Ok, so I started a thread before I got crazy busy over the last few weeks and never got back to it. Anyway, I simply had a few questions about it:
Is there anyone here who thinks a government run health care system is a good idea?
How exactly is this national health care supposed to save us trillions?
If a citizen is forced to either get government coverage or pay higher taxes, don't the Christian Scientists have an instant lawsuit against the U.S. government?
Why is this Obama's biggest priority all of a sudden? Why is this being treated like the only issue that matters anymore? Why the rush? And why is this such a big deal when every poll I've seen show a majority of Americans don't want it. Are these cock suckers on Capital Hill even pretending to represent us anymore?
Instead of forcing everyone onto a single government run health care system, why doesn't the government simply contact an insurance company and get the 16% of people in this country (as of June 2009) without health care onto a single insurance plan? (Minus the illegals, of course.)
Also, is everyone in Congress just going to pretend like these tea parties didn't happen? That their numbers didn't increase ten-fold from the first event to the second?
Edited By Leisher on 1248875310
Health Care
Yes & yes. Have all the civil disobedience you want. I hope it carries thru to election time, else it don't matter.Leisher wrote:Also, is everyone in Congress just going to pretend like these tea parties didn't happen? That their numbers didn't increase ten-fold from the first event to the second?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Starting to put protesters on trail in Iraq. Starting to wonder what the difference is here. If a mass demanstration broke out here what would happen. Of course my dad said things got quit after they shot that kid at Kent State here in Ohio. Got to get down to it. Soldiers or putting us down. Should have been done a long time ago. 4 dead in OHIO.....Malcolm wrote:Yes & yes. Have all the civil disobedience you want. I hope it carries thru to election time, else it don't matter.Leisher wrote:Also, is everyone in Congress just going to pretend like these tea parties didn't happen? That their numbers didn't increase ten-fold from the first event to the second?
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
Random thoughts:
1. For the sake of brevity let's just skip over the whole discussion of whether there's a right to health care. Of course there isn't, and really the discussion should stop there, but humor me. Why do we have to put EVERYBODY into a government insurance program? We have poor people who can't afford food, so we give THEM assistance; we don't make EVERYBODY eat government cheese. We have poor people who can't afford houses, so we give THEM assistance; we don't make EVERYBODY live in a housing project. Why is "health care" special? Note that we DO try to make everybody go to a government school, and hardly anybody likes the result of that.
2. Supposedly we're spending too much on health care; how you could decide this, I have no idea. Are we spending too much on DVDs or toilet paper? Who the hell knows? There's no right answer. But anyway: let's stipulate we're spending too much on health care. So the solution to that is to make spending on health care a government monopoly? These are the people who pay $300 for a hammer and $2k for a toilet seat. In every other field of human endeavor, when asked how to bring prices down, the answer is "competition." And don't forget this. Why is health care different?
3. We just spent the last 8 years hearing how the federal government was run by the minions of Satan (actually, maybe Satan was THEIR minion; I'm not quite clear on this point). Now we're going to let the federal government run health care. What do you think is going to happen when Satan is back in charge? Is he going to let you have free abortions and birth control pills? Have you really thought this through? What about when they start combing the health records for "terrorists?"
4. I don't like the whole shorthand of "health care." What are we really talking about? Everybody wants to "reform health care." It might sound as if our doctors, hospitals, and drugs are substandard. Is that really the case? No; what people want to "reform" is really the way that consumers PAY for doctor visits, hospital stays, drugs, etc. That's technically "PAYMENT for health care reform," not "health care reform." And that's actually the problem: nobody wants to actually PAY for their own health care out of their own pocket.
5. Note that what is typically called health care "insurance" is nothing of the kind. Insurance is something that pays you when an unlikely event happens. If you have some instrument that pays you to go to the doctor every year for a checkup, or pays for you diabetes treatments, that instrument is NOT, by definition, insurance.
1. For the sake of brevity let's just skip over the whole discussion of whether there's a right to health care. Of course there isn't, and really the discussion should stop there, but humor me. Why do we have to put EVERYBODY into a government insurance program? We have poor people who can't afford food, so we give THEM assistance; we don't make EVERYBODY eat government cheese. We have poor people who can't afford houses, so we give THEM assistance; we don't make EVERYBODY live in a housing project. Why is "health care" special? Note that we DO try to make everybody go to a government school, and hardly anybody likes the result of that.
2. Supposedly we're spending too much on health care; how you could decide this, I have no idea. Are we spending too much on DVDs or toilet paper? Who the hell knows? There's no right answer. But anyway: let's stipulate we're spending too much on health care. So the solution to that is to make spending on health care a government monopoly? These are the people who pay $300 for a hammer and $2k for a toilet seat. In every other field of human endeavor, when asked how to bring prices down, the answer is "competition." And don't forget this. Why is health care different?
3. We just spent the last 8 years hearing how the federal government was run by the minions of Satan (actually, maybe Satan was THEIR minion; I'm not quite clear on this point). Now we're going to let the federal government run health care. What do you think is going to happen when Satan is back in charge? Is he going to let you have free abortions and birth control pills? Have you really thought this through? What about when they start combing the health records for "terrorists?"
4. I don't like the whole shorthand of "health care." What are we really talking about? Everybody wants to "reform health care." It might sound as if our doctors, hospitals, and drugs are substandard. Is that really the case? No; what people want to "reform" is really the way that consumers PAY for doctor visits, hospital stays, drugs, etc. That's technically "PAYMENT for health care reform," not "health care reform." And that's actually the problem: nobody wants to actually PAY for their own health care out of their own pocket.
5. Note that what is typically called health care "insurance" is nothing of the kind. Insurance is something that pays you when an unlikely event happens. If you have some instrument that pays you to go to the doctor every year for a checkup, or pays for you diabetes treatments, that instrument is NOT, by definition, insurance.
Usually when I bring up this fact, I get variations of the same argument. I ask to be shown the document that states health care is a right. I am usually answered with some variation of "well we have plenty of money going to the military." No joke. I state, "The military is one of the few things actually authorized in the constitution." Then I am told, "You know, times change and the constitution is a living document." I answer, "Well then let me know when the constitution authorizes free health care." At which point the other person says my opinion doesn't matter because I am just another fascist gun-loving loon.thibodeaux wrote:Random thoughts:
1. For the sake of brevity let's just skip over the whole discussion of whether there's a right to health care. Of course there isn't, and really the discussion should stop there...
Which is why more and more I avoid discussing politics in public.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
1. Your examples are not far-fetched, and may come to pass.
2. When the government pays for it you don't have to, therefor it's cheaper. Duh.
3. This is a good point I hadn't considered. It doesn't matter much what is done now, in four or eight years the whole thing might be completely repealed anyway.
4. "payment for health care reform" still sounds in my head like still health care reform, just with the consideration of who will pay for that reform. How about "health care payment reform"?
2. When the government pays for it you don't have to, therefor it's cheaper. Duh.
3. This is a good point I hadn't considered. It doesn't matter much what is done now, in four or eight years the whole thing might be completely repealed anyway.
4. "payment for health care reform" still sounds in my head like still health care reform, just with the consideration of who will pay for that reform. How about "health care payment reform"?
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Yeah, damn those rich bastards for ... funding our investments, building our factories, & buying all that shit which keeps the rest of us employed. Those fuckers.TheCatt wrote:2. For most people, things do get cheaper if the government pays for it, especially if it's paid for by "Taxes on the rich."
Granted, some of them might've just lucked on their millions, but I'm sure more than a few fucking earned it.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
No, but one can't dream, right? Besides this is unprecedently large, and may finally spur some of the Republicans to get back to their small government roots.TheCatt wrote:TPR - 3. Has anything ever been significantly scaled back from government? Ever?
Unlikely, I know.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
-
Mommy Dearest
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 12:59 pm
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
Mommy Dearest wrote:Out of curiosity I went and read the proposal, and one of the first things I read was that if you were happy with your health care, nothing would change.
I don't want to read it. This is possibly true. But is not the problem.
The problem is paying for this monsterously large expense. How can trillions of additional dollars be spent without either increasing the deficit or destroying the taxpaying citizenry?
Edited By TPRJones on 1249393923
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
White House takes page from Chavez's playbook.
So, there you go. It's a small fringe of lunatic nuts that must be slasher movie villains. They have the ability to appear, disappear, & teleport vast distances at will.
Briefing reporters Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs suggested that the opposition is being organized by a small group seeking to create "manufactured anger."
"I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the AstroTurf nature of so-called grass-roots lobbying," Mr. Gibbs said.
In recent days, administration officials and Democratic members of Congress have been shouted down by angry protesters at town halls in Pennsylvania and Texas, an uproar that could grow when lawmakers return to their districts for the August recess.
So, there you go. It's a small fringe of lunatic nuts that must be slasher movie villains. They have the ability to appear, disappear, & teleport vast distances at will.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
-
Mommy Dearest
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 12:59 pm
How can you inteligently discuss a bill if you are not interested in what it really is. Have you researched the trillions that you say it will cost or are you taking some high ranking congressman's word for it?TPRJones wrote:I don't want to read it. This is possibly true. But is not the problem.Mommy Dearest wrote:Out of curiosity I went and read the proposal, and one of the first things I read was that if you were happy with your health care, nothing would change.
The problem is paying for this monsterously large expense. How can trillions of additional dollars be spent without either increasing the deficit or destroying the taxpaying citizenry?
I'll say this again. I've lived & worked in a country w\ nationalized health care.Mommy Dearest wrote:How can you inteligently discuss a bill if you are not interested in what it really is. Have you researched the trillions that you say it will cost or are you taking some high ranking congressman's word for it?TPRJones wrote:I don't want to read it. This is possibly true. But is not the problem.Mommy Dearest wrote:Out of curiosity I went and read the proposal, and one of the first things I read was that if you were happy with your health care, nothing would change.
The problem is paying for this monsterously large expense. How can trillions of additional dollars be spent without either increasing the deficit or destroying the taxpaying citizenry?
Population : ~61.6 million
# of employees working for NHS (British health care) : ~1.3 million
cost : 94 billion pounds -> 1.6904 pounds per $ -> $158.8976 billion dollars
Let's be brainlessly conservative & assume that cost increases linearly w\ population...
population of U.S. : ~307 million
307/61.6 =~ 5 => U.S. to British pop. ratio
158.8976 * 5 = 794.488 billion dollars ... again assuming similar expenditures & linear growth w\ population. & that was the cost to keep it going for ONE YEAR. We've already hit 800 billion & we haven't even talked about how expensive shit gets whenever gov't expands. Cos the installation fees for this thing are gonna be a bitch & a half.
Oh yeah, employees ... 1.3 million * 5 = 6.5 million
The 2008 HHS Dept. budget says they got $707.7 billion & around 64K employees. How the fuck are you going to go from tens of thousands of employees to MILLIONS of employees & keep costs down? Again, 800 billion is our target budget for one year once all this shit's in place.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
No, that number comes from the OMB (a.k.a. Whitehouse). Unless you think Obama is lying about the cost in order to make himself look bad?Mommy Dearest wrote:Have you researched the trillions that you say it will cost or are you taking some high ranking congressman's word for it?
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"