November 6, 2009
-
Big vote Saturday, your life and health is on the line! Try to make a difference.
”Stung by a rising tide of resistance and a closing window of opportunity, House Democrats have unleashed a new version of Obamacare, weighing in at 1,990 pages and with a $1.2 trillion price tag. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promises to ram it through quickly, exhibiting a disdain for her countrymen that makes Marie Antoinette look like a populist.”
What is the big hurry? Let the people read and debate on this new bill. Why shut down debate on the floor? Let all sides have their say . Tell us the truth! If this congress is out to destroy our nation so they can remake it in their own twisted way then it looks like they will get what they want with this bill. “The “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (HR 3962) is so comprehensive that it even micromanages restaurant menus and vending machines. That’s a clear signal that this is not about health care. It’s about whether the people of the United States will allow power-mad Washington politicians to plunge us into the kind of top-down socialism that is strangling Western Europe and has devastated economies and destroyed freedom wherever it is imposed.”
Bottom line is that you will through away your freedom and I do not just mean your freedom to decide on your health care or access to it, but the greater risk comes when this makes everyone broke that are not part of the elite circle and we no longer have a middle class but just the very poor and the very rich. You will see measures taken to act like they are fixing the problems that will follow this country being flushed down the toilet that as they are enacted will remove your rights a dozen at a time.
We only have today , by tonight it will be too late for the vote is Saturday!
Comments (11)
Another limbaugh/beck clone. Yeah, don’t have enough of those…
Sorry, but the text of the bill, the texts of every ammendment voted on in every committee, the roll calls of every vote AND videos of the debates are all available in the congressional archives. This “why won’t they let us read it” stuff is disingenuous rhetoric designed to make ignorant fucks like you who don’t know how to look up congressional archives or, you know, use google, feel persecuted.
Waaaaa, why won’t they let us debate the bill that’s been debated perhaps more than any piece of legislation in ten years? Oh no, they’re “shoving it through” 1/3 of the process after only six months of constant debate. What will we do!?
Moron.
I’m sorry for being rude but I’m so sick to death of people like you mindlessly buying into any idiotic thing you hear on fox news.
I heard this guy on MSNBC say that its really about freedom because it gives people an alternative to private health insurance, therefore more competition.
But the thing is, we would have competition in the private sector if insurance companies were not limited to specific areas as to where they can sell insurance. A number of fun thing for all of the supporters of this Obamacare to think about is this. If it was really about giving you more options, why won’t they revoke these controls? Or how about this argument for Obamacare, “Insurance companies are the problem here, they are pushing costs higher and higher, we have to do something to push those costs down.” Well, most people agree that insurance companies are a big cause for rising health care costs. But is that something going to be a benefit or a pain? Most doctors agree that insurance is mostly unnecessary to begin with except for taking care of catastrophic cases. What people seem to forget is that in business, anytime you have a middle-man involved in any economic situation, prices automatically increase. There has to be ways for people to budget their money better than they do, and then pay monthly into an insurance plan that will cover them IF a major event occurs. If people could consider that like paying for utilities, then there isn’t a problem. “What about people who can’t afford it?” Well, do those who bring this up time after time really even know what they mean by asking that? What about that poor guy who only makes about 20K a year, surely he can afford it if he budgets his money. Maybe they are talking about people who make less than 15K a year? Well, if helping these kinds of people out is really the goal, why didn’t these activists groups make a point of raising money to create a chance for these people to receive free care? There are a ton of options that people could consider if they want to offer charity. But, these activists groups are more interested in making it a political issue when quite simply it isn’t unless we are a country “to each according to his ability, and to each according to his need” instead of being what we are supposed to be, “The right to PURSUE property, liberty, and life”. One more thing too, would you want someone operating on you because they have to, or because they want to? I would much rather have someone operating on me because they want to, because they have greater incentive to do it right. “They should want to because its the right thing to do.” But is it the right thing to force someone to do the right thing, or convince them?
@agnophilo -
Sorry to say, but someone who seems so internet savvy should have noticed in his post that HR 3962 was actually a link to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:
Just a thought. Fact is, the post never said anything about “why won’t they let us read it”. Maybe instead of lashing out at people who disagree with you, you should buy into your lefty PC n’ tolerance rhetoric. Or does that only apply to people who the Sociologists call “misunderstood” and “down-trodden”? Fascist. Oh, and I googled the word’s definition for you in case you get lost trying to figure out what it means http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist
@DarthPatriot -
“I heard this guy on MSNBC say that its really about freedom because it gives people an alternative to private health insurance, therefore more competition.”
It does.
“But the thing is, we would have competition in the private sector if insurance companies were not limited to specific areas as to where they can sell insurance.”
Part of this bill sets up an insurance exchange so they can do that. The reason it’s difficult to do is that every state has it’s own insurance and tax laws, this is why a company needs a license to operate in a particular state just like a lawyer does.
“A number of fun thing for all of the supporters of this Obamacare to think about is this. If it was really about giving you more options, why won’t they revoke these controls?”
Because they’re there for good reason? Yeah sure, lets just yank out long-standing laws without a second thought, what could go wrong? Not to mention that these regulations are one of the few things standing in the way of one company buying up 90% of the health insurance policies in the country, just like one company bought up 90% of the radio stations. And if that happened we’d be totally screwed, because they could charge whatever they want and provide even crappier service.
“Or how about this argument for Obamacare, “Insurance companies are the problem here, they are pushing costs higher and higher, we have to do something to push those costs down.” Well, most people agree that insurance companies are a big cause for rising health care costs. But is that something going to be a benefit or a pain?”
By every objective estimate it will save us hundreds of billions of dollars a year and make healthcare accessible to millions more americans at the same time.
“Most doctors agree that insurance is mostly unnecessary to begin with except for taking care of catastrophic cases.”
Yeah, and most people with brains will tell you you can’t sign only people who have catastrophic accidents up for health insurance, and if only people who needed health insurance at the time had it the costs would be so prohibitive as to totally negate the point of health insurance, which is to pay a little bit at a time for a long time to absorb higher healthcare costs when they arise. Everyone gets sick or injured or old.
“What people seem to forget is that in business, anytime you have a middle-man involved in any economic situation, prices automatically increase.”
Private health insurance companies ARE a middle-man, and they have a fat profit margin and are therefore even more expensive. They bring in billions of dollars that don’t go to helping any of their customers.
“There has to be ways for people to budget their money better than they do, and then pay monthly into an insurance plan that will cover them IF a major event occurs. If people could consider that like paying for utilities, then there isn’t a problem.”
No, even that would not save most people from sudden, massive expenses. Even people who save their money very well often don’t have enough to absorb a $100,000 surgery.
“What about people who can’t afford it?” Well, do those who bring this up time after time really even know what they mean by asking that? What about that poor guy who only makes about 20K a year, surely he can afford it if he budgets his money.”
He can afford a hundred thousand dollar surgery? Really? How long do you suppose it would take him to save up 5 years’ salary? If he put 10% in the bank that would take 50 years. So assuming he started the moment he turned 18 and never had any use for his savings, he would be 68 years old before he was “insured” by your plan. By then he’s got medicare.
“Maybe they are talking about people who make less than 15K a year? Well, if helping these kinds of people out is really the goal, why didn’t these activists groups make a point of raising money to create a chance for these people to receive free care?”
America has about 36 million uninsured/underinsured. The average healthcare cost per american is over $8,000. Even rounding down that would be 280 billion dollars a year. No charity in the world has ever amassed that amount of money. Ever. The bill and melinda gates foundation, the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world has about 35 billion dollars, total.
So you are asking for a few activists to raise 8 times more money than any charity ever has, every year.
That’s your solution.
“There are a ton of options that people could consider if they want to offer charity. But, these activists groups are more interested in making it a political issue when quite simply it isn’t unless we are a country “to each according to his ability, and to each according to his need” instead of being what we are supposed to be, “The right to PURSUE property, liberty, and life”.”
I thought it was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You don’t mind tax money being used to fight fire, to fight crime, to stave off natural disasters like floods by building dams and levees. But fighting cancer with tax money is somehow bad?
Why is this really offensive to you? You’ve been told to be offended by people who are promoting these ideas for entirely different reasons.
“One more thing too, would you want someone operating on you because they have to, or because they want to? I would much rather have someone operating on me because they want to, because they have greater incentive to do it right.”
Doctors legally have to offer emergency care. Are you saying we should repeal those laws? And by making health insurance universal it’s guaranteeing that the doctor DOES have an incentive to do it right and that they WILL get paid if they operate on you.
“They should want to because its the right thing to do.” But is it the right thing to force someone to do the right thing, or convince them?”
I don’t know what you’re even talking about. How is paying doctors for their services “forcing” them to do anything? You know most doctors are in favor of a public option, right? And most people in general an even a slim majority of republicans by one poll.
@DarthPatriot -
Yes, you did moron. And the fact that you linked to the public text of the bill they “won’t let us read” reflects much more poorly on you than me.
And the bill says that large food chains have to print the nutritional information for their food on their menus. Yes, these politicians are clearly mad with power. Next we might even have nutritional information on food labels in grocery stores, OMGZ! Where will the tyranny end!
I do believe I was pointing out that Health Insurance was the unnecessary middle man in most cases. So I am unsure as to why that was even brought up. Doctors would rather you paid out of pocket for that regular check-up than have to go through all of that red tape to get their money. A regular check up doesn’t cost that much, simple budgeting can work well for that. Btw, High Deductible Health Care actually has low premiums and will cover you for major emergencies. The most uninsured people demographically happen to be young people, and my solution to insuring them is not a deficit adding government overhaul, but instead, tax incentives to those who can prove that they have at least High Deductible Health Care. The extra money they get back from Uncle Sam could easily cover the costs, and if the incentive was high enough, it might encourage them to get regular check ups (if they decide to budget it properly). I think incentives could be extended to the elderly. My ideas put money back in the hands of people and let them decide if they want to be responsible or not.
“Why is this really offensive to you? You’ve been told to be offended by people who are promoting these ideas for entirely different reasons.” Typical liberal response. The only reason I could possibly disagree with you must be because I am utterly incapable of forming my own opinions. See, the difference between you and me in this regard is that I don’t look down my nose at you for disagreeing with me. I don’t try to invent reasons for why you do, I just acknowledge that you do and that I disagree. I know many liberals hold the views they do because they hate to see suffering, or that they believe it is somehow a duty to help others. I disagree, I believe it is up to the individual to determine his own path in life, and if you decide to help someone, it is because you made the choice to. My personal position is that I am going to school to become an economist. My aim is to make a good living for myself from that, and whatever extra money I get will likely be invested in starting my own business. I have these ambitions because the road to meeting them will be challenging and therefore fulfilling.
“So you are asking for a few activists to raise 8 times more money than any charity ever has, every year.” Well, yes, I am asking them to raise money from people voluntarily, rather than take it by force. I guess that makes me a monster.
“That’s your solution.” It is advise. My advise is an alternative those who see fit to increasingly make our tax code even more progressive. Instead of penalizing people who are capable of turning a profit to support those who can’t, we could offer tax credits for those who honestly are trying. I suggest offering incentives by giving people their money back, money that is rightfully theirs to start with. We quit requiring E.R.s to take people who can’t or won’t pay their bills, hospitals quit charging those of us who can and will higher and higher to make up for them, and everyone wins except those who can’t afford it or refuse to pay up. That is my solution, and its a damn good one too. Objectively, there is no reason to claim that I am my brother’s keeper. Objectively, I have all the reason in the world to say that your life is your life, and therefore your responsibility. If someone cares enough about those in their communities to help those people, then I say let them. The difference between a private charity and a government program is that a private charity can turn someone away who proves themselves a free rider on the good will of others. A government program takes incentive away from people by granting them automatic access to which everyone else has to work hard for, if you don’t believe me, try looking at the poorest areas of the country. Liberals want to eliminate suffering, that sounds wonderful, but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from intentional action. They want everyone to get what they “need” automatically. They seek to change reality by ignoring it. The reality is, your “needs” are met if you are capable or willing to do it. A doctor, farmer, welder, executive, economist, engineer are those who took the initiative to make their lives better by developing a skill, and were successful at it. While these people benefit from the skill, those of us who do not have the ability or decide to specialize in a different skill benefit far more by living in a society that allows for specialization. This is the nature of trade, all those involved benefit, those who refuse to trade must become mediocre in all types of skills to meet their “needs” and desires…or have someone else provide for them. (btw, welders are in demand, anybody considering taking initiative and control over their life should consider it. it pays good and its hard work)
“I thought it was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You don’t mind tax money being used to fight fire, to fight crime, to stave off natural disasters like floods by building dams and levees. But fighting cancer with tax money is somehow bad?” John Locke coined “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property” or something like that, Jefferson decided to switch some words around. But, the founding father’s were all quite aware of Locke’s Treatises. If you have already read the epic sized Bill they are wanting to pass this Saturday, you should consider reading up on John Locke, then rereading the Declaration of Independence. Correction, I do not mind paying for things I believe in. If I was not forcibly taxed, I would not object to paying into such things voluntarily. I do not believe in paying any % of my income to support Food Stamps, Public Health Care, Welfare (corporate or otherwise), or any program that demands I sacrifice myself for someone I don’t even know. If I met someone, became friends with them, and saw that they could use a bite to eat, I would have no problem ponying up the cash, because if I can respect them enough to consider them a friend, then they likely have the virtue to see that they are not entitled to it.
“Doctors legally have to offer emergency care. Are you saying we should repeal those laws?” Yes, yes I do.
“And by making health insurance universal it’s guaranteeing that the doctor DOES have an incentive to do it right and that they WILL get paid if they operate on you.” As private insurance gets run out of business by this “competition”, and being required to have some sort of insurance by law, everyone will likely fall under this plan. If the government becomes one of the largest customers to doctors, it has the power to alter compensation whether by not paying for the service provided or by making laws to force doctors to adhere to whatever compensation politicians deem necessary. Here is a twist most people don’t like to consider. Remember back when the Bush administration kept trying to claim privacy was not a right? Remember when all of those Republicans who voted for him backed him up regardless of the things he was trying to do to our personal liberties? Imagine if Bush had accomplished all the things he wanted to without resistance. Now imagine that Obama and the Democrats now have more power, the Republicans who supported these measures now can easily become targets if the Democrats felt they were a threat, no habeas corpus for those deemed to be “terrorists”. Now, imagine if the rolls are reversed. Say the Democrats push this through, and it takes private insurance out of the picture almost completely and the public option has no competition. Say the Republicans get in office, what are they likely to do? Since they now have the reigns, they can control who has power over this hulking Federal beast, with the power to appoint nearly anyone they decide. Or say, they do what they like to do, and that is cut funding or budgets for social programs. Can anyone say rationing? Can anyone say huge subsidies to the rich to “boost” the economy? Don’t freak out on me, I am just pointing out the folly of pragmatism over principled adherence to the Constitution and individual liberty. I am not a Partisan. Some might say slippery slope fallacy. I ask why take the chance with your liberties when you really don’t have to. Yeah, but private insurance doesn’t even have to go bust for the government to control the market once it has a foothold.
“Everyone gets sick or injured or old.” Absolutely, that is why when you have the choice between saving your money for retirement or for budgeting purposes, you do it instead of buying a new cell phone, car, or computer every other year or other year. Its why you cook at home instead of eating out every time you get the whim to do so. Its about taking individual responsibility for your individual life.
“Because they’re there for good reason? Yeah sure, lets just yank out long-standing laws without a second thought, what could go wrong? Not to mention that these regulations are one of the few things standing in the way of one company buying up 90% of the health insurance policies in the country, just like one company bought up 90% of the radio stations.” If they are contractually required to meet certain requirements, then they face lawsuits. To bad both the parties are corrupt and couldn’t give a spit about the little guy eh? But hey, as long as they have your vote, what do they care?
“Yes, you did moron. And the fact that you linked to the public text of the bill they “won’t let us read” reflects much more poorly on you than me.” What?
@agnophilo -” I’m sorry for being rude but I’m so sick to death of people like you mindlessly buying into any idiotic thing you hear on fox news.” Why lie ? You love to be rude, now tell the truth you do , right ? You are wrong about fox news, I see less than 10 min. a week of that group. I can not take more than 40 secs. each exposure and I dare say you sound like you see much more of it than me.
Maybe if the world was full of great thinkers like you all the problems would come to an end and life would be so good for all . Why don’t run for office and tell us how you can fix everything . I would like to hear how you think it could be done with out all the smart mouth and just the plans.
@agnophilo - You seem to have a lot of time for the web. Do you have a full time job or are you paid to play on the web?
@DarthPatriot -
“I do believe I was pointing out that Health Insurance was the unnecessary middle man in
most cases. So I am unsure as to why that was even brought up.”
So what, you’re advocating getting rid of health insurance?
“Doctors would rather you paid out of pocket for that regular check-up than have to go through all of that red tape to get their money.”
Most doctors support the public option, because then an uninsured person goes to the hospital they get paid at all.
“A regular check up doesn’t cost that much, simple budgeting can work well for that. Btw, High Deductible Health Care actually has low premiums and will cover you for major emergencies. The most uninsured people demographically happen to be young people, and my solution to insuring them is not a deficit adding government overhaul, but instead, tax incentives to those who can prove that they have at least High Deductible Health Care. The extra money they get back from Uncle Sam could easily cover the costs, and if the incentive was high enough, it might encourage them to get regular check ups (if they decide to budget it properly). I think incentives could be extended to the elderly. My ideas put money back in the hands of people and let them decide if they want to be responsible or not.”
Setting aside that tax cuts don’t exactly do wonders for the deficit and wouldn’t do jack about waste in the healthcare industry, or waste in government programs, making people pay out of pocket for routine checkups and preventative medicine would disincentivise them, making us sicker as a whole and increasing our collective healthcare spending.
["Why is this really offensive to you? You've been told to be offended by people who are promoting these ideas for entirely different reasons."]
“Typical liberal response. The only reason I could possibly disagree with you must be because I am utterly incapable of forming my own opinions.”
I asked you why you were offended at this and then commented on the pundits you apparently listen to, not you asshole.
“See, the difference between you and me in this regard is that I don’t look down my nose at you for disagreeing with me.”
Actually you’re doing that right now.
“I don’t try to invent reasons for why you do, I just acknowledge that you do and that I disagree. I know many liberals hold the views they do because they hate to see suffering, or that they believe it is somehow a duty to help others. I disagree, I believe it is up to the individual to determine his own path in life, and if you decide to help someone, it is because you made the choice to. My personal position is that I am going to school to become an economist. My aim is to make a good living for myself from that, and whatever extra money I get will likely be invested in starting my own business. I have these ambitions because the road to meeting them will be challenging and therefore fulfilling.”
I understand the philosophy, and in some cases it’s good. But in this one it’s downright retarded. Should each individual be responsible for national defense too? Should we have to have ten million bake sales a year to maintain the navy? Or maybe just the police. Maybe when you call 9/11 they should ask you if you have police insurance. Those squad cars are expensive after all, don’t want to steal money from hard working people and use it to help everyone. I mean POOR people might benefit from it! And even lazy people could get protection! How disgusting!
I want to live in a world where we don’t provide for the general welfare and common defense, but where it’s every man for himself. I think there will be a lot more tragedy and pain in that world, but I don’t care because I’ve got mine. That’s what matters, right?
I mean if I earn a dollar, a penny and a half of that dollar pays for medicare. Every senior in the country, whose medical expenses are among the highest, gets top quality healthcare. Screw that. I think we should do like reagan and de-fund medicare. I mean sure seniors were committing suicide left and right, but they just couldn’t cut it like you and me.
God bless america.
“Well, yes, I am asking them to raise money from people voluntarily, rather than take it by force. I guess that makes me a monster.”
No, it makes you stupid. I just said your “solution” wouldn’t even begin to address the problem and you’re sticking to it anyway.
“It is advise. My advise is an alternative those who see fit to increasingly make our tax code even more progressive.”
It’s an increase mostly in corporate taxes designed to save tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars of out-of-pocket expenses and inflated insurance costs. We pay 150% of what every other wealthy country pays for healthcare and you’re pissing on the only people offering a solution because you think it’ll cost you money.
How backwards.
“Instead of penalizing people who are capable of turning a profit to support those who can’t, we could offer tax credits for those who honestly are trying. I suggest offering incentives by giving people their money back, money that is rightfully theirs to start with. We quit requiring E.R.s to take people who can’t or won’t pay their bills, hospitals quit charging those of us who can and will higher and higher to make up for them, and everyone wins except those who can’t afford it or refuse to pay up.”
Yeah. Then we can start charging for the fire department instead of paying for it with taxes. Just hit them with a big bill all at once. The only people that will get wiped out are those that can’t afford it, so it’s all good right?
“That is my solution, and its a damn good one too.”
No, it isn’t. It’s a “solution” if the “problem” is that a small fraction of your taxes might save lives that aren’t your own. Silly me, I thought the problem was the dozens of americans a day that die because they don’t have access to healthcare and 60% of bankrupcies that are caused by unaffordable medical bills. No, the problem is that you have to pay taxes.
“Objectively, there is no reason to claim that I am my brother’s keeper. Objectively, I have all the reason in the world to say that your life is your life, and therefore your responsibility.”
Personal responsibility is apathy re-branded. “I’ve got mine, fuck everyone else” is neither a virtue, nor a merit. You insist you’d be happy to help others, but bitch about a fraction of your taxes going to help more people than you or any charity possibly could.
“If someone cares enough about those in their communities to help those people, then I say let them.”
But not through taxes, the one measure that could actually raise the capital to solve the problem. I’m sorry, but how many fucking bake-sales do you expect local communities to have to help people being wiped out by medical bills? We’re talking billions of dollars, not thousands.
“The difference between a private charity and a government program is that a private charity can turn someone away who proves themselves a free rider on the good will of others. A government program takes incentive away from people by granting them automatic access to which everyone else has to work hard for, if you don’t believe me, try looking at the poorest areas of the country.”
I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit. I had to go on food stamps, they enroll you in the works program and you have to provide proof that you did 60 “job activities” (applications, interviews etc) the first 3 months, 80 after that, a hundred after that etc or they cut off your benefits. In most states it’s the same for collecting unemployment, you have to prove you’re working to find another job and there’s a cutoff. That’s the way it should be.
Charity is fine, but no charity can take care of the basic needs of anyone in a large city.
We could pay for maintaining water, sewer and gas lines out of pocket too, if the water main breaks in front of your house you get a bill. But the cost would be prohibitive, so we pay for it with a fraction of a penny of your sales tax instead.
One solution destroys lives and doesn’t solve the problem, the other solution solves the problem and I’ve never heard of anyone being wiped out by half a penny of sales tax, have you?
“Liberals want to eliminate suffering, that sounds wonderful, but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from intentional action. They want everyone to get what they “need” automatically.”
Almost every moral philosophy includes taking care of those less fortunate so they’re at least not dying in the street.
“They seek to change reality by ignoring it. The reality is, your “needs” are met if you are capable or willing to do it. A doctor, farmer, welder, executive, economist, engineer are those who took the initiative to make their lives better by developing a skill, and were successful at it. While these people benefit from the skill, those of us who do not have the ability or decide to specialize in a different skill benefit far more by living in a society that allows for specialization. This is the nature of trade, all those involved benefit, those who refuse to trade must become mediocre in all types of skills to meet their “needs” and desires…or have someone else provide for them. (btw, welders are in demand, anybody considering taking initiative and control over their life should consider it. it pays good and its hard work)”
Yeah that’s all well and good if we lived in never-never land where no one ever had medical bills a little prudence couldn’t solve. But we live in reality where almost no one can afford to get in a car crash, be in a coma for 2 months, have an expensive surgery or four and then go through physical therapy for 6 months until they can walk again so they can go back to work. What you’re basically saying is “fuck that guy, he deserves it and I refuse to help him at barely any expense to myself because even though I think charity is AWESOME I refuse to let tax dollars help anyone.”
“John Locke coined “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property” or something like that, Jefferson decided to switch some words around. But, the founding father’s were all quite aware of Locke’s Treatises. If you have already read the epic sized Bill they are wanting to pass this Saturday, you should consider reading up on John Locke, then rereading the Declaration of Independence.”
An idea is valid or invalid regardless of it’s origins. Thanks for the insight though.
“Correction, I do not mind paying for things I believe in. If I was not forcibly taxed, I would not object to paying into such things voluntarily.”
We have taxation with representation. We vote for the people who set the tax rates and decide how tax dollars are spent. If you want to decide your tax rate and how your taxes are spent directly, I suggest you dismantle our way of life or go start a little dictatorship somewhere.
“I do not believe in paying any % of my income to support Food Stamps, Public Health Care, Welfare (corporate or otherwise), or any program that demands I sacrifice myself for someone I don’t even know. If I met someone, became friends with them, and saw that they could use a bite to eat, I would have no problem ponying up the cash, because if I can respect them enough to consider them a friend, then they likely have the virtue to see that they are not entitled to it.”
Apply this principle across the board and see what nightmareish world you’re left with.
No one can call the police for protection unless you know them and sign off on it. No one can avail themselves of public education, the fire department, etc. No one can have well maintained roads unless you yourself personally vouch for them. Because my god someone who doesn’t deserve it might benefit from being in the same society as you.
You act as if you’re the only one who pays taxes and you should decide for everyone else how it goes.
["Doctors legally have to offer emergency care. Are you saying we should repeal those laws?"]
“Yes, yes I do.”
That’s just about the most inhuman thing I’ve heard in a very long time.
You prefer a world where hospitals treat the wealthy and watch the poor die of treatable illness. Fuck you.
“As private insurance gets run out of business by this “competition”, and being required to have some sort of insurance by law, everyone will likely fall under this plan. If the government becomes one of the largest customers to doctors, it has the power to alter compensation whether by not paying for the service provided or by making laws to force doctors to adhere to whatever compensation politicians deem necessary. Here is a twist most people don’t like to consider. Remember back when the Bush administration kept trying to claim privacy was not a right? Remember when all of those Republicans who voted for him backed him up regardless of the things he was trying to do to our personal liberties? Imagine if Bush had accomplished all the things he wanted to without resistance. Now imagine that Obama and the Democrats now have more power, the Republicans who supported these measures now can easily become targets if the Democrats felt they were a threat, no habeas corpus for those deemed to be “terrorists”. Now, imagine if the rolls are reversed. Say the Democrats push this through, and it takes private insurance out of the picture almost completely and the public option has no competition. Say the Republicans get in office, what are they likely to do? Since they now have the reigns, they can control who has power over this hulking Federal beast, with the power to appoint nearly anyone they decide. Or say, they do what they like to do, and that is cut funding or budgets for social programs. Can anyone say rationing? Can anyone say huge subsidies to the rich to “boost” the economy? Don’t freak out on me, I am just pointing out the folly of pragmatism over principled adherence to the Constitution and individual liberty. I am not a Partisan. Some might say slippery slope fallacy. I ask why take the chance with your liberties when you really don’t have to. Yeah, but private insurance doesn’t even have to go bust for the government to control the market once it has a foothold.”
According to the CBO only about 5% of the country will is likely to opt into the public option, the rest will be enabled by these reforms to get affordable private health insurance. The public option will also not be available to most americans you ignorant twit. Your slippery slope is bullshit.
And you’re afraid of rationing? These reforms are designed to end the rationing of healthcare that’s going on right now you imbecile.
Your slippery slope is that if we give everyone access to healthcare, maybe in the future not everyone will have access to healthcare! What nonsense.
“Absolutely, that is why when you have the choice between saving your money for retirement or for budgeting purposes, you do it instead of buying a new cell phone, car, or computer every other year or other year. Its why you cook at home instead of eating out every time you get the whim to do so. Its about taking individual responsibility for your individual life.”
As I pointed out, almost no one can afford sudden high medical expenses you fuckwhit. So your “solution” of setting aside money isn’t enough for pretty much anyone.
“If they are contractually required to meet certain requirements, then they face lawsuits.”
They write the contracts with clauses that say they can deny coverage and drop your plan if there’s something like an inaccuracy, any inaccuracy in your medical history (including misspellings, which have been used to deny life-saving treatment). The health insurance giants are experts at denying healthcare to as many people as possible, that’s how they make their multi-billion dollar profits.
“To bad both the parties are corrupt and couldn’t give a spit about the little guy eh? But hey, as long as they have your vote, what do they care?”
Well both parties are corrupt, but some in at least one party are actually trying to help the little guy in this case. You’re saying “no, fuck the little guy” and giving flimsy excuses for your sickening apathy.
“What?”
What I said.
@Barrygw -
“Why lie ? You love to be rude, now tell the truth you do , right?”
No, I really don’t. I’m quite polite almost all of the time. I’m really sick to death of thinking for people who refuse to do it themselves over and over and over again and hold people up as wonderful truth-tellers and experts even after I point out that they’re lying through their fucking teeth.
“You are wrong about fox news, I see less than 10 min. a week of that group. I can not take more than 40 secs. each exposure and I dare say you sound like you see much more of it than me.”
So you say, yet you spout this hyper-partisan “obamacare” shit like you’re taking dictation.
“Maybe if the world was full of great thinkers like you all the problems would come to an end and life would be so good for all . Why don’t run for office and tell us how you can fix everything . I would like to hear how you think it could be done with out all the smart mouth and just the plans.”
You’re not being serious. I think most of what’s been proposed is a good way to at least address the problem.
Let me ask you this – do you even know what the problems are this healthcare bill is trying to fix?
Without googling anything, please list as many problems with our healthcare system as you can.
@Barrygw -
I’m self-employed, but thanks for the pathetic cheap shot anyway.