Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty

The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty (Page 2)
Thread Tools
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
the will of the people IS NOT backroom sweetheart deals and bribes. The will of the people, as clearly documented, is against this. The system has failed for the majority of americans (at least 54% actually vs the 41% who are in favor.) The system has FAILED for the American people.

The will of the people is smarter than our "representatives" give us credit for. The will of the people on the issue of healthcare is against this bill, despite however you feel about it.


Meanwhile, while you celebrate, more Americans lose their jobs. Oh well, at least they have taxe...err healthcare!
Wow so the 'popular' vote should outweigh everything else?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Meanwhile, while you celebrate, more Americans lose their jobs. Oh well, at least they have taxe...err healthcare!
So you would rather see American's die? Hmmm seems your money is more important than the health o f your fellow American's. Seems like Communist sentiment to me.
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:12 PM
 
Snow-i: how do you reconcile the polls that showed the majority of people being for a public option months ago with these latest polls? You cannot say that these polls do not reflect a campaign of fear being employed by many on the right to some extent. Should we bring back the public option since that is what people wanted?
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
who pays for that? I know -- I do, by losing what benefits I have now, that I've worked many years to get. My kids have LESS healthcare so that others can have more.
that

Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
So you would rather see American's die? Hmmm seems your money is more important than the health o f your fellow American's. Seems like Communist sentiment to me.
Yes. We could afford to lose a good billion people on this planet.
And LOL, that would be the opposite of communism genius. The entire theory revolves around the abolition of scarcity of resources by redistributing them among all.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Mar 21, 2010 at 11:22 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
So you would rather see American's die? Hmmm seems your money is more important than the health o f your fellow American's. Seems like Communist sentiment to me.
Nice strawman, hope he gets covered here too.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Snow-i: how do you reconcile the polls that showed the majority of people being for a public option months ago with these latest polls? You cannot say that these polls do not reflect a campaign of fear being employed by many on the right to some extent. Should we bring back the public option since that is what people wanted?
Most people prefer the public option over the current health care bill.

Go public option!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It's interesting to note which liberties you get the most upset over losing. You're OK with a move toward a police state, but you get upset with a move toward a socialist state. I would imagine that someone *truly* concerned about losing liberties would be upset with a move in *either* direction.
DIng! Ding! Ding! We have a Winner!


Fundamental opposition to loss of liberties would see those opposed to socialized healthcare also opposed to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, and almost every facet of the Patriot Act. (Not too mention the REAL ID plan and mandatory requirements for a passport to leave the country.) Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall Big Mac or ebuddy coming out in strong, vociferous opposition to the losses of liberty that came with these expansions of the federal government into our private lives.


And yes ebuddy, I am talking to you. Every time I make this argument about consistency in political belief you retort with the claim that one can be opposed to one issue and in favor of another. Which is true. But when the issues has the same underlying problem--government invasion of privacy and loss of individual liberty--your arguments become disingenuous and you make of yourself a hypocrite. Care to speak out against ALL government invasions of privacy or just those you think are politically unpalatable?
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Mar 21, 2010 at 11:30 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Snow-i: how do you reconcile the polls that showed the majority of people being for a public option months ago with these latest polls? You cannot say that these polls do not reflect a campaign of fear being employed by many on the right to some extent. Should we bring back the public option since that is what people wanted?
How would you reconcile it? Perhaps as people learned more about it they changed their minds?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
What happens when those of us who actually work to support this country stop doing so? At what point will those who contribute more than they consume just give up and say "no thanks"? At no point will all of those new government jobs contribute anything beyond they consume, ever. So what happens when people stop playing?
You are welcome to "Go Galt" whenever you want.

Let us know how you do keeping your kids fed and and a roof over their heads when you decide to say "no thanks" and give up on supporting this country by removing yourself and your skills from the workforce.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How would you reconcile it? Perhaps as people learned more about it they changed their minds?
What's in the new Health Care bill?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
You are welcome to "Go Galt" whenever you want.

Let us know how you do keeping your kids fed and and a roof over their heads when you decide to say "no thanks" and give up on supporting this country by removing yourself and your skills from the workforce.
Why should he continue to support a country that forsakes the will of its workforce? Why should he give another tax dollar that is not represented? Have we forgotten the foundation of this country?

Taxation without representation was the primary reason cited for the event that sparked the revolutionary war. Today you have many "representatives" who do not represent the will of their people.

He has every right and reason to be upset, sad, and generally in despair.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
Wow so the 'popular' vote should outweigh everything else?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Isn't that the true definition of democracy?

You think the will of the minority should be represented in our republic?
Hmmm . . . when did the United States become a Democracy and not a Republic?

I don't recall seeing anything in the news about a switch from representative democracy to direct democracy. Care to share with us the date that change took place?

Oh, and if you, Snow-i, are really in favor of the popular vote being "the true definition of democracy" I assume it is safe to say you think the Supreme Court made a mistake in its decision re Bush vs. Gore. (You know, considering how the Supreme Court ignored the will of the people who gave Al Gore a majority of the popular vote in that election.)


[Keep making these rabid, irrational posts and I'll keep pointing out your hypocrisy. It's a fun way to kill time on a Sunday night.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How would you reconcile it? Perhaps as people learned more about it they changed their minds?
Or, you could say that the current polls are a product of an active campaign of fear. It works both ways, the end result is that the polls don't really tell us a whole lot at this point except which tactics have been the most manipulative. Most of this debate has been 85% rhetoric, 10% fluffy stuff, 5% substance.
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why should he continue to support a country that forsakes the will of its workforce? Why should he give another tax dollar that is not represented? Have we forgotten the foundation of this country?

Taxation without representation was the primary reason cited for the event that sparked the revolutionary war. Today you have many "representatives" who do not represent the will of their people.

He has every right and reason to be upset, sad, and generally in despair.
You keep saying 'the will of the people'. Well the will of the people in the 2000 Presidential Election was for Al Gore, but President wrong way W Bush was elected by the electoral college. Should then Al Gore be president since that was 'the will of the people'?

Whoops dcmacdaddy, we seem to be on the same thought on this
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:33 PM
 
Congrats, USA. Welcome to the 20th century.
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Congrats, USA. Welcome to the 20th century.
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Congrats, USA. Welcome to the 20th century.
You socialist Communist Nazi.

The health care bill does not include single payer.
The health care bill does not have a public option.

Not even close to what Canada has.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:35 PM
 
I kid you not, right as it was announced as a pass, the electricity went out.

Brought to you by Verizon Wireless®
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why should he continue to support a country that forsakes the will of its workforce? Why should he give another tax dollar that is not represented? Have we forgotten the foundation of this country?

Taxation without representation was the primary reason cited for the event that sparked the revolutionary war. Today you have many "representatives" who do not represent the will of their people.

He has every right and reason to be upset, sad, and generally in despair.
By all means, go right ahead and rise up to protest your "taxation without representation".

Just remember that the original basis for that claim was due to the fact that citizens of the British colonies did NOT have representation in the British government even though they were paying taxes to the British government. Whereas, in contemporary American politics you do have representation for how your taxes are spent--we all do--you just don't like the decisions that are made by said representatives. So, make your voice heard. Let your representative know how you feel about their vote, by voting them out of office at the ballot box.


(Just out of curiosity, do you, Snow-i, actually know how your representative voted for this bill?)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:36 PM
 
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:39 PM
 
Public option not in bill.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:44 PM
 
Very interesting.....

In the wake of World War II, The United Kingdom faced the challenge of rebuilding their country. It was in this tumultuous decade that Winston Churchill, a conservative icon, spoke to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, stating:

"The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.."[
The official bill authorizing the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales was signed in to law in 1946. It provides free point of care health services to all citizens of England and is paid for by tax dollars. The budget was roughly $200 billion in 2008-2009 and has seen an approximately 3% annual rise in costs since it's founding in the late 1940s.[2] For comparison, the 2007 budget of Medicare in the United States was over $400 billion and rises annually anywhere from 5-15%.[3] 60% of the NHS budget pays salaries for the staff, 20% for drugs and supplies and 20% for buildings and equipment.

The NHS is the world's largest provider of health care and is also the world's fourth largest employer. There is a small market for private health care, paid for out-of-pocket or by insurance policy. Life expectancy at birth in the United Kingdom is 79 years, higher than in the U.S.
( Last edited by stevesnj; Mar 21, 2010 at 11:52 PM. )
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Public option not in bill.
Yeah, bummer. I am NOT a fan of this bill that was just passed. All it does it make it mandatory for individuals to buy insurance from insurance companies. Gee, thanks Congress. I really want to be forced to buy insurance from a for-profit entity.


While the public option is nice I would like to see the Grayson proposal (HR 4789) become the preferred option for giving those of us without insurance access to health care. If I have to choose to give my money to a less-than-optimally-efficient government agency or to a less-than-optimally-efficient for-profit entity*, I am going to choose the former.
*No one here really thinks for-profit insurance is more efficient at providing healthcare, do they? They are certainly maximally efficient at making money but that in no way can suggest they have a corresponding efficiency when it comes to actually providing healthcare.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Yeah, bummer. I am NOT a fan of this bill that was just passed. All it does it make it mandatory for individuals to buy insurance from insurance companies. Gee, thanks Congress. I really want to be forced to buy insurance from a for-profit entity.


While the public option is nice I would like to see the Grayson proposal (HR 4789) become the preferred option for giving those of us without insurance access to health care. If I have to choose to give my money to a less-than-optimally-efficient government agency or to a less-than-optimally-efficient for-profit entity*, I am going to choose the former.
*No one here really thinks for-profit insurance is more efficient at providing healthcare, do they? They are certainly maximally efficient at making money but that in no way can suggest they have a corresponding efficiency when it comes to actually providing healthcare.


I think it was wise to give up on this bill being completely satisfying months ago, and to instead look at it as being a start.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I don't recall seeing anything in the news about a switch from representative democracy to direct democracy. Care to share with us the date that change took place?
Thank you.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
Very interesting.....



The official bill authorizing the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales was signed in to law in 1946. It provides free point of care health services to all citizens of England and is paid for by tax dollars. The budget was roughly $200 billion in 2008-2009 and has seen an approximately 3% annual rise in costs since it's founding in the late 1940s.[2] For comparison, the 2007 budget of Medicare in the United States was over $400 billion and rises annually anywhere from 5-15%.[3] 60% of the NHS budget pays salaries for the staff, 20% for drugs and supplies and 20% for buildings and equipment.

The NHS is the world's largest provider of health care and is also the world's fourth largest employer. There is a small market for private health care, paid for out-of-pocket or by insurance policy. Life expectancy at birth in the United Kingdom is 79 years, higher than in the U.S.
Interesting post but not really relevant. NO ONE is advocating for a complete takeover of the health care industry by the United States government (which is what the British have). Most everyone advocating for a government-centered health-care solution is advocating for a universal single-payer system similar to Canada and most of the rest of the developed world that has socialized medicine. The government doesn't become the health-care provider, it becomes the intermediary between the health-care providers and the public working to ensure that ALL citizens are provided care. That is a big difference. In all the socialized medicine proposals put forth in this debate none of them have called for the government to become the employer of medical professionals. Most of them simply advocate for the government to become a universal insurer.

Personally, I would much rather have the government take over the role of insurance provider than take over the role of health-care provider. But that's just me.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
lexapro
Baninated
Join Date: Mar 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2010, 11:57 PM
 
All I know is I don't feel the lash of the dictator and the yoke of oppression just because poor people might have a chance to see a frickin' doctor.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by lexapro View Post
All I know is I don't feel the lash of the dictator and the yoke of oppression just because poor people might have a chance to see a frickin' doctor.
All I know is that I can't find my jelly beans
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Interesting post but not really relevant. NO ONE is advocating for a complete takeover of the health care industry by the United States government (which is what the British have). .
I get you it's not relevant, just interesting how forward thinking Winston was some 60+ years ago. Perfect, no, better than the US system? IMHO yes.
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:13 AM
 
Here's what the bill does:

Rep. John B. Larson: The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You'll Get When Health Care Reform Passes
  1. Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
  2. Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
  3. Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
  4. Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;
  5. Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
  6. Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
  7. Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;
  8. Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
  9. Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
  10. Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.


Basically more protection for Snow-i and his kids.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Basically more protection for Snow-i and his kids.
Shhh let him use the old 'Nixon' way of using healthcare where the insurance companies decide if you live or die. Don't tell him that!! Shhhhhhhhh
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
The NHS is the world's largest provider of health care and is also the world's fourth largest employer.
It's also completely shite.

Let's put it this way. The pathology department in my local hospital is operating on the goodwill of its consumables suppliers, because they haven't been paid for a good few months.

Let's put it another way:
Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE | Mail Online

And another:
Health News - NHS patients denied drug for rare blood disorders

And another:
Quarter of NHS trusts failing hygiene standards, health watchdog finds | Mail Online

And here's the feckers who killed my uncle because three doctors couldn't find a functional thermometer between them:
NHS targets 'may have led to 1,200 deaths' in Mid-Staffordshire - Telegraph

And here's some from a different report:
Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.
Oh yeah. Health care system to be emulated, right there.

Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
There is a small market for private health care, paid for out-of-pocket or by insurance policy.
Yeah. That's because anyone with any sense won't touch the NHS.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 03:30 AM
 
I bet students going to medical school now will have an easy time getting a job, and that health care providers are looking forward to an increase in their business in terms of volume. It will be interesting to see how this transition works.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 05:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Look at the sheer stupidity we're dealing with, ebuddy. Amazing.
When you throw words around, like "socialism," you show exactly how much you know, which is nothing, and it suggests you should look in the mirror.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
wow reality, a part of American's lives (a fellow employee of mine) can actually get more chemo since she was told her breast cancer was 'Pre-Existing Condition' and she has mortgaged her house to pay for the one chemo treatment a month. I guess some want to see her dead so they can save some money.
Wow. Reality is there is no guarantee of an increase in healthcare services for your fellow employee. Reality is Medicare has a higher rate of claims denials than private insurance. The reality is that you start paying now while your fellow co-worker dies waiting on the provision to kick in by 2014. You really want to exploit a friend and co-worker to make an argument on MacNN? Really?

The reality is that Medicare is already insolvent and they've added 30 million people to it. Reality is they're going to author massive unfunded mandates on small businesses and States that are already struggling to stay afloat. The reality is that there will in fact be an increase in doctor shortages and healthcare providers among a host of other realities that will prove to do nothing for your co-worker in the short term, very little in the long term, and bankrupt the entire country in the meantime. i.e. there is absolutely nothing to ensure your co-worker gets 3 chemo treatments a week. Particularly if he or she is over 50.
ebuddy
     
Trekkie
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Oh, and if you, Snow-i, are really in favor of the popular vote being "the true definition of democracy" I assume it is safe to say you think the Supreme Court made a mistake in its decision re Bush vs. Gore. (You know, considering how the Supreme Court ignored the will of the people who gave Al Gore a majority of the popular vote in that election.)
Not to add more to this distraction but a quick point of order: Gore did not receive a majority of the popular vote in the 2000 election. He did manage a plurality of the popular vote but the difference between himself and Bush was half of a single percentage point. In my opinion, if Gore had managed to secure enough electoral votes to win the presidency then he would have faced the same problem as Bush in finding a clear mandate. At best the will of the people in the 2000 election was damn near evenly split. I would ask you to point out where in the United States Constitution it is stated that the Supreme Court must abide by the will of the people, let alone even acknowledge it, but we both know no such requirement exist.

Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
You keep saying 'the will of the people'. Well the will of the people in the 2000 Presidential Election was for Al Gore, but President wrong way W Bush was elected by the electoral college. Should then Al Gore be president since that was 'the will of the people'?
The tone of your posts belies your true intention. You're not looking for an honest reply or even meaningful discussion but a gotcha moment. A dreadful debating tactic if you ask me; though it is interesting how both you and dcmacdaddy interjected with the exact same argument. Also see my prior reply about ascertaining the "will of the people" in said election.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Personally, I would much rather have the government take over the role of insurance provider than take over the role of health-care provider. But that's just me.
I figure over a few glasses of brandy we'd have a very interesting conversation.
-Trekkie
To point, click and boldly go...
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oneota View Post
Really?!? That's the greatest thing I've read in a long time. You just made my month! Hell, maybe my year!
Actually, what Rush said was that he and anyone else with enough money to afford it, would be going to Costa Rica for their healthcare. Not moving there.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Yes. We could afford to lose a good billion people on this planet.
Only if I get to pick who gets to go.

Well, given the living conditions of 3/4 of the world now, it doesn't look like we'll be losing a billion folks naturally any time soon. So the greens will have to get past THAT fantasy.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The reality is that Medicare is already insolvent and they've added 30 million people to it.
Right. All I can figure is that most of the folks here in favor of this clusterf*ck have never had to deal with Medicare (or Medicaid for that matter). The only people who will truly benefit on a consistent basis from this are the insurance companies and the bureaucrats. That's it. The rest of us are going to lose coverage left and right (lose in little increments). How do I know? Because someone has to pay for all those new policies, and someone has to pay for all of the new bureaucracy and "recordkeeping". Who pays? Those of us with good healthcare NOW will pay. That's how it works.

No exclusion for pre-existing conditions? Cool, deny EVERYONE with a particular condition, pre-existing or not. Or, govt will pay regardless. Insurance with pre-existing conditions is like flood insurance, it ISN'T insurance if we KNOW someone is already high risk. Or, at the worst, it's a special risk category that should be hedged differently. So requiring it now will reduce benefits for those who AREN'T in the high risk category. It's a WEALTH TRANSFER. That's what Congress is after, I figure.

From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs. That's what The Bible says, right?

My FAVORITE part of all this is the use of Social Security and Medicare as examples of this type of groundbreaking legislation that we should follow. Both of those are laughable, but again, you didn't see any challenges from the mainstream media on this -- they're lapdogs. This country just wrote itself into mediocrity within the next 20 years. Unreal.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 11:07 AM
 
My company is going to get hit with 40% "excise tax" I can kiss my health plan goodbye.
( Last edited by Chongo; Mar 22, 2010 at 11:14 AM. )
45/47
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It's interesting to note which liberties you get the most upset over losing. You're OK with a move toward a police state, but you get upset with a move toward a socialist state.
What part of my sentence about pervasive government intrusiveness into nearly every aspect of the lives of citizens did you not understand? What part of soft and harsh tyranny did you not understand? I am absolutely concerned about the country descending into totalitarianism.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
What part of my sentence about pervasive government intrusiveness into nearly every aspect of the lives of citizens did you not understand? What part of soft and harsh tyranny did you not understand? I am absolutely concerned about the country descending into totalitarianism.
As far as I can tell, the health care legislation is going to result in no significant change for me in terms of the level of government intrusion into my life.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
As far as I can tell, the health care legislation is going to result in no significant change for me in terms of the level of government intrusion into my life.
I think they added a rider about mandatory rape for anyone not otherwise affected by the bill, to make sure everyone gets screwed.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
As far as I can tell, the health care legislation is going to result in no significant change for me in terms of the level of government intrusion into my life.
Let's see, off the top of my head I can think of increased government intrusion in the following areas:
•17,000 new IRS agents (at minimum) checking 300M Americans on a monthly basis to see whether or not they have government approved health insurance and fining or jailing them if they refuse. (You like the IRS a lot, right?)

•Insurance mandates not just on you but also your employer, which will increase compliance costs and hassle for the privilege of you being employed in this country

•Government bureaucrats adding themselves to the chain of the insurance bureaucracy to dictate what your doctor can and can't do to treat the conditions you may have

•2,000+ new binding regulations written by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (which is why we don't even know what the bill will really do in full)

•All the new taxes (and there are many) to be levied on not only Evil Corporations but also those Evil Fat Cat Americans who apparently committed a crime when they achieved enough in their lives to be able to make over $200,000 a year

•Plus the fact that President Obama surely promised wavering left-wing Democrats (see for one Kucinich) that this was merely his stepping stone to fully Socialized medicine and the complete government control that will bring.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Let's see, off the top of my head I can think of increased government intrusion in the following areas:
•17,000 new IRS agents (at minimum) checking 300M Americans on a monthly basis to see whether or not they have government approved health insurance and fining or jailing them if they refuse. (You like the IRS a lot, right?)
They already do this with my withholding taxes, so I'm not feeling so burdened by the practice.

•Insurance mandates not just on you but also your employer, which will increase compliance costs and hassle for the privilege of you being employed in this country
My employer already provides health insurance.

•Government bureaucrats adding themselves to the chain of the insurance bureaucracy to dictate what your doctor can and can't do to treat the conditions you may have

•2,000+ new binding regulations written by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (which is why we don't even know what the bill will really do in full)
I don't work for HHS or the insurance or medical professions.

•All the new taxes (and there are many) to be levied on not only Evil Corporations but also those Evil Fat Cat Americans who apparently committed a crime when they achieved enough in their lives to be able to make over $200,000 a year
I will be unaffected by this.

•Plus the fact that President Obama surely promised wavering left-wing Democrats (see for one Kucinich) that this was merely his stepping stone to fully Socialized medicine and the complete government control that will bring.
Pointless speculation.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think they added a rider about mandatory rape for anyone not otherwise affected by the bill, to make sure everyone gets screwed.
D'oh! Now I know what those protesters were talking about this weekend.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:27 PM
 
I've come to the conclusion that some (e.g. Big Mac) of our good friends on the right are simply so far out of touch that even attempting to reason with them is fast becoming an exercise in futility. By any objective measure the Health Reform legislation that was just passed was a moderate bill. But I suppose if one is so far off the deep end on the right even a moderate bill seems like a "socialist plot to destroy American freedoms" or some BS like that.


Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The health care bill does not include single payer.
The health care bill does not have a public option.
Hel-freakin-lo!!!!?????? Hyteckit, can you say that one more time?

Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The health care bill does not include single payer.
The health care bill does not have a public option.
Now see that right there ought to end this ridiculous discussion. Unfortunately, some of our good friends on the right are more interested in flag waving, indulging their paranoid fantasies, and regurgitating BS political talking points than dealing with reality.

This is a government takeover of 1/6 of our economy.

Let me deal with this crap because it gets to the heart of the issue. Had we gone to a single-payer system (as we should have) then this argument might have some merit. But of course, that wasn't even on the table. Even the public option was removed from the legislation. So what's left? What are the facts?

1. In 2007 approximately 85% of Americans had health insurance. Of this number, 60% had employer provided insurance, 28-30% had government provided insurance, and 9-10% had insurance purchased on the individual market. 15% of Americans (approx. 45 million people) had no health insurance at all. And this was prior to the Great Recession where we've seen millions of job losses. So undoubtedly this figure is considerably higher today.

2. Medicare, Medicaid, etc. already account for 50% of all healthcare spending. Today. So half of that "1/6 of the economy" is already paid for with public funds. Since 60% of people with insurance have employer provided insurance that portion of the "1/6 of the economy" remains unchanged since this legislation doesn't affect that market from a funding standpoint. So what's left is the 10% of the people with
insurance that purchase it on the individual market ... along with the 15% of the uninsured who will eventually be mandated to have insurance. Now many of these people will obtain insurance when they regain employment through the employer based system. But some will have to purchase insurance on the individual market. So let's say for the sake of discussion that 12-15% of the people will have such insurance. Under this legislation there will be means-based subsidies for the purchase price of individual market insurance. So this will be a mixture of public and private financing (through the exchanges) of what at the end of the day remains private, for profit, insurance plans.

3. So given the facts outlined above, what we have here is legislation that seeks to achieve near universal healthcare coverage by expanding the individual, private, for profit health insurance market. How exactly does this represent a "government takeover of healthcare"? The government isn't acting as a healthcare provider in any capacity above what it already does today (i.e. V.A. hospitals). The government isn't even acting as a health insurance provider since single-payer was never on the table and the public option was taken off the table.

This legislation is by no means a "government takeover" and it doesn't involve anywhere near "1/6 of the economy". It's not "socialized medicine" on the the provider or the insurer side of the equation. If you guys want to oppose it on cost grounds or on opposition to the individual mandate then fine. But let's dispense with all the Chicken Little sh*t ok?

OAW
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 12:58 PM
 
Our liberties were attacked for 8 years under GWB and Big Mac starts complaining now. I guess it's ok when your side is doing the annihilating, but once the parties switch, "Oh nooooooo!! We're doooooooooooooomed."

I can say, without hyperbole, that this is the end of all times.

ROLL EYES
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 01:03 PM
 
I was complaining during the Bush Administration too, sek. Sorry you missed it. Besides, Obama is far and away outdoing Bush in the destruction of this country.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 01:06 PM
 
According to most Republicans the destruction of this country started with FDR, and it is sure taking its sweet time.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2010, 01:10 PM
 
So Big Mac, what's your solution for someone like me? I can't get health insurance unless it's through an employer. Not because I'm unhealthy, but because my mother, uncle, grandmother, and grandfather all had cancer. I'm considered high risk, and something my mother had is considered a pre-existing condition for me.

I didn't support the bill, by the way, it's nothing like the initial bill I supported. The only thing I wanted was the removal of pre-existing conditions. I get that with the new bill, yes, but there's so much other crap in there that it doesn't justify it for me. Also, I'm unhappy in the manner the bill was passed.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,