on how people should be awarded from a lawsuit. but to completely deny a persons right to sue is bullshiet!

[JMT]

You know what else would do a good job of that? Capitalism.

Please explain how capitalism is going to either enable disabled people to earn more money OR how it's going to drop the price of a therapy that's only marketable to a captive audience.

[JMT]

out of everything he said, you chose that to harp on that ? lol there's plenty of substance in his words .. you just chose to completely ignore it because you have no rebuttal for it .. the guy makes good points and the responses he gets are 'he he i refuse to answer you because of your gimmick' .. :facepalm

The rest of what he said is similarly wrong headed. I don't have time to address his idiocy on each level, so I focused on just one of the many ridiculous assertions he made.

My "gimmick"? OK, Mate.

[JMT]

Against it. It fails to do the single biggest thing we need done to healthcare which is tort reform.

The biggest reason that healthcare is so expensive is because of the ridiculously massive legal bills associated with it from judgements/malpractice insurance and so on. This does nothing to curtail that.

As for people saying "I shouldn't have to pay ______ " and that's why I'm for it, you get that this hasn't made healthcare any cheaper right? It's just forcing other people to pay for your healthcare which no one should expect.

Those knowledgable of the healthcare industry will tell you that the single biggest cost is research and development.

The malpractice boogeyman is just an easy talking point. If there are doctors who are either incompetent to the point that they are driven out by malpractice suits or costs, that's a benefit to the healthcare system.

[DukeDelonte13]

Against it. It fails to do the single biggest thing we need done to healthcare which is tort reform.

The biggest reason that healthcare is so expensive is because of the ridiculously massive legal bills associated with it from judgements/malpractice insurance and so on. This does nothing to curtail that.

As for people saying "I shouldn't have to pay ______ " and that's why I'm for it, you get that this hasn't made healthcare any cheaper right? It's just forcing other people to pay for your healthcare which no one should expect.



How often do you think juries are handing out multi million dollar verdicts on malpractice claims?

And out of those, are you saying that the juries were totally wrong on all of them, or just a few?


:rolleyes:

Conservatives love to talk about the constitution and big government taking away rights but they have no problem with Insurance Companies taking away your right to have your malpractice case tried to a jury of your peers. Why? because those poor insurance companies won't make as much at the end of the year?

GTFO with that BS.

[InfiniteBaskets]

This is directed towards the Med Mal discussion that the thread his semi-evolved into.

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=347310#.UFdaOI2PV0w



In addition, the study found that 19,000 patients received compensation from medical malpractice occurrences in 2011. Of the $31 billion in premiums, about 20% or $6 billion went to patients. The remaining $25 billion went to attorneys' fees and other legal costs, administrative costs, and insurance company profits.


I work in a field relatively related to medical professional liability, and the field absolutely needs to be reformed. Every geographical area in the US has different mindset when it comes to handling Med Mal, how much copay is acceptable, how much preventative diagnostics is too much, how should patient claimants be rewarded for suffering?

Doctors want protection from suits and have no disincentives ordering pricey exams, patients have no problem going after doctors if something goes wrong, this all drives up legal fees and insurer profits. Med mal has needed reforming prior to PPACA, and the act itself has done nothing to change this.

[raiderfan19]

and most of the time they get denied. i would understand if tort reform was about putting a limit or having some sort of guideline/restriction on how people should be awarded from a lawsuit. but to completely deny a persons right to sue is bullshiet!
I didn't say they should be denied the right to sue. That's not what tort reform is.

[rufuspaul]

Starface banned again. :oldlol:

[raiderfan19]

This is directed towards the Med Mal discussion that the thread his semi-evolved into.

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=347310#.UFdaOI2PV0w





I work in a field relatively related to medical professional liability, and the field absolutely needs to be reformed. Every geographical area in the US has different mindset when it comes to handling Med Mal, how much copay is acceptable, how much preventative diagnostics is too much, how should patient claimants be rewarded for suffering?

Doctors want protection from suits and have no disincentives ordering pricey exams, patients have no problem going after doctors if something goes wrong, this all drives up legal fees and insurer profits. Med mal has needed reforming prior to PPACA, and the act itself has done nothing to change this.
This is my point exactly.

Look I'm not saying that if you get hurt or have problems or if a family member dies do to poor medical care that you shouldn't be able to sue. You absolutely should, but the amount should be capped and more specifically the amount an attorney can derive from that should also be capped.

[joe]

Please explain how capitalism is going to either enable disabled people to earn more money OR how it's going to drop the price of a therapy that's only marketable to a captive audience.

In general, capitalism will lead to lower costs and higher efficiency over time. It doesn't mean that every part of the economy will constantly improve.. but if you look at a line graph, over time you'll see the improvement.

Surgeries will become cheaper. Pills, treatments, medicines of all kinds will become cheaper. Research will be more abundant and easier to conduct.

The biggest impediment to better health care is government. The FDA makes it immensely expensive to bring new products to market. While some say this keeps dangerous drugs away from consumers, which is true, they rarely mention the many good drugs which are denied to consumers. Countless people die because of the FDA every year. You don't hear that much on the news.

By the same token, competition is kept from entering the market thanks to these costs. The big firms are left with no competition. On top of that, many of their customers are subsidized by the government, causing prices to sky rocket even more (Again, if a 3rd party is paying the bill, companies have no incentive to give consumers low prices. What do they care? Let the taxpayer foot the bill).

Am I saying that people with rare, fatal disorders would suddenly be paying 5 bucks for their currently expensive treatments, if the government just got out of the way? No. Nor am I saying it would be an easy ride. Those people would have to survive off two things, if they couldn't afford the treatment: private charity, and doctor charity. Does this sound like a disaster waiting to happen? Well, I can understand why you'd be skeptical. But if you look it up, you'll find that doctors AND private charities were much more giving before government got involved with health care. People who couldn't afford treatment were rarely turned away. Care was given for free to countless people by countless doctors. There are statistics on this if you feel strongly enough to look them up.

But in the meantime, entrepreneurs will be searching for cheaper ways to treat the disease. They will be researching better technology, even preventative strategies. Free enterprise will move quicker than government ever could to treat, heal, and eradicate the disease. Further, the price of the current care should come down somewhat, making it a bit easier to afford in the first place.

It would take an entire book to answer the questions you just asked. I think you should read some articles on why what health care needs is more capitalism.. not less. There's a lot of info out there. Even if you don't agree in the end, you might find that it's not an open and shut case that government needs to be involved with health care. There's respectable arguments on both sides, but I have come to firmly believe that free markets would outperform government intervention for all people, even, if not especially, the poorest among us.

[Myth]

And why....


For me I'm for it.
My
Mother has worked all her life and as lost over half her 401k during the Bush years. She was then laid off and had 2 years if healthcare coverage from her severance package.
My mother is a cancer survivor and need meds etc. with out Obamacare when her two years are up insurance companies can denie her care.
My Mother is just one story of many.
So I support Obamacare because it does away with ore exisisting conditions.
Republicans do not have a plan that will help my mother and others like her.

I am interested to hear other people take and please be real on how it exactly effects you.

I don't know any of the specifics of Obamacare, but I am definitely or socialized medicine. I personally could use it because of my kidney issues, but I think it is good for society in general as well. So many people cannot afford insurance or get it for one reason or another at no fault of their own.

[raiderfan19]

I don't know any of the specifics of Obamacare, but I am definitely or socialized medicine. I personally could use it because of my kidney issues, but I think it is good for society in general as well. So many people cannot afford insurance or get it for one reason or another at no fault of their own.
The thing is, if it's a choice between the two it makes more sense to expect them to pay for themselves then for someone else to be expected to do so.

[JMT]

In general, capitalism will lead to lower costs and higher efficiency over time. It doesn't mean that every part of the economy will constantly improve.. but if you look at a line graph, over time you'll see the improvement.

Surgeries will become cheaper. Pills, treatments, medicines of all kinds will become cheaper. Research will be more abundant and easier to conduct.

The biggest impediment to better health care is government. The FDA makes it immensely expensive to bring new products to market. While some say this keeps dangerous drugs away from consumers, which is true, they rarely mention the many good drugs which are denied to consumers. Countless people die because of the FDA every year. You don't hear that much on the news.

By the same token, competition is kept from entering the market thanks to these costs. The big firms are left with no competition. On top of that, many of their customers are subsidized by the government, causing prices to sky rocket even more (Again, if a 3rd party is paying the bill, companies have no incentive to give consumers low prices. What do they care? Let the taxpayer foot the bill).

Am I saying that people with rare, fatal disorders would suddenly be paying 5 bucks for their currently expensive treatments, if the government just got out of the way? No. Nor am I saying it would be an easy ride. Those people would have to survive off two things, if they couldn't afford the treatment: private charity, and doctor charity. Does this sound like a disaster waiting to happen? Well, I can understand why you'd be skeptical. But if you look it up, you'll find that doctors AND private charities were much more giving before government got involved with health care. People who couldn't afford treatment were rarely turned away. Care was given for free to countless people by countless doctors. There are statistics on this if you feel strongly enough to look them up.

But in the meantime, entrepreneurs will be searching for cheaper ways to treat the disease. They will be researching better technology, even preventative strategies. Free enterprise will move quicker than government ever could to treat, heal, and eradicate the disease. Further, the price of the current care should come down somewhat, making it a bit easier to afford in the first place.

It would take an entire book to answer the questions you just asked. I think you should read some articles on why what health care needs is more capitalism.. not less. There's a lot of info out there. Even if you don't agree in the end, you might find that it's not an open and shut case that government needs to be involved with health care. There's respectable arguments on both sides, but I have come to firmly believe that free markets would outperform government intervention for all people, even, if not especially, the poorest among us.

Appreciate the time put into the answer, but you're looking only at one side of the equation.

To begin, your very first statement about capitalism lowering costs and increasing efficiency just haven't proven to be true in the medical arena.

There's no incentive for companies to commit billions in R&D so they can offer little used therapies at lower prices. That flies in the face of capitalism; committing monies to develop discounted products.

Patients are currently assisted, if they meet very strict criteria, by the very drug companies that develop the therapies. But increasingly that is difficult to do because of laws preventing medical companies from incentivizing their products/services, ie offering any kind of inducement for someone to choose their product. I have patients that I know are fighting a losing battle financially, but legally I can't even hint at assistance unless they express financial hardship.

No, it's not an open and shut case that gov't should be involved in health care. But privatization has been a colossal failure. Why some believe that suddenly the same companies that screwed up the system in the first place are going to miraculously change their approach to business and pricing mystifies me. And as for other companies entering the field with new, cheaper alternatives? Not unless they've got pockets deep enough to compete with the established companies. If they did, they'd already be there.

[KevinNYC]

Also as a consumer how exactly do I get to exercise my freedom in an open market.

Or let me put it this way, as a consumer who has just had a heart attack is being rushed unconscious to a nearby hospital where doctors will need to provide surgery on me, how exactly do I get to exercise my freedom in an open market?

[D-Rose]

I urge everyone to read over this (http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm)summary on Obamacare, clarifies many points and dispels myths as well.

[Myth]

I urge everyone to read over this (http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm)summary on Obamacare, clarifies many points and dispels myths as well.

:(

[Balla_Status]

Also as a consumer how exactly do I get to exercise my freedom in an open market.

Or let me put it this way, as a consumer who has just had a heart attack is being rushed unconscious to a nearby hospital where doctors will need to provide surgery on me, how exactly do I get to exercise my freedom in an open market?

Choose your own doctor. Not that complicated. I'm sure there are more than a few doctor offices in NY.

As far as your situation, I'm sure you would just get treatment from whatever doctor can give the treatment as you're unable to make your own decision at that point.

[Balla_Status]

Appreciate the time put into the answer, but you're looking only at one side of the equation.

To begin, your very first statement about capitalism lowering costs and increasing efficiency just haven't proven to be true in the medical arena.

There's no incentive for companies to commit billions in R&D so they can offer little used therapies at lower prices. That flies in the face of capitalism; committing monies to develop discounted products.

Patients are currently assisted, if they meet very strict criteria, by the very drug companies that develop the therapies. But increasingly that is difficult to do because of laws preventing medical companies from incentivizing their products/services, ie offering any kind of inducement for someone to choose their product. I have patients that I know are fighting a losing battle financially, but legally I can't even hint at assistance unless they express financial hardship.

No, it's not an open and shut case that gov't should be involved in health care. But privatization has been a colossal failure. Why some believe that suddenly the same companies that screwed up the system in the first place are going to miraculously change their approach to business and pricing mystifies me. And as for other companies entering the field with new, cheaper alternatives? Not unless they've got pockets deep enough to compete with the established companies. If they did, they'd already be there.

You really don't think the current system in place was 100% capitalism do you?

[DirtySanchez]

Choose your own doctor. Not that complicated. I'm sure there are more than a few doctor offices in NY.

As far as your situation, I'm sure you would just get treatment from whatever doctor can give the treatment as you're unable to make your own decision at that point.

With the current system you cant just choose any doctor. Your private insurer has to approve that doctor. And if you need to go to any specialist your doctor and insurer has to approve.

[Scoooter]

I urge everyone to read over this (http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm)summary on Obamacare, clarifies many points and dispels myths as well.
Bumped. That guy did a great job. It's actually an excellent piece of legislation. If the right were more concerned with the country than they are with petty partisan gamesmanship and perpetuating their cult of fear, any controversy over this would be negligable.

[JMT]

You really don't think the current system in place was 100% capitalism do you?

Nothing in this country is 100% capitalistic anymore. We operate in a much diluted version of capitalism than that of the 19th century. Markets are highly regulated. Exchange rates and currency values are heavily manipulated through government rate setting. Investment is driven largely by an antiquated set of incentives and penalties overseen by the tax code. The federal gov't, whether we're talking the House or Senate, Dem or Repub, regularly intervenes in how capital is deployed.

The federal tax code is a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. We exist somewhere between capitalism and socialism. The concept of pure capitalism in a society this large and far reaching is outdated.

[Godzuki]

i'm for it. the country needs national healthcare more than anything. as things are you'd better hope you work for a large company to have reasonable rates on healthcare. i mean the difference can be $40/month with a company plan vs $200+/month for individual. even then these private companies do their best to save dimes to screw their insured over, and when you're talking about life and death or the means to function to even work its laughable how people think its not needed, or think some extra dollars they have to pay is too much. the other thing thats so wacked about private healthcare is the scamming and misleading they do. There are so many 'health insurance' companies that aren't selling you practical healthcare packages but pitch it like they are. The private sector is shady as hell, its funny to me how people think the private sector is the solution to everything when so many are out to prey off of the masses for a quick buck. i'd swear a lot of people saying that don't have much experience with the current healthcare system.

[joe]

i'm for it. the country needs national healthcare more than anything. as things are you'd better hope you work for a large company to have reasonable rates on healthcare. i mean the difference can be $40/month with a company plan vs $200+/month for individual. even then these private companies do their best to save dimes to screw their insured over, and when you're talking about life and death or the means to function to even work its laughable how people think its not needed, or think some extra dollars they have to pay is too much. the other thing thats so wacked about private healthcare is the scamming and misleading they do. There are so many 'health insurance' companies that aren't selling you practical healthcare packages but pitch it like they are. The private sector is shady as hell, its funny to me how people think the private sector is the solution to everything when so many are out to prey off of the masses for a quick buck. i'd swear a lot of people saying that don't have much experience with the current healthcare system.

Why do you think you get insurance from your employer?

[brantonli]

You are everything you just bitched about. I have to support you. You are the "unhealthiest" of Americans. You are a loser with no career and education. I go to work each day to support dumb-****s like you. It's terrible. You are everything you criticize.

There's a far simpler flaw in the troll's argument. He argues that the US cannot support a system like a homogeneous one in Sweden or Norway, but isn't that the whole point why it's called the United States of America?

[joe]

Nothing in this country is 100% capitalistic anymore. We operate in a much diluted version of capitalism than that of the 19th century. Markets are highly regulated. Exchange rates and currency values are heavily manipulated through government rate setting. Investment is driven largely by an antiquated set of incentives and penalties overseen by the tax code. The federal gov't, whether we're talking the House or Senate, Dem or Repub, regularly intervenes in how capital is deployed.

The federal tax code is a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. We exist somewhere between capitalism and socialism. The concept of pure capitalism in a society this large and far reaching is outdated.

And I appreciate the thought and time you put into your responses too :)

I disagree that pure capitalism couldn't work in a "large and far reaching society." Are you saying that capitalism would work with a society that was X-size, but couldn't handle X+1? That seems silly. I'd like to know your thoughts on that.

I also feel you're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that privatization of medicine has failed, but then you talk about all the ways government is intervening in the economy.

As far as I'm concerned, medicine has not been private for an extremely long time. Certainly not since medicare/medicaid have been around. That's many decades ago. So how do you explain these two seemingly contradictory views of the situation?

[D-Rose]

:(
Haha nice one :oldlol: :cheers:

[goldenryan]

I think the lesson here is nothing is ever free. Do we really want to be like Canada and europe where health care is covered but beer is $25 a pack and gas is $8 a gallon or a single family home cost $500,000?

[intrinsic]

I disagree that pure capitalism couldn't work in a "large and far reaching society." Are you saying that capitalism would work with a society that was X-size, but couldn't handle X+1? That seems silly. I'd like to know your thoughts on that.



Except, the growth in population since the 1800's is closer to x + 1

[KevinNYC]

I think the lesson here is nothing is ever free. Do we really want to be like Canada and europe where health care is covered but beer is $25 a pack and gas is $8 a gallon or a single family home cost $500,000?

You can easily buy a single family home in Canada for under $500,000.
http://www.livingin-canada.com/house-prices-canada.html

[Nanners]

I am against "obamacare", not because I dont want people to have access to healthcare, but because I dont think forcing people to buy a defective product (private health insurance) from privately owned corporations is the correct answer to the situation.

That said, something needs to be done. A million americans go bankrupt every year paying medical bills... that doesnt happen in any other developed nation. Healthcare needs an enormous overhaul in the US, and Obamacare is just corporate sponsored peacemeal reform. Here is what needs to happen for starters: drug prices need to be govt regulated (like they are in every other developed nation). Dont tell me how much it costs for R&D on new drugs while pharma companies are faking their clinical trials and recording 20% profit like clockwork.

[kentatm]

I think the lesson here is nothing is ever free. Do we really want to be like Canada and europe where health care is covered but beer is $25 a pack and gas is $8 a gallon or a single family home cost $500,000?

:biggums:

Canada having universal health care has nothing to do with any of what you just referenced.

[JMT]

And I appreciate the thought and time you put into your responses too :)

I disagree that pure capitalism couldn't work in a "large and far reaching society." Are you saying that capitalism would work with a society that was X-size, but couldn't handle X+1? That seems silly. I'd like to know your thoughts on that.

I also feel you're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that privatization of medicine has failed, but then you talk about all the ways government is intervening in the economy.

As far as I'm concerned, medicine has not been private for an extremely long time. Certainly not since medicare/medicaid have been around. That's many decades ago. So how do you explain these two seemingly contradictory views of the situation?

I used the 19th century as an example. It's not a magic number + 1. It's just that the services required to support a nation as large as ours takes the notion of pure capitalism out of the equation. Infrastructure alone has become so dependent on government support that there's no turning back.

Of course once programs like medicare/medicaid came into existence, parts of medicine had the governments hands all over it. These programs are vital and our responsibility to our citizens. And yes, government involvement has increased in all aspects of medicine through the years, basically because privately run health care had run amok.

You can't unring a bell, and steps taken by FDR to rescue the economy have over time diminished our stance as a capitalistic society. I don't see any way that you retrace those steps.

[Godzuki]

Why do you think you get insurance from your employer?


what do you mean by that? i am an employer.

big companies usually have big company health care packages where full coverage health insurance rates are extremely low. I believe Keystone/LKQ(biggest A/M parts company supplier in the U.S.) employee's pay around $40~/month out of their pay checks for full coverage insurance. The average person has to pay close to $200/month for full coverage individual plans. Health insurance companies do not give anywhere near those rates without masses of employees like the big companies have. It also makes it more difficult for me to hire employee's that want those benefits who would rather sit around answering phones at a parts company than learn a skill due to the benefits the big companies give.

Anyways from what i understand a lot of these big companies are trying to move away from providing health insurance plans so maybe everyone will eventually be in the same boat, but i do know as things are now there are a lot of people who get it thru their jobs at extremely low rates where they're against national healthcare because they have it better than most.

small businesses can't get anywhere near those rates.

[MJ23forever]

Anybody that's against it is just plain stupid.

It's insurance reform. We need insurance reform. 80% of all bankruptcies prior to Obamacare are due to medical bills.

It's unfair that somebody with 2 or 3 kids w/ no health issues has to pay $1300 + per month for sh*tty coverage.

It's unfair that I have to pay for their coverage.

[goldenryan]

:biggums:

Canada having universal health care has nothing to do with any of what you just referenced.
Yes it does, bigger government/ governmental services means higher taxes. Higher taxes= higher cost of living :hammerhead:

[shlver]

Anybody that's against it is just plain stupid.

It's insurance reform. We need insurance reform. 80% of all bankruptcies prior to Obamacare are due to medical bills.

It's unfair that somebody with 2 or 3 kids w/ no health issues has to pay $1300 + per month for sh*tty coverage.
Being against Obamacare doesn't mean we're against reform.

[Sarcastic]

Yes it does, bigger government/ governmental services means higher taxes. Higher taxes= higher cost of living :hammerhead:


You're assuming that the costs for everything else will remain constant if taxes go up, which may not be true.

[Godzuki]

Yes it does, bigger government/ governmental services means higher taxes. Higher taxes= higher cost of living :hammerhead:


you're probably complaining about less than $50 extra in taxes, maybe even much less. i mean i have no idea how much it will cost every citizen in taxes for national healthcare but i do know we have a ton of people in this country and you multiply that by a number and it reaches some xtremely high figures lol. maybe there are figures out there of how much it would cost each citizen but i can't imagine its going to be much at all. i'm sure that won't stop people frrom bitching tho, even if they had to pay a extra penny for national healthcare :rolleyes:

[raiderfan19]

I used the 19th century as an example. It's not a magic number + 1. It's just that the services required to support a nation as large as ours takes the notion of pure capitalism out of the equation. Infrastructure alone has become so dependent on government support that there's no turning back.

Of course once programs like medicare/medicaid came into existence, parts of medicine had the governments hands all over it. These programs are vital and our responsibility to our citizens. And yes, government involvement has increased in all aspects of medicine through the years, basically because privately run health care had run amok.

You can't unring a bell, and steps taken by FDR to rescue the economy have over time diminished our stance as a capitalistic society. I don't see any way that you retrace those steps.
How is that our responsibility? I'm really curious how you want to answer this and then I'll make an additional response. That said your point about not unringing bells is exactly my reasoning as to why we shouldn't do this. Once we do it, it can't be undone. The idea that healthcare is a right(it isn't, no service provided by another is a right) will be ingrained in people and it will be political suicide to stop it. That's the hell hole we are already in with literally every program FDR started.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Cromartie makes $3.8 million a year and pays roughly a quarter million in child support. The tax payers aren't subsidizing them. He is the 1%.

As usual, lots of words, no substance.



In March, at the time of the trade, he admitted to fathering seven children with six women. The Jets gave him a $500,000 salary advance for outstanding child-support payments.


Still only 26, Cromartie has acknowledged that he's made "wrong decisions," but he's trying to show more maturity. On July 2, he married Terricka Cason, who starred on E!'s reality soap "Candy Girls." Three months ago, Cason gave birth to Cromartie's eighth child, Jerzie.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5435362


Mate, appaently he doesn't always pay it. And if he needed an advance from the Jets after making multimillions in San Diego (multi millions) you know he's already blown most of his money, and once he's out of the league he'll be broke agian an unable to pay for his EIGHT children that he's not actually raising.

A constantly in debt father with 8 kids whose lives he aint gonna be a part of. There's a net plus for society. Bring on more socialized healthcare. Because, mate, when you give people things easy and free, they always gonna act responsibly, aint they mate?

See the problem is you don't have a single problem with people acting reckless and having kids, putting a strain on society in that regard, because those are low income people and minorities, AND YOU AINT GOT THE STONES TO EVER MAKE A CRITICISM OF THEM BLOKES, EH? You only feel "confident" in attacking people who are intelligent, accomplished, responsible, and successful. Why? Because ya aint gonna hurt their feelins. You'll call em out and claim they need to do this or that, but you know they aint gonna actually be offended by you. Whereas if you tell some poor, down on his 'luck' chap to get his bloody act together, you'll feel like a big bad mean Republican. Awwww. Mr. Sensitive, eh? You're a bloody fa ggot and a wanker, you got a bloody vag1ina and you probably got goldilocks like that bugger Deuce Wallaces. You are 100% soft pansy ass woman mate. When people take advantage of society they take advantage of YOU, and you simply roll out the red carpet, because mate? That's what you are. You're a carpet. You're a doormat. You're a scared little whiny timid B1TCH.

Fucckin bloody fa ggot.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Here is what needs to happen for starters: drug prices need to be govt regulated (like they are in every other developed nation). Dont tell me how much it costs for R&D on new drugs while pharma companies are faking their clinical trials and recording 20% profit like clockwork.


HERE is what needs to happen, mate:

People need to stop driving drug prices up by being gullible enough to take pills for made up diseases like ADD. People need to stop filling themselves with junk food until they need the bloody lap band surgical procedure (covered by insurance). People need to stop firing off bloody weapons and winding up in the emergency room.

Mate Americans pay so much for healthcare ( or become indebted because of it) because they're so bloody stupid with their health!

Don't ya see, mate? Your solutions never have anything to do with requirin people to be more personally responsible. It's always "Who can pay for this, where can we get more tax dollars from, how many programs can we add..." Mate your just trying to give out fish from a finite supply rather than teach these dumb bloody wankers to fish. If they don't wanna fish for themselves, LET THEM STARVE.

I'd hate to see anyone get royally screwed because they had perfectly unavoidable catastrophe and became stuck with exhorbitant medical bills. But Ameicans themselves are responsible for the sky high premiums they pay, because they over use and over abuse the healthcare system. Why you aint ever talk about that, mate? Why is it always "mean republicans dont wanna use the working man's money to write a blank check for healthcare dependency, argghh garble garble garble"

Ehh mate?

[Scoooter]

People need to stop firing off bloody weapons and winding up in the emergency room.
From my cold dead hands! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4)

[JaggerCommaMick]

From my cold dead hands! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4)

Mate, Charlton Heston aint never gone and shot someone at a party. I don't think Charlton Heston ever shot some bloke who looked at him wrong.

Notice how I aint said "People need to stop owning guns." That's a right. People need to stop actin recklessly with them. Guns are for hunting food or for protecting your home/self/property.

It aint old Mr. Jones on a farm in Kentucky with guns in his home who affects the cost of healthcare. The rare instance he has to cap someone tryin to break into his digs aint his fault, he's allowed to do that.

It's dumb nigs shootin each other over Air Jordans, or retaliatin cause someone was playin on his phone, or talked shit bout him to Taniquisha. Them blokes all have to get taken to the emergecy room and operated on for hours, at extremely high costs.

You want hard working family men and women to work their job every day to support that? You're bloody crazy, mate. You just aint got the guts to simply call it what it is. The people who don't budget or prioritize their healhcare are typically the most reckless people and the ones who end up needin it the most. They're just dumb animals. America can't force the private sector to be responsible for all the dumb animals out there (aint talkin bout race anymore, just the dumb class in general). You keep tryin to give the lowest groups more and more, guess what, mate? That's why they keep growin and growin! You and other Democrats keep feedin em free of cost.

Welfare and entitlements are like duck food mate. You show up at the pond and throw the ducks some bread, them ducks aint gonna go try and catch their own food in the pond. They're just gonna chill by you and expect more bread. And more ducks will show up. And more and more. And they'll just wait for your bread. Depend on your bread. And more ducks keep showin up. Every duck at the park is soon waddlin around your feet, waitin for you to throw more bread.

Mate, democrats get elected because they show up with a handful of bread and promise all the ducks there's more where that came from.

Quack quack, mate.

[JMT]

How is that our responsibility? I'm really curious how you want to answer this and then I'll make an additional response. That said your point about not unringing bells is exactly my reasoning as to why we shouldn't do this. Once we do it, it can't be undone. The idea that healthcare is a right(it isn't, no service provided by another is a right) will be ingrained in people and it will be political suicide to stop it. That's the hell hole we are already in with literally every program FDR started.

If you don't feel that we as a society have the obligation to provide access to health care to all of our citizens, than you and I have a philosophical gap that will never be bridged.

Our current healthcare/insurance model is irreperably broken. I deal with it every single day, dozens of times a day. As I said earlier, I don't think this plan is perfect, but I feel it's a step in the right direction toward correcting a system that went horribly wrong and left unchecked will continue to spiral in that direction.

[Godzuki]

How is that our responsibility? I'm really curious how you want to answer this and then I'll make an additional response. That said your point about not unringing bells is exactly my reasoning as to why we shouldn't do this. Once we do it, it can't be undone. The idea that healthcare is a right(it isn't, no service provided by another is a right) will be ingrained in people and it will be political suicide to stop it. That's the hell hole we are already in with literally every program FDR started.

i don't really get why you or anyone thinks the health of citizens shouldn't be a right. if you think its okay for people to just die because they can't afford medical costs then you have no heart or sympathy in you. its sad so many people in our country care so much only about themselves, and not for people in tougher circumstances than they are, with something so important as a persons health. Almost every country out there takes care of their citizens health as a right, and to think the most powerful country in the world isn't supposed to? i don't even think most of you know how many people out there are screwed if they get sick/injured as things are, especially when healthcare is far from affordable for most people today.

there are a lot of things in this country everyone(government) pays for like public roads, public schools, accidents of uninsured motorists, etc. etc. to make society function in a way that creates a better, more sensible society. The way a lot of you want it where its every man for himself and you all take it to such extremes of selfishness in how you think things should be is ridiculous. I'd love to see this society we end up if you all got what you wanted. i guess you'd have no problem watching people slowly die w/o healthcare, senior citizens all homeless because they're too old to work with no government assistance, and just being content that you're not them :rolleyes:

its absurd and unrealistic the extremes of anti government so many people are, and so clueless as to how so many people in society would be screwed over because they see some people who can work but choose not to abusing the system, and tend to generalize everyone that way.

[JaggerCommaMick]

If you don't feel that we as a society have the obligation to provide access to health care to all of our citizens, than you and I have a philosophical gap that will never be bridged.

Our current healthcare/insurance model is irreperably broken. I deal with it every single day, dozens of times a day. As I said earlier, I don't think this plan is perfect, but I feel it's a step in the right direction toward correcting a system that went horribly wrong and left unchecked will continue to spiral in that direction.


He's a male nurse, everyone.

It's funny because I always jokingly refer to any 'man' who idenifies as a Democat as a nurse, who just wans to coddle every wittle baby out there and let them suckle him, and here you have it. A real life male nurse, and wadda ya blokes know? Of course he's a femocat.

Being a nurse, wanting to stroke every wittle persons hair and tell them its alright, basically play mommy, is the ingrained inclination of the Femocrat. He aint a doer, he's a feeler. He aint a hunter or provider, he's a housewife. He aint a man, he's a nurse.

[Scoooter]

If you don't feel that we as a society have the obligation to provide access to health care to all of our citizens, than you and I have a philosophical gap that will never be bridged.

Our current healthcare/insurance model is irreperably broken. I deal with it every single day, dozens of times a day. As I said earlier, I don't think this plan is perfect, but I feel it's a step in the right direction toward correcting a system that went horribly wrong and left unchecked will continue to spiral in that direction.
Baby steps.

[raiderfan19]

i don't really get why you or anyone thinks the health of citizens shouldn't be a right. if you think its okay for people to just die because they can't afford medical costs then you have no heart or sympathy in you. its sad so many people in our country care so much only about themselves, and not for people in tougher circumstances than they are, with something so important as a persons health. Almost every country out there takes care of their citizens health as a right, and to think the most powerful country in the world isn't supposed to? i don't even think most of you know how many people out there are screwed if they get sick/injured as things are, especially when healthcare is far from affordable for most people today.

there are a lot of things in this country everyone(government) pays for like public roads, public schools, accidents of uninsured motorists, etc. etc. to make society function in a way that creates a better, more sensible society. The way a lot of you want it where its every man for himself and you all take it to such extremes of selfishness in how you think things should be is ridiculous. I'd love to see this society we end up if you all got what you wanted. i guess you'd have no problem watching people slowly die w/o healthcare, senior citizens all homeless because they're too old to work with no government assistance, and just being content that you're not them :rolleyes:

its absurd and unrealistic the extremes of anti government so many people are, and so clueless as to how so many people in society would be screwed over because they see some people who can work but choose not to abusing the system, and tend to generalize everyone that way.
People can't die because they can't afford insurance. A hospital still has to treat you if you are in imminent danger of death.

My major belief is that need can never be a valid way of distributing wealth/services because it will always be manipulated.

Jmt, I do believe that we as people should care for others. But I believe that that caring has to be done through private charity and not public taxes. Full disclosure I am a Christian but I think it's a mistake for people to think that that should affect either the way I vote or the way the law works. For instance as a Christian I am supposed to be against gay marriage. I personally think that is the stupidest thing in the world for our govt to focus on. If gay people want to get married, more power to them. It works the same way here. Should we help pay for the healthcare of others? IMO yes, should someone who doesn't feel that way be forced to do so? Absolutely not.

The other thing is this worries me about the side effects it could cause. If the govt is responsible for people's health care, it's not a long leap to the govt being responsible for decisions that lead to how healthy you are. I realize this hasn't happened in other countries with socialized health care but it would make perfect sense for the govt to create laws banning or further taxing things that make you less healthy(ie cigarettes, alcohol, fast food...)

[JMT]

People can't die because they can't afford insurance. A hospital still has to treat you if you are in imminent danger of death.

My major belief is that need can never be a valid way of distributing wealth/services because it will always be manipulated.

Jmt, I do believe that we as people should care for others. But I believe that that caring has to be done through private charity and not public taxes. Full disclosure I am a Christian but I think it's a mistake for people to think that that should affect either the way I vote or the way the law works. For instance as a Christian I am supposed to be against gay marriage. I personally think that is the stupidest thing in the world for our govt to focus on. If gay people want to get married, more power to them. It works the same way here. Should we help pay for the healthcare of others? IMO yes, should someone who doesn't feel that way be forced to do so? Absolutely not.

The other thing is this worries me about the side effects it could cause. If the govt is responsible for people's health care, it's not a long leap to the govt being responsible for decisions that lead to how healthy you are. I realize this hasn't happened in other countries with socialized health care but it would make perfect sense for the govt to create laws banning or further taxing things that make you less healthy(ie cigarettes, alcohol, fast food...)

You're right; hospitals have no choice but to treat the indigent. But we are payng exorbitant premiums now because people opt for the hospital/emergency room rather than the doctor's office. With accessible health care they can engage in preventive measures.

Right now, the insurance companies and their actuarial teams make decisions about your health care and well being. They decide what doctor you can see, what meds you can take and what you pay for all this. I'm as wary of government interference as most. I'm far more wary of these decisions being made by folks based on profitability.

[JaggerCommaMick]

You're right; hospitals have no choice but to treat the indigent. But we are payng exorbitant premiums now because people opt for the hospital/emergency room rather than the doctor's office. With accessible health care they can engage in preventive measures.

Right now, the insurance companies and their actuarial teams make decisions about your health care and well being. They decide what doctor you can see, what meds you can take and what you pay for all this. I'm as wary of government interference as most. I'm far more wary of these decisions being made by folks based on profitability.


U R GAY MATE

[Balla_Status]

i don't really get why you or anyone thinks the health of citizens shouldn't be a right. if you think its okay for people to just die because they can't afford medical costs then you have no heart or sympathy in you. its sad so many people in our country care so much only about themselves, and not for people in tougher circumstances than they are, with something so important as a persons health. Almost every country out there takes care of their citizens health as a right, and to think the most powerful country in the world isn't supposed to? i don't even think most of you know how many people out there are screwed if they get sick/injured as things are, especially when healthcare is far from affordable for most people today.

there are a lot of things in this country everyone(government) pays for like public roads, public schools, accidents of uninsured motorists, etc. etc. to make society function in a way that creates a better, more sensible society. The way a lot of you want it where its every man for himself and you all take it to such extremes of selfishness in how you think things should be is ridiculous. I'd love to see this society we end up if you all got what you wanted. i guess you'd have no problem watching people slowly die w/o healthcare, senior citizens all homeless because they're too old to work with no government assistance, and just being content that you're not them :rolleyes:

its absurd and unrealistic the extremes of anti government so many people are, and so clueless as to how so many people in society would be screwed over because they see some people who can work but choose not to abusing the system, and tend to generalize everyone that way.

I don't mind helping someone with my tax money who didn't excessively drink, smoke, dip, eat etc. Half the country is obese...I'm good with not paying for health problems they brought on themselves.

[irondarts]

He's a male nurse, everyone.

It's funny because I always jokingly refer to any 'man' who idenifies as a Democat as a nurse, who just wans to coddle every wittle baby out there and let them suckle him, and here you have it. A real life male nurse, and wadda ya blokes know? Of course he's a femocat.

Being a nurse, wanting to stroke every wittle persons hair and tell them its alright, basically play mommy, is the ingrained inclination of the Femocrat. He aint a doer, he's a feeler. He aint a hunter or provider, he's a housewife. He aint a man, he's a nurse.
You are a complete moron.

A nurse helps people, a nurse sees how our shitty healthcare system fvcks with people's lives. You see none of that first hand, so you don't give a shit.

You just think every person who needs to be operated on at extremely high costs which they cannot afford are poor black men who are shooting themselves because of Air Jordans or obese people who ate themselves to poor health (Nevermind people with cancer or other serious diseases who need extensive/extremely expensive treatment and medications or people with legitimate disorders/diseases that require expensive medications). If that helps you justify your cold outlook on this, then so be it. But I'd assume someone working in the medical field understands just how much our system can destroy peoples lives.

[Balla_Status]

This black asshole needs to give me free dental:mad:

Just found out I have a couple cavities(somehow, I take great care of my teeth)

700 dollars for a fvcking cavity:mad:
400 for another:mad:

Rufus, I'll rep you if you take care of this for me.

Should've brushed your teeth.

[JaggerCommaMick]

You just think every person who needs to be operated on at extremely high costs which they cannot afford are poor black men who are shooting themselves because of Air Jordans or obese people who ate themselves to poor health (


No mate I think those people drive up the demand for healtcare - of which there is limited supply - and that increases the price for legitimately necessary health services.

The problem with you is youre too much of a feminine pansy to call out the low income people who abuse the system and drive the price up for everyone, and instead take the cowards way out, demanding that successful hardworking people pony up more and more to subsidize an irresponsible public.

One day mate, when youre not a young, dumb, naive, ignorant cowardly f a ggot, youll understand. Right now youre in your "gawd, lifes so unfair, rich people need to fix it!" phase of youth, and you dot realize what a bloody ideological moron you are as it pertains to the realities of society.

Its ok mate. You are sensitive. Youre fragile and insecure. You have a vageen. You identify with "gawd lifes so unfair" Femocrats. We all understand. Hopefully one day you'll grow up.

[joe]

Here is what needs to happen for starters: drug prices need to be govt regulated (like they are in every other developed nation). Dont tell me how much it costs for R&D on new drugs while pharma companies are faking their clinical trials and recording 20% profit like clockwork.

You have 0% understanding of economics if you think government price fixing will work better than a simple free market. 0%.

Let's say the government decides that no pills may be sold for greater than $100/bottle. In that case, any pill that can't be sold for a profit at $100 will never see the light of day.

Since there is a cap on how much they can charge, spending too much on R&D may guarantee a loss before the pills hit shelves. As a result, companies will do less R&D in general. Progress and creativity would stagnate.

But all you need is more government regulation to fix these problems, right? We can subsidize big pharma, and recoup their losses when they can't make a profit. We can provide a taxpayer subsidy to cover R&D costs.

That'd be a pretty full-proof plan, until suddenly, just by coincidence, R&D costs skyrocket. "I just don't know Mr. President, right when you decided to give us money to recoup R&D costs, R&D suddenly became much more expensive! Now take this billion dollar check to help with your little election, and stop asking so many questions."

You don't want me to tell you about the FDA driving up R&D costs, but that's just the reality of the situation. I don't deny that many companies fake their clinical trials, which is another indictment of the FDA. It's been proven that the FDA will rush out pills from some companies, but take years and years for others. Hm, I wonder why. Could it be that some companies have infiltrated the FDA better than others? Some pay them bigger bribes? Some donate more to the politicians who gave them jobs? No, FDA workers are just wise public servants. They don't even care about money. They joined the government in a noble attempt to serve us, the taxpayer. Right? That's what they told you in middle school history, so it must be true.

[JaggerCommaMick]

You have 0% understanding of economics if you think government price fixing will work better than a simple free market. 0%.

Let's say the government decides that no pills may be sold for greater than $100/bottle. In that case, any pill that can't be sold for a profit at $100 will never see the light of day.

Since there is a cap on how much they can charge, spending too much on R&D may guarantee a loss before the pills hit shelves. As a result, companies will do less R&D in general. Progress and creativity would stagnate.

But all you need is more government regulation to fix these problems, right? We can subsidize big pharma, and recoup their losses when they can't make a profit. We can provide a taxpayer subsidy to cover R&D costs.

That'd be a pretty full-proof plan, until suddenly, just by coincidence, R&D costs skyrocket. "I just don't know Mr. President, right when you decided to give us money to recoup R&D costs, R&D suddenly became much more expensive! Now take this billion dollar check to help with your little election, and stop asking so many questions."

You don't want me to tell you about the FDA driving up R&D costs, but that's just the reality of the situation. I don't deny that many companies fake their clinical trials, which is another indictment of the FDA. It's been proven that the FDA will rush out pills from some companies, but take years and years for others. Hm, I wonder why. Could it be that some companies have infiltrated the FDA better than others? Some pay them bigger bribes? Some donate more to the politicians who gave them jobs? No, FDA workers are just wise public servants. They don't even care about money. They joined the government in a noble attempt to serve us, the taxpayer. Right? That's what they told you in middle school history, so it must be true.

Indeed, mate.

The elephant in the room is that it is up to the public itself to "regulate" society, not a concentrated group of bureaucrats. The public just simply doesn't "feel like" ever payin attention, and thats how you wind up with flaws and inequality in the system, regardless of what systems and methods you employ. If people don't arm themselves with knowledge, initiative, and fortitude, it is wholly on them to deal with the consequences.

Democratic politicians make a living by apologizing for them and absolving them of blame and responsibility.

People complain about gas prices, but they refuse to drive less. People complain about drug prices, but they seek pills for every little malady. People complain about David Stern, and they still watch games religiously. There are people that complain about the government - and don't vote! Nobody ever does anything to change what they're dissatisfied with. America as a general public suffers a collective mental lethargy. And the truth is that there is no cure for public apathy. Taxing Mitt Romney and others 10% more does not ameliorate the consequences of public apathy. It just doesn't. Trust me, mates, no matter what kind of regulating you do, Mitt Romney will find a way to be where he is, and the public will avoid doing the things that can improve where they are. Because there's simply a dichotomy of aspiration and willingness.

Why do you think jews are all successful? Because that's what they all want, so they all do what it requires. Why do you think the Amish all live stable, routine lives? Because that's what they all want, so they dod what it requires. The lower end of the American public, they all want to get rich over night - so they buy lottery tickets and watch the bachelor while lighting up marb reds with the filter cut off. I mean, look at the habits of average people. You can't blame that on Republicans, it can't be fixed by Democrats, what people are is a product of what they do. KevinNYC, Lamar Doom? They'll go nowhere, because they're complacent taking handouts. They'll vote for any political representative who offers to rob others to provide them with bigger and better handouts. KevinNYC, Lamar Doom, KevinNYC's dad... they are the flaws in the bloody system, mates. That's the whole thing. The flaws in the system aint policies, it's people. It is what it is.

[joe]

You are a complete moron.

A nurse helps people, a nurse sees how our shitty healthcare system fvcks with people's lives. You see none of that first hand, so you don't give a shit.

You just think every person who needs to be operated on at extremely high costs which they cannot afford are poor black men who are shooting themselves because of Air Jordans or obese people who ate themselves to poor health (Nevermind people with cancer or other serious diseases who need extensive/extremely expensive treatment and medications or people with legitimate disorders/diseases that require expensive medications). If that helps you justify your cold outlook on this, then so be it. But I'd assume someone working in the medical field understands just how much our system can destroy peoples lives.

I think it's a common misconception that those who support free market solutions to things like health care are "cold." Maybe you were referring specifically to the poster you quoted, but that's definitely something I hear a lot. So I want to address it.

The reason I'm against government intervention in health care, is not some big call for personal responsibility. It's not that I hate paying taxes, or because I'm anti-Obama (Though the last two things are true :-), they're just not the main reason).

I'm against government intervention in health care because it simply does not work. It never has worked, and it never will work. I understand why people think it works. It makes perfectly good sense on the surface. I used to firmly believe that the problem with health care was the profit motive, capitalism, and all these rich CEO's profiting from our pain. I drank the kool aid. But it's just not true.

The problem with health care, right now in 2012, the reason it costs so much, the reason so many people can't afford basic coverage.. is because of the government. That is the only reason.

Far from being cold, I consider myself more of a humanitarian than most. Democrats and interventionists think they have a monopoly on compassion and love for their fellow man, but it's false. In reality, their hearts are in the right place, but they don't even realize the true effects their policy ideas will cause, and are causing.

[joe]

Indeed, mate.

The elephant in the room is that it is up to the public itself to "regulate" society, not a concentrated group of bureaucrats. The public just simply doesn't "feel like" ever payin attention, and thats how you wind up with flaws and inequality in the system, regardless of what systems and methods you employ. If people don't arm themselves with knowledge, initiative, and fortitude, it is wholly on them to deal with the consequences.

Democratic politicians make a living by apologizing for them and absolving them of blame and responsibility.

People complain about gas prices, but they refuse to drive less. People complain about drug prices, but they seek pills for every little malady. People complain about David Stern, and they still watch games religiously. There are people that complain about the government - and don't vote! Nobody ever does anything to change what they're dissatisfied with. America as a general public suffers a collective mental lethargy. And the truth is that there is no cure for public apathy. Taxing Mitt Romney and others 10% more does not ameliorate the consequences of public apathy. It just doesn't. Trust me, mates, no matter what kind of regulating you do, Mitt Romney will find a way to be where he is, and the public will avoid doing the things that can improve where they are. Because there's simply a dichotomy of aspiration and willingness.

Why do you think jews are all successful? Because that's what they all want, so they all do what it requires. Why do you think the Amish all live stable, routine lives? Because that's what they all want, so they dod what it requires. The lower end of the American public, they all want to get rich over night - so they buy lottery tickets and watch the bachelor while lighting up marb reds with the filter cut off. I mean, look at the habits of average people. You can't blame that on Republicans, it can't be fixed by Democrats, what people are is a product of what they do. KevinNYC, Lamar Doom? They'll go nowhere, because they're complacent taking handouts. They'll vote for any political representative who offers to rob others to provide them with bigger and better handouts. KevinNYC, Lamar Doom, KevinNYC's dad... they are the flaws in the bloody system, mates. That's the whole thing. The flaws in the system aint policies, it's people. It is what it is.

But I think we should also recognize that people respond to incentives. That's how we know that government intervention screws with the economy, so we should apply it sociologically too. The poor people you speak of, were born into a world where the government gave them money just for being poor. They were educated in government schools that fed them lies since birth. Their neighborhoods were in many cases drug and violence infested, fed by the drug war. Their job options were less than would have been in a more capitalist society. They were raised by babysitters and daycares, because Mom could no longer afford to stay home thanks to our mixed economy.

You're right, some people are apologists for lazyness/poor behavior. But at the same time, how can you blame a lot of the poor for turning out how they did? It's like, I can't blame someone for leaving 10th grade history, and thinking the great depression was ended by big government stimulus. I frankly would be shocked if people DIDN'T believe that. So by that same token, it doesn't shock me that society has crumbled a bit, given what was already in place when they were born. It'd be a lot more surprising to me if people said "I'll only take welfare if I really need it, for now I need to go find a job." Why would people respond like that? That's the problem with government entitlements.

[JaggerCommaMick]

But I think we should also recognize that people respond to incentives. That's how we know that government intervention screws with the economy, so we should apply it sociologically too. The poor people you speak of, were born into a world where the government gave them money just for being poor. They were educated in government schools that fed them lies since birth. Their neighborhoods were in many cases drug and violence infested, fed by the drug war. Their job options were less than would have been in a more capitalist society. They were raised by babysitters and daycares, because Mom could no longer afford to stay home thanks to our mixed economy.

You're right, some people are apologists for lazyness/poor behavior. But at the same time, how can you blame a lot of the poor for turning out how they did? It's like, I can't blame someone for leaving 10th grade history, and thinking the great depression was ended by big government stimulus. I frankly would be shocked if people DIDN'T believe that. So by that same token, it doesn't shock me that society has crumbled a bit, given what was already in place when they were born. It'd be a lot more surprising to me if people said "I'll only take welfare if I really need it, for now I need to go find a job." Why would people respond like that? That's the problem with government entitlements.


I quite agree that many blokes are unfortunately born into a world of bad habits and neglect, and the odds were stacked high against them from the bloody moment they were conceived. Many people aint seen no examples of professionalism, competent spending, resolving problems without violence and so forth and become products of their environment. Hey that's too bad and all mate, but that aint an acceptable excuse for others to tolerate it. Frankly it doesn't matter why people behave counter productively, the fact is that if they do, you let them deal with the consequences or if you're nice you can volunteer to help them. You don't shoulder your neighbor with the burden of another man.

Now if the consequences of people's poor judgment begins to affect others and you can't simply ignore it, then you correct that problem however you have to. Frankly mate I believe sterilization should be a sentencing option in the legal system. Unfortunately however, Femocrats literally cower in fear of things like the race card, or allegations of insensitivity. That is their most reviled bete noire. The bane of Femocrat "men" is the idea of not appearing 100% cuddly and tolerant and sensitive and gay. As you said, mate, you can be both compassionate and principled, but Femocrats don't think so. They believe every man should be a doormat, simply because they identify with doormats. They have low self esteem and low self worth, and they want to coerce America to lower the playing field down to their level. That's their bloody idear of "equality" mate.